Is it any wonder that many Californians look at their judiciary with a jaundiced eye? The latest incident appeared in The Times (April 9) regarding Beverly Hills Municipal Judge Charles D. Boags, who saw nothing wrong with suspending fines on 72 parking violations accumulated by his son in a car registered to the judge.
The judge says: “I didn’t know he wasn’t parking where he was supposed to be parking.” Comment: I guess getting 72 tickets since Sept. 18 didn’t give him an inkling of what was happening.
The judge says: “When my son brought the tickets to my chambers, I usually had something else on my mind. I let the stuff slip . . . .” Comment: If my child handed me 7 tickets, let alone 72, I wouldn’t be able to have anything else on my mind!
The judge says: “If I thought that anybody else around me would have done any different, that he is getting special treatment, it would never have happened. I’m not going to give my son any special treatment, any better treatment than anyone else.” Comment: I assume this means that if any other 17-year-old comes up before him with parking violations that he would have them dismissed.
The judge says: “I’m interested in basically raising my son to be a good person . . . .” Comment: If Daddy hadn’t fixed the tickets, would Junior have amassed 72 violations? I would think that honesty and accepting responsibilities for one’s actions would be part of being a good person.
The judge says: “I’ve been around a long time. I believe I have an excellent reputation, and I’ve jealously guarded it . . . . Comment: The judge should select a different adjective for reputation.
The judge says: “I do not consider that ruling tickets in which he had a financial stake might involve a conflict of interest.” Comment: The saving of $1,200-plus in fines is not a financial interest in the case?