Electronic Access to the Courts: "Citizen Journalists" Are All the Rage in Massachusetts

March 29, 2012 - PRLog -- The Ninth Circuit in its 1995 decision in Shoen v. Shoen, 48F 3d 412 (9th Cir.1995) adopted the Second Circuit's Von Bulow test stating, "What makes journalism, journalism, is not its format but its content."

In Re Von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2nd Cir. 1987) emphasized that the reporter's privilege is defined by "the intent to disseminate information to the public, and the existence of that purpose at the inception of the newsgathering process, versus the medium for doing so."  

These among many other arguments were pled to the Ninth Circuit in Erin Baldwin's Emergency Petition for First Amendment Writ filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 26, 2012: http://www.scribd.com/doc/81774500/Emergency-Petition-for-First-Amendment-Writ

On February 28, 2012, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decided to take it one step further.  They are enacting a new rule which will allow “citizen journalists” to photograph courtroom proceedings.

The new Rule 1:19 addresses electronic access to the courts and expands the definition of “news media” so that it now includes “organizations that regularly gather, prepare, photograph, record, write, edit, report or publish news or information about matters of public interest for dissemination to the public in any medium, whether print or electronic, and to individuals who regularly perform a similar function.”

See:  http://www.universalhub.com/files/rule119.pdf

Quite similar to Shoen and Von Bulow, see above, yes?  

So, why is it that Baldwin's First Amendment Writ was denied, dismissed and closed without an opportunity to show cause why it should not be dismissed and without an opportunity to petition the court for rehearing?  

Ninth Circuit Judges Mary Schroeder, Edward Leavy, and Robert Clifton stated: "Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. United States Dist. Court Accordingly, the petition is denied in part." See Bauman v., 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977).

See Ninth Circuit Order:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/83353812/Ninth-Circuit-Denies-P...

See Petition for Rehearing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/83354367/Ninth-Circuit-Denied-B...

So, a journalist's First Amendment rights terminated by two permanent injunctions representing unconstitutional prior restraint does not warrant the attention of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?

Could that be because the permanent injunctions were purchased by The State Bar of California via bribe to Orange County Superior Court Judge Franz E. Miller?  

Here are the injunctions that everyone knows are unconstitutional - but no one wants to be the one to order them so.    

June 2, 2009, Parsa Law Group Injunction:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/78902295/Unconstitutional-Parsa-Law-Group-Permanent-Injunction-Against-Erin-Baldwin

December 11, 2009, UDR, Inc. Injunction:   http://www.scribd.com/doc/78902844/Unconstitutional-UDR-Permanent-Injunction-against-Journalist-Erin-Baldwin