Kim M McClay

I am writing this review to document my direct experience in the courtroom of Pro Tem Judge Kim McClay . I believe the proceedings I was subjected to lacked basic judicial fairness, ignored overwhelming evidence, and it is my perspective that it violated fundamental due process. 1. Refusal to Review... Evidence and Facilitation of DARVO I came to court as the victim of an eight-month campaign of psychological abuse. The petitioner had used an interstate Google Voice number to impersonate my licensed therapist, using this false identity to manipulate me, stalk my location, and offer fraudulent therapeutic advice. I provided dozens of pages of exhibits, including texts, emails, timelines, and the interstate phone numbers used, documenting this impersonation and my repeated requests for the petitioner to stop contacting me. Judge McClay refused to let me present these exhibits. When I attempted to provide the physical evidence, the judge claimed to have "already reviewed it," yet refused to allow me to read my statement. In refusing to review my evidence, the judge allowed the petitioner to successfully execute a textbook DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) manipulation. By silencing me and ignoring the documented history of abuse and impersonation, it is my perspective that the court became a willing instrument of the abuser, actively punishing the original victim while shielding the perpetrator. No subpoena or inquiry was ever made into the impersonation of a medical professional. 2. Denial of ADA Accommodations It was made explicitly known to the court that I suffer from debilitating social anxiety. Despite having this medical context, Judge McClay provided zero ADA accommodations. Instead of ensuring a fair hearing where I could process the questions, the judge actively pressured me, became forceful, and rushed me to answer immediately. This hostile environment weaponized my disability against me and prevented me from adequately defending myself. 3. Fabrication of a Romantic Relationship Perhaps the most egregious overreach was the judge's insistence on framing the case as a domestic violence issue by stating the petitioner and I were in a romantic "boyfriend/girlfriend" relationship. This was factually false. My exhibits repeatedly showed the petitioner themselves stating we were not in a romantic relationship. The judge ignored the written evidence and, in my view, forced a false narrative onto the record seemingly to justify their ruling. Conclusion: A Subjective Assessment of Character The judge silenced me, ignored documented psychological abuse, criminal impersonation of a therapist, denied my medical accommodations, and fabricated a relationship status to fit their own narrative. Because of these factual events, it is my personal opinion that Pro Tem Judge McClay is a bad person who lacks the basic temperament, fairness, and ethical grounding required for the bench. It is my firm opinion that they should not be practicing law or serving in any judicial capacity.