Baldwin Asks U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to Decide Whether Permanent Injunctions Are Unconstitutional

February 15, 2012 § Leave a comment

Erin Baldwin Fights to Get Her First Amendment Rights Reinstated

Click here:   EMERGENCY PETITION FOR FIRST AMENDMENT WRIT

This was filed on January 26, 2012 and she hasn’t heard anything from the Court of Appeals yet.  Should be any day now.  Let’s see how it turns out.

Here are the attachments to the Writ:

June 2, 2009 Permanent Injunction in Parsa Law Group v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.Parsa Injunction

December 11, 2009 Permanent Injunction in UDR, Inc. v. Erin Baldwin, Bad Biz Finder, et al.:  UDR Injunction

Here are the Court Reporter Transcripts:

Parsa Transcript from June 2, 2009:  June 2 2009 TRANSCRIPT 

The permanent injunctions were issued without a full “hearing on the merits” where the defamatory statements are decided and placed in the text of the injunction so that the prohibited conduct is clear and concise (see, Balboa Island Village Inn v. Lemen).  This is also where damages are to be proven, i.e, the amount of $604,515.66.  As you can clearly see, there are no specific statements in the injunction nor are the subjects and parties about whom she is prohibited from writing about stated.  So, how could Baldwin be held in contempt?    Parsa OSC and Affidavit for Contempt  And why is this on Family Law Judicial Council Forms? 

Also, Miss Baldwin was not in default in either case, as she was never properly named as a defendant in the actions.  As well, she aptly filed several pleadings that were not acknowledged by the court and as such, she could not be in default.

UDR Transcript from December 11, 2009:  12 11 09 UDR Transcript  Again, the permanent injunction was issued without a full “hearing on the merits” where the defamatory statements are decided and placed in the text of the injunction so that the prohibited conduct is clear and concise (see, Balboa Village Inn v. Balboa).  This is also where damages are to be proven, i.e, the amount of $104,210.00.  As you can clearly see, there are no specific statements in the injunction nor are the subjects and parties about whom she is prohibited from writing about are not stated.  So, how could Baldwin be held in contemptWell, wait a minute there are no specific statements in the injunction.    So, how could Baldwin be held in contempt?  2010-11-16 Req for Setting of OSC Re – Contempt (conformed)   Also, please note that the injunction states that Tracy Saffos gave live testimony but as you can see from the transcript she did not.

This should be very interesting in light of Baldwin’s Section 1983 case filed in District Court on August 16, 2011.

Stay tuned.

Advertisements

Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Baldwin Asks U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to Decide Whether Permanent Injunctions Are Unconstitutional at cacorruptionwatch.

meta

%d bloggers like this: