Judge Rupert Byrdsong – The Fix Always Seems To Be In!
Everyone this judge seems to sleep with becomes a judge. That is why his wife and ex-wife, also both named “Judge Byrdsong,” are on the bench — which is consistent with his bragging about his connections to get others appointed as judges.
Filed March 14, 2023
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Second Appellate District, Division Five
Excerpt: INTRODUCTION
This writ proceeding involves a statutory challenge for cause filed against a trial court judge presiding over a wrongful termination lawsuit. The parties are plaintiff Michael Ross and his former employer, defendant Bassett Unified School District.
Following a multimillion-dollar jury verdict in favor of Ross, the trial judge in this action, Honorable Stephanie Bowick, received a text message from another judge on the court, Honorable Rupert Byrdsong, who was helping his former firm, Ivie McNeill Wyatt Purcell & Diggs, secure a large verdict with his influence.
It is interesting to note that Byrdsong and his former firm use their status as African-Americans to get contracts to defend police who kill African-Americans.
According to Judge Bowick:
“I received a text message from Judge Byrdsong on my cellphone that stated, quote, ‘$25 Million!! 🎉🎉.’ I did not respond to the text message.”
Judge Byrdsong had previously informed Judge Bowick that attorneys from his former firm were trying the case.
On one occasion he had greeted Ross’s counsel in Judge Bowick’s courtroom during a break in the proceedings and later brought Judge Bowick a food item. On another, Judge Byrdsong had briefly observed, from the audience, the jury selection in Judge Bowick’s courtroom, until Judge Bowick had a note passed to him asking him to leave.
Upon receipt of the postverdict text message, Judge Bowick disclosed to the parties the entire course of events involving Judge Byrdsong. Pointing to Judge Byrdsong’s apparent support for Ross and the resulting verdict in Ross’s favor, the school district sought Judge Bowick’s disqualification, asserting that a:
“person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(A)(iii)).
