By Doug Porter
The story in last Friday’s UT-San Diego seemed pretty straightforward: the local legal establishment closed ranks, telling Carla Keehn that she wasn’t welcome to challenge incumbent Superior Court Judge Lisa Schall.
The newspaper’s account stemmed from a decision by the Tom Homann Law Association, a group for gay and lesbian legal professionals, to withdraw an earlier endorsement. It seemed a little odd, but not too far out of line in a city where truth and reality are regularly mangled in the quest to keep business as usual on track.
The San Diego Free Press ran a profile of candidate Keehn in early February. Contributor Eva Posner met Keehn, found her to be an interesting person and wrote a profile. She certainly didn’t seem to be any kind of troublemaker, having worked in the US Attorney’s Office in San Diego as a federal prosecutor since 1995.
So I thought this political shunning might make fore an interesting item for one of my daily columns. Then two things happened: the SDPD misconduct scandal reached a peak and I started getting emails about this judicial race. I decided to hold off writing the story until I poked around a bit.
The fifteen hundred judges of California’s Superior Court system have it good when it comes to weathering the rigors of re-election campaigns every six years. Opposition to sitting judges is rare, as is publicity about the existence of any electoral oversight. Most judges run unopposed and hence are automatically reelected.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Lisa Schall (the incumbent) appeared to be have matters well in hand for 2014. Her campaign for re-election this year has been endorsed by District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, the Alliance of California Judges and all 127 sitting judges in the San Diego Superior Court.
Last time out (2008) she ran unopposed, as did 48 of the 51 judges up for re-election that year. This year there are five candidates opposing sitting judges. And that apparently is a trend that doesn’t sit well with the city’s legal establishment.
Changing the Rules…
Carla Keehn was endorsed by the Tom Homann Law Association on October 3rd for a seat on the San Diego County Superior Court. On February 6th, the group apparently updated its bylaws and rescinded all previous endorsements in light of the fact she was running against a sitting judge..
Hence the lede in the UT-San Diego story:
A candidate challenging a longtime Superior Court judge in the June primary election says she is being pressured to drop out by a legal organization she belongs to and by some judges.
The candidate, federal prosecutor Carla Keehn, said she won’t drop her bid to replace San Diego Superior Court Judge Lisa Schall.
Thou Shalt Not…
The big deal here is the 11th commandment for lawyers, which states, “Thou Shalt Not Run Against Incumbent Judges.” Tom Homann president Nicholas J Fox reportedly wanted challenger Keehn out of the race because of concerns about putting the group in a potentially awkward situation. The UT story quoted him in an email saying,“Openly challenging a sitting judge can be seen by some as undermining the support and relationship we have worked so hard to build.”
Then Keehn sought the endorsement of the County Democratic Central Committee. The Committee endorsed two incumbent judges (Michael Popkins and Cynthia Bashant), but when it came time to vote on Carla Keehn, it was suddenly “too political” and the consensus was the committee should “refrain from being involved in the judiciary.” Judge Paula Rosenstein was at the meeting and spoke about the party staying out of it.
Attorney Richard L. Duquette, a member of the Central Committee, was dissatisfied with this decision and fired off an email in protest. Here’s a partial text::
The failure to endorse Ms. Keehn, merely because she is a challenger, does not show patience or prudence. Rather, it reveals weakness. Surely, the Committee is well aware that Ms. Keehn’s candidacy would be severely hamstrung if it lacked her own Party’s endorsement, especially after the Committee has forsaken its judicial independence by endorsing the sitting judges.
I have also heard arguments that withholding the endorsement of Ms. Keehn does not prevent her eventual success because she may be appointed by the Governor. Of course, this process is not only speculative, but also lengthy. It would likely take well over two years for such an appointment, (if it ever comes, given the nature of the Executive Branch). Further, such delay ignores the importance of immediacy when change is required.
Need I point out that the Republicans are promoting their own candidates, many of whom are groomed by large corporations, or large law firms that service them? We need diverse candidates, not servants to corporate America who have Lily white souls. Further, we cannot ignore lessons provided by the 2000 Presidential election (Bush v. Gore) and the influence of the conservative Supreme Court’s Justices on the eventual outcome.
In this coming election, an immediate opportunity is available and Ms. Keehn has a legal right to run. There is no justifiable reason to withhold endorsement of a viable Democratic candidate. This is particularly true when the sitting Judge has suffered an arrest, criminal conviction, judicial reprimands, and numerous appellate reversals. We, as a unified group, are duty-bound to investigate not only these issues, but also any financial investments that may create an appearance of impropriety. (One such source is the Fair Political Practices 700 Form, which are available on line.) Are they beholden or deeply invested in the insurance industry while sitting on injury victims cases or in companies that outsource American jobs strictly to line their investment pockets?
The fact that a sitting judge has not yet been removed should not provide relief from continuous scrutiny, nor should our Committee shrink from backing the campaign of one of its own. We should also investigate Democratic Judges up for re-election in order to determine if they are truly Democrats, in order to uphold the integrity of a Democratic endorsement.
San Diego Dems for Equality were also going to vote on endorsing Keehn. But Judge Rosenstein reportedly spoke to Doug Case, club president, and the item was removed from the agenda. Carla Keehn was uninvited to the meeting where she was supposed to make her case for the club’s backing.
********************************
An Important Update
Representatives from the San Diego Democrats for Equality have contacted me and are adamant in their denials that the incident as recounted above never happened. They say the group is proceeding as planned with judicial endorsements at the previously scheduled time at their April meeting and that Carla’s candidacy is on that agenda.
Given that the candidate IS getting a fair shake, I say “Bravo.” So we have conflicting versions of what occurred here. (My sources on this story are standing by their version.) For now I say we have to take the Dems for Equality at their word.
Back to the story….
********************************
The “off the record” warnings have been even worse. Threats have ranged from being told running against an incumbent judge was “suicide” to promises that “life in this county would be miserable” for Keehn and her family unless she dropped out.
For her part, Keehn told the UT that she wasn’t backing down.
“It’s my constitutional right to do so. I’m a qualified candidate. And I think I would make a good judge.”
The X Factor…
Carla Keehn
Now, however, Keehn’s candidacy has attracted the attention of a group of people at war with the judiciary in general and Judge Lisa Schall in particular. Investigating their claims has consumed way too much of my time over the past five days, and it’s impossible for a layman like me to know for sure if they are valid.
Suffice it to say these folks have lots of web presence and are litigious. I believe Judge Schall became a target because of decisions made in divorce and custody cases. Digging a little deeper, I reached the conclusion that I’d stumbled onto a cottage industry of angry people on the losing end of domestic disputes.
These folks are where the numerous emails are coming from about this issue. They’ve filed suit or threatened lawsuits (including RICO claims) against an impressive list of law enforcement, judicial and elected officials. I read the legal papers, scoured the web and have no idea what exactly it is they’re talking about.
Are they fighting for freedom or just fighting mad? Maybe I just don’t get it. I am convinced that I don’t want to share my web platform with them, which I hope explains the paucity of links in this story. (If you’re really curious and have time to kill, just Google “Judge Lisa Schall”)
I’ve corresponded via email with candidate Carla Keehn, who assures me she is not connected with any of these folks, and is just as bewildered as I am.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
On This Day: 1940 – The first televised basketball game was shown. The game featured Fordham University and the University of Pittsburgh from Madison Square Gardens in New York. 1953 – In a Cambridge University laboratory, scientists James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA. 1993 – Federal agents raided the compound of an armed religious cult in Waco, TX. The ATF had planned to arrest the leader of the Branch Davidians, David Koresh, on federal firearms charges. Four agents and six Davidians were killed and a 51-day standoff followed.
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@
Doug Porter
Latest posts by Doug Porter (see all)
- Last Call. Last Column. - December 14, 2018
- Which Presidential Candidate Will You Support in 2020? - December 13, 2018
- Mounting the Assault on Big Gay and Other Drivel From SDSU’s Minimum Wage Scrooge - December 12, 2018
A great piece of work, El Doug.
Maybe one day when this courageous challenge is over for her, Carla Keehn
can write her own account for The Freep.
California elects its judges. It was a progressive reform to prevent oil
companies and railroads from taking over the state. It didn’t work all that
well but then those of us who believe money is corrupting all of politics
aren’t doing much better these days.
The fact that the corporate world, the Wingnutz, evangelicals and other
braying hypes haven’t been running for seats (Gary Kreep excepted) seems
to argue that the crazies and those addicted to money are happy with the
majority of judges already sitting on the benches. In these times, the injection
of a little bit of politics might add some balance to that inviolable world of
professionals who consider themselves beyond the reach of the people.
Hi Doug,
On behalf of the San Diego voters, THANK YOU!!! for writing about a viable candidate for county judicial office being shut out by the local judges intimidating her campaign support base and endorsers.
People need to understand that not only does this violate Ms. Keehn’s rights to run for public office w/o harassment of and by her “professional” colleagues — this violates the voters’ rights as well.
If Ms. Keehn were intimidated not to run against incumbent Judge Lisa Schall, the voters would have no choice but to vote for Schall because she would be only name on the ballot for seat 20.
If Ms. Keehn is unable to garner campaign support, the voters will have no way of knowing of Judge Schall’s multiple admonishments from the Commission on Judicial Performance for ethics breaches; or knowing of the thirty-year stellar record of Ms. Keehn.
So that’s why this article is so important to the citizens of San Diego County.
I must take issue with one aspect of your writing. The families who have gone before Schall, et.al., in the local family courts are portrayed as simply being disgruntled litigants. This is an incorrect, false light portrait.
There’s a major problem in family courts — not just in this county, but all across the country. Divorce has become a multi-faceted and highly profitable big business. People getting divorces are being unnecessarily dragged through years of agony with the finances unnecessarily drained. Its highly profitable to make divorces lengthy and more contentious; with children caught in the middle.
Divorce Corp Inc. just released a documentary on this in January. One can view the trailer at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZTOT6DKfZ8
The powers that be in the San Diego courts are aware of the problem. Just this past Friday the San Diego Superior Courts announced a new program, “One Day Divorce” http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/San-Diego-Superior-Court-One-Day-Divorce-Program-247862271.html
I have never been divorced, or appear in family court, or met Ms. Keehn (although I have sent her campaign site info that I know of this matter). I have my own issues with Schall and local/ state jurists circling the wagons.
Proving once again that San Diego really is a small town, a former Tom Homann LGBT Law Group (THLA) board member was a juror in a 2008 trial. A good woman, she submitted an affidavit to Schall regarding false hearsay documents that somehow got into Schall’s jury room causing a verdict for the other side. Schall refused to even hear oral argument for a new trial.
On February 24, 2014, I sent a letter sent to THLA, requesting that they reinstate their endorsement of Keehn to aid voters to have free choice of who they want to see in judicial seat 20 (and who they do not want to see there!) The former THLA BOD member affidavit was attached to my letter: http://freepdfhosting.com/c6ea904ba2.pdf
And last but not least, this is bothering me: Why is it that DA Bonnie Dumanis always seems to be dancing a little to close to the flame these days when questionable campaigning is involved? THLA endorses and has raised funds for Dumanis’ re-election as DA. Dumanis endorses Schall for judicial re-election, along with “all 127 judges of the San Diego Superior court”.
So thanks again, Doug, for helping to bring this matter to public light. This is a true public service so San Diego County voters can understand that their right of free election choice is being violated by back door politicking.
To the families reading this article, who have been harmed by conflicted souls in family courts: I am so sorry for what has happened to you and your children. Hang in there. Things are changing!
To Assistant U.S. Attorney Keehn:
Bravo to you for not backing down in your run for county judicial seat 20! The people of San Diego County need more brave people like you, who are not afraid to challenge the local political machine — currently masquerading itself as antonymous courts of law comprised of ethical servants of the people.
As an officer of the San Diego Democrats for Equality, I can tell you that we have scheduled all judicial elections for our April meeting. NO judicial races were ever scheduled for any other meetings.
The entire paragraph that mentions our club is false.
See the Important Update to the story above. Other officers with SD Dems for Equality have contacted me and are adamant in their denials.
I had 3 sources on the original paragraph, but gave the organization the benefit of the doubt because, after all, they are going to do the right thing by Carla Keehn.
Three groups of people that “work the truth”: politicians, lawyers and journalists…
Hi Doug, the statement about the San Diego Democrats for Equality is just plain false. As the VP for Political Action for the Club, I was contacted to consider the questions raised by some of the community voices who challenged endorsing in judicial races. The club has not taken any action on this matter, and is scheduled to endorse in the judicial races in April (in fact this schedule to endorse was approved last August and has not changed since then). Whoever provided you with this information, just simply got it wrong. We can listen to arguments, pro or con, that does not mean that our endorsement schedule has changed. And most certainly NO ONE was uninvited. Thanks, Carla Kirkwood
I have asked my sources in this matter for further information and as soon as it is available I will either correct the column or challenge your assertion.
See the Important Update to the story above. Other officers with SD Dems for Equality have contacted me and are adamant in their denials.
I had 3 sources on the original paragraph, but gave the organization the benefit of the doubt because, after all, they are going to do the right thing by Carla Keehn.
Hi Doug, actually we are going to do what the Club intended in the early process of developing our endorsement schedule, last August. It is not a question of an individual, it is a question of process. We will do the “right thing” by any and all candidates in these races, who seek our endorsement, based upon Club guidelines. Did you speak to anyone in the Club prior to going to press?
Hi Doug,
We blogged about this subject on Katy’s Exposure this morning. (Our claim to fame is being a cited reference for a Federal OSHA publication regarding conflicts of interest in U.S. public health policy over illnesses from environmental exposures.)
Please keep us updated on the San Diego Dems for Equality aspect of this matter. We quoted from this San Diego Free Press article in today’s blog: “What’s the difference between a Governor Brown appointed San Diego Judge and a Koch Brother?” Short link: http://wp.me/plYPz-3IM
We left this aspect hanging until there is clarification.
Thanks,
Sharon Kramer
Doug,
Thanks for the update. Can it be clarified further if Judge Rosenstein did indeed contact the organization’s president regarding the group’s potential endorsement of Keehn?
If this is not accurate, we need to make a correction to our blog on Katy’s Exposure.
As it stands now: “San Diego Dems for Equality were also going to vote on endorsing Keehn. But Judge Rosenstein reportedly spoke to Doug Case, club president.…[The San Diego Dems for Equality meeting is reportedly upcoming]”
http://wp.me/plYPz-3IM
If I receive no reply with corroboration for the need to add an addendum, I will assume it is accurate.
And I agree, its good to know that Keehn’s request for endorsement by her peers will be heard.
Thanks
Sharon
The Club maintains that every assertion in that paragraph is untrue, including the part about Judge Rosenstein. Furthermore, Mr. Case says (in an email to me) it’s been a very long time since he’s had any contact of any kind with the judge.
Judge Rosenstein is a past president of San Diego Democrats for Equality (then the San Diego Democratic Club). (As a judge, however, she is not permitted to maintain an affiliation with a partisan organization.) I have not personally discussed this matter with her although she has communicated with at least one other Board member.
We are a grassroots organization. Unlike many other political groups, our membership, not the Board, makes endorsement decisions. I suspect that advocates of both sides of this matter will make their voices heard at our April meeting. As a democratic organization, that’s as it should be.
Doug Case, President
San Diego Democrats for Equality
Dear Doug and Mr. Case,
Thank you for clarifying that. We’re going to update Katy’s Exposure blog, one more time regarding the Rosenstein campaigning methods. When and where is the April meeting? May anyone attend?
Thank you,
Sharon Kramer
San Diego Democrats for Equality meetings are open to the public; however, only club members participate in endorsement debates. Since Judge Rosenstein is a past club president, she would be afforded the opportunity to address the club in addition to candidates. The meeting will be on Thursday, April 24 at 7:00 p.m. (social reception starts at 6:30 p.m.) at the Joyce Beers Uptown Community Center, 3900 Vermont Street in Hillcrest (directly across from Trader Joe’s).
Mr. Case and Doug,
Thank you for the info of when and where the Dems for Equality meeting is. I did some reading last night. With all due respect, Mr. Case, are you certain it is lawful for Judge Rosenstein to speak at your meeting to lobby against an endorsement of Ms. Keehn? I’m pretty sure it isn’t.
Judge Rosenstein’s basic message to the LGBT community is, “I now belong to a group of government employees, sitting judges. If your group, the LGBT community, endorses one of your own, Carla Keehn, to run against one of my group, Lisa Schall; my group is going to use its government muscle to retaliate against your group. So you better just stay out of it.”
(See Feb 10th THLA email to Keehn basically telling her to get off their BOD if she runs against Schall so the sitting judges don’t retaliate against the LGBT community; and that Judges Rosenstein and Rubin delivered the message. http://www.weightiermatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Fox-Email.pdf )
I’m pretty sure that the Canons of Judicial Ethics prohibit Judge Rosenstein from campaigning in this manner.
Judicial Canon 2 “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.”
Judical Canon 5. “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.”
Also, its no longer just Judge Rosenstein that poses a threat of unlawful coercion for you all. It’s now a group-think situation. THLA has already succumbed to the intimidation by the government employed, sitting judges. Their members now have motivation to see you all do the same, so they don’t look foolish and weak to the LGBT community. I would venture to bet that THLA members, particularly those who received a THLA endorsement to be appointed as judge, are lobbying your cross-over members to vote not to endorse Keehn.
And possibly the most bizarre aspect of all: The fellow sitting judge for whom Judge Rosenstein is lobbying by basically trying to scare the LGBT community to distance themselves from Ms. Keehn, is a Republican and has one of the worst judicial reputations in town.
Why is Judge Rosenstein lobbying the San Diego Democrats for Equality against a well qualified Democrat LGBT candidate, to help strengthen the re-election chances of a Republican judge of dubious distinction?
As the saying goes, “Politics makes for strange bedfellows!”
BTW, The way I became aware of this race is because I have long thought that Judge Schall should be removed from office by the Commission on Judicial Performance. The more I look at the race the more I realize there is much more at stake. This race appears to be a civil rights violation of the LGBT community playing out via unethical campaigning and intimidation by government employed sitting judges.
That does not sit well with me. My youngest daughter is a lesbian. I think that what Judge Rosenstein is doing is unlawful.
It is not up to me or our club to determine whether Judge Rosenstein’s communications violate the judicial canons.
I am confident, however, that our members will fairly consider all issues involved, as well as the qualifications of Ms. Keehn, in making an endorsement decision in this race.
Doug Case
Mr. Case,
You write, “I am confident, however, that our members will fairly consider all issues involved, as well as the qualifications of Ms. Keehn, in making an endorsement decision in this race.”
You sound like a fair and wise man. I hope you are right about your members being able to be the same. I’m sure there is no need to tell a leading advocate from the LGBT community that once group-think and bias take hold in a community, it can be very difficult to undo.
Margaret Heffernan gave an excellent Ted Talk on this subject last year. It’s gone worldwide and is now available in 29 languages: “The Dangers of Willful Blindness” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCetmZUzB5w
I wish I had known of this matter before THLA did what they did.
Good fortune to you, Sir
Sharon Kramer
It is up to the Commission for Judicial Performance. But I have to say I am dissappointed at the money spent on this overseeing agency that does virtually nothing in most cases of clear cut Judicial Violations. The only time they do anything is after a Judge has been convicted of a crime. Even then they refuse to give any information in violation of the California Public Records Act.
The California Public Records Act (Statutes of 1968, Chapter 1473; currently codified as California Government Code §§ 6250 through 6276.48) was a law passed by the California State Legislature and signed by the Governor in 1968 requiring inspection and/or disclosure of governmental records to the public upon request, unless exempted by law.
The law is similar to the Freedom of Information Act, except for the fact that “the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business” is enshrined in Article 1 of the California Constitution due to California Proposition 59 (the Sunshine Amendment).
Hi Doug,
FYI, while campaigning via email Judge Lisa Schall has requested that her email be circulated and that people ask her any questions they may have.
We blogged about it on Katy’s Exposure this morning and gave direction of how people may ask Judge Schall their questions.
We cited your article again in our newest blog, “San Diego Superior Court Judge Lisa Schall Offers to Answer Your Questions”
The blog and the directions of how to submit questions to Judge Schall may be read here: http://wp.me/plYPz-3J8
We are only going to publish twenty questions, but will try to send her as many viable ones as we are able.
FYI, statewide coverage:
March 6, California Courts Monitor “Judicial Election Intimidation On Display in San Diego”
Imagine living with a justice system where powerful judges intimidate would-be challengers, threatening careers and clients if anyone dares run against a seated judge. Well, there are those who say (quietly, very quietly of course) that California has just that system, and they point to a San Diego race as the latest example.
It’s unusual for mainstream media outlets to give more than passing coverage to superior court judicial races, but The San Diego Times Union recently broke the story: “A candidate challenging a longtime Superior Court judge in the June primary election says she is being pressured to drop out by a legal organization she belongs to and by some judges.”
The newspaper, perhaps oddly sidestepping the larger story of judicial electoral intimidation, still reports that federal prosecutor Carla Keehn “… is one of five people who have filed to run against judges on the local bench — an unusually high number of challenges to incumbent jurists. Typically judges are re-elected without opposition, as few lawyers will take on a sitting judge for fear of judicial enmity.”
To make matters even more interesting, Keehn is openly gay and some of the pressure comes from a group she belongs to…
I also have my issues with the Downtown Family Court. I cannot even get answers to letters, or admissions of my documents in the court hearing on my 9 year divorce action. The kids have not seen a dime of child support from their millionaire father. I have not received half of our properties or companies. Answers from the courts, have not responded to the question. I have been verbally assaulted by a court clerk, and denied ability to file anything by another. The court system has a huge ethical issue, and does not follow court rules on my case or on the 5 other cases I am helping with for customers of the nonprofit Helping Americans Navigate the Courts. DivorceCorp was a real eye opener, its everything I knew and more… Corruption is out of hand and the players need to be investigated. I am doing my part and investigations have begun. Any help is appreciated. I need computer expertise, and investigative skilled persons. Only together can the litigants that have been tortiously and criminally persecuted have the justice and monetary reimbursements that is required by law. I am glad this is getting out in the open. I will do anything I can to help Keehn.
FYI. The more I look at this, the more I realize how unethical and unlawful this situation really is. Judge Rosenstein has no business abusing Ms. Keehn’s rights to run for an elected office, by unethically working to undermine her campaign. Rosenstein’s abuse of judicial title to advocate for appointment of judges caused a valid endorsement of Keehn to be rescinded by questionable means.
By THLA rescinding their valid endorsement of Keehn and the SD Democratic Party delaying their decision upon Rosenstein’s interfering; Keehn’s ballot statement, which had to be filed by March 7th, gives the appearance that she is not supported by the LGBT and Democratic communities. Her credibility in the eyes of the voters has been undermined.
Irreparable damage has been done to Keehn and to voters’ rights. Voters have no way of knowing that Ms. Keehn’s lack of endorsements are a result of unethical lobbying by appointed judges. This should not be permitted to be made worse by organizations or judicial supervisors allowing Rosenstein to speak further on the subject.
I filed a complaint on Friday with the Superior Court Presiding Judge under California Rules of the Court Rule 10.703. One can read it online here: http://wp.me/plYPz-3JY
Complaint to San Diego Presiding Judge for Subordinate Jurists’ Election Tampering
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.
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 prestigious title bestowed upon her by appointment –“judge”.
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.
Judge Schall is a very professional and compassionate judge who has EARNED her position. She was interviewed by the Judicial Council, recommended to the Governor, and appointed. She was vetted, appointed, and has need holding that position with dignity. It seems like a deputy attorney general couldn’t make the cut with the judicial council and couldn’t get appointed by the governor; now wants to have voters send her to the bench. But what do we really know about her? I say we trust what we know, Judge Schall has been committed to the community she serves as seen by the support of every sitting judge. We at Southland Law support Judge Schall.
Dear Mr. or Mrs. Wagner,
It may behoove you to check Judge Schall’s actual 29 year record before publicly promoting the concept that she is a “professional and compassionate” judge.
For good cause, many disagree with that statement.
Twenty plus questions posed to her in March 2014 that she has yet to answer: http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/voter-questions-posed-to-san-diego-judicial-candidate-lisa-schall/