Judge Byrdsong: Judicial Corruption?

“Judge Byrdsong’s rulings finding Plaintiff’s counsel of having ex parte communications with the Discovery Referee were particularly malicious given that he absolutely knew what an ex parte communication was when he made these rulings. Judge Byrdsong engaged in actual ex parte communication(s) and other improper, biased conduct with Judge Bowick, made multiple appearances in court in front of the jury, and also spoke with her behind closed doors at one point, apparently, during the litigation of Ross v. Bassett Unified School District, LASC case number 19STCV22820 (89 Cal.App.5th 273 (2023)). Judge Byrdsong’s friend, attorney Bernard Alexander, along with the Judge’s former firm colleagues, was engaged as counsel in that case, and Judge:

Byrdsong was there to cheer them on. According to defendants, he attempted to influence ruling outcomes against them. That conduct and ex parte communications resulted in a writ of mandate being filed by the party not initially privy to the ex parte communications of Judge Byrdsong, who was, inter alia, represented by Greines, Martin, Stein & Richard. Greines, Martin, Stein & Richard also happen to be Farmers appellate counsel—to whom Judge Byrdsong is at a2 minimum morally indebted due to his biased conduct against them, resulting in a $25 million award against their client and in favor of his buddies. Accordingly, the Judge should have recused himself in this case at that time, having a clear conflict of interest.”