Podcasts about fourth district court

​In December 2021, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Donald W. Hafele denied The Palm Beach Post's request to release the 2006 grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein's case, citing legal constraints on disclosing such materials. This decision was met with criticism from those advocating for transparency, as the grand jury's proceedings had resulted in Epstein facing minimal charges despite substantial evidence of his involvement in sexual misconduct with minors.However, in May 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned Judge Hafele's ruling, stating that he possessed the authority to release the transcripts if it served the "furtherance of justice." The appellate court directed Judge Hafele to review the transcripts and determine which portions could be disclosed, emphasizing the public's interest in understanding the judicial processes that led to Epstein's lenient plea deal. This development underscored ongoing concerns about potential systemic failures and preferential treatment within the justice system regarding Epstein's case.The Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) played a crucial role in exposing the injustices surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart deal in 2008. Under federal law, the CVRA mandates that victims be informed of and allowed to participate in plea agreements, yet Epstein's victims were deliberately kept in the dark when then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta brokered a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granting Epstein immunity from federal charges. The secretive deal, which also shielded his co-conspirators, was exposed years later when victims sued under the CVRA, arguing that their rights had been violated. In 2019, a federal judge ruled that prosecutors had indeed violated the CVRA by failing to notify the victims, but no legal remedy was provided. This blatant disregard for victims' rights reinforced public skepticism about how Epstein's wealth and connections influenced the justice system, fueling demands for greater transparency and accountability in high-profile criminal cases.to contact me:bobbyapucci@protonmail.com

​In December 2021, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Donald W. Hafele denied The Palm Beach Post's request to release the 2006 grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein's case, citing legal constraints on disclosing such materials. This decision was met with criticism from those advocating for transparency, as the grand jury's proceedings had resulted in Epstein facing minimal charges despite substantial evidence of his involvement in sexual misconduct with minors.However, in May 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned Judge Hafele's ruling, stating that he possessed the authority to release the transcripts if it served the "furtherance of justice." The appellate court directed Judge Hafele to review the transcripts and determine which portions could be disclosed, emphasizing the public's interest in understanding the judicial processes that led to Epstein's lenient plea deal. This development underscored ongoing concerns about potential systemic failures and preferential treatment within the justice system regarding Epstein's case.The Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) played a crucial role in exposing the injustices surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart deal in 2008. Under federal law, the CVRA mandates that victims be informed of and allowed to participate in plea agreements, yet Epstein's victims were deliberately kept in the dark when then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta brokered a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granting Epstein immunity from federal charges. The secretive deal, which also shielded his co-conspirators, was exposed years later when victims sued under the CVRA, arguing that their rights had been violated. In 2019, a federal judge ruled that prosecutors had indeed violated the CVRA by failing to notify the victims, but no legal remedy was provided. This blatant disregard for victims' rights reinforced public skepticism about how Epstein's wealth and connections influenced the justice system, fueling demands for greater transparency and accountability in high-profile criminal cases.to contact me:bobbyapucci@protonmail.com

​In December 2021, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Donald W. Hafele denied The Palm Beach Post's request to release the 2006 grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein's case, citing legal constraints on disclosing such materials. This decision was met with criticism from those advocating for transparency, as the grand jury's proceedings had resulted in Epstein facing minimal charges despite substantial evidence of his involvement in sexual misconduct with minors.However, in May 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned Judge Hafele's ruling, stating that he possessed the authority to release the transcripts if it served the "furtherance of justice." The appellate court directed Judge Hafele to review the transcripts and determine which portions could be disclosed, emphasizing the public's interest in understanding the judicial processes that led to Epstein's lenient plea deal. This development underscored ongoing concerns about potential systemic failures and preferential treatment within the justice system regarding Epstein's case.The Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) played a crucial role in exposing the injustices surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart deal in 2008. Under federal law, the CVRA mandates that victims be informed of and allowed to participate in plea agreements, yet Epstein's victims were deliberately kept in the dark when then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta brokered a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granting Epstein immunity from federal charges. The secretive deal, which also shielded his co-conspirators, was exposed years later when victims sued under the CVRA, arguing that their rights had been violated. In 2019, a federal judge ruled that prosecutors had indeed violated the CVRA by failing to notify the victims, but no legal remedy was provided. This blatant disregard for victims' rights reinforced public skepticism about how Epstein's wealth and connections influenced the justice system, fueling demands for greater transparency and accountability in high-profile criminal cases.to contact me:bobbyapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

PGA golf icon Tiger Woods' ex-girlfriend, Erica Herman, is taking her legal dispute with the golf superstar to Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, RadarOnline.com has learned.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Justice Barbara J. Pariente joined Robert to discuss her remarkable career, the importance of judicial fairness and impartiality, and problems with the current judicial selection process in Florida.Justice Pariente's legal career began 50 years ago with a 2-year clerkship for U.S. District Judge Norman Roettger. She then settled in West Palm Beach, where she practiced for nearly 20 years before being appointed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in 1993. She was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in 1997, becoming the first Jewish woman justice. Justice Pariente was the second woman to serve on the state's high court and the second to serve as Chief Justice (2004 to 2006). She is a champion for children's rights, a cancer survivor, and a nationally recognized advocate for women and women lawyers. She was inducted into the Florida Women's Hall of Fame in 2008. She retired from the Court in 2019. Resources: NAWJ Informed Voters ProjectTake Stock in ChildrenJustice Pariente on judicial independence at the National Constitution Center (June 2014)Book recommendation:A Most Disorderly Court: Scandal and Reform in the Florida Judiciary (Martin Dyckman)Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast's advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast's creator is prohibited.

In this episode, Justice Carol D. Codrington, the first African American justice on California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, shares her unique career trajectory, starting with being a litigator and a lawyer and moving up to her current position. She takes us deep behind the scenes of what goes into being a judge, sharing challenges and advice for students and lawyers on the process of opinion and brief writing as well as oral arguments.

Hour 1 * Guest: Alex Newman – Writer/Speaker, Award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant, The John Birch Society – JBS.org * Alex Reports Live From The Conference of the Parties, COP27 in Egypt! * Can You Say Election Fraud!? – Katie Hobbs defeated Kari Lake in AZ governor's race – The Democrat defeated Lake by just one percentage point, 50.4%-49.5%. * Video: Proof Climate Cult Leaders Don't Believe Their Own Narrative. * Biden addresses UN climate conference in Egypt – NPR. * Biden claims climate efforts ‘more urgent than ever' at summit. * The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. * Are you familiar with the Human Development Report? * Global Leaders Usher In New Man Made Ten Commandments! * Guest: Patrick Byrne, Former Chairman and CEO of Overstock.com * Patrick Sneaks in to the White House – Has Emergency Meeting With Trump! * Trump and Patrick Betrayed from Within by Rudy Giuliani. * Patrick: “anyone who had a key to the SolarWinds hack had a key to every election machine in America that was running the Serv-U product, which means they had unlimited administrative access to the databases. And most of these databases use SQL, a tool that lets you change entries to the database.” * A Direct Challenge to Obama, DOJ, FBI and the Rest of the Deep State – Patrick Byrne. * Mr. Byrne: “I'd pay $10 million to be tried for Sedition in a military court next week. If I'm convicted, hang me. If I'm lying about this stuff, hang me. * Patrick announced that he was recently diagnosed with cancerous tumors in his spine, “which has given him the courage to dare the military courts to try him in one day for Sedition and to hang him by sunset if he's lying. He'll call his 6 witnesses for 10 minutes each. His one condition is that they televise the trial.” * ‘Deplorables' Proven Right Once Again! * Get CSPOA SMS Updates! Simply text the letters CSPOA to 53445. * Archives of the Simulcast of the Sheriff Mack show and Liberty RoundTable Live can be found in Video at BrightEON.tv and Audio at LibertyRoundTable.com Hour 2 * Guest: Loy Brunson, Knowing the US attorneys would be able to get the courts to dismiss the following cases, my two brothers and I planned from the get-go, to take all cases we would file, to the United States Supreme Court where the final decision could be made by a majority of constitutional Supreme Court Justices – 7Discoveries.com * How Can Citizens Redress their Grievances of an Unfair Election Process? * In the Utah District United States District Court which is the federal court of Utah, Loy sued Biden, Harris, Mike Pence and 385 members of the US Congress (House and Senate). * For blocking his federal lawsuit against the 388 defendants, In Utah's Fourth District Court, Loy sued two defendants, the federal court of Utah and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver Colorado. Yes he took two federal courts to State Court. You're reading this correctly. * My brother Raland with an identical complaint sued the same defendants in the 3rd District Court of Utah. This is the case that is now on the docket of the United States Supreme Court. This can be found at supremecourt.gov docket # 22-380. * Court Documents Show FBI Had 8 Informants In Far-Right Proud Boys – NYT, In filings in the seditious conspiracy case against members of the Proud Boys, defense lawyers claimed that information favorable to their clients was improperly withheld by the government until recently. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

* Guest: Loy Brunson, Knowing the US attorneys would be able to get the courts to dismiss the following cases, my two brothers and I planned from the get-go, to take all cases we would file, to the United States Supreme Court where the final decision could be made by a majority of constitutional Supreme Court Justices - 7Discoveries.com * How Can Citizens Redress their Grievances of an Unfair Election Process? * In the Utah District United States District Court which is the federal court of Utah, Loy sued Biden, Harris, Mike Pence and 385 members of the US Congress (House and Senate). * For blocking his federal lawsuit against the 388 defendants, In Utah's Fourth District Court, Loy sued two defendants, the federal court of Utah and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver Colorado. Yes he took two federal courts to State Court. You're reading this correctly. * My brother Raland with an identical complaint sued the same defendants in the 3rd District Court of Utah. This is the case that is now on the docket of the United States Supreme Court. This can be found at supremecourt.gov docket # 22-380. * Court Documents Show FBI Had 8 Informants In Far-Right Proud Boys - NYT, In filings in the seditious conspiracy case against members of the Proud Boys, defense lawyers claimed that information favorable to their clients was improperly withheld by the government until recently.

*Cancun students will have talks on financial education The Condusef will give free virtual conferences and face-to-face talks at universities and primary schools in the city. *Cancún: They warn taxi drivers to take away their concessions After the constant attacks by Cancun taxi drivers towards BUS operators, municipal authorities warned that they could withdraw their concessions * Prepares a crisis committee for the tourism sector Jesús Almaguer, president of the hoteliers, assures that the council will provide correct information to avoid losing tourists. * Destination of the PolISH MAN held at the Cancun airport is defined on Tuesday It will be on October 25 that the Fourth District Court will resolve the amparo on Filip Roger Zalewski. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/cjr-news/support

Dr. Sandie Morgan is joined by the Honorable Judge Joanne Motoike to discuss GRACE Court, a collaborative court designed to provide services to CSEC victims and rehabilitate them to be reintegrated back into the community. Honorable Joanne Motoike The Honorable Joanne Motoike serves as an associate justice of the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 3. Previously, she was the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court in Orange County, California where she also oversaw a unique collaborative court for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation called GRACE Court. She has also served as a senior deputy public defender at the Orange County Public Defender's Office, and as a trial attorney in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at the Hague. Key Points GRACE (Generating Resources to Abolish Child Exploitation) Court was developed to provide youth and families with services as they went through the legal process in their cases. Juvenile Court is done with the mindset of rehabilitation of the youth coming through the court system to reduce the recidivism rates of that population. In comparison, Criminal Court is designed to punish in order to deter further conduct. GRACE Court is a speciality collaborative court to address the specific needs of CSEC victims. To start a collaborative CSEC court, start with contacting law enforcement and other key stakeholders that will play a significant role in providing services to potential victims. Resources EP. 112 – Juvenile Justice Inspiring Hope: An Interview with Hon. Maria Hernandez Orange County, California Collaborative Courts Love the show? Consider supporting us on Patreon! Become a Patron Transcript Dave [00:00:00] You're listening to the Ending Human Trafficking podcast. This is episode number 283, Why A Special Court for CSEC Victims, with Judge Joanne Motoike. Production Credits [00:00:12] Produced by Innovate Learning, maximizing human potential. Dave [00:00:31] Welcome to the Ending Human Trafficking podcast. My name is Dave Stachowiak. Sandie [00:00:37] And my name is Sandie Morgan. Dave [00:00:39] And this is the show where we empower you to study the issues, be a voice, and make a difference in ending human trafficking. Sandie, today a wonderful partner with us to really help us to understand more on the legal side of our work. And of course, so much of our work here at the Global Center for Women and Justice is about building partnerships across the legal community, law enforcement, government, so many wonderful experts that we've been able to talk with. And today, an expert that will help us to really get even more perspective on what happens inside the courtrooms. I'm so glad to welcome the Honorable Joanne Motoike. She serves as an associate justice of the Fourth District Court of Appeals Division Three. Previously, she was the presiding judge of the Juvenile Court in Orange County, California, where she also oversaw a unique collaborative court for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation called the GRACE Court. She has also served as a senior deputy public defender at the Orange County Public Defender's Office and as a trial attorney in the office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague. Judge Motoike, welcome to our show today. Joanne [00:01:56] Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. Sandie [00:01:59] I'm excited about this conversation. First of all, congratulations on your appointment as an associate judge of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. That's so impressive. And I just love what I know you'll be able to accomplish in this new role. But today we're going to talk about your experience as presiding judge in juvenile court in Oran...

In this episode of Take It To the Board, host Donna DiMaggio Berger speaks with Becker Shareholder Joy Mattingly, who oversees Becker's collection and foreclosure practice. Joy is an experienced litigator who represents all types of associations in collecting the delinquent assessments needed to fund the community's essential services. She's a graduate of University of Florida's Levin School of Law and clerked for Judge Mark E. Polen at Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals. Donna and Joy discuss the mechanics of a successful foreclosure practice, what boards need to know about “creative” debt collection companies, and how collection attorneys cope with such a demanding practice area.Topics covered include: How to handle the elderly who have “aged-in” to their home and may not be able to pay rising fees. The importance of establishing collection team roles and managing stress.Typical steps and claims an owner may take in fighting a foreclosure.The likelihood of getting a case resolved before foreclosure.The timeline and steps to finalize an uncontested foreclosure.The role that bankruptcy might play. What a “strategic default” is and how you should deal with it.The role of repayment plans.What associations need to know about collection agencies and “creative” debt collection companies. The biggest mistake association boards make when it comes to collecting delinquent assessments.Helpful links:Online Class: Collection and Foreclosure Strategies for Community Associations | Becker (beckerlawyers.com)Becker Lawyers | Legal and Business StrategistsCALL | Powered by beckerlawyers.comFlorida Condo & HOA Law Blog | Powered by beckerlawyers.com Collections & Foreclosure | Becker (beckerlawyers.com)

According to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, Pritzker's emergency rules for schools to require masks, exclude “close contacts,” and require vaccine or testing for staff, aren't in effect after being blocked by a bipartisan legislative panel last week. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/illinois-in-focus/support

The temporary restraining order blocking Gov. J.B. Pritzker's COVID-19 mask and exclusion policies in schools remains in place as the Fourth District Court of Appeals dismissed the governor's appeal as moot.1 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/illinois-in-focus/support

Welcome to another edition of the Florida Appellate Review Case Law Update. In this week's episode, host, Board-Certified Appellate Attorney Andrew Harris, joined by Board-Certified Civil Trial Attorney, Jeff Adelman, discussed a trio of cases addressing:•A $10 million dollar plaintiff's verdict reversed due to a series of improper closing arguments by a trial attorney who was criticized out yet again by the Fourth District Court of Appeal for improper closing arguments in Engle progeny cases;•The distribution of attorneys' fees between partners in a contingency case when one partner leaves the Firm, where there is partnership agreement addressing fees ; and •Whether Proposals for Settlement and other documents served (but not filed) must comply with the electronic service requirements for court-filed documents. All shows are available on your favorite podcast platform by typing in "Florida Appellate Review." Including Apple, Google, Spotify, & iHeartRadio. Apple Link is here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/florida-appellate-review-with-andrew-harris/id1541396207Also available at https://harrisappeals.com/#podcastIf you would like to discuss any of the cases or issues discussed in this week's episode, or are interested in appearing on one of our future episodes, please contact host Andrew Harris at andrew@harrisappeals.com

Welcome to another edition of the Florida Appellate Review Case Law Update. In this week's episode, host, Board-Certified Appellate Attorney Andrew Harris, joined by Board-Certified Civil Trial Attorney, Jeff Adelman, discussed a trio of cases addressing:•A $10 million dollar plaintiff's verdict reversed due to a series of improper closing arguments by a trial attorney who was criticized out yet again by the Fourth District Court of Appeal for improper closing arguments in Engle progeny cases;•The distribution of attorneys' fees between partners in a contingency case when one partner leaves the Firm, where there is partnership agreement addressing fees ; and •Whether Proposals for Settlement and other documents served (but not filed) must comply with the electronic service requirements for court-filed documents. All shows are available on your favorite podcast platform including Apple, Google, Spotify and iHeartRadio. Apple Podcast link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pbcja-podcast/id1551882162 Subscribe & Share! To watch on Youtube, go to https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnm2UngIUa9Eo2wRUZVowGQ If you would like to discuss any of the cases or issues discussed in this week's episode, or are interested in appearing on one of our future episodes, please contact host Andrew Harris at andrew@harrisappeals.com.

Arch Insurance Company hired law firm Kubicki Draper to defend an insured party in an accounting malpractice case. The lawsuit settled within the policy limits. Arch Insurance Company then sued Kubicki Draper for legal malpractice, alleging that Kubicki Draper should have raised a statute of limitations defense in the original litigation and that the law firm's failure to do so significantly increased the cost of the settlement. The trial court ruled that Arch Insurance Company did not have the legal standing to sue Kubicki Draper. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court but certified a question of great public importance to this Court regarding standing. Case history can be found here: http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org/DocketResults/CaseDocket?Searchtype=Case+Number&CaseTypeSelected=All&CaseYear=2019&CaseNumber=673

This case involves the sale of a mausoleum cemetery business. Heritage Manor alleged that DFG unfairly induced the sale at less than fair market value by secretly coordinating with Heritage Manor's former attorneys. The jury rejected the argument but awarded Heritage Manor $2 million in compensatory damages and more than $2 million in punitive damages. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed both compensatory and punitive damage awards. Heritage Manor asked this Court for review, arguing that the Fourth DCA's decision conflicts with a decision from this Court and other appellate court decisions. Case history can be viewed here: http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org/DocketResults/CaseDocket?Searchtype=Case+Number&CaseTypeSelected=All&CaseYear=2018&CaseNumber=581

Mr. Johnson appealed his criminal convictions, arguing that the trial court erred by not conducting the proper legal analysis in allowing a peremptory strike against an African-American juror. The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed and granted Mr. Johnson a new trial, certifying conflict with the Second, Third, and Fifth Districts concerning the proper procedure for peremptory challenges. This Court accepted jurisdiction to resolve the conflict among the district courts. You can find the case history here: http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org/DocketResults/CaseDocket?Searchtype=Case+Number&CaseTypeSelected=All&CaseYear=2019&CaseNumber=96

Between a rock and a hard place.......Damned if you do, damned if you don't...........Catch 22.   Does it exist, or is there a way to avoid it?  In this month's episode, Keith examines a recent shooting of an innocent homeowner that made national and international news.  Could this situation have been avoided?   In this return episode, Keith also discusses the reason for the long absence, how things are going now, and a couple of calls regarding checking the welfare of residents.  Listener reviews and a new PSA are also discussed.  Links referenced in this episode: Opening clip contains excerpts of a speech given by Hon. Justice William Bedsworth, Fourth District Court of Appeals given at the dedication of the new Criminal Justice Training Center at Golden West College, Huntington Beach, CA.  Full speech can be found HERE Publicly released body camera footage of Fort Worth Police Officer can be found HERE News footage courtesy of Fox 4 News, Dallas/Fort Worth Background music courtesy of Purple Planet

This week’s Ohio Democratic Podcast features Fourth District Court of Appeals Judge Marie Hoover, who is running for re-election this fall. In 2012, Hoover became the first woman elected to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, which includes 14 counties in southeastern Ohio: Scioto, Pike, Ross, Pickaway, Highland, Adams, Lawrence, Gallia, Meigs, Hocking, Jackson, Vinton, Athens and Washington. She currently serves as the presiding judge and administrative judge of the court.

Jaelynn's practice is centered on estate planning, non-profits, and business law. She loves learning about her client's families, businesses, and their plans for the future. Jaelynn began her career as a law clerk in the Fourth District Court of Utah. Through her clerkship, she worked on all manner of cases including million dollar business disputes, high profile murder trials and everything in-between. She has private practice experience in both transactional and litigation matters. Jaelynn strongly believes in the power of connecting and giving back to her profession and community. She donates much of her time to serving on professional boards and is constantly on the lookout for ways to give back to the community at large.

“From Havana to Tallahassee,” details the fascinating life of the Florida Supreme Court's Chief Justice Jorge Labarga.  Born in Havana in 1952, Justice Labarga is not only the first Cuban-American to hold the position of Chief Justice, he is also the first Justice since 1865 to be reelected by his peers to a consecutive term.  Governor Charlie Crist appointed Justice Labarga to the Florida Supreme Court in January of 2009.  Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Labarga served on the Fourth District Court of Appeal and on the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Justice Labarga has been a strong proponent of Florida’s Court Communication Plan, which actively encourages state courts to utilize technology and social media to communicate effectively with its citizens.  It is only fitting that the Chief Justice is featured on the Ninth Circuit's premier podcast episode. Let us know what you think about the podcast.

BHL: Justice Is Served - In this episode Black Hollywood Live host Mari Fagel interviews special guest Appellate Justice Eileen Moore. Associate Justice Eileen C. Moore graduated cum laude from University of California Irvine in 1975 with a Bachelor of Arts degree, and she received her Juris Doctor from Pepperdine University School of Law in 1978. In May 2004, she graduated from the University of Virginia with a Master of Laws in the Judicial Process. Justice Moore was admitted to the California State Bar in 1978 and to the United States District Court, Central District of California, in 1984. Justice Moore was appointed to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange in 1989 by Governor George Deukmejian and to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three in 2000 by Governor Gray Davis. She has lectured extensively at education programs for lawyers and judges, and, in 1990, she was a lecturer of business law at the University of California Irvine