Judge Kreis Denies Personal Indiscretion, Judicial Complaints: Alleges Other Candidates Saw ‘Blood In The Water’

Judge Gregory J. Kreis [Image from 2017 University of San Diego School of Law News Center]

While the salacious details related to allegations of unscrupulous inner-circle legal community parties, off-duty shenanigans and in-court fouls, fumbles and follies may make for a rambunctious full-throttle-small-town Dukes-of-Hazzard-style court-TV drama, there are serious implications within the CJP filing against Kreis which question his ability to be fair and impartial, and consequently run afoul of ethics rules dictating that “a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities” in order to maintain the public trust.

Move over, Murder Mountain… Eureka’s got Game of Robes!  

In the face of 19 Counts containing multiple alleged ethical violations each, the Judge has firmly denied engaging in any form of misconduct, in or out of the courtroom. Putting this scrutiny in perspective, less than 1% of official complaints each year reach the level of “Formal Proceedings” that result from a preliminary investigation by the CJP, according to their 2022 annual report, and Judge Kreis is in that group. 

The Code of Judicial Ethics explains the special burden of maintaining the public’s trust which is placed on judges requiring them to live up to the highest possible moral standard, explaining, “A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge’s conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by other members of the community and should do so freely and willingly.”

The Judge’s reply aims to resolve the investigation into his personal and courtroom conduct and alleged ethical breaches by explaining or refuting each alleged count of misconduct, in hopes that he might both defend his professional integrity, and ultimately prevail in the pending local election to secure a further term as Superior Court Judge in Humboldt County. In this article, Kreis talks about the pending election, and we take a closer look at the Judge’s formal response to the sweeping allegations against him, offer feedback from election challenger April Van Dyke, as well as Humboldt County District Attorney Stacey Eads, and others. 

Offering up a flat denial of most accusations including doing cocaine or smoking cannabis, excessive drinking, or making derogatory remarks at the expense of local attorneys, the Judge addressed each Count, point by point, as expected in a typical responsive pleading- a format and technical writing style that the Judge is familiar with.

The submission and filing of Judge Kreis’ response means that the process will move forward with a Hearing before Special Masters who will be appointed by the Commission on Judicial Performance, to handle the hearing.

Kreis also refutes any claim that he has behaved inappropriately socially in the past, sexually or otherwise, whether that be publicly or privately. For instance, Judge Kreis said that he has never driven while intoxicated, while drinking alcohol, or while high on cocaine  as the Judicial Council’s Notice of Formal Proceedings has alleged. 

The most common ethical violation attributed to Kries via the CJP filing of charges in February is found in the Code’s Canon 2, which outlines the standards for “Promoting Public Confidence,” and explains the appearance of impropriety doctrine. There, it advises that such standards are applied to not only a Judge’s work and courthouse conduct, but to a Judge’s personal life as well.   

In the wake of the Commission on Judicial Performance’s (CJP) filing of “Formal Proceedings”, Kreis has further addressed and countered the claims made against him in an email response to our request for comment as the election race closes in on voting day. 

While Kreis has admitted to consuming alcohol socially with coworkers from the legal community within the responsive filing, he insists it was not to an excessive level, and denied doing drugs such as cocaine or cannabis, as alleged in the CJP Notice. Judge Kreis’ official rebuttal to the CJP’s 35 page Notice of Formal Proceedings is laid out in his response of February 23, 2024, through his attorneys.

Kreis does, however, openly admit to pushing Rory Kalin (a deputy public defender at the time) off a boat into Lake Shasta, claiming that he did so as part of a playful tradition at the campout, and though acknowledging that Kalin was unprepared for the dunk, asserting that the shove was in jest.  

In addressing the accusations related to the Shasta Lake incident publicly in advance of the election, Gregory Kreis through his attorneys states in the filed response that Rory Kalin “imagined” the anti-Semitic slur and other offenses, citing a relatively recent head injury as evidence of Kalin’s for accusations against Kreis, including the use of the taunting “Jew-boy” moniker claim.  

