Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
rn
i
al
et
w
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
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
Ju
rn
i
al
or
k
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
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
(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
Ju
rn
i
al
or
k
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
May 2011
Search website
Top Headlines
Opinion
By Janice M. Brickley
Janice M. Brickley
provide fertile ground for Monday morning pundits. They can also be a
catalyst for education and positive change. Such is the case with the kids
MCLE Self-Study
Attorney Discipline
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
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
Contact Us|
Archived Issues|
Notices|
Privacy Policy
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
14 January 2014
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(58)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(31)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
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.
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
Posted by
PR Brown
at
9:31 AM
of
Embed
13
Labels:
ANALYSIS,
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM,
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT,
CRIMINAL CONDUCT,
ELAINE VAN BEVEREN,
JUDICIAL
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
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
RoadDog SATIRE
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)
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
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.
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.
(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
For additional reporting about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the
document.
J. Richard Sokol Moral Turpitude False Statement in Court - Sokol by Sacramento Family Court News
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
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
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
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE
ABOUT SFCN
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
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)
(37)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(34)
KICKBACKS
(33)
FLEC
(28)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(26)
ARTS & CULTURE
(23)
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...
(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.
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
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.
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
California Courts
Homepage
California Courts YouTube
Page
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.
"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.
Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may
be gender-specific)
Related Content:
* Controversial Judge Matthew Gary Removed from Supervisory Position
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
California Protective
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
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
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
Top comments
+2
Weightier Matter
Total Pageviews
190289
1 Reply
183
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
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
17 April 2013
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(67)
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)
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)
SATIRE
(11)
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
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.
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
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
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside
Superior Court
Weightier Matter
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
Judge 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
COA
(6)
AB
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)
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)
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