Re: Recent Telephonic
Communication With Columnist
June 25, 2006
Via: US Mail
Presiding Judge of San Diego
Superior Court Family Law Court
The Honorable William J. Howatt
1501-55 Sixth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Re: RECENT TELEPHONIC
COMMUNICATION WITH COLUMNIST
Your Honor:
Due to the admiration I have held for
you over the years, I feel a recent
phone call I received from a Reporter
should be brought to your impendent
attention. I trust you are appreciative
of the need for my anonymity. My
practice necessitates my not being a
party to this quandary.
This Reporter expressed that he was
contacting many involved in San
Diego Family Law, citing he was
doing "a follow-up story regarding the
recent June 6, 2006 Election". His
initial questions were relatively
general in nature, inquiring of the
duration of time I had been in
practice, if I had ever contemplated
running against an Incumbent Judge
for a seat in Superior Court, and if!
had witnessed an Family Court
Judicial seat opposed in prior
elections.
He then inquired if I had ever had
encountered cases where children
had been left by presiding Family
Law Judges in the care of
"Registered Sexual Offenders" or
"abusive parents", of Judges not
acknowledging submitted evidence of
child abuse and/or endangerment or
of "only removing one child from an
abusive parent's home while leaving
other siblings in a parent's care ",
inappropriate Ex Parte
communication and/or evidence of
personal relationships between
Judges or their family members with
litigants, children's removal from
competent parents due to "personal
Judicial biases", of Judges removing
calendared hearings requested by
"PRO PER litigants without due
cause", of persons appearing in
Propria Persona being ruled against
due to their financial inability to retain
Counsel and thus "lacked knowledge
of proper legal ethics and procedure
due to no fault of their own." He
repeatedly made requests of any
evidence pertaining to "Parental
Alienation" and Support Arrears
being amended and either fully
waived or dramatically lessened,
"Like what Howatt did to Betty
Broderick years ago. "
His questions eventually became
more specific, and it became
apparent that his primary emphasis
was in obtaining defamatory data
pertaining primarily about Judge
Trapp but also about yourself. When
I manifested that I had no intentions
of responding further, he began
providing me "direct quotes" from
Transcripts, citing Case Names and
Numbers plus the names of other
Family Law Counsels who had
"openly" conversed with him and
provided him "documentation"
pertaining to their supposed
"substantiated evidence against both
Judges Trapp and Howatt. "
He inquired if I were aware that
"Judge Randa Trapp has left a young
child in the care of a Convicted
Sexual Predator, Rebecca
Robertson". He claimed that this
"female Registered Sex Offender"
had married a child's Military Officer
father and, despite the Court being
properly noticed of this individual's
criminal history, "Judge Trapp has
left a five year old child in this
woman's primary care while the
child's father was deployed overseas
though this young girl has a
competent mother seeking custody".
He cited Case Law, and provided
several Case Names and Numbers in
which Support Arrears had been
"dramatically and inappropriately"
reduced by Judge Trapp. He voiced
his being in possession of
documentation regarding "more than
ten rulings of Judge Trapp's" that are
currently before the Appellate Court.
He voiced having been in contact
with "Lisa Lake", claiming this Local
10 News Anchor had opposed Judge
Trapp's reelection and is supposedly
amenable with assisting him in his
current endeavors of "bringing these
Judges' ongoing 'Abuse of Discretion'
to the public's attention ". He
additionally made mention of
"representatives of CBS News
Anchor, Katie Couric's" having
expressed an interest in their
involvement upon Ms. Couric's
upcoming visit to San Diego.
He appeared to have consequential
awareness of Attorney Jim Hairgrove,
and his candidacy against Judge
Trapp's reelection. He cited specific
Case Names and Numbers of this
Counsel's which had gone before
Judge Trapp, claiming that her
"personal biases" against Mr.
Hairgrove "have been reflected in her
rulings against his clients" and is
"well documented". He further
emphasized a "future Recall Election
of Judge Trapp" and his fervid
endorsement of this recall.
This journalist claimed that two
individuals, who had been "actively
involved in the campaign of Attorney
James Hairgrove's", had recently
approached the Court over Judge
Trapp's recusal from presiding
further over their Cases. That these
persons had both emphasized
fearfulness of "further bias in her
future rulings against them" for their
having opposed her candidacy and
"their ex- partners' relationships with
and communication with Judge
Trapp's husband." He stated that he
has evidence to verify that one
individual's request was adjudicated
and "reluctantly granted" by Judge
Trapp on May 30, 2006. The
disposition of the other's request for
Judge Trapp's recusal for supposed
"identical reasonings" was, however,
presumably denied.
He inquired if I were aware of a June
2006 Hearing where you had been
approached over "Ex Parte
communication and a long-term
friendship between Judge Trapp's
Law Enforcement spouse and a
petitioner's Sheriff's employee
ex-husband" with a request for Judge
Trapp's recusal. I stated that I had
knowledge of some 'scuttlebutt'
floating around Family Court recently
regarding this Case but had no direct
knowledge of what had taken place.
He then claimed that you had
"financially sanctioned" the Petitioner
for approaching you over this matter
while you cited that this was "not an
Emergent matter that warranted ex
parte intervention." That you had
voiced that Judge Trapp had the
discretion of not recusing herself
despite her knowledge of her Law
Enforcement husband's friendship
with this individual's ex-spouse "for in
excess of fifteen years" and also of
"this petitioner's active involvement
with Attorney Hairgrove's campaign
opposing her reelection".
He further voiced that Judge Trapp's
"actions of Parental Alienation"
toward petitioners "she has personal
biases against" was evidenced in her
rulings of not returning children to a
mother's custody despite
court-submitted documentation
having corroborated that "loss of
child custody" had been exclusively
based on "erroneous information
against her" and was presented to
the Court by her Law
June 25, 2006
-Page 3-
Enforcement ex-spouse's Counsel.
He cited that Judge Trapp had
further ordered one mother's children
removed from her care because this
woman had approached the Judge
over her children's refusal to visit with
a father whom they voiced having
fear of and no relationship with. That
he has evidence of Judge Trapp's
spouse having had prior "ex parte
communication" with this individual's
Attorney ex-partner and the father of
her children, claiming "proof of
Trapp's evident bias in this father's
favor before she ever made such a
ruling against this woman"
That one mother was ordered by
Judge Trapp only supervised contact
with her teenaged children following
their run-away attempts from their
alleged "abusive Law Enforcement
father" despite any lack of evidence
to implicate the mother's involvement
in her children's actions. He spoke of
the "emotional devastation" which
Judge Trapp's rulings had caused by
her having left a five year old in the
care of a "Registered Sex Offender"
while being "alienated from a
competent, loving school teacher
mother. "
He additionally read me a portion of a
Transcript where Judge Trapp had
refused a woman's requests of her to
obtain and view "a Sheriff's
Department/ Chadwick's Hospital's
Child Abuse Report and Video-Tape"
despite the mother informing Judge
Trapp that minor's counsel had failed
to acknowledge this alleged "relevant
verification of the father's abuse ". He
also read from another Court
Transcript where Judge Trapp had
ordered a mother be permitted only
supervised contact with her children
because this woman had refused to
agree to a proposal of minor's
counsel's that she agree to her
children remaining in their "Law
Enforcement father's primary care
against her children's desires to the
contrary".
He took great strides in attempting to
convince me that 'Parental Alienation'
is rampant in Family Court, especially
where it involved Judge Trapp's
rulings.
This columnist claimed that on more
than two occasions following the June
6, 2006 Election, Judge Trapp has
asked for "a show of hands in her
Courtroom" as to who had voted in
favor of her candidacy. He voiced the
names of four local Counsels who
have contacted him with claims of
their presence at recent Hearings
when this "abhorrent request" of
Judge Trapp's was made of those in
attendance.
