Whether it is constitutional under the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments for a judicial disciplinary commission to remove a judge based on the manner and fact of the judge's defense, even though the alleged misconduct would not warrant removal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW i This Writ seeks review of a Decision by the California Commission on Judicial Performance to remove Judge John T. Laettner from service on the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Pursuant to that Decision, the charges detailed in the Notice of Formal Proceedings, as found, were insufficient to warrant a greater sanction than censure. Despite the absence of misconduct sufficient to warrant removal, the Commission imposed that most severe penalty. In so doing, it criticized the judge’s defense during evidentiary hearing as “lacking in candor” in certain particulars. However, it did not find the judge to be untruthful or to have testified falsely. It also found that the judge failed to acknowledge the impropriety of his actions such that removal was necessary to protect the public from some future repeat of that misconduct. In short, the judge was removed based on the manner as well as the mere fact of his defense, even though the actual alleged misconduct on which the cause for discipline was based would not support the ultimate sanction of removal actually imposed. The issue presented is thus if it is constitutional under the 15*, 5‘, 6th, and 14 Amendments to the United States Constitution for the Commission to (i) use the subjective determination that the defense “lacked candor” in its presentation as the sole justification for removal when that issue was never asserted as a basis for discipline; to (ii) refuse to consider ii. rebuttal evidence on that very issue when the details became apparent and relevant; and to (iii) justify removal of a sitting judge based on the conclusions that a defense against charges lacked candor and the defense itself was evidence of a failure to acknowledge wrongdoing; when (iv) the inescapable conclusion is that no removal was contemplated or would have occurred had no defense been presented and wrongdoing simply been admitted. Or, to state the issue a bit differently, can removal from office be sustained when the underlying alleged misconduct would not justify such a result, so that the penalty for assertion of a defense and exercise of the right to be heard can be removal if the alleged misconduct itself is deemed proven? 2: Is it Constitutional Under the 15, 5t, 6, and 14» Amendments to the United States Constitution for the Commission on Judicial Performance To Restrict a Judge’s Speech on Interpersonal and Court Matters Under the Facts of This Case? iii.