Filing Accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of Protecting Bernard Alexander Over Due Process

Article overview: A filing accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of protecting his relationship with attorney Bernard Alexander over due process, impartiality and judicial canons. The post presents that accusation and the requested recusal.

SEO structure updated July 24, 2026.

Judge Byrdsong must not hear this motion. Despite his extreme and demonstrable bias, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against Plaintiff and his counsel, Judge Byrdsong has refused to recuse himself. Based on religious observance, this constitutes a denial of constitutional rights, and he must do so immediately.

Plaintiff and his counsel do not waive these realities. Judge Byrdsong continues to put his own agenda — and that of his friend Bernard Alexander — above the law, due process, and the Judicial Canons he swore to uphold. He has also repeatedly told untruths under oath, created false records, and denied Plaintiff and his counsel due process of law. Plaintiff and his counsel waive none of this in seeking to enforce the Settlement Agreement and dismissal of the action on September 25, 2024, to finally end this outrageous and unjust litigation.

This has happened before to Plaintiff’s counsel and to other Jewish counsel, one of whom was actually monetarily sanctioned for not appearing at a hearing on a religious holiday. He had to pay money because he wanted to observe his religion.

However, Judge Byrdsong is especially pleased with himself for engaging in cruelty toward Plaintiff’s counsel and depriving her of her constitutionally mandated civil rights — conduct identical to that which his buddy Bernard Alexander has engaged in and/or condoned. Judge Byrdsong has faced no material consequences for any of the conduct he engaged in whatsoever. He continues to go to other courtrooms and influence judges against the attorney target of his bias, or those of his friends. He taints discovery referees and judges alike on an ongoing basis, even after his conduct was exposed in a published appellate opinion. He knows he is above the law.

Excerpt from “Plaintiff Costigan’s Reply Regarding His Motion for an Order Enforcing the Parties’ Mutual Full and Final Settlement Agreement,” filed by Nancy Anfanger, attorney for the Plaintiff, on January 17, 2025, in Los Angeles Superior Court case titled Costigan vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange, a reciprocal interinsurance exchange, et al., Case No. 20STCV18816.

Update: Nancy Anfanger was successful in her long-term campaign to force Judge Byrdsong to recuse himself.

Why the filed protection allegation matters

The filing accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of protecting Bernard Alexander at the expense of due process. When a judge’s relationship or favoritism is alleged to affect rulings, disclosure and impartiality are not technicalities—they are the foundation of a legitimate proceeding.

Continue with the Judge Rupert Byrdsong source archive.

Related reading: For related context, read Published Opinion Records Judge Rupert Byrdsong’s ‘$25 Million!!’ Text to the Trial Judge, Sworn Declaration Accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of Undisclosed Relationships and Retaliation, Filed Pleading Says Judge Rupert Byrdsong Cooked for Jurors to Curry Favor.