Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Untitled

Untitled

Ratings: (0)|Views: 66 |Likes:
Published by lesliebrodie

More info:

Published by: lesliebrodie on Feb 17, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
- 1 -
COM
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Erin K. BaldwinPost Office Box 3141Beaumont, California 92223(951) 367-4684erinbaldwin@rocketmail.com Plaintiff,
Pro Se
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION
ERIN K. BALDWIN, an IndividualPlaintiff,v.THE STATE BAR of CALIFORNIA;BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION;UDR, INC; THE CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE;COUNTY OF ORANGE; COUNTY OFSAN BERNARDINO,
et al.,
and DOES 1-10, inclusive,Defendants.
 Case No. 5:11-CV-01300-DMGMOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND/OR FORTHE RECUSAL OF THE HONORABLEDOLLY M. GEEAND ALL OTHER UNITED STATESCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAJUDGES AND REASSIGNMENT TO AJUDGE OF ANOTHER DISTRICT BY CHIEFJUDGE ALEX KOZINSKIANDPLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTSOF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THISMOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND/OR FORTHE RECUSAL OF JUDGE DOLLY M. GEEAND ALL OTHER U.S. CENTRAL DISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA JUDGES PURSUANT TO28 U.S.C. §455(a); 28 U.S.C. §455(b)(1);28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §455(b)(4)ANDREFERRAL TO AN IMPARTIAL U.S.DISTRICT JUDGE FOR DETERMINATIONPURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08-05ANDDEMAND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARINGAND DEPOSITION OF SARAH L.OVERTONTIME: TBDDATE: TBDCOURTROOM: TBD
Case: 12-70296 02/16/2012 ID: 8071104 DktEntry: 6-1 Page: 1 of 27
 
 - 2 -
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JUDGE DOLLY M. GEE
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728COMES NOW Plaintiff 
Pro Se
Erin K. Baldwin
(“
Plaintiff 
”)
to file this Motion forrecusal and/or disqualification of the Honorable Dolly M. Gee ("Judge Gee") pursuant to hercourt order dated February 15, 2012 taking under submission for ruling the Motion to Dismissof Defendant Franz E. Miller; and the recusal and/or disqualification of all other U.S. CentralDistrict of California Judges; and Reassignment to a Judge of Another District by Chief JudgeAlex Kozinski.Plaintiff hereby requests that pursuant to General Order 08-05, Section 4.0, that thisMotion be "randomly assigned to another judge for decision immediately upon filing and thatthe challenged judge [Judge Gee]
may not proceed further until the recusal / disqualification motion is determined
."Plaintiff hereby requests an Evidentiary Hearing and the opportunity to deposeDefendant Sarah L. Overton prior to said hearing.MOTION TO DISQUALIFY1. Plaintiff's primary arguments in this Motion to disqualify and/or recuse JudgeGee are in line with the Ninth Circuit rulings in
Pesnell v. Arsenault 
 
1
and
United States v.Sibla
,
2
that held: "Both recusal statutes
3
employ the same substantive standard:
"Whether areasonable person with knowledge of all t
he facts would conclude that the judge’s
impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.”
Undoubtedly, after review of this Motion,the answer would be emphatically in the affirmative.2. In the U.S Supreme Court action,
Offutt v. United States
 
4
the High Courtfound that the judge had become so personally embroiled with the case that he had to bereplaced, as he had abandoned his role as a neutral arbiter due to personal animosity of one of the parties. Judge Gee's conduct exceeds "embroilment" and has become criminal obstructionof justice.3. When U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter ("Judge Carter") recusedhimself from Plaintiff's case, the case was not randomly reassigned to Judge Gee via the
1
543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008);
also Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867 (‘t
he substantive test for bias or
 prejudice is identical in sections 144 and 455’)."
 
2
624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980).
3
28 U.S.C. §455 and 28 U.S.C. §144.
4
348 U.S. 11 (1954).
 
Case: 12-70296 02/16/2012 ID: 8071104 DktEntry: 6-1 Page: 2 of 27
 
 - 3 -
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JUDGE DOLLY M. GEE
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728policies and procedures set forth in General Order 08-05. Judge Gee was personally chosendue to her personal relationship with several of Plaintiff's defendants and her allegiance tothose that paid the necessary money to buy her a federal judgeship at the United States DistrictCourt, Central District of California, in 2010.4. Judge Gee must recuse herself as she could not possibly judge the credibility of her own friends and those that placed her on the bench. Judge Gee would not be a federal judge today if it were not for her personal relationships with Plaintiff's defendants, namelyThomas V. Girardi; Holly Fujie; Sarah L. Overton; Judge Franz E. Miller; Paul O'Brien;Thomas Layton; John Noonen; and non-defendants Senator Leahy (Chairman of the SenateJudiciary Committee) Eric George (son of retired Chief Justice Ronald George), and SenatorsDianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer,
inter alia.
 5. Judge Gee must recuse herself because she will be a material witness
to thiscase
as her federal judgeship was purchased, in part, by the $11 million Client Trust Accountof Plaintiff's Defendants James Parsa and Alex Dastmalchi. This money was stolen fromconsumers that were defrauded by Defendants Parsa and Dastmalchi, as well as the attorneysfor Defendants Parsa and Dastmalchi at Defendant law firm, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman &George LLP; and the attorneys at Defendant Century Law Group, Defendants Paul Virgo andEdward Lear.6. Judge Gee must recuse herself because she has personal knowledge of the factthat part of that $11 million Client Trust Account was used to pay Defendant Judge Miller afinancial incentive in exchange for entering two permanent injunctions that representedunconstitutional prior restraint of Plaintiff's protected speech rights and which formed the basisof her First Amendment Writ of Mandate filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal on January26, 2012.7. Today, February 15, 2012, U.S. Ninth Circuit Judges Schroeder, Leavy, andClifton, decided that the aforementioned deprivation of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights,
5
 that causes ongoing irreparable harm to Plaintiff and comprises an ongoing federalcontroversy, was not sufficient to:
5
Terminated on June 2, 2009 in the Parsa Law Group case and on December 11, 2009 in the UDR, Inc. case.
Case: 12-70296 02/16/2012 ID: 8071104 DktEntry: 6-1 Page: 3 of 27

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->