My firm and my client (plaintiff) are not from Riverside. The other side's firm and client (defendant) are from Riverside. Her rulings on evidence were insanely lopsided in their favor (like literally 95% skewed their way). In addition to just being wrong much of the time, she would rule in their favor if they made an objection and then rule in their favor when we would make the exact same objection in the same circumstances. She also let the defense present 100% of their case in chief during our case in chief, allowing them to call 4 witnesses out of order, which totally screwed with our presentation and was completely unnecessary and disrespectful. At a certain point, we were simply entertained by the patent unfairness. That's how bad it was. In fact, I came to the conclusion that she was simply "padding the record" because she knew she was going to rule in our favor, and I started to take comfort in her awful, awful rulings. She seemed like she was bending over backwards to make sure her ruling for us could not be appealed. But we lost - in a case with some of the best facts I've ever been to trial with. I am stunned and appalled. The worst judge I have ever known. Maybe it's because we were from L.A. and got hometowned. Maybe she has a terrible defense bias. I don't know, and I don't care. I will 170.6 her as long as I live. On the upside, she was surprisingly patient and allowed counsel to argue points extensively (it was a bench trial). However, that benefit is mitigated by the fact that she has a horrible memory/attention span and does not seem to understand basic legal points (especially the rules of evidence). And to add insult to injury, she constantly made faces - as if to say "WTF are you talking about" - at us and our witnesses when we would make arguments she didn't understand.
Trask likes to deny and reject routine procedural pleadings. If appearing in front of her make sure to research all her past orders and pay particular attention to the form of the papers being submitted. This is true for most judges but Trask has in her mind a specific way pleadings must be presented to her or she will reject it. She seems like a big home town judge too. She shows major deference to local counsel and really is hard on out of town counsel or individuals appearing pro se. The problem is that Riverside Superior is generally overwhelmed and dysfunctional and Trask is no exception. She doesn't have time to read the pleadings in front of her so she relies on what appears to be a stylistic cursory review of the documents and is generally distrustful of anyone she isn't familiar with. Was not impressed.
Pro se litigants, beware: she is unprofessional and insanely hateful towards self-represented parties. Please investigate the facts for yourself. Justice is not blind in her courtroom. Audaciously, she attempted to rename my motion, and I respectfully directed her to my pleading. She reviewed the law, and read it aloud, only to find that her tentative ruling was improper. Instead of allowing the hearing to proceed on the merits, she became outraged, stating on the record that she did not care and that she would not rule in my favor. She is by far the worst judge that I have personally experienced. What's even more curious is that she denied my 170.6! This is dishonorable behavior at its worst!
Trask is a witch, and so it is appropriate that she is wearing a black robe. A defense attorney, Martin Hagan of the state attorney general's office, slandered me in a document he filed. I sued him and she let him get away with it, saying that he had 'litigator privilege' and could lie with immunity. then what good is any court if lies can be allowed? this is despicable.. and at any rate this immunity is NOT absolute as she declared, but must be connected to an issue in the case, which Hagan had already claimed it was not related.
Go to hell Trask.
I just completed a one-week court trial before Judge Trask. Although I lost the case (and believe I should have won), it was a declaratory relief case as to which reasonable minds could differ. Judge Trask read all of the papers, considered all of the arguments, gave us ample opportunity to make our points, and made even-handed evidentiary rulings. Although I am from LA, I felt no bias in favor of local counsel or against me. Judge Trask was unfailingly courteous and a delight to try a case before, even when you are losing. The first comment above is so contrary to my experience that I wonder if the reviewer's comments were not colored by the fact that he lost and perhaps his case was not as good as he thought. The comments by the two pro pers indicate that, as usual, laymen appearing in pro per usually don't understand what it happening or how to comply with the rules and think they are being treated badly when they are not.
I agree with everything said other than from 4163
This judge does not understand the basic components of civil practice.
She does not understand basic rules of law and has no idea how to read or interpret statutes.
Her defense to looking stupid and unprepared, which is at every hearing, is to cut you off, its not before her, take it under submission, or something else, but never discuss the issue openly. Then rules without explanation.
Clearly reads nothing with any depth. Makes up rules and rules of law.
The only problem with a 170.6 is you might end up with Sykes. Can we award negative stars?
Awful Judge, she comes in late and will recess and leave the court house and make everyone wait, even when receiving flowers in court. She in not ethical, will say one thing and do something else. Upholds white supremacy, which is why she is in the position. She is backwards and corrupt.
She went out of her way to make me lose my mothers home.
Susan Conner Trask is a DOG. She will be retired soon and hopefully not on the earth much longer. She has destroyed many lives and is unethical. Many of her judgements have been appealed and turned over. I wander what she did to even become a judge because she is not skilled at all.
Dear Judge Trask,
I am writing to extend my profound gratitude to you, for your clarity and what I believe to be a truly unbiased, constitutional opinion regarding the powerful and highly politicized, State of California and it's compelling of non-abortion clinics that offer actual, health care to women, to openly advertise that which is directly in opposition to what they believe is true health care.
You were so very eloquent in stating the obvious and common sense, both of which are minimized, demonized and suppressed by the baby-killing industry, and/or massively overlooked by the public, in general.
I thank you that you cleary and concisely explained, the our constitutional right to one thing, does not come at the sacrifice of another right.
I wish there were more judges like yourself, who view our constitutional rights through the lens of the constitution, rather than through their objective bias.
In writing this comment to you, I noticed your extremely low rating, but ask you to not loose heart; in doing what is right vs political, many feathers will be ruffled and many angry voices will be united, to dicredit you...
But I was so grateful to have read the article, citing your sound and reasoned and constitutional decision on this matter.
Orange County, CA
I'm glad this hag is retiring, she isn't fit to be a judge. She works with attorneys against the people. Mark Perryman in Temecula is the worst attorney I have ever worked with. Worst litigator I have ever seen. He charged me almost 50K for a small probate case. $450.00 hourly and 2 ten thousand dollar retainer, plus he nickle and dimed me evey month. The case didn't last a year.