I previously covered Julie Holburn’s child custody case, but this time, I interviewed her on a different matter.
Since the beginning of 2024, she has become an investigative journalist, writing primarily on Newsbreak.
She found herself in the crosshairs of Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) Todd Spitzer’s office with one of the stories she’s covered.
Since the winter of 2024, she has covered the ongoing saga involving Tawny Grossman, including witnessing court hearings.
I previously discussed this case with Robert Hansen. We talked about the case in the first few minutes of the interview.
Tawny’s daughter made a series of disclosures that her father was molesting her, but none of these disclosures led to a substantiated finding or criminal charges.
As a result, her ex-husband could use that in court, and he got custody.
She fled to Canda but was lured back and now faces charges of felony deprivation of custody.
That’s not all that Julie uncovered. In another explosive story, a whistleblower told her that OCDA policy flags domestic violence allegations if there is also a custody case, and office policy is NOT to charge the alleged perpetrator.
In a shocking revelation, whistleblowers from within the Orange County District Attorney's office (OCDA) with intimate knowledge of interworking with Orange County Child Protective Services (OC CPS) operations have come forward to expose deeply entrenched corruption within the Orange County, California, family court system. This disclosure follows an ongoing series of reports highlighting systemic failures and misconduct in the OC family court, now implicating high-level officials within the district attorney's office can be read here , here AND here.
These whistleblowers have revealed a disturbing practice: whenever there is an ongoing family court case, all abuse reports and charges are marked, documents show "COMPLICATING FACTORS: CUSTODY DISPUTE" or "Screener Alerts: CUSTODY DISPUTE." This designation ensures that these reports of abuse are automatically classified as "insufficient evidence," leading to no action or investigation. OC CPS follows suit by categorizing these cases as "unfounded," "unsubstantiated" or "inconclusive."
In other words, Tawny never stood a chance when her case reached the OCDA. On top of it, the same office which makes it their policy not to charge if there is a custody case also charged her for protecting her daughter.
Julie experienced something similar in her case. When she spoke to a Newport Beach Police Officer about a protective order, that cop told her that OCDA policy mandated that not even a police report would be taken. Approximately eight minutes in.
There is an insidious pattern at the OCDA. No wonder that office doesn’t want coverage of this case.
While attending a court hearing earlier this month, Julie was served with a subpoena. She is to come to courtroom C5 of the Orange County Superior Court on July 29, 2024, to testify as “a witness in a criminal action.”
I reached out to the media department at the OCDA, but I received no response.
I then called the investigator listed on the subpoena, Nathan Ridlon. He was reticent- not surprisingly- to give any information, however, he did say she would testify in her “personal capacity.”
I asked Julie what personal capacity she has with Tawny.
She has none, she told me.
She didn’t know Tawny before writing about her, and the relationship is journalist and subject.
Julie has employed the 1st Amendment Coalition to help her quash the subpoena.
She told me that the prosecutor in charge, Tammy Jacobs, told the coalition that she wasn’t even aware of any articles Julie may have written.
Julie scoffed at that notion, stating that each of the public defenders who were assigned to Tawny’s case told Julie that Tammy couldn’t stop talking about her reporting.
In California, the state has a reporter’s shield law.
Nearly all states within the Ninth Circuit have enacted shield law statutes, which protect journalists from being held in contempt of court when they refuse to disclose their sources and/or unpublished information in their possession.
California’s shield law is set out in California Evidence Code section 1070, and it protects journalists (defined to include publishers, editors, reporters, or other persons employed by a journalistic organization, whether their work is in print, radio, or television) from being held in contempt for refusing to “disclose the source of any information” or for “refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving, or processing of information for communication to the public.”
This should protect Julie from having to answer any questions during testimony, but she told me that the OCDA wanted to shut down her reporting. They have somewhat succeeded.
Since she is under subpoena, she can no longer attend any hearings.
Spitzer will be up for reelection in 2026.
Postscript:
Check out the previous articles on the series on Orange County. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8. Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16, Part 17, Part 18, Part 19, Part 20, Part 21, Part 22, Part 23, Part 24, Part 25. Part 26, Part 27, Part 28, Part 29, Part 30, Part 31, Part 33, Part 34, Part 35, Part 36, Part 37, Part 38, Part 39, Part 40, Part 41, Part 42, Part 43, Part 44, Part 45, Part 46, Part 47, Part 48, and Part 49.
Please consider contributing to the Orange County fundraiser so I can continue this investigation.
Michael Volpe Investigates Special Report: Why is the OCDA issuing a subpoena to a reporter?