Sacramento Court Clerk Misconduct: Filing Withheld Until Expiration of Filing Deadline for Statement of Decision Request - Judge Matthew J. Gary Court Clerk Christina Arcuri Sacramento County Superior Court - Judge James M. Mize - Judge Robert Hight - Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria B. Henley CJP Chief Counsel San Francisco - California Supreme Court Justice Leondra R. Kruger, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Justice Goodwin H. Liu, Justice Carol A. Corrigan, Justice Ming W. Chin, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Supreme Court of California - Disability Bias California Courts
100%(3)100% encontró este documento útil (3 votos)
325 vistas19 páginas
Indigent, disabled pro per litigant court filing withheld by court clerk until after expiration of time frame to file request for statement of decision. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Matthew Gary court clerk Christina Arcuri. The request for a statement of decision must be filed within 10-days after a court hearing. The court hearing related to this document took place on October 27. As the US Postal Service Track and Confirm verification memorializes, the pleading was received by the court on November 5. As the file stamp memorializes, the document was filed by clerk Christina Arcuri on November 17, well beyond the 10-day window to make the request timely.
Sacramento Superior Court watchdogs allege that since 1991 the family law division of the court has operated as a racketeering enterprise, similar to the racketeering enterprise uncovered in the Kids for Cash scandal in Luzerne County, PA. In 1991 Judge Peter McBrien and Judge Vance Raye, now an appellate court judge, entered into a secretive agreement with divorce lawyers from the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section. The judges and attorneys restructured the family court system into a public-private sector organized criminal enterprise, according to court whistleblowers.
The judges delegated to the lawyers the task of running the family court settlement conference program, requiring the attorneys to be designated as part-time judges, or ”judge pro tems.” The primary objective of the attorney run settlement program 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 program.
At the settlement conferences, the judge pro tem lawyers coerce divorcing couples to settle cases so they won’t use the trial court services, including court hearings, ordinarily required to resolve a contested divorce.
Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for reducing the workload of judges and court staff the attorneys are provided various kickbacks, gratuities, or emoluments when representing clients in court, including “rubber-stamped” court orders and rulings, according to court reform advocates.
Court watchdogs have documented that the lawyers obtain a statistically impossible level of favorable outcomes at court hearings, especially in cases where the opposing party is an unrepresented “pro per” without a lawyer. Many pro per litigants – who make up over 70 percent of family court parties - are indigent, financially disadvantaged, or disabled.
The quid pro quo arrangement also insulates judge and attorney members of the organization from oversight authorities, including the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state agency responsible oversight and discipline of judges, and the State Bar, responsible for attorney accountability and discipline. Judge pro tem lawyers who regularly violate state law, court rules, and attorney ethics rules are rarely, if ever assessed penalties, fines or “sanctions” by full-time judges as required by law.
The blind-eye, preferential treatment from full-time judges provides the attorneys with virtual immunity from State Bar scrutiny. Pro per litigants, however, are routinely punished with fines and draconian financial sanctions to discourage them from returning to court, and to coerce them to accept settlement terms dictated by the opposing attorney and part-time judge-attorneys who run the settlement conference program.
To conceal and ensure the continuity of the enterprise, when full-time judges face investigation by the CJP, members of the enterprise provide false, misleading, or otherwise gratuitous character witness testimony and other forms of support for the offending judge to reduce or eliminate potential punishment by the CJP.
For the complete investigative report by Sacramento Family Court News, visit this URL: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/temporary-judges.html
100%(3)100% encontró este documento útil (3 votos)
325 vistas19 páginas
Sacramento Court Clerk Misconduct: Filing Withheld Until Expiration of Filing Deadline for Statement of Decision Request - Judge Matthew J. Gary Court Clerk Christina Arcuri Sacramento County Superior Court - Judge James M. Mize - Judge Robert Hight - Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria B. Henley CJP Chief Counsel San Francisco - California Supreme Court Justice Leondra R. Kruger, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Justice Goodwin H. Liu, Justice Carol A. Corrigan, Justice Ming W. Chin, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Supreme Court of California - Disability Bias California Courts
Indigent, disabled pro per litigant court filing withheld by court clerk until after expiration of time frame to file request for statement of decision. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Matth…