SANTA CLARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY JEFF ROSEN THREATENS WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT AGAINST PUBLIC DEFENDER OVER PROTEST BLOG POSTS

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

SACRAMENTO COUNTY COURT EMPLOYEES NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CODE OF ETHICS, CHARGE WHISTLEBLOWERS

Self-represented court users report that Sacramento County Superior Court employees do not follow the Code of Ethics for Court Employees mandated by the California Judicial Council.

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.

Sacramento Superior Court Corruption Victims Take Advocacy to State Level at Commission on Judicial Performance

Sacramento County Superior Court whistleblowers this year have expanded their ranks, joined forces with similar groups in other counties, and taken their court reform campaign to the state level, according to Fatima Katumbusi, a group spokesperson. 

"Our local watchdogs have teamed up with the Center for Judicial Excellence, Court Reform LLC, the Commission on Judicial Performance Reform Project and other groups," Katumbusi explained. "We have testified at the State Assembly, raised awareness about court corruption at the Super Bowl, and engaged on social media. Mainstream media, including the Sacramento Bee, Daily Journal and San Francisco Chronicle have reported on several of our issues, and published opinion columns by people in our group," she added.

Yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle published an op-ed criticizing secrecy at the state Commission on Judicial Performance, the government agency responsible for oversight and accountability of judges. The piece was authored by two court reform advocates, one of whom is a victim of alleged corruption in the family law division of Sacramento Superior Court.  

CBS News 60 Minutes Hidden Camera Records Attorney Boasting Lawyers Immune from Criminal Prosecution

“They don’t send the lawyers to jail because we run the country. We’re members of a privileged class in this country. We make the laws and when we do so we make them in a way that is advantageous to the lawyers,” attorney Marc Koplik explains on hidden video in this 60 Minutes broadcast clip.

Sacramento Superior Court reform advocates allege that a group of local divorce lawyers who also work as part-time judges have made similar claims. Whistleblowers assert that many Sacramento County judges abdicate their responsibility to enforce attorney misconduct laws, and therefore share blame for the problem.    

Sacramento Superior Court Criminal Activity Alleged At Judicial Council Meeting Protest & Public Comment

Family Court Judge-Attorney Collusion, RICO Racketeering and Other Crimes To Be Submitted at Judicial Council Meeting

The Center for Judicial Excellence, a Marin-based family court reform organization, has initiated a "Year of Action to Stop Court Crimes" campaign throughout California.

Evidence of alleged criminal activity by Sacramento Superior Court judges, employees, and part-time judges who also work as for-profit divorce lawyers will be presented by court watchdogs and whistleblowers at a Judicial Council meeting in Sacramento on Thursday, February 19. The presentation is a component of the "Stop Court Crimes" campaign sponsored by the Center for Judicial Excellence, a Marin-based family court reform organization. 

The statewide CJE "Year of Action to Stop Court Crimes" campaign kicked-off in September with a rally at the Judicial Council in San Francisco, and is slated to run throughout 2015. Family court watchdogs from 16 California counties attended, including a strong Sacramento County contingent. The event generated press coverage by the San Francisco Examiner. In addition to the rally, the group made a formal, written request for an audience with the Chair of the Judicial Council to present evidence and discuss alleged criminal activity and other misconduct by family court judges and employees throughout the state. The request was denied, and the group was directed to express their concerns at the public comment segment provided at regularly scheduled Judicial Council meetings.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

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

Hon. Peter J. McBrien Leaked $1 Million Statement of Economic Interests for 2010 - Redacted

Judge Peter McBrien Whistleblower Leaked $1 Million Statement of Economic Interests for 2010

Friday Document Dump

Click here to view our recently expanded collection of whistleblower leaked documents about Judge Peter McBrien at the Sacramento Family Court News Scribd page. 

Sacramento Superior Court watchdogs allege that McBrien is responsible for, and profits from a family court criminal racketeering enterprise involving collusion and kickbacks between judges and divorce attorneys who also work as part-time judges in the same court. Click here for our investigative report. According to Schedule A-2 of the Statement of Economic Interests, the judge controls a trust with over $1 million in assets. 

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:

Sacramento Family Court News Participates In Sunshine Week 2013 - Defends Your Right To Know

Sunshine Week Promotes Dialogue About the Importance of Open Government

Sunshine Week is sponsored by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Bloomberg LP, the American Society of News Editors and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Sacramento Family Court News is participating in Sunshine Week 2013, a non-partisan, non-profit initiative celebrated annually in mid-March to coincide with James Madison's birthday on March 16. This year, Sunshine Week takes places from March 10-16. Sunshine Week is a national initiative to promote a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. 

Participants include news media, civic groups, libraries, nonprofits, schools and others interested in the public's right to know, according to the Sunshine Week website. For the list of Sunshine Week participants, click here. Many Sacramento Family Court News articles are based on information obtained from public records. Without public records laws, much of our most important reporting would not be possible.    

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

Sacramento Superior Court Controversy: Court Clerks Allow Part-Time Judge Lawyers to File Counterfeit Entry of Judgment Forms

Sacramento Family Court clerks file these counterfeit entry of judgment forms for local divorce lawyers who also work as part-time judges in the same court, according to a government whistleblower.

Color of Law: The Conspiracy to Discourage and Obstruct Pro Per Appeals
A Sacramento Family Court Report Special Investigation: 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.

Sacramento County Superior Court Misconduct: Family Court Appeals Unit Unlawfully Refusing Appeals by Indigent, Pro Per Litigants

Family Court Appeals Unit Illegally Rejecting Appeals By Unrepresented, Financially Disadvantaged Litigants

Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals
A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 3

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.  

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. 

Hon. Michael T. Garcia Commission on Judicial Performance Transcript of 2009 Confidential Character Witness Testimony for Judge Peter McBrien

Judge Michael Garcia CJP Testimony for Judge Peter McBrien - Whistleblower Leak

Wednesday Document Dump

Confidential court reporter transcript of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael T. Garcia 2009 character witness testimony for family court Judge Peter McBrien, with McBrien's felony indictment document from 2000. In 2009, McBrien was facing removal from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance for violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics for his misconduct in the Carlsson case. This was McBrien's second prosecution by the CJP. 

Aware of McBrien's misconduct, Garcia was required by Canon 3D(1) to "take or initiate appropriate corrective action" against McBrien. Instead, Judge Garcia testified as a character witness on McBrien's behalf. The testimony was cited by the CJP as a mitigating factor which reduced McBrien's ultimate punishment, allowing the controversial judge to keep his job. Click here for more information about the McBrien CJP proceedings and the effect of Garcia's testimony. Click on the labels below the document for additional reporting on the people and issues in this post.    

Sacramento Superior Court Controversy: Family Law Facilitator Office Disseminates False Information to Indigent, Self-Represented Pro Pers Without Lawyers

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. 

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 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.

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. 

Sacramento Superior Court Misconduct: Court Employees Protected by State Whistleblower Law

Whistleblower Protection Act Shields Court Employees From Retaliation for Reporting Misconduct  

California State Auditor Whistleblower Hotline

Several family court users have asked Sacramento Family Court News to update our September, 2011 article about the expansion of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. 

At that time, the Act was revised to protect from retaliation court employees who report misconduct by judges or co-workers, including violations of the California Rules of Court. 

The 2011 law designates a violation of state court rules as an improper governmental activity, in the same category of misconduct as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion, willful omission to perform duty, and similar types of misconduct. 

Court watchdogs allege that in Sacramento Family Court, a number of state court rules are routinely ignored by judges and court clerks. We're investigating the allegations, and will report our findings in the near future. We've also had reports that courtroom bailiffs are not enforcing the law, which one national family court website has documented is a common problem. Familylawcourts.com notes that some bailiffs act as "judicial puppets," and has called for bailiff education. 

To continue reading, 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.