Federal District Judge Rudi M. Brewster of the Southern District of California

Every federal judge takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  28 U.S.C. § 453.

Violations of that oath is grounds for impeachment.  U. S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, p. 6896 (1990).

28 U.S.C. § 372 (c) (1) permits any person (there is no standing requirement) to complain that a federal judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability.  See In re Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, 9 F. 3d 1562, 1567 (U.S. Jud. Conf. 1993).

It appears that San Diego federal district judge Rudi M. Brewster is unable to discharge his duties because of serious mental problems.

First, it appears that Rudi M. Brewster is unable to comprehend even basic concepts of constitutional law.  In the trial transcript in criminal case United States v. Bauer, 95-1839-B-Crim., from page 66, line 12 to page 67, line 12, Judge Brewster confuses concepts that a "man-on-the-street" is supposed to be able to understand.

It appears that Judge Brewster:

It appears more than a little ridiculous that a criminal defendant, untrained in the law, can understand a simple concept like the Confrontation clause provision of the Sixth Amendment, while a federal judge with many years experience on the bench apparently has no grasp of it.  It is also noteworthy that attorneys, Hogan and Ryan, see page 67, lines 22-25 of the transcript in criminal case United States v. Bauer, supra, also seem to understand the concept.

Second, it appears that Judge Brewster views the Court of Appeals as merely a vehicle to clean up his mistakes.  See page 67, lines 14-19 of the transcript in criminal case United States v. Bauer, supra.

Third, Judge Brewster's erratic behavior is described in the attached statement of Tom Gaglia, a federal prisoner who has had a federal habeas corpus proceeding in front of Judge Brewster for so long that his prison sentence on that indictment has expired.

A few quotes from other circuits bear repeating:

There is a necessity of maintaining public faith in the judiciary as a source of impersonal and reasoned judgments.  Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 61 F. 3d 1113, 1137 (5th Cir. 1995).

It is " . . . crucial to public confidence in the courts that judges be seen as enforcing the law and obeying it themselves." United States v. Muniz, 49 F. 3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 1995).

No relief can be granted for violating the oath of office by acting contrary to the Constitution.  Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 554 n. 14 (D.D.C. 1986).
 
I.e., there is apparently no other way to get a mentally incompetent judge off the bench other than through a 28 U.S.C. § 372 (c) (1) Complaint or a full-blown Congressional investigation and impeachment.

Should Judge Brewster be allowed to remain on the bench:

Finally, Judge Brewster appears to have a mental inability to understand and apply Constitutional law in any case.
 

Back to THE HALL OF SHAME