NYSE-UDR - UDR, Inc. Joins Parsa Law Group While Judge Franz Miller Naps

Sept. 12, 2009 - PRLog -- Santa Ana, CA:  Orange County Superior Court, Central Justice Center, Judge Franz Miller

On September 2, 2009, NYSE-UDR – UDR, Inc. joined forces in court with four loan modification law firms, Parsa Law Group, Law Offices of Jeffrey Cancilla, Law Offices of Craig Laverty, and Traut Law Group to silence consumer advocate, Erin Baldwin, writer of the Bad Biz Finder blog.

What does a $500 million publicly traded Colorado-based Landlord/REIT have in common with Orange County loan modification law firms that have come under fire for operating outside the law?  Miller decided they were all related to each other because they were all suing consumer rights activist, Erin Baldwin, for defamation.  

Baldwin launched the Bad Biz Finder blog on January 13, 2009 and when it was shut down by WordPress, CEO, Toni Schneider, in June, it had attracted 185,000 consumer viewers desperate for a source of free information.  

The blog exposed the truth about two crimes against consumers:

1.   UDR’s illegal California contracts, followed by the formation of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of California UDR tenants.  

2.   The formation of loan modification “law firms” that capitalized on the exemption granted to attorneys under California Civil Code section 2945.  The exemption stated that lawyers could require advanced fees for loan modification services, but  foreclosure consultants could.  However, these “law firms” had no attorneys.  They were set up using an attorney’s license, the work was being conducted by inexperienced “foreclosure consultants,” and run by ex-subprime mortgage hacks.  

Bad Biz Finder never accepted donations, gifts, payments, advertising or any other form of funding.  It maintained complete objectivity and published reports anonymously to stay focussed on its mission.

Whenever criminal cash flow is interrupted, there is a price to pay.  Erin Baldwin spoke the truth to help consumers and UDR tenants.  Now she has a bench warrant out for her arrest with a $5,000 bail signed by Judge Franz Miller on September 2, 2009 because she failed to attend a hearing for Contempt in a case where Miller never even recognized her as a Defendant.  

But how can that be?  

1.   On July 14, 2009, Judge Miller stated in his tentative ruling, “it is not clear that Erin Baldwin has the authority to speak on behalf of Bad Biz Finder.”  Although she had attempted to appear telephonically prior to this Contempt hearing, she was rejected as a representative of the case

2.   However, five weeks earlier, on June 2, Miller signed a Court Order naming Baldwin as a Defendant, along with Bad Biz Finder, an unknown business entity.  He stated that Baldwin was responsible for paying $605,000 to Parsa Law Group for reports she supposedly wrote on a blog that no one can identify.

So herein lies the riddle.  If Judge Miller believes Baldwin has no authority to speak on behalf of Bad Biz Finder, how can she be responsible for paying a six-figure judgment?

Here is a chronology of events for your entertainment:

1.   On May 18, Judge Miller, in his tentative ruling, stated that Parsa’s claims against Baldwin contained prior restraint issues and that these issues should be considered.  This means that free speech cannot be restrained, however, if can be questioned in a court of law once it is published. Baldwin pled prior restraint issues and they were ignored.

2.   On May 18, Judge Miller denied Parsa’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against Baldwin because they failed to prove defamation.  Truth is an absolute defense against defamation and Parsa could not point to even one statement that was untrue.

3.   On May 19, Baldwin informed the Court that she was an indigent and therefore “judgment proof” by way of an Application for Waiver of Court Fees and Costs in order to defend herself in a case that never recognized her as a defendant.  It was rejected because "a business cannot apply for a fee waiver" and Baldwin was informed that she was not  a defendant.  

4.   On May 19, the rejected application was sent to Stacie Turner, Judge Miller’s Clerk, requesting that she send it to Baldwin.  However, Turner intentionally held on to it until May 29, the date originally set for a default hearing against Bad Biz Finder and Baldwin.

5.   On May 27, the Court received Baldwin’s Motion for an Order Setting Aside Default, so it would be heard in conjunction with the default hearing scheduled for May 29.  However, Turner kept the Motion together with the rejected fee waive application and she did not give it to Miller.

6.   On May 29, Baldwin called Turner and was informed that the hearing had been continued to June 2, however Parsa never noticed Baldwin of this fact.  It had been continued because the Court rejected Parsa’s Request for Entry of Default package on May 28, 2009 due to numerous errors.  The May 29 hearing date is not on the docket; it erroneously states that the hearing was continued from June 1 to June 2.

7.   On May 29, Baldwin inquired about the status of her Application for Waiver of Court Fees and Costs and it was explained to her that Bad Biz Finder was the primary Defendant and Baldwin had not been added as a Defendant.  However, Bad Biz Finder had never been served with a Summons and Complaint.  

8.   On June 2, fifteen days after Judge Miller denied Parsa’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO, he granted a Permanent Injunction and signed a Judgment that stated, in part:

“IT IS SO ORDERED that Parsa have and recover Judgment from Defendants Bad Biz Finder, an unknown entity, and Erin K. Baldwin, an individual and doing business as Bad Biz Finder, jointly and severally: (1) In the principal sum of $604,515.66 plus interest thereon at the rate of ten (10%) percent per annum from June 2, 2009; and (2) Costs pursuant to CCP section 1033.5 in the amount of $976.76.”

9.   On June 2, 2009, the hearing set for 11:30 a.m. never happened because there was a power outage at the Court that suspended all regular activity until 2:30 p.m. However, Parsa claims Judge Miller carried on with the hearing, ruled and signed the Judgment.

10.   On June 2, Turner mailed to Baldwin the rejected fee application and her original Motion for Order Setting Aside Default received on May 27.  She included a handwritten note (date stamped June 2, 2009) that said: “Obtain legal counsel to properly file your motion, or a paralegal to assist.” Turner’s unique penmanship on the handwritten note matched the unique penmanship on the Judgment allegedly signed by Judge Miller.

11.   Parsa's attorneys quickly used the Court Order to destroy any evidence of news about Parsa Law Group on the internet.  The Bad Biz Finder blog was shut down even though it contained reports completely unrelated to Parsa Law Group.  

12.   Baldwin rescheduled her Motion to July 14 and on that date Miller stated in his tentative ruling, it is “unclear if Baldwin has any authority to appear for Bad Biz.” How could he be unclear when just five weeks earlier he'd ordered Baldwin to pay Parsa $605,000?

13.   Baldwin's Motion was denied and Parsa promptly filed a Motion of Contempt.  Since Judge Miller never recognized Baldwin as a Defendant, she didn’t show up to the hearing, because the Court wouldn’t allow her to appear telephonically.  But that didn’t stop Judge Miller from issuing a bench warrant for her arrest with a $5,000 bail.

There is so much wrong with this case, we don’t even know where to begin.  Baldwin is filing an appeal.  Although Judge Miller recognized prior restraint issues, he failed to rule accordingly.  Although Judge Miller failed to recognize Baldwin as a defendant in this action, she now has a $605,000 judgment and a good possibility of going to jail.  Are we missing something here?