misprision of felony vance raye 3rd district court of appeal federal honest services fraud &...
DESCRIPTION
Justice Vance Raye federal crimes: misprision of felony, RICO racketeering and honest services fraud. Third District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Raye and Arthur G. Scotland misconduct, including violations of California Code of Judicial Ethics Canons 3D(1) and (2) failure to report misconduct by judges and attorneys. Cover up revealed by whistleblower leaked documents. RICO racketeering: 18 USC 1962. Honest services fraud: 18 USC 1346. Misprision of felony: 18 USC 4.TRANSCRIPT
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
14 January 2013
Sacramento Superior Court Employee Misconduct: Family Court Whistleblower Alleges Systemic Code of Civil Procedure and Court Rule Violations by Court Administrators & Clerks
Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per AppealsA Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 1.This story is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September, 2013
A Sacramento County Family Court whistleblower has leaked to Sacramento Family Court News court records indicating that countless family court cases are missing critical paperwork required by state law. After any family court hearing which results in a judgment regarding child custody or visitation, spousal support, or any other judgment subject to immediate appeal, California Rules of Court rule 5.134 requires court clerks to enter, file and serve a Notice of Entry of Judgment. State court rule 8.104(e) defines "judgment" as any appealable order. By law, the court clerk must use Judicial Council Form FL-190 to provide the notice of entry to all parties. The notice provides an important notification regarding the right to appeal, and the destruction of exhibits on file with the court. In addition, two other components of the FL-190 form eliminate ambiguity in the time frame for an appeal, according to the California Supreme Court. In a 2007 decision, the high court noted that the title of the mandatory form and the clerk's certificate of mailing at the bottom of the notice were drafted specifically to eliminate miscalculations and disputes related to appeal time frames. Click here and scroll down to the highlighted text to view the relevant sections of the 2007 Supreme Court case.
For appealable judgments in law and motion proceedings, Sacramento Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards have directed
Sacramento Family Court Chiefs Julie Setzer and Colleen McDonagh Responsible for Serial State Law Violations, Whistleblower Charges
Sacramento County Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer and Manager Colleen McDonagh have directed court employees to disregard state laws mandating entry of judgment procedure, charges a family court whistleblower.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
2 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
court employees to simply ignore the law, according to the source, who provided the information on the condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure.
To continue reading Part 1 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.
"This has been going on for years and judges, attorneys, the family law facilitator, the court of appeal, everyone is in on this. One objective is to reduce or eliminate appeals by the indigent and self-represented," the source explained. "The FL-190 is the first notification they get that they even have appeal rights. Without the notice, most pro per parties are completely unaware that they can appeal child custody, visitation, support and many other rulings from OSC and motion hearings."
The mandatory Judicial Council form contains a notification about the right to appeal a court order, and a warning that exhibits may be destroyed or disposed of after 60 days from the expiration of the appeal time.
In a 2007 decision, Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the California Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to family law proceedings. According to the Supreme Court, one critical function of the form is to establish the time frame within which an appeal of law and motion orders can be filed.
"The clerk is required to give notice only in designated family law matters (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5, subd. (a); rule 5.134)...In those family law proceedings in which the clerk must always give notice, rule 5.134 requires the clerk to use a Judicial Council form (FL-190) specifically drafted to ensure compliance with rule 8.104(a)(1). Obviously, problems are more likely to occur when no approved form of notice is available...The Judicial Council form (FL-190) that clerks must use in family law proceedings...avoids ambiguity...by bearing the title, "Notice of Entry of Judgement," and by including at the bottom of its single page a form for the clerk's certificate of mailing." Click here to view Alan v. American Honda Motor Co.
Sacramento Family Court clerks not only do not file and serve the FL-190 form as required by law, they permit Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers to file a counterfeit version of the form which omits both the appeal rights notification and the clerk's certificate of mailing.The fictitious form also is served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk as required by both the Code of Civil Procedure and the state court rules. Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form that omits appeal rights and other important notifications required by law also raises moral turpitude and other ethical implications against attorneys who engage in the deception. Click here for our complete report on the counterfeit form issue.
Omission of FL-190 Reduces Appeals by Family Court Parties Without Lawyers
Indigent and self-represented Sacramento Family Court parties do not receive this notice about their right to appeal child custody/visitation, support and other orders.
California Supreme Court Confirms FL-190 Mandatory
The clerks certificate of mailing at the bottom of the FL-190 form contains information critical to filing a timely appeal.
LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
MIKE NEWDOW (2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE
LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION
Posted by PR Brown at 11:15 PM
Labels: ADMINISTRATORS, ANALYSIS, APPEALS, CEO, CIVIL LIABILITY, COLLEEN MCDONAGH, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, EMPLOYEE
CODE OF ETHICS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, JULIE SETZER, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, STATE AUDITOR, WHISTLEBLOWERS
Location: Sacramento County Superior Court - Family Relations Courthouse
Using the family law legal references used by judges and attorneys, Sacramento Family Court News verified that the FL-190 must be served and filed by a court clerk for all appealable orders. To view the FL-190 procedure reference in California Practice Guide: Family Law, written by judges for judges and attorneys, and published by The Rutter Group, click here. To view a similar reference in the companion California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, click here. In addition to the gold standard family law references, California Practice Guide: Family Law and Civil Appeals and Writs, the same procedure also is specified in Witkin California Procedure. Click here to view the Witkin instructions.
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento publishes a Self-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented litigants which confirms that, by law, appealable orders are the same as judgments, and therefore require service of the FL-190 form. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual reads:
"Note that the same rules about an appeal from a judgment apply to an appeal from an appealable order, as the rules of court dealing with appeals define 'judgment' as including an order that may be appealed. (CRC 8.10(4).)" Click here to view this excerpt from the Self-Help Manual.
The whistleblower pointed out that superior court and Court of Appeal judges, the family law facilitator and court employees are all paid by taxpayers to know and comply with the law. "There are thousands of court files without FL-190's. You cannot, with a straight face, tell me that they all have never noticed that the files do not contain this mandatory Judicial Council form where required after law and motion hearings." According to public records, Julie Setzer is paid $4,460 every two weeks, Colleen McDonagh earns $3,460 every two weeks, and Denise Richards earns $36 per hour. Family court judges are paid $169,000 per year.
Filing and service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment is required by California Rules of Court rule 5.134. As of 2011, the failure by government employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. At the local level, Sacramento County Superior Court policies and administrative procedures provide a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's discipline policy.
"It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the policy introduction.
Click here to read all articles in the Color of Law series.
Related posts:
Click here for articles about family court employee misconduct.
Click here for reporting on judicial misconduct.
Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator.
Click here for family court whistleblower articles.
Click here for family court watchdog coverage.
If you found this article useful or informative please share it on Facebook, Twitter or recommend it on Google+ and other social networking sites.
Judge-Attorney Legal References Confirm FL-190 Procedure
3rd District Court of Appeal Verifies Appealable Orders Require FL-190
+2 Recommend this on Google
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
California Courts Homepage
California Courts YouTube Page
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial Performance
Sacramento County Family Court
3rd District Court of Appeal
State Bar of California
State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar Association
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH
ABA Family Law Blawg Directory
California Coalition for Families and Children
California Protective Parents Association
Center for Judicial Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
16 January 2013
Sacramento Family Law Facilitator Misconduct: Lollie Roberts Violates State Law - Mirrors Unlawful Court Administrator Policy, Whistleblower Alleges
Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals
A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 2
This story is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September, 2013.
In a scheme allegedly coordinated with family court administrators, Sacramento Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts has directed her staff to dispense false information to unrepresented family court litigants. Roberts' objective is to help conceal systemic violations of the Code of Civil Procedure and state court rules by family court employees, according to court records and other information leaked by a family court whistleblower to Sacramento Family Court News. Another objective of the alleged plan is to obstruct pro per appeals by concealing a critical, state law mandated appeal rights notification from unrepresented, indigent or financially disadvantaged family court litigants, according to the whistleblower, who provided the information on the
Family Law Facilitator Office Gives False Info To Pro Per Per Parties - Parrots Illegal Court Administrator Policy
Lollie Roberts, the Sacramento County Superior Court Family Law Facilitator has directed her staff to dispense false information about the state law mandated Notice of Entry of Judgment FL-190 form, a whistleblower charges.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
0 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure.
The appeal notice is part of a mandatory Judicial Council form, FL-190, which under state law court clerks are required to file and serve after a family court judge issues an appealable order. As SFCN previously reported, court administrators have instructed court clerks not to issue the FL-190 paperwork for appealable orders issued at law and motion hearings. Roberts and her staff are conveying the same inaccurate information by instructing pro per parties that the FL-190 is only issued when a divorce is finalized, and that appealable law and motion orders are not judgments requiring issuance of the form. The falsity of the information has been verified by both the California Supreme Court and Third District Court of Appeal.
To continue reading Part 2 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.
As our series of reports documents, the alleged plan involves ensuring that unrepresented, financially disadvantaged pro per family court parties do not receive notification of their right to appeal court orders related to child custody/visitation, support and other judgments that can immediately be appealed. Other parts of the scheme include obstructing the appeal fee waiver process, imposing an illegal 60-day appeal time frame where the lawful time frame is 180-days, and impeding the ability to obtain a court reporter at trial court hearings, and a court reporter transcript, without which an effective appeal is impossible. Co-conspirators in the plan allegedly include family court administrators, employees and clerks, judges, and judge pro tem members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section. Staff at the Third District Court of Appeal reportedly have tacitly condoned the plan by ignoring trial court irregularities and other evidence that reaches the reviewing court.
The function and duties of the Family Law Facilitator for each county in California are specified in the Family Law Facilitator Act, Family Code Section 10000-100015. Facilitator duties include assisting "unrepresented and financially disadvantaged litigants in gaining meaningful access to family court."
California Rules of Court rule 5.430 sets out the minimum standards for the Office of the Family Law Facilitator. The minimum standards include knowledge of family law procedures and child support law. In addition, Appendix C of California Rules of Court provides guidelines for operation of the facilitator's office. The guidelines include providing competent legal information, including procedural information and education so that litigants will have increased access to the court.
As we reported in Part 1 of our Color of Law series, a family court whistleblower alleges that Sacramento Family
Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Court Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards have directed court employees to ignore state laws that require family court parties to be notified of their appeal rights and the time frame within which an appeal can be filed. The notifications are part of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form that must be filed and served by court clerks after any family court hearing which results in a judgment regarding child custody or visitation, support, or any other appealable order. To read Part 1 of the series, click here.
Court records provided by the whistleblower indicate that Family Court Facilitator Lollie Roberts has instructed her staff to notify unrepresented, in pro per family court litigants seeking help that the Notice of Entry of Judgment is only required for a final judgment, issued at the conclusion of a divorce, separation or nullity. The information is demonstrably false and can ultimately result in a waiver of critical appeal rights of orders involving child custody, support, and other appealable orders. When the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form is not served on unrepresented and financially disadvantaged pro per litigants, most are unaware that they have a right to appeal the order, and after 180-days the right to appeal the order is lost forever. In Part 3 of our Color of Law report, additional court documents leaked by a family court whistleblower indicate that family court
The Plan to End Pro Per Appeals
The Family Law Facilitator
Family Law Facilitator Dispenses False Information
LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
MIKE NEWDOW (2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE
LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION
administrators have implemented an unlawful policy that condenses the 180-day appeal time frame to just 60-days.
Facilitator records provided to SFCN about the entry of judgment issue indicate unlawful conduct by the Family Law Facilitator's Office. Using the facilitator e-Correspondence System, in writing an indigent, unrepresented pro per family court party asked facilitator staff why they had not received a Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form after court orders for child custody and support were issued in the case. To read the original written question submitted by the pro per to the Family Law Facilitator, click here.
In response, staff of the Facilitator's Office falsely claimed that the FL-190 "is only issued when a judgment of dissolution, legal separation, nullity (or some other judgment such as paternity) is entered on the record." The response also falsely asserted that a Notice of Entry of Judgment is not issued when "a formal Findings and Order After Hearing is
entered." Click here to read the response. The answer is calculated to confuse an unrepresented and financially disadvantaged in pro per litigant who would have little or no knowledge of family law and procedure, according to the whistleblower. The FL-340 findings and order after hearing form is usually prepared by the opposing attorney and the form does not contain the FL-190 appeal rights notification, nor the critical clerk's certificate of mailing which establishes the lawful appeal time frame. Under state law, a neutral court clerk - not an opposing attorney - is responsible for filing and service of the FL-190. As explained by the source,
"The facilitator response says 'It appears that many times in your case Findings and Orders After Hearing were entered but since these were not judgments, no Notice of Entry of Judgment was issued.' That answer is untrue. Almost any court employee knows, or should know that the findings and order after hearing paperwork simply memorializes a court order. It is unrelated to a Notice of Entry of Judgment, which in cases with child custody, support and other appealable orders, is by law required to be filed after the findings and order after hearing paperwork is filed," the whistleblower said. "Just look at California Rules of Court rule 8.104(e), it defines 'judgment' as any appealable order."
The leading family law legal reference book used by judges, attorneys, and appellate courts reviewing trial court mistakes is California Practice Guide: Family Law. The Practice Guide verifies that for purposes of appeal, the terms judgment and order are synonymous, and the book refers to the same court rule as the whistleblower, 8.104(e). "An appealable order is a judgment - the facilitator staff response is not accurate and could lead an unrepresented, financially disadvantaged party to believe they could not appeal an order that was, in fact, appealable," the source added. Other legal references parrot the Practice Guide. For example, Witkin California Procedure specifies that "Some determinations, although characterized as 'orders' are in effect final judgments..." and that "the chief test is appealability." Witkin also verifies that in family court cases, the term "judgment" includes any appealable order, and that the FL-190 must be served and filed on all parties by a court clerk. Click here to view the Witkin excerpt. The California Supreme Court and the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento provide similar information.
In a 2007 decision, Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the California Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to family law proceedings. According to the Supreme Court, one critical function of the form is to establish the time
In assessing whistleblower claims, Sacramento Family Court News relies on the gold standard reference for family law, California Practice
Guide: Family Law. The Practice Guide is used by family court judges and family law attorneys. Using the Practice Guide, Sacramento Family Court
Judge Matthew J. Gary provides monthly "Bench Tips" to family law attorneys.
This notice of appeal specifically notified Sacramento Family Court appeals unit staff that a notice of entry of judgment was never filed in the case as required by law. The clerk unlawfully applied a 60-day appeal time frame and rejected the appeal as untimely. The notice was
filed well within the correct 180-day time frame. For the full story, see Part 3 of our Color of Law series. Click here.
California Supreme Court Confirms Facilitator Error
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)
frame within which an appeal of law and motion orders can be filed.
"The clerk is required to give notice only in designated family law matters (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5, subd. (a); rule 5.134)...In those family law proceedings in which the clerk must always give notice, rule 5.134 requires the clerk to use a Judicial Council form (FL-190) specifically drafted to ensure compliance with rule 8.104(a)(1). Obviously, problems are more likely to occur when no approved form of notice is available...The Judicial Council form (FL-190) that clerks must use in family law proceedings...avoids ambiguity...by bearing the title, "Notice of Entry of Judgement," and by including at the bottom of its single page a form for the clerk's certificate of mailing." Click here to view Alan v. American Honda Motor Co.
Sacramento Family Court clerks not only do not file and serve the FL-190 form as required by law, they permit Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers to file a counterfeit version of the form which omits both the appeal rights notification and the clerk's certificate of mailing.The fictitious form also is served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk as required by both the Code of Civil Procedure and the state court rules. Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form that omits appeal rights and other important notifications required by law also raises moral turpitude and other ethical implications against attorneys who engage in the deception. Click here for our complete report on the counterfeit form issue.
The 3rd District Court of Appeal publishes a Self-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented litigants that confirms the same information regarding appealable orders. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual reads:
"Note that the same rules about an appeal from a judgment apply to an appeal from an appealable order, as the rules of court dealing with appeals define 'judgment' as including an order that may be appealed. (CRC 8.10(4).)" Click here to view this excerpt from the Self-Help Manual.
Filing and service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment is required by California Rules of Court rule 5.134. As of 2011, the failure by government employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. At the local level, Sacramento County Superior Court policies and administrative procedures provide a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's discipline policy.
"It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the policy introduction.
If, as the whistleblower alleges, the non-compliance with rule 5.134 is part of a larger scheme or conspiracy that ultimately deprives unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights, court
The "Clerk's Certificate of Mailing" at the bottom of the FL-190 form is a critical part of the form because it establishes the time frame during which an appeal can be filed, according to the California Supreme Court.
Third District Court of Appeal Verifies Facilitator Dispensing False Information
Court Rule Violations Are By Law Government Misconduct
Taxpayer Liability Exposure and Criminal Laws
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 3 8 8 1 9
136
PR Brown
Follow
Google+ Badge
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)
APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (21)
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
employees and taxpayers could be exposed to financial liability in a civil lawsuit. Federal criminal statutes may also apply. Federal criminal law prohibits conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. Sacramento Family Court receives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who fail to provide honest services may be subject to criminal prosecution under federal law.
In Part 3 of our Color of Law report, a Sacramento County Family Court clerk unlawfully refuses to file an appeal for an unrepresented and financially disadvantaged litigant. Click here to read Part 3.
Click here to read all articles in the Color of Law series.
Sacramento Family Court News acknowledges the confidential source who provided us with the tip that resulted in this article. We appreciate the tip. To send us your anonymous tip by email, use our Contact Page. All communications are protected by the reporter's privilege and the California Shield Law. For further details about our confidentiality policy, see our About Page and our Terms & Conditions Page.
Related articles and posts:
A variety of illegal tactics used by court employees, judges, the Family Law Facilitator Office and judge pro tem attorneys to obstruct family court appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants.Click here.
Full-time family court judges failure to disclose judge pro tem conflicts of interest to opposing parties and attorneys. Click here.
Judge pro tem attorneys promoted a software program sold by the wife of a family court judge. Click here.
Court administrators concealing from the public judge pro tem attorney misconduct, including sexual battery against clients. Click here.
Illegal use of California vexatious litigant law by family court judges. Click here.
Waiver of judge pro tem qualification standards. Click here.
Failure to adequately train family court judges. Click here.
Allowing courtroom clerks to issue incomplete, useless fee waiver orders which prevent indigent and financially disadvantaged litigants from serving and filing documents. Click here.
The staff of attorney Lollie Roberts, Sacramento County Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator, provided incorrect legal information to this indigent, self-represented family court party. The opposing party is represented by a veteran family law attorney.
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (21) 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 (9)
DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN (13)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT (18)
FAMILY COURT (9)
FAMILY LAW
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)CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)
CHILD SUPPORT (3)
CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)CJA (3)
ClientTickler (2)CNN (1)
CODE OF SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3)
COURT CONDITIONS (2)COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT
EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS (1)COURT POLICIES (1) COURT
RULES (4) COURTS (1) CPG FAMILY LAW (1)
CRIMINAL LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION
(1) DENISE RICHARDS (1)DIANE WASZNICKY (2)DISQUALIFICATION (2)
DONALD TENN (3) DONNA GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1)
EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)
EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1)
ELECTIONS (1) EMILY GALLUP (3)EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS
(4)
EQUAL PROTECTION (2)EUGENE L. BALONON (1)
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS (2) EX PARTE (1) F4J (4)
FAMILY COURT AUDITS (1) FAMILY COURT CONDITIONS (2)FAMILY COURT MEDIA COVERAGE
(1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE (1) FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO (2) FAMILY COURTHOUSE (1)
Newer Post Older PostHome
2 comments
Top comments
1 year ago
Most Family Law Facilitator's are also Attorneys who are currently part of the county bar association. Unlike the facilitator in Sacramento, Attorney Kevin. J, Mendrick, he had once represented my ex in a child support case. I called him on it, and told him that he worked on my case back in 2001, in the facilitators office he stated, " I don't remember you" I just laughed. He immediately got off the case. I am a strong believer in researching your
Cole Day Rain 1 year ago
I've been able to talk to the Family Law Facilitator's Office once. They basically took notes and promised to call me later. Later I was contacted and basically accused of lying. Why hadn't I signed the property settlement in the case I had agreed to sign on record? (Under duress I might add.) My answer was that the so-called agreement, when I finally received it for signature, was DIFFERENT than what I had been led to believe I was agreeing to. See, I
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 10:17 PM
Labels: ANALYSIS, APPEALS, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, COURT RULES, DENISE RICHARDS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FAMILY LAW
FACILITATOR, JULIE SETZER, LOLLIE ROBERTS, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PRO PERS, WHISTLEBLOWERS
Location: Family Court Sacramento - Sacramento County Superior Court: Family Relations Courthouse - William R. Ridgeway
Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA
Preferential treatment provided to judge pro tem attorneys by family court judges, administrators, and employees. Click here.
Unfair competition and monopolistic practices by family court judges and attorneys who also hold theOffice of Temporary Judge which may violate state unfair competition laws. Click here.
Judges cherry-picking state law and court rules to rewrite established law to reach a predetermined result to benefit judge pro tem attorneys. Click here.
The waste of scarce court resources and taxpayer funds caused by unnecessary appeals and other court proceedings. Click here and here.
Allowing judges with a documented history of misconduct and mistreatment of unrepresented litigants to remain in family court. Click here.
Concealing from the public but disclosing to the family law bar the demotion of problem judges. Click here.
Failing to enforce the Code of Judicial Ethics provisions applicable to temporary judges. Click here.
Allowing court clerks to commit perjury without apparent consequences. Click here.
For additional coverage of the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below.
Recommend this on Google
(9)
FERRIS CASE (8)
FLEC (28)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
JAMES M. MIZE (12) JEFFREY POSNER (6)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49) JUDGES (10)
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JULIE SETZER (7) LAURIE M. EARL (10)
LAW SCHOOL (5) LAWYERS (7)
LOLLIE ROBERTS (5)
MATTHEW
HERNANDEZ (7) MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
NEWS (24) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (26)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
OPINION (12)
PAULA
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) JUDICIAL COUNCIL (3)
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)MEDIA (1) MICHAEL T. GARCIA
(1) MIKE NEWDOW (2) 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)
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
06 February 2013
Sacramento County Superior Court Misconduct: Family Court Appeals Unit Unlawfully Refusing Appeals by Indigent, Pro Per Litigants
Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals
A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 3
Sacramento County Family Court clerks are unlawfully refusing to file appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged family court litigants, according to a family court whistleblower. The policy constitutes an unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings under California Rules of Court rule 8.23. The rejection occurs when a pro per party attempts to file a notice of appeal for child custody, support and other immediately appealable orders more than 60-days after order after hearing paperwork is filed. By law, the time frame to take an appeal from the orders is 180-days.The longer time frame applies because in family court cases, the court clerk must give the parties notice of entry of judgment using the Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form. As policy, Sacramento Family Court does not issue the FL-190 form for appealable orders from motion and OSC hearings. When the form is not issued, the appeal time frame is 180-days. When the form is issued, the appeal time frame is 60-days. In Sacramento Family Court, all appealable motion and OSC orders are appealable for 180-days, yet court clerks are illegally rejecting the appeals after 60-days.
To continue reading Part 3 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.
Family Court Appeals Unit Illegally Rejecting Appeals By Unrepresented, Financially Disadvantaged Litigants
This actual notice of appeal was filed by an unrepresented, indigent family court litigant and then unlawfully unfiled by a family court clerk. The clerk's conduct violates state law and constitutes unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings. Click here to view the
full image.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
1 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
As Sacramento Family Court News documented in parts one and two of our Color of Law series, court administrators - including Supervising Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts - have directed subordinate employees to ignore state law requiring the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form be filed and served for all appealable orders issued at motion and OSC hearings. Click here to read part one and here to read part two. The FL-190 form notifies the parties of appeal rights and contains an important clerk's certificate of mailing which determines the time frame for an appeal, according to state law, including a 2007 California Supreme Court decision.
When the FL-190 form is correctly issued, the 60-day appeal time frame applies and begins to run when the clerk's certificate of mailing is completed and the form is served by the court on all parties. When the form is not issued, the appeal time frame is 180-days. Sacramento Family Court clerks both do not issue the FL-190 form, and still apply the shorter 60-day notice of appeal filing window using the filing date of order after hearing paperwork filed by attorneys. Court records leaked by a whistleblower include a letter from a court clerk "unfiling" a valid notice of appeal. In the letter, under penalty of perjury the clerk misstates the law, and notifies the unrepresented party that the previously filed appeal has been "unfiled." Attached to the letter is the litigants original filed notice of appeal with a red "X" scrawled over the original filing stamp, along with the notation "unfiled" and "SH," the initials of the clerk. SFCN has verified the authenticity of the documents by inspecting the original court file. The documents leaked to SFCN are identical to those in the file. Click here to view the original filed, and then unfiled notice of appeal. Click here to view the letter from the court clerk.
Unrepresented Sacramento Family Court litigants report that the second floor "appeals unit" at the Family Relations Courthouse is an unfriendly place. Sacramento Family Court News audits of several pro per appeals reveal that appeals unit employees routinely do not
follow state laws governing appeals.
LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
MIKE NEWDOW (2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE
LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION
To justify the 60-day time frame used to reject the appeal, the letter from the court clerk refers to "a Judgment (sic)...filed and signed on May 18, 2012," and that the litigant was "noticed via mail with said judgment on May 25, 2012." The original court file from the case shows that the May 18 "judgment" referred to by the clerk was not a judgment. The May 18 document is a "findings and order after hearing" filed by the opposing attorney. Click here to view the complete May 18 document. The May 25 notice referred to by the clerk is a proof of service filed by the opposing attorney for the findings and order after hearing document.
The clerks rejection of the appeal is based on applying a 60-day appeal window using the May 25 date, making July 25, 2012 the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed on August 8, 2012, beyond the incorrect date used by the clerk, but well within the 180-day lawful time frame. The 60-day time frame is only applicable when an FL-190 is filed and served by the court clerk. The court file does not contain an FL-190. A findings and order after hearing filed and served by an opposing attorney is not a substitute for an FL-190, and does not result in a 60-day appeal time frame, according to state law and the family law references used by family court judges and attorneys, including California Practice Guide: Family Law, published by The Rutter Group. Click here to view the legal authority that applies to the connection between the FL-190 and the 180-day time frame. And in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the state Supreme Court pointed out that the title of the FL-190 and the clerk's certificate of mailing at the bottom of the form are specifically designed to eliminate disputes about the time frame for an appeal in family law cases. The alleged motive of the clerk's letter is to deceive a self-represented litigant with limited knowledge of family law, according to the whistleblower.
"The letter from the clerk is designed to confuse the unrepresented party, and make them believe the appeal was untimely," the whistleblower explained. "A typical pro per unfamiliar with the law would fall for this deception. But it is exactly that - a deception - and a deception that is demonstrably false, and illegal under [California Rules of Court] rule 8.23. It is an unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings."
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento also confirms that any appealable order is considered a
Shortly after filing a notice of appeal, this indigent, unrepresented family court litigant received this letter from Deputy Clerk Stephanie Hinman "unfiling" the appeal. Hinman misstated the law, and signed the letter under penalty of perjury. Click here to view the full letter.
"A Deception That Is Demonstrably False"
The clerk's certificate of mailing is a critical part of the mandatory FL-190 form because it determines the time fame within which a family case appeal can be taken, according to the California Supreme Court in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co.
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
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
judgment, and therefore requires filing and service of the FL-190 form. Without the form, the 180-day appeal time frame applies. The information is provided in a Self-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented litigants published by the appellate court. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual includes:
"Note that the same rules about an appeal from a judgment apply to an appeal from an appealable order, as the rules of court dealing with appeals define 'judgment' as including an order that may be appealed. (CRC 8.10(4).)" Click here to view this excerpt from the Self-Help Manual.
Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers have long asserted, and documented, that family court judges and employees appear to be immune from oversight and accountability for misconduct. More than five months after the egregious error by Deputy Clerk Stephanie Hinman in rejecting a valid notice of appeal, the error remains uncorrected and, it is self-evident, no discipline has taken place. The refusal to file a lawful appeal constitutes unlawful interference with appellate court proceedings - a violation of California Rules of Court rule 8.23. "Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty" by a clerk is punishable as contempt under Code of Civil Procedure §1209(a)(3). Under Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Ethics, a judge's administrative responsibilities include ensuring staff and court personnel under the judge's direction and control observe "appropriate standards of conduct."
As of 2011, the failure by Judicial Branch employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Employee conduct that is economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct, incompetency or inefficiency is also covered by the act. The act is enforced by the California State Auditor. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. At the local level, Sacramento County Superior Court policies and administrative procedures provide a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's discipline policy.
"It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the policy introduction.
Yet from the local court to the state auditor, all of these rules, laws and policies have been ignored and gone unenforced.
Depriving unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights may expose court employees, supervisors, and taxpayers to financial liability in a civil lawsuit. Federal criminal statutes may also apply. Federal criminal law prohibits conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. Sacramento Family Court receives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who fail to provide honest services may be subject to criminal prosecution under federal law. The constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and access to the courts apply to everyone, irrespective of wealth.
The notice of appeal filed by the pro per specifically notified the Sacramento Family Court appeals unit clerk that no entry of judgment was filed for the orders being appealed. Under state law, the time frame for the appeal was 180 days. Click here to view the complete
notice.
Oversight and Accountability
Taxpayer Liability Exposure and Criminal Laws
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
1 3 8 8 1 9
136
PR Brown
Follow
Google+ Badge
3 comments
Top comments
Thomas R 1 year ago - Shared publicly
Can anyone explain to me how the court clerk can set a hearing date that that makes it completely impossible to abide by California civil code of procedure 1005 where it makes
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 11:00 PM
Labels: ANALYSIS, APPEALS, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, COURT RULES, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO,
FERRIS CASE, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PRO PERS, S. HINMAN, WHISTLEBLOWERS
Location: County of Sacramento: Superior Court-William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road,
Sacramento, CA 95826, USA
In Part 4 of our report Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals, a court clerk files for a judge pro tem attorney a faux notice of entry of judgment designed to unlawfully invoke a 60-day appeal time frame.
Click here to read all published articles in the Color of Law series.
Sacramento Family Court News acknowledges the confidential source who provided us with the information and documentation for this article. We
appreciate the tip. To send us your anonymous tip by email, use our Contact Page. All communications are protected by the reporter's privilege and
the California Shield Law. For further details about our confidentiality policy, see our About Page and our Terms & Conditions Page.
Related posts:
Click here for articles about family court employee misconduct.
Click here for reporting on judicial misconduct.
Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator.
Click here for family court whistleblower articles.
Click here for family court watchdog coverage.
If you found this article useful or informative please share it on Facebook, Twitter or recommend it on Google+ and other social networking sites.
For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below.
+1 Recommend this on Google
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)
APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (21)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (21) 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 (9)
DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)
AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1)
ADMINISTRATORS (4)
AL SALMEN (1)AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)
ANDY FURILLO (2) AOC (1)
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)
ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)
BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI (1) CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK (1) CALIFORNIA LAWYER (1)CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)
CAMILLE HEMMER (3)CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)
CHILD SUPPORT (3)
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)
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
20 February 2013
Sacramento Divorce Attorney Paula Salinger Fraud on the Court Alleged: SCBA Family Law Section Officer and Judge Pro Tem Files Fake Notices with Court
Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per AppealsA Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 4.
Sacramento Family Court News has obtained court records indicating that family court clerks allow judge pro tem attorneys to file counterfeit "Notice of Entry" paperwork in place of the Notice of Entry of Judgment that court clerks are by law required to file and serve on all parties. The sham notice conceals a critical appeal rights notification from indigent, unrepresented family court litigants, and at the same time ostensibly constricts the time frame for filing an appeal from 180-days to just 60-days, according to a family court whistleblower. The fake form also omits an important clerk's certificate of mailing, which the California Supreme Court has said is designed to avoid ambiguity in appeal time frames.
"This is a component of the collaboration between court administrators, judges and judge pro tem attorneys to eliminate pro per appeals," the source said. "The fake 'Notice of Entry' contains none of the mandatory notifications about appeal rights, and appeals unit clerks use the notice to unlawfully reject appeals after 60-days - as if it were the same as the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form," explained the whistleblower, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure. Instead of rejecting for filing the self-serving, homemade form, court clerks file it and then appeal unit clerks use it to impose an illegal, condensed appeal time frame on unwary pro pers, according to the source.
Family Court Clerks Let Judge Pro Tem Attorneys File Counterfeit Entry of Judgment Paperwork, Whistleblower Charges
Paula Salinger, a family law attorney who also holds the Office of Temporary Judge, uses this fake "Notice of Entry" document to reduce the chance that an unrepresented opposing party will be able to take an appeal, claims a family court whistleblower. Click here to read
the complete notice.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
3 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
To continue reading Part 4 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.
As Sacramento Family Court News reported in Part 1 and Part 2 of our Color of Law series, court administrators, including Supervising Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts have directed court clerks to ignore state law requiring court staff to file and serve the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment for all appealable orders issued at motion and OSC hearings. Roberts has instructed her staff to notify unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants that the FL-190 is not required for appealable orders issued at motion and OSC hearings. Click here to view the inaccurate information about the FL-190 requirement that Office of the Family Law Facilitator staff dispense to unrepresented litigants. Click here to read all of Part 1 of the Color of Law series and click here for Part 2.
Family court supervisors also have directed court employees to permit judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" as a substitute for the FL-190, according to the source. SFCN obtained three filed examples of the fake notice.
The three samples were filed by attorney and temporary judge Paula Salinger. Salinger also acts as secretary on the Family Law Executive Committee of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section. Click here to view the notices, which were filed in 2011 and 2012. As SFCN reported, in 2011 Salinger was granted a waiver by then-Presiding Judge Steve White of the minimum State Bar membership requirement for temporary judges. The attorney is a partner at Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger Inc., a prominent family law firm where all four attorneys also hold the Office of Temporary Judge. One of the deceptive forms was signed on Salinger's behalf by firm partner and Judge Pro Tem Jeffrey J. Posner. From 2006-2009, Posner held each officer post on the Family Law Executive Committee.
Judge pro tem attorneys use the fictitious notice of entry against self-represented litigants who have little knowledge of family law and procedure, according to the whistleblower. "The attorneys use the fake notice in cases where the opposing party doesn't have a lawyer and doesn't know any better. If a pro per does somehow figure out that they can appeal an order
from a motion or OSC hearing, and then tries to file a notice of appeal, the appeals unit will use the spurious Notice of Entry to claim the appeal is untimely after 60-days," the source explained. "Without the filing and service of the mandatory FL-190 Judicial Council form by a court clerk, the appeal time frame is, by law, 180-days. The pseudo notice isn't used by judge pro tem attorneys in cases where both sides have a lawyer because most attorneys know there is no such thing as a quote Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing, unquote," the whistleblower said.
"Court clerks also know the fake notices are fake, and that they should not even be filing them. But they do file them because they are following orders. It also should be troubling that court filings by pro pers are routinely rejected by filing clerks because of minor technicalities, yet here you have a judge pro tem filing completely sham paperwork without any problem. It's all part of the plan by court administrators, full-time judges, and temporary judges to eliminate appeals by the indigent and unrepresented," the source added.
SFCN has confirmed the allegation as substantially accurate. There is no reference to a "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" in multiple family and civil law references searched by SFCN. The leading family law treatise written by and for judges and attorneys, California Practice Guide: Family Law, provides detailed instructions for order after hearing procedure and there is no reference to the notice filed by Salinger.
To prevent indigent, unrepresented family court litigants from getting this notice regarding appeal rights, Sacramento Family Court clerks allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a sham "Notice of Entry" form instead of the FL-190 form required under state law, according to a
court whistleblower.
Paula Salinger is a family law attorney, temporary judge,and secretary of the Sacramento Bar Association
Family Law Executive Committee.
LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
MIKE NEWDOW (2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE
LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION
In a 2007 decision, Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the California Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to family law proceedings.
"The clerk is required to give notice only in designated family law matters (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5, subd. (a); rule 5.134)...In those family law proceedings in which the clerk must always give notice, rule 5.134 requires the clerk to use a Judicial Council form (FL-190) specifically drafted to ensure compliance with rule 8.104(a)(1). Obviously, problems are more likely to occur when no approved form of notice is available...The Judicial Council form (FL-190) that clerks must use in family law proceedings...avoids ambiguity...by bearing the title, "Notice of Entry of Judgement," and by including at the bottom of its single page a form for the clerk's certificate of mailing." Click here to view Alan v. American Honda Motor Co.
The fictitious form filed by family court clerks for temporary judge attorneys does not contain a clerk's certificate of mailing, and is served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk - also raising ethical issues. Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form that omits appeal rights and other important notifications required by law raises moral turpitude and other ethical implications against attorneys who engage in the deception.
In a related situation, SFCN recently documented in Part 3 of the Color of Law series that an appeals unit clerk unlawfully rejected the appeal of an indigent, unrepresented litigant. Falsely claiming under penalty of perjury that the filing and service by the opposing attorney of a Findings and Order After Hearing form constituted a "judgment" and triggered a 60-day appeal time frame, the clerk rejected the appeal as untimely. Click here to read Part 3.
As we reported previously, filing and service of the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment is required by California Rules of Court rule 5.134. Sacramento Superior Court internal policies and administrative procedures specify a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's employee discipline policy.
"It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the policy
introduction.
California Supreme Court Confirms Judge Pro Tem Notice Counterfeit
The deceptive, homemade "Notice of Entry" form filed by family law attorney, judge pro tem, and Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section officer Paula Salinger omits this Clerk's Certificate of Mailing component of the mandatory FL-190 form.
Family Court Oversight and Accountability
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
California Courts Homepage
California Courts YouTube Page
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial Performance
Sacramento County Family Court
3rd District Court of Appeal
State Bar of California
State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar Association
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH
ABA Family Law Blawg Directory
California Coalition for Families and Children
California Protective Parents Association
Center for Judicial Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
In addition, as of 2011, the failure by government employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance,
bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. In addition, court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. The lack of oversight and accountability indicates that the deceptive, unlawful court filings are condoned by court administrators. According to a criminal law attorney, the elements of a violation of Penal Code § 182 - conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice or the due administration of the laws - specify that an agreement or conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of those accused of the crime. Other criminal statutes that may apply include Penal Code § 470(c), altering, corrupting or falsifying a legal document, and Penal Code § 470(d), altering a document with the intent to cause damage to a legal, financial or property right. The facts and circumstances surrounding the fake notice of entry filings imply an intent to effectively alter the valid FL-190 form and replace it with a corrupt or altered document intended to impede the lawful appeal rights of the opposing party.
Depriving unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights also may expose court employees, supervisors, and taxpayers to financial liability in a civil lawsuit. Federal criminal statutes may also apply. Federal criminal law prohibits conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. Sacramento Family Court receives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who collude with private sector lawyers and fail to provide honest services to the public may be subject to criminal prosecution under federal law. To a view a federal criminal indictment for honest services fraud involving collusion between government and court employees and private sector attorneys click here. In Part 5 of our Color of Law report: the unlawful fee waiver gauntlet used by court clerks and judges to frustrate appeals by indigent, unrepresented family court parties.
Click here to read all articles in the Color of Law series.
Related posts:
Click here for articles about family court employee misconduct.
Click here for reporting on judicial misconduct.
Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator.
Click here for family court whistleblower articles.
Click here for family court watchdog coverage.
Click here for articles about judge pro tem attorney Paula D. Salinger.
Click here for coverage of Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger, Inc.
If you found this article useful or informative please share it on Facebook, Twitter or recommend it on Google+ and other social networking sites.If you have additional information about this subject, or any news tip about Sacramento Family Court send us an email or use our Contact Page.
The Supreme Court of California confirms that court clerks mustserve and file the FL-190 form in applicable proceedings.
Federal Civil and Criminal Liability
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 3 8 8 1 9
136
PR Brown
Follow
Google+ Badge
Newer Post Older PostHome
1 comment
Top comments
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Watchdog & Whistleblower News via Google+ 8 months ago (edited) - Shared publicly
SCBA Family Law Section attorney and judge pro tem Paula Salinger files counterfeit "notice of entry" paperwork with court.
Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice
+2 ·
1 Reply
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 10:20 PM
Labels: ANALYSIS, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FLEC, JEFFREY POSNER, JUDGE PRO TEM, JULIE SETZER,
LOLLIE ROBERTS, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PAULA SALINGER, PRO PERS, WHISTLEBLOWERS, WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and
SALINGER
Location: County of Sacramento Superior Court - FRC -William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road,
Sacramento, CA 95826, USA
For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click on the corresponding Labels below.
+3 Recommend this on Google 3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)
APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (21)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (21) 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 (9)
DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)
AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1)
ADMINISTRATORS (4)
AL SALMEN (1)AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)
ANDY FURILLO (2) AOC (1)
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)
ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)
BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI (1) CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK (1) CALIFORNIA LAWYER (1)CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)
CAMILLE HEMMER (3)CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)
CHILD SUPPORT (3)
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
Crimes Catalog: Pro Per Civil Rights Violations - Vance Raye Misprision of Felony 3rd District Court
Crimes Catalog: Obstruction of Justice-Vance Raye Misprision of Felony Third District Court of Appea
Vance raye misprision of felony 3rd district court of appeal sacramento superior court temporary jud
Misprison of felony vance w raye third district court of appeal rico racketeering honest services fr