Paula Salinger Fraud on the Court - Violations of State Law, Court Rules, Attorney Ethics, Moral Turpitude - Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc Sacramento - California State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim - California Supreme Court - Paula D. Salinger Judge Pro Tem Sacramento Superior Court - Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section Officer Family Law Executive Committee - Judge Robert Hight - Judge James Mize Sacramento County Superior Court
Serial violations of state law, court rules, State Bar Act, and Rules of Professional Conduct by Sacramento divorce attorney Paula Salinger. Catalogued and documented in court filing, declaration, and memorandum of points and authorities filed by indigent, disabled pro per opposing party. The opposing party also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records.
Paula D. Salinger is a sworn temporary judge of Sacramento Superior Court and officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee. Salinger is a partner at the family law firm Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger where all partners also serve as judge pro tems.
For complete coverage of Paula Salinger misconduct visit this URL at Sacramento Family Court News: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PAULA%20SALINGER
Sacramento Family Court News homepage: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com
California Judicial Branch News Network: cjbnn.com.
Serial violations of state law, court rules, State Bar Act, and Rules of Professional Conduct by Sacramento divorce attorney Paula Salinger. Catalogued and documented in court filing, declaration, and memorandum of points and authorities filed by indigent, disabled pro per opposing party. The opposing party also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records.
Paula D. Salinger is a sworn temporary judge of Sacramento Superior Court and officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee. Salinger is a partner at the family law firm Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger where all partners also serve as judge pro tems.
For complete coverage of Paula Salinger misconduct visit this URL at Sacramento Family Court News: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PAULA%20SALINGER
Sacramento Family Court News homepage: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com
California Judicial Branch News Network: cjbnn.com.
Paula Salinger Fraud on the Court - Violations of State Law, Court Rules, Attorney Ethics, Moral Turpitude - Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc Sacramento - California State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim - California Supreme Court - Paula D. Salinger Judge Pro Tem Sacramento Superior Court - Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section Officer Family Law Executive Committee - Judge Robert Hight - Judge James Mize Sacramento County Superior Court
Serial violations of state law, court rules, State Bar Act, and Rules of Professional Conduct by Sacramento divorce attorney Paula Salinger. Catalogued and documented in court filing, declaration, and memorandum of points and authorities filed by indigent, disabled pro per opposing party. The opposing party also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records.
Paula D. Salinger is a sworn temporary judge of Sacramento Superior Court and officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee. Salinger is a partner at the family law firm Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger where all partners also serve as judge pro tems.
For complete coverage of Paula Salinger misconduct visit this URL at Sacramento Family Court News: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PAULA%20SALINGER
Sacramento Family Court News homepage: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com
California Judicial Branch News Network: cjbnn.com.
Marriage of Sacr ament o C se No. Declaration of and Exhibits i ion to Petitioners Ma , Motion for Seven Orders.
I , decl ar e as f ol l ows: 1. I amt he r espondent i n t he above- r ef er enced mat t er , and t he r espondi ng par t y t o pet i t i oner r equest f or seven assor t ed or der s. I have per sonal knowl edge of t he f act s set f or t h her ei n. I f cal l ed as a wi t ness i n t hi s mat t er , I coul d t est i f y compet ent l y t o t he f act s st at ed bel ow. 2. Fi l ed concur r ent l y wi t h t hi s decl ar at i on i s a suppor t i ng memor andumand a r equest f or j udi ci al not i ce. My r esponse t o Pet i t i oner s mot i on, i ncl udi ng t he memor andumand r equest f or j udi ci al not i ce ar e based on t he aut hor i t y, f or ms and i nst r uct i ons i n t he California Practice Guide ser i es publ i shed by The Rut t er Gr oup, i ncl udi ng Family Law ( Hogoboom& Ki ng) , Civil Procedure Before Trial ( Wei l & Br own) , Civil Trials and Evidence ( Wegner et al. ) and Professional Responsibility ( Vapnek et al. ) . 3. Pet i t i oner s at t or ney has wor ked as a f ami l y l aw par al egal or at t or ney si nce 1992. I at t ach her et o as Exhi bi t A, as f oundat i on f or my st at ement , a t r ue and cor r ect copy of a page f r omt he J anuar y/ Febr uar y 2007 i ssue of Sacramento Lawyer magazi ne cont ai ni ng t he curriculum vitae of Pet i t i oner s at t or ney, Paul a D. Sal i nger . 4. Pet i t i oner s at t or ney was appoi nt ed as a t empor ar y j udge i n Apr i l , 2011. To become a j udge pr o t em, t he at t or ney r equest ed and
3 RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION
st at ut es. Al t er nat i vel y, Pet i t i oner s mot i on shoul d be di smi ssed unt i l i t compl i es wi t h t he cour t r ul es and st at ut es ci t ed her ei n, and i n t he suppor t i ng memor andum. 9. To ef f ect i vel y r espond t o Pet i t i oner s mot i on, t o pr eser ve my r i ght s of t r i al and appel l at e cour t r evi ew of t he adj udi cat i on of Pet i t i oner s mot i on, and t o pr ovi de t he basi s f or my sanct i ons r equest , I must f i l e wi t h my r esponse wr i t t en evi dent i ar y obj ect i ons under Code of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 436 and 431. 10. 10. By l aw, my wr i t t en evi dent i ar y obj ect i ons must ci t e t o t he l i ne number i n Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on cont ai ni ng t he mat er i al obj ect ed t o. Cal . Rul es of Cour t Rul e 3. 1354( b) ( 2) r equi r es f or each obj ect i on r ef er ence t o t he l i ne number of t he mat er i al obj ect ed t o. Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on was f i l ed by her at t or ney wi t hout l i ne number s i n vi ol at i on of Cal . Rul es of Cour t Rul e 2. 108( 4) . 11. Wi t hout l i ne number s I cannot compl y wi t h Rul e 3. 1354( b) ( 2) and cannot ef f ect i vel y i dent i f y f or t he Cour t t he obj ect i onabl e mat er i al i n Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on. 12. I f and when t he decl ar at i on compl i es wi t h Rul e 2. 108( 4) , I wi l l make l i ne- by- l i ne evi dent i ar y obj ect i ons under t he appl i cabl e Evi dence Code sect i ons i ncl udi ng 210, 350 ( r el evancy) , 352 ( pr ej udi ci al , conf usi ng i ssues, t i me- wast i ng) , 403 ( f oundat i on) , 702 ( per sonal knowl edge) , 801, 803 ( opi ni on) , 1200 ( hear say) and especi al l y 780 ( cr edi bi l i t y, t r ut hf ul ness) .
4 RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION
13. Under Fami l y Code 2335 I al so wi l l obj ect gener al l y and t o speci f i c por t i ons of t he decl ar at i on t hat cont ai n f aul t evi dence i n vi ol at i on of 2335. 14. Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on does not compl y wi t h Cal . Rul es of Cour t Rul es 2. 108( 4) [ l i ne number s i n l ef t mar gi n] ; 2. 108( 1) [ l i nes must be one and one hal f or doubl e- spaced] ; and 2. 110 [ bot t ommar gi n f oot er ] . The decl ar at i on al so vi ol at es Local Rul e 3. 02 [ f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h Cal . Rul es of Cour t ] . 15. I al so cannot f i l e an ef f ect i ve and l awf ul suppor t i ng memor andumunt i l Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on compl i es wi t h Cal . Rul es of Cour t Rul e 2. 108( 4) . My memor andumwi l l r ef er ence speci f i c por t i ons of Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on. Cal . Rul es of Cour t Rul e 3. 1113( k) r equi r es such r ef er ences t o speci f y t he par agr aph or l i ne number i n t he decl ar at i on. 16. Pet i t i oner s memor andumcont ai ns non- speci f i c, gener i c r ef er ences t o pr i or pr oceedi ngs and evi dence, and no ci t at i ons t o t he r ecor d or t o Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on i n vi ol at i on of Cal . Rul es of Cour t , Rul e 3. 1113( b) [ memor andummust cont ai n st at ement of f act s and conci se st at ement of t he evi dence r el i ed on] . The memor andumappear s t o mi sst at e t he r ecor d and t o r el y on f al se, mi sl eadi ng or omi t t ed mat er i al f act s. I cannot ef f ect i vel y r espond t o, r ebut or i mpeach t he r ef er ences r ef er r ed t o i n Pet i t i oner s memor andumunt i l i t compl i es wi t h Rul e 3. 113( b) .
5 RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION
17. Pet i t i oner s suppor t i ng memor andumal so does not compl y wi t h Cal . Rul es of Cour t Rul e 3. 1113( k) [ r ef er ences t o suppor t i ng decl ar at i ons must r ef er ence page, par agr aph and l i ne number ] . The memor andumappear s t o r ef er ence Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on and exhi bi t but does not pr ovi de t he i nf or mat i on r equi r ed by Rul e 3. 1113( k) . 18. As set f or t h i n my suppor t i ng memor andum, al l of Pet i t i oner s pr i or pl eadi ngs t wo mot i ons and f i ve r esponsi ve decl ar at i ons have had si gni f i cant and subst ant i ve er r or s whi ch appear on t he f ace of t he pl eadi ngs. Each of t he f i l i ngs has vi ol at ed st at e and l ocal cour t r ul es and st at ut or y l aw. The vi ol at i ons ar e si gni f i cant , r el evant and not t r i vi al . 19. Al l of Pet i t i oner s pr evi ous decl ar at i ons and poi nt s and aut hor i t i es have cont ai ned f al se, i mmat er i al or i r r el evant mat er i al f act s, pr ohi bi t ed f aul t evi dence, and omi t t ed mat er i al f act s, as f ur t her set f or t h i n t he at t ached suppor t i ng memor andum. 20. The f act s and ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng Pet i t i oner s def ect i ve f i l i ngs suggest t hat t he er r or s ar e del i ber at e and cal cul at ed t o gai n a l i t i gat i on advant age. The er r or s consi st ent l y wor k t o Pet i t i oner s advant age and my di sadvant age. Based on t he t r ai ni ng and exper i ence of Pet i t i oner s at t or ney, i t i s i mpr obabl e t hat t he er r or s ar e i nadver t ent . 21. I t woul d be f ut i l e f or me t o ask Pet i t i oner s at t or ney t o conf or mt he mot i on, decl ar at i on, and memor andumt o Cal . Rul es of Cour t . The at t or ney has deni ed al l past si mi l ar r equest s.
6 RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION
22. For exampl e, i n Oct ober and November 2010 t o t he at t or ney I r equest ed t hat t he or der s pr epar ed af t er t he Oct . 27, 2010 hear i ng be accur at e. On Oct ober 29, 2010, i n an emai l t he at t or ney conf i r med t he mi nut e or der s i ssued by t he cour t wer e i ncompl et e. Accur at e or der s wer e cr i t i cal t o pr ot ect t he r i ght s of bot h par t i es because t her e was not a cour t r epor t er at t he hear i ng. The mi nut e or der s di d not memor i al i ze t hat t he Cour t had deni ed t he at t or neys r equest t hat a sanct i ons assessment agai nst me be assessed agai nst my shar e of communi t y pr oper t y. The cour t deni ed t he r equest and or der ed t hat t he sanct i on assessment be pai d i n mont hl y i nst al l ment s. The change was r el evant and mat er i al because - knowi ng t hat I was i ndi gent and wi t hout f unds t o make t he f i r st payment - t he Cour t appear ed t o i nt ent i onal l y st r uct ur e t he due dat e of t he f i r st payment t o coi nci de wi t h t he f i r st set t l ement conf er ence. The change l ogi cal l y i nf er r ed an i nt ent t o use economi c coer ci on t o compel me t o accept what ever set t l ement t er ms wer e of f er ed by Pet i t i oner or f ace t he t hr eat of an enf or cement act i on, and pot ent i al addi t i onal penal t i es af t er mi ssi ng t he f i r st payment . At t ached her et o as Exhi bi t C i s a t r ue and cor r ect copy of t he Oct . 29, 2010 cor r espondence I r ecei ved f r omt he at t or ney. 23. Af t er i n wr i t i ng conf i r mi ng t hat her sanct i on payment r equest had been deni ed by t he cour t , i n a Nov. 18, 2010 l et t er t he at t or ney nonet hel ess r ef used t o i ncl ude t he deni al i n t he or der af t er hear i ng. I n t he l et t er , t he at t or ney f al sel y st at ed t hat her pr oposed
7 RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION
or der af t er hear i ng accur at el y r ef l ect s t he cour t s or der s. At t ached her et o as Exhi bi t D i s a t r ue and cor r ect copy of t he Nov. 18 l et t er . 24. Al so at t he Oct . 27, 2010 hear i ng wher e no cour t r epor t er was pr esent , t he Cour t sua spont e i ssued const r uct i ve r ul i ngs on f our mat t er s i n whi ch I was t he movi ng par t y but whi ch wer e cal endar ed f or t he f ol l owi ng mont h. The r ul i ngs wer e i r r egul ar i n t hat t he mat t er s wer e not on t he cal endar f or Oct . 27, and Pet i t i oner had yet t o f i l e r esponsi ve pl eadi ngs i n any of t he pendi ng mat t er s. The Cour t di d not r ecor d t he r ul i ngs i n ei t her of t he t wo mi nut e or der s i ssued on Oct . 27. Pet i t i oner s at t or ney conf i r med t he r ul i ngs wer e made i n cor r espondence t o me t he next day. The cor r espondence i ncl uded a demand based on t he sua spont e r ul i ngs - t hat I dr op al l pendi ng mat t er s or she woul d f i l e r esponsi ve decl ar at i ons r equest i ng sanct i ons i n each of t he f our pr oceedi ngs. At t ached her et o as Exhi bi t E i s a t r ue and cor r ect copy of t he Oct . 28, 2010 l et t er I r ecei ved f r omt he at t or ney. 25. The at t or ney al so memor i al i zed excer pt s of t he Oct . 27 sua spont e or der s i n f our r esponsi ve decl ar at i ons - each wi t h a r equest f or sanct i ons - whi ch she f i l ed on Oct ober 29, 2010. 26. Despi t e conf i r mi ng t hat t he sua spont e r ul i ngs wer e i ssued i n bot h her Oct . 28 l et t er , and i n t he f our Oct . 29 r esponsi ve decl ar at i ons, t he at t or ney r ef used my r equest t hat t he or der af t er hear i ng accur at el y memor i al i ze t he r ul i ngs. The sua spont e r ul i ngs
8 RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION
wer e mat er i al and r el evant i n t hat , among ot her t hi ngs, t hey r ef l ect ed j udi ci al bi as, pr ej udgment , advocacy, ot her vi ol at i ons of t he Code of J udi ci al Et hi cs, and l i kel y const i t ut i onal - l evel er r or by t he Cour t . The at t or neys r ef usal t o memor i al i ze i n t he t r i al cour t r ecor d t he sua spont e r ul i ngs conveyed t he appear ance t hat she was act i ng i n concer t wi t h t he Cour t t o conceal t he r ul i ngs. 27. I n J anuar y, 2011 t he at t or ney not i f i ed me t hat Pet i t i oner i nt ended t o move what t he at t or ney char act er i zed as my per sonal bel ongi ngs f r omt he mar i t al r esi dence t o a st or age uni t . On J an. 7, 2011 i n wr i t i ng I not i f i ed t he at t or ney t hat I di d not consent t o t he pr oper t y bei ng moved. A t r ue and cor r ect copy of my l et t er i s at t ached her et o as Exhi bi t F. As r ef l ect ed on t he exhi bi t , t he at t or ney r ecei ved a copy of t hi s cor r espondence vi a f acsi mi l e t r ansmi ssi on on J an. 7, 2011. 28. At t ached her et o as Exhi bi t s G, H, I , J , & K ar e t r ue and cor r ect copi es of a ser i es of l et t er s f r omFebr uar y, Mar ch and Apr i l , 2011 r ef l ect i ng my r epeat ed obj ect i ons t o Pet i t i oner s unaut hor i zed t r ansf er of pr oper t y t o a st or age uni t . As t he l et t er s r ef l ect , i t was ul t i mat el y r eveal ed t hat t he pr oper t y t r ansf er r ed t o st or age was i n f act not my per sonal bel ongi ngs. The t r ansf er r ed pr oper t y consi st ed of what Pet i t i oner uni l at er al l y deci ded woul d be my shar e of communi t y pr oper t y. The at t or ney r ecei ved copi es of my l et t er s vi a f acsi mi l e on t he dat es r ecor ded on each of my l et t er s.
9 RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION
29. Mor e r ecent l y, on Febr uar y 8, 2012, I wr ot e t o t he at t or ney t o ver i f y i f Respondent was st i l l r ef usi ng t o pr ovi de me wi t h copi es of t he househol d f i nanci al r ecor ds she cont r ol l ed and whi ch I r equi r e t o compl et e my decl ar at i ons of di scl osur e. I n t he l et t er , I al so asked t he at t or ney about ot her mat t er s, i ncl udi ng i f she expect ed t o cont i nue her pol i cy of r equest i ng sanct i ons i n al l r esponsi ve pl eadi ngs. A t r ue and cor r ect copy of my l et t er i s at t ached her et o as Exhi bi t L. As r ef l ect ed on t he exhi bi t , t he at t or ney r ecei ved t he l et t er vi a f acsi mi l e on Feb. 8, 2012. 30. I n a r esponse dat ed Feb. 9, 2012, t he at t or ney wr ot e t hat I woul d have t o make a f or mal di scover y r equest f or t he f i nanci al r ecor ds, and t hat she woul d cont i nue t o r equest sanct i ons i n r esponsi ve pl eadi ngs when appr opr i at e. She pr ovi ded si mi l ar , adver sar i al and non- cooper at i ve r esponses t o my ot her i nqui r i es. A t r ue and cor r ect copy of t he at t or ney s l et t er i s at t ached her et o as Exhi bi t M. 31. I n l i ght of t he at t or neys past and r ecent uncooper at i ve and adver sar i al conduct set f or t h above, i t i s r easonabl e f or me t o assume, and I do assume, t hat any r equest by me t o have her cor r ect t he def ect i ve Mar ch 28, 2012 mot i on woul d be f ut i l e. 32. Thi s decl ar at i on and r esponse t o Pet i t i oner s Mar ch 28, 2012 mot i on was f i l ed at t he ear l i est pr act i cabl e t i me. As I have done wi t h al l past f i l i ngs, I emai l ed t hi s r esponsi ve pl eadi ng t o Pet i t i oner s at t or ney ahead of f or mal ser vi ce by pr i or i t y U. S. Mai l
- 2 - RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
a veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem. (Declaration of in Opposition to Petitioners March 28, 2012 Motion for Seven Orders ( Dec.), 3, 4 and Exhs. A, B (filed herewith).) Respondent is indigent and involuntarily pro per because Petitioner is the managing spouse, controls all community assets and income, and refuses to release community funds to enable Respondent to retain counsel. (See RJN #6 p. 11 29; RJN #1 p. 8 27; RJN #2 p. 1 1; RJN #7 Exh. L.) Petitioner also refuses to provide Respondent with copies of household financial records she controls and that he requires to complete his declarations of disclosure. (See, e.g., Dec. 29, 30 and Exhs. L, M.) The record reflects that, since before the case was filed in May 2010, Petitioner has carried out a scheme to misappropriate community assets and dispossess Respondent of his property and possessory rights. (See, e.g., Dec. 27-30 and Exhs. F-M.) In the present proceeding, Petitioner seeks harsh and significant evidentiary and monetary sanctions, and other relief. Petitioner also effectively requests the Courts ex post facto acquiescence to her January 2011 unilateral division and transfer of community property - her third and fourth unpunished violations of the automatic temporary restraining orders since the case began. (See RJN #1) On its face, Petitioners pleading is void. It does not comply with state and local rules of court and other procedural statutes. The errors are substantive, non-trivial, and unreasonably obstruct Respondents ability to respond to the motion. It also is reasonable to infer that the errors are deliberate. The court rule and statute violations work to Petitioners advantage and disadvantage Respondent.
- 3 - RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The pleading was drafted by a veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem. ( . Dec. 3, 4 and Exhs. A, B.) The attorney has made virtually identical errors in all prior court filings. The errors are calculated to gain a litigation advantage by, inter alia, precluding Respondents ability to rebut, impeach or challenge inadmissible evidence under Code of Civil Procedure 436 and 431.10, and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1354(b)(2)(written objections must state line number of material objected to). As set forth below, the strategy sets a trap where Respondent cannot lawfully make written evidentiary objections - and the objections are therefore waived, and the inadmissible evidence admitted. By law, under Code of Civil Procedure 437c(b)(5) and 437c(d) objections not made are waived. (See also Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG-2011) 10:210 [failure to make evidentiary objections waives right to challenge ruling based on inadmissible evidence].) Taken together with Petitioners prior defective court submissions, the motion constitutes repeated and deliberate violations of court rules and is therefore sanctionable conduct under Code of Civil Procedure 583.150 and 575.1. For the reasons set forth herein, Respondent respectfully requests that the motion be dismissed with prejudice, denied or stricken as a sanction for Petitioners serial violations of court rules and statutory pleading requirements. Alternatively, the motion should be dismissed, denied or stricken until it complies with the law.
- 4 - RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
II. PETITIONERS CURRENT AND PRIOR VIOLATIONS OF COURT RULES STATUTES, and DECISIONAL LAW
A. Violations of Court Rules and Family Code 2335 1. Court Rule and Family Code Violations in the Present Proceeding Petitioners pending motion for seven orders relies in large part on her six- page declaration. The declaration was filed without line numbers in the left margin in violation of Cal. Rules of Court (CRC) Rule 2.108(4) , is single-spaced in violation of CRC Rule 2.108(1) and does not contain a footer, violating Rule 2.110. The violations constitute a violation of Local Rule 3.02 [failure to comply with CRC]. The two declarations included with Petitioners motion contain false, immaterial, or irrelevant material facts, and omit important material facts. ( . Dec., 5.) The false, immaterial, irrelevant and omitted material facts are dispositive to the orders requested by Petitioner. (Id. 6.) Removal of the improper, inadmissible material and inclusion of the omitted material will render both declarations insufficient to support the relief requested in the motion. (Id.). The declaration submitted by Petitioner also contains fabricated, or otherwise inadmissible misconduct, or fault evidence. (Id., 7.) Subject to statutorily proscribed exceptions, the use of fault evidence is prohibited by Family Code 2335. The impropriety and consequences of attempting to use fault evidence is emphasized throughout the leading family law treatise. (See Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2011) 2:34, 3:239-40; 6:823; 13:90; 13:121; 14:265.1.) Any attempt to sneak in fault evidence in violation of 2335 is likely to result in strong reprimand and may even draw monetary sanctions (Fam. C. 271). (Id., at 13:122, emphasis in original). The
- 5 - RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
fault evidence recited by Petitioner does not fall within the statutorily proscribed exceptions, which arise in domestic violence, child custody and specified support matters. Family Code 3011(b)&(d), 3041, 4320(i),(m), 4325 and 6300. (See also Hogoboom & King, 6:823.1-824.6; 11:195). If the Court does not strike the motion with prejudice, to effectively respond to Petitioners motion, to preserve his rights of trial and appellate review, and to provide the basis for a sanctions request based on the use of prohibited fault evidence and other grounds, Respondent will concurrently file with his response written evidentiary objections under Code of Civil Procedure 436 and 431.10. Dec., 9, 12.) In addition to general and specific Family Code fault evidence objections, Respondent will make written Evidence Code-based objections. (Id.). Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1354(b)(2) requires for each objection reference to the line number of the objectionable material. (See also Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG-2011) 9:102.5 [reference to page and line number required for evidentiary objections].) It is self-evident that until Petitioners declaration is drafted in compliance with CRC Rule 2.108(4), Respondent cannot make lawful and effective evidentiary objections. In responding to Petitioners motion, Respondent also cannot file a supporting memorandum which complies with Cal. Rules of Court until Petitioners declaration complies with Cal. Rules of Court Rule 2.108(4). Respondents memorandum will reference specific portions of Petitioners declaration. ( . Dec., 15.) Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(k) requires such references to specify the paragraph or line number in the declaration.
- 6 - RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
In addition, the points and authorities filed with Petitioners motion do not comply with Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(b) [memorandum must contain statement of facts and concise statement of the evidence relied on]. The memorandum appears to misstate the record and to rely on false, misleading or omitted material facts, and makes no specific, identifiable references to the record. Respondent cannot effectively respond to, and rebut or impeach the references referred to in Petitioners memorandum until it complies with Rule 3.113(b) . Petitioners memorandum also violates Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.113(k) [reference to supporting declarations must reference page, paragraph and line number]. The memorandum appears to reference Petitioners declaration and exhibit, but does not provide the information required by Rule 3.1113(k). 2. Court Rule and Family Code Violations in Prior Proceedings a. The Defective September 2010 Motion to Compel On September 24, 2010 Petitioner filed a motion to compel which relied on a declaration with the same defects and violations of Cal. Rules of Court and the Family Code as the current declaration. (See RJN #3, Dec. of p. 1-2.) The motion to compel requested attorney fee sanctions. Petitioner did not file an income and expense declaration as required by CRC Rules 5.118(b) and 5.128(b), and Local Rule 14.11(9). 1 (RJN #3.) The circumstances - including the training, experience and related conduct by Petitioners attorney - logically infer
1 The only arguable exception to the mandatory income and expense declaration requirement is where the declaration is already on file with the court from prior proceedings. See Burkle v. Burkle (2006) 144 Cal.App.4 th 387; Marriage of Corona (2009) 172 Cal.App.4 th 1205, 1227 [failure to file income and expense declaration excused where court had several years of income and expense declarations
- 7 - RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
that the income and expense declaration omission was deliberate and calculated to gain a litigation advantage by, inter alia, concealing from the Court the stark economic disparity between the parties. b. The October 2010 Defective Responsive Declaration On October 14, 2010 Petitioner filed a responsive declaration with the same defects and violations of court rules and the Family Code as the current declaration. (RJN #4 Dec. of pp. 1-5.) The Family Code 2335 fault evidence violations were particularly egregious in the Oct. 14 responsive declaration, and Respondent attempted written evidentiary objections to the declaration. (RJN #5.) The Court failed or refused to rule on the objections. Taken together with Petitioners declaration in the current matter, where, among other improbable claims, Petitioner claims to have discovered items which are used to create explosivesamong Respondents personal property, the content of the declarations show by Petitioner an unusual preoccupation with bringing misconduct evidence before the court. The preoccupation should call Petitioners credibility into question. (See, generally, Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide: Family Law (TRG 2011) 7:296.15 and 7:493 [in child custody context, court may question credibility of party with general recalcitrance and preoccupation to submit irrelevant fault evidence].) B. Violations of Decisional Law 1. The Present Proceedings
prior to hearing at issue]. Until the present proceeding, Petitioner did not have an income and expense declaration on file with the court.
- 8 - RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Petitioners motion includes a request for $7,290 in attorney fee sanctions and costs. The attorney fees accounting submitted by Petitioners trial court attorney is unsworn. An unsworn attorney fee request is invalid. In re Marriage of Duris and Urbany (2011) 193 Cal.App.4 th 510, 515; In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4 th
396, 413-414, fn. 11. [It is axiomatic that the unsworn statements of counsel are not evidence]. 2. Prior Proceedings a. The September 2010 Defective Motion to Compel On September 24, 2010 Petitioner filed a motion to compel which included a request for attorney fee sanctions which was unsworn (RJN #3.), and did not include an income and expense declaration. b. The Four October 2010 Defective Responsive Declarations On Oct. 29, 2010 Petitioner filed four responsive declarations. Each declaration requested attorney fee sanctions. None of the declarations included an accounting of the attorney fees requested. None of the declarations included a sworn accounting of the attorney fees requested (RJN #9, 10, 11, 12.), nor an income and expense declaration. III. PETITIONERS REPEATED AND DELIBERATE VIOLATIONS OF COURT RULES, STATUTES AND DECISIONAL LAW WARRANT SANCTIONS OR OTHER RELIEF
Petitioners violation of court rules and statutory law are significant, relevant and not trivial. Petitioners history of consistent, repeated violations strongly infers that the violations are deliberate and calculated to gain a litigation advantage. The
- 9 - RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
natural and expected consequence of the violations includes impeding and obstructing Respondents due process and appeal rights. Code of Civil Procedure, section 583.150 permits the court to dismiss an action or impose other sanctions under local rules adopted by the court pursuant to Section 575.1 or by the Judicial Council pursuant to statute, or otherwise under the inherent authority of the court. Code of Civil Procedure, section 575.1 provides for the presiding judge of each superior court to promulgate local rules designed to expedite and facilitate the business of the court. Sacramento County Superior Court Local Rule 3.02 states: Failure to comply with any Local Rule or California Rules of Court may subject the party to sanctions pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.30; Code of Civil Procedure sections 177.5, 575.2.
Petitioners clear violations of Cal. Rules of Court violate Local Rule 3.02. Rule 3.02 and Code of Civil Procedure 575.2 authorize the court to strike out all or part of any pleading, or dismiss an action or proceeding or any part thereof for non- compliance with local rules. CCP 583.150 permits a court to dismiss an action or impose other sanctions for local and state court rule violations under the inherent power of the court. CCP 436(b) permits a court to - at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of the state or a court rule. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG-2011) 9:1275-1282; 11:280.7a- 11:280.10a.) Violation or disregard of local rules is ground by itself for denial of a motion. (Id. 9.9.1.)
Opposition to Murgia Motion to Compel Discovery Filed August 9, 2018 by Plaintiff People of the State of California: People v. Bassi - Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Deputy District Attorney Alison Filo - Defense Attorney Dmitry Stadlin - Judge John Garibaldi - Santa Clara County Superior Court Presiding Judge Patricia Lucas - Silicon Valley California -
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas
"GENERAL ORDER RE: EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY" Restricting Free Speech Outside Santa Clara County Courthouses Issued by Presiding Judge Patricia Lucas on February 22, 2017 - Civil Rights - Free Speech - Freedom of Association - Constitutional Rights
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas
Motion to Dismiss for Loss or Destruction of Evidence (Trombetta) Filed July 5, 2018 by Defendant Susan Bassi: People v. Bassi - Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Deputy District Attorney Alison Filo - Defense Attorney Dmitry Stadlin - Judge John Garibaldi - Santa Clara County Superior Court Presiding Judge Patricia Lucas - Silicon Valley California -
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas
Federal Criminal Indictment - US v. Judge Joseph Boeckmann - Wire Fraud, Honest Services Fraud, Travel Act, Witness Tampering - US District Court Eastern District of Arkansas
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Trumbetta) Filed August 9, 2018 by Plaintiff People of the State of California:: People v. Bassi - Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Deputy District Attorney Alison Filo - Defense Attorney Dmitry Stadlin - Judge John Garibaldi - Santa Clara County Superior Court Presiding Judge Patricia Lucas - Silicon Valley California -
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas
Judge Bruce Mills Misconduct Prosecution by the Commission on Judicial Performance: Report of the Special Masters: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Contra Costa County Superior Court Inquiry Concerning Judge Bruce Clayton Mills No. 201
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas