Groundbreaking Documentary Film Exposing Corrupt and Collusive Family Law Industry To Include Sacramento Family Court Case

Divorce Corp Documentary Film Nationwide Search for Corrupt Family Court Cases Hits Paydirt in Sacramento County 

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT NEWS EXCLUSIVE

Divorce Corp, a scathing, full-length documentary film about family court corruption produced by Joseph Sorge and Candor Entertainment reportedly will include a Sacramento Family Court case study. The film "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States," according to a plot summary posted at the Independent Movie Database. Sorge's production team conducted a nationwide search for the most egregious family court cases and apparently found what they were looking for in Sacramento County Family Court. A local case will be prominently featured in the movie, according to a person with direct knowledge of the project but not authorized to speak on the record. According to the storyline posted at IMDb: 

Divorce Corp exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States. While the system is intended to effect marital dissolution, it instead escalates and prolongs the conflict. Judges tout 'the best interests of the child standard' as their rationale for using children to extort families with limited assets to feed an increasingly voracious corps of lawyers and experts. The tabloids are full of epic divorce battles of the ultra wealthy, but the middle class are truly the grist for the mill. Divorce, now cited as the number four cause of bankruptcy in the US, has become a $50 billion a year industry that often destroys family ties in its wake. 

Movie release date and more, click Read More >> below to continue reading. 

Sacramento Family Court Administrators Julie Setzer, Colleen McDonagh and Denise Richards Responsible For New Serial State Law Violations

War on the Poor: Family Court Clerks Systemically Violate State Law, Court Rules - Defective, Worthless Fee Waiver Orders Block Court Access

This fee waiver order filed by Department 121 courtroom clerk Christina Arcuri and signed by Judge Matthew J. Gary is useless. Incomplete, defective orders like this are refused by courthouse public counter filing clerks and the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Civil Division. Click here to view the full-size order. Click here to view the specific defects in the order. Click here to view a complete, valid fee waiver order issued to the same person by a clerk at the Carol Miller Justice Center courthouse in Sacramento.

A Sacramento Family Court News audit of family court cases reveals that court clerks are issuing incomplete, defective fee waiver orders which contain substantive errors rendering the orders useless. Under California law, indigent and low income litigants are entitled to a waiver of court filing fees. Certain family court filings - including domestic violence and contempt actions - require proof of personal service and the fee waiver also entitles poor litigants to have papers served by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Civil Division. The fee waiver procedure is specified by California Rules of Court rules 3.50 - 3.58 and the process is standardized throughout the state. But a comparison of orders issued in other courts with those issued by Sacramento Family Court clerks shows the family court orders consistently are not in compliance with state law. Family court clerks issue incomplete orders that often result in a Catch-22 situation: When a litigant later attempts to use the defective fee waiver order to file documents the order is refused by public counter filing clerks for being incomplete. The orders also are rejected as defective when a litigant attempts to have documents served by the Sheriff's Civil Division. In addition, in all of the cases reviewed by SFCN, the orders also omitted mandatory Judicial Council form FW-010 - an entire page of the order required by state court rule 3.52(4). 

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

Judge Pro Tem Family Law Attorney Charlotte Keeley, Peter J. McBrien and Jaime R. Roman et al., vs. Sharon Huddle

Judge Jaime R. Roman Vexatious Litigant Order for Attorney Charlotte Keeley Shows Judge Pro Tem Monopoly - Unfair Competition at Work  

Roseville-based family law attorney Sharon Huddle may have been blacklisted by Sacramento County Family Court judges 
for her role in the notorious Carlsson case and the related Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings 
against troubled Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter J. McBrien. 

News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed
For Roseville family law attorney Sharon Huddle, the Sacramento Family Court proceedings surrounding issuance of a controversial order blacklisting her client Andrew Karres as a vexatious litigant may be déjà vu all over again. Throughout the 20-page order, written by Judge Jaime R. Roman, Huddle and her client are demeaned, disparaged and ridiculed. The opposing attorney - Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley - and her client, Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton, are portrayed by Roman in the patently unlawful order as victims. For our complete coverage of the vexatious litigant order and the Rapton-Karres case, click here. Huddle was subjected to similar treatment by Judge Peter J. McBrien during a family court trial in March, 2006. McBrien's treatment of Huddle was later recounted by eyewitness and court reporter Robbi Joy in sworn testimony before the Commission on Judicial Performance, where the rogue judge received his second round of discipline by the CJP. The transcript of Joy's testimony - obtained exclusively and published for the first time by Sacramento Family Court News - provides still more explicit evidence of the preferential treatment given by judges to the cartel of local family law attorneys who also serve as temporary judges. The transcript and other records from the McBrien CJP proceedings also provide a troubling point of reference indicating that the unlawful, interdependent relationship between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys dates back at least seven years and is now all but institutionalized. 

To read the sworn testimony of Robbi Joy and an incriminating admission by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Denise deBellefeuille, click Read more >> below. 

Hon. Jaime R. Roman Rewrites California Vexatious Litigant Procedure for Judge Pro Tem Attorney Charlotte Keeley

Judge Jaime Roman Misstates Law, Uses Overruled Case to Justify Vexatious Litigant and Other Orders Without Court Hearing 

Judge Jaime R. Roman denied a family court litigant the right 
to a court hearing and oral testimony - fundamental components 
of the right to due process of law. 

News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed
The Sacramento Family Court News analysis team has been working overtime scrutinizing and trying to make sense of a controversial 20-page statement of decision issued on Nov. 14 of last year by Supervising Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman. Click here for our initial report from 2012. Roman's decision is now being challenged in both the Third District Court of Appeal, and in a federal class action lawsuit filed March 22 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. It is certain that taxpayers will get a substantial bill for each case. Court watchdogs contend Roman's order exemplifies the overt lawlessness that occurs weekly in family court, and the preferential treatment that full-time judges provide for-profit attorneys who also serve as temporary judges. The unprecedented ruling -  which was made-to-order for Judge Pro Tem attorney Charlotte Keeley - rewrites California vexatious litigant law and procedure. Watchdogs hold Judge Roman responsible for putting taxpayers on the financial hook for the costs of yet another unnecessary appeal from family court, and the federal litigation. In another pointless appeal caused by judicial misconduct, Judge Matthew J. Gary unsuccessfully attempted a similar rewrite of putative spouse law and in 2011 was reversed in full by the Third District Court of Appeal. Our analysis indicates that Judge Roman's order likely is headed for the same fate. 

To continue reading, click Read more >> below.

Hon. Jaime R. Roman Implicated in Federal Class Action Lawsuit for Misuse of Vexatious Litigant Law

Controversial Order for Judge Pro Tem Attorney Charlotte Keeley by Judge Jaime Roman Challenged in Federal Class Action Lawsuit

Taxpayers Face Financial Liability

A vexatious litigant court order issued by Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman for Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley is being challenged in this federal court lawsuit.

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT NEWS EXCLUSIVE

A November, 2012 court order designating a Sacramento Family Court party as a vexatious litigant is being challenged in a landmark federal class action lawsuit filed yesterday in United States District Court in San Francisco. The controversial order was issued by family court Judge Jaime Roman at the request of temporary judge and veteran family law attorney Charlotte Keeley in a case with a long-running child custody dispute between Andrew Karres and Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton. The order blacklisted [pdf] Karres as a vexatious litigant [pdf] and raised eyebrows in the legal community because Roman issued the ruling without providing Karres the court hearing required under state law and the due process provisions of the state and federal Constitutions. The vexatious litigant designation severely restricts a litigants access to the courts by requiring them to get pre-approval from a presiding judge before they are permitted to file pleadings in any court in the state. Sacramento Family Court News in Nov. 2012 reported exclusively on Judge Roman's unorthodox order, which also is pending review by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. Taxpayers likely will now get two substantial bills in connection with the Keeley-Roman ruling. The state court appeal will cost the public between $8,500 and $25,500, according to recent appellate court decisions. The public cost of defending the federal case could be significantly higher. For several years, court watchdogs and whistleblowers have asserted that full-time judges give preferential treatment to judge pro tem attorneys. They charge that the Rapton-Karres case is one of several cases emblematic of judge-attorney cronyism and its effects, including the unnecessary use of scarce court resources and the financial burden on taxpayers. 

To continue reading, click Read more >> below: 

Court Executive Officer Christina Volkers Mute on Family Court Appeals Unit Controversy - Taxpayers Exposed to Liability

Mute Court: Executive Officer Chris Volkers Silent on Fixing Appeals Unit Problems

Chris Volkers, Court Executive Officer for
Sacramento County Superior Court.

Christina Volkers, Court Executive Officer for Sacramento County Superior Court has declined to notify the public what corrective measures will be taken to ensure that family court clerks do not unlawfully obstruct appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants. In an February 7 email to Volkers, Sacramento Family Court News asked for a response - including any planned corrective measures - to our report documenting that the family court appeals unit is illegally rejecting timely appeals as being untimely. Volkers, the court's CEO, did not respond to our request. During the same time period, an article about court reporter cutbacks published in the Sacramento Business Journal on Feb. 15 included an email response and quote from Volkers. Government officials are by law required to provide equal treatment and access to reporters and media organizations. If Volkers has blacklisted Sacramento Family Court News in retaliation for its reporting, taxpayers could be liable for the costs of litigation challenging the unequal treatment. Lake County News recently settled a lawsuit against Lake County Sheriff Frank Rivero after the sheriff blacklisted the online news publication in retaliation for coverage he perceived as critical of him. The settlement requires the sheriff to fulfill several Public Records Act requests that had been stalled, delayed or withheld, and for the news service to once again be given access to press releases from the agency. Click here for details of the Lake County litigation and settlement. Taxpayers reportedly will be liable for the costs of the Lake County News lawsuit.  

• Click here to read our Color of Law series documenting appeals unit and other unlawful conduct by court administrators and employees.