Hon. Christine K. Goldsmith See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
San Diego County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   2.0 - 1 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 (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




What others have said about Hon. Christine K. Goldsmith


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA5122
Rating:2.0
Comments:
SHE IS AS CORRUPT AS THEY COME. SHE URGES ATTORNEYS TO TESTIFY FOR HER BY TELLING HER THEIR CLIENTS STORY AS IF IT WERE FACT. SHE IS ON THE SIDE OF THE RICH AND FAMOUS. SHE IS ANTI PRO PER. SHE IS RUDE ABRASIVE, JUST PLAIN EVIL. SHE GAVE A LITIGANT A DISCOVERY SANCTION OF 3000.00 FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ANSWER FORM INTERROGAQTORIES. SHE RECUSED HER MOTHER WHO ACTED AS SHER ATTORNEY WITHOUT ANY FACTS OF A CONFLICT IN A NO FAULT DIVORCE. SHE FORCED THE LITIGANT TO ACT AS HER OWN ATTORNEY EVEN THROUGH SHE WAS LEARNING DISABLED AND UNABLE TO DO SO. SHE SANCTIONED THE LITIGANT FOR THREE THOUSAND DOLLAR , TWENTY THREE HUNDRED OF THAT MONEY WAS FOR A RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION IN WHICH THE PROOF OF SERVICE WHICH IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF OF TIMLINESS WAS TIMELY AND SHE RULED IT WAS NOT TIMELY BECAUSE ONE OF HER DIVORCE ATTORNEY CROONIES TESTIFIED HE DID NOT RECIEVE IT ON TIME, ATTORNEY TESTIFYING AGAIN. SHE FORCED THE LITIGANT TO HIRE AN EXPENSIVE ATTORNEY AND COST HER SPOUSAL SUPPPORT FROM A MILLIONAIRE FAMILY AND IN FACT THE POOR YOUONG GIRL HAD TO PAY SANCTIONS TO THE FAMILY PLUS ATTORNEY FEES .WHAT A SCUM BAG. SHE IS JUST AS MUCH A RIP OFF AS HER HUSBAND .HE OUGHT TO HIT HER AGAIN. SHE MADE FUN OF HER . ALSO THIS WAS ALL PLANNED. THE ONLY ONE WHO WAS NOT IN ON THE SCHEME WAS THE LITIGANT GIRL AND HER MOTHER, THE RECUSED ATTORNEY. SOME ONE RUN AGAINST HER SHE IS PURE SCUM. yOU THINK EX PARTE SCHEMES DO NOT OCCUR IN FAMILY COURT THINK AGAIN. CHALLENGE THIS LOSER OR BETTER YET RUN AGAINST HER.

Other

Comment #: CA4705
Rating:1.0
Comments:
She is one nasty judge. She doesn't review the papers. She is snarly, biased, ignorant and corrupt. Someone please challenge her -- she is tired of her job and her subjects are sick of the queen.

Litigant

Comment #: CA4390
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I have watched Judge Goldsmith over the past year. She demonstrates a strong female bias. Although California is a no-fault state, if the female can articulate traditional evidence of fault, this judge is happy to use it as a club and render an extreme judgment.

Other

Comment #: CA3257
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
She is very bias and I do believe predicts also. She didn't even look at the evidence we had. She never considered that the mother had threatened these children and coherced them. She failed to ask why in July as hot as it was the children had on black hooded jackets. I truly believe she was placing her judgment on her own previous problems with domestic violence.