Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1

FILF=I)

It-',-.,, ";

Edwards & Edwards, Esqs.

. ""'"

U,S, bis tF-'1;1

Attorneys for Plaintiff

336 South Ocean Avenue

Post Office Box 191
Freeport, New York 11520
Attention: Harrison J. Edwards

"'t-i=

..... :.., >J Y

NOV o 5 2009

LONG ISLAND orf!IC!i

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

C Vx

---------------------------------------------------------------

WILLIAM F. GLACKEN,

(_ 4)

Plaintiff,

-againstTHE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF FREEPORT,

ANDREW HARDWICK, in his official capacity as
Mayor of the Incorporated Village of Freeport and
individually, the BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE
INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF FREEPORT,
HOWARD COLTON, individually and in his official
capacity as Village Attorney for the Incorporated
Village of Freeport, DENNIS WARREN, individually,
"JOHN DOE #111, "JOHN DOE #2" , JOHN DOE "3",
"JANE DOE #1" , and "JANE DOE #2".

09 4 B 3 2

Civil Action No.

HURLEY
TOMLltsor:

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ x
COMPLAINT
Nature of Action

1.

Plaintiff, William F. Glacken, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U. S.C.

1983, alleging the deprivation of his First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the United States Constitution by the defendants in retaliation
for plaintiff's published opinion and criticism of defendants Hardwick, Colton and Warren's

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 2

malfeasance concerning the payment of $3, 500, 000. 00 of taxpayer funds to a favored
developer to settle baseless litigation against the Incorporated Village of Freeport. This
action arises under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution and 42 U. S. C. 1983 and 1988, and New York's Public Officers Law 18(3)
and (4), adopted by Freeport at Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Freeport Code.
Jurisdiction and Venue

2.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U. S.C. 1983, et seq.

This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to U.S. Code 1331 and
1343. To the extent plaintiff's claims arise und er New York law, the action is properly

before the Court under the Court's pendant jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S.C. 1367.
3.

The unlawful actions alleged hereinbelow occurred in Nassau County, New

York and, therefore, venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1391(b) .
The Parties

4.

Plaintiff, William F. Glacken (Glacken) , is a citizen of the United States, and

resides in Freeport, Nassau County, New York.

5.

Plaintiff was, between April 7, 1997 and April 6, 2009, the full-time Mayor

of the Incorporated Village of Freeport and, as such, during said period, was a public
officer and employee of Freeport continuously and without interruption until 12:00 noon on
April 6, 2009, at which time plaintiff's term expired.

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 3

6.

Plaintiff was a public officer and employee of Freeport, as that term is defined

by New York Public Officers Law 18(1)(b) and Chapter 130-5, et. seq. of the Code of
Freeport.
7.

The Incorporated Village of Freeport (Freeport) is a municipal corporation

duly formed under the laws of the State of New York and is a political subdivision of the
State of New York, with municipal offices at 46 North Ocean Avenue, Freeport, Nassau
County, New York.
8.

The Incorporated Village of Freeport is a public entity as that term is defined

in New York's Public Officers Law 18(1)(a) .

9.

Defendant, Andrew Hardwick, was, as of April 6, 2009, and continues to be

the Mayor of the Incorporated Village of Freeport, and is sued herein in his official capacity
and individually.
10.

The Defendant Board of Trustees (Board) is the governing body for the

Incorporated Village of Freeport, as that term is defined by New York Public Officers Law
18(1)(c) and the Village Law for the State of New York.
11.

Defendant, Howard Colton (Colton), at all times hereinafter mentioned, was

and continues to be a resident of Freeport, County of Nassau, State of New York.

12.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Colton, from on or about March 18,

2009 to date, was and continues to be a political operative of Defendant, Andrew Hardwick.
13.

Defendant Colton was, from April 6, 2009 and at all times hereinafter

mentioned, and continues to be, the Village Attorney for the Incorporated Village of
Freeport, and is sued herein in his official capacity and individually.

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 4

14.

Defendant, Dennis Warren, was, at all times herein after mentioned, a

resident of Nassau County, State of New York.

15.

Upon information and belief, Defendant, Dennis Warren, was, from on or

about October 1, 2008 to date, a political operative of Defendant, Andrew Hardwick.

16.

Defendants John Doe #1, #2 and #3 are parties whose true identities are

unknown to plaintiff at this time, but who are, upon information and belief, involved with the
conduct and actions referred to hereinbelow.
17.

Defendants Jane Doe #1 and #2 are parties whose true identities are

unknown to plaintiff at this time, but who are, upon information and belief, involved with the
conduct and actions referred to hereinbelow.
18.

The provisions of New York's Public Officers Law 18 was duly adopted by

Freeport as Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Freeport Code and applies to Freeport by virtue
of Public Officers Law 18(2)(a) .
The Facts

19.

In October of 2008, during Glacken's term as Mayor, Water Works Realty,

LLC and Gary Melius filed two lawsuits (Water Works actions) in State Supreme Court of
the County of Nassau against nineteen defen dants, including, but not limited to, the County
of Nassau (Nassau) , various County officials, employees, a private law firm and several
of its employees, a private developer and its principals, the Incorporated Village of Freeport
(Freeport), the plaintiff Glacken, in his individual and official capacity, and other Village
officials and employees in their official capacities and individually (Water Works actions) .

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 5

20.

Defendant Colton in this action is also a named defendant in his official

capacity (then Deputy Village Attorney) and in his individual capacity in the Water Works
actions.
21.

The Water Works actions seek millions of dollars in damages from Freeport,

Nassau, and the other defendants based on allegations of a variety of criminal actions
against the defendants named therein, includ ing fraud, conspiracy, civil RICO charges, and
a plethora of other claims. The Water Works claims arise from municipal actions taken
in 2004 by Nassau and Freeport to liquidate $1. 2 million dollars in tax liens representing
real property tax arrears on the real property owned by Water Works and located in
Freeport and adjoining the unincorporated area of Baldwin.
22.

In or about October of 2008, upon the recommendation of Freeport's

retained Claims Administrator, Customized Claims Services, Freeport retained the law firm
of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP to defend Freeport and the individual
Freeport defendants in the Water Works actions then pending in State Court.
23.

In November of 2008, counsel from the Wilson firm met with the then sitting

Board of Trustees1 concerning the defense of the Water Works actions, and indicated said
actions were completely defensible.
24.

Thereafter, Wilson, Elser commenced its representation of Freeport and the

individual Freeport defendants, including Plaintiff Glacken, in the Water Works actions.
25.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Freeport was and continues to be a self-

insured entity with a self-insured retention (SIR) of $1, 000, 000. 00.

The Board of Trustees consisted of then Mayor Glacken, Deputy Mayor

Frierson-Davis, and Trustees Miller, White and Martinez.
5

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 6

26.

Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, Freeport

maintained "excess" insurance coverage from "excess" insurance carriers for claims in
excess of its self-insured retention, each policy provid ing in the amount of $5,000, 000. 00
over Freeport's SIR.
27.

Upon information and belief, in or about November of 2008, Freeport's

Claims Administrator put Freeport's excess insurance carriers on notice of the Water
Works actions, providing said carriers with copies of the Water Works complaints and other
requested information in said actions.
28.

In or about January of 2009, Freeport removed the Water Works State Court

actions to Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New, where said actions are
currently pending under Federal CV Numbers 08-4754 and 08-4449. 2
29.

The allegations in the Water Works complaints have caused a great

controversy in the Freeport community, and have become and remain matters of public
concern in that Water Works allegations accuse the County of Nassau, County officials,
the Village of Freeport, its former Board of Trustees and various Village officials, including
plaintiff Glacken, of criminal conduct.
30.

Plaintiffs in the Water Works actions seek millions of dollars in damages from

Freeport, Nassau, and the other defendants named in said actions.

31.

In January of 2009, Glacken and Hardwick were opponents in the 2009

Freeport mayoral election campaign which culminated with an election on March 18, 2009.

Said actions were assigned to the Hon. Leonard Wexler, Federal District
Court Judge, and United States Magistrate Boyle.
6

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 7

32.

The controversy created by the Water Works actions became a major

campaign issue during the Freeport mayoral election campaign.

33.

Upon information and belief, prior to the March 2009 Freeport mayoral

election, Defendants Warren, Colton and Hardwick formed an alliance with the plaintiffs
in the Water Works actions, the purpose of which was to fund Hardwick's mayoral election
campaign, coordinate attacks on Glacken, and create a vehicle to settle the Water Works
actions and various tax certiorari proceedings against Freeport.
34.

Upon information and belief, Defendants Colton, Warren and Hardwick

agreed to promptly settle the Water Works litigation on terms favorable to plaintiffs in that
action in the event Hardwick won the Freeport mayoral election.
35.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Dennis Warren. (Warren) , in his

capacity as Hardwick's chief political operative, was the architect of Defendant Hardwick's
pre-election public position on the Water Works actions.
36.

Upon information and belief, Gary Melius (Melius) , the principal of Water

Works Realty LLC and a plaintiff in the pending Water Works Federal actions, was a
contributor to Defendant Hardwick's mayoral

campaign and

a major supporter of

Defendant Hardwick during the election campaign.

37.

Upon information and belief, Gary Melius and members of his family made

substantial contributions to the Nassau County Democratic Committee on or about March

12, 2009, six days before the Village election and shortly thereafter.

38.

Upon information and belief, immediately after the Melius March contribution

to the Nassau County Democratic Committee, Defendant Hardwick received the

endorsement of Jay Jacobs, Chairman of the Nassau County Democratic Committee
7

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 8

relative to Hardwick's candidacy for mayor in the March 18, 2009 Freeport mayoral
election.
39.

Defendant Hardwick publicly advocated for and supported the position of the

Water Works plaintiffs during the mayoral campaign.

40.

On March 13, 2009, five days before the election, Melius filed a defamation

action against Plaintiff Glacken

in State Supreme Court for the County of Nassau

concerning statements purportedly made by Glacken at a February 26, 2009 public

meeting at the Freeport Library with respect to the pending Water Works actions against
Freeport and others.
41.

Upon information and belief, on or about March 14, 2009, four days before

the mayoral election on March 18, 2009,, Melius circulated a mailing to Village residents
throughout Freeport excoriating Glacken and other Village officials, referring to the
Water Works actions pending in Federal District Court.
42.

Upon information and belief, the mailing by Melius, a plaintiff in the Water

Works actions against Freeport, was coordinated by Defendant Hardwick's campaign

operatives on behalf of Defendant Hardwick in cooperation and concert with Melius.
43.

The statements purportedly made by Glacken on February 26, 2009 were

in response to public questions concerning the Water Works allegations of criminal

conduct by the Village government, Village officials (including Glacken) , contract vendors
of Freeport and Nassau.
44.

The purported statements made by Glacken were also in response to public

concerns about the joint municipal process by which liens representing real property tax
arrears were liquidated by the taxing authorities of Freeport and Nassau.
8

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 9

45.

On March 30, 2009, pursuant to New York Public Officers Law 18(3) and

(4) and Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Freeport Code, Freeport authorized the defense and

indemnification of plaintiff, then Mayor Glacken, in the Melius State Court defamation
action.
46.

Freeport's Claims Administrator assigned the defense of the Melius State

Court defamation action to the law firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker.
47.

On March 18, 2009, Defendant Hardwick and two running mates, Carmen

Pineyro and Robert Kennedy were elected as Mayor and Trustees of Freeport.
48.

On April 6, 2009, Hardwick, Kennedy and Pineyro took office as Mayor and

Trustees, respectively, for Freeport. Collectively, defendant Hardwick, Trustee Kennedy

and Trustee Pineyro were and continue to be three members of Freeport's five-member
Board of Trustees3.
49.

Upon information and belief, between March 19, 2009 and April 5, 2009,

Defendants Colton, Warren and others met with the Water Works plaintiffs and formed a
plan to promptly settle the Water Works actions on terms favorable to plaintiffs in said
actions.

Upon information and belief, defendants' plan included measures to stifle

Glacken's opposition to the settlement.

50.

Upon information and belief, shortly after the March 18, 2009 election but

before taking office, Defendants Hardwick, Warren and Colton ordered Freeport's Claims
Administrator to replace the Wilson, Elser firm as Freeport's counsel in the Federal Water
Works actions with the two-person law firm of Warren & Warren, of which Defendant
3

White and Martinez were and continue to be the remaining two members
of the five-member Board.
9

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 10

Warren was, and continues to be, a principal. At such time, Defendants Hardwick, Colton
and Warren were acting in their respective individual capacities.
51.

On April 6, 2009, Defendant Hardwick appointed Defendant Colton to the

position of Village Attorney for Freeport.

52.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Hardwick, without Board of Trustees

approval or authorization, increased Defendant Colton's Village-paid salary from

$90, 000. 00 to $130, 000. 00.
53.

Upon information and belief, shortly after April 6, 2009, Freeport's Claims

Administrator removed Wilson, Elser as Freeport's counsel, but continued Wilson, Elser's
representation of Plaintiff Glacken and the other individual Village defendants in the Water
Works actions now pending in Federal Court, except for Defendant Howard Colton.
54.

Simultaneously, Freeport's Claims Administrator retained Warren & Warren

as Freeport's counsel in the Water Works actions.

55.

Defendant Colton is now represented by Warren & Warren, LLP in the Water

Works actions.
56.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Colton nominally disqualified himself

as to any matters before Freeport that involved or concerned the Water Works or its
principal, Melius.
57.

The Wilson Elser firm has also continued as Freeport's retained counsel

assigned to the defense of Glacken in the Melius State Court defamation action
pursuant to the Public Officers Law 18(2) and Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Code of
Freeport.

10

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 11

58.

Upon information and belief, in or about May or June of 2009, Defendant

Hardwick instructed Dennis Warren to settle the Water Works Federal Court litigation as
against Freeport only, by having Freeport pay $3. 5 million to plaintiffs Water Works and
Melius. The Hardwick-directed $3. 5 million dollar settlement excluded the non-Village
defendants in said pending actions.
59.

Between August 1, 2009 and September 24, 2009, Defendants Hardwick,

Colton, and Freeport's Special Counsel in the Water Works action, Defend ant Dennis
Warren, threatened to remove the defense of Glacken and other individual Freeport
defendants in the Water Works Federal actions unless Glacken and others agreed to
support the Hardwick -directed $3. 5 million dollar payment to the Water Works plaintiffs in
settlement of the Water Works actions, and also agreed not to publicly disparage the
proposed Hardwick settlement payment of $3. 5 million dollars to Melius.
60.

Glacken has publicly opposed the Hardwick-directed $3. 5 million dollar

settlement of the Water Works actions as imprudent because, upon information and belief,
Defendant Hardwick's directed settlement was to be made (1) prior to the service and
filing of any answer or affirmative defense by any of the nineteen defendants in the two
pending Federal actions; (2) without resolving Freeport's insurance coverage issues with
its two excess insurance carriers; (3) without the conduct of any depositions in the
pending actions or the exchange of any d ocument disclosure by any of the parties or
multiple non-party witnesses in the pending

actions; (4) without any provision for

contribution or set-offs from any of the non-Village defendants; (5) without any expert
analysis of the Water Works' damages claim; (6) without a judicial decision on a pending
request of all defendants for leave to file a motion to dismiss the complaints; (7) with no
11

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 12

assurance that the Village and the individual defendants would not be cross-claimed back
into the action by the non-settling, non-Village defendants; (8) while continuing to require
individual defendants to comply with ongoing discovery requests at Freeport's expense for
legal fees; (9) with no municipal funds available or appropriated to pay the settlement;
and {1O) without a Village bond resolution in place to authorize the financing of the
proposed settlement.
61.

On September 3, 2009, Plaintiff Glacken published his objections to the

Hardwick-directed payment of $3. 5 million dollars to Melius in settlement of the Water

Works actions by circulating a letter to the Mayor, each member of the Board of Trustees,
the Village Clerk and the Village Attorney, setting forth in general terms his objections to
Hardwick's proposal to pay the Water Works plaintiffs $3. 5 million dollars without first fully
and thoroughly investigating the claims through the normal discovery process and
determining the insurance coverage issue first.
62.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Warren, Freeport's and Colton's

counsel in the Water Works actions, has not conducted any discovery nor issued a single
demand for production of documents against plaintiffs in the Water Works actions.
63.

Upon information and belief, within days of the receipt and distribution

Plaintiff Glacken's letter of opposition to the proposed $3. 5 million dollar payment to Melius,
Defendants Hardwick, Colton, and Warren took steps to withdraw Freeport's d efense and
indemnification of Plaintiff Glacken in the Melius State Supreme Court defamation action.
64.

Neither Plaintiff Glacken nor his Freeport-retained defense counsel received

prior notice or an opportunity to be heard on this action by Defendant Hardwick.

12

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 13

65.

Upon information and belief, at the urging of Defendants Warren and Colton,

the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution, on September 14, 2009, purportedly revoking
the indemnification of Glacken in the State Court defamation action, and authorizing the
Village Attorney and/or Special Counsel Warren to commence proceedings against
Plaintiff Glacken to recover all Village funds expended by Freeport "on the matter. "
66.

Upon information and belief, said actions were taken and the resolution

adopted only after Defendants Warren and Colton knowingly and intentionally misinformed
the Board of Trustees that payments to Wilson, Elser on behalf of Glacken were illegal
and possibly criminal, and that any Trustee who voted against the termination resolution
would be personally liable for said legal fees.
67.

Upon information and belief, Defendants Colton and Warren refused and/or

ignored existing law requiring the Board's obligation and duty to defend Glacken pursuant
to Public Officers Law 18.
68.

On September 25, 2009, Freeport's ClaimsAdministrator vicariously notified

Glacken and his Village-retained defense counsel that Freeport had withdrawn Freeport's
defense and indemnification of Glacken in the Melius State Court defamation action
pending in Nassau Supreme Court.
69.

Upon information and belief, Trustees White and Martinez, also named

defendants in the Water Works actions and voting members of the current Board of
Trustees, were and continue to be threatened by Defendants Warren, Colton and Hardwick
with Freeport's discontinuance of their Village-provided defense and indemnification in the
Water Works actions unless they agreed to vote for a bond resolution or other financial

13

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 14

device to municipally fund the Hardwick-directed settlement payment of $3. 5 million dollars
to Melius.
70.

The municipal actions taken by Freeport unilaterally withdrawing the defense

of Glacken and authorizing municipal collection efforts against Glacken in the State Court
defamation action were retaliatory actions against Glacken, and were taken solely because
of Glacken's publicly expressed opposition to Defendant Hardwick's proposed $3.5 million
dollar payment to Melius in settlement of the Federal actions, a significant matter of public
concern.
71.

Upon information and belief, said action was also taken to bolster and

reinforce the threats directed at Trustees White and Martinez, two voting members of the
Board, and also named defendants in the Water Works actions.
72.

Upon information and belief, said action was taken to bolster and reinforce

similar threats directed at Village Treasurer Vilma Lancaster, also a named defendant in
the Water Works litigation.
73.

Upon information and belief, during the week of October 12, 2009, Defendant

Colton presented Treasurer Lancaster with a Stipulation of Settlement of the Water Works
litigation and instructed her to sign same.
74.

Upon information and belief, Lancaster's attorney, Wilson, Elser, was not

present at such signing and did not authorize such action by Defendant Colton with regard
to Treasurer Lancaster.
75.

Upon information and belief, when Lancaster's Village-retained counsel,

Wilson, Elser, objected to Colton's unauthorized meeting with Lancaster, Defendant Colton

14

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 15

declared a "conflict of interest" and replaced Wilson, Elser with Warren & Warren as
Lancaster's counsel in the Water Works litigation.
76.

Upon information and belief, in furtherance of their goal to stifle any

opposition and/or perceived obstruction of the proposed settlement, Defendants Colton

and Warren have instructed Defendant Lancaster to have no further communication with
Wilson, Elser, her counsel in the Water Works litigation, and also unilaterally removed
Wilson, Elser from representing Lancaster in the Water Works litigation.
77.

Upon information and belief, neither Defendant Colton nor Defendant Warren

has authority to un ilaterally remove Wilson, Elser as Lancaster's Freeport-retained

counsel in the Water Works litigation.
78.

No governmental interest was advanced by said retaliatory actions.

79.

But for Plaintiff Glacken's published opposition to the Hardwick-proposed

settlement, Freeport would not have taken the action against Glacken complained of in
this action.
80.

Said municipal actions were retaliatory in nature and calculated to intimidate

Glacken and other public officers and employees, including, but not limited to, Trustees
White and Martinez, and Treasurer Vilma Lancaster, into supporting the Hardwick
settlement,

passing a resolution approving a $3. 5 million dollar bond to fund said

settlement, and to prevent Plaintiff Glacken and others from bringing defendants' actions
to the attention of the public.
81.

The actions taken by Freeport violated Plaintiff's right of free speech to

comment on matters of public concern, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the

United States Constitution.
15

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 16

82.

Plaintiff's right to a defense in the civil action entitled Melius v. Glacken is a

statutorily mandated employment benefit extended to plaintiff by New York Public Officers
Law 18(3) and (4) , adopted by Freeport in Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Code of Freeport.
This right vested in Glacken during his tenure as Mayor of Freeport, a public officer and
employee of a public entity, and is therefore a substantial property right.
83.

Plaintiff's

entitlement to said employment benefit continued beyond

Glacken's tenure as an official and employee of Freeport, and exists on a continuing basis,
and may not be unilaterally taken away by Freeport without due process.
84.

Freeport has provided no pre-termination or post-determination procedure

or process to review the basis for its unilateral termination of plaintiff's rights under Public
Officers Law 18 and Freeport's Chapter 130-5, et seq.
85.

Freeport's duty to defend its officers and employees is a statutorily mandated

obligation under New York Public Officers Law 18, as adopted by the Code of Freeport
at Chapter 130. 5, et seq.
86.

Freeport's unilateral withdrawal of Glacken's defense constitutes a violation

of New York's Public Officers Law.

87.

Defendants' unilateral action of withdrawing such defense is a denial of

Glacken's property interest, without affording Glacken any pre-termination notice or

opportunity to be heard prior to said withdrawal, and constitutes a violation of the due
process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
88.

By reason of defendants' violation of the New York Public Officers Law,

Plaintiff has been and will be forced to expend large sums of money to secure Plaintiff' s

16

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 17

defense in the pending Melius State Court defamation action pending in Nassau Supreme
Court.
89.

Owing solely to the expression of his opinions on public concerns over the

continuing impropriety and malfeasance

of Hardwick's proposed $3. 5 million dollar

payment to Melius in settlement of the pending Water Works Federal actions, plaintiff has
become fearful that Defendants Hardwick and Colton will carry out their threats and "pull"
the defense of Glacken in said action.
90.

Defendants have threatened and continue to threaten plaintiff and other

individual Freeport defendants in the Water Works actions with the same actions as they
have already taken in the Melius State Court defamation action, exposing the plaintiff and
others to hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs, and inhibiting
plaintiff's and others' First Amendment rights to comment and oppose defendants' actions
with regard to the Water Works actions. .
91.

Freeport, in the past, has provided defense and indemnification in many civil

actions against its public officers and employees. Upon information and belief, Freeport
has never made any determination to rescind its defense of an employee under any
circumstances.
92.

Freeport's rescission of its defense of Glacken in the State Court action is a

denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

93.

The chill cast upon plaintiff's First Amendment rights by Freeport's completed

retaliatory actions and threats of further reprisals is continuing, ongoing and palpable.
94.

The retaliatory actions against plaintiff and the continuing threats and

intimidation aimed at the plaintiff and others are part of defendants' policy of retaliation,
17

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 18

intimidation and reprisal aimed at the plaintiff and other individual Village defendants to
force their assent to the Hardwick settlement payment of $3. 5 million dollars to Melius,
notwithstanding the claimed impropriety and malfeasance of said actions.
95.

Defendants' actions have been taken under color of State law, as are the

threatened actions, and have been approved by the Defendant Board of Trustees, policy
makers for Freeport.
96.

Defendants' actions have cast a chill on Plaintiff's continuing exercise of his

First Amendment right of freedom of expression on matters of public concern and interest.
97.

Defendants' acts of intimidation, reprisal and retaliation are policies approved

by the Defendant Board of Trustees for Defendant Freeport, and are ongoing.
98.

Defendants Hardwick, Colton and Warren's actions have been intentionally

inflicted upon plaintiff to deny him of his First Amendment right to defend himself in the
court proceedings by denying him access to court.
99.

By reason of defendants' actions against plaintiff, plaintiff has lost income,

suffered embarrassment, mental anguish, and loss of self esteem.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM - CONSPIRACY

100.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained

in paragraphs "1" through "99," with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.
101.

State actors Hardwick and Colton acted jointly and conspired with Defendant

Warren to present to the Board of Trustees (i) a false statement relative to the Village's
duty to defend plaintiff in the State Court action; (ii) a false statement to the Board of
Trustees as to each member's individual liability for any payments on behalf of the defense
18

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 19 of 24 PageID #: 19

of Glacken in the State Court defamation suit; (iii) a false set of minutes concerning the
Board's actions at its meeting of September 14, 2009; and (iv) did provide the Village's
Claims Administrator a false "Corrected Directive" relative to the Board's actions at its
September 14, 2009 Executive Session meeting.
102.

That by reason of the foregoing, defendants have implemented a conspiracy

to deprive plaintiff of his constitutionally-protected property rights and right to free speech.
103.

That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to damages, to be

determined at trial, but believed to be not less than $2,500,000. 00.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM - FIFTH AMENDMENT TAKING

104.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained

in paragraphs "1" through "103, " with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.
105.

By reason of the foregoing, the defendants, acting under color of State law,

violated the plaintiff's right to substantive due process by removing plaintiff's defense in the
civil action Melius v. Glacken, in violation of New York Public Officer's Law 18.
106.

By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to recover damages against

defendants pursuant to 42 USC 1983, in an amount to be determined at trial but believed

to be not less than $2, 500, 000.00.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM - FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION

107.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained

in paragraphs "1" through "106, '' with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.

19

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 20 of 24 PageID #: 20

108.

By reason of the foregoing, and solely as retaliation for plaintiff's expression

of First Amendment rights objecting to d efendants' actions, past, present and proposed ,
defendants, acting under color of State law, terminated plaintiff's employment benefit
consisting of the defense and indemnification of plaintiff in a civil action, Melius v. Glacken.
109.

By reason of the foregoing, plain tiff's free speech rights under the First

Amendment were chilled, and plaintiff has been forced to spend money, time and
resources in defending himself in said action.
110.

The actions of the defendants are in violation of the First, Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

111.

The actions of the defendants are in violation of New York Public Officers

Law 18 and the Code of Freeport, Chapter 130-5, et seq.

112.

By virtue of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff is entitled to recover damages

against defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, but believed to be not less than
$2,500,000. 00.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM - INJUNCTION

113.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained

in paragraphs "1" through "11O," with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.
114.

That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment

declaring defendants' conduct illegal and violative of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, New York Public Officer's Law 18 and the
Code of Freeport, Chapter 130-5, et seq.

20

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 21 of 24 PageID #: 21

115.

Upon such declaratory judgment, plaintiff is entitled to an injunction

restraining defendants from illegal conduct against plaintiff.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CLAIM - PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

116.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained

in paragraphs "1" through "113," with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.
117.

By virtue of plaintiff's status as a public officer and employee for the period

of time between April 7, 1997 and April 6, 2009, plaintiff has a constitutionally- cognizable
property right in the form of employment benefit defined by New York Public Officers Law
18, to wit, the defense and indemnification in civil actions arising from plaintiff's duties and
actions as duly elected and serving full-time Mayor for the Incorporated Village of Freeport.
118.

Plaintiff's above-described property right may not be taken away without due

process of law.
119.

By reason of the foregoing, defendants, acting under color of State law,

violated plaintiff's right to procedural due process by failing to provide plaintiff with a pre
termination hearing concerning the Village of Freeport's termination of plaintiff's defense
in the State Court action entitled
120.

Melius

v.

Glacken.

By reason of the foregoing, defendants violated plaintiff's right to procedural

due process by failing to provide plaintiff with post-termination notice or opportunity to be

heard relative to the termination of plaintiff's statutory benefit of a defense in the State
Court action entitled Melius

v.

Glacken.

21

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 22 of 24 PageID #: 22

121.

By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in an

amount to be determined at trial.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CLAIM - LEGAL FEES

122.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained

in paragraphs "1" through "119," with the same force and effect as if set forth at length
herein.
123.

As a result of the wrongful conduct by the defendants, in both their official

and individual capacities, said conduct having been carried out under color of State law,
plaintiff has been forced to expend substantial sums for legal fees, Court costs and related
expenses to vindicate his constitutionally-protected rights.
124.

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys fees pursuant to 42 USC 1988,

in an amount to be determined at trial.

WHEREFORE,

plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants Colton, Hardwick

and Warren, individually, the Defendant Board of Trustees,

and

the Defendant

Incorporated Village of Freeport, as follows:

(A)

On plaintiff's First Claim, compensatory damages in an amount to be

determined at trial;

(B)

On plaintiff's Second Claim, compensatory damages in an amount to be

determined at trial;

(C)

On plaintiff's Third Claim, compensatory damages in an amount to be

determined at trial;

22

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 23 of 24 PageID #: 23

(D)

On plaintiff's Fourth Claim, judgment declaring that the actions of the

defendants are unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff under the facts and
circumstances of this action, and granting plaintiff permanent injunctive relief
preventing and enjoining defendants from interfering with Plaintiff's exercise
of rights secured by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution or basing any action regarding Plaintiff's former
employment upon Plaintiff's exercise of his First Amendment rights;

(E)

On plaintiff's Fifth Claim, compensatory damages in amounts to be

determined at trial.

(F)

On plaintiff's Sixth Claim, legal fees in an amount to be determined at trial;

and

(G)

Punitive damages against the individual defendants Hardwick, Colton and

Warren, jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,500,000. 00.

DATED:

Freeport, New York

November 5, 2009
J. EDWARDS (HE 2810)
& EDWARDS

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Office and Post Office Address
336 South Ocean Avenue
Post Office Box 191
Freeport, New York 11520
Tel: 516-379-1323
Fax: 516-379-7121

23

Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 24 of 24 PageID #: 24

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NASSAU

)
)

ss.:

WILLIAM F. GLACKEN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am the defendant in the action herein; I have read the ann exed Complaint, know
the contents thereof, and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein
which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe
them to be true.

Sworn to before me this

s d

HARRISON J. EDWARDS IV
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK
No. 02ED6200602

Qualffled In Nassau County

My Commision Expires February 02, 2018

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