OK, so the headline is a slight exaggeration, but the effect is the same: Shasta's Judge Gary Gibson doesn't seem to think you have a Constitutional right to refuse to be a witness against yourself, and God protect the attorney who tells you about that right. [Or at least California's Commission on Judicial Performance, which rarely does anything as far as I can tell, might protect you]
We all know about 5th Amendment rights: Basically, the part where you can't be compelled to provide testimony against yourself. Right there, just a couple of amendments below the gun rights part: Been interpreted many thousands of times, so the rule is pretty clear, and not that hard to understand what the courts think it means. It's a lot more than not being able to beat a confession out of you.
It appears from my sources that Judge Gibson, a recent appointee to the bench sitting in a Family Law department, hasn't heard about it. When an attorney told his client not to fill out a portion of a court form based on that right, the attorney was cited by the judge to show why he [the lawyer] shouldn't be sanctioned for giving valid legal advice.
Any lawyer with a 3 digit IQ, and more than a couple of years of experience [or who went to a decent law school], knows that right includes the right not to disclose any fact that could in any way cause someone to think you may have some involvement in criminal activity or tend to prove it - not that you are engaged in a criminal act, but that someone might think you are or were, and might cause you legal grief because of it. Something like: "Have you ever driven a motor vehicle after drinking alcohol?" Pretty innocuous question, but you have a Constitutional [both State and Federal] right not to answer. Now, if you assert your right in a civil matter, the judge may be able draw an inference against you [although not in a criminal case], but he cannot compel you to provide testimony that may tend to incriminate you in any way. [Now, please don't nitpick, I'm trying to simplify this.]
Well, Judge Gibson doesn't care. If you don't put the answer on a court form, citing advice of counsel and the 5th amendment, he feels he can order you to do so, and then cite the attorney to court to explain why the attorney, who is doing what he is supposed to do, should not be punished simply for doing his job.
And, my sources on this point run fairly deep: Not just some whining attorney or self-represented litigant. I don't know the parties, the lawyers, or the guy unfortunately wearing the robe, but I have reliable sources. I don't know the question, and don't know what the client's answer would have been, but it is enough that a lawyer has to go to court to justify legal advice, out of fear of sanctions by an out of control judicial officer.
The unfortunate part of the story is that no one chose to run for election against Gibson this time, his first, so Shasta County is stuck with him for another 6 1/2 years until he has to run again. [A newly appointed judge must sit at an early election where the voters have a chance to second guess the Governor - usually, that person hasn't done enough damage to enough people to run a risk of drawing a willing opponent, because incumbency carries a lot of weight with voters in judicial elections.]
Not having a challenger this time, he must feel pretty safe - often happens with the ignorant and arrogant. Now, as I've said, I don't know Judge Gibson, but I'm told he's not too bright. We've had a lot of such judges on the bench - the best ones make up for it by not going out of their way to make waves, and have long careers. The worst make it to the front page, or have lawyers blog about them.