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 Superior Court Scandal: RoadDog Announces Sacramento Family Court 2012 Public Service Awards - Sunday Funnies

Sacramento Superior Court Clerk Wins RoadDog Efficiency In Government Award, Facilitator Locks 1st Runner Up Spot

Sunday Satire by RoadDog

Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers and other court supervisors
are invited to the annual RoadDog Family Court Public Service
Awards ceremony held at the Dante Club in Sacramento.

P.R. Brown, my esteemed colleague on the news and analysis side of the newsroom, has recently published a series of articles that some readers may have found unsettling. 

Court administrators flagrantly ignoring state law, the Family Law Facilitator dispensing less-than-accurate advice to indigent, unrepresented litigants, family court judges concealing conflicts of interest, and an appeals unit clerk unlawfully rejecting appeals by lawyer-less, financially disadvantaged litigants. And the ongoing Color of Law series is particularly compelling. Bravo, P.R. Brown. 

But while these muckraking revelations may disturb the Constitution-huggers among our readership, RoadDog's exclusive access to the Sacramento Family Court News newsroom allows the Dog to go behind the news to retrieve the exposé within the exposé. A superficial review of the meticulously documented facts reported by P.R. Brown may convey to the gullible the impression of rampant illegality, cronyism, hometowning, fraud, corruption, malfeasance, willful omission to perform duty, and gross misconduct, incompetency and inefficiency. 

Several paranoid, tin foil hat wearing readers have even suggested that the totality of the evidence reported by SFCN suggests that Sacramento Family Court operates as an organized criminal enterprise, meeting the elements required for a federal RICO prosecution. However, on closer inspection, and with supplemental facts purloined by RoadDog from the encrypted SFCN servers, the complete factual record reveals a dramatically different picture. 

To continue reading, 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.