MANUAL OF

MODEL CRIMINAL

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

FOR THEDISTRICT COURTS OF THE

NINTH CIRCUIT

Prepared by the Ninth CircuitJury Instructions Committee

_________

2010 Edition

8.153 RACKETEERING ACTIVITY—DEFINED(18 U.S.C. § 1959)

With respect to the second element in Instruction _______ [insert cross reference topertinent instruction, e.g. Instruction 8.151], the government must prove that the enterprise wasengaged in racketeering activity. “Racketeering activity” means the commission of certaincrimes. These include [insert applicable statutory definitions of state or federal crimes at issueas listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961.]

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the enterprise was engaged in[at least one of] the crime[s] named above.

Comment

Use this instruction in conjunction with Instructions 8.151 (Violent Crime in Aid ofRacketeering Enterprise), 8.152 (Racketeering Enterprise—Enterprise Affecting InterstateCommerce—Defined), and 8.154 (Racketeering Enterprise—Proof of Purpose).

For a definition of “racketeering activity,” see 18 U.S.C. § 1959(b)(1), which states thatterm has the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). See also United States v. Banks, 514 F.3d959, 968 (9th Cir.2008).

318

8.154 RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE—PROOF OF PURPOSE(18 U.S.C. § 1959)

With respect to the fourth element in Instruction _______ [insert cross reference topertinent instruction, e.g. Instruction 8.151], the government must prove beyond a reasonabledoubt that the defendant’s purpose was to gain entrance to, or to maintain, or to increase [his][her] position in the enterprise.

It is not necessary for the government to prove that this motive was the sole purpose, oreven the primary purpose of the defendant in committing the charged crime. You need only findthat enhancing [his] [her] status in [name of enterprise] was a substantial purpose of thedefendant or that [he] [she] committed the charged crime as an integral aspect of membership in[name of enterprise].

In determining the defendant’s purpose in committing the alleged crime, you mustdetermine what [he] [she] had in mind. Since you cannot look into a person’s mind, you have todetermine purpose by considering all the facts and circumstances before you.

Comment

Use this instruction in conjunction with Instructions 8.151 (Violent Crime in Aid ofRacketeering Enterprise), Instructions 8.152 (Racketeering Enterprise—Enterprise AffectingInterstate Commerce—Defined), and 8.153 (Racketeering Activity—Defined). See Comment toInstruction 8.151. If the fourth element of Instruction 8.151 is modified, this instruction shouldalso be modified.

“[T]he purpose element is met if ‘the jury could properly infer that the defendantcommitted his violent crime because he knew it was expected of him by reason of hismembership in the enterprise or that he committed it in furtherance of that membership.’” United States v. Banks, 514 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Pimentel, 346F.3d 285, 295-96 (2d Cir.2003)).

“VICAR’s purpose element is satisfied even if the maintenance or enhancement of hisposition in the criminal enterprise was not the defendant’s sole or principal purpose.” Banks, 514F.3d at 965. The law, however, requires a defendant’s purpose be “more than merely incidental.” Id. at 969. Although the gang or racketeering enterprise purpose does not have to be “the onlypurpose or the main purpose” of a murder or assault, it does have to be a substantial purpose. Id.at 970 “Murder while a gang member is not necessarily a murder for the purpose of maintainingor increasing position in a gang, even if it would have the effect of maintaining or increasingposition in a gang.” Id.

319

8.157 RICO—PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY(18 U.S.C. § 1961(5))

To establish a pattern of racketeering activity, the government must prove each of thefollowing beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, at least two acts of racketeering were committed;

Second, the acts of racketeering had a relationship to each other which posed a threat ofcontinued criminal activity; and

Third, the acts of racketeering embraced the same or similar purposes, results,participants, victims, or methods of commission, or were otherwise interrelated by distinguishingcharacteristics.

Sporadic, widely separated, or isolated criminal acts do not form a pattern of racketeeringactivity.

Two racketeering acts are not necessarily enough to establish a pattern of racketeeringactivity.

Comment

If there is an issue whether there were two racketeering activities within ten years, theinstruction should be modified by inserting “within a period of ten years” after “acts ofracketeering were committed” at the end of the first element.

In determining whether two racketeering activities occurred within ten years, any periodof imprisonment after the commission of a prior act must be excluded.

See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 n.14 (1985) (although at least twoacts are necessary under the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity,” two acts may not besufficient to constitute a pattern). See also H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492U.S. 229, 239 (1989) (pattern of racketeering activity requires a “showing that the racketeeringpredicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity”);Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1535-36 (9th Cir.1992) (applying NorthwesternBell); Ikuno v. Yip, 912 F.2d 306, 309 (9th Cir.1990) (same).

322

8.123 MAIL FRAUD—SCHEME TO DEFRAUD—DEPRIVATION OF INTANGIBLE RIGHT OF HONEST SERVICES

(18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with mail fraud inviolation of Section 1341 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant tobe found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elementsbeyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant devised or knowingly participated in a scheme or plan to deprive[name of victim] of [his] [her] right of honest services;

Second, the scheme or plan consists of a [bribe] [kickback] in exchange for thedefendant’s services. The “exchange” may be express or may be implied from all thesurrounding circumstances;

Third, the defendant acted with the intent to defraud by depriving [name of victim] of[his] [her] right of honest services;

Fourth, the defendant’s act was material; that is, it had a natural tendency to influence,or was capable of influencing, [a person’s] [an entity’s] acts; and

Fifth, the defendant used, or caused someone to use, the mails to carry out or toattempt to carry out the scheme or plan.

A mailing is caused when one knows that the mails will be used in the ordinary courseof business or when one can reasonably foresee such use. It does not matter whether thematerial mailed was itself false or deceptive so long as the mail was used as a part of thescheme, nor does it matter whether the scheme or plan was successful or that any money orproperty was obtained.

Comment

Honest services fraud criminalizes only schemes to defraud that involve bribery orkickbacks. Skilling v. United States, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2931 (2010); Black v.United States, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2963, 2968 (2010). Undisclosed conflicts of interest, orundisclosed self-dealing, is not sufficient. Skilling, 130 S. Ct. at 2932. This instruction islimited to honest services schemes to defraud that involve a bribe or kickback because there is,as yet, no controlling case law subsequent to Skilling that extends honest services fraud to anyother circumstance. See Skilling, 130 S. Ct. at 2933 (“no other misconduct falls within §1346’s province”).

The “prohibition on bribes and kickbacks draws content not only from the pre-McNallycase law, but also from federal statutes proscribing—and defining—similar crimes.” Id.(citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(b) (bribery), 666(a)(2); 41 U.S.C. § 52(2) (kickbacks)); see also

274

McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987). Although it did not define bribery orkickbacks, the Supreme Court in Skilling cited three appellate decisions that reviewed juryinstructions on the bribery element of honest services fraud. Skilling, 130 S. Ct. at 2934(citing United States v. Ganim, 510 F.3d 134, 147-49 (2d Cir.2007), cert denied, 552 U.S.1313 (2008); United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 352-53 (5th Cir.2009); and UnitedStates v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 281-86 (3d Cir.2007)). In the Ninth Circuit, bribery requiresat least an implicit quid pro quo. United States v. Kincaid-Chauncey, 556 F.3d 923, 941 (9thCir.2009). “Only individuals who can be shown to have had the specific intent to tradeofficial actions for items of value are subject to criminal punishment on this theory of honestservices fraud.” Id. at 943 n.15. The quid pro quo need not be explicit, and an implicit quidpro quo need not concern a specific official act. Id. at 945-46 (citing Kemp, 500 F.3d at 282(“[T]he government need not prove that each gift was provided with the intent to prompt aspecific official act.”)). A quid pro quo requirement is satisfied if the evidence shows acourse of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to a public official in exchange for a pattern ofofficial acts favorable to the donor. Id. at 943. Bribery is to be distinguished from legallobbying activities. Id. at 942, 946 (citing Kemp, 500 F.3d at 281-82). These principles areconsistent with the appellate decisions cited by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in Skilling cited a statutory definition of kickbacks. Skilling, 130S. Ct. at 2933-34 (“‘The term ‘kickback’ means any money, fee, commission, credit, gift,gratuity, thing of value, or compensation of any kind which is provided, directly or indirectly,to [enumerated persons] for the purpose of improperly obtaining or rewarding favorabletreatment in connection with [enumerated circumstances].’”) (quoting 41 U.S.C. 52(2)).

Honest services fraud requires a “specific intent to defraud.” Kincaid-Chauncey, 556F.3d at 941.

The materiality element was included in this instruction based on the presumption thatCongress intended to incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law term “fraud”into the mail, wire, and bank fraud statutes. See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 22-23(1999). The common law test for materiality in the false statement statutes, as reflected in thefourth element of this instruction, is the preferred formulation. United States v. Peterson, 538F.3d 1064, 1072 (9th Cir.2008).

In the case of mail or wire fraud, the government need not prove a specific false statementwas made. United States v. Woods, 335 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir.2003). “Under the mail fraudstatute the government is not required to prove any particular false statement was made. Rather,there are alternative routes to a mail fraud conviction, one being proof of a scheme or artifice todefraud, which may or may not involve any specific false statements.” Id. (quoting United Statesv. Munoz, 233 F.3d 1117, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted)).

275

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME TEMPORARY JUDGE CONTROVERSY 3rd DISTRICT COA CONTROVERSY

TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT SOURCE MATERIAL ARCHIVE RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT SFCN CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

TEMPORARY JUDGE CONTROVERSY

Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative ReportThis special investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in October, 2015. Hyperlinks throughout this

report link to original source material including whistleblower leaked documents, records obtained under

public records law, public court documents, and our previously published articles with hyperlinks to source

material.

The family court division of Sacramento Superior Court is controlled and operated by an illegal parallel government structure made up of several judges and local divorce attorneys who also work as temporary judges, according to allegations and document leaks by court employee whistleblowers and watchdog groups.

The shadow government is without the same transparency and accountability required of legitimate Judicial Branch agencies, and meets the definition of a criminal racketeering enterprise, whistleblowers charge.

The alleged criminal organization reportedly has operated for more than 20 years under the direction of long-controversial Judge Peter McBrien, who has a prior Sacramento County criminal conviction and two misconduct convictions by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

McBrien quietly retired in 2014 and, due to his prior CJP misconduct convictions, is prohibited from continuing to work as a retired judge, according to former CJP prosecutor and current Lake County Superior Court Judge Andrew Blum.

But, using a loophole in state law, after he retired McBrien was immediately rehired as a court commissioner by personal friend and Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Hight. Currently, McBrien remains on the bench in virtually the same role he maintained as a judge.

The whistleblowers assert that divorce lawyers in the organization receive preferential treatment, "kickbacks," and other forms of compensation from judges, court employees and clerks because they volunteer to work as part-time judges and run the family court settlement conference program on behalf of the court.

Sacramento Superior Court Family Law Division Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers

Sacramento Superior Court reform advocates assert that collusionbetween judges and local attorneys deprives pro per court users of

their parental rights, community assets, and due process and accessto the court constitutional rights.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (72)

JUDGE PRO TEM (51)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (37)

MATTHEW J. GARY (34)

KICKBACKS (33)

FLEC (28)

PETER J. McBRIEN (26)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (23)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (22)

SCBA (22)

CJP (21)

JAMES M. MIZE (21)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (19)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

WATCHDOGS (19)

PRO PERS (18)

DIVORCE CORP (17)

DOCUMENTS (17)

PAULA SALINGER (15)

ROBERT HIGHT (14)

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (13)

CARLSSON CASE (12)

RAPTON-KARRES (12)

APPEALS (11)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

270 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

The kickbacks usually consist of "rubber-stamped" court orders issued when the attorneys represent clients in court. The orders consistently are contrary to established law, and the rulings cannot be attributed to the exercise of judicial discretion.

As a matter of law, the orders are illegal, according to court reform advocates, "outsider" attorneys, and the law practice reference publications used by judges and lawyers. SFCN has posted examples of the orders online at Scribd and other document publishing sites. Order links are provided throughout this report.

Most of the demonstrably unlawful orders are issued against indigent, or financially disadvantaged "pro per" parties without an attorney. Many pro per litigants - who make up over 70 percent of court users - also are disabled.

In most cases, pro pers - who have little or no knowledge of family law - are unaware that the orders issued against them are illegal. In addition, court clerks and employees are trained or encouraged to intentionally, and illegally mislead unrepresented parties about their appeal rights. Pro pers who do attempt to file an appeal are forced to navigate a gauntlet of unlawful obstructions erected by court employees and trial court judges, and most eventually give up.

Further handicapping pro pers, when representing clients in court judge pro tem lawyers are allowed to obstruct an opposing parties' court access and ability to file documents through the court-sanctioned misuse of vexatious litigant law and Family Code case management law, according to whistleblowers and court records. The illegal litigation tactic effectively deprives pro per litigants of their constitutional right of access to the courts, a violation of federal law.

In exchange for acting as sworn temporary judges, operating the settlement program and reducing the caseload and workload of judges and court employees, the attorneys also receive preferential trial scheduling, an unlawful "emolument, gratuity or reward" prohibited by Penal Code § 94.

The ultimate consequences of the systemic divorce court corruption include one-sided divisions of community property, illegal child custody arrangements and the deprivation of parental rights, and unlawful child and spousal support terms.

Court reform advocates also assert that the racketeering enterprise enables rampant fee churning and unjust enrichment by judge pro tem divorce lawyers, results in pro per financial devastation, homelessness, and imprisonment, and has caused, or contributed to at least two child deaths.

Years of illegal, pay-to-play child custody orders have resulted in the formation of several Sacramento-based court reform and oversight organizations, including Fathers 4 Justice, California Protective Parents Association, and the Family Court Accountability Coalition. The same family court watchdog group phenomenon has not occurred in any other county in the state.

The alleged criminal conduct also deprives victims of their state and federal constitutional rights, including due process, equal protection of law, access to the courts, and the fundamental liberty interest in the care, management and companionship of their own children, according to several "outsider" attorneys.

Court watchdogs charge that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which also deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.

The alleged federal crimes also include the theft, misuse, or conversion of federal funds received by the court, predicate acts of mail or wire fraud, and predicate state law crimes, including obstruction of justice, child

Scheme Primarily Targets Divorce Cases Where Only One Side Has a Lawyer

During three days of sworn testimony at his Commission on Judicial Performance misconduct prosecution, Judge Peter McBrien inadvertently revealed aspects of an alleged RICO racketeering enterprise operating in the Sacramento County family court system.

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

FERRIS CASE (9)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

ROBERT O'HAIR (8)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (7)

JULIE SETZER (7)

MATTHEW HERNANDEZ (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

MIKE NEWDOW (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

MALPRACTICE (4)

THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

CHILD ABDUCTION (3)

VANCE W. RAYE (3)

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (3)

RACKETEERING (2)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

First Amendment Coalition

Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT

abduction, and receipt of an illegal emolument, gratuity, or reward by a judicial officer (Penal Code § 94).

With the help of court employee whistleblowers, Sacramento Family Court News has partially reconstructed the framework of the alleged criminal enterprise that, in scale and scope, rivals the Kids for Cash court scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, and the Orange County Superior Court case-fixing corruption scheme recently exposed by the FBI.

The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and judge pro tem attorney operated settlement conference program was set up in 1991 by Judge Vance Raye, Judge Peter McBrien and lawyers from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 Commission on Judicial Performance misconduct prosecution.

Click here to read the transcript of the controversial judge's testimony.

In his own testimony during the same proceedings, local veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem Robert J. O'Hair corroborated McBrien's testimony and attested to McBrien's character and value to Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section members. Click here to view this excerpt of O'Hair's testimony. To view O'Hair's complete testimony, click here.

Judge Vance Raye is now the Presiding Justice of the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, the court responsible for hearing appeals from Sacramento Superior Court. The appellate court has been embroiled in a number of controversies surrounding the review of Sacramento family court cases.

In 2012, troubled Sacramento County Judge James Mize, - a personal friend of McBrien - further privatized family court services and expanded the ability of ostensibly "volunteer" temporary judge lawyers to earn kickbacks and other preferential treatment with his so-called "One Day Divorce Program."

Court watchdogs charge that the system was designed to, and does serve the needs and financial interests of family law lawyers at the expense of the 70 percent of family court users who cannot afford representation.

One objective of the allegedly illegal public-private partnership is to significantly reduce the caseload, and workload of full-time judges by having private sector lawyers - instead of judges or court staff - operate the settlement program, according to watchdogs.

At the settlement conferences, judge pro tem attorneys pressure divorcing couples to settle cases so they won't use the trial court services, including law and motion hearings, ordinarily required to resolve a contested divorce.

In many cases, two lawyers - one acting as a temporary judge - with social and professional ties team up against an unrepresented pro per to compel one-sided settlement terms. Accounts of coercive and deceptive tactics are common.

In sworn testimony during his judicial misconduct prosecution by the Commission on Judicial Performance,

Settlement Conference Program Quid Pro Quo Arrangement

3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Rayeis the co-architect of the current Sacramento County Family

Court system. Click here for details.

Reducing the Caseload and Workload of Judges and Court Staff in Exchange for Kickbacks

Family Law Professor Blog

Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog

Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

California Courts Homepage

California Courts YouTube Page

Judicial Council

Commission on Judicial Performance

Sacramento County Family Court

3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar Association

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory

Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)

Judge McBrien inadvertently revealed that an incredible 90 percent of cases assigned to his courtroom settled. "And so I, frankly, have a very light calendar on law and motion mornings," the judge added.

Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for reducing the workload of judges and court staff, as opportunities arise the temporary judge attorneys are provided reciprocal kickbacks, gratuities, or emoluments when representing clients in court. The issuance and receipt of the reciprocal benefits violates several state and federal criminal, and civil laws.

Reciprocal benefits include the issuance of demonstrably illegal court orders that have ignored, and even authorized criminal conduct by judge pro tem attorneys and their clients, including criminal child abduction.

In one case, a judge ordered the illegal arrest and assault of a disabled pro per to benefit the opposing, part-time judge attorney. A court employee whistleblower leaked a courtroom security video of the incident. The judge pro tem lawyer subsequently was caught on court reporter transcript defending the judge and lying about the arrest and assault, portraying the disabled victim as being at fault.

The consistent, statistically impossible in-court success rate of judge pro tem attorneys has provided them prominence, client referrals, wealth, and a substantial monopoly on the Sacramento County divorce and family law business. Whistleblowers point out that this benefit of the alleged criminal organization also implicates consumer protection and antitrust laws, including the California Unfair Business Practices Act.

The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp exposed courtcorruption throughout the United States and designated

Sacramento County as the worst-of-the-worst.

Racketeering Scheme Insulates Members from Government Oversight and Accountability

California Coalition for Families and Children

California Protective Parents Association

Center for Judicial Excellence

Courageous Kids Network

Divorce & Family Law News

Divorce Corp

Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

Family Law Courts.com

Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce

Leon Koziol.Com

Moving Past Divorce

News and Views Riverside Superior Court

Weightier Matter

Total Pageviews

1 8 9 6 3 0

183

The quid pro quo arrangement also involves what whistleblowers assert is a reciprocal protection racket that conceals the organization from discovery by law enforcement agencies and state oversight authorities, including the Commission on Judicial Performance, responsible for judge misconduct, and the State Bar Association, responsible for attorney accountability and discipline.

Case audits conducted by SFCN show that judge pro tem attorneys routinely violate state law, court rules, and attorney ethics rules, but are never reported to the State Bar, or assessed fines, penalties or "sanctions" by full-time judges as required by state law.

Pro pers who attempt to report judge pro tem attorney misconduct to the State Bar are told they need a court order from a judge before a disciplinary investigation against an opposing attorney can take place. There are no known instances where a judge issued such an order.

Court records leaked by whistleblowers also indicate that the under quid pro quo agreement, judges effectively shield attorneys from criminal investigation and prosecution for alleged crimes, including witness intimidation, child abduction, filing counterfeit documents, and violations of state and federal civil rights laws.

On the other hand, at the request of cartel attorneys, pro per litigants are routinely punished by judges with illegal fines, draconian financial sanctions, and other types of punishment to discourage them from returning to court, and to coerce them to accept settlement terms dictated by the opposing judge pro tem lawyers.

Attorneys provide judges reciprocal protection by not reporting the judicial misconduct, Code of Judicial Ethics violations, and criminal conduct committed by full-time judge cartel members. And the lawyers do more.

To help conceal and ensure the continuity of the enterprise, on the rare occasion when full-time judges do face investigation by the Commission on Judicial Performance, members of the cartel provide false, misleading, or otherwise gratuitous character witness testimony and other forms of support for the offending judge. The testimony and support is designed to, and does reduce or eliminate potential punishment by the CJP, ensuring judge members remain on the bench.

The racketeering activity includes startling coordination, kickbacks, and pattern and practice misconduct by court clerks, supervisors, and the Family Law Facilitator office. Court clerks routinely refuse to file legally sufficient paperwork for pro per parties, while at the same time filing legally insufficient, and even counterfeit paperwork - which they are required by law to reject for filing - for judge pro tem attorneys.

Whistleblowers claim that Sacramento Family Court corruption results in the misuse of federal funds, deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services, and deprives unrepresented, disabled, and financially disadvantaged court users of their

civil rights.

Racketeering Conduct of Court Clerks, Supervisors and the Family Law Facilitator

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

ADA (11) AGGREGATED NEWS (15) ANALYSIS (38)

APPEALS (11) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (37) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (7) CARLSSON CASE (12)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (19)

CHILD CUSTODY (23)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)

AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1) ABOVE THE LAW (1)

ADMINISTRATORS (4)

AL SALMEN (1)AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANDY FURILLO (2) AOC (1)

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)

BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI (1) CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK (1) CALIFORNIA LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (1)CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHILD ABDUCTION (3)

CHILD SUPPORT (4)

In some cases, judges and court clerks work in tandem to prevent pro per parties from filing documents at court hearings for the benefit of judge pro tems, deliberately creating an incomplete and inaccurate trial court record in the event the pro per files an appeal.

Court records show that clerks also deliberately withhold and delay the filing of time sensitive pro per documents until after filing deadlines have expired.

Family Law Facilitator staff provide pro per litigants with false information designed to conceal state law violations by court clerks and supervisors. Judges regularly provide attorneys with written legal advice and "bench tips." When pro pers ask facilitator staff for similar information, they are told that facilitator employees are prohibited from giving legal advice.

Court reform and accountability advocates assert that the local family law bar - through the Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC - continues to control for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court operations, and have catalogued documented examples of judge pro tem attorney preferential treatment and bias against unrepresented litigants and "outsider" attorneys, including:

Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States" was released in major U.S. cities on January 10, 2014. After a nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption, the movie's production team ultimately included four cases from Sacramento County in the film, more than any other jurisdiction.

Judge pro tem attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are each accused of unethical conduct in the problem cases included in the movie. The infamous Carlsson case, featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and Judge Peter McBrien is the central case profiled in the documentary, with Sacramento County portrayed as the Ground Zero of family court corruption and collusion in the U.S. Click here for our complete coverage of Divorce Corp.

Judge Thadd Blizzard issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order in November, 2013 for judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol authorizing an illegal out-of-state move away and child abduction by Sokol's client, April Berger. The opposing counsel is an "outsider" attorney from San Francisco who was dumbfounded by the order. Click here for our exclusive report, which includes the complete court reporter transcript from the hearing. Click here for our earlier report on the unethical practice of "hometowning" and the prejudicial treatment of outsider attorneys.

Whistleblower leaked court records indicate that Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee officer and judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger engaged in obstruction of justice crimes against an indigent, unrepresented domestic violence victim. The victim was a witness in a criminal contempt case against a Salinger client. The circumstances surrounding the obstruction of justice incident also infer collusion between Salinger and controversial Judge Matthew J. Gary. For our complete investigative report, click here.

In this case, a court clerk illegally "unfiled" a notice of appeal filed by an indigent,disabled pro per litigant. Click here for details.

Alleged RICO Racketeering Enterprise Evidence

Divorce Corp, chronicling Sacramento Superior Court corruption,is available on Netflix.

VOLKERS (7) CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CJP (21) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (13)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (17) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (17)

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT (19)

FAMILY COURT (9)

FAMILY LAW (9)

FERRIS CASE (9)

FLEC (28)

CIVICS (1)CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CJA (3) CJE (2) CJEO (1)

ClientTickler (2) CNN (1)

CODE OF SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3)

CORRUPTION (1) COURT CONDITIONS (2) COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS (1) COURT POLICIES (1) COURT RULES (4) COURTS (1) CPG FAMILY LAW (1)

CRIMINAL LAW (3)CRONYISM (2) DAVID

KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION (1)DENISE RICHARDS (1) DIANE

WASZNICKY (2)DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DONALD TENN (3) DONNA GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1)

EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1)

ELECTIONS (1) EMILY GALLUP (3)EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS

(4)

EQUAL PROTECTION (2)EUGENE L. BALONON (1)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS (2) EX PARTE (1) F4J (4)

FAMILY COURT AUDITS (1) FAMILY COURT CONDITIONS (2)FAMILY COURT MEDIA COVERAGE

(1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE (1) FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO (2) FAMILY COURTHOUSE (1)

FAMILY LAW COUNSELOR (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

FATHERS FOR JUSTICE (1)FEDERAL LAW (2) FEDERAL

LAWSUITS (2) FEE WAIVERS (2) FIRST AMENDMENT (2) FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION (2) FOIA (2) FOX (1) FREDRICK COHEN (4)

GANGNAM STYLE (1) GARY E. RANSOM (1) GARY M. APPELBLATT (2) GEORGE NICHOLSON (1) GERALD UELMEN (1) GREGORY DWYER (1) HAL

Two "standing orders" still in effect after being issued by Judge Roland Candee in 2006 override a California Rule of Court prohibiting temporary judges from serving in family law cases where one party is self-represented and the other party is represented by an attorney or is an attorney. The orders were renewed by Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl in February, 2013. Click here for details.

Sacramento Family Court judges ignore state conflict of interest laws requiring them to disclose to opposing parties when a judge pro tem working as a private attorney represents a client in family court. Click here for our exclusive investigative report. Click here for a list of other conflict of interest posts.

Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee for the financial benefit of private sector attorneys, and often disadvantage the 70 percent of court users without lawyers, according to family court watchdogs and whistleblowers. For example, in sworn testimony by Judge Peter McBrien before the Commission on Judicial Performance, McBrien described seeking and obtaining permission from FLEC to change a local rule. Click here and here.

In November, 2012 Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order declaring a family court party a vexatious litigant and ordering him to pay $2,500 to the opposing attorney, both without holding the court hearing required by law. The opposing attorney who requested the orders is Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley. The blatantly illegal orders resulted in both an unnecessary state court appeal and federal litigation, wasting scarce judicial resources and costing taxpayers significant sums. Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case.

Judge Matthew Gary used an unlawful fee waiver hearing to both obstruct an appeal of his own orders and help a client of judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger avoid paying spousal support. Click here for our investigative report.

An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child support order, and other proceedings in the case were so outrageous that the pro per is now represented on appeal by a team of attorneys led by legendary trial attorney James Brosnahan of global law firm Morrison & Foerster. For our exclusive, ongoing reports on the case, click here.

Judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren helped conceal judge misconduct and failed to comply with Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics when they were eyewitnesses to an unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident in Department 121. Both Sokol and Van Beveren failed to report the misconduct of Judge Matthew Gary as required by state law. Van Beveren is an officer of the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee. Click here for our exclusive report...

...Four years later, Sokol and Van Beveren in open court disseminated demonstrably false and misleading information about the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident. The apparent objective of the judge pro tem attorneys was to discredit the victim of Gary's misconduct, trivialize the incident, and cover up their own misconduct in failing to report the judge. For our follow-up reports, click here. In 2014, a video of the illegal arrest and assault was leaked by a government whistleblower. Click here for details. Watch the exclusive Sacramento Family Court News video below:

Divorce attorney Charlotte Keeley (R) and her client Katina Rapton ofMel Rapton Honda leave a court hearing. Keeley reportedly has billed

Rapton more than $1 million in connection with a child custody dispute.

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

JAMES M. MIZE (21) JEFFREY POSNER (6)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JUDGE PRO TEM (51)

JUDGES (10)

JUDICIAL COUNCIL (6)

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (72)

JULIE SETZER (7) KICKBACKS (33) LAURIE M. EARL (10)

LAW SCHOOL (5) LAWYERS (7)

LOLLIE ROBERTS (5)

MATTHEW

HERNANDEZ (7) MATTHEW J. GARY (34)

MIKE NEWDOW (5)

NEWS (32) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (24)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

OPINION (12) PAULA SALINGER (15) PETER J. McBRIEN (26) PRO PERS (18) PROTEST (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (12) RICHARD SOKOL (12) ROBERT HIGHT (14) ROBERT O'HAIR (8)

BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER (2) HONEST SERVICES (4)INDIGENT (1) INFIGHTING (1) J.

STRONG (2) JACQUELINE ESTON (2)

JAMES BROSNAHAN (2)

JERRY BROWN (1) JERRY GUTHRIE (1)

JODY PATEL (1) JOE SORGE (2) JOHN E.B. MYERS (1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE KENNARD (1)

JOYCE TERHAAR (1) JRC (1)

JUDGE (1)

JUDGE

SALARIES (1) JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1)

JUDY HOLZER

HERSHER (1)

KIDS FOR CASH (2) LAW LIBRARY

(1) LAWYER (1) LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of

CALIFORNIA (1) LEGISLATURE (1) LEON KOZIOL (1) LINCOLN (1)LISTS (4)

LOUIS MAURO (1) LUAN CASE (4) MALPRACTICE (4)MARTIN HOSHINO (2) MARY

MOLINARO (1)

MCGEORGE SOL (2)MEDIA (1) MICHAEL T. GARCIA

(1) NANCY GRACE (1) NANCY

PERKOVICH (4) NEW YORK TIMES (2)

NEWS YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)

OPEN GOVERNMENT (2)

PARENTAL ALIENATION (1)

PERJURY (1)

PHILLIP HERNANDEZ (3)PRESIDING JUDGE (2)

PSY (1) PUBLIC RECORDS (1)RACKETEERING (2) RAOUL M.

THORBOURNE (1)

RECOGNITION/AWARDS (4)REVISIONISM SERIES (2)

RICO (2)

In 2008 controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien deprived a family court litigant of a fair trial in a case where the winning party was represented by judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley. In a scathing, published opinion, the 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in full and ordered a new trial. 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing characterized McBrien's conduct in the case as a "judicial reign of terror." McBrien subsequently was disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Performance for multiple acts of misconduct in 2009. Click here to read the court of appeal decision. Click here to read the disciplinary decision issued by the CJP.

Judge pro tem attorneys Camille Hemmer, Robert O'Hair, Jerry Guthrie and Russell Carlson each testified in support of Judge Peter J. McBrien when the controversial judge was facing removal from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance in 2009. As a sworn temporary judges aware of McBrien's misconduct, each was required by Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics to take or initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's misconduct. Instead, each testified as a character witness in support of the judge. In the CJP's final disciplinary decision allowing McBrien to remain on the bench, the CJP referred specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced McBrien's punishment. Click here. Court records indicate that Judge McBrien has not disclosed the potential conflict of interest to opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the attorneys in cases before the judge. Click here for SFCN coverage of conflict issues.

Judge pro tem attorneys Terri Newman, Camille Hemmer, Diane Wasznicky and Donna

Reed were involved in a proposed scheme to rig a recall election of controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien in 2008. The plan involved helping McBrien defeat the recall by electing him "Judge of the Year" before the November election. Click here for the Sacramento News and Review report.

Judge pro tem attorney Robert J. O'Hair testified as a character witness for controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien at the judge's second CJP disciplinary proceeding in 2009. Paula Salinger, an attorney at O'Hair's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair Posner & Salinger was later granted a waiver of the requirements to become a judge pro tem. A family court watchdog asserts the waiver was payback for O'Hair's testimony for McBrien. Click here to read our exclusive investigative report.

In cases where one party is unrepresented, family court clerks and judges permit judge pro tem attorneys to file declarations which violate mandatory state court rule formatting requirements. The declarations - on blank paper and without line numbers - make it impossible for the pro per to make lawful written evidentiary objections to false and inadmissible evidence. Click here for our report documenting multiple state court rule violations in a motion filed by SCBA Family Law Section officer and temporary judge Paula Salinger. To view the pro per responsive declaration objecting to the illegal filing click here, and click here for the pro per points &

Court records show that Judge Jaime Roman (L) and Judge Matthew Garyroutinely issued demonstrably illegal court orders for the benefit of local attorneys who also work as part-time judges in family court. Both judges

have been reassigned out of the family courthouse.

ROBERT SAUNDERS (22)

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT (14) SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (13)

SATIRE (11) SCBA (22) SCOTT BUCHANAN (5)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) SHARON HUDDLE (6)

SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS (5) STATE AUDITOR (6) STATE BAR (5)

SUNDAY FUNNIES (15)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

THOMAS WOODRUFF (5) TIMOTHY ZEFF (6)

ULF CARLSSON (7)

WATCHDOGS (19)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

YOUTUBE (7)

ROLAND L. CANDEE (1)RON BURGUNDY (1) RONALD

ROBIE (1) RUSSELL CARLSON (4) RUSSELL L. HOM (1) RYDER SALMEN (2) S. HINMAN (3)

SACRAMENTO BEE (4)SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SANCTIONS (2) SANTA CLARA LAW SCHOOL (1) SARAH ANN STEPHENS (1)

SCHWARZENEGGER (1) SCOTT

KENDALL (1) SCSD (1) SEATON CASE (1) SELF-HELP (1)

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (2) SFCN READERSHIP DATA (4)

SO YOU WANT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL (4)

STEPHEN WAGNER (2) STEUART LEAVENWORTH (1) STEVE WHITE (2) STEVEN GEVERCER (1) STEVEN SPIELBERG (1)

SUNSHINE WEEK (2)SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SUPREME COURT (3) TAMI BOGERT (1) TAXPAYERS (1)

TERRY FRANCKE (1) THADDEUS

STEVENS (1) THE RUTTER GROUP (1) THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

TOMMY LEE JONES (1)

UNITED NATIONS (1) UPDATE (2)

VANCE W. RAYE (3)VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (3)

VICTORIA HENLEY (1) VICTORY OUTREACH CHURCH (1) VL-CLASS-ACTION (1) WALL STREET JOURNAL (1) WASTE (1)

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (2)

WHITE HOUSE (1)

XAPURI B. VILLAPUDUA (3) YOLO COUNTY (1)

authorities.

Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice of Entry of Judgment FL-190 form. The fake form omits critical appeal rights notifications and other information included in the mandatory form. Click here for our exclusive report.

Sacramento Family Court temporary judge and family law lawyer Gary Appelblatt was charged with 13-criminal counts including sexual battery and penetration with a foreign object. The victims were clients and potential clients of the attorney. The judge pro tem ultimately pleaded no contest to four of the original 13-counts, including sexual battery, and was sentenced to 18-months in prison. Court administrators concealed from the public that Appelblatt held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click here to read our report.

Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorney Scott Kendall was disbarred from the practice of law on Nov. 24, 2011. Kendall was disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, advising a client to violate the law, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to keep clients informed, including not telling a client about a wage garnishment order and then withdrawing from the same case without notifying the client or obtaining court permission. Court administrators concealed from the public that Kendall held the Office of Temporary Judge. Click here to view our report.

Judge pro tem attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Jacqueline Eston in 2008 helped Donna Gary - the wife of Judge Matthew J. Gary - promote and market ClientTickler, a client management software program for attorneys. The judge reportedly has never disclosed the conflict of interest as required by the Code of Judicial Ethics. Click here for our exclusive report on the controversy.

In February, 2013 the website of family law firm Bartholomew & Wasznicky cut off the public from the only online access to The Family Law Counselor, a monthly newsletter published by the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section. Lawyers at the firm include judge pro tem attorneys Hal Bartholomew, Diane Wasznicky and Mary Molinaro. As SFCN has reported, articles in the newsletter often reflect an unusual, collusive relationship between SCBA attorneys and court administrators and judges. Click here for our report.

Family court reform advocates assert that judge pro tem attorneys obtain favorable court rulings on disputed issues at a statistically improbable rate. The collusion between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, all of which are prohibited under California unfair competition laws, including Business and Professions Code § 17200, reform advocates claim.

Unfair competition and the collusion between judges and judge pro tem attorneys ultimately results in unnecessary appeals burdening the appellate court system, and other, related litigation that wastes public funds, exposes taxpayers to civil liability, and squanders scarce court resources.

Watchdogs point out that the court operates what amounts to a two-track system of justice. One for judge pro tem attorneys and another for unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants and "outsider attorneys." Two-track systems are prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics, according to the Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Judicial Conduct Handbook, the gold standard reference on judge misconduct. Click here for articles about the preferential treatment given judge pro tem attorneys. Click here for examples of how pro pers are treated.

After representing a client in Sacramento Family Court, San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli wrote "this is a 'juice court' in which outside counsel have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel." Click here to read Gianelli's complete, scathing account.

The Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section is led by an "Executive Committee" ("FLEC") of judge pro tem attorneys composed of Chair Russell Carlson, Vice Chair Elaine Van Beveren, Treasurer Fredrick Cohen and Secretary Paula Salinger. Three of the four have been involved in legal malpractice litigation, violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or as a defendant in

Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Mize testified as a character witness insupport of controversial Judge Peter McBrien when McBrien was facing removal

from the bench by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

federal civil rights litigation. Click here to read SFCN profiles of the Executive Committee members. Click here for other articles about FLEC.

Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they learn that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or if a lawyer has violated any provision of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Family court watchdogs assert that temporary judges regularly observe unethical and unlawful conduct by family court judges and attorneys but have never taken or initiated appropriate corrective action, a violation of the judge pro tem oath of office. To view the applicable Code of Judicial Ethics Canons, Click here. For a Judicial Council directive about the obligation to address judicial misconduct, a critical self-policing component of the Code of Judicial Ethics, click here.

For information about the role of temporary judges in family court, click here. For official Sacramento County Superior Court information about the Temporary Judge Program click here. Using public records law, Sacramento Family Court News obtained the list of private practice attorneys who also act as judge pro tems in Sacramento Family Law Court. Each lawyer on the list below is currently a temporary judge, or was a temporary judge in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013. SFCN cross-checked each name on the Sacramento County judge pro tem list with California State Bar Data. The first name in each listing is the name that appears on the Sacramento County judge pro tem list, the second name, the State Bar Number (SBN), and business address are derived from the official State Bar data for each attorney. The State Bar data was obtained using the search function at the State Bar website.

For-profit, private sector lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge:

Sandy Amara, Sandra Rose Amara, SBN 166933, Law Office of Sandra Amara,1 California Street, Auburn, CA 95603.

Mark Ambrose, Mark Anthony Ambrose, SBN 141222, Law Offices of Mark A. Ambrose, 8801 Folsom Blvd. Ste. 170, Sacramento, CA 95826. Ambrose unethically advertises himself as a temporary judge.

Kathleen Amos, Kathleen Swalla Amos, SBN 112395, Attorney at Law & Mediator, 206 5th

Street, Ste. 2B Galt, CA 95632.

Gary Appelblatt, Gary Michael Appelblatt, SBN 144158, 3610 American River Drive #112, Sacramento, CA 95864. Appelblatt was disbarred by the State Bar on Sept. 24, 2010 after being convicted of sexual battery against clients. Click here for our exclusive report. Appelblatt is a graduate of McGeorge School of Law.

Beth Appelsmith, Beth Marie Appelsmith, SBN 124135, 1430 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento CA 95816.

Bunmi Awoniyi, Olubunmi Olaide Awoniyi, SBN 154183, Law Office of Bunmi Awoniyi a PC, 1610 Executive Ct. Sacramento, CA 95864. Awoniyi unethically advertises herself as a temporary judge. Awoniyi was appointed a Superior Court Judge in December 2012 and holds court in Department 120 of Sacramento Family Court.

A number of family court whistleblowers have leaked court records indicating that judge pro tem attorneys receive from

judges kickbacks and other preferential treatment in exchange for operating the family court settlement conference program.