California commenced disciplinary proceedings against a judge who taunted jurors because they are poor, but not for receiving bribes from prosecutors

On December 24, 2015 the California Commission for Judicial Conduct instituted formal proceedings against Judge Edmund Clarke, here is the complaint against him.

Judge Edmund Clarke, of Los Angeles County Superior Court, was appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger in June 2007. 

At the time of appointment, his salary was reportedly $171,648.  The appointment did not say anything about the boon Judge Edmund received from Los Angeles County in addition to his salary, in violation of State Constitution.

In fact, Judge Edmund Clarke would be one of the recipients of additional illegal payouts that attorney Dr. Richard Fine stopped at the cost of his disbarment and incarceration in solitary confinement.

Reportedly, "L.A. superior court judges were receiving illegal “judicial benefits” payments from Los Angeles County, despite the fact that lawsuits against that county were often adjudicated by these same judges, thus creating clear conflict of interest problems. 

 

By 2007 these payments amounted to $46,436 per year on top of their state salary of $172,000, making L.A. superior court judges among the highest paid in the country. Not only was this a blatant conflict of interest but also unconstitutional, insofar as the California constitution states clearly (in Article VI, Section 19) that “the legislature shall prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record.”

So, Judge Edmund Clarke was certainly not poor, being a lawyer's son and having a lucrative employment all his life, and, on top of his very large salary (with benefits) accepted illegal annual "incentives" from the county officials while presiding over cases handled by that county.  

Judge Clarke, during his legal career, actually did a gig in Los Angeles County Public Defender's office, from 1977 to 1981.

So, he was supposed to understand problems of the poor, including poor women and minorities.

And, as a judge, he was supposed to treat all who come in front of him, attorneys, parties, employees and jurors, fairly and in a civilized manner.

Yet, at the end of December 2015 Judge Clarke was disciplined for his "terrible behavior towards poor women, and minorities".

Examples.

According to the complaint against Judge Clarke:

"Clarke excused one prospective juror but then ordered her to wait in the hall for an hour, according to the commission, after becoming angry that she had criticized his clerk. He also drove a native Spanish speaker to tears by suggesting that she had lied about her English abilities to avoid jury duty, according to the notice."

“The commission claims Clarke mistreated one prospective juror after granting her a hardship waiver due to her severe anxiety. Before leaving, the woman complained that Clarke’s clerk had been disrespectful. Clarke seemed to take offense and ordered the prospective juror to wait in the hall until he finished the afternoon session of voir dire, at which point she could “act like an adult”.

So, criticizing a judge for being disrespectful is not "acting like an adult".

Clarke also, reportedly, "made fun at two female prospective jurors whose juror forms indicated that they had less than $35 in their bank accounts, according to the allegations."

"One had asked Judge Clarke to keep the banking information confidential.  Then thanked Clarke afterward when he did.  However, after leaving the courtroom, Judge Clarke made the low balance, bank account information public, as the butt of a joke."

The article asks a question - what's up with the court personnel not reporting that behavior?

But, we all know "what's up".  They were afraid to be fired and blacklisted, that's what's up.

To humiliate a woman because her command of English is not good enough to understand LEGAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS that not all native speakers understand is pathetic.

It is even more pathetic to tell a woman who - privately - disclosed that she has only $25 in her bank account the following: “every one of these lawyers spent more than that on lunch today.”

And, after mocking one poor woman for being poor, he mocked the next one this way:   "when talking to the second juror, who said he had $33 in his account, Clarke said, “A little bit more than the other gal. 33 bucks. You are putting her in the shade with that big account.”

Of course, these two poor women did not have the ability, like Judge Clarke, to receive bribes of over $46,000 a year on top of a $171,000 salary, and get away with it by receiving from the legislature a retroactive immunity from civil AND CRIMINAL liability for taking those bribes - and to devastate the life of the person who exposed that criminal behavior.

Note that Judge Clarke is not being disciplined for receiving large bribes from prosecutors for years.

Oh, well.