1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ERIN K. BALDWIN Defendant, In Pro Per Post Office Box 3141 Beaumont, CA 92223 (951) 333-1484 erinbaldwin@rocketmail.com

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) vs. ) ) ) ) ) BAD BIZ FINDER, ERIN BALDWIN, et al., ) ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UDR, INC., a Maryland Corporation /// /// ///

Case No.: 30-2009-00125305 VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE OF DEFENDANT ERIN BALDWIN REQUESTING RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE HONORABLE FRANZ MILLER AND THE REFERRAL TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT TO AN UNBIASED JUDGE OF ANOTHER COUNTY; DECLARATION OF ERIN K. BALDWIN AND EXHIBITS THERETO
[C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3 AND 170.4]

DATE: April 13, 2011 DEPT: C-14 Personally Served on Judge Franz Miller & Judge David A. Thompson, Acting Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court

1
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TO THE HONORABLE FRANZ E. MILLER, THE HONORABLE DAVID A. THOMPSON, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, AND TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT: DEFENDANT ERIN K. BALDWIN on behalf of herself, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant), hereby respectfully submits her Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause requesting that the Honorable Franz E. Miller ("Judge Miller") recuse himself or be disqualified or alternatively, that an unbiased and impartial judge be appointed by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, from outside the jurisdiction of the Orange County Superior Court, to consider Defendants request and order the disqualification of Judge Miller. On February 1, 2011, Judge Miller appointed the Orange County Public Defender ("OCPD") to represent Baldwin in the criminal contempt matter in this case (the "UDR Case"). Despite compelling evidence presented to the OCPD to substantiate the necessity to file this Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause, the OCPD refused and continues to refuse to file it. Therefore, Baldwin is filing this document In Pro Per so that her civil and constitutional rights are protected. Baldwin files concurrently a Marsden Motion to remove the OCPD from this case to be followed up by a Harris Motion and a Complaint for Legal Malpractice against the OCPD and others. The standard by which this action should be judge is: If a reasonable person aware of the facts and circumstances presented herein would question the impartiality of the judge, disqualification of that judge is mandated by section 170.1, subdivision (a)(b)(C). Clearly, the facts of this case mandate disqualification of Judge Miller. This Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause is based upon C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3 and 170.4, as well as the Declaration of Erin K. Baldwin and Exhibits attached hereto. This Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause is also based upon the pleadings and documents filed and to be filed in this case (the "UDR Case").

2
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Because of fluid events taking place in this case and in other cases pertaining to issues in this motion, Plaintiff reserves the right to file an amended motion, supplemental declarations, and exhibits and other documents in connection therewith. DATED: April 13, 2011 Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ ERIN K. BALDWIN Defendant, In Pro Per

3
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION In this Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause, Defendant requests the recusal or disqualification of Judge Miller as the judicial officer in the UDR Case and that thereafter the matters be referred by Judge Miller to the Presiding Judge for the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court to appoint an unbiased and impartial judge of another county to hear the challenge for cause and to disqualify Judge Miller. As set forth infra, the Honorable Carolyn B. Kuhl does not fit the profile of an unbiased and impartial judge. Defendant does not take this request lightly, but Judge Miller's recusal or disqualification is required to preserve the objectivity and the fairness of the proceedings in this litigation and related litigation. Litigation will include, but not be limited to, violations of the Racketeering, Influenced & Corrupt Organization (RICO Act), violations of the Securities & Exchange Commission regulations, obstruction of justice, ineffective assistance of counsel, and violations of Defendant's civil and constitutional rights. This litigation will include, but not be limited to, UDR's unlawful Residential Lease Agreements; multiple courses of action and/or communications with Plaintiff, UDR, Inc.; Plaintiff's attorneys or attorneys acting on Plaintiff's behalf, including, but not limited to, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George, LLP, Todd A. Brisco & Associates, Morrison Foerster, and Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.; collusion and improper extrajudicial ex parte communications with the California State Bar, California State Bar investigators, Tom Layton and John Noonen and California State Bar attorney, Paul O'Brien, Esq.; The Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Public Defender's Office, the Orange County Superior Court, and others to be named in specificity at a later date. On February 24, 2011, Defendant filed a Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause filed against Judge Miller in the related Defamation action identical to the UDR Case, Parsa Law Group v. Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al., OCSC Case No 30-2009-00117752 (the "Parsa Case"). This Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause is still pending. A third

4
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defamation action, Jeffrey A Cancilla, Craig Laverty, et al. v, Bad Biz Finder, Erin Baldwin, et al., OCSC Case No 30-2009-00117752 (the "Cancilla/Laverty Case") was dismissed on Plaintiff's Motion. All three Defamation actions were brought against Defendant by one law firm, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George, LLP ("BKGG") over a six-month period of time. In addition, Todd A. Brisco & Associates, UDR's unlawful detainer law firm, brought two unlawful detainer actions against Defendant also within the same six months. The appalling judicial and attorney misconduct within the five above actions against Defendant were made possible by the biased, partial, prejudiced and improper personal relationship Judge Miller shares with BKGG attorneys, Whittier Law School, Thomas V. Girardi, Esq., the California State Bar's attorneys and employees, as well as Plaintiffs in both actions, James Parsa and the Board of Directors and executive officers of UDR, Inc. On September 2, 2009, Judge Miller deemed the UDR Case and the Cancilla/Laverty Case so similar to the Parsa Case that he related them together and joined all three Civil Unlimited Defamation actions together under his judicial review for all purposes. Three months earlier, on June 2, 2009, Judge Miller signed a Default Judgment against Defendant in the amount of $604,515.66 and issued a Permanent Injunction that was unconstitutionally void for vagueness, over broad, did not comport with Due Process regulations and represented a grosslyunconstitutional prior restraint of speech. When Defendant filed the Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause in the Parsa Case on February 24, 2011, Judge Miller stayed the Parsa Case. Due to the fact that the UDR Case had been related and joined to the Parsa Case of September 2, 2009, the UDR Case should have also been stayed. However, due to the ineffective assistance of counsel at the Orange County Public Defender's office ("OCPD") this did not happen. Judge Miller filed his Verified Answer in the Parsa Case and denied all allegations. On March 17, 2011, Defendant filed a Writ of Mandate in the Court of Appeal challenging Judge Miller's refusal to recuse and/or disqualify himself based on the fact that he had participated in

5
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

verifiable extrajudicial ex parte communications with BKGG attorneys, California State Bar attorneys and employees as well as others. The Writ of Mandate is still pending. On March 13, 2011, the Acting Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, David A. Thompson, sent Defendant's Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakouye for re-assignment to an unbiased judicial officer in another county. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakouye reassigned the matter to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl who had previously recused herself from presiding over any matter pertaining to Thomas V. Girardi, Esq., due to the fact that Judge Kuhl and her husband, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Highberger, maintain a personal and social relationship with Mr. Girardi. Since Mr. Girardi is an integral part of the Parsa Case as well as the UDR Case, Judge Kuhl does not qualify as an unbiased judicial officer. As such, Defendant wrote a letter to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakouye setting forth her objections. On April 11, 2011, Defendant received a response to her letter from the Judicial Council stating Defendant had no standing to object to the assignment to Judge Carolyn Kuhl and that the assignment would stand. On February 24, 2011 Judge Miller stayed the Parsa Case and since the UDR Case had been related and joined with the Parsa Case on September 2, 2009, Judge Miller should have stayed the UDR Case as well. However, this did not occur creating the necessity of filing a second Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause against Judge Miller in the UDR Case as well. Despite all of the facts set forth, supra, the OCPD claimed that the Parsa Case had nothing to do with the UDR Case and refused to file a Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause against Judge Miller on behalf of Defendant. Judge Miller continues to preside over the UDR Case including, but not limited to several law and motion matters filed by Defendant's Public Defender, Jennifer Nicolalde, on April 11, 2011 without Defendant's knowledge, consent, and later, with adamant objection to same. These motions will be heard ex parte by Judge Miller on April 14, 2011 representing a gross violation of Defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial judge. Consequently, one of the objectives of filing this Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause is to

6
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

automatically stay the UDR Case along with the Parsa Case preventing any further judicial review in the UDR Case by Judge Miller. Many of the same points contained in the previously-filed Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause currently pending against Judge Miller in the Parsa Case, exist in the UDR Case, because the common denominator is Judge Miller and his improper relationships with Plaintiff's counsel, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP ("BKGG") the California State Bar's counsel and employees, The Orange County Public Defender ("OCPD"), and the Orange County Board of Supervisors ("OCBS"). In connection with this Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause, Defendant is filing a Marsden Motion to disqualify the OCPD as they have failed to represent my legal interests due to the improper interference of the OCBS, Judge Miller, and others. Defendant cannot achieve a fair and equitable trial in this matter due also to further obstruction of justice facilitated by Thomas V. Girardi in collusion with San Bernardino County officials with the express intent of denying Defendant a fair and impartial tribunal in concert with Judge Miller, the California State Bar, California State Bar Investigator John Noonen, California State Bar Investigator Tom Layton, California State Bar Prosecutor Paul O'Brien, Esq., Plaintiffs counsel, BKGG and Plaintiff, UDR, Inc., including but not limited to, its Board of Directors, agents, subsidiaries, officers, and employees. This motion is timely brought. It has come to Defendant's attention that Judge Miller maintains an improper personal relationship with Plaintiff's counsel, BKGG which Judge Miller failed to disclose. Said failure to disclose amounts to an automatic disqualification under C.C.P. 170.1 and 170.3 and 170.4. Judge Miller has been an adjunct professor of law at the Whittier Law School located in Santa Ana, California, since 1998 through and including the present. He teaches Professional Responsibility, Appellate Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Law, and Legal Skills. (See Judge Miller's Whittier Law School Biography on April 3, 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit "1").

7
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Two of BKGG's partners and active participants in this case and all other related cases against Defendant are also adjunct law professors at Whittier Law School located at Santa Ana, California. According to the BKGG website at www.bkgglaw.com on April 3, 2011, the professional biography of BKGG Partner Daniel J. Kessler, Esq. states: "Mr. Kessler also serves as an adjunct professor of law at Whittier Law School, teaching trade secrets." (See Daniel J. Kessler's BKGG Professional Biography on April 3, 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit "2"). According to the BKGG website at www.bkgglaw.com on April 3, 2011, the professional biography of BKGG Partner Eric J. Goodman, Esq. states: "Eric teaches advanced courses in intellectual property as an adjunct professor at Whittier Law School where he has also acted as interim director of the Center for Intellectual Property." (See Eric J. Goodman's BKGG Professional Biography on April 3, 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit "3"). In addition, every single BKGG attorney who has appeared at a hearing or produced pleadings (including Declarations and Affidavits) on behalf of Plaintiff, UDR, Inc., (and/or the two related cases to this action (the Parsa Case and the Cancilla/Laverty Case) is a graduate of Whittier Law School and is still affiliated with Whittier Law School on some level. All other attorneys employed at BKGG have no affiliation with Whittier Law School whatsoever and have never appeared or produced pleadings on behalf of Plaintiff, UDR, Inc. (and/or the related cases as described, supra). According to the BKGG website at www.bkgglaw.com on April 3, 2011, the professional biography of BKGG Associate David A. Berstein, Esq. states: "He earned his J.D. from Whittier School of Law in June 1999 and was admitted to the State Bar in the same year. While at Whittier, Mr. Berstein was a competing member of the Trial Advocacy Honors Board" (See David A. Berstein's BKGG Professional Biography on April 3, 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit "4"). According to the BKGG website at www.bkgglaw.com on April 3, 2011, the professional biography of BKGG Associate Nicholas D. Myers, Esq. states: "He earned his J.D. from Whittier School of Law where he also earned a Certificate in Intellectual Property Law. At

8
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Whittier, he was a member of the Journal of Child and Family Advocacy " (See Nicholas D. Myers' BKGG Professional Biography on April 3, 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit "5"). According to the BKGG website at www.bkgglaw.com on April 3, 2011, the professional biography of BKGG Associate Nicholas P. Kohan, Esq. states: "He earned his J.D. from Whittier Law School in 2007. At Whittier, Mr. Kohan was an Editor for the Whittier Law Review, a member of the Dean's List and Honor Roll and a teaching assistant for real property. (See Nicholas P. Kohan's BKGG Professional Biography on April 3, 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit "6"). On September 2, 2009, the same day that Judge Miller joined all the cases together as related Defendant filed a Peremptory Challenge against Judge Miller which was summarily denied by Judge Miller. Judge Miller knew that Defendant was never properly named to the Parsa Law Group case and that the other actions, including the UDR Case were maliciously brought for the sole purpose of quashing Defendant's efforts to act as her own attorney due to her indigent status. Prior to UDR filing the present action, UDR, Inc. filed two separate Unlawful Detainer actions against Defendant. UDR was formerly Defendant's landlord and wished to retaliate against Defendant for her efforts to form a class action lawsuit against UDR, Inc. on behalf of its California tenants. On February 11, 2009, UDR sued Defendant for unlawful detainer. Defendant filed a Motion to Quash Service of Summons and it was granted. The complaint was so miserably defective that UDR's attorneys dismissed the entire action without prejudice. This case was "blocked" from public view by the Orange County Superior Court. Therefore, the case and the fact that Defendant won the case does not show up on the Orange County Superior Court website. On April 11, 2011, Defendant contacted the Clerk of the Court regarding the missing case and was told by "Jenny" that it is California state law to block from view all unlawful detainer actions where a defendant has prevailed. Defendant asked her for the authority she claimed and her response to Defendant was, "you'll have to look that up yourself." Defendant has been unable to locate any such authority.

9
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On February 27, 2009, UDR sued Defendant again for Unlawful Detainer with the exact same facts pertaining to the exact same events. This is a direct violation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel and issue preclusion and this is why the first case was "blocked" from public view. Plaintiff is allowed to sue Defendant many times for unlawful detainer as long as the facts and incident pleaded are different; this was not the case in the second unlawful detainer action. On the date Defendant was told by Judge Craig Robison to be prepared to commence a jury trial in the UDR unlawful detainer action, UDR, Inc. brought and won a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court order Defendant evicted. Although the Orange County Superior Court Administrator agreed to stay the eviction until the case was reviewed, on June 16, 2009, Defendant was forcibly thrown out of her apartment with only what she could carry and her two small dogs. Three days later, UDR, Inc. entered Defendant's apartment, packed all her property (including 400 files of evidence from other UDR tenants who wanted to participate in the Class Action Lawsuit being formed by Defendant on behalf of California UDR tenants.) Forty percent (40%) of UDR's revenues come from its California rental properties simply because UDR uses illegal California Residential Lease Agreement charging, among other things, illegal liquidated damages, exorbitant late fees, not to mention that the Leases contain illegal hold harmless clauses, violate California Public Utilities Commission regulations by selling water without being a public utility and maintains an unintelligible Ratio Utility Billing System (RUBS) that charges a double revenue on water provided to tenants. Three days after the eviction, on June 19, 2009, UDR deemed Defendant's property "abandoned," entered Defendant's apartment with the express purpose of confiscating all Defendant's evidence in connection with the class action and moved it to a UDR-owned storage facility then began to attempt to extort money from Defendant to get her property back via its attorneys Todd A. Brisco & Associates. Prior to the eviction, UDR also towed Defendant's car claiming it was illegally parked then sold it. UDR's criminal actions all had the same objectives: (1) to confiscate Defendant's evidence and personal property; (2) causing Defendant to be

10
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

homeless, carless, penniless, and without any source of communication; (3) in order to retaliate against Defendant and quash her tenant advocacy efforts on behalf of UDR's California tenants. Ten days after UDR confiscated all Defendant's property, on June 29, 2009, BKGG filed a defamation action against Defendant on behalf of UDR, Inc. knowing that Defendant was homeless, had no means to defend herself, and was void of all documentation vital to her defense. On September 13, 2010, at the court trial of the Parsa Law Group criminal contempt charges, BKGG attorneys Eric J. Goodman, Esq. and David A. Berstein, Esq. disclosed to OCPD Public Defender in the Parsa Case, Martin F. Schwarz, that they had possession of Defendant's property because UDR, Inc. had sold it to James Parsa to use as evidence against Defendant. BKGG's deal was that if Defendant agreed to not go forward with the court trial of the Parsa criminal contempt case and cease blogging about BKGG and Parsa, they would return all the stolen property to Defendant. The offer was declined but the OCPD failed to disclose to Judge Miller the disposition of Defendant's property. It remains at large to this date and the OCPD refuses to issue a criminal subpoena for the return of Defendant's property in order to effectively aid Defendant in asserting her affirmative defenses. In addition, Judge Miller has participated in undisclosed extrajudicial ex parte communications with State Bar Investigators, acting in concert with Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and San Bernardino County officials; even though there was no order permitting same and said communications constituted judicial misconduct as more fully set forth herein mandating recusal or disqualification of Judge Miller. The investigators of the State Bar recently disclosed the ex parte extra judicial communication that took place between themselves and Judge Miller and others. This Court never disclosed the extrajudicial ex parte communications with Judge Miller and/or representatives of the State Bar acting in concert with Plaintiffs counsel, without limitation. These communications are prohibited under the California Code of Judicial Ethics, including, but not limited to, Cannon 3(B)(7), 3(D) and 3(E). In view of the nature of the significant, important and obvious constitutional improprieties resulting from these extrajudicial

11
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ex parte communications, as a matter of law, no reasonable mind could deny the impropriety arising from this Courts involvement in these extra judicial ex parte communications, which mandates Judge Miller's disqualification or recusal. This Court is disqualified because Judge Miller was required to disclose these extrajudicial ex parte communications on the record and that the failure to do so constitutes judicial misconduct and the voiding of all orders made by this Court including the order for a Permanent Injunction and Default Judgment. It is well established law that if a sitting Judge has extrajudicial ex parte communications; his orders are to be vacated based upon a denial of due process as more fully set forth herein. Defendant and her advisors have had communications with State Bar representatives in which they admitted to having extrajudicial, ex parte communications with this Court, Judge Miller, and his staff pertaining to this case. These previously undisclosed communications have extremely prejudiced Defendant and will be the subject matter of a federal lawsuit that will be filed under the RICO Act against these persons in their individual capacity for which there is no immunity. Pulliam v. Allen 466 U.S. 522 (1984). Judge Miller is prohibited from having extra judicial ex parte communications with Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, State Bar Investigators, Thomas Girardi, Esq., Whittier Law School, San Bernardino County officials and others as a matter of law as more fully set forth herein. It is well established law that all orders by Judge Miller are mandated to be set aside beginning at the commencement of this case in his Court. Judge Miller will also be a material witness in connection with certain of these activities against Defendant. He is going to be a material witness in lawsuits and proceedings that are pending and will be filed. Judges have previously been disqualified for failure to disclose their relationships as mandated under the Canons of Judicial Ethics and for engaging in improper extrajudicial ex parte communications or both. To the extent that this Court may deny that it had such extrajudicial communications, these matters should be referred to the U.S. Attorneys office and to the F.B.I. by the Presiding Judge of this Court and/or the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court as the issues pertain to violations of federal law, including the RICO Act, 18

12
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

USC 1961 et seq. and 42 USC 1983, the Civil Rights Act acting on the color of law for an investigation in which the parties are under oath and documents can be obtained in connection therewith. Because of the extrajudicial ex parte communication between Judge Miller and BKGG attorneys, California State Bar Investigators, Tom Layton and John Noonen, at the direction of Paul O'Brien, Esq. and Thomas Girardi, Esq., in collusion with Whittier Law School, San Bernardino County officials as well as others acting on behalf of the Plaintiff, a reasonable person would have a strong, clear and real doubt concerning the ability of Judge Miller to be and remain impartial. Judge Miller was never impartial, was biased against Defendant, stood to receive a substantial cash bribe based on the extra judicial ex parte communications with State Bar Investigators and others, refused to read the pleadings of Defendant in connection with this case and others related to this case. This Court totally ignored the facts and relied on extrajudicial ex parte communications and the lure of financial enrichment to prejudice and retaliate against Defendant. I. THE HONORABLE FRANZ MILLERS RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE OBJECTIVE APPEARANCE OF IMPARTIALITY IN THESE PROCEEDINGS In pertinent part, section 170.1 provides: (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true: (6) For any reason (B) the judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice, (B) the judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial, or (C) a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. The standard for disqualification set forth in subdivision (a)(6)(C) of section 170.1 represents a legislative judgment that due to the sensitivity of the question and the inherent difficulties of proof as well as the importance of public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited to an actual bias. (United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 104, italics added.) The decision on disqualification for cause is not

13
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

based upon the judges personal view of his own impartiality (id. at p. 105); it is based upon an objective consideration of how the participation of a particular judge in a specific case appears to the average persona on the street. (Id. at p. 104.) [T]he issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable [person] would entertain doubts concerning the judges impartiality, disqualification is mandated. (Ibid.). The question is whether the record discloses a factual basis for a reasonable doubt as to the judges impartiality. (Leland Stanford Junior University v. Superior Court (1985) 173

Cal.App. 3d 403, 409.) [I]t is not only the fact but the appearance of prejudice that should disqualify a judge . . .[I]t is not the fact of prejudice that would impair the legitimacy of the judiciarys role but rather the probable fact of prejudice, i.e., the appearance of prejudice. . . (Pacific Etc. Conference of united Methodist Church (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 72, 88, quoting Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, 193, fn. 10.) The legislative purpose of subdivision (a)(6)(C) of section 170.1 is to require disqualification where a judges impartiality might reasonably be challenged because "public perceptions of justice are not furthered when a judge who is reasonably thought to be biased in a matter hears the case. (United Farm Workers v. Superior Court, supra, 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 103.) In sum, if a reasonable person aware of the facts and circumstances would question the impartiality of the judge, disqualification of that judge is mandated by section 170.1, subdivision (a)(b)(C). Clearly, the facts of this case mandate disqualification of Judge Miller. A. The Test For Recusal or Disqualification is Objective Code of Civil Procedure 170.1(a)(6) requires the recusal or disqualification of a judge if, [f]or any reason, a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial in the litigation. (Emphasis added.) As one court put it: We must continuously bear in mind that to perform its high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance of justice Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988) (citing In re Murchison, 349, U.S. 133, 136 (1955)) (emphasis added). This statement is filed as early as it is reasonably practicable to do so following disclosure of the relevant information. See Oak Grove School Dis. Of Santa Clara County v. City Title Ins. Co.,

14
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

217 Cal.App.2d 678, 703 (1963) (recognizing that facts implicating disqualification sometimes may not be known until even after judgment is entered.) Code of Civil Procedure 170.1(a)(1) requires recusal or disqualification if the judge has personal knowledge of facts involved in the case, and Section 170.1 (a)(3) requires it if the judge or his family have a financial interest. This standard is fundamentally an objective one. United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 104 (1985). It represents a legislative

judgment that due to the sensitivity of the question and inherent difficulties of proof as well as the importance of public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable man would entertain doubts concerning the judges impartiality, disqualification is mandated. Id. To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the objective person. Id. (quoting In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981).) [A] judge faced with a potential ground for disqualification ought to consider how his participation is given case looks to the average person on the street. United Farm Workers, 170 Cal.Ap.3d at 104 (quoting Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co. 609 F.2d 1101, 1111 (5th Cir. 1980)). As the California Supreme Court stated: It is often stated that it is not only the fact but the appearance of prejudice that should disqualify a judge. This is the rule that appeals to the reason of the Constitution. . .[I]t is not the fact of prejudice that would impair the legitimacy of the judiciarys role but rather the probable fact of prejudice, i.e., the appearance of prejudice. . . .Since the legitimacy of the Courts role is essentially a perception of the people, in whose secure confidence the courts must remain if their powers are to be maintained, it follows that merely probable or even alleged facts or a good faith belief in such facts may be sufficient to disqualify a judge. Solberg v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.3d 182, 193, n.10 (1977) (italics in original text, bold italics added).

The verified statement and challenge for cause is timely brought.

It was filed after

Defendant received information of extra judicial ex parte communications between this Court, Judge Miller, its staff and investigators with the State Bar, San Bernardino County officials in an

15
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

effort to violate Defendant's civil and constitutional rights and to prejudge and predetermine the outcome of this case. II. THE VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION IS SUFFICIENT AND TIMELY Defendant's Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause was brought immediately after the State Bar disclosed the nature of the extrajudicial ex parte communications of Judge Miller and his staff and the prejudice that occurred to Defendant as a result thereof. In addition, the improper relationship between Judge Miller, Plaintiff's attorneys, Thomas V. Girardi, Esq., and Whittier Law School is sufficient ground for disqualification. A Verified Statement of Disqualification is sufficient if it establishes at least one (1) ground for disqualification. C.C.P. 170.1. A judges personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding is itself an independent basis for disqualification. C.C.P. 170.1(a)(1). The standard exists because judges should not be resolving controversies where they have a direct connection to the proceeding or have had extrajudicial ex parte communications in connection therewith or learned information outside of the scope of this case. The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that a judges, and/or his familys personal, substantial interest in a case constitutes a denial of the involved parties constitutionally protected due process rights. When a judge is effectively acting to protect or preserve his own interest or that of his familys interest or the Courts interest, a litigant can be deemed deprived of constitutional protections even if only the appearance of justice has been jeopardized. Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 60 (1972). The California Supreme Court has indicated that merely probable or even alleged facts or a good faith believe in such facts may be sufficient to disqualify a judge and that personal knowledge is not required. These ongoing extrajudicial communications between Judge Miller, Plaintiff's attorneys, Thomas V. Girardi, Esq., and Whittier Law School, as well as California State Bar investigators and San Bernardino County officials, is judicial misconduct as a matter of law

16
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and establishes the means and methods to which they engaged to prejudice Defendant, the outcome of this case and resulting criminal actions brought against Defendant in the County of San Bernardino. The beginning of the prejudice was Plaintiffs and Plaintiff's counsel's fraud and fraud on the Court demonstrated in this case. UDR, Inc. does not have standing to sue anyone in the State of California. It must file a lawsuit by way of its California wholly-owned subsidiary, UDR Western Residential LP, a foreign corporation doing business in California. This fact should comprise a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, yet Defendant constantly battled with the OCPD to recognize its value and include it in their pleadings. III. THE RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE MILLER IS NECESSARY BECAUSE HE WILL BE AT LEAST A MATERIALWITNESS IN LITIGATION AND IN PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS, THE ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OUT OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND OTHER CASES AND THE MISCONDUCT SET FORTH ABOVE This Court, Judge Miller, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's attorneys, San Bernardino County officials, Thomas V. Girardi, Esq., Deborah Kwast, Esq., the State Bar of California and State Bar of California investigators and attorneys, and others will be sued in the Federal Court for, inter alia, violations of the Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organization Act (RICO Act) and for an agreement to violate Defendants constitutional and civil rights acting under the color of law. Because this Court acted in concert with these persons, acting under color of law, Judge Miller has a duty to recuse himself and/or to be disqualified. The prohibition on extrajudicial ex parte communications applies both to the makers and to the recipients, includes judges, lawyers, and investigators. If a judge violates the applicable ex parte prohibition, the consequences can be severe, not only mandating his

17
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

disqualification and that all orders made by the Court are set aside based upon due process violations. In a similar circumstance, a California judge was sanctioned by the California Commission on Judicial Performance for sending an email to a partys lawyer disclosing the Courts intended ruling. Public Admonishment of Caskey Order (California Commission on Judicial Performance 1998). The prohibition applies to other intermediaries including Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorneys, the California State Bar, Whittier Law School, the OCPD and Orange County Board of Supervisors, as well as other affiliations, intermediaries acting at the suggestion or direction of a lawyer, a prosecutor or judge, as well as State Bar investigators acting on their behalf or on behalf of Plaintiffs and their counsel. As set forth above, such conduct constitutes judicial misconduct mandating disqualification of Judge Miller. An attorney is subject to discipline for improper ex parte communications with a judge concerning a matter relevant to a pending case. Heavey v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 553. In addition, all Court rulings are subject to reversal or being set aside if obtained by prejudicial, improper ex parte communications with the Court or its staff. Bribery of a judge may constitute a RICO offense mandating the disqualification of the trial Judge and the entire court as has occurred in prior cases. This Court will be a material witness in connection with proceedings to be brought against Plaintiff's counsel, in connection with these matters including State Bar matters. This Court was required to refer these matters to the State Bar and to the U.S. Attorneys Office when it was unlawfully contacted by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel, State Bar investigators acting in concert with Plaintiffs Counsel and San Bernardino County officials to prejudge and predetermine the outcome of this case. It is well established statutory law that this Court has no power to rule on any matters until this Challenge for Cause is finally resolved. The Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause was timely filed and sets forth the grounds for recusal and disqualification of Judge Miller. Pursuant to C.C.P. 170.4(d), if

18
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Judge Miller does not recuse himself, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court is required to appoint an impartial and independent jurist of another county to pass on the disqualification of Judge Miller, to conduct a hearing in connection therewith including an evidentiary hearing which Defendant so requests including that the Court turn over to the successor Judge all communications that it has engaged in pertaining to the extrajudicial ex parte communications with the State Bar Investigators, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, San Bernardino County officials or anyone else pertaining to these matters and that such documentation be preserved and also made available concurrently to the U.S. Attorneys Office and the F.B.I. Separately, Defendant will seek that similar documents be turned over by State Bar Investigators, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, San Bernardino County officials to be used in connection with the disqualification of Judge Miller as well as further proceedings in the Council for Judicial Performance, the California State Bar and the U.S. Attorneys Office without limitation. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and in the supporting Declaration of Erin K. Baldwin, and accompanying Exhibits incorporated into this Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause, including but not limited to Defendants pleadings in connection therewith for hearing and based on the extrajudicial ex parte communications that have occurred, the improper personal relationship in connection with Whittier Law School, and the criminal activity of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel, the Court is mandated to grant this recusal or disqualification motion and to allow the Chief Justice to appoint a new judge of a new court of another county acting independently of this court in connection with this case or any other cases involving Parsa Law Group, James Parsa, UDR, Inc., or UDR Western Residential LP to determine the disqualification of Judge Miller and to obtain the documents cited above that have been withheld and suppressed from Defendant.

19
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Additionally, all orders by this court are required to be vacated as a matter of law and all of the monies obtained by Judge Miller, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, Thomas V. Girardi, Esq., the OCPD, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the California State Bar, California State Bar investigators and employees, San Bernardino County officials and others to be returned in full to a blocked account until this matter is concluded. To the extent that these monies have been dissipated or hidden, an Order to Show Cause Re Criminal Contempt is requested by Defendant from the successor Judge to be appointed by the Chief Justice. For the reasons stated above and in the interest of justice, this Court and Judge Miller must recuse itself based on the record in this case, and the extrajudicial ex parte communications that took place as admitted to by State Bar investigators, the improper personal relationship between Judge Miller and Plaintiff's attorneys in connection with Whittier Law School, and others in that a reasonable person would have a strong, clear, real doubt concerning the ability of Judge Miller to be and to remain impartial. C.C.P. 170.1 subd. (a)(6)(c). Based on the extra judicial ex parte communications with parties thereto, the improper personal relationship between Judge Miller and Plaintiff's attorneys in connection with Whittier Law School, Judge Miller should respectfully recuse himself or be disqualified and the entire Orange County Superior Court disqualify itself to preserve the rights of Defendant to a fair and impartial jurist and jury trial especially after it was disclosed that Judge Miller is disqualified as a matter of law for the conduct referred to above. Dated: April 13, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________ ERIN K. BALDWIN Defendant, In Pro Per

20
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

VERIFICATION OF FACTS STATED HEREIN

Under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, I hereby verify that the factual information set forth in this Statement requesting recusal or disqualification of Judge Miller is true based on my personal knowledge and for those matters not within my personal knowledge, I am informed and believe that they are true. Executed this 13th day of April, 2011 at Banning, California. _____________________________ ERIN K. BALDWIN Defendant, In Pro Per

21
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF ERIN K. BALDWIN I, ERIN K. BALDWIN, declare as follows: 1. I am a Defendant in this action previously represented by the Orange County

Public Defender ("OCPD"). I am filing concurrently a Marsden Motion to immediately remove the OCPD from further action on my part due to its egregious ineffective assistance of counsel. This Marsden Motion will be followed by a Harris Motion and a Complaint against the OCPD for Legal Malpractice. From this date forward I will appear as an In Pro Per litigant. The following facts are within my own personal knowledge , except as to those matters which are stated to be on information and belief, which I believe to be true. If called as a witness, I would and could competently testify thereto. 2. This Declaration is made in support of the Verified Statement and Challenge for

Cause of Erin K. Baldwin requesting recusal or disqualification of the Honorable Franz E. Miller. This Declaration also requests that if Judge Miller does not recuse or disqualify himself, that the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court appoint another judge of another county to independently review this Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause un CCP section 170.4. Based thereon, this Court has no power or jurisdiction to rule on any matter until this Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause is finally resolved. 3. It has come to my attention that Judge Miller maintains an improper personal

relationship with Plaintiff's counsel (BKGG) in this action whereby Judge Miller, BKGG attorney Daniel J. Kessler, and BKGG attorney Eric J. Goodman all currently teach law school classes at the same law school, Whittier Law School, and that both Mr. Kessler and Mr. Goodman graduated from Whittier Law School. It has also come to my attention that all other attorneys from BKGG affiliated with this case and the related cases are also graduates of Whittier Law School and are still affiliated with the school on some level. Finally, it has come to my attention that Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. has a history of unjustly enriching judges and attorneys through their law school affiliations to coerce them to act according to his agenda.

22
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4.

Tom Layton and John Noonen, California State Bar Investigators, recently

indicated to my advisors and other inter alia that they have participated in extrajudicial ex parte communication with this Court and Judge Miller pertaining to matters set forth in this Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause. These actions were directed by Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. and Paul O'Brien, California State Bar attorney. 5. There are documents that the Court may have concerning the basis of this

Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause. I ask that these documents be produced as well as all communications between Judge Miller and this Court, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's attorneys, the California State Bar investigators and attorneys, Thomas V. Girardi, Esq., the Orange County Public Defender's Office and the Orange County Board of Supervisors and others as shall be named at a later date. I also ask that the Court permit me to take expedited discovery from this Court, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's attorneys, the California State Bar investigators and attorneys, Thomas V. Girardi, Esq., the Orange County Public Defender's Office and the Orange County Board of Supervisors and others as shall be named at a later date in connection with this matter and all extrajudicial ex parte communications that they have had pertaining to all matters described in the present case and all related action. 6. On February 1, 2011, Judge Miller appointed the Orange County Public Defender

to represent my legal interests in the criminal contempt action in the UDR Case. They have failed utterly to do so, due to inexperience and lack of motivation, criminal interference on the part of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, corrupt and malicious objectives of Deborah Kwast, Esq, Orange County Public Defender so named to her position by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel. Filed concurrently with this 7. Based on these recent disclosures, as set forth above, it is determined to move for

the disqualification of the Court and for other relief as requested in this Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause and to commence a RICO lawsuit in connection with the events and facts set forth in this Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause.

23
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8.

I hereby certify that this Verified Statement and Challenge for Cause is made in

good faith and shall be the basis for the existence of good cause to seek this Court's and Judge Miller's disqualification and vacation of all orders, I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 13th day of April, 2011 at Banning, California. ___________________________ Erin K. Baldwin Declarant

24
VERIFIED STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE