Comments by ErinBaldwin

Page 1 of 1

Posted on July 22 at 4:30 p.m.

Mr. Sadler,

I want to commend you for this precise and articulate summary. I am of the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts acted to renew public confidence in the High Court and lower federal courts, an action unrelated to politics.

In America, the legitimacy of government depends on the consent and approval of the governed and public confidence in the administration of justice is indispensable. It is not enough that our judges be impartial; the public must perceive them as such. I believe this concept was instrumental in Chief Roberts' decision.

The present "perception" in the Ninth Circuit and its district courts is that "the governed" cannot and will not prevail against big business and California state agencies. The "consent and approval" of citizens is not a matter of concern in the Ninth Circuit and the result is utter lawlessness and a system of courts void of due administration of justice.

Public confidence is non-existent in the Ninth Circuit and its district courts because the vast majority of judicial officers shamelessly and repeatedly demonstrate disregard for the law. This lawlessness not only impedes public confidence but prevents citizens from exercising their constitutional right to petition the courts.

The above facts are graphically demonstrated in my petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit filed on July 15, 2012, see:

I have to hold on to the hope that Chief Justice Roberts' decision was based, in part, on the critical need to renew public confidence in our courts. If so, it would necessarily involve the Ninth Circuit and its district courts and would alter the course of justice for many, many American citizens currently denied equal protection of the law.

Erin K. Baldwin

On Jurists and Consequences

Page 1 of 1

event calendar sponsored by: