26 December 2024

Court Appointed Experts: Family Court Services, Custody Evaluators, Visitation Supervisors, Parenting Counselors & More

 Divorce Corp Chapter 5: Checks Without Balances

"[F]amily courts have attracted enough friends to make Facebook blush, and they all have one thing in common: money. There are visitation supervisors, custody evaluators, court reporters, anger management counselors, parenting counselors, judges pro tem (temporary judges), rent-a-judges, appraisers, income consultants (for computing what parent 'should' be making) and above all, psychologists."

"[The attorney] at one point asked the judge to ban [the parent] from accessing public records in the court's own records department, presumably because of her success in digging up so many conflicts of interest."

"When you look at the records, you find that law firms that give the most money to judges win most of the time."

 

 Divorce Corp, by Joseph Sorge, with James Scurlock.

04 December 2024

Attorney Misconduct: Concealment, Omission of Facts, Half-Truths the Same as a Lie Under California State Law

 Attorneys are prohibited from engaging in misleading and deceptive acts, including concealment of material facts, false statements, and half-truths. In the Matter of Chesnut, 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.166.

"Respondent's argument is that a misrepresentation to a court is not material unless it sucessfully misleads the court is contrary to the express wording of Business and Professions Code section 6068 subdivision (d), which provides that it is the duty of an attorney to never seek to mislead a judge by a false statement of fact or law. 

"The conduct denounced by this statute is not the act of an attorney by which he successfully misleads the court, but the presentation of a statement of fact, known by him to be false, which tends to do so. It is the endeavor to secure an advantage by means of falsity which is denounced. Whether respondent violated section 6068, subdivision ( d) depends first upon whether his representation to the court was in fact untrue, and second, whether he knew that his statement was false and he intended thereby to deceive the court. 

"With regard to whether respondent intended to deceive the court, the presentation to a court of a statement of fact known to be false presumes an intent to secure a determination based upon it and is a clear violation of section 6068, subdivision (d). 

"Respondent's statements to the two courts were in fact untrue and he knew they were untrue. Thus, it is presumed that the statements were made with an intent to secure an advantage. No credible evidence rebutted this presumption."

California Supreme Court Responsible for Attorney Oversight and Accountability

 California Attorney Misconduct and Malpractice: Laws, Rules, Ethics, and Moral Turpitude.

19 November 2024

Court of Appeal Judges Ignore Misuse of Vexatious Litigant Law by Divorce Lawyers, Violate Code of Judicial Ethics

6th District Court of Appeal justices Daniel Bromberg, Charles Wilson, Cynthia Lie, Allison Danner, Adrienne Grover, Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian and Mary Greenwood violate canon 3D(2) of California Code of Judicial Ethics.  

Attorney misuse of vexatious litigant law against family court litigants who can't afford a lawyer when going through a divorce.



16 July 2024

Cops, Lawyers and the First Amendment - Alameda County Divorce Attorney Dominick Perrino Obtains Vexatious Litigant Order Against Pro Per

 

Vexatious Litigant Law Misuse Against Involuntarily Self-Represented Mother by Alameda County Judge Somnath Raj Chatterjee and Attorney Dominic Perrino Alleged

 

Sacramento Family Court Report Long-Form Investigative Reports

15 July 2024

Sacramento Family Court Report Archives: Judge Jaime Roman, the Judge Pro Tem, and the Vexatious Litigant

California 3rd District Court of Appeal – Sacramento Justice Vance W. Raye – Justice Jonathan K. Renner - Justice Coleman A. Blease – Justice Ronald B. Robie – Justice William J. Murray Jr. – Justice George W. Nicolson – Justice M. Kathleen Butz – Justice Elena J. Duarte – Justice Harry E. Hull Jr. – Justice Louis R. Mauro – Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch – Justice Jonathan K. Renner Third District Court of Appeal California - California Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria B. Henley Chief Council - CJP Chairperson Anthony P. Capozzi, Vice-Chairperson Justice Ignazio J. Ruvolo 1st District Court of Appeal California
Controversial divorce attorney and part-time Sacramento Superior Court judge Charlotte Keeley (R) leaves a family court hearing with client Katina Rapton. Keeley works as a volunteer judge in the same court.  

Judge Jaime Roman Controversy: Issues Vexatious Litigant Order Against Opposing Party for Part-Time Judge Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley Without Holding Required Court Hearing


Originally Published April 17, 2013

News Analysis & Opinion

The Sacramento Family Court News analysis team has been working overtime scrutinizing and trying to make sense of a controversial 20-page statement of decision issued on Nov. 14 of last year by Supervising Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman. Click here for our initial report from 2012.

Roman's decision is now being challenged in both the Third District Court of Appeal, and in a federal class action lawsuit filed March 22 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. It is certain that taxpayers will get a substantial bill for each case.

Court watchdogs contend Roman's order exemplifies the overt lawlessness that occurs weekly in family court, and the preferential treatment that full-time judges provide for-profit attorneys who also serve as temporary judges

The unprecedented ruling - which was made-to-order for Judge Pro Tem attorney Charlotte Keeley - rewrites California vexatious litigant law and procedure. Watchdogs hold Judge Roman responsible for putting taxpayers on the financial hook for the costs of yet another unnecessary appeal from family court, and the federal litigation.

In another pointless appeal caused by judicial misconduct, Judge Matthew J. Gary unsuccessfully attempted a similar rewrite of putative spouse law and in 2011 was reversed in full by the Third District Court of Appeal. Our analysis indicates that Judge Roman's order likely is headed for the same fate. 

Off-the-Rails at Conjunction Junction

t

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:

11 July 2024

Attorney Misconduct: Moral Turpitude, Dishonesty, Fraud, Corruption, or Concealment - California State Bar

Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California Rule 2.7

"Disbarment or actual suspension is appropriate for an act of moral turpitude, dishonesty, fraud, corruption, or concealment of a material fact." 

Moral Turpitude: California... by California Judicial Branch ...


Sacramento Family Court Report Long-Form Investigative Reports

01 July 2024

Attorney Misconduct: Mortal Turpitude Explained and Defined by County Bar Association

"The State Bar Review Department held in In the Matter of Moriarty, 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 9 (Review Dept. 1999): 'gross negligence is a well-established basis for finding an act of moral turpitude.'" 

Moral Turpitude - Los Angel... by California Judicial Branch ...

Sacramento Family Court Report Long-Form Investigative Reports