Court corruption Ripoff alert: Judge Matthew Gary of Sacramento Superior Court has a documented history of corruption and collusion with attorneys against unrepresented, pro per court users. In one case reported by Sacramento Family Court News, an blogspot.com/p/about.html">online nonprofit journalism organization, Gary ordered Susan Ferris - a 52-year-old indigent, disabled mom - to pay her ex-husband $920 of her $1,256 monthly disability income for child support.
Court records show that Susan's ex-husband, David Ferris, earns $8,089 per month. The unlawful child support order was attributed to collusion between Judge Gary and local divorce attorney Tim Zeff, a partner at the Sacramento family law firm Larscheid, Buchanan & Zeff, who represented David Ferris. Zeff's parter, J. Scott Buchanan serves as a temporary judge in the same court.
The records indicate that Paula Salinger, a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and officer of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee violated California Penal Code sections prohibiting witness intimidation and deceit of a witness. Under California law, both offenses are designated as obstruction of justice crimes. The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger and Judge Matthew Gary.
As reflected by page one of the document set, at an unrelated court hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that he would deny the contempt claims, even though Salinger had yet to file a response to the contempt pleading. Gary’s prejudgment of the contempt matter was a clear violation of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, the state laws governing judge conduct.
The state Commission on Judicial Performance has publicly disciplined several judges for “acting in a way that manifested prejudgment…A trial judge should not prejudge the issues but should keep an open mind until all the evidence is presented to him.” In one CJP judicial discipline case, Judge Bruce Van Voorhis was disciplined for creating "the appearance of prejudgment in your discussion of the case in open court by improperly predicting the outcome of the case," according to CJP records. Click here for a compilation of CJP disciplinary decisions about prejudgment.
Saccourt.ca.gov Reviews
Court corruption Ripoff alert: Judge Matthew Gary of Sacramento Superior Court has a documented history of corruption and collusion with attorneys against unrepresented, pro per court users. In one case reported by Sacramento Family Court News, an blogspot.com/p/about.html">online nonprofit journalism organization, Gary ordered Susan Ferris - a 52-year-old indigent, disabled mom - to pay her ex-husband $920 of her $1,256 monthly disability income for child support.
Court records show that Susan's ex-husband, David Ferris, earns $8,089 per month. The unlawful child support order was attributed to collusion between Judge Gary and local divorce attorney Tim Zeff, a partner at the Sacramento family law firm Larscheid, Buchanan & Zeff, who represented David Ferris. Zeff's parter, J. Scott Buchanan serves as a temporary judge in the same court.
Obstruction of Justice
The records indicate that Paula Salinger, a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and officer of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee violated California Penal Code sections prohibiting witness intimidation and deceit of a witness. Under California law, both offenses are designated as obstruction of justice crimes. The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger and Judge Matthew Gary.
As reflected by page one of the document set, at an unrelated court hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that he would deny the contempt claims, even though Salinger had yet to file a response to the contempt pleading. Gary’s prejudgment of the contempt matter was a clear violation of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, the state laws governing judge conduct.
The state Commission on Judicial Performance has publicly disciplined several judges for “acting in a way that manifested prejudgment…A trial judge should not prejudge the issues but should keep an open mind until all the evidence is presented to him.” In one CJP judicial discipline case, Judge Bruce Van Voorhis was disciplined for creating "the appearance of prejudgment in your discussion of the case in open court by improperly predicting the outcome of the case," according to CJP records. Click here for a compilation of CJP disciplinary decisions about prejudgment.