Judge Craig McCarthy Victim Project

Author: Robbie

  • Judge Craig McCarthy’s Troubling Record and the Fight for Victims’ Rights

    Judge Craig McCarthy’s Troubling Record and the Fight for Victims’ Rights

    Introduction The judicial election for Group 43 of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in Orlando, FL, has become a focal point of concern, as Judge Craig McCarthy’s controversial past and rulings raise alarms among voters. Appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022, McCarthy’s record includes criminal charges, alcohol-related offenses, and judicial decisions that have left victims of abuse without justice. His role in cases involving Victoria Arboleda, a woman with a troubling history of parental kidnapping, substance abuse, and mental health struggles, highlights the urgency of judicial accountability.

    Judge McCarthy and His Failure to Protect Victims

    Despite his criminal history, including DUI, Burglary, and battery charges, Judge McCarthy has presided over cases involving domestic violence and abuse survivors—often ruling in ways that further endanger victims. One of the most egregious examples is his handling of Victoria Arboleda’s case, where his judicial discretion has been questioned due to the serious allegations of child abduction, false accusations, and neglect against her.

    Arboleda has been documented to engage in repeated violations of court orders, demonstrating a pattern of reckless behavior. Yet, under McCarthy’s oversight, her actions have not been met with the legal consequences necessary to protect her children from further harm. This raises critical concerns about McCarthy’s ability to preside over family law cases where vulnerable individuals rely on the judiciary for protection.

    The Destructive Dance of Mental Illness and Parental Kidnapping: The Victoria Arboleda Case

    Understanding the Connection: Mental Health and Parental Kidnapping Mental health disorders do not directly cause parental kidnapping, but they significantly increase the risk. Conditions like bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and severe depression can impair judgment, distort reality, and lead to impulsive actions that endanger children.

    Victoria Arboleda: A Case Study in Mental Illness and Parental Kidnapping

    Arboleda’s documented history of bipolar disorder and substance abuse exemplifies how untreated mental illness can contribute to reckless behaviors, including:

    • Multiple DUI arrests and convictions – Demonstrating a disregard for the law and public safety.
    • False accusations against law enforcement officials – Indicating paranoia and a distorted perception of reality.
    • Parental alienation tactics – Using manipulation to sever her daughter’s relationship with her father.
    • Child abduction incidents – Taking her daughter, Lizabelle, in violation of court orders, causing psychological harm.

    Bipolar disorder symptoms such as grandiosity, impulsivity, paranoia, and impaired reality testing played a role in Arboleda’s decision-making. During manic episodes, individuals may experience:

    • A belief that they have a special right to their children, disregarding legal agreements.
    • Acting on impulse without considering consequences.
    • Delusions that convince them they are the only suitable caregiver.

    These symptoms, coupled with custody disputes and personal stressors, can lead to desperate, harmful actions such as parental kidnapping.

    The Role of Substance Abuse

    Substance abuse exacerbates mental illness, impairing impulse control and decision-making. In Arboleda’s case, her history of alcohol abuse played a significant role in her erratic and impulsive behaviors, leading to:

    • DUI arrests.
    • Allegations of neglecting her children while intoxicated.
    • Increased aggression and unpredictable behavior.

    The Devastating Impact of Parental Kidnapping on Children

    Parental kidnapping can lead to lifelong psychological trauma for children, including:

    • Emotional distress – Confusion and fear caused by sudden separation from a parent.
    • Loss of trust – Struggling to rebuild relationships with both parents.
    • Interrupted education and social life – Causing developmental setbacks.
    • Mental health issues – Including anxiety, depression, and PTSD.

    Lizabelle’s abduction by her mother caused severe emotional harm, yet McCarthy’s failure to intervene effectively left her vulnerable to further abuse.

    The Troubling Parallels: Arboleda, Franke, Hildebrandt, and the “Punish Men” Mentality

    The Connection to Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt

    The arrest of Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt for aggravated child abuse exposed a disturbing parenting ideology advocating for strict discipline, emotional control, and the punishment of children and men.

    Arboleda and her associate, Jennifer Ashenfelter, have been linked to this dangerous belief system. Both have displayed behaviors aligned with Franke and Hildebrandt’s coercive tactics, including:

    • Promoting the belief that men are inherently problematic and must be strictly controlled.
    • Engaging in manipulative parenting practices that cause emotional harm to children.
    • Perpetuating cycles of abuse under the guise of protection.

    Arboleda’s past behaviors mirror these abusive ideologies, making her a deeply concerning figure within the realm of victims’ rights advocacy.

    Judicial Elections: The Fight for Real Justice

    Florida’s judicial elections provide an opportunity for voters to demand accountability from judges like Craig McCarthy, whose poor judgment has put victims at risk. Cases like Arboleda’s underscore the high stakes of electing judges who will either protect or fail abuse survivors.

    The Victoria Arboleda Victim Project: A Misaligned Mission?

    Originally, the Victoria Arboleda Victim Project (VAVP) was founded to highlight failures within the judicial system. However, Arboleda’s troubling past contradicts the values of a true victims’ rights organization. While advocating for justice is crucial, it should not provide a platform for individuals with documented histories of abuse and deception.

    For the VAVP to truly serve its mission, it must:

    • Reevaluate its association with Arboleda given her history of child abduction and false accusations.
    • Ensure it does not enable manipulative individuals who use victimhood as a weapon.
    • Advocate for judicial accountability while upholding ethical standards.

    Conclusion: Holding the Judiciary and Advocates Accountable

    The troubling connections between Judge Craig McCarthy, Victoria Arboleda, and toxic parenting ideologies highlight the urgent need for:

    • Judicial reform to protect victims from biased or incompetent judges.
    • Stronger mental health and substance abuse interventions for at-risk parents.
    • Greater scrutiny of advocacy groups to ensure they are not led by individuals with histories of abuse themselves.

    Florida voters have the power to demand accountability from their judicial system by ensuring competent, ethical judges preside over family law cases. At the same time, victims’ rights organizations must remain vigilant in preventing bad actors from co-opting advocacy for their own agendas.

    #JudicialAccountability #VictoriaArboledaVictimProject #SurvivorsDeserveJustice #FloridaJudicialElections

  • Judicial Recusal in Cases Involving Child Sexual Abuse

    Judicial Recusal in Cases Involving Child Sexual Abuse

    Introduction

    Judicial recusal, also known as judicial disqualification, is a fundamental aspect of maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system. This blog post delves into the circumstances under which a judge should recuse themselves from a case, with a particular focus on cases involving child sexual abuse and instances where judges have failed to address pending motions for an extended period.

    When Should a Judge Recuse Themselves?

    A judge should recuse themselves from a case when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. This includes situations where:

    Conflict of Interest:

    • Personal Connection: If the judge has a personal relationship with any party involved in the case, their impartiality could be compromised.
    • Financial Interest: If the judge has a financial stake in the outcome of the case, they must step aside to avoid any appearance of bias.

    Prior Involvement:

    • Previous Role: If the judge previously served as an attorney or had any other significant role in the case, they should recuse themselves to prevent any conflict of interest.

    Bias or Prejudice:

    • Demonstrated Bias: If the judge has shown bias or prejudice towards any party involved in the case, their ability to remain impartial is compromised.
    • Public Statements: Any public statements made by the judge that indicate a preconceived opinion about the case can be grounds for recusal.

    Why Should a Judge Recuse Themselves?

    The primary reasons for judicial recusal include:

    Ensuring Fairness and Impartiality:

    • Upholding Due Process: The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires judges to be impartial. Recusal is necessary to ensure that all parties receive a fair trial.
    • Maintaining Public Trust: Public confidence in the judicial system is essential. Recusal helps maintain the integrity and credibility of the judiciary.

