BREAKING: 3rd District Court Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Raye Forced Into Retirement After Commission on Judicial Performance Investigation

Read our comprehensive report on incompetence and corruption at the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento.  View a list of news reports about the new Vance Raye controversy. 

JUSTICE ARTHUR SCOTLAND: Court of Appeal Judges Use Highway Patrol as Personal Uber Security Service

Controversial 3rd District Court of Appeal Justice Arthur Scotland makes a cameo at 2:15 of this news report. Read our special report on Scotland and the the ethically-challenged Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. 

California Supreme Court Is Asked to Move Cases Out of 3rd District Court of Appeal Due to Excessive Appeal Delays

We've been reporting on incompetence and corruption at the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento for several years. Attorney Jon Eisenberg has noticed the problems too.  

2015 FLASHBACK: HIGHWAY PATROL GIVES JUDGE MATTHEW GARY PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN DEATH INVESTIGATION, CHARGE VICTIM ADVOCATES

Do judges really get preferential treatment from the police?

View the full catalog of Judge Matthew Gary posts at Sacramento Family Court Report.

Read our Special Report: Sacramento County Family Court Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT GUARDIANSHIP-CONSERVATORSHIP CONTROVERSY: NETFLIX DOCUSERIES DIRTY MONEY - GUARDIANS INC

Read our Special Report: Sacramento County Family Court Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers.

WHISTLEBLOWER COURT OF APPEAL ATTORNEY CONFIRMS INSTITUTIONALIZED SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS IN APPELLATE COURTS IN BOTH CALIFORNIA ... AND THE DEEP SOUTH

"During my tenure as a research attorney at the Court of Appeal, I found pro se civil appeals often took two to three times longer to work up than if they had been presentedby competent counsel. In order to give these litigants a fair shake, I was forced to tease out of the jumble of disconnected facts and purported statements of law a coherent synopsis of what the litigant was really trying to say - and then do the exhaustive research necessary to resolve the issue.

"Many of my colleagues at the court were not so charitable. They simply washed their hands of the whole mess by citing the famous maxim that the failure to tender a coherent legal argument with appropriate citation to authority constitutes a forfeiture of the claim. I find such an approach morally problematic, for it destroys both the meritorious and the unmeritorious appeal with equal force, and tends to give the wealthy litigant who can afford counsel an unfair advantage over his or her poorer counterpart."

Many people are not aware that the court of appeal makes money off appeals:

In Sacramento, Third District Court of Appeal judges are hostile to pro per appeals, according to a whistleblower. If you don't have a lawyer, you are not welcome in the appellate court, court watchdogs allege.

This case originated in Louisiana's Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Court watchdogs allege that virtually the same pro per and socioeconomic bias associated with courts in the Deep South also occurs in California. 

Read our Special Report: Sacramento County Family Court Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers.

JUDGE MATTHEW GARY ROLE IN CYCLIST DEATH STILL UNRESOLVED AFTER FOUR YEARS - DID HIGHWAY PATROL FACILITATE COVER UP FOR JUDGE?

Sacramento Bee: Family, witness question CHP errors in initial report on fatal bicycle crash.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article46790980.html#storylink=cpy

Read our Special Report: Sacramento County Family Court Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers.

JUDGE MATTHEW GARY REPORTEDLY IN SIGHTS OF STATE JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT AGENCY FOR ILLEGAL JAILING OF FAMILY COURT PARENTS

UPDATE MAY 14, 2020: Judge Matthew Gary Prosecuted and Convicted by Commission on Judicial Performance.

Sacramento County Superior Court watchdogs assert that Judge Matthew Gary is under investigation by the Commission on Judicial Performance and California State Auditor for ordering the illegal imprisonment of self-represented court users. In a similar case, Contra Costa County Judge Bruce Mills  recently was charged with ethics violations by the CJP. Gary reportedly has delayed his own day of reckoning with help from 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Raye, who has intervened to cover for Gary in the appellate court. 

• Disabled, self-represented parent jailed, financially ruined, and made homeless by Judge Matthew Gary.
• Whistleblower leaked courtroom security video of illegal in-court arrest ordered by Judge Matthew Gary. 
• Judge Matthew Gary articles catalog.

Read our Special Report: Sacramento County Family Court Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers.

JUSTICE ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND CONFESSES TO PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT LICENSE, MORAL TURPITUDE ACTS: 3RD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL HISTORY

Justice Arthur G. Scotland with Justice George Nicholson from the controversial 3rd District Court of Appeal: Scotland admits to acts of moral turpitude, including serial unauthorized practice of law violations and disregard of the law as an employee of the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office.

Retired from the 3rd District Court of Appeal, Scotland now is Of Counsel at Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP Sacramento office. For more information, visit the document embedded with this post.

Read our Special Report: Sacramento County Family Court Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers. 

Justice Vance Raye & 3rd District Appellate Court Hostility to Free Speech Exposed, Again, in Reversal by California Supreme Court

Presiding Justice Vance Raye and the judges of the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento have long expressed hostility to free speech and whistleblowers. Civil rights and court reform advocates refer to the court as a perpetual "dumpster fire" that routinely disregards clearly established constitutional rights.

From the California Supreme Court:

"The California Constitution states: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press." (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (a).) It also guarantees the rights to "petition government for redress of grievances" and to "assemble freely to consult for the common good." (Id., art. I, § 3, subd. (a).) (3)...

...We do not agree with the Court of Appeal that the Moscone Act and section 1138.1, which are components of a state statutory system for regulating labor relations, and which are modeled on federal law, run afoul of the federal constitutional prohibition on content discrimination in speech regulations. On this basis, we reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings."

Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 8. 

• Read our special report about Third District Court of Appeal controversy. 

Read our Special Report: Sacramento County Family Court Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers.

Justice Arthur Scotland: Federal Crimes Alleged by Sacramento Superior Court Whistleblowers - 18-page Catalog

Arthur Scotland criminal allegations catalog at issuu.

• Read more about controversial 3rd District Court of Appeal Justice Arthur G. Scotland. 
• Read more about the controversial 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento.

Read our Special Report: Sacramento County Family Court Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers.

3rd District Appellate Justice Cole Blease Targeted by Court Watchdogs for Role in Cover Up of Judge Matthew Gary Misconduct

The Family Court Accountability Coalition released this meme theme photo

of 3rd District Court of Appeal Justice Coleman Blease. The whistleblower

group contends that Blease effectively acts as an appellate court mole for, 

and helps cover up misconduct by trial court judges.

Sacramento Superior Court watchdogs have initiated a campaign to publicize what they allege is cronyism between judges who work at the Third District Court of Appeal and Sacramento Superior Court.

The group has catalogued personal, social, professional, and political connections between the two groups that they assert result in the appellate court effectively doctoring appeals to conceal judicial misconduct by trial court judges.

In March, 3rd District Justice Cole Blease dismissed an appeal that, among other allegations, documented criminal conduct by controversial Judge Matthew Gary. Court records show that Gary may have acted as an accessory after-the-fact to a criminal child abduction by the client of a local divorce attorney with ties to the controversial family court temporary judge program. The details are outlined in briefs from the case, which are catalogued and viewable at the Scribd document publishing website. 

Read our Special Report: Sacramento County Family Court Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers.

Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Career Skills I Learned Dealing Blackjack - SFCN Sunday Funnies - RoadDog Satire

Former Sacramento County & 3rd District Judge Cantil-Sakauye Shares Life Lessons Learned Dealing Blackjack 

Sunday Satire by RoadDog

Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye learned a lot about life, and drunks, as a blackjack dealer.

RoadDog's Not Exactly Famous Quotes Series

"I learned how to pick a jury, how to read body language, what under the influence means and what drunk means." California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. 

From NBC News4 Los Angeles: 

"The chief justice said she would not take an appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court if one was offered and reflected on her job as a black jack dealer at a Lake Tahoe casino when she was a law student. 

'I learned how to pick a jury, how to read body language, what under the influence means, and what drunk means,' she said." 

For more profound wisdom and life skills from the chief justice, including how to write the second worst Supreme Court opinion of the year, and help cover up a racketeering syndicate run by your homies, visit our special Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye page.   

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

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

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

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.

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

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 new system was conceived and implemented by judges alone after they made a county-paid "statewide tour" of family law courts. 

The judge omitted from the story the fact that the trip was initiated by the family law bar, and included two private-sector family law attorneys who took the county-paid tour with McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway. As the Daily Journal reported: 

"Around 1990, McBrien and a few other Sacramento judges went on a statewide tour of family law courts. At the time there were continual postponements of trials.

 'This is how we came up with the system today,' McBrien said. 'It was probably the best trip Sacramento County ever paid for.'

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

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

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

Judge Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Orders Appealed in Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley Case - Temporary Judge Preferential Treatment Alleged

Appeal Filed of Unprecedented Orders Issued by Judge Jaime Roman for Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley

Tuesday Document Dump

An appeal of orders issued without a court hearing by Judge Jaime Roman for Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorney and family court judge pro tem Charlotte Keeley was filed on Jan. 10. The appeal will cost the parties substantial sums and taxpayers between $8,500 and $25,500, according to recent appellate court decisions. Court watchdogs assert the case is an explicit example of the overt cronyism between full-time judges and temporary judges of the same court. Click here for the complete Sacramento Family Court News coverage of the case.     
   

Third District Court of Appeal Reaffirms Parent-Child Relationship as Fundamental, Constitutional Right

3rd District Ruling Confirms Illegality of Unjustified "No-Contact" Child Custody Orders

News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed

In a ruling issued yesterday, the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento confirmed the illegality of "no-contact" child custody orders issued routinely by Sacramento Family Court judges. As Sacramento Family Court News has reported, court records leaked by family court whistleblowers show that judges often effectively terminate the parental rights of unrepresented, indigent or financially disadvantaged litigants to punish a parent for asserting statutory or constitutional rights in court, or based on personality clashes between judges and pro per litigants. 

Court orders reviewed by SFCN which prohibit a parent from having any contact with their own children - a de facto termination of parental rights - reveal that the rulings are issued without any consideration of the best interests of the child, the only legal justification for such an order. The orders often offer no justification whatsoever. Equally troublesome, the unlawful rulings are almost always issued in cases where the winning parent is represented by a Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section divorce attorney who also serves as a temporary judge in the same court, or works at a law firm with a judge pro tem. Yesterday's opinion by the court of appeal, Adoption of HR, reaffirms that the parent-child relationship is a fundamental constitutional right not subject to rash "no-contact" orders which traumatize both parent and child. Click here to view the full 3rd District opinion. The decision includes this section on the parent-child relationship:       

"[E]stablishment of the parent-child relationship is the most fundamental right a child possesses to be equated in importance with personal liberty and the most basic of constitutional rights. [Citation.] Likewise, parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the custody, care, management and companionship of their children. [Citations.] Given the supremacy of these familial rights—of the child and of the parent—a decision to terminate parental rights is one of the gravest a court can make. Thus it is only under specified circumstances, and upon specific findings that include the interests of the child, that a court has authority to terminate parental rights. (Kristine M. v. David P. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 783, 791 [37 Cal.Rptr.3d 748].) 

Parenting is a fundamental right, and accordingly, is disturbed only in extreme cases of persons acting in a fashion incompatible with parenthood. (In re Carmaleta B. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 482, 489 [146 Cal.Rptr. 623, 579 P.2d 514].)We have previously recognized that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his children is a compelling one, ranked among the most basic of civil rights [citations] .... [Citations.] A parent's interest in maintaining a parent-child relationship is an extremely important interest [citation], and termination of that right by the state must be viewed as a drastic remedy `to be applied only in extreme cases [citation]. (Guardianship of Christian G. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 581, 597-598 [124 Cal.Rptr.3d 642].)" Internal quotes omitted. 

For additional reporting about the people and issues in this article, click the corresponding labels below: 

Sacramento Superior Court Controversy: Hon. Matthew J. Gary Family Court Ruling Overturned By Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento

Sacramento Family Court Judge Conducts Improper Investigation, Forensic Analysis on Allegedly Drunken Signature - Ruling Gets Reversed 

Judge Matthew Gary's decision in the Seaton case was overturned on appeal.

Controversial Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Matthew Gary has suffered the full reversal of an order he issued in September, 2009. Gary's error cost taxpayers between $8,500 and $25,500, the current cost to the state to process an appeal, according to recent appellate court decisions. The case, in which the decision was published, is In re the Marriage of Seaton.  

The black eye comes two and a half years after the judge botched a criminal case requiring the Third District Court of Appeal to reverse the conviction of Daniel Ray Maier. The Maier decision, People v. Maier, was unpublished, but can be viewed at Google Scholar.

The 3rd District decision in Seaton indicates that Gary sought to harshly punish Patricia Seaton for what the judge perceived to be credibility, if not morality issues. The reviewing court noted that Gary's credibility determinations were unrelated to the facts and law relevant to deciding the legal issues in the case. Gary also assumed the role of expert witness and advocate in a unilateral determination that signatures on a 1988 marriage license were not made by a person who was drunk.    

The order issued by Gary nullified the 17-year marriage of Patricia and Jeffrey Seaton on the ground that Patricia was married to another man at the time of her marriage to Jeffrey. Gary also denied Patricia's claim that she was a de facto, or putative spouse. The rulings stripped Patricia of all property, support, attorney fees/costs and other rights associated with a marriage or domestic partnership. 

Gary's order awarded Jeffrey all assets and property that, had the marriage been valid, would have been community property. According to the judge, the lengthy marriage was void - as if it never happened.

The 3rd District disagrees: To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

Justice Arthur G. Scotland Defends Co-Worker and Friend Judge Peter J. McBrien at Commission on Judicial Performance

3rd District Justice Arthur G. Scotland Helps Former Co-Worker Peter McBrien Beat CJP Rap and Remain on Bench

UPDATE: For updates to this article, visit our special 3rd District Court of Appeal page. Click here. 

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, which was authored by Associate Justices M. Kathleen Butz, Cole Blease and Rick Sims. None of the three had ever worked as a judge in Sacramento County. 

The Carlsson case subjected controversial Sacramento County Family Court Judge Peter J. 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 - in Ancil Hoffman Park in Carmichael, a suburb of Sacramento.  

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. McBrien's 2009 sworn testimony before the CJP recounting his criminal case starkly contradicted Tourte's report. 

To continue reading, click Read more >> below: 

Tani G. Cantil Sakauye Spreads Cronyitis Infection From 3rd District to California Supreme Court - SFCN Sunday Funnies

Tani Cantil-Sakauye Schleps Code of Silence Policy from Third District to Supreme Court

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye - formerly known as a 3rd District Court of Appeal justice and Sacramento County Superior Court judge - is the new chief justice of the Supreme Court of California. At the appellate court, the former prosecutor showed no mercy for the 70 percent of indigent family court litigants without attorneys who attempted appeals from Sacramento Family Court. 

Sunday Satire by RoadDog

Thanks Arnold: On Monday a new chief justice of the California Supreme Court was sworn in. Compliments of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the new CJ is the ethically-challenged Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, a former Sacramento County Family Court judge. 

Tani has been knee-deep in the documented Sacramento Family Court corruption that began in the early 1990's, and has run unchecked ever since. After her elevation to the Third District Court of Appeal in 2005, she partnered with other Sacramento County Superior Court and Deukmejian administration alumni - including Art Scotland and George Nicholson - to keep a lid on the continuing scandals generated by her former coworkers across town. 

Tani, Art and George all come from a law enforcement background and culture, and rode to the bench exploiting their faux tough-on-crime credentials. In published, and especially unpublished 3rd District decisions, the trio have shown they still swear allegiance to the cop Blue Code of Silence. Any appeal with a claim that a Sacramento Family Court homie committed misconduct is whitewashed with two coats. 

During Cantil-Sakauye's ticket-punching tour at the 3rd, the appellate court's hostility to appeals by the 70 percent of family court litigants who can't afford lawyers was legendary. Due to the hurdles thrown up by the court, few appeals were ever decided on the merits, and no family court appeal was ever won by a financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigant who faced off against an attorney. 

Can you say rampant cronyism? Keep an eye on the special SFCN 3rd District Court of Appeal page for all the sordid details. Click here. RoadDog sez: Time to Occupy.