Calling All Legal Brainiacs!!!!! What’s Wrong With These Permanent Injunctions?
January 2, 2012 § Leave a comment
Also see: What Does Retaliatory Prosecution Really Look Like? https://cacorruptionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-does-retaliatory-prosecution-look-like/
On August 16, 2011, journalist, Erin Baldwin, filed a Section 1983 Civil Rights case. What started it all? Two permanent injunctions restraining her speech without due process of law, both entered by Orange County Superior Court Judge Franz E. Miller. The true objective? To silence her “spot on” reporting about loan modification fraud and landlord-tenant abuse. Judge Miller was in bed with the California State Bar to protect their liability for the harm its attorney members caused vulnerable consumers in foreclosure, as well as an out-of-state landlord that actively evicted tenants based on illegal California leases. It was a very crowded bed.
These injunctions were blatant unconstitutional prior restraints in violation of Baldwin’s First Amendment protected speech right to publish truthful articles about matters of public concern. In addition to the injunctions, Judge Miller entered over $700,000 in judgments to handicap Baldwin from hiring an Anti-SLAPP lawyer to throw out the injunctions. Miller knew no attorney would take her case on contingency given that the judgments would eat up all possible recovery of attorneys’ fees. He also knew Miss Baldwin was indigent.
How many violations of Erin Baldwin’s constitutional, federal, and state law rights can you see? Why won’t the Clerk of the Orange County Superior Court certify these documents? How many procedural errors can you find? What’s missing from these permanent injunctions? Are they structurally sound? The prize? You can tell your friends you’re smarter than any state, appellate or federal judge that’s looked at these injunctions in three years.
Don’t cheat and look at Baldwin’s pleadings that contain all the answers; the same arguments she’s been presenting to California courts for nearly 3 years. Why should you, when Judge Miller didn’t bother looking at them … nor did the justices of the Ninth Circuit California Court of Appeal …nor the federal judges at the Central District Court of California.
Right now, Baldwin’s case is pending in the United States Court of Appeal. We hope THEY will look at these two injunctions that set in motion FORTY separate civil and criminal actions to silence Baldwin’s reporting.
On June 2, 2009, the first permanent injunction was entered against Miss Baldwin WITHOUT a hearing on the merits, WITHOUT identifying even one single false (defamatory) statement; WITHOUT identifying the services and parties about which she was prohibited from writing, and WITHOUT serving her with the injunction. Baldwin was never in default because she was never named as a defendant. However, she was held personally liable for a $605,000 judgment even though the attorneys never filed a corrected Default Prove-up Package.
Permanent Injunction No. 1: 2009-06-02_Default_Judgment_by_Court_with_Permanent_Injunction This is all there is. Despite requests, Miss Baldwin is having a rough time getting a clerk to certify this document. (Exhibit “B,” herein is 324 pages of investigative articles. It does not identify anything.)
On December 11, 2009, the second permanent injunction was entered against Miss Baldwin, again WITHOUT a hearing on the merits, WITHOUT identifying even one single false (defamatory) statement; WITHOUT identifying the services and parties about which she was prohibited from writing, and WITHOUT serving her with the injunction. Baldwin was never in default because she was never named as a defendant. However, she was held personally liable for a $104,000 judgment even though the attorneys never filed a Default Prove-up Package.
Permanent Injunction No. 2: 2009-12-11_Default_Judgment_with_Permanent_Injunction Again, Miss Baldwin can’t get a clerk to certify this injunction. ALSO, the injunction states that Tracy Saffos gave oral testimony at trial…she didn’t, here’s the transcript: Reporter’s Transcript [the first transcript dated February 1, 2011 is the record of the OC Public Defender assigned to this case. The second transcript dated December 11, 2009, is the record described above].
These are PROHIBITORY INJUNCTIONS, i.e., Baldwin is prohibited from actively doing certain things stated in the injunction. If she does these things the punishment is punitive (criminal), because she cannot “take back” what she’s done. Criminal contempt can only be brought by the District Attorney which affords Miss Baldwin all her 6th Amendment rights as a criminal defendant, including a jury trial.
These are not MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS, describing those things you must do, as in Family Law orders, as opposed to what you must not do. Civil contempt may also include jail but they say that the civil contemnor “holds the keys to his own cell,” because he is only in jaill to COERCE him into doing what he is supposed to do, like pay child support, alimony, etc.
One might think Miss Baldwin was being set up to be held in contempt because the orders are extraordinarily vague and overbroad. And sure enough on August 31, 2009 and November 10, 2010, respectively, Miss Baldwin was held in contempt or these permanent injunctions. She spent 35 days in jail on the first one and the second one is still pending.
But wait … why would the attorneys file CIVIL contempt papers on Family Law Judicial Council Forms if the contempt is criminal contempt that can only be brought by a DA???
See: No. 1: Parsa OSC and Affidavit for Contempt and No. 2: 2010-11-16 Req for Setting of OSC Re – Contempt (conformed).
Answer: To make sure Judge Miller retained control of the case to conceal his misconduct and unconstitutional permanent injunctions.
Any why, if the contempt cases were civil, would Judge Miller assign the Orange County Public Defender (only authorized to represent criminal defendants) to represent Baldwin?
Answer: To make sure Judge Miller retained control of the case to conceal his misconduct and unconstitutional permanent injunctions. The Orange County Public Defender was appointed by Judge Miller to make sure these judgments and injunctions stayed in place. And they did a great job – but they also committed legal malpractice, constructive fraud, and horrible breach of fiduciary duty. That’s another article for later.
It’s amazing how far certain people will go to hide their misconduct and continue harming someone like Miss Baldwin who never did anything but write truthful articles for the benefit of consumers in foreclosure and California tenants. We really wonder how they sleep at night.