Judge Franz Miller Refuses to Take Notice of Removal – Baldwin Informs Presiding Judge Thomas Borris

May 14, 2011 § Leave a comment

On May 9, 2011 Erin Baldwin effectively moved the Orange County Superior Court case, UDR, Inc. v. Erin Baldwin, et al., OCSC Case No. 30-2009-00125305 to District Court and was assigned a new Case No. SACV11-00708.  The District Court accepted this case because it represents several federal questions and diversity jurisdiction.

However, on that same day, Ms. Baldwin’s process server got the ultimate run around because Judge Miller and his staff in Department C-14 refused to conform a copy of the Notice of Removal so that he could file it in District Court. 

To this day, the Notice of Removal has not been filed in Superior Court which works well for Judge Miller because he can carry on as if it was never filed.  He can continue to retain control of the deeply-flawed defamation action that began two years ago and has all but destroyed Ms. Baldwin’s life. 

As soon as the Notice of Removal is acknowledged in Superior Court, Federal law (28 U.S.C. §1446(5)(d)) states:  

“Promptly after the filing of such notice of removal of a civil action the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court, which shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”

On May 17, 2011 the Orange County Public Defender will be arguing (allegedly on Ms. Baldwin’s behalf) a Motion to Bifurcate the Trial.  This Motion was filed by the OCPD  without Ms. Baldwin’s knowledge, review or consent.  It was also filed by the OCPD with complete knowledge that Ms. Baldwin was adamantly opposed to it Since then, she has tried everything to remove the OCPD and act as her own attorney but all efforts have hit the wall.

Therefore Ms. Baldwin, wrote the following letter to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, Central Justice Center.  She has confirmation that it arrived on Friday morning, May 13, 2011.  Still, to date, nothing.  No filing, no intervention, no nothing.  This whole story is sick and insidious.  

Erin K. Baldwin

Post Office Box 3141

Beaumont, CA  92223

VIA EXPRESS MAIL

May 12, 2011

The Honorable Thomas J. Borris

Presiding Judge

Orange County Superior Court

Department C-1

700 Civic Center Drive West

Santa Ana, CA  92701

Re:      UDR, Inc. v. Erin Baldwin, et al.

            OCSC Case No. 30-2009-00125305

Dear Judge Borris:

            I, Erin K. Baldwin, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts contained in this letter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

            This is to inform you that on Monday, May 9, 2011, I filed a Notice of Removal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441, et seq., in the above-captioned case with the United States District Court.  The new case number is SACV11-00708. 

             The District Court Clerk informed my process server that before they could accept the Notice of Removal in District Court, a conformed copy would have to be obtained by the Superior Court.  As such, my process server traveled to Orange County Superior Court (“OCSC”) to obtain said conformed copy.  When he arrived, he went to the Unlimited Civil Clerk’s Office and N. Dorfman file-stamped the copy “Received” then told him that she could not file and conform the document, that it would have to be filed directly in the department assigned to the matter, Department C-14, The Honorable Judge Franz E. Miller presiding.

             Accordingly, my process server traveled to Department C-14, however, the department was closed, engaged in jury selection, and a sign on the door instructed those wanting to file a document with the department to do so with the Clerk.  My process server returned to the Clerk and informed her of the sign and instructions thereon, and she instructed him to wait at Department C-14 until after lunch because the original was in the runner bin to be delivered to the department in approximately thirty (30) minutes. 

             My process server returned to Department C-14 at 1:30 pm and approached Judge Miller’s clerk, Jodi, to advise her of the instructions given to him by the Clerk and that he would be happy to wait until the original was received by the department so he could obtain a conformed copy to file with the District Court. 

             Shortly thereafter, the original was received in the department but instead of affixing a file stamp to the original document, Jodi stamped “Cancelled” over the “Received” stamp and handed it back to my process server (see attached).  She informed him that in order for her to conform the document, she would have to see the face page of the Petition Requesting Removal.  That is improper direction and categorically false.  At one time the court required that defendants petition the District Court for permission to remove the action from Superior Court.  However, that was pre-empted by the rule as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1446(5)(d), to wit:

 “Promptly after the filing of such notice of removal of a civil action the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court, which shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”

             A defendant no longer needs to ask permission to remove a case from Superior Court to District Court, it is automatic, and adverse parties opposing such removal have ample time to state in writing its opposition directly with the District Court.  

            So, my process server left Department C-14 with the original pleading marked “Cancelled” on it fearing he would not be able to file the Notice of Removal in the District Court that day as were his instructions.  Nonetheless, my process server travelled back to the District Court, explained what happened in Superior Court, and the clerk was gracious enough to file the Notice of Removal and assign a case number. 

            Despite my best effort to follow all procedures as instructed by your Court and the District Court, my process server left the Superior Court without a conformed, file-stamped copy of the Notice of Removal.  Enclosed are two originals of the Notice of Removal dated May 9, 2011.  Under the circumstances, the Proof of Service will be filed separately, however the original Proof of Service from May 9, 2011 is attached for your review.

            I have enclosed two originally-signed pleadings entitled, “Notice of Removal Pursuant to U.S.C.  §1441, et seq.,” along with a copy of the face page of the above-referenced “Cancelled” pleading.  I respectfully request that your clerk facilitate the filing of this document and send to me a conformed copy of same.  There is such a thing as fundamental fairness and I was not afforded that on Monday.  As an in pro per litigant, I would appreciate the same courtesy given a litigant represented by counsel. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Erin K. Baldwin

Defendant, In Pro Per

cc:  Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George, LLP (Attorneys for Plaintiff) – Via U.S. Post

Advertisements

Tagged: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Judge Franz Miller Refuses to Take Notice of Removal – Baldwin Informs Presiding Judge Thomas Borris at cacorruptionwatch.

meta