Why is the Ninth Circuit Trying to Throw Out Erin Baldwin’s Civil Rights Complaint??

March 10, 2012 § Leave a comment

Because they are scared of what would happen if the case got before a jury.  They are petrified of the far-reaching ramifications that get bigger every day.  Bottom line, Erin Baldwin’s case is retaliatory prosecution on steroids.  Since 2009, there have been 48 baseless cases/actions (both civil and criminal) filed against her to shut her the hell up – all of which she has survived – which baffles her adversaries.  Even after her First Amendment rights were terminated by two unconstitutional permanent injunctions, she didn’t give up. 

Why wouldn’t a woman not give up after she is beaten and threatened in custody by five male Big Bear Sheriff’s Deputies?  What about getting locked up for 35 days without a preliminary hearing or being charged with a crime?  What if all your personal property was stolen three times in two years to prevent you from defending yourself in court?  Most perople would say enough is enough, but Erin Baldwin is not “most people.” She wrote for the benefit of others and she is not giving up to show others that you can fight city hall. 

Beginning in late 2008, she noticed a series of events unfolding that appeared to be intentional fraud against California residential tenants and consumers in foreclosure.   She wrote about these events with the hope of saving consumers in foreclosure and residential tenants from financial devestation.  Her blog amassed nearly 200,000 hits in five months.  It was then shut down by two permanent injunctions purchased by the State Bar of California via a bribe paid to Orange County Superior Court Judge Franz E. Miller.  
The series of events Miss Baldwin noticed and wrote about included:
1.   An unusually high number of Californians qualifying for “no down-payment, 1-, 3- and 5-year interest-only” sub-prime mortgage loans they could not afford.
2.   An equally high number of mortgage loan defaults occurring following the “interest only” period resulting in record-breaking foreclosure statistics.   
3.   A corresponding increase in the number of residential tenants flowing into the California apartment market causing an escalation of landlord-tenant fraud.              
4.   A significant number of vulnerable homeowners desperate to save their homes from foreclosure and an equal amount of unqualified “experts” eager to take their money and capitalize on their misfortune.
5.   A hopelessly flawed, unenforced and ill-conceived consumer safeguard called “The California Foreclosure Consultants Act” (“CFCA”) codified in California Civil Code §2945, et seq.
6.   An intentional and premeditated “loophole” in the CFCA that prohibited all loan modification service providers (except California State Bar-licensed attorneys) from taking fees in advance of work performed.                                   
7.   A rush of “non-attorneys,” primarily California Department of Real Estate-licensed subprime mortgage brokers unlawfully associating with California State Bar-licensed attorneys with the express intent of circumventing the CFCA “loophole.” 
8.   An unprecedented number of newly-formed law firms offering foreclosure rescue services advertised as “attorney-based law firms” with no lawyers on staff.
9.   An inherent and justifiable reliance on the fact that when one hires a “law firm” that the work will be performed by an experienced and qualified lawyer; coupled with the reality that the work was performed by “non-lawyers” with no experience reviewing loan documents for error in order to evaluate and assert the proper and required affirmative defenses to effectively negotiate a loan modification with a lender. 
10.   An appalling lack of consumer protection by the California State Bar and California Department of Real Estate, both required by law to protect consumers by (a) enforcing their respective professional rules of conduct; (b) disciplining their members when they break the rules, and (c) making prompt restitution to the clients of the rule-breaking members through their respective consumer protection programs, the “Client Security Fund” and “Recovery Account,” respectively.
11.   A historic rise in unemployment rates caused by big corporation lay-offs and small business failure.
12.  A freeze on consumer and business credit and a decline in home values.
13.   A bailout for the banks who intentionally sold unconscionable subprime mortgage loans utilizing bad faith predatory tactics to induce consumers mesmerized by the political speeches promising the “American Dream for All.”
14.   No bailout for the consumers who bought the unconscionable subprime mortgage loans “guaranteed to make the American Dream a reality,” resulting in catastrophic poverty rates, a rise in the number of bankruptcy filings, and record growth in the homeless population.
15.   “Too little, too late” legislation enacted in late 2009 (Senate Bill 94) that prohibited all loan modification service providers, including attorneys, from taking fees in advance of work performed. 
16.   In theory, Senate Bill 94 gave California state agencies and officials four years to resolve all outstanding consumer claims and put into place consumer protection programs before it expired on January 1, 2013.  Nothing has happened.
17.   Thousands of consumer claims still exist [even though the California State Bar tries to convince us otherwise] and no legitimate programs have been put into place to counteract the inevitable.  Senate Bill 94 will expire at the same time existing 3- and 5-year interest only loan schedules expire.  (January 1, 2013)
18.   Then history will repeat itself, which means new mesmerizing political speeches; new and improved task forces that do nothing but conceal official misconduct (which misconduct caused the vicious cycle in the first place), new names for old companies ready to defraud consumers again, and a new set of consumers eager for the American Dream.
19.   Astonishing wealth has been amassed by a few at the expense of many.  I championed returning the wealth to the consumers, but “the few” had other ideas.              
Erin Baldwin’s articles about this series of events and the participants in said events, made public the individual and collective responsibility and liability of the California Attorney General, California State Bar and California Department of Real Estate (and others) for intentional fraud against California residential tenants and consumers in foreclosure.  The result was an assault against her “from the top down,” to rid the Internet of the truth and replace it with false messages about how she was “crazy,” a “violent criminal,” and others.  The “top” is Bank of America, California’s single largest beneficiary of mortgage fraud against consumers and the single largest antagonist of her articles.  
Baldwin predicted the following in November 14, 2011 in her 2nd Amended Complaint (which is why they won’t let her file a 3rd Amended Complaint – because she was right and now thousands of California consumers are SOL).
“Bank of America plans to settle (for pennies on the dollar) all outstanding consumer claims with the California Attorney General’s Office, California State Bar, and California Department of Real Estate, thereby circumventing restitution to the claimants altogether. In exchange, the California Attorney General’s Office, California State Bar, and California Department of Real Estate agree to stall, then reject, all consumer claims made against Bank of America.   This will ultimately unjustly enrich California government officials with money stolen from the citizens that put them into office.”
Baldwin filed a Section 1983 case in District Court on August 16, 2011.  She asserted that the malicious and retaliatory actions against her did not occur in single, random acts; rather, they occurred by way of several conspiratorial engagements.  However, she did not claim a “grand conspiracy” of all defendants working in collusion with all other defendants.   However, she did assert that common objectives exact common results and the governance under which officials acting under color of state law operate, has, so far, shielded them from accountability, punishment and restitution to her.  
Since August 16, 2011, there has been nothing but constant attempts to dismiss Baldwin’s case all of which she has successfully circumvented. Justice will come, it always does.

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 )

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 Why is the Ninth Circuit Trying to Throw Out Erin Baldwin’s Civil Rights Complaint?? at cacorruptionwatch.


%d bloggers like this: