But it was the San Diego News Network scooped everyone regarding Judge DeAnn Salcido

In response to San Diego Judge DeAnn Salcido's lawsuit against Judge Peter Deddeh, Joyce Murphy wrote:

"I would like to hear responses from Judges Deddeh and Danielson who handled my criminal case (SCD178322)of "kidnapping" which was referred to them by the Salcido courtroom.

Comments from Judge Hendrix who took over the family court case after Salcido would be appreciated. How much influence between the DA's office and Salcido occurred? It was my impression that after refusing to listen to my concerns regarding the abusive tendencies of Bud Parson, Deann Salcido decided I was lying (reminiscent of Judge Lemkau) and had influenced the criminal court judges and the subsequent family law court to treat me as a delusional and contentious individual.

Had I been treated as she now proposes criminals be treated, I would have been sentenced to prison rather than probation. That would have left me completely without contact with my child.

It still took six years of continued family court litigation and the conviction of my now ex-husband to finally obtain custody of my child.

I was able to fight for my child only because I was still on probation and not sitting in a prison cell. How much abuse did we suffer because of Salcido's misjudgment?

More than I could ever forget.

What we are now faced with is an election with a candidate who is willing to take advantage of the personal suffering of the King and Dubois families to appear tough on abusers.

If it were up to me Judge DeAnn Salcido and the DAs involved in my criminal case, (SCD178322) Teresa Santana, and now judge, Garry Haehnle, would be placed on administrative leave pending a full investigation by the Department of Justice.

I believe the record - particularly my criminal case, establishes a breakdown in the efficient and proper administration of justice. One that placed the life, health, and safety of an innocent child at risk to a sexual predator.

Given the continued financial problems in the court system, and the need to protect innocent children from these kinds of risks, some investigation into why and how this could have happened should be immediately initiated by some disinterested, impartial investigative or fact finding agency and immediate action taken to assure that the travesty of what occurred to my daughter does not happen to anyone else's child.

Joyce A. Murphy
UCSD - Biology
Pacific Hall 3119
9500 Gilman Dr.
La Jolla, CA 92093-0357

For a more inside baseball look at judges - family court judges and others, who refuse to protect the public, see Not A Hallmark View of Mother's Day.

Familylawcourts.com recommends a federal panel. One outside San Diego, and the too cozy confines well documented in this area and arena.

Channel 10 detailed Joyce Murphy's family court experience, while KUSI detailed the GPS solution to end murders that are family court related.

Also, unlike John Gardner, not all pedophiles are single. What happens to divorcing pedophiles in San Diego? In Judge DeAnn Salcido's court room, they win custody. Mother Joyce Murphy who repeatedly tried to get help, was charged with kidnapping.

How San Diego differs from other cities around the country, is San Diego remains wholly at peace with its disregard of children. See Elkins Task Force

Begin scrolling for names, or, if you prefer to bone up on San Diego's long, history continue reading for background.

This section became necessary because when San Diego finally gets around to sending its judges to the penitentiary, it's in P-a-i-rs.

Although most judges might have the grace to blush over revelations of in-your-face incompetence, keep in mind, San Diego, as demonstrated by Supervising Family Court Judge Lorna Alksne. is different than most.

In a rare display of a complete lack of credibility of family courts regarding the long over-due arrest of pedophile Bud Parson, (Family court judge DeAnn Salcido first apologized to Parson for having to undergo a CPS investigation, then granted him full custody of his and Joyce Murphy's daughter for six years in spite of Murphy's repeated attempts to protect their daughter), Judge Alksne's cheerleading, "Family court judges are doing an excellent job." was beyond the pale.

Ultimately, media exposure prompted Parson to plead guilty to six counts of child molesting split between two separate victim. He got off very lightly, sentenced to just six years in prison.

During sentencing, Vista ADA Kelly Mok sat on her keester.

Although Murphy asked to read a victims impact statement, Mok refused to rise and advocate for Joyce Murphy to speak.

Family court judges and assigned therapists had for six years, demonized Joyce Murphy - when they weren't targeting her for prosecution. This is only the latest example of the misogyny in San Diego.

Joyce Murphy also endured supervised visitation during the time Parson the pedophile was enjoying six years of unfettered access to his daughter's playmates.

That said, the tapestry of San Diego judges assaulting one's sensibilities, ranges from a sort of breathtaking cluelessness, to dual convictions for bribery.

See how Presiding Judge, Bruce Greer, first demonstrations of greed and corruption flourishes in San Diego's balmy climes.

Pre-Cunningham, it was former Judge G. Dennis Adams who really raised the bar on arrogance after his release from prison. Adams sued the state for cutting his state pension benefits. Sadly, he won.

Begin scrolling for an alphabetical list of San Diego judges....but first, we can't resist Judge DeAnn Salcido who opted to continue the time honored judicial San Diego tradition of putting herself above the law. It was Judge Salcido who first apologized to Bud Parsons for having to undergo a CPS investigation. To the surprise of no one, CPS failed Joyce Murphy and her daughter, too.

Meanwhile the public will benefit from learning when it comes to family court, the Constitution is checked at the door.

Plaintiffs are not adequately educated private judging firms like JAMS get their repeat business from successful Defense firms. See report on the now "Private" Judges, Thomas Ashworth, (how many DUIs has he had), Vincent DiFiglia, William Howatt and James Milliken.

We recommend clients, be they in family or civil court, to opt out of the dubious "services" offered by JAMS.

Particularly Alan B. Clements. What is Missing from this puff-piece resume? That Clements was possibly the most reversed commissioner in all of San Diego. (Think of the wasted attorney fees.)

(Thus for litigants we recommend dropping any attorney who recommends "Private Judging" as not only do normal laws not apply, but "private Judges" are not required to file Statements of Economic Interest.)

To make a report on a judge go to USAjudges.com and click H - E - R- E.

Consider the San Diego Union Tribune's "report" of the murder of Peggy Chillis. Benefiting the judge, readers and current and future litigants were not educated as to the identity of the judge who at least twice dropped the restraining orders requested by the now dead Ms. Chillis. Union-Tribune editors defended their position saying there are other government bodies who do so. So the U-T policy of protecting judges and short-changing readers seems likely to continue. We disagree.

Again, one of the last judges on the case was Commissioner Alan Clements, an ex cop who is often overturned on appeal and doesn't appear able (or willing) to recognize Battered Women's Syndrome.

While the above opinion piece above wondered if corruption would end, the article below revealed, it didn't.

Not unless living in Hawaii, with one's ex wife, Former Judge Barbara Gamer, with one's finances intact, counts as ending corruption.

There is an answer.

Readers unaware of our two-tiered levels of justice. One for the rich and police offers, in which every legal advantage is considered by the court; or level two; decidedly lower on the scale where Lady Justice is all but an apparition.

Begin scrolling to discover (alphabetically), close to twenty civil and criminal San Diego judges version of justice. The short version?

Female criminal defendants find themselves with higher bail amounts and harsher sentences. In family court mothers reporting physical abuse of their children, are likely to lose custody to the more financially secure fathers.

In fairness, it's not merely the judges and commissioners. As was documented by the San Diego Grand Jury, Court officials, law enforcement personnel, continue using children for marketing services to the courts.

A lack of public confidence with the CJP, particularly in San Diego, was earned. Justice For All, San Diego Style

Otherwise, below are some of San Diego's best kept secrets. Brace yourself folks; it ain't pretty.

JUDGE MICHAEL ANELLO
In April, Judge Anello threw out a 30 million dollar civil award for sexual harassment award a group of women won against Ralph's grocery chain. Judge Anellos's opinion was 9 million was enough. There will be a separate, new trial to determine the amount Ralph's must pay.

JUDGE THOMAS ASHWORTH - JAMS JUDGE
Not a big fan of our Constitution, Judge Ashworth is now a private JAMS judge. Litigants should be made aware he doesn't believe in joint custody, and Binding Arbitration means there is no Appeal. Ashworth might be okay for gay couples; but should be avoided in any proceeding involving women. In that regard, we don't recommend Arbitration, or Ashworth.

(When Betty Broderick asked Ashworth to represent her, Ashworth declined, telling her he was becoming a judge. Imagine Betty's surprise when Ashworth subsequently turned up in court, representing her husband, Dan). It was later revealed Dan transferred a bundle from their joint account prior to leaving. No one wonders who suggested he do so.

Before Judge Howatt tasked up, Judge Ashworth's main function was to keep the divorce industry churning. One quote, came in 1994; in a legislative update concerning a proposed joint custody bill.

"AB999 just came out of the State House and is going to the State Judiciary Committee. The language of the legislation is "The preference for the Court shall be joint custody." Judge Ashworth expressed concern about this legislation saying that joint custody doesn't work. It is a nightmare for the child and just does not work. All of our studies show that if we can keep life stable for the child, with both parents actively involved our children will grow up better."

Ever mindful of churning fees for the divorce industry, Judge Ashworth's behavior occasionally went over-the-top, even by his lofty standards. The best example being the time he "presided" over a custody case, that brought in over $146,000.00 in legal fees Ashworth recommending "experts" be consulted.

No children were involved. The sole custody issue was a, dog. That trial, as reported in the San Diego Union Tribune, is below.

But make no mistake; Ashworth's soft face and gentle manner, mask complete disdain for women and vulnerable children.

(The soft face also belies a savvy businessman. Ashworth once owned the building in which lawyers appearing before him, practiced. The attorneys were hip; only litigants remained unawares.)

JUDGE JEFFREY BARTON
Evidence of bias is well disguised, but separate from making unenforceable orders, the problem with Judge Barton is he tends to rule with the last person standing. Kind of twitchy, that way. That said, perhaps he's noticed the SEC Cease and Desist could have been titled Got Crooks? Stop them.

JUDGE JEFFREY BOSTWICK
Based on one, negative "evaluation," (no crime, or allegation of drug use, just a vindictive spouse with money), the brand new Judge Bostwick issued a no-contact order between a Beth Brown, and her thirteen year old daughter for Five years. Naturally, this was opposed both by mother and daughter. The order was requested, (lobbied) by father and his new wife; and they received the best justice money can buy. Vista is problematic that way, as this letter reprinted in June of 2000, SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE , pointed out.

Sadly, San Diego boasts a dark canvas of characters of this type. From, the blustery, shoot from the lip, Criminal court judge,

JUDGE FRANK BROWN
Judge Brown doesn't bother himself with pesky evidence hearings, before revoking probation; and likewise decides outrageous amounts for bail if the defendant is a woman. In one recent case involving an alleged prostitute charged with murder, Judge Brown thought Two million dollars was appropriate. In another, $260,000.00 bail for a restraining order violation, after the victim received a letter from a third party in an eastern state. The judge ruled that "attempt to contact." Even the alleged Victim said there was no threat of violence.

But perhaps Judge Brown's most misogynistic ruling came with Howard Eugene Everett III. Everett pleaded guilty in 1999 to four counts of felony child molestation of the same victims who a civil jury later awarded 1.7 million. His sentence? Judge Brown gave him 12 years' probation.

JUDGE GEORGE CLARKE

JUDGE TIM CASSERLY
Did Tim Casserly withhold evidence while working as a prosecutor? The jury is still out on that one.

No prison for sex offenders if they *are* the police. On September 19, 2006, Cedric Green a former juvenile service officer on a high school campus was sentenced to probation and work furlough for Green's having sex with a teenager. Judge Clarke also gave Green another present. He doesn't have to register as a sex offender.

JUDGE RICHARD C. COATES
In the category of "Without a clue or desire to get one" comes Coates' second public admonishment.

COMMISSIONER ALAN B. CLEMENTS
Clements is most likely the dullest bulb on the block, destined to remain on the JV judicial team. Imagine Archie Bunker wearing a black robe and you've got the general idea. Recently received a published smack down by the Court of Appeal for "exceeding his authority" Clements, who used to be a cop, can't seem to remember he's supposed to be out of uniform. His second wife, is a nurse. (Raise your hand who believes they met after his divorce). After law school Clements went into practice with guy who was later disbarred. Clements then loaned him money to start Lawstuff.com. Birds of a feather?

Clements latest reversal occurred in April of 2006, in the Prout case, after the husband hid assets from wife who signed an MSA. Prior to that, it was of Deborah M., on April of 2005; after the Court of Appeal determined Clements exceeded his authority on drug testing via family court. Readers may remember it was Clements who, California Lawyer reported in 2002, stood up from behind the bench, and Opposite mountains of evidence indicating the father was physically abusive, said, he was "inclined to send a message," and stripped mother from all contact with her two boys.

Clements retains his anti-woman, cop personality, and should be, given what we know about the police, considered, Dangerous.

JUDGE DAVID DANIELSON
Danielson's granting probation to a sex offending massage therapist Vasily Galashev, who plead guilty to sexual battery, is remarkable in this day and age, except of course, Danielson is in San Diego...a lucky place for sex offenders.

Danielson ordered the massage therapist to register as a sex offender and not contact certain patients before slapping his wrists with Eight years of probation. But interfere with the man's business? Not in San Diego. Galashev was previously charged with 14 felony counts linked to four women he treated more than two years. He was acquitted of some of the charges, while the jury deadlocked on others. It remains to be seen if the DA will re-prosecute.

JUDGE PETER DEDDEH
Efficient. Fair. Smart.

PRIVATE JUDGE VINCENT DIFIGLIA
The California Commission on Judicial Performance, first privately took Judge DiFiglia to task sort of, with his chummy relations with a defense attorney in 1992. In 2001, when DiFiglia's conduct again came to their attention, action was delayed until after the appellate process, upon which time they admonished him, again.

DiFiglia next practiced private judging with former Family Court Presiding Judge James Milliken. (Milliken being most famous for ignoring the huge public outcry over Hannah's House, (then Real Solution) director Susan Griffin's lack of educational expertise in the area of practicing therapy without a license, who later fined by the State, and made to pay restitution to the County for grants obtained under questionable circumstances. Milliken remained mute. These two were quite the pair to draw to.

JUDGE LISA FOSTER
After one family court case was repeatedly botched by various other judges, Judge Foster made quick work of one man's primary custody. This is good since he's finally awaiting trial for lewd acts committed on a child. Previous judges targeted the mother for reporting it.

Checking Judge Foster's financial disclosures is tricky, because they keep changing. But Judge Foster is the judge to go to if one want to conduct public business in private...including the name of the court reporter present.

JUDGE LISA GUY-SCHALL
If you're a woman - bounce this judge. Litigants get one chance to bounce a bad judge. As a freebie. Not every state has this feature. In addition to having an obvious alcohol problem, what's clear is Judge Schall Does Not Like Women

The California Commission on Judicial Performance, first took Guy Schall to task in 1999, Four years after her conduct, reporting in part:

"On December 18, 1995, Joanna Slivka appeared before Judge Guy-Schall for a hearing on a petition for a restraining order against Ms. Slivka. During the hearing, Ms. Slivka began yelling and acting aggressively, and Judge Guy-Schall ordered her out of the courtroom. While Ms. Slivka was outside the courtroom, Judge Guy-Schall had her bailiff ask Ms. Slivka if she would be willing to reappear in court and keep herself under control; the bailiff reported to the judge that Ms. Slivka had responded that if the judge would not allow her to tell her story, she would probably "go off" again. In Ms. Slivka's absence, without citing her for contempt or having her returned to the courtroom, Judge Guy-Schall found her in contempt and sentenced her to five days in jail. The order issued by Judge Guy-Schall stated that Ms. Slivka was in direct contempt and was to serve five actual days in jail. With respect to the facts underlying the finding of contempt, the order stated, full order and findings are set forth in the reporter's transcript that is order [sic] this date. Ms. Slivka was taken into custody outside the courtroom and remained in custody for five days.
Also, she apparently has a problem with Denial.

Judge Guy-Schall's actions constituted an abuse of the contempt power. By failing to return Ms. Slivka to court to inform her that she was in contempt, failing to give her a chance to respond to the contempt order, and finding her in contempt in her absence, Judge Guy-Schall failed to follow the required procedures for holding an individual in contempt of court. (See, Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1988) 45 Cal.3d 518, 533, in which the commission and the California Supreme Court found that a judge committed willful misconduct by holding a litigant in contempt in her absence and incarcerating her, for a remark uttered as she left the courtroom.) The contempt order entered by Judge Guy-Schall failed to state on its face facts sufficient to constitute a contempt, as also required by law. (See, In re Baroldi (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 101, 110; Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal.3d 678, 694.) Judge Guy-Schall, who had been a judge for ten years at the time of the incident, was obligated to know or research proper contempt procedures. (See, Cannon, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 694; Ryan, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 533.)"

JUDGE ALBERT HARUTUNIAN - judicial lap dog.
January 16, 2005 - DA fever strikes - Judge Harutunian panders to the televised lens. Why would Judge Harutunian set bail for Jacqueline Annette Lawrence, a San Diego city worker of sixteen years charged with identity theft, not a violent crime, at $200,000.00? Publicity.

Harutunian has a history of pandering. When the fever is "Domestic Violence" Judge Harutunian presided over the trial of the only woman prosecuted by the City of San Diego in 2002, for violating restraining orders...(which is differnt from "Domestic violence" although the "victim" said there was no violence, and no one was threatened. The crime? Notifying the respondent by phone of upcoming family court hearings; at the specific direction of the family court clerk...who refused to abide by local rules stating notification wasn't necessary.

The clerk's supervisor also said the woman's documents would not be accepted unless the woman violated the court ordered, no contact.
The defendant complied, telephoned the hearing dates and under abuse under color of authority, was prosecuted in criminal court for violating the restraining orders. The "victim" was San Diego attorney Mark Barber. When city initially declined to prosecute, Barber wrote an eight page letter omitting he'd was a under a restraining order not to hit his daughter, and the city reversed their decision.

The city does a lot of business with Barber, The Law offices of Mark Barber, and all police evidence of harm to Barber's daughter, lists Barber as the person responsible for her injuries. That fact was never in dispute.

However, this being San Diego, he was awarded full custody and control by an array of family court judges and commissioners, (Ashworth, Clements, Barton, and Howatt) who chose to ignore the court-appointed evaluators reports showing the mother to be the better parent. Harutunian didn't allow reports which stated the father's physical abuse must be addressed, into evidence.

(Barber moved to San Diego after a northern California police department attempted to prosecute him for child abuse. San Diego has a state-wide reputation for judicial wild cards, so he knew the odds were better for him here).

Harutunian cowed the mother's attorney, by not allowing testimony of defense witnesses.

The capper? Harutunian spoke at Length about the case to his DA wife, Rebecca Harutunian; and about a particular juror. Although both sides agreed to keep the juror, Harutunian dismissed the juror following a conversation that never should have taken place.

(Apparently Harutunian didn't listen to his own admonishments to the jury not to talk about the case. Such conduct is the stuff made for the CJP. If only California had a panel interested in judicial performance.)

Harutunian likewise refused the Mother's request to allow the jury to see a photograph of mother and child together, in happier times.

Harutunian recused himself after reading this site.

JUDGE HARVEY HIBNER
In 1998, (again, Four years after the incidents), The CJP publicly admonished Judge 'Horn Dog' Hibner, after finding he demonstrated a continuing pattern of harassing his clerk, who clearly, didn't want to be bothered. The findings; filled with over-the-top, examples of judicial arrogance, remains, standard harassment, juvenile, fare.

We question why CJP investigations, with proof lying around in the open, take so long.

JUDGE WILLIAM HOWATT - the misogyny inclined Prince of Pork when it comes to ordering Guardian Ad Litem, evaluations, supervised visitation
remember this face but ignore the JAMS puff piece. The man is absolutely dangerous.
Latest example of a slap to Judge Howatt.
Although Susan Griffin made the cover of San Diego Magazine in 2001, and was ordered to pay restitution to the County, as well as fined by the State of California Psychology Board for practicing therapy without a license; Judge Howatt continues putting children at risk by ordering people to her facility.unmonitored centers.

Awhen it comes family court - just think of of how Judge William Howatt handled Betty Broderick's divorce, and Lord help you and your children. Taking the file home and wanting praise for working overtime.

Yes around Howatt one gets that old misogyny feeling.

California Lawyer, April, 1994:
"Now that Dan Broderick's estate has been settled, and the three principal players are either buried or imprisoned, some facts have come to light that bear out Betty's side of the story.

Six days before Dan left Betty, he wired $175,000. to his brother in Colorado. Three weeks before that, he withdrew $80,000 from a business account. The financial figures he submitted to the court failed to mention these two transactions, as well as a $450,000 personal loan to his brother after the couple separated.

Dan Broderick's financial accounting did show a number of disastrous investments, especially the ones he made with his brother. Dan was awarded all the properties that had zero or negative values, while Betty paid for half of these losses out of her final settlement. That debt was $75,00, and accrued the day of the divorce. The value of the couple's community property, including Dan Broderick's multi-million dollar law practice, was from the date of their separation--four years earlier.

Many people argue that Betty harmed herself with a series of irrational acts, not the least of which was the decision to fire all her attorneys and represent herself at her divorce trial. But alliance founder Ronnie Brown, who accompanied Betty to many of her hearings and sat through the entire trial, say unequivocally: "Betty Broderick was assaulted in every litigious way possible. I think all those continuances beat her down. She was pushed over the edge.".

Give this wide judge a wide birth. Howatt's veneer is deliberate, and mild. If there's no money, he's fair. But his hatred of women who oppose men with money is well documented and as wide as his considerable waistband.

Naturally Betty shouldn't have killed her ex and his new wife Linda. But neither should part of the court house be renamed to "honor" Dan; her cheating, community property looting, spouse.

SUSAN D. HUGUENOR
Lets see, she's married to a rabid "father's rights guy" Huguenor has no problem terminating parental rights. She's been out-of-control for a long time, but the situation, what with her cozy relationships with: ka-ching, various "service providers" goes beyond the pale. Bounce this judge. About the only good news is the Court of Appeal likewise has no problem reversing her decisions, both in Juvenile, or Family Court, but why waste the money?

JUDGE WILLIAM H. KENNEDY
Judge Kennedy sentenced former minister, Carlos Romero to probation, and not to work as a religious leader for five whole years, after two, former members of his church testified he forced them to have sex with him, to save them from the devil. One woman testified she had sex, once a week for a period of six years. The victim also testified Romero threatened to hurt her if she ever told. Prosecutor's offered a plea deal to Romero, and he pled guilty to a single count of a felony charge of violating the liberty of a person through the use of fear, intimidation or deceit. Earlier charges of rape through the use of fear or duress, obtaining sex through the use of fear or fraud and making a criminal threat were dismissed.

JUDGE K. MICHAEL KIRKMAN
Superior Court Judge K. Michael Kirkman sentenced fair worker Kurt Hulsey, who pled guilty to assaulting a 14-year-old girl at the Del Mar fairgrounds, to three years' probation. Had Hulsey been convicted of the original charges he would have faced a maximum sentence of eight years in prison, according to prosecutor Christine Trevino. Two other charges were dropped. Do Judge Kirkman and Prosecutor Trevino subscribe to the notion you get one girl for free?

JUDGE JOAN LEWIS, (formerly Danielson)
In early 2008, in the Brand case, Judge "Rule for the Defense" was again overturned in a whistle blower suit; making her one of the most overturned judges in the County.
Recent reversal was November 15, 2007 in the Sharp case..but Lewis seems to be the kind of female jurist who upon pulling up a chair at the big boys table, will do anything to keep it warm. The word on Lewis is she's just, plain, bad. Which is why we're happy she's out of family court.

Reversed in the Peregrine case, prior to that she was reversed for "Abuse of Discretion" for not rewarding attorney fees in the Wal-Mart case. Previously Lewis was a fan of of Real Solutions (Hannah's House); always bad news for parents and children. Lewis, be she in family or civil court, inspires the most mail, and ties Commissioner Clements for appellate reversals. However, as her decision in the Peregrine suit from last April, proves, she keeps Trying..

We recommend bouncing Lewis with pre-emptive challenge. If your attorney is reluctant to bounce this judge we recommend new counsel.

JUDGE FRED LINK
There was talk in PD's office of a group bounce due to Link's squirrely demeanor. Snappish, surly, yet camera ready smiles on a moment's notice, Link redefines two-faced. Once in criminal court, when a defendant corrected a statement he made in error, he raised her bail ten thousand dollars.

JUDGE JOHN S. MEYER
Meyer threw out a jury award of sexual harassment of teenagers working their first job at a theatre chain. Said it the 6.5 million was excessive, (get this) because of the prejudicial behavior of their attorney. The girl victims, who had up to twelve witnesses confirming their abuse, were subjected to physical (including in one attack, a separated shoulder), stalking and verbal abuse. They are appealing.

PRIVATE JUDGE JAMES R MILLIKEN
Just say, "No." Folksy charm aside, Milliken remains a political hack, more concerned with the players than the children. Most famous for pandering to the cozy players in family court. As such Milliken remains at the top of our "Do Not Call" list.

JUDGE THOMAS R. MITCHELL
Purloined from the LA Times: "Emmeline Frey was wheeled toward the bench, escorted by a family friend. She was 93 years old and frail, suffering from dementia and a broken hip.
In San Diego County's busy Probate Court, it was up to Judge Thomas R. Mitchell to decide how to preserve the $1 million she had amassed pinching pennies over a lifetime. On the recommendation of Frey's attorney, he appointed a professional conservator named Donna Daum.
Frey's affairs were now in the hands of a caretaker acting under court supervision. Her money should have been safe.
It was not.
Daum gave her son, a car salesman turned financial advisor, more than $500,000 of Frey's savings to invest. Over the next four years, the investments lost more than $100,000 in value while the son collected commissions.
Mitchell, who described himself as the "super father" of the seniors who entered his courtroom, never questioned what Daum was doing with her client's money or why her son was involved.
The case illustrates how inaction and inattention by the courts have left many elderly Californians vulnerable to abuse by the very people entrusted with their care.
Professional conservators wield enormous power over people deemed too infirm to look after themselves. They choose their doctors, control their bank accounts and decide where they will live, and who can visit them.
Probate courts, which appoint conservators, are supposed to monitor their conduct, scrutinize their financial reports and fine or remove those who misuse their authority." Would you want Judge Mitchell or Donna Daum around those you love?

JUDGE DAVID B. OBERHOLTZER
In August of 2004, Judge Oberholtzer awarded custody of two small children to a father (with an assist from Breffni Barret and MFT, Susan Richardson). After six years of sole custody, Mother now on "highly supervised" visitation. Father's history includes the following, "true findings" from an earlier court.
1999- Juvenile Court made Four "true findings" of abuse against ex-husband. Mother was awarded custody of their children.
1996- A Family Court judge found him to have been abusive to his two children a previous marriage. Mother awarded sole legal custody.
1994- Superior Court judge found him to be a vexatious litigant.
1989- Juvenile Court found father sexually molested his 4 year old daughter.

ROBERT F. O'NEILL - in dire need of a reality check.
The Court of Appeal sternly reverses conviction from Judge Robert O'Neill,'s court. One of O'Neill's criminal cases is pending in the Cal. Supreme Court because, as O'Neill first disqualified himself from hearing the defendant's matter, then "re-qualified" himself 18 months later and presided over the defendant's jury trial. Court of Appeal reversed convictions on Due Process grounds. See, People v. Marilyn Freeman (2007) 147 CAl.App4th 517

The next question becomes, will the CJP act on his conduct?

Additionally, Judge Robert F. O'Neill sentenced Amber Jackson to life in prison, after her aggravated mayhem conviction, for disfiguring one of her younger sisters by throwing hot cooking oil on her. The hot oil landed on her sister's chin, arms, and torso. In a separate case, Ms. Jackson pled guilty to taking her son from his foster parent and fleeing the state. It is thought Ms. Jackson will spend twenty-four years in prison before she is eligible for parole.

ALLEN PRECKEL
In dealing with a Los Colinas inmate who spit on two deputies, and was additionally charged; questions about her competency to stand trial kept returning to each of her defense counsel. (one for the initial charge; one for the spitting while in custody). In a rush to judgment, Judge Preckel asked some questions about the trial in declaratory sentences and asked if she understood. Sometimes she answered yes, and sometimes not. Judge Preckel announced she was ready to proceed to trial. Fortunately, the Court of Appeal decided otherwise for the mentally challenged woman. Lowell case went to Judge Wellington, below.

JUDGE RONALD PRAGER - E
We have heard good things about this jurist for the past eight years.

JUDGE CHARLES ROGERS - Friend to Child Pornographers
What can one say about a judge who sentences a former cop who ran a website to provide tips to parents about safe internet surfer, instead downloaded and made child porn? Brett Kenneth Hensley pleaded guilty to one felony count of using a minor in the making of child pornography and three misdemeanor counts of possessing child pornography. Hensley, a 12-year veteran resigned in June 2004, shortly after getting caught.
Rogers ruled, "Probation." Should this former police officer violate probation, he might have to do a whole year in jail. How's that for hard on crime?

PETER RIDDLE, (Retired by appointment)
Riddle was overturned by the Court of Appeal on June 28th, which ruled Mexico had jurisdiction on a foreign national medically treated in California. The court also ruled California had no right to snatch kids from their parents. As such, the COA, also dismissed Juvenile Court Dependency actions. Amazingly, it was a clean sweep by the little guy.

JUDGE DE ANN SALCIDO
That she's a family court judge means Judge DeAnn Salicido knows (as have other judges later convicted of bribery), how to hide her assets.

JUDGE JANIS SAMMARTINO
Excellent jurist. Wise. Judge Sammartino combines an excellent legal mind with a thoughtful degree of workable compassion. This combination makes Sammartino an anomaly among fellow jurists.

JUDGE JACQUELINE STERN

In a rape case, Judge Stern seemed not to care for a rape victim. At least the Court of Appeal thought so. More recently, one wonders how Judge Jacqueline Stern's mind works. Did she drive Roger McDowell over the edge by allowing his custody case to drag on for years.

JUDGE RANDA TRAPP
Judge Trapp, is married to law enforcement and a big fan of Hannah's House...never mind that Susan Griffin is still paying restitution to the County and was fined by the State for practicing psychology without a license. The police won't prosecute Griffin and judges like Trapp line her pockets. Avoid.

JUDGE LEO VALENTINE
Aides former disgraced prosecutor, and head of the Economic Crimes Unit Peter Longanbach

COMMISSIONER THEODORE WEATHERS
Weathers, goes with the rich. Seemingly, No matter what.

COMMISSIONER ADAM WERTHEIMER
When Wertheimer was a Guardian Ad Litem parents complained he was a do nothing, but we have no current information on him as a Commissioner.

JUDGE MICHAEL WELLINGTON
Sentenced former Los Colinas sheriff's deputy, Lowell Bruce, to 15 years in prison after Lowell shot his wife in the face during a fight in front of their four year old boy. Lowell then said, "My career is shot." Could have sentenced Bruce to 21 years. Bonnie Dumanis bounced Judge Preckel, the earlier judge as Bruce was actively negotiating for six years.

JUDGE CHARLES WICKERSHAM
Wickersham, the most over-turned-on-appeal, judge, appears to have the judicial philosophy, You Scratch My back, I'll Scratch Yours, so common in these parts, we know highly respected attorneys in several other counties, who simply refuse to try civil cases in San Diego. They claim it's not in their client's best interests to litigate in Enron-by-the-Sea, San Diego. Wickersham also dismissed, without leave to amend, the City's lawsuit against pension board members. File that under, "Raise Your Hand Who's Surprised." Perhaps Wickersham surprised himself on that, as he later reversed his earlier decision. Got that? Raise your hand who's surprised he was finally transferred to Juvenile Court.

Below, when Money is involved, is a typical San Diego divorce. The short version is: the lawyers win.

The San Diego Union - Tribune; San Diego, Calif.;
May 29, 2000; Alex Roth;

With their two Porsches, Ferrari and house with an ocean view, Dr. Stanley and Linda Perkins weren't bashful about spending money -- and the divorcing couple spent a bundle on a vicious custody fight.

The fight was particularly vicious considering it wasn't even about a child. It was about Gigi, the couple's dog.

The battle lasted two years, costing the childless couple thousands on expenses ranging from legal fees to a "canine bonding" study designed to help decide who was the better master for their beloved pointer-greyhound mix.

In March, the case culminated in a trial in San Diego Superior Court, complete with a dramatic day-in-the-life-of-Gigi video that one of the lawyers believes helped clinch the case for her client.

The Perkins divorce case -- a story of puppy love in its most literal, extravagant sense -- spotlights an issue that might affect any couple sharing a pet. That issue is pet litigation.

Who bothers to consider which partner might get to keep Fluffy the cat or Sparky the dog in the event of a romantic split?

Think the question through, divorce lawyers recommend -- because many estranged spouses are surprisingly willing to take each other to court over issues ranging from vet bills to visitation rights.

It is an area of the law that isn't fully developed. Under the state's civil code, pets are treated like a sofa or dining table -- pieces of property to be awarded to one party or the other.

And when trying to resolve the issue, feuding ex-lovers have been known to engage in battles almost as venomous as any child-custody dispute.

San Diego lawyer Richard Prantil handled a case in which the two parties signed a contract calling for one to get the dog during the week, the other on the weekend.

"They didn't have kids, and this was their kid," he said.

Then there was the case in which a divorcing couple was fighting over custody of the family shih tzu. The list of trial exhibits included a giant oil painting of the dog that San Diego lawyer Jean Skripek's client wheeled into the courtroom on a dolly.

"Those people had a lot of money," Skripek said.

`We want the cat'

When it comes to their beloved animals, warring spouses have been known to commit astonishing acts of emotional cruelty. Vista attorney Cheryl Tomac recalled one particularly bitter battle between her client and her client's ex-husband over the family cat.

One night the man called his ex-wife and told her that the cat had meowed in a way that sounded like the ex-wife's name. As a result, he informed her, he'd taken the cat into the garage and hanged it.

"We want the cat,"

Tomac screamed at the opposing lawyer over the telephone, "and it better be alive when we get it."

The cat, it turned out, was unharmed.

San Francisco Bay Area attorney Leonard Weiler, a board member of the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists, said most pet litigation is resolved before a judge gets involved. A trial over a pet, he said, is almost unheard of.

Indeed, few lawyers can recall a case as long or bitter as the fight over the Perkins' dog. The case is now the stuff of folklore on the local family court circuit -- and most of the stories "have not been kind," said Stanley Perkins' lawyer, Maura Byrne.

The battle for Gigi

Stanley Perkins, 44, is a Pacific Beach anesthesiologist. His ex- wife, Linda, 38, who now goes by her maiden name of Kaplan, runs a business distributing technical manuals

The story traces back to the beginning of their marriage in 1994, when, ominously enough, one of Stanley Perkins' two dogs killed one of his fiancee's cats a few days before the wedding.

The couple immediately gave the dog away and Stanley's second dog died a year later. The husband decided he wanted another dog.

"I told Linda that Stan was a `dog person' and had always been so," Stanley Perkins' sister said in a court declaration. "I remember telling her that `a boy and his dog' applied to no one more than it did to Stan."

The couple acquired Gigi at an animal shelter in 1996. Two years later the couple filed for divorce -- and custody of Gigi soon became a major issue.

Stanley Perkins said he should keep Gigi because the dog had been a gift from his wife to replace his other dogs. Not so, countered his wife, who insisted the dog had been a joint acquisition. "I was Gigi's `Mommy,' " she argued in a court declaration. As proof she submitted a birthday card addressed to "a special `Mom,' " and signed "Love, Gigi."

(The card -- which offered thanks because "you brush my coat and pet my head and let me in and out . . . " -- actually was written by Stanley Perkins.)

`Natural enemies'

In May 1998, Superior Court Judge Thomas Ashworth granted temporary custody of Gigi to Perkins, with Kaplan getting weekend visitations. He also told them to feel free to consult any experts who might help him make a final ruling. They eventually took him up on the offer.

Meanwhile, the legal file began to pile up in court. Kaplan insisted Gigi belonged with her because she worked out of her apartment and could give the dog more attention.

But Perkins predicted dire consequences if his estranged wife got custody of Gigi. The problem: Kaplan's 11-year-old cat, Muffin. As dog and cat, he asserted, the two animals were "natural enemies."

"Gigi and Muffin do not play together and they never have," he stated. "Further, Muffin does not like Gigi nosing her."

By September 1998 no permanent custody arrangement had been resolved, and the Perkinses continued to argue about which of them would provide the better home. It was time, they decided, to consult a professional.

Enter Dr. A. Lynn Wilson, animal behavior expert.

Bringing in the experts

Wilson, who offers advice on raising pets, said the case was the first and only time she'd been hired to perform a "bonding study" in a custody dispute over an animal.

Nonetheless, Wilson gamely visited both parties in an effort to decide which one had a closer relationship with the dog and would make a better master.

According to Wilson's report, during the interview with the wife, Gigi slept and played with a chew toy. Wilson's report noted the frequency of Gigi's walks (2-3 times a day), Gigi's eating habits (Pro-Plan dry food) and sleeping arrangements (dog bed in wife's room).

During Wilson's interview with the husband, he demonstrated a game where Gigi "playfully and gently pulls on his hand with her mouth."

Wilson concluded that both were loving masters. She further pronounced Gigi "a well-adjusted dog." Wilson recommended that Kaplan get primary custody of Gigi because she worked at home and her neighborhood was safer for pets.

A minor controversy later erupted when it surfaced that Perkins had hired another animal behaviorist, Dr. Dennis Fetko, to prepare for his interview with Wilson. Fetko, who goes by the moniker "Dr. Dog," didn't return a phone call seeking comment.

Based on Wilson's report, the judge granted the wife temporary custody of Gigi, with the husband getting weekend visitations.

Adding the costs

Meanwhile, the divorce litigation dragged on, with the couple battling over a variety of non-Gigi issues, most of them related to finances.

By March 2000, Kaplan had spent $146,000 in legal fees on her divorce, according to court records. Through the years, her lawyer's firm had done more than 20 research projects and spoken to her on the phone nearly 400 times. It's unclear what percentage was related to Gigi.

As time went by, the couple decided that joint custody wasn't in Gigi's best interest. The whole arrangement seemed to be taking a psychological toll on the dog.

"Gigi was starting to get a little skittish about things," Perkins said. "She wasn't her normal happy self."

They decided that one of them should get permanent, exclusive custody. It would take a trial in front of Judge Ashworth to decide which one that should be.

The divorce trial lasted three days in March, and roughly half the time was spent on the issue of Gigi, according to Kaplan's lawyer, Sandra Morris.

A day in the life

Morris is an experienced family-law attorney. And she decided to use a bit of legal theater that had worked in several child-custody cases: A day-in-the-life video.

Kaplan shot the piece with a hand-held video camera, showing Gigi sleeping under her desk, walking in the park, playing on the beach. The video lasted about five minutes.

The judge, who wouldn't comment on the case, awarded Kaplan permanent custody

Are you feelin' the flavor of San Diego yet? There's more.

Of course, we're interested in former city attorney, Casey Gwinn too.

More on Gwinn and his partnerships choices can be found here, and no, we're really not sure why the Union Tribune remains so kindly towards him.

More on the con of Visitation centers here. here. That said, judges like Howatt, Trapp and others repeatedly support these unmonitored centers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Navigation: