Journalist Details 40+ Acts of Retaliatory Prosecution by CA State Officials to Silence Her Speech

March 25, 2012 - PRLog -- On August 16, 2011, Erin Baldwin filed a Section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint in the Central District Court of California based on three years of First Amendment retaliatory prosecution.  This story will summarize what Baldwin wrote about and what happened to her as a result of telling the truth.

Baldwin is an investigative reporter and bona fide journalist who wrote and published truthful, fact-based and legally-substantiated articles and investigative reports about matters of public concern.  They were published anonymously, in a public forum, without profit motive, for the sole benefit of California residential tenants and consumers in foreclosure.  As such, her articles constituted “protected speech” under the First Amendment, barring government interference and retaliatory prosecution.

Baldwin's articles and reports made public the individual and collective responsibility and liability of the California Attorney General ("CAG"), California State Bar ("CSB") and California Department of Real Estate ("DRE"), for intentional fraud against California residential tenants and consumers in foreclosure.  

The result was unbearable retaliation against Plaintiff “from the top down,” to rid the Internet of any evidence of this intentional fraud and to eliminate any memory of Baldwin's message by destroying her personal and professional credibility and her ability to fight back.

The “top” was Bank of America ("BOA"), California’s single largest beneficiary of mortgage fraud against consumers.  Baldwin exposed BOA's plan to settle (for pennies on the dollar) all outstanding consumer claims with CAG, CSB and DRE, thereby circumventing restitution to consumers altogether.   Six months later, that is exactly what happened.

In exchange, CAG, CSB and DRE agreed to stall, then reject, all consumer claims made against BOA ultimately unjustly enriching California government officials with money stolen from the citizens that put them into office in the first place.  Since BOA had no direct method to retaliate against Plaintiff, it called upon these California agencies to silence Baldwin so their plan could be implemented.  

However, since Baldwin is not an attorney, mortgage broker or real estate agent, these agencies had no power over her.  Therefore, CAG, CSB and DRE called upon county and city officials, corporations, and private parties to perform the retaliation for them.

Since Baldwin had done nothing but exercise her constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights, these local officials, corporations and private parties had no legitimate reason to retaliate against her, so they fabricated reasons.

Baldwin has been the subject of over 40 civil and criminal actions since January of 2009 all because beginning in late 2008, she noticed and reported on a series of events unfolding that appeared to be intentional fraud against California residential tenants and consumers in foreclosure.  And in every instance - she was right.

•  An unusually high number of Californians qualifying for “no down-payment, 1-, 3- and 5-year interest-only” sub-prime mortgage loans they could not afford.

•  An equally high number of mortgage loan defaults following the “interest only” period resulting in record-breaking foreclosure statistics.  

•  A corresponding increase in the number of residential tenants flowing into the California apartment market causing an escalation of landlord-tenant fraud, predminately at the hand of UDR, Inc. .                            

•  A significant number of vulnerable homeowners desperate to save their homes from foreclosure and an equal amount of unqualified “experts” eager to take their money and capitalize on their misfortune.

•  A hopelessly flawed, unenforced and ill-conceived consumer safeguard called “The California Foreclosure Consultants Act” (“CFCA”) codified in California Civil Code §2945, et seq.

•  An intentional and premeditated “loophole” in the CFCA that prohibited all loan modification service providers (except California State Bar-licensed attorneys) from taking fees in advance of work performed.                                  

•  A rush of “non-attorneys” (primarily DRE-licensed subprime mortgage brokers) unlawfully associated with CSB-licensed attorneys with the express intent of circumventing the CFCA “loophole.”

•  An unprecedented number of newly-formed law firms offering foreclosure rescue services advertised as “attorney-based law firms” with no lawyers on staff.

•  An inherent and justifiable reliance on the fact that when one hires a “law firm” that the work will be performed by an experienced and qualified lawyer; coupled with the reality that the work was performed by “non-lawyers” with no experience reviewing loan documents for error in order to evaluate and assert the proper and required affirmative defenses to effectively negotiate a loan modification with a lender.  

•  An appalling lack of consumer protection by CAG, CSB and DRE, all required by law to protect consumers.

•  The CSB and DRE failed to enforce their respective professional rules of conduct; discipline their members when they broke the rules, and make prompt restitution to via their “Client Security Fund” and “Recovery Account,” respectively.

•  A historic rise in unemployment rates caused by big corporation lay-offs and small business failure.

•  A freeze on consumer and business credit and decline in home values.

•  A bailout for the banks who intentionally sold unconscionable subprime mortgage loans utilizing bad faith predatory tactics to induce consumers mesmerized by the political speeches promising the “American Dream for All.”

•  No bailout for the consumers who bought the unconscionable subprime mortgage loans “guaranteed to make the American Dream a reality,” resulting in catastrophic poverty rates, a rise in the number of bankruptcy filings, and record growth in the homeless population.

•  “Too little, too late” legislation enacted in late 2009 (Senate Bill 94) that prohibited all loan modification service providers, including attorneys, from taking fees in advance of work performed.

•  In theory, Senate Bill 94 gave Defendants CAG, CSB, and DRE four years to resolve all outstanding consumer claims and put into place consumer protection programs before it expired on January 1, 2013.

•  Thousands of consumer claims still exist and no legitimate programs have been put into place to counteract the inevitable.  Senate Bill 94 will expire at the same time existing 3- and 5-year interest only loan schedules expire.  [Please note that SB 980 is supposed to extend SB 94 to 2017 but scant chance at the ninth hour.]

•  Then history will repeat itself, which means new mesmerizing political speeches; new and improved task forces that do nothing but conceal official misconduct (which misconduct caused the vicious cycle in the first place), new names for old companies ready to defraud consumers again, and a new set of consumers eager for the American Dream.                  

•  Astonishing wealth has been amassed by a few at the expense of many.  Baldwin championed returning the wealth to the consumers, but “the few” had other ideas.  

See http://9thcircuitprosereport.blogspot.com for a list of the retaliatory actions taken against Baldwin.

Because the CSB is a primary defendant in Baldwin's Section 1983 case, no attorney has been willing to help her.  They are all afraid of what could happen to them and their careers.  Therefore she has been forced to defend herself pro se.  The positive outcome is that she shares her experience, strength and hope to others on her blog at http://9thcircuitprosereport.blogspot.com.

Also, The CSB plays a big part in appointing judges in CA through its Judicial Nominations Evaluations ("JNE") Committee. Therefore, many CA judges (state and federal) are unethically loyal to the State Bar to the detriment of many.