Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 6 Share on Twitter 3 Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

California's Judicial Council Must Bar Judges from Taking Payments from Counties or Local Courts

By       Message Richard Fine       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   3 comments, In Series: Judicial Corruption

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Well Said 2   Supported 2  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 6/19/15

Author 502599
- Advertisement -

The California Judicial Council recently recommended that California Superior Courts should no longer require citizens to post 100% of a traffic fine in order to obtain a trial.

The California Judicial Council refused to address the more important problem that the judges in approximately 30 of California's 58 Superior Courts should not be hearing traffic tickets as they currently receive payments from counties or local courts called "local judicial benefits" in addition to their State compensation.

According to the State and County Budgets, fees from court costs added on to the tickets go to the local court and the county making these payments.

Sturgeon v. County of LA (2008) held these payments violated California Constitution Article 6, Section 19. In 2009, the California Judicial Council drafted SBX 2 11, enacted as "emergency legislation" on 2/20/2009, effective 5/20/2009. Section 5 gave the judges and the governments and government employees who gave the payments to the judges California retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action. No immunity given for future payments. Section 2 allowed continued payments to judges during their current terms as of 7/1/2008. The last term ended January, 2013.
Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3E (2) requires the judges to disclose relevant information- i.e., the court and county payments to judges in traffic cases. Canon 3E (1) and Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1 (a) (6) (A) (iii) require the judge to disqualify himself/herself when an objective person may doubt the judge may be impartial. The payments to the judge create this doubt.
The payments also may violate California Penal Code Section 96.5 - judge action with knowledge of perverting or obstructing justice by taking the payments and Section 182 (a) (5) - conspiracy to obstruct justice by county and courts making payments and judge taking payments.
Richard I. Fine, Ph.D., Strategic Consultant, Mediator, Chmn., Campaign for Judicial Integrity, Co Chmn., Judicial Reform Comm. DivorceCorp less

- Advertisement -


- Advertisement -

Must Read 2   Well Said 2   Supported 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

Richard I. Fine, Ph.D., Consul General Kingdom of Norway Retired (1995-2010), Principal, Richard I. Fine & Assoc.; Strategic Consultant; Mediator; Chmn. Campaign for Judicial Integrity; Co Chmn. Judicial Reform Comm. DivorceCorp; website: (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

Series: "Judicial Corruption"

View All 1 Articles in "Judicial Corruption"
Total Views for the Series: 586   

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

End California's Judicial Corruption Now; Stop 2015-16 Illegal Budget Payments to Judges!

California's Judicial Council Must Bar Judges from Taking Payments from Counties or Local Courts

2018 Election: "Legislate to End of California's Judicial Crisis Now"