. On June 12, 2015, the Fourth Appellate District of California (San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties) issued an opinion, Martinez v CalTrans, saying that attorneys should not make ethnic attacks on litigants or attorneys. After the trial court had failed to report offending Attorney to the State Bar for misconduct, the appellate court did report her.
. In contrast, on June 26, 2015, Justice Turner of the Second Appellate District (Los Angeles County) adopted a different trial court’s position that judges have a constitutional right to use religious and ethnic bias to evaluate evidence, determine witness credibility and to decide which attorneys may participate in court. 2015-6-26 Turner Decision adopting Judge Torribio’s position Torribio’s 5-18-2015 Strike Order Petitioner HELP had expressly complained that its attorney had been excluded from the sidebar because he was a Jew who would “refuse Jesus Christ.” HELP DisQual Stmt, abbrev
. Today, Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning (Calif Supreme Court S227630) requested that the Supreme Court resolve the conflict between the two cases by affirming that judges do not have a constitutional right to use religious or ethnic prejudice in weighing evidence, determining credibility, or deciding which attorneys will be allowed to participate in court proceedings. HELP’s Notice of Conflict btw Districts
. With two decisions written within a few weeks of each other, now would be a good time for the Supreme Court to make clear that the California courts do not permit any religious test to assess evidence and witnesses and that California courts do not allow any ethnic cleansing of their court rooms.
. Zwartz Talk will continue to follow this matter of barring Jews from one California courtroom. It is already astounding that a judge would even make the argument that he has a constitutional right to exclude Jews (and presumably anyone else who would “refuse Jesus Christ.”)