Federal Judge David O. Carter Fears Baldwin’s “Pattern of Behavior” Will Name Him in Complaint Next
January 9, 2012 § Leave a comment
See also press release by Pro Se Nation: “Federal Judge David O. Carter Promotes False Pattern of Behavior to Prejudice Pro Se Complaint”: http://www.prlog.org/11768761-federal-judge-david-carter-promotes-false-pattern-of-behavior-to-prejudice-pro-se-complaint.html.
In an attempt to distract attention away from their intentionally prejudicial and unlawful Orders, Judge David O. Carter, Judge Josephine Tucker, and Magistrate Sheri Pym, have collectively concocted false theories about Miss Baldwin’s “pattern of behavior” to be a harassing, vexatious litigant by naming “any judge who ever has ruled against her,” to her Section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint.
However, these theories fall flat on its face. At the end of this story is a list of 20 judges that have ruled against Miss Baldwin during the period covered in her Complaint. None of them are named in her Complaint. Can a judge be held liable for creating and disseminating false information about a pro se litigant to prevent her from advancing her claims for violations of her constitutional rights?
Here’s a brief history of the disqualification of Judge David O. Carter:
On December 13, 2011, Erin Baldwin filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Carter due to the fact that his buddy, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney was a named defendant in the case, and that his Courtroom Deputy, Dwayne Roberts, had direct personal knowledge of disputed facts. See: MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CARTER
On December 19, 2011, Erin Baldwin filed an Appeal based on Judge Carter’s December 2, 2011 Court Order that denied her constitutional rights to an explanation of the basis of adverse findings among others. See: NOTICE OF APPEAL
On December 21, 2011, Judge Tucker denied Baldwin’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Carter alleging that Miss Baldwin was “harassing” Judge Carter. Judge Tucker’s Order is void because she had no jurisdiction to rule on anything due to the Appeal. Nonetheless she took the opportunity to cast Miss Baldwin in a false light:
“In typical harassing litigation, a claim against a judge is barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, and the complaint is subject to prompt dismissal on judicial immunity or other grounds. Review of a complaint against a judicial colleague where the litigation is patently frivolous or judicial immunity is plainly applicable will not ordinarily give rise to a reasonable basis to question the assigned judge’s impartiality, and disqualification would rarely be appropriate.”
“The Opinion’s reference to “harassing litigation” is a reference to complaints filed by a party against a judge or judges “in retaliation for unfavorable judicial decisions or setbacks in their legal proceedings.” A review of the Corrected SAC leads this Court to the conclusion that the claim against Judge Carney is based solely on his remand decisions in two state court actions that Plaintiff attempted to remove to federal court.”
Then, Judge Tucker makes a highly-prejudicial and false statement claiming that Baldwin engages in a deleterious pattern of behavior names every judges that rules against her:
“The naming of Judge Carney appears to be simply part of Plaintiff’s pattern to name as a defendant any and every judge who issues an unfavorable ruling against her. The fact that Plaintiff has named Judge Carney as a defendant does not require recusal of Judge Carter. Plaintiff’s reference to a hearsay article from seven years ago does not change the analysis.”
On January 5, 2012 Judge Carter decided to disqualify himself after all. Again, no jurisdiction, Appeal was filed. Nonetheless, Judge Carter took advantage of the opportunity to reinforce Judge Tucker’s prejudicial, false statements about Miss Baldwin, stating:
“Plaintiff alleges in her Motion to Disqualify that this Court has “committed egregious acts of judicial misconduct” and “took actions to jeopardize Plaintiff’s case.” Plaintiff goes on to argue that she was “denied the right to withhold consent to a magistrate judge hearing her case” by this Court in its October 11, 2011 Order. Motion to Disqualify, 26.
“These allegations, along with Judge Tucker’s recognition of Plaintiff’s apparent “pattern to name as a defendant any and every judge who issues an unfavorable ruling against her” suggests that if this Court is not yet a defendant in the above-captioned case, it soon will be. Order on Motion to Disqualify, 6. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, this Court chooses to voluntarily recuse itself at the present time.”
Then, today, January 9, 2012, Judge Carter makes these same prejudicial and false statements about Miss Baldwin in his Order to Reassign the Case to Judge J. Spencer Letts in the Western Division: See: ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE UPON SELF-RECUSAL
“Plaintiff’s past pattern of behavior and present allegations suggest that Judge David O. Carter will likely soon be named as a defendant in the above-captioned case.”
What pattern of behavior? Do they just make this stuff up as they go along and if enough people repeat it – it just become true? For the record, the following is a list of the judges that have ruled against Miss Baldwin since Judge Franz E. Miller violated her First Amendment rights in 2009. NONE OF THEM ARE NAMED IN BALDWIN’S COMPLAINT.
Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Richard E. Pacheco, Harbor Justice Center, Newport Beach;
Orange County Superior Court Judge Craig E. Robison, Harbor Justice Center, Newport Beach;
Orange County Superior Court Judge Derek Johnson, Harbor Justice Center, Newport Beach;
Orange County Superior Court Judge Karen Robinson, Harbor Justice Center, Newport Beach;
Orange County Superior Court Judge Steven Perk, Central Justice Center, Santa Ana;
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Steven Malone, Victorville, California;
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Gilbert Ochoa, Big Bear, California;
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Kenneth Barr, San Bernardino, California;
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Kyle Brodie, San Bernardino, California;
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Michael Dest, San Bernardino, California;
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Ronald Christiansen, San Bernardino, California;
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Donna Gunnell Garza, San Bernardino, California;
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Thomas Garza, San Bernardino, California;
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, Los Angeles, California;
California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Fourth District, Division Three, Associate Justice Kathleen E. O’Leary;
California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Fourth District, Division Three, Associate Justice William F. Rylaarsdam;
California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Fourth District, Division Three, Associate Justice Richard M. Aronson;
California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Fourth District, Division Three, Associate Justice Richard D. Fybel;
United States District Court, Central District of California, District Judge David O. Carter; and
United States District Court, Central District of California, District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker.
It’s amazing what judges will say and do when they are called on their crap and have no legitimate response. They simply make it up.