California Supreme Court Is Asked to Move Cases Out of 3rd District Court of Appeal Due to Excessive Appeal Delays

We've been reporting on incompetence and corruption at the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento for several years. Attorney Jon Eisenberg has noticed the problems too.  

Sacramento Superior Court Controversy: Judge Matthew Gary Orders Indigent, Disabled Parent To Pay Attorney Fee Sanctions Based on "Body Language"

Judge Matthew Gary assessed draconian attorney fee sanctions against a disabled, indigent family court parent without an attorney based on her "body language," according to court records from the case. 

The appellate brief excerpt embedded at the bottom of this post recounts one instance of Judge Matthew Gary's misconduct in the Susan Ferris case, in connection with an illegal attorney fee sanctions order. The appeal in the case is pending at the controversial 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. 

The embedded document package also includes the court reporter transcript from a hearing in the case recording that Gary ordered Ferris to pay $2,500 to the opposing attorney, Timothy Zeff, based on Ferris' "body language." Zeff's partner, Scott Buchanan, is a part-time judge in the same court. 

Court records indicate that the judge pro tem conflict of interest was not disclosed as required by state law. The conflict disclosure violation has occurred in hundreds of other cases involving temporary judge lawyers.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below: 

Sacramento Superior Court Controversy: Illegal Child Custody Order, Judge Approved Child Abduction Among Issues in Landmark Appeal

Judge Matthew Gary's authorization of a criminal child abduction by the client of attorney Timothy Zeff is one of several judicial misconduct issues raised in the Susan Ferris appeal. Zeff is the law partner of temporary judge divorce attorney Scott Buchanan. Court whistleblowers allege that judge pro tem attorneys receive preferential treatment that amounts to racketeering.  

Friday Document Dump

The opening brief filed in an appeal from orders issued by Judge Matthew Gary and embedded at the bottom of this post documents misconduct by the controversial judge in the Susan Ferris case. Court records show that Ferris - who is indigent, disabled and did not have a lawyer - was illegally stripped of her parental rights, subjected to draconian financial sanctions that made her homeless, and denied her constitutional rights to due process, access to the courts and equal protection.

For our complete coverage of the trial court proceedings which resulted in this landmark appeal, click here. For Sacramento Bee coverage of the case, click here. For complete coverage of Judge Matthew J. Gary, click here. To view an exclusive SFCN video of Ferris describing her ordeal in her own words, click here.

Judge Matthew Gary Misconduct, Collusion with Attorney, Accessory After the Fact to Criminal Child Abductio... by California Judicial Branch News Network

Hon. Matthew J. Gary Misconduct: Susan Ferris Case and Appeal Front Page News at Sacramento Bee

Judge Matthew Gary Abuse of Disabled, Unrepresented Mom Results in Landmark Appeal to Establish Constitutional Right to Counsel in Civil Cases 

The Sacramento Bee today published a front page story about the pending appeal in the Sacramento Family Court Susan Ferris case. Sacramento Family Court News has been covering the case for more than a year and has published several articles, including an exclusive video interview with Susan Ferris. Ferris is represented on appeal by a team of lawyers led by prominent San Francisco attorney James Brosnahan of the international law firm Morrison & Foerster.   

"This is at the point where a lot of us think it's a disgrace," Brosnahan said. "You can't take someone's child and that person doesn't have an attorney when you do it...It's an outrage," Brosnahan explained to Sacramento Bee reporter Brad Branan.  

Click here to read the full article at the Bee. For a list of SFCN articles about the case, including our exclusive Susan Ferris interview, click here.   

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 graphic:

Vance W. Raye Third District Justice and Judge Peter McBrien Turn Over Court Operations to SCBA Family Law Section Lawyers

Leaked Transcript Indicates Vance Raye & Judge Peter McBrien Enabled Family Law Bar Control of Court in 1991

Vance Raye and Peter J. McBrien were the
architects of the current family court system.

In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Raye partnered with controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien and attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section in establishing the current, dysfunctional Sacramento Family Court system, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 judicial misconduct trial before the Commission on Judicial Performance. 

Behind closed doors and under oath, the judge provided explicit details about the 1991 origins of the present-day family court structure. 

In essence, McBrien and Raye agreed to effectively privatize public court operations to the specifications of private-sector attorneys in exchange for not having to run the court's settlement conference program. The SCBA Family Law Section agreed to run the settlement program provided they were given effective control over most court policies and procedures, including local court rules. 

As a result, the public court system was restructured to the specifications of local, private-sector attorneys, according to McBrien's testimony. To view McBrien's detailed description of the collusive public-private collaboration, posted online exclusively by SFCN, click here. To view an example of the same, current day collusion, click here. 

The 1991 restructuring plan began with a road trip suggested by the family law bar:   

"[T]he family law bar, and it was a fairly strong bar here in Sacramento, initiated the concept of a trip to Orange County and San Diego County to pick up some ideas about how their courts were structured. And myself and Judge Ridgeway and two family law attorneys made that trip and came back with various ideas of how to restructure the system," McBrien told the CJP. Click here to view.

Sacramento Family Court judges and local, Sacramento Bar
Association attorneys openly acknowledge their close relationship.

But before his sworn 2009 CJP testimony, McBrien gave the public a different account of the road trip and who restructured the family court system in 1991. As reported by the Daily Journal legal newspaper, McBrien dishonestly implied that the new system was conceived and implemented by judges alone after they made a county-paid "statewide tour" of family law courts. 

The judge omitted from the story the fact that the trip was initiated by the family law bar, and included two private-sector family law attorneys who took the county-paid tour with McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway. As the Daily Journal reported: 

"Around 1990, McBrien and a few other Sacramento judges went on a statewide tour of family law courts. At the time there were continual postponements of trials.

 'This is how we came up with the system today,' McBrien said. 'It was probably the best trip Sacramento County ever paid for.'

The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials, which used to be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal trials for scheduling.

'Now, if you're ready and unable to settle, chances are 99.9 percent that you are going out [to trial] the first time,' McBrien said. 'A lot of that is attributable to the willingness of the Sacramento bar to work as settlement counselors.'" Click here to view the Daily Journal report.

To continue reading the rest of this article, visit our special, updated 3rd District Court of Appeal page. Click here. For more on the alleged collusion between judges and attorneys who also serve as Sacramento Superior Court temporary judges and work as settlement counselors, visit our special judge pro tems page. For additional posts about the people and issues in this report, click on the corresponding labels below.   

Sacramento Superior Court Corruption: Leaked Court Reporter Transcript Records Flagrant State Law Violations at Unlawful Fee Waiver Hearing

Judge Matthew Gary Orders Illegal Fee Waiver Hearing to Obstruct Appeal of Own Orders, Help Judge Pro Tem Lawyer

Monday Document Dump

Sacramento Superior Court whistleblowers allege that the court acts as a
racketeering enterprise involving collusion between judges and
lawyers who also work as part-time judges in the same court.

Unilaterally overriding state law, constructing his own ad hoc interpretation of legislative intent, and legislating from the bench, Judge Matthew Gary denies a fee waiver request by a disabled, indigent, unrepresented litigant in this startling court reporter transcript, embedded at the end of this article. 

The fee waiver request by a litigant with a cognitive disability was for trial court appellate costs for an appeal of several orders issued by the judge, including an illegal, non-conforming order for more than $10,000 in attorney fee sanctions to the opposing attorney. Click here to view the order.  

The pro per had an existing fee waiver which by law automatically applied to the trial court appeal costs, making the hearing ordered by the judge patently unlawful. To view the order Gary issued after the hearing, click here. 

The opposing party is represented by divorce attorney Paula Salinger, partner at the prominent Sacramento family law firm Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., sworn Sacramento County Superior Court temporary judge, and current officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC. Days after the hearing, Gary issued a second order reversing himself and granting the fee waiver request, but at the same time embedding in the order a sham finding designed to help Salinger and her client at a pending trial in the case.

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

Sacramento Superior Court Misconduct: Hon. Matthew J. Gary Order for Divorce Attorney Timothy Zeff - Notice of Appeal Illegally Unfiled - Complete Original Document

Court Clerk Blocks Appeal of Judge Matthew Gary Order Issued for Judge Pro Tem Scott Buchanan Partner Timothy Zeff 

Wednesday Document Dump

In our initial report documenting that Sacramento Family Court appeals unit clerks were unlawfully rejecting appeals by unrepresented, indigent or financially disadvantaged litigants, we redacted the name of the party whose case was used as an example of the illegal practice. The litigant asked that we redact her name because she feared she would be subject to retaliation for the disclosure by Judge Matthew Gary or court employees. 

For the benefit of other indigent, pro per litigants, she has since requested that we tell her full story, and publish her name. The document below is the complete notice of appeal filed by Susan Ferris, a disabled, unrepresented 52-year-old single parent. Ferris also was subjected to an unlawful "no contact" child custody order issued by Judge Gary for divorce attorney Timothy Zeff, the partner of Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyer and family court judge pro tem Scott Buchanan. 

To continue reading, and to view the notice of appeal document, click Read more >> below:

Sacramento County Superior Court Misconduct: Family Court Appeals Unit Unlawfully Refusing Appeals by Indigent, Pro Per Litigants

Family Court Appeals Unit Illegally Rejecting Appeals By Unrepresented, Financially Disadvantaged Litigants

Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals
A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 3

This actual notice of appeal was filed by an unrepresented, indigent family court litigant and then unlawfully unfiled by a family court clerk. The clerk's conduct violates state law and constitutes unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings. Click here to view the full image.  

Sacramento County Family Court clerks are unlawfully refusing to file appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged family court litigants, according to a family court whistleblower. The policy constitutes an unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings under California Rules of Court rule 8.23. 

The rejection occurs when a pro per party attempts to file a notice of appeal for child custody, support and other immediately appealable orders more than 60-days after order after hearing paperwork is filed. By law, the time frame to take an appeal from the orders is 180-days.The longer time frame applies because in family court cases, the court clerk must give the parties notice of entry of judgment using the Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form. 

As policy, Sacramento Family Court does not issue the FL-190 form for appealable orders from motion and OSC hearings. When the form is not issued, the appeal time frame is 180-days. When the form is issued, the appeal time frame is 60-days. In Sacramento Family Court, all appealable motion and OSC orders are appealable for 180-days, yet court clerks are illegally rejecting the appeals after 60-days.  

To continue reading Part 3 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below. 

Sacramento Superior Court Controversy: Family Law Facilitator Office Disseminates False Information to Indigent, Self-Represented Pro Pers Without Lawyers

Lollie Roberts, the Sacramento County Superior Court Family Law Facilitator has directed her staff to dispense false information about the state law mandated Notice of Entry of Judgment FL-190 form, a whistleblower charges. 

Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals 

A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 2

• This story is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September, 2013.

In a scheme allegedly coordinated with family court administrators, Sacramento Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts has directed her staff to dispense false information to unrepresented family court litigants. 

Roberts' objective is to help conceal systemic violations of the Code of Civil Procedure and state court rules by family court employees, according to court records and other information leaked by a family court whistleblower to Sacramento Family Court News. Another objective of the alleged plan is to obstruct pro per appeals by concealing a critical, state law mandated appeal rights notification from unrepresented, indigent or financially disadvantaged family court litigants, according to the whistleblower, who provided the information on the condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure. 

The appeal notice is part of a mandatory Judicial Council form, FL-190, which under state law court clerks are required to file and serve after a family court judge issues an appealable order. As SFCN previously reported, court administrators have instructed court clerks not to issue the FL-190 paperwork for appealable orders issued at law and motion hearings. 

Roberts and her staff are conveying the same inaccurate information by instructing pro per parties that the FL-190 is only issued when a divorce is finalized, and that appealable law and motion orders are not judgments requiring issuance of the form. The falsity of the information has been verified by both the California Supreme Court and Third District Court of Appeal.      

To continue reading Part 2 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.

Judge Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Orders Appealed in Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley Case - Temporary Judge Preferential Treatment Alleged

Appeal Filed of Unprecedented Orders Issued by Judge Jaime Roman for Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley

Tuesday Document Dump

An appeal of orders issued without a court hearing by Judge Jaime Roman for Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorney and family court judge pro tem Charlotte Keeley was filed on Jan. 10. The appeal will cost the parties substantial sums and taxpayers between $8,500 and $25,500, according to recent appellate court decisions. Court watchdogs assert the case is an explicit example of the overt cronyism between full-time judges and temporary judges of the same court. Click here for the complete Sacramento Family Court News coverage of the case.     
   

Sacramento Superior Court Employee Misconduct: Family Court Whistleblower Alleges Systemic Code of Civil Procedure and Court Rule Violations by Court Administrators & Clerks

Sacramento Family Court Chiefs Julie Setzer and Colleen McDonagh Responsible for Serial State Law Violations, Whistleblower Charges

Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals
A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 1.

This story is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September, 2013

Sacramento County Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer and Manager
Colleen McDonagh have directed court employees to disregard state laws
mandating entry of judgment procedure, charges a court whistleblower.

A Sacramento County Family Court whistleblower has leaked to Sacramento Family Court News court records indicating that countless family court cases are missing critical paperwork required by state law. 

After any family court hearing which results in a judgment regarding child custody or visitation, spousal support, or any other judgment subject to immediate appeal, California Rules of Court rule 5.134 requires court clerks to enter, file and serve a Notice of Entry of Judgment. State court rule 8.104(e) defines "judgment" as any appealable order. 

By law, the court clerk must use Judicial Council Form FL-190 to provide the notice of entry to all parties. The notice provides an important notification regarding the right to appeal, and the destruction of exhibits on file with the court. In addition, two other components of the FL-190 form eliminate ambiguity in the time frame for an appeal, according to the California Supreme Court. 

In a 2007 decision, the high court noted that the title of the mandatory form and the clerk's certificate of mailing at the bottom of the notice were drafted specifically to eliminate miscalculations and disputes related to appeal time frames. Click here and scroll down to the highlighted text to view the relevant sections of the 2007 Supreme Court case.  

For appealable judgments in law and motion proceedings, Sacramento Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards have directed court employees to simply ignore the law, according to the source, who provided the information on the condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure. 

To continue reading Part 1 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below. 

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: