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

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:

Sacramento Superior Court Controversy: Hon. Matthew J. Gary Family Court Ruling Overturned By Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento

Sacramento Family Court Judge Conducts Improper Investigation, Forensic Analysis on Allegedly Drunken Signature - Ruling Gets Reversed 

Judge Matthew Gary's decision in the Seaton case was overturned on appeal.

Controversial Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Matthew Gary has suffered the full reversal of an order he issued in September, 2009. Gary's error cost taxpayers between $8,500 and $25,500, the current cost to the state to process an appeal, according to recent appellate court decisions. The case, in which the decision was published, is In re the Marriage of Seaton.  

The black eye comes two and a half years after the judge botched a criminal case requiring the Third District Court of Appeal to reverse the conviction of Daniel Ray Maier. The Maier decision, People v. Maier, was unpublished, but can be viewed at Google Scholar.

The 3rd District decision in Seaton indicates that Gary sought to harshly punish Patricia Seaton for what the judge perceived to be credibility, if not morality issues. The reviewing court noted that Gary's credibility determinations were unrelated to the facts and law relevant to deciding the legal issues in the case. Gary also assumed the role of expert witness and advocate in a unilateral determination that signatures on a 1988 marriage license were not made by a person who was drunk.    

The order issued by Gary nullified the 17-year marriage of Patricia and Jeffrey Seaton on the ground that Patricia was married to another man at the time of her marriage to Jeffrey. Gary also denied Patricia's claim that she was a de facto, or putative spouse. The rulings stripped Patricia of all property, support, attorney fees/costs and other rights associated with a marriage or domestic partnership. 

Gary's order awarded Jeffrey all assets and property that, had the marriage been valid, would have been community property. According to the judge, the lengthy marriage was void - as if it never happened.

The 3rd District disagrees: To continue reading, click Read more >> below: