Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Pro Se Appellants Due Process of Law

March 7, 2012 § 3 Comments

As evidenced by Miss Baldwin’s final petition for rehearing to the United States Court of Appeal, For the Ninth Circuit, pro se appellants are routinely denied due process of law by bogus, boilerplate court orders written by motions attorneys pretending to be Circuit Judges. 

The Order contains statements such as “No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case” when, in fact, everyone has a right to file a Motion for Rehearing in accordance with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures, Rules 35 and 40.  

Read the Petition for all the details.  If you are a pro se appellant, do not give up, you have a right to meaningful access to the courts. 



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

§ 3 Responses to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Pro Se Appellants Due Process of Law

  • xt7matalino says:

    I left previous comments about Erin Baldwin’s predicament in the 9th Circuit Court of appeals and her legal pleadings, but my comments apparently did not post. In any case, I realize that what I am going to write is not any consolation but I am determined to explain that Erin Baldwin is not the only Pro Se litigant that received a note from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk with tidings that the Clerk is in the process of influencing the District Court Judge to revoke the pro se litigant’s in forma pauperis status and prohibit the pro se litigant from appealing because the exorbitantly high filing fees prohibit the pro se litigant from purchasing their right to appeal. This may sound harsh, but this is how it is without the euphemisms. I could go into specific cases but I will leave that for another time. DA

  • xt7matalino says:

    This writing relates to the same sort of injustices Erin Baldwin is subjected to in the courts. A lady friend called me one day in 2010 and told me her automobile was being towed away from her parking space and the men towing her car would not identify themselves and would not give her any paperwork. She called the police and the tow truck operators said she was interfering with a lawful tow and she was arrested. She had to post bail and she subsequently learned that a large corporation named Santander Consumer USA claimed it had purchased her vehicle and thousands of other vehicle loans that were almost paid in full from Triad Auto financing, and Santander said all the vehicles were in default. My friend filed a lawsuit in pro se against Santander under the federal and State fair debt collection practice acts (FDCPA) and Santander alleged they were now immune from suit under the FDCPA, inter alia, because they purchased her vehicle from Triad and Santander alleged they were creditors, not debt collectors, and creditors are immune from suit under the FDCPA.

    My friend alleged the contract she had with Triad made the alleged sale of her vehicle to Santander or anyone else without her written permission unlawful and she showed the contract to the federal court and asked for Santander to produce a bill of sale or other documentation proving Santander was legally allowed to purchase the vehicle and had in fact actually purchased the vehicle. At about this point in time my friend received a notice of class action settlement in the case of Sutherland et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., that was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG 10507124, alleging Santander Consumer USA had towed and defrauded at least 15,873 persons of their vehicles and consequently deprived these victims of their livelihood.

    The complaint stated the lawsuit was brought as a class action under the Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.), the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act; Civil Code §2981 et seq. (“Rees-Levering Act”), and other applicable laws, to challenge the unlawful, unfair and deceptive practices of Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. following repossession of motor vehicles from California consumers. The complaint alleged in particular, SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. fails to provide borrowers under conditional sales contracts with statutorily-mandated notice of their legal rights and-obligations after repossession of vehicles, Wrongfully deprives consumers of their right to reinstate or redeem their conditional Sales contracts after repossession, negligently and/or fraudulently misrepresents the rights and obligations of the parties following repossession, collects, or seeks to collect, deficiencies from
    borrowers following repossession for which borrowers are not liable as a matter of law, seeks and obtains deficiency judgments knowing that such judgments are unlawful, and unlawfully and falsely reports borrowers’ deficiency balances to credit reporting agencies as past due debts
    when collection of said amotints is in fact unlawful. Plaintiffs seek appropriate relief for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.

    Santander refused to present a bill of sale or any official documentation proving they had legal authorization to purchase the vehicle or actually purchased the vehicle and instead presented a self-serving affidavit written by the President and CEO of Santander. The federal judge accepted the Santander President’s affidavit as true and ruled against my friend and would not let her amend her complaint to include the violations of federal and state law she learned Santander also committed when she received the notice of class action settlement in Sutherland v, Santander Consumer USA.

  • xt7matalino says:

    The importance of In Forma Pauperis Status for Pro Se Litigants in the Federal Courts is often crucial, and I will begin by stating I can verify everything I write with documentation if needed or desired. There was once a lady that was employed at a California State mental hospital as a Psychiatric Technician Safety at a comparatively low salary. This is even though all the mental hospitals (Sanitary dungeons) in the State of California receive approximately $200,000.00 or more dollars for each captive patient per year to supposedly pay for the so-called “cost of care.” All State employees are required under Penal Code section 368 to sign a promise to report all patient financial abuse, physical abuse, and psychological abuse before they are given a job because the California Legislature found and declared that crimes against elders and dependent adults are deserving of special consideration and protection, not unlike the special protections provided for minor children, because elders and dependent adults may be confused, on various medications, mentally or physically impaired, or incompetent, and therefore less able to protect themselves, to understand or report criminal conduct, or to testify in court proceedings on their own behalf.

    The records show the said lady that was employed at a California State mental hospital reported a psychiatrist, inter alia, for excessively drugging a patient with powerful and painful psychiatric chemicals that can cause painful side effects including sudden death (See Citizens Commission on Human Rights International at,

    The record shows the psychiatrist began retaliating against the lady Psychiatric Technician and accused her of being dangerous and he tried to put a nut jacket on her due to his arrogance and vindictiveness and no respect for the rule of law. The lady was harassed, her character was assailed, and she was demoted. She appealed to the State Personnel Board and the board found her innocent of any wrong doing, found the charges were all hearsay, there is nothing wrong with her and never was, the board ordered her back to work. The lady attempted to return to work as usual but encountered more harassment, more trumped up false charges, more false accusations she was crazy and she was put out of work again. The lady again appealed to the State Personnel Board and was again found innocent of any wrong doing, there is nothing wrong with her and never was. The board ordered her returned to work the second time on September 23, 2008. Even so, the record clearly shows the vindictive psychiatrist, the State employer, and the State government attorney assigned to defend the psychiatrist and the employer admittedly has a discussion and decided to persecute and drag the lady through the courts until they could overturn the Board’s favorable rulings because the psychiatrist and employer were afraid the lady might sue them for their reprehensible acts and omissions and use the Board’s favorable rulings as evidence in a lawsuit, even though she has a legitimate constitutional right to do so.

    The State attorney filed a petition for rehearing at the request of the psychiatrist and employer, but rehearing was denied as a matter of law.
    The record shows the State attorney’s feet ran quick to the Napa County Superior Court and he filed an emergency petition for writ of mandate, and concealed evidence and reports positive to the lady’s case. The State attorney asked for an ex parte hearing, and the judge was ready to sign a permanent stay of the Board’s ruling but the lady arrived at the hearing at the last minute and the stay was only temporary, with a hearing set to determine the matter at a later date.

    The lady prevailed at the mandate petition hearing even though important evidence was concealed from the court, and the State attorney filed a notice of appeal and swore he would pursue the matter to the State Supreme Court if necessary. The record shows the lady herself personally mailed the evidence to the First District Court of Appeals because the State attorney concealed this evidence from the courts and the lady’s own defense counsel refused to reveal the same evidence to the courts. The Court of Appeals wrote two pages in their opinion about the previously concealed evidence the lady mailed to the Court of Appeals herself and personally and the Court of Appeals ruled in the lady’s favor.

    There were and still are several peripheral and collateral matters stemming from the case and the appeal ongoing but the State attorney did not dare take the matter to the State Supreme Court. Despite the several peripheral and collateral matters the lady filed a Title 42 USC Section 1983 lawsuit with pages and pages of proof of their wrongdoing thick with court decisions supporting her position against the several defendants. Portions of the lady’s evidence and pleadings were obviously either not entered into the file or removed from the file after the documents were stamped. The federal district court judge ignored and did not rule on several issues in my complaint that attorneys said should have been examined and not have been dismissed, but the federal judge ultimately dismissed the lady’s 1983 lawsuit anyway, and the Clerks in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have already sent a note to the District Court Judge asking him to revoke the lady’s in forma pauperis status apparently to prevent the lady from appealing because a pro se litigant certainly does not have the money to pay the exorbitantly priced filing fees after eight years of being kept out of her job, paying fees and court costs, and dragged through the courts.

    The lady looked for a lawyer to help her with this and she got some sympathy and saw many references to attorneys providing pro bono services but she has not seen one and the places she called that advertise this service never called back.

    I could write about peripheral and collateral matters and more and about other pro se litigants being abused by the courts, having their rights denied, and being prevented from appealing, but I will write more at another time. DAN A.

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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Pro Se Appellants Due Process of Law at cacorruptionwatch.


%d bloggers like this: