Journalist Section 1983 Complaint Details 40+ Acts of Retaliatory Prosecution by CA State Officials to Silence Her Speech

November 15, 2011 § 1 Comment

On November 14, 2011, Erin Baldwin filed a Second Amended Complaint in her Section 1983 Civil Rights Case. This Complaint is grounded in First Amendment Retaliatory Prosecution.  Here is a portion of the complaint that summarizes  (a) what Baldwin wrote about and (b) what California state officials (and private parties working in joint participation with them) did to her to conceal the truth about their participation in historic fraud against California consumers in foreclosure and residential tenants. 

The Complaint was filed on August 16, 2011 in the Central District Court of California (Case No. 5:11-CV-01300-DOC-SP) before Judge David O. Carter and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym.  However, the case is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case Nos. 11-57210, 12-55081, 12-55087, and a First Amendment Writ (Case No. 12-70291).

A.        Nature of the Case

            1.         Erin K. Baldwin (“Plaintiff”), is an investigative reporter and bona fide journalist who wrote and published truthful, fact-based and legally-substantiated journalistic articles and investigative reports about matters of public concern. (“Plaintiff’s Writings”)

            2.         Plaintiff’s Writings were published anonymously,[1] in a public forum, without profit motive, for the sole benefit of California residential tenants and consumers in foreclosure.

            3.         As such, Plaintiff’s Writings constituted “protected speech” under the First Amendment, barring government interference and retaliatory prosecution.

            4.         Beginning in late 2008, Plaintiff noticed a series of events unfolding that appeared to be intentional fraud against California residential tenants and consumers in foreclosure, including:

                        a.         An unusually high number of Californians qualifying for “no down-payment, 1-, 3- and 5-year interest-only” sub-prime mortgage loans they could not afford.

                        b.         An equally high number of mortgage loan defaults following the “interest only” period resulting in record-breaking foreclosure statistics.   

                        c.         A corresponding increase in the number of residential tenants flowing into the California apartment market causing an escalation of landlord-tenant fraud.                            

                         d.         A significant number of vulnerable homeowners desperate to save their homes from foreclosure and an equal amount of unqualified “experts” eager to take their money and capitalize on their misfortune.

                        e.         A hopelessly flawed, unenforced and ill-conceived consumer safeguard called “The California Foreclosure Consultants Act” (“CFCA”) codified in California Civil Code §2945, et seq.

                        f.          An intentional and premeditated “loophole” in the CFCA that prohibited all loan modification service providers (except California State Bar-licensed attorneys) from taking fees in advance of work performed.                                   

                        g.         A rush of “non-attorneys,” primarily California Department of Real Estate-licensed subprime mortgage brokers unlawfully associating with California State Bar-licensed attorneys with the express intent of circumventing the CFCA “loophole.” 

                        h.         An unprecedented number of newly-formed law firms offering foreclosure rescue services advertised as “attorney-based law firms” with no lawyers on staff.

                        i.          An inherent and justifiable reliance on the fact that when one hires a “law firm” that the work will be performed by an experienced and qualified lawyer; coupled with the reality that the work was performed by “non-lawyers” with no experience reviewing loan documents for error in order to evaluate and assert the proper and required affirmative defenses to effectively negotiate a loan modification with a lender.  

                        j.          An appalling lack of consumer protection by the California State Bar and California Department of Real Estate, both required by law to protect consumers by (ii) enforcing their respective professional rules of conduct; (ii) disciplining their members when they break the rules, and (ii) making prompt restitution to the clients of the rule-breaking members through their respective consumer protection programs, the “Client Security Fund” and “Recovery Account,” respectively.

                        k.         A historic rise in unemployment rates caused by big corporation lay-offs and small business failure.

                        l.          A freeze on consumer and business credit and decline in home values.

                        m.        A bailout for the banks who intentionally sold unconscionable subprime mortgage loans utilizing bad faith predatory tactics to induce consumers mesmerized by the political speeches promising the “American Dream for All.”

                        n.         No bailout for the consumers who bought the unconscionable subprime mortgage loans “guaranteed to make the American Dream a reality,” resulting in catastrophic poverty rates, a rise in the number of bankruptcy filings, and record growth in the homeless population.

                        o.         “Too little, too late” legislation enacted in late 2009 (Senate Bill 94) that prohibited all loan modification service providers, including attorneys, from taking fees in advance of work performed. 

                        p.         In theory, Senate Bill 94 gave Defendants CAG, CSB, and DRE four years to resolve all outstanding consumer claims and put into place consumer protection programs before it expired on January 1, 2013. 

                        q.         Thousands of consumer claims still exist and no legitimate programs have been put into place to counteract the inevitable.  Senate Bill 94 will expire at the same time existing 3- and 5-year interest only loan schedules expire.

                        r.          Then history will repeat itself, which means new mesmerizing political speeches; new and improved task forces that do nothing but conceal official misconduct (which misconduct caused the vicious cycle in the first place), new names for old companies ready to defraud consumers again, and a new set of consumers eager for the American Dream.                   

                        s.          Astonishing wealth was amassed by a few at the expense of many.  Plaintiff’s Writings championed returning the wealth to the consumers, but “the few” had other ideas.       

            5.         Plaintiff’s Writings about the aforementioned series of events and the participants in said events, made public the individual and collective responsibility and liability of the California Attorney General, California State Bar and California Department of Real Estate, inter alia, for intentional fraud against California residential tenants and consumers in foreclosure. 

            6.         The result was an assault against Plaintiff  “from the top down,” to rid the Internet of Plaintiff’s Writings documenting said intentional fraud, and to eliminate any lingering memory of Plaintiff’s message by destroying her personal and professional credibility, her ability to find work and maintain a secure home, and her capability to foster alliances and friendships to strengthen her will to fight back.

            7.         The “top” was (and is) Bank of America, California’s single largest beneficiary of mortgage fraud against consumers and the single largest antagonist of  Plaintiff’s truthful, fact-based and legally-substantiated Writings.

            8.         Plaintiff’s Complaint exposes Bank of America’s plan to settle (for pennies on the dollar) all outstanding consumer claims with the California Attorney General’s Office, California State Bar, and California Department of Real Estate, thereby circumventing restitution to the claimants altogether. 

            9.         In exchange, the California Attorney General’s Office (“Defendant CAG”), California State Bar (“Defendant CSB”), and California Department of Real Estate (“Defendant DRE”) agree to stall, then reject, all consumer claims made against Bank of America.   This will ultimately  unjustly enrich California government officials with money stolen from the citizens that put them into office, courtesy of Bank of America who offers the following mission statement:

“We believe, very simply, that it is the actions of individuals working together that build strong communities … and that business has an obligation to support those actions in the communities it serves.” 

            10.       Since Bank of America (“Defendant BOA”) had no direct method to retaliate against Plaintiff, it called upon Defendants CAG, CSB, and DRE to carry out the objectives set forth in Paragraph 6, supra, the ultimate result of same would be that Defendants BOA, CAG, CSB and DRE could finalize their plan to settle Defendant BOAs claims without anyone being the wiser.  The retaliatory actions arising from same were planned and implemented sub rosa to avoid liability for their actions.

            11.       Since Plaintiff is not an attorney, mortgage broker or real estate agent, Defendants CAG, CSB, and DRE had no direct method to retaliate against Plaintiff either, so they called upon private parties to implement their plan in joint participation with officials acting under color of state law.    

            12.       Since  Plaintiff had done nothing but exercise her constitutionally-protected right to free speech about matters of public concern in an open forum for the benefit of others, defendants named herein had no legitimate reason to retaliate against Plaintiff, so they fabricated reasons.

            13.       Plaintiff has been the subject of forty (40) legal and law enforcement actions since January of 2009.  These actions are discussed in more detail in the Statement of Facts set forth, infra.   Directly below is a summary of the forty (40) actions that frame this Complaint:

B.        Forty Actions And Counting 

            14.       On January 26, 2009, Parsa Law Group sued an anonymous blog.  The Complaint was entitled, Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, an unknown business entity.  a subject of Plaintiff’s Writings about California loan modification fraud, Parsa Law Group, sued Plaintiff for defamation and interference in its business relations, present and prospective.  Plaintiff’s Writings alerted consumers in foreclosure about the fraud perpetrated at Parsa Law Group, inter alia.  And she was right, there is no dispute about that fact.  However, no argument, motion, appearance or brief by Plaintiff could have prevailed in this action because it was brought in bad faith and with unclean hands, ab initio.   See facts on Action 1 here; and more details, infra:

(1)

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752

(Defamation Case: Filed January 26, 2009) 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            15.       On February 11, 2009, a subject of Plaintiff’s Writings sued her for retaliatory unlawful detainer.  It was another strategic lawsuit against public participation as its singular objective was to prevent Plaintiff from writing the truth about her landlord, UDR’s illegal residential lease agreements.  It was heard by Commissioner Richard E. Pacheco.  See facts on Action 2 here; and more details, infra:

(2)

UDR Villa Venetia Apartments, L.P. v. Erin Baldwin

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00244203

(Unlawful Detainer Case #1:  Filed February 11, 2009) 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

            16.       On March 3, 2009, UDR filed a second retaliatory unlawful detainer action was filed, because they lost the first one on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons, and the case was dismissed in favor of Plaintiff.  The second action, also heard by Commissioner Richard E. Pacheco, alleged the exact same facts and law as the first one which was dismissed five days earlier.  Again, this was another strategic lawsuit against public participation as its singular objective was to prevent Plaintiff from writing the truth about her landlord, UDR’s illegal residential lease agreements.  See facts on Action 3 here; and more details, infra:

(3)

UDR Villa Venetia Apartments, L.P. v. Erin Baldwin

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00248999

(Unlawful Detainer Case #2:  Filed March 3, 2009) 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            17.       On June 16, 2009, an associate of UDR, Robert J. Abernethy of Public Storage, filed another retaliatory unlawful detainer action but this time it was for the contents of Plaintiff’s storage unit in Costa Mesa, California.  Both UDR and Public Storage are Officers of AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund, Inc. Commissioner Pacheco gave Mr. Abernethy possession of Plaintiff’s property without notice to Plaintiff.  See facts on Action 4 here; and more details, infra:

(4)

Robert J. Abernethy (Public Storage) v. Erin Baldwin

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00276399

(Unlawful Detainer Case #3:  Filed June 16, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            18.       On June 29, 2009, once UDR had unlawfully evicted Plaintiff (June 16, 2009); unlawfully searched and seized the entire contents of her apartment (June 19, 2009); then was working with associate Robert Abernethy to seize the remainder of Plaintiff’s property from her storage unit; they believed that Plaintiff could not possibly defend herself against a defamation action as a homeless person with no property.  They hired the same law firm as the Parsa Case and made sure to get in front of the same judge, Judge Franz Miller.  See facts on Action 5 here; and more details, infra:

(5)

UDR, Inc. v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00125305

(Defamation Case:  Filed June 29, 2009) 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            19.       On July 13, 2009, a subject of Plaintiff’s Writings sued her for defamation and intentional interference in business and prospective business relations.  It was another strategic lawsuit against public participation as its singular objective was to prevent Plaintiff from writing the truth about the loan modification fraud perpetrated at Solutions Law Group, LLC; Solutions Processing, LLC by Jeffrey A. Cancilla and Craig M. Laverty.  They hired the same law firm as the Parsa and UDR Defamation Cases and made sure it got in front of the same judge, Judge Franz E. Miller.  See facts on Action 6 here; and more details, infra:

(6)

Solutions Law Group, LLC; Solutions Processing, LLC;

Jeffrey A. Cancilla; Craig M. Laverty v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No 30-2009-00126004

(Defamation Case: Filed July 13, 2009) 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            20.       On July 14, 2009, soon after Parsa Law Group obtained a Permanent Injunction against Plaintiff without a hearing on the merits, without identifying one single statement made by Plaintiff that was false; and without identifying the parties about which Plaintiff was prohibited from writing; Parsa Law Group filed criminal charges of contempt against Plaintiff.  However, they called it “civil contempt,” so they wouldn’t have to leave the safety of Judge Miller’s courtroom.  Plaintiff also had a Judgment entered against her in the amount of $604,515.66 with no Default Prove-up Package.  See facts on Action 7 here; and more details, infra:

(7)

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752

Judge Miller/Burkhalter/UDR File it as Civil Contempt

(Criminal Contempt Case:  Filed July 14, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

            21.       On July 20, 2009, a subject of Plaintiff’s Writings sued her for defamation and intentional interference in business and prospective business relations.  It was another strategic lawsuit against public participation as its singular objective was to prevent Plaintiff from writing the truth about the loan modification fraud perpetrated at Traut Law Group by Eric V. Traut and James R. Traut.  They represented themselves and the matter was dismissed in favor of Plaintiff.   See facts on Action 8 here; and more details, infra:

(8) 

Traut Law Group, Eric V. Traut, et al. v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00126328

(Defamation Case:  Filed July 20, 2009) 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            22.       On September 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Appeal on the Permanent Injunction and Default Judgment in the Parsa Law Group Case.  Plaintiff filed her Designation of Record and waived her right to court reporter’s transcripts for the Record on Appeal due to the cost.  However, the Court of Appeal dismissed Plaintiff’s Appeal and issued a Remittitur due to fact that Plaintiff failed to pay court reporter transcript fees.  At that time, Plaintiff was not aware that Judge Franz E. Miller had been the senior staff attorney at that Court of Appeal for fourteen (14) years immediately preceding his appointment to the bench in 2002. See facts on Action 9 here; and more details, infra:

(9)

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal

Fourth District, Division Three, Case No. G042561

(Appeal of Judgment/Injunction:  Filed September 2, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            23.       Plaintiff moved to Big Bear on July 21, 2009.  On September 17, 2009, at 8:30 in the morning, Plaintiff’s roommate was highly intoxicated.  She was delusional from chronic alcoholism and called the Big Bear Sheriffs claiming Plaintiff was “trying to kill her after they had an argument about Plaintiff soaking her feet in an old cooking pot.”   See facts on Action 10 here; and more details in, infra:

(10)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. BB092699910

False Report of Battery by Baldwin – No Citation/No Fault

(Investigated and Closed:  Filed September 17, 2009) 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            24.       On September 19, 2009, Plaintiff’s former roommates, Keith and Patty White assaulted Plaintiff in Starbucks.  On August 6, 2009, Plaintiff called UDR about her property and they traced her call.  On August 9, 2009, Parsa Law Group and UDR’s process server showed up at the front door of Keith and Patty White’s house with the UDR and Cancilla Complaints.  It was shortly thereafter that Keith and Patty White decided to act as the Big Bear connection in joint participation with the Big Bear Sheriffs, Parsa Law Group, UDR, and the San Bernardino District Attorney, inter alia, to maintain retaliatory prosecution efforts. See facts on Action 11 here; and more details, infra:

(11)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 160901554

Starbucks Corporate Case Report No. 7457256

K & P White Assault Plaintiff in Starbucks

(SBSD Fails to Investigate; SBDA Fails to Prosecute;

Starbucks Fails to Cooperate: Filed September 19, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            25.       In keeping with Keith and Patty White’s joint participation agreement, they filed a “late counter report” on behalf of Plaintiff’s drunken roommate, Bernadine Krueger, to make the incident something it was not.  They were not present on September 17, 2009, nor did they obtain Krueger’s consent until the end of the meeting, just so she could sign a “Private Party Arrest Warrant” for Plaintiff’s arrest.  See facts on Action 12 here; and more details, infra:

(12)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 060901492

Whites File Late Counter Report on Crime of Battery

Re: September 17, 2009 Closed Big Bear Sheriffs Case

(Private Party Arrest Warrant Issued – Filed September 23, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            26.       On September 25, 2009, with the “Private Party Arrest Warrant” for Plaintiff’s arrest signed by Krueger in hand, Deputy Michael McCracken, on probation for DUI, sought out Plaintiff’s landlords and business clients to question and warn them about Plaintiff.  He informed them that Plaintiff had beaten up Krueger, trashed her house and stolen her property.  He gave them advice as to how they should have researched Plaintiff prior to signing a rental agreement with her or allowing her to provide consulting services.  Deputy McCracken searched Plaintiff’s property and wrote down computer equipment serial numbers.  Then he traveled with Plaintiff’s landlords to interrogate Plaintiff.  When he left, he issued Plaintiff a Notice to Appear for the crime of Battery.   See facts on Action 13 here; and more details, infra:

(13)

Big Bear Sheriffs Citation No. 2662647 – Part I

Deputy Michael McCracken Interrogation

Re: September 17, 2009 Closed Big Bear Sheriffs Case

(Notice to Appear PC§242 – Filed September 25, 2009

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            27.       On September 26, 2009, Plaintiff made a formal complaint about the unlawful actions of Deputy McCracken directly with Big Bear Sheriff Sergeant Bryan Lane, specifically about how Deputy McCracken had claimed all his actions were legal pursuant to the written “Private Party Arrest Warrant” he had with him   Plaintiff questioned Sergeant Lane about this specifically and he agreed with Deputy McCracken that this was standard policy.  See facts on Action 14 here; and more details, infra:

(14)

Big Bear Sheriffs Citation No. 2662647 – Part II

Citizen Complaint of McCracken Interrogation

Re: September 17, 2009 Closed Big Bear Sheriffs Case

(Sergeant Bryan Lane Follow-up  – Filed September 26, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            28.       On September 30, 2009, in response to Plaintiff’s reports to Sergeant Lane about Defendant K & P White’s threatening comments left on Plaintiff’s blog, and emails sent to her and to her clients, Defendants K & P White file formal criminal charges against Plaintiff for California Penal Code §653M(b), making vexatious and annoying telephone calls and emails.  Despite repeated requests, these emails could never be produced even though Defendant SBSD claims they are in the Evidence Locker at the Big Bear Sheriff substation.  See facts on Action 15 here; and more details, infra:

(15)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 060901539

Whites Report of Annoying Emails and Telephone Calls

(Penal Code §653M(b) – Filed September 30, 2009

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            29.       On October 5, 2009, to ensure Plaintiff does not apply for a restraining order against Defendants K & P White pursuant to the suggestion of Defendant Sheriff Deputy Wijnhamer (and in accordance with Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 160901554 and Starbucks Corporate Case Report No. 7457256), Defendants K & P White deny that the assault ever took place, and apply for an emergency ex parte application for a temporary restraining order against Plaintiff.   Defendants K & P White justified their need for an emergency hearing based on what they believed “Plaintiff might be capable of doing in the future” based on no history of same.  See facts on Action 16 here; and more details, infra:

(16)

Keith D. White, Patricia A. White v. Erin K. Baldwin – Part I

San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVHS-900261

Emergency Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

(Civil Harassment – Filed October 5, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            30.       On October 6, 2009, due to the fact that Defendants K & P White failed to notify Plaintiff of the ex parte hearing, Judge Gilbert Ochoa grants the Whites a temporary restraining order by default.  See facts on Action 17 here; and more details, infra:

(17)

Keith D. White, Patricia A. White v. Erin K. Baldwin – Part II

San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVHS-900261

Emergency Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

(Temporary Restraining Order Granted – Filed October 6, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            31.       On October 8, 2009, Big Bear Sheriff Deputy Morsch claimed to be following up on Defendant K & P White’s charges against Plaintiff for PC §653M(b) (making vexatious and annoying telephone calls).  During the course of this follow-up call Defendant K. White, informs Defendant Morsch where Plaintiff is at that precise moment and that he should go see her.  How he knew is unclear; however, one wonders if the restraining order was issued to the wrong person.  Defendant Morsch stated he still needed to conduct an interview with Plaintiff about the PC §653M(b) charges but claimed Plaintiff’s address was unknown to the Big Bear Sheriffs.  As such, he labeled Plaintiff a “vagrant” on the Citation.  However, the Big Bear Sheriffs had been to Plaintiff’s home on September 25, 2009 (supra), on September 26, 2009 (supra) and on October 5, 2009 when Defendant K. White was crank-calling Plaintiff. 

            32.       However, the record had to reflect that Plaintiff’s address was unknown so that Deputy Morsch so he would have a reason to detain her at her client’s office at rush hour on a busy public boulevard.  Plaintiff was outside sitting in the car of Defendant Masotto who was dropping her off.  Defendant Morsch approached the vehicle as if Plaintiff was wanted for armed robbery in the death of twelve innocent bystanders.  His demeanor and questions were designed to evoke a response from Plaintiff that would justify him arresting her and bringing her into custody.  California State Bar Investigator Tom Layton was at the scene.

            33.       Once in custody, Plaintiff was severely beaten and burned by five male sheriff deputies while one female watched and kept screaming “Taser her, Taser her!!!”   At one point Defendant Deputy King came within an inch of Plaintiff’s face and told her “We all think you should go back down the mountain where you come from, we don’t think you fit in here,” then burned her with a liquid substance on all open skin surfaces. 

            34.       Plaintiff was transferred to West Valley Detention Center, seen by a nurse, who ordered her immediate release for emergency medical treatment. See facts on Action 18 here; and more details, infra:

(18)

Big Bear Sheriffs Citation No. 3051942

Re: Follow-up on Big Bear Sheriffs Case No. 060901539

In Custody Beating – 5 Male Sheriffs  – Tom Layton Present

(Penal Code §§148.9(a)(1) – Filed October 8, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

        35.          On October 19, 2009, Defendants K & P White filed criminal contempt charges against Plaintiff
(PC §166(4)(a)).  They claimed that because Plaintiff was  chronicling the events of her life on her blog and
some of those events included Defendant K & P White, that Plaintiff was in violation of a stay away order. 
California Civil Rights Statute, California Civil Code §52.1(k) states:
"No order issued in any proceeding brought pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) shall restrict the content of
 any person's speech. An order restricting the time, place, or manner of any person's speech shall do 
so only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of 
constitutional or statutory rights, consistent with the constitutional rights of the person sought to be enjoined."  

           

            See facts on Action 19 here; and more details, infra:

(19)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 060901645 – Part I

Keith & Patty White File Criminal Contempt Charges

Against Plaintiff For Writing on Her Blog (First Charge)

(California Penal Code §166(4)(a) – October 19, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            36.       On October 25, 2009, Defendants K & P White filed additional criminal contempt charges against Plaintiff, because they claimed she added new entries into her blog.  If Defendants K & P White believed that the blog entries were not true, they had a civil remedy and that was to sue Plaintiff, like so many before, for defamation. However, it was not a crime.  In filing these charges, Defendants K. & P White were doing three things:

                        a.         building a case for themselves so they could get a permanent injunction against Plaintiff on October 28, 2009;

                        b.         fabricating additional events to support Defendant SBDA’s Complaint against Plaintiff to mitigate SB County’s liability for the actions of Big Bear Sheriffs against Plaintiff on October 8-9, 2009; and

                        c.         giving the Court of Appeal additional “insight” into whether Plaintiff needed to be restrained by Judge Miller’s permanent injunction against Plaintiff that was currently on Appeal.  See facts on Action 20 here; and more details, infra:

(20)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 060901645 – Part II

Keith & Patty White File Criminal Contempt Charges

Against Plaintiff For Writing on Her Blog (Second Charge)

(California Penal Code §166(4)(a) – October 25, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            37.       On October 27, 2009, Defendants K & P White filed criminal contempt charges one more time before (a) they appeared at the hearing for their permanent restraining order; and (b) before the SBDA filed its Complaint against Plaintiff, Count 5 being Criminal Contempt of a Restraining Order, PC §166(4)(a) charges against Plaintiff were filed.  See facts on Action 21 here; and more details, infra:

(21)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 060901645 – Part III

Keith & Patty White File Criminal Contempt Charges

Against Plaintiff For Writing on Her Blog (Third Charge)

(California Penal Code §166(4)(a) – October 27, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            38.       On October 28, 2009, Defendants K & P White were granted a three-year (maximum) sentence  restraining order against Plaintiff.  On the same date, SBDA Defendant Robles filed San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. MSB906348 against Plaintiff for one count of resisting arrest; two counts of battery on a peace officer, one count of giving false information to a peace officer; and one count of violating a restraining order.  See facts on Actions 22 and 23 here; and more details, infra:

(22)

Keith D. White, Patricia A. White v. Erin K. Baldwin – Part III

San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVHS-900261

Application for Permanent Restraining Order

(Permanent Restraining Order Granted – Filed October 28, 2009)

(23)

The People of the State of California v. Erin K. Baldwin

San Bernardino Superior Court, Criminal Complaint Case No. MSB906348

Re:  Big Bear Sheriffs Citation No. 3051942 –  Filed October 8, 2009

Resisting Arrest, Battery on Peace Officer, Criminal Contempt, False Info

(San Bernardino District Attorney – Filed Charges on October 28, 2009)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            39.       On November 18, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Appeal of the Permanent Restraining Order entered against her in the Keith and Patty white case.  Judge Steve Malone threw it out claiming there had already been resolution in the matter and the court no longer had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.  See facts on Action 24 here; and more details, infra:

(24)

Keith D. White, Patricia A. White v. Erin K. Baldwin – Part IV

San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVHS-900261

(Appeal on Permanent Restraining Order – Filed November 18, 200

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            40.       On January 25, 2010, Defendant SBDA filed charges against Plaintiff for the crime of Battery.  The origin of this charge began on September 17, 2009, supra, where Plaintiff was absolved of all her roommates claims.  However, six days later, Defendant K & P White reported a battery “on behalf of Krueger,” without Krueger’s knowledge or consent.  Toward the end of the meeting Defendant P. White called Krueger and asked her to come over and sign a “Private Party Arrest Warrant.”   This action instigated a frantic series of interviews by Defendant Deputy McCracken on September 25, 2009, resulting in Plaintiff being cited for Battery.  However, Defendant SBDA never filed charges even though Plaintiff was arraigned on December 1, 2009, and had her preliminary hearing on December 15, 2009.  Without a Complaint.  Defendant SBDA finally filed one when they believed they would need it in connection with Criminal Complaint No. 906348.  See facts on Action 25 here; and more details, infra:

(25)

The People of the State of California v. Erin K. Baldwin

San Bernardino Superior Court, Criminal Complaint Case No. MSB905837

Re: Big Bear Sheriffs Case – Investigation/Case Closed – September 17, 2009

Re: Bear Sheriffs Citation No. 2662647 of Battery – Filed September 25, 2009

(San Bernardino District Attorney – Filed Charges on January 25, 2010)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            41.       On February 24, 2010, Plaintiff’s neighbor, Doreen Martin, took her to DOVES, a domestic violence program in Big Bear to learn about options for alternative housing as a result of Defendant Crow’s abusiveness.  Defendant Hewitt performed a full assessment lasting two hours and highly suggested that Plaintiff enter a shelter for her safety.  Plaintiff agreed to return the next day, went home and under the direction of Hewitt put a chair under the door knob of her bedroom door to keep Defendant Crow out.  When Defendant Crow got home he noticed a chair missing and tried to break down Plaintiff’s bedroom door to get the chair.

            42.       Defendants Big Bear Sheriffs Lane and Jablonsky arrived at which time Plaintiff explained her situation at DOVES and her plan to move to a shelter until she could start her new job.  Instead of supporting Plaintiff they threatened her with petty theft if she took Defendant Crow’s chair again.  See facts on Action 26 here; and more details, infra:

(26)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. (Unknown)

Investigation of Domestic Violence by Jason Crow

Threaten Plaintiff with Petty Theft

(SBSD Fails to Investigate; SBDA Fails to Prosecute – February 24, 2010)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            43.       The next morning, Defendant Crow filed a false report that Plaintiff had thrown a large drinking glass at his head and Plaintiff was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, a felony, and went to jail for 35 days during which time she was not charged with a crime nor did she receive a preliminary hearing. 

            44.       There had been no witnesses, no injuries to Defendant Crow or to his property, and no deadly weapon.  The police report stated “simple assault” but Defendant SBDA enhanced it to a felony without probable cause.  There was also no warrant so they used a $5,000 Orange County civil bench warrant issued by Judge Franz Miller on August 31, 2009 for failure to appear at a hearing for which she was not timely noticed.  During the 35 days, Plaintiff was not charged with a crime nor did she receive a preliminary hearing.  And the facts from the night before conveniently disappeared.

            45.       However, prior to Plaintiff’s arrest, Plaintiff posted an article on her blog chronicling the events from the day before, mentioned her trip to DOVES entitled, “Big Bear Sergeant Bryan Lane Threatens Baldwin With Petty Theft Over a Chair.”  It was written and published during the exact period of time Plaintiff was accused of committing a felony.

            46.       While in jail, Defendant SBDAs Spencer and Dixon told the Judge that Plaintiff was also in custody on Criminal Case Nos. MSB906348 and MSB905837 so they could raise her bail from $50,000 to $500,000.  They also told the Judge that Plaintiff had “waived time” on the felony charges which was not true; Plaintiff had only “waived time” on  Criminal Case Nos. MSB906348 and MSB905837 so that she could have more time to prepare for trial.

            47.       Defendants SBSD and SBDA incarcerated Plaintiff to prevent her from preparing for trial, filing a Pitchess Motion against the sheriffs who beat her in custody, and to force her to sign a plea bargain on the two cases for which she was not in custody.  Plaintiff signed a plea bargain on March 26, 2010, but on April 1, 2010, requested that San Bernardino Public Defender Doreen Boxer set it aside.  This request was never fulfilled. See facts on Action 27 here; and more details, infra:

 (27)

The People of the State of California v. Erin K. Baldwin

San Bernardino Superior Court, Criminal Complaint Case No. FSB905837

Re: Investigation of Domestic Violence by Jason Crow – February 24, 2010

(San Bernardino District Attorney – Filed Charges on February 25, 2010)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            48.       At the suggestion of Defendant SBDA, one week after Plaintiff went to jail, Defendant Crow went to the court and requested an emergency ex parte hearing for domestic violence by Plaintiff against him.   Defendant Crow filed these charges when he knew they were false and knew Plaintiff was in jail and could not defend herself.  To conceal and mitigate his own wrongdoing, he retaliated against Plaintiff with civil litigation that had no merit, was ill-conceived and was a direct fraud upon the court.  See facts on Action 28 here; and more details, infra:

(28)

Jason L. Crow v. Erin K. Baldwin

San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. FAMHS1000015

Emergency Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

(Domestic Violence – Restraining Order:  March 2, 2010)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            49.       Also when Plaintiff was in jail, Defendant SBDA appeared before Judge Michael Dest on behalf of Defendants K & P White to obtain a Criminal Protective Order for them against Plaintiff.  See facts on Action 29 here; and more details, infra:

(29)

The People of the State of California v. Erin K. Baldwin

San Bernardino Superior Court, Criminal Complaint Case No. FSB905837

Re:  SBDA Appear on Behalf of Whites for Criminal Protective Order

(San Bernardino District Attorney Obtains Order – March 24, 2010)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            50.       When Plaintiff was released from jail, she was ordered to appear before Judge Franz Miller on the bench warrant that held her in custody for 35 days.  She appeared on June 1, 2010 and on June 8, 2010, was arraigned on Criminal Contempt charges (even though the Judge Miller insisted it was “civil contempt, quasi-criminal, specialty court contempt.”  If it was not criminal, it is difficult to understand why Defendant Miller appointed Plaintiff a Public Defender from the Orange County Public Defender’s Office.  See facts on Action 30 here; and more details, infra:

(30)

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752

Ordered to Appear Before Judge Miller – Assigns Public Defender

Judge Miller/Burkhalter/UDR File Maintains Its Civil Contempt

(Criminal Contempt Case Arraignment – June 1, 2010)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            51.       On September 13, 2010, the Contempt Charges were dismissed in favor of Plaintiff.  However, the underlying Permanent Injunction and Default Judgment are in full force because Plaintiff’s public defender did not insist of Plaintiff receiving a trial on her factual innocence.

            52.       Why would he make such a careless mistake?  Because he wasn’t appointed to protect Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, he was appointed to protect Judge Miller for egregiously violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.  Public Defender, Martin Schwarz’s (“Defendant Schwarz”) primary job was to make sure the Permanent Injunction and Default Judgment stayed in place even though the contempt charges were dismissed based on the fact that the underlying order was an unconstitutional prior restraint, overbroad, void for vagueness and failed to comport with Plaintiff’s rights under due process of law.  See facts on Action 31 here; and more details, infra:

(31)

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752

Contempt Charges Dismissed – Permanent Injunction and

$604,515.66 Default Judgment Still in Place

(Contempt Trial – September 13, 2010)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            53.       On November 10, 2010, nearly a year after Defendant UDR obtained a Permanent Injunction against Plaintiff without a hearing on the merits, without identifying one single statement made by Plaintiff that was false; and without identifying the parties about which Plaintiff was prohibited from writing; Defendant UDR filed criminal charges of contempt against Plaintiff.  However, they called it “civil contempt,” so they wouldn’t have to leave the safety of Judge Miller’s courtroom.  Plaintiff also had a Judgment entered against her in the amount of $104,210.55 without having to provide corroborating evidence of said sum.  See facts on Action 32 here; and more details, infra:

(32)

UDR, Inc. v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00125305

Judge Miller/Burkhalter/UDR File it as Civil Contempt

(Criminal Contempt Case:  Filed November 10, 2010)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            54.       On February 1, 2011, Plaintiff was ordered to appear before Judge Miller for her arraignment.  Once again, he appointed Plaintiff a public defender to shield him from liability for his misconduct.  Plaintiff filed both a Marsden Motion and a Faretta Motion to remove the public defender but both were rejected by the Court.   This case is active and there is continuing retaliatory action from the parties named herein despite four separate requests from Plaintiff to this Court to issue  a preliminary injunction to protect Plaintiff from same.

See facts on Action 33 here; and more details, infra:

 (33)

UDR, Inc. v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00125305

Judge Miller/Burkhalter/UDR File Maintains Its Civil Contempt

Ordered to Appear Before Judge Miller – Assigns Public Defender

(Criminal Contempt Case Arraignment – February 1, 2011)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            55.       On February 24, 2011, Plaintiff prepared and served on Judge Miller a Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause in the Parsa Law Group case.  On March 3, 2011 Defendant Miller filed a Verified Answer and refused to recuse himself.  On March 13, 2011, the Acting Presiding Judge, David A. Thompson, referred Plaintiff’s Challenge to Judge Carolyn Kuhl for an independent review.  On March 16, 2011, Plaintiff adamantly opposed the choice of Judge Carolyn Kuhl and on March 17, 2011 filed a Writ of Mandate Re Disqualification with the Court of Appeal.  Judge Miller had been the senior research attorney at that Court of Appeal for fourteen (14) years immediately preceding his appointment to the bench in 2002.  Judge Carolyn Kuhl denied Plaintiff’s request for disqualification and the Court of Appeal denied Plaintiff’s petition.  See facts on Action 34 here; and more details, infra:

(34)

Erin K. Baldwin v. Orange County Superior Court (Parsa Case)

Writ of Mandate Re Disqualification of Judge Franz E. Miller

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three

(Case No. G044953:  Filed March 17, 2011)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            56.       On April 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second Writ requesting that the Court of Appeal review Judge Carolyn Kuhl’s Order denying disqualification of Defendant Miller. Again, Plaintiff’s petition was denied.   See facts on Action 35 here; and more details, infra:

(35)

Baldwin v. The Superior Court of Orange County (Parsa Case)

Writ of Mandate Re Disqualification of Judge Franz E. Miller

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three

(Case No. G045100:  Filed April 18, 2011)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            57.       It was obvious the true motivations of Plaintiff’s public defender in the UDR case and Plaintiff sought to have them removed.   On April 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Marsden Motion which was rejected by the Court.  On May 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Marsden Motion which was also rejected by the Court. 

            58.       Plaintiff is now in a very difficult position.  Defendant OCPD claims they are still Plaintiff’s attorneys of record which means Plaintiff cannot act on her own.  However, Defendant OCPD refuses to do any work on behalf of Plaintiff claiming there is an Order of the Court stating as much. 

            59.       Therefore, all activities in the UDR Contempt Case are stalled due to the fact that Defendant OCPD has not completed its objectives laid out by Judge Miller and the Orange County Board of Supervisors (“Defendant OCBS”). 

                        a.         Defendant OCPD’s actions prevent Plaintiff from exercising her constitutional right to self-representation.

                        b.         At the same time, Defendant OCPD’s actions all prevent her from exercising another constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during all stages of a criminal proceeding. 

                        c.         The fact that this case is “in limbo” does not mean that the Younger Abstention Doctrine can dispose of this case quickly until such time as the contempt matter is solved in Superior Court.  That rule applies only to criminal prosecutions.  Plaintiff was charged with Civil Contempt under CCP §1209, et seq. so that the criminal “case within a case” would not be separated from the underlying civil action. 

                        d.         When U.S. District Court Judge, Defendant Carney remanded this case back to Defendant Miller, his order stated: “On February 1, 2011, Ms. Baldwin was arraigned on charges of criminal contempt and a trial was set for April 19, 2011.”  So, if that is the strategy, please further into the details of the civil contempt proceedings.

                        e.         Plaintiff should have been charged with Criminal Contempt under Penal Code §166(4)(a) and she would have been afforded all the right of the criminal defendant, including a jury trial.  However, a jury trial would have exposed the hundreds of millions of dollars publicly-traded landlord/REIT, UDR, Inc. has stolen from its tenants over the past seven (7) years.  Therefore, the Orange County Board of Supervisors directed Defendant OCPD Kwast to “act as if” it’s civil contempt “even though your office only handles criminal matters.”  However, the public defender assigned to Plaintiff spilled the beans.  OCPD Defendant Jennifer Nicolalde said to Plaintiff the first time they spoke, “This is the first civil contempt matter this office has ever handled, don’t you feel special?”  No, “special” was not how Plaintiff felt; angry is what Plaintiff felt, and ever since that day, Plaintiff has been trying to get rid of her court-appointed counsel and represent herself. 

(36)

UDR, Inc. v. Erin Baldwin, Bad Biz Finder, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00125305

Criminal Complaint Case: Removal of  Public Defender

(Marsden Motion Rejected by the Court:  April 13, 2011)

(Faretta Motion Rejected By the Court: May 15, 2011)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            60.       On April 22, 2011, Plaintiff prepared and served on Judge Miller a Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause in the UDR case.  Defendant Miller refused to recuse himself, so Plaintiff asked the Court of Appeal to disqualify him via a Writ of Mandate Re Disqualification and Motion for an Emergency Stay in Proceedings filed on March 17, 2011.  Both requests for review were denied. See facts on Action 34 here; and more details in “The Statement of Facts,” infra:

(37)

Baldwin v. The Superior Court of Orange County (UDR Case)

Writ of Mandate Re Disqualification of Judge Franz E. Miller

& Motion for Emergency Stay of Proceedings

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three

(Case No. G045132:  Filed April 25, 2011)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            61.       On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Removal in the UDR Case to the Unites States District Court based on Federal Question & Diversity Jurisdiction.  U.S. District Court Judge Carney J. Cormac vacated the scheduled hearing on the Motion to Remand and remanded the case on June 26, 2011, sua sponte, based procedural defects and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

            62.       In Kelton Arms Condo Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003) the Court held, inter alia, that a district court cannot remand a case sua sponte for procedural defects.  Therefore, Judge Cormac Carney remanded the case, sua sponte, based exclusively on subject matter jurisdiction.

            63.       There is one glaring oversight on page one, in the paragraph entitled, “Introduction and Background.”  It states, in relevant part, “On February 1, 2011, Ms. Baldwin was arraigned on charges of criminal contempt and a trial was set to begin April 19, 2011.”

            64.       The oversight is that the contempt proceedings were filed as civil contempt under  California Code of Civil Procedure §§1209, et seq.  In fact, a completely irrelevant family law Judicial Council form was used to bring the contempt action that is intended to be used by an individual in distress that needs protection. 

            65.       Criminal contempt is brought under California Penal Code §166(4)(a) by a District Attorney representing the State of California.  The hearing is conducted before a criminal judge in a case separate from the underlying civil action. 

            66.       This was far from reality on February 1, 2011.   In fact, Judge Miller, who signed the civil contempt orders heard the case and UDR’s attorneys in the underlying action were substitute DAs.  Plaintiff was given a public defender by Judge Miller but they didn’t have the slightest  idea what they were doing in civil court on a contempt action even admitting they had never handled a civil contempt action.

            67.       Therefore, it appears as if Plaintiff’s Notice of Removal was denied on the basis that it was a “criminal action,” as opposed to a civil action noted in 28 U.S.C. §1441(a), i.e., “A defendant may remove a civil action that is brought in a state court but over which a federal court  may exercise original jurisdiction.” This oversight which will be addressed herein.

            68.       In light of the present cause of action of civil rights litigation, Judge Cormac Carney’s June 27, 2011 Order stated, in relevant part:

“Notwithstanding Ms. Baldwin’s assertions in her opposition to the motion to remand that the state court’s permanent injunction and the related contempt proceedings violated her rights under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction over any claim alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

“In order to establish federal question jurisdiction, Ms. Baldwin must show that a question ‘arising under’ federal law appears on the face Plaintiff’s well-pleaded Complaint at the time of removal. 

“A defendant may not remove a case by asserting a defense based in federal law, and original jurisdiction is lacking even if a defense is alleged to be based exclusively on federal law. 

“Here, Plaintiffs’ claims for trade libel, tortious interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantages, and civil harassment are purely state-law claims, and the state court entered a permanent injunction based on those claims. 

“Ms. Baldwin’s attempt to assert a defense or her own counterclaims based on alleged violations of her constitutional rights does not establish federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint.”

            69.       With respect to Judge Carney’s statement, supra, “”In order to establish federal question jurisdiction, Ms. Baldwin must show that a question ‘arising under’ federal law appears on the face Plaintiff’s well-pleaded Complaint at the time of removal.”

            70.       Plaintiff asserts that most strategic lawsuits against public participation do not advertise its intent to violate the defendant’s constitutional rights “on the face of its well-pleaded Complaint.”  First, it is not well-pleaded.  Second, one only need look at the complete absence of due process of law preceding the issuance of the permanent injunction as well as the text of the injunction to determine, retrospectively, whether or not it was an intentional attempt to chill Plaintiff’s protected speech about matter of public concern.

(38)

UDR, Inc. v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Notice of Removal to the United States District Court

Federal Question/Diversity Jurisdiction – Judge Carney Cormac

(SACV-8:11-cv-00708-CJC-AN – May 9, 2011)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            71.       On May 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Removal in the Parsa Case to the Unites States District Court based on Federal Question & Diversity Jurisdiction.  Again, it was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Carney J. Cormac who remanded the case back to Judge Franz E. Miller, in six weeks, via an almost identical sua sponte Order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

(39)

Parsa Law Group v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Notice of Removal to the United States District Court

Federal Question/Diversity Jurisdiction – Judge Carney Cormac

(SACV-8:11-cv-00708-CJC-AN – May 17, 2011)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            72.       On August 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed the herein Section 1983 Civil Rights case and was automatically sent to the bottom of the barrel with other cases brought by pro se litigants chiefly because they are indigent and cannot afford to hire an attorney.  Plaintiff’s case was given a “194” case status which is assigned to all pro se litigants including prison inmates.  All pro se litigant are automatically referred to an Article I Magistrate Judge as was Plaintiff to U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym, who had been sworn into office four months earlier, and promptly gave Plaintiff’s case to her Pro Se Law Clerk.

(40)

Erin K. Baldwin v. Bank of America, et al.

§1983 Civil Rights Complaint

(EDCV-5:11-cv-01300-DOC-SP – August 16, 2011)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            73.       On August 25, 2011, Plaintiff Served a Verified Statement and Challenge For Cause on Judge Miller along with and a Demand that the below matters be transferred to the Presiding Judge, The Honorable Thomas S. Borris to:

                        (a) Vacate all Orders by Judge Franz E. Miller on the grounds they are unconstitutional and that Judge Franz E. Miller knew they were unconstitutional when he made them;

                        (b) Grant a Change of Venue; and

                        (c)  Recall the retaliatory bench warrant issued against Erin Baldwin by Judge  Franz E. Miller on August 18, 2011, two days after he was served with a Section 1983 Complaint I which he was a defendant.

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752

Judge Miller/Burkhalter/UDR File it as Civil Contempt

(Criminal Contempt Case:  Filed July 14, 2009)

UDR, Inc. v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00125305

Judge Miller/Burkhalter/UDR File it as Civil Contempt

(Criminal Contempt Case:  Filed November 10, 2010)

            74.       To underscore the blatant disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and disrespect for the honor of the court, on September 14, 2011, a case was entered into the docket system of the Orange County Superior Court under Plaintiff’s name, entitled,  “Kathryn Taylor Lafazan v. Steven John G. George,” Case No.  30-2011-00508097-CU-HR-CJC, for Civil Harassment.  None of the documents of the alleged case are viewable but Plaintiff performed a cursory search of the parties to the case. 

            75.       Kathryn Taylor Lafazan died at 49, in 2006, a member of the Lafazan Crime Family who had a horrible life.  If this is meant to be a joke, exactly why is it funny?  And why is it that when Plaintiff calls the Court and inquires, none of the clerks can find the case?

Kathryn Taylor Lafazan v. Steven John G. George

Case No.  30-2011-00508097-CU-HR-CJC

Civil Harassment – September 14, 2011

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            76.       Plaintiff asserts that the extraordinary efforts undertaken to silence Plaintiff’s Writings would not have occurred had they not been truthful, reliable, authentic, fact-based, and legally-substantiated.  Furthermore, at no time during the past two and one-half years has even one defendant named herein been able to identify one single fact written by Plaintiff that was not true.  Truth is an absolute defense and that issue was never questioned. 

            77.       Nonetheless, Plaintiff is the subject of two permanent injunctions representing unconstitutional prior restraint and has over $700,000 in default judgments.  At first, the violations were expressly intended to silence Plaintiff.  When Plaintiff refused to be silenced, and instead, documented in public forums the intentional violations of her rights, the retaliation split evenly between new acts of retaliation and acts designed to conceal the original violations.  Each time Plaintiff fought back and exposed the violations of her rights, new harm would come her way in the hope she would simply give up.

            78.       But Plaintiff never gave up and now brings the herein action to federal court for redress of her constitutional and federal rights, on the authority of federal legislation, 42 U.S.C. §1983 that states:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable…”

            79.       Plaintiff asserts that the seven above cases did not occur in single, random acts; rather, they occurred by way of several conspiratorial engagements in joint participation with state officials acting under color of state law.  This is the only way defendants could have managed to commit these crimes and violate Plaintiff’s rights.  Officials acting under color of state law have a tremendous amount of power, and that  authority is not available to Plaintiff except in this Court with this federal civil rights action.

            80.       Plaintiff, in no way, claims a “grand conspiracy” of all defendants named herein working in collusion with all other defendants.   However, common objectives exact common results and the governance under which officials acting under color of state law operate, has, so far, shielded them from accountability, punishment and restitution to Plaintiff.  This is, in part, why Plaintiff also employs 42 U.S.C. §1985 that states:

            “If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire […] for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws;[…] or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen […] in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section; and if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”

            81.       In addition, Plaintiff calls on the authority of 42 U.S.C. §1986 to provide a remedy for injuries caused by intentional acts of omission by officials and institutions that owe a duty to respond when a citizen asks for help.  This federal avenue to remedy states:

            “Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action […]. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued. 

            82.       In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), Plaintiff incorporates herein state law claims that are directly associated with the federal and constitutional rights violations brought herein.  Plaintiff asserts that these claims are “from part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution and that supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.”

            83.       The California Civil Rights Act (codified in California Civil Code §52.1) includes a specific related clause in subsection “k.” relevant to the herein action.  It states:

No order issued in any proceeding brought pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) shall restrict the content of any person’s speech. An order restricting the time, place, or manner of any person’s speech shall do so only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of constitutional or statutory rights, consistent with the constitutional rights of the person sought to be enjoined.” [See, fn. 10 for “(a)”][2]  [See, fn. 11 for “(b)”][3]

            84.       As referenced in Paragraph 16, supra, the content of Plaintiff’s speech was forever restricted via two permanent injunctions without concern for “the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of constitutional or statutory rights, consistent with the constitutional rights of the person sought to be enjoined.”  These facts will be fully briefed herein.

            85.       Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as a matter of right, in accordance with the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, and specifically in view of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Byrd v. Blue Ridge Cooperative, 356 U.S. 525 (1958) that states, in relevant part:

“In light of the influence of the Seventh Amendment, the function assigned to the jury is an essential factor in the process for which the Federal Constitution provides.” 

            86.       Once again, Plaintiff requests that the Court order a preliminary injunction enjoining further retaliatory action against Plaintiff by defendants named herein and participants in the following two active cases:  

                        a.         Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752; and

                        b.         UDR, Inc. v. Erin Baldwin, Bad Biz Finder, et al., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00125305.

            87.       On October 28, 2011, Plaintiff petitioned this Court for a preliminary injunction enjoining continuing acts of retaliation, most recently a notice sent to Plaintiff from Defendant Orange County Sheriff’s Department that threatens her liberty interests.  The herein action contains several claims of arbitrary harassment from sheriffs threatening Plaintiff’s liberty interests without probable cause.  This is just another example:  

“Warrant of arrest notice:  a warrant has been issued for your immediate arrest as a result of the following:  A complaint filed charging you with a violation of the law.  Agency Assigned: Orange County Sheriff’s Dept.  877-872-2122.  Failure to comply will result in your immediate arrest at your home or place of business.”        

            88.       Plaintiff has no knowledge of a criminal complaint filed against her.  If the Orange County District Attorney, named herein as a defendant, is retaliating against Plaintiff by threatening prosecution; any future prosecution would be an unconstitutional act of retaliation.

            89.       In bringing this Section 1983 Complaint, Plaintiff is engaged in constitutionally-protected activity, i.e., petitioning the court for redress of grievances.   Yet, the very nature of her claims continue unabated even after notice of said retaliatory actions to this Court.  In order to prevail with a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff need only demonstrate a reasonable probability that her claims would succeed on the merits and to this end, Plaintiff filed the October 28, 2011 Notice.  To date, an Order of the Court has not been made to ensure that the proceedings before this Court are fair and equitable.       

            90.       Plaintiff requests that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate the viability of bringing criminal charges against defendants named herein pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §241 and §242.

            91.       Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint her counsel as requested on many occasions.  United States Code §1915(e)(1) states: “The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”  

            92.       In certain cases, the Court “may appoint counsel . . . only under ‘exceptional circumstances.’” (See, Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 824 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) and Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir.1984)).  “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the issues involved. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (§ 1983 action)); see also $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d at 569; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

            93.       Appointment of counsel may be justified when proceedings will go forward “more efficiently and effectively.” Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 656 (9th Cir. 2000) .

            94.       The Ninth Circuit reviews for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to appoint counsel under §1915 (See, Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017).   It is an abuse of discretion to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment prior to ruling on plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.   (See, Miles v. Dep’t of Army, 881 F.2d 777, 784 (9th Cir. 1989) and McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 199 (9th Cir. 1987).

            95.       If the Court continues to believe that Plaintiff’s request is unmeritorious, Plaintiff strongly requests that it comply with the Ninth Circuit holding in Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) regarding liberal pleading standards. 

            96.       In Eldridge, it stated:

“The Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the inartful pleading of pro se litigants. It is settled that the allegations of a pro se litigant’s complaint, however inartfully pleaded, are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 

[Also, see, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (per curiam); Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam); Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889-90 (9th Cir. 2008); Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 653 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).]           

            97.       In Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit also held:   “The rule of liberal construction is ‘particularly important in civil rights cases’.”

            98.       In Merrell v. J.R. Block, [4] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal decided that “Pro se litigants are not entitled to fees under the statute, but they are entitled to expenses.”  Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby requests reimbursement for all expenses.

            99.       And finally, in Burt v. Hennessey,[5]  pro se litigants are entitled “to recover actual costs reasonably incurred to the extent that an attorney could have received these costs under a §1988 attorney’s fees award.”[6]  Plaintiff reserves her right to reimbursement for costs so specified in fn. 11, infra. 

C.        Jurisdiction and Venue

            100.     This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s constitutional and federal law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1343(a).

            101.     This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) because “they are part of the same case and controversy described by Plaintiff’s federal claims.  In addition, this Court has independent original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 because this action is between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

            102.     Plaintiff asserts that the California State Attorneys’ Oath, codified in Business and Professions Code §6068, is state law; any violations of same are actionable offenses herein. Attorneys, like any other private party (including public defenders) are “persons” under §1983.  Federal jurisdiction pre-empts state law jurisdiction and, as such, all attorneys named herein are individuals subject to the Joint Participation Doctrine, which association converts them to private parties acting under color of state law. 

            103.     The following are laws applicable to all attorneys including those names herein as defendants in this action.  Plaintiff incorporates herein these laws in connection with all attorney defendants named herein by way of this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) of Plaintiff’s state law claims irrevocably connected to the violations of Plaintiff constitutional and federal , federal and is action under federal law  requests that the Court acknowledge same in and It is irrelevant their position or immunity or

            It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:

a.         To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state; 

b.         To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. 

c.         To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense. 

d.         To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. 

e[1].    To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client. 

e[2][1]. Notwithstanding paragraph, an attorney may, but is not required to, reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client to the extent that the attorney reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the attorney reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual. 

f.          To advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is charged. 

g.         Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest. 

h.         Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed. 

i.          To cooperate and participate in any disciplinary investigation or other regulatory or disciplinary proceeding pending against himself or herself. However, this subdivision shall not be construed to deprive an attorney of any privilege guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any other constitutional or statutory privileges. This subdivision shall not be construed to require an attorney to cooperate with a request that requires him or her to waive any constitutional or statutory privilege or to comply with a request for information or other matters within an unreasonable period of time in light of the time constraints of the attorney’s practice. Any exercise by an attorney of any constitutional or statutory privilege shall not be used against the attorney in a regulatory or disciplinary proceeding against him or her. 

j.          To comply with the requirements of Section 6002.1. 

k.         To comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation, including a probation imposed with the concurrence of the attorney. 

l.          To keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution with the agency charged with attorney discipline. 

m.        To respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of clients and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in matters with regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide legal services.

n.         To provide copies to the client of certain documents under time limits and as prescribed in a rule of professional conduct which the board shall adopt. 

o.         To report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in writing, within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge of any of the following: 

o[1].    The filing of three or more lawsuits in a 12-month period against the attorney for malpractice or other wrongful conduct committed in a professional capacity. 

o[2].    The entry of judgment against the attorney in a civil action for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, or gross negligence committed in a professional capacity. 

o[3].    The imposition of judicial sanctions against the attorney, except for sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000). 

o[4].    The bringing of an indictment or information charging a felony against the attorney. 

o[5].    The conviction of the attorney, including any verdict of guilty, or plea of guilty or no contest, of a felony, or a misdemeanor committed in the course of the practice of law, or in a manner in which a client of the attorney was the victim, or a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of the misdemeanor, involves improper conduct of an attorney, including dishonesty or other moral turpitude, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a felony or a misdemeanor of that type. 

o[6].    The imposition of discipline against the attorney by a professional or occupational disciplinary agency or licensing board, whether in California or elsewhere. 

o[7].    Reversal of judgment in a proceeding based in whole or in part upon misconduct, grossly incompetent representation, or willful misrepresentation by an attorney. 

o[8].    As used in this subdivision, “against the attorney” includes claims and proceedings against any firm of attorneys for the practice of law in which the attorney was a partner at the time of the conduct complained of and any law corporation in which the attorney was a shareholder at the time of the conduct complained of unless the matter has to the attorney’s knowledge already been reported by the law firm or corporation. 

o[9].    The State Bar may develop a prescribed form for the making of reports required by this section, usage of which it may require by rule or regulation. 

o[10].  This subdivision [“o,” only, not the balance of the §6068] is only intended to provide that the failure to report as required herein may serve as a basis of discipline. 

            105.     Venue is proper in the Central District of California, Eastern Division,  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)(1), (2), and (3) because Plaintiff resides in Riverside County.  In addition, many of the named defendants reside or are employed in San Bernardino County. A substantial part of the events giving rise to these claims occurred in the jurisdiction of the Central District of California, Eastern Division. 

            106.     Plaintiff demands the full panoply of rights afforded any other citizen bringing a §1983 action whether she proceeds pro se or with counsel.  She is aware of and hereby denounces any attempt to dispose of this case for any reason other than that which is prescribed by law. 

            107.     Plaintiff also demands that the Court’s Mandatory Arbitration assignment be vacated and that a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Pym’s denial of Plaintiff’s request to participate in the Court’s Electronic Filing Program be scheduled.

            108.     Finally, Plaintiff demands that all other matters pertaining to this action be heard before a Section III United States District Court Judge.  

D.        Statute Of Limitations

            109.     Because 42 U.S.C. §1983 contains no specific statute of limitations, federal courts borrow state statutes of limitations for personal injury actions.  (See, U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Wallace v. Kato[7] and Wilson v. Garcia,[8] superseded by statute on other grounds.  In California, the personal injury statute of limitation is two years.

            110.     However, federal law determines when a cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run for a §1983 claim.   In Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991) the U.S Supreme Court held:

“A federal claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.”            

            111.     Plaintiff asserts two very important factors for the Court to consider:

                        a.         For the past two years, Plaintiff’s principal objective was to “survive” the retaliatory onslaught of legal actions against her.  It was not until early-2011 that Plaintiff found stability to the extent she could begin forming the causes of action for the herein Complaint.

                        b.         Notwithstanding “a.,” supra, Plaintiff wishes to remind the Court that on three separate occasions (June 19, 2009; on or about August 31, 2009; and on or about February 25, 2010) defendants named herein seized the sum total of Plaintiff’s property in her residence and in her storage unit. 

                        c.         The advantage defendants named herein have realized by its unconstitutional search and seizure of Plaintiff’s property is tremendous.  Imagine trying to write a book with ten words, when you know there are 200.  That has been Plaintiff’s experience each time she had been deprived of her property interest.

                        d.         How can a party to an action be expected to defend that action when the other party has taken all her documents, pleadings, research, notes, correspondence, emails, articles, transcripts, court order and so on? 

            112.     The Fundamental-Fairness Doctrine is a rule that applies the principles of due process to a judicial proceeding.  Fundamental-Fairness is considered synonymous with due process. The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person’s life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  Nonetheless, it’s occurred countless times.

            113.     In this Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has included two federal officers as defendants to her action.  Plaintiff does not take this decision lightly and has given it tremendous thought.  In order to comprehensively articulate the nature of her claims, particularly those that deal with constitutional issues, Plaintiff must include facts (supported by the law) surrounding decisions that do not comport with Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and privileges.  She need not be concerned that, as a result, she may not be favored, as Plaintiff asserts that the integrity of her claim is tantamount.

                        a.         Plaintiff added Judge Cormac J. Carney (“Defendant Carney”) as a result of Plaintiff’s May, 2011 removal of two strategic lawsuits against public participation from state court to district court based on federal question and diversity jurisdiction.  Both cases were assigned to Defendant Carney who ultimately remanded them back to Orange County Superior Court Judge Franz E. Miller.  In addition to his surprising sua sponte remand orders, the remand circumstances were unusual and not in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  (Please see more details in the “Statement of Facts,” infra.)

                        b.         Plaintiff added Magistrate Judge Sheri N. Pym (“Defendant Pym”) who was assigned Plaintiff’s case on August 16, 2011.  It’s no great revelation that pro se litigants are not favored by the district courts; that they are relegated to the bottom of the barrel and nobody wants to be bothered with them.  However, rather than appearing in forma pauperis, Plaintiff paid the filing fee of $350.00 and would like her day in court.  Plaintiff fears that it is not likely to happen in this particular arrangement.   (Please see more details in the “Statement of Facts,” infra.)

            114.     Accordingly, Plaintiff adds a Bivens claim herein.


[1] … until her federal privacy rights were violated by Reed Smith attorney, Marilyn A. Moberg, Esq. (“Defendant Moberg”), WordPress Chief Executive Officer, Toni Schneider (“Defendant Schneider”), attorneys Nicholas D. Myers, Esq. (“Defendant Myers”), Eric J. Goodman, Esq. (“Defendant Goodman”), and Daniel J. Kessler, Esq. (“Defendant Kessler”) of Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George, LLP (“Defendant BKGG”).

[2] (a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. An action brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed individually against each person who is determined to have violated this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose rights under this section are determined to have been violated. 

[3]  (b) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured.

[4] 809 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1987).

[5] 929 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1991).

[6] The following may be included in an award of costs: (1) fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) docket fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1923; (6) compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses and costs of special interpretation services under 28 U.S.C. § 1828.  (Also see, 28 U.S.C. § 1920).  

[7] 549 U.S. 384, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 1094 (2007)

[8] 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985). 

Advertisements

Tagged: , , , , ,

§ One Response to Journalist Section 1983 Complaint Details 40+ Acts of Retaliatory Prosecution by CA State Officials to Silence Her Speech

  • Royal says:

    From 1986 through present day today, I have been a consumer of the state bar of California and have learned that the State Bar of California Confederacy Clause is well in tact and that is how consumers of the state bar are being defrauded and deprived of personal rights. The confederacy clause is different than the nazi-jew scam, but the results are the same as some public employees’ of the state bar and some licensed members of the state bar, fund their domestic terrorist crimes against United States Armed Forces Veterans’ Benefits’, United States Citizens and others within the jurisdiction of the United States and that includes anyone within the jurisdiction of the state.
    Many consumers’ of the state bar have complained about the failure of the bars disciplinary system.The state bar disciplinary system run six to seven figures through it disciplinary system without consideration for its consumers but only to redistribute money, identity theft, and other items of interest to itselft, which is subsequently redistributed.
    The last I heard from the state bar consumer audit & review-state bar treasury issues, its success in deceiving it’s consumers’ has trippled, and one of its secret is to prevent the state bar court from veiwing evidence and therefore the supreme court cannot consider evidence not presented to the state bar court. The state bar and its domestic cell has relocated many born outside of the United States mostly asian at this time under the confederate clause.

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 Journalist Section 1983 Complaint Details 40+ Acts of Retaliatory Prosecution by CA State Officials to Silence Her Speech at cacorruptionwatch.

meta

%d bloggers like this: