We need your help to put a stop to replace the Judge's Managed "Alternate Defense Services"!

You can also buy the book by going to the main website. The book tells the story the way it really happened, why the Alternate Defense Services is hiding mismanagement of taxpayers funds.


This book tells the truth about taxpayers money being squandered by the Judge Managed Alternate Defense Services.

  Judicial and Governmental Attack Aimed At Ford

 When you read the “Pro per Complaint” section of the website you will understand how a letter written to  a judge became the catalyst for retaliatory action against C. J. Ford Jr. The letter requested that the judge look into Pro per defendants allegations that the court appointed investigator on their cases was engaged in unethical and illicit actions.

  After many motions were filed by Pro per defendants, the judge refused to remove the investigator from the defendant's cases. This prompted a “full-scale” investigation by C. J. Ford Jr. as to why the judge would not investigate the allegations. After a year or so of investigative action, Ford publicly exposed the Alternate Defense Services and the judge. This exposure was made by Ford’s investigation, and  combined with the investigative research done by a reporter from the Orange County Weekly.

 What began as a letter to the judge asking him to  look into alleged improprieties in his courtroom, led to “retaliatory” actions by this judge against Ford, with other judges soon following that judges lead. Ford was retaliated against for “Whistle Blowing” on an improper relationship between a court appointed investigator and a judge.

 The first retaliatory action by the judge's was to deny Ford over 30 opportunities for appointments to cases while Ford was on the panel and should have received a number of those appointments. One particular case Ford was appointed to, by a Superior Court judge unaffiliated with the Alternate Defense Services, was revoked by an ADS affiliated judge. The judge revoked the order, telling the defendant that Ford was being removed because he, the judge, wanted to appoint his friend to investigate, and the judge did not know Ford.

 Upon the release of the news article, the investigator referred to in the article and complaints stepped down. The judges continued to deny Ford  appointments, yet he was still on the panel. During that time, Ford received only one appointment to a Pro per defendant. The appointment finally came when complications arose after the defendant was denied Ford's assistance on his case five (5) times.

 Ford worked on conflict attorney cases instead, because the judges would not appoint him to any of  the many cases where requests were made for his help by the Pro per defendants. Soon Ford’s primary professional income came from working conflict attorney cases; Ford was still on the panel. 

 A new judge was appointed as the Alternate Defense Services judge. He conferred with the former ADS judge and decided to have Ford removed from the panel all together. 

 The removal occurred  in the middle of a case that Ford was working for a conflict attorney.

The only logical reason for the judge's action aganst Ford was  an attempt to bankrupt Ford and his business. The same judge had been approving Ford’s appointments to conflict cases routinely until he spoke to the previous  ADS judge. 

 Next, the ADS judge took aim at trying to destroy Ford’s credibility by slandering Ford in open court and on public record. The judge’s slanderous comments occurred outside of the presence of Ford, and he was never told why he was being removed from the panel, but, depending on which courtroom you were in when a defendant was requesting to appoint Ford to his case, you would hear a different story. Nevertheless, most of the denials and reasons the defendants received, painted Ford with a 'criminal' or 'no credibility' brush. 

 The disrespect for a Pro per defendants rights, and the slanderous and retaliatory actions are documented in the link to the leftFord vs Robison. Which is the documentation of the civil action filed by Ford against Robison, for Robison’s slanderous public statements from the bench, and retaliatory actions that the judge orchestrated against Ford. The judges have made, publicly, slanderous statements against Ford, such as the one that you will review, in over 20 instances reported to Ford.