CommentsCORRUPTION WATCH-Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the June 4, 2018, Masterpiece Cake shop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (The Gay Cake Case) represents the best of American jurisprudence.
While Justice Kennedy protects our inalienable and constitutional rights from the overreach of bigoted government officials, California’s judiciary reveals the worse of judicial times with its vile religious discrimination. (HELP v City of LA # BA 138370 order date 5-14-2015; 2d Dist Appeals #B264397 order date 6-26-2015; SC # S227630, order date 8-12-2015.)
Facts:The owner of a cake shop refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, who then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Issue:Did Phillips, the Cake Shop owner, receive a fair hearing?
Rule: The Cake Shop owner was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims, i.e. everyone is entitled to Due Process.
Holding:The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s religious prejudice deprived the Cake Shop owner of a fair hearing and thereby violated his Due Process rights.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion held that the Commissioners’ animosity towards religion deprived Phillips of his Due Process rights. In California, on the other hand, judges have a constitutional right to use their religious biases against Jews and others who “refuse Jesus Christ.”
Baker Refused to Sell Any Wedding Cake for a Gay Wedding
It is important to clarify a vital fact: this Cake Shop owner refused to sell any wedding cake to the couple because it was for a gay wedding. As pointed out in Justice Ginsburg’s dissent: Phillips refused to sell the wedding cake for no reason other than the buyers’ sexual orientation. They wanted a cake of the kind Phillips regularly sold to others. “They mentioned no message or anything else distinguishing the cake they wanted to buy from any other wedding cake Phillips would have sold.” (Ginsburg Dissent, page 5.)
Religious Bias Deprived Cake Shop Owner of Due Process
Because of the Commissioners’ religious bias, the Cake Shop owner was deprived of a fair hearing of his views, making it impossible to reach the validity of the statute. The Colorado Commissioners behaved in a way similar to California Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye who allows judges to discriminate against Jews who “refuse Jesus Christ” so that they may not even participate in a hearing. (HELP v City of LA, 5-14-2015 Order BA 138370; -2015 2ndDist order B264397, 8-12-2015 Supreme Ct orderS227630)
Just as the religious bigotry of the Colorado Commissioners deprived the Cake Shop owner of his right to a fair trial, California Judge John Torribio, Justice Paul Turner and Chief Justice Tani Sakayue claim a constitutional right to exclude Jews who “refuse Jesus Christ” from sidebars as well as judges’ having a constitutional right to alter the evidence offered by Jews. They justify their discrimination by alluding to California Constitution Art. VI, § 10.
The Feds vs the State Courts
The Federal Courts have criticized California State Courts for its mistreatment of litigants. In January 2015, the Federal Court of Appeals said that California courts are suffering an “epidemic of misconduct.” In identifying the origin of the bad judicial behavior, the Feds pointed at the California judges who turn a blind eye to atrocious actions such as the falsification of evidence, the subornation of perjury, and prosecutors who commit perjury.
The shadowy culprit, whom the Feds did not mention by name, is California Chief Justice Tani Sakayue. Since a fish rots from the head down and since she has been the Chief Justice since 2011, the Chief Justice is the overriding problem. The Federal Court detailed how all the top law enforcement officers including the Attorney General did nothing about the prosecutor’s perjury in the Baca v Adams case. Recently, we learned that in Orange County, the District Attorney continues to use lying jail house informants. The California State Bar prosecutors still suborn perjury in order to disbar attorneys who object to the epidemic of judicial misconduct.
When attorneys object to the state court’s religious prejudice or object to the court’s acting without jurisdiction and without Due Process, the California Chief Justice makes certain they are hauled before the State Bar kangaroo court where falsification of evidence, concealing of exculpatory evidence and perjury are standard tools.
First Comes Jurisdiction
Power goes to people’s heads and they think that because they are commissioners, or judges, or the President of the United States that they can do anything they want. That is the reason the Constitution requires judges to have “jurisdiction” before they can issue an order. Judges may not just hand out court orders, saying, “Your car now belongs to my brother-in-law.” Unlike the federal courts, California does not require judges to gain jurisdiction before issuing orders.
Then Comes Due Process
After the judges or commissioners gain jurisdiction to hear a case, they must follow Due Process, which means a person must be treated fairly. For example, a person has the right to know specific charges.
The Colorado complaint was properly before the civil rights commission, so it had jurisdiction. The Cake Shop owner knew the specific charges, so his Due Process began. The Commissioners anti-religious bias, however, ended Phillips’ Due Process. These Commissioners made clear that they had pre-judged the case and nothing Phillips had to say would have any impact.
In California, judges have the constitutional right to exclude Jews from hearings and the right to completely ignore or alter evidence offered by Jews. If a Jew asserts his constitutional rights, the judges order him to pay thousands of dollars for having the nerve to object.
The Colorado Commission was not as extreme in its anti-Christian bigotry as Judge John Torribio, Justice Paul Turner and Chief Justice Tani Sakauye go in their anti-Jewish bias. Nonetheless, Colorado’s religious prejudice was sufficient to deprive the Cake Shop owner of his constitutional right of Due Process. Since the Cake Shop owner did not have a fair hearing, it was premature for the Court to make any ruling on the validity of the Colorado civil rights statute.
(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. NOTE:Author has no involvement is Colorado case, but is involved in the California anti-Jewish cases.)Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
