28-page catalog of federal civil rights and racketeering crimes by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jaime Roman and divorce attorney and part-time judge Charlotte Keeley. Constitutional rights violations including due process, access to the courts and equal protection of law, all committed within the jurisdiction of US District Court for the Eastern District of California. Most Sacramento Federal Court judges are former state or federal prosecutors, state court judges, or both, and allegedly convey a pro-government bias in the adjudication of federal civil rights cases against government employees and state court judges. EDCA judges reportedly do not disclose conflicts of interest as required by law. Sacramento County Superior Court whistleblowers and court reform advocates assert that EDCA judges are jointly and collectively responsible for the cover-up of systemic civil rights violations, honest services fraud, and RICO racketeering by Sacramento Family Law Court judges and employees.
28
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire Sacramento Family Court News HOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY 15 November 2012 Hon. Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley Obtains Unprecedented Court Order - Roman Rewrites Family Code & Court Rules - Decrees Hearings Obsolete Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive In a rambling, unorthodox 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman designated family court party Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant, ordered Karres to pay $2,500 in attorney fee sanctions, and issued 13 additional orders at a brief court proceeding yesterday. All the disputed issues inexplicably were decided without oral argument and without the court hearing mandated by both the vexatious litigant and sanctions statutes. Virtually all rulings were against Karres and in favor of Karres' ex-wife, Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton. Rapton is represented by veteran Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorney and family court judge pro tem Charlotte Keeley. Judge Jaime Roman Designates Party Vexatious Litigant, Sanctions $2,500 and Makes 13 Other Rulings - Without Court Hearing Required by Law Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman (L) with Judge Matthew Gary. The two judges are known for issuing a disproportionate number of favorable child custody orders for Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers, according to family court watchdogs. Photo: Sacramento Lawyer. JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67) JUDGE PRO TEM (50) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) ARTS & CULTURE (23) CHILD CUSTODY (22) PETER J. McBRIEN (22) SCBA (22) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21) WATCHDOGS (20) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (15) JAMES M. MIZE (15) COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11) RAPTON-KARRES (11) SATIRE (11) WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS 10 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
15 November 2012
Hon. Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley Obtains Unprecedented Court Order - Roman Rewrites Family Code & Court Rules - Decrees Hearings Obsolete
Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive
In a rambling, unorthodox 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman designated family court party Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant, ordered Karres to pay $2,500 in attorney fee sanctions, and issued 13 additional orders at a brief court proceeding yesterday.
All the disputed issues inexplicably were decided without oral argument and without the court hearing mandated by both the vexatious litigant and sanctions statutes. Virtually all rulings were against Karres and in favor of Karres' ex-wife, Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton. Rapton is represented by veteran Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorney and family court judge pro tem Charlotte Keeley.
Judge Jaime Roman Designates Party Vexatious Litigant, Sanctions $2,500 and Makes 13 Other Rulings - Without Court Hearing Required by Law
Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman (L) with Judge Matthew Gary. The two judges are known for issuing a disproportionate number of favorable child custody orders for Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers, according to family court
Judge Roman drafted the lengthy statement of decision in advance of a court hearing calendared for November 14, at which the disputed issues were scheduled to be argued and submitted. But at the start of the proceeding, the judge announced that he was cancelling the hearing because he had already ruled on all matters.
Roman explained to the parties and attorneys that the day before he had mailed them his statement of decision resolving all issues. At the hearing, the judge issued a minute order which read only "VACATED: COURT STATEMENT OF DECISION." Click here to view the minute order.
In addition to depriving Karres of his basic due process right to be heard on the sanction and vexatious litigant issues, the vacated hearing also denied the losing litigant his Family Code § 217 and state court rule 5.119 right to present "live, competent and admissible testimony." Family court reform advocates assert that the unlawful, summarily decided proceeding is yet another example of the overt preferential treatment provided by
full-time, family court judges to members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section who also serve as temporary judges in the same court.
"It was both surreal and unprecedented," said veteran court watcher Robert Saunders. "I've been attending family court hearings for over five years and have never seen anything like it." Saunders said that in addition to the obvious constitutional-level due process of law breach, Roman's order was a flagrant violation of Family Code sec. 217 and California Rule of Court 5.119. The statute, which became law on January 1, 2011, and the court rule, which took effect on July 1, 2011, guarantee all family court litigants the right to present live testimony at motion and order to show cause hearings.
"It appears that Judge Roman used reverse engineering to do an end run around the new law," Saunders added. "In other words, he knew how he wanted to rule and from there worked backwards to try and justify an unjustifiable ruling. Unfortunately, the new law and court rule presented an obstacle to the judge. From whole cloth he created a sham legal rationale he claims justifies ignoring the requirements of section 217 and rule 5.119. This is yet another example of how brazenly many family court judges will prejudge a case, ignore the law, and manufacture a ruling to fit a predetermined outcome," Saunders charged.
"With this 20-page order, the other issue that exposes Roman's prejudgment is the vexatious litigant order. With its potential for serious, Constitutional-level collateral consequences, a vexatious litigant proceeding always requires notice and a hearing with oral testimony."
Saunders said court administrators share the blame for Roman's conduct. "This ruling again exposes a complete failure by court administrators to properly train, supervise and discipline family court judges," he said. In his own family court case in 2010, Saunders successfully obtained an order from a neutral, third-party judge formally disqualifying family court Judge Matthew Gary. The outside judge - from San Joaquin County Superior Court - ordered Gary removed for misconduct, including failing to follow proper contempt of court procedures after having Saunders arrested and forcibly removed from his courtroom by multiple bailiffs. "Court administrators did nothing, even after an independent, outside judge made it clear Gary was a rogue judge with anger-management
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorney and family court temporary judge Charlotte Keeley.
"Judge Roman's order is a similar situation, with the added inference that a full-time judge is doing a favor for a part-time judge, Charlotte Keeley," Saunders continued. "I don't know what else would explain such a brazen disregard of established law. The order is unlawful, void on its face, and inevitably will create more, but completely unnecessary litigation in this case in both the trial and appellate courts. Most Family Court judges are either rookies breaking in, or screw-ups spending time in purgatory," Saunders explained.
"They're inherently thin-skinned and rarely admit to mistakes. The odds are slim that Judge Roman will admit to the errors in this 20-page debacle. This proceeding was, and will continue to be a complete waste of taxpayer funds at a time when the courts claim to be starved for funding. And, by the way, we pay Judge Ramon $170,000 per year for work like this."
To justify issuing the order without a hearing, at page six of the ruling Roman invoked a local court rule, Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, and Family Code section 210. On page 19, Roman also cited California Rules of Court rule 3.1306(a) "in conjunction with rule 5.21" as his legal rationale for denying the parties their day in court.
"Nice try," Saunders scoffed. "Roman is using antiquated law and a local court rule that all are clearly superseded by [Family Code] Section 217 and Rule 5.119. Both laws give family court litigants the right to present live testimony at a court hearing unless the judge - at the hearing - denies the request based on a finding of good cause. It is self-evident that the right can't be invoked if the judge vacates the hearing and mails out an order filed the day before the hearing."
The violation of Family Code section 217, state court Rule 5.119, and both the statutory and decisional law governing vexatious litigant determinations potentially exposes Judge Roman to an improper governmental activities investigation by the California State Auditor. Sacramento Family Court has been in hot water with the state auditor before. A 2011 audit disclosed problems with training and supervision of family court mediators, custody evaluators and minors counsel.
As SFCN reported last year, violation of a state statute or state court rule is, by law, an improper governmental activity in the same category of offenses as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraudulent claims, fraud, coercion, conversion, malicious prosecution, misuse of government property and willful omission to perform duty, according to the California Whistleblower Protection Act.
However, Saunders pointed out that the chances of Roman being held accountable for the violations are slim-to-none.
"Judges in California are untouchable. Like Roman did in this case, judges can simply flip-the-bird at the law. It is not hyperbole to say they are literally above-the-law. The State Auditor, Commission on Judicial Performance, Judicial Council and local court administrators will all turn a blind eye," Saunders predicted. "The reason we have an overabundance of incompetent judges is because meaningful oversight of judge misconduct is non-existent in California."
Promising later posts analyzing the 20-page statement of decision, Sacramento County Family Court News in-house legal analyst PelicanBriefed declined to opine on the decision.
"There is so much wrong with this ruling that it will take me several posts to unravel and do justice. I will say that it appears Judge Roman assumed that if he put a lot of footnotes into the ruling, no one would notice his erroneous
Cal. Rule of Court rule 5.119 requires judges to permit live testimony.
Ruling May Constitute Improper Governmental Activities and Trigger State Auditor Scrutiny
Court Employees Are Now Protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
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
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH
ABA Family Law Blawg Directory
California Coalition for Families and Children
California Protective Parents Association
Center for Judicial Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
Where the Andrew Karres federal class action claim started:
In a rambling, 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman designated family court party Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant, ordered Karres to pay $2,500 in attorney fee sanctions, and issued 13 additional
·
1 Reply
Susan Ferris via Google+ 2 years ago - Shared publicly
Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 1 year ago (edited) - Shared publicly
SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT JUDGE REWRITES FAMILY CODE AND COURT RULES - DECREES HEARINGS OBSOLETE
Sacramento Family Court Supervising Family Law/Probate/ADA Judge Jaime R. Roman issues 15 rulings on on day, in one case, including a $2,500 sanction order and an order
+2 ·
1 Reply
sparkle Jones via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly
PR Brown originally shared thisWhere the Andrew Karres federal class action claim started:
In a rambling, 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman designated family court party
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 10:45 PM
Labels: ANALYSIS, ATTORNEY, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, COURT RULES, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, RAPTON-KARRES, ROBERT SAUNDERS, SCBA, SHARON HUDDLE, VEXATIOUS LITIGANT Location: Family Relations Courthouse: Sacramento Superior Court
rationale for not holding a hearing, nor his blatant disregard of the legislative intent behind Family Code section 217 and Rule 5.119. And not allowing a hearing before declaring a party a vexatious litigant is unheard of. For now, let's just say that this ruling may be an example of why Judge Roman was passed over for elevation to the Court of Appeal."
For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
23 March 2013
Tani Cantil-Sakauye Defendant & Jaime R. Roman Implicated in Federal Class Action Lawsuit for Misuse of Vexatious Litigant Law
SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT NEWS EXCLUSIVEA November, 2012 court order designating a Sacramento Family Court party as a vexatious litigant is being challenged in a landmark federal class action lawsuit filed yesterday in United States District Court in San Francisco. The controversial order was issued by family court Judge Jaime Roman at the request of temporary judge and veteran family law attorney Charlotte Keeley in a case with a long-running child custody dispute between Andrew Karres and Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton. The order blacklisted [pdf] Karres as a vexatious litigant [pdf] and raised eyebrows in the legal community because Roman issued the ruling without providing Karres the court hearing required under state law and the due process provisions of the state and federal Constitutions.
The vexatious litigant designation severely restricts a litigants access to the courts by requiring them to get pre-approval from a presiding judge before they are permitted to file pleadings in any court in the state. Sacramento Family Court News in Nov. 2012 reported exclusively on Judge Roman's unorthodox order, which also is pending review by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. Taxpayers likely will now get two substantial bills in connection with the Keeley-Roman ruling.
Controversial Order for Judge Pro Tem Attorney Charlotte Keeley by Judge Jaime Roman Challenged in Federal Class Action LawsuitTaxpayers Face Financial Liability
Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is named as a defendant in this federal court litigation stemming from a vexatious litigant court order issued by Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman for Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley.
A November, 2012 court order designating a Sacramento Family Court party as a vexatious
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 8:19 PM
Labels: CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD SUPPORT, FEDERAL LAWSUITS, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, RAPTON-KARRES, VL-CLASS-ACTION Location: US District Court Clerk Northern District Of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue #36060, San Francisco, CA 94102, USA
The state court appeal will cost the public between $8,500 and $25,500, according to recent appellate court decisions. The public cost of defending the federal case could be significantly higher. For several years, court watchdogs and whistleblowers have asserted that full-time judges give preferential treatment to judge pro tem attorneys. They charge that the Rapton-Karres case is one of several cases emblematic of judge-attorney cronyism and its effects, including the unnecessary use of scarce court resources and the financial burden on taxpayers.
To continue reading, click Read more >> below:
Named as defendants in the federal class action lawsuit are California Supreme Court Chief Justice and Judicial Council Chair Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye and Steven Jahr, the Administrative Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
In addition to Karres, the plaintiffs include eight other family court parties from throughout the state. All have been blacklisted as vexatious litigants in their respective courts.
"Plaintiffs, who are parents in on-going custody disputes, bring this class action against Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and the Judicial Council in the hope of overturning California's Vexatious Litigant Statute (VLS) as it applies to family law litigants, particularly parents caught in protracted custody battles. The Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the VLS as it is applied in the context of family law custody proceedings. The Plaintiffs assert that the VLS on its face and as applied infringes on their fundamental custody rights," reads the introduction section of the complaint.
Click here to read the complete lawsuit filed March 22. Sacramento Family Court News will provide continuing coverage of the case.
Related articles and posts:
Click here for our complete coverage of the Rapton-Karres case.
Click here for our reporting on Judge Jaime R. Roman.
Click here for coverage of judicial misconduct.
Click here for our special Judge Pro Tem Page.
Justice Cantil-Sakauye is a former SacramentoCounty Superior Court Judge.
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
17 April 2013
Hon. Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Rewrites California Vexatious Litigant Law for Judge Pro Tem Divorce Lawyer Charlotte Keeley
News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed
The Sacramento Family Court News analysis team has been working overtime scrutinizing and trying to make sense of a controversial 20-page statement of decision issued on Nov. 14 of last year by Supervising Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman. Click here for our initial report from 2012.
Roman's decision is now being challenged in both the Third District Court of Appeal, and in a federal class action lawsuit filed March 22 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. It is certain that taxpayers will get a substantial bill for each case. Court watchdogs contend Roman's order exemplifies the overt lawlessness that occurs weekly in family court, and the preferential treatment that full-time judges provide for-profit attorneys who also serve as temporary judges.
The unprecedented ruling - which was made-to-order for Judge Pro Tem attorney Charlotte Keeley - rewrites California vexatious litigant law and procedure. Watchdogs hold Judge Roman responsible for putting taxpayers on the financial hook for the costs of yet another unnecessary appeal from family court, and the federal litigation.
In another pointless appeal caused by judicial misconduct, Judge Matthew J. Gary unsuccessfully attempted a similar rewrite of putative spouse law and in 2011 was reversed in full by the Third District Court of Appeal. Our analysis indicates that Judge Roman's order likely is headed for the same fate.
To continue reading, click Read more >> below:
Judge Jaime Roman Misstates Law, Uses Overruled Case to Justify Vexatious Litigant and Other Orders Without Court Hearing
Judge Jaime R. Roman denied a family court litigant the right to a court hearing and oral testimony - fundamental components
The confusing legal rationale of Judge Roman's 20-page decision is constructed from a series of allegedly consistent conjunctions conjoining components of the Family Code, Code of Civil Procedure, and court rules. For example, Roman writes at page six:
"Sacramento Superior Court Rule 14.02(C), consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, in conjunction with Family Code section 210.." and
"Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a), in conjunction with Family Code section 210..." at page eight, and
"California Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 in conjunction with Family Code section 210...California Rules of Court rule 3.1306(a), in conjunction with California Rules of Court, rule 5.21...See Family Code section 217(c); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(b), in conjunction with rule 5.21 and rule 5.119," at page 19.
Judge Roman's statute and court rule references, and calculated omission of contrary authority suggest an intent to cherry-pick law - including law not applicable to a vexatious litigant proceeding - to reach a predetermined result for the benefit of Judge Pro Tem attorney Charlotte Keeley. In our first report on the decision, veteran court watchdog Robert Saunders astutely observed that the judge used reverse engineering. "In other words, he knew how he wanted to rule and from there worked backwards to try and justify an unjustifiable ruling," Saunders said in 2012.
Saunders' analysis appears to be substantially accurate, according to the family and civil law reference books used by judges, attorneys and Sacramento Family Court News. The logically inferred intent of Roman's risible, convoluted conjunctions is to enable himself to designate a family court party a vexatious litigant and issue a $2,500 sanctions assessment and 13 additional orders against the same party - all without a court hearing and oral argument. But Judge Roman is off-the-rails at conjunction junction.
California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, the gold standard civil law reference work used by judges and attorneys, indicates that Judge Roman attempted to create the illusion that his order was grounded in legitimate law by misstating and misapplying Code of Civil Procedure § 2009, Family Code § 210, and § 217, and California Rules of Court rules 3.1306 and 5.21. The perplexing rationale Roman cobbled together from parts of each is preempted and effectively nullified by the vexatious litigant statute and decisional law, according to the Guide.
Court watchdogs and whistleblowers charge that Judge Roman's prejudgment, unlawfully vacated hearing and erroneous statement of decision are more examples of Chris Volkers, Julie Setzer and other court administrators failing to adequately train, supervise, and discipline family court judges. They point out that Judge Roman, the supervising family law, probate and ADA judge has limited family court experience, and often confuses civil law with family law. At the end of her own two-year stint in family court, Judge Sharon Lueras confessed to the family law bar that, at the beginning of her family court assignment, she knew nothing about family law. The consequences of inadequate training and supervision can be tragic. Unrepresented litigant
Jessica Hernandez blames Lueras for the death of her son at the hands of her ex-husband. Click here for our coverage of the Hernandez case.
As we reported in our original coverage, Judge Roman unilaterally cancelled a family court hearing calendared for Nov. 14, 2012. The hearing was scheduled for the purpose of arguing and resolving 15 disputed issues in the case Katina Rapton vs Andrew Karres.
On the day of the hearing, the parties and attorneys arrived at the courtroom and were told by the judge that the hearing was vacated and would not take place. A dumbfounded Sharon Huddle, the attorney for Karres, had the judge repeat the statement a second time while being recorded by a court reporter. Click here to read the court reporter's transcript, obtained exclusively by Sacramento Family Court News.
At the end of the non-hearing, Judge Roman scrawled out a minute order that read only "VACATED: COURT STATEMENT OF DECISION." The day before the hearing, Roman wrote, signed, filed, and mailed to the attorneys a 20-page statement of decision resolving all issues.
Virtually all of the rulings were in favor of Rapton and against Karres. Rapton, the Mel Rapton Honda heiress is represented by veteran family law attorney and temporary judge Charlotte Keeley. The orders requested by Keeley and granted by Roman included designating Karres a vexatious litigant, and ordering the financially disadvantaged litigant to pay Keeley $2,500 in sanctions. The vexatious litigant designation severely restricts Karres' access to every court in California by requiring him to get pre-approval from a presiding judge before he can file anything, anywhere in the state.
Conjunction MalfunctionThe relationship between family law, civil law and the court rules applicable to each can be confusing. But the family law procedure manual used by judges and attorneys, California Practice Guide: Family Law neatly sorts it all out in just two pages, which, apparently, is news to Judge Roman who clumsily cut, conjoined, and pasted conflicting laws and rules to justify his vexatious litigant order.
An assessment of the legality of Roman's order blacklisting Andrew Karres as a vexatious litigant begins with the law itself. California's vexatious litigant law is codified at Code of Civil Procedure §§ 391-391.8. Wikipedia explains how the law works at this link. The law was intended to limit frivolous litigation by unrepresented, pro per parties in civil courts. When a judge issues an order designating a self-represented litigant as a vexatious litigant, the Constitutional rights of access to the courts, due process of law, equal protection of law and the right to petition the government for redress are severely restricted. Due to the harsh consequences of the vexatious litigant label, California law requires full due process before the order can be issued, including notice and a court hearing where written or oral evidence is presented. The notice and hearing requirements of the vexatious litigant statute are difficult to misconstrue:
"At the hearing upon the motion the court shall consider any evidence, written or oral, by witnesses or affidavit, as may be material to the ground of the motion," reads the law at section 391.2.
At § 391.3, the vexatious litigant law specifies, twice, that a decision is made "after hearing the evidence on the motion." The California Practice Guide for civil law recites the procedure for a vexatious litigant determination, including the required court hearing. Based on the 2002 appellate court case Bravo v. Ismaj, "[a] party may not be declared to be a 'vexatious litigant' without a noticed motion and hearing which includes the right to oral argument
The Disappearing Hearing
Family law attorney and Judge Pro Tem Charlotte L. Keeley demanded and gotfrom Judge Jaime R. Roman a court order designating Andrew Karres a
vexatious litigant.
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
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
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH
ABA Family Law Blawg Directory
California Coalition for Families and Children
California Protective Parents Association
Center for Judicial Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
Labels: ANALYSIS, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, CJP, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, OPINION, RAPTON-KARRES, SHARON HUDDLE, VEXATIOUS LITIGANT Location: Family Relations Courthouse - William R. Ridgeway - Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA
and the presentation of evidence," according to the Guide. Since the 2002 Bravo case, at least 20 other published and unpublished appellate court decisions have relied on and mirrored the controlling holding in Bravo, including these two cases from 2009 and 2012.
In a single paragraph and four footnotes at page 19 of his 20-page statement of decision, Judge Roman provides his rationale for issuing the vexatious litigant order without a hearing. The judge recites sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, Family Code, and court rules that he claims, when conjoined, authorize him to "vacate the hearing in this matter..."
Notably absent from the justification is any reference to the Bravo line of cases, the notice and hearing requirements of the vexatious litigant statute, and the instruction of the California Practice Guides, all of which contradict Roman's justification for denying Karres a hearing with oral argument and the presentation of evidence. Roman does cite to a single case law reference, Reifler v. Superior Court, a 1974 case which was effectively overruled by the Legislature as of January 1, 2011, and which in any event has no legitimate connection to the procedure for declaring a litigant vexatious. Judge Roman gives his reasons for blacklisting Karres statewide as a vexatious litigant at pages 15-18 of his 20-page statement of decision. Absent from the ruling is the boilerplate recital that "The Court has considered the moving and responding papers, the evidence and argument presented at the hearing, and the files herein," which appears on page one of this vexatious litigant order from a family court case in Santa Clara County. Judge Roman's unlawful order declaring Karres a vexatious litigant is now the subject of both a costly appeal and federal civil rights litigation against Judicial Branch officials. The appeal and federal case will cost the parties and taxpayers significant sums. The current cost to taxpayers for a single appeal is between $8,500 and $25,000, according to recent appellate court decisions. Ironically, vexatious litigants are routinely accused of, and punished for wasting scarce appellate court resources with frivolous litigation.
"Other appellate parties, many of whom wait years for a resolution of bona fide disputes, are prejudiced by the useless diversion of this court's attention. [Citation.] In the same vein, the appellate system and the taxpayers are damaged by what amounts to a waste of this court's time and resources," reads a line of cases from 1988 to 2012, beginning with Finnie v. Town of Tiburon.
The same should be said about the unnecessary appeal and federal litigation against the government compelled by Judge Roman's order.
Related articles:
Click here for our complete coverage of the Rapton-Karres case.
Click here for our reporting on Judge Jaime R. Roman.
Click here for coverage of judicial misconduct.
Click here for our special Judge Pro Tem Page.
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:
Judge Jaime R. Roman conjoined statutory law, court rules and overruled decisional law to rewrite vexatious litigant procedure in California.
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
22 April 2013
Sacramento Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley, Judges Peter J. McBrien and Jaime R. Roman et al., vs. Sharon Huddle
News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed
For Roseville family law attorney Sharon Huddle, the Sacramento Family Court proceedings surrounding issuance of a controversial order designating her client Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant may be déjà vu all over again. Throughout the 20-page order, written by Judge Jaime R. Roman, Huddle and her client are demeaned, disparaged and ridiculed. The opposing attorney - Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley - and her client, Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton, are portrayed by Roman in the patently unlawful order as victims. For our complete coverage of the vexatious litigant order and the Rapton-Karres case, click here.
Judge Jaime R. Roman Vexatious Litigant Order for Attorney Charlotte Keeley Shows Judge Pro Tem Monopoly - Unfair Competition at Work
Roseville-based family law attorney Sharon Huddle continues to be subjected to retaliation by Sacramento County Family Court judges, apparently for her assertive client advocacy in the notorious Carlsson case and the related Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings
against troubled Sacramento Superior Court Judge Peter McBrien.
Huddle was subjected to similar treatment by Judge Peter J. McBrien during a family court trial in March, 2006. McBrien's treatment of Huddle was later recounted by eyewitness and court reporter Robbi Joy in sworn testimony before the Commission on Judicial Performance, where the rogue judge received his second round of discipline by the CJP. The transcript of Joy's testimony - obtained exclusively and published for the first time by Sacramento Family Court News - provides still more explicit evidence of the preferential treatment and kickbacks given by judges to the cartel of local family law attorneys who also serve as temporary judges.
The transcript and other records from the McBrien CJP proceedings also provide a troubling point of reference indicating that the unlawful, interdependent relationship between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys dates back at least seven years and is now all but institutionalized.
To read the sworn testimony of Robbi Joy and an incriminating admission by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Denise deBellefeuille, click Read more >> below.
Court watchdogs and whistleblowers have cataloged an array of other examples of judge pro tem favoritism, including undisclosed conflicts of interest and counterfeit court filings that impede the appeal rights of unrepresented litigants. They assert that financially disadvantaged, self-represented family court litigants with little or no knowledge of family law and court procedure are treated even harsher than outside-the-cartel lawyers like Huddle. Watchdogs point to informal audits of several family court cases and anecdotal evidence indicating that cartel attorneys obtain favorable 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, according to court reform advocates.Whether a party is self-represented or represented by an "outsider" attorney, a judge pro tem attorney on the opposing side is the common denominator in lopsided, unfair and unlawful court rulings. They contend that taxpayers inevitably will be held liable for class action or institutional reform litigation [pdf], or government enforcement under B&P Code § 17200 on behalf of outside attorneys and pro per litigants against the court and the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section.
Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Denise deBellefeuille was one of three judges assigned to hear and decide the fate of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter J. McBrien in his 2009 disciplinary proceedings before the Commission on Judicial Performance. [Click here to read the court of appeal decision that sent McBrien to the CJP woodshed a second time]. In her assessment of the testimony and evidence considered by the 3-judge panel, she candidly acknowledged that McBrien's favorable treatment of judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and harsh treatment of attorney Sharon Huddle was partly attributable to the fact that Huddle "wasn't an insider. She wasn't a pro tem."
When San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli read an article in the ABA Journal on the court of appeal decision in the Carlsson case, he wrote about his own nightmarish experience as an outsider attorney in
California Unfair Competition Law
"She Wasn't An Insider. She Wasn't a Pro Tem."
Judge Denise deBellefeuille made this unsettling observation in her assessment of the evidence presented at the Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter J. McBrien.
Sacramento Family Court. Like Huddle, Gianelli also faced off against judge pro tem Charlotte Keeley:
"[I] was attacked personally in court filing after court filing. I was required to drive from San Francisco to Sacramento (a three hour round trip drive) over six times on 24 hours notice, in my opinion to harass me and make me quit," the attorney said. "[T]his is a 'juice court' in which counsel outside Sacramento 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 statement. In future posts, SFCN will have more, never before published information on the McBrien CJP proceedings, including transcripts of sworn statements by character witnesses who testified on McBrien's behalf, including full-time and temporary Sacramento County Superior Court judges. Judge pro tem lawyers who testified for McBrien include Camille Hemmer, Jerry Guthrie, Robert O'Hair, and current chair of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Russell Carlson.
The relevance of court reporter Robbi Joy's testimony about the contrast between how Judge McBrien treated outsider attorney Sharon Huddle and temporary judge attorney Charlotte Keeley during the Carlsson trial was described by CJP attorney Andrew Blum.
"Robbi Joy is a neutral third party. She's not friends with any of these people. She's been a court reporter for a long time, and she has seen a lot of what takes place in courtrooms. She testified that the judge was demeaning to Ms. Huddle, treated her with disdain and displayed irritation towards her throughout the trial, and she never saw Ms. Huddle do anything to justify that conduct. Even Judge McBrien admitted that some of his comments could make it appear that he was badgering Ms. Huddle in an inappropriate manner. Now, in addition to what these actual observers said, the record shows that he repeatedly threatened a mistrial from early on in the trial, curtailed her presentation of evidence, threatened her with contempt, and he would barely let her take breaks to go to the bathroom." To view Blum's statement, click here.
Robbi Joy's testimony included the following exchange:
Q. During the Carlsson trial, how would you describe Judge McBrien's behavior towards Attorney Huddle?
A [Robbi Joy]. Demeaning. This is hard. He is a judge. I have no ill will toward him. But it was remarkable to me that he seemed to have an amicable relationship with Ms. Keeley, but he seemed so irritated with Ms. Huddle. In fact, I asked the deputy -
MR. MURPHY: Objection –
SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Sustained.
MR. MURPHY: hearsay.
BY MR. BLUM:
Q. What did the judge do that makes you say that he was demeaning towards Ms. Huddle?
A. A couple of times she asked for just a brief break. She finally said, frankly, "I want to use the restroom, and you've given me a couple of tasks, phone calls to make," and he said, "one minute." And he repeatedly threatened a mistrial. I've seen this happen. If you say it's to wrap up Friday and it's already Friday and it seems to be going on and on, that the judge may say, "We're headed for a mistrial" or "none of us want a mistrial. " But he, I would say, at least five times said, "Do you want a mistrial? Just, let's have a mistrial, " which is something, of course, that nobody wants to have to go through.
Q. Did the judge's poor demeanor towards Ms. Huddle begin on the first day of trial?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it continue throughout the trial?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you observe Ms. Huddle do anything that would justify Judge McBrien's attitude towards her?
A. No. I felt that she and Ms. Keeley comported themselves as professionals.
Q. Would you say that Ms. Huddle was ever rude or disrespectful to the judge?
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
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
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH
ABA Family Law Blawg Directory
California Coalition for Families and Children
California Protective Parents Association
Center for Judicial Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
Q. I think you touched on this, but how did Judge McBrien treat Ms. Keeley?
A. In a much more respectful manner.
Q. Did Judge McBrien treat you poorly?
A. No.
Q. Were the attorneys rude to each other?
A. No.
Q. In your years as a court reporter, have you ever seen a judge behave this way, the way Judge McBrien behaved towards Ms. Huddle?
A. Not to be glib, but not even on television.
Q. So that's a no?
A. That's a no. I certainly have seen judges lose their temper, if they're consuming time or if it's just -- for a reason. But I have not seen a judge, without some prior history of dealing with this attorney or -- or for some other reason, just seeming to have disdain for them.
To read Robbi Joy's complete testimony, click here.
In 2008, the 3rd District Court of Appeal described how Huddle's client, Ulf Carlsson, was ultimately treated at the conclusion of the 2006 trial. The description bears similarities to the recent treatment of Huddle client Andrew Karres by Judge Jaime R. Roman.
"Judge McBrien issued a written decision, ruling against Ulf on almost every issue. He rejected Ulf's contention that Mona was underemployed, ruled ruled that Ulf and Mona were sole owners of the rental property; ordered both the family residence and the rental property sold; failed to segregate Ulf's retirement account for purposes of awarding Mona her community share; and ordered Ulf to pay Mona $35,000 in attorney and expert witness fees. Despite the court's prior handwritten order that child support would not be determined until custody was resolved, the judgment ordered Ulf to pay $736 per month in child support." Click here.
NEXT: The Huddle-Keeley-McBrien backstory, continued: The revealing ex parte communication between Judge Peter J. McBrien and Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley, and McBrien's secret transcript request.
Related articles: Sacramento Family Court News has continuing coverage of issues involving judge pro tem attorneys and financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigants. For a list of all posts about temporary judges, click here. Our special, independent Judge Pro Tems Page is at this link. Specific issues with direct links include:
A variety of illegal tactics used by court employees, judges, the Family Law Facilitator Office and judge pro tem attorneys to obstruct family court appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants.Click here.
Full-time family court judges failure to disclose judge pro tem conflicts of interest to opposing parties and attorneys. Click here.
Judge pro tem attorneys promoted a software program sold by the wife of a family court judge. Click here.
Labels: ANALYSIS, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, OPINION, PETER J. McBRIEN, RAPTON-KARRES, SHARON HUDDLE Location: Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA Family Relations Courthouse
Court administrators concealing from the public judge pro tem attorney misconduct, including sexual battery against clients. Click here.
Illegal use of California vexatious litigant law by family court judges. Click here.
Waiver of judge pro tem qualification standards. Click here.
Failure to adequately train family court judges. Click here.
Allowing courtroom clerks to issue incomplete, useless fee waiver orders which prevent indigent and financially disadvantaged litigants from serving and filing documents. Click here.
Preferential treatment provided to judge pro tem attorneys by family court judges, administrators, and employees. Click here.
Unfair competition and monopolistic practices by family court judges and attorneys who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge which may violate state unfair competition laws. Click here.
Judges cherry-pick state law and court rules to rewrite established law to reach a predetermined result to benefit judge pro tem attorneys. Click here.
The waste of scarce court resources and taxpayer funds caused by unnecessary appeals and other court proceedings. Click here and here.
Allowing judges with a documented history of misconduct and mistreatment of unrepresented litigants to remain in family court. Click here.
Concealing from the public but disclosing to the family law bar the demotion of problem judges. Click here.
Failing to enforce the Code of Judicial Ethics provisions applicable to temporary judges. Click here.
Allowing court clerks to commit perjury without apparent consequences. Click here.
Permitting Family Law Facilitator Office staff to dispense false information to unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants. Click here.
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:
+4 Recommend this on Google
AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)
APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (10)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (18)
CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
18 July 2013
Vance W. Raye Third District Justice and Judge Peter McBrien Turn Over Court Operations to SCBA Family Law Section Lawyers
In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Raye partnered with controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien and attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section in establishing the current, dysfunctional Sacramento Family Court system, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 judicial misconduct trial before the Commission on Judicial Performance. Behind closed doors and under oath, the judge provided explicit details about the 1991 origins of the present-day family court structure.
In essence, McBrien and Raye agreed to effectively privatize public court operations to the specifications of private-sector attorneys in exchange for not having to run the court's settlement conference program. The SCBA Family Law Section agreed to run the settlement program provided they were given effective control over most court policies and procedures, including local court rules.
As a result, the public court system was restructured to the specifications of local, private-sector attorneys, according to McBrien's testimony. To view McBrien's detailed description of the collusive public-private collaboration, posted online exclusively by SFCN, click here. To view an example of the same, current day collusion, click here.
The 1991 restructuring plan began with a road trip suggested by the family law bar:
"[T]he family law bar, and it was a fairly strong bar here in Sacramento, initiated the concept of a trip to Orange County and San Diego County to pick up some ideas about how their courts were structured. And myself and Judge Ridgeway and two family law attorneys made that trip and came back with various ideas of how to restructure the system," McBrien told the CJP. Click here to view.
But before his sworn 2009 CJP testimony, McBrien gave the public a different account of the road trip and who restructured the family
Leaked Transcript Indicates Vance Raye & Judge Peter McBrien Enabled Family Law Bar Control of Court in 1991
Vance Raye and Peter J. McBrien were thearchitects of the current family court system.
Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly
Vance W. Raye Third District Justice and Judge Peter McBrien Turn Over Court Operations to SCBA Family Law Section Lawyers. Leaked Transcript Indicates Vance Raye & Judge Peter McBrien Enabled Family Law Bar Control of Court in 1991:In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice
Add a comment
Posted by PelicanBriefed at 11:20 AM
Labels: 3rd DISTRICT COA, ANALYSIS, APPEALS, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CJP, FLEC, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,
NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PETER J. McBRIEN, SCBA, VANCE W. RAYE
Location: Sacramento County Superior Court Family Relations Courthouse - 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA
- William R. Ridgeway
court system in 1991. As reported by the Daily Journal legal newspaper, McBrien dishonestly implied that the new system was conceived and implemented by judges alone after they made a county-paid "statewide tour" of family law courts.
The judge omitted from the story the fact that the trip was initiated by the family law bar, and included two private-sector family law attorneys who took the county-paid tour with McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway. As the Daily Journal reported:
"Around 1990, McBrien and a few other Sacramento judges went on a statewide tour of family law courts. At the time there were continual postponements of trials.
'This is how we came up with the system today,' McBrien said. 'It was probably the best trip Sacramento County ever paid for.'
The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials, which used to be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal trials for scheduling.
'Now, if you're ready and unable to settle, chances are 99.9 percent that you are going out [to trial] the first time,' McBrien said. 'A lot of that is attributable to the willingness of the Sacramento bar to work as settlement counselors.'" Click here to view the Daily Journal report.
To continue reading the rest of this article, visit our special, updated 3rd District Court of Appeal page. Click here. For more on the alleged collusion between judges and attorneys who also serve as Sacramento Superior Court temporary judges and work as settlement counselors, visit our special judge pro tems page. For additional posts about the people and issues in this report, click on the corresponding labels below.
Sacramento Family Court judges and local, Sacramento Bar Association attorneys openly acknowledge their close relationship.
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
JUDGE PRO TEMS
Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative ReportThis investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in September, 2014.
As many of the articles on our main page reflect, Sacramento Family Law Court whistleblowers and watchdogs contend that a "cartel" of local family law attorneys receive kickbacks and other forms of preferential treatment from family court judges, administrators and employees because 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.
The kickbacks usually consist of "rubber-stamped" 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 special Color of Law series of investigative reports. The reports document 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.
The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and attorney operated settlement conference program was set up in 1991 by and for the lawyers of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien at his 2009 Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge McBrien's
Sacramento Superior Court Temporary Judge Program Controversy
Judge Pro Tem Attorney "Cartel" Controls Court Operations, Charge Whistleblowers
Sacramento Family Court reform advocates assert that collusion between judges and local attorneys deprives financially disadvantaged, unrepresented pro per court users of their parental rights, community assets, and due process and access to the court constitutional rights.
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 Executive Committee or 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 four cases 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 the Ground Zero of 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.
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.
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.
Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee for 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. Roman issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order declaring 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 judge pro 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 temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child support order, 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 Beveren helped 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 is an 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.
In 2008 controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien deprived a family court litigant of a fair trial in a case where the winning party was represented by judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley. In a scathing, published opinion, the 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in full and ordered a new trial. 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing characterized McBrien's conduct in the case 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 attorneys Camille Hemmer, Robert O'Hair, Jerry Guthrie and Russell Carlson each testified in support of Judge Peter J. McBrien when the controversial judge was facing removal from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance in 2009. As a sworn temporary judges aware of McBrien's misconduct, each was required by Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics to take or initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's misconduct. Instead, each testified as a character witness in support of the judge. In the CJP's final disciplinary decision allowing McBrien to remain on the bench, the CJP referred specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced McBrien's punishment. Click here. Court records indicate that Judge McBrien has not disclosed the potential conflict of interest to opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the attorneys in cases before the judge. Click here for SFCN coverage of conflict issues.
Judge pro tem attorneys Terri Newman, Camille Hemmer, Diane Wasznicky and Donna
Reed were involved in a proposed scheme to rig a recall election of controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien in 2008. The plan involved helping McBrien defeat the recall by electing him "Judge of the Year" before the November election. Click here for the Sacramento News and Review report.
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 & Salinger was later granted a waiver of the requirements to become a judge pro tem. A family court watchdog asserts the waiver was payback for O'Hair's testimony for McBrien. Click here to read our exclusive investigative report.
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 by SCBA Family Law Section officer and temporary judge Paula Salinger. To view the pro per responsive declaration objecting to the illegal
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
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
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH
ABA Family Law Blawg Directory
California Coalition for Families and Children
California Protective Parents Association
Center for Judicial Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
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 temporary judge and family law lawyer Gary 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 four of 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 here to read our report.
Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorney Scott 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.
Judge pro tem attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Jacqueline Eston in 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.
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 of Chair 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 other articles 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 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
