CONSUMER ADVOCATE FILES APPEAL IN PARSA LAW GROUP ACTION: Violations of Prior Restraint & Due Process, Malicious Prosecution, and a $605, 000 Award on an Indigent Defendant Whom the Court Won’t Even Allow to Speak on Behalf of the Action

Parsa Law Group, APC v. Bad Biz Finder and Erin Baldwin
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009-00117752

On June 2, 2009, Erin Baldwin, whom the Court failed to recognize as a Defendant authorized to speak on behalf of the action, was ordered to pay Parsa Law Group $605, 000 for her alleged actions amounting to defamation. However, 15 days earlier, the Court denied Parsa’s Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order because Parsa failed to prove a case for defamation.

Are we crazy or does this sound all wacked out? What’s wrong with this picture? A lot. So, Baldwin filed an Appeal on September 2, 2009 and we wanted to share with you the grounds of the Appeal.

To Plaintiff, PARSA LAW GROUP, APC, and to PARSA LAW GROUP’S Attorneys of Record, Eric J. Goodman, Esq.; David A. Berstein, Esq., and Nicholas D. Myers, Esq. of Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Defendant, ERIN K. BALDWIN, an Individual, files a Notice of Appeal on the following grounds:

1. On May 18, 2009, The Honorable Judge Franz Miller, in his tentative ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in this matter, astutely and correctly identified that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Baldwin contained prior restraint issues and that said issues should be considered.

2. On May 18, 2009, The Honorable Judge Franz Miller denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants Bad Biz Finder and Erin Baldwin, as Plaintiff failed utterly to state a cause of action for defamation. Defendant Bad Biz Finder posted articles containing facts about Plaintiff, supported by California State licensing agencies and Civil Code authority. The facts were embarrassing to Plaintiff. The facts made available to consumers in foreclosure by Defendant Bad Biz Finder’s blog adversely affected Plaintiff’s ability to conduct business in violation of the law. Defendant Baldwin has a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to Constitution of the United States to publish said facts anonymously without prior restraint . This right was violated in this action.

3. The law also states that truth is an absolute defense against defamation. Plaintiff never once even attempted to dispute the validity of facts presented on Defendant Bad Biz Finder’s blog, and in its inability to do so failed to form a prima facie case for defamation. Judge Miller correctly denied Plaintiff’s request for an injunction against Defendants as Plaintiff’s pleadings did not argue the merits. Rather, the pleadings merely re-printed the text of the articles written on Defendant Bad Biz Finder’s blog claiming the content was defamatory but failed to state any basis of law to support its claims.

4. On May 19, 2009, Defendant Erin Baldwin informed the Court that she was indigent and therefore “judgment proof” by way of a faxed submission of an Application for Waiver of Court Fees and Costs. On the same date, Latesha in Civil Operations rejected the Application stating on the “Fax-Filing Reject Form”: “We are unable to file this fee waiver because a business can’t file for a fee waiver so I will charge the credit card for $13.00. If you have any questions please call 714-834-4724 and ask for Latesha. Thank you.”

5. On May 19, 2009, Latesha forwarded the rejected Application to Stacie Turner, Judge Miller’s Clerk in Department C-14 with a note to Ms. Turner requesting that she forward the “Fax-Filing Rejection” form to Defendant Baldwin. Ms. Turner held on to the rejected application until May 29, 2009, the date originally set by Plaintiff for the Default Prove-up hearing.

6. On May 29, 2009, Defendant Baldwin called and spoke with Stacie Turner in Department C-17 to find out the outcome of the hearing. It was at that time that Ms. Turner informed Defendant Baldwin that the Default Prove-Up Hearing had been continued to Tuesday, June 2, 2009. Plaintiff did not notice Defendants regarding the continuation. If Plaintiff had properly noticed Defendants, there would have been no reason for Defendant Baldwin to call to check the status of the hearing.

7. Defendant Baldwin later found out that the date for the Default Prove-Up hearing had been continued due to the fact that Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default (Court Judgment w/Judgment Package) had been rejected by the Court on May 28, 2009 due to numerous errors. At that time Defendant Baldwin inquired as to the status of her Application for Waiver of Court Fees and Costs. Latesha explained to Defendant Baldwin that Defendant Bad Biz Finder was the primary Defendant and that to date Defendant Baldwin had not been effectively added as a Defendant and as such, could not be considered for a fee waiver.

8. This was due in part to Plaintiff’s falsified and premature subpoena to Defendant Baldwin’s cable company, Time Warner, to attempt to identify a certain I.P. address as belonging exclusively to Defendant Baldwin to justify adding Defendant Baldwin to the action. Since Defendant Baldwin was a home Internet user without a computer server, the I.P. address is dynamic, not static. As such, it is impossible to match a broad range I.P. address to any given person or person’s account. However, Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly used this false information to maliciously prosecute Defendant Baldwin.

9. Defendant Baldwin found it strange that Defendant Bad Biz Finder was the primary Defendant in the action since Defendant Bad Biz Finder had never been served with a Summons and Complaint. As well, Plaintiff had dismissed all causes of action against Defendant Beverly Sullivan and Does 1-10 on May 27, 2009. It didn’t make sense to Defendant Baldwin until July 14, 2009, when the Honorable Judge Franz Miller stated in his tentative ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment, etc., that he was “unclear if Baldwin has any authority to appear for Bad Biz.” [Now why would he state that five weeks after including Defendant Baldwin in a Judgment (jointly and severally) in the amount of 604, 515.66?]

10. Upon rejection of Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default (Court Judgment w/Judgment Package), the Civil Unlimited filing clerk told Defendant Baldwin that she recommended to Plaintiff to continue the matter out several weeks in order to have time to notice Defendant Baldwin and repair the errors. Notice was never made by Plaintiff, nor does the original hearing date (May 29, 2009) show up on the current court docket (it erroneously states that the hearing was continued from June 1, 2009 to June 2, 2009.) However, Defendant’s Motion for an Order Setting Aside Default, etc., was date stamped by the Court on May 27, 2009 with the correct hearing date of May 29, 2009 as it was Defendant’s intention to have the Motion considered prior or in conjunction with the Default Prove-up Hearing. [Please note that Judge Miller also stated in his July 14, 2009 tentative ruling on the Motion, that said Motion was “timely brought.”]

11. On June 2, 2009, fifteen (15) days after The Honorable Judge Franz Miller denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants Bad Biz Finder and Erin Baldwin --- the Honorable Judge Franz Miller supported, granted and allegedly signed a Default Judgment By Court With Permanent Injunction against Defendants Bad Biz Finder and Erin K. Baldwin. The order stated, in part:

“IT IS SO ORDERED that Plaintiff have and recover Judgment from Defendants Bad Biz Finder, an unknown entity, and Erin K. Baldwin, an individual and doing business as Bad Biz Finder, jointly and severally: (1) In the principal sum of $604, 515.66 plus interest thereon at the rate of ten (10%) percent per annum from June 2, 2009; and (2) Costs pursuant to CCP section 1033.5 in the amount of $976.76.”

12. Additionally, on the same date that the Honorable Judge Franz Miller allegedly signed the above-referenced Court Order (June 2, 2009), Judge Miller’s Courtroom Clerk, Stacie Turner, was in possession of Defendant’s Motion for Order Setting Aside Default as to all Defendants, Request for Dismissal with Prejudice, and Award of Monetary Damages and had been so since May 27, 2009 when it was date stamped by the Court. However, for some reason, it was not presented to the Court for consideration prior to Judge Miller’s Order of Default Judgment. Had it been so presented, the Court Order would be moot. as a Default Judgment could not have been entered.

13. On June 2, 2009, Ms. Turner mailed to Defendant Baldwin the rejected Application for Waiver of Court Fees and Costs and Resubmit Request sent to her by Latesha on May 19, 2009. In the same package she included Defendant’s original Motion for Order Setting Aside Default as to all Defendants, Request for Dismissal with Prejudice, and Award of Monetary Damages date stamped on May 27, 2009, along with her handwritten note (date stamped June 2, 2009) stating: “Obtain legal counsel to properly file your motion, or a paralegal to assist.” Ms. Turner’s unique penmanship on the handwritten note matched the unique penmanship on the above-referenced Court Order allegedly signed by the Honorable Judge Franz Miller.

14. Additionally, on the same date that the Honorable Judge Franz Miller allegedly heard arguments by Plaintiff at 11:30 a.m. and signed the above-referenced Court Order (June 2, 2009), regular judicial activity was suspended at Central Justice Center of the Orange County Superior Court due to an electrical power outage affecting the entire facility. On June 2, 2009, the Clerk of the Court informed Defendant Baldwin that no one was let in to the Courthouse until approximately 2:30 p.m. that day. However, Plaintiff’s counsel claim that they were heard before the Honorable Judge Franz Miller and that the Court Order was signed and submitted that day.

15. The Application for Waiver of Court Fees and Costs was quickly resubmitted by Defendant Baldwin and granted by the Court on June 4, 2009 as was the minor address correction on the Motion to Set Aside Default, etc.

16. On July 13, 2009, with her last few dollars Defendant Baldwin traveled by bus to file a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default, etc. At the same time she personally visited Department C-17 and requested information from Ms. Turner about how to appear telephonically for the July 14, 2009 hearing. Defendant Baldwin was instructed to call Court Call in the morning at 888-882-6878 or visit www.courtcall.com for more information. Ms. Turner did not instruct Defendant Baldwin that she would need a printout of the fee waiver approval from the Department even though Ms. Turner knew that it was required to appear telephonically.

17. Later that day, on July 13, 2009, Defendant Baldwin contacted Court Call to make the arrangements and was asked to fax a written acknowledgment that the Court had approved the fee waiver. Since Defendant Baldwin had only hours earlier appeared personally in Department C-17 and had not been provided with said acknowledgment, she telephoned Ms. Turner and requested that she provide an authorization to Court Call on Defendant Baldwin’s behalf. Ms. Turner informed Defendant Baldwin that she would have to come back to the Court and pick it up and then fax it herself. Defendant Baldwin explained that she had just spent her last few dollars traveling to the Court to file the Reply and seek information to appear telephonically because she could not afford to come back on the bus the next day. Ms. Turner refused to assist Defendant Baldwin and informed Defendant Baldwin, “This is a court of law, we don’t do favors for anyone.” Consequently, Defendant Baldwin could not appear personally or telephonically at the Motion hearing.

18. On July 14, 2009, the Honorable Judge Franz Miller stated in his tentative rulings on Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment, etc., that he was “unclear if Baldwin has any authority to appear for Bad Biz.” Defendant Baldwin found that statement odd when five weeks earlier, Judge Miller had signed an Order granting Plaintiff judgment against Defendants Bad Biz Finder, an unknown entity, and Erin K. Baldwin, an individual and doing business as Bad Biz Finder, jointly and severally.” Why would Judge Miller be unclear as to whether Defendant Baldwin has any authority to appear for Defendant Bad Biz Finder when he set down on paper that she was jointly and severally responsible for paying Plaintiff over $600, 000 defining Defendant Baldwin as an individual doing business as Bad Biz Finder?

19. Defendant Baldwin is an in pro per litigant due to an inability to finance legal representation. She is not representing herself because she disrespects the Court, nor because she cannot comprehend the seriousness of the matter at hand or its consequences to her personal security or financial future. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have taken advantage of this fact for almost nine months beginning with its first complaint dated January 26, 2009 and in fact, has compounded the injustice by encouraging others to hire their firm to “go after her, ” since they were successful in obtaining a $605, 000 judgment on behalf of Plaintiff Parsa Law Group. To date, two other law firms that were also the subject of reports on Defendant Bad Biz Finder’s blog have hired Plaintiff’s counsel and have filed very similar actions against Defendants Bad Biz Finder and Erin Baldwin. (See: Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009-00126004-CU-DF-CJC, Jeffrey A. Cancilla vs. Erin K. Baldwin filed July 13, 2009, and Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009-00126328-CU-BT-CJC, Traut Law Group vs. Bad Biz Finder, filed July 20, 2009.)

20. On September 2, Judge Franz Miller allowed all cases to be joined together as related cases all to be heard by him. He also issued a Bench Warrant for Erin Baldwin’s arrest and set bail for $5, 000 because Defendant Baldwin did not attend an Order to Show Cause Re Contempt even though Judge Franz Miller has already stated that she is not affiliated with this case even to the point that she cannot speak on behalf of Bad Biz Finder.

21. Prior to the above-referenced law firm cases, Plaintiff’s counsel also took on another client, Defendant Baldwin’s landlord, Colorado-based publicly-traded Landlord/REIT, UDR, Inc., in yet ANOTHER action for Defamation against Baldwin filed on June 29, 2009, less than two weeks after UDR illegally evicted Baldwin after a six month court battle. On June 16, 2009, until the present, Defendant Baldwin has been homeless and yet Plaintiff’s counsel continues its relentless pursuit amounting to malicious prosecution.

22. Beginning with Judge Miller’s observation that prior restraint issues exist in this case, Defendant Baldwin has faced an uphill battle against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George, LLP. Defendant files this Notice of Appeal to clear her name, the Judgment illegally obtained, and to dismiss the other frivolous lawsuits brought exclusively to intimidate and quiet her.

23. Defendant Baldwin’s constitutional rights to free speech, free press without prior restraint, and due process of the law have been violated. Plaintiff’s counsel has repeatedly used its legal status to intimidate and threaten the media and press to its advantage further violating the liberties granted to Defendant Baldwin under the First Amendment of the United States of America. Despite all attempts by Defendant Baldwin to mount a rigorous defense on her own behalf, the law behind this matter seems to have been ignored and replaced by unconscionable, unethical and illegal proceedings.

24. This entire action and the actions brought after are a travesty of injustice and in order for the wrongs against Defendant Baldwin to be corrected, the arguments must be heard. It is for these reasons and others to be brought before the Court of Appeals that Defendant Erin Baldwin files this Notice of Appeal.


Well, this should be interesting to watch. What do you think? Weigh in – give us your views.

When first called them we were told that they would be working on getting us a principle balance reduction. We were told our note would be audited for mistakes to give them leverage to negotiate a principle balance reduction. Instead we received a modification, which was okay but in our current financial situation we are not able to make the new payments if we accept it. Parsa Law Group was very aware of our financial situation. They then tried to scare us into accepting the first offer from our lender even though we told them we needed something better. We finally met with our lender ourselves and are attempting to do this by ourselves. Because of the delay waiting for instructions from Parsa Law Group, we still may lose our home. We wasted $2, 300.00 and did not receive what was promised when we contacted them the first time.

When first called them we were told that they would be working on getting us a principle balance reduction. We were told our note would be audited for mistakes to give them leverage to negotiate a principle balance reduction. Instead we received a modification, which was okay but in our current financial situation we are not able to make the new payments if we accept it. Parsa Law Group was very aware of our financial situation. They then tried to scare us into accepting the first offer from our lender even though we told them we needed something better. We finally met with our lender ourselves and are attempting to do this by ourselves. Because of the delay waiting for instructions from Parsa Law Group, we still may lose our home. We wasted $2, 300.00 and did not receive what was promised when we contacted them the first time.

Parsa Law Group Among Others Use Frivolous Defamation Actions to Silence the Truth About Illegal Loan Modifications

2009-07-24 06:35:57 - “Truth” is an absolute defense against defamation. The law does not even require that a statement be perfectly accurate in every conceivable way to be considered “true.” As a matter of fact, Courts have held that some false statements must be protected for the wider purpose of allowing the dissemination of truthful speech - aka "the doctrine of substantial truth."

In addition, the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment Freedom of Speech without Prior Restraint has been neglected in these actions. Bad Biz Finder is 100% absent a profit motive and seeks only to inform consumers about the facts pertaining to loan modifications. Restraining this information from reaching the public is a crime in and of itself.

Bad Biz Finder is a consumer advocate. We report the facts about companies that intentionally harm consumers. We are an information resource. Use the information; don’t use the information - it’s entirely up to you. Although our writing style is "no holds barred, " every fact is backed by a link to a source outside our organization. We don’t give our opinion nor do we tell consumers what to do.

Here are a couple of very important facts:

1. When criminal cash flow is interrupted – criminals get upset.
2. When criminals get upset – they will do and say anything to reinstate the criminal cash flow so they can resume the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.
3. Criminals love to sue people that interrupt their criminal cash flow (especially attorney criminals). This is nothing new. Often, attorneys, sheriffs, politicians, and executives of publicly-traded companies believe they are "above the law" and these white collar criminals pay a lot of money to maintain that status.
4. In the meantime, consumers don’t stand a chance because the very people who are supposed to protect them are working in collusion with the other white collar criminals; hence, criminal cash flow.
5. So, where does a consumer go for help? That’s a great question. Bad Biz Finder is making a lot of progress exposing fraud, illegalities, oppression - but we are paying the price with ridiculously frivolous lawsuits with the singular purpose of silencing our mission to tell the truth.

Unfortunately, our court system is not set up to dispense justice; it’s set up to make money. So, in the past we've presented the law in our defense and it’s patently ignored because many judges who are supposed to interpret "the law" are also beneficiaries of the criminal cash flow. Thus, in court, THE TRUTH AND THE LAW IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

From day one, our motto has been "Bad Biz Finder does not fight the bad guys — we help the good guys." From now on – if you want to sue us – have at it, because:

1. We know you’re doing it to divert us from our mission.
2. We know that YOU know that you don’t have a cause of action for defamation and rather rely on sleazy attorney tactics to win in court to stop our reporting.
3. We know you’re doing it to win some ridiculous judgment that you have a snowball’s chance in hell of collecting;
4. We know that everything you do is an attempt to intimidate us so we run away and shut the hell up; and
5. We know YOU know that we won’t win in Court because we have no money.

Consequently, we refuse to spin anymore. We’ll just keep reporting the truth because the Constitution of the United States has this great thing called the First Amendment and we are guaranteed free speech without fear of prior restraint. (We’ll explain the law and what we presented in court below.) It’s true, folks: "The pen is mightier than the sword."

Here is the text of a legal document we filed in a Defamation Action brought against us by PARSA LAW GROUP entitled Parsa Law Group v. Bad Biz Finder, filed on January 26, 2009 (13 days after we set up our blog) in Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00117752-CU-DF-CJC. It’s still active; the next hearing is August 31, 2009.

(By the way, UDR, Inc.; Traut Law Firm; Jeffrey Cancilla; Craig Laverty; and a host of others are also suing us.)

Here’s the text:

1. For an action of defamation to prevail, it must contain five elements: (1) an intentional publication of a statement of fact (2) that is false; (3) unprivileged; (4) has a natural tendency to injure or which causes “special damage and (4) the defendant’s fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.

2. “Truth” is an absolute defense against defamation. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 411 (1967). Consequently, Plaintiff must provide convincing evidence of the alleged defamatory statement’s falsity in order to prove defamation. To this end, Plaintiff has failed utterly. Plaintiff pleads volumes of paper containing copies of posts written by Defendant yet does not even attempt to show that the content in said posts are false by any manner of substantiation. Rather, Plaintiff uses the same boilerplate biographical information in all its marketing, public relations, and electronic media campaigns:

“Since 1991, I have been providing legal services to the Southern California community. My firm, Parsa Law Group, APC, currently provides legal services in the areas of Bankruptcy, Foreclosure, Mortgage Litigation, Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation and Loan Modification

3. Parsa Law Group, APC, was founded one year and one month ago on April 16, 2008 (California Secretary of State Number C3082463) in an attempt to profit from the growing trend of California attorneys forming loan modification companies to circumvent the prohibition of advanced fees guidelines for foreclosure consultants. At all times since April 16, 2008, Plaintiff has held himself out to the public as an expert in “bankruptcy, foreclosure, mortgage litigation and loan modification This information is patently false and he should be held liable for his fraud in false promise, fraud in intentional misrepresentation, and fraud in concealment.

4. Prior to April 16, 2008, Plaintiff was strictly a personal injury and workers’ compensation attorney. Until thirty (30) days ago, Plaintiff did not include within its boilerplate language the practice areas of personal injury and workers’ compensation law. It wasn’t until Defendant exposed this fact in its post entitled, “James Parsa: Personal Injury Attorney or Mortgage And Real Property Attorney? You Decide” on April 21, 2009, that Plaintiff added personal injury and workers’ compensation to his roster of legal specialties.

5. Since 1996, James Parsa has filed a total of 21 cases in Orange County Superior Court (his main venue); of which 20 were personal injury automobile cases and the other a legal malpractice matter for a fellow attorney. Yet Plaintiff has the audacity to claim that he is qualified to practice “mortgage litigation” and other areas of law where he is absolutely void of experience. It is deceptive, at best, for an attorney to hold himself out to the public as a mortgage litigator (or having experience and expertise in related matters) when in fact he does not and has not filed one single mortgage-related lawsuit. It is an even more egregious matter when his target market is a group of vulnerable and emotionally distraught homeowners facing foreclosure.

6. California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-400, specifically prohibits “any communication delivered to a potential client whom the attorney / law firm knows or should reasonably know is in such a physical, emotional, or mental state that he or she would not be expected to exercise reasonable judgment as to the retention of counsel

7. Plaintiff substantially based its operations on the predictability of this consumer state of mind. It not only launched its “law firm” with no attorneys (other than James Parsa until a couple of weeks ago) but also formed six (6) loan modification companies under his law license, i.e., National Loan Modification Center, 3-2-1 Foreclosure, Modify 1-2-3, HomeGrabber, Home ForeClosure Fighter, National Legal Alliance and there could be many more. All of these entities (with the exception of National Loan Modification Center) are telephone- and/or internet-based services. They are run by foreclosure consultants and even if Plaintiff had the requisite experience and expertise which he does not, it could not be transmitted for the benefit of consumers in this type of business forum. The reality is that non-lawyers were and are performing activities that Plaintiff promised would be performed by attorneys in its Legal Retainer Agreement. The foreclosure consultants are absent a law license, no specialized education and certainly no legal training which is required to competently assert the proper defenses required to modify a loan with a financial institution.

8. In addition, California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-400, specifically prohibits attorney communications with prospective clients that 1) contains any untrue statement; (2) contains any matter that is false, deceptive, or which could confuse, deceive, or mislead the public; (3) omits to state any fact necessary to ensure that an attorney / law firm is not misleading the public; (4) fails to indicate clearly, expressly, or by context, that it is a communication or solicitation; (5) is transmitted in any manner which involves intrusion, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats, or vexatious or harassing conduct; and (6) states that an attorney / law firm is a “certified specialist” unless the attorney / law firm holds a current certificate as a specialist issued by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar

9. With the express written consent from a very recent client of Plaintiff, Robin Schaufus, sets forth her testimony on Plaintiff’s mortgage litigation experience. This was also reported on Defendant’s blog on Friday, May 22, 2009:

“My husband is disabled and on social security, we run a small business for the past 31 years that is down almost 60% in sales. We called James Parsa Law Group when he advertised his law firm with President Obama stating his rescue plan on March 4th, a nationwide law firm. His record was clear with The State Bar. Now he is being investigated by the Attorney General for loan modification scams and fraud. We were offered pro bono services from James Parsa Law Firm for a loan modification and bankruptcy filing, mostly because he states on his website they also have attorneys litigating the Respa and Tila Federal Violations which we are also victim to. Have spent a month providing them 100’s of pages of requested loan and financial documentation, only no lawyer counselers were there to help, weve never talked to an attorney! Where do we go from here? We have been scammed twice in 2 months trusting lawyers with no previous complaints on their record and have lost money and valuable time. Who can you trust?

10. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s deceptive advertising and claims of expertise in mortgage litigation, and other areas where he is not qualified, this couple may lose their home. And instead of spending the time necessary to help them, we are drafting this legal document so that our ability to reach out to folks like the Schaufus family won’t be interrupted. Defendant asserts that this fact, in and of itself, is symptomatic of a frivolous law suit and we should be compensated for such disruption as well as for attorneys’ fees.

11. We cannot express in adequate words the infuriation that we feel that this matter is taking us away from our organization’s objectives and is contrary in every regard to what we consider to be equitable relief under the law and the very essence of why we remain anonymous. But for the anonymity of our organization, our leaders and volunteers, all of our group’s valuable time (which is unpaid volunteer time) would be spent responding to unfounded complaints of defamation such as the present action.

12. The law does not require that a statement be perfectly accurate in every conceivable way to be considered “true Courts have said that some false statements must be protected for the wider purpose of allowing the dissemination of truthful speech. The resulting doctrine is known as “substantial truth Under the substantial truth doctrine, minor factual inaccuracies will be ignored so long as the inaccuracies do not materially alter the substance or impact of what is being communicated. In other words, only the “gist” or “sting” of a statement must be correct. If Plaintiff objects to the tone or manner in which the information was written although all facts contained therein were true, Plaintiff would absolutely fail in a cause of action for defamation.

13. The substantial truth defense is particularly powerful because a judge will often grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant (thus disposing of the case before it goes to trial) if the defendant can show that the statement the plaintiff is complaining about is substantially true, making the defense a quick and relatively easy way to get out of a long (and potentially expensive) defamation case. Plaintiff has quoted text from Defendant’s blog that it finds objectionable; however, it has not identified statements that it believes are untrue. Had Plaintiff served the complaint on Defendant and identified the statements that it believes are untrue, Defendant would have a basis to answer a Complaint. Since Plaintiff failed utterly in this regard, and muddies the water by pleading a long litany of baseless examples of “objectionable statements” without asserting that they are false, it is nonactionable and frivolous.

14. Plaintiff has failed to prove that Defendant published any statement that was false, deceptive, or which could confuse, deceive, or mislead the public and which resulted in Plaintiff loss in revenue and business relationships. On the contrary, as it is Defendants’ sole mission to uncover and expose those claims made by business and organizations that are false, deceptive, or which could confuse, deceive, or mislead the public. And we certainly had no obstacle to achieving that goal whatsoever. From our experience, when a company is formed specifically for the purpose to defraud the public, it will most certainly market the business in the same manner. Plaintiff was no exception to this rule and we pointed those facts out to consumers strictly as a means to warn them.

15. Since January 10, 2009, when Defendant began its blog, it has reviewed 29 other companies in addition to Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff positions its arguments as though Defendant’s blog is all about him and his business and that we have some sort of personal vendetta against him. Had that been the case, we would have focused all our efforts on reporting on Plaintiff’s activities to the exclusion of others. Defendant’s blog currently contains 288 posts and pages and only 37 of them pertain directly to Plaintiff. The higher than average posts per business points to the higher than average egregious activities perpetrated by Plaintiff upon which we must report.

16. In Cobb v. Time Inc. 24 Media L. Rep. 585 (M.D. Tenn 1995), Defendant made a statement that a boxer tested positive for cocaine, when actually he had tested positive for marijuana. Plaintiff has tested positive for reprehensible behavior, the question may be argued to what degree of reprehensibility, but the substantial truth is that he has behaved reprehensibly.

17. In Koniak v. Heritage Newspapers, Inc., 198 Mich. App. 577 (1993), a newspaper printed that a father had sexually assaulted his stepdaughter 30-50 times, when the stepdaughter testified he had done so only 8 times. The number of times is irrelevant as the damage was sustained on the first incident. Not more than one occasion was necessary to show the criminal intent and action. Whether Plaintiff by way of a lack of expertise and experience in the relevant legal areas has injured one consumer or a thousand consumers is irrelevant. The injury was sustained ab initio when he offered legal services that (a) he was not qualified to offer, and (b) outsourced the legal work to non-lawyers, i.e., foreclosure consultants. The substantial truth is that he offered legal services for which he was not qualified.

18. In People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Berosini, 895 P.2d 1269 (Nev. 1995), an animal trainer was charged with beating his animals with steel rods, when actually he had beaten them with wooden rods. He was still culpable for the injuries sustained by the animals. James Parsa has never injured a client in a tax-related legal matter, but he has injured hundreds if not thousands of clients that came seeking his advertised expertise in bankruptcy, mortgage litigation, foreclosure and loan modifications. The substantial truth is that but for the fraudulent advertising of his legal expertise, clients would not have suffered injury.

19. The aggregate point here is that Defendant made statements about Plaintiff on its blog that were true. If a date was inaccurate as to the true statement or a name was misspelled within the true statement, the statement is still substantially true and as such and Plaintiff’s embarrassment or anger for having the truth revealed does not mitigate the substantial truth of the statement and as such, cannot be a cause of action for defamation.

20. Defendant can also assert that the statements on its blog fall into the “fair report privilege” as set forth in California Civil Code section 47 (d) and (e). Defendant reported on facts contained in publicly available government reports, government records, and statements made by government officials. Every post published on Defendant’s blog had at least one reference to the following categories:

(a) Links to online corroborating, documentary evidence from a state governmental or regulatory body including the California State Bar, California Secretary of State, the California Department of Real Estate, and/or the Department of Corporations;

(b) Law specific to the legal practice area of mortgage loan modifications, i.e., California Civil Code section 2945-2945.11 (also known as “The California Foreclosure Consultants Act and the California Rules of Professional Conduct specifically Rule 1-320 prohibiting attorneys from sharing legal fees with non-attorneys and Rule 1-400 governing allowable advertising and solicitation methods.

(c) Plaintiff’s very own business contracts and addenda to said business. Contracts that were boilerplate documents and were constantly sent by Plaintiff via the Internet and was, as such, in the public domain; and

(d) Plaintiff’s very own marketing materials, press releases, blog reports, and Website content all of which was mass marketed in the public domain.

(e) Defendant also drew facts from the Attorney General’s “Consumer Alert” dated February 5, 2009 warning consumer against paying upfront fees for loan modifications among other warning; California State Bar “Ethics Alert warning its member attorneys from accepting solicitations from mortgage and real estate professionals to front loan modification companies; and various and sundry quotes from nationally-recognized publications properly crediting back the source.

21. Defendant can also adequately assert the defense of “Opinion and Fair Comment Privileges The right to speak guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the right to voice opinions, criticize others, and comment on matters of public interest. It also protects the use of hyperbole and extreme statements when it is clear these are rhetorical ploys. Accordingly, you can safely state your opinion that others are inept, stupid, jerks, failures, etc. even though these statements might hurt the subject’s feelings or diminish their reputations. Such terms represent what is called “pure opinions” because they can’t be proven true or false. As a result, they cannot form the basis for a defamation claim.

22. Even if Plaintiff argues that the “opinion” of Defendant was stated on its blog due to ulterior motives that predicated its injured reputation resulting in lost revenue, they were still derived from truthful facts, thus protected even if Defendant’s opinion turns out to be incorrect. The Court must look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement and its publication to determine how a reasonable person would view the statement. Under this test, the difference between an opinion and a fact often comes down to a case-by-case analysis of the publication’s context. Since Plaintiff fails to draw any such comparisons in its pleadings, the ability of Defendant to argue its position on such comparison is not available.

23. In Jewell v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 23 F. Supp.2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) the Court ruled that a statement in the New York Post that referred to the plaintiff as a “fat, failed, former sheriff’s deputy” was protected opinion because it was hyperbole and had an “alliterative quality” with a “rhetorical effect indicative of a statement of opinion

24. In Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting, 97 Cal. App. 4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002), the Court found that Statements on a radio talk show that described the plaintiff as a “chicken butt “local loser” and “big skank” were not defamatory because they were “too vague to be capable of being proven true or false” and had “no generally accepted meaning

25. And finally, defamation has a natural tendency to injure the plaintiff in its office, business, or occupation within the meaning of the rule when it strikes to the qualification for the performance of his duties in the situation, or when it alleges such misconduct or negligence in the course of transacting those duties. {Camp v. Martin, 23 Conn. 86).

26. Defendant has already established that Plaintiff lacks the requisite qualifications to perform the duties for which he claims to be an expert. Defendant has also shown through this pleading and one other in this matter that Plaintiff has shown exorbitant negligence and misconduct in the course of transacting the duties for which he claims to be an expert. It is Defendant’s position that it is its obligation to its readers to alert them of said facts and that by doing so is serving the greater good of the public and in no way constitutes defamation.

27. In additional to these arguments, there exists an issue of prior restraint. The Court ordered an injunction prohibiting Defendant from publishing information about Plaintiff vital to the welfare of consumers in foreclosure.

28. As soon as the Judgment was entered (albeit in a very underhanded manner), Plaintiff set out on an aggressive course of action to eliminate every single published report about its fraud against consumers in foreclosure and used the ensuing time to source different geographical areas it had not yet marketed to reclaim its standing with other loan modification “law firms” in the competitive arena.

29. The Judgment entered against Defendant prohibiting the good work it did to warn consumers about Plaintiff acted in concert with the fraud and was the catalyst to hundreds of additional consumers losing thousands of dollars and eventually their homes.

30. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger finally answered Defendant’s constant barrage of requests on Sacramento and introduced Senate Bill 194 which will prohibit attorneys from collecting advanced payment in connection with loan modification services.

31. In 2007, when the California Foreclosure Consultant’s Act (Civil Code Section 2945-2945.11) was enacted, it contained a grave legislative error. It exempted attorneys from the prohibition of collecting upfront fees. Thousands of law firms, including Plaintiff, formed loan modification “law firms” to circumvent this Act but failed to provide licensed and qualified attorneys to perform the legal services. Rather, Plaintiff and the others staffed the “law firms” with foreclosure consultants for whom the statute had been written.

32. Had it not been for Defendant’s grueling (yet rewarding) work for the past nine (9) months diligently researching and reporting about law firms operating in this illegal manner, thousands more consumers would have been defrauded in the same manner that Plaintiff defrauded thousands of consumers over the past two years. As such, the Judgment entered against Defendant aided and abetted Parsa Law Group in the perpetuation of its illegal activities because it prohibited Defendant from warning consumers through its blog in direct violation of its First Amendment right against prior restraint.

33. Plaintiff could not even prove defamation as evidenced by the ruling on the Preliminary Injunction; how is it possible that it was successful in obtaining a Permanent Injunction and award of $650, 000 against Defendant?

34. In light of these facts, Defendant has no qualms whatsoever and does not for one moment believe that this request is in conflict with its mission to offer free resources to consumers. Defendant believes that the monetary award of $20, 000.00 will go a long way toward continuing our good work. We do not accept gifts, donations or payment of any kind and we simply ask that the consumer we help “pay it forward” and help someone else for free. The award will also allow us to reward the attorneys that have helped us throughout the past sic months for an extremely nominal charge. Defendant’s time away from its work to defend this ill-intentioned and frivolous action is worth 100 times more than the requested monetary award. However, Defendant values the notion of fairness and equity and wants to get back to work without restraint as quickly as possible.

35. In accordance with the Judgment, Defendant’s future publications were stopped before they were started and represent a cause of action for unconstitutional prior restraint of free speech. In William Blackstone’s Commentaries, “Freedom of the Press this constitutional right is defined as “the right to be free from prior restraints In addition, Blackstone held that “a person should not be punished for speaking or writing the truth with good motives and for justifiable ends

36. Blackstone continues, “Every free man has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he please before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press�� (4 Bl.Com.151) This was the cornerstone of the First Amendment and although the law has become much more sophisticated, this simple truth cannot be denied in this action or any other action of this sort.

37. Prior restraint is often considered a particularly oppressive form of censorship in because it prevents the restricted material from being heard or distributed at all. Other forms of restrictions on expression (such as suits for libel, slander, defamation, or actions for criminal libel) generally involve punishment only after the offending material has been published. While such punishment might lead to a chilling effect, legal commentators argue that at least such actions do not directly impoverish the marketplace of ideas. Prior restraint, on the other hand, takes an idea or material completely out of the marketplace. Thus it is often considered to be the most extreme form of censorship. The United States Supreme Court expressed this view in Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart (427 U.S. 539) (1976) by noting:

“The thread running through all these cases is that prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights. A criminal penalty or a judgment in a defamation case is subject to the whole panoply of protections afforded by deferring the impact of the judgment until all avenues of appellate review have been exhausted. Only after judgment has become final, correct or otherwise, does the law’s sanction become fully operative.

“A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction. If it can be said that a threat of criminal or civil sanctions after publication ‘chills’ speech, prior restraint ‘freezes’ it at least for the time

38. The first notable case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on a prior restraint issue was Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). In that case the Court held prior restraints to be unconstitutional, except in extremely limited circumstances such as national security issues. The ruling came about after Jay Near’s newspaper, The Saturday Press, a small local paper that ran countless exposés of Minneapolis’s elected officials’ alleged illicit activities, including gambling, racketeering, and graft, was silenced by the Minnesota Gag Law of 1925, also known as The Public Nuisance Law. Near’s critics called his paper a scandal sheet, and alleged that he tried to extort money threatening to publish attacks on officials and others. In the Near case the Court held that the state had no power to enjoin the publication of the paper in this way – that any such action would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. It wrote:

”If we cut through mere details of procedure, the operation and effect of the statute in substance is that public authorities may bring the owner or publisher of a newspaper or periodical before a judge upon a charge of conducting a business of publishing scandalous and defamatory matter-in particular that the matter consists of charges against public officers of official dereliction-and, unless the owner or publisher is able and disposed to bring competent evidence to satisfy the judge that the charges are true and are published with good motives and for justifiable ends, his newspaper or periodical is suppressed and further publication is made punishable as a contempt. This is of the essence of censorship."

And

”The statute in question cannot be justified by reason of the fact that the publisher is permitted to show, before injunction issues, that the matter published is true and is published with good motives and for justifiable ends. … it would be but a step to a complete system of censorship. … The preliminary freedom, by virtue of the very reason for its existence, does not depend, as this court has said, on proof of truth. (Patterson v. Colorado 205 U.S. 454, 462.

39. This was an extension of the Court’s earlier views, which had followed Blackstone. In Patterson v. Colorado, the Court had written:

“In the first place, the main purpose of such constitutional provisions is ‘to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare (quoted in the Near decision). The Near decision was the first time that it was held that even alleged untruth or malicious intent would not be sufficient reason to impose prior restraints. Near was decided 5-4, and the four dissenting justices strongly approved of the “gag law and felt that the nature of the articles in the Saturday Press, including their recurrent anti-Semitism, their frequent (allegedly false) accusations of official misconduct, and their disrespectful and confrontational tone, made them unworthy of protection. But this view did not prevail. After the Near decision, newspapers had a clearly established freedom to criticize public officials without fear of retribution, even when charges made by the papers could not be proven in court. Newspapers could still be punished through libel laws, if they published material found to be untrue. It should be noted that the “Gag Law” was unique in the United States at that time, and even in Minnesota had only been used on two occasions. Indeed the Court commented on the unusual nature of the proceeding in its decision

40. The Court in Near left open the possibility of prior restraints for various exceptional purposes, such as national security, control of obscenity, and the like. It wrote: "The protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. But the limitation has been recognized only in exceptional cases. ‘When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52, 39 S. Ct. 247, 249). No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops. On similar grounds, the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications. The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government

41. In Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, the Court wrote:

“The principles enunciated in Near were so universally accepted that the precise issue did not come before us again until Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (402 U.S. 415) (1971). There the state courts had enjoined the petitioners from picketing or passing out literature of any kind in a specified area. Noting the similarity to Near v. Minnesota, a unanimous Court held:

“Here, as in that case, the injunction operates, not to redress alleged private wrongs, but to suppress, on the basis of previous publications, distribution of literature `of any kind’ in a city of 18, 000. . . . . .

“Any prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a `heavy presumption’ against its constitutional validity. Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 181 (1968); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963). Respondent thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint


The bottom line is that we refuse to play in the same sand lot as the criminals. We don't see a reason to defend ourselves anymore; the truth is the truth.


By the way, the text above was for a Motion which was denied on a technicality - not on the merits. Shame on you Judge Franz Miller. You should know better.

Bad Biz Finder

Hi,

Is this company for real? I submitted all my document and they didn't do anything. Called my lender and nothing was even submited. Why would i pay someone $3000 to do nothing? I can do it myself!!

Anyone know how to do a loan modification? or what is the best way of doing a loan modification? Should I call my lender directly to deal with them? I tried to deal with my lender, CountryWide but they just keep on delaying me and told me to call back.. and call back. what info do they actually need?

Can someone recommend a good lawyer that does this?? and not a scam!! I can't find anyone who does this legit and not scam the us. please advise..

thanks