Defending the Judge
In the letters section of your Aug. 12 edition, Debra St. Germain of Thousand Oaks commented on Justice Steve Perren’s nomination to the California Supreme Court.
In her letter, Ms. Germain opines that Perren’s nomination must be due to some “back-room dealing” and that he would be a “mediocre appointment.”
Ms. Germain then castigates the local press for failing to investigate how the appointment came about.
Ms. Germain is singularly misinformed on the subject of Justice Perren. Having practiced law in this community for more than 30 years and having known Justice Perren since law school, please allow me to briefly set the record straight.
No one who knows Perren, no attorney who has ever appeared in his courtroom and no judge with whom he has ever served would ever use the words “mediocre” or “obscure” to describe him. Only a person totally devoid of any knowledge of Justice Perrin would make such baseless claim.
Justice Perrin is a gifted judge and is immensely respected in our legal community. If Ms. Germain doubts that, she does not need the assistance of an investigative reporter. All she has to do is to speak with local judges and attorneys.
Ms. Germain also claims that Justice Perrin’s nomination is the result of “back channel . . . politicking” and “big bucks.”
That claim should be consigned to the category of periodic Elvis sightings and nocturnal tours of UFOs.
No one with even a passing acquaintance of Justice Perrin would make such a grotesque and groundless charge.
Justice Perrin’s nomination was not based on politics.
It was based on a reputation for commitment and excellence earned over a long and honorable legal career.
William E. Paterson
Ventura