Hon. Patricia M. Murphy See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Ventura County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   4.6 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 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. Patricia M. Murphy


Comments


Court Staff

Comment #: CA43174
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
The origin of the Ventura family law department's hostility toward protective mothers has its genesis in the 1980s where women were increasingly assertive of their victimization in patriarchal families, giving voice to what has been a phenomenon for ages: domestic violence and sexual abuse of women and children.

Throughout the 80's and 90's, disgraced psychiatrist and self-publishers Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager called this "an epidemic of vindictive women and false accusations." They appeared as expert witnesses in hundreds of abuse cases defending perpetrators of sexual abuse in court.

Underwager proposed that children were "brainwashed into making false accusations" and "false memory of abuse was a disorder of young women that was induced in therapy." He formulated that "parental alienation was the result of programming of the child," and that "false sex abuse accusations were another way of mothers gaining leverage in the courts."

Gardner testified in court that these "alienated" children need to be transferred to the "rejected" father and that the mother must have "no contact at all with the children." He further advised, "the court might have to threaten sanctions such as fines or permanent loss of custody and even jail if the mother does not comply."

Gardner and Underwager were both disgraced in the 1990's by defending sex with children. Underwager told a Dutch magazine, Paidika, in 1993 that pedophiles could "boldly and courageously affirm what they choose," and Gardner argued in his 1993 book, True and false Accusations of Child Sex Abuse, that pedophilia could "encourage early sexualization and enhance the survival of the human species."

When asked what a good mother should do if her child alleged sexual abuse, Gardner replied, "sometimes you say I don't believe you, I'm going to beat you for saying it, you don't ever talk that way about your father."

Gardner and Underwager's legacy lives on today in our antiquated court system, which continues the patriarchal abuse of women and children. The courts hate victims, and it is evident by the survivors who reach out to me with their stories.

Only 2% of rape accusations are false, yet only 2% of rape cases end with convictions. That means 96% of victims are being revictimized by our courts!

The Ventura judges who deserve to be held accountable for the revictimization of sexual abuse survivors include: Murphy, Lief, Bennett, and Kellegrew. If you or your child are a victim of sexual abuse, it is imperative that you file a 170.6 motion to recuse these judges before they make a first ruling on your case.

Very Truly,

Ventura County's Radiant Truth

Court Staff

Comment #: CA38282
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Dear Public,

It has come to our attention that Judge Patricia Murphy was sued for prosecutorial misconduct in connection with illegal acts she [allegedly] committed during her time in the Ventura County District Attorney's office. This suit was wrongfully barred by summary judgement on the grounds of "absolute prosecutorial immunity" in Murphy's personal capacity by our Ventura courts, a decision the 9th district court of appeals disagreed with and overturned in 2014. The case number is 09-55763 and links to the appeals court decision is copied below.

Appeals Court's Published Opinion: https://www.radianttruth.com/Murphy_Appeals.pdf
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca9-09-55763

Appellant-Plaintiff Frederick Jackson in 2013 accused then District Attorney Patricia Murphy and the VCDA office of wrongfully denying his civil rights and for committing "various illegal acts," which the appeals court agreed was meritorious enough to overcome the prosecutorial immunity rule against Patricia Murphy personally. Jackson's suit prayed for over one million dollars in damages against Murphy. According to the appeal's court decision, "We hold that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous."

Patricia Murphy [allegedly] committed various misconduct that Jackson asserted was "systematic conspiracy" by Murphy and members of the Ventura County District Attorney's office to illegally deprive him of his civil rights and railroad a criminal conviction. Jackson alleged coercion by Murphy, relying on a third-party's perjured testimony and abusing criminal plea deals to elicit a false confession from him. Murphy [allegedly] did this while knowing that the third-party's information was false. The appeals court granted Jackson the right to sue now Judge Patricia Murphy for her prosecutorial misconduct.

[The poster asserts that] Ventura Judge Patricia Murphy is a corrupt former prosecutor. As a judge, she holds tremendous power over the citizens of Ventura County, making decisions of life and death. Her ethics record is compromised [as asserted by poster].

A leopard never changes its spots. Judge Murphy is untrustworthy and has no business being a judge. [as alleged by poster]

Very Truly,

Ventura County's Radiant Truth

Other

Comment #: CA37981
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
CA37980

*But, I have no opinion of this judge, Judge Murphy.

Other

Comment #: CA37980
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
37972
TRR took time to redact a court staff's, victims' advocate's posts'-Ventura Radiant Truth's posts; crickets-when they have left reckless, intentional threatening posts, by abusive, highly threatening, LASC family, attorney troll, who has made threats against a litigant-private citizen and likely a vulnerable opponent--made sexual threats, sexual pictures, and threats to go after litigant -same MO as loser, who demands deletion of posts-same MO as my abusive ex's, abusive, lying, bully, malfeasant, LASC family lawyers', with one abusive lawyer in bed with an abusive judge and judges's cronies????? Is TRR this naive' to be manipulated by very dangerous judges and lawyers and their threatening, dangerous, criminal conduct.

Court Staff

Comment #: CA37973
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Murphy,

Consider this your Single Scope Background Investigation. We will be watching!

If you have information on Judge Murphy, we want to hear from you. Email us at RadiantTruth@pm.me.

Very Truly,

Ventura County's Radiant Truth

Court Staff

Comment #: CA37972
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Dear Public,

It has come to our attention that Judge Patricia Murphy was sued for prosecutorial misconduct in connection with illegal acts she committed during her time in the Ventura County District Attorney's office. This suit was wrongfully barred by summary judgement on the grounds of "absolute prosecutorial immunity" in Murphy's personal capacity by our Ventura courts, a decision the 9th district court of appeals disagreed with and overturned in 2014. The case number is 09-55763 and links to the appeals court decision is copied below.

Appeals Court's Published Opinion: https://www.radianttruth.com/Murphy_Appeals.pdf
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca9-09-55763

Appellant-Plaintiff Frederick Jackson in 2013 accused then District Attorney Patricia Murphy and the VCDA office of wrongfully denying his civil rights and for committing "various illegal acts," which the appeals court agreed was meritorious enough to overcome the prosecutorial immunity rule against Patricia Murphy personally. Jackson's suit prayed for over one million dollars in damages against Murphy. According to the appeal's court decision, "We hold that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous."

[Redacted] Jackson alleged coercion by Murphy, relying on a third-party's perjured testimony and abusing criminal plea deals to elicit a false confession from him. [Redacted] The appeals court granted Jackson the right to sue now Judge Patricia Murphy for her prosecutorial misconduct.

Ventura Judge Patricia Murphy is a [redacted] . As a judge, she holds tremendous power over the citizens of Ventura County, making decisions of life and death. [Redacted].

A leopard never changes its spots. [Redacted]

Very Truly,

Ventura County's Radiant Truth

Court Staff

Comment #: CA37871
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
“Presiding Judge Patricia Murphy retaliated against a petitioner seeking a domestic violence restraining order for reporting misconduct by Judge Walsh, who was previously censured by the Commission on Judicial Performance for violating campaign finance laws. Judge Walsh solicited and accepted post-election campaign contributions from attorneys in a defunct political campaign, which in itself is an illegal act, but then additionally he failed to disclose conflicts of interest during court actions that he had accepted these contributions. This misconduct gave the appearance that Judge Walsh was taking bribes from attorneys in exchange for his court influence.

In 2019, Judge Walsh showed bias in favor of police unions protecting officers from disclosure of their misconduct records to the public. Judge Walsh issued a court order blocking any pre-2019 records from being released in opposition to newly passed California Law SB-1421, which modified the Penal Code to allow public inspection of police records. This decision was clearly wrong and intended to shield officers from misconduct allegations in opposition to the intent of the state legislature. This decision was also intended to shield the court from retrying pre-2019 cases tainted by police misconduct such as when an officer is found to be lying under oath. Anonymous finds that this is unacceptable.

Our source reported Judge Walsh for sleeping during trial... In responding to the complaint, Judge Murphy gave false testimony under oath, lying to cover for Judge Walsh to claim he wasn't sleeping to defeat the complaint, despite the petitioner listing multiple witnesses. None of the petitioner's witnesses were contacted to corroborate her claims, which shows clear bias by investigating Judge Murphy intended to protect a fellow judge.

Judge Walsh is well past retirement age, and the accusation that he fell asleep during trial is very credible.

Subsequent to the complaint filed against Judge Walsh, Judge Patricia Murphy retaliated by forwarding the complaint against Judge Walsh to the petitioner's opposing council in an unrelated civil case. This act was deemed retaliatory by the Commission on Judicial Performance... It also triggered further legal abuse and harassment by the petitioner's abuser.

The public have a right to file a complaint with the presiding judge without fear of retaliation for doing so. Judge Murphy's retaliation prompted retribution for tactical reasons by the opposing side meant to bias the court process. The commission confirmed that the forwarding of this complaint was retaliatory.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR8S7LbggXo

Court Staff

Comment #: CA34191
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Dear Public,

Our inside source within the Ventura County Court Staff has informed us that our efforts are having a real impact. The family court has had an exceptionally high number of 170.6 petitions against judges in that department, and as a result the overflow is now being handled by judges who normally handle criminal law. Congratulations to our fellow Anons and supportive attorneys for this great work. Keep up the pressure.

Anonymous Operation Ventura fights for Women’s Rights and against corruption in our local courts, against bad police officers, and against compromised elected officials in our community. Your contributions are greatly appreciated.

Judge Murphy, Anonymous is aware of your ongoing misconduct. We will be watching.

We are Anonymous. We are one and we are many. We are litigants, attorneys, clerks, your brothers, your sisters, your children, your parents, your friends, and your neighbors. Several attorneys have made use of our information, and we will continue to collect it! The public have a right to know the truth.

The POWER of NONE is DIVIDED BY ZERO!!! You should have expected us...

Very Truly,

Ventura County’s Radiant Truth

Court Staff

Comment #: CA33815
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Dear Public,

I have come across information concerning retaliation by Judge Murphy that is very concerning. The public have a right to file a complaint with the presiding judge without fear of retaliation for doing do. Judge Murphy retaliated against a single mother who reported Judge Walsh for visibly sleeping during trial. Judge Murphy wrongfully forwarded the complaint to opposing council in a separate civil case the complainant was involved in, which prompted retribution for tactical reasons by the opposing side meant to bias the court process. The CJP confirmed that the forwarding of this complaint was retaliatory.

Judge Walsh is well past retirement age, and the accusation that he fell asleep during trial is very credible.

If you have information on judge Murphy, I want to hear from you. Email me. RadiantTruth@pm.me.

Very Truly,

Ventura County's Radiant Truth

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA27600
Rating:4.6
Comments:
Still effectively DA management. Fits the facts to her agenda not impartial or fair but gives the pretense of such. Intelligent and knows the game well enough to screw the best of us. Socialized with senior DA’s to the point her agenda is clear. Not a place to get a fair trial.

Other

Comment #: CA12887
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Dishonest. Period