Court Employee Misconduct: Family Court Whistleblower Emily Gallup Describes Family Court Employee Incompetence, Corruption in Divorce Corp Documentary

Divorce Corp Movie Features Interview with Family Court Whistleblower Emily Gallup and Sacramento Family Court Demonstration

In this excerpt from the documentary Divorce Corp, family court employee-turned- whistleblower Emily Gallup recounts her unsettling experience attempting to report misconduct by her Nevada County Family Court coworkers to the state Judicial Council Administrative Office of the Courts. Gallup concludes the interview by describing her realization as a court employee that the people she assumed were disgruntled litigants - angry that they had lost in court - were in fact not disgruntled litigants. Gallup ultimately concluded that their anger was justified because court users were subjected to misconduct and mistreatment by court employees, who were not, and could not be held accountable by anyone, including the state Judicial Council and AOC.

"I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that no one is holding them accountable for their actions. They've done a lot of damage to this community," Gallup said about her coworkers in the family court system. "At the time I thought 'well, yeah, half the people who've been through here don't like us because they didn't get what they wanted.' I realize now, no, that's not the problem. The problem is [court employees] were disrespecting people and they knew it." 

A protest demonstration at Sacramento Family Court is shown at the end of the clip. In 2012, a Sacramento County Superior Court jury awarded Gallup $313,206 in her lawsuit against Nevada County Superior Court and court employees for civil rights violations, whistleblower retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and other grounds. To view the jury special verdict form at the Sacramento Family Court News Scribd page, click here. The initial complaint filed in the lawsuit is below. For more information about Divorce Corp, including how to order the documentary on DVD or by download at the iTunes store, click here. 

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

Emily Gallup Family Court Whistleblower Lawsuit Against Nevada County Superior Court and Court Employees -... by Sacramento Family Court News

Sacramento County Superior Court Employee Discipline Policies and Administrative Procedures Posted by Sacramento Family Court News

Internal Court Records Reveal Employee Discipline Policies Not Being Enforced

Sacramento Family Court News has obtained the internal employee discipline policies and administrative procedures for Sacramento County Superior Court. Click here to view the complete document.

Sacramento Family Court watchdogs and whistleblowers have for months charged that court administrators do not follow their own employee discipline policies and that accountability for employee misconduct is nonexistent. Discipline policies ensure that taxpayers receive the court services they pay for, and help maintain public trust in the court system. To maintain that trust, employees ostensibly are held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations, according to the court's own written policy. 

Court reform advocates have cataloged an array of employee misconduct, including clerks who file counterfeit paperwork for attorneys who are temporary judges and members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, clerks who illegally reject appeals filed by financially disadvantaged litigants without lawyers, and systemic state law violations by family court administrators and the family law facilitator office. Click here for our investigative reports. Instead of acknowledging and transparently addressing the misconduct, court oversight officials - including Court Executive Officer Christina Volkers - have adopted a code of silence and refuse to notify the public what corrective measures, if any, have been taken. 

Sacramento Family Court News has obtained and posted online the internal employee discipline policies and administrative procedures of the court. Click here to view the complete document. The continuing, institutionalized court problems documented by watchdogs and whistleblowers and reported by SFCN indicate that the discipline policies are not being enforced. An excerpt of the policy is posted below-the-fold:

Click Read more>> below to continue reading...

Sacramento Superior Court Employee Misconduct: Family Court Whistleblower Alleges Systemic Code of Civil Procedure and Court Rule Violations by Court Administrators & Clerks

Sacramento Family Court Chiefs Julie Setzer and Colleen McDonagh Responsible for Serial State Law Violations, Whistleblower Charges

Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals
A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 1.

This story is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September, 2013

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 court whistleblower.

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 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. 

Family Court Sacramento - State Law Now Protects Court Employee Whistleblowers

New Law Designates Court Rule Violations as Improper Governmental Activity, Protects Court Employees From Retaliation  

California State Auditor 
Whistleblower Hotline

Governor Jerry Brown yesterday signed into law Assembly Bill 1102. The bill updated and revised a number of Government Code statutes designating the functions and powers of the California State Auditor. In addition, a violation of a California Rule of Court by a state or court employee is now classified as an improper governmental activity equal to corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion, willful omission to perform duty, and similar types of misconduct.

The Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, superior courts and Administrative Office of the Courts are now included in the California Whistleblower Protection Act "state agency" definition. Among other ramifications, the revised definition ensures that the protections of the Act extend to court employees. Under the Act, state employees who make complaints about improper governmental activities are protected from retaliation. Retaliation includes intimidation, the denial of appointment or promotion, a threat of adverse action, a poor performance evaluation, involuntary transfer, or any form of disciplinary action.

Court employees can report improper governmental activities to the State Auditor using the Whistleblower Hotline, by mail, or using an electronic form at the State Auditor website. Under a variety of state statutes, rules, and regulations, state employees who fail to report misconduct may themselves be guilty of misconduct and subject to discipline, job termination, or criminal prosecution. Employee conduct standards include Article 20 of the California Constitution, California Rules of Court rules 10.16, 10.17, and 10.670 and the Court Employee Code of Ethics. 

Court employees may be subject to criminal prosecution under several statutes, including Penal Code sections 470(c) and 470(d), which prohibit altering, corrupting, or falsifying documents. Failing to report a co-worker engaged in criminal conduct may expose a court employee to the same criminal prosecution as an accessory, for aiding and abetting, conspiracy, or under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.   
For the complete California Whistleblower Protection Act, click here.