Mailed March 14, 2014 to:
San Diego County Superior Court Presiding Judge David Danielson; Judge Lisa Schall; Judge Paula Rosenstein; Judge David Rubin. COMPLAINT in pdf form as filed in lawful accordance with California Rules of the Court Rule 10.703
Re: COMPLAINT against San Diego County (“SUPERIOR COURT”) Judges Paula (“ROSENSTEIN”), David (“RUBIN”), and Lisa (“SCHALL”). Allegation: Colluding to tamper with the outcome of a judicial election in violation of Canons of Judicial Ethics 2.B.(2) and 5.
Honorable Judge Danielson,
Please inform ROSENSTEIN, RUBIN and SCHALL that they are violating Canons of Judicial Ethics 2.B.(2) and 5. It is unethical for the local sitting judges to collusively use prestige of judicial office and judicial title to advocate for appointment, instead of voter election of judicial office — while intimidating, coercing, and tampering with the election for judicial seat 20 to the benefit of SCHALL.
Judicial Canon 2 states, “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities. B. Use of the Prestige of Judicial Office (2) A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.” Judicial Canon 5 states, “A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.”
Given that ROSENSTEINS’s and RUBIN’s campaign tactics on behalf of fellow appointed judge, SCHALL, have raised eyebrows to the point that they have been found newsworthy by several professional journalists; a reasonable person would conclude that they have given “the appearance of impropriety in their judicial activities” by misuse of “prestige of judicial office” and “judicial title” to “advance the personal interests” of themselves and other appointed “judges”. A reasonable person would conclude that they have given “the appearance” they are “engaged in political and campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary”; and have therefore, violated Canons 2.B.(2) and 5.
 February 24, 2014 Union Tribune “Judge candidate feels gaveled down” February 28, 2014 San Diego Free Press “Thou Shalt Not Challenge a Sitting Judge” March 6, 2014 California Court Monitor “Judicial Intimidation On Display in San Diego”