Memorial Day seems the appropriate day to send you this message. This is the day that all those who have given their lives to defend the Constitutional rights of United States citizens are honored.
On May 20th, you sent an eblast to “Friends and Voters” stating which candidates you endorse for San Diego County Superior Court seats in the upcoming June 3rd elections. Your endorsement email came with the suggestion that it be forwarded to others; and with your offer to provided more information and answer questions of those in receipt of your email. To quote:
“Dear Friends and Voters
Because the makeup of the state trial court bench is so important to the administration of justice, I would like to provide the following information for you to consider as you cast your vote. Four of my colleagues have been challenged and are seeking to continue serving the Court: Michael Popkins, Ron Prager, Lisa Schall and Jackie Stern. I believe that all of them should be re-elected.….In Office # 20, Judge Lisa Schall….She is endorsed by law enforcement and community leaders, including City Attorney Jan Goldsmith and Public Defender Henry Coker, as well as all 125 sitting judges and over 15 retired judges…..she has made decisions based on what she believes is right, not on what is politically popular. Her opponent has no judicial experience, and the County Bar rates Judge Schall as more highly qualified…..Please feel free to pass this information on if you find it helpful, and let me know if you have any questions or need any further information. Above all, please vote on or before June 3! Thank you for your attention. Judge Bob Longstreth”
The reason we require further information is because Judge Schall has avoided answering voters’ questions – even though she, too, sent an eblast similar to yours offering to do so on March 7th. Judge Schall sent the following while fundraising. She wrote,
“Dear friends, counsel and colleagues:
I am running for re-election on June 3rd. I have served over 7 years as a Deputy District Attorney and now over 28 years as a San Diego Superior Court Judge. (CV attached) Some of you know me professionally others socially. I believe that I have a reputation for being fair and balanced. I am asking for your help…[there’s more here]…I am asking you to help me by circulating my name and website. I am glad to respond to any questions you may have, simply respond to this email. Thank you for taking the time to read my request. Please do not use public agency computer sites or addresses to distribute, use only your private email.
Judge Lisa Schall (Re-Elect 2014) JudgeSchall.com”
As such, perhaps you could help the candidate for whom you are encouraging others to vote for Jurist Seat 20, Lisa Schall, by helping to answer the voters’ questions that have thus far gone unanswered. They are below in this email.
But before we get into those, there are four more key questions which deserve answers from Judge Schall and her endorsers within the county’s judicial, government, and law enforcement community:
Your email states that Judge Schall “is endorsed by law enforcement and community leaders”. Do you know why the county’s foremost law enforcement leader, San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, was named as Judge Schall’s #1 endorser on Schall’s website in February, but the endorsement was removed from public view in March?
As you know, Keehn is the challenger to Judge Schall’s Seat 20. She’s a cum laude Princeton grad, former military captain, and federal prosecutor with an exemplary track record of many years. Who felt they had the legal right to unilaterally direct the destruction of her campaign advertising?
The billboard company that destroyed Keehn’s advertising, told Keehn on May 9th that “pressure” was put on them to do so. But they would not say pressure coming from whom. One may view the video of ABC News10 attempting to track down Judge Schall, to no avail, to ask her what she knows of who did it to her campaign’s benefit: HERE
It must have been pressure coming from someone pretty big and politically well-connected as the billboard company, Clear Channel, is no Mom and Pop business. It is a national media corporation headquartered in Texas with many political ties in Washington, D.C. It couldn’t have just been Clear Channel, all on their own, who decided to destroy Keehn’s truthful ads. They helped to compose it.
Do you know if it is a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics for San Diego Superior Court Presiding Judge David Danielson to not send notification to a Complainant of his receipt of a Complaint against his subordinate jurists, Paula Rosenstein, David Rubin, and Lisa Schall for conclusively election tampering on behalf of Schall in February and March of this year? As claimed on Schall’s website, Judge Danielson, like you, is among the “all 125 San Diego Superior Court judges” endorsing Schall’s re-election.
We know that it is a violation of California Rules of the Court for Presiding Judge Danielson to provide no written acknowledgement of complaints he has received.
Court Rule 10.703(f)(3) states, “The presiding judge must give written notice of receipt of the complaint to the complainant.”
Court Rule 10.703(c)(1) states “A court that employs a subordinate judicial officer must use the procedures in this rule for processing complaints against the subordinate judicial officer[s] if the complaint alleges conduct that if alleged against a judge would be within the jurisdiction of the commission under article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution.”
Just wondering what Canons of Judicial Ethics he violated when not acknowledging a receipt of a Complaint that you all’s fellow jurist endorsers of Schall and Schall herself, should be admonished for using this race to bully Keehn’s endorsers not to endorse, while unethically advocating for life-time judicial appointments – not subject to voter ousting. (See more on the subordinate jurists’ ethics violations in the twenty-plus questions below; or read about it in one of the numerous media articles of the matter; such as “Thou Shalt Not Challenge a Sitting Judge”)
In addition to violating Rules of the Court, we’re pretty sure that like his subordinates, Presiding Judge Danielson also violated Canons of Judicial Ethics. Those would be Canons 2, 2B(2), 3C(4), 4A(2) and 5, when he failed to provide written notice to the Complainant of a complaint received. I know he received it, because when I called on April 14th a clerk filling in in Danielson’s office informed me over the phone that the Complaint was in the legal department. I have not heard a word since and obviously, no one has been punished for the judicial ethics violations.
Here’s why we think that this is an additional Judicial Ethics violation when election tampering on behalf of the incumbent judge in the race for Seat 20, via the Rules of the Court violations of Danielson as noted above. What do you think?
Canon 2 states, “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
Canon 2B(2) states, “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.”
Canon 3C(4) states “A judge with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other judges shall take reasonable measures to ensure the prompt disposition of matters before them and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilities.”
Canon 4A(2) states. “Extrajudicial Activities in General. A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extrajudicial activities so that they do not (2) demean the judicial office.”
And 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.” (Judge Danielson is also running for re-election. Unopposed, he’s a shoe-in.)
The additional 20 plus questions we posed to Judge Schall in March, coming from several voters are restated below. If you could be so kind as to answer the ones you know plus the four new ones stated above, so that voters may be better informed when they go to vote on June 3rd, it would be greatly appreciated.
Perhaps you could even get your endorsee, Judge Lisa Schall, to help you answer them. She is being cc’d on this email. The voters have not been able to obtain the pertinent answers from her. Maybe as her endorser, you will have better luck.
You have my return email address. Like this email, your answers will be posted on Katy’s – assuming of course that you are a man of your word to your “Friends and Voters” with your offer of:
“Please feel free to pass this information on if you find it helpful, and let me know if you have any questions or need any further information”.
People would like to understand why you and all your fellow sitting judges, would endorse Judge Lisa Schall to remain in public office, when she is publicly known to have “the least favorable ethics record” of all jurists in the entire state.
Thank you in advance for your prompt reply. With June 3rd right around the corner and absentee ballots already being cast, you are right. The voters do need to understand why “the makeup of the state trial court bench is so important to the administration of justice” as they get out and vote!
As you know, your challenger for San Diego County Superior Court (“seat 20″) is federal attorney Carla Keehn. Because of questionable campaign tactics that have been used by local sitting judges, this race has gained media attention rarely seen in judicial elections. On February 24, 2014, the San Diego Union Tribune published an article regarding this race and the campaign tactics of sitting judges. The article is entitled “Judge candidate feels gaveled down”. On February 28, 2014, the San Diego Free Press published an article regarding the tactics used to cause non-endorsements for Ms. Keehn entitled, “Thou Shalt Not Challenge a Sitting Judge”. On March 6, 2014, the California Court Monitor published an article. This article claims that the local sitting judge tactics are indicative of a statewide problem impacting voters’ rights to elect judicial court officers of their choosing. Their article is titled, “Judicial Election Intimidation On Display in San Diego“
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 the above, the following are people’s questions found to be most relevant to the race for seat 20 and relevant to the underlying issues at hand. Due largely to fear of reprisal from sitting judges for publicly asking pointed questions, the questions are posed to you anonymously. Please answer them prior to Judge Rosenstein’s next known scheduled speaking engagement, March 18th, regarding San Diego sitting judges’ desire for the local Democratic Party to not endorse your challenger, Keehn. Your answers will aid potential endorsers, campaign funders, and voters to gain greater understanding of underlying issues encompassed in the race for jurist seat 20.
1. On October 3, 2013, Tom Homann LGBT Law Association (“THLA”) endorsed their Board of Director (“BOD”) member, Carla Keehn, for election as a Superior Court jurist. In February of 2014, the BOD withdrew their prior multi-seat endorsement by questionable means of changing policy after-the fact — then claiming this change negated the prior endorsement of Keehn. On February 10, 2014, an email was sent from THLA BOD member, Mr. Fox, to Ms. Keehn. The email details that the organization’s members and BOD felt threatened that retaliation and ostracizing would come to them and to the LGBT community from San Diego County (“Superior Court”) sitting judges; if they endorsed Keehn in her run against you, a sitting judge. According to the Fox email, the message of potential retaliation and ostracizing was delivered to THLA by your fellow sitting judges, Judge Paula Rosenstein and Judge David Rubin.
a.) In light of the above information corroborated by the links read in footnotes 3- 5 and 7-10; do you think Judges Rosenstein and Rubin could be perceived as violating Canons of Judicial Ethics 2.B.(2) and 5? I.e. misuse of prestige of judicial office to intimidate endorsers of a challenger to a sitting judge.
b.) Do you think your re-election campaign in the capacity as the incumbent sitting judge has been an intended beneficiary of Rosenstein’s and Rubin’s actions?
c.) Do you think that Judges Rosenstein’s and Rubin’s acts are beneficial to themselves and all Superior Court appointed judges by dissuading challenges to judicial office via voter election?
d.) Do you think their acts show intent to undermine the campaign credibility and funding of any citizen who dares to challenge a sitting judge by election?
e.) Do you think their acts show intent to increase difficulty of raising voter awareness of reasons to vote some appointed judges out of office?
f.) Given that Judges Rosenstein’s and Rubin’s campaign tactics have raised eyebrows to the point that they have been found newsworthy by several professional journalists; do you think that 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 “judges”.
g.) Do you think that 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”?
2. a.) Have you and fellow sitting Judge Rosenstein communicated regarding her actions and/or communications with others which have aided to cause Keehn’s potential endorsers, not to endorse her in a race against a sitting judge?
b.) If so, on what dates and is there any relevant communication in your possession that is in writing?
3. a.) Have you and fellow sitting Judge Rubin communicated regarding his communications to THLA members which have aided to cause Keehn’s potential endorsers, not to endorse her in a race against a sitting judge?
b.) If so, on what dates and is there any relevant communication in your possession that is in writing?
4. Judge Rosenstein is a Democrat. She is scheduled to speak before the San Diego Democratic Party Central Committee, on March 18, 2014 and again before the San Diego Democrats for Equality on March 27, 2014.* 
Footnotes 11- 13
 March 18, 2014 SD Democratic Party Central Committee meeting where Rosenstein is scheduled to speak again for non-endorsement of candidate Keehn http://www.sddemocrats.org/events.asp
 March 4, 2014 Comment Posts by Dems for Equality BOD members Re: Rosenstein lobbying them not to endorse Keehn. Mixed information received from sources of date Rosenstein is to speak* http://freepdfhosting.com/7471fc2157.pdf
The subject of her presentations is to encourage non-endorsement from the Democrats for Keehn’s race against a Republican sitting judge, you. Rosenstein’s prior speaking before the Central Committee of the San Diego Democratic Party on February 18, 2014 prejudicially aided to cause Keehn to appear to voters to be the only Democrat judicial candidate not endorsed by her party. Judge Rosenstein’s actions have also caused Keehn to have to timely file her ballot statement by March 7, 2014, while appearing to have no endorsement within the Democratic and the LGBT communities.
a.) As the sitting judge who is directly benefiting from sitting judges Rosensteins’ and Rubin’s actions, do you have an ethical obligation to dissuade your fellow sitting judges from abusing prestige of judicial office to your benefit?
b.) Are you intending to discourage sitting Judge Rosenstein from making further prejudicial presentations to Keehn’s potential endorsers?
c.) Do you think the presiding judge of the Superior Court should dissuade sitting judges from violating Canons of Judicial Ethics?
5. a.) Do you think voters should have the right to elect the judges of the Superior Court?
b.) Why or why not?
6. In 1985, you were appointed to judicial office by a Governor Duekmajian.
a.) Prior to 2014, has there ever been an election challenger to your judicial seat?
b.) If so, in what years?
7. a.) Who are and have been donors to your campaigns for judicial office?
b.) Who are the persons in receipt of your solicitation for donations via your email sent from you to them on March 7, 2014?
8. Your campaign website now states that your re-election is endorsed by “All 125 judges of the San Diego Superior Court”. This was changed approximately one week ago from the claimed endorsement of “All 127 judges of San Diego Superior Court”.
a.) Who are the two people who are no longer Superior Court judges causing your number of “All” to be reduced by two?
b.) Did you include yourself among your stated 127 judicial endorsers?
 February 18, 2014 Democratic Party Central Committee Member Duquette Email Regarding his concerns of Rosenstein’s influence over Keehn non-endorsement at this meeting: http://freepdfhosting.com/5d87bcf215.pdf
9. How can the public access written proof of your stated endorsement from “All 125 judges of the San Diego Superior Court”?
10. Your website makes the claim that your re-election is endorsed by the “Alliance of California Judges” (“ACJ”). This is an organization which claims to be comprised of over 500 California judges and justices, statewide, who keep their members’ names confidential.
a.) Why is the ACJ endorsement not stated on your ballot statement; but the claimed endorsement is on your website?
b.) What proof do you have of who authorized this claimed endorsement from the ACJ?
c.) Did each of the anonymous members of the unincorporated group provide their individual endorsement to you?
d.) Can you provide evidence that each and every member of the ACJ endorses your re-election?
e.) Have you received communication from anyone associated with the ACJ which caused you not to list them among your endorsers on your ballot statement?
f.) What are the names of the ACJ members/sitting California jurists who you claim endorse your bid for re-election?
11. I was told that in 2008 when a local newspaper reporter tried to find the file of your plea bargain for your 2007 DUI arrest, that the court records department indicated that they could not locate the file.
a.) Do you have information of why the records may be unavailable to the public and reporters?
b.) What is the case number?
12. In 1995, a litigant refused to re-enter your courtroom for fear she would become angry because she claimed you would not let her tell her side of the story. According to the records, you sent your bailiff into the hallway to arrest the litigant who was then sent to jail for five days without a contempt of court hearing. In 1999, you were publicly admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”) for this abuse.
a.) Did you ever apologize to the litigant for your breach of judicial ethics causing her five days of false imprisonment?
b.) If not, why not?
c.) Was any restitution for the false imprisonment by your hand, ever paid to harmed litigant?
13. In 1995, were you privately admonished by the CJP for giving custody of a minor to her mother whose live-in boyfriend, “de facto father”, was known to the courts to have been established as molesting the child? (fn 24, 2008 public admonishment indicates a private admonishment involving a minor)
20. In light of less California court employed court reporters, do you feel it is important that litigants have access to the original tapes of proceedings in which tapes are the official record? Smith v. U.S. District Court Officers 203 F.3d 440 (2000)
(Questions 21-23 are from Sharon Kramer)
21. As a judicial officer of the court, is it your standard practice that when a juror’s declaration is submitted to you stating that prejudicial hearsay documents not discussed in a trial somehow entered your court’s jury room, were read aloud by a juror, and influenced the verdict; that you refuse to even hear oral arguments for a new trial?
22. As a judicial officer of the court, is it your standard practice that when direct evidence of a litigant’s material perjury is provided to you, for you to “not be drawn into that kind of petty behavior” of making the litigant’s attorney explain himself regarding his client’s perjury and his repeated suborning/benefiting from it in your court? 
23. As you are well aware, several of your fellow sitting jurists who now endorse your re-election, have collusively committed criminal acts without subject matter jurisdiction by their continued usage of a 2008 void judgment issued from your court in the matter of Bruce J. Kelman & GlobalTox, Inc. v. Sharon Kramer Case No. GIN044539.  
a.) As a sitting judge and candidate for voter re-election to public office, what do you intend to do to mitigate the continuing damage to the United States public caused by your endorsers using the void judgment that was falsified in your court? 
b.) As a judge, your decisions impact the lives of many. Do you feel it is prudent for judges to admit error when error is proven to exist; or do you think people should have to sue judges in federal court to mitigate the damage from concealment of errors?
24. Do you think silence is a valid response when jurists are faced with irrefutable evidence of wrong-doing?
 Direct evidence Schall knew of material plaintiff perjury impacting her rulings; Schall refusal to be “drawn into that kind of petty behavior” of punishing for crime in Schall’s court, and CJP refusal to punish several court officers for their suborning perjury, etc. http://freepdfhosting.com/246e6ad4b3.pdf
 2013, Sitting Justices Judith McConnell and Patricia Benke concealment and continued usage, coram non judice, of Schall 2008 falsified judgment. Second demand for proof of jurisdiction – which never came. http://freepdfhosting.com/6dcb2f89ba.pdf
 “Environmental Advocate Sharon Kramer ~US DOJ Lying Experts~Cal Courts & Mold~ Not a pretty story!!” http://wp.me/PlYPz-3AJ
25. Are you of the opinion that there are serious problems in the California judicial branch and its ancillary agencies; or do you feel that no real change is needed?
On behalf of San Diego County voters and those who submitted questions, I thank you for your offer to answer questions in an effort to bring clarity to the matter at hand. We look forward to receipt of your timely reply.