N

A. Judicial Duties in General

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

All of the judicial duties prescribed by law* shall take precedence over all other
activities of every judge. In the performance of these duties, the following
standards apply.
B. Adjudicative Responsibilities

(1) A judge shall hear and decide all matters assigned to the judge except those
in which he or she is disqualified.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(1)
Canon 3B(1) is based upon the affirmative obligation contained in Code of
Civil Procedure section 170.
(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law* regardless of partisan interests, public
clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence in the
law.*

Ju

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(2)

Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal
knowledge,* skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to
perform a judges responsibilities of judicial office. Canon 1 provides that an
incorrect legal ruling is not itself a violation of this code.
(3) A judge shall require* order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.

rn
i

al

et
w

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL

OFFICE IMPARTIALLY,* COMPETENTLY, AND
DILIGENTLY

or
k

CANON 3

if
o

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors,

witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official
capacity, and shall require* similar conduct of lawyers and of all staff and
court personnel under the judges direction and control.
(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge
shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, engage in speech, gestures, or
other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as (a) bias or prejudice,
including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, gender,
14

et
w

D. Disciplinary Responsibilities

(1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has violated
any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, that judge shall take appropriate
corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate
authority. (See Commentary to Canon 3D(2).)

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

(2) Whenever a judge has personal knowledge,* or concludes in a judicial

decision, that a lawyer has committed misconduct or has violated any provision
of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take appropriate
corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate
authority.

Ju

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canons 3D(1) and 3D(2)

Appropriate corrective action could include direct communication with the
judge or lawyer who has committed the violation, other direct action, such as a
confidential referral to a judicial or lawyer assistance program, or a report of the
violation to the presiding judge, appropriate authority, or other agency or body.
Judges should note that in addition to the action required by Canon 3D(2),
California law imposes additional mandatory reporting requirements to the State
Bar on judges regarding lawyer misconduct. See Business and Professions Code
sections 6086.7 and 6086.8, subdivision (a), and California Rules of Court, rules
10.609 and 10.1017.
Appropriate authority means the authority with responsibility for
initiation of the disciplinary process with respect to a violation to be reported.

(3) A judge shall promptly report in writing to the Commission on Judicial

Performance when he or she is charged in court by misdemeanor citation,
prosecutorial complaint, information, or indictment with any crime in the
United States as specified below. Crimes that must be reported are: (1) all
crimes, other than those that would be considered misdemeanors not involving
moral turpitude or infractions under California law; and (2) all misdemeanors
involving violence (including assaults), the use or possession of controlled
substances, the misuse of prescriptions, or the personal use or furnishing of
alcohol. A judge also shall promptly report in writing upon conviction of such
crimes.

rn
i

al

or
k

the parties to an appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the

judge of the obligation prescribed by Canon 3C(5).

if
o

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

If the judge is a retired judge serving in the Assigned Judges Program, he or

she shall promptly report such information in writing to the Chief Justice rather
than to the Commission on Judicial Performance. If the judge is a subordinate
21

et
w

(4) A judge shall cooperate with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies.

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canons 3D(3) and 3D(4)

See Government Code section 68725, which requires judges to cooperate
with and give reasonable assistance and information to the Commission on
Judicial Performance, and rule 104 of the Rules of the Commission on Judicial
Performance, which requires a respondent judge to cooperate with the
commission in all proceedings in accordance with section 68725.

(5) A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known*
or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a judge or
a lawyer.
E. Disqualification and Disclosure

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which

disqualification is required by law.*
(2) In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record as
follows:
(a) Information relevant to disqualification

Ju

A judge shall disclose information that is reasonably relevant to the

question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1,
even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.
(b) Campaign contributions in trial court elections

rn
i

al

or
k

judicial officer,* he or she shall promptly report such information in writing to

both the presiding judge of the court in which the subordinate judicial officer*
sits and the Commission on Judicial Performance.

if
o

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

(i) Information required to be disclosed

In any matter before a judge who is or was a candidate for judicial
office* in a trial court election, the judge shall disclose any
contribution or loan of $100 or more from a party, individual lawyer, or
law office or firm in that matter as required by this canon, even if the
amount of the contribution or loan would not require disqualification.
Such disclosure shall consist of the name of the contributor or lender,
the amount of each contribution or loan, the cumulative amount of the
22

May 2011

Search website

Speaking up about judicial misconduct

Top Headlines
Opinion

By Janice M. Brickley

From the President

Highly publicized corruption scandals involving government officials

Janice M. Brickley

provide fertile ground for Monday morning pundits. They can also be a

Letters to the Editor

catalyst for education and positive change. Such is the case with the kids

MCLE Self-Study

for cash judicial corruption scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. In

Attorney Discipline

an article published in the March Bar Journal, I discussed the

You Need to Know

Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Boards failure to follow through with a

Trials Digest
Public Comment

complaint concerning the judges involved in the scandal and what the California
Commission on Judicial Performance has done to ensure that its rules and procedures
are not susceptible to the failures that occurred in Pennsylvania. This article examines

Ethics Byte

the role of an attorney in exposing judicial corruption and abuse in the context of the

Contact Us

kids for cash scandal.

Marketplace
Archived Issues

Two former judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, were charged with
federal crimes based on their participation in a scheme to close down a county juvenile
detention facility and contract for the placement of juveniles with for-profit facilities in
exchange for a secret finders fee of $997,600. Juveniles were sent to the private
detention facilities by Ciavarella at the same time both judges were accepting payoffs
from the owner of the facilities. Conahan pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering
and in February, Ciavarella was convicted by jury of 12 felony counts, including
racketeering, conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy. Both men are awaiting
sentence.
The Report of the Pennsylvania Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, issued last
May, examines the circumstances that led to the kids for cash scandal, including the
role of attorneys who appeared regularly before Judge Ciavarella in juvenile court.
While these attorneys were not privy to Ciavarellas financial arrangement with the
owners of the detention facilities, they did know that Ciavarella had a zero-tolerance
policy that resulted in juveniles being sent to detention facilities in unprecedented
numbers. Under Ciavarellas zero-tolerance policy, juveniles were automatically sent to
out-of-home placement for certain offenses, such as fighting in school, without an
individual evaluation of the circumstances of the offense or the offender contrary to a
judges obligation to decide sentences on a case-by-case basis.
Attorneys who regularly appeared in Ciavarellas courtroom also knew that he routinely
adjudicated and sentenced juveniles who were unrepresented by counsel without
obtaining the required waiver of the right to counsel. In 2003, the statewide percentage
of juveniles who waived the right to counsel was 7.9 percent; in Ciaverellas courtroom
the attorney waiver rate was 50.2 percent. Similar gaps appear in the statistics
throughout Ciavarellas five-year reign in juvenile court.
A criminal prosecutor is not only an advocate but, as a representative of the sovereign,
has a duty to seek justice, which includes the responsibility of seeing that the defendant
is accorded procedural justice. (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79

Share

L.Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629]; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2010) 50
Cal.4th 35, 48.) Nowhere is this responsibility more important than in juvenile court.
Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Responsibility, prosecutors have an
ethical obligation to ensure that the accused has been advised of the right to counsel
and has been given the opportunity to obtain counsel. (See also American Bar
Association Model Code of Professional Conduct 3.8 (b) [a prosecutor shall make
reasonable efforts to assure the accused has been advised of the right to, and the
procedure for, obtaining counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain
counsel . . .].) Before accepting a waiver of the right to counsel from juvenile
defendants, Pennsylvanias Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure require a judge to
conduct on-the-record discussions or colloquies to ensure that the juveniles
understand the right they are giving up. (See also Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S.
806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562, 95 S.Ct. 2525]; Iowa v. Tovar (2004) 541 U.S. 77 [158 L.Ed.2d
209, 124 S.Ct. 1379].) Yet, prosecutors regularly witnessed Ciavarella deciding cases of
unrepresented juveniles without first engaging in the required colloquies but said
nothing. The Report of the Interbranch Commission concluded that the prosecutors
clearly abdicated their roles as ministers of justice and simply became passive observers
to the tragic injustices that were perpetrated against juvenile offenders.
Jonathan Ursiaks first assignment when he joined the public defenders office in 2007
was to represent juveniles in Ciavarellas court. On a regular basis, he observed
juveniles admitting to crimes and being sentenced without an attorney and without the
required advisements of rights by the judge and waivers from the juveniles. This was
not the only practice in Ciavarellas courtroom that troubled Ursiak proceedings were
abbreviated, psychological evaluation reports were not provided to him before the
hearing, juveniles were being sent to placement at an alarmingly high rate, the judges
zero-tolerance policy impeded the juveniles right to be heard, and, in general, the
public defender was not given an adequate opportunity to advocate for his clients.
When Ursiak reported his concerns to his supervisor, he was told the public defenders
office did not need more clients. Undeterred, Ursiak provided assistance to the Juvenile
Law Center of Philadelphia, which was investigating the suspected abuses in Luzerne
Countys juvenile court.
Ursiaks courage and persistence in reporting Ciavarellas improper practices should be
applauded. However, the silence of other attorneys who knew of the abuses in
Ciavarellas courtroom is disturbing. Had others reported the misconduct when it first
occurred, the abuses and corruption might have been abated years earlier saving
countless youthful offenders from a harsh and draconian fate suffered at Ciavarellas
hand.
According to the Interbranch Commissions report, no attorney practicing in Ciavarellas
courtroom ever filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, the
agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct. Young
prosecutors recognized the inherent unfairness of Ciavarellas practices, but did not
know what to do or to whom to turn for guidance. Many defense attorneys who
appeared before Ciavarella were equally derelict. Public defenders and private attorneys
routinely witnessed Ciavarella violate the rights of juveniles, including their own clients,
yet most took no action. The Interbranch Commission found that these attorneys
clearly abdicated their responsibility to zealously defend their clients and to protect
their due process rights. At a bare minimum, the commission concluded, they
should have contacted their supervisors in the Public Defenders Office and the local bar
associations or notified the appropriate judicial or attorney disciplinary organizations.
Many factors can deter an attorney from reporting judicial misconduct indifference,
fear of retaliation, inexperience, ignorance. During its investigation, the Interbranch
Commission found that some attorneys did not know how or where to report judicial

misconduct. The commission encouraged Pennsylvanias Judicial Conduct Board to

partner with the Pennsylvania Bar Association to create and implement programs to
educate attorneys and the public on the existence of the judicial disciplinary board and
on how to report judicial misconduct. The commission also recommended that the
Judicial Conduct Board revise and update its Website to provide clear, simple
directions for filing complaints. In California, the Commission on Judicial Performance
works with the State Bar to provide information concerning the process for reporting
judicial misconduct. The commissions website offers user-friendly instructions on how
to file a complaint of judicial misconduct, as well as information on what constitutes
judicial misconduct.
As tragically illustrated in the kids for cash scandal, those in the legal community
share a mutual responsibility to take action when faced with abuses of judicial
authority. Indifference and inaction hurts not only the individual targets of the
misconduct but the reputation and integrity of the bar and the judiciary.
Janice M. Brickley is Legal Advisor to Commissioners at the California Commission
on Judicial Performance.

Copyright 2015 The State Bar of California

Contact Us|
Archived Issues|
Notices|
Privacy Policy

Site Design by Duuplex

More

Next Blog

Create Blog
Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

Privacy Policy

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

14 January 2014

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Judge Thadd Blizzard Misconduct: Court Order Authorizes Unlawful Child

Abduction for Judge Pro Tem Attorney Richard Sokol

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(58)

Judge Thadd Blizzard Approves Illegal Out-of-State

Child Relocation for Temporary Judge Attorney
Richard Sokol - Opposing Attorney Stunned

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(31)

Tuesday Document Dump

ARTS & CULTURE

(21)

A leaked court reporter transcript

obtained by Sacramento Family
Court News reveals that Judge
Thadd Blizzardlast November
retroactively endorsed an unlawful outof-state "move away" and child
abduction at the request of local judge
pro tem attorney Richard Sokol.The
unprecedented ruling went against
San Francisco attorney Archibald
Cunningham, who the transcript
reflects was dumbfounded by the
decision.

PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)

The bizarre chain-of-events began

after Cunningham's client, Robert
Saunders, filed paperwork seeking
child visitation under an existing
temporary custody order. After the
San Francisco attorney and social justice advocate Archibald Cunningham was
visitation paperwork was lodged,
shockedwhen Judge Thadd Blizzard authorized an illegal child abduction for
Sokol's client, April Berger,
Sacramento Superior Court judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol.
abruptlymoved to Hawaii with the
parents' twin daughters without the permission of the court.

To continue reading, and to view the complete court reporter transcript, click Read more >> below...

Under state law, a parent may not take children and relocate out-of-state without court approval before the move,
especially under a temporary custody order. A parent seeking to relocate must by law first seek court approval
for the move, and "the noncustodial parent still has standing to oppose the relocation" in court, according to
California Practice Guide: Family Law, the gold standard family law legal reference used by judges and
attorneys. Without prior court approval, an out-of-state move away is considered criminal child abduction if it
maliciously "deprives a person of a right to visitation," according toPenal Code 278.5(a). The criminal statute
alsospecifies that the retroactive,after-the-fact orderissued by Blizzard for Sokol "does not constitute a
defense" to the crime.

JUDGE PRO TEM

(44)

MATTHEW J. GARY
(28)
FLEC
(26)

SCBA
(20)
CHILD CUSTODY
(19)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(17)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
CJP
(15)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)
SATIRE
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(10)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)

SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)

Cunningham's reaction to the outcome was similar to that of Stephen R. Gianelli, another San Francisco attorney
who previously was "hometowned" in Sacramento Family Court. Hometowning refers to local judges
givingpreferential treatment to select, local attorneys.Click herefor Gianelli's account of his experience as an
"outsider" attorney. Hometowning is consideredunethical and is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics,
according to retired judge David Rothman, author of the California Judicial Conduct Handbook. Sacramento
Family Court reform advocates have documented that judge pro tem attorneys often receive favorable treatment
when representing clients in court in exchange for operating the court's settlement conference program. Click here
for SFCN coverage of temporary judge controversies.

The transcript, case records, and a second transcript from a related, previous hearing also indicate that Blizzard
manipulated the proceedings through intentional misstatements and omissions of material fact in order to achieve
the outcome demanded by Sokol, conduct prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics. Family court watchdogs
assert that the collusion between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys deprives the public of the federally
protected right to honest government services, a racketeering crime under 18 USC 1346.

WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER

(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(7)

The Robert Saunders-April Berger case is one of fourSacramento County Family Court cases included in the
documentary film Divorce Corp, now playing in major U.S cities. The movie "exposes the corrupt and collusive
industry of family law in the United States," and portrays the Sacramento court system as the most corrupt in the
country. For our continuing coverage of the film, click here.

JULIE SETZER
(7)

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 the
document:

CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)

YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)

CIVIL RIGHTS
(4)
CONTEMPT
(4)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4)

LUAN CASE
(4)
THADD BLIZZARD
(4)

11-25-13SAUNDERS (2).txt

CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)

WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Share

Posted by
PR Brown
at
9:31 AM

of

Embed

13

Thurman Arnold Family

Law Blog
The Divorce Artist

+6 Recommend this on Google

Labels:
ANALYSIS,
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM,
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT,
CRIMINAL CONDUCT,
ELAINE VAN BEVEREN,
JUDICIAL

Above the Law

MISCONDUCT,
NEWS EXCLUSIVE,
RICHARD SOKOL,
ROBERT SAUNDERS,
THADD BLIZZARD

Location:
Sacramento Superior Court 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA William Ridgeway Family Relations
Courthouse

5 comments

LEGAL NEWS &

INFORMATION
California Lawyer Magazine

More

Next Blog

Create Blog
Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

Privacy Policy

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

15 September 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sworn Temporary Judge Divorce Attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van
Beveren Engage in Historical Revisionism - Part 1

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(58)

Judge Pro Tem Divorce Lawyer Richard Sokol Caught

on Transcript Making Demonstrably False Claim
About Illegal Arrest of Indigent, Disabled Litigant

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(31)

The Historical Revisionism of Sworn Temporary Judges Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren - Part 1
A Special News and Analysis Series by Pelican Briefed

ARTS & CULTURE

(21)

JUDGE PRO TEM

(44)

MATTHEW J. GARY
(28)
FLEC
(26)

PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
One form of historical revisionism is
the illigitmate distortion of the historical
record such that certain events appear
in a more or less favorable light,
according to Wikipedia. The distortion
of history to deny historical crimes is
sometimes called negationism.
Historical revisionism is often
associated with after-the-fact
justifications for, or denial of war
crimes, such as the Holocaust and the
Armenian Genocide. Some countries
have laws making it a crime to
disseminate revisionist material, such
as Holocaust denial propaganda.
Revisionist tactics include deception,
denial and trivialization.

A court reporter transcript obtained by Sacramento Family Court News shows that the same tactics have recently
been used in Sacramento Family Court by judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van
Beveren.Van Beveren currently also is an officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law
Executive Committee. The transcript records Sokol and Van Beveren disseminating subtle and overt falsehoods,
deceptions, denials and trivializations about the unlawful 2009 assault and arrest of indigent, disabled litigant and
family court watchdogRobert Saunders,in the courtroom ofJudge Matthew Gary. Both Sokol and Van Beveren
were eyewitnesses to the incident. In April, 2012 SFCN published an in-depth, investigative report on the debacle
and subsequent events, including the vindication of Saunders by two outside, independent judges.Click here to
read our report.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below...

SCBA
(20)
CHILD CUSTODY
(19)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(17)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
CJP
(15)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)
SATIRE
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(10)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)

The vindication, however, implicated both Van Beveren and Sokol for failing to report or otherwise take corrective
action for Gary's misconduct. As sworn temporary judges, the two attorneys are bound by Canon 3D(1) of the

NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)

Code of Judicial Ethics - the ethical rules for judges -which requires them to "take or initiateappropriate
corrective action" when they know of misconduct by another judge. The rule is a critical, self-policing
component of the Code, intended to keep judge misconduct in check. Both Van Beveren and Sokol witnessed
Gary's misconduct, and both got away with doing nothing, a violation of Canon 3D(1). Now, four years later, recent
proceedings in the case suggest that the judge pro tem attorneys are attempting to cover up their own prior
misconduct and discredit the victim of Gary's actions by rewriting the history of the case. Their strategy involves
influencing the current judge assigned to the case through the use of false statements and omissions of material
facts about the original incident, and other unethical tactics. The case was, and continues to be a definitive
example of rampant family court corruption and the cronyism between private sector attorneys who also hold the
office of temporary judgeand are contracted to run the court's settlement conference program,and full-time
Sacramento County Superior Court judges, according to family court reform advocates.

SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER

(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(7)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(4)
CONTEMPT
(4)

Richard Sokol of the family law firm Sokol & Bristow LLP was recorded on transcript making a number of demonstrably false statements,
including this one, about the 2009 assault and arrest of Robert Saunders by Judge Matthew Gary and courtroom bailiff J. Strong. Judge
Thadd Blizzard has yet to report Sokol's misconductas required by Canon 3D(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics.

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
THADD BLIZZARD
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)

In the first installment of this series, SCBA Family Law Section attorney and judge pro tem Richard Sokol is
caught on transcript making the demonstrably false claim that Gary didnt have [Saunders] arrested; he had
him taken from court. Sokols claim is contradicted by court records, including the arrest report of Garys
courtroom bailiff and Sacramento County Sheriffs Department Deputy J. Strong.
J. Strong #423 was ordered by Judge Matthew J. Garyto take Robert Saunders into custody
for contempt of court. Deputy Strong advised [Saunders] that he was under arrest, reads the
police report.
The court reporter transcript with Sokols falsehood, along with the report of Deputy Strong are posted below. Under
state attorney ethics law, including Business & Professions Code section 6106, Sokols affirmative
misrepresentation is an act of moral turpitude and constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law. Virtuallyany form of attorney dishonesty or deception, including a half-truth, or the omission of
material facts, is the equivalent of an outright lie, according to the State Bar. For other State Bar references
defining and prescribing the punishment for Sokol's misleading statement, visit the SFCN Attorney Misconduct
page. Click here. Sokol made several additional demonstrably false statements at the same court hearing. Click
here to view other articles in this series.

WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs

For additional reporting about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the
document.

Thurman Arnold Family

Law Blog
The Divorce Artist

J. Richard Sokol Moral Turpitude False Statement in Court - Sokol by Sacramento Family Court News

Above the Law

LEGAL NEWS &

INFORMATION
California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

SUPERIOR

IN AND

COURT

FOR THE

O F CALIFORNIA
OF SACRAME

COUNTY

Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes
Unpublished Case Law

- - - ooo - - -

California Statutes

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
California Courts YouTube
Page
Judicial Council
SHOW ME MORE LIKE DIVORCE ATTORNEY J. RICHARD SOKOL MORAL
Share

Embed

of

Posted by
PelicanBriefed
at
5:47 PM

Commission on Judicial
Performance
Sacramento County Family
Court
3rd District Court of Appeal

+1 Recommend this on Google

Labels:
ANALYSIS,
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT,
ELAINE VAN BEVEREN,
FLEC,
JUDGE PRO TEM,
MATTHEW J. GARY,
NEWS,

REVISIONISM SERIES,
RICHARD SOKOL,
ROBERT SAUNDERS,
SCBA,
THADD BLIZZARD

Location:
William Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

State Bar of California

State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar
Association

1 comment

Add a comment

Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may
be gender-specific)
ABA Family Law Blawg
Directory
California Coalition for
Families & Children

Top comments

California Protective
Parents Association
Shelby Livingston 5 months ago (edited) - Shared publicly
A determination of child support depends on a variety of factors including: the income of
each spouse and the amount of time the children spend with each parent. We always need
to work to ensure that we receive a fair and accurate result.
Adelman Legal Divorce Attorneys -http://adelmanlegal.com/family-law

1 Reply

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
Fathers 4 Justice

More

Next Blog

Create Blog
Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
HOME

TEMPORARY JUDGE CONTROVERSY

TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE
ABOUT SFCN

3rd DISTRICT COA CONTROVERSY

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

SOURCE MATERIAL ARCHIVE

Terms & Conditions

RoadDog SATIRE

Privacy Policy

24 April 2012

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Hon. Matthew J. Gary Abuse of Authority: Code of Judicial Ethics and State
Law Violations - Ordered Removed From Family Court Case by Fellow Judge
for Misconduct, Bias & Abuse of Unrepresented Litigant

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(72)

Family Court Judge Matthew J. Gary Disqualified

From Case for Bias and Unlawful Arrest of Pro Per

Sacramento Family Court News

Exclusive:
[Updated below]

JUDGE PRO TEM

(51)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(37)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(34)
KICKBACKS
(33)
FLEC
(28)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(26)
ARTS & CULTURE
(23)

Internal court records obtained by Sacramento

Family Court news reveal that a San Joaquin
County judge in 2010 issued a court order
removingJudge Matthew Gary from a
Sacramento Family Court case for misconduct
and bias against a disabled, unrepresented
litigant.

Although Gary contested the removal action and

denied the bias and misconduct charges, after
reviewing the evidenceSan Joaquin County
Superior Court Judge Xapuri B.
Villapuduarejected Gary's version of events
and ordered the controversial judge disqualified
from any further proceedings in the case.

The motion to recuse, or remove, Gary from the

case was filed by pro per Robert Saunders. In
Judge Matthew J. Gary, Sacramento CountySuperior Court.A fellow judge
accordance with state law, the motion was heard
orderedGary removed from the RobertSaunderscase for abuse of the
unrepresented litigant and misuse of contempt law.
and decided by a neutral, outside-the-county
judge. At the time the motion was
filed,California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George assigned Villapudua to decide the case. In her
ruling rejecting Gary's denial and removing the judge from the case, Villapudua made it clear which of the
conflicting stories was believable.

CHILD CUSTODY
(23)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(22)
SCBA
(22)
CJP
(21)
JAMES M. MIZE
(21)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(19)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(19)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
PRO PERS
(18)
DIVORCE CORP
(17)
DOCUMENTS
(17)
PAULA SALINGER
(15)
ROBERT HIGHT
(14)

"Based on the evidence submitted the court does find that a reasonable person might
entertain a doubt that Judge Matthew J. Gary would be able to be impartial. Three separate
witnesses stated Judge Gary was impatient and rude to [Saunders]. Three separate witnesses
declared the judge appeared biased during the hearing, making snide or rude comments to
[Saunders].

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR
COURT
(13)

From the sworn declarations submitted it appears Judge Gary became embroiled during the

APPEALS
(11)

CARLSSON CASE
(12)
RAPTON-KARRES
(12)

hearing on March 9, 2009. Judge Gary appeared to lose his patience with [Saunders]. He did
not adhere to the proper procedure for contempt and had [Saunders] arrested and forcibly
removed from his courtroom by multiple bailiffs," Villapudua wrote in the court order ending
Gary's jurisdiction over the case. Click here to view the order.
Villapudua's assessment of Gary's credibility and the unlawful arrest and incarceration of Saunders for contempt of
court was reaffirmed by a second judge who, at a subsequent court hearing in Sacramento County Superior
Court, dismissed a resisting arrest charge against Saunders from the same incident. Evidence in the criminal
case included a video recording of the debacle, according to thearrest reportof a courtroom bailiff.

In addition, the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident was witnessed by judge pro tem attorneys
Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren, both of whom failed to interveneas required by the Code of Judicial
Ethics. Gary currently is the Supervising Family Law, Probate and ADA Judge.
To continue reading, click Read more>> below...

"Gary Became Embroiled...Did Not Adhere To Proper

Procedure For Contempt"

COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER

(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
FERRIS CASE
(9)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
ROBERT O'HAIR
(8)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(7)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
MATTHEW HERNANDEZ
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)

Assigned to the case by the California Supreme Court Chief Justice, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Xapuri Villapudua ordered
Judge Matthew Gary disqualified to hear further proceedings in the Robert Saunders case.

In his motion to disqualify Gary from the case, Saunders asserted that the judge was rude, impatient, and abused
his authority by having him arrested and dragged from the courtroom. As Villapudua's order reflects, Saunders'
claims were supported by the sworn testimony of three separate eyewitnesses who confirmed Saunders' account
of the incident. The witnesses also testified that Gary m ade snide or rude comments directed at Saunders, and
appeared biased during the hearing.

In his defense, Gary submitted to the San Joaquin County judge a one-sentence answer denying the charges
made by Saunders."I deny the allegations stated in Respondent's Challenge," Gary stated under penalty of
perjury. Click here to view Gary's denial. To view the minute order issued by Gary after the hearing in which he
charged Saunders with contempt of court, click here.

Second Independent Judge Vindicates Saunders

CONTEMPT
(5)
MIKE NEWDOW
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
MALPRACTICE
(4)
THOMAS M. CECIL
(4)
CHILD ABDUCTION
(3)

Judge Villapudua issued her order banning Gary from the Saunders case on January 7, 2010. Five months later, a
second judge with no connection to family court dismissed the resisting arrest charge filed against Saunders by
Gary's courtroom bailiff and Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Deputy J. Strong.

VANCE W. RAYE
(3)

The dismissal of the criminal case by former prosecutor and veteran Sacramento County criminal courtJudge
Richard Gilmour infers that the video recording of the incident also supported Saunders' contention that both
the contempt and resisting arrest charges were baseless and motivated by Gary's temper, embroilment and abuse
of authority.

RACKETEERING
(2)

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
(3)

WE SUPPORT

UPDATE: A government whistleblower has leaked the courtroom security video of the illegal arrest and assault
of Robert Saunders. Click here.

Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition

Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
The resisting arrest charge filed by Judge Matthew Gary's courtroom bailiff J. Strong against Robert Saunders was dismissed by Judge
Richard Gilmour on May 10, 2010.

Judge Pro Tem Eyewitnesses Fail To Intervene

The unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident was witnessed by attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine
Van Beveren. Both attorneys are Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judges. Judge pro tem
attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they witness another judge violate the law or
any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics. Canon 3D(1), an important self-policing component of the Code,
mandates the intervention to maintain public confidence in the courts and ensure that judge misconduct is kept in
check.

As confirmed by two independent judges, Gary's actions were clear violations of several sections of the ethics
code, but court records and other eyewitness accounts indicate that neither Sokol, nor Van Beveren complied with
the misconduct reporting requirement. Click here to view an internal Judicial Council of California memo about
the legal duty. In addition, courtroom clerk Christina Arcuri had a legal and ethical duty to report the
misconduct by the judge, but took no action.

In a different case last year Judge Matthew Gary suffered a full reversal by theThird District Court of Appeal.
As in the Saunders case, inSeaton v. SeatonGary also did not follow established law. After conducting his own
investigation and forensic analysis on a 20-year-old marriage certificate signature, Garyconcluded thatthe
signature was not made by an extremely intoxicated person, as Patricia Seaton had claimed. The judge then
nullified a 17-year marriage so that Patricia would be deprived of all property, support and other rights associated
with a lawful marriage. The appellate courtreversed Gary's decision, noting that the issues Gary had with Patricia's
credibility were irrelevant to determining whether the marriage was valid.

Law Professor Blogs

Thurman Arnold Family
Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS &

INFORMATION
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes
Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes

Both Gary and Villapudua were appointed to the bench in June, 2007 byGovernor ArnoldSchwarzenegger.
Judge Gary is paid $169,289 per year.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH

Gary Receives "Poster Child of

the Month" Award from Family
Court Advocacy Group

California Courts
Homepage
California Courts YouTube
Page

For his deference to attorneys, and mismanagement ofSacramento

County Family Court, Gary received a "Poster Child of the Month
Award" from theFamily Court Accountability Coalition, a
statewide family court watchdog group.

Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial
Performance

Gary received the honor for "serial due process, equal protection
and access to the courts violations," according to theFCAC Blog.

Sacramento County Family

Court

"Anecdotal evidence suggests that the current presiding

judge,Matthew J. Garyis a right-wing, anti-government
ideologue who believes government is dysfunctional and is
determined to prove it...while collecting a $170,000 annual
salary from the state."
FCACalso cited a 2007,Sacramento Lawyermagazine interview
with Gary:

3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California
San Joaquin County Superior Court
Judge Xapuri B. Villapudua

"Gary characterizes his legal philosophy as favoring judicial restraint. Among the U.S. Supreme Court
justices who he admires are Antonin Scalia..."
UPDATE:Family Law Courts.com askswhether Family Court bailiffs are enforcing the law or acting as judicial
puppets.

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar
Association

Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may

be gender-specific)
Related Content:
* Controversial Judge Matthew Gary Removed from Supervisory Position

California Coalition for

Families and Children

* Matt Gary Disqualification Records & Update

* Supervising Judge Matt Gary Warns Family Court Problems Will Get Worse
* Judge Matthew Gary Reversed by 3rd District Court of Appeal for Improper Investigation, Forensic
Analysis

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:

Posted by
PR Brown
at
9:16 PM

ABA Family Law Blawg

Directory

California Protective
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News

+7 Recommend this on Google

Labels:
CHILD CUSTODY,
CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS,
CONTEMPT,
ELAINE VAN BEVEREN,
JUDGE PRO TEM,
JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT,
KICKBACKS,
MATTHEW J. GARY,
NEWS,
NO CONTACT ORDERS,
PRO PERS,
RICHARD SOKOL,
ROBERT SAUNDERS

Location:
Sacramento County Superior Court - Family Court Sacramento - William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse,
3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from
FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com

4 comments

Family Law Updates at

JDSupra Law News
Add a comment

Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce

Top comments

News and Views Riverside

Superior Court
Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 2 years ago - Shared publicly
Underdog wins one. Disabled, unrepresented and financially disadvantaged family court
litigant Robert Saunders wins disqualification order against Sacramento Family Court Judge
Matthew J. Gary. San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Xapuri B. Villapudua orders
Gary removed from Saunders' case for having him arrested and dragged from the
courtroom by multiple bailiffs. An extremely rare victory for a pro per, who, as a group,

+2

Weightier Matter

Total Pageviews

190289

1 Reply

183

Hon. Matthew J. Gary - Sacramento County Superior Court

via Google+
1 year ago - Shared publicly

Judge Matthew Gary order removed from case by outside, independent judge for abuse of
authority, including illegal arrest of disabled, unrepresented litigant. Witnesses judge pro
tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren fail to intervene as required by Code
of Judicial Ethics. A second, independent judge dismissed a resisting arrest charge also
filed against the indigent pro per.

Google+ Badge

PR Brown
Follow

1 Reply

Labels
jeremy fortik 1 year ago - Shared publicly
I have Judge Matthew Gary. It has been a horrendous experience. He seems to be
ambivalent to the best interest of children. I can't believe he's a judge actually just based on
his lack of any common sense. Please contact me at april_risse@yahoo.com if you would
like to together come up with a solution to get him permanently removed from this very
important position. Thanks, April

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT

COA
(6)
AB

1102
(1)
AB 590

(1)
ABA JOURNAL
(1)
ABOVE THE

LAW

(1)

ADA

ADMINISTRATORS

(11)
(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

More

Next Blog

Create Blog
Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

Privacy Policy

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

17 April 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Hon. Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Rewrites California Vexatious Litigant

Law for Judge Pro Tem Divorce Lawyer Charlotte Keeley

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(67)

Judge Jaime Roman Misstates Law, Uses Overruled

Case to Justify Vexatious Litigant and Other Orders
Without Court Hearing

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed

MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
ARTS & CULTURE
(23)

The Sacramento Family Court Newsanalysis

teamhas been working overtime scrutinizingand
trying to make sense of a controversial20-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.

CHILD CUSTODY
(22)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(22)
SCBA
(22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)

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.

JUDGE PRO TEM

(50)

WATCHDOGS
(20)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(15)
Judge Jaime R. Roman denied a family courtlitigant the right
to a court hearing and oraltestimony - fundamental components
of the right to dueprocess of law.

JAMES M. MIZE
(15)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)

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.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11)

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

SATIRE
(11)

Off-the-Rails at Conjunction Junction

RAPTON-KARRES
(11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER


(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)
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), inconjunctionwith 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 Saundersastutely 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 litigantandissue a
$2,500 sanctions assessment and 13 additional orders against the same party - all without a court hearing and oral
argument. ButJudge 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
inlegitimatelaw by misstating and misapplying Code of Civil Procedure 2009,Family Code 210, and217,
andCalifornia Rules of Court rules 3.1306 and 5.21.The perplexing rationale Roman cobbled together from
parts of each is preempted and effectivelynullified by the vexatious litigant statute and decisional law,
according to the Guide.

Court watchdogs and whistleblowerscharge that Judge Roman's prejudgment, unlawfully vacated hearing and
erroneous statement of decision are more examples of Chris Volkers, Julie Setzer and other
courtadministratorsfailing to adequatelytrain, 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 andsupervisioncan be tragic. Unrepresented litigant

CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)

WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware

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

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.

The Disappearing Hearing

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.

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes
Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes

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.

California Lawyer Magazine

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
Family law attorney and Judge Pro Tem Charlotte L. Keeleydemanded and got
from Judge Jaime R. Roman a court order designating Andrew Karres a
vexatious litigant.

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 Malfunction
The 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 litigantbegins with the
law itself.California's vexatious litigant law is codified at Code of Civil Procedure391-391.8. 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 caseBravo 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

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar
Association

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
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from
FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at
JDSupra Law News

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.

Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside
Superior Court

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..."

Weightier Matter

CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas

Notably absent from the justification is

any reference to the Bravo line of cases,
Judge Jaime R. Roman conjoined statutory law, court rulesand overruled
the notice and hearing requirements of
decisionallawtorewrite vexatious litigantprocedurein California.
the vexatious litigant statute, and the
instruction of the California Practice Guides, all of which contradictRoman'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 20page 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.

PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog

Total Pageviews

149961
158

Google+ Badge

PR Brown
Follow

The same should be said about the unnecessary appeal and federal litigation against the government compelled by
Judge Roman's order.

Related articles:

Labels
Click here for our complete coverage of the Rapton-Karres case.
Click here for our reporting on Judge Jaime R. Roman.

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT

Click here for coverage of judicial misconduct.

COA
(6)
AB

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:

(1)

+6 Recommend this on Google

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

JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

(1)

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

(1)

ANALYSIS
(36)

FURILLO

Posted by
PelicanBriefed
at
9:57 PM

1102
(1)
AB 590

ABA

(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