Attorney Fees and Appeal Costs: Ulf Carlsson 3rd District Court of Appeal Sacramento - Judge Peter...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Brendon Ishikawa, SBN 179112 lSHIKA WA LAW OFFICE 216 F Street# 20 Davis, California 95616-4 515 Telephone: (530) 759-9865

Attorney for Appellant, Ulf Johan Carlsson.

, [)

- - -

-. '} c c n l j l-i

O'J FEB - 3 Pl1 I: 4l . . : . 1

' ' ' ' f C" 11 l' ( ll>- 1 I ' l1 " ",JI " C r "' 'r_ H T U CG ,!lT I r.! ., .. " " "

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

In re: Marriage of

MONA LEA CARLSSON,

Petitioner in the Superior Court,

and

ULF JOHAN CARLSS. , .. .

Sacramento Superior Court No. No. 04FL02489 . . .

Court of Appeal No. C053515

Declaration in support of motion for attorney fees on appeal

14 Respondent in the Superior Court . . , '

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

I, BRENDON ISHIKAWA, DECLARE:

1. I served as sole appellate counsel for the appellant, Ulf Johan Carlsson, in the matter

of Marriage o/Carlsson (2008) '163 Cal.App.4th 81 (Clifrr# ourt of Appeal No. C053515). I am admitted to practice law in all courts of the State of Califonri in addition to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court.

2.

Qualifications of Appellate Cou'!sel_ . . . . '

I have been certified as a specialist in appellate law by' the State Bar of California

Board of Legal Specialization since 1999. I have provided appellate representation in more than 24 .

:.

., .. i ., > ,.

25

26

27

28

100 appellate and writ case as primary or sole appellate counsel. I have been recognized as a

Northern California appellate "super laV\ryer"for each of the past four years. "Super lawyer" is a

peer-review evaluation awarded to the top 5% of the practitioners in the area published annually. I

have served as Chair of the Board of Legal Specialization's Appellate Law Advisory Commission. I

have Wljtten questions for and graded two appellate specialization bar examinations. . :'.

- 1 I '

PatCJBNN-Yel

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14

15

16 17 18 19

3. The Orange County Superior Court found me. to be an expert on appellate compensation in Theme Family Limited Partnership ''A" v. Rosenberry (Sept. 29 2003 hearing) Orange County Superior Court No. OOCC06142. 4. There are fewer than 250 certified appellate specialists statewide. My appellate practice and most of those of other appellate specialists with which I am familiar are statewide. That means that I handle appeals throughout the state and compete for business with all Califomia appellate specialists. In the past year, I have. handled appeals in the First District (San Francisco), Second District (Los Angeles), Third District (Sacramento), and the Supreme Court of California.

Results Achieved

5. I regularly read reports issued by the Judicial Council of California that concern appellate issues, and have found that about 75% appeals are lost by the appellants. Further, I am aware and it hl:ls been my experience that few decisiotis of the Court of Appeal are published, even when

rev.ersing the juggment. : ... : . . . .

6. In this appeal, plaintiff won in a decision that the California Court of Appeal determined to

.be _important enough to publish. The decision settles never before addressed factual circumstanc,

touches on the appropriateness of mistrial as a remedy for slow :trials, and differentiates between.-:::

errors reversible per se and those subject to harmless error ana1y1s. . . . ' . . : ' .i; ; .

Appellant's legal fees ..

, .

.

1 spent wa.s reasonable for the tasks performed and the result obtained and that $34,805 represents the

2 reasonable value of the services I have performed in this case.

3 9. As a consequence of being certified as an appellate specialist, I have not needed to claim ariy

4 time for researching appellate procedure, standards of review, standards of prejudice, or rules of

5 . court goverrilhg review. Moreover, I believe that I am extremely efficient in producing appellate

6 briefmg because I utilize templates, electronic research using broadband capabilities, and

7 specialized appellate references to complete my work.

8

9 I declare under penalty of petjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true

10 and correct, is of my own personal owl edge, except where stated on information and be.lief, in

11 which case I believe it to be true, and is information to which I am willing and competent to testify

12 if called upon to do so.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Executed this lth- day of August 2008, in' Davis, California.

. ...

. ,, ., .

.... .

' .

- 3-

,: . ' ,.' ,:.' - :. .

. ' ' . .

. :. : . .

:; . -'

, . .. . , . . T

.. . . ;.,

' :.

- MC--013 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Neme, slot" bar number, and addtess): >--Brendon Ishikawa, SBN 179112

Ishikawa Law Office 429 F Street, Suite 8 Davis, California 95616

TELEPHONE NO.: 530 759-9865 FAX NO. (Op/Iona/): EMAJL ADDRESS (OpUonal):

ATTORNEYFO R(NemeJ: Ulf Johan Carlsson, defendant and appellant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Sacramento

STREET ADDRESS: 3341 Power Inn Road MAILING ADDRESS; 3341 Power Inn Road

CITY ANO ZJP CODE: Sacramento California 95826 BRANCH NAME:

PLAINTIFF: Mona Lea Carlsson

DEFENDANT: Ulf Johan Carlsson

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS ON APPEAL

Prevailing party (name):

FOR COURT USE ONl. Y . ..,

09 FfB t t

! ' . :

CASE NUMBER:

....) r

P" t i I: 33 !I

" .,,'.L ;, . , . "; ..... , ,. "T ,. .. ;I. . ,, t 11 I)

4 ......

04FL02489

claims from (name): TOTAL . ::' the following costs on appeal: 1. Filing fees ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ......................................................... 1. $ j755.00 ------' 2. Preparation ofClerk's transcript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." ....................................... 2. $ I 1,383.10 3. Preparation of reporter's transcript .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. $ 12,330.00

4. Printing of briefs . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. $ 299 .85 ------'

5. Production of additional evidence .. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. $

6. Notary fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. $

7. Expenses of seivice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. $

8. Transmission and filing of'recor?, briefs, and other papers .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. $ 95.24 ------' 9. Premium on any surety bond on appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... : . . . . . 9. $. .._

_____ _.--I

10. Other expenses reasonably necessary to secure surety bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . :. : . . . . . . . 10. $ -----_.I 11. Other: : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (specify authority): . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 11. $ .__ _ __ _ __,J I TOTAL COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,863.19 I

I am o the party m counsel for the party D agent for the party who claims the costs listed above. To the best of my knowledge, the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in this case on appeal.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: August 14, 2008

Brendon Ishikawa, Ishikawa Law Office (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) ( (SIGNATURE OF OECLARANT)

f>.aoe1 orz Form Adopted for Mandatory Use

Judicial Cotincll Of CelKomia MC-013 [Rev. January 1. 2007)

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS ON APPEAL Code of Civil Procedl.l'e, ' 1034{b); ----- Cal. Rules Of Court, rule 8.272 American LegaJNet, Inc. www.coutlinfO..fi_l>v www.FormsWorl

tfi :JUDITH A.lJISt.a..L.ATTY. AT LP FAIX NO. : 9166353852

PROOF OP 8ERVfC& CJ Mal (&J Perun1l 8ervlc1

t \, 05 2009 12:34PM P2

... 04FLom9 I cq .... RR . 1. At tne time of eeNlca I was at least 18 yea19 ufage and nou p.ny to ttii. legal tfon.

2. My te!lldence or bulinMt addlftt 19 (specify): TOTH SUPPORT SERVICES P.O. Box 2482 Fair Oaks, CA 95628 -

. (916) 342-3579. 3. f malled or pet90nally delivered a c:opy of the Memarendum at Costa on Appeal at 1''418 (comP{et either a Of b):

a. CJ Mal. l 1m a retldent of or employed In the county whent the mall"" occurred. (1) I endoeed e copy In an envelope and .. . .

C> c::J depoaltd the sealed --with tile Unlted.Statat Postal Service, with tha pbs1age fully prepafd. (b) D plaoed ttle enwfope fDrCIOlledfon Ind malflr.19 Ori'. the date and at the place hown in Items belaN, follOWillg

our ordinary busin&Ss practice&. I am readllt f'emnlar With ttlla busineaa's pracuce t;>r Meeting and proceulng conuJ)Oft(lence for malfl10. On Che um day lhlt c:omtBPCndenC9 ia pllao8d tor colleQlon and m11Ung, It la depoatled In the ontrnaiy eour11 of buelnaU with the Unltld Statea ostal S8'vice, In 1 eealad enwfope win p()9fage funy prepsld, I

(2) The envafope was add1asl8d and tnaifed at follows: (a) Name of person t1eN9d: (b) Addraea on envelope:

. , I (c) Data of mailing. (d) Place of malllng (city and $11119):

b. CRl PeNollll delMNJ. i 111 detivMIO a CGP1 foll01S: (f) Nameofl)mOtlserwd: /\f'\ O f\/ A LE.A CJ'.\''2..L..SSo;J

.-

(i) Address Wh8"J dellverecs: iifc _ 4005 !YV'rNLA NIT!-\ fl-1/-L; Sy .. 1. CA_ tU4/.f'e Lv, c..t] (3) oata delivered: . ;?. --! o -o9 (4) Time dellvered: . // '-/ & 1.;. .

Oat.: :J.-W - oc:; : :

. _ ,..

."l,. .. . : . .. ..

. ... . . .

-_ ... . .. . . ,./ ..

PROOF OF SERVICE OF MSMORANDUMOF COSTS ON APPEAL

>

' .. , <

Ptldafl

I

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO

RoadDog SATIRE ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO

This ongoing investigative project was updated in April, 2015.

Sacramento Family Court News is conducting an ongoing investigation of published and unpublished 3rd District Court of Appeal decisions in trial court cases originating from family courts. This page is regularly updated with our latest news, analysis, and opinion. Our preliminary findings reveal an unsettling link between how an appeal is decided and the political ideology, work history, and family law bar ties of the court of appeal judges assigned to the appeal.

Our investigation indicates that the outcome of an appeal is in large part dependent on the luck of the justice draw and the undisclosed connections between the trial court judge whose order is appealed, the trial and appellate court attorneys, and the judges assigned to resolve the appeal.

The collusive atmosphere falls hardest on unrepresented or "pro per" appeal parties who can't afford to hire a local appellate attorney. 3rd District appeal outcome statistical data reveals a virtually perfect record of success for attorneys in cases where the opposing party is a pro per. Appeals taken by pro per litigants rarely, if ever, succeed.

In addition, a separate SFCN investigation has uncovered evidence that both trial and appellate court judges, part-time judges, and court employees deliberately obstruct appeals by indigent, unrepresented parties. Appeal data from the Third District reveals that most pro per appeals are never decided on the merits and are instead

Third District Court of Appeal:

Justice, Ideology & Conflicts of Interest

A Sacramento Family Court News investigation indicates that ideology and undisclosed conflicts of interest play a significant role in the outcome of appeals in the Third District Court of Appeal.

An Exclusive Sacramento Family Court News Investigation

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

2 More Next Blog Create Blog Sign In

dismissed on legal technicalities, which are often caused by the deliberate acts of government employees.

Court whistleblowers assert and have documented that the family law division of Sacramento Superior Court and the 3rd District Court of Appeal effectively operate as a RICO racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services, and includes predicate acts of mail and wire fraud. Click here to read our full report on the allegations.

The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp, designated Sacramento County as the most corrupt family court in the United States. Court watchdogs contend that the scale and scope of the corruption rivals the Kids for Cash scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, which also became a documentary film.

Third District Court of Appeal cases are assigned to three of ten judges. The background of each appears to be a critical factor in how an appeal is decided.

For example, 3rd District unpublished opinions show that Court of Appeal justices who were elevated to the appellate court from Sacramento County Superior Court will often effectively cover for judicial errors in appeals from the same court.

Third District Justices George Nicholson, Harry E. Hull, Jr., Ronald B. Robie, and Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye previously were trial court judges in Sacramento County Superior Court.

Each have personal, social, or professional ties to family court judges and attorney members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section. After his retirement in 2011, 3rd District Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland described the professional and personal relationships he had with attorneys during his career on the bench.

"[I] enjoy friendships...I go to all the county bar events. I do that for two reasons. One, I think it's a responsibility of a judge to be active in the community, and the attorneys appreciate it. But I really like the people. I really like going to these events. I enjoy friendships and that sort of thing." Click here to view Scotland's statement.

Sacramento Lawyer, the monthly magazine of the Sacramento County Bar Association each month publishes accounts of recent social, educational and charitable events sponsored by the association, its 17 specialty law sections - including the family law section - and its eight local affiliates, including the Asian/Pacific Bar Association, and Women Lawyers of Sacramento. Most are well attended by a mix of state and federal judges, court administrators, supervisors and employees, and lawyers.

To get a sense of the collusive atmosphere in Sacramento Family Law Court, we recommend reading our special Color of Law series of investigative reports, which document the preferential treatment provided by family court employees and judges to SCBA Family Law Section lawyers at the trial court level. Click here to view the Color of Law series. Financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigants who face opposing parties represented by SCBA attorneys assert that the collusive collegiality taints appeal proceedings in the appellate court.

Pro per advocates contend that under Canon 3E(4)(a) and (c) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Raye, Robie, Hull and Nicholson should disqualify themselves from participating in any appeal originating from Sacramento Family Law Court. Advocates argue that the same conflict of interest principles apply to family court appeals that resulted in the self-recusal, or removal, of Vance Raye from participating in the 2002 Commission on Judicial Performance prosecution of family court Judge Peter McBrien. To view the 2002 Raye recusal and CJP decision against McBrien, click here. The CJP has disciplined judges for violating the Code of Judicial Ethics rules requiring judges to disclose conflicts. Click here for examples of CJP conflict of interest disciplinary decisions.

It is a basic principle of law that state appellate justices and federal judges with personal or professional relationships with trial court judges connected to an appeal or federal court action should disqualify themselves to avoid the appearance of partiality. Click here to view a recent order issued by a federal judge disqualifying the entire bench of the Fresno Division of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California due to personal and professional relationships with local state court judges.

The conflict disclosure problem infects the Superior Court as well. To the benefit of local family law attorneys who also hold the office of temporary judge in the same court, Sacramento Family Law Court judges effectively have

3rd District Court of Appeal watchdogs assert that appeal outcomes are inconsistent, and in large part determined by

the work history, and social or professional connections of the three judges assigned to decide an appeal.

Friends in Low Places

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

First Amendment Coalition

Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT

Family Law Professor Blog

Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog

Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

institutionalized noncompliance with state conflict of interest disclosure laws. Click here. For an example of a Sacramento County civil court trial judge who fully complied with conflict laws, click here. Without oversight or accountability, family court judges routinely - and in violation of state law - ignore the same disclosure requirements.

In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Justice Vance Raye partnered with controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien and attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section in establishing the current, dysfunctional Sacramento Family Court system, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 judicial misconduct trial before the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Behind closed doors and under oath, the judge provided explicit details about the 1991 origins of the present-day family court structure. The public court system was built to the specifications of private-sector attorneys from the SCBA Family Law Section Family Law Executive Committee, according to McBrien's testimony. To view McBrien's detailed description of the collusive public-private collaboration, posted online exclusively by SFCN, click here. To view the same, current day collusion, click here.

The 1991 restructuring plan began with a road trip suggested by the family law bar:

"[T]he family law bar, and it was a fairly strong bar here in Sacramento, initiated the concept of a trip to Orange County and San Diego County to pick up some ideas about how their courts were structured. And myself and Judge Ridgeway and two family law attorneys made that trip and came back with various ideas of how to restructure the system," McBrien told the CJP. Click here to view.

But before his sworn 2009 CJP testimony, McBrien gave the public a different account of the road trip and who restructured the family court system in 1991. As reported by the Daily Journal legal newspaper McBrien dishonestly implied that the system was conceived and implemented by judges alone after they made a county-paid "statewide tour" of family law courts. The judge omitted from the story the fact that the trip was initiated by the family law bar, and included two private-sector family law attorneys who took the county-paid trip with McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway.

"[M]cBrien and a few other Sacramento judges went on a statewide tour of family law courts. At the time, there were continual postponements of trials. 'This is how we came up with the system today,' McBrien said. 'It was the best trip Sacramento County ever paid for.' The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials..." the Daily Journal reported. Click here to view.

Under oath, McBrien admitted that the private-sector, for-profit family law bar dictated the public court facility restructuring plan - conceived to serve the needs and objectives of SCBA Family Law Section member attorneys - which then essentially was rubber-stamped by the bench.

"[T]he Bar culled through the various ideas and options, came up with a plan, presented it to the family law bench. We made what adjustments we felt were appropriate and then presented the whole of it to the full bench," and the plan was approved. Click here to view.

In essence, McBrien disclosed that the current public court system was set up by and for local attorneys with little, if any, consideration of the needs of the 70 percent of court users unable to afford counsel. The system also has shown it is designed to repel carpetbagger, outsider attorneys, like Stephen R. Gianelli of San Francisco, and Sharon Huddle of Roseville. Click here and here.

"[T]his is a 'juice court' in which counsel outside Sacramento have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to out-of-town counsel," Gianelli said.

According to the Commission on Judicial Performance - the state agency responsible for oversight and

History & Origins of the Current Sacramento County Family Court System

Tani Cantil Sakauye worked with Peter J. McBrien in Sacramento County Superior Court from 1997-2005.

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

California Courts Homepage

California Courts YouTube Page

Judicial Council

Commission on Judicial Performance

Sacramento County Family Court

3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar Association

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory

California Coalition for Families and Children

California Protective Parents Association

Center for Judicial Excellence

Courageous Kids Network

Divorce & Family Law News

Divorce Corp

Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

Family Law Courts.com

Family Law Updates at

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

accountability of California judges - the structure is known as a "two-track system of justice."

"In this case, we again confront the vice inherent in a two-track system of justice, where favored treatment is afforded friends and other favored few, and which is easily recognized as 'corruption at the core of our system of impartial equal justice, and...intolerable," the CJP said in a 2005 judicial discipline decision involving a Santa Clara County judge. To view a list of similar CJP decisions, click here.

According to the gold standard reference on judicial ethics, the California Judicial Conduct Handbook [pdf], published by the California Judges Association, providing preferential treatment to local, connected attorneys also is known as "hometowning," and is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics. To view this section of the Handbook, click here.

One objective of the revamped system was to keep all family court proceedings in-house: within the isolated family relations courthouse. Prior to the change, trials were conducted at the downtown, main courthouse and before judges more likely to have a neutral perspective on a given case, and less likely to have ties to the family law bar.

"The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials, which used to be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal trials for scheduling," the Daily Journal reported.

Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers allege that under the system set up by Raye and McBrien, the local family law bar - through the Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC - now controls for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court operations, including local court rules. A cartel of local family law attorneys receive preferential treatment from family court judges and appellate court justices because the lawyers are members of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section, hold the Office of Temporary Judge, and run the family court settlement conference program, court reform advocates charge.

Court watchdogs have catalogued and documented examples of judge pro tem attorney favoritism, and flagrant bias against unrepresented litigants and "outsider" attorneys. Click here for a list of watchdog claims. Published and unpublished 3rd District opinions indicate that Court of Appeal justices without direct ties to the same superior court are more likely to follow the law, and less likely to whitewash trial court mistakes.

Keeping Neutral Judges Out-of-the-Loop

Justice Ronald Robie performs in the "Judge's Choir" for the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section

Holiday Luncheon.

Carlsson Case Exposes 3rd District Ideology & Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Issues

JDSupra Law News

Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce

Leon Koziol.Com

Moving Past Divorce

News and Views Riverside Superior Court

Weightier Matter

Cathy Cohen

ST Thomas

PR Brown

PelicanBriefed

FCAC News

RoadDog

CONTRIBUTORS

Total Pageviews

1 6 4 0 0 9

167

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge


AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)

APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)

AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1)

ADMINISTRATORS (4)

AL SALMEN (1)AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANDY FURILLO (2) AOC (1)

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY

One of the few Third District opinions to critically, and scathingly scrutinize the problematic Sacramento Family Court system was the 2008 decision In re Marriage of Carlsson, authored by Associate Justices M. Kathleen Butz, Cole Blease and Rick Sims. The opinion criticized explicitly the conduct of controversial Sacramento County Family Court Judge Peter J. McBrien. None of the three 3rd District justices who decided the appeal had ever worked as a judge in Sacramento County.

A fourth outsider jurist, Sixth District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing subsequently characterized McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson case as a "judicial reign of terror." In addition to ordering a full reversal and new trial, the 3rd District decision subjected McBrien to a second disciplinary action by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

The judge's first go-round with the CJP stemmed from McBrien's 2000 arrest for felony vandalism under Penal Code 594 in connection with the destruction of public-owned trees - valued at more than $20,000 - at the Effie Yeaw Nature Center in Ancil Hoffman Park, Carmichael, California. McBrien had the trees cut to improve the view from his home on a bluff above the park. Click here for the 2001 Sacramento News and Review coverage of the case. Click here to view the original summons charging McBrien with felony vandalism. Click here to view the report of Sacramento County District Attorney's Office Criminal Investigator Craig W. Tourte detailing the complete investigation of McBrien's crime, posted online for the first time exclusively by SFCN.

Less than 48 hours after the judge was charged with the felony, McBrien negotiated a plea bargain, pleading no contest to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code 384a, paying restitution of $20,000, and a fine of $500. The improved view increased the value of the judge's home by at least $100,000, according to a local real estate agent, and the sweetheart deal outraged the Ancil Hoffman Park personnel who originally discovered the butchered trees and conducted the initial investigation. McBrien's subsequent 2009 sworn testimony before the CJP recounting his criminal case starkly contradicted Tourte's report and the truth about his criminal conviction.

One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others, By the time I finish my song?

Third District Court of Appeal Justices Ronald B. Robie, Harry E. Hull Jr., George Nicholson and Cole Blease. Only Blease (R) has no past connection to Sacramento County Superior Court.

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (10)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (18)

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (11)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (15) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT (19)

ETHICS (2)

BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI (1) CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK (1) CALIFORNIA LAWYER (1)CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHILD SUPPORT (4)

CIVICS (1)CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CJA (3) ClientTickler (2) CNN

(1) CODE OF

SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3)

COURT CONDITIONS (2)COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS (1)COURT POLICIES (1) COURT

RULES (4) COURTS (1) CPG FAMILY LAW (1)

CRIMINAL LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION

(1) DENISE RICHARDS (1)DIANE WASZNICKY (2)DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DONALD TENN (3) DONNA GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1)

EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1)

ELECTIONS (1) EMILY GALLUP (3)EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS

(4)

In the documentary film Divorce Corp, Ulf Carlsson describes egregious misconduct by Sacramento Family Law Court Judge Peter McBrien. Using

misleading sworn testimony about McBrien's reversal rate in the appellate court, 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland

effectively saved McBrien from being removed from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

On his second trip to the CJP woodshed, Judge Peter McBrien needed all the help he could get to save his job, and then-Third District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland delivered in a big way.

Among other slight-of-hand tricks, Scotland devised a clever artifice to make it appear to the CJP judges assigned to decide McBrien's fate that the trial court judge had a much lower than average rate of reversal in the court of appeal.

Scotland's 2009 testimony on McBrien's behalf also was controversial and may itself have violated the Code of Judicial Ethics. A critical self-policing component of the Code, Canon 3D(1) requires judges who have reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code take "appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority." Click here to view Canon 3D(1). Click here to view a Judicial Council directive about the duty to take corrective action, and the types of corrective action required.

While under oath before the CJP, Scotland verified that he was aware of McBrien's misconduct in the Carlsson case. Scotland essentially defied the self-policing Canon and, in effect, the published Carlsson opinion authored by his co-workers Butz, Blease and Sims, and instead testified in support of McBrien at the CJP. In it's final decision allowing McBrien to remain on the bench, the CJP specifically cited Scotland's testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced McBrien's punishment. Click here. An examination of Scotland's career in government - funded by the taxpayers of California - provides insight into the tactics, motives, and questionable ethics behind his unusual involvement in the McBrien matter.

By his own admission, Scotland's career in the Judicial Branch of government was the result of connections and preferential treatment. The former justice candidly recited his life history in a nearly three-hour interview for the California Appellate Court Legacy Project in 2011. Like other gratuitous "tough-on-crime" conservative ideologues from a law enforcement background who rose to power in the 1980's, Scotland apparently lived the cliche of being born on third base and going through life thinking he hit a triple. His interest in law developed when he worked as an undercover narcotics agent for the state Department of Justice.

"[I] bluffed my way through the interview, and I got hired as a narcotics agent in 1969...I was an undercover narcotics agent. I've bought a lot of dope in my life...all lawfully, but I've bought a lot of dope," Scotland said. "And I testified in court. And that's what got me fascinated in the legal process...and it got me involved in the law." Click here to view.

Having worked with prosecutors as an undercover cop, Scotland decided he wanted to be one. But due to his lackluster performance as a college student, law school presented a problem, albeit a problem easily solved through a family connection.

"[I] thought, I want to be a prosecutor. I'm going to go to law school; I want to be a prosecutor. So I applied in 1971. I applied to only one school: University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law...[M]y grades weren't

Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland Intervenes in McBrien CJP Prosecution

Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Arthur Scotland, George Nicholson and Peter McBrien all worked for former California Attorney General

and Governor George Deukmejian. All were appointed to the Sacramento County bench by Deukmejian.

FAMILY COURT (9)

FAMILY LAW (9)

FERRIS CASE (8)

FLEC (28)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

JAMES M. MIZE (15) JEFFREY POSNER (6)


JUDGE PRO TEM (50) JUDGES (10)

JUDICIAL COUNCIL (5)


JULIE SETZER (7) LAURIE M. EARL (10)

LAW SCHOOL (5) LAWYERS (7)

LOLLIE ROBERTS (5)

MATTHEW

HERNANDEZ (7) MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

EQUAL PROTECTION (2)EUGENE L. BALONON (1)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS (2) EX PARTE (1) F4J (4)

FAMILY COURT AUDITS (1) FAMILY COURT CONDITIONS (2)FAMILY COURT MEDIA COVERAGE

(1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE (1) FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO (2) FAMILY COURTHOUSE (1)

FAMILY LAW COUNSELOR (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

FATHERS FOR JUSTICE (1)FEDERAL LAW (2) FEDERAL

LAWSUITS (2) FEE WAIVERS (2) FIRST AMENDMENT (2) FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION (2) FOIA (2) FOX (1) FREDRICK COHEN (4)

GANGNAM STYLE (1) GARY E. RANSOM (1) GARY M. APPELBLATT (2) GEORGE NICHOLSON (1) GERALD UELMEN (1) GINGER SYLVESTER (1)

GREGORY DWYER (1) HAL BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER (2) HONEST SERVICES (4)INDIGENT (1) INFIGHTING (1) J.

STRONG (2) JACQUELINE ESTON (2)

JAMES

BROSNAHAN (1)

JERRY BROWN (1) JERRY GUTHRIE (1)

JODY PATEL (1) JOHN E.B. MYERS (1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE KENNARD (1) JOYCE TERHAAR (1)

JRC (1) JUDGE (1)

JUDGE SALARIES (1) JUDICIAL CONDUCT

HANDBOOK (1)

JUDY HOLZER

HERSHER (1) KIDS FOR CASH (2)

LAW LIBRARY (1)

LAWYER (1) LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of

CALIFORNIA (1) LEGISLATURE (1) LINCOLN (1)

LOUIS MAURO (1) LUAN CASE (4)

MALPRACTICE (4) MARY MOLINARO (1)

MCGEORGE SOL (2)

all that great. I did very well on the LSAT test: I did excellent on that. But I didn't figure I could get accepted anywhere else, 'cause I really hadn't been a serious student. So I went to University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law," Scotland explained.

"I didn't know [McGeorge Dean Gordon D. Schaber], but my dad did. And my dad had done some life insurance, estate planning work for McGeorge. And again, my dad was an influence on my life because he knew people and he set me up with jobs. And I'm sure that one of the reasons I got selected for McGeorge School of Law is my dad's relationship with the dean." Click here to view.

After graduation, but before he was licensed to practice law, Scotland nonetheless practiced law while employed as a deputy district attorney for Sacramento County. In the outside world, the unauthorized practice of law is a crime. But in Scotland's protective law enforcement bubble, "laws" are only enforced against drug addicts and the unwashed masses. As Scotland explained in his own words, laws are actually only "rules" when a sworn peace officer breaks one.

"Actually, before I even got sworn in in the bar, I was assigned out to juvenile hall and we prosecuted...I prosecuted cases without any supervision - you know, against...really against the rules...we were trying cases without any supervision." Click here.

In McGregor v. State Bar, the seminal case on the unauthorized practice of law, the California Supreme Court explained why a nonlicensed person is prohibited from exercising the special powers and privileges of a lawyer.

"The right to practice law not only presupposes in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust. It is manifest that the powers and privileges derived from it may not with propriety be delegated to or exercised by a nonlicensed person." Click here.

25 years after he obtained his license to practice law, Justice Arthur G. Scotland exploited the implied integrity of his court of appeal office and exercised his special privilege in a way that to many Sacramento Family Court litigants was a manifest violation of the public trust.

In his Commission on Judicial Performance sworn character witness testimony for his old friend and law enforcement co-worker Peter McBrien, Arthur Scotland drew on his training and experience in deceit from his days as a narc. "[Y]ou have to be an actor, you have to play the game," Scotland explained in the 2011 interview. In front of the three CJP judges responsible for hearing evidence and deciding McBrien's fate, Scotland concocted a clever, deceptive plan - an artifice in legal terminology - and convincingly delivered an award worthy actor's

Arthur Scotland used a family connection to get into a law school with liberal admission standards.

The Artifice

To help his old friend Pete McBrien keep his job, Justice Arthur G. Scotland concocted a clever plan intended to deceive the judges deciding McBrien's punishment at the Commission on Judicial Performance.

NEWS (24) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (26)


OPINION (12)

PAULA SALINGER (15) PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

PRO PERS (18) PROTEST (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (11) RICHARD SOKOL (12) ROBERT HIGHT (9) ROBERT O'HAIR (8) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT (13) SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (12)

SATIRE (11) SCBA (22) SCOTT BUCHANAN (5)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) SHARON HUDDLE (6)

SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS (5) STATE AUDITOR (6) STATE BAR (5)

MEDIA (1) MICHAEL T. GARCIA (1) MIKE NEWDOW (4) NANCY GRACE (1) NANCY PERKOVICH (4) NEW YORK TIMES (2)

NEWS YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)

OPEN GOVERNMENT (2) PARENT RIGHTS (1) PARENTAL

ALIENATION (1)

PHILLIP HERNANDEZ (3) PRESIDING JUDGE (2)

PSY (1) PUBLIC RECORDS (1) RAOUL M. THORBOURNE (1)

RECOGNITION/AWARDS (3)REVISIONISM SERIES (2)

ROLAND L. CANDEE (1)RON BURGUNDY (1) RONALD

ROBIE (1) RUSSELL CARLSON (4) RUSSELL L. HOM (1) RYDER SALMEN (2) S. HINMAN (3)

SACRAMENTO BEE (4)SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SANCTIONS (2) SANTA CLARA LAW SCHOOL (1) SARAH ANN STEPHENS (1)

SCHWARZENEGGER (1) SCOTT

KENDALL (1) SCSD (1) SEATON CASE (1) SELF-HELP (1)

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (2) SFCN READERSHIP DATA (4)

SO YOU WANT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL (4)

STEPHEN WAGNER (2) STEUART LEAVENWORTH (1) STEVE WHITE (2) STEVEN BURLINGHAM (1) STEVEN GEVERCER (1) STEVEN

performance.

While testifying for McBrien, Scotland also revealed that his appearance on the troubled judge's behalf effectively was voluntary. Before subpoenaing Scotland to testify, McBrien's defense attorney confirmed that Scotland would not object to the subpoena. Click here. Judicial ethics Canon 2B restricts use of the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal interests of the judge or others. Canon 2B(2)(a) permits a judge to testify as a character witness only when subpoenaed.

The transcript of Scotland's testimony also showed that - to prepare his CJP testimony - the presiding justice of the 3rd District affirmatively and voluntarily took the initiative (presumably on his own time) to research 3rd District family court appeals where McBrien was the trial court judge. His objective was to show the CJP that McBrien had a low reversal rate in the appellate court.

"I also, by the way -- when you called me to ask if I would object to being Subpoenaed as a witness, and I said no, I did research. I looked up -- I knew what this was all about, so I researched the number of appeals from cases from Judge McBrien's court. And so I -- and I looked -- I read all the opinions in which he was reversed in full or in part...

I've known Judge McBrien for 32 years. I got to know, then, Deputy Attorney General Pete McBrien. When I left the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and went to work for the California Attorney General's Office, he was already a Deputy Attorney General there. So I got to know him there, mainly professionally. Socially to a relatively minor extent. We had -- we had two co-ed softball teams. He played on one; I played on another. Of course, we would attend office functions together. His -- one of his very best friends was my supervisor in the Attorney General's Office. So, on occasion -- not frequently, but on occasion we would attend social events with others from the office....

[McBrien had] seven reversals in whole or in part, out of 110 appeals, which is about 6%, which actually is a remarkably good reversal rate. Because our average reversal rate in civil cases is 20 to 25 percent." Scotland testified at pages 549-553 of the reporter's transcript. Click here.

Scotland's claim that McBrien had a "remarkably good reversal rate" was, at best, a half-truth. Under the legal and ethical standards applicable to lawyers and judges, a half-truth is the same as a "false statement of fact" or what the general public refers to as a lie. Click here.

What Scotland withheld from the CJP is the fact that the vast majority of appeals from family court are never decided on the merits. Unlike appeals from civil cases, most family court appeals are taken by unrepresented parties who fail to navigate the complexities of appellate procedure and never make it past the preliminary stages of an appeal. In other words, Scotland rigged his statistics. While McBrien may have had seven reversals out of 110 appeals filed, only a small portion of the 110 appeals filed were actually decided on the merits.

Scotland then made a disingenuous, self-serving apples-to-oranges comparison between the reversal rate in civil case appeals - where both sides are usually represented by an attorney, or team of attorneys, and appeals are decided on the merits - with the reversal rate in family court cases, where neither qualifier is true. SFCN currently is conducting an audit of 3rd District family court appeals, and will have more on this subject in the near future.

In a final act of both flagrant cronyism to his friend and former Department of Justice co-worker Pete McBrien, and disrespect to the work of his fellow 3rd District Court of Appeal Justices Kathleen Butz, Cole Blease and Rick Sims whose published opinion in the Carlsson case resulted in McBrien's prosecution by the CJP, Scotland

Arthur Scotland poses with the fruits of a drug bust from his days as an undercover cop. Trained to lie and deceive in order to make undercover

drug buys, Scotland acknowledged his skill in the role. "You have to be an actor, you have to play the game," he said in 2011.

Blame the Victim

SUNDAY FUNNIES (15)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

THOMAS WOODRUFF (5) TIMOTHY ZEFF (5)

ULF CARLSSON (6)

WATCHDOGS (20)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

YOUTUBE (7)

SPIELBERG (1)

SUNSHINE WEEK (2)SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SUPREME COURT (3) TAMI BOGERT (1) TAXPAYERS (1)

TERRY FRANCKE (1) THADDEUS

STEVENS (1) THE RUTTER GROUP (1) THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

TOMMY LEE JONES (1)

UNITED NATIONS (1) UPDATE (2)

VANCE W. RAYE (3)VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (2)

VICTORY OUTREACH CHURCH (1) VL-CLASS-ACTION (1) WALL STREET JOURNAL (1) WASTE (1)

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (2)

WHITE HOUSE (1)

XAPURI B. VILLAPUDUA (4) YOLO COUNTY (1)

had the balls to suggest that disciplining McBrien for his conduct in Carlsson would be a "miscarriage of justice," that would allow "incompetent attorneys to run the court instead of competent judges."

"And you haven't asked me this question, but if [McBrien] were, for some reason, to be found to have violated the canons of judicial ethics, or whatever, I frankly -- I know about these cases; I know about the Carlsson case. I think it would be a miscarriage of justice. I think it would send the wrong signal to judges and practitioners that you don't allow -- that you would be allowing incompetent attorneys to run the court instead of competent judges," Scotland testified at the CJP.

Like Scotland, 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing knew well the Carlsson case, which he said "developed a certain notoriety." Unlike Scotland, Rushing wasn't an old friend and coworker of McBrien who would disingenuously suggest the blame for McBrien's "reign of terror" lay with an incompetent attorney. Scotland's colleagues at the 3rd District, Butz, Blease and Sims reversed and remanded the Carlsson case for retrial based on extremely rare, reversible per se, egregious structural and constitutional error by Judge McBrien. After carefully scrutinizing the trial court record, the panel made no mention of attorney "incompetence" in their published opinion.

However, Scotland's incompetence assertion to the CJP did, coincidentally, perfectly dovetail with the carefully crafted defense McBrien's legal team presented during three days of CJP testimony to the three-judge CJP panel assigned to decide McBrien's fate.

A key component of McBrien's defense relied on suspiciously consistent witness testimony portraying Ulf Carlsson's attorney Sharon Huddle as incompetent and effectively provoking McBrien's multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics. CJP prosecutor Andrew Blum mocked the risible defense in a confidential court reporter transcript leaked to SFCN. Click here to view the transcript.

Ironically, the time-tested, repugnant but effective blame the victim strategy, was coldly aided and abetted by Scotland, a justice who rose to power with the backing and endorsements of victims rights groups including Crime Victims United of California, and the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau. To help McBrien's defense team, Scotland dusted off the dog-eared playbook of exploiting victims, one way or another, to advance his personal agenda.

Scotland's irony-infused blame the victim testimony, misleading appeal reversal data, and the weight of character witness testimony from a sitting Court of Appeal presiding justice, along with similar character testimony from Sacramento County Superior Court Judges James Mize, Thomas Cecil (currently Of Counsel at the family, family law firm Cecil & Cianci) , Michael Garcia and Robert Hight, and Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorneys and judge pro tems Camille Hemmer, Jerry Guthrie, Robert O'Hair and Russell Carlson all tipped the scale just enough to enable McBrien to keep his job. Click here to view the complete, 12-page CJP summary of the McBrien character witness testimony.

Despite the parade of former law enforcement co-workers, friends, and family court judge pro tem cronies McBrien marshaled on his behalf, two of the voting CJP members saw through the ruse and dissented from the decision to let the judge remain on the bench, stating they would have removed McBrien from office. Click here. When he referred to McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson case as a "judicial reign of terror," 6th District Justice Rushing also noted that "two of the nine participating members [voted] to remove him from the bench." Click here.

The Carlsson case is prominently featured in Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States." The production team for the film conducted a nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption and collusion, and four Sacramento County cases are included in the movie. Narrated by Dr. Drew Pinsky, Divorce Corp opened in theaters in major U.S. cities on January 9, 2014. Following the theatrical run, the documentary will be released on DVD, RedBox, Netflix, broadcast and cable TV. Click here for our continuing coverage of Divorce Corp. To view trailers for the movie on YouTube, click here.

Contrary to the explicit findings by his colleagues at the 3rd District Court of Appeal, in his deceptive CJP testimony Justice Arthur

Scotland blamed attorney Sharon Huddle for the egregious misconduct of his old friend, Judge Peter McBrien.

The near-career death experience apparently has had no discernible corrective effect on the ethically-challenged judge. In subsequent proceedings in his courtroom involving the judge pro tem attorneys (and lawyers at the same firms as the judge pro tems) whose CJP testimony effectively saved his $170,00 per year job, McBrien reportedly has never disclosed to opposing parties and attorneys the potential conflict of interest as required by Canon 3E(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The failure to disclose the potential conflict is a violation of the canon and other state laws, according to the CJP, Judicial Council, and California Judges Association. For the exclusive SFCN report on conflict of interest law, click here.

In addition, unpublished Third District Court of Appeal decisions indicate that justices who come from a law enforcement background appear to take to the bench with them the "Blue Code of Silence" culture often found in law enforcement agencies. 3rd District Associate Justice George Nicholson worked as a prosecuting attorney for more than 15 years before being appointed to the bench in Sacramento County. The first time Governor George Deukmejian submitted Nicolson's name to the bar for review as a judge in 1983, he was rated as "not qualified," according to the Sacramento Bee.

"George Nicholson, Republican candidate for attorney general in 1982, has been pursuing all manner of public legal positions: U.S. District Court judge,

California Superior Court judge, U.S. Attorney, public defender in Riverside County. The other day, when Gov. George Deukmejian appointed him a Sacramento Municipal Court judge, he finally got one. It's an appointment that ought to cause serious concern both within the State Bar and in the community. When Deukmejian submitted Nicholson's name to the bar for review on a possible appointment to the Superior Court in 1983, he was rated 'not qualified.' The bar now ranks him 'qualified', the lowest acceptable rating of three the bar can give.

No one can be certain precisely why Nicholson received such low ratings, but there is enough in his public record to raise serious questions about his temperament and judgment. In 1979, he left a job as director of the District Attorneys Association after an audit showed that the organization's finances had been badly mismanaged and that it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Later, as a senior assistant attorney general, he was twice admonished by superiors for promoting a ballot measure in ways that could be mistaken as an official state Justice Department endorsement of the measure. More recently, a federally funded $4 million 'National School Safety Center' affiliated with Pepperdine University that he directed was embroiled in an extended controversy during which 18 of 30 staff members either resigned or were fired.

The U.S. General Accounting Office, which conducted an audit into the management of the Pepperdine program and into how the federal money was being spent, cleared the center of fiscal irregularities, attributing the problems to Nicholson's 'combative' personality and management style. But because of those problems, Pepperdine named a new executive director, who, the auditors said, restored stability to the management of the program 'while retaining Nicholson's creative talents,'" the Sacramento Bee said in 1987. Click here.

Nicholson subsequently was elected to both Sacramento County Superior Court and the 3rd District Court of Appeal with backing from law enforcement, Crime Victims United and other Astroturf "victims rights" and "law and order" groups. Crime Victims United is funded by - and acts essentially as a subsidiary of - the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the controversial prison guard union.

A principal architect of Proposition 8 the "The Crime Victims' Bill of Rights", after a failed run as the GOP candidate for attorney general Nicholson rode an anti-Rose Bird, tough-on-crime platform to the bench. Over several decades, Associate Justice Nicholson played a significant role in giving the United States one of the highest per capita rates of incarceration in the world. Thanks to Nicholson, the prison guard union, and Astroturf "victims rights" groups bankrolled by the union, California now spends a significantly larger portion of the state budget on corrections than on higher education.

Rehabilitation FAIL

Justice George Nicholson & the Law Enforcement Blue Code of Silence

Third District Court of Appeal Associate Justice George Nicholson rode to the bench on a "law and order" agenda.

In 1985, Nicholson was demoted from his position as director of the federally financed National School Safety Center in Sacramento. The center was administered by Pepperdine University at Malibu, and established with a $3.8 million Justice Department grant awarded without competitive bidding.

Under Nicholson's leadership, 20 of the original 30 staff members who set up the Center resigned or were dismissed. The Associated Press reported that that the debacle was rooted in ideological conflicts between Nicholson and staff whom Nicholson perceived as too liberal. According to the AP coverage:

"Several [staffers] described Nicholson as a political conservative who mistrusted his mostly liberal staff members, argued with them unceasingly about the direction of projects, and accused them of disloyalty when they questioned his ideas.

'When it became obvious to him he attracted a number of us with a different political philosophy, we were not permitted to do our work,' said Shirley Ruge, a former principal of schools for delinquent children and one of those dismissed. 'We were considered troublemakers and he wanted to shut us up.'"

Nicholson and former 3rd District Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland have been close friends and colleagues for more than 30 years. For the California Appellate Court Legacy Project Nicholson conducted an almost three-hour interview with Scotland on December 8, 2011. The transcript of the interaction reads like a meeting of the Nicholson-Scotland mutual admiration society. Nicholson opened the interview detailing the joint work history of the BFFs.

"George Nicholson: We are here with retired Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland, who served on the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, for more than 20 years, from 1989 to 2011, and that...the last dozen of which he was the Administrative Presiding Justice. I'm George Nicholson, Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and I had the pleasure of serving with Presiding Justice Scotland for 20 years on this court. Before that, we served together as trial judges on the Sacramento Superior Court, and even before that we served together in the Governor's Office during the Deukmejian administration and in the California Department of Justice. This has been a long time coming, Scotty, hasn't it?Arthur Scotland: Nick, it has, and it's a delight for me to have you interview me for this project."

Click here to view the full interview transcript.

In addition, the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento applies a unique and previously rarely used "judgment roll" standard of review that in virtually every case where applied results in affirmance of trial court rulings. Appeals brought by self-represented indigent and low-income litigants make up the vast majority of appeals where the 3rd District applies the judgment roll standard of review. Although the appellate court has authored dozens of decisions invoking the draconian standard against family court litigants, it has managed to keep the assembly line, boilerplate process under the radar. The court has not published a single judgment roll appeal originating from family court. Click here to see a list of unpublished 3rd District opinions archived by Google Scholar. The judgment roll summary affirmance process helps the court maintain its title as the most efficient Court of Appeal in the state. Equal protection of the law is implicated because other appellate court districts do not apply the standard nearly as often as the Third District. Equal application of the law is a

Role of Political Ideology

3rd District Court of Appeal watchdogs assert thatJustice George Nicholson is ethically-challenged,

and not particularly qualified to speak on the subject.

"Judgment Roll" Standard of Review Hits Hardest Indigent and Low-Income Litigants

Home

foundational attribute of American Democracy.

Vance W. Raye, Administrative Presiding Justice.Cole BleaseRonald RobieWilliam Murray Jr.George NicholsonKathleen ButzElena DuarteHarry Hull Jr. Louis MauroAndrea Lynn Hoch

For additional Sacramento Family Court News reporting on the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, click here.

Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter.

Justices of the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento:

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Justice Goodwin Liu, Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Justice Ming W. Chin, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Justice Joyce L. Kennard, and Justice Carol A. Corrigan of the Supreme Court are responsible for oversight and accountability of the 3rd

District Court of Appeal, and the other appellate courts in the state.

+2 Recommend this on Google

State officials and agencies responsible for oversight and accountability of California courts, Sacramento Family Law Court, administrators, judges and employees include:Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Chief Justice - Elaine M. Howle State Auditor Bureau of State Audits - Victoria B. Henley Director Chief Counsel Commission on Judicial Performance - Steven Jahr Administrative Director of the Courts - Phillip J. Jelicich Principal Auditor Bureau of State Audits - Janice M. Brickley Legal Advisor to Commissioners Commission on Judicial Performance - Judicial Council and Court Leadership Services Division Jody Patel Chief of Staff - Doug D. Cordiner Chief Deputy State Auditor Bureau of State Audits - Bradford L. Battson Senior Attorney III Commission on Judicial Performance - Judicial and Court Operations Services Division Curtis L. Child Chief Operating Officer Donna L. Neville Staff Counsel IV Bureau of State Audits - Sei Shimoguchi Senior Attorney III Commission on Judicial Performance - Tani Cantil-Sakauye Judicial Council of California - Judicial and Court Administrative Services Division Curt Soderlund Chief Administrative Officer -

The Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye is the leader of the state's third branch of government, the Judicial Branch. Her responsibilities include serving as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, chair of the Judicial Council, and chair of the Commission on Judicial Appointments.

