OC Superior Court Judge Franz Miller Accepts Bribe From CA State Bar to Silence Journalist's Speech

May 24, 2012 - PRLog -- In January of 2009, Erin Baldwin began to write and publish truthful, factual, and legally- substantiated journalistic articles and investigative reports about matters of great public concern; namely, California loan modification fraud and landlord-tenant abuse.

She wrote and published this information on a WordPress blog called "Bad Biz Finder" and did so anonymously, free of charge, and for the sole benefit of consumers in foreclosure and tenants of UDR, Inc., who was, at that time, her landlord.

Baldwin did not accept advertising income, donations, gifts, or any other form of payment; rather, simply encouraged the beneficiaries of her information to "pay it forward" and help someone else for free.

Baldwin also exercised her First Amendment rights to assemble and associate with people similarly situated for the purpose of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.  In addition to warning and informing consumers about loan modification and landlord-tenant fraud, Baldwin quickly gained support for:

1. A Petition for Writ of Mandate requiring the State Bar of California ("State Bar") to make restitution to consumers financially harmed by its attorney members through its Client Security Fund; and, to require the Department of Real Estate ("DRE") to make restitution to consumers financially harmed by its members through its Customer Recovery Account.

2. A Class Action Lawsuit against UDR, Inc. on behalf of its California tenants financially harmed by UDR's illegal California leases.

As the direct result of Baldwin's altruistic approach, the high quality and accuracy of her information, her ability to convey vital information effectively to vulnerable consumers, she made an extraordinary impact and gained nearly 200,000 followers in less than five months.

Fearing massive financial liability and personal accountability, the State Bar, DRE, UDR, and many others, launched a full-scale attack on Baldwin's First Amendment rights in order to:

1. Silence her speech and disable her ability to publish the truth;

2. Put an end to Baldwin's assembly and association for the purpose of uniting against lawlessness and oppression; and

3. Place roadblocks in Baldwin's path to prevent her from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.  

In addition to direct violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, other constitutional rights were violated and on August 16, 2011 Baldwin filed a Section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint in the Central District Court of California.

District Court Judges David O.Carter, Josephine S. Tucker, Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Sheri N. Pym felt the pressure of the State Bar and did everything in their power to dismiss Baldwin's Complaint.  The fact that the State Bar participates actively in the judicial selection process in both state and federal courts prevented Baldwin from getting a fair trial.    

Erin Baldwin appealed Judge Carter's denial of her request to amend her complaint and filed an Emergency Petition for First Amendment Writ of Mandate in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Baldwin was equally stonewalled and her appeals were dismissed and her petition denied.

On May 15, 2012, Erin Baldwin filed a petition for writ of certiorari based on First Amendment retaliatory prosecution with the United States Supreme Court.

A small sampling of retaliatory acts committed against Baldwin include:

1. The unlawful seizure of her car and the sum total of all her personal property on three separate occasions in two years to destroy credible evidence and prevent Baldwin from defending herself;

2. A premeditated and ruthless beating in custody by five male Big Bear Sheriffs orchestrated and supervised by Ex-LA Sheriff Tom Layton, now investigator for the State Bar.   The beating sent Baldwin to the emergency room with burns, sprains, bruises, contusions and a concussion, all corroborated in an emergency room medical report written by Dr. Michael Hartstein.

3. Two Orange County Superior Court permanent injunctions issued by Judge Miller in the name of Parsa Law Group and UDR but primarily on behalf of the State Bar, DRE, and UDR.  These injunctions represent unconstitutional prior restraint of Baldwin's protected speech and the Parsa Law Group case was eventually dismissed in favor of Baldwin on September 13, 2010.  Judge Miller's knew when he signed the injunctions that Baldwin was never legally named as a defendant in these cases and as such, he had no jurisdiction over her;

4. Baldwin was falsely arrested and imprisoned for 35 days during which time she did not receive a preliminary hearing nor was she charged with a crime; and

5. Three years of judicial cover-up, fraud, and criminal obstruction of justice spanning Orange County, San Bernardino County, the California Court of Appeal, Central District Court of California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The primary motivation for all of this?  The State Bar and DRE were terrified that Erin Baldwin would be successful in her Writ of Mandate.  Since Baldwin was neither an attorney nor a real estate professional, these agencies could not take action against her directly. Therefore, they funded a strategic lawsuit against public participation in collusion with one of the subjects of Baldwin's articles about loan modification fraud, James Parsa of Parsa Law Group.  

James Parsa is a twice-convicted statutory rapist that never registered as a sex offender nor informed the State Bar of his convictions.  Baldwin brought these facts to light as a public service.  Therefore, the State Bar had to take action against Parsa but used his precarious position to their advantage.  

On January 26, 2009 Parsa Law Group v. Bad Biz Finder was filed.  Five months later, on May 29, 2009, State Bar Investigators Tom Layton and John Noonen met with Judge Franz Miller and Parsa Law Group's attorneys, Burkhalter Kessler Goodman & George LLP in an "unreported chambers conference" to purchase an injunction to forever silence Journalist Erin Baldwin's protected speech.  Baldwin has in her possession corroborating affidavits of these facts.  See Order:  tinyurl.com/76coecb

The influence of the May 29, 2009 secret meeting with the State Bar was evidenced by:

1.   Miller's  May 19, 2009 Order DENYING Parsa Law Group's petition for a preliminary injunction citing unconstitutional prior restraint as the reason. See Order:  tinyurl.com/cwk7ztw  

2.   Then two days AFTER the secret meeting, on June 2, 2009, Judge Miller GRANTED a permanent injunction he knew was an unconstitutional prior restraint. See Order: tinyurl.com/czr68xf    

The day before the chambers conference, the Clerk of the Court REJECTED Parsa Law Group's Default Prove-up Package.  See: tinyurl.com/bvrl4uq   This was the real reason the prove-up hearing was rescheduled; not because Parsa was not available.  In fact, he was in Judge Miller's chambers funding the bribe.  

The "deal" the State Bar made with Parsa was that he would be suspended for crimes of moral turpitude in connection with his rape convictions and they would allow him to walk away with $11 million in client funds stolen from consumers in foreclosure minus the bribe he paid Miller.  

In exchange, the State Bar, DRE and UDR got permanent injunctions that would stop Baldwin from writing about their intentional fraud against California consumers and tenants.  The State Bar also agreed to deny all consumer claims made against Parsa Law Group to the Client Security Fund corroborated by letters from the Client Security Fund to former clients of Parsa Law Group. Thousands of consumers were harmed by Parsa Law Group and to date, they have been denied restitution.

Despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles, Erin Baldwin, Journalist and Consumer Advocate, continues to fight the good fight and will continue to do so in Washington, D.C. at the United States Supreme Court.