Follow on Google News News By Tag * Judge David O. Carter * Judge Josephine Tucker * Erin Baldwin * Magistrate Sheri Pym * The California State Bar * More Tags... Industry News * Erin Baldwin * More Industries... News By Location Country(s) Industry News
Follow on Google News | Federal Judge David O. Carter Promotes False “Pattern of Behavior” To Prejudice Pro Se ComplaintFederal Judges David O. Carter, Josephine Tucker, and Sheri Pym make false statements about Pro Se litigant, Erin Baldwin, in order to prejudice her Civil Rights Complaint against the California State Bar for 1st Amendment Retaliatory Prosecution.
By: Pro Se Nation However, these theories fall flat. At the end of this story is a list of 20 judges that have ruled against Miss Baldwin during the period covered in her Civil Rights Complaint filed on August 16, 2011 --- none of whom are named in her Complaint. Furthermore, this is the first Complaint Ms. Baldwin has filed in her defense of nearly 40 civil and criminal cases filed against her to silence her First Amendment protected speech about matters of public concern. Can a judge be held liable for creating and disseminating false information about a pro se litigant to prevent her from advancing her claims for violations of her constitutional rights? Here’s a brief history of the disqualification of Judge David O. Carter: On December 13, 2011, Erin Baldwin filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Carter when she discovered Judge Carter's close, personal relationship with U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney, a defendant in her Complaint. Second, she discovered that the Courtroom Deputy for both Judges Carter and Tucker, Dwayne Roberts, was personally involved in fraudulent proceedings brought by UDR, Inc. against Baldwin in 2009, the foundation of Plaintiff's Section 1983 Complaint. Judge David O. Carter refused to voluntarily recuse himself. On December 19, 2011, Erin Baldwin filed an Appeal of Judge Carter’s December 2, 2011 Court Order that denied her constitutional rights to an explanation of the basis of Carter's adverse findings against her, among other violations. The Appeal also includes issues pertaining to the unconstitutional treatment of pro se litigants at the Central District Court of California. On December 21, 2011, Judge Tucker denied Baldwin’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Carter alleging that Miss Baldwin was “harassing” “In typical harassing litigation, a claim against a judge is barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, and the complaint is subject to prompt dismissal on judicial immunity or other grounds. Review of a complaint against a judicial colleague where the litigation is patently frivolous or judicial immunity is plainly applicable will not ordinarily give rise to a reasonable basis to question the assigned judge’s impartiality, and disqualification would rarely be appropriate.” “The Opinion’s reference to “harassing litigation” is a reference to complaints filed by a party against a judge or judges “in retaliation for unfavorable judicial decisions or setbacks in their legal proceedings.” “The naming of Judge Carney appears to be simply part of Plaintiff’s pattern to name as a defendant any and every judge who issues an unfavorable ruling against her. The fact that Plaintiff has named Judge Carney as a defendant does not require recusal of Judge Carter. Plaintiff’s reference to a hearsay article from seven years ago does not change the analysis.” On December 21, 2011, Ms. Baldwin joined Judge Tucker's Order to her current Appeal stating that it was void for lack of jurisdiction. On January 5, 2012 Judge David O. Carter decided to "voluntarily" “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." “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. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, this Court chooses to voluntarily recuse itself at the present time.” On January 6, 2012, Ms. Baldwin joined Judge Carter's Order to her current Appeal stating that it was void for lack of jurisdiction. On January 9, 2012, Judge Carter, again, without jurisdiction to do so, entered an Order to Reassign the Case to Judge J. Spencer Letts in the Western Division. And once again, Judge Carter uses the opportunity to advance false statements about Baldwin's alleged "pattern of behavior" that does not exist. His Order states: “Plaintiff’ What pattern of behavior? There is no factual basis for Judge David O. Carter or Judge Josephine Staton Tucker's malicious allegations. In fact, the following is a list of the judges that have ruled against Miss Baldwin during the events covered in her Section 1983 Complaint. None of them are named in Baldwin's Complaint: 1. Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Richard E. Pacheco, Harbor Justice Center, Newport Beach; 2. Orange County Superior Court Judge Craig E. Robison, Harbor Justice Center, Newport Beach; 3. Orange County Superior Court Judge Derek Johnson, Harbor Justice Center, Newport Beach; 4. Orange County Superior Court Judge Karen Robinson, Harbor Justice Center, Newport Beach; 5. Orange County Superior Court Judge Steven Perk, Central Justice Center, Santa Ana; 6. San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Steven Malone, Victorville 7. San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Gilbert Ochoa, Big Bear 8. San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Kenneth Barr, San Bernardino 9. San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Kyle Brodie, San Bernardino 10. San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Michael Dest, San Bernardino 11. San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Ronald Christiansen, San Bernardino 12. San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Donna Gunnell Garza, San Bernardino 13. San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Thomas Garza, San Bernardino 14. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, Los Angeles, California; 15. California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Fourth District, Division Three, Associate Justice Kathleen E. O’Leary; 16. California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Fourth District, Division Three, Associate Justice William F. Rylaarsdam; 17. California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Fourth District, Division Three, Associate Justice Richard M. Aronson; 18. California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Fourth District, Division Three, Associate Justice Richard D. Fybel; 19. United States District Court, Central District of California, District Judge David O. Carter; and 20. United States District Court, Central District of California, District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker. What has become of our federal judiciary? [All documents named in this press release can be viewed at http://cacorruptionwatch.wordpress.com.] End
Account Phone Number Disclaimer Report Abuse Page Updated Last on: Mar 26, 2012
|
|