Journalist and Consumer Advocate, Erin Baldwin, Will Not Be Silenced

April 10, 2012 - PRLog -- On January 9, 2009, Journalist and Consumer Advocate, Erin Baldwin, began to write and publish truthful, factual and legally-substantiated articles and investigative reports about matters of public concern, specifically, loan modification fraud and landlord-tenant abuse. Her reports were and are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically her right to speak, write, and publish freely without prior restraint; her right to assemble and associate with others similarly situated; and her right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

On August 16, 2011, Erin Baldwin filed her one and only Complaint, a Section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint documenting egregious violations of her constitutional rights by California state, county and city officials acting under color of law as well as private parties acting in joint participation with same. The following summarizes forty (40) separate acts of civil and criminal First Amendment Retaliatory Prosecution to silence Baldwin's protected speech along with actions Baldwin took to defend herself.

In order to conceal the First Amendment Retaliatory Prosecution, other violations of Erin Baldwin's constitutional rights were violated including 14th Amendment rights to due process of law; 4th Amendment rights to be safe and secure from unlawful seizure of person and property; and 6th Amendment rights protecting a criminal defendant.

Since Erin Baldwin filed her federal Section 1983 case, she has been subjected to ongoing violations of her constitutional rights to conceal the misconduct of others and the primary defendants in Baldwin's Complaint, The State Bar of California, The California Department of Real Estate and Landlord/REIT, UDR, Inc. . This case is presently before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is by no means a complete record of these cases and Baldwin's Section 1983 Complaint goes into much more detail. For example, she recently posted "Journalist, Erin Baldwin, Published the Truth & CA State Official Retaliated: SLAPP Parsa Law Group v. Bad Biz Finder is the First of 48 Actions," that provides an in-depth look at just one case. She plans to create a similar article for each of these cases. The reason why this article states "40 Actions" and the Other "48 Actions" is because there are pending cases that Baldwin has not included here.
See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88022331/Journalist-Erin-Baldwi....

FORTY CASES AND COUNTING
(1)
Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752
(Defamation Case: Filed January 26, 2009)
Judge Franz E. Miller
Attorneys, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP

(Please note that Judge Franz Miller & Burkhalter Partners maintained an improper extrajudicial ex parte relationship throughout this case by serving as co-adjunct professors of law at Whittier Law School at the same time and same campus.)

On January 26, 2009, Parsa Law Group (a subject of Baldwin's blog pertaining to loan modification fraud) sued an anonymous blog. The Complaint was entitled, Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder, an unknown business entity. However, this strategic lawsuit against public participation was actually on behalf of the State Bar of California and California Department of Real Estate. Unable to bring action against Baldwin directly because she is neither an attorney nor real estate professional, these two state agencies used the Parsa Law Group case to retaliate against Baldwin for exposing its responsibility and liability to California consumers for loan modification fraud caused by its members.

Erin Baldwin was never legally added as a defendant in this case, and as such, the court never had jurisdiction over her. Nonetheless, On June 2, 2009, Judge Franz E. Miller entered a permanent injunction against Baldwin representing an unconstitutional prior restraint of protected speech. Baldwin's blog was shut down shortly thereafter. Even though Judge Miller knew Baldwin was indigent on a fee waiver, he also ordered a monetary judgment against Baldwin in the amount of $604,515.66 to prevent her from hiring an anti-SLAPP attorney on contingency for her appeal. Although she tried, no attorney would take her case because they knew that any award obtained would go first to pay down the judgment leaving no surplus for attorneys' fees.

(2)
UDR Villa Venetia Apartments, L.P. v. Erin Baldwin
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00244203
(Unlawful Detainer Case #1: Filed February 11, 2009)
Commissioner Richard E. Pacheco
Attorneys, Todd A. Brisco & Associates

On February 11, 2009, UDR, Inc. (a subject of Baldwin's blogs pertaining to landlord-tenant abuse) sued Erin Baldwin for unlawful detainer in retaliation for her exposing nine (9) separate illegal clauses contained in its California leases. Gaining overwhelming support in a very short time, Baldwin began to form a class action lawsuit on behalf of UDR's California tenants. On February 20, 2009, UDR seized Erin Baldwin's car claiming it was unlawfully parked; it was sold shortly thereafter because Baldwin could not afford to pay the impound fees. This case was nothing more than another strategic lawsuit against public participation and on February 26, 2009 it was dismissed in favor of Baldwin.

The Court never had jurisdiction over Baldwin in this case because it is standard practice for UDR to contract with its tenants using a name other than its legal name. As such, Erin Baldwin did not have a contract with UDR Villa Venetia Apartment, L.P., she had a contract with Villa Venetia, which name still belonged to the former owner of the complex. UDR uses fake names and fails to state the agent for service of process on its contracts to avoid tenant-based litigation.

(3)
UDR Villa Venetia Apartments, L.P. v. Erin Baldwin
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00248999
(Unlawful Detainer Case #2: Filed March 3, 2009)
Commissioner Richard E. Pacheco; Judge Craig E. Robison;
Judge Derek G. Johnson; Judge Karen L. Robinson
Attorneys, Todd A. Brisco & Associates

Less than a week after the first unlawful detainer action was dismissed in favor of Erin Baldwin, UDR filed a second unlawful detainer case alleging the exact same facts and law as the first one which was dismissed on Baldwin's Motion to Quash. Again, this was a strategic lawsuit against public participation to prevent Baldwin from advancing the class action lawsuit she was forming on behalf of UDR's California tenants. Like all the cases in this article, Erin Baldwin represented herself with the exception of unwanted public defenders. Baldwin discovered that UDR's attorney, Todd A. Brisco, had a personal relationship with Commissioner Pacheco outside of court business and had him removed.

That set the tone for a hostile completion of the case in the smaller Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach, California. The case was transferred to criminal judge Craig E. Robison who, on Friday, May 29, 2009, ordered the parties to commence the jury trial scheduled for the following Monday, June 1, 2009. He this this without first ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment before the Court conceding sufficient material facts in dispute to warrant a jury trial.

When Baldwin arrived on Monday to begin the jury trial, she was ushered into a vacant courtroom with black paper on the windows at which time another judge, Derek Johnson, granted UDR's summary judgment motion ruling that NO material facts were in dispute to warrant a trial. When Baldwin asked the basis, he said, "You should look that up for your appeal."

For the remainder of this article, please see:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/88777525/Journalist-Consumer-Ad...