The biggest judicial story of 2026 may be in its infancy, and Richard Luthmann and I sat down with Julie Holburn, who has been tracking it.
In a coordinated effort last month, six Orange County, California judges- Judges Mary Kreber-Varipapa, Carol Henson and Stephen Hicklin, Julie A. Palafox, Kimberly Maynard Carasso, and Presiding Judge Maria D. Hernandez- were served with recall petitions.
Only four judges since 1932 have been recalled so this effort faces an uphill battle, however, it’s also unprecedented that so many face recall at once.
I am very familiar with two of these judges- Julie Palafox and Mary Kreber-Varipapa- and I would vote to recall both.
Judge Mary Kreber Varipapa has a habit of closing courtrooms, violating due process, while issuing head scratching decisions.
In October, I detailed how she issued a temporary sole custody order where she conjured up an emergency situation from a report she then sealed.
In another case, she gave temporary sole custody to grandparents.
Judge Palafox once ordered Daniel Greenberg, then in his 40s, to have a guardian ad litem after an ex parte meeting with an unknown party.
Dan also had Judge Julie Palafox. I previously referred to Judge Palafox in this post, however, this is the first time I have implicated her in corruption.
Dan said she repeatedly violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but the most brazenly corrupt act occurred when Judge Palafox stopped a court hearing, left the courtroom to have an ex-parte conversation with an unknown party, and returned to the courtroom to assign Dan a guardian ad litem (GAL), claiming Dan could no longer handle the case on his own.
The Tar Nolan case has received scrutiny as well, and Judge Kim Carrasso was involved. Julie covered that case.
On April 16, 2025, Orange County Judge Kimberly Carasso issued a final ruling in Nolan v. Nolan that stripped quadriplegic mother Taran Nolan (known as "Tar" and "Taran Strong" on Facebook) of custody and issued a five-year restraining order in favor of her ex-husband, James Nolan. The ruling, filled with unsupported, unbelievable and inflammatory allegations and glaring contradictions, has become a disturbing window into the deeply dysfunctional, retaliatory, and corrupt operations of the Orange County District Attorney’s office and the Orange County Superior Court’s family law division. This is part seven in the series on the Nolan v. Nolan case. Readers are encouraged to read the first six articles linked at the end of this article.
This is the kind of case that demands national attention—like the Dirty John saga, which also unfolded in Orange County.
This ruling didn’t just target a disabled mother. It also took direct aim at a member of the press—this journalist—who has been investigating and reporting on the case since before July 2024, attending hearings both in person and via livestream, and conducting firsthand interviews.
The court then ignored and belittled those very witnesses—whose sworn accounts directly contradicted its findings. Documents show court-appointed custody evaluator Dr. Keith Peterson received well over 20 witness statements and multiple credible reports. Yet Dr. Peterson only cited 3 references for Tar in his final report, omitting evidence that contradicted James Nolan's claims.
That case is troubling since Judge Carrasso has used Tar’s disability- she’s a quadriplegic from a car accident- as the basis to remove custody.
Julie told us that all six judges have a habit of closing courtrooms, violating due process, and giving custody to abusers.
Julie said recall petitions with over two hundred signatures each were served on each judge.
Orange County has a population of over 3 million, so that is a small number, but getting any signatures shows organization.
That effort is being spearheaded by a new non-profit entitled California Family Law Naked Truth.
Julie said this group was formed by parents abused by the Orange County family law system.
Each of the judges have filed their responses- as required by statute- and they all make similar arguments: the recall is political, costly, and designed to threaten judicial independence.
Right now, there is a sort of mediation process over the language of the recall petition. After that’s done, the next step will be significant.
The recall effort will need to gather tens of thousands of signatures.
Julie said the number is based on a percentage of the total votes cast in the last election, but the last recall effort required ninety thousand signatures.
If that happens, each judge will be on the ballot in November to be recalled.
The last judge recalled was Judge Aaron Persky. Judge Persky sentenced a rapist to six months; the convicted rapist, Brock Turner, served much less than that.
The beginning of the end for the first California judge recalled since 1932 began almost exactly two years ago, when Santa Clara County Judge Aaron Persky sentenced a former Stanford swimmer convicted of sexual assault to six months in jail instead of a long prison term.
A statement from the victim captured the national spotlight, recounting the ordeal of the investigation and trial, where she was cross-examined about her drinking habits and sexual experience.
“You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today,” she said in a statement read in court before the June 2016 sentencing of Brock Turner.
Judge Persky’s case received international attention.
These are primarily family court judges, who receive niche attention.
I argued that this recall effort will be much tougher, but Rich believes there is opportunity in the Nolan case, which has received a lot of attention.
The Orange County Register has not covered the story yet.
Events continue to unfold, but an organized recall effort of six judges is underway.
Post-script
Check out the fundraiser for Orange County.
Here are the previous articles in the series. 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, Part 49, Part 50, Part 51, Part 52, Part 53, Part 54, Part 55, Part 56, Part 57, Part 58, Part 59, and Part 60, 61, and 62.
