8 Incidents in the last 10 Years

December 12, 2006

By Ed Bentley

James M. Brooks is a superior court judge in Santa Ana, Orange County, California. He started as a municipal court judge in 1987, and was moved to the superior court in 1998.

On November 29, 2006, the Commission on Judicial Performance issued a Public Admonishment - one of the Commission's highest sanctions. In deciding to make the Admonishment public, the Commission noted that he had been disciplined for similar conduct before. This was in response to a complaint filed by Arnold McMahon against Brooks.

In 1996, the Commission sent him an advisory letter about ethnic bias in his comments. He referred to a Hispanic defendant as "Pedro". He also issued a bench warrant on an Asian defendant for "ten thousand dollars or twenty thousand yen." In the same letter, he was cited for stating to an undocumented Hispanic defendant that "you have more names than the Tijuana telephone book.

In 1999, he received another advisory letter for telling a defendant at the close of a preliminary hearing, how he would handle an assault on his own family "I would go down and punch [the defendant's] lights out", and that instead of calling the police, it would be "touch them, you die."

In 2003, he received a private admonishment for referring to the operators of a mobile home park as "Nazis", and comparing their actions to those of the Nazis during the Holocaust.

In the same admonishment, he was rebuked for making stereotypical remarks about undocumented aliens that they placed burdens on taxpayers by receiving benefits to which they were not entitled. The plaintiff, an undocumented alien, was suing a doctor, whom the judge referred to as "this good doctor"

In the latest admonishment, the Commission cited two cases. In Vinci Investments Inc. v Joher, et al, Brooks stated of one of the defendants:

"Mrs. Joher, the mother, Sosha or whatever her name is, she's the one that Joe, among other, has turned everything over to, put everything in her name; a lady that, in her own country - I put a question mark; I know it's Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon - probably a very nice lady, probably doesn't know how much she owns, I don't think."

In a further quote by the Commission, Brooks stated that the defendant transferred "much of the business/property into the name of 'Joe' Joher's wife, who, in her native Syria (?) probably wouldn't be allowed to own property."

The Commission found that this speech violated canon 3B(5) because it could reasonably be perceived as bias or prejudice. It also found that Brook's conduct violated canon 2(a) that judges should act in a manner that promotes confidence in "the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. It also found that his conduct violated canon 3B(4) requiring judges to be "patient, dignified and courteous" towards all who come before them in an official capacity. The Commission also found, at a minimum, that Brook's conduct violated the California constitution, article VI, section 18(d)(3)

In the other case, Palacio del Mar Homeowners Association v McMahon, the Commission found that Brooks made statements to the McMahons that were "sarcastic, demeaning and intimidating."

Arnold McMahon was explaining to Brooks that he had not been able to attend a deposition because at 3.30a.m. in the morning, he experienced intense pressure in his chest. After his doctor discovered an abnormality in his EKG, the doctor sent him to hospital, where he was admitted to the cardiac unit with a suspected heart attack.

Brook's response was:

"Gee. I wonder what's going to happen when we put you in jail, Mr. McMahon. Your little ticker might stop, you think?"

To Elizabeth McMahon, Brooks stated that if she did not show up for her deposition, "it will be [$]10,000 payable to the court. I'd mention jail but it might give her heart attack."

The Commission found that these statements violated canon 3B(4) which requires judges to be "patient, dignified and courteous to litigants". It also found that his conduct violated canon 2A, which provides that a judge "shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary". It also found that he violated canon 3b(7) which requires all parties in a case be accorded in a proceeding, the full right to be heard according to the law.

One question in the mind of some observers is whether the above is merely the tip of the iceberg. At least 6 of the above incidents involved minorities. How many more incidents were never reported - or if reported, were never acted on by the Commission? Could any minority justifiably appear before him and reasonably expect justice?

A former student, lawyer Russell Shields, stated of Brooks that he was very disrespectful of women when he moonlighted at Western State College of Law in Fullerton, California.

Arnold McMahon states that what the Commission focused on is just the tip of the iceberg. He said that Brooks was on his case for almost 4 years, until he voluntarily recused himself in August 2005 immediately after the Orange County Register exposed his racist remarks in the the Johor case.. He said that he knew Brooks was completely biased against him and his wife, and that he would rule against him no matter what he said. "I could palpably feel his hostility every time I was in court. It is not something that any citizen should have to endure. I do not believe that he should be allowed to sit on the bench. He has exhibited his bias and unfitness so many times, he has had plenty of opportunity to mend his ways, and yet he continues on, year after year. The time for him to go is now before he does any further damage to citizens. He ruins reputations as well as cases."

Arnold McMahon says that he intends to have certain of Brook's rulings reviewed in light of the ruling by the Commission.

Victoria Henley of the press office for the Commission could not say whether Brooks has been the most admonished judge in California. But the latest admonishment has raised serious questions about his suitability for the office of judge and whether the judicial system has the integrity to protect citizens against conduct such as his. Victoria Henley said that the Commission receives about 1000 complaints a year, and acts on less than 30. She explained that the reason for this low number is that many complaints are simply disagreements with a judge's ruling, not misconduct. In a study done for the years 1990-1999, there were 499 cases of discipline. California has approximately 1600 judges today.

In a growing dissatisfaction with judges across the country, the conduct of Brooks can only add fuel to that fire.