Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 23 Share on Twitter 3 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 6/19/15

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

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   3 comments, In Series: Judicial Corruption

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

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

Richard Fine Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

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...)

Go To Commenting
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
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

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"

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend