[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Panel kicks long-serving judge off bench (judge ousted for fixing tickets of friends) Panel kicks long-serving judge off bench By VIK JOLLY / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER SANTA ANA – A state agency Wednesday ordered an Orange County judge removed from office for handling tickets for friends and family, only the second jurist in the county to face such discipline. In handing down the discipline for Superior Court Judge Richard W. Stanford Jr., the state's Commission on Judicial Performance said "this pattern of misconduct between 2005 and 2010 created both the appearance and reality of a two-track system of justice – one for his family and friends and another for all others." "Removal is necessary to restore public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and honor the commission's mandate to ensure the evenhanded administration of justice," the commission wrote in its order. Stanford's attorney, Paul Meyer, said in a statement the judge will seek a review of the decision from the state Supreme Court. The commission charged Stanford, one of the longest-serving judges in Orange County, with nine allegations of giving preferential treatment to relatives, acquaintances and his pastor in traffic citation cases over a seven-year span. The judge apologized and did not deny the allegations. Letters of support In reaching its decision, the commission had to balance 62 letters of support from other judges, justices and attorneys describing Stanford as a "work horse" with a "stainless reputation" and a "good soldier for justice." Meyer wrote to the commission that because of a finding by a panel of special masters – which the body considered in addition to holding its own hearing – that there is no likelihood of future misconduct, strong discipline, rather than removal, was appropriate. Gary Schons, a senior assistant attorney general who's designated as the commission's examiner, sought removal, calling the handling of tickets by Stanford without an appearance in court by the violators "woeful ignorance" and "conscious disregard" on the judge's part. The special masters, a panel of two judges and one appellate justice, after a weeklong hearing found there was a pattern of handling tickets for friends and family that constituted willful misconduct and violated certain canons of judicial ethics. The commission agreed. "Judge Stanford has engaged in a pattern of willful misconduct involving the abuse of judicial authority to benefit family and friends - one of the most egregious types of judicial misconduct. Such conduct affronts the very essence of a fair and impartial judiciary," the agency said in its decision. Stanford will seek a Supreme Court review "based on the factual findings of the special masters, the pleas of guilty (no tickets were dismissed) were the result of unintentional error and were lawfully within the judge's authority," his attorney Meyer said. "They found no evidence of malice or intentional bad conduct." Public knows instinctively The special masters did not find Stanford had a "consciousness of wrongdoing." The commission declined to adopt that conclusion, instead finding he recognized the impropriety of his conduct when he gave preferential treatment. "Members of the public know instinctively that a judge should not handle traffic tickets of family and friends," the commission wrote. "We have previously noted that common experience and common sense indicate that 'ticket fixing is a quintessential bad act of a judge. It is an abuse of power that citizens unquestionably understand and are suspicious about.' " Some of Orange County's well-known current and former judges, justices and lawyers testified or wrote to the commission in Stanford's support. Supporters told the special masters panel, among other things, Stanford must have "missed" the fact that his actions constituted a conflict and he would not intentionally do something he believed was wrong. For example, Justice Kathleen O'Leary, a former Superior Court presiding judge who in December was named by Gov. Jerry Brown the first female presiding justice of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana, said what Stanford did was "gross stupidity" but was not a "lack of integrity," according to the panel's report. Retired Superior Court Judge Glenn Mahler stated what Stanford did was "out of character for him. I believe that if Judge Stanford believed it was wrong, he would not have handled the cases that way." Dozens of letters echoed the sentiments that Stanford was remorseful, publicly apologetic for his misconduct and accepts responsibility for his transgressions, the special masters wrote. Virtually all of the 62 letters submitted of support spoke of "Stanford's fairness, integrity and honor." In the first-ever removal of an Orange County judge, the commission ordered Superior Court Judge Kelly MacEachern off the bench in June 2008 after determining that she intentionally lied to obtain a travel reimbursement and worsened the situation by lying under oath. The commission's decision is at the agency's website www.cjp.ca.gov. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Artisan (#0)
Either way, the mullet must go. Too stupid, too corrupt; who cares? Just go. Break the Conventions - Keep the Commandments - G.K.Chesterson are they going to examine his record to find other abuses? will he be charged under the law? does he still receive a pension? “Like it or not, everything is changing. The result will be the most wonderful experience in the history of man or the most horrible enslavement that you can imagine. Be active or abdicate. The future is in your hands.” 53; Milton William Cooper,
they didnt even mention charging him with anything. Its interesting that 100 judges wrote letters in his defense. All of their records should be scrutinized too. Id bet youd find a lot of dirt.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||