17 Years Later, Sacramento County Family Court Problems Persist - Whistleblowers Allege Court Operates as Racketeering Enterprise

The report embedded with this post is by investigative reporter and attorney Karen Winner, and is provided by the California Protective Parents Association. Court watchdogs assert that the problems highlighted 17 years ago in this 2000 report have not been corrected.

A subsequent audit by the California State Auditor found additional problems, many of which the court refused to fix, according to follow up reports from State Auditor Elaine Howle.

Whistleblowers allege that the Sacramento Family Court system continues to operate as what amounts to a racketeering enterprise which deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.

Custody in Crisis: How Family Courts Nationwide Put Children in Danger

From 100 Reporters:
Custody in Crisis: How Family Courts Nationwide Put Children in Danger

Santa Clara County Family Court Controversy Continues Court History of Scandal: Judge-Attorney Cronyism Still To Blame, Say Whistleblowers

FBI probes $17 million missing from Santa Clara County trusts:

Court whistleblowers allege that Presiding Judge Patricia Lucas and 6th District 
Court of Appeal Justice Conrad Rushing ultimately are responsible for systemic
 family court judge misconduct that resembles prior scandals in the same court. 

County judges must impose tighter rules for managing vulnerable residents' estates:

Santa Clara judge reconsiders his early ruling on a trustee excessive fee case: 

State Auditor Files Response to Vexatious Litigation by Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria Henley

Commission on Judicial Performance
Director and Chief Counsel Victoria Henley

From the Daily Journal: 

Attorneys for the California State Auditor submitted a response Monday to a writ filed last month by the Commission on Judicial Performance challenging the auditor's jurisdiction.

The CJP sued Auditor Elaine M. Howle in San Francisco Superior Court in October, seeking to limit the scope of an audit ordered by the Legislature in August. The CJP is the state agency that investigates and disciplines judges charged with misconduct...

Myron Moskovitz, who represents Howle, said the CJP's arguments seek to sidestop decades of well-established law around the auditor's office and its functions.

"After they see the answer, if they still want to go to trial we will," said Moskovitz, legal director of the Moskovitz Appellate Team in Piedmont. "I don't know why they would want to. I don't think they have much of a case...

"This is the first time anyone has ever complained about their right to audit a public agency that gets public money and is supposed to serve the public," explained Moskovitz. "I don't know what they are afraid of."  

CJP Director/Chief Counsel Victoria Henley is paid $194,000 per year by California taxpayers. 

text 

6th District Justice Conrad Rushing Issues Sham Order for Divorce Lawyer Garrett Dailey: Indigent Pro Per Denied Right To Appeal

Justice Conrad Rushing

In an unsettling example of judge and attorney misconduct, indigent, self-represented Santa Clara County family court victim Catherine Raffa attempted to appeal a trial court order declaring her a vexatious litigant. Raffa successfully filed the appeal, # H043207, in the 6th District Court of Appeal in San Jose.

Earlier this year, the opposing attorney, veteran family law lawyer Garrett Dailey, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because, he claimed, Raffa was a vexatious litigant and required to get permission "from the presiding justice permitting the appeal to proceed."

But a litigant appealing a vexatious litigant order issued by a trial court doesn't need permission to appeal the order. If they lose the appeal, thereafter they need permission from a presiding judge to file anything in any court. They don't need permission to appeal the initial VL order, according to both case law and statutory law, CCP § 904.1(a)(6).

Free Speech Experts Discredit Controversial Attorney Keri Evilsizor in High Conflict Divorce Case

From the East Bay Times: 

MARTINEZ — In a decision First Amendment experts have dubbed “outrageous,” a Contra Costa Superior Court judge jailed a San Ramon man for writing about his divorce on the internet — even though his writings were based on material publicly available in court files.

The judge, Bruce C. Mills, insisted in his decision that “matters that are put into court pleadings and brought up in oral argument before the court do not become public thereby” — a position that lawyers say fundamentally misunderstands the nature of court records.

Joseph Sweeney, a judicial reform advocate, served 13 days in County Jail in August after Mills’ ruling, which found that Sweeney’s web postings had violated another judge’s restraining order not to disclose the contents of his ex-wife’s cellphone or computer. The postings described Sweeney’s realizations about her medical history and contact with others that led to the collapse of the marriage.

Read the full article at the East Bay Times.

Bay Area Divorce Lawyer Brad Baugh Facing Fraud on the Court, Fee Churning Allegations

New Santa Clara County Superior Court: Judge-Attorney Collusion Alleged