What the U.S. Supreme Court is Learning About the Ninth Circuit From Erin Baldwin’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Appendix of Documents

May 19, 2012 § 1 Comment

Advertisements

JOURNALIST, ERIN BALDWIN, SEEKS FEDERAL GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION

May 9, 2012 § Leave a comment

Erin Baldwin Asks U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to Help Restore Her 1st Amendment Rights

April 25, 2012 § Leave a comment

DAY TEN in the “Will Chief Judge Kozinski Respond to Baldwin’s Motion for Decision?” WATCH

April 22, 2012 § Leave a comment

Is the 9th Circuit’s Disdain of Pro Se’s Fact or Fiction?

On April 11, 2012, Erin Baldwin filed the following Motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals demanding final judgments and rulings on her pending appeals (Case Nos. 11-57210, 12-55081, 12-55087, and 12-70296) as her petitions have otherwise been ignored by the Ninth Circuit TO PREVENT HER FROM APPEALING HER CLAIMS TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Baldwin has demanded immediate review and decision by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski due to egregious misconduct in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Central District Court of California.

Baldwin’s First Amendment right to petition the courts and her 14th Amendment right to access the courts have been repeatedly trampled. There are two primary reasons.

One, the Ninth Circuit has chosen to protect Baldwin’s defendants including The State Bar of California, The California Department of Real Estate, County of Orange, County of San Bernardino, and publicly-traded landlord/REIT UDR, Inc. (NYSE:UDR).

Two, Erin Baldwin is a Pro Se litigant and the Ninth Circuit has well-established customs, policies and procedures in place to quickly dispose of all pro se Complaints. Baldwin is not alone – thousands of unrepresented litigants come to the Ninth Circuit every year seeking justice and are deprived of same. Accordingly, Baldwin is seeking “suspect class status” for pro se litigants to prevent further discrimination.

It is unconscionable that anyone would simply be ignored in a court of law hoping they would grow frustrated and give up. Erin Baldwin has only begun to fight and will not give up until her example gives equal justice to all pro se litigants now and into the future.

Will Judge Alex Kozinski come through? We’ll see.

JOURNALIST & CONSUMER ADVOCATE, ERIN BALDWIN, WILL NOT BE SILENCED

April 10, 2012 § 1 Comment

JOURNALIST & CONSUMER ADVOCATE,

ERIN BALDWIN WILL NOT BE SILENCED

A Chronology of 40 Acts of Civil & Criminal Retaliatory Prosecution

Against Erin Baldwin, Devoted Journalist & Consumer Advocate

 

On January 9, 2009, Journalist and Consumer Advocate, Erin Baldwin, began to write and publish truthful, factual and legally-substantiated articles and investigative reports about matters of public concern, specifically, loan modification fraud and landlord-tenant abuse.  Her reports were and are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically her right to speak, write, and publish freely without prior restraint; her right to assemble and associate with others similarly situated; and her right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

On August 16, 2011, Erin Baldwin filed her one and only Complaint, a Section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint documenting egregious violations of her constitutional rights by California state, county and city officials acting under color of law as well as private parties acting in joint participation with same.  The following summarizes forty (40) separate acts of civil and criminal First Amendment Retaliatory Prosecution to silence Baldwin’s protected speech along with actions Baldwin took to defend herself.

In order to conceal the First Amendment Retaliatory Prosecution, other violations of Erin Baldwin’s constitutional rights were violated including 14th Amendment rights to due process of law; 4th Amendment rights to be safe and secure from unlawful seizure of person and property; and 6th Amendment rights protecting a criminal defendant.

Since Erin Baldwin filed her federal Section 1983 case, she has been subjected to ongoing violations of her constitutional rights to conceal the misconduct of others and the primary defendants in Baldwin’s Complaint, The State Bar of California, The California Department of Real Estate and Landlord/REIT, UDR, Inc. (NYSE:UDR).  This case is presently before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is by no means a complete record of these cases and Baldwin’s Section 1983 Complaint goes into much more detail.  For example, she recently posted “Journalist, Erin Baldwin, Published the Truth & CA State Official Retaliated: SLAPP Parsa Law Group v. Bad Biz Finder is the First of 48 Actions,” that provides an in-depth look at just one case. She plans to create a similar article for each of these cases. The reason why this article states “40 Actions” and the Other “48 Actions” is because there are pending cases that Baldwin has not included here. See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88022331/Journalist-Erin-Baldwin-Published-the-Truth-CA-State-Officials-Retaliated-SLAPP-Parsa-Law-Group-v-Bad-Biz-Finder-is-the-First-of-48-Actions.

FORTY CASES AND COUNTING

 

(1)

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752

(Defamation Case: Filed January 26, 2009)

Judge Franz E. Miller

Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

(Please note that Judge Franz Miller & Burkhalter Partners maintained an improper extrajudicial ex parte relationship throughout this case by serving as co-adjunct professors of law at Whittier Law School at the same time and same campus.)

On January 26, 2009, Parsa Law Group (a subject of Baldwin’s blog pertaining to loan modification fraud) sued an anonymous blog.  The Complaint was entitled, Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, an unknown business entity.  However, this strategic lawsuit against public participation was actually on behalf of the State Bar of California and California Department of Real Estate.  Unable to bring action against Baldwin directly because she is neither an attorney nor real estate professional, these two state agencies used the Parsa Law Group case to retaliate against Baldwin for exposing its responsibility and liability to California consumers for loan modification fraud caused by its members.

Erin Baldwin was never legally added as a defendant in this case, and as such, the court never had jurisdiction over her.  Nonetheless, On June 2, 2009, Judge Franz E. Miller entered a permanent injunction against Baldwin representing an unconstitutional prior restraint of protected speech. Baldwin’s blog was shut down shortly thereafter.  Even though Judge Miller knew Baldwin was indigent on a fee waiver,  he also ordered a monetary judgment against Baldwin in the amount of $604,515.66 to prevent her from hiring an anti-SLAPP attorney on contingency for her appeal. Although she tried, no attorney would take her case because they knew that any award obtained would go first to pay down the judgment leaving no surplus for attorneys’ fees.

 

(2)

UDR Villa Venetia Apartments, L.P. v. Erin Baldwin

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00244203

(Unlawful Detainer Case #1:  Filed February 11, 2009)

Commissioner Richard E. Pacheco

Attorneys, Todd A. Brisco & Associates

On February 11, 2009, UDR, Inc. (a subject of Baldwin’s blogs pertaining to landlord-tenant abuse) sued Erin Baldwin for unlawful detainer in retaliation for her exposing nine (9) separate illegal clauses contained in its California leases.  Gaining overwhelming support in a very short time, Baldwin began  to form a class action lawsuit on behalf of UDR’s California tenants.  On February 20, 2009, UDR seized Erin Baldwin’s car claiming it was unlawfully parked; it was sold shortly thereafter because Baldwin could not afford to pay the impound fees.  This case was nothing more than another strategic lawsuit against public participation and on February 26, 2009 it was dismissed in favor of Baldwin.

The Court never had jurisdiction over Baldwin in this case because it is standard practice for UDR to contract with its tenants using a name other than its legal name.  As such, Erin Baldwin did not have a contract with UDR Villa Venetia Apartment, L.P., she had a contract with Villa Venetia, which name still belonged to the former owner of the complex.  UDR uses fake names and fails to state the agent for service of process on its contracts to avoid tenant-based litigation.

(3)

UDR Villa Venetia Apartments, L.P. v. Erin Baldwin

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00248999

(Unlawful Detainer Case #2:  Filed March 3, 2009)

Commissioner Richard E. Pacheco; Judge Craig E. Robison;

Judge Derek G. Johnson; Judge Karen L. Robinson

Attorneys, Todd A. Brisco & Associates

Less than a week after the first unlawful detainer action was dismissed in favor of Erin Baldwin, UDR filed a second unlawful detainer case alleging the exact same facts and law as the first one which was dismissed on Baldwin’s Motion to Quash.  Again, this was a strategic lawsuit against public participation to prevent Baldwin from advancing the class action lawsuit she was forming on behalf of UDR’s California tenants.  Like all the cases in this article, Erin Baldwin represented herself with the exception of unwanted public defenders.  Baldwin discovered that UDR’s attorney, Todd A. Brisco, had a personal relationship with Commissioner Pacheco outside of court business and had him removed.

That set the tone for a hostile completion of the case in the smaller Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach, California.  The case was transferred to criminal judge Craig E. Robison who, on Friday, May 29, 2009, ordered the parties to commence the jury trial scheduled for the following Monday, June 1, 2009.  He this this without first ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment before the Court conceding sufficient material facts in dispute to warrant a jury trial.

When Baldwin arrived on Monday to begin the jury trial, she was ushered into a vacant courtroom with black paper on the windows at which time another judge, Derek Johnson, granted UDR’s summary judgment motion ruling that NO material facts were in dispute to warrant a trial.  When Baldwin asked the basis, he said, “You should look that up for your appeal.”   Baldwin immediately filed an ex parte application for reconsideration and appeared before Judge Karen Robinson who referring to UDR’s costs statement told Baldwin, “Unless you can come up with $8,000 in the next 15 minutes I can’t do anything for you.”  It is difficult to understand how over the course of a weekend sufficient material facts in dispute warranting the commencement of a jury trial could vanish.

Baldwin requested and was granted a stay of the eviction pending a meeting with Court Administrators, Kelli Beltran and Dwayne Roberts on June 23, 2009.  Nonetheless, on June 16, 2009, the Orange County Sheriff arrived and locked Baldwin out of her apartment, then posted three guards by Baldwin’s apartment 24/7 until three days later, on June 19, 2009, when UDR came and seized the entire contents of her apartment claiming it was “abandoned.”  Shortly thereafter UDR tried to extort $2,200 from Baldwin for the return of her property which Baldwin could not pay.   Baldwin never recovered this property but on September 13, 2010, she was informed by attorneys for UDR, Eric J. Goodman and David A. Berstein that UDR had sold her property to James Parsa to use as evidence against her.

(4)

Robert J. Abernethy (Public Storage) v. Erin Baldwin

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00276399

(Unlawful Detainer Case #3:  Filed June 16, 2009)

Commissioner Richard E. Pacheco

Sub Rosa, Intervenor UDR

Robert Abernethy Appearing Pro Se

           On June 16, 2009, the day UDR evicted Baldwin, Public Storage, Inc. (NYSE:PSA), another publicly-traded company and co-officers with UDR on the Board of AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund, Inc., filed suit against Erin Baldwin to gain access to her property located at Costa Mesa Mini Storage on behalf of UDR.  The case was covertly filed by Robert J. Abernethy, Pro Se, of Public Storage so as not to draw undue attention to the connection between UDR and Public Storage.  However, corporations are prohibited from appearing pro se and it stands to reason that this was somehow “overlooked.”

Knowing that Baldwin was no longer living at the UDR apartment, Public Storage served the Complaint via mail claiming substituted service was the only available method of service. Because Baldwin was never served, she did not respond to the lawsuit.  When the Clerks of the Court refused to enter a default on behalf of Mr. Abernathy, UDR intervened and coordinate a hearing before Commissioner Pacheco.  On August 31, 2009, Commissioner Pacheco awarded Mr. Abernethy possession of Baldwin’s property without due process of law.  This was the second of three times Baldwin’s property was seized to destroy evidence and she has never recovered it.

