"The Robing Room: AZ State Judges

Hon. Michael J. Cruikshank	See Rating Details
Superior Court Judge Superior Court
Pima County	See Comments
Tucson
Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 2 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 2 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

Confirm E-mail Address

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness		(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality		(1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling		(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation		(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail		(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation		(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination		(1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

Comments

What others have said about Hon. Michael J. Cruikshank

Comments

Other

Comment #: AZ462
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I hope the previous comment is wrong, as he his the one to review my sons Rule 32 Pro Se.

Other

Comment #: AZ201
Rating:1.0

Comments:
In my opinion, Crikshank shoud go down as the worst judge ever in Tucson. Thank God he is no longer on the bench, but that does little good for the persons whose lives he purposely ruined while knowlingly violating the law. I hope that he reaps the whirlwind that he sowed for others.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: AZ166
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Pima County Superior Court Family Court Div. PAC review and Findings
Review of Year 2008:
(A) # of child health & safety negligence committed by Judicial Officers:8,368
(B) # of Fathers Civil Right violations committed by Judicial Officers: 10,837
(C) # of Non Legislature backed Judgements filled by Judicial Officers " Under Judicial Discretion": 12,368
(D) # of complaints filed to the Commissions on Judicial Conduct with validity: 258
(E) # of complaints filed to the AZBar with validity:134

Expected projections of remaining future reviews for Jan 2003 through Jan 2011 based on 2008 findings:
1 years average case-load for Pima County Superior Court Family Court Div is ~13,147.00
Based on findings the statistics are as follows per category listed above:
(A) The likelihood of a child to be ordered by a judge into a dangerous and unhealthy environment is ~87%
(B) The likelihood of a Father being deprived of his Civil Right unjustly is ~96%
(C) The likelihood of a Judge filing a judgments that are not approved by the legislature is ~98%
(D) The likelihood of Commissions on Judicial Conduct to not take actions on validated complaints is ~99%
(E) The likelihood of a AZBar not taking disciplinary actions against Attorneys and Judges when in violation is ~82% (moving up)

These numbers may change as the investigation continues into the years before and after 2008.

The leadership architecture when the highest level of violations accrued (2008-2009)
Presiding Judge of Pima County Superior Court - Jan E. Kearney
Presiding Judge Direct Report/Tribunal Judge over commissioners and Judges - Michael J Cruikshank
Presiding Judge Family Court Div - Judge Nanette Warner
Direct Report to Family Court Presiding Judge - Kyle Bryson
Direct Report to Family Court Presiding Judge - Deborah J. S. Ward
Direct Report to Family Court Presiding Judge - Margaret L. Maxwell
Direct Report to Family Court Presiding Judge - Karen J. Nygaard

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: AZ165
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Jeff
Judge Michael J. Cruikshank(recently reelected) - retired - judicial disciplinary action - criminal investigation against him and 7 other judicial officers in the Pima County Superior Court.

Judge Nanette M. Warner - retired - judicial disciplinary action - criminal investigation

Commissioner Deborah Ward - retired - judicial disciplinary action - criminal investigation into her involvement in the Superior Court Corruption

Jan Kearney former presiding judge of the superior court - claimed she was not informed of Judge Warner, Judge Crookshank and Commissioner Ward criminal activities. Presently Judge in Civil div. Her involvement in the Superior Court Corruption is still under review.

Judge Kyle Bryson - removed from family court presiding judge - failure to hold commissioners accountable to AZ law as family court presiding judge. The Commissioners had been telling him what to do rather then him verifying that his commissioners had been following the AZ Law - commissioners filing rulings for personal desires to attack fathers. His involvement in the Superior Court Corruption is still under review.

Barbara LaWall is being reviewed as to the root of creating and inflaming the judicial corruption

Litigant

Comment #: AZ140
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Cruikshank ruled against a father in a custody case largely because the father took a Pima County Sheriff's advice to begin recording child exchanges after receiving a protection order. The judge claimed that recording the child during exchanges was abusive to the child and mother (I guess every taped child's party, first steps, or any other activity ever has been abusive too). Fathers, get this judge changed if you have a case before him. You can do this once without cause. If you want to keep your child, ACT NOW. This judge gave the child to a disinterested mother who clearly was more interested in having weekends free to party than raise her child.