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

March 28, 2012 - PRLog -- [For links to the first two parts, please go to the end of press release.]

23.  Judge Tucker's Order does not state that Baldwin's litigation is "patently frivolous," yet applies the "harassing litigation" template for ruling on Baldwin's Motion to Disqualify Judge Carter.  The only points Baldwin raised in her Motion were:

a.  That Judge Carter's good friend, Judge Cormac Carney, was a defendant in Baldwin's action.  As such, Judge Carter must recuse himself based on obvious prejudice and bias to a party in the action.  But Judge Carter refused to do so.

b.   That Judge Carter's courtroom deputy, Dwayne Roberts, had personal knowledge of the case because he, in fact, was a participant in lawlessness against Baldwin in his former position with the Orange County Superior Court, one of the subjects of Baldwin's Complaint.  As such, Judge Carter, must recuse himself due to personal knowledge of disputed facts in the case.  But Judge Carter refused to do so.  In fact, Judge Tucker should not have been assigned the task to evaluate Judge Carter's disqualification because her courtroom deputy is also Dwayne Roberts.

24.  Further, in Judge Tucker's Order she stated:

"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."

25.   On January 4, 2012, two weeks after the district court was divested of jurisdiction upon Baldwin's Notice of Appeal; after he refused to disqualify himself upon Baldwin's motion to disqualify; and after Judge Tucker had the opportunity to discredit Baldwin and alter the record on appeal; U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter ("Judge Carter"), in clear absence of any jurisdiction, decided to "voluntarily recuse himself."  But not until he had the opportunity to once again falsely discredit Baldwin and falsely alter the record on appeal to conceal his misconduct.  It stated:

"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. Order on Motion to Disqualify, 6.

"Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, this Court chooses to voluntarily recuse itself at the present time. The two currently pending motions will thus remain pending until the above captioned case is reassigned to a different judge, perhaps outside of the Santa Ana courthouse."

26.  On January 5, 2012, Judge Carter took another opportunity to falsely discredit Baldwin and falsely alter the record on appeal to conceal his misconduct.  In his January 5, 2012 "Order to Reassign Case Due to Self-Recusal" Judge Carter stated:

"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."

27.  In Baldwin's Notice of Related appeal date January 6, 2012, she advised this Court of the aforementioned false testimony and offered evidence of same by listing 20 judges that have ruled against Baldwin over the past three years that were not named defendants in her Complaint.

28.   Nonetheless, on February 3, 2012, Orange County Superior Court Judge Franz E. Miller, in his Reply to Baldwin's Opposition to his Motion to Dismiss, also took his opportunity to falsely discredit Baldwin and falsely alter the record on appeal to conceal his misconduct.  He stated:

"The instant action was brought by plaintiff because she is unhappy with the outcome of many civil and criminal cases which were brought against her in both Orange and San Bernardino Counties.

"In fact, it appears that every person who has crossed plaintiff’s path in the past few years has been included as a defendant in either the instant (amended) second amended complaint or one of plaintiff’s prior complaints, including the federal judicial officers who have been assigned to preside over this or related cases."

29.   On January 23, 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee ("Judge Gee") obstructed justice by concealing, replacing and destroying court orders to conceal her own misconduct.  This is sufficiently pled in the Motion to Disqualify Judge Gee currently before this Court.

30.   Then on February 15, 2012, this Court continued to falsely discredit Baldwin and falsely alter the record on appeal by citing the Demos case that pertains to a pro se litigant that filed seven petitions in federal and state court for writs of mandamus in the period of one year and in each case, John Demos filed in forma pauperis.  The Order states:

"Demos has not submitted the filing fee with any of these petitions. Because Demos has abused the privilege of filing actions in forma pauperis in this court, we order the Clerk of this court to return the papers in each of these seven actions to Demos without filing."

31.   In comparison, Baldwin has filed only one petition for writ of mandamus in forma pauperis in defense of her constitutional rights dated January 26, 2012.  But that was because during the six months leading up to January, 2012, Baldwin had already paid three filing fees totaling $1,050.00 to the district court in defense of her constitutional rights.   

a.   Filing fee of $350.00 on May 9, 2011 in Case No. 8:11-cv-00708-CJC -AN in an attempt to remove her constitutional claims to federal court in connection with the first permanent injunction entered against her on June 2, 2009 in the Parsa Law Group Defamation Action, which injunction was ignored in this Court's Order and formed Baldwin's only motivation: To reinstate her First Amendment rights.

b.   Filing fee of $350.00 on June 6, 2011 in Case No. 8:11-cv-00845-CJC -AN in an attempt to remove her constitutional claims to federal court in connection with the second permanent injunction entered against her on December 11, 2009 in the UDR Defamation Action, which injunction was ignored in this Court's Order and formed Baldwin's only motivation:  To reinstate her First Amendment rights.

c.   Filing fee of $350.00 on August 16, 2011 for a Section 1983 Complaint for ongoing violations of her constitutional rights beginning in January of 2008 and ongoing through and including this Court's February 15, 2012 Order in violation of the "Continuing Violations Doctrine" in conjunction with viewpoint discrimination against Baldwin.

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

For Part II:  http://www.prlog.org/11835473-ninth-circuit-gives-pro-se-...

See Part IV for the final section of this press release.  Or go to http://9thcircuitprosereport.blogspot.com