Starbucks Inc. (Nasdaq:sbux)obstruction of justice


Starbucks, inc. (nasdaq:sbux) participates in obstruction of justice in big bear lake, california
Posted on february 16, 2010 by thebigbearianreturns | edit
At approximately 6:00 p.M. On september 19, 2009, deputy james wijnhamer, a san bernardino sheriff (big bear station) wrote incident report no. [protected] in connection with an assault that took place an hour earlier inside starbucks at interlaken center in big bear lake, california.


1. Keith daniel white, a felon, ex-convict, and real estate agent with a highly restricted real estate license due to his time in prison and the nature of the crimes committed. (see: california department of real estate license no. [protected] – he is employed by michael p. Dolan, owner of prudential properties of big bear. This company has seen its share of problems as well. They are now on their fifth broker of record and it is currently rodney graves of security pacific mortgage. Security pacific mortgage is also on a restricted license. (see: california department of real estate license no. [protected] –

2. Patricia ann white, (keith’s wife) an administrative assistant at cornerstone mortage company, based in houston, texas. It has been noted that she assists her husband in what they term “grey area mortgage loans” across state lines through cornerstone. Patty telecommutes as a human resources administrative assistant for the company and also serves as keith’s loan processor.


Erin kelly baldwin, a business consultant, civil and consumer rights activist, and ex-housemate of the whites. Baldwin resided with the whites from july 21 – august 10, 2009 and left on her own accord under stressful but amicable terms. The stress was caused by an unfortunate set of circumstances surrounding her employment at prudential properties of big bear as well as friction caused by the inappropriate behavior of a married man (keith white) and an already rocky marriage.

Wijnhamer’s preliminary report &

Baldwin’s request for wijnhamer assistance

Deputy wijnhamer suggested that baldwin obtain a temporary restraining order against the whites and advised that his report would be ready for pickup at the big bear sheriff station on summit boulevard within 5-10 days.

After wijnhamer completed his investigation of several witnesses at the scene of the crime he set off to find and interview the about 15 minutes he called baldwin when he didn’t find the whites at home to obtain a cell phone number to reach them. Baldwin gave wijnhamer patty white’s cell phone number.

That’s where his report ends. Baldwin attempted for the next three months to get a completed report from deputy james wijnhamer and his required assistance in obtaining the video camera surveillance footage from starbucks.

He completely ignored her and never finished his investigation.

He also never participated in obtaining the suveillance footage which is required by starbucks, inc.

According to krista osborne, director, partner & asset protection, “a civilian cannot obtain footage without the express written request of a police officer.”

But what if that police officer is unwilling to assist and participate in the action?

Baldwin became so frustrated she published a blog article called, “shout out to big bear sheriff’s deputy james wijnhamer on october 30, 2009:

Hi jim,

Since the end of september i’ve left you 3 messages at the sheriff’s department, one message with your lovely wife, and I know my pal jim goodrum at big bear recovery center has left you 2 messages.

Why aren’t you calling me back?

On september 19, 2009, you were the deputy that came to starbucks interlaken center at 5:21 p.M. When keith and patty white assaulted me.

You wrote incident report number [protected] and I got a copy from the station.

However, I have a couple of questions and one request and that’s why i’ve been trying to reach you. Please call me at your earliest convenience. This is a matter of utmost importance and I would appreciate your cooperation.

I know you have my number and if not just shoot me an email at [protected]

First, the request. I have had several discussions with starbucks corporate office and in order for me to get the surveillance footage of the white’s assault on me which is the subject of your incident report, starbucks requires that you request it on my behalf.

I have the entire starbucks protocol written down to obtain the video and we can discuss this when you call me back. It was my hope to get this footage before patty and keith white fraudulently obtained a restraining order against me yesterday, but well, I guess it wasn’t a priority for you.

However, I still need the footage as I am pursuing other legal matters in connection with the whites.

Also, a few questions:

1. Did you ever interview keith and patty white about this incident?

2. If no, why not?

3. If yes, why isn’t their testimony included in your incident report?

4. Your report states that after you left starbucks you went by their house at 321 wabash avenue in sugarloaf and they were not home. Then you called me on my cell phone and asked for a telephone number to reach the whites other than their home telephone number. I gave you patty white’s cell phone number. Did you call it?

5. If yes, what happened next?

6. If no, why not?

7. Your incident report also states at 18:07:04: “neg contact will do inc cad report at res to see if they come home.” would you please explain this to me? What is an inc cad report? Did they come home?

8. Then from 18:23:37 through 18:33:55 you documented my statement and the statements of witnesses and starbucks’ personnel. Did you make contact with the whites that night?

9. At 18:33:55 you closed your incident report. Was that the end of your investigation?

10. What has transpired since then? Did you follow-up with the whites?

11. If yes, what happened?

12. If no, why not?

Well, that just about does it. Thanks so much for your anticipated cooperation.

Best regards, erin baldwin


Starbucks personnel – night of the incident

On the evening of the assault, baldwin spoke to the store manager, kirsten scotti, at her home on the telephone, as she was not working that night. Ms. Scotti contacted dena davis, district manager, who arrived at the store shortly thereafter to speak with baldwin.

Prior to davis arriving, baldwin spoke and met with alex hanford, shift supervisor, the person in charge and completed documents pertaining to the incident.

Hanford informed baldwin that a formal starbucks incident report would be completed and that she would get a copy of the documents they were completing together and a copy of the incident report. Baldwin never received anything from starbucks.

Starbucks corporate incident report no.7457256 was completed in the next couple of days.

Within an hour baldwin was meeting with dena davis, district manager, and they spoke at length about the events. Davis requested that baldwin write down exactly what happened and to send the statement to her in an email.

This is the first of many requests baldwin made for a copy of the video camera surveillance footage.

September 19, 2009

[please be warned that this account is true and correct and contains very profane language. Also, keep in mind that keith white is on the church council and the head of recovery mininstry for big bear foursquare church and his wife is in charge of the church website.]

From: erin baldwin

To: [protected]

Sent: saturday, september 19, 2009 7:31:28 pm

Subject: follow-up on incident – request for videotape

Hello ms. Davis:

Thank you for taking the time to stop by and speak with me personally today regarding the incident of assault that occurred at the starbucks store within your district at interlaken center in big bear lake. As requested, here is documentation of what happened here today, saturday, september 19, 2009, at approximately 5:10 pm.

I was sitting inside the starbucks store at the table against the wall in front of the cash register (directly in line with a surveillance camera) working on my computer. Patty and keith white (of 321 wabash avenue, sugarloaf, ca) came into the store and approached me and startled me, because keith white rushed up to me and shouted, “you skanky whore.”

I said, “oh my god, you scared me, ” to which he remarked, “you should be scared.” then he got right in my face and pointed his finger at me and started shouting obscenities.

Then his wife, patty white, sat down at the table and said, “how dare you, you skank, you #, you #ing whore.”

Then she slammed the computer screen down on my lap top and grabbed the pen out of my hand and started scribbling all over my book. Then she tried to slam my computer screen down again and I put my hand up to stop her and she yelled at me, “who did you steal this from”? (meaning the lap top computer).

Then she started screaming about how I never even thanked her for taking me into her home and I started to say that it was an awful experience and how her husband, keith, had made unwelcome advances toward me and was constantly coming into my room complaining about her and that I was glad to be gone from there.

Then keith got very angry and said, “I came on to you?!!! You #ing whore!!” and raised his fist in the air like he was going to strike me. I was still seated in my chair and he is a very large man and I was terrified he was going to hit me.

At the same time his wife is still yelling at me and I started to scream, “please someone call the police – it’s keith and patty white.” I shouted that about six times.

[it was very loud in the coffee shop because it was full and blenders were running and the music was on and nobody could hear me.]

Then patty picked up my coffee cup and acted like she was going to throw it at me and all over the lap top.

Keith told me as he was heading out the door, “the cops are coming to your home very soon, you’re not from around here, they already know about you, you #ing whore.”

Then I called 911 at 5:21 pm and the san bernardino county sheriff came out to the store. Deputy sheriff james wijnhamer came out and took a report, incident no. [protected]. He spoke with starbucks employees and a pair of women that were sitting on the other side of me but were faced the opposite way. Those women heard me scream “someone call the police, it’s keith and patty white” and the employees heard a lot of screaming but said they never heard me ask for them to call the police.

When I first moved to big bear, I stayed a few weeks with patty and keith white. Everything was fine between us until I interviewed for the position of a personal assistant for mike dolan, owner of prudential real estate of big bear. Keith white is a realtor at that office; however, he is on a restricted license as he has spent time in prison and is a convicted felon on drug charges and other violent crimes. He is also in bible college studying to be a minister and is the recovery minister of four square church in big bear which to be perfectly honest is one of the reasons why I stopped going to that church, the utter hypocrisy.

Both patty and keith white are in aa, and I am celebrating 12 years of sobriety on september 29, 2009. This is how I came to meet them when I moved up here. Mike dolan offered me the job at prudential and I showed up for my first day on the job. However, the office manager, valerie cofsky, was worried for her job because mike dolan had asked me to perform an entire assessment of the operations of his business as he told me he suspected her of “improper” bookkeeping since valerie was a signatory on the business checking account.

She lied and told mike dolan that she had called my references and that they didn’t pan out and considered me “unbondable.” (later, I discovered that it was not true as I spoke to my references, not to mention that the form I was supposed to fill out to be bonded wasn’t even given to me until my first day on the job.)

About half way through my first day on the job I was let go by mike dolan as he believed valerie cofsky that my references didn’t check out. Mike dolan met with keith white for 2 hours the following saturday and “alluded” to the fact that keith needed to get me to be quiet about what happened; that if I pursued anything legally against him, that keith’s position with the agency could be in jeopardy.

That night keith came home and told me to drop everything or else, “I could leave right now” pointing at the door, meaning he would kick me out of his house.

I guess they are angry that I have pursued my legal rights [after I left the white's house] and told the truth about everything surrounding my being fired on my first day on the job. I have no idea if keith is having trouble at prudential or lost his job; but mike dolan should never have threatened keith’s job security just because mike dolan broke the law.

A week following keith’s threats to me based on mike dolan’s threats to him, a process server came to the white’s home and served a civil complaint on me for defamation in connection with a consumer advocacy blog I was writing. The case is now on appeal.

This upset keith and patty white as keith previously told me, ”there are things in my house I don’t want any sheriff finding” even though they didn’t seem to understand the difference between a civil and criminal process server. After that, the tension got thick very fast and I ended up moving even though keith told me not to. As I was leaving, he said, “stay tonight and we’ll work things out in the morning.”

Patty didn’t have the same sentiments as she was feeling very jealous of keith’s attention toward me and his hateful remarks about her obese weight, laziness, not giving him sex for a year and a half, and more highly inappropriate and disrespectful remarks.

After I left the white home, I continued to assert my legal rights under the law and pursued a legal action against mike dolan and prudential. I am now also pursuing an action with the california labor board.

Based on this incident, I am now going to take the direction of the sheriff deputy and file a restraining order against both keith and patty white.

Shortly before the sheriff arrived, I contacted the owner of the store, kirsten scotti, at [protected] and she told me she would follow-up with me on monday to help me get a videotape of the incident. It is for this reason that I am requesting a videotape of the incident that occurred today.

Like I said, I plan to obtain a restraining order against keith and patty white and also file criminal charges of assault.

I sincerely wish that you had a security guard at this store. Kirsten scotti told me that the security guard’s position had been eliminated. Not one of your employees came to my aid. It’s a sick feeling when you are trapped against a wall being threatened with physical violence and no one is helping you.

I have only lived in big bear for 2 months and i’m just appalled at what happened today. I wanted to move to big bear for a calmer and slower pace. Thank you for making this a top priority and for coming by to speak with me today.

Your attention to my issue was most appreciated and I look forward to your and kirsten scotti’s quick resolution to obtaining the video tape so I can feel safe as a patron of your store.

Best regards, erin baldwin [protected]

Post incident cover up & obstruction of justice

September 20-23, 2009

In an interview conducted by big bear sheriff deputy brent meelker, keith and patty white were very concerned about what baldwin was writing about them on her blog and stated as much to deputy meelker:

“baldwin goes on to say the whites assaulted her at the starbucks. The whites were upset because this assault never occurred.”

In fact, the whites were in quite a bit of fear regarding the impending tro against them and a formal complaint against keith white to the california department of real estate, as it would have meant serious consequences against keith’s already highly restricted real estate license.

The whites began a criminal course of conduct so egregious that they are now themselves facing criminal charges and a pending lawsuit for civil damages.

It all began with a meeting of the whites with big bear sheriff sergeant jeremy an interview dated september 23, 2009, conducted by deputy michael mccracken, in connection with msb905837, keith white openly discussed his plan with mccracken:

“keith said he is friends with deputy king and had spoken with deputy king in a personal setting about what was going on with baldwin. Keith said deputy king told him he could get a restraining order against baldwin.”

Later on in the same interview, keith white not only admitted launching acts of collusion with the big bear sheriff’s department but to the actual act of assault on baldwin. He was questioned about the starbuck’s incident. He stated:

“keith said he admits to having lost his temper with baldwin when he saw her at a starbucks in town. He said he ‘got in her face.’ keith said nothing was done physically, it was all verbal.”

Let’s have a look at the legal definition of assault:

California penal code section 240 states:

“an assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.”

Another element to consider is that keith white’s behavior was “menacing” and as such placed me in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. He admitted as such in his statement above.

One could also state that patty white was guilty of battery as she grabbed baldwin’s pen, wrote on her book, slammed down the front of her lap top (particularly the second time when baldwin’s hand was trying to hold it open).

California penal code section 240 states:

“a battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.”

Of course, it would be helpful if baldwin could obtain the surveillance footage from starbucks in order to prove these actions, right?

September 30, 2009

The whites launch a fraudulent investigation in collusion with the big bear sheriff’s department (namely, deputy christopher morsch under the supervision of sergeant jeremy king) for the crimes, california penal code section 653m (b) and 653m (c).in short, calling and/or sending harassing emails to one’s residence or place of work.

The first falsified police report is dated september 30, 2009, written by morsch, wherein he allegedly collected the offensive “20-30+ emails sent to the white’s home and employers.”

Do you know what the code says about 653m (c) with regard to sending harassing emails to someone’s employer?

“this subdivision applies only if (1) a temporary restraining order is in place; and (2) if the number of communication occurences exceeds ten times in a 24-hour period of time.”

Neither of these applied when the whites launched their crusade on september 30, 2009. They don’t apply now, nor never have.

There was at no time probable cause to even initiate an investigation for this crime.

It took until january 25, 2010 for the district attorney to produce this “evidence” because they knew it it was bogus.

In fact, when baldwin received the package of “evidence” from the da, the very first document was an email from andrina valdes of cornerstone mortgage company (patty white’s employer) addressed to patty white that just stated: “call me on this.”

So, baldwin sent ms. Valdes an email requesting her information so she could serve her a subpoena. Valdes wrote back, “I have no involvement in this matter.”

Well, according to the da you do because they used your email as evidence to prove that baldwin was guilty of cpc 653m (c).

October 2, 2009

Re: police video request email address

Friday, october 2, 2009 9:45 pm

From: “krista osborne”

To: [protected]

Hi erin:

This is the email for the police to contact if they are working your case and are requesting video.


I am glad we finally were able to connect.

Thanks so much, take care.

Krista osborne, starbucks

Sent from my windows mobile® phone.

October 2, 2009

Re: police video request email address

Friday, october 2, 2009 9:59 pm

From: “erin baldwin”

To: “krista osborne”

Thank you very much.

Erin baldwin

October 2, 2009

Re: police video request email address

Friday, october 2, 2009 10:00 pm

From: “krista osborne”

To: “erin baldwin”

You bet, good luck with your hearing for the restraining order. Ko

Sent from my windows mobile® phone.

October 6, 2009

While baldwin is waiting for wijnhamer to finish his investigation, write his report, and work with her on obtaining the surveillance footage from starbucks, keith and patty white go in on an emergency basis and get a temporary restraining order against baldwin.

The emergency is that “baldwin is stalking them and they fear for their lives.”

Baldwin had not even seen the whites since she left their residence on august 10, 2009, except when they assaulted her in starbucks and at one 12-step meeting.

The whites used the fraudulent pc 653m (b) and pc 653m (c) investigations against baldwin even before she was aware that she was a suspect in the investigations. They also failed to provide baldwin proper notice of the hearing for the temporary retraining order.

Judge gilbert ochoa had no choice but to grant the tro because baldwin did not appear because she didn’t know about the hearing.

October 8, 2009

Baldwin is detained as a suspect in the fraudulent pc 653m (b) and pc 653m (c) investigations and ends up in the big bear jail and is severely beaten and burned by big bear sheriff deputies.

Thee are several posts that give all the details. If you’re interested, see:

Here is the message the big bear sheriffs were trying to convey to baldwin:

“forget about what happened at starbucks, at prudential properties of big bear, and stop pursuing your legal rights under the law to be protected from assault in a public place as well as unfair and discriminatory employment practices. We think you’re a troublemaker and we want you to go back to orange county. You’re way too smart for us and you may teach other people up here about their rights and that wouldn’t be good for us.”

October 14-23, 2009

Still nothing from wijnhamer but baldwin keeps calling, leaving messages at the station, and trying everything she can to expedite what she needs in order to file an application for a tro.

Baldwin also contacts everyone she can think of to help her with this situation including the fbi, aclu, senator john dutton, county supervisor neil derry, all the member of the big bear lake city council, etc.

Nobody steps up to the plate except george watson, chief of staff for neil derry. Why would he do that when no one else would?

Maybe because the big bear sheriff’s department captain, greg garland is married to neil derry’s field rep in the mountain area, jamie garland. How cozy is that?


October 28, 2009

Still nothing from wijnhamer but the whites, the big bear sheriffs, the san bernardino county sheriffs and district attorneys are putting more and more distance between baldwin and her ability to act on her own behalf.

Talk about building a case … wow, check this out… three very important things happened all in succession; it could not be a coincidence.

1. At 8:30 a.M., judge steven c. Malone granted keith and patty white the maximum 3-year restraining order permanent injunction against baldwin deeming her a direct and immediate danger to them and their family. This stemmed from the temporary restraining order that was served on baldwin in custody by sergeant jeremy king on october 9, 2009.

2. At 10:30 a.M., the san bernardino district attorney’s office filed criminal complaint no. Msb906348 for charges that occured on october 8, 2009 in connectiom two counts of battery against a peace officer, one count of resisting arrest, one count of giving a fake name to a peace officer and one count of violating a court order. The court order was the temporary restraining order referred to above that hadn’t been served on baldwin yet, so it’s perplexing how she could have violated it.

3. At 11:30 a.M., george watston (neil derry’s chief of staff) called to tell baldwin that he had spoken to greg garland about her “issues” with the big bear sheriffs. Watson relayed to baldwin that garland had been contacted by the southern california aclu and asked questions about the events that occurred on october 8-9, 2009. Garland told the aclu, “everything was captured on surveillance camera footage, there’s no case here.” based on those two statements, watson told baldwin that the aclu would not be pursuing representation of her case.

November & december, 2009

Now, more than ever baldwin needs the starbucks incident report and the surveillance camera footage from september 19, 2009. The very poor judgment of the whites has now mushroomed into two different criminal actions against her.

Baldwin must demonstrate with clarity the genesis of the whole ordeal. But is wijnhamer or starbucks cooperative? Of course not.

December 26, 2009

Video surveillance footage-emergency request

Saturday, december 26, 2009 7:40 pm

From: “erin baldwin”

To: “krista osborne”

Cc: [protected], [protected], [protected]

Hi krista,

Hopefully you remember me. On september 19, 2009 I was assaulted in the starbucks at interlaken center in big bear lake by keith and patty white. I contacted you at that time to obtain a copy of the surveillance footage from the incident.

You instructed me to have the sheriff deputy who wrote the incident report to follow a particular protocol and that i, as a citizen, could not get a copy of the footage without the police requesting it first.

I tried for 6 weeks to get deputy james wijnhamer of the big bear sheriff’s department (the deputy on the scene) to return my calls and emails so I could facilitate that protocol and obtain a restraining order.

Well, I learned a little lesson about living in a small town. The couple that assaulted me are friends with the sheriffs and ended up filing a restraining order against me before I could file one on them and got it.

I filed an appeal on that decision and before I knew it I was arrested on suspicion of “making an annoying telephone call, ” that incidentally could not even be traced to my phone and while I was in custody was severely beaten and burned by big bear sheriffs, while they strongly suggested that I leave town.

Now, the da has criminal charges against me for assaulting police officers in custody which of course never happened. I have photographs of my bruises and burns after I was released from jail as well as 20 pages of emergency hospital records.

All of this stems from the incident in the starbucks store on 9/19. Obviously, I need the footage and am so completely at a loss of what to do next. I can’t afford an attorney and the public defender the court assigned me is ill-equipped to help me.

Please, if there is anything you can do to help me, I would appreciate it. I don’t have a phone anymore and am living in a house with no heat or running water. I have no money and even 2 days ago the sheriffs are still harassing me. I have no resources at all.

Please respond here at this email as this is the only way I can communicate right now. Thank you. Erin baldwin

December 26, 2009

[please make sure you are sitting down when you read this email. This is the most preposterous communication ever received from a professional corporation. This woman should be fired on the spot for this email.]

Re: video surveillance footage-emergency request

Saturday, december 26, 2009 8:35 pm

From: “krista osborne”

To: “erin baldwin”

Cc: “dena davis”, “[protected]”, “paula boggs”

Dear erin;

I do remember you and your inquiry back in september. I am sorry to hear that it sounds like you are faced with some significant challenges at this time.

Our camera systems do not retain video footage for extended periods of time and therefore, even if there were to be a legal request for video 3 ½ months later, we would not have the ability to retrieve that record.

It sounds like you are not satisfied with the legal representation, the public defender, the court has assigned to you.

I am not qualified to provide you with any type of legal advice, the only suggestion that I could make at this time is for you to reach back out to the court to let them know that you are in fact dissatisfied, if that is the case, and ask for a change in representation.

I am hopeful that this new year that is right around the corner will bring you resolution to your current challenges and much ongoing happiness.

Take care and be safe,

Krista osborne

Starbucks coffee company

Director, partner & asset protection

December 26, 2009

[this is very important - baldwin has not heard from boggs but can't wait to hear from her at trial regarding these issues.]

Re: video surveillance footage-emergency request

Saturday, december 26, 2009 8:48 pm

From: “erin baldwin”

To: “krista osborne”

Cc: “dena davis”, “paula boggs”


Okay, let me make sure I have this straight. Starbucks, inc. Cannot provide me surveillance footage of the incident on september 19, 2009. Is that correct?

I’m really not that interested in your advice in legal representation and I happen to know that your statements are false as a friend of mine was a district manager for starbucks in orange county.

If the 9/19 incident led to my being murdered by the whites, are you telling me that starbucks could not retrieve evidence that was the genesis of the crime?

No offense, krista, but I would like your general counsel, ms. Boggs, to answer this question.

I want it on the record that starbucks will not or cannot help me with my request for evidence involved in a crime committed in one of your stores.

Erin baldwin

January 20, 2010

Starbucks incident report no. 7457256

Wednesday, january 20, 2010 10:39 pm

From: “erin baldwin”

To: “krista osborne”, [protected], [protected]

Ms. Osborne, ms. Davis and ms. Boggs,

Would you kindly scan and email to me at this email address, starbucks incident report no. 7457256, generated from an incident that occurred on september 19, 2009, at the starbucks store located at interlaken center, big bear lake, california 92315.

The report is required in my defense in two criminal matters pending in san bernardino county superior court. I am representing myself, so please forward the document to me directly forthwith.

If this request requires a formal subpoena, please let me know immediately so as not to stall said request. Time is of the essence and I appreciate your timely response.

Best regards, erin baldwin

February 8, 2010

Fw: starbucks incident report no. 7457256

Monday, february 8, 2010 6:05 pm

From: “erin baldwin”

To: [protected], [protected], [protected]

Cc: [protected], [protected], [protected], [protected], [protected], [protected]

Good morning,

May I please have a response from someone on this today, monday, february 8, 2010?

It has been almost six months since I first requested a copy of the surveillance video tape from the date of the incident (september 19, 2009) reported in your incident report no. 7457256.

Although I attempted to follow starbucks’ protocol, deputy james wijnhamer and the big bear sheriff’s department failed to perform their duties as proscribed by the state of california.

The big bear sheriff incident report dated september 19, 2009, no.[protected], was never completed by deputy james wijnhamer and he has failed and continues to fail to respond to my many requests to speak with him regarding (1) the completion of the report; and (2) expediting the starbucks’ protocol communicated to me by ms. Osborne for retrieval of the video surveillance footage.

It has now been almost two months since I first requested a copy of the written incident report no. 7457256 and to date, I have received nothing.

I have a trial date of april 5, 2010 and time is of the light of two criminal actions pending against me in san bernardino superior court, msb906348 and msb905837, I can’t imagine that a publicly-traded company like starbucks, inc. (nasdaq:sbux) would intentionally act in collusion with the san bernardino county district attorney to:

1. Suppress evidence it knows to be exculpatory, in violation of the brady v. Maryland decision, and hinder the district attorney in its statutory requirements as set forth under california penal code section 1054.1; or

2. Destroy evidence it knows to be exculpatory in violation of the california v. Trombetta decision, and hinder the district attorney in its statutory requirements as set forth under california penal code section 1054.1.

People v. Trombetta was motivated by an adoption of an amendment to the california constitution, which eliminated the exclusionary rule as a state-law remedy. The “right to truth in evidence” provision was adopted by referendum as a part of a “victim’s bill of rights.”

The provision, which was added to the california constitution after the california supreme court’s decision in people v. Hitch, reads:

“except as provided by statute hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the legislature, relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding, including any pretrial or post-conviction motions and hearings, or in any trial or hearing of a juvenile or adult for a criminal offense, whether heard in juvenile or adult court. Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay, or evidence code, sections 352, 782 or 1103.”

The provision does not change the underlying rights of criminal defendants afforded under the california constitution, nor does it affect the exclusionary rule insofar as that rule is mandated by the united states constitution.

Please respond today as to when I should expect to receive this information.

If you plan on continuing in your current course of conduct, please respond as to the proper person or department whom a subpoena should be served, as well as the proper address, so I can timely serve a subpoena for the evidence I have been requesting and for which I am entitled.

Erin baldwin

February 15, 2010


1. How is it that a publicly-traded company like starbucks can afford to conduct business in a manner such as this?

2. How is it that deputy james wijnhamer thinks he can escape his utter failure to perform his duties as proscribed by the state of california? Do you think he will be made to answer for his actionas at trial? Yes.

3. Does starbucks think that baldwin is just going to go away? Not likely.

4. So look for the following starbucks folks at trial in april:

Boggs, esq., paula e.
Attorney at law
Executive v.P., general counsel, and secretary-board of directors
Starbucks coffee co., inc. (nasdaq:sbux)
2401 utah avenue south, suite 800
M/s s-la1, post office box 34067
Seattle, wa 98134

Davis, dena
District manager
Starbucks, inc.
355 east rincon street, suite 321
Corona, ca 92879

Hanford, alex
Shift supervisor
Starbucks store – interlaken center
42140 big bear boulevard
Big bear lake, ca 92315

Osborne, krista
Director, partner & asset protection
Starbucks coffee co., inc. (nasdaq:sbux)
2401 utah avenue south, suite 800
M/s s-la1, post office box 34067
Seattle, wa 98134

Petrisko, kevin
Starbucks, inc.
Supervisor of district managers
355 east rincon street, suite 321
Corona, ca 92879

Scotti, kirsten
Store manager
Starbucks store – interlaken center
42140 big bear boulevard
Big bear lake, ca 92315


  • Ca
    Cack Feb 15, 2010

    Wow. You need crazy meds. Stat.

    -1 Votes

Post your comment

    In The News

    Unhappy consumers gather online at and have already logged thousands of complaints
    If you see dozens of complaints about a certain company on ComplaintsBoard, walk away.
    One of the largest consumer sites online. Posting here your concerns means good exposure for your issues
    A consumer site aimed at exposing unethical companies and business practices
    ComplaintsBoard is a good source for product and company gripes from especially dissatisfied people
    You'll definitely get some directions on how customer service can best solve your problem