Federal Judge David O. Carter Promotes False “Pattern of Behavior” To Prejudice Pro Se Complaint

Federal 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.
 
Jan. 10, 2012 - PRLog -- In order to protect the California State Bar, Superior Court Judge Franz E. Miller, and to distract attention away from their intentionally prejudicial and unlawful Orders, United States District Court Judges David O. Carter, Josephine Staton Tucker, and Sheri N. Pym, have collectively concocted false theories that Pro Se Litigant, Erin K. Baldwin, is a harassing, vexatious litigant that engages in a malicious "pattern of behavior" by naming in her Section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint “any judge who ever has ruled against her.”

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” Judge Carter.  However, due to the fact that the case was removed to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeal on December 13, 2011, Tucker had no jurisidiction to enter the Order. Nonetheless she  took the opportunity to cast Miss Baldwin in a false light:

“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.” A review of the Corrected SAC leads this Court to the conclusion that the claim against Judge Carney is based solely on his remand decisions in two state court actions that Plaintiff attempted to remove to federal court.”

“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" recuse himself, again, with no jurisdiction to do so.  His Order advances Judge Tucker's libelous statements about Ms. Baldwin's "pattern of behavior" stating:

“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’s past pattern of behavior and present allegations suggest that Judge David O. Carter will likely soon be named as a defendant in the above-captioned case.”  

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
Source: » Follow
Email:***@aol.com Email Verified
Tags:Judge David O. Carter, Judge Josephine Tucker, Erin Baldwin, Magistrate Sheri Pym, The California State Bar
Industry:Erin Baldwin
Location:United States
Account Phone Number Verified     Disclaimer     Report Abuse
Page Updated Last on: Mar 26, 2012
Trending
Most Viewed
Daily News



Like PRLog?
9K2K1K
Click to Share