have recused 2 Judges in Orange County
and are going after 2 in Sonoma County!
and Judge Tansel of Sonoma County
have been recused and now are under
investigation threw the Judgical Counsel.
IF you like what you hear, then we
will tell you more. We are ACTIVISTS,
We do what we say, we don't bark we
If these 2 judges
think it can't happen to them, THINK
AGAIN! Judge accused of lying in DUI
State panel's investigation of Rushing
includes charges of trying to avoid
By RANDI ROSSMANN
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Wednesday, Feb
While trying to get out of a drunken-driving
arrest last year, Sonoma County
Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing
invoked her position and lied repeatedly,
according to a complaint made public
Tuesday by a state watchdog agency.
Rushing told a CHP officer that
she bent the rules in her courtroom
to help police and he should do
the same for her, the complaint
She also told
authorities she was in the back seat
when her Porsche crashed in a ditch
on Riebli Road - but the two-seat
car had no back seat.
Rushing, 57, could
be admonished, censured or even removed
from the bench if the three-count
complaint by the state Commission
on Judicial Performance is sustained.
Rushing declined to comment.
Rushing is required
to respond officially to the charges
She was arrested
June 21. Authorities said Rushing
crashed into a stone wall outside
a Crystal Drive home and drove away
without contacting the owner. She
later crashed into a ditch alongside
In August, she
pleaded no contest to drunken driving
and was given a 10-day jail sentence
to be served on work-release, three
years' probation and mandatory alcohol
In two tests,
her blood alcohol level registered
.21 and .19, more than double the
legal limit for driving.
Rushing, who had
meted out long sentences in several
high-profile drunken-driving cases,
disqualified herself from criminal
cases after he arrest but has been
hearing civil cases.
Her case was settled
in a plea bargain with prosecutors,
who dropped a second count of drunken
driving and a hit-and-run charge.
The CHP arrest
report never was made public, but
details were included in the commission's
In an effort to
avoid being arrested, the complaint
said she lied repeatedly to passers-by,
firefighters and CHP officers.
Rushing also is
accused of trying to get out of the
arrest by repeatedly telling officers
she was a judge and her husband was
an appellate judge.
After she ran
into the ditch, a motorist stopped
to ask if she was all right and Rushing
told the person to leave.
"When a second
driver stopped and offered to call
for help, you said, 'we're fine' (even
though you were alone) and told her
not to call anyone. You also falsely
told her that your husband was with
you," according to the commission's
When CHP officers
and firefighters arrived, Rushing
was sitting in the driver's seat.
But she told a
firefighter an unknown woman had been
driving and then changed her story
to say an unknown man had been driving.
She also told
the firefighter that the car keys
had been taken by the male driver
when he ran from the crash.
When CHP Officer
Jeremy Holeman arrived to investigate,
he asked Rushing what happened. She
said she wasn't the driver and two
other people had been in the car.
Rushing said she
didn't know their names and had met
them at a friend's home.
Rushing also told
the officer she'd been sitting in
the back seat at the time of the crash
even though the car had no back seat,
the complaint said.
(Jeremy) Holeman asked you how much
alcohol you had consumed, you first
answered, 'two bottles,' then said,
'two glasses,' " the complaint
After being arrested
on suspicion of drunken driving, her
car was towed and she was driven to
the CHP office in Rohnert Park before
being released to her husband, Conrad
Rushing, a state appellate court justice.
According to the
complaint, as she was being driven
to the CHP office, Rushing repeatedly
invoked her office, as well as her
husband's "in an effort to avoid
also said Rushing told Holeman that
in court she goes "against court
policies for CHP and other officers"
and said he should extend her the
When Holeman told
Rushing that he'd determined she'd
been driving and needed to question
her and have her take sobriety tests,
Rushing told him, "But I'm a
judge, and I told you I wasn't the
driver," the complaint said
Rushing then declined
to answer questions or take any sobriety
in telling the officer she was a judge
and he should not be arresting her
while repeatedly requesting that he
call her husband, the complaint said.
and placed into the patrol car, Rushing
complained about the handcuffs and
asked the officer if he had seen her
Superior Court judge identification
badge, continuing to ask him if he
knew she was a judge.
he take off the handcuffs but was
told he couldn't remove them because
it was CHP policy.
Holeman the handcuffs were too tight,
he helped Rushing out of the car,
checked the handcuffs and had another
officer check them to confirm they
weren't too tight, the complaint said.
Calif. Judge Accused of Abusing
Less than a week after California's
Commission on Judicial Performance
launched formal proceedings against
a Sonoma County judge who allegedly
tried to use her position to avoid
a DUI arrest, another jurist is
facing a similar predicament in
Schwartz pleaded no contest to misdemeanor
charges of driving with a blood alcohol
level of more than twice the legal
limit while in Pismo Beach last summer.
announced Monday that it had begun
formal proceedings into allegations
that Schwartz repeatedly tried to
avoid arrest and receive preferential
treatment because he is a judge.
"It is alleged
that these actions constitute willful
misconduct in office … that brings
the judicial office into disrepute,"
the commission said in a prepared
Schwartz was pulled
over July 16 after police observed
his car "swerving all over the
road." He was arrested after
failing two sobriety tests.
The judge, appointed
to the bench by Gov. Gray Davis in
2003, claims he only had "a couple
of glasses of wine," and at one
point questioned the officers at the
scene: "Is this really necessary,
all this stuff we have to go through?"
According to the
CJP complaint, Schwartz, who is up
for re-election this year, told the
arresting officers that "this
is not a good time."
The officers repeatedly
told the judge that they were simply
trying to be "fair and unbiased."
told the officers: "You know
what this is going to do; this will
substantially impair my career."
One of the officers
responded: "If I let you go,
it could impair my career."
Schwartz are getting under way just
a week after the CJP announced it
would be scrutinizing similar charges
against Sonoma County Superior Court
Judge Elaine Rushing, who tried to
use her position and that of her husband,
6th District Court of Appeal Justice
Conrad Rushing, to avoid being arrested
for drunken driving in June.
Rushing was arrested
after driving into a ditch on the
side of a Santa Rosa road and damaging
a stone wall. Her blood alcohol level
was found to be more than twice the
legal limit. Rushing eventually pleaded
no contest to the incident.
In December, San
Bernardino County Judge Donald Alvarez
was publicly admonished for failing
to report his DUI arrest and conviction
to the commission in a timely manner.
And in 2000, Orange
County Superior Court Judge Gary Ryan,
who is now with JAMS, received a public
admonishment for a DUI.
According to the
complaint, Schwartz was taken down
to the Pismo Beach police station
and told he would be held in custody
until the next morning or until his
wife, who was several hours away,
could pick him up.
no professional courtesy here anymore,"
an angry Schwartz allegedly told officers
the judge that he was being treated
the "same as everybody else.
What you are asking for is special
agreed, saying, "To some degree,
Schwartz is represented
by Edward George Jr., a Long Beach
attorney who didn't return calls for
GRAND JURY POWER
TO CHARGE CORRUPT/CRIMINAL PUBLIC
I need to assure the Grand Jury that
it has the power and jurisdiction
to investigate and charge the following
parties even though some of them are
judges and commissioners of the Municipal
Court of Orange County.
First, the Grand
Jury does have the power to bring
charges before the accused in the
form of a "presentment."
Please see the accompanying copy from
the 4th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary
where, on page 912 it states: "A
presentment differs from an indictment
in that it is an accusation made by
a grand jury of their own motion,
either upon their own observation,
or upon evidence before them;…"
In the 6th edition
of the Black’s law dictionary on page
1184, it states: " Presentment.
The written notice taken by a grand
jury of any offense, from their own
knowledge or observation, without
any bill of indictment laid before
them at the suit of the government.
A presentment is an accusation, initiated
by the grand jury itself [not by the
district attorney], and in effect
an instruction that an indictment
In the expanded
legal dictionary/digest called "Words
and Phrases", on page 363. It
defines the grand jury as: "The
‘grand jury’ is inquisitorial body
of county, drawn and summoned from
among its best citizens, and must
investigate all violations of law
under presiding judge’s direction
and make presentments in accordance
with such investigations."
In the second
column of this page it continues:
" ‘Grand Jury’ is not judicial
but accusing body, permitted to act
upon knowledge obtained by members
from any source.", and "’Grand
jury’ is informing and judicial tribunal,
exercising functions which are original,
complete, and susceptible of being
exercised on its own motion [without
D.A.’s initiation] and on such knowledge
as it may derive from any proper source."
A California District
Court of Appeal, in the case of Samish
v. Superior Court, 28 C.A.2d 685 (1938),
on the bottom of page 688 and continuing
into page 689 quoting from the U.S.
Supreme Court and the California Penal
Code, fully explains the powers, jurisdiction
and duties of the grand jury. I shall
quote of a few excerpts:
grand jurors possess personal knowledge
or are furnished with reliable information
indicating that a crime has been committed
by someone within borders of the county,
it is the duty of the grand jury to
fearlessly and fairly investigate
the charges and indict the culpable
party if the evidence warrants that
finding.[from U.S. Supreme court cases
of Blair v. United States and United
states v. Philadelphia].", and
"In the Blair
case, supra, discussing the rights
of a grand jury to investigate crime,
Mr. Justice Pitney said: ‘ It is a
grand inquest, a body with powers
of investigation and inquisition,
the scope of whose inquiries is not
to be limited narrowly by questions
of propriety, or forecasts of possible
result of the investigation,…’",
"In the case
of United States v. Philadelphia,
etc., supra, the court said; ‘ The
power of the grand jury extends to
the broadest kind of an inquisitorial
proceeding, and it may, before a bill
of indictment is framed, investigate
at the instance of the court or the
Or at its own
instance, a suspected or an alleged
crime, and determine whether it has
been committed, and if so, who committed
it. The grand jury has jurisdiction
to proceed under its inquisitorial
powers without any specific charge
against a particular person or corporation
being before It." and
jury has authority and it becomes
it’s duty to inquire into all public
offenses "committed or triable
in the county’ in which the jury is
impaneled. (Sects. 915, 923, Pen.
Code.) Section 915 [now Section 917]
‘The grand jury
may inquire into all public offenses
committed or triable within the county,
and present them to the court by indictment."
923 [now Section 919] provides in
part: "The grand jury must inquire…
into the willful or corrupt misconduct
in office of public officers of every
description within the county [even
903 [now Section 911] of the Penal
Code prescribes the form of oath to
be administered to the grand jury
which clearly contemplates an investigation
of all public offenses ‘committed
or triable in the county’."
Judges and court
commissioners are public officers.
They are not above the law; no one
is above the law. Please be mindful
of the fact that the judges or the
district attorney may mis-inform you
and tell you that you "have no
jurisdiction into investigating judges
or courts", but such a statement
would simply be not true.
When the criminal
activities of the below named parties
started, I wrote a letter to you on
March 25, 1996, and in your April
4, 1996 response, you indicated (I
assume based on false legal advice
of a deputy district attorney) that
the Grand Jury has no jurisdiction
before the courts, and that this matter
will no doubt be resolved.
I had not asked
you to get into matters before the
courts; instead I had reported crimes
committed by the court personnel;
and you have total jurisdiction to
investigate crimes committed by anyone,
even judges, even from the bench.
If a judge were to steal and destroy
court records in court would you say
that you had no jurisdiction to charge
him with murder just because he was
a judge and committed the crime while
performing a judicial function?
Clearly you would
have jurisdiction to charge such a
judge with murder, and as outlined
above, it would be your legal duty
to do so. The criminal acts charged
in this complaint are not murder charges,
but nonetheless are CRIMES as provided
by law and you do have the legal jurisdiction
and duty to indict the culpable parties
even if they happen to be judges and
even if they committed the crimes
from the bench!
Please take a
look at the copy of the court case
of People v. Martin, 135 Cal. App.3d
710 (1982) which I have provided you,
where an L.A. Judge named Brown and
an attorney friend of him were indicted
by the Grand Jury for Conspiracy to
obstruct and pervert justice (same
charge as the accused in this complaint
are accused of), convicted (which
was upheld in the appeal) and sentenced
to State Prison the same as an ordinary
Please take a
close look also at the case of Lorenson
v. Superior Court, 35 C.2d 49 (1950),
where the California Supreme Court
ruled on page59 and 60 of the case
that "A conspiracy with or among
public officials not to perform their
official duty to enforce criminal
laws is an obstruction of justice
an indictable offense at common law."
This is another main charge which
the officials (including Municipal
Court Judges) in this complaint are
At the end of
People v. Coleman, 83 Cal. App.2d
812 (1948), the court resolutely concluded:
"One of the statutory duties
of the district attorney is to draw
all indictments … ‘attend before and
give advice to the grand jury whenever
cases are presented to it for their
consideration.’ There is no requirement,
however, that it is the duty of the
grand jury to request or accept that
advice. The obvious itendment is that
the district attorney must draw all
indictments only when requested by
the grand jury for its advice and
assistance… An indictment is the independent
act of the grand jury. To require
the signature of the district attorney
thereto would destroy the independency
of action of that body and defeat
the primary purpose of its existence."
The court clearly
concluded that the grand jury is free
and independent in indicting the accuseds
without approval or concurrence of
the District Attorney. Recently a
California Court of Appeal in the
Case of Bradley v. Lacey, 53 Cal.App4th
883 (March 25, 1997), concluded this
about Grand Jury’s powers: "It
is apparent from the foregoing description
of the grand jury’s powers with respect
to public offenses that it is not
the mere handmaid of the district
attorney…. The decision whether or
not to indict., to initiate a criminal
prosecution, resides entirely with
the grand jury."
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:45:19
From: Harold Ervin <email@example.com>
Mr.Private, The party I told you about has this
I believe it best if you contact their
web site directly which has a chat
group discussion each Saturday.
This person is a friend and I
believe I would be out of order
to ask for them to spend special
time to help someone who is not
a member of their group. Please become
a member, it's free, and I am sure their
chat group and web site will be
a great help to you. Of all
similar groups on the Internet,
this is the very best---hands
down. God's Blessings, Harold
Know your rights,
demand your rights, or have NO RIGHTS!
It is that simple!
The internet lets you get an education,
at no cost, in the privacy of your
own home, at your own leisure!
The 2.6 million reports of child abuse
& neglect, 66%, were unconfirmed,
but NOT RETURNED 2 the family.
a Court Watcher! IF you are not part
of the solution, then you are part
of the problem.
I not an attorney. I will tell you
how I did it, FOLLOW only you're HEART!