 (5)

UDR, Inc. v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00125305

(Defamation Case:  Filed June 29, 2009)

Judge Franz E. Miller

Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

(Please note that Judge Franz Miller & Burkhalter Partners maintained an improper extrajudicial ex parte relationship throughout this case by serving as co-adjunct professors of law at Whittier Law School at the same time and same campus.)

On June 29, 2009, once UDR had successfully evicted Erin Baldwin, seized the contents of her apartment, and had filed suit to seize the balance of her property in storage, UDR hired Parsa Law Group’s attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP, and sued Baldwin for Defamation.   When they filed suit, UDR knew Baldwin was homeless, had no property or vehicle, but was hoping for the same successful conclusion as was obtained by Parsa Law Group less than a month earlier.  On December 11, 2009, UDR got its wish and Judge Franz E. Miller granted them a permanent injunction matching the one it had granted to Parsa Law Group / State Bar of California / California Department of Real Estate six months earlier.   It is important to note that Judge Miller and the Burkhalter attorneys were co-adjunct professors  of law throughout the cases against Baldwin.  This was not disclosed to Baldwin nor on the record.

(6)

Solutions Law Group, LLC; Solutions Processing, LLC;

Jeffrey A. Cancilla; Craig M. Laverty v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No 30-2009-00126004

(Defamation Case: Filed July 13, 2009)

Judge Franz E. Miller

Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

(Please note that Judge Franz Miller & Burkhalter Partners maintained an improper extrajudicial ex parte relationship throughout this case by serving as co-adjunct professors of law at Whittier Law School at the same time and same campus.)

On July 13, 2009,  Jeffrey A. Cancilla and Craig M. Laverty (subjects of Baldwin’s blog pertaining to loan modification fraud) also hired the Burkhalter firm and also sued Erin Baldwin for Defamation.   It was another strategic lawsuit against public participation as its singular objective was to prevent Baldwin from writing the truth about the loan modification fraud perpetrated at Solutions Law Group, LLC and Solutions Processing, LLC by attorneys, Jeffrey A. Cancilla and Craig M. Laverty.   This case was dismissed in favor of Erin Baldwin in November, 2010.

(7)

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752

 (Criminal Contempt Case:  Filed July 14, 2009)

Judge Franz E. Miller

Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

(Please note that Judge Franz Miller & Burkhalter Partners maintained an improper extrajudicial ex parte relationship throughout this case by serving as co-adjunct professors of law at Whittier Law School at the same time and same campus.)

On July 14, 2009, soon after Parsa Law Group obtained a Permanent Injunction against Baldwin without a hearing on the merits, without identifying one single statement made by Baldwin that was false; and without identifying the parties about which Baldwin was prohibited from writing; Parsa Law Group filed an Application for an Order to Show Cause Re Contempt against Erin Baldwin for allegedly violating the terms of the permanent injunction.  The case was filed as “civil contempt,” on Family Law Judicial Council forms (akin to those used for failure to pay child support) so that the case would remain before Judge Miller, the Burkhalter attorneys could pose as District Attorneys, and the unconstitutionality of the permanent injunction would never come into play.

In addition, because the objective of Parsa Law Group / State Bar of California / California Department of Real Estate was to incarcerate Baldwin, Judge Miller feigned concern for Baldwin’s constitutional rights as a criminal defendant and appointed the Orange County Public Defender’s Office to “represent” Baldwin, although their job was really to misrepresent the facts to Baldwin, protect Judge Miller, and ensure that the permanent injunction and judgment remained intact.

On September 13, 2010, this case was dismissed in favor of Erin Baldwin, however, incomprehensibly, the permanent injunction and judgment are still in full force.

(8)

Traut Law Group, Eric V. Traut, et al. v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00126328

(Defamation Case:  Filed July 20, 2009)

Judge Sheila Fell

Traut Law Group Represented Itself

On July 20, 2009, Eric V. Traut and James R. Traut (subjects of Baldwin’s blog pertaining to loan modification fraud) followed the lead of the Burkhalter firm and also sued Erin Baldwin for Defamation. The Trauts never served Baldwin with the Complaint, rather faxed it to the California Anti-SLAPP Project where Baldwin was pursuing legal representation on appeal.  CASP’s Kim Lehmkuhl was kind enough to scan and email it to Baldwin. It was another horribly drafted and transparent strategic lawsuit against public participation.  Its sole objective was to prevent Erin Baldwin from writing the truth about the loan modification fraud perpetrated at Traut Law Group.  This case was dismissed in favor of Erin Baldwin in July, 2010.

(9)

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal

Fourth District, Division Three, Case No. G042561

(Appeal of Judgment/Injunction:  Filed September 2, 2009)

On September 2, 2009, Erin Baldwin filed an Appeal of the Permanent Injunction and Default Judgment in the Parsa Law Group case on constitutional grounds.  She filed her Designation of Record and waived her right to court reporter’s transcripts for the Record on Appeal due to the cost.  Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal dismissed Baldwin’s Appeal based solely on her inability to pay over $1,000 in court reporter fees that she had already waived.  At that time, Baldwin was not aware that Judge Franz E. Miller had been the senior staff attorney at that Court of Appeal for thirteen (13) years immediately preceding his appointment to the bench in 2002.

(10)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. BB092699910

False Report of Battery by Baldwin – No Citation/No Fault

(Investigated and Closed:  Filed September 17, 2009)

Baldwin moved to Big Bear on July 21, 2009.  On September 17, 2009, at 8:30 in the morning, Baldwin’s roommate was highly intoxicated.  She was delusional from chronic alcoholism and called the Big Bear Sheriffs claiming Baldwin was “trying to kill her after they had an argument about Baldwin soaking her feet in an old cooking pot.”   Big Bear Sheriff Brent Meelker arrived on the scene and observed no sign of foul play.  His report stated, “Krueger is HNB and causing problems.”  HNB is a military code signifying “behavioral and/or mental problems.”  Deputy Meelker stayed to keep the peace while Baldwin packed her belongings and moved outside to wait for her friends to pick her up.  Deputy Meelker reported no evidence of criminal activity on Baldwin’s part and no citation was written.

 (11)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 160901554

Starbucks Corporate Case Report No. 7457256

K & P White Assault Baldwin in Starbucks

(SBSD Fails to Investigate; SBDA Fails to Prosecute;

Starbucks Fails to Cooperate: Filed September 19, 2009)

On September 19, 2009, Baldwin’s former roommates, Keith and Patty White assaulted Baldwin in Starbucks.  Big Bear Sheriff James Wijnhamer arrived on the scene and took a report, spoke to the employees and other patrons.  He suggested that Baldwin obtain a restraining order and left to interview Keith & Patty White.

Dena Davis, Starbucks Regional Manager interviewed Baldwin that night and advised her she would be receiving the Starbucks Corporate Incident Report within a couple of weeks.  She also advised Baldwin to speak with Krista Osborne to obtain a copy of the surveillance video.  In order to obtain a restraining order Baldwin needed the police report and a copy of the surveillance footage only available in connection with an ongoing investigation.  Deputy Wijnhamer refused to communicate with Baldwin and Starbucks refused to provide Baldwin a copy of the promised Starbucks Corporate Incident Report  or surveillance video.

It was during this time that Keith & Patty White became a joint participant in the civil and criminal retaliatory prosecution in connection with the State Bar of California, California Department of Real Estate, and UDR Inc., acting as the Big Bear affiliate (“Joint Participation Agreement”).

(12)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 060901492

Whites File Late Counter Report on Crime of Battery

Re: September 17, 2009 Closed Big Bear Sheriffs Case

(Private Party Arrest Warrant Issued – Filed September 23, 2009)

In keeping with Keith and Patty White’s Joint Participation Agreement, they called upon personal relationships at the Big Bear Sheriffs to convert a false report/closed case (the Bernadine Krueger September 17, 2009 incident) into a criminal case of battery.   On September 23, 2009, Keith & Patty White invited Big Bear Sheriff Deputy Michael McCracken to their home to file what was called a “late counter report” of battery on behalf of Bernadine Krueger without her knowledge or consent.  McCracken took the Whites report even though neither were present on September 17, 2009.  At the end of the interview Patty White informed Bernadine Krueger that Deputy McCracken was at their home and asked her to come over and give a statement which she did although she stated she had not intended to do that.  At the conclusion of Krueger’s statement the Whites and Deputy McCracken asked her to sign a “Private Party Arrest Warrant” for Baldwin’s arrest on the charge of Assault, not Battery.

(13)

Big Bear Sheriffs Citation No. 2662647 – Part I

Deputy Michael McCracken Interrogation

Re: September 17, 2009 Closed Big Bear Sheriffs Case

(Notice to Appear PC§242 – Filed September 25, 2009

On September 25, 2009, with the “Private Party Arrest Warrant” for Baldwin’s arrest signed by Krueger in hand, Deputy McCracken went to interrogate Baldwin’s landlords and business clients and to warn them about her.  He informed them that Baldwin had beaten up Krueger, trashed her house and stolen her property, all of which was false.  He gave them advice as to how they should have researched Baldwin prior to signing a rental agreement with her or allowing her to provide consulting services.

Deputy McCracken then searched Baldwin’s property located at the business offices and wrote down computer equipment serial numbers. He later traveled with Baldwin’s landlords to interrogate Baldwin about what he had learned from the Whites two days earlier.  Baldwin had no idea she was under investigation for battery as she was found completely innocent of the false report of Bernadine Krueger on September 17, 2009.

Prior to Deputy McCracken leaving, he issued Baldwin a Citation / Notice to Appear for the crime of Battery.  This citation eventually formed the basis of San Bernardino Criminal Complaint Case No. MSB905837 without one shred of evidence to support it.

(14)

Big Bear Sheriffs Citation No. 2662647 – Part II

Citizen Complaint of McCracken Interrogation

Re: September 17, 2009 Closed Big Bear Sheriffs Case

(Sergeant Bryan Lane Follow-up – Filed September 26, 2009)

On September 26, 2009, Erin Baldwin filed a formal Complaint against Deputy McCracken with his superior, Sergeant Bryan Lane.  Although Baldwin did not request it, Sergeant Lane insisted on coming to her house to take the report.  During the interview Baldwin questioned Sergeant Lane about the validity of a “Private Party Arrest Warrant” and how it could form the basis of a criminal investigation resulting in a citation for Battery.   Sergeant Lane backed Deputy McCracken by stating that his actions and the citizens’ arrest warrant were standard policy and procedure of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department.

(15)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 060901539

Whites Report of Annoying Emails and Telephone Calls

(Penal Code §653M(b) – Filed September 30, 2009)

On September 30, 2009, Keith & Patty White filed formal criminal charges against Baldwin for California Penal Code §653M(b), making vexatious and annoying telephone calls and emails.  Despite repeated requests by Baldwin the alleged vexatious and annoying emails and/or records of telephone calls were never produced.  Official police reports state that evidence was collected from the Whites and is stored in the Evidence Locker at the Big Bear Sheriff substation.

(16)

Keith D. White, Patricia A. White v. Erin K. Baldwin – Part I

San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVHS-900261

Emergency Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

(Civil Harassment – Filed October 5, 2009)

Judge Gilbert Ochoa

On October 5, 2009, Keith & Patty White filed formal charges against Erin Baldwin for Civil Harassment seeking a temporary restraining order.   Due to the fact that the Whites’ failed to properly notice Baldwin about the emergency ex parte application hearing, Baldwin did not even know she was charged with civil harassment until she was served with a Temporary Restraining Order.

Baldwin had not even seen the Whites since they assaulted her in Starbucks, the Big Bear Sheriffs continued to refuse response to Baldwin’s request for assistance obtaining the Starbuck surveillance video, and Starbucks continued to refuse to send Baldwin the Starbucks Corporate Incident Report and the surveillance video.  Accordingly, Baldwin theorized that the Whites’ were trying to file for a TRO before Baldwin could.

On October 6, 2009, Judge Gilbert Ochoa granted the Whites a TRO against Baldwin by falsifying a declaration stating they had notified Baldwin of said hearing and she failed to appear.

(17)

Big Bear Sheriffs Citation No. 3051942

Re: Follow-up on Big Bear Sheriffs Case No. 060901539

In Custody Beating – 5 Male Sheriffs – Tom Layton Present

(Penal Code §§148.9(a)(1) – Filed October 8, 2009)

On October 8, 2009, Big Bear Sheriff Deputy Christopher Morsch sought out Erin Baldwin to interview her as a suspect in making annoying telephone calls and sending emails pursuant to Keith & Patty White’s September 30, 2009 criminal complaint.  Since Baldwin was simply a suspect it is unknown why Deputy Morsch didn’t just call her and request her presence at the police station or visit her at home.  Instead, he claims, that Keith White informed him of Baldwin’s whereabouts and he traveled there although it is unclear how Keith White knew where Baldwin was at that moment.  When he arrived Baldwin was being dropped off by Michael Masotto at the conclusion of a business meeting and still seated in his car when Deputy Morsch approached.

Again, Baldwin had no idea she was a suspect in a criminal charge of making annoying telephone calls and/or sending emails.  Instead of calmly explaining his reasons for being there, Deputy Morsch’s demeanor and questions were designed to evoke a response from Baldwin that would justify him arresting her and bringing her into custody.  In fact, when Baldwin got out of the car, Deputy Morsch started to grab her trying to detain her without explaining why.

Deputy Morsch called for backup and many police vehicles arrived.  In addition, California State Bar Investigator Tom Layton arrived with his retired ex-Los Angeles Sheriff badge on a chain around his neck.  Why would Tom Layton be there if he had not been involved in coordinating this event on behalf of the State Bar of California.

Baldwin’s First Person Narrative of what occurred that night is substantiated by an emergency room medical report written by Dr. Michael Hartstein, attending physician that day in Bear Valley Community Hospital.  Dr. Hartstein documented that Erin Baldwin’s physical injuries were consistent with a person who had been assaulted.

Erin K. Baldwin First Person Narrative

The acronym “BBSD,” stand for Big Bear Sheriff’s Department; and “WVDC” stand for West Valley Detention Center.

“I was taken into the booking room at BBSD substation and in an attempt to get me to take a photograph, one male deputy grabbed a bunch of my hair at my scalp and forced my head back, one male deputy grabbed my chin and forced my head upwards and one male deputy grabbed my hands from behind and twisted my arm. They took several pictures and laughed. Defendant Domingue stood in the hallway and while I screamed for help called me “mental” and shouted “Taser her!”

“BBSD sent the photos to West Valley Detention Center and one of the photographs was made into a badge. The badge was given to me and I saw my red face clenched in pain, the gloved hand on my chin and the tips of the fingers of the hand that held my hair. The female deputies at WVDC taunted me and asked me whether I was mental and needed to go into the holding cell with a straight jacket. They then took the badge back and said they were going to take “a more flattering” photo and I wore that badge until I was released.

“After my photograph was taken at the BBSD substation I was standing in front of a small metal podium and two of the male deputies slammed my face down onto the podium and I sustained a large bruise on my chin and the side of my face as well as numbing and injuries to my ear and hearing.

“Then two BBSD deputies held my arms and brought me over to where the fingerprinting station was in the booking room and threatened me that if I didn’t cooperate they would break my arm. One arm was released and one male deputy grabbed it and sprained my wrist (as documented on the hospital report) as he tried to force me to take finger prints. I could not resist at this point or any other point while I was in the booking room as there were four male deputies and one female in there at all times.

“At that point I was turned around in the booking room and slammed up against the corner of the wall and told to get down on my knees and then lay on my stomach on the floor. I explained that I could not lie like that on hard floor because of a previous whiplash car accident. When I was on my knees I felt a boot in my back and I fell face first onto the hard floor. The force of the boot caused injury to my ribs (as documented in the hospital report). I heard one of the male deputy’s laugh and say, “Get down on the floor like the dog that you are.”

“I was then dragged by my feet down the hallway while my head continuously banged against the hard floor and hit a corner of a wall causing several head contusions (as documented in the hospital report). While I was being dragged my pants started falling down and the male deputies were making sexual comments and whistling. My boots fell off and they threw them into the trash.

“I was then taken out behind the BBSD substation and I thought they were going to shoot me. I was held by four male deputies as Sergeant Jeremy King approached me and got very close to my face and said, “We don’t think you belong in Big Bear and think you should go back down the hill to Orange County where you come from.”

“I looked him straight in the eye and said, “I’ll go back down the hill just as soon as I see you go to prison.” At that point King drenched me with this liquid form of pepper spray on my face, chest, arms, ears, and all open skin surfaces (as documented in the hospital report). I fell to the ground and screamed then heard a deputy vomiting in the corner from the intensity of the pepper spray and someone called him “a pussy.”

“Blinded and screaming for emergency medical help, I was taken back inside and literally thrown into another cell and collapsed on the floor. I heard the water running and all the deputies laughing and mocking me.  I felt like my skin was being peeled away from my body. I have never felt such pain in my whole life and I desperately needed cold water.

“After they all left I worked my way around the walls of the cell until I found the source of the water I had heard before and found a sink. I pulled myself up and stood in front of it for a very long time rinsing my face and arms and chest with cold water. In the process my clothing became drenched with water and I began to shake from the cold because it was October in Big Bear.

“I was extremely nauseous and vomited in the sink. I was in there for what seemed like hours. Then the same deputies came back and took me back to my original cell and pushed me inside and I fell and hit my head again.

“I was shaking from the cold yet my skin was still burning. My vision was impaired and my ears were ringing. I felt blood on my hand and arms where later I saw scratches and cuts. My clothes and socks were drenched with water and they refused to bring me a blanket. I wrapped the bed mat around me to try to get warm but every 15 minutes or so someone would come into my cell and yell at me and kick the bed to scare me.

“I was told that all I had to do was sign the citation and it would all be over; they would let me go home.  I was in such a fog mentally and in bad shape physically that I was not comprehending anything. I was also scared to death emotionally.

“At some point during the early morning hours two deputies came by and threw the temporary restraining court order into my cell from Keith and Patty and it just sat there until the morning because I was terrified to move and still had not regained my sight. I heard someone say, “Keith’s goin’ love this.” The court record states that Sergeant Jeremy King served the document on Baldwin, so I assume he was one of the two that came by my cell.

“In the morning I was transported to WVDC barefooted in a bus with all

men. My clothes were still wet and I was in a lot of pain and still very nauseous. When I got to WVDC the nurse examined me and urged me to seek immediate emergency medical treatment, then made sure I was released on my own recognizance.

“One of the female deputies told me, “You know, you could have avoided all of this by simply signing the citation.”

“I was never put into the general population at WVDC but the BBSD spread a rumor amongst members of the Big Bear Chamber of Commerce that the way I sustained my injuries was that I had gotten into a fight with another female inmate at WVDC and that it had all been caught on videotape.

“It never happened as I was brought to WVDC, saw the nurse, made several telephone calls to Gail Elerding and Michael Beveridge and waited for Michael to pick me up.”

Erin Baldwin sought emergency medical care at Bear Valley Community Hospital on October 10, 2009.  When the attending room nurse saw Baldwin’s physical appearance, she asked, “who did this to you?”  Baldwin responded that it was the Big Bear Sheriffs and she immediately called the substation and spoke to Sergeant Bryan Lane, the commanding officer on duty, who communicated to the nurse, “We were just doing our job.”

 

(18)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 060901645 – Part I

Keith & Patty White File Criminal Contempt Charges

Against Baldwin For Writing on Her Blog (First Charge)

(California Penal Code §166(4)(a) – October 19, 2009)

On October 19, 2009, Keith & Patty White filed criminal contempt charges against Baldwin (PC §166(4)(a)) claiming that Baldwin’s journaling of the events of her life in Big Bear on a blog called “The Big Bearian,” was a violation of the TRO they had obtained against her.  The TRO stated:

“Cease and Desist Harassment of Both Keith D. White and Patricia A. White By Phone, Email, Postal Mail or any other way ONLY AS TO DIRECT CONTACT.” (And then Judge Ochoa crossed out “including employers.”)

It is well-established law that a person’s protected speech cannot be restrained through a “Stay Away Order” and that the Whites were asking for an unconstitutional prior restraint of Baldwin’s speech.   If the Whites believed the blog posts were defamatory, they had a remedy in civil court , not on a police report.  The filing of these charges was coordinated by the San Bernardino District Attorney’s Office acting in concert with the California State Bar to build a case against her for criminal contempt to legitimize the criminal contempt proceedings in the Parsa Defamation Case.

(19)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 060901645 – Part II

Keith & Patty White File Criminal Contempt Charges

Against Baldwin For Writing on Her Blog (Second Charge)

(California Penal Code §166(4)(a) – October 25, 2009)

On October 25, 2009, Keith & Patty White filed a second criminal complaint for contempt against Erin Baldwin, again, in connection with an erroneous belief that Baldwin’s exercise of her First Amendment rights violated their TRO.  In filing these charges, Keith and Patty White were actually doing three things:

1.         Building a case for themselves so they could get a permanent injunction against Baldwin on October 28, 2009;

2.         Fabricating additional events to support the San Bernadino District Attorneys’ Complaint against Baldwin to mitigate the beating Baldwin took in custody of the Big Bear Sheriffs; and

3.         Giving the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Division, additional “insight” into whether Baldwin needed to be restrained by Judge Miller’s permanent injunction currently on Appeal.

(20)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. 060901645 – Part III

Keith & Patty White File Criminal Contempt Charges

Against Baldwin For Writing on Her Blog (Third Charge)

(California Penal Code §166(4)(a) – October 27, 2009)

On October 27, 2009, Keith & Patty White filed a third criminal complaint for contempt against Erin Baldwin, again, in connection with an erroneous belief that Baldwin’s exercise of her First Amendment rights violated their TRO.

The Whites filed this third complaint to support two further unlawful acts:  (a) their hearing to convert the TRO against Baldwin into a permanent restraining order; and (b) the San Bernardino District Attorney filing its Criminal Complaint Case No. MSB906348 Complaint against Baldwin, Count 5 being Criminal Contempt of a Restraining Order, PC §166(4)(a) charges against Baldwin were filed.

 

(21)

Keith D. White, Patricia A. White v. Erin K. Baldwin – Part III

San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVHS-900261

Application for Permanent Restraining Order

(Permanent Restraining Order Granted – Filed October 28, 2009)

Judge Steven Malone

 

            On October 28, 2009, Keith & Patty White were granted a three-year (maximum) sentence restraining order against Baldwin.  The elements of California Civil Harassment include: (a) Unlawful violence; (b) A credible threat of violence or; (c) A knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person and that serves no legitimate purpose.

The Declaration under penalty of perjury provided by Keith & Patty White that both Judge Gilbert Ochoa and Steven Malone believed justified restraining orders against Baldwin contained conjecture, fabricated and conclusory statements; hypothetical events they “feared might happen” based on no actual experience of same; and an uneducated psychological evaluation of Baldwin’s mental stability.

As stated, supra, the prima facie case for civil harassment requires an actual controversy demonstrating unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person and that serves no legitimate purpose.   Compare these elements with the verbatim text of the Declaration presented by Keith & Patty White that fails utterly to establish any actual events that occurred to give rise to this charge:

“Erin K. Baldwin was a guest in our home from approx 7/18/2009 to 8/10/2009.  She came to our home as a referral through Alcoholics Anonymous [Baldwin has been sober member of AA for 14 years].  Ms. Baldwin claimed to be homeless, jobless and without a car – through no fault of her own, of course.  As people in recovery and Christians, we gave her an opportunity to get back on her feet, allowing her to stay with us for a short time.  We soon discovered she had fabricated much of her story, lied repeatedly and began to notice dangerous behavior, i.e. she told Patricia A White that when she was around knives she had to suppress a desire to “stab people”, therefore was prescribed Prozac.

“On 8/10/2009, we told her she would have to find another place to stay.  Since that day she has been harassing and slandering us throughout town; to our friends and our employers.  This affects the business of Keith D White.  We are afraid of her next move.  She seems to think we are the enemy, when in reality all we did was try to help her.  Unfortunately, we found out her true character so she seems bent on destroying us in order to continue her pattern of “con artist”. Erin is homeless and jobless by design; she openly admits that if she stays indigent she is judgment proof.  She has nothing more to lose, and knows we do.

“Keith and Patty have kept the police/sheriff informed every step of the way and have been advised by them to obtain a restraining order against Erin K Baldwin.

“Keith and Patty White want/need the harassment to STOP. Ms. Baldwin is damaging our reputations, attempting to get us fired from our jobs, and has threatened our marriage.  Ms. Baldwin “makes it up as she goes”, telling stories containing 5% truth and 95% fabrication. Ms. Baldwin’s lies are getting more vicious and dangerous with each telling.  Erin’s behavior seems to be more psychotic with each passing day.

“When we drive into our garage our first thought is, “are our animals still alive?”. The second is to look through the house to make sure Ms. Baldwin hasn’t broken in.  Ms. Baldwin knows we are the only full time residents on our block; she knows our routines, the times we attend church and recovery meetings.  We look in the back seat of the car to make sure she’s not there!  We are more afraid each day, while she continues her harassment, seemingly with no consequences.

“Our effort to reach out our hand and help Ms. Baldwin has been met with vicious attacks on our character and employment.  Ms. Baldwin’s statements of, “for $50,000 I’ll go away”, makes her true motives clear.  Ms. Baldwin has been at this for a long time; she has many civil cases filed against her dating back to 1992, for slander and defamation as well as for domestic violence.

“Keith D White was admitted to the hospital with severe chest pains which were directly attributed to the level of stress he is experiencing throughout this ordeal.

“Several times in the beginning of Erin Baldwin’s stay with us she expressed the opinion to both Patricia A White and Keith D White that she wanted “Patty’s” life.  “Why can’t I have a life like this?”.  The following emails and behavior seem to show that Erin Baldwin really meant what she said.  She wants to replace Patty in the life of Keith and Patty White.  One more reason Patty is afraid for her life where Erin in concerned.

“Erin K Baldwin repeated many times ‘you just wait, your time is coming’ to both Keith D and Patricia A White.  We take that as life threatening.”

The Whites failed to present any witnesses to support their vague and overbroad allegations, evidence of Keith White’s medical records, letters from their employers or others, any evidence supporting their claim of criminal extortion, i.e., “for $50,000 I’ll go away”; nor testimony of real, actual events that  demonstrate “a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person and that serves no legitimate purpose. ”

 

(22)

The People of the State of California v. Erin K. Baldwin

San Bernardino Superior Court, Criminal Complaint Case No. MSB906348

Re:  Big Bear Sheriffs Citation No. 3051942 –  Filed October 8, 2009

Judge Kyle Brodie

On October 28, 2009, San Bernardino District Attorney Michael Ramos and Deputy District Attorney Laura Robles filed San Bernardino Superior Court, Criminal Case No. MSB906348 against Baldwin in response to Baldwin’s October 8-9, 2009 beating in custody by five male Big Bear Sheriff’s deputies.  The charges were:

(a)       One Count of Resisting Arrest (dated October 17, 2009 on the Complaint and October 8, 2009 on the Court docket);

(b)      Two Counts of Battery on a Peace Officer (dated October 17, 2009 on the Complaint and October 8, 2009 on the Court docket);

(c)       One Count of False Information to a Peace Officer (dated October 8, 2009 on the Complaint and Court docket);

(d)      One Count of Violating a Restraining Order (dated October 17, 2009 on the Complaint and October 8, 2009 on the Court docket).

 

(23)

Keith D. White, Patricia A. White v. Erin K. Baldwin – Part IV

San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVHS-900261

(Appeal on Permanent Restraining Order – Filed November 18, 200

Judge Steven Malone

On November 18, 2009, Baldwin filed an Appeal of the Permanent Restraining Order entered against her in the Keith & Patty White Civil Harassment Case.  Judge Steven Malone threw it out claiming there had already been resolution in the matter and the court no longer had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.

 

(24)

The People of the State of California v. Erin K. Baldwin

San Bernardino Superior Court, Criminal Complaint Case No. MSB905837

Re: Big Bear Sheriffs Case – Investigation/Case Closed – September 17, 2009

Re: Bear Sheriffs Citation No. 2662647 of Battery – Filed September 25, 2009

(San Bernardino District Attorney – Filed Charges on January 25, 2010)

On January 25, 2010, four months after the September 17, 2009 incident that led Baldwin to be cited for battery of Bernadine Krueger, the San Bernardino District Attorney   filed Criminal Complaint Case No. MSB905837 for Battery.

The origin of this charge began on September 17, 2009 as the result of a false report which was investigated, Baldwin was absolved of any criminal conduct, and the case was closed.  However, six days later, Keith & Patty White reported a battery “on behalf of Bernadine Krueger,” without Krueger’s knowledge or consent and later obtained Krueger’s signature on a “Private Party Arrest Warrant” as an afterthought.   The Citizens Arrest Warrant launched a series of interviews by Big Bear Deputy McCracken culminating with Baldwin being cited for Battery.

Erin Baldwin was arraigned for the charge of battery on December 1, 2009 without a Criminal Complaint filed.  On December 15, 2009 a preliminary hearing was conducted against Baldwin without a Criminal Complaint filed. San Bernardino Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Robbins filed the Complaint only when the District Attorney believed they would need it to strengthen its arguments that Baldwin was a violent criminal in connection with Criminal Complaint No. MSB906348 justifying Baldwin’s beating in custody.

 

(25)

Big Bear Sheriffs Incident Report, Case No. (Unknown)

Investigation of Domestic Violence by Jason Crow

Threaten Baldwin with Petty Theft

(SBSD Fails to Investigate; SBDA Fails to Prosecute – February 24, 2010)

On February 24, 2010, Baldwin’s neighbor took her to DOVES, a domestic violence program in Big Bear to learn about options for alternative housing.  This was necessary because of escalating abusive behavior from her platonic roommate, Jason Crow.   DOVES’ counselor, Jane Hewitt, performed a 2-hour assessment and recommended that Baldwin enter a shelter for her safety.  Baldwin agreed to return the next day, went home and following Hewitt’s instructions put a chair under the door knob of her bedroom door to keep Crow out.   When Crow arrived home he noticed a chair missing from the dining room set and tried to break down Baldwin’s bedroom door to get the chair.

Big Bear Sheriff’s Deputy Jablonsky arrived and when he recognized Baldwin, he called for backup.  Sergeant Bryan Lane arrived a short time later at which time Baldwin described her appointment at DOVES and her plan to move to a shelter until she could start her new job.  Instead of supporting Baldwin, Big Bear Sheriffs Jablonsky and Lane threatened to arrest Baldwin with petty theft if she took Defendant Crow’s chair again.

 

(26)

The People of the State of California v. Erin K. Baldwin

San Bernardino Superior Court, Criminal Complaint Case No. FSB905837

Assault with a Deadly Weapon with the Intent to Cause Great Bodily Harm

(San Bernardino District Attorney – Filed Charges on February 25, 2010)

District Attorneys Melinda Spencer, Timothy Dixon, Jonathan Robbins

Public Defenders Jeff Lawrence and Geoff Canty

The next morning, while Baldwin was preparing to return to DOVES, Jason Crow called the Big Bear Sheriffs and reported that he had had a fight with Baldwin and she threw a drinking glass at him.  To the contrary, Baldwin avoided Crow that morning focused only on returning to DOVES.

Despite the events from the night before, the fact that there were no witnesses, no injuries to Crow or to his property, no evidence, and no “deadly weapon,” Baldwin was arrested for simple assault which was enhanced to felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to cause great bodily harm by the San Bernardino District Attorney.

There was also no warrant so the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department used the $5,000 Orange County civil bench warrant issued by Judge Franz Miller on August 31, 2009 for failure to appear at a hearing in the Parsa Law Group Contempt Case even though she was not notified of this hearing.  The warrant instructed the officers to bring Baldwin to Orange County before Judge Miller but that never happened.

During the 35 days of incarceration Baldwin was not timely arraigned because she was thrown out of the “video court” arraignment for requesting a demurrer as opposed to pleading not guilty.  She was adamant about this, the public defenders present stated she could so, but the jail deputies told her to return to her cell until she was prepared to follow “the West Valley Program, not the Erin Baldwin Program.”  When she went to Court she requested release and the bailiff told her to “sit down and shut up.”   She brought her drafted Demurrer but the Court refused to accept it or acknowledge it.  During the entire time Baldwin was incarcerated she did not have a preliminary hearing as the Court vacated it but gave no explanation for same, nor was she charged with a crime.  The reason being is that the felony assault charge was just a way to get Baldwin into custody, it had no merit.

On several occasions Judge Michael Dest asked Baldwin if she wanted to join all her cases together and each time Baldwin said “No.”  The San Bernardino Public Defender asked her on several occasions whether she wanted to have them represent her in the cases for which she was already her own attorney and each time Baldwin said “No.”  Since conventional trickery did not work, San Bernardino Deputy District Attorneys Melinda Spencer, Timothy Dixon and Jonathan Robbins lied to the Court that Baldwin was in custody on Criminal Case Nos. MSB906348 and MSB905837 and Judge Donna Gunnell Garza reinforced the falsehood by attaching monetary bail to these cases.

Baldwin had been granted permission from the Court to represent herself in Criminal Case Nos. MSB906348 and MSB905837 and pretrial hearings were beginning in April of 2010.  However, San Bernardino Public Defenders Jeff Lawrence and Geoffrey Canty spoke on Baldwin’s behalf, made deals with the DAs without Baldwin’s presence, and even met with the judge and DAs in chambers without Baldwin’s permission or authority to do.  When Baldwin objected to same stating she was her own attorney, she was thrown out of the courtroom and told to stand in the hall.  Baldwin was not even privy to much of the case presented to the Court on her behalf because she was not allowed to be present in the courtroom or speak on her own behalf.

DAs Spencer, Dixon and Robbins justified raising Baldwin’s bail from $50,000 to $500,000 because of the added charges that came along with lying to the Court that Baldwin was in custody of Criminal Case Nos. MSB906348 and MSB905837.   DAs Spencer, Dixon and Robbins also lied to the Court that Baldwin had “waived time” on the felony charge of assault to justify extending Baldwin’s time in jail to ensure she missed the pretrial hearings in Case Nos. MSB906348 and MSB905837 before Judge Kyle Brodie.  Baldwin had, in fact, “waived time” in Case Nos. MSB906348 and MSB905837 because she was out of custody and needed more time to prepare for trial.