In his formal response to the Judicial Council’s litigation against him, Judge Kreis vehemently denied all other allegations of misconduct towards Mr. Kalin at the Lake Shasta retreat. He also refuted claims of engaging in bullying behavior towards Kalin and his wife, who were the alleged targets of the Judge’s antics that day in 2019. In his rebuttal, although he admits to having “pushed Mr. Kalin into the lake,” his response paints a much different picture than was presented in the First Amendment Complaint by Rory Kalin against Kreis, a defamation case involving claims of battery and abuse inflicted by the Judge, which was recently settled out of court, according to Kreis.  

The description of the lake party from Kreis’ memory of the event nearly five years ago continued to deny the alleged victim’s assertions of abuse. In his response, “Judge Kreis acknowledges that when Mr. Kalin was getting out of a kayak to get onto the boat, Judge Kreis was assisting him and joked about Mr. Kalin’s swimming apparel; pants and a shirt. Judge Kreis then, consistent with tradition, pushed Mr. Kalin into the lake.” 

However, in an email reply to our request for feedback, the Judge claimed that not only was Mr. Kalin was dishonest in describing the events of the lake party, but insisted that he was being maligned. “The witness statements show that I never made any “jew-boy” comments,” Kries told us. (We received partial video interviews and transcriptions of witness statements from Judge Kreis this afternoon that he said substantiated his point of view but have not had a chance to reach out to those who were deposed for their side.) 

In a letter penned by Judge Kreis’ ex-wife Brenda Elvine, she clarifies that she, while in his presence at the Shasta Lake party, did not overhear the words “Jew Boy” spoken by her then husband, but does acknowledge that he had used this specific phrase in jest in the past, in reference to a Jewish attorney friend from out of the area. 

The full letter by Brenda Elvine can be read at Blogspot where John Chiv covers the Humboldt County courthouse frequently. [Cropped screenshot of letter sourced in a February 23,2024 post by John Chiv]

Below is a quick summary of the accusations and Judge Kreis’ rebuttal:

A BRIEF DEBRIEFING:  

THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL’s FILED ALLEGATIONS 

vs JUDGE GREGORY J. KREIS’s FILED RESPONSE  

(Breakdown compiled by Ryan Hutson, sourcing both filed documents: Notice of Formal Proceedings, and Respondent’s Verified Answer To Notice Of Formal Proceedings.) 

On page two of his response, Kreis’ addressed several of the allegations related to the Shasta Lake party, stating through his attorney in the response: “Judge Kreis denies that he gave Ms. Brownfield a lap dance,” however admitted that “…in recalling the event, he may have sat on her lap as they have been friends for 20 years and it is a close family friendship.” 

As described in the document, a friend on the boat “was making fun of [Judge Kreis], especially the fleshiness of his chest.” Further describing the onboard festivities, the story claims that with a yellow towel, his friend “fashioned a bra” and “put it on the Judge.” Addressing the assertion that this was meant to taunt Kalin’s wife, the response states, “Admittedly, Ms. Kalin was on the pontoon boat and the color of the towel happened to match her swimsuit, but it is denied that… the Judge did anything to mock anyone, including Ms. Kalin.”

The admission of this part of the story continues, acknowledging that Kreis, “consistent with tradition, pushed Mr. Kalin into the lake,” but did not validate claims of other unwanted advances, such as the alleged lap dance on the wife of Attorney Luke Brownfield. 

Regarding his romantic relationship with courthouse attorney Tanya Ellis (currently the Judge’s campaign treasurer), Kreis asserts that their romantic involvement only began in mid-2021, and denied any inappropriate behavior before that time- refuting the suggestion that he had struck up an extramarital affair while sitting on the Family Law court bench. 

In response to the allegations that he abused his courtroom authority, ignored conflicts of interest and presided on cases that he should have been disqualified from, Judge Kreis emphasized the lack of “contested issues” in those matters – meaning that there was no need for a judicial opinion to be made at a particular hearing – thereby asserting that according to his understanding, he did not need to recognize any perceived conflict.  

Within his filed response to the CJP, Kreis also addressed and sought to mitigate rumors about his personal life that may have been circulating within the judicial and professional community, underscoring the importance of distinguishing between personal friendships and professional relationships. 

When reached for comment on the need to recuse oneself in the courtroom – particularly should the winner of the March 5th election be DA Jessica Watson, the write-in candidate – or to adhere to a recognized “conflict of interest” in the process of handling litigation, District Attorney Stacey Eads explained how this is generally handled. For example, if a newly appointed Judge happens to have previously been a member of the DA’s office, or the Public Defender’s office for instance, they may have built up a rapport with coworkers over time, and would likely need to strategically avoid the “appearance of impropriety” as much as possible by simply conflicting out of a case at the outset.  

Because in a small community such Humboldt County, conflicts do arise, the ability to “disqualify” a judge is critically important to the court’s ability to maintain fairness. Eads told us via email, “Naturally, it is not uncommon for judges to have been in practice as lawyers within the same community and jurisdiction they may subsequently be elected or appointed.   Judges may come to the bench after practicing in any number of different practice areas, whether private or public, defense or prosecution.  In order to provide fair and impartial proceedings to all parties involved, as the law requires, and regardless of their prior practice area, any judge will have occasion to recuse themselves on a proceeding when circumstances arise.” 

Spelling out the crux of the issue, DA Eads explained, “As a practical matter, the court administration will likely take into account a newly elected or appointed judge’s prior cases and potential conflicts in making assignments within the court.  So, a new judge who previously handled criminal cases, may be more likely to be assigned civil matters to reduce the number of conflicts and increase efficiency during that period of transition.” 

When reached for comment on his view of potential conflicts of interest while hearing a court case, regarding the associated “appearance of impropriety” that arises when a judge (or other elected official) is faced with a conflict of interest or other circumstance that creates a concern as to bias or lack of integrity, Judge Kreis told us via email, “I will continue to address each conflict as it arises with my understanding of the standards.  Additionally, I will obviously take into consideration the CJP’s position.”   

The Judge’s filed Response of Count 14, the beginning of which is shown above, includes mention of Attorney Edward Schock, who we have interviewed for this article via email in regard to the judge’s conduct and courtroom presence.

With his focus on the election horizon, Kreis has not considered what he may do alternatively, should he either not win the election, or, in the event that he is ultimately removed from the position following the conclusion of the CJP’s proceedings against him.

Judge Kreis told us via email over the weekend, “I am still confident that the voters will see that I am the best candidate that has dedicated his legal career to Humboldt County.” He added, with a note of optimism, “I believe that some people have pre-judge me on the Kalin suit and the allegations, but I also believe that the majority of people believe in my right to due process and will vote for me and wait for a full hearing to pass judgment.”

On that note, thinking of the voters who have yet to weigh in, the Judge added, “I hope that all voters decide on my current position, qualifications and experience when they vote.”

Asking the Judge for his opinion on the relatively late write-in campaign of DDA Jessica WAtson, whose slogan reads, “Write In Watson- It’s What’s Right!” the Judge told us he considered her bid for the position opportunistic, saying, “I think that Ms. Watson saw blood in the water with the Kalin lawsuit…”  adding, “similar to Ms. Van Dyke, and the allegations…  and decided to throw her hat in the ring even though she clearly does not have the respect of the local bar, experience or qualifications that I have.”  

Here, write-in candidate DA Jessica Watson is interviewed briefly on Channel 7 News. 

Kreis reflected on the pending election, the allegations, and the Kalin settlement, adding, “I hope people see that just one person making allegations can do damage to a person’s reputation as well as well being.”Kries went on to say, “A great example is the Kalin case.  Those false allegations of antisemitism has [sic] hurt my reputation and recently caused a death threat to myself.  People can say anything they want when it benefits them or if they want to hurt someone else, it does not make it true.”  

Inquiring with the Judge as to his perception of why several of his endorsements from the DA’s office had revoked their support, Kries did not express concern. The Judge told us, “I understand that the individuals that have requested to be taken off the endorsement list are uncomfortable with the allegations but most have indicated that they still support me.  I do not think all D.A.’s are biased against me.” 

Keeping an eye on each candidate’s endorsements, Judge Kreis has lost a total of 14 publicly listed endorsements – six of them currently employed at the DA’s office alongside Ms. Watson, Kreis’ write-in challenger – while Kreis’ other challenger, Attorney April Van Dyke says she has purposely been cautious in soliciting endorsements from the legal community. This is by design, because as she puts it, “It’s inevitable that judges may need to recuse themselves from cases involving close friends or family members.” In an effort to limit any perceived bias between herself and local attorneys, Van Dyke explained, “I’ve taken a proactive stance by accepting endorsements exclusively from lawyers who won’t appear before me. Without hesitation, I am committed to reinstating the community’s trust in the judiciary by steadfastly adhering to the ethical obligations expected of a judge.” 

Write-in candidate Deputy DA Jessica Watson’s website does not have any endorsements listed publicly, while the names which have dropped off Judge Kreis’ endorsement list specifically affiliated with the District Attorney’s Office are as follows: DA Alex Grotewohl, DA Whitney Timm, DA Trenton Timm, DA Emily Norgaard, DA Luke Bernthal, Investigator Ryan Hill, former DA Jessica Acosta, and former DA Andrew Truitt. 

A number of local elected officials have also pulled their public endorsement of Kreis following the public reveal of the CJP’s lengthy list of ethical violations, including both Leslie Castellano and Renee Contreras-DeLoach (the only two Eureka City Council members to have endorsed Kreis), and Arcata City Council member Alexandra Stillman.  

Offering his thoughts as to the appearance of impropriety, and the frequently alleged violation related to conflict of interests in the courtroom, often coupled with ethics violations related to temperament or abuse of power violations, local family law Attorney Edward Schrock was candid in his assessment of the tumultuous race for judge. Responding to our email request for feedback, Schrock told us, “I was not aware of the extent of the investigation or the sheer number of individuals who have complained about him.  When I saw my name featured in the Complaint, I somewhat reluctantly chose to disqualify the judge from all my cases fearing retaliation if I did not.” 

Having practiced for over 30 years, Schrock says he has nearly seen it all, with experience from beyond the Redwood Curtain, as well, giving him some perspective as to how judges in other jurisdictions run their courtrooms. “Judge Kreis is easily the worst judge I have ever practiced in front of. When he first took the bench in 2017, most mornings he was ill-tempered and unprepared.  He looked and acted like a hung-over fraternity boy,” Attorney Schrock wrote us, describing his early impressions of the Judge.

Attorney Schrock explained that over time, his experience with Judge Kreis on the Family law bench went from very difficult (as indicated in Count 14 of the CJP Notice of Formal Proceedings against Kreis – outlined above) to eventually quite painless, much to his surprise. Mr. Schrock explained, “He had several attorneys whom he fawned over.  For the rest of us, and the individuals who did not have the money to hire attorneys, he acted like it was an imposition on him to have to hear what people were trying to tell him.  It was particularly painful to watch him run roughshod over self-represented individuals.”

Although the unfortunate courtroom dynamic described above is reflected in the CJP’s allegations against Kreis, which assert that the Judge had neglected individuals’ due process rights and abused power in issuing orders outside of the scope of his authority, Schock says that there was eventually a definitive shift in his temperament while handling cases with the Judge.

Schrock explained in detail, “Day after day, I would see self-represented men and women leave his courtroom baffled and confused by some angry berating they had just received from the judge.” Then he says, something shifted in his favor. “About two years into his tenure in family court, Judge Kreis suddenly became very friendly to me. I am not certain what changed, but suddenly I was winning cases that I felt like I had no business winning.”  

When asked for his thoughts as to the shifting endorsements for the Judge, and considering that Kreis has not one, but two challengers, Schrock speculated that there may be some reticence to offer public support in light of the rare and serious CJP litigation getting in the way of the election. Schrock reflected on the election, and concluded, “There are several local attorneys who did very well in front of the judge.  I believe that he still has their support.  But I think a lot of individuals had bad experiences in front of the man.” 

Wrapping up the email interview, Schrock wrote, “I think that the Judicial Commission’s Complaint has dredged up a lot of ugly memories.  As a result, I think that people may be rethinking any tepid support they initially offered the judge.” 

We reached out to both of Kreis’ Competitors for the Superior Court seat, Attorneys April Van Dyke and Jessica Watson, We were not able to receive a reply from Watson by the time of publishing, but Van Dyke offered her thoughts as to the pending election, and the implications of Kreis’ pending hearing before the Special Masters to be appointed by the Commission on Judicial Performance making public waves just days before the local election.

As to the general obligation of a judge to maintain the trust of the public, Van Dyke responded, “Impartiality is the cornerstone of a judge’s role, and without faith in a justice system where judges make decisions based on the law and the demands of justice, the foundation of our legal system weakens.” 

When asked how she would handle situations where a conflict of interest is presented in court, and/or where an appearance of impropriety was brought to her attention as a judge, Van Dyke wrote back by email, “A judge should abstain from presiding over a case in the presence of a conflict.”

Inquiring as to her thoughts on Kreis’ repeated denial that he had maintained personal relationships despite conflicts arising in court, as described by the CJP’s various alleged counts against him detailing each conflict of interest violation, Van Dyke told us she had confidence in the system. Citing the CPJ’s annual report of 2022, she noted that the CPJ’s “reluctance in pursuing formal charges without compelling evidence underscores the gravity of the charges brought against Judge Kreis.”  

A chart included in the CJP’s 2022 Annual Report shows that Formal Proceedings are only initiated in less than 1% of all annual complaints reviewed, and that only one complaint met the bar for such consequences in 2022, illustrating the rarity of such proceedings against a judge. For context, the CJP fielded a total of 1414 complaints on judges throughout the state in 2022, and only one case was elevated to Formal Proceedings.  

According to Gregory Dresser, the commission’s director and chief counsel, who told The Press Democrat, “When we charge cases, we have a good faith belief that we can prove all the charges by clear and convincing evidence.”  

As Van Dyke prepares for Election Eay, she wrote to us that “the significance of this election has become evident.” Van Dyke concluded the email interview, writing, “My steadfast stance throughout this campaign has been rooted in a commitment to justice with unwavering integrity. As a resident of this community raising children here, my goal is to contribute to the betterment of this community for the benefit of all its residents.”   

Looking forward, the March 5th Voting Day will likely offer an exciting chapter. Should the Honorable Judge Gregory J. Kreis prevail in the election, but lose in court, the Judicial Council may order Kreis “removed” from the bench should they find him culpable and deserving of the relatively extreme consequence, which would then pass the baton to Governor Newsom to make an appointment to the position. 

The significance of local judicial elections often flies under the radar in local political discourse and in media coverage, despite the fact that local judges wield considerable influence over almost every kind of personal or social dispute that enters the courthouse via civil, criminal, or family law arenas.

A Judge’s orders hold significant consequences for those relying on the judicial system for justice and impartiality. Yet, as the electoral process unfolds, many voters cast their ballots without an awareness of the critical role these judges play.

In the interest of transparency, this reporter also works as a Legal Assistant in Humboldt County, primarily in family law. 

Please reach out to [email protected] or [email protected] if you have a related story you want us to know about. 

Earlier: Sex, Drugs, Cronyism, and Lies: Judge Kreis in the Hot Seat as Commission on Judicial Performance Details Alleged Judicial Code Violations