Is a judge required to warn petitioner before taking a disciplinary action against him?

In our view the statement goes beyond one reflecting a mere mental outlook or predilection and makes a charge of deliberate judicial dishonesty. We are of the opinion that the record does not support such an accusation against the judge and that the statement was insolent, offensive, insulting, and impugned the integrity of the court. We conclude that the statement was contemptuous on its face. ¹⁶ Since the contempt order is not based on 'words wholly innocuous' (Gallagher v. Municipal Court, Supra, 31 Cal.2d at p. 796, 192 P.2d 905) or on 'language of which is in itself not insolent, contemptuous or disorderly' (In re Hallinan, Supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1181, 81 Cal.Rptr., at p. 3, 459 P.2d at p. 257) the judge was not required first to warn petitioner before taking disciplinary action against him. (Gallagher, supra, 31 Cal.2d, at p. 797, 192 P.2d 905; In re Hallinan, Supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1183, 81 Cal.Rptr. 1, 459 P.2d 255.)