Thursday, November 5, 2015

California Supreme Court Corruption: Whistleblowers Charge Supreme Court Justices with Enabling Bias Against the Poor in Family Courts

Supreme Court of California – Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye – Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan – Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar – Associate Justice Ming W. Chin – Associate Justice Goodwin H. Liu – Associate Justice Mariano Cuellar – Associate Justice Leondra Kruger - Justice Cantil-Sakauye –California Supreme Court – Corruption – Judicial Misconduct – California Judicial Council
California Supreme Court Justices Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Ming Chin, Leondra Kruger, Carol Corrigan, Goodwin Liu, Mariano Cuellar and Kathryn Werdegar are accused of enabling family court bias against financially disadvantaged and disabled "pro per" litigants who cannot afford to hire a lawyer.

Institutionalized Socioeconomic Bias 

California Supreme Court judges are ignoring and thereby enabling systemic bias against the poor in family courts throughout the state, Judicial Branch reform advocates have charged.  

Earlier this year, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and the state Judicial Council were engulfed in a nationwide firestorm of controversy when a report released by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area revealed that traffic courts throughout the state were trapping the poor in long cycles of poverty using fines, fees and driver license revocations. 

Family court whistleblowers have catalogued examples showing that similar, institutionalized socioeconomic bias occurs in family courts, where more than 70 percent of court users cannot afford to hire an attorney. "This is a statewide epidemic of the same scale as the traffic courts scandal," said Ulf Carlsson, a whistleblower and former state employee. "Like they did in that debacle, the Supreme Court is playing deaf, dumb and blind to the problems." 

Sacramento Family Court News, an online, nonprofit journalism organization recently published an investigative report compiling court scandals attributed to Judicial Council Chair Tani Cantil-Sakauye. To view the report, click here. Other sources of news and information about socioeconomic bias in state courts include the California Supreme Court & Judicial Branch Report Tumblr, and the Judicial Misconduct Facebook Community

1 comment:

  1. As a current and continuous victim of the conduct described in this matter how can I find assistance to ensure my rights are protected and my child does not fall victim to her father's extreme and purposeful tactics to further his domestic violence and victimization of me??? He has admitted to keeping my daughter from me for 6 months, in spite of a court order, stated to the judge he did so, failed to initiate court process to show good and just cause for the refusing visitation to me and made threats on voicemail judge reduced my visitation to six hours a week, imposing 3 months of drug testing, ordered me to pay for the testing, though I filed a fee waiver and both mine and my daughter's father's declarations to the court in this particular proceeding state my current financial hardship. The judge refused to listen to any evidence produced in Request for Order THAT >>I<< FILED and ignored my attempts to defend any of the erroneously admitted evidence. The recommendation of the mediator stated blatantly and in context which can only be logically identified as prejudiced and biased that unauthenticated evidence is what changed her recommendation to the court, yet, the judge adopted her recommendation and absolutely refused simply view the documents produced were created at a time I had absolutely NO access to the device used to create them or the contents therein in order for me to be responsible for the "evidence" the recommendation was based on. My daughter's father stormed angrily out of mediation and the mediator minimized his actions to "abruptly excused himself" rather than seeing it as an intentional act to ensure my absence in order to bypass my right to due process and submit evidence, that; "lacked proper proof of service per FCS instructions and policy" leaving me unable to defend forgery and inadmissible unauthenticated documents, not introduced by standard process. Then, only 6 days before the hearing, 4 of which was labor day weekend, she posts the recommendation, not allowing time for me to view report, prepare any defence or objection, serve, and file with the court any arguments to defend against this blatant and intentional overlooked abuse of process and violation of due process. My daughter's father raped me, has admitted to friends in context that confirms his HABIT of not taking no for an answer from me, even when I had 8 staples from the nape of my neck to behind my left ear and over 35 stitches in my arm, then told me he knew what he was doing when he got me pregnant. The crazy thing is; the judge, as I have had all the crooked judges i.e. Matthew Gary, Kevin Culhane, is the judge who has replaced the ones removed from the bench for similar misconduct. GO FIGURE The family court process now acts as a criminal process and imposes sentences upon those unable to protect and pay for rights allegedly assigned at birth to all citizens of the US. Joke, ensure public trust????? Trust that you are better off being criminal and breaking the law than you are to attempt to use the JUSTICE SYSTEM if you aim to exercise any right afforded to you protected by the constitution. Disgrace to every formal process of law they are said to promote and protect and afford. I do not care about privacy of my personal experiences, it took alot of counseling for me to even acknowledge the rapes for what they are rather than suppressing it with drugs as I began to do after he used the system to further his abuse on me. I voluntarily placed myself in rehab in 2011, no drug charges since 2009 or 2010 have been clean and working only contact with law enforcement was intentional, yet failed effort to receive right to visitation, or a broken brake light. My fundamental right to raise my daughter is not as important as the revenue they can force upon me with their criminal process approach to the family court proceedings for which they pretend to perform in their prejudiced judgments and phony representation of the ethics they are purposed to uphold and promote.