Right From the Gate, Federal Judge Dolly Gee Shows Her Hand in Favor of The CA State Bar

January 19th, 2012 Leave a Comment U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee is the next in line to preside over Erin Baldwins Section 1983 Civil Rights Case against The State Bar of California, et al. First, Magistrate Sheri Pym gone. Next Federal Judge David O. Carter gone. Now, the new kid on the block at the Western Division shows how far judges will go to protect the California State Bar. While we like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, today once again, the power of The State Bar was evident in the Central District Court of California. A little bird told us that Central District Chief Judge Audrey B. Collins has a standing edict: Thou Shalt Not Rule Against The State Bar of California So, they carefully chose Judge Dolly Gee to fill the I Dont Have to Follow the Rules heels of Magistrate Sheri Pym and My Ego is Too Big to Be Bothered combat boots of Judge David O. Carter. Judge Gees Order basically says we dont give a rip that this case is on appeal, were going to go ahead and rule on Orange County Superior Court Judge Franz E. Millers Motion to Dismiss because he has nothing to do with the appeal anyway. Excuse me? But ruling on Judge Millers Motion is the same as dismissing the State Bar. Heres why: Judge Miller is the central bad guy in this case who intentionally violated Miss Baldwins First Amendment rights in 2009 as a favor to the State Bar. You see, Miss Baldwin was writing articles about how the State Bar was not taking responsibility for all their attorney members who were screwing people on loan modifications. She was encouraging consumers in foreclosure to seek restitution by way of the alleged State Bar Client Security Fund and when the apps were routinely rejected, she announced she was going to file a Writ of Mandate with the Court of Appeal to force them to do so. However, Miss Baldwin is not an attorney so the State Bar had no direct way of retaliating against her, as they have against so many attorneys who have had the balls to stand up against them. So, instead, they cozied up with Judge Franz E. Miller who was ever so grateful to Tom Layton (California State Bar Investigator) for chosing him to be a judge on the superior court while he sat on the judicial selection committee of Governor Gray Davis in 2002. So when Layton came a callin with a favor of his own why, of course Ill enter two permanent injunctions against Baldwin to shut her the hell up. What are friends for, anyway? The problem is thats breaking the law. For the past 3 years Erin Baldwin has been subjected to ongoing civil and criminal retaliatory prosecution that make up the claims in her Section 1983 Civil Right Complaint. And guess what, the injunctions were never even valid. But do you think youre going to get anyone to admit that? Here they are: Injunction No. 1: Parsa Injunction Injunction No. 2: UDR Injunction So, if youre wondering why Miss Baldwin is having so many problems getting her claims heard in federal court you can thank the State Bar of California and their enormous influence over all judges in this state. Apparently, Judge Dolly Gee is just another puppet. Dismissing Baldwins claims against Judge

Miller is the same as dismissing the claims against The California State Bar. So, whats it going to be, Judge Gee? Heres the Order: Order 011912 Judge Miller MTD Tagged: burkhalterkessler, Chief Judge Audrey Collins, Erin Baldwin, Erin K. Baldwin, Judge David O. Carter, Judge Dolly Gee, Judge Franz E. Miller, Judge Josephine Staton Tucker, Magistrate Sheri Pym, Section 1983 Civil Rights Case, The State Bar of California, Tom Layton

Baldwin Asks U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to Decide Whether Permanent Injunctions Are Unconstitutional
February 15th, 2012 1 Comment Erin Baldwin Fights to Get Her First Amendment Rights Reinstated Click here: EMERGENCY PETITION FOR FIRST AMENDMENT WRIT. This was filed on January 26, 2012 and she hasnt heard anything from the Court of Appeals yet. Should be any day now. Lets see how it turns out. Here are the attachments to the Writ: June 2, 2009 Permanent Injunction in Parsa Law Group v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al.: Parsa Injunction December 11, 2009 Permanent Injunction in UDR, Inc. v. Erin Baldwin, Bad Biz Finder, et al.: UDR Injunction Here are the Court Reporter Transcripts: Parsa Transcript from June 2, 2009: June 2 2009 TRANSCRIPT The permanent injunctions were issued without a full hearing on the merits where the defamatory statements are decided and placed in the text of the injunction so that the prohibited conduct is clear and concise (see, Balboa Island Village Inn v. Lemen). This is also where damages are to be proven, i.e, the amount of $604,515.66. As you can clearly see, there are no specific statements in the injunction nor are the subjects and parties about whom she is prohibited from writing about stated. So, how could Baldwin be held in contempt? Parsa OSC and Affidavit for Contempt And why is this on Family Law Judicial Council Forms? Also, Miss Baldwin was not in default in either case, as she was never properly named as a defendant in the actions. As well, she aptly filed several pleadings that were not acknowledged by the court and as such, she could not be in default. UDR Transcript from December 11, 2009: 12 11 09 UDR Transcript Again, the permanent injunction was issued without a full hearing on the merits where the defamatory statements are decided and placed in the

text of the injunction so that the prohibited conduct is clear and concise (see, Balboa Village Inn v. Balboa). This is also where damages are to be proven, i.e, the amount of $104,210.00. As you can clearly see, there are no specific statements in the injunction nor are the subjects and parties about whom she is prohibited from writing about are not stated. So, how could Baldwin be held in contemptWell, wait a minute there are no specific statements in the injunction. So, how could Baldwin be held in contempt? 2010-11-16 Req for Setting of OSC Re Contempt (conformed) Also, please note that the injunction states that Tracy Saffos gave live testimony but as you can see from the transcript she did not. This should be very interesting in light of Baldwins Section 1983 case filed in District Court on August 16, 2011. Stay tuned.

Mal the Duck is Back to Conceal the Wrongdoings of Burkhalter Attorneys; WordPress is Complicit
February 12th, 2012 Leave a Comment It must be nice to have enough money to conceal your wrongdoings. Attorneys at Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP have engaged in civil and criminal offenses against Miss Erin Baldwin, consumer advocate. But their recent earnings have bought them a hiding place. The evidence is in; WordPress, Automattic, Inc., Toni Schneider, and Matt Mullenweg are complicit in the wrongdoing. If you Google Burkhalter, Kessler you will find the entry below. Click on it and voila Mal the Duck. And every other entry that contains the tag Burkhalter, Kessler. Mal the Duck is going to get WordPress into a lot of trouble. Censorship for hire. Not such great P.R. for an open forum blog. Burkhalter Kessler Goodman & George LLP cacorruptionwatch cacorruptionwatch.wordpress.com//burkhalter-kessler-goodman-ge You +1d this publicly. May 11, 2011 Tags: Burkhalter Kessler Goodman & George LLP, Challenge to Disqualify Judge , Contempt of Court, Deborah Kwast, Erin Baldwin ( 6 ), Erin

$25 Billion Mortgage Bandaid: Facts Do Not Cease to Exist Simply Because They Are Ignored
February 9th, 2012 Leave a Comment This great quote is attributable to Aldous Huxley, the late great author of A Brave New World, among other classics, and personifies the announcement today of a settlement between U.S. Attorneys General on behalf of consumers harmed by mortgage fraud. The facts are that the actions of California state agencies (and lack thereof) caused thousands of consumers to lose their homes. But the State Bar of California and California Department of Real Estate wants you to ignore these facts and place the blame on the banks to take the heat off them. That way they can evade their respective responsibility to make financial restitution for harms caused California consumers by their attorney and real estate members.

Who do you think profited from the California mortgage crisis anyway? They did. Why do you think the State Bar is going hog wild to promote the lie that they eliminated their entire backlog of consumer complaints? And why do you think Governor Jerry Brown wants to merge the California Department of Real Estate with Consumer Affairs? THIS IS A BAILOUT FOR CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCIES; NOT AID TO CONSUMERS!!!! The real fraud is this settlement. If you are foolish enough to believe that consumers harmed by mortgage fraud will actually see this money in a meaningful way just ask the Central District Court of California how much of the December 22, 2011 $335 million Bank of America/Countrywide Consent Settlement has gone to those minorities charged higher interest rates. See: http://cacorruptionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/bank-of-america-countrywide-makes-535million-deal/ Just wait and watch; stay tuned to this blog because as always we will give you the straight scoop.

Why is The State Bar of CA So Afraid of Erin Baldwin?

February 4th, 2012 Leave a Comment At the beginning of 2009, Erin Baldwin began to write about the State Bar of California in connection with loan modification fraud. Why? Because back then lawyers could take fees in advance of services rendered. In August of 2009 SB 94 came around and changed everything at least temporaily until January of 2013. So, what happened is the lawyers at the State Bar began making nice with the real estate and mortgage brokers over at the Dept. of Real Estate and vice versa to earn a little passive income. Heres how it went down. The attorneys who COULD take advanced fees teamed up with the real estate and mortgage guys and gals who COULD NOT take advanced fees. Together they opened up pretend law firms with no attorneys, called attorney-based law firms. The clients thought an attorney was working on their file so they paid around $3500 a person to have their loan modified, by a kid whose last job was making lattes at Starbucks. No joke. Miss Baldwin blew this wide open. She had the balls to call them on it. Of course, the State Bar and DRE knew what was going on. In fact, the DRE helped things along with their Advanced Fee Agreement list they published on their website. They held out to the public that the people on that list had been screened by the DRE as safe to use for loan modifications and that those listed were legally able to take advanced fees. The criteria for being on the list? Cashola, lots of it. Anyway, everything was just great until a nosy little blond from Newport Beach began to help consumers avoid this sham. She wrote about it and wrote about it and guess what here comes SB 94 in late August 2009. And then, not even attorneys could take fees in advance. But by then Baldwins blog had been shut down by Orange County Superior Court Judge Franz E. Miller who was appointed to the bench thanks to Tom Layton at the State Bar - so we guess Miller knews what side his bread was buttered. But what happens in 10 months on January 1, 2013? SB 94 expires and the whole anyone can take fees in advance thing will start all over again just in time for the 3-year interest only loans to mature. How clever, dont you think? And 3 years is a long time. A lot of people have forgotten all about the loan mod fraud rip-offs of days gone by. You know what this past 3 years was supposed to be right? It was

supposed to be enough time for the State Bar, DRE, California Attorney General, etc., to get their act together and put in place some consumer safeguards. Well the State Bar claims theyre at Zero but wont tell us what that means. Anyway, as you know, Miss Baldwin sued the State Bar for all the vicious things they did to get her to shut her pie hole. Its going very well her case is in the United States Court of Appeals in San Francisco. But we thought it might be interesting to take a trip down memory lane and post some of those old articles Erin Baldwin wrote back then and see how things turned out. The first one is about Holly Fujie, who was the President of the State Bar in 2009. She left that position in disgrace. But guess what? She just got appointed to be a Superior Court Judge in Los Angeles!!!!! Yay. Wait. No, not yay. She is responsible for the mayhem in 2009 her and Scott Drexel and Russell Weiner and Tom Girardi and a whole host of people that got rich. And what about the DRE? Oh, thats Jeff Davi he hasnt been seen around the DRE for over a year and his position as Commissioner remains empty. Thats why Governor Brown wants to merge the DRE with Consumer Affairs. But were thinking no, lets sort out all the fraud before we starting merging things to hide the fraud. Holly Fujie Leaves State Bar in Disgrace Lets See What Howard Miller Can Do Posted on May 26, 2009 On May 15, 2008, Holly Fujie, began her Presidency of the State Bar of California with an open letter. The first paragraph read: California is a land of plenty plenty of poor people with legal needs. The wealth of this state is balanced or overbalanced by families in need, veterans cut adrift, a graying population with increasing needs for support and protection, and children at risk of falling through the cracks of a system pushed to the breaking point. See: http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/IOLTA/JGF_Fujie-Open-Letter.pdf Well, despite our best efforts in writing voluminous amounts of emails, letters, posts, and so on directed specifically toward Holly Fujie and Scott Drexel to wake them up to the fact that their attorney members were in large part responsible for this devastation, California consumers are a lot worse off today then they were in May of 2008. Do you want to know why? Because Holly Fujie and Scott Drexel refuse to shut down their attorney members that are committing crimes against consumers every day in the loan modification debacle in California. The California Foreclosure Consultant Act exempts attorneys from the rule prohibiting advanced fees. So, attorneys saw a way to cash in big and formed thousands of loan mod scams (mostly internet-based) to capitalize on this loophole. Drexel chose to focus all his efforts on shutting down legal document preparation services that compete with their attorney members, instead of prosecuting attorneys that are using their law license to form illegal loan modification scams. We even received an email from Holly Fujie several months ago indicating that she and Scott were well aware of their member participation in the loan modification crisis but guess what, THEY HAVENT SHUT DOWN ONE SINGLE ATTORNEY.

Not only that but weve got a guy over at United Law Group, Richard Stinstrom, that embezzled half a million from his parents estate, the State Bar opened a case to review it ONE YEAR AGO, and the guy is still practicing law! Same with James Parsa who was charged in 2000 of 8 counts of statutory rape, pled guilty to 2 counts, and the State Bar didnt even know about it until last month! Now, weve got Howard B. Miller coming into office and heres the press release on him. He says one of his focus areas is going to be on public protection, but he doesnt state from whom. HOWARD START WITH YOUR ATTORNEY MEMBERS!!!!!! Do you want a list? Weve got one choked with evidence. San Francisco, May 15, 2009 Howard B. Miller, a partner at Girardi Keese in Los Angeles, former president of the Los Angeles Board of Education and a regular on Super Lawyer lists, today was elected 2009-2010 president of The State Bar of California. Miller, 71, ran unopposed and was elected by acclamation on a unanimous vote. He will be sworn in as the 85th president of the 222,000-member organization at the State Bars September annual meeting in San Diego. The other third-year members of the Board of Governors who were eligible to run chose not to. They are Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego District Attorney; John Dutton, Auburn solo practitioner; Richard Frankel, partner in the San Ramon firm of Frankel & Goldware, and John Peterson, of counsel in the Fresno office of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo. Miller said his focus would be on service to members, public protection and legal services. The main thing for the board is to make sure . . . that every dollar of every members dues is spent in the most efficient way, he said. A graduate of Pepperdine University and University of Chicago Law School who clerked for California Supreme Court Justice Roger Traynor, Miller specializes in patent and other intellectual property litigation, anti-trust and general complex commercial litigation. He also does appellate work for the firm. His wide experience includes two years as executive editor of the Los Angeles Daily Journal as well as a leading role on the 1969-1973 PBS weekly television show, The Advocates, in which public issues were put on trial with unrehearsed examination of leading public figures. He also has a Los Angeles radio program, Champions of Justice, with his law partner, Thomas Girardi. Since 2004, Miller has been listed annually as a Southern California Super Lawyer by Los Angeles Magazine. He has been named among the 500 leading litigators in America, was president of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Jewish Committee and was a law professor at the University of Southern California. He was president of the Los Angeles Board of Education from 1977-1979 and chief operating officer of the district from 1999-2000. Miller and his wife of 51 years, Shirley, have three sons and seven grandchildren. Two sons and a daughter-in-law are California attorneys. Were going to be watching you Howard. Bad Biz Finder Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Attorney Howard Miller, California Loan Modification, Holly Fujie, Holly Fujie State Bar of California, Howard B. Miller, Loan Modification Attorneys, Scott Drexel, Scott Drexel State Bar of California, State Bar of California | Leave a Comment

CA Federal Judge Dolly Gee Commits Fraud Upon the Court to Conceal Favortism to California State Bar
January 27th, 2012 Leave a Comment See previous article: Right From the Gate, Federal Judge Dolly Gee Shows Her Hand in Favor of the CA State Bar http://cacorruptionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/right-from-the-gate-federal-judge-dollygee-shows-her-hand-in-favor-of-the-ca-state-bar/ In connection with a pro se Section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint, Federal Judge Dolly M. Gee is caught committing fraud upon the court to conceal her misconduct, in particular, her bias and prejudice in favor of the State Bar of California. On August 16, 2011, Erin Baldwin filed a complaint in district court against the State Bar of California, among others, for violation of her First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of the press. CA Corruption Watch was informed that Chief Judge Audrey Collins has mandated that no Central District Court Judge can rule against the California State Bar. So, Miss Baldwin has fought an uphill battle from the start. On January 26, 2012, Miss Baldwin received the following notification from district court stating that United States District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee denied Erin Baldwins Application to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Here is the document she personally signed dated January 23, 2012: Original Order Denying In Forma Pauperis Application The Notice of Electonic Filing states: The following transaction was entered on 1/25/2012 at 2:25 PM PST and filed on 12/27/2011. ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN

FORMA PAUPERIS by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The court has considered the motion and the motion is DENIED. The Court certifies that the proposed appeal is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) and is frivolous, without merit and does not present a substantial question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 753(f) re: [34] Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (car)
Today, Miss Baldwin received another notice wherein Judge Gee denied the same application, but this time the order has a hand stamp signature and the original order has been removed from Miss Baldwins Case Docket: Replaced Order Denying In Forma Pauperis Application The Notice of Electonic Filing states: The following transaction was entered on 1/27/2012 at 11:56 AM PST and filed on 1/23/2012. ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The court has

considered the motion and the motion is denied.(dmap)