Former Superior Court Judge John Reese was recommended as a neutral arbitrator for the property settlement conference in my divorce. In my opinion, Judge Reese demonstrated a strong, anti-male bias; I found him to be as far from neutral as I can imagine. A major issue in my divorce was health care insurance, valuing Alaskacare, and projecting the costs of future health care for my former spouse. I believe that Judge Reese displayed only a superficial understanding of health insurance and health care costs, and little to no understanding of Medicare and supplemental health insurance. Nevertheless, he ruled confidently on these issues. In my opinion, Judge Reese was unable to follow the simple spreadsheet that showed the division of the valuation of Alaskacare that was prepared by my ex-spouse’s accountant prior to the settlement conference. Judge Reese did not assure that the agreements about Alaskacare arrived at during the settlement negotiations were reflected in the property allocation spreadsheet that ultimately became final. He allowed my spouse’s attorney to prepare the final property asset allocation spreadsheet without allowing it to be reviewed by me and my attorney before it became final. As a result, my ex-spouse was awarded the value of Alaskacare twice, much to my financial detriment Finally, Judge Reese’s interactions with me were arrogant and intolerant. He made several gratuitously condescending comments that I experienced as personal attacks. In my opinion, Judge Reese has aged beyond his ability to be attentive to detail; his bias and arrogance are weapons that he uses to disguise these limitations. Neutral and objective he is not.

Former Superior Court Judge John Reese was recommended as a neutral arbitrator for the property settlement conference in my divorce. In my opinion, Judge Reese demonstrated a strong, anti-male bias; I found him to be as far from neutral as I can imagine. A major issue in my divorce was health care insurance, valuing Alaskacare, and projecting the costs of future health care for my former spouse. I believe that Judge Reese displayed only a superficial understanding of health insurance and health care costs, and little to no understanding of Medicare and supplemental health insurance. Nevertheless, he ruled confidently on these issues. In my opinion, Judge Reese was unable to follow the simple spreadsheet that showed the division of the valuation of Alaskacare that was prepared by my ex-spouse’s accountant prior to the settlement conference. Judge Reese did not assure that the agreements about Alaskacare arrived at during the settlement negotiations were reflected in the property allocation spreadsheet that ultimately became final. He allowed my spouse’s attorney to prepare the final property asset allocation spreadsheet without allowing it to be reviewed by me and my attorney before it became final. As a result, my ex-spouse was awarded the value of Alaskacare twice, much to my financial detriment Finally, Judge Reese’s interactions with me were arrogant and intolerant. He made several gratuitously condescending comments that I experienced as personal attacks. In my opinion, Judge Reese has aged beyond his ability to be attentive to detail; his bias and arrogance are weapons that he uses to disguise these limitations. Neutral and objective he is not.

Former Superior Court Judge John Reese was recommended as a neutral arbitrator for the property settlement conference in my divorce. In my opinion, Judge Reese demonstrated a strong, anti-male bias; I found him to be as far from neutral as I can imagine. A major issue in my divorce was health care insurance, valuing Alaskacare, and projecting the costs of future health care for my former spouse. I believe that Judge Reese displayed only a superficial understanding of health insurance and health care costs, and little to no understanding of Medicare and supplemental health insurance. Nevertheless, he ruled confidently on these issues. In my opinion, Judge Reese was unable to follow the simple spreadsheet that showed the division of the valuation of Alaskacare that was prepared by my ex-spouse’s accountant prior to the settlement conference. Judge Reese did not assure that the agreements about Alaskacare arrived at during the settlement negotiations were reflected in the property allocation spreadsheet that ultimately became final. He allowed my spouse’s attorney to prepare the final property asset allocation spreadsheet without allowing it to be reviewed by me and my attorney before it became final. As a result, my ex-spouse was awarded the value of Alaskacare twice, much to my financial detriment Finally, Judge Reese’s interactions with me were arrogant and intolerant. He made several gratuitously condescending comments that I experienced as personal attacks. In my opinion, Judge Reese has aged beyond his ability to be attentive to detail; his bias and arrogance are weapons that he uses to disguise these limitations. Neutral and objective he is not.

Former Superior Court Judge John Reese was recommended as a neutral arbitrator for the property settlement conference in my divorce. In my opinion, Judge Reese demonstrated a strong, anti-male bias; I found him to be as far from neutral as I can imagine. A major issue in my divorce was health care insurance, valuing Alaskacare, and projecting the costs of future health care for my former spouse. I believe that Judge Reese displayed only a superficial understanding of health insurance and health care costs, and little to no understanding of Medicare and supplemental health insurance. Nevertheless, he ruled confidently on these issues. In my opinion, Judge Reese was unable to follow the simple spreadsheet that showed the division of the valuation of Alaskacare that was prepared by my ex-spouse’s accountant prior to the settlement conference. Judge Reese did not assure that the agreements about Alaskacare arrived at during the settlement negotiations were reflected in the property allocation spreadsheet that ultimately became final. He allowed my spouse’s attorney to prepare the final property asset allocation spreadsheet without allowing it to be reviewed by me and my attorney before it became final. As a result, my ex-spouse was awarded the value of Alaskacare twice, much to my financial detriment Finally, Judge Reese’s interactions with me were arrogant and intolerant. He made several gratuitously condescending comments that I experienced as personal attacks. In my opinion, Judge Reese has aged beyond his ability to be attentive to detail; his bias and arrogance are weapons that he uses to disguise these limitations. Neutral and objective he is not.