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye & Oversight of California Courts

Sacramento Family Court News reports on former Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye -

Judge Pro Tem, Temporary Judges, Office of Temporary Judge, Oath of Office of Temporary Judge, California Rules of Court, California Code of Judicial Ethics, County of Sacramento Superior Court, Sacramento Family Law Court, Family Court Sacramento, William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse, Judge Stephen W. White, Judge Steve White, Judge Matthew J. Gary, Hon. Matthew J. Gary, Judge Laurie M. Earl, Hon. Laurie M. Earl, Judge Peter J. McBrien, Hon. Peter J. McBrien, Judge Jaime R. Roman, Hon. Jaime R. Roman, Judge Sharon A. Lueras, Hon. Sharon A. Lueras, Judge Thadd A. Blizzard, Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard, Sacramento County Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator, Sacramento County Superior Court Court Executive Officer Christina Volkers, Sacramento Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Sacramento Family Court Manager Colleen McDonagh, Sacramento Family Court Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards, County of Sacramento Superior Court, Attorney Steven R. Burlingham; Gary, Till & Burlingham, Attorney Camille H. Hemmer; Law Offices of Camille Hemmer, Attorney Jeffrey Posner; Woodruff, OHair, Posner & Salinger, Attorney Hal Bartholomew; Bartholomew & Wasznicky, Attorney Diane Wasznicky, Family law attorney Charolotte Keeley, Charlotte Leigh Keeley, Attorney Fredrick Cohen, Law Offices of Fredrick Cohen, Attorney Bunmi Awoniyi, Law Office of Bunmi Awoniyi, Attorney Richard Sokol, Law Offices of Richard Sokol, Attorney John OMalley, Downey Brand, attorney Robert OHair, Robert James OHair, Attorney Joseph Winn, Law Offices of Winn & Winn, Family Law Paula Salinger, attorney Paula Dawn Salinger, Attorney Elaine Viola Van Beveren, Elaine Van Beveren, Attorney Mark Ambrose, Law Offices of Mark Ambrose, Attorney Nancy Perkovich, Perkovich Law Offices, Attorney Gary Michael Appelblatt, attorney D. Thomas Woodruff, Daniel Thomas Woodruff, family law attorney Russell Carlson, Russell William Carlson, Sacramento County Bar Association, Family Law Section, Family Law Executive Committee,

Sacramento Family Court News Subjects and Topics

The news analysis and opinion content at Sacramento Family Court News is partly based on the legal references and treatises used by judges and attorneys. Click here for a description of our newsroom law library and the publications we use to research and report Sacramento Family Law Court issues. Most family law attorneys belong to the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section. The section is headed by the Family Law Executive Committee, also known by the acronym FLEC. The committee is composed of CHAIR RUSSELL CARLSON, VICE CHAIR ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, TREASURER FREDRICK COHEN, and SECRETARY PAULA SALINGER. Family court watchdogs charge that the committee acts as a shadow government controlling most operations, including dictating local court rules in Sacramento family law court.

Sacramento Family Court News - Newsroom Law Library & Legal Resources

Index

Index

By Using This Site You Agree To The Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy - Sacramento Family Court News

California Judicial Branch oversight and accountability is the responsibility of Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria B. Henley, California State Auditor Elaine M. Howle, Judicial Council Director Steven E. Jahr, Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, State Bar of California Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim,

Sacramento Family Court News Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

The Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section - Family Law Executive Committee - FLEC - Sacramento Family Law Court - Sacramento County

Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section - Family Law Executive Committee - FLEC

Family Court: Sacramento Superior Court - Family and Children

Family Court Services - Sacramento Superior Court - Child Custody Recommending Counseling, Family Court Services, Confidential Mediation, and Evaluation

Family Court Self-Help Center: Sacramento Superior Court - Self-Help Center - Family Law Facilitator

Family Court Records: Sacramento Superior Court - Order a File and Records

Family Court Resource Referral Program: Sacramento

Family Court & Judicial Branch Information, Resources and Links

3rd District Court of Appeal Justice Vance Raye, and U.S. Attorneys Benjamin B. Wagner and Melinda L. Haag. The officers of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee are Elaine V. Van Beveren, Fredrick S. Cohen, Paula D. Salinger, and Gregory W. Dwyer.

Sacramento Family Law Court users and our readers search for subjects including the California Supreme Court and Justices Goodwin Liu, Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin, Kathryn Werdegar, Joyce Kennard, Carol Corrigan, and Tani Cantil-Sakauye, and ATTORNEY DIVORCE, family laws in California, legal separation, judges and other family court information. Sacramento Family Court Judges include Thadd A. Blizzard, Peter J. McBrien, Matthew J. Gary, Jaime R. Roman, and SHARON LUERAS, and the Hon. Steve White. The current SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT SUPERVISING JUDGE is JAMES MIZE. Family Court Sacramento judges are required to comply with the CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS. The Sacramento County Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator is attorney LOLLIE ROBERTS. You can find an attorney for divorce or attorneys for divorce online. DIVORCE COUNTY COURT is a popular search, and so is California legal separation. A lot of people want to know WHAT IS A LEGAL SEPARATION. Sacramento Family Court News reports on changes in California divorce law, also searched for using CA DIVORCE LAW, and Supreme Court of California. Judge Sharon Lueras has been implicated in contributing to the deaths of two children as a result of rulings she issued. In the baby Ryder Salmen case Judge Lueras was featured on Nancy Grace. Click here. Sacramento Family Law Court is a common search made by court users.

Most Sacramento Family Court attorneys are members of the Sacramento Bar Association, formally known as the Sacramento County Bar Association. The Sacramento Bar Association has a Family Law Section and a Family Law Executive Committee known by the acronym FLEC. The Sacramento County Family Law Section Executive Committee is composed of CHAIR Russell Carlson, VICE CHAIR Elaine Van Beveren, TREASURER Fredrick Cohen, and SECRETARY Paula Salinger. The PAST CHAIR is Judith Winn. Each member of the Family Law Section Executive Committee also holds the Office of Temporary Judge, also known as a Judge Pro Tem. The Bar Association Family Law Section publishes a monthly newsletter called

The Family Law Counselor.The Family Law Counselor is available at the Bartholomew & Wasznicky website. Click here. UPDATE: In February, 2013 Bartholomew & Wasznicky terminated online public access to the Family Law Counselor

Superior Court Court Executive Officer - Sacramento Bar Association - Sacramento Family Court Presiding Judge - child custody and visitation - divorce - spousal support - child support - alimony - family law attorneys - family law judges

Sacramento Family Law Court, Family Court Sacramento and all California courts are subject to oversight by Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California, the California State Auditor, the whistleblower act, also known as the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Bureau of State Audits, the Commission on Judicial Performance or CJP, and the Judicial Council under the leadership of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. The Judicial Council operates the Judicial Branch California Courts website. The motto of the California Judicial Branch website is "Committed to providing fair and equal justice for all Californians." Assertions by family court watchdogs and whistleblowers to Sacramento Family Court News indicate that the motto may not apply in Sacramento Family Court.

The Supreme Court of California is the ultimate authority on California law. Justices include Kathryn Werdegar, Joyce Kennard, Ming Chin, Carol Corrigan, Marvin Baxter, Goodwin Liu and Tani Sakauye.

Other search topics include: ATTORNEY DIVORCE, lawyers for divorce, family law, Sacramento Court, divorce, attorneys divorce, bar association, child custody California, lawyers, CALIFORNIA DIVORCE LAW, child custody, family court, whistleblower, dissolution, pro per, county superior, state bar, family lawyer, court rules, judge pro tem, family court attorneys, family law facilitator, legal representation, child support services, lawyer divorce, child support payment, attorney at law, domestic violence,

court, child support, attorney, lawyer, attorneys, TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, pro se, judge,

divorce attorneys, divorce attorney, divorce lawyers, California family law attorneys, family court attorneys, child support payments, judges, LAWYER FOR DIVORCE, family law bar, superior court, spousal abuse, child support California, family lawyers, attorneys at law, California child custody, child custody in California, county bar association, Superior Court in California, in pro per, Sacramento County records, family facilitator,

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - Popular Searches and Subjects

Superior Court - Resource Referral Program

E-Correspondence (Family Law Self-Help Assistance) - Family Law Facilitator

Family Law - Court Appearances: Sacramento Superior Court - Court Hearings and Orders

Divorce / Legal Separation / Annulment: Sacramento Superior Court - Divorce / Legal Separation / Annulment

Child Custody / Visitation: Sacramento Superior Court - Child Custody / Visitation

Family Relations Courthouse: Sacramento Superior Court - William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse

Public Case Document Search - Sacramento Superior Court

Complex Case Calendar: Sacramento Superior Court

Tani Cantil-Sakauye Supreme Court of California Chief Justice

Civil Motions and Hearings General: Sacramento Superior Court

Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse: Sacramento Superior Court

Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye - About the Chief Justice

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye - Outreach Activities

Joyce L. Kennard Supreme Court of California Justice

Justice Cantil-Sakauye - Civics Initiatives

Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye - Chief in the News

Tani Cantil-Sakauye - Chief Justice Speeches

Marvin R. Baxter Supreme Court of California Justice

Kathryn M. Werdegar Supreme Court of California Justice

Ming W. Chin Supreme Court of California Justice

Carol A. Corrigan Supreme Court of California Justice

Goodwin Liu Supreme Court of California Justice

J. Anthony Kline Presiding Justice 1st District Court of Appeal

Ignazio John Ruvolo Presiding Justice 1st District Court of Appeal

Barbara J.R. Jones Presiding Justice 1st District Court of Appeal

Sandra L. Margulies Acting Presiding Justice 1st District Court of Appeal

Robert M. Mallano Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal

Roger W. Boren Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal

Joan Dempsey Klein Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal

Norman L. Epstein Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal

Paul Turner Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal

Arthur Gilbert Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal

Dennis M. Perluss Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal

Tricia A. Bigelow Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal

Vance W. Raye Presiding Justice 3rd District Court of Appeal

Arthur G. Scotland Presiding Justice 3rd District Court of Appeal

Manual A. Ramirez Presiding Justice 4th District Court of Appeal

Kathleen O'Leary Presiding Justice 4th District Court of Appeal

Judith McConnell Presiding Justice 4th District Court of Appeal

Brad R. Hill Presiding Justice 5th District Court of Appeal

newsletter, and scrubbed all Family Law Counselor newsletters from the firm website. CLICK HERE for our report on the controversy. Other common search terms include HON. LAURIE M. EARL, state audits, judges, divorce attorneys, state auditor California, family law facilitators, spousal support, protest, county superior, self-represented, legal representation, in pro per, social injustice, judicial misconduct, pro se, social justice, Sacramento family law, judge, James Mize, civil disobedience, unrepresented, PRO PER PRO SE, family superior court, whistleblowing protection act, sacramento family court, Sacramento Superior Court family law facilitator, judges in California, judicial judges. Sacramento family law court is located at the William Ridgeway Courthouse."So you can hurt, hurt us badBut still we'll raise, we'll raise the flag"

court order, court hearing, in pro se, and Tani Cantil-Sakauye

California Judicial Branch oversight and accountability is the responsibility of Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria B. Henley, California State Auditor Elaine M. Howle, Judicial Council Director Steven E. Jahr, Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, State Bar of California Chief Trial

Counsel Jayne Kim, 3rd District Court of Appeal Justice Vance Raye, and U.S. Attorneys Benjamin B. Wagner and Melinda L. Haag are responsible for the prosecution of federal crimes, including honest services fraud. The officers of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee are Elaine V. Van Beveren, Fredrick S. Cohen, Paula D. Salinger, and Gregory W. Dwyer.

Conrad L. Rushing Presiding Justice 6th District Court of Appeal

William R. McGuiness Presiding Justice 1st District Court of Appeal

Copyright CJBNN - California Judicial Branch News Network. Awesome Inc. template. Powered by Blogger.





20 February 2014

Judge Peter J. McBrien Misconduct: Divorce Corp Documentary Reveals Sacramento Family Court Most Corrupt In Nation

Movie Review and Opinion by PelicanBriefed

It is now difficult to dispute that the Sacramento County Family Court system - rebuilt more than 20 years ago to the specifications of local judge pro tem family law attorneys by Judge Peter McBrien, then-Judge Vance Raye, divorce attorney Robert O'Hair, and others - has become the most corrupt family court in the nation. The proof is now available to anyone for $20: the cost of the documentary film Divorce Corp, recently released on DVD, and also available by download at the iTunes store. In his first, full-length documentary film, director Joe Sorge meticulously documents the epidemic of corruption and collusion in family courts throughout the United States. And the Sacramento County system rises to the top of the toxic slurry pond.

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

A parade of litigants from Indiana, Tennessee, Ohio, California and other locales recount their nightmare

Judge Peter McBrien and Sacramento County Family Court System Disemboweled in Divorce Corp Documentary

Sacramento Family Court litigant Ulf Carlsson's startling story is central to the documentary Divorce Corp.


JUDGE PRO TEM (50)



FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

4 More Next Blog Create Blog Sign In

experiences in child custody and other divorce-related court disputes. Retired judges, active attorneys, child custody evaluators and court reform advocates are interviewed over the one hour, 33 minute run time of the film. In one compelling segment, Nevada County Superior Court whistleblower Emily Gallup reveals that state-level oversight and accountability of California family courts is effectively nonexistent. In a tacit admission, the Judicial Council and Administrative Office of the Courts declined Sorge's request to be interviewed and respond to Gallup's documented accusations.

But the local, well-known Ulf Carlsson case takes center stage and is woven throughout the movie, overshadowing the horror stories of other litigants. Judge Peter McBrien's clinically sociopathic, personal vendetta against Carlsson - which in 2012 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing called a "judicial reign of terror" - is chronicled in all its perverse glory. Sacramento family court litigants Andrew Karres, Mike Newdow and Robert Saunders, and Nevada County pro per Elena Haskins also make appearances criticizing virtually every aspect of local court operations. Judges, attorneys, custody evaluators, the family law facilitator, and even the "child's best interest" legal standard are all held under the microscope and come away nakedly exposed and tarnished. Sometimes, only a clich will do: Must be seen to be believed. Missing only interviews with family court child victims. Four and a half stars.

Click here to order the movie at the Divorce Corp web page. To download the film from the iTunes store, click here.

Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the photos:

Andrew Karres recounts his own hellish experience in Sacramento Family Court in the documentary Divorce Corp.

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)


SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)


JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)


CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

First Amendment Coalition

Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT

Family Law Professor Blog

Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog

Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

LEGAL NEWS &

Sacramento Family Court litigant Robert Saunders is interviewed for Divorce Corp during a protest demonstration at the courthouse. Saunders' case is ongoing. Last November, Judge Thadd Blizzard inexplicably authorized an illegal, out-of-state child abduction in the

case at the request of judge pro tem opposing attorney Richard Sokol.

Sacramento Family Court reform activist, attorney and doctor Mike Newdow mocks the "child's best interest" standard, attorney fee awards, and other issues in Divorce Corp.

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

INFORMATION

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

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

4 comments

Top comments

Judge Peter J. McBrien via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publiclyJudge Peter McBrien and Sacramento Family Court System Disembowled in Divorce Corp DocumentarySacramento Family Court News reviews Divorce Corp..."Must be seen to be believed." #judgemcbrien #ulfcarlsson #sacramento #familycourt #familylaw #government #misconduct

1 Reply

Helen Evans 1 year ago - Shared publiclyThe subject of family law is a broad and diverse subject. It covers a wide range of issues and topics mainly involving the subject of marriage and the rights of children under marriage. Some of the subjects that pertain to family law are divorce, annulment and child support.suing home wrecker.

1 Reply

Add a comment

Posted by PelicanBriefed at 7:53 PM

Labels: ARTS & CULTURE, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, DIVORCE CORP, EMILY GALLUP, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, MIKE NEWDOW,

PETER J. McBRIEN, RAPTON-KARRES, ROBERT O'HAIR, ROBERT SAUNDERS, ULF CARLSSON, VANCE W. RAYE

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

Correction: This post has been updated to reflect that Elena Haskins' family court case is in Nevada County.

Elena Haskins and her Nevada County Family Court case play a prominent role in Divorce Corp.

+4 Recommend this on Google

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

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





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.


JUDGE PRO TEM (50)



FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD

Date post:	07-Nov-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	california-judicial-branch-news-network-independent-investigative-reporting-on-california-courts
View:	28 times
Download:	1 times

Attorney Fees and Appeal Costs: Ulf Carlsson 3rd District Court of Appeal Sacramento - Judge Peter...

Documents