Tani Cantil-Sakauye Linked to Cover Up of Racketeering by Former Sacramento County Colleagues

The alleged lawbreaking is so pervasive that thehas initiated a statewide "" campaign to compel the Judicial Council to investigate allegations that judges, clerks and court employees routinely violate state law.

California courtand courtcharge that Judicial Council Chairhas failed or refused to investigate allegations of criminal activity in the state court system.

documented family court corruption throughout the United States and designated Sacramento County as one of the most corrupt family courts in the nation.

From 2005-2010 Cantil-Sakauye served as an associate justice at the3rd Districtin Sacramento, the court responsible for hearing appeals from Sacramento Superior Court.

Sacramento Superior Courtassert that Cantil-Sakauye has used her positions of authority at the state Judicial Council and Supreme Court toinvestigation of criminal conduct by her former coworkers at both Sacramento County Superior County, and the 3rd District Court of Appeal.

is controlled and operated by an illegal parallel government structure made up of

















But, using a loophole in state law and his local court administration contacts, before he retired McBrien arranged to be immediately rehired as a court commissioner by personal friend and Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Hight , according to a court employee whistleblower. Currently, McBrien remains on the bench in virtually the same role he maintained as a judge.





Preferential Treatment & Kickbacks





















Fool for a Client





Statistical case sampling data compiled by Sacramento Family Court News reveals that, when compared to other counties, Sacramento County has a significantly higher proportion of family court divorce cases where only one side has an attorney, despite

a "

" - meaning both sides have a lawyer - where the marital community income and assets make legal representation economically feasible.





An important component of the alleged racketeering scheme is keeping pro per parties disadvantaged by preventing them from obtaining counsel. Oral and written requests for attorney fee funds are one of the most often denied, or ignored, motions made by pro pers.





Whistleblowers emphasize that it is hard to overstate the significance of this specific benefit provided under the reciprocal agreement between judges and judge pro tem attorneys. Divorce lawyers liken winning cases against pro per parties to shooting fish in a barrel.

Both state and federal courts have

who represent themselves in court as having a "

," especially in emotionally charged

.





Published decisional law makes clear that if lawyers - who have formal education and training in the law - are fools for attempting to represent themselves in court, indigent and disabled family court pro pers with no education or training in the law have virtually no chance of prevailing against an experienced family law attorney.





Yet this manifestly unfair

goes unacknowledged, and is in fact

by many Sacramento Family Court judges, according to whistleblower leaked court records and court reform advocates.

Institutionalized Socioeconomic Bias









In most cases, pro pers - who have little or no knowledge of family law - are unaware that the orders issued against them are illegal. In addition, court clerks and employees are trained or encouraged to intentionally , and illegally mislead unrepresented parties about their appeal rights . Pro pers who do attempt to file an appeal are forced to navigate a gauntlet of unlawful obstructions erected by court employees and trial court judges , and most eventually give up.





Further handicapping pro pers, when representing clients in court judge pro tem lawyers are allowed to obstruct an opposing parties' court access and ability to file documents through the court-sanctioned misuse of vexatious litigant law and Family Code case management law , according to whistleblowers and court records . The illegal litigation tactic effectively deprives pro per litigants of their constitutional right of access to the courts, a violation of federal law.

























RICO Racketeering, Honest Services Fraud, and Predicate Acts

The alleged criminal conduct also deprives victims of their state and federal constitutional rights , including due process, equal protection of law, access to the courts, and the fundamental liberty interest in the care, management and companionship of their own children, according to several "outsider" attorneys.





Court watchdogs charge that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which also deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services













Sworn Testimony Verifies Family Court Private Sector Partnership

3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance

Raye is the co-architect of the current Sacramento

County Family Court system. Click here for details.





Click here to read the transcript of the controversial judge's testimony.



Like McBrien and Cantil-Sakauye, Raye also served in the Deukmejian administration. Like McBrien and Cantil-Sakauye, Raye also served in the Deukmejian administration. The Republican governor appointed Raye to the Sacramento County bench in 1989, and elevated Raye to the court of appeal just two years later.









In 2012, troubled Sacramento County Judge James Mize , - a personal friend of McBrien - further privatized family court services and expanded the ability of ostensibly "volunteer" temporary judge lawyers to earn kickbacks and other preferential treatment with his so-called " One Day Divorce Program ."





Court watchdogs charge that the system was designed to, and does serve the needs and financial interests of family law lawyers at the expense of the 70 percent of family court users who cannot afford representation.





Quid Pro Quo Kickbacks and Emoluments

The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp exposed court

corruption throughout the United States and designated

Sacramento County as the worst-of-the-worst





One objective of the allegedly illegal public-private partnership is to significantly reduce the caseload, and workload of full-time judges by having private sector lawyers - instead of judges or court staff - operate the settlement program, according to watchdogs.





At the settlement conferences, judge pro tem attorneys pressure divorcing couples to settle cases so they won't use the trial court services, including law and motion hearings , ordinarily required to resolve a contested divorce.





In many cases, two lawyers - one acting as a temporary judge - with social and professional ties team up against an unrepresented pro per to compel one-sided settlement terms. Accounts of coercive and deceptive tactics are common.

In sworn testimony during his judicial misconduct prosecution by the Commission on Judicial Performance, Judge McBrien inadvertently revealed that an incredible 90 percent of cases assigned to his courtroom settled. "And so I, frankly, have a very light calendar on law and motion mornings," the judge added





Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for reducing the workload of judges and court staff, as opportunities arise the temporary judge attorneys are provided reciprocal kickbacks gratuities , or emoluments when representing clients in court. The issuance and receipt of the reciprocal benefits violates several state and federal criminal , and civil laws.





Reciprocal benefits include the issuance of demonstrably illegal court orders that have ignored, and even authorized criminal conduct by judge pro tem attorneys and their clients, including criminal child abduction





In one case, a judge ordered the illegal arrest and assault of a disabled pro per to benefit the opposing, part-time judge attorney. A court employee whistleblower leaked a courtroom security video of the incident. The judge pro tem lawyer subsequently was caught on court reporter transcript defending the judge and lying about the arrest and assault, portraying the disabled victim as being at fault.





The consistent, statistically impossible in-court success rate of judge pro tem attorneys has provided them prominence , client referrals, wealth, and a substantial monopoly on the Sacramento County divorce and family law business. Whistleblowers point out that this benefit of the alleged criminal organization also implicates consumer protection and antitrust laws , including the California Unfair Business Practices Act





Racketeering Enterprise Members Immunized from Government Oversight and Accountability























