Hon. Sean Lafferty See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Riverside County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 1 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation

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


Please type what you see below:

    

What others have said about Hon. Sean Lafferty


Comments


Other

Comment #: CA41196
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Sean Lafferty needs to be incarcerated for the rest of his life based on his severe moral terptitudes demonstrated by egregious Civil Rights violations in the Parker/Ross matter, his unbridled support of the YAT program that was ruled Unconstitutional, and his continued Civil Rights violations as a Family Court Judge. He is the epitome of corruption and disdain for the law.

Litigant

Comment #: CA40543
Rating:1.0
Comments:
When judge James T. Warren illegally awarded my ex-wife 50% of my military retirement without any due process, I attempted to get the order set-aside. Judge Lafferty claimed that he researched the laws and upheld Judge Warren's decision. Judge Lafferty was not honest in stating he had researched the laws because if he had, he would not have ruled the way he did. Because I was in the military more than 14 years prior to getting married and another 5 years after divorce, California law does not permit awarding an ex-spouse 50% of the entire service time (36 years)I was only married 16 years. Additionally, there was nothing in my marital Settlement Agreement that stated my ex-wife would get any portion of my retirement, but the court did not seem to be concerned with due process. The court relies on the word of a corrupt attorney named Richard R. Muir (a third-party QDRO attorney), who has no knowledge of military retirements, but sells himself as an expert. Additionally, there was nothing legal in the the QDRO submitted to the court by Richard Muir, but the judges don't take the time to research the laws. In the order awarding my ex-wife 50% of my retirement, there is an indemnification clause that states the following:

"If Member takes action that prevents, decreases, or limits the collection by Former Spouse of sums to be paid hereunder (including but not limited to a combination of benefits with any other retired pay, and waiver for any reason, including as a result of other federal service Chapter 61 disability, or Combat Related Special Compensation), then pursuant to In re Marriage of Smith (supra) and In re Marriage of Krempin 70 CA 4th 1008, 83 CR2d 134 (CA-1, Div 4, 1999), and In re Marriage of Krempin 70 CA 4th 1008, 83 CR2d 134 (CA-1, Div 4, 1999), Member shall make payments to Former Spouse directly in an amount sufficient to eliminate, as to Former Spouse, the effects of the action taken by Member."

Indemnification clauses regarding VA disability offsets were made illegal in the 2017 United States Supreme Court case of Howell v Howell and prior to that the 1989 case of Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989). Additionally, since Chapter 61 disability and Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) are different than Military Retainer Pay (MRP), they are not covered under 10 USC ยง1408 for property division and cannot be legally addressed by any state court nor can any court require a retiree to indemnify a Former Spouse in these situations. Since that is the case and it is not considered property, it is not divisible and Federal law prohibits states from requiring indemnification to former spouses under these circumstances.

The court also relied on Richard Muir's and my ex-wife's false claims that I refused to provide my reserve retirement points to Mr. Muir. It was Mr. Muir's responsibility to obtain that information from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, as the court did not order me to provide the information, nor did it have the legal authority to order me to provide it.

Judge Lafferty should have taken the time to research that and rule according to the law instead of making the claim that he had and violating state and Federal laws.

Unfortunately, many judges and attorneys stupidly and/or ignorantly assume that military retirement is a pension and rule according to their assumptions instead of taking the time to research the laws and rule accordiingly.

Other

Comment #: CA37383
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This jackass has no business being the judge in Family Law.

Washed up prior criminal attorney who is biased towards his likeness of other Irish folk.