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[1]; 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.

_________________

Footnote

[1] 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” 

____________

          As I understand it, ROSENSTEIN is scheduled to speak before the San Diego Democratic Party again on March 18, 2014.  Her purpose is to dissuade the organization from endorsing a Democrat candidate for election to judicial office, Carla Keehn, who is running against appointed sitting judge, SCHALL.  Please tell ROSENSTEIN to cease the unethical campaigning while abusing voters’ rights, candidate’s rights, and the pretigious title bestowed upon her by appointment –“judge”.

Thank you,

Sharon Kramer

Attachments:

1.  February 6, 2014 Evidence that Tom Homann LGBT Law Association (THLA) misstated fact regarding their withdrawal of multi-seat endorsement of Keehn, after being intimidated and coerced by sitting judges ROSENSTEIN and RUBIN.

2.  February 10, 2014, Email from THLA BOD member, Mr. Fox to Ms. Keehn. The email describes in great detail, ROSENSTEIN’s and RUBIN’s thinly veiled threat that the local sitting judges will retaliate against the LGBT community if THLA does not disassociate with Keehn, because of her run against an appointed judge, SCHALL.

3.  February 18?, 2014, Portion of an email from San Diego Democratic Party Central Committee member, Robert Duquette. The email describes his valid concerns of ROSENSTEIN’s actions causing harm to voters’ rights and the “hamstringing” of Keehn — simply because she is exercising her constitutional right to run for office against an appointed, sitting judge.

4  March 13, 2014, Questions emailed to SCHALL [also mailed to ROSENSTEIN, RUBIN, and SCHALL] with directions to online links of evidence corroborating harm to the constitutional rights of many by these collusive Judicial Canon violations.  

2014 California Rules of Court Rule 10.703. Subordinate judicial officers: complaints and notice requirements