Lawsuit Complaint - Color of Law Civil Rights Violations: Public-Private Conspiracy Edwards v. Red Hills Community Probation Federal Civil Rights Laws - California Supreme Court Justice Leondra R. Kruger - Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar - Justice Goodwin H. Liu - Justice Carol A. Corrigan - Justice Ming W. Chin - Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar - Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Supreme Court of California

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 41
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
_________________________________
)
ADEL EDWARDS,
)
FRED BARBER,
)
VERA CHEEKS,
)
ULYSSES WEST,
)
JAMES H. DAVIS, JR.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
) CLASS ACTION
v.
)
1:15-CV-67
) CIVIL ACTION NO._____________
RED HILLS COMMUNITY
)
PROBATION, LLC,
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
MARGARET CRUTCHFIELD,
)
Chief Executive Officer, Red Hills
)
Community Probation, LLC,
)
)
MARTIELE PICKLE, Probation
)
Officer, Red Hills Community
)
Probation, LLC,
)
)
JODI SIMPSON, Probation Officer,
)
Red Hills Community Probation, LLC, )
)
NEALIE MCCORMICK, Chief of
)
Police, City of Pelham, in his
)
official and individual capacities,
)
)
ERIC MILLER, Public Safety Director, )
City of Bainbridge, in his official
)
and individual capacities,
)
)
JOHN DOES 1-3, City of Pelham
)
Police Officers, in their individual
)
capacities,
)
JOHN DOES 4-6, City of

Bainbridge Police Officers, in their
individual capacities,
)
)
)
)
CITY OF PELHAM,
)
)
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Adel Edwards, Fred Barber, Vera Cheeks, Ulysses West, and
James H. Davis, Jr., on behalf of themselves and the class alleged herein, by
counsel, state as follows for their Complaint:
INTRODUCTION
1.
This is an action to stop Defendantsa private probation company,
private probation officers, and city police officersfrom wrongfully detaining and
jailing poor people who cannot afford to make payments on city court fines and
probation supervision fees in cases before the Municipal Court of Pelham and the
Municipal Court of Bainbridge. This action further seeks to stop the private
probation company in question from requiring former probationers to report to
probation officers and to pay fines and fees after the expiration of the probationers
sentences.
2.
Red Hills Community Probation, LLC (Red Hills) contracts with
local governments to supervise probation cases. These cases are handled by the
municipal courts of Bainbridge, Cairo, Pelham, and Whigham, and by the
Magistrate Court of Grady County.
3.
Plaintiffs are indigent men and women who received citations for
misdemeanors or ordinance violations in Pelham or Bainbridge. Plaintiffs

Edwards, Barber, and Cheeks appeared in court and pleaded guilty to a
misdemeanor or ordinance violation before Judge Joshua C. Bell, the presiding
judge in the Pelham and Bainbridge Municipal Courts.
4.
Judge Bell fined each Plaintiff and placed each Plaintiff on probation.
Judge Bell then instructed each Plaintiff to meet with a probation officer.
A. Immediate Payment or Seizure Policy
5.
Each Plaintiff met with a Red Hills probation officer inside the
courthouse. In each case, the probation officer, without legal authority, informed
the Plaintiff that he or she could not leave the courthouse until a payment was
made. In each case, the probation officer threatened the Plaintiff with jail if he or
she did not pay a certain amount of money by the end of court proceedings.
6.
On the date Plaintiff Adel Edwards pleaded guilty to burning leaves in
his yard without a permit, Red Hills personnel and city police detained Edwards in
the courthouse and then caused Edwards to be jailed for several days because
Edwards could not afford to make a $250 payment.
7.
On the date Plaintiff Fred Barber pleaded guilty to driving with a
suspended registration, Red Hills personnel and city police confined Barber in an
inmate holding cell in the courthouse until Barbers cousin brought $70 to secure
his release.
8.
On the date Plaintiff Vera Cheeks pleaded guilty to the offense of
failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, Red Hills personnel and city
police detained Cheeks at the courthouse until Cheekss fianc brought $50 to
secure her release.
9.
Defendants have a longstanding policy, custom, and practice of
seizing and detaining indigent probationers to coerce immediate payments without

notice, opportunity to be heard, or opportunity to comply (the Immediate Payment
or Seizure Policy). The seizures are unsupported by any reason to believe that
Plaintiffs have committed a probation violation. The seizures are made without
any hearing to investigate the reasons for nonpayment or alternatives to detention.
Red Hills personnel, with the assistance and approval of municipal police officers
who participate, have detained people in this manner repeatedly, over the course of
years, in violation of clearly established law.
10.
Red Hills personnel and city police officers have caused some
indigent probationers to be detained in the courthouse for hours while the

probationers families scrambled to come up with money demanded by Red Hills.
In other cases, Red Hills personnel and city police officers have caused indigent
persons to be jailed because the probationers could not afford to pay.
11.
Defendants policy and practice of detaining people to coerce date-of-
adjudication payment violates provisions of the United States Constitution and the
Georgia Constitution. Further, this policy and practice violates Georgia law and
constitutes false imprisonment. Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of their civil
rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Georgia law.
B. Expired Probation Sentence Policy
12.
Plaintiffs further bring this litigation to challenge a second, illegal
business practice by Red Hillsits practice of falsely representing to former

probationers that they are required to report to Red Hills personnel and to pay Red
Hills any remaining money owed on fines and fees even after the probationers
sentences are complete (the Expired Probation Sentence Policy).
13.
When probationers are finished with their probationary periods but
still have not paid all fines and fees, Red Hills personnel have falsely instructed
former probationers that they could be taken back to court and jailed for failing to
report to Red Hills officers and failing to make payments to Red Hills.
5
14.
Red Hills personnel have used threats of probation revocation and
incarceration to ensure that former probationers will continue to pay and to report
weekly to Red Hills officers.
15.
The threats made by Red Hills personnel are backed by no legal
authority. Red Hillss policy in this regard constitutes fraud under Georgia law.
The policy also deprives Plaintiffs and similarly situated probationers of their
liberty without due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution
and the Georgia Constitution.
16.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all indigent
persons who face criminal charges requiring them to appear in the Pelham
Municipal Court or the Bainbridge Municipal Court and who are subject to the
Defendants policies and practices of: (a) demanding date-of-adjudication
payments and seizing those who are unable make such payments; and (b) falsely
representing to former probationers that they are required to report to Red Hills
personnel and to pay Red Hills money even after the probation sentences are
complete.
17.
Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief as set
forth herein.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18.
This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as this action arises under the laws and Constitution
of the United States; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1983; pursuant to its supplemental
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367; and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, as an actual
controversy exists within this Courts jurisdiction. This Court is authorized to grant
declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.
19.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, because at least one
Defendant resides in this district and all Defendants reside in this State, and
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims set
forth in this Complaint occurred within this district.
PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
20.
Adel Edwards is a 54-year-old, indigent, African-American man who
resides in Pelham, Georgia. Edwards has an intellectual disability. On April 24,

2013, Edwards pleaded guilty in the Municipal Court of Pelham to burning leaves
in his yard without a permit.
21.
Fred Barber is a 52-year-old, indigent, African-American man who
resides in Bainbridge, Georgia. On August 21, 2013, Barber pleaded guilty in the
Municipal Court of Bainbridge to driving a vehicle with a suspended registration.
7
22.
Vera Cheeks is a 52-year-old, indigent, African-American woman
who resides in Bainbridge, Georgia. On October 22, 2014 Cheeks pleaded guilty
in the Municipal Court of Bainbridge to failing to come to a complete stop at a stop
sign.
23.
Ulysses West is a 57-year-old African-American man who resides in
Meigs, Georgia. West has a fixed and limited income. On March 27, 2015, West
received a traffic citation for speeding in Pelham. West cannot afford to pay his
fine. Wests citation requires him to appear in Pelham Municipal Court at a future
date. Absent injunctive relief from this Court, West is imminently likely to be
subject to the Defendants unlawful policies as described in this Complaint.
24.
James H. Davis, Jr., is a 54-year-old African-American man who
resides in Atlanta, Georgia. Davis lives on a fixed income of approximately $710

per month, most of which goes towards rent. On January 29, 2015, Davis received
a traffic citation for speeding in Pelham. Davis cannot afford to pay his fine.
Davis is required to appear in Pelham Municipal Court at a future date. Absent
injunctive relief from this Court, Davis is imminently likely to be subject to the
Defendants unlawful policies as described in this Complaint.
B. Defendants
25.
Defendant Red Hills Community Probation, LLC, is a Georgia
company that does business in the State of Georgia, in this District, and in this
8
Division. Red Hills is headquartered in Cairo, Georgia. Red Hills performs a

public function that was traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State
supervision of people on probation. Georgia law authorizes the Pelham Municipal
Court and Bainbridge Municipal Court to contract with Red Hills to perform that
public function. O.C.G.A. 42-8-100(h)(1). Red Hills is a state actor and a
person acting under color of state law and is liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
26.
Defendant Margaret Crutchfield is the owner of Red Hills Community
Probation, LLC, and the companys probation supervisor. She resides in this
District and this Division. Crutchfield is a private probation officer performing a
public function. O.C.G.A. 42-8-100(a)(2). Crutchfield has caused, authorized,
condoned, ratified, approved, and knowingly participated in a longstanding policy
and practice of (A) detaining probationers at the Bainbridge and Pelham
courthouses, without legal authority or probable cause, to coerce date-ofadjudication payments; and (B) informing probationers they will be jailed if they
fail to make payments by the end of the days court proceedings. Crutchfield has
caused probationers to be seized and detained for their failure to make immediate
payments. She has also caused probationers to continue reporting and making
probation payments after their sentences have expired. At all times pertinent to
this action, she was acting under color of state law.
27.
Defendant Martiele Pickle is a probation officer employed by Red
Hills Community Probation, LLC. She resides in this District and this Division.
Pickle is a private probation officer performing a public function. O.C.G.A.
42-8-100(a)(2). Pickle has caused, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved, and
knowingly participated in a longstanding policy and practice of (A) detaining
probationers at the Bainbridge and Pelham courthouses, without legal authority or
probable cause, to coerce date-of-adjudication payments; and (B) informing
probationers they will be jailed if they fail to make payments by the end of the
days court proceedings. Pickle has caused probationers to be seized and detained
for their failures to make immediate payments. At all times pertinent to this action,
she was acting under color of state law.
28.
Defendant Jodi Simpson is a probation officer employed by Red Hills
Community Probation, LLC. She resides in this District and this Division.
Simpson is a private probation officer performing a public function. O.C.G.A.
42-8-100(a)(2). Simpson has caused, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved, and
knowingly participated in a longstanding policy and practice of (A) detaining
probationers at the Pelham courthouse, without legal authority or probable cause,
to coerce date-of-adjudication payments; and (B) informing probationers they will
be jailed if they fail to make payments by the end of the days court proceedings.
Simpson has caused probationers to be jailed for their failure to make immediate
10
payments. She has also caused former probationers to continue reporting and
making probation payments after their sentences have expired. At all times
pertinent to this action, she was acting under color of state law.
29.
Defendant Nealie McCormick is the Chief of the City of Pelham
Police Department. He resides in this District and this Division. McCormick is

the final policymaker for the City of Pelham with respect to the participation of
Pelham Police Department officers in implementing the policies challenged in this
Complaint. McCormick knew or should have known of the Citys and Red Hillss
longstanding policy of detaining indigent probationers to coerce payment, and
knew that police officers under his command effectuated these illegal detentions.
McCormick caused, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved, participated in, or
knowingly acquiesced in the illegal policies or practices described in this
Complaint. His actions and inactions were deliberately indifferent to the
constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. He is sued in his individual capacity and in his
official capacity as Chief of Police. At all times pertinent to this action, he was
acting under color of state law.
30.
Defendant Eric Miller is the Director of the City of Bainbridge
Department of Public Safety. He resides in this District and this Division. Miller
is the final policymaker for the City of Bainbridge with respect to the participation
of Bainbridge Department of Public Safety officers in implementing the policies
11
challenged in this Complaint. Miller knew or should have known of the Citys and
Red Hillss longstanding policy of detaining indigent probationers to coerce
payment, and knew that police officers under his command effectuated these
illegal detentions. Miller caused, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved,
participated in, or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal policies and practices
described in this Complaint. His actions and inactions were deliberately
indifferent to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. He is sued in his individual
capacity and in his official capacity as Public Safety Director. At all times
pertinent to this action, he was acting under color of state law.
31.
Defendants John Does 1-3 are officers of the City of Pelham Police
Department. Each is sued in his individual capacity. Does 1-3 include officers of
the Pelham Police Department who were present in the Pelham Municipal Court on
April 24, 2013, and who were personally responsible for detaining Edwards and
transporting him to and confining him in the Pelham City Jail. At all times
pertinent to this action, each of Does 1-3 was acting under color of state law.
32.
Defendants John Does 4-6 are officers of the City of Bainbridge
Department of Public Safety. Each is sued in his individual capacity. Does 4-6
include officers of the Bainbridge Department of Public Safety who were present
in the Bainbridge Municipal Court on August 21, 2013 and October 22, 2014, and
12
who were personally responsible for detaining Barber and Cheeks. At all times
pertinent to this action, each of Does 4-6 was acting under color of state law.
33.
Defendant City of Pelham, Georgia, is a municipal governmental
entity whose policies, practices, and customs were a moving force in the
constitutional violations described in this Complaint. For years, city police officers
have participated routinely with Red Hills in the illegal detention of probationers to
coerce payments. Red Hills is able to carry out the policies and practices
challenged in this case only with the approval and assistance of city police officers,
whose active participation in the seizures adds credibility to threats of Red Hills
personnel. These officers participate in the seizures of probationers both at the
courthouse and at the city jail. The City is liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 because
(a) Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated; (b) the City had a well-settled and
longstanding custom, policy, or practice of detaining indigent probationers to
coerce immediate payment that constituted deliberate indifference to these
constitutional rights; and (c) the custom or policy caused the violation. In the
alternative, the City delegated its final policymaking authority to Red Hills to
obtain revenue from probationers, and delegated its final policymaking authority
concerning arrests and detentions to the Chief of Police and Red Hills.
34.
Defendant City of Bainbridge, Georgia, is a municipal governmental
entity whose policies, practices, and customs were a moving force in the
13
constitutional violations described in this Complaint. For years, city police officers
have participated routinely with Red Hills in the illegal detention of probationers to
coerce payments. Red Hills is able to carry out the policies and practices
challenged in this case only with the approval and assistance of city police officers,
whose active participation in the seizures adds credibility to threats of Red Hills
personnel. The City is liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 because (a) Plaintiffs
constitutional rights were violated; (b) the City had a well-settled and longstanding
custom, policy, or practice of detaining indigent probationers to coerce payment
that constituted deliberate indifference to these constitutional rights; and (c) the
custom or policy caused the violation. In the alternative, the City delegated its
final policymaking authority to Red Hills to obtain revenue from probationers, and
delegated its final policymaking authority concerning arrests and detentions to the
Director of Public Safety and Red Hills.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
35.
Plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2)
and/or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on their behalf and on behalf
of a class similarly situated and affected during the pendency of this lawsuit and in
the future. Plaintiffs will seek to certify two classes, the first of which will seek
relief with respect to the Immediate Payment or Seizure Policy and the second of
which will seek relief with respect to the Expired Probation Sentence Policy.
14
The first class is defined as all indigent persons with criminal charges requiring
them to appear in the Pelham Municipal Court or the Bainbridge Municipal Court
who are or were subject to the Defendants policy and practice of seizing and
detaining probationers who fail to make date-of-adjudication payments. The
second class is defined as all indigent persons with criminal charges requiring them
to appear in the Pelham Municipal Court or the Bainbridge Municipal Court who
are or were subject to Red Hillss policy of requiring persons to report to Red Hills
personnel and/or pay Red Hills personnel even after their probation sentences had
expired.
36.
Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) in that:

a. Each class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. The first class consists of hundreds of persons who
have been or will be under a legal obligation to appear before the
municipal courts in question, and who are subject to Defendants
policy or custom of demanding immediate payments and seizing those
who fail to make such payments. The second class consists of a large
but as yet unknown number of persons who have been or will be
subject to Defendants policy of requiring persons to report to Red
Hills personnel and/or pay Red Hills even after the probationary
period has expired.
15
b. There are questions of law and fact common to the classes concerning
the constitutionality and lawfulness of the Defendants policies
challenged in this Complaint. The absence of any lawful basis for
detaining probationers to coerce payment presents a question of fact
and law common to all class members. Similarly, there is a common
question as to whether the Expired Probation Sentence Policy
violates state and federal law.
c. The policies challenged in this action apply with equal force to the
named plaintiffs and all members of each class so that the claims of
the plaintiffs are typical of those of the class. Edwards, Barber, and
Cheeks were subject to the Illegal Detention Policy. Edwards was
subject to the Expired Probation Sentence Policy. West and Davis
have yet to be adjudicated, and face an imminent risk of being subject
to both illegal policies.
d. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
each class. The Plaintiffs possess the requisite personal interest in the
subject matter of the lawsuit and possess no interests adverse to other
class members. The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at the
Southern Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit organization with
extensive experience in complex class action litigation.
16
37.
Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) in that the
Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to each class, so
that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate
respecting the class as a whole.
38.
Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) because common
questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting individual class
members. A class action is superior to any other method of adjudicating this
dispute because hundreds of indigent people are subjected to the illegal policies
described in this Complaint, but few are likely to have the time, legal acumen, and
resources to pursue the claims at issue in this case on their own.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Cities Delegation of Municipal Probation Services to Red Hills
39.
Georgia law authorizes municipalities to contract with private
companies to provide probation supervision services. O.C.G.A. 42-8-100(h)(1).

40.
Specifically, under Georgia law, [t]he judge of [a] municipal court . .
. with the approval of the governing authority of that municipality . . . is authorized

to enter into written contracts with private corporations, enterprises, or agencies to
provide probation supervision, counseling, collection services for all moneys to be
paid by a defendant according to the terms of the sentence imposed and any
moneys which by operation of law are to be paid by the defendant in consequence
17
of the conviction, and other probation services for persons convicted in such court
and placed on probation. O.C.G.A. 42-8-100(h)(1).
41.
Red Hills is a party to contracts authorizing it to provide probation
supervision services to defendants adjudicated in the Municipal Court of

Bainbridge and the Municipal Court of Pelham.
B. The Defendants Policy of Detaining Probationers to Coerce Payment
42.
The city courts in Bainbridge and Pelham each hold court
approximately once per month. Judge Joshua C. Bell presides over both courts.
43.
Indigent defendants are seldom appointed counsel in either court.1
44.
In Bainbridge and Pelham, Red Hills personnel are present in the city
courthouses during adjudications. In Bainbridge, where city court is held in the

county courthouse, a Red Hills representative is stationed in a room adjacent to the
courtroom. In Pelham, where city court is held in a large room housed in a former
train depot, a Red Hills representative is stationed inside the courtroom across the
room from the judges bench.
45.
In both city courts, defendants who cannot afford to pay their fines on
or before the day of court are typically placed on probation with Red Hills for the
1
The Pelham Municipal Court adjudicates over 1,000 cases each year. In 2012,
the Pelham Municipal Court appointed counsel in 19 cases; in 2013, the court
appointed counsel in 9 cases. The Bainbridge Municipal Court adjudicates
approximately 2,000 cases each year. In 2012, the Bainbridge Municipal Court
appointed counsel in 14 cases; in 2013, the court appointed counsel in 26 cases.
18
purpose of having Red Hills collect their money. Once on probation, these
defendants are required to pay probation supervision fees of $44 per month, which
can more than double the amount of a defendants monetary obligation.
46.
As a matter of policy and practice, after Judge Bell places a defendant
on probation, he instructs the defendant to talk to a Red Hills probation officer.

47.
During the initial probation meeting, the probation officer tells the
person his total monetary obligation. Red Hills multiplies its monthly fee by the
number of months of probation, adds the fine, and presents the probationer with a
lump sum for which the probationer is liable.
48.
Pursuant to the Defendants policy, the probation officer then informs
the probationer that he or she is not free to leave, and that he or she must remain in
place until a fixed payment has been made.
49.
Red Hills probation officers inform probationers that if they do not
make the payment, they will go to the Pelham City Jail until a payment is received.
(The City of Bainbridge contracts with the City of Pelham to house Bainbridge
inmates in the Pelham City Jail.)
50.
In Bainbridge, defendants meet with a Red Hills probation officer in a
room accessible through a door in the courtroom. Once the probationer enters that
room, Red Hills personnel and Bainbridge Department of Public Safety officers,
without legal authority or probable cause, prevent the probationer from leaving
19
until a probation officer authorizes him or her to leave. The only other exit is
through a locked door controlled by law enforcement officers. Police officers are
present in the courtroom and move back and forth between the courtroom and the
probation holding area.
51.
In Pelham, defendants meet with a Red Hills probation officer at a
desk across the courtroom from the judges bench. Without legal authority or
probable cause, Red Hills personnel and Pelham Police Department officers
prevent probationers from leaving the courtroom until permitted to do so by a Red
Hills probation officer. Police officers are present in the courtroom and move back
and forth between the courtroom and the probation holding area.
52.
In both Bainbridge and Pelham, Red Hills probation officers follow a
policy, custom, and practice of conscripting families and friends into paying Red
Hills. When the probation officers know that a probationer cannot pay, they
instruct the probationer to contact family members or friends. In this way, Red
Hills probation officers exploit poor families under color of law, effectively
demanding a ransom for the return of their loved ones.
53.
The policy described in the preceding paragraphs is persistent,
widespread, longstanding, and so common and well-settled as to constitute a

custom that fairly represents municipal policy.
20
C. The Defendants Policy of Threatening Probationers with Jail after

Sentences Have Expired
54.
Some probationers are unable to pay their fines and fees in full before
their probation sentences expire.

55.
Red Hills probation officers have threatened to jail individuals for
nonpayment of unpaid fines and fees even after probation has ended and the former
probationer is no longer subject to the supervision of Red Hills or the jurisdiction
of the municipal court. Red Hills personnel refer to these cases as expired pay
cases.
56.
Red Hills probation officers know that they have no legal basis for
requiring former probationers to continue reporting. The officers use false

statements to mislead former probationers into believing otherwise. Red Hills
probation officers, in order to keep individuals under their control, instill fear in
current probationers with the threat of revocation and jail.
57.
Red Hills personnel have instructed purported probationers in
expired pay status to solicit contributions from friends and loved ones so that the
purported probationers will not have to go to jail.
21
D. Application of Defendants Policies to Adel Edwards

58.
On February 16, 2013, Adel Edwards received a citation for burning
leaves in his yard without a permit. Edwards appeared in the Pelham Municipal
Court on April 24, 2014, and pleaded guilty.
59.
The Pelham Municipal Court sentenced Edwards to pay a $500 fine.
Because Edwards could not pay this fine on the day of court, Judge Bell placed
Edwards on probation for 12 months and ordered him to pay $44 per month.
60.
After Judge Bell sentenced Edwards, Judge Bell instructed Edwards to
meet with Red Hills representatives. Edwards complied. City of Pelham police
officers were stationed in the courtroom and around the probation meeting area,
such that Edwards was not free to leave. A uniformed police officer was stationed
at the door to the courtroom to prevent anyone from leaving without authorization.
61.
Plaintiffs expect to show the probation officers on duty that day were
Defendants Pickle and Simpson. When Edwards met with Pickle and Simpson, he
was told that he owed not $500, but $1,028, to include $528 for probation
supervision fees.
62.
After the Red Hills probation officer told Edwards that he owed
$1,028, the probation officer told Edwards that he was required to make an
immediate payment before he could leave the courthouse. The probation officer
instructed Edwards to remain in the courtroom until he paid. Before meeting with
22
the probation officer, Edwards had not been informed of his probation conditions,
and had no reason to know that he would be required to make a payment that day.
63.
Edwards and loved ones accompanying him that day told his
probation officer that he was physically and intellectually disabled, that he could
not work, and that he had no money.
64.
Pickle and/or Simpson responded that if Edwards did not have the
full amount, he would have to go to jail.

65.
There were law enforcement officers in Edwardss immediate vicinity
when he met with Red Hills representatives and when Pickle and/or Simpson told
Edwards he could not leave the courthouse.
66.
As instructed by the Red Hills representatives, Edwards remained in
the courtroom until court was over.

67.
When court proceedings ended, City of Pelham police officers
transported Edwards to jail.

68.
Edwards remained in jail for several days until a friend was able to
bring $250 to have Edwards released.

69.
Thereafter, Edwards reported to Red Hills probation officers and
made four installment payments totaling $138 over 12 months. During the course
of probation, Edwards was repeatedly threatened by Defendant Simpson. Simpson
told Edwards that Red Hills would have him incarcerated if he did not pay.
23
70.
Edwardss probation expired on April 24, 2014. Although Edwards
was no longer on probation after April 24, 2014, and was no longer under any
obligation with respect to Red Hills, Simpson continued to instruct Edwards to
report to Red Hills and to pay. These instructions were given to Edwards on the
occasions set forth below when Edwards reported to Simpson after his probation
had expired.
71.
In reliance on his probation officers false representation regarding his
responsibility to report and pay Red Hills, Edwards reported to Simpson and paid
Red Hills numerous times following the expiration of his sentence, including on:
August 14, 2014 ($2); September 11, 2014 ($4); October 17, 2014 ($4); November
13, 2014 ($5); and December 11, 2014 ($5).
72.
In or around December 2014, Simpson told Edwards that if he did not
bring in money the following week, she would take a warrant out on him.
73.
Edwards reported to Simpson as recently as the first week of March
2015, and Simpson instructed Edwards to report again on March 12, 2015.
74.
As a result of Edwardss post-probation reporting, Defendant Simpson
obtained two benefits for Red Hills. First, she obtained payments of money that
Edwards otherwise would not have paid. Second, she obtained a reputation among
Red Hillss customers for maximizing collections from poor people whose limited
24
resources would not have been diverted to probation-related debts absent credible
threats of incarceration.
75.
Red Hills stopped requiring Edwards to pay and report after
undersigned counsel filed a Motion to Stop Enforcement of Expired Probation

Sentence in the Pelham Municipal Court on March 11, 2015.
E. Application of Defendants Policies to Fred Barber
76.
In June 2013, Fred Barber received a citation for driving a vehicle
with a suspended registration. On August 21, 2013, Barber appeared in the

Bainbridge Municipal Court and pleaded guilty.
77.
Judge Bell sentenced Barber to a fine of $590 and 12 months
probation at $44 per month.

78.
After Judge Bell sentenced Barber, Judge Bell instructed Barber to
meet with a probation officer. A Bainbridge police officer led Barber to a room
behind the courtroom. The room had two exits. One was through the courtroom.
The other was through a locked, back door.
79.
In this room, Barber met with Defendant Martiele Pickle. Pickle told
Barber that he owed a $590 fine, plus $528 for one year of probation supervision,
for a total of $1,118.
80.
Pickle told Barber that he had to pay $280 in cash before he could
leave the courthouse. Before meeting with Pickle, Barber had not been informed
25
of his probation conditions, and did not have any reason to know that he would be
required to make a payment that day.
81.
Barber told Pickle that he had $210 in his pocket from his last
paycheck. He asked if he could give Pickle $210 and bring in the rest at a later
time. Pickle said if Barber did not immediately pay $280, he would be
incarcerated in the Pelham City Jail.
82.
There were law enforcement officers in Barbers immediate vicinity
when Pickle told Barber he could not leave the courthouse until he paid $280.
There was no way for Barber to leave Pickles office, except through the
courtroom. And there were uniformed officers stationed in the courtroom and in
Pickles office. The officers controlled access into and out of the area. When
Barber got to Pickles office, he was not free to leave.
83.
To avoid being taken to jail in Pelham, Barber summoned his cousin
who had come to court with him that day. Barber asked his cousin if she could
borrow money from a friend for whom Barber did yard work.
84.
While Pickle and city police officers detained Barber at the
courthouse, Barbers cousin left the courthouse to attempt to borrow money to

secure Barbers release. Pickle and a city police officer required Barber to sit in an
inmate holding cell in the courthouse while Barber waited for his cousin to bring
money.
26
85.
Barbers cousin borrowed $70 from Barbers friend. Barber gave
Pickle the $70 in borrowed money plus the $210 he brought to court. Pickle
permitted Barber to leave the room only after Barber paid $280.
F. Application of Defendants Policies to Vera Cheeks
86.
On September 23, 2014, Vera Cheeks received a traffic citation for
failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. On October 22, 2014, Cheeks
appeared in the Municipal Court of Bainbridge and pleaded nolo contendere to the
charge. Judge Bell imposed $135 fine.
87.
At the time of her adjudication, Cheeks was unemployed and caring
for her father who was then terminally ill. Because Cheeks did not have $135,
Judge Bell placed her on probation for three months.
88.
After Judge Bell sentenced Cheeks, Judge Bell instructed Cheeks to
meet with a probation officer. Cheeks proceeded to a room behind the courtroom.
The room had two exits. One was through the courtroom. The other was through
a locked, back door.
89.
Once Cheeks was in the probation room, Defendant Pickle informed
Cheeks that she owed $135, plus $105 in probation supervision fees, and $27 for
the Georgia Crime Victims Emergency Fund. Pickle gave Cheeks a document that
told her to report to the probation office once per week.
27
90.
Pickle then told Cheeks that Cheeks could not leave until she paid
$50. Cheeks explained that she did not have $50. Pickle said again that Cheeks
could not leave until she paid $50. Pickle told Cheeks that if she did not pay, she
would go to jail. Before meeting with the probation officer, Cheeks had not been
informed of her probation conditions, and did not have any reason to know that she
would be required to make a payment that day.
91.
Cheekss fianc, James Bullard, was waiting for Cheeks in the
courtroom. Cheeks was permitted to open the door to the courtroom and motion to
summon Bullard.
92.
Bullard took the engagement ring off Cheekss finger. Then he went
to get a piece of lawn equipment from his house, and pawned both the ring and the
lawn equipment at American Pawn & Jewelry in Bainbridge. Together, the ring
and equipment were exchanged for $50 in cash.
93.
Unable to leave, Cheeks sat in the probation room. She worried about
going to jail because her father was terminally ill, and she was helping to care for
him in his final weeks.
94.
Later that day, Bullard returned to the courthouse and gave $50 to
Pickle. Only then did Pickle let Cheeks leave the courthouse. After Cheeks paid, a
law enforcement officer used her badge to open the door of the probation room so
Cheeks and Bullard could exit.
28
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT ONE
Due Process Clause Violations
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
Brought Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and
Violation of Art. I, Sec. I, Para. I of the Georgia Constitution
(by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
95.
Plaintiffs incorporate herein and re-allege, as if fully set forth herein,
all factual allegations of paragraphs 1-17, 20-34, and 39-94.

96.
Defendants seized indigent probationers and caused probationers to be
detained and/or jailed when probationers were unable to make date-of-adjudication

payments on city court fines and fees. Defendants detained probationers without
notice to the probationers that they would be required to make date-of-adjudication
payment, and without any process available to challenge the legality of detention.
97.
By detaining Plaintiffs without notice or legal authority to collect
payments on city court fines and fees, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their
liberty without due process of law in violation of Plaintiffs rights. U.S. Const.
amend. XIV; Ga. Const. art. 1, I, I and II.
98.
Defendants jointly and severally caused deprivations of Plaintiffs
liberty, under color of law, without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard.

In addition, Defendants jointly and severally caused deprivations of Plaintiffs
29
substantive due process rights through their deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs

rights and their conscience-shocking behavior.
99.
Defendants knew or should have known that the conduct described
herein violated Plaintiffs rights.

100. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants illegal policies and
practices, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and others of their liberty.
101. Defendants above-described actions were willful, deliberate, and
malicious, and involved reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs rights and
should be punished and deterred by an award of punitive or enhanced damages
against individual Defendants as permitted by law.
COUNT TWO
Equal Protection Clause Violations
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
Brought Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and
Violation of Art. I, Sec. I, Para. II of the Georgia Constitution
102. Plaintiffs incorporate herein and re-allege, as if fully set forth herein,
103. Defendants seized indigent probationers and caused probationers to be
detained and/or jailed when probationers were unable to make date-of-adjudication
30
payments on court fines and fees. Defendants treated people with money
differently than indigent people without a rational basis for the disparate treatment.
104. By detaining indigent Plaintiffs without notice or legal authority to
collect payments on fines and fees, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of the equal
protection of the law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Ga. Const. art. 1, I, II.
105. Defendants jointly and severally caused deprivations of Plaintiffs
liberty, under color of law.
106. Defendants knew or should have known that detaining indigent
persons, without legal authority, violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
107. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants illegal policy and
practice, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and others of their liberty.
31
COUNT THREE
Unconstitutional Seizure
Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, Brought Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and Violation of Art. I, Sec.
I, Para. XIII of the Georgia Constitution
110. Without probable cause or legal authority, Defendants caused
probationers to be detained and/or jailed when probationers were unable to make
immediate payments on court fines and fees.
111. Defendants had no particularized and objective basis to believe that
any Plaintiff they seized had committed or was committing any criminal offense or
violation.
112. The detentions of the Plaintiffs were unreasonable seizures under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under
Ga. Const. art. I, sec. I, para. XIII.
113. The seizure of the Plaintiffs was excessive and unreasonable in its
duration and scope.
114. The seizure of the Plaintiffs constituted an arrest for which probable
cause was required. The arrest of the Plaintiffs was unreasonable.
32
115. Defendants intended to confine the Plaintiffs, committed acts resulting

in their confinement, and the Plaintiffs were aware of their confinement. The
Plaintiffs reasonably did not believe they were free to leave.
116. It was clearly established before the dates of Plaintiffs detentions that
seizing and detaining Plaintiffs simply because they did not have money, would
violate the Plaintiffs clearly established rights. The Defendants had fair warning
that their conduct would violate the Constitution and no reasonable officer or
probation officer could have believed that the seizure or incarceration of the
Plaintiffs was legal.
117. The Defendants actions were conducted pursuant to the Defendants
policy, practice, or custom with the force of law: (A) to seize and detain
probationers during municipal court proceedings to coerce payments; (B) to
threaten probationers with further detention and incarceration for non-payment; (C)
to transport indigent probationers to jail in the event of non-payment; and (D) to
hold indigent probationers in jail to coerce payment on court fines and fees.
118. In each and every instance set forth above, Defendants acted
intentionally, with malice, and with actual intent to cause injury in the performance
of their official functions. Defendants knew or should have known that detaining
Plaintiffs, without any legal authority, violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
33
119. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants illegal policies and

practices, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and others of their liberty. Defendants
are jointly and severally liable for the violations of Plaintiffs rights, and the harm
they suffered as a result, because each Defendant either personally participated in
the actions or failures to act, or implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly
condoned or failed to remedy the wrongs at issue.
COUNT FOUR
False Imprisonment
(by Plaintiffs Barber and Cheeks against Defendants Red Hills, Crutchfield,
Pickle, and John Does 4-6; by Plaintiff Edwards against Defendants Red Hills,
Crutchfield, Pickle, Simpson, and John Does 1-3)
122. False imprisonment is the unlawful detention of the person of
another, for any length of time, whereby such person is deprived of his personal
liberty. O.C.G.A. 51-7-20.
34
123. By unlawfully detaining Plaintiffs and depriving them of their

personal liberty, Defendants are guilty of false imprisonment, a tort for which an
action for damages will lie under O.C.G.A. 51-7-20.
124. Defendants conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of falsely
imprisoning Plaintiffs by unlawful means.
125. The false imprisonment was the act of the several Defendants jointly,
and Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages pursuant to
O.C.G.A. 51-7-22.
126. The individual Defendants, with malice and oppression, falsely
imprisoned and/or combined and conspired to falsely imprison Plaintiffs, and did
so under color of law.
COUNT FIVE
Unlawful Imprisonment for Debt
Violation of Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XXIII of the Georgia Constitution
(by Plaintiffs Edwards, Barber, and Cheeks against all Defendants)
128. Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XXIII states: There shall be no
imprisonment for debt.
35
129. Defendants imprisoned Edwards for debt when they caused Edwards
to be jailed because Edwards could not afford to pay $250. Defendants imprisoned
Barber and Cheeks for debt when Defendants seized and detained Barber and
Cheeks in the courthouse because they could not pay their city court debt.
COUNT SIX
Fraud
(by Plaintiff Edwards against Defendants Red Hills,
Crutchfield, and Simpson)
all factual allegations of paragraphs 1-17, 25-34, 39-41, and 54-75.
131. Defendants Red Hills, Crutchfield, and Simpson committed the tort of
fraud against Adel Edwards. The tort of fraud has five elements: false
representation, scienter, inducement, reliance, and injury.
132. Defendant Simpson made a series of false, verbal representations to
Edwards that he was required to continue to report in person to Red Hills personnel
and to pay court fines and fees after his probation sentence was over. Simpson
knew when making this false representation to Edwards that Red Hills had no legal
authority to require Edwards to pay or report after his sentence was over. Red
Hills, through Simpson, nonetheless induced Edwards to pay and report to the
36
probation office for nearly one year after Edwardss sentence expired. Defendants
undertook these acts with malice and intent to deceive Edwards.
133. Edwards relied on Defendants false representations and, as a
proximate result of the false representations, Edwards paid and reported to Red
Hills for months after his sentence expired. Edwards was injured by his reliance
on the false representations because he continued to pay, continued to report, and
continued to experience worry and stress that he would be jailed for falling behind
in his probation obligations.
COUNT SEVEN
Injunctive Relief
the allegations of paragraphs 1-17, 20-34, and 39-94.
135. Plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent Defendants from detaining and
jailing poor people who fail to make extorted, date-of-adjudication payments on
city court fines and probation supervision fees. Plaintiffs seek an injunction to
prevent Defendants Red Hills and Red Hills probation officers from requiring
probationers to pay and report to probation officers, even after the probationers
sentences are complete.
37
136. Defendants conduct is not authorized by any Georgia law and

violates 42 U.S.C. 1983.
137. Defendants conduct is likely to continue unless enjoined.
Defendants conduct is causing Plaintiffs immediate irreparable harm that cannot
be remedied by the award of money damages. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate,
or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs described herein.
138. The balance of the hardships and public policy strongly favor the
Court entering a preliminary injunction and thereafter permanently enjoining
Defendants unlawful policies and practices as described herein.
COUNT EIGHT
Declaratory Relief
140. Without legal authority, Defendants caused probationers to be
detained in the courthouse and/or jail when probationers were unable to make
immediate payments on court fines and fees. Defendants detained probationers
without any notice to the probationers that they would be required to make day-ofcourt payments, and without any process to challenge the legality of detention.
38
141. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, Plaintiffs seek a declaration by the

Court that Defendants may not use detention, incarceration, and the threat of
incarceration to coerce payments from indigent persons who cannot afford to pay.
142. Plaintiffs and putative class members will be adversely affected if
Defendants continue to detain indigent people to coerce payment. Plaintiffs and
putative class members will be adversely affected if Defendants continue to require
former probationers to report and pay after the probationers sentences are expired.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction over this action;
b. Determine by Order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure that this action be maintained as a class action;
c. Award Plaintiffs all actual damages, including damages for deprivation of
liberty, deprivation of money, mental anguish and emotional distress;
d. Award Plaintiffs nominal and presumed damages for violations of Plaintiffs
constitutional rights;
e. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages to the extent permitted by law;
f. Declare that Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights by:
39
1. seizing and detaining probationers during municipal court proceedings

to coerce immediate payments; threatening probationers with further
detention and incarceration for non-payment; and holding indigent
probationers in jail to coerce payment on city court fines and fees.
2. requiring probationers to report to Red Hills personnel and pay money
after probation sentences are complete.
g. Enjoin Defendants from:
1. seizing and detaining probationers during municipal court proceedings
to coerce payments; threatening probationers with further detention
and incarceration for non-payment; holding indigent probationers in
jail to coerce immediate payment on city court fines and fees.
2. requiring probationers to report to Red Hills personnel and pay money
after probation sentences are complete.
h. Award costs and reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any
other applicable provision of law;
i. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 10th day of April, 2015.
s/Sarah Geraghty
Sarah Geraghty
Georgia Bar No. 291393
Ryan Primerano
40

Gerald Weber
SOUTHERN CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
83 Poplar Street, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 688-1202
Facsimile: (404) 688-9440
sgeraghty@schr.org
rprimerano@schr.org
gweber@schr.org
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
41
Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1-1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 1
217
More

Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
Sacramento Family Court News

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
HOME
JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING
RoadDog SATIRE
Privacy Policy
3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS
Terms & Conditions
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING
Sacramento Superior Court Temporary Judge

Program Controversy
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(67)
JUDGE PRO TEM
(50)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
Judge Pro Tem Attorney "Cartel" Controls Court

Operations, Charge Whistleblowers
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
ARTS & CULTURE
(23)
Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report

This investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in April, 2015.
CHILD CUSTODY
(22)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(22)
As many of the articles on our main page reflect,

Sacramento Family Law Court whistleblowers
and watchdogs contendthat a "cartel" of local
family lawattorneys receive kickbacks and other
forms ofpreferential treatment from family
courtjudges, administrators and
employeesbecause the lawyers are members
of the Sacramento County Bar Association
Family Law Section, hold the Office of
Temporary Judge,and run the family court
settlement conference program on behalf of
the court.
SCBA
(22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
The kickbacks usually consist of "rubberstamped" court orders which are contrary to
established law, and cannot be attributed to the
exercise of judicial discretion.For a detailed
overview of the alleged collusion between judge
pro tem attorneys and family court employees
and judges, we recommend our specialColor of
Law series of investigative reports.
The Color of Law series reports catalog some of

the preferential treatment provided by family
court employees and judges to SCBA Family
Law Section judge pro tem lawyers. Click here
to view the Color of Law series. For a list of our
reports about family court temporary judges and
controversies, click here.
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(15)
JAMES M. MIZE
(15)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
Sacramento Family Court reform advocates assert that collusion

between judges and local attorneysdeprives financially disadvantaged,
unrepresented pro per court users of their parental rights, community
assets, and due process and access to the court constitutional rights.
The current day Sacramento County Family Court system andattorney operated settlement conference program
was set up in 1991 by and for the lawyers of theSacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section,
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
RAPTON-KARRES
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien at his
2009Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge McBrien's
testimony.
In his own testimony during the same proceedings, local veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem Robert J.
O'Hair corroborated McBrien's testimony and attested to McBrien's character and value to Sacramento County
Bar Association Family Law Section members. Click here to view this excerpt of O'Hair's testimony. To view
O'Hair's complete testimony, click here.
Court watchdogs assert that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private
sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which deprives the public of the federally protected right
to honest government services.
Court reform and accountability advocates assert that the local family law bar- through the Family Law
ExecutiveCommitteeor FLEC - continues to control for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court
operations, and have catalogued documented examples of judge pro tem attorney preferential treatment and
bias against unrepresented litigants and"outsider" attorneys,including:
Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in
the United States" was released in major U.S. cities on January 10, 2014. After a nationwide search for
the most egregious examples of family court corruption, the movie's production team ultimately included
fourcases from Sacramento County in the film, more than any other jurisdiction.Judge pro tem
attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are each
accused of unethical conduct in the problem cases included in the movie. The infamous Carlsson case,
featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and Judge Peter McBrien is the central case
profiled in the documentary, with Sacramento County portrayed as theGround Zeroof family court
corruption and collusion in the U.S. Click here for our complete coverage of Divorce Corp.
Judge Thadd Blizzard issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order in November, 2013 for judge pro tem
attorney Richard Sokol authorizing an illegal out-of-state move away and child abduction by Sokol's
client, April Berger. The opposing counsel is an "outsider" attorney from San Francisco who was
dumbfounded by the order. Click here for our exclusive report, which includes the complete court
reporter transcript from the hearing. Click here for our earlier report on the unethical practice of
"hometowning" and the prejudicial treatment of outsider attorneys.
Whistleblower leaked court records indicate that Sacramento Bar Association Family Law
Executive Committee officer and judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger engaged in obstruction of
justice crimes against an indigent, unrepresented domestic violence victim. The victim was a witness in
a criminal contempt case against a Salinger client. The circumstances surrounding the obstruction of
justice incident also infer collusion between Salinger and controversial Judge Matthew J. Gary. For
our complete investigative report,click here.
(11)
CARLSSON CASE
(10)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)
WE SUPPORT
Two "standing orders" still in effect after being issued by Judge Roland Candee in 2006 override a
California Rule of Court prohibiting temporary judges from serving in family law cases where one party
is self-represented and the other party is represented by an attorney or is an attorney. The orders were
renewed by Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl in February, 2013.Click here for details.
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
Sacramento Family Court judges ignore state conflict of interest laws requiring them to disclose to
opposing parties when a judge pro tem working as a private attorney represents a client in family
court. Click here for our exclusive investigative report. Click here for a list of other conflict of interest
posts.
Californians Aware
Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law
Executive Committeefor the financial benefit of private sector attorneys, and often disadvantage the
70 percent of court users without lawyers, according to family court watchdogs and whistleblowers.
For example, in sworn testimony by Judge Peter McBrien before the Commission on Judicial
Performance,McBrien described seeking and obtaining permission from FLEC to change a local rule.
Click here and here.
In November, 2012 Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime R. Romanissued a rubber-stamped,
kickback orderdeclaring a family court party a vexatious litigant and ordering him to pay $2,500 to
the opposing attorney, both without holding the court hearing required by law. The opposing attorney
who requested the orders is Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley. The blatantly illegal orders resulted in
both an unnecessary state court appeal and federal litigation, wasting scarce judicial resources and
costing taxpayers significant sums.Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case.
Judge Matthew Gary used an unlawful fee waiver hearing to both obstruct an appeal of his own orders
and help a client of judgepro tem attorney Paula Salinger avoid paying spousal support. Click here for
our investigative report.
An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support
order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of
First Amendment Coalition
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
temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child supportorder, and other
proceedings in the case were so outrageous that the pro per is now represented on appeal by a team
of attorneys led by legendary trial attorney James Brosnahan of global law firm Morrison & Foerster.
For our exclusive, ongoing reports on the case, click here.
Judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beverenhelped conceal judge misconduct
and failed to comply with Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics when they were eyewitnesses to
an unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident in Department 121. Both Sokol and Van
Beveren failed to report the misconduct of Judge Matthew Gary as required by state law.Van
Beveren isan officer of the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee.Click here for our exclusive
report...
...Four years later, Sokol and Van Beveren in open court disseminated demonstrably false and
misleading information about the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident. The
apparent objective of the judge pro tem attorneys was to discredit the victim of Gary's misconduct,
trivialize the incident, and cover up their own misconduct in failing to report the judge. For our follow-up
reports, click here. In 2014, a video of the illegal arrest and assault was leaked by a government
whistleblower. Click here for details.
California 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
State Bar of California
State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar
Association
In 2008controversial family courtJudge Peter J. McBriendeprived a family court litigant of a fair trial
in a case where the winning party was represented by judge protemattorney Charlotte Keeley. In a
scathing, published opinion, the 3rd District Court of Appealreversed in full and ordered a new
trial. 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing characterized McBrien's
conduct in thecase as a "judicial reign of terror."McBrien subsequently was disciplined by the
Commission on Judicial Performance for multiple acts of misconduct in 2009.Click here to read the
court of appeal decision. Click here to read the disciplinary decision issued by the CJP.
Judge pro tem attorneysCamille Hemmer,Robert O'Hair,Jerry GuthrieandRussell Carlsoneach
testified in support ofJudge Peter J. McBrienwhen thecontroversialjudge was facing removal from
the bench by theCommission on Judicial Performancein 2009.As a sworn temporary judges aware
of McBrien's misconduct, each wasrequired byCanon 3D(1)of theCode of Judicial Ethicsto take or
initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's misconduct. Instead, each testified as a
character witnessin supportof the judge. In theCJP'sfinal disciplinary decision allowing McBrien to
remain on the bench, theCJPreferred specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced
McBrien's punishment.Click here. Court records indicate thatJudge McBrienhas not disclosed the
potentialconflict of interestto opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the
attorneys in cases before the judge.Click hereforSFCNcoverage of conflict issues.
Judge pro temattorneysTerri Newman,CamilleHemmer,Diane WasznickyandDonna
Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may
be gender-specific)
ABA Family Law Blawg
Directory
California Coalition for
Families and Children
California Protective
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Reedwereinvolved in a proposedscheme to rig a recall electionofcontroversialJudgePeter J.

McBrienin 2008. The plan involved helping McBrien defeat the recall by electing him "Judge of the
Year" before the November election.Click herefor theSacramento News and Reviewreport.
Judge pro tem attorney Robert J. O'Hair testified as a character witness for controversial Judge Peter
J. McBrien at the judge's second CJP disciplinary proceeding in 2009.Paula Salinger, an attorney
at O'Hair's firm,Woodruff, O'Hair Posner & Salingerwas later granted a waiver of the requirements to
become ajudge pro tem. A family court watchdog asserts the waiver was payback for O'Hair's
testimony for McBrien.Click hereto read our exclusive investigative report.
Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from
FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at
JDSupra Law News
In cases where one party is unrepresented, family court clerks and judges permit judge pro tem
attorneys to file declarations which violate mandatory state court rule formatting requirements. The
declarations- on blank paper and without line numbers - make it impossible for the pro per to make
lawful written evidentiary objections to false and inadmissible evidence. Click here for our report
documenting multiple state court rule violations in a motion filed bySCBA Family Law Section officer
and temporary judgePaula Salinger. To view the pro per responsive declaration objecting to the illegal
filing click here, and click here for the pro per points & authorities.
Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of
Findings and Order After Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice of Entry of
Judgment FL-190 form. The fake form omits critical appeal rights notifications and other information
included in the mandatory form. Click here for our exclusive report.
Sacramento Family Court temporaryjudgeandfamily law lawyerGary Appelblatt was charged with
13-criminal counts including sexual battery and penetration with a foreign object. The victims were
clients and potential clients of the attorney.The judge pro tem ultimately pleaded no contest to fourof
the original 13-counts, including sexual battery, and was sentenced to 18-months in prison. Court
administrators concealed from the public that Appelblatt held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click
hereto read our report.
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside
Superior Court
Weightier Matter
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorneyScott Kendall was disbarred from the practice
of law on Nov. 24, 2011. Kendall was disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, advising a client to violate
the law, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to keep clients informed, including not
telling a client about a wage garnishment order and then withdrawing from the same case without
notifying the client or obtaining court permission. Court administrators concealed from the public that
Kendall held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click here to view our report.
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
Judge pro tem attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Jacqueline Estonin 2008 helped Donna Gary - the
wife of Judge Matthew J. Gary - promote and market ClientTickler, a client management software
program for attorneys. The judge reportedly has never disclosed the conflict of interest as required by
the Code of Judicial Ethics. Click here for our exclusive report on the controversy.
In February, 2013 the website of family law firm Bartholomew & Wasznicky cut off the public from the
only online access to The Family Law Counselor, a monthly newsletter published by the Sacramento
Bar Association Family Law Section. Lawyers at the firm include judge pro tem attorneys Hal
Bartholomew, Diane Wasznicky and Mary Molinaro. As SFCN has reported, articles in the
newsletter often reflect an unusual, collusive relationship between SCBA attorneys and court
administrators and judges.Click here for our report.
Family court reform advocates assert that judge pro tem attorneys obtain favorable court rulings on
disputed issues at a statistically improbable rate. The collusion between full-time judges and judge pro
tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, all of which are
prohibited under California unfair competition laws, including Business and Professions Code
17200, reform advocates claim.
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
155121
163
Google+ Badge
Unfair competition and the collusion between judges and judge pro tem attorneys ultimately results in
unnecessary appeals burdening the appellate court system, and other, related litigation that wastes
public funds, exposes taxpayers to civil liability, and squanders scarce court resources.
Watchdogs point out that the court operates what amounts to a two-track system of justice. One for
judge pro tem attorneys and another for unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants and
"outsider attorneys." Two-track systems are prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics, according to
the Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Judicial Conduct Handbook, the gold
standard reference on judge misconduct.Click here for articles about the preferential treatment given
judge pro tem attorneys. Click here for examples of how pro pers are treated.
After representing a client in Sacramento Family Court, San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli
wrote "this is a 'juice court' in which outside counsel have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now
abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel." Click here to read Gianelli's complete,
scathing account.
The Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section is led by an "Executive Committee"
("FLEC") of judge pro tem attorneys composed ofChair Russell Carlson, Vice Chair Elaine Van
Beveren, Treasurer Fredrick Cohen and Secretary Paula Salinger. Three of the four have been
involved in legal malpractice litigation, violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or as a defendant in
federal civil rights litigation. Click here to read SFCN profiles of the Executive Committee members.
Click here for otherarticles about FLEC.
Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they learn that
another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or if a lawyer has violated any
provision of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Family court watchdogs assert that
temporary judges regularly observe unethical and unlawful conduct by family court judges and attorneys
but have never taken or initiated appropriate corrective action, a violation of the judge pro tem oath of
PR Brown
Follow
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
1102
(1)
AB 590
ABA
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
FURILLO
(2)
ANDY
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
CULTURE
(23)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEY
office. To view the applicable Code of Judicial Ethics Canons,Click here. For a Judicial Council
directive about the obligation to address judicial misconduct, a critical self-policing component of the
Code of Judicial Ethics, click here.
For information about the role of temporary judges in

family court,click here.For officialSacramento County
Superior Courtinformation about theTemporary Judge
Program click here.
Using public records law, Sacramento Family Court

News obtained the list of private practice attorneys
who also act as judge pro tems in Sacramento Family
Law Court. Each lawyer on the list below is currently a
temporary judge, or was a temporary judge in 2009,
2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013.SFCN cross-checked each
name on the Sacramento Countyjudge pro tem list
withCalifornia State Bar Data. The first name in each
listing is the name that appears on the Sacramento
County judge pro tem list, the second name, the State
Bar Number (SBN), and business address are derived
from the officialState Bar data for each attorney. The
State Bar data was obtained using thesearch function
at the State Bar website.
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ATTORNEYS
(11)
BAR
ASSOCIATION
(11)
BARACK
OBAMA
(1)
BARTHOLOMEW
and WASZNICKY
(3)
BUNMI
AWONIYI
(1)
CALIFORNIA
JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK
(1)
CALIFORNIA
LAWYER
(1)
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(2)
CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CARLSSON CASE
(10)
CECIL and CIANCI

(2)
CEO
(4)
CHARLOTTE
KEELEY
(18)
CHILD
CUSTODY
(22)
CHILD
SUPPORT
(4)
CHRISTINA
ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA
VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL
RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(18)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
(1)
SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF
A number of family court whistleblowers have leaked court

recordsindicating that judge pro tem attorneys receive from
judges kickbacks and otherpreferential treatment in exchange
for operating the familycourt settlement conference program.
For-profit, private sector

lawyers who also hold the
Office of Temporary Judge:
Sandy
LAW
SERIES
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)
COURT CONDITIONS
(2)
COURT EMPLOYEE
(1)
COURT
EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS
(1)
COURT POLICIES
(1)
COURT
RULES
(4)
COURTS
(1)
CPG
FAMILY LAW
(1)
CRIMINAL
CONDUCT
(11)
CRIMINAL
Amara, Sandra Rose Amara, SBN 166933, Law Office of Sandra Amara,1 California
LAW
(3)
CRONYISM
(2)
Street,Auburn, CA95603.
DAVID KAZZIE
(4)
DEMOTION
Mark
Ambrose, Mark Anthony Ambrose, SBN 141222, Law Offices of Mark A. Ambrose, 8801
Folsom Blvd. Ste. 170, Sacramento, CA 95826. Ambrose unethically advertises himself as a temporary judge.
Kathleen Amos, Kathleen Swalla Amos, SBN 112395, Attorney at Law & Mediator,206 5th
Street, Ste. 2B Galt, CA 95632.
Gary Appelblatt, Gary Michael Appelblatt, SBN 144158, 3610 American River Drive #112,
Sacramento, CA 95864. Appelblatt was disbarred by the State Bar on Sept. 24, 2010 afterbeing convicted of
sexual battery against clients. Click here for our exclusive report. Appelblatt is a graduate of McGeorge School of
Law.
Beth
(1)
DENISE
GARY
(2)
DSM-301.7
(1)
EDITORIAL
(1)
EDWARD
FREIDBERG
(2)
EFF
(2)
EFFICIENCY
IN
GOVERNMENT
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN
(13)
ELECTIONS
(1)
AWARD
(1)
Appelsmith, Beth Marie Appelsmith, SBN 124135,1430 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento CA
95816.
RICHARDS
(1)
DIANE WASZNICKY
(2)
DISQUALIFICATION
(2)
DIVORCE
(7)
DIVORCE
ATTORNEY
(5)
DIVORCE
CORP
(15)
DIVORCE
LAWYER
(5)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
EMILY
GALLUP
(3)
EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS
Bunmi Awoniyi, Olubunmi Olaide Awoniyi, SBN 154183, Law Office of Bunmi Awoniyi a
PC,1610 Executive Ct. Sacramento, CA 95864. Awoniyi unethically advertises herself as a temporary judge.
Awoniyi was appointed a Superior Court Judge in December 2012 and holds court in Department 120 of
Sacramento Family Court.
Alexandre C. Barbera, C. Alexandre Barbera, SBN 70071,915 Highland Point Drive, Ste. 250
(4)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT
(19)
EQUAL PROTECTION
(2)
EUGENE L. BALONON
(1)
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
(2)
EX PARTE
(1)
F4J
(4)
FAMILY COURT
(9)
FAMILY
COURT
Roseville, CA 95678.
COURT
AUDITS
(1)
FAMILY
CONDITIONS
(2)
FAMILY COURT
MEDIA COVERAGE
(1)
FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE
(1)
FAMILY
COURT
SACRAMENTO
(2)
FAMILY
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...
Coverage of funeral for NYPD Detective Wenjian Liu. Watch live now on
CNNgo.
SIGN UP
106
VIEWS
COMMENTS
SHARES
About this iReport
LOG IN
Sacramento Superior Court

Designated Most Corrupt in U.S.
by Documentary Film
Not verified by CNN
By LegalNews | Posted July 27, 2014

| Sacramento, California
Posted July 27, 2014
by
Follow
LegalNews
Location
Sacramento, California
Assignment
This iReport is part of an assignment:

Sound off
More from LegalNews
It is now difficult to dispute that the Sacramento County Family Court

system - rebuilt more than 20 years ago to the specifications of local judge
pro tem family law attorneys by controversial and criminally convicted
Judge Peter McBrien, then-Judge Vance Raye, divorce attorney Robert
O'Hair, and others - has become the most corrupt family court in the
nation.
California Appellate Court Judge Vance Raye

Implicated in Alleged Federal Racketeering Scheme
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
The proof is now available to anyone for $20: the cost of the documentary film
Divorce Corp, recently released on DVD, and also available by download
at the iTunes store. In his first, full-length documentary film, director Joe
Sorge meticulously documents the epidemic of corruption and collusion in
family courts throughout the United States. And the Sacramento County
system rises to the top of the toxic slurry pond.
A parade of litigants from Indiana, Tennessee, Ohio, California and other
locales recount their nightmare experiences in child custody and other
divorce-related court disputes. Retired judges, active attorneys, child custody
evaluators and court reform advocates are interviewed over the one hour, 33
minute run time of the film.
In one compelling segment, Nevada County Superior Court whistleblower
More iReports you should see
Red Rocks Amphitheater in

winter
Emily Gallup reveals that state-level oversight and accountability of

California family courts is effectively nonexistent. In a tacit admission, the
Judicial Council and Administrative Office of the Courts declined Sorge's
request to be interviewed and respond to Gallup's documented accusations.
ByRasarag
Cesky Krumlov
ByRocioZ
SoCal Snow
Byhappyholly
Annual New Year's Day Coney

Island Polar Bear
But the locally well-known Ulf Carlsson case takes center stage and is woven
throughout the movie, overshadowing the horror stories of other litigants.
Judge Peter McBrien's clinically sociopathic, personal vendetta against
Carlsson - which in 2012 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice
Conrad Rushing called a "judicial reign of terror" - is chronicled in all its
perverse glory.
ByBQueen1
THE MISSING CHIBOK

SCHOOLGIRLS
ByAlashock
In the Divorce Corp clip above, Carlsson tells his harrowing story of personal
and financial ruin at the hands of McBrien, who ruthlessly punished Carlsson
for filing an appeal of orders issued by the judge. Sacramento family court
litigants Andrew Karres, Mike Newdow and Robert Saunders, and Nevada
County pro per Elena Haskins also make appearances in the movie
criticizing virtually every aspect of local court operations.
Judges, attorneys, custody evaluators, the family law facilitator, and even the
"child's best interest" legal standard are all held under the microscope and
come away nakedly exposed and tarnished. Sometimes, only a clich will do:
Divorce Corp must be seen to be believed.
Source: Sacramento Family Court News. Used with permission.
TAGS:
corrupion, carlsson, family, divorcecorp, sound_off, sacramento, judges, courts, comment,
mcbrien
GROUPS:
My life, Sound off
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
676
459
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.
448
"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
Walter Scott Rally in North

Charleston
addition to other perks."
ByJStidham22
Bangkok Street Food

ByMarieSager
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
A brother, a sister and a

dinosaur
By
EtanHorowitz
tactics to coerce couples going through a divorce to reach a settlement.

When they do, the case is terminated and no further court hearings are
Walker Scott Protest, North

Charleston City Hall
Byjwopd
required, significantly reducing the workload of full-time, state employed

judges.
Walker Scott Protest North

Charleston, SC
Byjwopd
"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.
Comments (5)
Log in to comment
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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 41

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 41

JOHN DOES 4-6, City of

This is an action to stop Defendantsa private probation company,

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 3 of 41

Red Hills Community Probation, LLC (Red Hills) contracts with

misdemeanors or ordinance violations in Pelham or Bainbridge. Plaintiffs

On the date Plaintiff Adel Edwards pleaded guilty to burning leaves in

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 4 of 41

On the date Plaintiff Fred Barber pleaded guilty to driving with a

On the date Plaintiff Vera Cheeks pleaded guilty to the offense of

Defendants have a longstanding policy, custom, and practice of

seizing and detaining indigent probationers to coerce immediate payments without

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 5 of 41

indigent probationers to be detained in the courthouse for hours while the

Defendants policy and practice of detaining people to coerce date-of-

Plaintiffs further bring this litigation to challenge a second, illegal

business practice by Red Hillsits practice of falsely representing to former

When probationers are finished with their probationary periods but

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 6 of 41

Red Hills personnel have used threats of probation revocation and

The threats made by Red Hills personnel are backed by no legal

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all indigent

Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief as set

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 7 of 41

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, because at least one

Adel Edwards is a 54-year-old, indigent, African-American man who

resides in Pelham, Georgia. Edwards has an intellectual disability. On April 24,

Fred Barber is a 52-year-old, indigent, African-American man who

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 8 of 41

Vera Cheeks is a 52-year-old, indigent, African-American woman

Ulysses West is a 57-year-old African-American man who resides in

James H. Davis, Jr., is a 54-year-old African-American man who

resides in Atlanta, Georgia. Davis lives on a fixed income of approximately $710

Defendant Red Hills Community Probation, LLC, is a Georgia

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 9 of 41

Division. Red Hills is headquartered in Cairo, Georgia. Red Hills performs a

Defendant Margaret Crutchfield is the owner of Red Hills Community

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 10 of 41

Defendant Martiele Pickle is a probation officer employed by Red

Defendant Jodi Simpson is a probation officer employed by Red Hills

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 11 of 41

Defendant Nealie McCormick is the Chief of the City of Pelham

Police Department. He resides in this District and this Division. McCormick is

Defendant Eric Miller is the Director of the City of Bainbridge

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 12 of 41

Defendants John Does 4-6 are officers of the City of Bainbridge

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 13 of 41

Defendant City of Pelham, Georgia, is a municipal governmental

Defendant City of Bainbridge, Georgia, is a municipal governmental

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 14 of 41

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 15 of 41

Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) in that:

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 16 of 41

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 17 of 41

Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) in that the

Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) because common

Georgia law authorizes municipalities to contract with private

companies to provide probation supervision services. O.C.G.A. 42-8-100(h)(1).

Specifically, under Georgia law, [t]he judge of [a] municipal court . .

. with the approval of the governing authority of that municipality . . . is authorized

Case 1:15-cv-00067-LJA Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 18 of 41

Red Hills is a party to contracts authorizing it to provide probation

supervision services to defendants adjudicated in the Municipal Court of