Erin Baldwin’s Proposed Order Is Denied; She Asks Judge David O. Carter for an Explanation

December 2, 2011 § Leave a comment

This has got to be the most interesting case out there and the one none of the defendants wants you to see. 

Back in January of 2009 Erin Baldwin tried to support California consumers in foreclosure by giving them the facts.   The facts made some people look really bad because it exposed how they contributed to the fraud against consumers in foreclosure. 

What do they say?   If you do the crime ya gotta do the time.  Or something like that. 

So, all these folks decide they’re going to band together to destroy Erin Baldwin so they won’t be exposed.    That’s really the bottom line here.  And if you take a look at her Complaint, you’ll see who the “some people” are.

But this lady who from all appearances is not easily intimidated, never gives up and her case is now in the United States District Court, Central District of California, in front of The Honorable Judge David O. Carter.  You know, the same guy who held President Obama’s feet to the fire, the war hero, the guy who doesn’t take any shit from anyone.  Perfect, right?   Well, maybe not – that remains to be seen. 

Miss Balls of Steel Baldwin stood up for her right to be heard in front of a real judge and U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym recused herself.  It appears that Magistrate Pym and Sarah L. Overton, Esquire, a Thomas Girardi protege, and attorney for Judge Franz Miller, engaged in extrajudicial ex parte communications.  It also appears that Ms. Overton specializes in representing California Superior Court judges. 

Now, we’ve heard a lot of great stuff about Judge Carter and so we’re hoping for the best.  Perhaps we’ll see sooner than later because there is a pending matter currently before him regarding a bizarre set of circumstances that led to a denial of a Proposed Order that was requested by Judge Carter.  Here’s the timeline:

–     On October 28, 2011, Baldwin filed a document called: “Notice to the Court of Communication Constituting Threat of Arrest & Loss Of Liberty from Defendants Acting Under Color of State Law and Named In Section 1983 Complaint Based on Unconstitutional Court Orders & Contempt Charges Thereon,”  because even after she filed her Section 1983 Complaint, the people named in the Complaint continued to retaliate against her.  

–    No response from the Court until November 15, 2011 when Judge Carter’s clerk calls Baldwin and requests a Proposed Order to go along with the document from above.

–   Baldwin emails the Proposed Order to Judge Carter’s department the next day, and then, the day after that lodges a hard copy with the court because that’s what Judge Carter’s courtroom procedures say to do.

–   On November 22, 2011, the Court uploads 2 things to PACER:  1) Notice that Pym has recused herself; and 2) the denial of Baldwin’s Proposed Order.

–   But get this … there’s no order of the court stating why the Proposed Order that it requested had been denied.  Instead the court uploads to PACER the same Proposed Order lodged by Baldwin with a big fat “DENIED” stamp on the first page.

–  And what’s even wierder is that Judge Carter’s initials in the case number are scratched out.  But on the last page of the order … there are not one, not two, but three stamps that say, “”Denied by Order of David O. Carter, United States District Court Judge  on ______.”  But no date is entered and no signature of Judge Carter!    What the hell?

–   And on the line that says “It is So Ordered” someone wrote in the date “11/22/11.”   Would you be like, is this a joke or is it real or did someone have too many cocktails at lunch?

Here is the denied Proposed Order: Order Re Notice to Court DENIED

So, Miss Baldwin doesn’t know what to think about this.  But she does know that she has a right to know why the Proposed Order requested by Judge Carter has been denied because there are some very important constitutional issues contained in the Proposed Order. 

So, she filed a Request for Explanation of Adverse Findings on November 28.  Here is her Request in three parts.  No response yet from Judge Carter but we’ll keep you posted.

Request for Explanation of the Basis of Adverse Findings-Part 1

Request for Explanation of the Basis of Adverse Findings-Part 2

Request for Explanation of the Basis of Adverse Findings-Part 3


Tagged: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Erin Baldwin’s Proposed Order Is Denied; She Asks Judge David O. Carter for an Explanation at cacorruptionwatch.


%d bloggers like this: