fbpx

How the Judicial Right of Bigotry is Upheld by California’s Constitution

\ONE MAN’S OPINION-Question: “Why are the rich and guilty treated better than the poor and innocent,” asked California Governor Gavin Newsom at his June 5, 2020 news conference. 

Answer: Cal Const. VI/10 

The California Courts hold that the last sentence of California Constitution’s article VI section 10 gives judges the constitutional right to use their personal bias and bigotry in running their courtrooms. They may exclude minority attorneys from sidebars, they may exclude disliked attorney’s clients from court, they may ignore and alter evidence offered by minority attorneys. (The court’s application of VI/10 is preposterous, but that highlights the judicial perfidy.) Furthermore, the Commission on Judicial Performance enforces the judges’ rights by condoning such judicial behavior. The California State Bar enforces this bigoted interpretation of the State Constitution by disciplining attorneys who object to the judges’ predatory racism. Don’t look at their words in press releases; look at their actions in real life. 

VI/10 Explains the High Rate at Which Blacks and Other Minorities Are Unjustly Incarcerated and Judicially Murdered  

One might liken VI/10 to a secret handshake among the initiated. When the defendant is Black, there is no need for the prosecution to publicly announce to the judge, “VI/10 Your Honor, we’ve got a Black guy here.” When the defendant or his attorney is named Hernandez, there no need to mention his minority status. When the attorney is Rosenbaumsteinowitz, the judge knows who’s who. But when the attorney has blue eyes and pale skin and is named MacNaughton, the judge needs to be alerted that he about to rule in favor of a troublemaker Jew who would “refuse Jesus Christ. 

On February10, 2015, as soon as Judge John Torribio learned from attorney Frank Angel that Attorney MacNaughton was a trouble-maker Jew who would “refuse Jesus Christ,” Judge Torribio had a confidential sidebar with Attorney Angel to learn more. Judge Torribio would not allow the Jew to participate in the sidebar, but the Jewish attorney could overhear Attorney Angel’s explaining to Judge Torribio that Attorney MacNaughton was actually a Jew named Abrams. After receiving this information, Judge Torribio changed his tentative ruling which had been in favor of the Jew. In order to support his new ruling and sanctions against the Jew, Judge Torribio falsified evidence, a fact Judge Torribio has never denied. 

How Careless Judge Torribio Was with His Bigotry 

Judge Torribio was amazingly careless with his anti-Semitic bigotry, but he became even bolder. After John Torribio was excluding another of Attorney MacNaughton-Abrams’ clients, Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning, from its case against the City of Los Angles over the Hollywood Community Plan update, the Jewish attorney objected to Judge Torribio’s bias. Contrary to his expectations that Judge Torribio would make the standard non-apology apology that he did not intend to offend, Judge Torribio asserted the last sentence of Article VI Section 10 California Constitutional to justify his behavior. (“The court may make any comment on the evidence and the testimony and credibility of any witness as in its opinion is necessary for the proper determination of the cause.”) 

The Great Benefit of the Court’s Candor About its Bigotry 

It was a fluke that we have this evidence of the judiciary’s position that judges have impunity to discriminate. While Black Lives Matter are in the streets across the world protesting systemic injustice, the court had already explained why judges may be prejudiced. The Jewish attorney was named MacNaughton necessitating that Judge Torribio be apprised of the situation. Likewise, unique was the boldness with which Judge Torribio, the appellate court and finally the California Supreme Court (case # 22760, Aug 12, 2015) all endorsed the idea that judges have a constitutional right to use personal bigotry. 

No One Can Be So Naive to Believe the Judicial Bigotry Is Limited to Jews 

When one is Black, one may suspect that the court is biased, but each case has its own facts and personalities. The same goes for people with Hispanic surnames or who live in a particular part of town. We now know the official position of the California judiciary, i.e. bigotry is the official policy.  Due to the quirks of the Abrams case, the California Supreme Court has provided Black Lives Matter with proof of its claim of systemic racism. 

Why Does Governor Gavin Newsom Support this Bigoted Policy? 

While Gov. Newsom made a fantastic speech asking why the rich guilty are treated better than the poor innocent, he also supports judicial prejudice. In Abrams v State of California (Newsom) 2:18-cv-06687(PSG)(KSx), the governor was asked under the rules of federal procedure to discuss California’s discriminatory policy. He refused. Worse yet, Governor Newsom has actively defended the judicial bigotry. If Governor Newsom wants to know why the rich are treated better, all he need do is look in the mirror and proclaim, “Thou art the man.” (2 Samuel 12:7) 

Since Governor Newsom has proven that he is not a man of prejudice, why is he defending judicial bigotry? My answer is judicial terrorism. Governor Newsom, like prosecutors across the state who must deal with predatory cops who murder Blacks, has many other vitally important cases in a highly vindictive judicial system. The courts are supporting the mass destruction of Black homes in South Los Angeles and for any Governor who claims Black Lives Matter, Black homes also have to matter.  

How many Blacks are made homeless and then face the pandemic death rate among the homeless?  What will happen to Gov. Newsom’s social policies in the courts if he should oppose the right of judges to be bigots? 

No Law Is Too Ingrained That the Judges Cannot Ignore it 

As one sees with the court’s ludicrous interpretation of VI/10, nothing is sacred. Even the state constitution can be turned on its head, and by extension, the federal courts likewise turn the 14th Amendment and hence the U.S. Constitution upside down. In reality, the basic law of the land is this: Judges may do anything they want. 

Pass all the laws you want. If a judge dislikes you or your attorney, laws and facts do not exist. In light of the judicial right of bigotry in favor of the rich and powerful, Black Lives do not Matter.  

 

(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams’ views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.