When a judge gets indicted, it's usually for stealing money, not for sabotaging the lives of the people who appear before her

Juvenile Court Judge Tracie Hunter indicted on criminal charges
LOCAL 12 TV (video You Tube)
Published on Jan 10, 2014

CINCINNATI (WKRC) -- A Hamilton County grand jury indicts Judge Tracie Hunter on eight felony charges Friday. The charges filed against the juvenile court judge include theft in office, tampering with evidence and forgery. Two special prosecutors, Scott Croswell and Merlyn Shiverdecker, have been investigating the allegations against her.Several of the tampering with evidence charges involve the backdating of judicial entries. The theft in office charge alleges Judge Hunter used public funds to pay unauthorized filing fees with the Supreme Court of Ohio. She has been ruled in contempt of court after some media outlets sued for access to juvenile cases.Judge Hunter is also accused of having unlawful interest in a public contract charge in connection to the hiring of her brother Steven Hunter for a job with the Hamilton County Juvenile Court.Judge Hunter will be summoned to appear for arraignment at some point. The special prosecutors also say additional charges may be filed.Click HERE for the Jeff Hirsh story in November.Click on the following links for the documents:page 1page 2page 3page 4page 5page 6

Vote in Carla Keehn in place of Lisa Schall for Judicial Office 20, and Brad Weinreb for Office 25, but keep Prager and Popkins

 Update April 2016:

Carla Keehn is challenging Keri Greer Katz, daughter of judge Michael Greer, in 2016 election for Superior Court Judge

 Original post:

Superior Court Judge; Office 9 • Ronald S. Prager

Superior Court Judge; Office 19 • Michael J. Popkins

Superior Court Judge; Office 20 • Carla Keehn: This race receives special attention. Keehn is running against the incumbent Lisa Schall. The problem with Schall is that during her term as judge she has been admonished three times by the state Commission on Judicial Performance. After 30 years on the bench it is time for a change. Vote for Keehn

Superior Court Judge; Office 25 • Brad Weinreb

Brad Weinreb, a state deputy attorney general for more than 20 years, was rated by the Bar as “qualified.” He has extensive experience in major criminal cases and claims one of the highest active caseloads in death penalty cases. He won the endorsement of Goldsmith, Gore, Chula Vista Police Chief David Bejarano, county Public Defender Henry Coker, numerous organizations and some 50 current judges. Both his opponents, Michele Hagan and Ken Gosselin, received the lowest rating of “lacking qualifications” from the Bar. And Gosselin has been accused of misleading voters about his education and experience.

Superior Court Judge; Office 44 • Joseph Adelizzi (SDER choice to replace incumbent Judge Jacqueline Stern)

Judge has been admonished three times
No jurist in the state has a less favorable record
By Greg Moran
U-T San Diego
May 12, 2014

The campaign website for San Diego Superior Court Judge Lisa Schall touts her three decades of experience on the bench, including assignments in every division of law, from criminal courts to probate matters and family law.

What it doesn’t talk about is Schall’s record of discipline with the state agency that oversees judges.

No other active judge among the state’s 1,827 judges on the Superior Court, appeals court and Supreme Court bench has been publicly disciplined more times than Schall has, a review of disciplinary records from the Commission on Judicial Performance shows. She has received two public admonishments and one private admonishment.

Only one other judge, in Contra Costa, has a similar record.

Schall said the record involves three incidents over a nearly-30-year career on the bench, that she has learned from her mistakes, and that her work record has earned her the continuing support of the legal community.

The record shows Schall has been publicly admonished twice, most recently in March 2008 when she pleaded guilty to an alcohol-related driving charge. A public admonishment is the third most-serious level of punishment the commission can hand out, behind only public censure and removal from the bench.

She was stopped while driving the wrong way on Centre City Parkway in Escondido in September 2007 and found to have a blood-alcohol level of 0.09. That is just over the legal limit.

The arrest came just months before she was up for re-election to her fourth term and was not made public at the time. Court records show the case was delayed for six months, and Schall pleaded guilty to a lesser offense — one week after the filing period for a candidate to run against her had closed.

Under state election law, if a sitting judge does not draw a challenger during the filing period, they are deemed automatically re-elected to the office for another term.

Both the judge and her attorney, William Wolfe, said she was not given any special consideration and that Schall did not seek to delay the disposition of the case until after the filing period.

Shall said this week she was dealing with a divorce and caring for her elderly parents at the time of the DUI arrest. She said that is not an excuse, and has apologized to colleagues and family since.

“I took ownership of that,” she said. “I didn’t try to hide it or cover it up.”

Schall was also publicly admonished in 1999 for abusing her power and not following the law when she jailed a woman for five days for contempt of court. The woman was disruptive in the courtroom during a hearing on a restraining order and was taken out of the courtroom.

When the woman said to Schall’s bailiff that she would “go off” if not allowed to tell her story, Schall cited her for contempt without holding a hearing or making factual findings — and when the woman was not in the courtroom.

In 1995 Schall received a private admonishment from the commission for what commission records describe as “her embroilment in a juvenile dependency matter.” Schall said during a child welfare case she was told an appellate lawyer for one parent had been revealing confidential testimony from the court proceedings. She held a hearing with the appellate lawyer and others to find out what had happened, and the commission concluded that was wrong.

...The disciplinary commission has doled out public admonishments just 75 times since 1995 to 22 judges, records show. Several judges who received two public admonishments either retired or were removed by the commission after the second...

Union-Tribune endorses Judge Lisa Schall, then reports that "No jurist in the state has a less favorable record" than Judge Schall

Incumbent Judge Lisa Schall [U-T file] — Charlie Neuman

The apparent contradiction in San Diego Union-Tribune articles about Judge Schall actually make perfect sense. The U-T is saying that it's better to have a bad Republican than a good Democrat. The U-T thinks it's okay for a judge to improperly throw citizens in jail, to become embroiled in juvenile dependency cases, and to drive drunk, as long as the status quo is maintained in the courts.

I think it should also be noted that the three official admonishments of Judge Lisa Schall don't tell the whole story. The Commission on Judicial Competence is often loathe to criticize judges even when they behave very badly.

This article from the Los Angeles Times from September 1986 recounts how the judge, shortly after being appointed, showed her gratitude to Governor George Deukmejian by appearing at one of his campaign events.

The article notes, “[Mike] Aguirre filed a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance alleging that Guy-Schall’s talk was a violation of judicial ethics guidelines that prohibit judges from endorsing or campaigning for candidates for non-judicial office.”

Apparently Schall did NOT get a reprimand for this shockingly inappropriate behavior, which makes me wonder if there were also other complaints against Judge Schall to the Commission on Judicial Performance that failed to result in admonishments.

See also: After 2 days, Clear Channel pulls down billboards that reveal that Judge Lisa Schall was convicted of a crime

Judge has been admonished three times
No jurist in the state has a less favorable record
By Greg Moran
SDUT
May 12, 2014

Private admonishments are issued by the commission in cases where serious misconduct has been found, but are confidential and only become public if revealed in future disciplinary matters.

Her opponent in the race, federal prosecutor Carla Keehn, is making an issue of Schall’s record. This week billboards went up saying Keehn was the “only candidate for this office NOT convicted of a crime.”

“I think a judge should be above reproach,” Keehn said “Judges should set the standard for law abiding behavior.”

The disciplinary commission has doled out public admonishments just 75 times since 1995 to 22 judges, records show. Several judges who received two public admonishments either retired or were removed by the commission after the second.

Schall said voters should assess her ability over a full career and based on what her peers and others say.

She has been rated well qualified, the highest rating, by the county bar association, she said. All of the Superior Court bench has endorsed her. Keehn received a rating of qualified, the second highest of three rating categories.

Schall has been a judge for nearly 29 years. She was first appointed to the now defunct Municipal Court bench in 1985 at age 32, then elevated to the Superior Court bench in 1989. She has been re-elected four times to six-year terms and has never been challenged, until this year when Keehn decided to run against her.

Private admonishments are issued by the commission in cases where serious misconduct has been found, but are confidential and only become public if revealed in future disciplinary matters.

Her opponent in the race, federal prosecutor Carla Keehn, is making an issue of Schall’s record. This week billboards went up saying Keehn was the “only candidate for this office NOT convicted of a crime.”

“I think a judge should be above reproach,” Keehn said “Judges should set the standard for law abiding behavior.”

The disciplinary commission has doled out public admonishments just 75 times since 1995 to 22 judges, records show. Several judges who received two public admonishments either retired or were removed by the commission after the second.

Schall said voters should assess her ability over a full career and based on what her peers and others say.

She has been rated well qualified, the highest rating, by the county bar association, she said. All of the Superior Court bench has endorsed her. Keehn received a rating of qualified, the second highest of three rating categories.

Schall has been a judge for nearly 29 years. She was first appointed to the now defunct Municipal Court bench in 1985 at age 32, then elevated to the Superior Court bench in 1989. She has been re-elected four times to six-year terms and has never been challenged, until this year when Keehn decided to run against her.

HERE IS THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE UNION-TRIBUNE:

FOR THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BENCH
By U-T San Diego Editorial Board
May 12, 2014
The only real decision for voters is in Office 20. Incumbent Judge Lisa Schall is a former prosecutor who has been on the bench since her appointment by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1985. She received the Bar’s highest rating of “well qualified,” and she has the endorsement of virtually all other judges on the bench, numerous retired judges, Goldsmith, Coker and a variety of professional organizations. But she has been admonished three times by the state Commission on Judicial Performance, including once for her guilty plea in 2008 to alcohol-related reckless driving. Her opponent is Carla Keehn, a former Army captain and an assistant U.S. attorney for the past 18 years who was rated as “qualified” by the Bar. The admonishments Schall received are a legitimate issue for voters to consider. The U-T editorial board believes her overall solid record of 29 years on the bench trumps those controversies. We endorse Judge Schall for re-election.

[Maura Larkins's response: "Overall solid record" of doing exactly what? Protecting friends of U-T owner Doug Manchester?

Sharon Kramer May 12, 2014 at 10:55 am

Does the UT have a typo in their story yesterday? They wrote of Schall, “overall solid record of 29 years on the bench”. Surely they meant to write, “overall SOILED record”.

After 2 days, Clear Channel pulls down billboards that reveal that Judge Lisa Schall was convicted of a crime; also, Judge Schall's website is down (perhaps for changes in her endorsements?)

San Diego 10 News reports that billboards have been taken down by Clear Channel two days after they were put up.

Federal prosecutor Carla Keehn is challenging Judge Lisa Schall in the June 3, 2014 election for San Diego Superior Court judge. The advertisements correctly stated that Judge Schall has been convicted of a crime.

See newscast video on You Tube.

Judge Schall has been admonished three times by the Commission on Judicial Competence. The offenses were political support for the governor who appointed her, abusing her contempt power, and drunk driving.

See all posts on Carla Keehn and Judge Schall.

Judicial candidate Carla Keehn wants to know who took her billboards down

Billboards critical of incumbent Judge Lisa Schall

Joe Little

KGTV

May 12, 2014

SAN DIEGO - A local judicial candidate wants answers after her factually accurate billboard was taken down without any explanation.

Federal prosecutor Carla Keehn recently paid Clear Channel Outdoors $14,000 for four billboards that attack her opponent for Superior Court Judge Seat 20.

Incumbent Judge Lisa Schall has held that seat for almost three decades.

The billboard reads: "Vote Carla Keehn: The only candidate for this office not convicted of a crime. Because no one is above the law, not even judges."

The billboards went up last week and were almost immediately taken down.

"Well, it was a complete surprise," said Keehn. "They would not tell me who or what group told them to bring it down."

Schall has been disciplined three times by a state commission, including once after a DUI in 2008.

Keehn paid Clear Channel for 30 days to share that fact on her billboards. A Clear Channel representative told Keehn the order came from above her to take them down.

"I asked her specifically, 'Can you tell me the name?' She said, 'No.' I asked her, 'Can you tell me the location?' She said, 'No. We've been getting a lot of pressure,'" Keehn recounted.

The same representative declined to speak with 10News. 10News also tried tracking down Schall, whose website was also down Monday.

Keehn said Clear Channel is refusing to give her a full refund.

"They were going to charge us for the whole week and for the cost of tearing all four billboards down," said Keehn.

She's now weighing her legal options.

"We're still reviewing that. It just happened and we're still reviewing and we're still in negotiations with Clear Channel," she said.

A Clear Channel spokesperson issued this statement on the matter:

"Unfortunately our protocol for political ads was not followed and we took the ad down. We have offered the client a variety of resolutions, including the fullest refund allowable under the laws governing political contributions."

Besides the DUI, Schall was also admonished for "abuse of power" in 1999 and for holding an inappropriate hearing in 1995 while working in juvenile court.

San Diego’s Post-Kreep Judicial Landscape: A Reader’s Guide

See all posts on electing judges.

San Diego’s Post-Kreep Judicial Landscape: A Reader’s Guide
By: Ari Bloomekatz
Voice of San Diego
May 2, 2014

...This time around, San Diego will have to settle for a candidate who’s defended white supremacists pro bono and once wrote that a judge he was facing should be disqualified “by virtue of her permanent disability as a Negro racist;” and an incumbent with a drunk-driving conviction who was also admonished by a state commission for incorrectly putting a woman in custody for five days.

Those are two Superior Court candidates in five of the contested races – where an incumbent judge faces at least one challenger – for the June 3 election. Another 42 races for the bench are uncontested, meaning the sitting judge doesn’t have an opponent and will coast to another six-year term.

...There are currently 125 active Superior Court judges in San Diego County. Generally speaking, Superior Court judges are first appointed by the governor, but those judges can be challenged in the following election cycle.

The Contested Races

Office No. 9

Incumbent: Judge Ronald S. Prager ["well qualilfied"]

Challenger: Attorney/recycler Douglas Crawford ["lacking qualifications"; found culpable on one count of professional misconduct.]

Office No. 19

Incumbent: Judge Michael J. Popkins

Challenger: U.S. Justice Department attorney Paul Ware

Office No. 20

Incumbent: Judge Lisa Schall[officially admonished for campaigning for the governor who appointed her and wrongly jailing a woman, drunk driving]

Challenger: Federal prosecutor Carla Keehn

Office No. 25

The incumbent, Judge Cynthia Bashant, was recently confirmed as a U.S. District judge, so this is now an open election.

Challengers: Attorney/court volunteer Ken Gosselin, attorney [Bar Assoc. says "lacking qualifications"]/
fraud examiner Michele Hagan [Bar Assoc. says "lacking qualifications"] and
Deputy Attorney General Brad A. Weinreb

Gov. Jerry Brown could technically fill Bashant’s now-open seat, a court official said, but that is unlikely because there are people running in the election. The court official said there are currently seven more open bench seats that have not been filled, likely because of funding issues.

Office No. 44

Incumbent: Judge Jacqueline M. Stern

Challenger: Attorney Joseph Adelizzi

The Candidates

There are 11 candidates in the five contested Superior Court races and of those, the San Diego County Bar Association rated three – Crawford, Gosselin and Hagan – as “Lacking Qualifications.”

Of those three, Crawford has received the most attention recently because of a legal statement he penned in 2011 arguing the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is a “militant, ‘black power’ organization” and that Judge Randa Trapp, who is black, should be disqualified from a particular case because she has a “racist bias and prejudice in favor of negroes and against whites.”

“Moreover, Crawford is well known in the legal community as an attorney that openly and vocally supports white supremacy causes by providing pro bono legal counsel to white supremacists,” Crawford wrote about himself, according to a copy of the legal statement.

“Plaintiff’s attorney contends that Judge Trapp will be unable to properly perceive the evidence and/or properly conduct the proceedings by virtue of her permanent disability as a Negro racist,” he wrote.

Crawford said recently that if he “could go back in time, I would never represented the client.” He said he does not share any white supremacist philosophies and was only doing his best to help his client at the time.

Crawford also has his own case pending in the State Bar Court – which hears attorney misconduct complaints – where he has been found culpable on one count of professional misconduct.

The misconduct, according to court records, refers to a threat Crawford allegedly made that he would have his client trigger a federal audit against their opponents if they didn’t start settlement talks.

He is challenging that ruling.

Crawford said he knows he’s not a traditional judicial candidate and that he “would never have a chance in any way, shape or form of ever being appointed to the bench,” which is why he decided to run.

He says his nickname is “Dirty Doug” because he prefers junkyards and fixing cars to working in courthouses.

Meanwhile, the Bar Association ranked three of the four incumbent judges as “Well Qualified” and the last, Stern, as “Qualified.”

Of those four, Schall – ranked as “Well Qualified” – is the only one who has been called out (and not in a good way) by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

Schall was first appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian in the 1980s and says she is facing her first contested race.



According to court records, Schall received a private admonishment in 1995 related to her involvement in a juvenile dependency case.

Then in 1999, she was admonished for “an abuse of the contempt power” after incorrectly ordering a woman into custody for five days, according to a copy of the admonishment.

And about a decade later, Schall was again admonished by the commission after she was arrested and found guilty of drunk driving. According to a copy of that admonishment, Schall had a blood alcohol level of approximately 0.09 percent after she drove on the wrong side of an Escondido highway.

Schall said that it has been about seven years since her drunk-driving conviction and that she has “been a better judge out of that very bad choice that I made.”

Schall said she was going through a divorce at the time and her parents’ health was declining. She said that she served her probation and sometimes speaks at civic events about the dangers of drunk driving.

Schall said two of the other admonishments had to do with not following proper procedures.

Schall’s challenger is, unsurprisingly, using the drunk-driving conviction and admonishments as part of a platform.

“Ninety-nine percent of all judges get through their entire careers with nothing and that’s how it should be,” Keehn said. “This is the first election to hold Judge Schall accountable not just for her three judicial admonishments, but her criminal conviction.”

Elected vs. Appointed

By the time California became a state in 1850, much of the country had already moved toward the popular election of judges.

“The idea was to make government as inclusive and democratic as possible … in terms of white men … and the idea of electing judges fit right in with that idea,” said Reuel Schiller, professor of Law at UC Hastings.

But at the beginning of the 20th century, there was a radical change: People started to want partisan politics out of government, Schiller said.

So California developed a sort-of hybrid system where judges would generally be initially appointed by the governor with approval by a commission and then those judges would eventually face voters.

“In some ways Californians have tried to split the difference,” said Schiller.

The debate over whether Superior Court judges should be elected or appointed recurs nearly every election cycle.

Jon Williams, head of the San Diego County Bar Association, said candidates who run for a bench seat avoid the usual vetting that would occur if they were appointed.

“It’s been my observation that there is more interest these days in obtaining the position of judge through the election process,” Williams said. “Back in the day, you didn’t see as many people raising their hand to challenge a sitting judge.”

The Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Larkins case is a window into how San Diego Superior Court functions; also, two decisions by Judge Lisa Schall overturned

Our justice system works some of the time. But is that enough? How much of the time does it function adequately? And how often is it abused by the powerful to achieve unjust goals that harm the public good?

Is Judith Hayes a typical San Diego Superior Court judge or is she unusual in her brazen refusal to follow the law when she wants a litigant to lose?

See a synopsis of Judge Hayes' actions in the defamation case against me by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz. The case record could serve as a manual for judges who want to deprive a defendant of a jury trial. I have not been able to find any attorney who knows of another case in which a default was granted AFTER summary adjudication. If Judge Hayes' actions are upheld by the Court of Appeal, I imagine it will happen more often.

I don't want to believe that Judith Hayes is typical of San Diego judges. I want to believe that many, if not most, of our Superior Court judges are interested in honestly applying the law to every case. Still, assuming that there is a majority of judges who carefully follow the law, I have come to believe that it is not an overwhelming majority.

I have learned over the past few years that a good number of Judge Hayes' colleagues feel that their job is simply to churn out decisions that preserve the status quo for people in power in both public and private spheres. It's not a justice system for these judges, it's a decision-making system meant to preserve the power of whatever individuals, no matter how incompetent or corrupt, have attained positions of influence. It's no wonder our schools are failing, our pocketbooks are shrinking and our quality of life is diminishing.

This is why I support the election of federal prosecutor Carla Keehn to replace Judge Lisa Schall. We need judges who aren't completely plugged-in to the current web of alliances at the court.

We need to chip away wherever we can at the power of those who prevent change for the better in how people and organizations treat each other in San Diego.

My own case is a testament to the disregard for the law by many highly respected members of the local bar, including attorneys who have contracts with local public entities.

I have defended myself from Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz to the best of my ability even though I knew that I would continually make serious errors in my conduct of the case. My goal was to create a record, which would be valuable whether I won or lost. In fact, it is more valuable when I lose. By winning, I don't prove that the justice system works, I only prove that it worked on one occasion.

The record of my case is a fascinating story. USD professor Shaun Martin was kind enough to take over one of my appeals pro bono (and give me a win in the Court of Appeal), but he was not in a position to work on the complex and compromised Superior Court case. If one of the other 5000 local members of the bar had been willing to stand up to Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, I would have more money, but I wouldn't know how corrupt the Superior Court--and the myriad officers of that court--can be. I'm glad I know. Ignorance isn't as blissful as some people claim.

Et tu, ACLU? Can the ACLU be "bought" by those opposed to free speech?

I owe a debt of gratitude to David Loy, the San Diego ACLU general counsel, for providing me with some hard evidence of the connection between power and injustice in San Diego. Mr. Loy instructed me to take down every mention of Stutz law firm on my websites--even though Mr. Loy said the ACLU wasn't going to give me any legal advice. Perhaps Mr. Loy figured that if he was simply intimidating me, that wouldn't count as legal advice. Obviously, Mr. Loy's behavior was diametrically opposed to the principles to which he has devoted his career.

I would never have believed the truth if I hadn't experienced it directly.

Mr. Loy is on the record praising himself for reaching settlements with Stutz lawyer Dan Shinoff regarding student speech in schools. It would seem that the deals Mr. Loy struck with Stutz caused him to feel obliged to undermine employee speech in schools on be. His goal was apparently to get good publicity for the ACLU, and he figured no one would ever know how much effort he put into enforcing an injunction that the Court of Appeal found to be unconstitutional.

Perhaps money also has something to do with the actions of the San Diego ACLU. They may have figured that they needed money to achieve SOME of their goals, and calculated that it would be a good bargain to abandon some of their principles in exchange for contributions. The San Diego ACLU has made it clear that it wants to focus on certain specific issues, including immigration and gay rights. But are immigrants and gay individuals really being served by making San Diego a 1st-Amendment-free zone?

I am not surprised that former executive director Kevin Keenan chose to leave the San Diego ACLU. I suspect he tries not to think about some of the cases he was forced to work on, or prevented from working on. The bizarre Johnson v. Poway Unified School District case comes to mind, in which the San Diego ACLU insisted that local high school students should be forced to sit in class under large signs with Christian messages on them. That was a case in which the San Diego ACLU should have been on Dan Shinoff's side.

IF SHE IGNORES THE LAW AND THE FACTS IN CIVIL COURT, THEN WHAT DID JUDGE HAYES DO BEFORE SHE WAS FORCED OUT OF CRIMINAL COURT?

It seems likely that mine is not the only case in which Judge Judith Hayes ignored the facts and the law. Certainly District Attorney seems to believe that Judge Hayes did the same thing in the criminal court. Hayes was forced to move to civil court when the district attorney's office refused to try any cases before Judge Hayes.

I suspect that Judge Hayes abused many individuals who didn't have enough money to pay for their own attorneys. The Public Defenders office is famous for getting criminal defendants to plead guilty. I sometimes felt that when Hayes spoke to me, she was repeating the exact words she had said to threaten criminal defendants.


Two decisions of Judge Lisa Schall reversed

Sometimes I think judges might just be lazy, repeating their usual actions instead of thinking hard about a case.

San Diego Trial Court REVERSED (Again) in MOVE-AWAY Case
Thurman Arnold
May 3, 2011

Parental Relocations and Move-Away

In response to a recent article I posted about the case of F.T. vs. L.J., the mother of the Mother in Mark T. vs. Jaime Z. submitted a comment about a new reversal of a case involving Judge Lisa C. Schall, in San Diego, on this Blog - for which I thanked her. I am grateful that family law litigants in these published appeals are increasingly airing their side of the experience here, and I invite you to as well!

The decision in her daughter's case was published on Friday, last week, so I now understand what the maternal grandmother, "Shelly," was referencing.

My sense is that appellate courts are expecting more out of trial judges, like never before, and lawyers too, to be sure, and therapists and court services personnel and litigants themselves! An interesting footnote is that the father's attorneys in this case were certified family law specialists, and (presumably) local San Diego heavyweights, and the mother represented herself and yet succeeded "against all odds." Is this an Elkins Aftermath, leveling the playing field for unrepresented parties against experienced adversaries?

Mark T. and Jamie Z. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1115

In Mark T. v. Jamie Z. certified for publication on April 28, 2011 by the Fourth Appellate District, a San Diego trial court was again reversed in a move-away case where she effectively refused to permit a custodial parent to move out of state without addressing what custody orders should issue if the parent did move. In F.T. vs. L.J. it was the Father who wanted to relocate - here it was the Mother but in both cases it was the same judicial officer.

Judge Lisa C. Schall doesn't like move-aways, it appears. These applications challenge the non-moving parent and can negatively impact a child's access to that parent, and disrupt parent-child bonding, if a holistic parenting plan under the move-away regime is not developed.

Judge Schall bears the indignity of being reversed twice now in less than 30 days in a reported appellate decision - quite a scolding. Family law is damned tough for judicial officers, who are doing their best to protect children and weigh in consistently with the cutting edge policies of current mental health science as well as their in-house (FCS) advisors. The problem at present is that the opinions of MHP's (mental health providers), and the wisdom of the reviewing courts, are in conflict. The science of move-away as it affects families from the MHP perspective is still developing, and it collides with certain cherished assumptions the law makes about the rights of Americans, and specifically parents in California under our current statutory scheme (see Family Code section 7501 and the Burgess case) to move freely.

In both cases Judge Schall accepted (mostly) the independent opinions of outside, court-appointed, mental health forensics and ignored the opinions of the Family Court Services mediator - here the very same Lynne Waldman who made recommendations in the F.T. case. FCS mediator Waldman's belief was that Jamie's move away request should be granted, noting that Jamie had been L.'s primary caretaker since his birth, that Jamie had been unable to find a job in San Diego and was "living in poverty," and that Jamie appeared "to have a clear plan for the move."

Judge Schall now has two strikes against her for using judicial body language to create a result that she felt was fair and appropriate, and her findings on the record illustrate her dilemma. I'm reminded of my early youth playing pool (not so much) and hoping if I twisted my body hard enough, the ball would fall in the pocket. Most of us are doing the best we can. Trial judges, however, have a script they must follow.

In effect, Judge Schall's mistake was to refuse to permit a move-away by a Mom with a 22 month old child who had indeed been the child's "primary caretaker since birth." By effectively coercing Mom not to move by denying her move-away request, and by ignoring the question of "in whose custody" the child's best interests were served" or what arrangement should be imposed were Mom to move, Judge Schall committed reversible error. The justices ruled:

"The court must decide de novo what physical custody arrangement would be in the child's best interests, assuming that the requesting parent will relocate ." Therapist Dr. Lori Love (we can't invent this name stuff) was appointed to evaluate the family for the Court and opined that "[t]his examiner understands the importance of having extended family around for support however this cannot be justified as being in [L.'s] best interest[s] when it means removing him from a loving and capable father. Jamie stated that she did not have an active father in her life and very much wants that to happen for [L.] It would be virtually impossible for Mark to be an active father from across the country." Dr. Love urged the child was too young for the move and went on to recommend that Mom not "be permitted to move out of the County of San Diego. At the same time, this forensic therapist was unwilling to recommend a primary change in custody and assumed that the mother would in fact remain the primary caretaker in San Diego county. She made no recommendations about what custodial arrangement should become effective when or if the Mother moved.

The appellate justices ruled: "Where, as here, a parent who shares joint custody of a minor makes a request to relocate the child in the context of an initial custody determination, the trial court must decide de novo what physical custody arrangement would be in the child's best interests. In making its custody determination, the court must proceed on the assumption that the parent who is making the request will relocate his or her own residence, regardless of whether the court grants or denies the request. In this case, the court erroneously failed to conduct its best interests analysis based on the presumption that Jamie would be relocating to Minnesota."

The trial court adopted the recommendations of Dr. Love, even though Dr. Love failed to address what should happen if and when Jamie relocates out of state. "The very issue that Dr. Love was supposed to address is what parenting plan would be in L.'s best interests, given that Jamie intended to move to Minnesota .... The court misapplied the law in adopting Dr. Love's recommendations, because in making those recommendations, Dr. Love incorrectly assumed that preserving the status quo parenting arrangement was an option, even in the face of Jamie's expressed intent to move...." At trial the Father's attorney asked Mother whether she would move if the court were to deny her request to relocate, and Mom's response showed she was tortured by the question. The appellate court ruled that this question by counsel was improper - courts cannot consider whether the primary parent might alter their plan of relocate depending upon how the court rules. As a trial lawyer this is interesting to me, because this question is often used to telegraph a message to the Court that implies it can deny the move because the moving parent evidently doesn't want to move 'badly enough.'

Apparently the trial court suspected Mother's motives for moving might include frustrating Father's access, but the court did not actually make such findings. "The court's comments regarding Jamie's reasons for moving to Minnesota appear to constitute second-guessing as to the wisdom of Jamie's decision to move (i.e., questioning the "necessity" of the relocation), as opposed to a finding that her decision to move was made 'simply to frustrate the noncustodial parent's contact with the minor child.'" There is no requirement that a parent who has the right to custody of a child establish the necessity of a proposed move. "[E]ven where the court finds that a move away request is being made in bad faith, the court must view this finding as only one potential factor in deciding whether to allow the child's residence to be moved; it does not permit the court to deny the move away request on the presumption that in denying the request, the court can assure that the requesting parent will not in fact move, and that the court can thereby maintain the status quo parenting arrangement. That one parent may have been motivated, in part, to relocate the child's residence by a desire to lessen the child's contact with the other parent does not mean that the court should apply any standard other than what would be in the best interests of the child."

Is the public served when attorneys and litigants do favors for judges? Let's take the politics out of choosing judges

See blog post: Chief Justice John Roberts: Judge Brent Benjamin doesn't have to recuse himself just because of a measly $3 million campaign contribution

Electing judges is a bad idea, but appointing judges is almost as bad. Why not create a pool of highly-rated attorneys, created by the Bar Association (we don't want to eliminate politics completely, right?), and then use a lottery to choose judges from that pool as positions become available?

Seriously, why not? The only reason not to do this is to keep politics in the courtroom.

But for now, we're stuck with judicial elections in San Diego. Let's choose the best candidates. Federal prosecutor Carla Keehn is running against Judge Lisa Schall in June 2014.


MATT TAIBBI'S NEW BOOK ABOUT OUR TWO-TIERED JUSTICE SYSTEM



The Divide
American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap
Matt Taibbi and Molly Crabapple
PBS
April 6, 2014

...On how he discovered 'the divide'

I was covering these gigantic Wall Street white-collar-criminal scandals, and I became interested in the concept of why nobody was going to jail, why we didn't have criminal prosecutions. And then it occurred to me that it's impossible to really talk about the gravity of that problem unless you know who is going to jail in the United States, and how those people go to jail and how that works.

What I ended up finding is that it's incredibly easy for people who don't have money to go to jail for just about anything. There's almost an inverse relationship between the ease with which you can put a poor person in jail for, say, welfare fraud, and the difficulty that prosecutors face when they try to put someone from a too-big-to-fail bank in jail for a more serious kind of fraud.

On media coverage of white-collar crime

Over time I think a kind of Stockholm Syndrome develops, it's kind of the same thing that happens with campaign reporters and candidates: You start to sort of sympathize with the people you cover in this weird subterranean, psychological way.

'A Very Sordid Story'

Matt Taibbi On The Fairfax Financial Case

In this audio clip, NPR's Kelly McEvers asks Matt Taibbi about the most salacious case in his book, The Divide. Taibbi tells and the short-sellers who Fairfax alleges took revenge when a deal didn't go through as expected. The company sued in 2006.

Taibbi says it's a great example of the judicial divide between the rich and poor. It's easy to think hedge fund managers can't be criminals, he says, because they're often seen as polite and refined.

"[But] in many cases, they're really not," Taibbi says. "I mean, in this case, they're just as streety and gross as any other kind of criminal."

I think what ends up happening is these stories get written about, but they get written without outrage, or without the right tone, and they are also not written for the right audiences. They're written for Wall Street audiences who want to find out how this lawsuit turned out. They may not want to see those people thrown in jail, they just might be interested in seeing how far the government is willing to go this week in putting white-collar offenders in jail.

On comparing banks and people

The HSBC case was . This is a bank that admitted to washing over $850 million for a pair of Central and South American drug cartels. They admit to this behavior, they pay a fine, no individual has to do a day in jail. All I really wanted to say was, here are our actors at the very top of our illegal narcotics business who are getting a walk from the government, a complete and total walk ...

I went to court that day, I asked around and said, "What's the dumbest drug case you saw today?" I found an attorney who was willing to put me in touch with a number of people who had been busted and thrown in jail for having a joint in their pocket...


Retired Judge Linda Quinn is working with school attorney Dan Shinoff
of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz on a fundraiser for Judge Lisa Schall.

See all posts re Judge Lisa Schall.

See all posts re Judge Gary Kreep.

'Birther' judge Gary Kreep banished to traffic court

Gary Kreep

'Birther' judge banished to traffic court
Leader in questioning Obama's citizenship is reassigned
By Greg Moran
SDUT
Oct. 11, 2013

San Diego Judge Gary Kreep, a conservative legal activist who led a failed fight to challenge President Obama’s citizenship, has been exiled to traffic court after several Superior Court rulings favoring defendants’ constitutional rights.

Kreep, 63, was reassigned on Sept. 9 from the downtown San Diego courthouse to a Kearny Mesa facility that handles traffic offenses and small claims.

The move came after prosecutors from the City Attorney’s Office began to boycott his courtroom over his legal approach.

For instance, Kreep often declined to take away a defendant’s 4th Amendment rights against search and seizure — something prosecutors can legally request at various points during the criminal process.

No official reason was given for Kreep’s reassignment. Presiding Judge Robert Trentacosta said through a spokeswoman that the court doesn’t comment on judicial assignments.

Where should elected Judge Gary Kreep serve?
Superior Court 23% (378)
Traffic Court 3% (53)
Supreme Court 13% (213)
No court at all 61% (1019)

1663 total votes.

Kreep did not respond to numerous requests through the court and by email to comment for this story. San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith also declined to comment on Kreep’s reassignment or what role his office had in it.

On a recent morning in Kearny Mesa Department B, Kreep worked through two dozen traffic cases — speeding, driving on a suspended license, busted taillight, windows too heavily tinted. All of the people appeared without lawyers, which is not uncommon in traffic court.

Most of the Kearny Mesa facility is staffed with court commissioners, who lack the prestige of a judge and are paid $152,000 a year. Superior Court judges, who are elected or appointed by the governor, earn an annual salary of $178,789.

Judges will occasionally fill in for a few days in traffic court, but it’s virtually unheard of to have a Superior Court judge assigned indefinitely to the Kearny Mesa facility.

Apparently Kreep earned the ire only of prosecutors. The Public Defender’s office, which handles the majority of the cases in Kreep’s former courtroom, said its lawyers had no problem with the judge. Private lawyers had the same view.

The reassignment came soon after prosecutors deployed the legal tactic known as a peremptory challenge to keep cases from Kreep’s court, according to defense lawyers and courthouse sources.

Under state law, each side can exert one such challenge to the judge assigned to their case. They don’t have to state a reason. Prosecutors can create a so-called “blanket challenge” by issuing the peremptory challenge for every case assigned to the judge.

“They (prosecutors) are so used to getting their way,” said Heather Boxeth, a criminal defense lawyer who represented many clients in front of Kreep. “But they blanket-challenged him over simple misdemeanors.”

One example was how Kreep handled petty theft cases. Often defendants were given a deferred prosecution deal: plead guilty and in six months — if they had attended classes, not been arrested again, and repaid the store — the pleas would be wiped out.

Kreep would often dismiss these cases long before the six-month period, after the defendant had only attended a session or two, several lawyers said.

He also would release defendants without bail on minor charges if they had a history of showing up at court appearances, Boxeth said. And he was reluctant to impose orders of protection against individuals who had yet to be judged guilty.

Kreep was elected to the bench in an upset win last year. His campaign attracted national attention because of his prominent role in the so-called “birther” movement questioning the constitutional soundness of Obama’s birth certificate through his Ramona-based U.S. Justice Foundation.

The local bar association gave him the lowest rating of “lacking qualifications” in his race against a veteran prosecutor, and Kreep edged out a win by about 1,000 votes. Instead of trumpeting his decades of work as a conservative activist, he ran a campaign as an outsider, challenging the downtown legal establishment.

When he was on the bench downtown, several lawyers said, Kreep would occasionally make inappropriate comments, such as mentioning the appearance of a female lawyer. He could be short tempered and condescending, too, according to two lawyers who did not want to be identified.

Ironically, it may have been the defense bar that had the most concerns about Kreep before he arrived on the bench. Instead, Boxeth and other lawyers said they appreciated his adherence to constitutional principles in the often minor cases that were assigned to his court.

“None of this crazy stuff we were all concerned about would come out, ever did,” Boxeth said. “He’s been good at apologizing when he crossed a line. I found him for the most part to be very professional, and by the book.”

It’s unknown how long Kreep will be assigned to the Kearny Mesa courts.

Too much collegiality among judges at the San Diego Superior Court?

UPDATE: Bonnie Dumanis is no longer on Judge Lisa Schall's list of endorsers. Here's the earliest list I can find. Bonnie Dumanis was no longer on the list on March 21, 2014 when I downloaded a new version of the list from Schall's website.


I understand that San Diego Superior Court judges don't want to be unseated in elections. In fact, I agree that judges should not be subject to elections. I'd like to see a lottery of highly qualified applicants for judicial positions. (The appointment process is almost as political as elections.)

The San Diego Superior Court judges are all interested in protecting the status quo. They've all endorsed Schall.

But the upcoming election battle between sitting judge Lisa Schall and challenger Carla Keehn seems to offer an opportunity for judges and lawyers in San Diego to make some changes to a system that has produced so many abuses. . One of those abuses is the injunction against this website that Mr. Shinoff's law firm got from Judge Judith Hayes. That injunction was thrown out by the Court of Appeal.

If you look down at the bottom of Judge Schall's list of endorsements as of March 21, 2014, below the bigshot right-wingers and retired judges, you'll see the endorsements by local "professionals". Two facts are noteworthy:

1. the list is very short;

2. Judge Schall is endorsed by not one, but TWO, of the lawyers for Manuel Paul and other school officials who have been charged with (and in some cases pleaded guilty to) public corruption--(Daniel Shinoff and James Pokorny). Why do these lawyers support Schall? Perhaps Shinoff is grateful to Schall for dismissing the Sarquilla case. Or maybe he figures this is a chance to curry some favor with ALL the judges of the Superior Court. He figured out what can happen to people opposing a sitting judge. (See more on Mr. Shinoff at the bottom of this post.)


School lawyer Dan Shinoff
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz

School lawyer Dan Shinoff and James Pokorny
are two of the seven "professionals" who have
endorsed Judge Lisa Schall over challenger Carla Keehn.
Pokorny (not pictured) is the criminal lawyer for
several of Shinoff's clients.

Judge Lisa Schall's
Professional Endorsements:

Mr. Daniel Shinoff [civil attorney for several school officials before and after they were charged with public corruption]
Ms. Lori Clark Viviano (child custody attorney)
Mr. Douglas Brust [attorney Douglas V. Brust, I assume]
Ms. Sharon Blanchet [another family law attorney; she is a co-defendant with Schall in this case]
Dr. Nolan Bellisario [a dentist--how many people with that name could be living in San Diego?]
Mr. Bruce Beals [yet another family law attorney]
Mr. James Pokorny[criminal defense attorney for several local school officials, many if not most of whom were/are Daniel Shinoff clients]
Mr. Casey Gwinn, President, Family Justice Center Alliance

Meanwhile, federal prosecutor Carla Keehn is endorsed by the following on March 21, 2014:

Carla Keehn's
Professional Endorsements

Greg Vega, Esq.
Alex Kreit, Esq.
Alex Landon, Esq.
Bridget Kennedy, Esq.
Charles Rees, Esq.
Craig Leff, Esq.
Daniel Drosman, Esq.
Daniel Smith, Esq.
David Lamb, Esq.
Ellis Johnston, Esq.
Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq.
Eric Mitnick, Esq.
Ezekiel E. Cortez, Esq.
Francisco Sanchez, Esq.
Jason Forge, Esq.
Jedd Bogage,Esq.
Joseph Daley, Esq.
Linda Hughes, Esq.
Lisa A. Damiani, Esq.
Mark Strazzeri
Mayra Garcia, Esq.
Michael E. Burke, Esq.
Michael Stein, Esq.
Paul Turner, Esq.
Rafi Rokach
Sharon Roberts
Sylvia Baiz, Esq.
Ted Pintar, Esq.
Jacqueline Crowle, Esq.
William Mathew Brown, Esq.
(partial list)

More on Lisa Schall's supporter Dan Shinoff:
Mr. Shinoff's law firm tried valiantly to get the Court of Appeal to agree that I, a retired school teacher, should be forbidden from speaking his name, or the name of his firm. Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm has spent over 6 years trying to shut down my little blog that gets 300 hits on a good day. Why would a large firm of lawyers that rakes in millions from local school districts try to get the Court of Appeal to approve an obviously unconstitutional prior restraint by San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes? The Court of Appeal declined to uphold the preposterous injunction. On the other hand, Shinoff's firm must have been pleased when the American Bar Association published a glaringly incorrect report about the case.

San Diego Democrats Vote to Endorse Carla Keehn for Superior Court Judge to replace Lisa Schall in June 2014 election

Challenger Carla Keehn, federal prosecutor

See also Education attorney Dan Shinoff steps up to support embattled judge Lisa Schall. See all posts re Carla Keehn.
See all posts re Judge Lisa Schall.

For the first time in recent memory, we have a challenger for San Diego Superior Court Judge who isn't a right-wing extremist. San Diego Democrats have endorsed Carla Keehn to replace Judge Lisa Schall.

I still think judges should be appointed, not elected. I'd like to see them chosen from a pool of qualified candidates by lottery. Judicial appointments are almost as political as elections (see second story below about Lisa Schall's rebuke for politicking for the governor who appointed her, George Deukmejian. But for now, it's nice to see a serious person challenging judges who ignore the law.


Judge Lisa Schall

San Diego Democrats Vote to Endorse Carla Keehn for Jurist Seat 20
Posted on March 19, 2014
Katy's Exposure

The San Diego Democratic Party’s Central Committee met on the evening of March 18th in Kearny Mesa. According to Committee Chair Francine Busby, last night’s packed room was an unusual occurrence for their committee meetings. The crowd overwhelmingly voted “Aye” to endorse Carla Keehn as the best candidate for San Diego County Superior Court jurist seat 20. Committee member and Oceanside City Councilwoman, Esther Sanchez, spoke to delay the endorsement vote until April. She was one of only three or four ”Nay” votes heard.

The incumbent judge in seat 20 is Lisa Schall. Appointed to the bench 28 years ago by Governor Deukmejian, her ballot statement claims she is endorsed for the upcoming June 3rd election by ”All 125 judges of the San Diego Superior Court”. Her website claims endorsement of the statewide jurist organization, the “Alliance of California Judges”.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Paula Rosenstein was appointed to the bench by Governor Brown in late 2012. In February of this year, she and fellow sitting judge, David Rubin, caused Ms. Keehn to lose the election endorsement of Tom Homann LGBT Law Group by questionable means. Judge Rosenstein also spoke at the February Democratic Party’s meeting against a Keehn election endorsement. She did not attend last night’s meeting.

Loud cheers went out in the crowd when Keehn took the podium to speak before votes were cast last night. Seems the local Dems understand that by law, Thou Can Challenge a Sitting Judge!

Question regarding the following story: would Judge Schall have continued to do favors for Governor Dukmejian if Mike Aguirre had not been present at the Southland Club political forum? Would any other lawyer have filed a complaint? Lawyers willing to speak truth to power are rare. The California Bar Association is basically a business group, dedicated to keeping the money flowing to its pockets from a well-oiled justice system. It does not seem to be much interested in promoting ethics in our legal system.

Judge's Credibility Lacking
Los Angeles Times
September 28, 1986

As a judge of the San Diego Municipal Court, Lisa Guy-Schall from time to time is called upon to consider the credibility of witnesses. We can't help wondering how she would react to a witness who told the same kind of story she told last week when she was accused of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The trouble started when Guy-Schall showed up to speak on behalf of Gov. George Deukmejian at a candidates' forum sponsored by the Southland Club for Business and Professional Women. Attorney Michael Aguirre, a Democrat who is not known for his reluctance to enter a controversy, was at the meeting representing Deukmejian's opponent, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley.

Aguirre filed a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance alleging that Guy-Schall's talk was a violation of judicial ethics guidelines that prohibit judges from endorsing or campaigning for candidates for non-judicial office.

Guy-Schall responded that she was unaware the meeting the Deukmejian campaign asked her to address was political. She said she never saw the flyer that clearly advertised the meeting as a political forum, and since she arrived late and spoke first she did not get the true sense of the meeting until Aguirre began to criticize her in his own speech.

Guy-Schall said her speech was not "a typical campaign talk," but rather addressed the progress of women in business and industry during the last four years.

" . . . Naturally, Governor Deukmejian came into it," she said.

It's hard to imagine a judge being quite so naive. We suspect--and hope--that were this a case in Municipal Court, Judge Guy-Schall would find witness Guy-Schall lacking credibility.

San Diego Superior Court Judge-to-be Gary Kreep thinks City Beat is the voice of "powers that be"

Poor Gary Kreep. He's being picked-on by City Beat, one of the few progressive papers in San Diego.

Mr. Kreep says that City Beat is trying to court the favor of the movers and shakers of San Diego by writing about him. (See the last two paragraphs of the story below.) No, Mr. Kreep. City Beat is writing about you because your becoming a judge in San Diego is an affront to the constitutions of California and the United States. The June 2012 election was one of those rare occasions when progressives voted for a Republican, Garland Peed, for Superior Court judge, because you don't respect the institutions on which our country is based.

I believe Mr. Kreep should not accept the position as judge, since his judicial integrity is hopelessly compromised after he sent out deceptive mailers to fool South Bay citizens into voting for him. In South Bay, progressives did vote for Gary Kreep because he sent out a mailer linking himself to Obama.


Gary Kreep's family-law record
Birther judge-elect opposed parental rights for communists and lesbians as a lawyer, and faced allegations of spousal abuse
By Dave Maass
City Beat
Dec 19, 2012

“You give muckrakers a bad name…. Now, you’re even using the legendary ‘when’s the last time that you beat your wife’ ploy.”

—Judge-Elect Gary Kreep, Nov. 30, 2012

The signs were staked in the ground across the street from Gary Kreep’s law office in Escondido. One read “Divorce Lawyers Lie,” the other “You’re in Good Hands With Kreep—Not.”

It was 1991, and Kreep—who’ll be sworn in as a Superior Court judge in January— was being stalked by a client who’d gone off the deep end. The signs were just the beginning of a Cape Fear-style threat to Kreep and his staff; the man allegedly idled outside Kreep’s office and sent postcards featuring images of skeletons and bloody bodies. The client defended his actions in court, saying his goal was “to protest Kreep’s unscrupulous, careless and impious actions towards me and to warn the community about an archetype of ill repute.” Kreep successfully obtained a restraining order, and the court record indicates that was the end of it.

Among attorneys who practice family law, unhinged clients are considered part of the cost of doing business. Yet, as Kreep hopes to be assigned to domestic court next year, the controversial attorney’s record in family law certainly deserves scrutiny.

After running a stealth campaign, Kreep won the June 6 primary election by less than half a percentage point. His election has raised grave concerns in the legal community and the press due to his history as a polarizing political force. A lifelong Republican, Kreep pursued a career as a self-styled constitutional-law attorney. Over three decades, he’s represented myriad conservative interests, such as the anti-abortion and Minutemen movements, and, as a Republican activist, headed up numerous political action committees. These days, he’s best known as one of the primary “Birther” attorneys suing over the supposed illegitimacy of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

(Read CityBeat's previous in-depth reporting on Kreep here.)

Soon, he’ll leave all that behind to become a judge in the Superior Court of California, serving San Diego County. He’s told multiple media outlets that he won’t let his right-wing and Christian fundamentalist leanings (such as his ardent opposition to LGBT marriage equality) impact his rulings. However, Kreep’s record in family court—as a private attorney, as the executive director of a far-right nonprofit and as a party in his own domestic matters—raises questions about whether families will be in good hands.

One of Kreep’s earliest family-related cases is stored on microfilm at the Vista courthouse. The records from 1983 and 1984 detail his representation of two foster parents who needed to obtain a restraining order against their troubled, adult adopted son, specifically to keep him away from their younger adopted child. Kreep had been hired to file the injunction, and he quoted the parents a fee of between $250 and $500. As the case became more complicated, involving Carlsbad police and a private investigator, Kreep racked up fees in excess of $1,500. When the couple couldn’t pay, Kreep took them to court.

Related content Birther attorney in the lead for judge seat Who’s behind Gary Kreep robocall? Gary Kreep needs your help to throw Obama off the ballot

The judge took the rare move of ruling that Kreep must write the case off as pro-bono.

“The lawyers of California have been told by the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal [sic] that they must contribute their time and talent to those less fortunate than themselves,” Judge Ross Tharp wrote in his ruling. “Such is the case at hand. Defendants, being borderline indigents, simply could not, and cannot, afford to pay $90 per hour for plaintiff’s professional services, no matter how exemplary or successful they may have been.”

Kreep declined to comment on this case, or any other case for that matter, citing attorney-client privilege, even though, at the time some of the cases were happening, he was eager to publicize them.

Through the U.S. Justice Foundation (USJF), often described as the right-wing’s answer to the American Civil Liberties Union, Kreep has inserted himself into several family-law cases. A 1987 profile in the Los Angeles Times referenced USJF’s assistance to a San Francisco man who was attempting to gain custody of his daughter. The argument was that the mother was an unfit guardian, since she’d been a leader in the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist radical group. Kreep sent out a newsletter with the headline “USJF Wins First Round of Battle to Save 12-Year-Old From Communism,” the Times reported.

More than 20 years later, USJF signed on to Miller vs. Jenkins, a landmark custody dispute that cut to the core of LGBT parental rights.

The case involved a lesbian couple in a civil union who had a child together. The biological mother became an ex-gay, born-again Christian and sought to dissolve the relationship. Although a Vermont court awarded the other parent visitation rights, the biological mother—for whom the USJF served as cocounsel—left for Virginia, which doesn’t recognize LGBT unions, to invalidate the visitation rights. A federal law explicitly prohibits this kind of interstate judge-shopping; however, Kreep’s organization sought to publicize the case as a front in a larger culture war.

“We anticipate that this litigation, which centers around the issue of child custody and visitation rights resulting from a domestic partnership, will soon wind up before the United States Supreme Court as state courts are involved in more of these cases,” Kreep said in a press release. “The United States Justice Foundation believes that the time is now to engage in this battle to preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage and the best interests of children.”

The case didn’t reach the Supreme Court. When it was resolved in the other mother’s favor, the biological mother fled to Nicaragua with the child. A Mennonite pastor was convicted of kidnapping for helping the mother leave the country.

Ask Kreep about his own domestic life, and he’ll talk about how he cared for his terminally ill wife for two-and-a-half years. After she passed away, Kreep cared for his terminally ill mother-inlaw for another eight months.

He remarried in 2004, but after three years, they separated. Kreep filed for dissolution in September 2007, citing irreconcilable differences. A legal battle ensued over splitting property, including real estate, timeshares, insurance policies, IRS returns, Corvettes, art work, coin and sports-card collections and a cache of firearms. The protracted case grew bitter as Kreep accused his wife of a gambling addiction and she countered with multiple allegations of abuse.

“Since my marriage to my husband it has become very clear that he has a very strong need to control me emotionally, physically and financially,” Kreep’s ex-wife, a psychologist, wrote in a declaration on file at the East County court house. “The reason I left my husband is because he was verbally and physically and emotionally abusive. He is a recovering alcoholic and unfortunately has to lay blame on me for things he cannot accept in himself. He accuses me of addictive behaviors I don’t have, throws bottles at me, punches holes in walls, and belittles me.” Confronted with these allegations, Kreep points out they were not made at the beginning of the case, but two years into the dispute.

“I have never touched either of my wives in anger,” Kreep writes in an email to CityBeat. “The charges of ‘verbally and physically and emotionally abusive’ are completely false. As far as being ‘a recovering alcoholic,’ I have only been ‘blasted’ once in the past 30+ years. I do not feel that it is appropriate to comment on my ex-wife’s addictions. I never threw a bottle at her, never punched walls during our marriage, and I should point out that my ex-wife was 6’ tall in stocking feet, and not exactly petite.” [Maura Larkins comment: Apparently Mr. Kreep thinks that it's a fair fight for a man to assault a tall woman. A woman on steroids, perhaps, but in general a short man is much stronger than a tall woman. I'll bet Mr. Kreep would choose to fight the woman if he were forced to make a choice as to whether he'd fight a tall woman or a short man.]

CityBeat unsuccessfully attempted to reach his ex-wife directly or through her attorney of record.

Although Kreep has made a career of smearing politicians, he believes it’s unfair to bring up these issues about him.

“You REALLY must hate me, or you’re REALLY being paid a lot to go after me by the downtown crowd,” he writes. “I hope that your bootlicking is getting you the crumbs from the table of the ‘powers that be’ that you are seeking, as your journalistic integrity, and accuracy, certainly is lacking.”

Kreep will be sworn into office on Jan. 7, after which Presiding Judge Robert Trentacosta will assign him to a department.

Judicial temperament? Facebook posts, lawsuit raise judgment issues in election for San Diego judge

Kudos to reporter Miriam Raftery for this important article. By shedding light on Jim Miller's actions, this information helped the Lincoln Club's decision to switch its endorsement to Robert Amador, Stirling reveals.

JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT? FACEBOOK POSTS, LAWSUIT RAISE JUDGMENT ISSUES IN CONTENTIOUS SUPERIOR COURT RACE
By Miriam Raftery
East County Magazine
May 30, 2012
San Diego

Accusations are flying in the contentious race for San Diego Superior Court seat 25. Candidate Jim Miller has been removed as a Judge Pro Tem by the Superior Court—and now he’s crying foul.

Miller claims he’s a victim of dirty politics. He’s accused one of his opponents, Robert Amador, of involvement in his ouster, a claim denied by Amador, who previously sued Miller over ballot statement claims.

Miller maintains he knows of no legitimate reason for the court to remove him from its list of approved Judges Pro Tem.

Posts on Miller’s Facebook page, however reveal some intemperate remarks made about cases he heard while serving as a Judge Pro Tem--as well as barbed criticisms of local attorneys, judges, and parties in cases he handled as a lawyer.

Some of the remarks appear to violate California’s judicial canon of ethics, which prohibit judges from discussing pending cases including cases which could be appealed. The rules also require judges to maintain impartiality, avoid the appearance of bias, and refrain from political activities.

Use of social media by judges and attorneys is among the hottest ethics issues today in the legal profession, according to Wendy Patrick, a legal ethics expert.

At a panel on legal ethics presented by Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego in April 2011 (Miller's alma mater), Justice Richard Huffman of the Fourth District Appeals Court told attendees that "it is unethical to publicly discuss any pending case, whether it is yours or not. Social media is becoming a problem for judges who should ask themselves - `what does this look like?'" He reminded those present that "a judge must disclose any fact where a reasonable person may believe a judge cannot be impartial."

While serving as Judge Pro Tem, Miller discussed facts of a case in mid-hearing. The dispute involved two sisters suing each other over an attack.

“One was in post pardum [cq] depression and living with her own husband and family at the home of the other sister’s ex husband who is/was not paying child support,” Miller wrote, among other personal details of the case divulged. He likened the scenario to the Jerry Springer or Judge Judy televisions hows.

After winning a custody case in which he represented the father, he referred to the mother in these derogatory terms: “This mom was a piece of…”

He called one local lawyer “a shining example of a greedy unprepared attorney…”

He also blasted law enforcement. “If this CHPer was a “good guy” he wouldn’t have to lie his butt off to get a conviction,” Miller said of an officer who testified in cell phone ticket case that Miller handled for a friend.

He went on to complain that “The commissioner will not hear anymore cases from me as she seems more concerned with her own version of the law than what it says and what the facts are."

Miller even criticized judges, a taboo in the legal profession.

“I bet you didn’t know that the CA Supreme Court a few days ago wiped out a century of law that protects those injured in accidents and handed billions to the insurance industry,” he wrote, calling the decision a "low point” and a “horrible decision.”

He railed against a PETA lawsuit against Sea World, noting “I hope the judge who gets this case tosses it out as fast as procedure allows.”

Miller criticized Governor Jerry Brown for a bill he signed, noting, “I don’t know the constitutional rational for granting it.” He slammed President Barack Obama for not deporting illegal immigrants. He also expressed political views on the war and on Pakistan.

In addition, Miller took pot-shots at his opponents as “retread government lawyers.”

To say that Miller and Amador have run a less than amicable race would be a severe understatement. Amador filed a lawsuit against Miller over claims made in his ballot statement; Miller in turn has accused Amador of committing perjury.

Miller, Schaefer, Foothills Bar Assocation's Mark Raftery, and Amador

Amador contacted ECM yesterday to state that during an interview with the UT San Diego editorial board at which all three candidates were present (Amador, Miller, and George Schaefer), Miller was asked if he had been delisted as a Judge Pro Tem.

“That was shocking to Mr. Schaefer and I,” Amador told ECM.

ECM contacted both the court and Miller for comment.

“I can confirm that he is no longer on the Pro Tem list,” said Karen Dalton, public affairs officer at the San Diego Superior Court. Dalton said she was unable to disclose why Miller was no longer on the list, nor what reasons would warrant removal of a Pro Tem judge from the list.

Miller advised ECM that he been on the list from 2008 until late April. “I believe someone is playing gamesmanship with me in an election year,” he said.

Asked if he has been the subject of any complaints or disciplinary action as a Judge Pro Tem, Miller replied, “No.” He further defended his record:“I have never had a decision that I made as Pro Tem overturned on a de novo appeal.”

Then he blasted his opponent. “I am not happy with Mr. Amador’s gamesmanship or the reach of the D.A.’’s office onto our bench.”

Amador has spent 29 years as a prosecutor in the San Diego District Attorney’s office. He disputed Miller’s assertion. “No one from the D.A.’s office had anything to do with the Superior Court,” he said, adding that his first inkling of Miller’s delisting came at the UT San Diego editorial board meeting. “As with ost things with Mr. Miller, when things don’t go his way, his response is to attack and blame rather than to accept responsibility.

In a judicial candidate forum last week hosted by Foothills Bar Association, Miller first raised allegations of political bias by suggesting that a “lacking qualifications” rating of his candidacy by the San Diego Bar Association reflected a bias toward “government lawyers.”

Both Amador Schaefer, have backgrounds as prosecutors with district attorneys’ offices. Amador is a career prosecutor; Schaefer has worked both as a prosecutor and public defender. Both received “well qualified” ratings. Miller, by contrast, is an El Cajon attorney in private practice who has run a campaign centered around a need for judges with backgrounds in family and civil law.

Amador filed a lawsuit seeking to force Miller to remove key information from his ballot statement. “Mr. Miller has tried to imply that he has a significant amount of judicial experience when he does not,” said Amador. “We did discovery and found that he has only been a Judge Pro Tem a total of 23 times…he hasn’t been an arbitrator for three years..”

Miller’s ballot statement lists him as an attorney and arbitrator. Amador sought to have the term arbitrator removed. Amador also asked to have Miller’s experience as a Judge Pro Tem removed, but the Judge ruled that Miller had a right to include both in his ballot statement.

“Mr. Amador committed perjury in his lawsuit against me,” Miller charged.

Amador denies that, adding, “The judge found he [Miller] made false and misleading statements .” Indeed, the Judge ruled that Miller’s claim of 440,000 votes in 2010 was “misleading” because he apparently combined votes in the Primary and General elections. In addition, Miller closed his statement by referring “a judge from San Diego, for San Diego,” which the court required be changed to a “judicial candidate.”...

Mr. Miller contacted us after this story ran to clarify that he did not intend to suggest Mr. Amador committed perjury, but rather to state that “If Mr.Ottilie was to be believed in his version of the conversation than Mr. Amador committed perjury,” a reference to Miller’s attorney, Bob Ottillie.

Lincoln Club reverses its endorsement of unqualified candidate for superior court

I posted about this bizarre election HERE.

Someone apparently convinced the Lincoln Club that they were already far enough to the right without endorsing a crackpot.

Lincoln Club Reverses Miller Endorsement, Switches Support To Amador
October 11, 2012
By Ryann Grochowski

A prominent pro-business political club reversed its endorsement of attorney, Jim Miller Jr., for a seat on the Superior Court bench after it discovered Miller had not been forthright about his credentials.

The board of the San Diego Lincoln Club voted instead to support the other candidate in the race, veteran prosecutor Robert Amador.

The group’s Wednesday night decision is the latest twist in the only judicial election on the ballot next month. Campaigns for judge are usually low-key races, but the race for seat 25 has attracted endorsements from local tea parties, been the subject of a lawsuit and sparked debate on illegal immigration.

The issue of qualifications has been front and center: the San Diego County Bar Association rated Miller “lacking qualifications” and Amador “well-qualified.”

The Lincoln Club revoked its endorsement of Miller, an attorney in private practice in El Cajon, after it discovered Miller had misled the club about being removed from the county’s list of pro-tem, or fill-in, judges.

In a statement, the club said, “Mr. Miller failed to mention the adverse action on the club’s questionnaire and later misrepresented the facts when asked to comment on the allegations in private. Such conduct does not meet the high ethical standards that Lincoln Club members believe are required for judicial officers.”

Miller was quoted in an I-Newsource/KBPS story last month, saying he was removed from the pro-tem list in the spring, but that the court did not provide him with a reason for the dismissal.

Miller, who has been endorsed by the San Diego County Republican Party and local tea parties, e-mailed a comment.

“I am attempting to discuss the matter directly with the club,” he said. “I hold the Lincoln Club in high respect but think, without hesitation, they are working off of incorrect information. No one should consider this issue over for now.”

Miller’s campaign for judge highlights his “outsider” status and is critical of the large number of former prosecutors on the bench. He ran for Superior Court in 2010 on essentially the same platform and only narrowly lost.

The Lincoln Club, a political organization that supports business-friendly candidates, had originally endorsed Miller in March after interviews with both candidates. Though Superior Court races are nonpartisan, it is common for political groups to make endorsements.

Above: Bob Amador, candidate for San Diego Superior Court Judge No. 25 Larry Stirling, a club member and retired Superior Court judge, said revoking an endorsement is unusual but not unprecedented. He could not recall specifics.

“We were presented with additional information after the initial endorsement,” he said.“We checked at great length and we became concerned that the initial endorsement needed to be changed.”

The club received confirmation of Miller’s removal from the Superior Court, but the court would not reveal the reason behind the removal.

The Lincoln Club donated $2,500 to Miller’s campaign on Sept. 27, according to campaign finance filings. Stirling said the club would not ask Miller to return the money.

“We made a contribution in due course, and that was before we were able to confirm the information that caused us to reverse,” Stirling said.

As far as the endorsement, however, Stirling said the Lincoln Club had no choice once they determined Miller had misrepresented facts.

“We could have let it go and just crossed our fingers, but we felt that we had a responsibility to the voting public to tell them what we knew about it and urge them to change their vote,” Stirling said.

Reached by phone on Thursday, Amador was pleased with the club’s decision. Amador is also a Republican, but has the support of people on both sides of the political aisle, as well as much of the legal community’s establishment.

“A judge or judicial candidate’s ethics should be beyond question,” Amador said. “Apparently the Lincoln Club was misled by Mr. Miller, but they followed up and had the courage to change their endorsement. I thank them for the support and endorsement.”

On Oct. 9, Miller wrote a post on his campaign’s Facebook page, thanking the Lincoln Club for their support. The post was removed on Thursday.

Amador, a 29-year veteran of the county district attorney’s office, has raised nearly $115,000 in outside contributions this election, about $53,000 more than Miller. Amador sued Miller in the primary over ballot language. And though immigration is not a subject within the purview of Superior Court judges, it has played a part in Miller’s campaign. Former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, primary sponsor of SB 1070, the state’s strict anti-illegal immigration bill, appeared at a fundraiser for Miller in April.

There are more than 110 active Superior Court judges in San Diego County. Some are appointed by the governor and then subject to election by the voters. Others, like Amador and Miller, run for an open seat outright. Judges serve six-year terms.

Another crazy election for San Diego Superior Court judge

I agree with Bonnie Dumanis on this one, “I think what we are seeing now is an assault on the judiciary.”

Judging San Diego’s Judicial Candidates (Video)
By Ryann Grochowski
KPBS
September 17, 2012

...Vying for a seat on the Superior Court bench is veteran prosecutor Robert Amador who has judges, lawyers, Democrats and Republicans on his side. His opponent is Jim Miller Jr., a private practitioner from El Cajon who touts his diverse legal experience and conservative credentials.

Who to vote for? The county bar association is pressing to be the credible voice. It rated Amador well qualified and Miller not qualified. Some of the most high-profile legal names in the county are urging voters to pay attention to the bar. Miller and the Republican Party, though, say not so fast: there is more to the story.

A crowd gathered early one Monday evening late last month to eat hors d'oeuvres, drink cocktails and write checks for Amador.

There was an urgency among the dozens of lawyers and judges. They said they want to ensure voters don’t make the same mistake they made in June: electing a candidate the county bar association deemed as “lacking qualifications.”

“I’m as guilty as probably a lot of us in this room for taking that race for granted,” county Sheriff William Gore told the crowd. “And we saw what happened. We can’t let that happen again.”

“What happened” was the election of Gary Kreep, a conservative, constitutional lawyer in private practice and member of the “birther” movement. He beat prosecutor Garland Peed by less than 2,000 votes.

That race for county judge became known across the country as the one with the funny name: Kreep versus Peed. National political commentator Rachel Maddow came to tears with laughter as she described it.

But the people at the fundraiser for deputy district attorney Amador weren’t laughing.

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis told the group: “I think what we are seeing now is an assault on the judiciary.”

In California, Superior Court is the official name for the county-level court that presides over civil, criminal, family, juvenile and probate cases. Superior Court judges can decide life in prison, they can assess millions of dollars in damages and they can decide custody of children.

There are more than 110 active Superior Court judges in San Diego County. Some are appointed by the governor and then subject to election by the voters. Others, like Amador and Miller, run for an open seat outright. Judges serve six-year terms.

Amador, who is 55 and a 29-year deputy district attorney, says he is the best candidate because he has proven himself in tough situations, including the prosecution of a death penalty case. By his count, he has handled more than 100 jury trials and 250 court trials. He admits to a lack of experience in the civil realm, but believes his criminal law expertise carries over to civil cases.

“I think until you’ve actually done a lot of things in the criminal justice system, you’re not really prepared to be a judge,” he said.

Miller, 42, is an attorney in El Cajon specializing in family law, a practice he took over after his father’s unexpected death in 2009. Miller’s legal experience is broad; he emphasizes his work in the five areas of the county court. He touts his “outsider” status with pride. He believes his civil law background is sorely needed in courts overrun with judges who were once prosecutors and other government attorneys.

“They don’t want somebody coming in who’s going to upset their apple cart,” he said.

Miller and his wife have four children. His eldest stepdaughters graduated from his alma mater, Valhalla High School in El Cajon.

...A registered Republican, Amador has some support from the other side -- the county Democratic party, while not endorsing Amador, passed a resolution advising Democrats not to vote for Miller. His list of endorsements includes high-profile members of both parties, as well as independents.

Miller is backed by the county and state Republican Party, the Lincoln Club of San Diego and many local tea party groups, including the Chula Vista Patriots and the Fallbrook Tea Party. Miller said he was happy to see Kreep, a tea party-backed constitutional lawyer who does not believe President Obama is a U.S. citizen, elected to the bench...


Jim Miller Jr.
Age: 42

Education: Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego State University

Bar Rating: Lacking qualifications
Key Endorsements: Republican Party of San Diego, Lincoln Club of San Diego, California Republican Party, councilman and mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio, several tea party organizations.