Alexander C. Baker

3505 8th Ave.,

Los Angeles, CA 90018

323-313-7653

DVRO Respondent in pro per

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

 

CLARA VESELIZA BAKER

 

       DVRO Petitioner,

                          v.

 

ALEXANDER COLLIN BAKER,

 

      DVRO Respondent.

 

Case No. LD068701

Related Case: LC103241

 

VERIFIED OPPOSITION TO DVRO PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE DV-700 HEARING DATE

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER C. BAKER

 

Date: January 15, 2021

Time: 8:30 AM

Dept.: 22

Judge: Hon. Michael Powell

 

Table of Contents

I.    INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 2

II.    ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................... 2

A.    Advancing the DV-700 Hearing Defeats the Legislature’s Intent Under CCP § 425.16 2

1.    Purpose of Anti-SLAPP............................................................................... 2

2.    All of Clara’s Pending Claims Arise From Alex’s First Amendment Rights, and Are Not Restrained Under the DVRO.............................................................................. 3

3.    If Alex’s Anti-SLAPP is Granted in Full, Clara’s DV-700 Will Be Denied 3

4.    If Any Part of Alex’s Anti-SLAPP is Denied, It Will Be Appealed and the DV-700 Will Be Automatically Stayed.......................................................................................... 3

5.    If the DV-700 Is Granted Immediately After the Anti-SLAPP is Denied, Alex Is Precluded From Taking Advantage of the Automatic Stay.............................................. 3

6.    Conclusion to Legislative Intent................................................................ 4

B.    Clara Suffers No Prejudice From Denial of Hearing Date Advance....... 4

C.    Judicial Economy Favors Denying the Hearing Date Advance............... 4

D.    There Are No Exigent Circumstances Warranting Ex Parte Relief........ 4

III.     Brief Responses to Clara’s Red Herrings...................... 5

A.    The Prior Erroneous Notice of Appeal Was Filed by Paralegal Alexander Baker, Working In The Office of Attorney Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy......................... 5

B.    The Most Obvious Explanation for Why Attorney Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy has Gone Missing is that She Is Afraid of Being Murdered................................................. 6

C.    The Most Obvious Reason that Judge Michael Powell Refused to Admit the Bank Records Into the July 20, 2020 Contempt Action is That He Was Afraid of Being Murdered      8

IV.    OVERALL CONCLUSION............................................................................ 8


 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I.             INTRODUCTION

Respondent and DVRO Petitioner Clara Veseliza Baker (“Clara”) moves to advance the hearing date of her DV-700 Request to Renew DVRO to January 22, 2021, the date of the hearing for Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike brought by Petitioner and DVRO Respondent Alexander C. Baker (“Alex”). This is clearly just another corrupt attempt illegally avoid the mandates of CCP § 425.16 (the “Anti-SLAPP statute”), which hold (1) that an Anti-SLAPP motion must be heard prior to the trial on the challenged pleading, (2) that a denial of an Anti-SLAPP is immediately appealable, and (3) that there is an automatic stay of the challenged issue until the Anti-SLAPP appeal is complete.

Alex has never violated the DVRO. Clara states that Alex has “violated the restraining order on multiple occasions”, but never explains what she is talking about. All she does is list a number of legal actions taken by Alex and his attorney Marc Angelucci, and list some publications made by Post Modern Justice Media Project, a nonprofit organization for which Alex serves as President. Everything Clara complains about is a First Amendment protected activity, i.e. the precise type of Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) that the Anti-SLAPP statute was intended to stop.

It will be shown that to advance the DV-700 hearing would defeat the purpose of the Anti-SLAPP Statute, that Clara suffers no prejudice from the denial of this application, that Judicial Economy favors denying this application, that there are no exigent circumstances warranting ex parte relief, nor has Clara even alleged that there are. Exigency is a required element of any ex parte application, but Clara couldn’t be bothered.

Moreover, it will be shown that the only reason that Judge Powell has let this corrupt tactic proceed this far is the same reason he allowed attorney Joe Yanny to get away with $85,722 on July 20, 2020 – that he is afraid of being murdered, the way Alex’s attorney Marc Angelucci was murdered nine days before, on July 11, 2020, a day that will live in infamy.

II.          ARGUMENT

A.        Advancing the DV-700 Hearing Defeats the Legislature’s Intent Under CCP § 425.16

1.      Purpose of Anti-SLAPP

The anti-SLAPP motion is a procedural remedy, designed to quickly identify and dispose of lawsuits brought to chill the valid exercise of a party’s constitutional right of petition or free speech. CCP § 425.16(a)); see also Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc. (2004) 122 CA4th 1049, 1055-1056, 18 CR3d 882, 886—a “quick and inexpensive method for unmasking and dismissing such suits”.

2.      All of Clara’s Pending Claims Arise From Alex’s First Amendment Rights, and Are Not Restrained Under the DVRO

Clara’s pending DV-700 seeks to renew and make permanent the DVRO issued in September 2017. Clara now alleges she fears that Alex “will abuse me in the future” and needs permanent protection because Alex “violated the restraining order on multiple occasions”. See DV-700, Supp. Dec. of Clara, ¶ 4. A review of the DV-700 makes it absolutely obvious that each and every instance that Clara now contends “violated the restraining order” was an act arising from Alex’s right to petition, or his right to publish content in the public interest. Thus, Alex’s Anti-SLAPP Motion is appropriate.

 

 

 

3.      If Alex’s Anti-SLAPP is Granted in Full, Clara’s DV-700 Will Be Denied

The Anti-SLAPP Motion separately attacks 159 individual statements within Clara’s DV-700, each of which must be ruled on separately. If all 159 statements are stricken, nothing of substance will remain within the DV-700, and will be denied.

4.      If Any Part of Alex’s Anti-SLAPP is Denied, It Will Be Appealed and the DV-700 Will Be Automatically Stayed

Conversely, if any part of the Anti-SLAPP Motion is denied, then Court, Clara and her attorneys may rest assured that the matter will be immediately appealed.

An appeal from an order granting or denying a § 425.16 motion automatically stays all further proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion. Varian Med. Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 C4th 180, 191-192, 25 CR3d 298, 307-308 (judgment rendered while appeal pending was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; see also Grewal v. Jammu (2011) 191 CA4th 977, 1001, 119 CR3d 835, 854).

5.      If the DV-700 Is Granted Immediately After the Anti-SLAPP is Denied, Alex Is Precluded From Taking Advantage of the Automatic Stay

The Los Angeles Superior Court now requires parties to make an appointment to file a Notice of Appeal. It takes at least one court day to do so. Thus, if the Court hears the Anti-SLAPP on January 22, 2021, and denies all or any part of it, but then goes on  hears the DV-700, and grants it, then Alex is forever denied the opportunity to take advantage of the automatic Stay given in the Anti-SLAPP statute. This obviously defeats the clear intent of the Legislature. If the Legislature wanted the possibility that a trial proceeding could go forward after a denied Anti-SLAPP, the Legislature would not have included provisions for an immediate appeal, or for the automatic stay.

6.      Conclusion to Legislative Intent

Therefore, the Court must deny Clara’s application to advance the hearing date on DV-700.

 

B.        Clara Suffers No Prejudice From Denial of Hearing Date Advance

The DVRO is in full force and will remain so until the DV-700 is completed, regardless of the Anti-SLAPP or anything else. Conversely, Alex is greatly prejudiced by advancing the hearing date, because it precludes him from taking advantage of the immediate appeal and automatic stay. Supra.

Therefore, the Court must deny Clara’s application to advance the hearing date on DV-700.

C.        Judicial Economy Favors Denying the Hearing Date Advance

The Court should not waste time allowing the DV-700 trial to proceed, knowing that it is improper to do so. It is improper for the reasons explained above. Should the Court persist in allowing the DV-700 trial to proceed, in the face of the Anti-SLAPP, it will constitute further evidence that Judge Powell is making decisions based his fear of being murdered, or his having been bribed, or both. (See infra regarding Judge Powell letting attorney Joseph A. “Joe” Yanny (State Bar # 97979) get away with stealing $85,722 from the trust account).

Therefore, the Court must deny Clara’s application to advance the hearing date on DV-700.

D.        There Are No Exigent Circumstances Warranting Ex Parte Relief

It is true that this Court invited Clara to file ex parte for an advance of the hearing date, but it was improper and unauthorized for the Court to do so. Clearly the plan here is to subvert the Anti-SLAPP, by advancing the DV-700. Insofar as the DVRO remains in full force until the DV-700 is complete, there is simply no argument for ex parte advancement of the hearing date. Furthermore, Clara has not argued that any exigent circumstances exists.

Indeed, it is Alex who has a right to a speedy trial, because Alex is the Respondent / Defendant to this action. If the Anti-SLAPP is granted (as it certainly should be), and Clara’s DV-700 is stripped of all claims arising from Alex’s speech and petitioning, then it is Alex who would then (and only then) rightly apply to advance the hearing date, so that this unwarranted and unconstitutional DVRO may be done away with.

Therefore, the Court must deny Clara’s application to advance the hearing date on DV-700.

III.       Brief Responses to Clara’s Red Herrings

As usual, Clara brings red herrings to distract from the obvious fact that no domestic violence has ever occurred in this matter, and she certainly does not need any protective order.

A.        The Prior Erroneous Notice of Appeal Was Filed by Paralegal Alexander Baker, Working In The Office of Attorney Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy

Clara’s attorney Mike DiNardo tries to make hay out of the unfortunate circumstances around the disappearance of attorney Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy (State Bar # 302813). Ms. Baldwin-Kennedy was retained on a limited-scope basis to represent Alex for the Anti-SLAPP and any appeal therefrom. But the relationship between Alex and Ms. Baldwin-Kennedy goes well beyond that.

Attorney Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy was co-counsel to Alex’s prior attorney in this case (and the related civil fraud case), Marc Angelucci. As the Court will recall, Marc Angelucci was murdered on July 11, 2020, just days before he was to testify in Dept. 1 about court corruption in these cases, and just days before he was to prosecute Clara’s lead attorney Joe Yanny for Contempt, related to Yanny’s having provably taken $85,722 from the trust account.

As Judge Jessner (Dept. 1) and Judge Watkins (Dept. T) were made well-aware during prior hearings in the related civil fraud action, Alex was working as a litigation paralegal for Mr. Angelucci. Alex researched and drafted numerous papers for Mr. Angelucci’s cases in state and federal court, at the trial court and appellate levels. Besides working on his own cases, Alex was involved in 4 other cases with Mr. Angelucci. Included among those other cases was a State Court appeal and a federal Civil Rights action on behalf of Mr. Angelucci’s client Andrea Wood.

After attorney Marc Angelucci was murdered, attorney Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy took over several of his clients, among them Andrea Wood. Alex drafted and filed (on behalf of Ms. Baldwin-Kennedy’s Office), numerous litigation documents in the Andrea Wood case, including but not limited to an Anti-SLAPP Motion in case Superior Court case J17-00914, Hon. Barbara Hinton presiding.

In August 2020, in addition to the cases inherited from Angelucci, Ms. Baldwin-Kennedy hired Alex to draft a Third Amended Complaint in one of her pre-existing cases, 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB, pending in the Eastern District of California. Alex also drafted the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss in that federal case.

Alex appeared along side Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy at numerous of her hearings. One time, on August 4, 2020, after a hearing in Dept. 5, Judge Michael Small presiding, in case no. 18STPB09873, originally to be handled by the recently slain Marc Angelucci, Alex and Ms. Baldwin-Kennedy unexpectedly encountered Clara’s attorney Joe Yanny, outside the Grand Ave. entrance of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.  Alex attempted to politely introduce the two attorneys, but Mr. Yanny abruptly ended what appeared to be his sidewalk meeting with 3 other men in suits, left, walking quickly away, south along Grand Ave.

Alex did indeed draft the erroneous Notice of Appeal referred to in Clara’s instant ex parte application, thus it is not surprising that his name appears in the “metadata”. Alex did indeed file, on behalf of the Law Office of Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy, the erroneous Notice of Appeal in this matter. It is clearly erroneous, because it lists Andrea Wood as the Petitioner, and Walnut Creek as the Courthouse. Alex was authorized by Ms. Baldwin-Kennedy to affix her electronic signature, and to file the paper, as he had done numerous times before.

B.        The Most Obvious Explanation for Why Attorney Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy has Gone Missing is that She Is Afraid of Being Murdered

By all accounts - including the accounts of Alex, the accounts of numerous of her clients, and now the account of attorney Mike DiNardo - attorney Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy has, for all intents and purposes, disappeared. As this Court will recall, Ms. Baldwin-Kennedy appeared in this case, in this department, on September 23, 2020. On the record, the Court continued the matter to October 29, 2020, and Ms. Baldwin-Kennedy checked her calendar and agreed to appear. As the Court may recall, Ms. Baldwin-Kennedy was a candidate for Congress, and requested a date after the November 5, 2020 election, but the Court was not receptive to that request.

 Attorney Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy did not appear at the October 29, 2020 hearing in this department, despite Alex’s numerous attempts to contact her. Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy just disappeared, on many people, all related to Marc Angelucci.

Alex believes that attorney Marc Angelucci was murdered because he was willing to stand up and fight court corruption, including but not limited to corruption in this case. Marc Angelucci had previously sued a judge in Ventura County, and was involved in the infamous Jerry Cox cases in Mariposa County, involving allegations that Receiver and attorney Mark Adams had corruptly and illegally caused the seizure and sale of Jerry Cox’s property.

Alex is the President of Post Modern Justice Media Project (“PMJMP”), a nonprofit that educates the public by documenting and publicizing court corruption. See http://www.pmjmp.org. Alex has made and published videos discussing his evidence and reasoning supporting his opinion that Marc Angelucci was murdered to protect court corruption. PMJMP takes the position that various judges in the Los Angeles Superior Court are corrupt, and makes all efforts to publicize this position, and no effort to hide it.

It is crystal-clear to anyone with legal training that this case, and many of the other cases handled by Marc Angelucci, were marred by corruption.  In fact, Marc Angelucci was well-aware that his life was in danger because he was fighting corruption, as he made known to Alex in a text message of 12-12-2019. In that text Marc Angelucci shared a poem that began, “Corrupt judges, they must be fought, and if that fails…” Angelucci made Alex promise to keep that poem confidential. “But if anything happens to me” Angelucci continued, “tell everybody I wrote it and I meant it”. Alex vows to continue Mr. Angelucci’s fight, dubbing him “Fallen Angel, Angel of Light”. However, Alex realizes not everyone is willing to risk their life in the hopes of exposing court corruption.

For these reasons, Alex believes that the most logical explanation for why Attorney Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy went missing is that she is afraid of being murdered, or that she was bribed, or both.

C.        The Most Obvious Explanation that Judge Michael Powell Pretended Not To Understand The Trust Fund Order, and That He Refused to Admit the Bank Records Into the July 20, 2020 Contempt Action is That He Was Afraid of Being Murdered

Attorney Marc Angelucci was set to prosecute attorney Joe Yanny for Contempt of Court on July 20, 2020 in this Department. Joe Yanny is not only the lead attorney in this case, but is the criminal attorney and proud member of the notorious Mongols Nation, an often-convicted RICO racketeering enterprise, methamphetamine dealing and murder-for-hire motorcycle gang.

The evidence was overwhelming that, in direct violation of the September 27, 2017 Order of Comm. Alicia Y. Blanco, attorney Joseph A. Yanny did remove a total of $85,722 from the real estate trust account in this case.

With Mr. Angelucci savagely assassinated with four bullets to his back and the back of his skull just 9 days prior, the Contempt proceeding against Joe Yanny went forward with Alex representing himself. Judge Powell pretended that the relevant court order – which stated that the real estate proceeds “will not be touched” – was too vague to be enforced. When Alex attempted to introduce into evidence the bank records showing Mr. Yanny took the money, Judge Powell repeatedly went “off the record”, and admonished Alex for being rude.

Joe Yanny’s guilt for taking the trust fund money could not be more obvious, nor could the evidence be more clear. Of course, no case will be proven if the Judge goes off the record and disallows the “smoking gun” evidence to be presented, or pretends that an order stating the money “will not be touched” means anything besides the money will not be touched.

For theses reasons, Alex believes that the most likely reason that on the afternoon of July 20, 2020 in Dept. 22 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge Michael Powell let Joe Yanny get away with $85,722 is that he is afraid of being murdered, or that he was bribed, or both.

D.        The Most Obvious Explanation for Why Judge Powell Did Not Grant Alex Attorney Fees So He Can Have an Attorney At Trial Is That He Is Afraid of Being Murdered

Clara has admitting giving her attorneys over $200,000 to date, while currently owing them an additional $1.5 million. This is extraordinary, considering this case is worth at most, about $500,000. Alex has a present net worth of approximately $0, a fact known to all involved. Unless there is much more than meets the eye, there is no reason why any attorneys - let alone Clara’s very high-priced team of Criminal Defense, Family Law, Intellectual Property, and Civil Litigation attorneys from three different firms – go $1.5 million deep into this case.

California law is very clear that parties are to have equal access to community funds for legal fees. Under Family Code § 2030, it is unfair for one party to have one attorney, let alone a well-coordinated team of three law firms, when the other does not. Yet that is the situation that has been allowed to persist.

Alex brought a Family Code § 2030 motion for attorney fees, and requested $50,000 for attorney March Angelucci to represent Alex at trial in this case. The motion kept getting delayed and continued and postponed and pushed back.  It took over a year, but finally the attorney fee motion was heard, in this department, on July 23, 2020. Unfortunately, Marc Angelucci had his head blown off 12 days prior.

At the July 23, 2020 hearing, Judge Powell listened to Clara explain how she owed so much money, and Alex pointed out the above absurdities regarding the attorney fees vs. the value of the case, and how Alex had offered to “walk away” from all claims three years ago, but how that was not good enough for these people.

Judge Powell denied Alex § 2030 request for fees, finding that for Alex to have an attorney would be a “waste of community resources”.

For these reasons, Alex believes that the most logical explanation for why Judge Powell denied Alex an attorney is that he was afraid of being murdered, or had been bribed, or both.

 

IV.        OVERALL CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court should deny Clara’s ex parte application to advance the hearing date on her DV-700 Request to Renew DVRO.

 

     Respectfully submitted on January 13, 2021,

 

 

             

                       Alexander C. Baker        

               DVRO Respondent in pro per

 

 

 

DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER C. BAKER

 

  1. I am the DVRO Respondent (Defendant) to this case. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in the above memorandum. I have reviewed the memorandum, and I attest and swear to its accuracy.

  2. As to those facts beyond my personal knowledge, I believe them to be true, based on reasonable inferences. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.

  3. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

 

     Respectfully submitted on January 13, 2021,

 

 

 

       DVRO Respondent Alexander C. Baker

 

 

In the underlying DVRO matter, Hon. Alicia Y. Blanco decided that correct captioning was “Clara – Petitioner”,  and “Alex – Respondent”, after Clara’s attorney initially pleaded the matter the other way around.  Much confusion ensued, and we all decided to use first names, a practice that persisted through the appeal. No disrespect.

Attorney Marc Angelucci was on the witness list to testify for the Motion to Set Aside the corrupt dismissal of the entire fraud case, LC103241, originally set for hearing 8:30 AM on July 9, 2020, then mysteriously “postponed” to July 14, 2020 at the very last minute, via a cryptic phone call by a very nervous-sounding clerk in Dept. 1 at 3:30 PM on July 8, 2020.

© 2020 by Post Modern Justice Media Project