Court Filing Details Ex Parte Communications and Alleges Corruption by Judge Rupert Byrdsong

A pencil eraser pressing down on the scales of justice, symbolizing the erasure or undermining of law

Article overview: A court filing describes alleged ex parte communications involving Judge Rupert Byrdsong and accuses him of biased conduct and judicial corruption. The post presents the filing’s account and related case references.

SEO structure updated July 24, 2026.

“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.”

Why alleged ex parte contact strikes at basic fairness

Off-record communication concerning a pending dispute denies the excluded party notice and an opportunity to respond. The filing’s corruption allegation is severe, and the right way to evaluate it is to confront the cited communications and procedural record directly.

Continue with the Judge Rupert Byrdsong source archive.

Spread the love


The National Black Lawyers

top 40 lawyers

civil trial law

Lawyers of Distinction

Loading...

Recent Blog Articles

In-Custody Deaths, Toxicology, and the End of Excited Delirium in California

California bars excited delirium as a diagnosis and civil evidence. Learn what AB 360 means for in-custody death toxicology and section 1983 causation.

Spread the love

Read More

Vehicle Code Section 21221: What Actually Applies to a Motorized Scooter Rider

California Vehicle Code section 21221 applies driver rules to scooter riders, while section 21221.5 creates a separate $250 under-the-influence offense.

Spread the love

Read More

An E-Bike Is Not a Motor Vehicle: Beale v. DMV Bars Refusal Suspensions

Beale v. DMV held that California cannot suspend a driver’s license for chemical-test refusal arising from an electric-bicycle ride. Analysis of the ruling, controlling statutes, limits, and defense strategy.

Spread the love

Read More

Speak with an expert today!

Contact the offices of Okorie Okorocha for professional and reliable advice which you can trust.

Call (424) 363-3347 Contact Us