Erin Baldwin Asks U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts to Help Restore Her 1st Amendment Rights

April 26, 2012 - PRLog -- Erin K. Baldwin
Post Office Box 3141
Beaumont, California  92223
678-997-6893

April 19, 2012

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, Northeast
Washington, DC 20543

Re:   United States Supreme Court Rule 13
   United States Court of Appeals, For the Ninth Circuit
   Appeal Case Nos. 11-57210; 12-55081; 12-55087; and 12-70296

Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

I am writing to express my sincere desire to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pertaining to decisions it rendered in the above-referenced cases that directly conflict with its own decisions, decisions of other U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, and decisions of the California Supreme Court.  

However, my ability to timely file said Petition has been obstructed by the Ninth Circuit's unwillingness to provide me the documents necessary to comply with U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13, i.e., a copy of the final judgments in my appeals or a copy of the orders denying my petitions for rehearing timely filed in each case.  To this end, I herein request your assistance.  

The decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the orders that form the basis of my appeals are unjustly influenced by a desire to protect the State Bar of California, fellow judicial officers, and other defendants named in my case, rather than to fairly adjudicate the issues on the merits and make a constitutional inquiry pursuant to Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009).

I am a journalist. In 2009, my First Amendment rights were terminated by two politically-motivated permanent injunctions issued in connection with two strategic lawsuits against public participation.  The sole purpose of these SLAPPs was to silence my protected speech about matters of public concern. The injunctions are unconstitutional prior restraints, void for vagueness, overly-broad and were issued without a hearing on the merits or the identification of any false statements. In addition, default judgments exceeding $700,000.00 were entered against me.  These permanent injunctions are enclosed herein.  
   
The first lawsuit was brought, in name only, by a now-suspended law firm that performed illegal loan modification services, Parsa Law Group (a subject of my reporting) and run by James Parsa, a twice-convicted statutory rapist now suspended from the practice of law in California and Nevada (another subject of my reporting).  

However,  the lawsuit was actually brought sub rosa on behalf of the State Bar of California and California Department of Real Estate to silence my reports concerning their participation in, and liability for, intentional fraud against California consumers in foreclosure (also a subject of my reporting).  

The second lawsuit was brought by the same law firm as the first (Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP), was heard by the same judge (Orange County Superior Court Judge Franz E. Miller) and was filed on behalf of a publicly-traded residential landlord and real estate investment trust, UDR, Inc.  that sought to silence my reports concerning its illegal California residential lease agreements.  
   
Since the time the injunctions were entered, there have been more than 40 acts of civil and criminal retaliatory prosecution against me to prevent me from raising a defense. In addition to court cases, my personal property was seized on three separate occasions (and never returned); I have been falsely arrested and imprisoned; beaten in custody by five male sheriff's deputies; made homeless and the subject of Internet articles that present me in a false light to discredit me, personally, as well as my truthful, factual, and legally-substantiated articles about the State Bar of California, California Department of Real Estate and UDR, Inc.  

All of these actions were taken to prevent me from telling the truth about fraud against California consumers and tenants and then to prevent me from reporting on the 40 acts of civil and criminal retaliatory prosecution instigated after the injunctions were entered.  

On August 16, 2011, I filed a Section 1983 Complaint in the Central District Court of California with the goal of reinstating my First Amendment rights, reclaiming my personal property, ending the retaliation, and seeking damages for three years of relentless harassment.  

In District Court the efforts to conceal the offenses against me doubled, the most insidious of which was a fabricated claim created by the judicial officers involved in my case (and stated in a series of court orders) that I "exhibited a pattern of behavior wherein I named as a defendant every judge that has ever ruled against me."  After I provided evidence to the contrary, the use of said fabricated facts continued in an effort to prejudice my case on appeal.  

Beginning on December 19, 2011, I appealed decisions made by the district court judges and found myself, once again, the subject of biased decision-making. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also demonstrated its bias in favor of the State Bar, inter alia, by issuing orders that contained facts inapplicable to my case, were absent the aforementioned constitutional inquiry, and failed to recognize my right to due process of law.

During the period February 15-17, 2012, I received Orders dismissing my original and two-related appeals as well as the denial of my Emergency Petition for First Amendment Writ of Mandate, copies of which are enclosed.  These orders are not final judgments in form or content, and all state:

"No motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions shall be filed or entertained in this closed docket."   (hereinafter referred to as "Final Statement")  

To date, there has been no showing from adverse parties, no order to show cause why my appeals should not be dismissed, and although a briefing schedule was issued, the opportunity to file an Opening Brief was vacated as were all pending motions.

With arguments in opposition to the Final Statement, I timely filed Petitions for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc pursuant to Rules 35 and 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Upon filing, my petitions were not forwarded to the Motions Panel that ruled on my appeals (Circuit Court Judges Mary Schroeder, Edward Leavy, and Robert Clifton).  Rather, the Ninth Circuit Docket Clerk sent an email denying my petitions citing the Final Statement set forth, supra.

Believing that the Orders entered were not, in fact, issued by Circuit Judges Schroeder, Leavy and Clifton, on March 7, 2012, I sent correspondence to the Clerks of said judges attaching the Orders and Petitions for Rehearing.  My objective was to reinstate and consolidate my appeals; or, at a minimum, receive the entry of final judgment and ruling on my petitions for rehearing.  To date, I have not received a response.

After several informal requests, on April 11, 2012, I filed a "Request for Statement of Decision Re Final Judgments & Rulings on Petitions for Rehearing and/or Rehearing En Banc in Compliance with United States Supreme Court Rule 13," a copy of which is enclosed.  I specifically requested that this decision be made by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.  

Again, the April 11, 2012 motion was rejected by the Docket Clerk via email citing the Final Statement as justification.  That was my last communication with the court and to date, I have not received a response.

This is a new experience for me and I believe I've followed the proper protocol for such a request.  It is well beyond the realm of possibility that any attorney in the state of California would represent me in an action against the State Bar. Therefore, I humbly make this request in propria persona and look forward to a response.               

                        Sincerely,
                        /s/ Erin K. Baldwin /s/
                        Erin K. Baldwin
Enclosures
cc:  Correspondence w/o Enclosures to ...