Ninth Circuit Gives Pro Se Journalist the Silent Treatment - Part II

March 28, 2012 - PRLog -- 12. In addition to Local Rule 58-6, Local Rule 52-4 was also violated:  "Each order shall be prepared by the attorney directed to do so by the Court. The order shall comply with the requirements of L.R. 58-10. Within five (5) days of the ruling, the attorney preparing the order shall serve it on all parties and lodge it with the Clerk."

13.  In addition to Local Rule 58-6, Local Rule 52-4.1 was also violated: "A separate order shall be electronically filed with any stipulation, application, motion or request of the parties requiring an order of the court. The pertinent elements requested in the stipulation shall be set forth in the order."

14.  In addition to Local Rule 58-6, Local Rule 52-5 was also violated: "Except as otherwise provided by F.R.Civ.P. 63, application for any order in a civil action (including cases on appeal) shall be made to the judge to whom the case is assigned. If the judge to whom the action is assigned is not available and there is an emergency necessitating an order, the judge’s court clerk shall be consulted to determine whether a judge of this Court has been designated to handle matters in the absence of the assigned judge.  

If a designation has been made, the application shall be presented to the designated judge. If no designation has been made by the assigned judge, then the matter shall be presented to the Chief Judge, or in the Chief Judge’s absence, to any other available judge. If no emergency exists, the application will be held by the assigned judge’s court clerk until the assigned judge is available."

15.  In addition to Local Rule 58-6, Local Rule 58.10 was also violated: "At least two lines of the text of any order or judgment shall appear on the page that has the line provided for the signature of the judge. Next to the signature line shall be the word “Dated:” with a blank left for the judge to write in the date. At least two lines above the signature line shall be left blank for the judge’s signature."

CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

16.  In addition, it appears that this Court has also chosen to perpetuate a series of falsehoods about Baldwin's character and motivation in filing her Section 1983 constitutional claims in order to protect the misconduct of the district court judges that originated same.

17.  This Court's February 15, 2012 Order states:

"This court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court. See Demos v. United States Dist. Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction.  

"Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977).

"Accordingly, the petition is denied in part. The emergency request to stay district court proceedings is denied as moot. No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case. Dismissed In Part, Denied In Part."

18.  This Court's Order fails to acknowledge, address, or rule on even one single issue stated in Baldwin's Writ.  The questions presented to this Court follow:

"QUESTION ONE: Whether two permanent injunctions ordered against Baldwin in 2009 that effectively terminated her First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of the press, in perpetuity, and resulted in civil and criminal retaliatory prosecution ongoing, brought for redress to the federal courts on August 16, 2011, via a Section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint, are (a) valid and enforceable; or (b) unconstitutional prior restraints on Baldwin's protected speech; void for vagueness; overly-broad; issued without due process of law; not justified by a compelling government interest; not narrowly drawn to serve that interest; unlawfully issued in connection with default judgments in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 55(a); 23 and as such, invalid, unenforceable, and void."

"QUESTION TWO: Whether certain Federal Court Judicial Officers acted with deliberate indifference to, and in reckless disregard for, Baldwin's constitutional rights by failing to act, or engaging in, overt and covert actions, including, but not limited to, the issuance of court orders intended to prejudice, frustrate, and/or dispose of Baldwin's Section 1983 Complaint in order to (a) conceal, undermine, and/or eradicate the harms suffered by Baldwin; (b) discredit, defame, and/or demoralize Baldwin by unfounded, libelous, and malicious statements; and (c) protect defendants named in Baldwin's Complaint thereby abandoning their role as an impartial judicial officer and acting in clear absence of all jurisdiction."

"QUESTION THREE:  Whether said court orders, failure to act, covert and overt acts, and prejudicial protection of Baldwin's defendants by federal judicial officers; as well as the General Orders, practices, policies, and customs of the Central District Court of California in relation to Baldwin's case, and to pro se, indigent litigants, in general, deprived Baldwin of equal protection of the law, her constitutional rights, and have impeded Baldwin's ability to redress violations to her constitutional rights brought in her Section 1983 Complaint on August 16, 2011."  

19.  INSTEAD this Court's Order cites Demos v. United States Dist. Court, that is not only irrelevant to the case at bar but perpetuates false theories and statements made about Baldwin's character and motivation behind filing her Section 1983 Complaint.  These false theories and statements constitute criminal obstruction of justice as set forth in the Omnibus Provision of Title 28 U.S.C. §1503,   including (a) concealment, alteration, or destruction of documents; and (b) encouraging or rendering of false testimony.
   
20.  Section 1503 continues: "It is not the means employed … that are specifically prohibited by the omnibus provision ... but ... instead, the defendant's corrupt endeavor which motivated the action.  The person engaging in activities prohibited by Section 1503 need not be a party to the pending judicial proceeding in order to be convicted."

21.   On December 19, 2011, Baldwin filed an appeal of Judge Carter's December 2, 2011 Order.  At that moment, the U.S. District Court was divested of jurisdiction to rule on any issues other than those required to maintain the status quo.  However, as is common practice at the Central District Court in Santa Ana, that rule was not followed and as such, the record on appeal was intentionally altered and tainted to conceal the misconduct of district court judges.

22.   On December 21, 2011, three days after the district court was divested of jurisdiction, U.S. District Court Judge Josephine S. Tucker ("Judge Tucker") ruled on a Motion to Disqualify Judge Carter, the very subject of Baldwin's appeal filed on December 19, 2011.  This action was in clear absence of any jurisdiction and was intended to falsely discredit Baldwin and falsely alter the record on appeal to conceal Judge Carter's misconduct.  Judge Tucker's Order stated:

"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."

For Part I, See:  http://www.prlog.org/11835465-ninth-circuit-gives-pro-se-...

Please see "Ninth Circuit Gives Pro Se Journalist the Silent Treatment - Part III" tomorrow, March 28, 2012.