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.

Pro Per Parties Report Fair, Equal Treatment Continues to Evade Financially Disadvantaged Litigants Without Lawyers

 

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

Judge Matthew Gary Misconduct: Illegal Arrest and Assault of Disabled Pro Per Video Gets National Coverage - Generates Record View Count at SFCN YouTube Channel

Leaked Sacramento Superior Court Security Video Goes Viral After Blurb by National Legal News Site Above the Law  

This blurb by the national legal news website Above the Law significantly spiked the view count of the whistleblower leaked courtroom security video posted at the Sacramento Family Court News YouTube Channel. 

A whistleblower leaked courtroom security video posted on YouTube by Sacramento Family Court News has logged a record shattering 800 views in less than a week. The view count is attributed to New York-based legal news website Above the Law coverage of our Aug. 21 article, which included the embedded video. By comparison, most videos at the SFCN YouTube Channel generally take a year or more to clock 800 views. SFCN Google Analytics statistical data show that the bulk of the Above the Law referrals originated at East Coast law offices in New York, Washington D.C., Boston, and Chicago. The Washington D.C. readers also included employees at federal government agencies, according to Google. The graphic security tape records the illegal courtroom arrest and assault of disabled, self-represented litigant and family court reform activist Robert Saunders. 

Controversial Judge Matthew J. Gary, responsible for ordering the unlawful arrest, has not been disciplined or otherwise held accountable by the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state agency responsible for the oversight of California judges. 

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

Government Whistleblower Leaks Courtroom Security Video of Illegal Arrest of Disabled, Unrepresented "Pro Per" Parent

Judge Matthew Gary Abuse of Authority Alleged 

A startling courthouse security video leaked by a government whistleblower records the illegal 2009 assault and arrest of indigent, disabled pro per litigant and family court reform activist Robert Saunders. During a March 9, 2009 court hearing, Judge Matthew Gary ordered the self-represented Saunders arrested and jailed for contempt of court.

Two outside, independent judges who later reviewed the incident determined that both the contempt charge and arrest were illegal.

One of the two reviewing judges also issued an order removing Gary from the case for bias and violating state contempt law. The new video leak appears to reinforce the review findings, showing Saunders sitting passively at the courtroom counsel table until a painful "control hold" is applied to his arm by a deputy sheriff.

When Saunders reacts to the pain, a wrestling match ensues until additional deputies arrive to subdue and apply handcuffs to the illegally arrested victim. The pro per is then shuffled off to the county jail through a rear exit in the courtroom. 

Saunders is 5' 8" tall, weighs 162 pounds, relies on a cane to walk, and, at the time of the arrest, was 57-years-old, according to the police report from the incident.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye - Quotes of the Month: Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act & Public Confidence in Judicial System

Tani Cantil-Sakauye Entrusted with Legacy of Chief Justice Ronald George to Preserve Public Confidence in Courts

Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is charged with maintaining the vision of former Chief Justice Ronald George to increase the availability of legal representation for indigent litigants. Cantil-Sakauye previously was a judge of Sacramento Superior Court.

"Increasing the availability of legal representation for litigants who must currently represent themselves or face loss of their legal rights is a key priority of the Judicial Council and Chief Justice Ronald M. George. As the Chief Justice has noted, the large and growing number of self-represented litigants is one of the most challenging issues in the coming decade, imposing significant costs on the judicial system and the public by impairing the ability of the courts to efficiently process heavy caseloads, and eroding the public's confidence in our judicial system." 
AB 590 - Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act.

Four years ago today a historic vote was held in the California Senate Judiciary Committee. The final vote tally was was 3-2, allowing Assembly Bill 590 to move forward in the legislative process. AB 590 included the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, which proposed to establish a pilot program for the appointment of legal representation for unrepresented low-income parties in civil matters involving basic human needs. 

"Legal and judicial leaders increasingly recognize the need to fix a system that is not only failing to meet the needs of so many court users, and the courts themselves, but also failing to honor basic constitutional and common law principles underlying the doctrine of equal justice under the law," according to a legislative analysis of the bill. "[AB 590] builds on a 2007 budget proposal advocated by Chief Justice Ronald George and backed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger." 

Current Chief Justice Tani Catil-Sakauye was nominated to the high court by Schwarzenegger on July 22, 2010. Assembly Bill 590 was part of a still expanding, nationwide movement known as "Civil Gideon." In the landmark 1963 United States Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court decided that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to be represented by an attorney, at no charge, in state criminal cases. 

The term "Civil Gideon" refers to a growing national movement to provide legal counsel, as a matter of right and at public expense, to low-income persons in civil legal proceedings where basic human needs are at stake, such as those involving housing, and specific family court issues, such as child custody. Civil Gideon advocates cite startling statistics showing that people without lawyers who face off against attorneys in court often lose cases or rulings they should have won. 

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

Director Steven Spielberg Releases Lincoln Equal Protection of Law Clip To Sacramento Family Court News - Sunday Funnies

Steven Spielberg Approves Use of Lincoln Clip by Sacramento Family Court News

Sacramento Family Court News has been authorized by 20th Century Fox 
to use a portion of the Steven Spielberg directed film Lincoln. 

Sunday Satire by RoadDog

Sacramento Family Court News is pleased to announce that legendary director, writer and producer Steven Spielberg has authorized SFCN exclusively to use a clip from his award winning movie Lincoln. 

SFCN requested use of the segment for news and educational purposes, and to illustrate the origins of the constitutional right of equal protection of law. In the Lincoln excerpt, Congressional leader Thaddeus Stevens makes an impassioned speech for the then-controversial proposition that all men should be treated equally before the law. Stevens is portrayed by Academy Award winning actor Tommy Lee Jones. 20th Century Fox initially made a copyright claim to prohibit use of the clip, but withdrew the objection after learning of the barbaric, anything-but-equal treatment of unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants in Sacramento Family Court. 

"We are grateful to Mr. Spielberg and FOX for allowing us to use the compelling reenactment of this historically important speech," said SFCN corporate counsel Vincent Gambini. "It is repugnant that more than 150 years after Stevens' speech, we still need to be reminded of this bedrock principle of American Democracy. Sacramento Family Court judges, administrators, the Family Law Facilitator, and other court employees act as if they've never heard that all court users, rich and poor alike, are entitled to be treated equally before the law."

Click here to view the website for the movie Lincoln.
Sacramento Family Court News thanks Steven Spielberg, 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight, Dreamworks Pictures and Reliance Entertainment for permission to use the Thaddeus Stevens speech from Lincoln.

Judge Matthew Gary Abuse of Authority: Indigent, Disabled, Unrepresented Litigant Illegally Arrested and Jailed for Contempt of Court

Judge Matthew Gary Escapes Accountability for Illegal Arrest and Incarceration of Disabled Pro Per

Friday Document Dump

As this document reflects, Sacramento County Family Court Judge Matthew Gary ordered his courtroom bailiff to arrest and jail unrepresented, disabled litigant Robert Saunders for contempt of court on March 9, 2009. The incident was witnessed by Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren. Each lawyer also serves as a temporary judge in the same court. 

Two independent judges subsequently determined that both the arrest and contempt charge were unlawful, and the criminal case was dismissed. Both Sokol and Van Beveren had a legal and ethical duty to report Gary's misconduct. Courtroom clerk Christina Arcuri also had a legal and ethical duty to report the misconduct. None of the witnesses reported the misconduct or otherwise took any corrective action. At the same hearing, the judge issued an illegal "no-contact" order prohibiting Saunders from having any contact with his twin daughters. Saunders has not seen his children since. Gary has never been held accountable for his misconduct and violation of Saunders' constitutional, civil, and parental rights. Click here to read the exclusive Sacramento Family Court News report of the March 9, 2009 incident.

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: