Verified Statement Accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of Bias, Ex Parte Conduct and False Records

Article overview: A verified statement in Law v. Byrdsong accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of bias, ex parte conduct, blocking legal argument and creating false records. The accusations are presented as the filer’s sworn claims, not as judicial findings.

“I Filed A lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles after my acquittal on July 10, 2018, for false
imprisonment which lasted for a period of two years. Detective Sharbach let the man go that tried to kill me and bound me over for trial based on false allegations after she had full knowledge that she did not perform an investigation. She presented false testimony at the preliminary hearing, which was so baseless and groundless that they refused to repeat it to the Jury. The lawsuit was filed on May 23rd, 2019.

Subsequently the case was assigned to Rupert A Byrdsong dept 28. Rupert A. Byrdsong failed to remain impartial and deliberately blocked any argument on law. and argued the law on behalf of the defendant in a false imprisonment case. a case involving civil liberties being taken without the benefit of due process.

Rupert A Byrdsong refused to allow me a chance to argue my case in a court of law and did
indeed argue on behalf of the defendant. and used a little blue book to back up his argument that my statute of limitations tolled while i was in custody. Does my statute of limitation toll while I’m in custody?

Rupert A. Byrdsong could not ask the court clerk to participate in criminal activity in court, so Rupert A. Byrdsong left the bench, met with the defendant at the clerk’s desk, and proceeded to perform the duty of the clerk. Thereby making the court clerk a witness to an injustice rather than a witness for justice.

Rupert A Byrdsong assisted in filing perjured document with the court stating that he heard Argument when in fact he was the only one arguing in the case, that I van Laws statue of Limitation’s toll while in custody.

Rupert A. Byrdsong deliberately committed Obstruction of Justice with reckless disregard for the law.

Rupert A. Byrdsong failed to recuse himself after reading the briefs and gaining Knowledge that we both had a relationship with Stevie Wonder and KJLH Radio station. He soured after I tried to buy radio airtime to announce my award…

Conclusion: rather than recuse himself, Rupert A. Byrdsong chose to show Stevie Wonder and KJLH Radio Station that they have a judge in their pocket. And when he sees their name in a brief, his oath of office and duty to the constitution are not more important to him than his relationship with Stevie Wonder and KJLH Radio station.

Rupert A. Byrdsong did in fact violate my civil rights….”

Could everyone be lying when they have reported that Byrdsong has engaged in misconduct?

The Council on Judicial Performance (CJP) has likely disciplined him.

And is it fair to other judges who do not have friends (and former business partner Ricke Ivie at the firm Ivie McNeil, Wyatt, and whoever, who defend police that kill minorities)?

Why alleged false records and ex parte conduct are explosive

The verified statement accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of bias, ex parte conduct and creating false records. Those allegations attack the integrity of the court’s own process: private communication denies adversarial testing, while a false record can corrupt review of everything that follows.

Continue with the Judge Rupert Byrdsong source archive.

Related reading: For related context, read Filed Pleading Says Judge Rupert Byrdsong Cooked for Jurors to Curry Favor, Declaration Says Judge Rupert Byrdsong Tried to Sway a Jury by Cooking for Jurors, Filing Accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of Taking Cases From Juries and Picking Winners.