    Preventing Conflicts of Interest:

    • Avoiding Bias: Recusal prevents any potential bias or conflict of interest from influencing the judge’s decisions.
    • Protecting the Rights of Parties: Ensuring that all parties receive an unbiased hearing is crucial, especially in sensitive cases involving child sexual abuse.

    Specific Case: Child Sexual Abuse and Judicial Negligence

    In cases involving children who have been sexually abused, the need for judicial recusal becomes even more critical, particularly when the judge has failed to address pending motions for over a year. Here’s why:

    Impact on Victims:

    • Delayed Justice: Prolonged delays in addressing motions can exacerbate the trauma experienced by child victims. Timely judicial action is essential to provide closure and support to the victims.
    • Emotional and Psychological Harm: The failure to act promptly can lead to further emotional and psychological harm to the children involved.

    Judicial Accountability:

    • Negligence: A judge’s failure to address pending motions for an extended period can be seen as negligence, undermining their ability to impartially and effectively manage the case.
    • Loss of Confidence: Such negligence can erode the confidence of the parties involved and the public in the judicial system.

    Legal and Ethical Obligations:

    • Duty to Act: Judges have a legal and ethical duty to manage their caseload efficiently and ensure timely justice. Failure to do so warrants recusal to uphold the principles of justice.
    • Protecting Vulnerable Parties: In cases involving vulnerable parties, such as children, judges must be particularly diligent in their duties. Recusal is necessary if they fail to meet these obligations.

    Conclusion

    Judicial recusal is essential to maintaining the fairness, impartiality, and integrity of the judicial system. In cases involving child sexual abuse, where a judge has failed to address pending motions for over a year, recusal is not only appropriate but necessary to protect the rights and well-being of the victims. Ensuring judicial accountability through recusal helps uphold the principles of justice and maintains public trust in the judiciary.

  • The Role of a Family Court Judge: A Comparative Analysis of Craig McCarthy and Stephen Brown

    The Role of a Family Court Judge: A Comparative Analysis of Craig McCarthy and Stephen Brown

    The role of a family court judge is crucial, as their decisions can profoundly impact the lives of families and children. In this post, we will explore the qualities that define a good family court judge versus a bad one, and provide a detailed comparison between Judge Craig McCarthy and his opponent, Stephen Brown, in the upcoming election for the Florida 9th Circuit Court. We will also discuss why Stephen Brown may be a better choice for this position.

    Qualities of a Good Family Court Judge

    A good family court judge exhibits several key qualities that ensure fair and compassionate rulings:

    Impartiality and Fairness

    • A good judge remains neutral and unbiased, ensuring that all parties receive a fair hearing. They base their decisions on evidence and legal principles, not personal beliefs or external pressures.

    Empathy and Understanding

    • They show empathy towards the emotional and psychological aspects of family disputes and strive to minimize trauma, especially in cases involving children.

    Strong Legal Knowledge

    • A good judge has a deep understanding of family law and stays updated with legal precedents and changes. They apply the law accurately and consistently.

    Effective Communication

    • They communicate clearly and respectfully with all parties involved, explaining their decisions and the reasoning behind them in a way that is understandable to non-lawyers.

    Efficiency and Timeliness

    • They manage their caseload efficiently, ensuring timely hearings and decisions to avoid prolonged stress for families. They are organized and prepared for each case.

    Ethical Conduct

    • They adhere to high ethical standards, avoiding any appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, and maintain professionalism both inside and outside the courtroom.

    Characteristics of a Bad Family Court Judge

    Conversely, a bad family court judge may exhibit the following negative traits:

    Bias and Partiality

    • A bad judge may show favoritism or bias, leading to unfair rulings. They might let personal beliefs or external influences affect their decisions.

    Lack of Empathy

    • They may be indifferent to the emotional and psychological impacts of their decisions on families and children, failing to create a supportive environment for vulnerable parties.

    Inadequate Legal Knowledge

    • A bad judge may lack a thorough understanding of family law or fail to stay updated with legal developments, leading to incorrect interpretations of the law.

    Poor Communication

    • They may communicate unclearly or disrespectfully, causing confusion and frustration for the parties involved, and fail to explain their decisions adequately.

    Inefficiency and Delays

    • They may mismanage their caseload, leading to unnecessary delays and prolonged stress for families, and be unprepared for hearings.

    Unethical Behavior

    • They might engage in unethical conduct, such as conflicts of interest or inappropriate behavior, undermining trust in the judicial system.

    Judge Craig McCarthy: Background and Analysis

    Judge Craig McCarthy has served as a judge of the Florida 9th Circuit Court since his appointment in 2022. He has a diverse background, including military service, private practice, and roles in public service. McCarthy’s judicial philosophy emphasizes the rule of law, the separation of powers, and ensuring that all parties are fully heard and treated with dignity .

    Strengths:

    • Extensive legal and military background.
    • Emphasis on the rule of law and judicial demeanor.
    • Experience in juvenile and domestic relations cases.

    Weaknesses:

    • Limited time on the bench since his appointment in 2022.
    • Some critics argue that his judicial demeanor can be overly rigid, potentially lacking in the empathy required for sensitive family court cases.

    Stephen Brown: Background and Analysis

    Stephen Brown, running against McCarthy, brings a wealth of experience in various legal fields, including family, criminal, juvenile, and civil law. Brown has served as an Assistant State Attorney and co-founded a law firm specializing in family law. He is also a Florida Supreme Court-certified mediator in multiple areas .

    Strengths:

    • Broad legal experience across multiple divisions of the circuit court.
    • Strong commitment to fairness, equality, and community values.
    • Extensive mediation experience, which can be crucial in resolving family disputes amicably.
    • Endorsements from diverse community leaders and organizations.

    Weaknesses:

    • While highly experienced, Brown has not yet served as a judge, which may be seen as a lack of direct judicial experience.

    Why Stephen Brown Would Be a Better Choice

    Stephen Brown’s extensive experience in family law, combined with his commitment to fairness and community values, makes him a compelling candidate for the Florida 9th Circuit Court. His background as a mediator suggests he can handle family disputes with the empathy and understanding required to minimize trauma for children and families. Furthermore, his diverse legal experience and strong ethical standards align with the qualities of a good family court judge. Brown’s commitment to ensuring that all individuals are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their background, is crucial for maintaining trust in the judicial system. His endorsements from various community leaders and organizations further attest to his suitability for the role.

    Conclusion

    The effectiveness of a family court judge significantly influences the outcomes of family law cases. While Judge Craig McCarthy has a solid background and judicial philosophy, Stephen Brown’s extensive experience in family law, mediation, and commitment to fairness and community values make him a better choice for the Florida 9th Circuit Court. Voters should consider these factors when making their decision in the upcoming election.

  • A Father’s Nightmare: The Story of Robbie Shawn and Judge Craig McCarthy’s Shocking Custody Decision

    A Father’s Nightmare: The Story of Robbie Shawn and Judge Craig McCarthy’s Shocking Custody Decision

    Introduction:

    Family court can be a battlefield, where emotions run high and the stakes are incredibly personal. But the case of Robbie Shawn, a dedicated father from San Diego, is an alarming example of how the system can fail to protect the most vulnerable – our children. After years of fighting for custody of his daughter Lizabelle, Robbie found himself facing a series of baffling decisions by Judge Craig McCarthy (“Sleepy Craig”) that have put Lizabelle’s safety and well-being in jeopardy.

    A Hard-Won Victory, Quickly Undermined:

    Robbie’s story began in 2019 when, after an exhaustive legal process, he was awarded majority timesharing of Lizabelle. The court recognized Lizabelle’s mother’s history of mental instability, substance abuse, neglect, and multiple dependency cases. It seemed like a triumph for a father who simply wanted to provide a stable and loving home for his daughter.

    However, Lizabelle’s mother refused to accept the court’s decision. She embarked on a campaign of parental alienation, kidnapping Lizabelle multiple times, filing frivolous restraining orders, and even shaving Lizabelle’s head to evade authorities. This pattern of instability and manipulation would soon become a central issue in the case.

    Enter Judge McCarthy: A Series of Perplexing Decisions:

    When Judge Craig McCarthy took over the case, Robbie’s hopes for a smooth transition were dashed. False allegations of drug use, fueled by Lizabelle’s mother and her friend Jennifer Ashenfelter (a known meth addict), seemed to sway the judge’s opinion. Despite Robbie’s clean record and stable life in San Diego, the judge inexplicably denied his request to relocate back home with Lizabelle.

    Even more disturbingly, Judge McCarthy ordered Lizabelle to remain in Florida with her mother, despite credible allegations of sexual abuse by her mother’s uncle, with whom they reside. This decision, which seemingly ignored the evidence and prioritized the mother’s wishes over Lizabelle’s safety, has left Robbie and his family bewildered and desperate.

    A Courtroom in Chaos:

    Robbie’s attempts to seek justice have been met with a wall of silence. Motions for a guardian ad litem, petitions to relocate, and evidence of the abuse allegations have been ignored by Judge McCarthy and his assistant. As the new school year approaches, Lizabelle’s future hangs in the balance, with her education and well-being threatened by a court order that keeps her in a dangerous environment.

    A Father’s Desperation:

    Robbie, who has exhausted his financial resources fighting for his daughter’s safety, is now . His story is a chilling reminder that the family court system, designed to protect children, can sometimes become a tool for manipulation and injustice.

    Conclusion:

    The case of Robbie Shawn and Lizabelle is a heartbreaking testament to the power of parental alienation and the devastating consequences of judicial inaction. It is a story that demands attention, accountability, and reform. We must advocate for a family court system that prioritizes the well-being of children above all else and holds judges responsible for their decisions.

  • The Importance of Decisiveness in Family Court: Protecting Our Children

    The Importance of Decisiveness in Family Court: Protecting Our Children

    As a parent, my primary duty is to ensure the safety and well-being of my child. Unfortunately, the judicial system, specifically Judge Craig McCarthy, has failed my daughter, Lizabelle, in the most critical ways. This blog post aims to shed light on the negligence and lack of response from Judge McCarthy, which has directly contributed to my daughter’s ongoing trauma and abuse.

    A History of Neglect and Abuse

    Following a trial, I was awarded majority time-sharing with Lizabelle. However, her mother, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, appealed the decision, which was dismissed. Despite this, she has made numerous unsubstantiated calls to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and has kidnapped Lizabelle multiple times, taking her across the country to file false restraining orders against me—all of which were denied.

    The Role of Judge McCarthy

    In December, Judge McCarthy ordered Lizabelle’s return to me after a kidnapping incident but then mandated her return to her mother for winter break shortly thereafter. This decision was made despite the clear danger posed by her mother, who had previously shaved Lizabelle’s head and hidden her for ten months.

    Currently, Lizabelle resides in Orlando with her mother and her uncle, who has sexually abused her. Despite filing motions months ago, including a request for a guardian ad litem and a petition for relocation, Judge McCarthy and his assistant have ignored my attempts to set a hearing. This negligence has led to another kidnapping incident, with the mother refusing to return Lizabelle as per the original court order and parenting plan.

    Ignoring the Danger

    Judge McCarthy has prohibited me from taking Lizabelle out of Florida, despite our court order and parenting plan stipulating our residence in San Diego. Lizabelle has attended six different schools in the past two years due to her mother’s repeated kidnappings and relocations. This instability has severely impacted her education and emotional well-being.

    Why Decisiveness Matters in Family Court

    Decisiveness in family court cases is particularly crucial, especially in situations involving the safety and well-being of children. Here are several reasons why:

    1. Immediate Protection: In cases where a child is at risk, such as when a parent has a history of drug abuse or has kidnapped the child, swift and decisive action is necessary to protect the child from immediate harm.
    2. Stability and Continuity: Children need stable and consistent living arrangements to thrive. Decisive decisions help minimize disruptions in the child’s life, such as frequent relocations or changes in guardianship.
    3. Emotional and Psychological Well-being: Prolonged legal battles and uncertainty can be traumatic for children. Decisive rulings help provide closure and reduce the emotional stress associated with ongoing legal disputes.
    4. Legal and Procedural Efficiency: Decisive judges ensure that hearings and rulings are conducted promptly, reducing the backlog of cases and ensuring that justice is served without unnecessary delays.
    5. Accountability and Enforcement: Decisive rulings hold abusive parents accountable for their actions, ensuring that they face appropriate legal consequences and that protective measures are enforced.

    Supporting Children Who Have Experienced Trauma

    Supporting children who have experienced trauma during legal proceedings is essential for their recovery and well-being. Here are some effective strategies:

    • Trauma-Informed Care: Legal professionals should be trained in trauma-informed care to understand the impact of trauma on children and how to interact with them sensitively.
    • Mental Health Support: Provide access to licensed therapists and counselors who specialize in trauma. Therapy can help children process their experiences and develop coping strategies.
    • Legal Advocacy: Appoint a guardian ad litem or a child advocate to represent the child’s best interests in court. This ensures that the child’s voice is heard and their needs are prioritized.
    • Educational Stability: Work to maintain educational stability by minimizing school changes and providing support within the school environment.
    • Community and Family Support: Offer family counseling to help the entire family understand and support the child’s healing process.
    • Judicial Practices: Encourage judges to adopt trauma-informed practices and make timely decisions that prioritize the child’s safety and well-being.
    • Public Awareness and Advocacy: Advocate for public awareness about the impact of trauma on children and the importance of trauma-informed care in legal settings.

    Conclusion

    I urge anyone reading this to share our story and help us seek justice for Lizabelle. The judicial system must be held accountable for its failures, and Judge McCarthy must answer for the harm caused by his negligence. By raising awareness and advocating for decisive and trauma-informed judicial practices, we can protect our children and ensure they receive the justice and support they deserve.

  • Judge Craig McCarthy: Failing to Protect My Daughter from Sexual Abuse

    Judge Craig McCarthy: Failing to Protect My Daughter from Sexual Abuse

    As a parent, my primary duty is to ensure the safety and well-being of my child. Unfortunately, the judicial system, specifically Judge Craig McCarthy, has failed my daughter, Lizabelle, in the most critical ways. This blog post aims to shed light on the negligence and lack of response from Judge McCarthy, which has directly contributed to my daughter’s ongoing trauma and abuse.

    A History of Neglect and Abuse

    Following a trial, I was awarded majority time-sharing with Lizabelle. However, her mother, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, appealed the decision, which was dismissed. Despite this, she has made numerous unsubstantiated calls to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and has kidnapped Lizabelle multiple times, taking her across the country to file false restraining orders against me—all of which were denied.

    The Role of Judge McCarthy

    In December, Judge McCarthy ordered Lizabelle’s return to me after a kidnapping incident but then mandated her return to her mother for winter break shortly thereafter. This decision was made despite the clear danger posed by her mother, who had previously shaved Lizabelle’s head and hidden her for ten months.

    Currently, Lizabelle resides in Orlando with her mother and her uncle, who has sexually abused her. Despite filing motions months ago, including a request for a guardian ad litem and a petition for relocation, Judge McCarthy and his assistant have ignored my attempts to set a hearing. This negligence has led to another kidnapping incident, with the mother refusing to return Lizabelle as per the original court order and parenting plan.

    Ignoring the Danger

    Judge McCarthy has prohibited me from taking Lizabelle out of Florida, despite our court order and parenting plan stipulating our residence in San Diego. Lizabelle has attended six different schools in the past two years due to her mother’s repeated kidnappings and relocations. This instability has severely impacted her education and emotional well-being.

    A Plea for Justice

    I have exhausted my financial resources and am desperate for justice and protection for my daughter. Despite a court order and parenting plan, law enforcement and DCF have not provided assistance. Judge McCarthy’s orders have placed Lizabelle in a dangerous environment with her abuser, and my concerns about her safety have been consistently ignored.

    Conclusion

    Lizabelle is due to start school in less than two weeks, and her mother falsely claims custody, disregarding the court’s orders. Her attorney is complicit in this misinformation. I am losing faith in the court’s ability to protect my daughter and ensure her safety.

    I urge anyone reading this to share our story and help us seek justice for Lizabelle. The judicial system must be held accountable for its failures, and Judge McCarthy must answer for the harm caused by his negligence.

  • Judicial Candidates Debate: Judge Craig McCarthy vs. Stephen Brown

    Judicial Candidates Debate: Judge Craig McCarthy vs. Stephen Brown

    The recent League of Women Voters forum in Winter Park saw a heated debate between Circuit Court Judge Craig McCarthy and his challenger, Stephen Brown. This debate marks Judge McCarthy’s first significant test since his appointment by Governor Ron DeSantis.

    The Candidates:

    • Craig McCarthy: Appointed as a Circuit Court Judge after serving as a General Magistrate. He is running for re-election in Group 43 of the Ninth Circuit.
    • Stephen Brown: A seasoned attorney with extensive jury trial experience, running against McCarthy in the upcoming August 20 ballot.

    Key Points of Debate:

    1. Court Schedule and Backlog:
      • Brown’s Critique: Brown criticized McCarthy for not holding court on Fridays, suggesting it contributes to a backlog of cases. He emphasized his own extensive trial experience, having tried over 70 cases before a jury.
      • McCarthy’s Defense: McCarthy countered by explaining that Fridays are reserved for writing, emergency motions, and other critical tasks. He highlighted his commitment to working seven days a week and his dedication to the judicial process.
    2. Qualifications and Experience:
      • Brown’s Argument: Brown positioned himself as the more qualified candidate, citing his criminal law experience as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney. He stressed the importance of this experience for the community.
      • McCarthy’s Response: McCarthy emphasized his legal career, including his work in domestic violence cases and his board certification in juvenile law. He shared his personal journey, from being the first in his family to attend college to graduating from West Point, and his commitment to protecting the vulnerable.
    3. Federalist Society Membership:
      • During the Q&A session, McCarthy was the only candidate to address his past and brief recent membership in the Federalist Society, a conservative and libertarian legal organization. He explained his involvement during law school and his decision to join various civic organizations after his appointment to the bench.

    Stances on Specific Issues:

    1. Domestic Violence and Juvenile Law:
      • McCarthy: McCarthy has a strong background in domestic violence cases and juvenile law. He has built his career around advocating for vulnerable families and children, ensuring they have access to resources and protection.
      • Brown: While Brown did not specifically address domestic violence and juvenile law during the debate, his extensive experience in criminal law as both a prosecutor and defense attorney suggests a broad understanding of legal issues impacting families and children.
    2. Judicial Philosophy and Community Values:
      • McCarthy: McCarthy emphasized his commitment to fairness and respect in the courtroom, ensuring every voice is heard. He highlighted his non-political background and dedication to serving the community.
      • Brown: Brown argued that judges in Central Florida should reflect the community’s values. He positioned himself as a candidate with deep ties to the community and a strong understanding of its needs.
    3. Court Efficiency and Accessibility:
      • McCarthy: McCarthy defended his practice of reserving Fridays for writing and emergency motions, arguing that it helps manage the court’s workload effectively. He stressed his dedication to working seven days a week to ensure timely justice.
      • Brown: Brown criticized this approach, arguing that not holding court on Fridays contributes to case backlogs. He advocated for a more traditional five-day court schedule to improve efficiency and accessibility.

    Conclusion:

    The debate highlighted the contrasting backgrounds and philosophies of the two candidates. Brown’s focus on courtroom experience and community values stood against McCarthy’s defense of his judicial practices and dedication to the underdog. As the election approaches, voters in Orange and Osceola counties will have to weigh these factors carefully.

  • Comparing Stephen Brown and Judge Craig McCarthy for Ninth Circuit Judge: Pros and Cons

    Comparing Stephen Brown and Judge Craig McCarthy for Ninth Circuit Judge: Pros and Cons

    As the election for the Ninth Circuit Judge draws near, voters are faced with a crucial decision between the incumbent, Judge Craig McCarthy, and his challenger, Stephen Brown. This blog post aims to provide a balanced comparison of the pros and cons of each candidate based on several key factors.

    Contentious Appointment

    Judge Craig McCarthy:

    • Con: Judge McCarthy’s initial appointment by Governor DeSantis was somewhat controversial, with some questioning whether political considerations played a role. This has led to concerns about the impartiality and independence of his judicial decisions.

    Stephen Brown:

    • Pro: Stephen Brown emphasizes the importance of avoiding even the appearance of political influence in the judiciary. His commitment to maintaining integrity and impartiality ensures that his decisions are based solely on the law and facts, free from political bias.

    Campaign Remarks

    Judge Craig McCarthy:

    • Con: During his campaign for re-election, Judge McCarthy made remarks that were perceived as insensitive by certain groups. These comments have been criticized for potentially undermining public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

    Stephen Brown:

    • Pro: Stephen Brown has consistently demonstrated a commitment to inclusivity and respect for all community members. His public statements, such as his reflections on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy and his support for Pride Month, showcase his dedication to promoting equality and justice for all.

    Caseload Management

    Judge Craig McCarthy:

    • Con: There have been criticisms about Judge McCarthy’s management of his caseload, with allegations of delays and inefficiencies. While this is a common challenge in busy jurisdictions like Orange County, it has raised concerns about the timely administration of justice.

    Stephen Brown:

    • Pro: Stephen Brown has outlined clear plans to improve caseload management and streamline court processes. His commitment to efficiency will help reduce backlogs and ensure timely justice for all litigants, addressing one of the most pressing issues in the judicial system.

    “Underdog” Focus

    Judge Craig McCarthy:

    • Pro: Judge McCarthy often emphasizes his advocacy for the “underdog,” aiming to ensure fairness for all.
    • Con: However, some might interpret this focus as a bias towards certain litigants, which could undermine the perception of impartiality in his courtroom.

    Stephen Brown:

    • Pro: Stephen Brown’s approach is to advocate for justice for all, without showing favoritism. His dedication to respecting victims’ rights and ensuring fairness for every individual aligns with the principles of impartiality and equality that are essential for a judge.

    Limited Public Information

    Judge Craig McCarthy:

    • Con: Finding critical information about Judge McCarthy can be difficult, as much of the available information focuses on his positive attributes. This could be due to the nature of judicial positions, where criticism might be less publicized.

    Stephen Brown:

    • Pro: Stephen Brown’s campaign is marked by transparency and openness. He regularly engages with the community, participates in forums, and shares his vision for the judiciary through various platforms. This transparency fosters public trust and confidence in his ability to serve as a fair and impartial judge.

    Conclusion

    In summary, Stephen Brown presents a compelling case for why he would be a better Ninth Circuit Judge compared to Judge Craig McCarthy. Brown’s commitment to integrity, inclusivity, efficient caseload management, and transparency sets him apart as a candidate who prioritizes justice for all. As voters, it is crucial to support a candidate who embodies these qualities and is dedicated to serving the community with fairness and compassion. By electing Stephen Brown as the Ninth Circuit Judge, we can ensure a judiciary that truly serves the people and upholds the highest standards of integrity and impartiality. For more information about Stephen Brown and his campaign, please visit his website.