The entire objective of this false arrest and imprisonment for 35 days was to fabricate facts pertaining to Criminal Case Nos. MSB906348 and MSB905837 in order to prejudice Baldwin’s cases in defense of the charges the DA filed against her in response to her beating in custody (MSB906348) and the false charge of battery (MSB905837).

When Baldwin heard Judge Garza extend the trial date to mid-April, Baldwin agreed to sign a plea bargain because she knew she had to file a Public Entity Claim by April 7, 2010, six months from the date she was beaten in custody by Big Bear Sheriffs to reserve her opportunity to file a Section 1983 case in the future.  Baldwin was released on March 28, 2010 and timely filed her Public Entity claim.  On April 1, 2010, Baldwin formally noticed San Bernardino Public Defender Doreen Boxer that she wanted to set aside her plea bargain based on fraud upon the court. This request was never fulfilled.

 

(27)

Jason L. Crow v. Erin K. Baldwin

San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. FAMHS1000015

Emergency Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

(Domestic Violence – Restraining Order:  March 2, 2010)

At the suggestion of Defendant SBDA, one week after Baldwin went to jail, Defendant Crow went to the court and requested an emergency ex parte hearing for domestic violence by Baldwin against him.   Defendant Crow filed these charges when he knew they were false and knew Baldwin was in jail and could not defend herself.  To conceal and mitigate his own wrongdoing, he retaliated against Baldwin with civil litigation that had no merit, was ill-conceived and was a direct fraud upon the court.

(28)

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752

 (Criminal Contempt Case Arraignment – June 1, 2010)

Judge Franz E. Miller

Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

(Please note that Judge Franz Miller & Burkhalter Partners maintained an improper extrajudicial ex parte relationship throughout this case by serving as co-adjunct professors of law at Whittier Law School at the same time and same campus.)

 

When Baldwin was released from jail, she was ordered to appear before Judge Franz Miller on the bench warrant that held her in custody for 35 days.  She appeared on June 1, 2010 and on June 8, 2010, was arraigned on Criminal Contempt charges (even though Judge Miller insisted it was “civil contempt, quasi-criminal, specialty court contempt.”  If it was not criminal, it is difficult to understand why Defendant Miller appointed Baldwin a Public Defender from the Orange County Public Defender’s Office.

 

(29)

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752

 (Contempt Trial – September 13, 2010)

Judge Franz E. Miller

Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

(Please note that Judge Franz Miller & Burkhalter Partners maintained an improper extrajudicial ex parte relationship throughout this case by serving as co-adjunct professors of law at Whittier Law School at the same time and same campus.)

            On September 13, 2010, the Contempt Charges were dismissed in favor of Baldwin.  However, the underlying Permanent Injunction and Default Judgment are in full force because Baldwin’s public defender did not insist of Baldwin receiving a trial on her factual innocence.

Why would he make such a careless mistake?  Because he wasn’t appointed to protect Baldwin’s constitutional rights, he was appointed to protect Judge Miller for egregiously violating Baldwin’s constitutional rights.  Public Defender, Martin Schwarz’s primary job was to make sure the Permanent Injunction and Default Judgment stayed in place even though the contempt charges were dismissed based on the fact that the underlying order was an unconstitutional prior restraint, overbroad, void for vagueness and failed to comport with Baldwin’s rights under due process of law.

 

(30)

UDR, Inc. v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00125305

 (Criminal Contempt Case:  Filed November 10, 2010)

Judge Franz E. Miller

Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

(Please note that Judge Franz Miller & Burkhalter Partners maintained an improper extrajudicial ex parte relationship throughout this case by serving as co-adjunct professors of law at Whittier Law School at the same time and same campus.)

On November 10, 2010, nearly a year after Defendant UDR obtained a Permanent Injunction against Baldwin without a hearing on the merits, without identifying one single statement made by Baldwin that was false; and without identifying the parties about which Baldwin was prohibited from writing; Defendant UDR filed criminal contempt charges against Baldwin.  Again, UDR’s attorneys, Burkhalter, et al., use Family Law Judicial Council forms to ensure that However, they called it “civil contempt,” so they wouldn’t have to leave the safety of Judge Miller’s courtroom.

 

(31)

UDR, Inc. v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00125305

(Criminal Contempt Case Arraignment – February 1, 2011)

Judge Franz E. Miller

Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

(Please note that Judge Franz Miller & Burkhalter Partners maintained an improper extrajudicial ex parte relationship throughout this case by serving as co-adjunct professors of law at Whittier Law School at the same time and same campus.)

On February 1, 2011, Baldwin was ordered to appear before Judge Miller for her arraignment.  Once again, he appointed Baldwin a public defender to shield him from liability for his misconduct.  Once the misconduct of the Orange County Public Defender became apparent, Baldwin filed both a Marsden Motion and a Faretta Motion to remove the public defender but both were rejected by the Court.   This case is active and there is continuing retaliatory action from the parties named herein despite four separate requests from Baldwin to the District Court to grant Baldwin a declaratory judgment to define the rights and responsibilities of the parties.

 

(32)

Erin K. Baldwin v. Orange County Superior Court (Parsa Case)

Writ of Mandate Re Disqualification of Judge Franz E. Miller

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three

(Case No. G044953:  Filed March 17, 2011)

On February 24, 2011, Baldwin prepared and served on Judge Miller a Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause in the Parsa Law Group case.  On March 3, 2011 Defendant Miller filed a Verified Answer and refused to recuse himself.  On March 13, 2011, the Acting Presiding Judge, David A. Thompson, referred Baldwin’s Challenge to Judge Carolyn Kuhl for an independent review.  On March 16, 2011, Baldwin adamantly opposed the choice of Judge Carolyn Kuhl and on March 17, 2011 filed a Writ of Mandate Re Disqualification with the Court of Appeal.  Judge Miller had been the senior research attorney at that Court of Appeal for fourteen (14) years immediately preceding his appointment to the bench in 2002.  Judge Carolyn Kuhl denied Baldwin’s request for disqualification and the Court of Appeal denied Baldwin’s petition.

 

(33)

Baldwin v. The Superior Court of Orange County (Parsa Case)

Writ of Mandate Re Disqualification of Judge Franz E. Miller

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three

(Case No. G045100:  Filed April 18, 2011)

On April 18, 2011, Baldwin filed a second Writ requesting that the Court of Appeal review Judge Carolyn Kuhl’s Order denying disqualification of Defendant Miller. Again, Baldwin’s petition was denied.

 

(34)

UDR, Inc. v. Erin Baldwin, Bad Biz Finder, et al.

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00125305

Criminal Complaint Case:  Removal of Public Defender

(Marsden Motion Rejected by the Court:  April 13, 2011)

(Faretta Motion Rejected By the Court: May 15, 2011)

Judge Franz E. Miller

Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

(Please note that Judge Franz Miller & Burkhalter Partners maintained an improper extrajudicial ex parte relationship throughout this case by serving as co-adjunct professors of law at Whittier Law School at the same time and same campus.)

 

            It was obvious the true motivations of Baldwin’s public defender in the UDR case and Baldwin sought to have them removed.   On April 13, 2011, Baldwin filed a Marsden Motion which was rejected by the Court.  On May 17, 2011, Baldwin filed a Marsden Motion which was also rejected by the Court.

Baldwin is now in a very difficult position.  Defendant OCPD claims they are still Baldwin’s attorneys of record which means Baldwin cannot act on her own.  However, Defendant OCPD refuses to do any work on behalf of Baldwin claiming there is an Order of the Court stating as much.

Therefore, all activities in the UDR Contempt Case are stalled due to the fact that Defendant OCPD has not completed its objectives laid out by Judge Miller and the Orange County Board of Supervisors (“Defendant OCBS”).

a.         Defendant OCPD’s actions prevent Baldwin from exercising her constitutional right to self-representation.

b.         At the same time, Defendant OCPD’s actions all prevent her from exercising another constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during all stages of a criminal proceeding.

c.         The fact that this case is “in limbo” does not mean that the Younger Abstention Doctrine can dispose of this case quickly until such time as the contempt matter is solved in Superior Court.  That rule applies only to criminal prosecutions.  Baldwin was charged with Civil Contempt under CCP §1209, et seq. so that the criminal “case within a case” would not be separated from the underlying civil action.

d.         When U.S. District Court Judge, Defendant Carney remanded this case back to Defendant Miller, his order stated: “On February 1, 2011, Ms. Baldwin was arraigned on charges of criminal contempt and a trial was set for April 19, 2011.”  So, if that is the strategy, please further into the details of the civil contempt proceedings.

e.         Baldwin should have been charged with Criminal Contempt under Penal Code §166(4)(a) and she would have been afforded all the right of the criminal defendant, including a jury trial.  However, a jury trial would have exposed the hundreds of millions of dollars publicly-traded landlord/REIT, UDR, Inc. has stolen from its tenants over the past seven (7) years.  Therefore, the Orange County Board of Supervisors directed Defendant OCPD Kwast to “act as if” it’s civil contempt “even though your office only handles criminal matters.”  However, the public defender assigned to Baldwin spilled the beans.  OCPD Defendant Jennifer Nicolalde said to Baldwin the first time they spoke, “This is the first civil contempt matter this office has ever handled, don’t you feel special?”  No, “special” was not how Baldwin felt; angry is what Baldwin felt, and ever since that day, Baldwin has been trying to get rid of her court-appointed counsel and represent herself.

 

(35)

Baldwin v. The Superior Court of Orange County (UDR Case)

Writ of Mandate Re Disqualification of Judge Franz E. Miller

& Motion for Emergency Stay of Proceedings

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three

(Case No. G045132:  Filed April 25, 2011)

On April 22, 2011, Baldwin prepared and served on Judge Miller a Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause in the UDR case.  Defendant Miller refused to recuse himself, so Baldwin asked the Court of Appeal to disqualify him via a Writ of Mandate Re Disqualification and Motion for an Emergency Stay in Proceedings filed on March 17, 2011.  Both requests for review were denied.

(36)

UDR, Inc. v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Notice of Removal to the United States District Court

 (SACV-8:11-cv-00708-CJC-AN – May 9, 2011)

Judge Cormac J. Carney

Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

On May 9, 2011, Baldwin filed a Notice of Removal in the UDR Case to the United States District Court based on Federal Question & Diversity Jurisdiction.  U.S. District Court Judge Carney J. Cormac vacated the scheduled hearing on the Motion to Remand and remanded the case on June 26, 2011, sua sponte, based on procedural defects and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In Kelton Arms Condo Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003) the Court held, inter alia, that a district court cannot remand a case sua sponte for procedural defects.  Therefore, Judge Cormac Carney remanded the case, sua sponte, based exclusively on subject matter jurisdiction.

There is one glaring oversight on page one, in the paragraph entitled, “Introduction and Background.”  It states, in relevant part, “On February 1, 2011, Ms. Baldwin was arraigned on charges of criminal contempt and a trial was set to begin April 19, 2011.”

The oversight is that the contempt proceedings were filed as civil contempt under  California Code of Civil Procedure §§1209, et seq.  In fact, a completely irrelevant family law Judicial Council form was used to bring the contempt action that is intended to be used by an individual in distress that needs protection.

Criminal contempt is brought under California Penal Code §166(4)(a) by a District Attorney representing the State of California.  The hearing is conducted before a criminal judge in a case separate from the underlying civil action.

This was far from reality on February 1, 2011.   In fact, Judge Miller, who signed the civil contempt orders heard the case and UDR’s attorneys in the underlying action were played the part of DAs.  Baldwin was given a public defender by Judge Miller but they readily admitted the novelty of such an assignment as did many others in the court and even stated they had never handled a civil contempt action in a defamation case.

Therefore, it appeared that Baldwin’s Notice of Removal was denied on the basis that it was a “criminal action,” as opposed to a civil action noted in 28 U.S.C. §1441(a), i.e., “A defendant may remove a civil action that is brought in a state court but over which a federal court may exercise original jurisdiction.”

In light of the present cause of action of civil rights litigation, Judge Cormac Carney’s June 27, 2011 Order stated, in relevant part:

“Notwithstanding Ms. Baldwin’s assertions in her opposition to the motion to remand that the state court’s permanent injunction and the related contempt proceedings violated her rights under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction over any claim alleged in Baldwin’s Complaint.

“In order to establish federal question jurisdiction, Ms. Baldwin must show that a question ‘arising under’ federal law appears on the face of Plaintiff’s well-pleaded Complaint at the time of removal.

“A defendant may not remove a case by asserting a defense based in federal law, and original jurisdiction is lacking even if a defense is alleged to be based exclusively on federal law.

“Here, Plaintiffs’ claims for trade libel, tortious interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantages, and civil harassment are purely state-law claims, and the state court entered a permanent injunction based on those claims.

“Ms. Baldwin’s attempt to assert a defense or her own counterclaims based on alleged violations of her constitutional rights does not establish federal question jurisdiction over Baldwin’s complaint.”

With respect to Judge Carney’s statement, supra, “In order to establish federal question jurisdiction, Ms. Baldwin must show that a question ‘arising under’ federal law appears on the face Baldwin’s well-pleaded Complaint at the time of removal,” Baldwin asserts that most strategic lawsuits against public participation do not advertise its intent to violate the defendant’s constitutional rights “on the face of its well-pleaded Complaint.”

First, it is not well-pleaded.  Second, one only need look at the complete absence of due process of law preceding the issuance of the permanent injunction as well as the text of the injunction to determine, retrospectively, whether or not it was an intentional attempt to chill Baldwin’s protected speech about matters of public concern.

(37)

Parsa Law Group v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.

Notice of Removal to the United States District Court

(SACV-8:11-cv-00708-CJC-AN – June 6, 2011)

Judge Cormac J. Carney

Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

On June 6, 2011, Baldwin filed a Notice of Removal in the Parsa Case to the United States District Court based on Federal Question & Diversity Jurisdiction.  Again, it was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Carney J. Cormac who remanded the case back to Judge Franz E. Miller, in six weeks, via an almost identical sua sponte Order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   The same set of facts set forth in the UDR Removal case apply to this case.

 

(38)

Erin K. Baldwin v. Bank of America, State Bar of California, et al.

§1983 Civil Rights Complaint

(EDCV-5:11-cv-01300-DOC-SP – August 16, 2011)

On August 16, 2011, Baldwin filed her first original action since all of the above-stated cases and actions commenced in January of 2009.  As the result of discriminatory systems in place at the California Central District Court of California, Baldwin’s Complaint was automatically referred to a U.S. Magistrate Judge.  Baldwin’s case was given a “194″ case status which denotes “pro se litigant” (including prison inmates).

Baldwin immediately filed an opposition to have her case heard by a Magistrate Judge and it was disregarded.  That was the first of now seven months of continuing violations of Baldwin’s constitutional rights now adding Bivens claims to her Complaint and making actionable appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  There are four appeals presently pending.

(39)

On August 25, 2011, Baldwin Served a Verified Statement and Challenge For Cause on Judge Miller along with a Demand that the below matters be transferred to the Presiding Judge, The Honorable Thomas S. Borris.  Nothing happened.

(a) Vacate all Orders by Judge Franz E. Miller on the grounds they are unconstitutional and that Judge Franz E. Miller knew they were unconstitutional when he made them;

(b) Grant a Change of Venue; and

(c)  Recall the retaliatory bench warrant issued against Erin Baldwin by Judge Franz E. Miller on August 18, 2011, two days after he was served with Baldwin’s Section 1983 Complaint.

(40)

And finally, the following case showed up under Erin Baldwin’s name on the Court Docket even though it has nothing to do with Baldwin.  Baldwin theorizes that it is an intentionally fabricated case to paint Baldwin in a false light that her “tendencies toward harassment” continue into 2011.

Kathryn Taylor Lafazan v. Steven John G. George

Case No.  30-2011-00508097-CU-HR-CJC

Civil Harassment – September 14, 2011

To underscore the blatant disregard for Baldwin’s constitutional rights and disrespect for the honor of the court, on September 14, 2011, a case was entered into the docket system of the Orange County Superior Court under Baldwin’s name, entitled,  ”Kathryn Taylor Lafazan v. Steven John G. George,” Case No.  30-2011-00508097-CU-HR-CJC, for Civil Harassment.  None of the documents of the alleged case are viewable but Baldwin performed a cursory search of the parties to the case.

Kathryn Taylor Lafazan died at 49, in 2006, a member of the Lafazan Crime Family who had a horrible life.

CONCLUSION

Baldwin asserts that the extraordinary efforts taken to silence Baldwin’s protected speech would not have occurred had her articles and reports not been truthful, reliable, authentic, fact-based, and legally-substantiated.  Furthermore, at no time during the past two and one-half years has even one party to an action against Baldwin identified even one single fact written by Baldwin that was not true.  Truth is an absolute defense and that issue was never questioned.

Nonetheless, Baldwin is the subject of two permanent injunctions representing unconstitutional prior restraint and has over $700,000 in default judgments against her even though she was never legally named to the Complaint and as such, the courts did not have jurisdiction over her.

At first, the violations were expressly intended to silence Baldwin.  When Baldwin refused to be silenced, and instead, documented in public forums the intentional violations of her rights, the retaliation split evenly between new acts of retaliation and acts designed to conceal the original violations. Each time Baldwin fought back and exposed the violations of her rights, new harm would come her way in the hope she would simply give up.

But Baldwin never gave up and continue to fight the good fight in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for redress of her constitutional and federal rights, on the authority of federal legislation, 42 U.S.C. §1983 that states:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable…”

Erin Baldwin Asks: What Hope Remains for American Citizens When Our Federal Judiciary Won’t Protect Our Constitutional Rights?

April 2, 2012 § Leave a comment

Here are today’s tweets that paint a dismal picture of our federal judiciary.  They surround the Federal Section 1983 Civil Rights Case  brought by journalist, Erin Baldwin, whose First Amendment rights were terminated when she dared to tell the truth about the participation and liability of the CA State Bar and CA Department of Real Estate in California’s foreclosure crisis and the illegal California leases of  landlord UDR, Inc.  This case is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can follow along on Twitter at EKBFightFraud.

Fed Judge Carter implies Baldwin is a vex litigant even when facts presented proved she’s not. Rumors can be dangerous. http://bit.ly/H7jOuo

Could CA citizens who lost homes to foreclosure get an update as to when they will get their bank settlement check? http://bit.ly/H8d93I

The State Bar’s judicial selection committee should be dissolved as it violates US Sup Ct Keller v. State Bar of CA http://bit.ly/HziQTw

Kamala Harris didn’t sign bank settlement agreements because she wanted to avoid responsibility for same in the future. http://bit.ly/GFhDgB

After Kamala Harris betrayed CA citizens w/the banks who would consider her to replace SCOTUS Judge Ginsburg? http://bit.ly/H6hSS0

Fed Judge Carney proof positive that “all that glitters is not gold.” Football hero doesn’t translate to ethical judge. http://bit.ly/GRUi9T

CA State Officials never counted on Baldwin’s resilience and survival mechanisms when advancing 40+ acts of retaliationhttp://bit.ly/H5AdcT

Martin Andelman, advocate & promoter of loan mod predator, James Parsa, in trouble w/the IRS. Karma’s a bitch. http://bit.ly/HnZr9R

Baldwin requests investigation of fraud in 9th Cir court orders: Staff attys entering orders on behalf of federal judges http://bit.ly/HmmjHB

9th Cir passes on procedural rules to prevent appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court http://bit.ly/HsvjKE

Federal Judge Jo Tucker propagates known falsehoods to set Baldwin up to be deemed a vexatious litigant. http://bit.ly/GX8yj1

9th Cir dismisses Baldwin’s appeal by comparing it to a case about a prolific, vexatious, abusive pro se litigant. http://bit.ly/Hlv0zk

Baldwin cannot appeal to CA Supreme Ct cuz State Bar is a division of it & the State Bar is the subject of the appeal. http://bit.ly/H41sVp

A federal judge should know that replacing & destroying court orders constitutes criminal obstruction of justice http://scr.bi/H8SLzO

“Atty to the Judges” Sarah Overton neglects to mention that she is also a defendant & can’t represent Judge Miller. http://scr.bi/Hd2Hkw

Federal judges should never underestimate the intelligence of a pro se litigant. http://scr.bi/H8lyE9

An appeal may not be dismissed w/o 1st allowing appellant opp to show cause why it should NOT be dismissed. http://scr.bi/HCeBcm

9th Cir denies Baldwin’s Writ to reinstate her 1st Am rights claiming its not compelling enough to warrant review. http://scr.bi/HynlBd

CJ Alex Kozinski orders Baldwin’s Motion to Disqualify Federal Judge Dolly Gee decided by Washington Judge Whaley http://scr.bi/H8nM5n

Judicial cronyism is depriving American citizens of justice. http://scr.bi/H8Tj8H

Erin Baldwin keeps fighting to reinstate her 1st Am rights terminated by unconstitutional permanent injunctions. http://scr.bi/HLbmfj

A perm inj restraining speech can’t issue w/o hearing on the merits identifying false stmts. Didn’t happen here either. http://scr.bi/H2u17B

A perm injunction restraining speech can’t issue w/o hearing on the merits to identify defamatory stmts. Didn’t happen.  http://scr.bi/H2uV42

9th Circuit Pro Se Appeals Are Being Dismissed Without Notice and Opportunity to Show Cause

March 12, 2012 § Leave a comment

CASE No.: 12-55087

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIN K. BALDWIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent-Appellee

and FRANZ E. MILLER, Interested Party.

APPEAL FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL CASE No. 5:11-EDCV-01300

_______________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR REHEARING WITH

SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Pursuant To Federal Rules Of Appellate Procedure 35 And 40

Re February 16, 2012 Order of this Court by

Motions Panel Circuit Judges Schroeder, Leavy and Clifton

_____________________________________________________________

Erin K. Baldwin, Plaintiff-Appellant, In Propria Persona

Post Office Box 3141

Beaumont, California 92223

(678) 997-6893

erinbaldwin@rocketmail.com

COMES PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, ERIN K. BALDWIN (“Baldwin”), In Propria Persona, to present this Petition for Rehearing with request for Rehearing En Banc in connection with the February 16, 2012 Order of this Court by Motions Panel Circuit Judges Schroeder, Leavy and Clifton (“Subject Order”).

1.            Baldwin asserts that the February 16, 2012 “panel decision” conflicts, both procedurally, and substantively, with decisions of this Court and the United States Supreme Court, therefore, consideration by the full court is necessary.

2.            Baldwin also asserts that the Subject Order was not made by Motions Panel Circuit Judges Schroeder, Leavy and Clifton, as represented. Rather, the Subject Order is an invention and fabrication of U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Appellate Commissioner, Peter L. Shaw; Senior Staff Attorney, Ed Schiffer; Supervising Staff Attorney, Susan Gelmis; and Motions Attorney, Monica Fernandez. Baldwin requests an immediate and full investigation into this matter. 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

3.            The Subject Order states:

“A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. §1291; Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties).” “Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot. No motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions shall be filed or entertained in this closed docket.”

4.            As a preliminary matter, Baldwin wishes to address the final sentence in the Subject Order, i.e., “No motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions shall be filed or entertained in this closed docket.” In accordance with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rules 35 and 40, Baldwin has the right to file a petition requesting rehearing. “Appellate jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, and objections to jurisdiction cannot be waived,” [1] and the “Merits Panel has an independent duty to determine appellate jurisdiction, even where the Motions Panel has denied same.”  [2]

5.            In fact, the Ninth Circuit makes this right clear on Page 3 of its literature entitled, “After Opening a Case – Pro Se Appeals”: “In some cases, the judges may decide a case before the completion of briefing, but you will first be given an opportunity to tell the Court why the case should not be summarily decided. 9th Cir. R. 3-6.”

6.            This Court’s policy of issuing an Order to Show Cause why the appeal should not be dismissed prior to dismissing an appeal is well-established. However, Baldwin was deprived of this measure and as such, was deprived of her Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the law, right to access the courts and due process of law. [3]

7.            Baldwin also asserts that the action of dismissing Baldwin’s appeal without issuing an Order to Show Cause is discriminatory and an abuse of discretion with the intent to adversely prejudice the advancement of an unrepresented, indigent appellant’s issues on appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that both due process and equal protection concerns are implicated by restrictions on an indigents’ exercise of the right of appeal.  [4]

8.            In order to avoid the aforesaid implications as well as the confirmation that this Court has jurisdiction over Baldwin’s appeal, this Court has refused and continues to refuse to rule on Baldwin’s In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) application transferred to this Court from the District Court nearly two months ago, on January 13, 2012. Ten days after the district court was divested of jurisdiction over Baldwin’s IFP application, U.S. District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee (“Judge Gee”) attempted to deny Baldwin’s IFP application claiming that it was not taken in good faith, was frivolous and without merit. Clearly, Judge Gee’s denial is void for lack of jurisdiction and disposition of Baldwin’s IFP application is still pending with this Court.

9.            Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits counsels strongly against dismissal. The Ninth Circuit, in Eldridge v. Block, [5] held: “This policy favoring resolution on the merits ‘is particularly important in civil rights cases.'”

10.          This Court summarily dismissed Baldwin’s appeal without searching for the “availability of less drastic sanctions,” [6]without warning Baldwin of the chance of dismissal, and without allowing Baldwin the opportunity to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed. “Nothing in the record demonstrates that Baldwin was on notice that the case would be dismissed.” [7]

11.          If it is this Court’s policy to refrain from “considering matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal,” [8] dismissing Baldwin’s appeal without allowing her to file an opening brief is unconscionable and unconstitutional. In fact, the necessity of an opening brief and a responsive brief is stated in this Court’s policies and procedures: “After briefing has been completed, the case management attorneys review the briefs and record in each case, in order to identify the primary issues raised in the case, and to assign a numerical weight to the case, reflecting the relative amount of judge time that likely will have to be spent on the matter.”

12.          The Subject Order also ignores the fact that this appeal is related [9] to Case Nos. 11-57210, 12-55081, and 12-70296 pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”), Rule 28.2.6.  All of Baldwin’s appeals arise from the same district court proceeding, involve closely related issues, and are successively filed to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of retaliation and viewpoint discrimination against Baldwin in violation of her First Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit in RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, [10] astutely recognizes the “Continuing Violations Doctrine,” its applicability to Section 1983 claims, and this Court’s jurisdiction over First Amendment and Equal Protection issues raised by Baldwin in her appeal:

“We nonetheless hold that appellants have standing under §1983 to pursue their First Amendment and equal protection claims in their own right. We conclude that appellants have created a triable issue of a constitutional violation under both the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment. With respect to the equal protection claim, appellants raise a genuine issue of dissimilar treatment.”

13.          Had this Court made a constitutional inquiry prior to dismissing Baldwin’s appeal as set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court holdings in Saucier v. Katz [11] and Pearson v. Callahan, [12] it would have correctly assessed Baldwin’s right to appeal on constitutional grounds. These grounds have been adequately pled in Baldwin’s papers before this Court and, in fact, is the subject of an Emergency Petition for First Amendment Writ brought before this Court on January 26, 2009 in Case No. 12-70296 and also improperly dismissed on February 15, 2012. [13]

14.          These constitutional grounds rest on the existence of two permanent injunctions issued against Baldwin that represent unconstitutional prior restraints of Baldwin’s protected speech and freedom of the press. These facts were brought to federal court on August 16, 2011 in a Section 1983 Complaint and constitute an ongoing federal controversy and a deliberate case of viewpoint discrimination. Due to the fact that these injunctions were underwritten by the State Bar of California, inter alia, and the State Bar of California is intimately involved in the selection of state and federal judicial officers, Baldwin’s constitutionally-protected right to petition for a redress of grievances has been severely handicapped. In fact, the district court and now, this Court, has done everything in its power to dismiss Baldwin’s claims. The Subject Order is no exception.

15.          This Court dismissed Baldwin’s appeal alleging it had:

                a.            reviewed “the record” pertaining to Baldwin’s appeal. However, the Subject Order fails to state the standard of review this Court used, fails to acknowledge that “the record” is void a showing from adverse parties, and fails to acknowledge that Baldwin was not given warning of a potential dismissal and/or given the opportunity to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.

                b.            determined it could not hear Baldwin’s appeal because the order forming the basis of Baldwin’s appeal “is not final” because “it does not dispose of all claims as to all parties.” However, the Subject Order fails to acknowledge that this appeal is based on constitutional grounds, related to other appeals pursuant to FRAP Rule 28.2.6, and must be heard as an interlocutory order to avoid irreparable harm.

                c.             correctly ruled on Baldwin’s dismissal based on a 31-year old case Chacon v. Babcock.  [14]  However, the Subject Order fails to acknowledge that Chacon is the authority to dismiss an appeal based on partial summary judgment of claims not certified by Rule 54(b) and is entirely irrelevant to Baldwin’s case; that Chacon is a case improperly used in boilerplate dismissal orders by Ninth Circuit motions attorneys in pro se appeals.

16.          The Ninth Circuit in, Payne v. Borg, [15] held: “The relevant standards of review are critical to the outcome of this case” and in Walsh v. Centeio, [16] “The outcome of the instant case turns on the standard of review.” If this Court had, in fact, properly reviewed the record, it could not have dismissed Baldwin’s appeal. This is evidenced by material facts contained in Baldwin’s Notice of Related Appeal that support the fact that the District Court:

                                a.            Intentionally acted without jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit has held: “Although the district court retains jurisdiction ‘to make orders appropriate to preserve the status quo,’ it may not ‘adjudicate substantial rights directly involved in the appeal.'”  [17]

                                b.            Deliberately altered the record on appeal to prejudice Baldwin’s claims and to conceal their own misconduct: The Ninth Circuit has held: “The appellate court is entitled to review a fixed, rather than mobile record.”  [18]

                                c.             Entirely avoided the required constitutional inquiry. [19]

                                d.            Committed criminal obstruction of justice by advancing false facts in written and published orders made available to the public that they knew were false in order to discredit Baldwin personally thereby harming Baldwin’s appeal and her Section 1983 claims. [20]

17.          If this Court used the de novo review standard it would have been required to disregard the district court’s position entirely and look “anew” at the issues contained in Baldwin’s Notice of Related Appeal “as if no decision previously had been rendered.” [21]  As such, it would have required this Court to make an independent constitutional inquiry, [22] evaluate whether the federal rules of civil procedure were properly interpreted, [23] decide whether the facts of Baldwin’s case satisfy the legal rules, [24] and/or whether clear error was present on the part of the District Court. [25] None of these decisions were made prior to dismissing Baldwin’s appeal. Had they been, dismissal would not have been warranted.

18.          If this Court used the clearly erroneous review standard Baldwin’s appeal would not have been dismissed because under this standard, “findings of fact are made on the basis of evidentiary hearings and usually involve credibility determinations.” [26]  Since an “entire record” does not exist, namely any showing from adverse parties, said showing would necessarily be required prior to determination of a clearly erroneous decision. The dismissal of Baldwin’s appeals prior to briefing gives rise to Baldwin’s argument for viewpoint discrimination. This is particularly evident given Baldwin’s arguments that district court judges acted without jurisdiction to alter the record on appeal with alleged “findings of fact” that attacked Baldwin’s credibility in order to conceal their own misconduct and to prejudice Baldwin’s Section 1983 claims and issues of appeal. (See, fn. 20, supra.)

19.          If this Court had used the abuse of discretion review standard it would have had to review Baldwin’s issues on appeal for “plain error, discretion exercised to an end not justified by the evidence, a judgment that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts as are found.”  [27]  Baldwin’s appeal could not have been dismissed under this review standard because “the district court did not apply the correct law and rested its decisions on clearly erroneous findings of material fact.” [28] It is without a doubt that the “district court ruled in an irrational manner.”  [29] The district court also “made errors of law,”  [30] “abused its discretion by erroneously interpreting a law,” [31] “rested its decision on an inaccurate view of the law, [32]  and as stated, supra, the “record contains no evidence to support the district court’s decision.” [33]

20.       Title 28 U.S.C. §1291 states: “The courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts ….” In Cunningham v. Hamilton County, Ohio, [34] The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted this rule to mean that “an appeal ordinarily will not lie until after final judgment has been entered in a case” and that “a decision is not final, ordinarily, unless it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” The use of the word “ordinarily” implies that there are exceptions to this rule, and these exceptions apply in Baldwin’s appeal.

21.          Since the rule in 28 U.S.C. Sec.1291 is very broad, the courts look to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) to narrow the rule in certain circumstances. For example, FRCP Rule 54(b) sets forth the final judgment rule in multi-claim and multiparty cases. Under that rule, the court may “direct entry of a final judgment” on fewer than all the claims or as to fewer than all the parties “if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Said express determination must be so stated in the order with facts to support same. The Subject Order is absent said determination and this rule speaks to the disposition of claims, rather than of legal theories or requests for relief.   [35]

22.          Although Baldwin’s case is a multi-claim and multiparty case, Baldwin’s appeal does not propose a review of partial summary judgment of claims and therefore, a Rule 54(b) certification is not required. As stated in Title 28 U.S.C. §2072:

“The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals. Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect. Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title.”

23.          The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., [36] determined three distinct factors which inform the classification of a district court order as a “final decision” for purposes of §1291.  Such an order must “conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” [37] As stated, supra, Baldwin’s appeals have been successively filed and related to each other by a common underlying issue, namely, the existence of two permanent injunctions that not only deprive Baldwin of her First Amendment rights but also drive the balance of her Section 1983 claims.

24.          Without a federal court determination of the validity of these injunctions, Baldwin’s Section 1983 claims will be repeatedly attacked without legal merit and solely for the purpose of side-stepping the inevitable court order that will correctly deem the injunctions not only unconstitutional but responsible for three years of heinous retaliatory and malicious prosecution against Baldwin including gross violation of Baldwin’s liberty and property interests.

25.          This Court and the district court and everyone involved knows these injunctions are unconstitutional but no one wants to be the one that steps up to the plate and declares it in a court order. The ramifications are staggering but must be implemented. The longer this is dragged out, the more serious the ramifications become.

26.          The Cohen test set forth supra is on point here. The common issue of the permanent injunctions and the “pink elephant” issue of the validity of same would be well-served by applying said test. By ruling on the validity of the injunctions now:

                                a.            the disputed question underlying the totality of Baldwin’s Section 1983 claims would be conclusively determined; and

                                b.            an important issue (whether the injunctions are valid) would be resolved allowing the balance of Baldwin’s Section 1983 claims to be clearly and effectively litigated.

27.          Reserving the determination of the validity of the permanent injunctions until final judgment would be ludicrous because without said determination, a final judgment cannot be entered. There is no rational or logical reason to pass on this decision until final judgment and the fair and equitable outcome of Baldwin’s Section 1983 depends on it. It would be akin to baking a lemon meringue pie and deciding to add the meringue after the pie has been consumed. It doesn’t make sense because a lemon meringue pie without the meringue is not a lemon meringue pie. And it never will be regardless of the manipulative maneuvers of the chef.

28.          Since the “record on appeal” only consists of the January 4, 2012 Order of Judge Carter and Baldwin’s Notice of Appeal, it is incomprehensible how this Court could justify dismissing Baldwin’s appeal. There is no (a) showing by adverse parties; (b) constitutional question inquiry; (c) evidence, hearings or briefs; (d) request for Baldwin’s brief on an Order to Show Cause; nor (e) request for response from adverse parties. If the issues on appeal have not been acknowledged by this Court, how can this Court determine whether it has jurisdiction over these issues?

29.          The Ninth Circuit in Warren v. Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service [38] held:

“The purpose of requesting briefing is to obtain more information in order to make a more informed and reasoned decision about whether to address an issue and, if so, how the issue should be resolved. Information, speech, and truth do not hurt; they only shed light. That is a fundamental tenet not only of our judicial system but of our democracy. It is possible, however, that in some instances those who do not want to allow speech — or briefs — have a preordained view of important issues and may, for some reason, not want to discover or even acknowledge what the law or the Constitution requires.”

30.          The Order upon which Baldwin’s appeal is based states: ‘Before the Court are two presently pending motions in the above-captioned case: (a) an Amended Request for Leave to Amend the Corrected Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Erin K. Baldwin (Plaintiff) (Docket 25) and (b) a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Franz E. Miller (Docket 26).

31.          The Ninth Circuit in Scott v. Eversole Mortuary, [39] held: “Where the district court expressly denies leave to amend, the order is final and appealable.” Judge Carter had already denied Baldwin’s request for leave to amend her Complaint in his December 2, 2011 Order. However, in her January 19, 2012 Order, Judge Gee misrepresents that Baldwin’s request to file her third amended complaint is not appealable and that the district court will retain jurisdiction, until the appeal is resolved:

“Although it is clear that the Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s appeal, see, e.g., Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding no appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal from denial of leave to file fourth amended complaint), and a district court need not refrain from deciding a matter on appeal where it is clear that appellate jurisdiction is lacking, see United States v. Hickey, 580 F.3d 922, 928 (9th Cir. 2009) (Filing an appeal from an unappealable decision does not divest the district court of jurisdiction) (citing Estate of Conners v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993), the Court declines to proceed in this instance. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended request for leave to amend is hereby STAYED until the Ninth Circuit resolves her appeal.”

32.          The Subject Order is absent acknowledgment that the district court had been divested of jurisdiction “over orders and judgments encompassed by the notice to the Court of Appeals” on December 19, 2009, and as such, Judge Gee’s Orders and Judge Carter’s Orders are void for lack of jurisdiction.

33.          Judge Carter disregarded the current status of the case and intentionally altered the record on appeal to conceal his misconduct, i.e., failing to recuse himself from Baldwin’s case when he was well aware that conditions existed that required him to do so.

34.          Carter’s Order continues: “These motions have not yet been ruled upon because shortly after these motions were filed, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge David O. Carter (Docket 27). Judge Josephine Tucker denied the Motion to Disqualify on December 21, 2011 (Docket 31).”

35.          Here, Judge Carter intentionally misrepresents the facts to conceal his own misconduct. Baldwin filed her Amended Request on December 6, 2011 and her Motion to Disqualify on December 13, 2011. A full week is ample time to rule on an amended request.

36.          The truth is that Judge Carter did not want to rule on the Amended Request because in so doing he would have been required to make a constitutional inquiry leading to the inevitable order that the permanent injunctions entered against Baldwin were unconstitutional. This ruling would have also implicated his friend and colleague, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney, who remanded Baldwin’s cases back to state court in June of 2011, without first making the required constitutional inquiry.

37.          Second, Defendant Miller’s Motion to Dismiss had no bearing whatsoever on Judge Carter’s Motion to Disqualify because the briefing schedule on the Motion to Dismiss extended any ruling on same at least two months out. Besides, Judge Carter knew he could not rule on Defendant Millers’ Motion to Dismiss without first granting Baldwin’s Motion for Leave to Amend which he had already denied and that denial made the matter directly appealable despite the intentionally erroneous January 18, 2012 Order by Judge Gee, supra.

38.          The Order made by Judge Carter on January 4, 2012 continues: “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.

39.          Baldwin was “denied the right to withhold consent to a magistrate judge hearing her case.” Judge Carter’s October 11, 2011 Order states: “Second, as Judge Pym explained, the consent of parties is not required when pretrial proceedings are referred to a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.  §636(b).  If Plaintiff wishes to make a formal motion for Judge Pym’s disqualification, Plaintiff must file a formal motion titled as such. Otherwise, Magistrate Judge Pym will remain assigned to the case for all pretrial proceedings, to the extent permitted by 28 U.S.C. §636(b).”

40.          General Order 05-07, entitled, “Reference to a Magistrate Judge,” makes it clear that reference to a magistrate judge is not limited to “pretrial proceedings.” The only way Baldwin’s entire case would not be heard by a magistrate judge would be:

“If a pro se civil rights plaintiff secures counsel or all the civil rights claims are dismissed without leave to amend, then the reference under this General Order shall be vacated automatically by the Clerk of the Court, and the case shall be returned to the assigned District Judge with the assigned Magistrate Judge redesignated as the discovery Magistrate Judge.”

41.          Baldwin was never given the right to withhold consent to a magistrate judge and neither is any other pro se Section 1983 plaintiff. Baldwin opposed reference to a magistrate on August 23, 2011 but said Opposition was never acknowledged nor ruled upon by the district court even though the Ninth Circuit has held: “Parties must object to reference to a magistrate or special master ‘at the time the reference is made or within a reasonable time thereafter.'” [40]

42.          Baldwin asserts that the district court knew Judge Carter had not issued a special designation granting Judge Pym the authority to rule on dispositive motions. “A magistrate judge lacks authority to enter a final judgment absent special designation by the district court. [41] However, they also knew that if Judge Pym was successful in entering an Order granting Judge Miller’s Motion to Dismiss that there was nothing Baldwin could do about it. “A final judgment entered by a magistrate judge who lacks authority is not an appealable order.” [42]

43.          The Order made by Judge Carter on January 4, 2012 continues: “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.

44. Judge Carter had no evidence to support these facts and wrote them with knowledge that they were false in order to prejudice Baldwin’s appeal and Section 1983 constitutional claims, a direct violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. §1503 (see, fn. 20, supra).

45.          Even though Judge Carter recused himself on January 4, 2012 and said order formed the basis of this appeal, said appeal has less to do with Judge Carter’s recusal and much more to do with the fact that Judge Carter:

                                a.            intentionally altered the record on appeal without jurisdiction to do so;

                                b.            deliberately prejudiced Baldwin’s Section 1983 claims and appeal by making false statements about Baldwin in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. §1503;

                                c.             participated in the concealment of the validity of two permanent injunctions to protect defendants named in Baldwin’s complaint; and

                                d.            by so doing, violated Baldwin’s constitutional rights.

46.          This Court has deprived Baldwin of due process and equal protection of the law, and meaningful access of the courts, by denying her the safeguards afforded other plaintiffs, i.e., warning of dismissal and the opportunity to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed.

Dated:  March 6, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

____________/s/_____________

Erin K. Baldwin, Appellant Pro Se


[1] Fiester v. Turner, 783 F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986).

[2] Dannenberg v. Software Toolworks, Inc., 16 F.3d 1073, 1074 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); Fontana Empire Ctr., LLC v. City of Fontana, 307 F.3d 987, 990 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002).

[3] Holt v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 381 U.S. 131 (1965), inter alia.

[4] Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 34, 35 (1956); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 361 (1963).

[5] 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.1987)

[6] Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992).

[7] Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir.1992).

[8] Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

[9] However, not yet consolidated for briefing purposes.

[10] 307 F.3d 1045, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002).

[11] 533 U.S. 194 (2001).

[12] 555 U.S. 223 (2009).

[13] Petition for Rehearing was filed in Case No. 12-70296 on February 22, 2012 and is currently pending before this Court.

[14] 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981).

[15] 982 F.2d 335, 338 (9th Cir. 1992).

[16] 692 F.2d 1239, 1241 (9th Cir. 1982).

[17] McClatchy Newspapers v. Cent. Valley Typographical Union, 686 F.2d 731, 734-35 (9th Cir. 1982)

[18] Kern Oil & Refining Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co., 840 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1988).

[19] Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) and Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009).

[20] Title 18 U.S.C.A. §1503: “rendering false testimony, including the propagating, publishing and dissemination of false facts, theories and conclusions as well as the intent to retaliate against witnesses, victims, or parties for their participation in federal investigations or legal proceedings, including intimidation, physical force, threats, misleading conduct, and harassment.”

[21] Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006).

[22] United States v. Bolanos-Hernandez, 492 F.3d 1140, 1141 (9th Cir. 2007).

[23] United States v. Clifford Matley Family Trust, 354 F.3d 1154, 1159 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004)

[24] PullmanStandard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289 n.19 (1982); Suzys Zoo v. Commissioner, 273 F.3d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 2001).

[25] Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1027 n.13 (9th Cir. 2008); Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 216 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2000), aff’d, 535 U.S. 302 (2002).

[26] Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

[27] Rabkin v. Oregon Health Sciences Univ., 350 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2003)

[28] Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004).

[29] Chang v. United States, 327 F.3d 911, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).

[30] Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996); Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A., 523 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 1001 (9th Cir. 2002).

[31] United States v. Beltran-Gutierrez, 19 F.3d 1287, 1289 (9th Cir. 1994).

[32] Richard S. v. Dept. of Developmental Servs., 317 F.3d 1080, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2003).

[33] Oregon Natural Res. Council v. Marsh, 52 F.3d 1485, 1492 (9th Cir. 1995).

[34] 527 U.S. 198, 203 (1999).

[35] Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 742-43 (1976).

[36] 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).

[37] Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2457, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978); Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 658, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2039, 52 L.Ed.2d 651; Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225, 93 L.Ed. 1528.

[38] 282 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.2002).

[39] 522 F.2d 1110, 1112 (9th Cir. 1975).

[40] Spaulding v. Univ. of Wash., 740 F.2d 686, 695 (9th Cir. 1984); Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 934 F.2d 1064, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 1991).

[41] Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1988); Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc., 690 F.2d 717, 720 (9th Cir. 1982); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F. 3d 1172, 1178 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006).

[42] Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with Ninth Circuit at cacorruptionwatch.

%d bloggers like this: