Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
FILF=I)
It-',-.,, ";
. ""'"
"'t-i=
NOV o 5 2009
C Vx
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM F. GLACKEN,
(_ 4)
Plaintiff,
09 4 B 3 2
HURLEY
TOMLltsor:
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ x
COMPLAINT
Nature of Action
1.
1983, alleging the deprivation of his First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the United States Constitution by the defendants in retaliation
for plaintiff's published opinion and criticism of defendants Hardwick, Colton and Warren's
malfeasance concerning the payment of $3, 500, 000. 00 of taxpayer funds to a favored
developer to settle baseless litigation against the Incorporated Village of Freeport. This
action arises under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution and 42 U. S. C. 1983 and 1988, and New York's Public Officers Law 18(3)
and (4), adopted by Freeport at Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Freeport Code.
Jurisdiction and Venue
2.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U. S.C. 1983, et seq.
This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to U.S. Code 1331 and
1343. To the extent plaintiff's claims arise und er New York law, the action is properly
before the Court under the Court's pendant jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S.C. 1367.
3.
York and, therefore, venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1391(b) .
The Parties
4.
Plaintiff was, between April 7, 1997 and April 6, 2009, the full-time Mayor
of the Incorporated Village of Freeport and, as such, during said period, was a public
officer and employee of Freeport continuously and without interruption until 12:00 noon on
April 6, 2009, at which time plaintiff's term expired.
6.
Plaintiff was a public officer and employee of Freeport, as that term is defined
by New York Public Officers Law 18(1)(b) and Chapter 130-5, et. seq. of the Code of
Freeport.
7.
duly formed under the laws of the State of New York and is a political subdivision of the
State of New York, with municipal offices at 46 North Ocean Avenue, Freeport, Nassau
County, New York.
8.
the Mayor of the Incorporated Village of Freeport, and is sued herein in his official capacity
and individually.
10.
The Defendant Board of Trustees (Board) is the governing body for the
Incorporated Village of Freeport, as that term is defined by New York Public Officers Law
18(1)(c) and the Village Law for the State of New York.
11.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Colton, from on or about March 18,
2009 to date, was and continues to be a political operative of Defendant, Andrew Hardwick.
13.
Defendant Colton was, from April 6, 2009 and at all times hereinafter
mentioned, and continues to be, the Village Attorney for the Incorporated Village of
Freeport, and is sued herein in his official capacity and individually.
14.
16.
Defendants John Doe #1, #2 and #3 are parties whose true identities are
unknown to plaintiff at this time, but who are, upon information and belief, involved with the
conduct and actions referred to hereinbelow.
17.
Defendants Jane Doe #1 and #2 are parties whose true identities are
unknown to plaintiff at this time, but who are, upon information and belief, involved with the
conduct and actions referred to hereinbelow.
18.
The provisions of New York's Public Officers Law 18 was duly adopted by
Freeport as Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Freeport Code and applies to Freeport by virtue
of Public Officers Law 18(2)(a) .
The Facts
19.
LLC and Gary Melius filed two lawsuits (Water Works actions) in State Supreme Court of
the County of Nassau against nineteen defen dants, including, but not limited to, the County
of Nassau (Nassau) , various County officials, employees, a private law firm and several
of its employees, a private developer and its principals, the Incorporated Village of Freeport
(Freeport), the plaintiff Glacken, in his individual and official capacity, and other Village
officials and employees in their official capacities and individually (Water Works actions) .
20.
capacity (then Deputy Village Attorney) and in his individual capacity in the Water Works
actions.
21.
The Water Works actions seek millions of dollars in damages from Freeport,
Nassau, and the other defendants based on allegations of a variety of criminal actions
against the defendants named therein, includ ing fraud, conspiracy, civil RICO charges, and
a plethora of other claims. The Water Works claims arise from municipal actions taken
in 2004 by Nassau and Freeport to liquidate $1. 2 million dollars in tax liens representing
real property tax arrears on the real property owned by Water Works and located in
Freeport and adjoining the unincorporated area of Baldwin.
22.
retained Claims Administrator, Customized Claims Services, Freeport retained the law firm
of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP to defend Freeport and the individual
Freeport defendants in the Water Works actions then pending in State Court.
23.
In November of 2008, counsel from the Wilson firm met with the then sitting
Board of Trustees1 concerning the defense of the Water Works actions, and indicated said
actions were completely defensible.
24.
individual Freeport defendants, including Plaintiff Glacken, in the Water Works actions.
25.
insured entity with a self-insured retention (SIR) of $1, 000, 000. 00.
26.
maintained "excess" insurance coverage from "excess" insurance carriers for claims in
excess of its self-insured retention, each policy provid ing in the amount of $5,000, 000. 00
over Freeport's SIR.
27.
Claims Administrator put Freeport's excess insurance carriers on notice of the Water
Works actions, providing said carriers with copies of the Water Works complaints and other
requested information in said actions.
28.
In or about January of 2009, Freeport removed the Water Works State Court
actions to Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New, where said actions are
currently pending under Federal CV Numbers 08-4754 and 08-4449. 2
29.
controversy in the Freeport community, and have become and remain matters of public
concern in that Water Works allegations accuse the County of Nassau, County officials,
the Village of Freeport, its former Board of Trustees and various Village officials, including
plaintiff Glacken, of criminal conduct.
30.
Plaintiffs in the Water Works actions seek millions of dollars in damages from
Freeport mayoral election campaign which culminated with an election on March 18, 2009.
Said actions were assigned to the Hon. Leonard Wexler, Federal District
Court Judge, and United States Magistrate Boyle.
6
32.
Upon information and belief, prior to the March 2009 Freeport mayoral
election, Defendants Warren, Colton and Hardwick formed an alliance with the plaintiffs
in the Water Works actions, the purpose of which was to fund Hardwick's mayoral election
campaign, coordinate attacks on Glacken, and create a vehicle to settle the Water Works
actions and various tax certiorari proceedings against Freeport.
34.
agreed to promptly settle the Water Works litigation on terms favorable to plaintiffs in that
action in the event Hardwick won the Freeport mayoral election.
35.
capacity as Hardwick's chief political operative, was the architect of Defendant Hardwick's
pre-election public position on the Water Works actions.
36.
Upon information and belief, Gary Melius (Melius) , the principal of Water
Works Realty LLC and a plaintiff in the pending Water Works Federal actions, was a
contributor to Defendant Hardwick's mayoral
campaign and
a major supporter of
Upon information and belief, Gary Melius and members of his family made
38.
Upon information and belief, immediately after the Melius March contribution
relative to Hardwick's candidacy for mayor in the March 18, 2009 Freeport mayoral
election.
39.
Defendant Hardwick publicly advocated for and supported the position of the
On March 13, 2009, five days before the election, Melius filed a defamation
Upon information and belief, on or about March 14, 2009, four days before
the mayoral election on March 18, 2009,, Melius circulated a mailing to Village residents
throughout Freeport excoriating Glacken and other Village officials, referring to the
Water Works actions pending in Federal District Court.
42.
Upon information and belief, the mailing by Melius, a plaintiff in the Water
concerns about the joint municipal process by which liens representing real property tax
arrears were liquidated by the taxing authorities of Freeport and Nassau.
8
45.
On March 30, 2009, pursuant to New York Public Officers Law 18(3) and
(4) and Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Freeport Code, Freeport authorized the defense and
indemnification of plaintiff, then Mayor Glacken, in the Melius State Court defamation
action.
46.
Court defamation action to the law firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker.
47.
On March 18, 2009, Defendant Hardwick and two running mates, Carmen
Pineyro and Robert Kennedy were elected as Mayor and Trustees of Freeport.
48.
On April 6, 2009, Hardwick, Kennedy and Pineyro took office as Mayor and
Upon information and belief, between March 19, 2009 and April 5, 2009,
Defendants Colton, Warren and others met with the Water Works plaintiffs and formed a
plan to promptly settle the Water Works actions on terms favorable to plaintiffs in said
actions.
Upon information and belief, shortly after the March 18, 2009 election but
before taking office, Defendants Hardwick, Warren and Colton ordered Freeport's Claims
Administrator to replace the Wilson, Elser firm as Freeport's counsel in the Federal Water
Works actions with the two-person law firm of Warren & Warren, of which Defendant
3
White and Martinez were and continue to be the remaining two members
of the five-member Board.
9
Warren was, and continues to be, a principal. At such time, Defendants Hardwick, Colton
and Warren were acting in their respective individual capacities.
51.
Upon information and belief, shortly after April 6, 2009, Freeport's Claims
Administrator removed Wilson, Elser as Freeport's counsel, but continued Wilson, Elser's
representation of Plaintiff Glacken and the other individual Village defendants in the Water
Works actions now pending in Federal Court, except for Defendant Howard Colton.
54.
Defendant Colton is now represented by Warren & Warren, LLP in the Water
Works actions.
56.
as to any matters before Freeport that involved or concerned the Water Works or its
principal, Melius.
57.
The Wilson Elser firm has also continued as Freeport's retained counsel
assigned to the defense of Glacken in the Melius State Court defamation action
pursuant to the Public Officers Law 18(2) and Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Code of
Freeport.
10
58.
Hardwick instructed Dennis Warren to settle the Water Works Federal Court litigation as
against Freeport only, by having Freeport pay $3. 5 million to plaintiffs Water Works and
Melius. The Hardwick-directed $3. 5 million dollar settlement excluded the non-Village
defendants in said pending actions.
59.
Colton, and Freeport's Special Counsel in the Water Works action, Defend ant Dennis
Warren, threatened to remove the defense of Glacken and other individual Freeport
defendants in the Water Works Federal actions unless Glacken and others agreed to
support the Hardwick -directed $3. 5 million dollar payment to the Water Works plaintiffs in
settlement of the Water Works actions, and also agreed not to publicly disparage the
proposed Hardwick settlement payment of $3. 5 million dollars to Melius.
60.
settlement of the Water Works actions as imprudent because, upon information and belief,
Defendant Hardwick's directed settlement was to be made (1) prior to the service and
filing of any answer or affirmative defense by any of the nineteen defendants in the two
pending Federal actions; (2) without resolving Freeport's insurance coverage issues with
its two excess insurance carriers; (3) without the conduct of any depositions in the
pending actions or the exchange of any d ocument disclosure by any of the parties or
multiple non-party witnesses in the pending
contribution or set-offs from any of the non-Village defendants; (5) without any expert
analysis of the Water Works' damages claim; (6) without a judicial decision on a pending
request of all defendants for leave to file a motion to dismiss the complaints; (7) with no
11
assurance that the Village and the individual defendants would not be cross-claimed back
into the action by the non-settling, non-Village defendants; (8) while continuing to require
individual defendants to comply with ongoing discovery requests at Freeport's expense for
legal fees; (9) with no municipal funds available or appropriated to pay the settlement;
and {1O) without a Village bond resolution in place to authorize the financing of the
proposed settlement.
61.
counsel in the Water Works actions, has not conducted any discovery nor issued a single
demand for production of documents against plaintiffs in the Water Works actions.
63.
Upon information and belief, within days of the receipt and distribution
Plaintiff Glacken's letter of opposition to the proposed $3. 5 million dollar payment to Melius,
Defendants Hardwick, Colton, and Warren took steps to withdraw Freeport's d efense and
indemnification of Plaintiff Glacken in the Melius State Supreme Court defamation action.
64.
12
65.
Upon information and belief, at the urging of Defendants Warren and Colton,
the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution, on September 14, 2009, purportedly revoking
the indemnification of Glacken in the State Court defamation action, and authorizing the
Village Attorney and/or Special Counsel Warren to commence proceedings against
Plaintiff Glacken to recover all Village funds expended by Freeport "on the matter. "
66.
Upon information and belief, said actions were taken and the resolution
adopted only after Defendants Warren and Colton knowingly and intentionally misinformed
the Board of Trustees that payments to Wilson, Elser on behalf of Glacken were illegal
and possibly criminal, and that any Trustee who voted against the termination resolution
would be personally liable for said legal fees.
67.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Colton and Warren refused and/or
ignored existing law requiring the Board's obligation and duty to defend Glacken pursuant
to Public Officers Law 18.
68.
Glacken and his Village-retained defense counsel that Freeport had withdrawn Freeport's
defense and indemnification of Glacken in the Melius State Court defamation action
pending in Nassau Supreme Court.
69.
Upon information and belief, Trustees White and Martinez, also named
defendants in the Water Works actions and voting members of the current Board of
Trustees, were and continue to be threatened by Defendants Warren, Colton and Hardwick
with Freeport's discontinuance of their Village-provided defense and indemnification in the
Water Works actions unless they agreed to vote for a bond resolution or other financial
13
device to municipally fund the Hardwick-directed settlement payment of $3. 5 million dollars
to Melius.
70.
of Glacken and authorizing municipal collection efforts against Glacken in the State Court
defamation action were retaliatory actions against Glacken, and were taken solely because
of Glacken's publicly expressed opposition to Defendant Hardwick's proposed $3.5 million
dollar payment to Melius in settlement of the Federal actions, a significant matter of public
concern.
71.
Upon information and belief, said action was also taken to bolster and
reinforce the threats directed at Trustees White and Martinez, two voting members of the
Board, and also named defendants in the Water Works actions.
72.
Upon information and belief, said action was taken to bolster and reinforce
similar threats directed at Village Treasurer Vilma Lancaster, also a named defendant in
the Water Works litigation.
73.
Upon information and belief, during the week of October 12, 2009, Defendant
Colton presented Treasurer Lancaster with a Stipulation of Settlement of the Water Works
litigation and instructed her to sign same.
74.
Upon information and belief, Lancaster's attorney, Wilson, Elser, was not
present at such signing and did not authorize such action by Defendant Colton with regard
to Treasurer Lancaster.
75.
Wilson, Elser, objected to Colton's unauthorized meeting with Lancaster, Defendant Colton
14
declared a "conflict of interest" and replaced Wilson, Elser with Warren & Warren as
Lancaster's counsel in the Water Works litigation.
76.
Upon information and belief, neither Defendant Colton nor Defendant Warren
79.
settlement, Freeport would not have taken the action against Glacken complained of in
this action.
80.
Glacken and other public officers and employees, including, but not limited to, Trustees
White and Martinez, and Treasurer Vilma Lancaster, into supporting the Hardwick
settlement,
settlement, and to prevent Plaintiff Glacken and others from bringing defendants' actions
to the attention of the public.
81.
82.
statutorily mandated employment benefit extended to plaintiff by New York Public Officers
Law 18(3) and (4) , adopted by Freeport in Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Code of Freeport.
This right vested in Glacken during his tenure as Mayor of Freeport, a public officer and
employee of a public entity, and is therefore a substantial property right.
83.
Plaintiff's
Glacken's tenure as an official and employee of Freeport, and exists on a continuing basis,
and may not be unilaterally taken away by Freeport without due process.
84.
or process to review the basis for its unilateral termination of plaintiff's rights under Public
Officers Law 18 and Freeport's Chapter 130-5, et seq.
85.
obligation under New York Public Officers Law 18, as adopted by the Code of Freeport
at Chapter 130. 5, et seq.
86.
Plaintiff has been and will be forced to expend large sums of money to secure Plaintiff' s
16
defense in the pending Melius State Court defamation action pending in Nassau Supreme
Court.
89.
Owing solely to the expression of his opinions on public concerns over the
payment to Melius in settlement of the pending Water Works Federal actions, plaintiff has
become fearful that Defendants Hardwick and Colton will carry out their threats and "pull"
the defense of Glacken in said action.
90.
individual Freeport defendants in the Water Works actions with the same actions as they
have already taken in the Melius State Court defamation action, exposing the plaintiff and
others to hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs, and inhibiting
plaintiff's and others' First Amendment rights to comment and oppose defendants' actions
with regard to the Water Works actions. .
91.
Freeport, in the past, has provided defense and indemnification in many civil
actions against its public officers and employees. Upon information and belief, Freeport
has never made any determination to rescind its defense of an employee under any
circumstances.
92.
The chill cast upon plaintiff's First Amendment rights by Freeport's completed
retaliatory actions and threats of further reprisals is continuing, ongoing and palpable.
94.
The retaliatory actions against plaintiff and the continuing threats and
intimidation aimed at the plaintiff and others are part of defendants' policy of retaliation,
17
intimidation and reprisal aimed at the plaintiff and other individual Village defendants to
force their assent to the Hardwick settlement payment of $3. 5 million dollars to Melius,
notwithstanding the claimed impropriety and malfeasance of said actions.
95.
Defendants' actions have been taken under color of State law, as are the
threatened actions, and have been approved by the Defendant Board of Trustees, policy
makers for Freeport.
96.
First Amendment right of freedom of expression on matters of public concern and interest.
97.
by the Defendant Board of Trustees for Defendant Freeport, and are ongoing.
98.
inflicted upon plaintiff to deny him of his First Amendment right to defend himself in the
court proceedings by denying him access to court.
99.
100.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "99," with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.
101.
State actors Hardwick and Colton acted jointly and conspired with Defendant
Warren to present to the Board of Trustees (i) a false statement relative to the Village's
duty to defend plaintiff in the State Court action; (ii) a false statement to the Board of
Trustees as to each member's individual liability for any payments on behalf of the defense
18
of Glacken in the State Court defamation suit; (iii) a false set of minutes concerning the
Board's actions at its meeting of September 14, 2009; and (iv) did provide the Village's
Claims Administrator a false "Corrected Directive" relative to the Board's actions at its
September 14, 2009 Executive Session meeting.
102.
to deprive plaintiff of his constitutionally-protected property rights and right to free speech.
103.
104.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "103, " with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.
105.
By reason of the foregoing, the defendants, acting under color of State law,
violated the plaintiff's right to substantive due process by removing plaintiff's defense in the
civil action Melius v. Glacken, in violation of New York Public Officer's Law 18.
106.
107.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "106, '' with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.
19
108.
of First Amendment rights objecting to d efendants' actions, past, present and proposed ,
defendants, acting under color of State law, terminated plaintiff's employment benefit
consisting of the defense and indemnification of plaintiff in a civil action, Melius v. Glacken.
109.
By reason of the foregoing, plain tiff's free speech rights under the First
Amendment were chilled, and plaintiff has been forced to spend money, time and
resources in defending himself in said action.
110.
The actions of the defendants are in violation of the First, Fifth and
The actions of the defendants are in violation of New York Public Officers
against defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, but believed to be not less than
$2,500,000. 00.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM - INJUNCTION
113.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "11O," with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.
114.
declaring defendants' conduct illegal and violative of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, New York Public Officer's Law 18 and the
Code of Freeport, Chapter 130-5, et seq.
20
115.
116.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "113," with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.
117.
By virtue of plaintiff's status as a public officer and employee for the period
of time between April 7, 1997 and April 6, 2009, plaintiff has a constitutionally- cognizable
property right in the form of employment benefit defined by New York Public Officers Law
18, to wit, the defense and indemnification in civil actions arising from plaintiff's duties and
actions as duly elected and serving full-time Mayor for the Incorporated Village of Freeport.
118.
Plaintiff's above-described property right may not be taken away without due
process of law.
119.
violated plaintiff's right to procedural due process by failing to provide plaintiff with a pre
termination hearing concerning the Village of Freeport's termination of plaintiff's defense
in the State Court action entitled
120.
Melius
v.
Glacken.
v.
Glacken.
21
121.
122.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "119," with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.
123.
and individual capacities, said conduct having been carried out under color of State law,
plaintiff has been forced to expend substantial sums for legal fees, Court costs and related
expenses to vindicate his constitutionally-protected rights.
124.
WHEREFORE,
and
the Defendant
(B)
(C)
22
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
DATED:
23
VERIFICATION
)
)
ss.:
I am the defendant in the action herein; I have read the ann exed Complaint, know
the contents thereof, and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein
which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe
them to be true.
s d
HARRISON J. EDWARDS IV
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK
No. 02ED6200602
217
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
RoadDog SATIRE
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(67)
JUDGE PRO TEM
(50)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
ARTS & CULTURE
(23)
CHILD CUSTODY
(22)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(22)
SCBA
(22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
The kickbacks usually consist of "rubberstamped" court orders which are contrary to
established law, and cannot be attributed to the
exercise of judicial discretion.For a detailed
overview of the alleged collusion between judge
pro tem attorneys and family court employees
and judges, we recommend our specialColor of
Law series of investigative reports.
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(15)
JAMES M. MIZE
(15)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
The current day Sacramento County Family Court system andattorney operated settlement conference program
was set up in 1991 by and for the lawyers of theSacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section,
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
RAPTON-KARRES
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien at his
2009Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge McBrien'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.
Court watchdogs assert that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private
sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which deprives the public of the federally protected right
to honest government services.
Court reform and accountability advocates assert that the local family law bar- through the Family Law
ExecutiveCommitteeor 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
fourcases 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 theGround Zeroof 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.
(11)
CARLSSON CASE
(10)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)
WE SUPPORT
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.
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
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.
Californians Aware
Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law
Executive Committeefor 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. Romanissued a rubber-stamped,
kickback orderdeclaring 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 judgepro 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 supportorder, 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 Beverenhelped 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 isan 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.
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
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
In 2008controversial family courtJudge Peter J. McBriendeprived a family court litigant of a fair trial
in a case where the winning party was represented by judge protemattorney Charlotte Keeley. In a
scathing, published opinion, the 3rd District Court of Appealreversed in full and ordered a new
trial. 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing characterized McBrien's
conduct in thecase 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 attorneysCamille Hemmer,Robert O'Hair,Jerry GuthrieandRussell Carlsoneach
testified in support ofJudge Peter J. McBrienwhen thecontroversialjudge was facing removal from
the bench by theCommission on Judicial Performancein 2009.As a sworn temporary judges aware
of McBrien's misconduct, each wasrequired byCanon 3D(1)of theCode of Judicial Ethicsto take or
initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's misconduct. Instead, each testified as a
character witnessin supportof the judge. In theCJP'sfinal disciplinary decision allowing McBrien to
remain on the bench, theCJPreferred specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced
McBrien's punishment.Click here. Court records indicate thatJudge McBrienhas not disclosed the
potentialconflict of interestto opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the
attorneys in cases before the judge.Click hereforSFCNcoverage of conflict issues.
Judge pro temattorneysTerri Newman,CamilleHemmer,Diane WasznickyandDonna
Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may
be gender-specific)
ABA Family Law Blawg
Directory
California Coalition for
Families and Children
California Protective
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
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 bySCBA Family Law Section officer
and temporary judgePaula Salinger. To view the pro per responsive declaration objecting to the illegal
filing click here, and click here for the pro per points & 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 temporaryjudgeandfamily law lawyerGary 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 fourof
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
hereto read our report.
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside
Superior Court
Weightier Matter
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorneyScott 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.
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
Judge pro tem attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Jacqueline Estonin 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.
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
155121
163
Google+ Badge
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 ofChair 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
federal civil rights litigation. Click here to read SFCN profiles of the Executive Committee members.
Click here for otherarticles 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
PR Brown
Follow
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
1102
(1)
AB 590
ABA
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
FURILLO
(2)
ANDY
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
CULTURE
(23)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEY
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.
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ATTORNEYS
(11)
BAR
ASSOCIATION
(11)
BARACK
OBAMA
(1)
BARTHOLOMEW
and WASZNICKY
(3)
BUNMI
AWONIYI
(1)
CALIFORNIA
(1)
CALIFORNIA
LAWYER
(1)
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(2)
CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CARLSSON CASE
(10)
(4)
CHARLOTTE
KEELEY
(18)
CHILD
CUSTODY
(22)
CHILD
SUPPORT
(4)
CHRISTINA
ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA
VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL
RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(18)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
(1)
SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF
Sandy
LAW
SERIES
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)
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
CONDUCT
(11)
CRIMINAL
Amara, Sandra Rose Amara, SBN 166933, Law Office of Sandra Amara,1 California
LAW
(3)
CRONYISM
(2)
Street,Auburn, CA95603.
DAVID KAZZIE
(4)
DEMOTION
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 afterbeing convicted of
sexual battery against clients. Click here for our exclusive report. Appelblatt is a graduate of McGeorge School of
Law.
Beth
(1)
DENISE
GARY
(2)
DSM-301.7
(1)
EDITORIAL
(1)
EDWARD
FREIDBERG
(2)
EFF
(2)
EFFICIENCY
IN
GOVERNMENT
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN
(13)
ELECTIONS
(1)
AWARD
(1)
95816.
RICHARDS
(1)
DIANE WASZNICKY
(2)
DISQUALIFICATION
(2)
DIVORCE
(7)
DIVORCE
ATTORNEY
(5)
DIVORCE
CORP
(15)
DIVORCE
LAWYER
(5)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
EMILY
GALLUP
(3)
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.
Alexandre C. Barbera, C. Alexandre Barbera, SBN 70071,915 Highland Point Drive, Ste. 250
(4)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT
(19)
EQUAL PROTECTION
(2)
EUGENE L. BALONON
(1)
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
(2)
EX PARTE
(1)
F4J
(4)
FAMILY COURT
(9)
FAMILY
COURT
Roseville, CA 95678.
COURT
AUDITS
(1)
FAMILY
CONDITIONS
(2)
FAMILY COURT
MEDIA COVERAGE
(1)
FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE
(1)
FAMILY
COURT
SACRAMENTO
(2)
FAMILY