by Sharon Noonan Kramer

On March 7, 2014, while fundraiser for re-election to San Diego Superior Court seat 20, incumbent Judge Lisa Schall sent an e-blast asking people to forward her fundraising email and offering to answer any questions. As directed, the email was forwarded to others.

On March 13, 2014, over twenty voters’ questions were compiled for Judge Schall to answer.  They were emailed to her on the 13th to the return email address she provided. On the 14th, the questions were snail mailed to her home address.

Here is Candidate for Public Office Judge Lisa Schall’s answer to the Voters’ questions:

 Additionally on March 14th a COMPLAINT was filed with San Diego Presiding Judge David Danielson. It is regarding the unethical campaign tactics being used by Schall’s jurist peers on her behalf.  Several media outlets* have written of the local sitting judges conspiring to intimidate the challenger to Schall’s public office, Carla Keehn, and to coerce Keehn’s endorsers to un-endorse her. This includes coercing a local bar association, a.k.a. lawyers, to alter their organization’s election policies after-the fact as a non-sensical excuse to rescind a valid endorsement.

In violation of California Rules of the Court, Rule 10.703(f)(3) no written acknowledgment of the March 14th COMPLAINT has been received from the office of the Superior Court Presiding Judge Danielson.  Rule 10.703(f)(3) states, “The presiding judge must give written notice of receipt of the complaint to the complainant.”

In the meantime, San Diego County’s chief law enforcement officer, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, was previously advertised on Schall’s website as her #1 Endorser.  Dumanis’ name and title have now disappeared from Schall’s website. 

Dumanis herself is running for re-election as San Diego County District Attorney. This is under calls for her investigation, more calls for her investigation, and even some of her local government endorsers directing how to call for her investigation. (Yea right! By Dumanis’ state government endorser, Kamala Harris, who seems to think one needs an attorney to report crimes by government officials and that those one complains of should be in charge of investigating themselves).  

The June elections are now just forty-five days away.  There is no indication that the local jurists will be admonished by the San Diego Superior Court for their conclusively unethical election tampering while violating the rights of a challenger candidate and the rights of voters. It’s highly unlikely that Dumanis endorser, Harris — who is herself running for re-election — will do any investigating of any politician in the near future.   

Should Judge Schall win re-election from lack of the voting public’s knowledge of the unethical politics playing out in San Diego County that are in violation of Rules of the Court and Canons of Judicial Ethics; it will be a hollow victory. Voters will have the legal right to call for a recall of jurist seat 20.  

Personally, I think I will be voting for anyone who is NOT ENDORSED by any San Diego County or California state elected or appointed official.  Too much cess-pooling of mucked-up water under the bridge!

* 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”  

____________

Preview of upcoming post on Monday, April 21st:

COMPLAINT to the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP)                                                              

             COMPLAINT No.1 against SUPERIOR COURT Presiding Judge David (DANIELSON) Allegation: Violating California Rules of the Court, Rule 10.703(f)(3)and Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3(C)(4) by failing to timely address subordinate judges’ ethics breeches to unduly influence the outcome of the upcoming San Diego County (SUPERIOR COURT) jurist seat 20 election.

             COMPLAINT No. 2 against SUPERIOR COURT judges Paula (ROSENSTEIN), David (RUBIN), and Lisa (SCHALL) filed in accordance with Court Rule 10.703(l)(2)(B). Allegation: Violation of Canons of Judicial Ethics 2, 2B(2) and 5 by giving the clear appearance of abuse of prestige of judicial office and judicial title to threaten, coerce and tamper with the outcome of the June 2, 2014 jurist seat 20 election

            COMPLAINT No. 3 against SCHALL. Allegation: Violation of Canon 4(A)(2) by falsely advertising the endorsement of government employees on her re-election campaign website for jurist seat 20.            

            COMPLAINT No. 4 against SCHALL. Allegation: Habitual Judicial Code of Ethics and Oath of Office violator; and long-term CJP and San Diego County District Attorney shielded menace to public health, safety, and welfare.  (See “Return to Sender” and “Refused” Voter Questions of Candidate Judge Schall)

_____________

Prior posts on the subject:

March 25th  Why is DA Dumanis’ name now missing from Judge Lisa Schall’s endorsers?

March 19th San Diego Democrats Vote to Endorse Carla Keehn for Jurist Seat 20 

March 14th  Complaint to San Diego Presiding Judge for Subordinate Jurists’ Election Tampering

March 13th  Voter Questions Posed to San Diego Judicial Candidate Lisa Schall

March 10th  San Diego Sitting Judges’ Election Tampering Gains Statewide Media Attention

March 8th  San Diego Superior Court Judge Lisa Schall Offers to Answer Your Questions

March 2nd  What’s the difference between a Governor Brown appointed San Diego Judge and a Koch brother? UPDATED

February 27th  San Diego Union Tribune~Conflict seen in race for judge’s post~by Sharon Kramer

February 25th  San Diego LGBT Judges Attempt to Fix a Judicial Election Against an LGBT Candidate

And from our sister blog, “Just Answer the Damn Question, Bonnie” February 27th