His questioning then shifted in your
direction, inquiring that as Judge
Trapp's "Superior", did I feel you
were cognizant of her supposed
"discrepant actions and rulings" and
yet chose to "disregard her Judicial
incompetency". He informed me of
your alleged "prior cover-up and
protection of Mark Barber", and also
made inferences pertaining to the
Honorable Janis Sammartino,
Assistant Presiding Judge, and to
Jeffrey C. Fritz, Esq.
This reporter gave the appearance
of having devoted extensive time and
energy into gathering a humongous
array of documentation against
Judge Trapp, yourself and others. He
further voiced his intentions of
placing this information obtained into
upcoming articles "once all has been
substantiated". Following this
exchange, I did verifY that this
Reporter was, in fact, who he
represented himself as being, but I
am unable to authenticate the validity
of what was stated.
My most sincere of regards.
cc: The Honorable Janis Sammartino,
Presiding Judge-Elect
Problems with judges in San Diego
San Diego Education
Report
|
It wasn't easy to decide whom to vote for in this election. The
choices were an unqualified sitting judge and a challenger who did
not provide enough information for an evaluation to be conducted.
What's worse, the challenger was endorsed by a group that
endorses incompetent candidates. So I held my nose and voted for
the incumbent.
Judge rated unqualified in local bar
evaluation
Salcido took legal action against court a week ago
By Greg Moran
San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 14, 2010
Office 27:
Harold Coleman Jr: Unable to Evaluate
Judge DeAnn Salcido: Lacking Qualifications
Superior Court Judge DeAnn Salcido, facing an election
challenge and under heavy criticism from her colleagues after
she filed a legal action against the court a week ago, received
the lowest possible rating in the local bar association’s evaluation of
candidates.
Salcido was found to be “lacking qualifications” by the San Diego
County Bar Association, which evaluates candidates for judicial seats
each election. The bar says the evaluations are done as a public
service to assist voters.
The process is supposed to be confidential and uses surveys
distributed to judges and lawyers. A bar committee also interviews
candidates and does other research before making its decision.
Salcido said that while she would have liked a higher rating, the low
evaluation did not surprise her because she has ruffled feathers of
lawyers and judges.
“I view it as the natural result of the county bar association asking
only attorneys and judges of their view of me, and not the general
public,” she said.
Last week Salcido took the unusual step of asking the 4th
District Court of Appeal to issue an order commanding judges
to impose certain probation conditions on misdemeanor
domestic violence cases. She contended many judges were
not following what she believes state law requires, and that
when she stood up for that position, she was harassed by her
supervising judge in El Cajon.
Salcido said thatshe was not willing to go along with plea
bargains that were fashioned to avoid some probation
conditions, and that this has angered her colleagues and
defense lawyers.
The appeals court rejected the move on Tuesday, but Salcido
said her stance long ago earned the enmity of her peers. Bar
officials said Salcido was informed of her rating about a week before
she requested the order from the appellate court.
The bar does not give specific reasons behind the ratings. But
Salcido said she was told that lawyers thought her use of
humor in court was inappropriate, and that she was
considered “not professional enough.”
It is unusual but not unprecedented for the bar to rate as
sitting judge an unqualified, said Patrick Hosey, the president of
the bar association.
Salcido’s opponent, Harold Coleman Jr., was given a rating of
unable to evaluate.
That is a neutral rating, and means the bar committee doing the
analysis did not have sufficient information on the candidate to “fairly
and adequately evaluate” a candidate’s ability to be a judge.
Coleman, an arbitrator and lawyer, is one of four candidates who is
endorsed by Bettercourtsnow, an organization founded by a
now-deceased religious leader that is supported by
conservative legal and religious groups. All four are running
against sitting judges.
The three other candidates who are endorsed by the group —
William Trask, Craig Candelore and Larry “Jake” Kincaid — all
received rating of “lacking qualifications.”...