Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 48

Page 1

1 of 1 DOCUMENT

Cited
As of: Feb 20, 2015
In re the Marriage of MAUREEN J. DURIS and WILLIAM AUGUST URBANY.
MAUREEN J. DURIS, Appellant, v. WILLIAM AUGUST URBANY, Respondent.
B222002
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT,
DIVISION SIX
193 Cal. App. 4th 510; 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 150; 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 275

March 14, 2011, Filed


PRIOR-HISTORY:
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara, No. 1112027,
Colleen K. Sterne, Judge.

William August Urbany, in pro. per., for Respondent.


JUDGES: Opinion by Gilbert, P. J., with Yegan and
Coffee, JJ., concurring.

HEADNOTES-1
OPINION BY: Gilbert
CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES
(1) Costs 11--Sanctions--Notice and Hearing
Requirement--Opportunity to Present Evidence.--The
trial court erred in awarding attorney fees as sanctions
against a former wife because (1) there was no notice that
sanctions were an issue at a child support modification
hearing, (2) there was no hearing on sanctions, and (3)
there was no evidence to support the findings on the
award of attorney fees.
[Cal. Forms of Pleading and Practice (2010) ch.
226, Dissolution of Marriage: Attorney's Fees, 226.12;
11 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005)
Husband and Wife, 10.]
COUNSEL: Vanessa Kirker Wright for Appellant.

OPINION
GILBERT, P. J.--Summary proceedings are
common in family law cases. Nevertheless, however
certain a court may be that a party or an attorney in a
family law proceeding deserves sanctions, it must keep in
mind an immutable principle that cuts across all areas of
the law: sanctions may not be summarily imposed. Due
process demands more.
Petitioner Maureen J. Duris appeals a postjudgment
order requiring her to pay $10,000 to respondent William
August Urbany as sanctions for unnecessary litigation
filed by Duris's former attorney in this dissolution of
marriage action. We conclude, among other things, that
the trial court erred by (1) awarding sanctions without

Page 2

first giving advance notice to Duris that sanctions were


an issue at a child support modification hearing, and (2)
not affording Duris a hearing to present evidence to
contest the imposition of sanctions and the amount of the
fees. We reverse and remand for a new hearing.
FACTS
Duris filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage
to Urbany. On June 2, 2004, the trial court entered a
judgment of dissolution. The court subsequently ordered
the custody of their two children to be shared by Duris
and Urbany.
On January 29, 2009, Duris filed a motion to modify
the shared custody order. She sought "100% physical and
legal custody" of her two sons and increased child
support. Urbany filed an opposition.
Duris represented herself, but on September 8, 2009,
she substituted Jacqueline Misho as her attorney. Misho
commenced discovery and filed a motion to compel
Urbany to produce documents. The trial court denied the
motion. It ordered the parties to meet and confer to
complete discovery.
On November 16, 2009, Duris substituted herself in
place of Misho.
On November 23, 2009, the trial court held a hearing
on Duris's custody and support motion. At the beginning
of this proceeding, it described the issue to be decided as
"modification of child support." After the completion of
the testimony on the child support issues, the court said it
would impose $10,000 in sanctions against Duris because
of "unnecessary legal activity" filed by Misho. The court
referred to Misho's prior motion to compel as a "fee sink"
that "nonetheless required response on the other side." It
said, "And for that reason of the approximately $25,000
that Mr. Urbany has expended in attorney's fees to date,
I'm going to order Ms. Duris to absorb $10,000."
Duris told the trial court that she was an unemployed
attorney, trying to find a job, and could not pay $10,000
and support her children. She said, "How am I being
penalized for hiring [Misho]? How was I supposed to
know? I thought she was the best there was." The court
did not take evidence on the sanctions and attorney fee
issues.
DISCUSSION

Notice, Hearing and Evidence for Findings


Duris contends the trial court erred in awarding
attorney fees as sanctions because (1) there was no notice
that sanctions were an issue at the child support hearing,
(2) there was no hearing on sanctions, and (3) there was
no evidence to support findings on the award of attorney
fees. We agree.
Notice
The trial court awarded attorney fees as sanctions
against Duris because of the conduct of her prior
attorney. But "for awards based principally on the
wrongful conduct of a party or attorney, notice and a
hearing [are] required before sanctions may be imposed."
(In re Marriage of Hublou (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 956,
964-965 [282 Cal. Rptr. 695].) "[N]otice prior of
imposition of sanctions is mandated not only by statute
but also by the due process clauses of both state and
federal Constitutions." (In re Marriage of Fuller (1985)
163 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1077 [210 Cal. Rptr. 73].)
Here there was no advance notice on the issue of
sanctions. The trial court summarily awarded them
because of actions involving a prior proceeding in this
case. But this hearing involved a different issue. Duris
filed a motion to modify child support. In his response,
Urbany could have raised attorney fees and sanctions as
an issue if he had completed the information on point 15
of the income and expense declaration form (Judicial
Council form FL-150). But he did not fill out that portion
of that document and he never filed a notice of motion for
sanctions for the November 23 hearing. The court's
minute orders describe the hearing only as a motion to
modify child support; there is no reference to sanctions.
At the beginning of the hearing, the court said the issue
was child support; it did not mention sanctions.
Consequently, Duris had no warning that this issue would
be decided. "[C]ase authority condemns imposition of
sanctions without prior notice." (In re Marriage of Fuller,
supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1078.)
Hearing
Duris was not provided a hearing on sanctions. The
trial court first raised the sanctions issue during closing
arguments after it had completed the evidentiary hearing
on support modification. It then summarily imposed
sanctions finding that Misho's motion to compel
discovery was unnecessary litigation. Duris was at a

Page 3

substantial disadvantage because the court raised the


issue about Misho's conduct when Misho was not present.
Because Duris appeared in propria persona and had no
prior notice, she had no opportunity to subpoena Misho
to explain the reasons for filing the discovery motion.
Facts known by Misho were relevant. As Duris's counsel,
Misho was legally responsible for developing the
discovery strategy the court was challenging. (Gdowski v.
Gdowski (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 128, 138 [95 Cal. Rptr.
3d 799].) Whether Misho reasonably believed that the
discovery motion might lead to admissible evidence is an
important factor in deciding whether sanctions are
appropriate. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc.
(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 [105 Cal. Rptr. 2d
115].)
Misho and Duris had no forum to present opposition
evidence. In a proceeding to determine whether an
attorney's conduct justifies sanctions, there must be a
sufficient opportunity to present opposing evidence. (In
re Marriage of Quinlan (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1417,
1422 [257 Cal. Rptr. 850]; see also Lesser v. Huntington
Harbor Corp. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 922, 933 [219 Cal.
Rptr. 562] [two days' notice for a sanctions hearing is
insufficient time to prepare declarations showing that
litigation was filed in good faith].) Duris had no time to
file declarations, and Misho was denied an opportunity to
challenge the accusation against her and defend her
reputation. (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d
637, 652 [183 Cal. Rptr. 508, 646 P.2d 179] [sanctions
determination may harm attorney's professional
reputation]; see also Annex British Cars, Inc. v. ParkerRhodes (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 788, 793 [244 Cal.Rptr.
48] ["it is basic that counsel must have the opportunity to
be heard on the issue before sanctions can be imposed"].)
As Duris correctly notes, a hearing would also assist
the trial court in determining who should pay the
sanctions and the size of the award. The court may decide
that (1) the attorney who filed the challenged litigation
should pay (In re Marriage of Quinlan, supra, 209
Cal.App.3d at p. 1422), or (2) the amount of sanctions
should be "scaled to the payor's ability to pay" (In re
Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th
814, 828 [79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588]). Here the court
acknowledged that Duris was not working. Duris's claim
that paying $10,000 would hamper her ability to support
her children is a factual issue that cannot be decided
during the brief colloquy of a closing argument. (In re
Marriage of Fuller, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1078; In

re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 652.)


Findings and Evidence
Urbany suggests that the trial court's findings on
attorney fees are supported by evidence in the record.
Duris disagrees. She claims the court acted without
taking evidence and that Urbany's appellate brief does not
comply with the rules of court. She is correct. Duris
prepared a two-volume appellant's appendix. Urbany
does not challenge the completeness of it or cite to a
single document in it. Most of the factual assertions in his
brief involve allegations against Duris that are not
accompanied by any citations to the record. (Crestmar
Owners Assn. v. Stapakis (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1223,
1232 [69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231] [appellate courts are not
required to consider issues that are not supported by
references to appropriate authority and citations to the
record].)
Even so, Duris's claims also are well taken on the
merits. The trial court said Urbany "expended" $25,000
in attorney fees, and consequently Duris should "absorb"
$10,000 of that sum. But Urbany does not cite any
evidence in the record to support the finding that he
incurred or paid $25,000 to his attorney. Paul Capritto,
Urbany's counsel, filed a trial brief on the day of the
hearing. In a passing comment in that brief, he requested
the court award $25,000 in attorney fees. A closing brief
is not a proper method to seek sanctions. (Niko v.
Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 369 [50 Cal. Rptr.
3d 398].) The allegations of a brief are not evidence and a
brief is not a sworn document. (In re Marriage of Reese
& Guy (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1222, fn. 5 [87 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 339].) Capritto did not testify. He did not file a
declaration setting forth his hours, his hourly rates, a
description of his services, or what Urbany paid as fees.
Urbany's income and expense declaration sets forth no
amounts incurred as fees.
The absence of evidence "disclosing the nature and
extent of counsel's services" hampered the trial court's
ability to make fact findings. (In re Marriage of Cueva
(1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 290, 303 [149 Cal. Rptr. 918].) It
could not impose monetary liability based on speculation
or on opposing counsel's unsworn statements. (In re
Marriage of Reese & Guy, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p.
1222, fn. 5.) "Without ascertaining whether or at what
hourly rate the work for which reimbursement was sought
was actually done, much less that the work was
'reasonably necessary' ... , the trial court could not

Page 4

properly find that imposing" liability for the other


spouse's legal fees was appropriate. (In re Marriage of
Keech (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 860, 869 [89 Cal. Rptr. 2d
525].)
Duris was prevented from presenting evidence to
challenge the basis for the award, the reasonableness of
the fees and the hourly rates. This summary imposition of
attorney fees as sanctions is not consistent with due

process procedural protections. (In re Marriage of


Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 652.)
The order requiring Duris to pay $10,000 is reversed.
The matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions
to conduct a new hearing with proper notice. Costs on
appeal are awarded in favor of appellant.
Yegan, J., and Coffee, J., concurred.


Fair Oaks-Carmichael


Find Your Patch

43
Partly Cloudy

Home

All Topics
Opinion

Paula Salinger Charged with Obstruction


of Justice Crimes by Family Court
Watchdog
Sacramento Divorce Attorney Paula Salinger Accused of Criminal Acts Against
Domestic Violence Victim.
By
Cathy Cohen (Open Post)

July 14, 2014 at 4:46pm

Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc Partner

Implicated in UnsettlingNew Report from


Sacramento Family Court News

Whistleblower leaked records from aSacramento Family


Courtcase indicate that
criminal actswere committed by
family law attorney and temporary judge
Paula
Salingeragainst an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family
court party. The pro per was a victim and witness in a family
court criminal contempt case filed against a Salinger client, and
the pro per also is a domestic violence victim,
according to
court records.
Family court
reform advocatessay the case is another example
of the complete lack of
oversight and accountabilityof
attorneys who engage in
egregious misconductagainst
disadvantaged,
pro per litigantswho can't afford legal
representation.
AsSacramento Family Court Newspreviously reported,
Salinger has been caught in several scandals including
filing
counterfeit documentsin court, violating
state lawsand

court rules, illegally


attempting to obtain a final divorce
judgmentwhile an appeal in the same case was pending, and

obtaining a questionable waiverof the requirements to


become a temporary judge.

Attorney Collusion with Judge Matthew J. Gary


Documented by Court Records

Salinger also obtained from


controversialJudge
Matthew
Garyan illegal order for more than
$10,000 in attorney fee
sanctionsagainst the same
contemptand domestic violence

victim. To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use


fee waiver law to
obstruct an appealof several orders he
issued for Salinger in the same case. Salinger's firm,
Woodruff,
O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., previously was
sued for legal
malpracticein a case alleging more than $1 million in damages.
The new, criminal allegations first surfaced last month on social
media, including
Facebookand
Twitter,where several posts
linked to supporting documents
posted at Docstocand

Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the claims,SFCNdid not


report on the assertions pending authentication of the
records.SFCNhas now verified the accuracy of the documents
and posted the complete set
at our Scribd account. The Scribd
document setalso is embedded with the original article at
Sacramento Family Court News.

Obstruction of Justice Crimes

The records indicate thatPaula Salinger, aSacramento County


Superior Court
sworn temporary judgeand officer of the

Sacramento BarAssociation
Family Law Executive
CommitteeviolatedCaliforniaPenal Code sections
prohibiting
witness intimidationand
deceit of a witness.
Under California law, both offenses are designated as
obstruction of justice crimes.
The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger
and Judge
Matthew Gary. As reflected by page one of the
document set posted at Scribd and SFCN, at an unrelated court
hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the
contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that
hewould deny the contempt claims, even though Salinger had
yet to file a response to the contempt pleading.Salinger then

used the unlawful disclosure in a threatening letter to the


unrepresented opposing party:
"As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your
Order to Show Case (sic) Re: Contempt does not contain
sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing
on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the
matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section
271 for proceeding with the contempt...
...Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming
letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.
that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw
my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC 271,"Salinger wrote
in a letter to the contempt victim and witness. Page one of the
document set
posted at Sacramento Family Court Newsis an
authenticated copy of the threatening letter.

Contempt Filing Against Salinger Client Triggers


Criminal Acts

The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent,


unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court
allegation against a Salinger client. The contempt filing charged
several violations of the Standard Family Law Restraining
Orders, which are issued in all divorce proceedings. SFLRO's are
automatically ordered against both parties when a dissolution of
marriage is initiated in family court.
As page one of the document set posted at SFCNreflects,
Salinger illegally threatened the victim and witness with financial
harm in the form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop
the criminal contempt case. As page three and four reflect,

Salinger concurrently filed an illegal responsive declaration in


the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in attorney fee
sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.
As the page two legal reference reflects, under California law the
response to a contempt allegation may only be used to answer
the contempt charge, or move to discharge the contempt on
appropriate grounds. Requesting "affirmative relief," including
attorney fee sanctions, in response to a contempt allegation is
prohibited by law. As page five of the document set indicates,
Salinger's threat coerced the victim and witness to drop the
contempt matter.

Witness Intimidation - Influencing a Witness by


Fraud

As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set posted at SFCN


and Scribd,
Penal Code 133makes it a crime to use fraud or
deceit to affect the testimony of a victim orwitness.
Penal Code
136.1(a) & (b)make it a crime to maliciously prevent or
discourage a witness or victimfrom giving testimony at a judicial
proceeding.
Salinger has not been charged with either crime, disciplined by
the
State Bar,
Supreme Courtor
Judicial Council, or
otherwise held accountable for the misconduct. Pro per
advocates call the absence of accountability more proof that
attorneys are effectively immune from punishment for

egregious misconductagainst
unrepresented pro perswho
can't afford a lawyer, and make up 70 percent of family court
litigants.
Civil law statutes, including
wrongful use of civil proceedings,

and
abuse of processmay also apply to Salinger's lawbreaking
acts.SFCNis completing an in-depth investigative report on the
criminal contempt incident and other troubling proceedings and
documents from the same case.The report will be published by
SFCNin the near future.
Family court
reform advocatessay the latest revelations are
additional proof that the court operates effectively as a

racketeering enterprisethat deprives the public of the


federally protected right to
honest government services.
Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro
tem attorneys
receive kickbacksin the form of
rubberstamped ordersand other
preferential treatmentfrom family
court
judgesand
employees.
The divorce lawyers who also hold the
Office of Temporary
Judgeoperate the family court settlement conference program
in exchange for the kickbacks and
emoluments,watchdogs
charge.
California Penal Code 94makes receipt of an
emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several
federal
criminal statutesprohibit similar conduct. The 2014
documentary film
Divorce CorpdesignatesSacramento Family
Courtas the
most corrupt in the United States.For our
complete coverage of the movie,
click here.

Click here to view the original article at Sacramento Family


Court News. SFCN is a nonprofit journalism organization
publishing investigative reporting, news analysis, opinion and
satire about the local family court system.

Share

More

Next Blog

Create Blog
Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News


Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

Privacy Policy

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

07 July 2014

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Woodruff O'Hair Posner & Salinger Inc Criminal Conduct by Partner Paula
D. Salinger Alleged and Documented in Leaked Court Records - All Firm
Partners Hold Office of Temporary Judge

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(66)

Obstruction of Justice Crimes Alleged Against Judge


Pro Tem Attorney Paula Salinger, Sacramento Bar
Association Family Law Executive Committee Officer

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)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18)
PRO PERS
(18)

Allegations thatjudge
pro temlawyerPaula Salingercommittedobstruction of justice crimesagainst an
indigent, unrepresented pro per havegone viralthroughout family court reform social
media.

DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(15)

Whistleblower leaked records from a Sacramento Family Court case indicate that criminal acts were committed
by family law attorney and temporary judgePaula Salinger against an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family
court party. The pro per was a victim and witness in a family court criminal contempt case filed against a Salinger
client, and the pro per also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records. Family court reform
advocates say the case is another example of the complete lack of oversight and accountability of attorneys
who engage in egregious misconduct against disadvantaged, pro per litigants who can't afford legal
representation.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

As Sacramento Family Court News previously reported, Salinger has been caught in several scandals
includingfiling counterfeit documents in court, violating state laws and court rules, illegally attempting to
obtain a final divorce judgment while an appeal in the same case was pending, and obtaining a questionable
waiver of the requirements to become a temporary judge. Salinger also obtained from controversial Judge

JAMES M. MIZE
(14)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11)
RAPTON-KARRES
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER

Matthew Gary an illegal order for more than $10,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the same contempt and
domestic violence victim. To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use fee waiver law to obstruct an
appeal of several orders he issued for Salinger in the same case. Salinger's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner &
Salinger Inc., previously was sued for legal malpracticein a case alleging more than $1 million in damages.

The new, criminal allegations first surfaced last month on social media, including Facebook and Twitter, where
several posts linked to supporting documents posted at Docstoc and Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the
claims, SFCNdid not report on the assertions pending authentication of the records. SFCN has now verified the
accuracy of the documents and posted the complete set at our Scribd account. The Scribd document set is
embedded below.

Obstruction of Justice
The records indicate that Paula Salinger, a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and
officer of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee violated CaliforniaPenal Code
sections prohibiting witness intimidation and deceit of a witness. Under California law, both offenses are
designated as obstruction of justice crimes. The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger and
Judge Matthew Gary.

As reflected by page one of the document set, at an unrelated court hearing held three weeks before the date
calendared for the contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that he would deny the contempt
claims, even though Salinger had yet to file a response to the contempt pleading. Garys prejudgment of the
contempt matter was a clear violation of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, the state laws governing judge
conduct.
The state Commission on Judicial Performance has publicly disciplined several judges for acting in a way
that manifested prejudgmentA trial judge should not prejudge the issues but should keep an open mind
until all the evidence is presented to him. In one CJPjudicial discipline case, Judge Bruce Van Voorhis was
disciplined for creating "the appearance of prejudgment in your discussion of the case in open court by
improperly predicting the outcome of the case," according to CJP records. Click herefor a compilation ofCJP
disciplinary decisions about prejudgment.

(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)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(4)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4)

Salinger then used the judge's unlawful disclosure in a threatening letter to the unrepresented opposing party:
"As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case (sic) Re:
Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on
November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions
pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt...Should you provide
written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00
p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions
pursuant to FC 271,"Salinger wrote in a letter to the contempt victim and witness. Page one of
the document set below is an authenticated copy of the threatening letter.
The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent,
unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court
allegation against a Salinger client. The contempt filing
charged several violations of the Standard Family Law
Restraining Orders, which are issued in all divorce
proceedings. SFLRO's are automatically ordered against
both parties when a dissolution of marriage is initiated in
family court.

As page one of the document set reflects, Salinger illegally


threatened the victim and witness with financial harm in the
form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop the
criminal contempt case. As page three and four reflect,
Salinger concurrently filed an illegal responsive declaration
in the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in attorney
fee sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.

As the page two legal reference reflects, under California


law the response to a contempt allegation may only be used
to answer the contempt charge, or move to discharge the
State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim has been criticized
for not enforcing state attorney ethics laws against lawyers
contempt on appropriate grounds. Requesting "affirmative
- like Paula Salinger - for misconduct against pro per litigants.
relief," including attorney fee sanctions, in response to a
contempt allegation is prohibited by law. As page five of the
document set shows, Salinger's threat coerced the victim and witness to drop the contempt matter.

LUAN CASE
(4)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)

WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE


Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Thurman Arnold Family
Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS &


INFORMATION

Witness Tampering Law


As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set below,Penal Code 133 makes it a crime to use fraud or deceit to
affect the testimony of a victim or witness.Penal Code 136.1(a) & (b) make it a crime to maliciously prevent or
discourage a witness or victim from giving testimony at a judicial proceeding. Salinger has not been charged with
either crime, disciplined by the State Bar, Supreme Court or Judicial Council, or otherwise held accountable for
the misconduct. Pro per advocates call the absence of accountability more proof that attorneys are effectively
immune from punishment for egregious misconduct against unrepresented pro pers who can't afford a lawyer,
and make up 70 percent of family court litigants.

Civil law statutes, including wrongful use of civil proceedings, and abuse of process may also apply to
Salinger's lawbreaking acts. In addition, an attorney who intentionally deceives a party to a court case is subject to
misdemeanor criminal prosecution under Business and Professions Code 6128.SFCN is completingan indepth investigative report on the criminal contempt incident and other troubling proceedings and documents from
the same case. Our report will be published in the near future.

California Lawyer Magazine


Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes
Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes

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

An attorney who intentionally deceives a judge or any party is guilty of a misdemeanor crime under California law. Family court reform
advocates assert that many family court lawyers routinely and deliberately engage in deceptive tactics, and that the law goes unenforced
by judges, prosecutors, and State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim.

Family court reform advocates say the latest revelations are additional proof that the court operates effectively as
a racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government
services. Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro tem attorneys receive kickbacks in the
form of rubber-stamped orders and other preferential treatment from family court judges and employees. The
divorce lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge operate the family court settlement conference
program in exchange for the kickbacks andemoluments,watchdogs charge. California Penal Code 94makes
receipt of an emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several federal criminal statutes prohibit similar
conduct. The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp designates Sacramento Family Court as the most corrupt in
the United States.For our complete coverage of the movie, click here.

Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter.
For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document
set:

Paula Salinger - Witness Intimidation-Influence Witness by Fraud-Obstruction of Justice - Divorce


Attorney... by Sacramento Family Court News

State Bar of California


State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar
Association

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
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from
FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at
JDSupra Law News

WOODRUff, O'HAIR, POSNER & SALINGER, INC.


A LAW CORPORATION
D. Thomas Woodruff. C.F.L.S.", AAML"*

2251 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Suite 100


Sacramento. California 95825
Telephone : (916) 920-0211
Facsimile: (916) 920 0241

Robert J. O'Hair. C.F.L.S.", AAML*"


Jeffrey J. Posner, C.F.L.S.
Paula D. Salinger

Email: paula@woplaw.com

October 28, 2010

PO Box 60662
Sacramento, CA 95860
VIA EMAIL TRANSMISSIO
Re: Marriage ofDearAs the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case Re:
Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on
November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to
Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt.
Additionally, the court offered you the opportunity to drop your Notice of Motion filed October
20, 201O and your Notice of Motion filed October 22, 2010 since the court had already ruled on the
issues related to your motions. Since you refuse to drop your frivolous motions, I intend to seek
sanctions pursuant to FC 271 for the necessity of defending the motions.
Lastly, your motion filed October 8, 2010 does not set forth a basis to strike the Memorandum
to Set filed October 1, 2010. I am requesting you drop this hearing. Should you refuse to drop your
hearing, I intend to seek sanctions pursuant to FC 271.
Your behavior in this matter furthers arid frustrates the policy of law intended to promote
settlement of litigation and encourage cooperation. Should you provide written proof (a copy of a
confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have
been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC 271.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
WOODRUFF, O'HAIR, POSNER & SALINGER, INC.
Dictated but not reviewed to avoid delay.
Paula D. Salinger
pds:sbo
cc:

Certified Family Law S.oecralisl. The Slate Bar ofCalifomiaBoarr,

>f Legal Speoalzat1on

Fellow. Amencan Academy of Matnmonia/,

1wyers

Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. Ch. 18-B


California Practice Guide: Family Law
Judge William P. Hogoboom (Ret.), Justice Donald B. King (Ret.), Contributing Authors: Judge Kenneth A. Black
(Ret.), Judge Thomas Trent Lewis, Michael Asimow, Bruce E. Cooperman
Chapter 18. Enforcement Of Orders And Judgments
B. Enforcement Remedies And Procedures

1. Contempt
a. [18:105] Nature of contemptin general: A party subject to a valid court order who, with knowledge of the order and the
ability to comply, fails to comply with the terms of the order is subject to a contempt adjudication and statutory contempt
penalties (see CCP 1218 & 1219, 18:220 ff.). As an enforcement remedy, exercise of the contempt power enables the court
to compel compliance with its valid orders. [In re Marcus (2006) 138 CA4th 1009, 1014, 41 CR3d 864865]

(c) [18:212] No affirmative relief by responsive declaration: In OSC and motion hearings generally,
respondent is permitted to use the responsive declaration to seek affirmative relief alternative to that requested by
the moving party, on the same issues raised by the moving party; this is an exception to the general rule that an
independent OSC or notice of motion must be filed to obtain affirmative relief. [See Fam.C. 213, discussed at
5:372 ff.]
However, Fam.C. 213 does not apply to contempt hearings; i.e., the citees responsive declaration may only
be used to answer the contempt charge or move to discharge the contempt on appropriate grounds (above).
[Fam.C. 213(a)In a hearing on an order to show cause ... other than for contempt (responding party may seek
affirmative relief on same issues by filing responsive declaration) (emphasis and parentheses added)]

13:107. Witness intimidation, L & R, California Criminal Law 13:107 (2011-2012 ed.)

L & R, California Criminal Law 13:107 (2011-2012 ed.)


Expert Series
California Criminal Law
Database updated December 2011
Laurie L. Levenson, Alex Ricciardulli
Chapter 13. Crimes Against the Administration of Government
13:107. Witness intimidation
Whoever attempts to prevent or dissuade a victim or crime witness from reporting the incident to law enforcement
officials, prosecutors or the judge, is guilty of witness intimidation.1 A person may be guilty of aiding and abetting
witness intimidation, but the evidence must show that the defendant had the specific intent for witness intimidation
to be committed.
If the aider and abettor has such intent, he or she is guilty not only of the intended or target offense, but also of any
other crime the direct perpetrator of the crime commits that is a natural and probable consequence of the target
offense.2 However, witness intimidation is not the natural and probable consequence of vehicle burglary or illegal
possession of a weapon.3
Footnotes
1
Penal Code 136.1(b).
2

People v. Leon, 161 Cal. App. 4th 149, 158, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 793 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial
of rehg, (Apr. 14, 2008).

People v. Leon, 161 Cal. App. 4th 149, 158, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 793 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial
of rehg, (Apr. 14, 2008).

End of Document

2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.


Government Works.

2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

608. Bribe or deceit of witness, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against...

17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice 608


California Jurisprudence 3d
Database updated May 2012
Criminal Law: Crimes Against Administration of Justice and Public Order
Robert F. Koets, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Sarah Newcomb, J.D., and Susan L. Thomas, J.D.
II. Crimes Against Public Justice
D. Interference with Evidence and Witnesses
3. Particular Offenses Involving Interference With or Influencing of Witnesses
Topic Summary Correlation Table References
608. Bribe or deceit of witness
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Bribery 1(1), 3, 6(4)
West's Key Number Digest, Obstructing Justice 4, 21
A.L.R. Library
Admissibility in criminal case, on issue of defendant's guilt, of evidence that third person has attempted to influence a
witness not to testify or to testify falsely, 79 A.L.R.3d 1156
A person who gives or offers or promises to give to a witness or person about to be called as a witness a bribe upon an
understanding or agreement that such person will not attend any trial or other judicial proceeding is guilty of a felony. The
attempt to commit the crime is also a felony. 1 A bilateral agreement is not a necessary element of the crime. There need be
no meeting of the minds between the briber and the witness. It is sufficient if the defendant offers the bribe with the intent of
persuading the witness to agree not to testify. 2
A misdemeanor is committed by anyone who practices any fraud or deceit or knowingly makes or exhibits any false statement,
representation, token, or writing to a witness or person about to be called as a witness in any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or
investigation with intent to affect the testimony of the witness. 3
Footnotes
Pen. Code, 138, subd. (a).
1
2
3

As to bribery, generally, see 526 to 553.


People v. Pic'l, 31 Cal. 3d 731, 183 Cal. Rptr. 685, 646 P.2d 847 (1982).
As to agreement or understanding in a prosecution for bribery, generally, see 534.
Pen. Code, 133.

End of Document

2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

604. Generally, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice 604

17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice 604


California Jurisprudence 3d
Database updated May 2012
Criminal Law: Crimes Against Administration of Justice and Public Order
Robert F. Koets, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Sarah Newcomb, J.D., and Susan L. Thomas, J.D.
II. Crimes Against Public Justice
D. Interference with Evidence and Witnesses
2. Preventing or Dissuading Attendance, Testimony, or Reporting of Crimes by Witness or Victim
Topic Summary Correlation Table References
604. Generally
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Bribery 1(1), 3, 6(4)
West's Key Number Digest, Obstructing Justice 4, 21
A.L.R. Library
Admissibility in criminal case, on issue of defendant's guilt, of evidence that third person has attempted to influence a
witness not to testify or to testify falsely, 79 A.L.R.3d 1156
It is a public offense to knowingly and maliciously prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony
at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law or to attempt to do so. 1 Advising a witness to conceal himself or herself
for the purpose of avoiding service of a subpoena is a violation of this provision. 2 Evidence that the defendant was a family
member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim creates a presumption that the act was without malice. 3
It is a crime to attempt to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is a witness to a crime
from doing any of the following:
making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or
parole or correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge 4
causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation, or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting
in the prosecution thereof 5
arresting or causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization 6
Footnotes
Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (a).
1
In re Holmes, 145 Cal. App. 3d 934, 193 Cal. Rptr. 790 (2d Dist. 1983).
2
Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (a)(3).
3
Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (b)(1).
4
Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (b)(2).
5
Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (b)(3).
6
End of Document

2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

0030

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7]


Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012
XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]
VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600]
0

2622. Intimidating a Witness (Pen. Code, 136.1(a) & (b))


The defendant is charged [in Count
] with intimidating a
witness [in violation of Penal Code section 136.1].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
<Alternative 1Aattending or giving testimony>
[1. The defendant maliciously (tried to (prevent/ [or]
discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))
<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought
to influence> from (attending/ [or] giving testimony at)
<insert type of judicial proceeding or inquiry
authorized by law>;]
<Alternative 1Breport of victimization>
[1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or]
discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))
<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought
to influence> from making a report that (he/she/someone
else) was a victim of a crime to
<insert type of
offcial specified in Pen. Code, 136.1(b)(1)>;]
<Alternative 1Ccausing prosecution>
[1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or]
discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))
<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought
to influence> from cooperating or providing information so
that a (complaint/indictment/information/probation
violation/parole violation) could be sought and prosecuted,
and from helping to prosecute that action;]
<Alternative 1Dcausing arrest>
[1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or]
discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))
<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought
to influence> from (arresting[,]/ [or] (causing/ [or] seeking)
the arrest of [,]) someone in connection with a crime;]
2.

<insert name/description of person defendant


542

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis Matthew Bender, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637,


www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0031

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7]


Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012
XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]
VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600]
0

CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

allegedly sought to influence> was a (witness/ [or] crime


victim);
AND
3. The defendant knew (he/she) was (trying to (prevent/ [or]
discourage)/(preventing/ [or] discouraging))
<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought
to influence> from
<insert appropriate
description from element 1> and intended to do so.
[A person acts maliciously when he or she unlawfully intends to
annoy, harm, or injure someone else in any way, or intends to
interfere in any way with the orderly administration of justice.]
[As used here, witness means someone [or a person the defendant
reasonably believed to be someone]:
<Give the appropriate bracketed paragraph[s].>
[Who knows about the existence or nonexistence of facts
relating to a crime(;/.)]
[OR]
[Whose declaration under oath has been or may be
received as evidence(;/.)]
[OR]
[Who has reported a crime to a (peace officer[,]/ [or]
prosecutor[,]/ [or] probation or parole officer[,]/ [or]
correctional officer[,]/ [or] judicial officer)(;/.)]
[OR
[Who has been served with a subpoena issued under the
authority of any state or federal court.]]
[A person is a victim if there is reason to believe that a federal or
state crime is being or has been committed or attempted against
him or her.]
[It is not a defense that the defendant was not successful in
preventing or discouraging the (victim/ [or] witness).]

543

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis Matthew Bender, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637,


www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0032

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7]


Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012
XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]
VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600]
0

CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

[It is not a defense that no one was actually physically injured or


otherwise intimidated.]
New January 2006

BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements
of the crime.
In element 1, alternative 1A applies to charges under Penal Code section
136.1(a), which prohibits knowingly and maliciously preventing or
attempting to prevent a witness or victim from giving testimony. Alternatives
1B through 1D apply to charges under Penal Code section 136.1(b).
Subdivision (b) does not use the words knowingly and maliciously.
However, subdivision (c) provides a higher punishment if a violation of
either subdivision (a) or (b) is done knowingly and maliciously, and one of
the other listed sentencing factors is proved. An argument can be made that
the knowledge and malice requirements apply to all violations of Penal Code
section 136.1(b), not just those charged with the additional sentencing factors
under subdivision (c). Because the offense always requires specific intent, the
committee has included the knowledge requirement with the specific intent
requirement in element 3. (People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 990
[193 Cal.Rptr. 684]; see also People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926,
929930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].) If the court concludes that the malice
requirement also applies to all violations of subdivision (b), the court should
give the bracketed word maliciously in element 1, in alternatives 1B
through 1D, and the definition of this word.
If the defendant is charged with one of the sentencing factors in Penal Code
section 136.1(c), give CALCRIM No. 2623, Intimidating a Witness:
Sentencing Factors. If the defendant is charged with the sentencing factor
based on a prior conviction, the court must give both CALCRIM No. 2623
and CALCRIM No. 3100, Prior Conviction: Nonbifurcated Trial, unless the
court has granted a bifurcated trial on the prior conviction or the defendant
has stipulated to the conviction.
Note that Penal Code section 136.1(a)(3) states, For purposes of this
section, evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded in
an effort to protect the witness or victim shall create a presumption that the
act was without malice. It is unclear whether the court must instruct on this
presumption.
544

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis Matthew Bender, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637,


www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0033

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7]


Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012
XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]
VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600]
0

CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

AUTHORITY

Elements.

Pen. Code, 136.1(a) & (b).

Malice Defined.

Witness Defined.

Victim Defined.

Specific Intent Required. People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985,


990 [193 Cal.Rptr. 684]; see also People v. Womack (1995) 40
Cal.App.4th 926, 929930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].

Pen. Code, 136(1).


Pen. Code, 136(2).
Pen. Code, 136(3).

Secondary Sources
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against
Governmental Authority, 5, 6.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82,
Witnesses, 82.07, Ch. 84, Motions at Trial, 84.11 (Matthew Bender).
5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 91,
Sentencing, 91.23[6][e], 91.43 (Matthew Bender).
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 142,
Crimes Against the Person, 142.13[4][b]; Ch. 144, Crimes Against Order,
144.03[2], [4] (Matthew Bender).

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES


A violation of Penal Code section 136.1(a) or (b) is a felony-misdemeanor,
punishable by a maximum of three years in state prison. If the defendant is
also charged with one of the sentencing factors in Penal Code section
136.1(c), then the offense is a felony punishable by two, three, or four years.
In the defendant is charged under Penal Code section 131.6(c), then the
offenses under subdivisions (a) and (b) are lesser included offenses. The
court must provide the jury with a verdict form on which the jury will
indicate if the prosecution has proved the sentencing factor alleged. If the
jury finds that this allegation has not been proved, then the offense should be
set at the level of the lesser offense.
The misdemeanor offense of knowingly inducing a false statement to a law
enforcement official in violation of Penal Code section 137(c) is not a lesser
included offense of Penal Code section 137(b) because the latter offense
lacks the element that the defendant must actually cause a false statement to
be made. (People v. Miles (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 575, 580 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d
52].)
545

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis Matthew Bender, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637,


www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0034

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7]


Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012
XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]
VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600]
0

CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

RELATED ISSUES
Penal Code Sections 137(b), 136.1, and 138
Because one cannot influence the testimony of a witness if the witness
does not testify, a conviction under Penal Code section 137(b) is inconsistent
with a conviction under Penal Code section 136.1 or 138, which requires that
a defendant prevent, rather than influence, testimony. (People v. Womack
(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 931 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].)

546

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis Matthew Bender, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637,


www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0027

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7]


Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012
XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]
VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600]
0

2621. Influencing a Witness by Fraud (Pen. Code, 137(b))


The defendant is charged [in Count
] with using fraud to
influence a person to (give false (testimony/ [or] information)/ [or]
withhold true (testimony/ [or] information)) [in violation of Penal
Code section 137(b)].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant used fraud against
<insert
name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to
influence>;
AND
<Alternative 2Ato give or withhold testimony>
[2. When the defendant used fraud, (he/she) intended to cause
<insert name/description of person defendant
allegedly sought to influence> to (give false testimony/ [or]
withhold true testimony).]
<Alternative 2Bto give or withhold information>
[2. When the defendant used fraud, (he/she) intended to cause
<insert name/description of person defendant
allegedly sought to influence> to (give false material
information about a crime to/ [or] withhold true material
information about a crime from) a law enforcement
official.]
A person uses fraud when he or she makes a false statement,
misrepresents information, hides the truth, or otherwise does
something with the intent to deceive.
[Information is material if it is significant or important.]
[(A/The) (district attorney[,]/ [or] deputy district attorney[,]/ [or]
city attorney[,]/ [or] deputy city attorney[,]/ [or] Attorney
General[,]/ [or] deputy attorney general[,]/ [or]
<insert title of peace offcer included in Pen. Code, 830 et seq.>) is
a law enforcement official.]
[The People do not need to prove that
<insert name/
description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence>
539

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis Matthew Bender, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637,


www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0028

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7]


Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012
XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]
VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600]
0

CALCRIM No. 2621

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

actually (gave false (testimony/information)/ [or] withheld true


(testimony/information)).]
New January 2006

BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements
of the crime.
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with The People do not need to
prove that if the evidence shows that the testimony or information of the
alleged target was not affected.

AUTHORITY

Elements.

Pen. Code, 137(b).

Fraud Defined. People v. Pugh (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 66, 72 [127


Cal.Rptr.2d 770].

Law Enforcement Official Defined.

Specific Intent Required. People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926,


929930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].

Pen. Code, 137(e).

Secondary Sources
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against
Governmental Authority, 12.

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES


The misdemeanor offense of knowingly inducing a false statement to a law
enforcement official in violation of Penal Code section 137(c) is not a lesser
included offense of section 137(b) because the latter offense lacks the
element that the defendant must actually cause a false statement to be made.
(People v. Miles (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 575, 580 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 52].)

RELATED ISSUES
Deceiving a Witness
Deceiving a witness is a separate crime under Penal Code section 133:
Every person who practices any fraud or deceit, or knowingly makes or
exhibits any false statement, representation, token, or writing, to any
witness or person about to be called as a witness upon any trial,
proceeding, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, with
540

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis Matthew Bender, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637,


www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0029

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7]


Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012
XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]
VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600]
0

CALCRIM No. 2621

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

intent to affect the testimony of such witness, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

541

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis Matthew Bender, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637,


www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy have changed.


By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

News

Video

TV

Opinions

More...
SIGN UP

625

449

VIEWS

COMMENTS

SHARES

About this iReport


Not verified by CNN

LOG IN

California Appellate Court


Judge Vance Raye Implicated in
Alleged Federal Racketeering
Scheme

Posted December 30, 2014


by
Follow
LegalNews

By LegalNews | Posted December 30, 2014


| Sacramento, California

Location
Sacramento, California

More from LegalNews


Sacramento Superior Court Designated Most Corrupt
in U.S. by Documentary Film
Sacramento Superior Court Conflict of Interest
Disclosure Violations Continue
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Misconduct
Results in Landmark "Civil Gideon" Appeal
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Caught Using
Highway Patrol for Personal Limo and Security
Service

A Sacramento Superior Court watchdog group has posted online court


records and other documents which they allege detail a racketeering
enterprise operating in the local court system. Using court filings, court
reporter transcripts, public records and other documentary evidence,
members of the group say they have reverse engineered the structure and
players of the scheme.

443

"This package of evidence was compiled over four years, and includes
records dating back ten years," said Ulf Carlsson, the spokesperson for the
group. "Judges, court employees and lawyers involved in this criminal
enterprise have been able to conceal it for a long time."

The group asserts that the documents show the scheme began in 1991 when
two judges, Peter McBrien and Vance Raye, restructured the family court
system with attorneys from the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law
Section. The conspiracy has expanded and been ongoing since that time,
according to the whistleblowers. Judge Vance Raye has since been elevated
to the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, and continues to assist the
organization when cases involving the enterprise reach the appellate court
level.

The goal of the judge-attorney partnership is to significantly reduce the


caseload and administrative duties of full-time judges by effectively privatizing
the Sacramento Family Court settlement conference program, according to
the whistleblowers. The attorneys agreed to take over and run the program in
exchange for kickbacks in the form of preferential treatment from judges
when they appear in court representing clients.

"The attorneys ostensibly act as volunteers," said Carlsson. "But we have


More iReports you should see

documented that the lawyers are in fact compensated with illegal kickbacks in
the form of 'rubber-stamped' rulings and court orders for their clients, in

Venus, Mars, and a sliver of


South Georgia moon

addition to other perks."

ByRobertE

Frozen Florida
Bywasta1

In order to run the settlement conference program, the attorneys are


designated as "judge pro tems," or temporary judges. In operating the
settlement program, the lawyers reportedly use heavy-handed, unethical
tactics to coerce couples going through a divorce to reach a settlement.

Crisp Sunshine at Niagara Falls


Byxyzman99

Deep Freeze

When they do, the case is terminated and no further court hearings are
required, significantly reducing the workload of full-time, state employed

ByLonnaDFisher

Icicle Wonderland

judges.

Byingridsilvia

"The coerced settlements often result in an unequal division of community


property, one-sided child custody arrangements, and unfair child and spousal
support payment terms that don't comply with state law," Carlsson explained.

"In many cases, only one side has an attorney - who is a member of what we
refer to as the 'cartel' - while the other side can't afford a lawyer and is selfrepresented. These cases are where the one-sided outcomes are the most
severe," Carlsson said. "You have someone going through a traumatic
divorce without a lawyer facing off against a spouse represented by a veteran
family law attorney. On top of that, the party without a lawyer is forced into a

settlement conference run by a judge pro tem lawyer who often is a personal
friend of the other attorney. As we've now documented, the outcome of these
rigged settlement conferences is not fair, ethical, or legal. The conflicts of
interest are required by state law to be disclosed, but never are."

The alleged criminal enterprise deprives the public of the federally protected
right to honest government services, a crime under 18 USC 1346, includes
predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, and thereby constitutes a RICO
racketeering enterprise under federal criminal law (18 USC 1962), according
to the watchdog group.

Carlsson said the judge-attorney collusion also violates a number of state laws
as well. "The scheme results in unjust enrichment for the judge pro tem
attorneys, constitutes unfair business practices, and implicates antitrust laws,"
Carlsson asserted. "Due to their consistent, virtually perfect success rate in
obtaining favorable outcomes in court proceedings, the temporary judge
lawyers have achieved a significant monopoly on the family law and divorce
business in the greater-Sacramento area."

The 43-page set of documents compiled by the group is posted online at


Scribd, and can be viewed at this URL:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/251282897/Justice-Vance-W-Raye-Charged-inColor-of-Law-Conspiracy-RICO-Racketeering-Scheme-in-3rd-District-Court-ofAppeal-Sacramento-Superior-Court-Sacramen

TAGS:
vance_raye, breaking_news, sacramento_superior_court, rico_racketeering,

3rd_district_court_of_appeal, california_supreme_court, honest_services_fraud

What do you think of this story?


Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this
iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.

Log in to comment

Comments (5)

iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they
post. See the
iReport community guidelines
for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

garyonthenet
January 8, 2015

As bkain222 says, this happens all over the country, it only when they get to
cocky with their power and get sloppy in covering their tracks, as in this