Part I: What Are Expectations of Urban Justice?
Santa Cruz, California state judge Ariadne Symons (D) banished a defendant from the state as a precondition to release in a 2012 misdemeanor case. Return and go to jail. One may reasonably question, “’Sanctuary state’ California? During the Obama/Holder administration in 2012?” The answer would be affirmative. A judge in the most progressive state in the Union exiled an American citizen.
Defendant? American born, Kyle Robert Cheza. Age: 42, Race: Caucasian, Height: 5'1", Weight: 175 lbs., Brown Long Hair, Blue Eyes, Mustache & Goatee. Large tattoo on right torso.
Subsequently in 2019, Symons became the focus of extensive coverage by local press because of an unrelated decision by the California Commission on Judicial Performance to censure her publicly for attempting to fix a traffic ticket case. The Commission’s report, replete with a surprising amount of salacious detail for a government review, is posted on our site’s “State-by-State Tracker.”
SEE ALSO:
· Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge Punished for ‘Serious Misconduct,’ The Mercury News (May 21, 2019)
· Commission Censures Santa Cruz Judge For Failing To Accept Responsibility For Running Red Light, San Francisco Gate (May 20, 2019)
· Santa Cruz Attorneys Confirm Superior Court Judge’s Misconduct, Santa Cruz Sentinel (June 22, 2019)
· California Judge Censured for Trying to Get Ticket Tossed, KCRA3 (May 20, 2019)
The Commission charged the judge with assisting her husband in filing false documents in her own court. She did so to hide her identity as the driver caught on the municipality’s red light camera. Except for removal from office, “public censure” is the second strongest discipline California allows against state judges. The investigation elicited public outcry, including from lawyers, politicians, and challengers who decided to run for Symon’s seat on the court.
Others, including influential politicians within the state’s Democratic Party, nonetheless stood by her. The judge managed to cling to her official position.
· SEE: Dozens Support Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Ariadne Symons, Santa Cruz Sentinel (June 22, 2019)
Yet, in our opinion, the press overlooked the more troubling record of Mr. Cheza’s 2012 banishment case. Exiling an American defendant in direct contravention of state law clearly signifies that Symons has abused her authority in far more insidious ways than merely fixing traffic tickets. Yet, the California Commission’s investigative report, which is supposed to be a comprehensive review of her judicial record, is conspicuously silent about the banishment order previously imposed by Symons, despite the fact that the defendant, Cheza, later sued her in federal court for violating his civil rights by imposing an illegal condition for misdemeanor probation.
We feel compelled to tell.
The banishment case may not have been as sexy an allure as the narrative of a judge fixing tickets by masking her identity as the liable party for a case to be tried in her own court, with her husband to further whet appetites. But the exile of a US citizen, to us, was not only more critical; it was an ominous harbinger withheld from unknowing voters, who continued to grant Symons both a tax-based salary and professional access to their own lives — all trussed up in judicial immunity.
As part of its state inquiry, a report by the California Commission on Judicial Performance reviewed Symon’s professional history extensively, yet makes nary a mention of Cheza’s case. Their silence is deafening, especially since Cheza’s federal lawsuit had exposed her conduct. Is it his profile that makes him invisible? Like all regulators, the Commission is obligated to assess official misconduct no matter the history of the target.
Not only is there is no public record that the California Commission disciplined her, that same year Symons was re-elected to the bench. As an unopposed incumbent, she was automatically re-instated without appearing on the ballot. In the absence of public disclosure about her decision to bypass the state’s prohibition on exile, voters and potential challengers were in the dark.
Our e-Booklet briefly narrates Symons’ handling of Cheza’s case and provides a glimpse into his pursuit for official accountability. You decide: if you had been on the Commission, would the banishment order against Cheza have been actionable against Symons, or did she give him a golden opportunity to change his course?
We describe judicial action in courts across geographic areas of the United States, where the practice of “banishment” is wielded in varied forms, including in KY (against veterans), PA, GA, domestic violence survivors, the homeless, and against residents on Native American lands in WI, AK, MN, OR and UT.
Judge Symons retired effective December 2020, with full pension and honors. Did California’s political Machinery prop her up, or did she deliver the measure of justice that the community demanded of her service, including clearing the streets of “undesirables”? These questions underscore a paradox of predominantly Liberal urban jurisdictions: the dominant political narrative, especially in the wake of 2020’s election season, of the Democratic Party has been that they advance principles of social justice, such as inclusive immigration and community policing. Then how do we contextualize the treatment of citizens like Kyle Cheza? Was he not also California’s son?
The “Left-Out” Paradox
There is an inherent paradox with the liberal “Left” situated in “progressive” California serving as the platform for compulsory “out migration” from state borders. Accordingly, a primary question we explore is whether American liberal ideology, as expressed through the anti-deportation movement of the last several years, can be reconciled with unfettered judicial discretion to exile American-born defendants across state borders. Are liberals speaking the language of inclusion and mobilizing political demands for legal rights that are decoupled from national identity, but practicing the subtle art of erasure and centering their demands on identity politics? As the general election of 2016 controversially instructed, we must ask who gets left out — and why.
· SEE: “Coming Out of the Shadows”: DREAM Act Activism in the Context of Global Anti-Deportation Activism of Global Anti-Deportation Activism, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies Studies, Vol. 19 : Issue 1, Article 6 (Winter 2012)
· SEE ALSO: Contesting the Deportation State? Political Change Aspirations in Protests Against Forced Returns, Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 42 (2019)
Simultaneously, the national invocation for “criminal justice reform” may be stronger now than in decades. Limitations on the power of state court judges, such as the practice of banishment, does not, however, appear to be part of the national discussion. Should we push it into the arena?
To learn more, for free you can flip through 15 pages of our e-Booklet No Sanctuary, My American Son @ https://www.store.3pmonline.com/product/e-booklet-no-sanctuary-my-american-son/. The forgoing post is an excerpt from the Introduction to the e-Booklet. We will publish sections from the narrative as parts of an ongoing series about American exile imposed by US state officials.
BONUS: Anyone can participate in the short Survey (6 Questions) included in the SNEAK pages above (15 pages FREE). If it were you, what would you choose: serving time or exile? Spoiler: initial results reveal conflicted opinions. To access Survey without downloading SNEAK pages, go to Banishment of American Sons (and Daughters).
