United Dominion Realty Trust [UDR]
Reviews and Complaints

Major holders of nyse:udr stock, vanguard group & ing clarion, notified of class action

This week, I notified vanguard group, inc. (institutional holder of 13, 588, 373 nyse:udr shares) and ing clarion real estate securities llc (institutional holder of 13, 383, 857 nyse:udr shares) that a class-action lawsuit was forming on behalf of all california tenants of udr. see: http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/5767/

This monday, november 8, 2010 is udr’s third quarter earnings conference call and udr executives are very busy manipulating the stock to cover up the operational defects of the company. udr’s board of directors and executive management team are seasoned pros at manipulating the nyse:udr stock price at the ninth hour to present a favorable, yet false, picture to its investors. see: http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/udr-nyseudr-executives-are-busy-preparing-for-its-3q-earnings-conference-call/

Did you know that the california market represents 40% of udr’s revenues?

What do you think a california class action lawsuit would do to the future earnings of this publicly-traded landlord / reit located in highlands ranch, colorado?

From vanguard group, inc. I contacted the following executives via fax at [protected]:

F. william (bill) mcnabb iii,
Chairman, president, and ceo

Paul heller,
Managing director and cio

Michael s. miller,
Managing director, planning and development group

From ing clarion I contacted the following executives via personal email:

Stephen j. furnary,
Chairman & ceo

T. ritson ferguson,
Chief executive officer, chief investment officer, ing clarion real estate securities

William krauch,
Head of global marketing ing real estate investment management

For everyone’s sake, I hope these institutional stock holders take this seriously. I have been working on this for almost two years. during the same period of time udr, together with its legal house boys at burkhalter, kessler, goodman & george, have orchestrated the very worst possible acts of intimidation and horror toward me.

However, short of putting a bullet through my head, there isn’t anything udr hasn’t done to me in the name of getting me to stop. so, what more do I have to lose? I have nothing but passion for this cause and my fear of constant and unrelenting retaliation has disappeared.

- on june 16, 2009, udr illegally locked me out of my udr apartment at villa venetia causing me to be homeless for a month. see: http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/udr-stock-price-expected-to-plummet-with-update-on-california-class-action-lawsuit-128-udr-tenants-have-joined-in-first-weeksuit-against-reit-landl/

- three days later, on june 19, 2009, udr deemed everything in my apartment “abandoned” and came in and moved everything I owned into a udr-owned storage facility, including boxes of evidence from almost 400 class action members of the first time I tried to form a class action lawsuit against udr.

- then udr sold all my property to james parsa of parsa law group to use as evidence against me. of course, I didn’t know this until parsa’s attorneys (eric goodman and david berstein of burkhalter, kessler, goodman & george told martin schwarz, my orange county public defender, while we were waiting to face judge franz miller on contempt charges against me. goodman and berstein must have been thoroughly convinced that I would waive my first amendment rights to regain possession of the property udr and parsa stole from me. I told them that my first amendment rights are not for sale. see: http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/burkhalter-attorneys-attempt-to-buy-baldwins-silence/

- burkhalter saw to it that I was sued 4 times for defamation (three times by their own hand and once influenced by their actions) in a period of six months. both court orders they obtained were fraudulent from the beginning and a year and a half later were deemed unconstitutional. (only jeffrey cancilla was smart enough to dismiss his action.) see: http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/burkhalter-kessler-goodman-george-llps-attys-facing-charges-of-barratry/

- I was followed up to big bear by burkhalter’s process server, michael estrada, after I placed a call to udr headquarters from the residence of keith & patty white inquiring about my property. the call was traced and two days later estrada was at the white’s doorstep serving me papers.

- I was falsely arrested by the big bear sheriffs as a suspect in making “an annoying telephone call, ” and while in custody was beat up by five male sheriff’s deputies and shipped down to west valley detention center. minutes before dousing me pepper spray while three other sheriffs held me, sergeant jeremy king further attempted to intimidate me by stating, “we think you should go back down the hill to orange county where you came from.” I told him, “i’ll go back down the hill to orange county when I see you go to prison.” and I meant it.

- when I was released on my own recognizance the same day, I started a blog called the big bearian to document the facts that occurred prior to, during and after my beating in custody.

- to mitigate the liability of the big bear sheriffs’ illegal actions, the da filed five criminal actions against me and until february I fought those charges on my own because the san bernardino county public defender’s office was completely incompetent and in bed with the da.

- on the very same day I was to serve a pitchess motion against the sheriffs that beat me up in custody, I was once again falsely arrested and thrown in jail for 35 days on the force of an orange county $5, 000 civil bench warrant for contempt of court in the parsa law group case. when the authorities realized I was not going to plead guilty to felony assault with a deadly weapon (or anything else for that matter), they dismissed the charge in its entirety. see: http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/5510/ and http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/baldwin-files-pitchess-motion-to-force-sb-sheriffs-to-disclose-past-big-bear-sheriff-misconduct/

- when I got out I was promised by da melinda spencer, judge michael dest and public defender geoffrey canty that I could collect my two dogs and propery. that was 8 months ago. see: http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/baldwin-seeks-help-from-san-bernardino-judge-michael-dest-for-the-return-of-her-dogs-property/

- now udr is trying to get wordpress to delete the udr blog. see: http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/burkhalter-attys-are-gluttons-for-punishment-berstein-demands-wordpress-delete-new-udr-class-action-website/ even though they know that the parsa law group was demmed unconstitutional by judge franz miller (and the identical udr court order by default). see: see: http://thebigbearianreturns.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/orange-county-public-defender-martin-schwarz-is-a-hero/.

I could go on and on (it’s all here on this blog) but I think you get the hint. it is never easy standing up for what is right. never. but I comfort myself in knowing that udr would never go to all this effort if what I was saying wasn’t true. they are flat out finished. wait until you hear the announcement next week. that will seal the deal.

Finally, I never started this cause for my financial benefit as I haven’t made one penny. there are 1000s of udr tenants that have been defrauded by udr. throughout the last two years I have heard some pretty bad stuff. i’m sorry but I can’t just walk away now; i’ve come to far.

Erin baldwin

I moved into to the Ridgewood Apts in April of 2010 and I have been dealing with inaccurate calculations on my UDR account and toxic black mold issues.

I had to followed up with the Department of Environmental Protection inspector to gain insight to resolve the toxic black mold issue in the apartment bedroom, the inspector stated the Ridgewood Leasing Office never returned his phones. If was in possible, for the Leasing Office higher management to follow up with the inspector, in order to move forward with resolving an unlivable hazard environment.

This is very inconsiderate on the be half of the Ridgewood Leasing management. I have executed and communicated the proper processes (online service requests) and conversed with the Leasing Office staff several times to get this toxic black mold issues removed. And painting and/or covering up the toxic black mold is a workaround and not a permanent solution. There is still an strong unpleasant odor in the apartment. From the previous repair observations of the apartment, seems to be a consistent water leakage problems. The service maintenance reps are always providing a short term fix. The inspector did identified that the drywall in the bedroom still holding moisture where the water leakage occurred. Potentially, this will increase the growth of the toxic black mold within the bedroom drywall.

The only action that took place was the service maintenance rep, cut a square hole in the upper part of the wall, which perplex me, due to the fact the toxic black mold was located in the lower part of wall and on top of the window pane. I did not appreciate the multiple online service requests being closed-out and the issues is present.

The Community Director, Gifty Johnson, verbally stated that she was going to follow up with me to determine if:

A) Transfer me into a different apartment
B) Provide a permanent removal solution
C) Compensate me for the health hazardness living environment

Unfortunately, I have received negative treatment from the Leasing Office, I'm assuming the Leasing higher managers are responsible for taking care of tenants and providing solutions for any issues or problems in a timely manner. I received a hostile approach from the Community Director, couple of times conversing on the phone. The Community Director was irritated that I was requesting clarification on the options to resolve this critical issue.This unprofessionalism behavior from the Ridgewood/UDR management should not be acceptable nor appropriated within the business environment of managing an apartment complex company.

Since I moved into this apartment complex has been edifice nightmare. I been tolerating ill treatment, and now living in a hazard environment and required to pay rent. At this point, the Ridgewood Leasing management needs to provide me with the option of breaking my lease, to be able to relocate to a healthy living environment, since I have not heard feedback. I have been patience and communicated effectively to at least receive an action plan, status follow up, recommendations or a dehumidifier (to pull the mold moisture from the air) from the Ridgewood/UDR management.

I recently left apartments owned by UDR. To say the least they are a piece of work. Everyone is so nasty and mean in the office, all the way to the directors level. Just because of what I went through a wll knowned family member will no longer invest in a company who treats there tennants like they did me. I paid my rent on time for three years! When I wanted to move out, it seemed they did not want to talk to me, didnt return my phone calls, answer my emails or accept my letters. I am so angry at this corporation and why the government still allows them to do business. I did not even have an inspection upon move out. I was told to pay 416.00 on top of 678. ( prorated rent ) for damages! Those pictures are ridiculous. One of the reasons I left, because there was water damage on the ceiling in my bedroom and living room. I have already contacted the housing authority in Hampton, Richmond and I am headed to D. C. The other part is I cannot even get my rental history. I have asked for three weeks, it makes me think they are trying to alter documents. However, my lawyer will find out! I am obsurd by this company and I am furious, because I am a Veteran and I did not get any sympathy from any director or anyone else. They are all the same. They will learn after this courtcase how important it is to treat your tennants. The manager at the apartment complex was the meanest lady I have ever scene. I am starting to think they are racists. I hate to say it but out of my 29 years of living this is ridiculous. If someone has some insight on UDR let me know I will help you too! Thanks

Nyse:udr – udr, inc. gets in bed with parsa law group at the wrong time – parsa caught in attorney misconduct, fraud & lies against the court - was judge franz miller sleeping?

On september 2, 2009, nyse:udr – udr, inc. joined forces in court with four loan modification law firms, parsa law group, law offices of jeffrey cancilla, law offices of craig laverty, and traut law group to silence consumer advocate, erin baldwin, writer of the bad biz finder blog.

One law firm represents all of the above businesses: burkhalter, kessler, goodman & george, llp, in irvine, california.in february 2009, attorney eric j. goodman began a campaign to attract law firms that were the subject of baldwin’s blog to join forces against baldwin.

But what does a $500 million publicly traded colorado-based landlord/reit have to do with orange county loan modification law firms that have come under fire for operating outside the law?

Orange county superior court judge franz miller decided they were all related to each other because they were all suing consumer rights activist, erin baldwin, for defamation.

Baldwin launched the bad biz finder blog on january 13, 2009 and by the time it was shut down by wordpress, ceo, toni schneider, in june, it had attracted 185, 000 consumer viewers desperate for a source of information that was 100% absent a profit motive. bad biz finder did not accept donations, gifts, payments, advertising or any other funding. it maintained complete objectivity and published reports anonymously so as to keep the attention on the consumers, not on the author.

The blog exposed the truth about two crimes against consumers:

1. udr’s illegal california contracts, followed by the formation of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of california udr tenants.

2. the formation of loan modification “law firms” that capitalized on the exemption granted to attorneys under california civil code section 2945. it stated that foreclosure consultants could not take advanced fees, but attorneys could. however, these “law firms” had no attorneys. they were set up using an attorney’s license, the work was being conducted by inexperienced “foreclosure consultants, ” and run by ex-subprime mortgage hacks.

Whenever criminal cash flow is interrupted, there is a price to pay. erin baldwin spoke the truth to help consumers and udr tenants. now she has a bench warrant out for her arrest with a $5, 000 bail signed by judge franz miller on september 2, 2009 because she failed to attend an order to show cause for contempt.

But how can that be?

1. baldwin was never recognized as a defendant in any of these actions. on july 14, 2009, judge miller stated in his tentative ruling, “it is not clear that erin baldwin has the authority to speak on behalf of bad biz finder.” although she had attempted to appear telephonically prior to this hearing, she was rejected as a representative of the case

2. however, on june 2, 2009, judge franz miller signed a judgment naming baldwin as a defendant, along with bad biz finder, an unknown business entity. he stated in his order that baldwin was responsible for paying $605, 000 to parsa law group for damages arising from her defamatory actions.

So herein, lies the big mystery. if judge franz miller believes baldwin has no authority to speak on behalf of the case, how can she be responsible for paying a six-figure judgment?

Here is a chronology of events for your entertainment:

1. may 18, 2009: judge franz miller, in his tentative ruling, stated that parsa’s claims against baldwin contained prior restraint issues and that these issues should be considered. this means that free speech cannot be restrained, however, if can be questioned in a court of law once it is published. baldwin pled prior restraint issues throughout the case and they were ignored.

2. on may 18, judge franz miller denied parsa’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against baldwin, as they failed to state a cause of action for defamation. truth is an absolute defense against defamation and parsa could not point to even one statement that was untrue.

3. on may 19, baldwin informed the court that she was indigent and therefore “judgment proof” by way of an application for waiver of court fees and costs. the application was rejected because a business cannot apply for a fee waiver and baldwin was not considered a defendant in the action.

4. on may 19, the rejected application was sent to stacie turner, judge miller’s clerk requesting that she send it to baldwin. however, turner intentionally held on to it until may 29, the date originally set for a default hearing against bad biz finder and baldwin.

5. on may 27, the court received baldwin’s motion for an order setting aside default, so it would be heard in conjunction with the default hearing scheduled for may 29. however, turner kept the motion together with the rejected fee waive application and it was not presented to the court.

5. on may 29, baldwin spoke with turner to learn the outcome of the default hearing. she was informed that the hearing had been continued to june 2, 2009, however parsa never noticed baldwin of this fact. later, baldwin found out that the hearing had been continued because the court had rejected parsa’s request for entry of default package on may 28, 2009 due to numerous errors. the may 29 hearing date is not on the docket and it states that the hearing was continued from june 1 to june 2.

6. on may 29, baldwin inquired about the status of her application for waiver of court fees and costs and it was explained to her that bad biz finder was the primary defendant and baldwin had not been added as a defendant. however, bad biz finder had never been served with a summons and complaint.

7. on june 2, fifteen days after judge miller denied parsa’s motion for preliminary injunction and tro, he granted a permanent injunction and signed a judgment that stated, in part:

“it is so ordered that parsa 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.”

8. on june 2, 2009, the hearing set for 11:30 a.m. never happened because there was a power outage at the court that suspended all regular activity until 2:30 p.m. however, parsa claims judge miller carried on with the hearing, ruled and signed the judgment.

9. on june 2, stacie turner mailed to baldwin the rejected fee application and her original motion for order setting aside default received on may 27. she included a handwritten note (date stamped june 2, 2009) that said: “obtain legal counsel to properly file your motion, or a paralegal to assist.” turner’s unique penmanship on the handwritten note matched the unique penmanship on the judgment allegedly signed by judge miller.

10. parsa lost no time sending out menacing letters to all sources that posted information about parsa law group and attached the court order allegedly signed by judge miller on june 2. the bad biz finder blog was shut down (with 185, 000 hits accumulated in just 6 months) even though it contained reports completely unrelated to parsa law group.

11. baldwin rescheduled her motion for july 14, 2009. parsa opposed and baldwin replied to the opposition. on july 14, judge miller stated in his tentative ruling, he was “unclear if baldwin has any authority to appear for bad biz.” how could he be unclear when just six weeks prior he had ordered baldwin to pay parsa $600.000?

12. the motion was denied and parsa promptly filed a motion of contempt. since judge miller wasn’t recognizing baldwin as being affiliated with this action, baldwin didn’t show up to the hearing. the court wouldn’t even allow her to appear telephonically. but that didn’t stop judge miller from issuing a bench warrant for her arrest with a $5, 000 bail.

There is so much wrong with this case, we don’t even know where to begin. baldwin is filing an appeal for violation of her due process and freedom of speech without prior restraint constitutional rights, judicial and attorney misconduct, malicious prosecution, ordering a judgment-proof indigent in pro per litigant to pay $600, 000, and fraud.

Weigh in – what do you think?

Nyse:udr breaking news: cramer at “the street” says riptide will drown udr along with avalon bay and equity residential

September 9, 2009

Cramer: the state of the market, part ii

This is the second of a four-part series on the market we find ourselves in as we wind down 2009.

Group 2: commercial real estate plays. if there were one particular achilles' heel of the bulls (amid a centipede-like group of achilles' heels), it's commercial real estate. this issue is the stuff of endless articles and discussions, from the preternaturally-given-to-thermonuclear-war-against-stocks gretchen morgenson to our own jeremiad sounders — too numerous to mention — on realmoney.

So I struggle with what to make of the action in the real estate investment trusts if things are going so awry in offices, malls and apartments, the troika of pain that is supposed to cause the next wave of collapsing banks.

Apartments
The riptide should be carrying the following in its undertow: avalon bay (avb quote), equity residential (eqr quote) and udr (udr quote) in apartments.

Malls
Simon properties (spg quote), federal reality (frt quote) and developers diversified (ddr quote) in malls.

Office properties
Boston properties (bxp quote), vornado (vno quote) and brandywine (bdn quote) in office properties.

As well as real estate broker cb richard ellis (cbg quote).

A look at each of the companies' web sites, though, paints a thoroughly positive picture.

It is true that the real estate industry is pretty unrestrained when it comes to hype, but even the worst players in the worst markets — like ddr and eqr with huge exposure to california [he forgot udr who has 30% of its revenue tied to california.] — seem to be very filled with tenants…. [appearances are deceiving.]

Http://www.thestreet.com/story/10595942/1/cramer-the-state-of-the-market-part-ii.html?cm_ven=googlefi

Nyse:udr – udr, inc. gets in bed with parsa law group at the wrong time – parsa caught in attorney misconduct, fraud & lies against the court - was judge franz miller sleeping?

On september 2, 2009, nyse:udr – udr, inc. joined forces in court with four loan modification law firms, parsa law group, law offices of jeffrey cancilla, law offices of craig laverty, and traut law group to silence consumer advocate, erin baldwin, writer of the bad biz finder blog.

One law firm represents all of the above businesses: burkhalter, kessler, goodman & george, llp, in irvine, california.in february 2009, attorney eric j. goodman began a campaign to attract law firms that were the subject of baldwin’s blog to join forces against baldwin.

But what does a $500 million publicly traded colorado-based landlord/reit have to do with orange county loan modification law firms that have come under fire for operating outside the law?

Orange county superior court judge franz miller decided they were all related to each other because they were all suing consumer rights activist, erin baldwin, for defamation.

Baldwin launched the bad biz finder blog on january 13, 2009 and by the time it was shut down by wordpress, ceo, toni schneider, in june, it had attracted 185, 000 consumer viewers desperate for a source of information that was 100% absent a profit motive. bad biz finder did not accept donations, gifts, payments, advertising or any other funding. it maintained complete objectivity and published reports anonymously so as to keep the attention on the consumers, not on the author.

The blog exposed the truth about two crimes against consumers:

1. udr’s illegal california contracts, followed by the formation of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of california udr tenants.

2. the formation of loan modification “law firms” that capitalized on the exemption granted to attorneys under california civil code section 2945. it stated that foreclosure consultants could not take advanced fees, but attorneys could. however, these “law firms” had no attorneys. they were set up using an attorney’s license, the work was being conducted by inexperienced “foreclosure consultants, ” and run by ex-subprime mortgage hacks.

Whenever criminal cash flow is interrupted, there is a price to pay. erin baldwin spoke the truth to help consumers and udr tenants. now she has a bench warrant out for her arrest with a $5, 000 bail signed by judge franz miller on september 2, 2009 because she failed to attend an order to show cause for contempt.

But how can that be?

1. baldwin was never recognized as a defendant in any of these actions. on july 14, 2009, judge miller stated in his tentative ruling, “it is not clear that erin baldwin has the authority to speak on behalf of bad biz finder.” although she had attempted to appear telephonically prior to this hearing, she was rejected as a representative of the case

2. however, on june 2, 2009, judge franz miller signed a judgment naming baldwin as a defendant, along with bad biz finder, an unknown business entity. he stated in his order that baldwin was responsible for paying $605, 000 to parsa law group for damages arising from her defamatory actions.

So herein, lies the big mystery. if judge franz miller believes baldwin has no authority to speak on behalf of the case, how can she be responsible for paying a six-figure judgment?

Here is a chronology of events for your entertainment:

1. may 18, 2009: judge franz miller, in his tentative ruling, stated that parsa’s claims against baldwin contained prior restraint issues and that these issues should be considered. this means that free speech cannot be restrained, however, if can be questioned in a court of law once it is published. baldwin pled prior restraint issues throughout the case and they were ignored.

2. on may 18, judge franz miller denied parsa’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against baldwin, as they failed to state a cause of action for defamation. truth is an absolute defense against defamation and parsa could not point to even one statement that was untrue.

3. on may 19, baldwin informed the court that she was indigent and therefore “judgment proof” by way of an application for waiver of court fees and costs. the application was rejected because a business cannot apply for a fee waiver and baldwin was not considered a defendant in the action.

4. on may 19, the rejected application was sent to stacie turner, judge miller’s clerk requesting that she send it to baldwin. however, turner intentionally held on to it until may 29, the date originally set for a default hearing against bad biz finder and baldwin.

5. on may 27, the court received baldwin’s motion for an order setting aside default, so it would be heard in conjunction with the default hearing scheduled for may 29. however, turner kept the motion together with the rejected fee waive application and it was not presented to the court.

5. on may 29, baldwin spoke with turner to learn the outcome of the default hearing. she was informed that the hearing had been continued to june 2, 2009, however parsa never noticed baldwin of this fact. later, baldwin found out that the hearing had been continued because the court had rejected parsa’s request for entry of default package on may 28, 2009 due to numerous errors. the may 29 hearing date is not on the docket and it states that the hearing was continued from june 1 to june 2.

6. on may 29, baldwin inquired about the status of her application for waiver of court fees and costs and it was explained to her that bad biz finder was the primary defendant and baldwin had not been added as a defendant. however, bad biz finder had never been served with a summons and complaint.

7. on june 2, fifteen days after judge miller denied parsa’s motion for preliminary injunction and tro, he granted a permanent injunction and signed a judgment that stated, in part:

“it is so ordered that parsa 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.”

8. on june 2, 2009, the hearing set for 11:30 a.m. never happened because there was a power outage at the court that suspended all regular activity until 2:30 p.m. however, parsa claims judge miller carried on with the hearing, ruled and signed the judgment.

9. on june 2, stacie turner mailed to baldwin the rejected fee application and her original motion for order setting aside default received on may 27. she included a handwritten note (date stamped june 2, 2009) that said: “obtain legal counsel to properly file your motion, or a paralegal to assist.” turner’s unique penmanship on the handwritten note matched the unique penmanship on the judgment allegedly signed by judge miller.

10. parsa lost no time sending out menacing letters to all sources that posted information about parsa law group and attached the court order allegedly signed by judge miller on june 2. the bad biz finder blog was shut down (with 185, 000 hits accumulated in just 6 months) even though it contained reports completely unrelated to parsa law group.

11. baldwin rescheduled her motion for july 14, 2009. parsa opposed and baldwin replied to the opposition. on july 14, judge miller stated in his tentative ruling, he was “unclear if baldwin has any authority to appear for bad biz.” how could he be unclear when just six weeks prior he had ordered baldwin to pay parsa $600.000?

12. the motion was denied and parsa promptly filed a motion of contempt. since judge miller wasn’t recognizing baldwin as being affiliated with this action, baldwin didn’t show up to the hearing. the court wouldn’t even allow her to appear telephonically. but that didn’t stop judge miller from issuing a bench warrant for her arrest with a $5, 000 bail.

There is so much wrong with this case, we don’t even know where to begin. baldwin is filing an appeal for violation of her due process and freedom of speech without prior restraint constitutional rights, judicial and attorney misconduct, malicious prosecution, ordering a judgment-proof indigent in pro per litigant to pay $600, 000, and fraud.

Weigh in – what do you think?

Nyse:udr – udr, inc. joins two loan mod scams in court to stop homeless consumer advocate from speaking the truth & gets judge franz miller to issue bench warrant for advocate with $5, 000 bail

Nyse:udr shareholders must be so proud of your stock pick today. first of all it’s the nyse:udr is in another free fall, crash and burn cycle because the kuwait finance house is a little disappointed in what they’ve learned about udr lately. but most importantly, it’s a dark day for american liberties and freedoms. money talks folks and when criminal cash flow is interrupted, someone has to pay the price. read on.

Ladies and gentleman —

On this side of the ring is an in pro per litigant, a 40-something single mom, that under the first amendment of the constitution of the united states is guaranteed freedom of speech and press to publish factual articles about illegal activities to aid consumers in foreclosure and oppressed tenants. she has the inalienable right to publish words anonymously without prior restraint but the system has failed her. the truth is an absolute defense against defamation and the truth tends to hurt liars, cheats and thieves. especially those that get court orders illegally and without merit.

On the other side of the ring you have a $500 million publicly traded company in colorado, landlord/reit, udr; attorney james parsa; parsa law group; attorney jeffrey cancilla; solutions law group; attorney craig laverty; law offices of craig laverty; attorney dan kessler; attorney eric goodman; attorney david berstein, attorney nicholas myers, and the law offices of burkhalter, kessler, goodman & george.

Yes, folks – look like an even fight tonight! oh yes, we forgot judge franz miller, buddy adjunct professor at whittier law school with attorney eric goodman and attorney dan kessler and a big fan of the theory “the more the merrier.” on august 31, 2009, he allowed all of the above join in together against erin baldwin. and then the best is left for last – drum roll please —

Today nyse:udr – udr, inc; parsa law group, et al. got their pal franz miller to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of erin baldwin to take her to jail on a $5, 000 bail for contempt of court.

What a life. what a justice system. gotta love it.

Okay, first up:
Nyse:udr – udr, inc. has screwed thousands of tenants out of thousands of dollars over the past 6 six years due to its illegal california leases and for which there is a pending class action lawsuit started by erin baldwin, consumer advocate. causes of action include:
1. fraud by intentional misrepresentation, concealment and omission of material facts necessary to form a proper and valid contract;
2. violation of the california public utilities commission’s prohibition from non-utilities earning a profit off selling water and energy;
3. the illegal use of liquidated damages clauses forcing tenants to waive their right to protection from liquidated damages clauses under california law and requiring them to agree that it was “fair and equitable” to pay 2-1/4 time the bases rent should they have to terminate their lease early regardless of what point in the lease they were at;
4. the illegal calculation of late fees under recent case law and state laws thereon (some properties are charging 10% per month instead of the california state law mandate of 10% per annum (non-compounded);
5. violation of california state law defining the factors permissible to deduct from a tenant’s security deposit; rather, inventing 16 separate illegal fees, fines and penalties that udr tenants were required to agree to;
6. illegal exculpatory (”hold harmless”) clauses creating a perception of lack of negligence liability on the part of udr;
7. irrefutable evidence that the orange county superior court had evicted tenants for the past 5 years based on an unlawful and invalid contract capitalizing on consumer’s ignorance of the law and the orange county sheriff’s department has carried out such unlawful evictions;
8. udr’s lack of proper definition of the legal entity of its properties in the controlling rla (contract) which was the basis of its unlawful detainer actions;
9. udr’s conscious failure to comply with california state law mandating udr (as an out-of-state landlord) to state the proper name, address and telephone number of its in-state agent for service of process;
10. udr’s blatant disregard of california secretary of state regulations to maintain a complete and accurate record of its in-state legal entity and agent for service of process for california; and
11. udr’s hideous violations of tenant health and safety standards

We reported the facts to aid udr tenants and udr sued erin baldwin and bad biz finder for defamation and had 3 blogs shut down. the answer in this case isn’t even due until september 13.

Their attorneys? eric goodman, esq., david berstein, esq., and nicholas myers, esq. all of burkhalter, kessler, goodman & george in irvine, california.

Next up:

James parsa, charged with 8 counts of statutory rape in 2000, pled guilty to two counts – and child endangerment charges in 2007 for leaving a child under the age of 6 in a car by herself. rapists usually are not allowed to practice law, are they? prior to mid-2008, the only cases he ever handled were personal injury automobile accident cases. but magically in april of 2008, he became a loan modification litigation expert with 18 years of experience.

Never mind the “f” rating with the better business bureau, laundering money through inkor holdings (alex dastmalchi, jim’s partner in crime), showing pictures of “attorneys” on his website that aren’t even attorneys, and those that are attorneys have a checkered past to say the least. his lies and you tube videos have also screwed thousands of consumers in foreclosure in not only california but in 8 other states for which he is not even licensed.

We reported the facts to aid consumers in foreclosure and james parsa and parsa law group sued erin baldwin and bad biz finder for defamation and had 3 blogs shut down. we just filed an appeal on this case and it will be entered into the record tomorrow.

Their attorneys? eric goodman, esq., david berstein, esq., and nicholas myers, esq. all of burkhalter, kessler, goodman & george in irvine, california.

Finally –

Jeffrey cancilla, solutions law group the heat got too hot and in july he sold his business to craig laverty. of course, all of the consumers he had screwed over the past 2 years were still waiting for a loan modification that had been paid for in full. laverty comes on the scene and contacts all of these waiting clients and tries to convince them to sign his contract waiving cancilla’s liability. we warned clients that cancilla has to reimburse clients for fees he has collected and not performed under before laverty takes over.

We reported the facts to aid consumers in foreclosure and jeffrey cancilla and craig laverty sued erin baldwin and bad biz finder for defamation. the answer in this case isn’t even due until september 13.

Their attorneys? you guessed it! eric goodman, esq., david berstein, esq., and nicholas myers, esq. all of burkhalter, kessler, goodman & george in irvine, california.

David & goliath? who will prevail? only god knows for sure. stay tuned.

Beatty hanslinger
Www.udrfraud.com
[protected]@yahoo.com

Nyse:udr – udr, inc. news: udr goes to the arabs for a bailout

Reported by udr fraud at www.udrfraud.com. for more information, contact beatty hanslinger at [protected]@yahoo.com

As if they didn’t have enough problems with their current portfolio of properties, now the downtrodden colorado-based residential reit / landlord, udr, inc., is partnering with abdulnasser abdulmuhsen al-subeih and ali al-ghannam, executive of islamic lender kuwait finance house to acquire high income residential real estate in major cities in the united states with total investments of up to $450 million.

Gulf arab investors are targeting the united states real estate market after making initial investments in the late 1990s, but pulling out prior to the financial crisis. they now hope to return to american real estate market targeting "a" class assets with a minimum of $20 million that are less than seven years old.

But why udr? the 50, 000 apartment homes udr already owns are in such tragic disrepair and 30% of udr’s revenues are going to hit a skid with the pending class action lawsuit in california. udr chief executive officer, thomas w. toomey, must not be providing full disclosure or else al-subeih and al-ghannam doesn’t understand the value of thorough due diligence.

Let’s just wait and watch. should be interesting. so much for the red, white and blue spirit that seems to have been the cornerstone of udr’s history. it puts an interesting spin on udr’s tagline, “opening doors to the future.” god bless america.

See reuter’s report: http://www.reuters.com/article/innovationnews/idustre57e0ij20090815

Grand larceny charge

Larceny is defined as the unlawful or fraudulent removal of another's property without the owner's consent. California penal code, section 484, states: every person (and a corporation is for all intents and purposes a “natural person”) who shall:

(1) feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another;
Or
(2) fraudulently appropriate property that has been entrusted to him or her;
Or
(3) knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property … is guilty of larceny, now commonly referred to as theft.

If the property is a value over $400, it is considered “grand larceny, ” or “grand theft.”

On june 16, 2009, outspoken tenant advocate, erin baldwin was unexpectedly and forcibly evicted from her udr apartment after receiving a written promise from kelli beltran (orange county superior court operations director), that the eviction would be stayed until their meeting scheduled for june 23, 2009 to discuss the suspicious and unorthodox court proceedings of three back-to-back unlawful detainer actions brought against baldwin by udr (in a period of 6 months) all of which were in retaliation for initiating a class-action lawsuit against udr.

In reliance of beltran’s promise, baldwin was not packed nor had a reason to believe that an eviction would take place that day or ever. Regardless, she was evicted with her 2 dogs and whatever property she could quickly remove and was told by the sheriff she had 15 days to return to the unit to collect her property. From that moment to june 19, 2009, udr maintained 24/7 surveillance of her apartment by four security guards prohibiting access to the unit by anyone including baldwin.

On june 19, 2009, udr leasing staff entered the unit carrying a video recorder, packed, removed all of baldwin’s personal property, claiming it was “abandoned property.” villa venetia’s property manager, melissa hurtado, signed a “notice of right to reclaim abandoned personal property [california civil code 1984]” on that date although the property was not abandoned, rather stolen by udr.

Baldwin never received the notice due to the fact that she was homeless. She sent 3 separate emails to tracy saffos, udr regional director copying onsite leasing staff and udr executives in colorado requesting the whereabouts of her property with zero response. Finally, a response came by way of udr’s unlawful detainer attorney, cynthia s. Poer. See the series of emails from her as they attempt to extort money out of baldwin for stealing her property.

Extortion charge

According to the california penal code, sections 518-527, "extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right." (§ 518).

"fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either:

1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a
Third person;

2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, of any crime; or,

3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or,

4. To expose any secret affecting him or them." (§ 519).

First email dated july 16, 2009 wherein attorney cynthia poer defers all communications directly to udr corporate in colorado, although the udr leasing office had directed baldwin to brisco & associates (cynthia poer’s boss, todd a. Brisco).

Subject: abandoned personal property
From: "cynthia poer" [protected]@briscoassociates.com
Date: thu, jul 16, 2009 5:04 pm
To:

Ms. Baldwin,

Your reply email regarding your personal belongings was forwarded to my attention. Our staff tried to be helpful and politely provide you answers to your questions. Your response was entirely inappropriate. Our staff will no longer accept your calls or respond to your emails. If you have relevant questions, you may direct them to me.

With regard to your property, you have been provided will all the information we have at this time regarding the location of your personal belongings. Pursuant to california civil code section 1988, as indicated in the notice, our client may now proceed to sale. If you are able to pay the total applicable storage fees and costs prior to date of sale along with any costs associated with the advertisement of sale, you will be permitted to retrieve your belongings. The property and its disposition are being handled by udr villa venetia apartments, lp. Your business is with them. Should you be unable to obtain reasonable information from them regarding the status of your belongings, you may direct your questions in a professional manner to me. I will do what I can to answer them. Any inappropriate or rude emails will not be answered.

Cynthia s. Poer, esq.
Associate attorney
Todd a. Brisco & associates, apc
1900 south state college boulevard, suite 505
Anaheim, ca 92806
Telephone: [protected]
Facsimile: [protected]
Email: [protected]@briscoassociates.com

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Second email (also copied to the top brass at udr) where in she begins to throw around the amount of money udr is hoping to extort from baldwin:

Subject: abandoned personal property
From: "cynthia poer" [protected]@briscoassociates.com
Date: fri, jul 17, 2009 10:56 am
To: [protected]@thebaldwincompanies.com
Cc: "'thomas toomey'" , "'mark culwell'" , "'mark wallis'" , "'david messenger'" , , "'richard giannotti'" [protected]@udr.com

Ms. Baldwin,

The current total amount due in order for you to reclaim your property is $1502.09. That figure is comprised of $262.09 for packing materials, $1, 040.00 for moving costs, and $200.00 first months rent for 4 vaults ($50/mo.) that $200.00 rental amount is charged in full at the beginning of the rental month and is not prorated for partial month storage. The initial $200.00 covers rent through close of business tomorrow, july 18, 2009.

If you can provide payment in the form of a certified check (not a money order or any other form of payment), made payable to udr villa venetia apartments, l.P., and deliver the check to udr villa venetia apartments, l.P. (hereinafter "villa venetia") by 1:45 today, you will be granted access to the units today. You will have until close of business tomorrow to reclaim your belongings without incurring any additional rent charges. I've requested that time for your information. As soon as I am advised of the closing time of the storage facility, I will email it to you. If any items are left behind, the storage unit(s) will be re-locked. If the remaining items are deemed to be of less than $300 in value, they will be discarded. If deemed to be more than $300 in value, you may reclaim the additional items upon payment of the additional rent. If you delay in reclaiming the additional items and villa venetia incurs any charges for advertisement or preparation for auction, you will need to include those additional charges before you will be granted access to your belongings. That balance can be provided at your request in the event that all items are not removed by tomorrow.

All correspondence sent to you following the termination of your tenancy has been sent via certified mail to any and all address previously provided to villa venetia. Villa venetia does not have a current address for you. Should you require hard copies of any documents, please provide an address to which they should be sent. Should you need additional information, you may submit your request to me via email.

Cynthia s. Poer, esq.
Associate attorney
Todd a. Brisco & associates, apc
1900 south state college boulevard, suite 505
Anaheim, ca 92806
Telephone: [protected]
Facsimile: [protected]
Email: [protected]@briscoassociates.com

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Third email (also copied to the top brass at udr) where in cynthia poer retracts the amount of money udr wishes to extort from baldwin and says “given that my original discussions regarding the property required payment today, I wanted to alert you to the change. I will have the additional information for you shortly.” more fear.

Subject: abandoned personal property
From: "cynthia poer" [protected]@briscoassociates.com
Date: fri, jul 17, 2009 11:14 am
To: [protected]@thebaldwincompanies.com
Cc: "'thomas toomey'" , "'mark culwell'" , "'mark wallis'" , "'david messenger'" , , "'richard giannotti'" [protected]@udr.com

Ms. Baldwin,

I've just been provided with revised information on the storage unit and the process entailed in you reclaiming your belongings. The charge for the second month of storage was applied july 1, 2009. Thus, to date, your revised storage costs are $200 instead of $400. On the plus side, however, you are paid through the end of july and therefore do not have to rush to get everything out by tomorrow. There are also additional fees associated with the removal of your property. I will forward the additional fees and details momentarily. Given that my original discussions regarding the property required payment today, I wanted to alert you to the change. I will have the additional information for you shortly.

Cynthia s. Poer, esq.
Associate attorney
Todd a. Brisco & associates, apc
1900 south state college boulevard, suite 505
Anaheim, ca 92806
Telephone: [protected]
Facsimile: [protected]
Email: [protected]@briscoassociates.com

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Third email (leaves off the top brass at udr so they can deny involvement) where in cynthia poer increases the amount udr wishes to extort from baldwin by $600.00 from $1, 502.09 to $2, 102.09.

Subject: abandoned personal property
From: "cynthia poer" [protected]@briscoassociates.com
Date: mon, jul 20, 2009 5:38 pm
To: [protected]@thebaldwincompanies.com
Cc: "'thomas toomey'" , "'mark culwell'" , "'mark wallis'" , "'david messenger'" , , "'richard giannotti'" [protected]@udr.com

Ms. Baldwin,

The total amount that will need to be paid by you in advance in certified funds to secure the release of your personal property currently being held in storage is $2, 102.09. This figure will remain unchanged through july 31, 2009. The charges breakdown as follows:

$ 262.09 for packing materials
$1, 040.00 for moving costs
$ 200.00 june rent
$ 200.00 july rent
$ 300.00 labor to retrieve, verify inventory, and stage items for claim
($75/hr, minimum 4 hours)
$ 100.00 labor for villa venetia management representative to remain
Throughout process/verify & sign off inventory
$2, 102.09

Effective august 1, 2009, an additional $200 will be charged for august rent. Monthly rent is not prorated.

In addition, a tentative auction date of august 18, 2009 has been scheduled. As of august 4, publication of the auction date, time and location will begin. You will continue to have the opportunity to reclaim your belongings any time up until date of auction. You will, however, be responsible for any additional costs for advertising or auction preparation once that process begins.

You will also need to provide your own truck to remove your belongings, and labor to load them onto your truck.

Should you be able to procure funds sufficient to satisfy the above charges, please advise when you will make payment and available dates for property removal so that schedules may be coordinated.

Please advise if you have questions pertinent to this process.

Cynthia s. Poer, esq.
Associate attorney
Todd a. Brisco & associates, apc
1900 south state college boulevard, suite 505
Anaheim, ca 92806
Telephone: [protected]
Facsimile: [protected]
Email: [protected]@briscoassociates.com

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Fourth email (leaves off the top brass at udr so they can deny involvement) wherein udr decides that extortion may not be such a good idea after all except poer states: “this is a limited time offer. Additional rent charges will be assessed on august 1, 2009. Therefore, you must pick up your property by july 31, 2009.”

Subject: re: offer regarding personal property
From: "cynthia poer" [protected]@briscoassociates.com
Date: fri, jul 24, 2009 8:17 am
To: [protected]@thebaldwincompanies.com

July 23, 2009

Via email
[protected]@thebaldwincompanies.com

Erin baldwin

Re: personal property

Dear ms. Baldwin,

At the request of our client, and in the interest of putting an end to this matter, udr villa venetia apartments, l.P. Has informed us that they are willing to waive the storage fees and costs incurred to date and offer you the opportunity to claim your personal belongings before any more costs are incurred or parties become involved. This is a limited time offer. Additional rent charges will be assessed on august 1, 2009. Therefore, you must pick up your property by july 31, 2009.

You will still be responsible for providing your own truck(s) to remove your belongings, and for providing your own labor to load your belongings on to your truck(s). Udr villa venetia apartments, l.P. Will pay all storage facility personnel charges for the staging and inventory verification of your property.

In the interest of protecting all parties from further legal action over the property, the storage facility requires that a management representative from udr villa venetia apartments, l.P. Be present to sign off on each item as it is released. Udr villa venetia apartments, l.P.in turn will request that you sign off on each item as it is released to you.in order to coordinate management schedules and to book labor time with the storage facility, we request that you provide no less than 72 hours notice of the date on which you wish to pick up your property.

Should you choose to decline this offer, all charges will be reinstated effective august 1, 2009. Further, udr villa venetia apartments, l.P. Will proceed forward with advertisement and auction of your property, as is their legal right pursuant to california civil code §1988. You will, pursuant to law, still have the option to claim all of your property up until the date of auction upon full payment of all costs incurred. You also have the right, pursuant to law, to attend the auction and bid on the property as it comes up for sale.

Please advise this office should you choose to accept this offer. If no response is received by 5:00 p.M., monday, july 27, 2009, it will be assumed that you have waived this option.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office.

Very truly yours,

Todd a. Brisco & associates, apc

Cynthia s. Poer, esq.

/csp

Cynthia s. Poer, esq.
Associate attorney
Todd a. Brisco & associates, apc
1900 south state college boulevard, suite 505
Anaheim, ca 92806
Telephone: [protected]
Facsimile: [protected]
Email: [protected]@briscoassociates.com

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Fifth email is baldwin’s response:

Subject: re: offer regarding personal property
From: [protected]@thebaldwincompanies.com
Date: mon, jul 27, 2009 12:50 pm
To: [protected]@briscoassociates.com, "thomas toomey" , "mark culwell" , "mark wallis" , "david messenger" , "brisco associates" , "daniel coor" , "matt akin" , "tom spangler" , "villa 8243" , "warren troupe" , [protected]@thebaldwincompanies.com

July 27, 2009 - 12:49 p.M.

Re: your "offer" regarding my personal property

This is not an offer; it's just another udr attempt to waive its liability for its unlawful actions. It's pretty amusing though, i'll give you that. My favorite part is "this is a limited time offer." what are you guys, radio shack?

The facts are:

1. You illegally evicted me and I was told by sheriff tj young that I had 15 days to collect my property.

2. The moment I was locked out, udr placed round-the-clock security guards at my apartment for three days to prevent me from collecting my personal property.

3. The third day after my illegal eviction, udr seized everything I own except that which I was able to remove from my apartment as I was being evicted and videotaped the entire process (witnessed by neighbors).

4. Udr moved my personal property off site and did not inform me of its whereabouts.

5. Udr went through my personal property to extract and destroy any documents I may have left behind that could be legally damaging to them in the pending class-action lawsuit.

6. I requested the whereabouts of my personal property 3 times from tracy saffos (copying udr executives) with no response from her or anyone else for that matter. The fact that you mailed me something is just #ed. I was homeless and you had changed the mailbox lock. Why didn't tracy saffos return my emails and let me know that something had been mailed to me instead of just ignoring my attempts for information? Did you just need more time to go through my personal property?

7. I finally called the leasing office at villa venetia and was told they didn't know where my personal property was and that I needed to contact todd brisco's office even though melissa hurtado signed the notice of right to reclaim abandoned personal property on june 19, 2009 on the date my property was seized. On the face of that document was the address of the location where my property allegedly was being stored. So, how could it be that no one in the office knew where my stuff was?

8. I called todd brisco's office and spoke with daniel coor who also told me he didn't know where my personal property was being held and that he needed to call corporate offices to find out. However, the "notice of right to reclaim abandoned personal property" was prepared by the law office and hence, they most certainly had the information.

9. I was then emailed the notice with a nasty note from cynthia poer reprimanding me on my impolite telephone etiquette.

10. My personal property was never abandoned as clearly stated above. I repeatedly asked ms. Poer to look up the legal definition of "abandoned property" which she failed to do. Rather, she emailed me that udr had done everything properly and that I would have to pay ~$1500 to get back the property "I had abandoned" which was actually stolen by udr.

11. Then magically before my eyes the fees udr claimed I owed went from $1500 to $2200 to reclaim my abandoned property that was actually stolen by udr.

12. Then the following email arrived (see my comments in red italicized copy):

At the request of our client, and in the interest of putting an end to this matter, udr villa venetia apartments, l.P. Has informed us that they are willing to waive the storage fees and costs incurred to date and offer you the opportunity to claim your personal belongings before any more costs are incurred or parties become involved.

"at the interest of putting an end to this matter," what matter is that? The matter surrounding the fact that you stole my property and illegally kept it from me despite repeated attempts by me to find its whereabouts?

"offer you the opportunity to claim your personal belongings," after you have ransacked my personal belongings and held it from me for over a month? Thank you for the "opportunity" to reclaim what has always been mine, never was yours, and it is now obvious to me that you know you broke the law otherwise you would not be making this "offer." there is no big surprise here.

Additional rent charges will be assessed on august 1, 2009. Therefore, you must pick up your property by july 31, 2009. You will still be responsible for providing your own truck(s) to remove your belongings, and for providing your own labor to load your belongings on to your truck(s). Udr villa venetia apartments, l.P. Will pay all storage facility personnel charges for the staging and inventory verification of your property.

All the above is just outright stupidity on your part. Why should I incur the cost of (1) a moving truck; (2) labor for movers; (3) and travel to orange to pick up what you should never have taken in the first place? And how dare you threaten me with a deadline and additional fees.

In the interest of protecting all parties from further legal action over the property, the storage facility requires that a management representative from udr villa venetia apartments, l.P. Be present to sign off on each item as it is released.

Let me tell you something, this "offer" could never protect you from breaking the law. Why would I need protection from further legal action? I was deprived of my property and was on the streets. What could you possibly pursue against me legally? The delivery of my personal property back to me by udr is by far the slightest issue you should be worried about legally. It's great evidence, however, to have gone through this process with udr so I have all the documentation to back up the procedures you use in the event of an eviction.

Udr villa venetia apartments, l.P.in turn will request that you sign off on each item as it is released to you.

Let me make sure I have this straight. I am supposed to be able to identify every single piece of personal property that was in my apartment that you illegally seized by udr and sign off that I have reclaimed everything? Your "inventory list" is woefully inadequate. If you were forced out of your apartment and only took enough to carry, would you be able to verify that you had reclaimed all your personal property? I had two bedrooms, one bathroom, a living room, two closets, a filing cabinet, a kitchen, and a dining room full of property.

I would never sign a piece of paper letting you off the hook for all my personal property. Are you nuts?

In order to coordinate management schedules and to book labor time with the storage facility, we request that you provide no less than 72 hours notice of the date on which you wish to pick up your property. Should you choose to decline this offer, all charges will be reinstated effective august 1, 2009. Further, udr villa venetia apartments, l.P. Will proceed forward with advertisement and auction of your property, as is their legal right pursuant to california civil code §1988.

More threats. Very stupid on your part.

You will, pursuant to law, still have the option to claim all of your property up until the date of auction upon full payment of all costs incurred. You also have the right, pursuant to law, to attend the auction and bid on the property as it comes up for sale.

Thank god I have another option! To attend an auction where my personal property will be auctioned off because udr stole it, kept it from me, and then tried to charge me $2200 to get it back. I'm so relieved that I can go and bid on property that is rightfully mine? Again, are you nuts?

Please advise this office should you choose to accept this offer. If no response is received by 5:00 p.M., monday, july 27, 2009, it will be assumed that you have waived this option.

Do I have to say it? Your offer is rejected. Try again.

Erin baldwin

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

While committing crimes against baldwin and all california tenants — udr is suing baldwin for defamation.in order to serve her (since udr evicted her and had no idea where she was) — udr follows baldwin on vacation. Not only that, but udr shadows her friends she’s visiting to church, to 12-step meetings, and even while her friend is showing houses to real estate clients. How do we know that? The process server/investigator was reported screaming it from the street in front of the house and throwing papers over the fence. Sick. Really sick. And this is a $500 million publicly traded company? Wow.

Desperate people do desperate things and make no mistake about it – udr is desperate. They don’t want the truth to come out! That could ruin them and their sanctimonious reputation. More about that later.

UDR Bullies PR-Inside to Delete All 16 Bad Biz Finder Press Releases to Hide the Truth the Night Before Its 2Q Earning Conference Call

On the day before UDR's 2Q Earnings Conference Call, Bad Biz Finder was notified by its press release distribution company, PR-Inside, that David Berstein, UDR's lawyer at Burkhalter, Kessler, Goodman & George LLP, had severely threatened them unless they removed all 16 Bad Biz Finder press releases about UDR from the world wide web no later than the night before the earnings telephone conference call.

So, PR-Inside did what they said. However, Berstein had no court order nor any foundation based in law to request such an action. This was straight up intimidation tactics in violation of Bad Biz Finder's constitutional right to report the truth without fear of prior restraint.

But since when does UDR care about the law, they don't even list the legal name of their properties on tenant leases nor the agent for service of process as required by law to to virtually eliminate any chance of tenant-based litigation.

UDR wanted Bad Biz Finder's information out of the way so they could have unfettered access to lie, cheat and carry out a devious plan to pump up the volume and price of the NYSE:UDR stock. Bad Biz Finder had researched and reported on every single claim and lie that UDR reported for the past 4 months. One of the most glaring manipulations was when UDR CEO, Thomas W. Toomey bought 60, 000 share to manipulate the stock price and volume and to hide operations defect that were dragging the company down.

The 2Q earning conference call went on as scheduled and was a pack of lies from start to finish. But where was the evidence to the contrary? Deleted, no longer visible on the internet, removed by a corrupt law firm in Irvine, California, that believes that bribes and threats are the way to best represent its client's interests.

The links to the press releases are there but if you click on them, you get "error occurred." How convenient for this despicable company, Colorado-based Landlord/REIT, UDR, Inc (NYSE:UDR) that has systemically neglected every property it owns and spent the $200 million note receivable it collected in May on a GPS iPhone system and website bells and whistles instead of addressing the dilapidated condition of its properties making most uninhabitable according to state regulations.

They also go forward without concern to cheat tenants out of money on illegal lease clauses, security deposit withholding, and unlawful fees and fines. We know that UDR is afraid of Bad Biz Finder otherwsie they wouldn't have forced the removal of our news stories. Imagine the damage control they would have to deal with in reimbursing tenants for illegal early terminated fees 2.25 times the base rent, or the fact that they charge 10% per month (not per annum) or late fees, or that they defer liability for injury on their property sites or fail to maintain workers' compensation insurance on their employees?

We will be reposting all of our reports in several different locations, including this fantastic site, so if by chance you missed the news, you can at least read both sides of the story and judge for yourself the truth of the matter.

If you have any comments for David, here is a link to his California State Bar record: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=204472

Bad Biz Finder

Nyse:udr udr, inc. violates ca labor law by neglecting to maintain workers' compensation insurance for its staff

[protected]:21:43 - nyse:udr – udr, inc. violates california labor code by failing to carry workers’ compensation insurance for its california employees – heavy monetary penalties and possible closure of leasing offices is imminent

In accordance with california labor code section [protected].5, “every employer except the state shall secure the payment of compensation by being insured against liability to pay compensation by one or more insurers duly authorized to write compensation insurance in the state of california."

According to the california department of industrial relations and california’s state compensation fund, the colorado-based landlord/reit, udr, inc., fails to comply with this regulation for its staff at 48 california properties.

According to the california department of industrial relations and california’s state compensation fund, the colorado-based landlord/reit, udr, inc., fails to comply with this regulation for its staff at 48 california properties. as an out-of-state employer, it is particularly vital that udr stay up-to-date and compliant with california laws. however, we have reported on numerous occasions that they do not.

This news

Should not come as a big surprise as we have previously reported that udr, inc. also fails to comply with california state landlord-tenant law, california public & utilities commission regulations, reporting requirements by the california secretary of state, orange county recorder’s office guidelines, and securities & exchange commission reporting, advertising, and website rules.

We have contacted the division of labor standards enforcement unit to file a claim with the bureau of field enforcement. established by the california legislature in 1914, state compensation insurance fund is a self-supporting, non-profit enterprise that provides workers' compensation insurance to california employers at cost with no financial obligation to the public.

California labor code section 3700.5. (a) states: “the failure to secure the payment of compensation as required by this article by one who knew, or because of his or her knowledge or experience should be reasonably expected to have known, of the obligation to secure the payment of compensation, is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or by a fine of up to double the amount of premium, as determined by the court, that would otherwise have been due to secure the payment of compensation during the time compensation was not secured, but not less than ten thousand dollars ($10, 000), or by both that imprisonment and fine."

California labor code section 3700.5. (b) states: “a second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year, by a fine of triple the amount of premium, or by both that imprisonment and fine, as determined by the court, that would otherwise have been due to secure the payment of compensation during the time payment was not secured, but not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50, 000)."

California labor code section 3700.5. (c) states: “upon a first conviction of a person under this section, the person may be charged the costs of investigation at the discretion of the court. upon a subsequent conviction, the person shall be charged the costs of investigation in addition to any other penalties pursuant to subdivision (b). the costs of investigation shall be paid only after the payment of any benefits that may be owed to injured workers, any reimbursement that may be owed to the director for benefits provided to the injured worker pursuant to section 3717, and any other penalty assessments that may be owed."

This news will cut hard and deep into the bottom line of this publicly-traded company and will add to the already lagging confidence of investors and analyst predictions of the health and future of udr, inc. as a going concern.

Bad biz finder
[protected]@aol.com

Wall street guru dumps 2m shares of nyse:udr at a huge loss as landlord falls apart

Nyse:udr news: ken heebner, founder of capital growth mgt, unloads 2 million udr shares at a 36% loss

July 19, 2009

G. kenneth heebner, co-founder of capital growth management, a boston-based money management firm, purchased 2 million shares of nyse:udr at the end of 2008 for $14.70/share and sold it all less than three months later in march, 2009, at $9.48 with a stunning 36% loss.

See: http://www.gurufocus.com/listguru.php?guruname=ken+heebner

We’ve always thought of mr. heebner as a giant in the world of savvy moves and extravagant, yet brilliantly calculated stock picks. he got out from under the udr boulder rolling down hill in time. according to guru focus, “heebner is a growth oriented investor. he has a history of making bold and swift sector calls. mr. heebner is fiercely independent, and is not afraid to make large bets based on his convictions.”

See: http://www.gurufocus.com/stockbuy.php?symbol=udr&guruname=ken+heebner.

Founded in 1990, capital growth management (cgm) manages mutual funds and advisory accounts through an investment approach that emphasizes prompt response to changes in the market or economy. the firm seeks to deliver growth by selecting stocks with significant potential for price appreciation and generally constructs highly concentrated portfolios. as of december 31, 2008, assets under management were $7.1 billion.

See: http://funds.natixis.com/cs/satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=mungoblobs&blobwhere=1213199423928&ssbinary=true

Udr, inc. closed at $9.48 last friday, july 16, 2009. let’s see how udr competitors stacked up:

essex property trust, inc. (ess): last close – $59.69

midamerica apt. communities, inc. (maa): last close – $35.87

home properties, inc. (hme): last close – $32.64

Wonder if heebner wishes he’d put his eggs in one of those baskets?

Bad biz finder
Http://badbizfinder.wordpress.com

Notice of class action lawsuit to california tenants of landlord udr (nyse:udr) 2007-present

[protected]:23:12 - udr's ca residential lease agreement (rla) is illegal and this colorado-based landlord/reit (nyse:udr) has intentionally collected fees and fines it knew to be illegal and deferred liability for personal injury and property damage to tenants for the past six years. All tenants that signed an rla since january 1, 2007 and paid any of the following fees, out-of-pocket expenses and/or were evicted based on a breach of this illegal rla, are entitled to reimbursement:

(1) early lease termination fees.
(2) late fees.
(3) utility payments to nwp or other third party ratio utility billing service.
(4) unexpected deductions from your security deposit aside from normal wear and tear.
(5) property damage due to udr negligence.
(6) personal injury due to udr negligence.

If you have been harmed and wish to participate, please send a brief summary of the ways you were harmed to [protected]@aol.com and we'll send you information on how to join. There is no cost to join or participate and you will remain anonymous. Deadline to join is august 15, 2009.

See entire press release at:
http://www.pr-inside.com/notice-of-class-action-lawsuit-to-california-tenants-of-landlord-udr-nyse-udr-2007-present-r1389594.htm

Udr (nyse:udr) throws tenant out on street in retaliation for initiating class-action lawsuit
June 22, 2009 — badbizfinder

Udr (nyse:udr) throws tenant out on the street in retaliation for initiating a class-action lawsuit against udr on behalf of ca tenants

In first week 128 udr tenants have joined ca class-action lawsuit against reit / landlord udr inc for uninhabitability, illegal leases, oppressive rules, and fraud

On june 8, a class-action lawsuit against colorado-based reit / landlord udr, inc., on behalf of its california tenants, was initiated by bad biz finder. as of june 18, 2009, 128 tenants have joined the action and the consumer advocate group has received calls for help from udr tenants in washington, d.c., virginia and texas. future class-action suits will be initiated in these states once a settlement is reached in the present case.

Introduction

Bad biz finder, a consumer advocacy group founded in fremont, california in 1982 is filing a federal class-action lawsuit against udr, inc. on behalf of tenants that currently reside or have resided in one of udr’s 48 california apartment communities during the period beginning june 30, 2007 through the present. the group is also seeking support from california state senators on behalf of their renter constituents and is presently in talks with senator tom harman of the 35th district that houses nine (9) udr apartment communities.

Although this action is based on california law, it must be brought as a federal action because the prospective award amount will easily exceed $5, 000, 000 and all potential class members reside in california, a state outside udr, inc.’s principal place of business and state of incorporation. udr is publicly-traded on the new york stock exchange [nyse:udr], is incorporated in maryland, headquartered in colorado, and maintains a subsidiary operating limited partnership, united dominion realty, l.p., registered in delaware, to manage its california apartment holdings.

Gutsy tenant stands up to corrupt udr and orange county superior court judges

A udr tenant, erin baldwin, courageously brought these issues to the forefront beginning in november 2008 via her tenant support group and blog, “tenant advocates of california” before it was shut down without her permission. as a result of her efforts on behalf of california tenants, she has been the target of unconscionable civil harassment, severe oppression and retaliatory actions by udr, its agents, the orange county superior court system, and udr’s attorneys, todd a. brisco and cynthia s. poer. among these actions, udr towed her car and then sold it without cause and last week illegally evicted her and left her homeless.

Baldwin has been the subject of malicious prosecution by udr through 3 unlawful detainer complaints during the past six months. on each occasion she mounted a rigorous legal defense on her own behalf, used public transportation to file documents, go to the law library, and attend court hearings. despite the fact that her defenses prevailed on the first two complaints, she lost her defense after having commissioner richard e. pacheco removed from the case for his personal and improper relationship with udr’s attorney, todd a. brisco.

Post-pacheco baldwin’s matter was assigned to a long list of “judicial officers” who all mocked, ridiculed, trivialized and ignored the important causes of action baldwin brought before the court and denied her right to a jury trial or any trial whatsoever. they included orange county superior court – harbor justice center’s judge derek johnson who granted udr’s motion for summary judgment stating that baldwin’s evidence was not competent and there were no triable issues of fact. up to that point, baldwin had been stifled for 2 months by pacheco on every motion, demurrer and cause of action she brought with the following explanation, ”we’re in the pleading stage and those issues are triable issues of fact which you must reserve for trial.”

Supervising judge matthew anderson was assigned the case after pacheco was removed but wouldn’t hear anything as his bailiff stated, “he doesn’t hear motions or demurrers.” he should have intervened but did not. neither did presiding judge margaret anderson whom baldwin had requested assistance.

Next on the roster was judge craig e. robison who humiliated and abused his power by requiring baldwin to stand before the court audience and read a reply to her opposition for summary judgment that udr had handed her minutes before. robison told her to stand there and read it and be prepared to argue it. when baldwin objected, robison’s bailiff came and stood behind baldwin jiggling his handcuffs. robison ruled against baldwin’s request for continuance, wouldn’t even hear the motion for summary judgment, and told baldwin to get ready for trial the following monday.

Baldwin didn’t sleep that weekend as she thoroughly prepared for a jury trial and showed up ready to plead her case. that’s when she met judge derek johnson who granted summary judgment and the trial that judge craig e. robison ordered her to prepare for, never happened. when baldwin requested an explanation from judge derek johnson he refused to explain his definition of “incompetent evidence” rather, advised her to “look it up for her appeal.”

It turned out that “incompetent evidence” defined the fact that all evidence (including a grossly overstated 3-day notice, grossly overstated notice to perform, and the fact that udr had intentionally used an expired fictitious business name belonging to the previous owner of the complex to contract with tenants) was outlined in a memorandum of points & authorities instead of a declaration. this fact had no bearing on the merits of the case; rather, was a rookie in pro per pleadings error.

Baldwin came back the following monday ex parte to stay the eviction pending appeal and waited 7 hours to be heard by judge karen l. robinson who claimed to have read the foot tall stack of legal documents in the case in 15 minutes before she heard baldwin’s motion. at 4:45 p.m., judge robinson told baldwin that the only way she could stay the eviction was if she paid $8, 000 in the next 15 minutes. that was not an option available to baldwin since she had been unable to secure ongoing employment due to the fact that udr had confiscated her means of transportation. judge robinson had become a black-robed collection agency for udr.

Baldwin also brought the matter to the attention of orange county superior court’s presiding judge kim g. dunning two weeks prior to the eviction, put her off constantly and turned a blind eye to udr’s illegal and fraudulent conduct as well as the unconscionable and collusory conduct of the judges involved. her best suggestion to baldwin was to check out a list of homeless shelters for women.

Baldwin’s fight continued until june 16, 2009, when she was unexpectedly and forcibly removed from her apartment by the orange county sheriff’s office after being promised by kelli beltran of superior court operations that she would review the case and stay the eviction until such time. baldwin was scheduled to meet with beltran at harbor justice center on june 23, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.
Nonetheless, baldwin was evicted by orange county sheriff, t.j. miller and was told she had 15 days to collect all the contents of her apartment. dwayne roberts from orange county superior court operation left baldwin a message and told her the meeting she had on calendar with kelli beltran was cancelled as no evidence of impropriety was found in her case.

Less than 3 days after the eviction, it was reported by baldwin’s neighbor and class-action member that udr entered the unit and packed all of baldwin’s possessions and moved them offsite in an unscrupulous attempt to collect and destroy all evidence, computer files, and documentation baldwin had assembled to make her case and form the class-action lawsuit. four security guards stood watch over baldwin’s apartment for those intervening 3 days and harassed any tenant fitting baldwin’s description about where they were going and who they were.

Upon eviction, baldwin went to the public library to email all class action members to ensure them that even though she is without a home, the fight will continue. erin baldwin will continue to be the primary contact advocate for this action as she has spent the past 8 months researching the legal causes of action, gathering evidence, interviewing tenants, witnesses and local, county and state officials to support the class-action. she also has the full support of all sixteen bad biz finder chapters throughout the state of california.

Bad biz finder and tenant advocates of california are now working as one to compel udr to reimburse past and present tenants via compensatory and punitive damages resulting from udr’s: (1) intentional violation of california law; (2) its utter disregard for basic habitability standards and human decency; (3) violations of the california public utilities commission (cpuc); (4) regulatory violations of the securities & exchange commission (sec); and (5) intentional fraud by way of misrepresentation, concealment and omission of material facts vital to forming a valid and enforceable contract.

Any clause in a california residential lease agreement rla that asks a tenant to waive its rights under the law and to agree to the contrary is unenforceable. this is the driving force behind this class-action lawsuit as well as the fact that udr has deliberately capitalized on its tenants’ ignorance of the law. (california code of civil procedure section 1670.5 (a) and california civil code section 1953.)

The preliminary causes of action

(1) udr charges “early lease termination liquidated damages” penalties in violation of california law

California civil code section 1671 states that liquidated damages clauses in california residential lease agreements are illegal. however, udr requires that its tenants not only waive their legal right under this law but also requires them to agree to pay a liquidated damages penalty fee equal to 2-1/4 times their base rent for terminating their lease prior to the end of the lease period, regardless of the month in which they terminate.in essence, udr’s objective is to convince its tenants that it will take at least 68 days (2-1/4 months) to re-rent the vacant apartment as well as all associated marketing charges to advertise the vacancy.

In 1978, liquidated damages clauses were deemed illegal in residential lease agreements because landlords were distorting the true legal purpose or these clauses: “to set a flat fee when it’s impossible to determine the monetary harm that could result from a breach of the contract.” this doesn’t apply to udr. they know (within a slim margin) how long it’s going to take to fill a vacant apartment as they use these statistics everyday to project sales and calculate expenses. udr, inc. is a publicly-traded company on the new york stock exchange (nyse:udr) and it could not sustain such a position if its financial projections were a mystery.

In order for udr to maintain its average 95% occupancy rate, it must fill a vacancy within 18 days. therefore, 50 of the 68 days they’re charging tenants for an early move-out penalty results in udr collecting double rent on that unit – a violation of the law. if it actually took udr 68 days to fill a vacant apartment, that time frame would be three times longer than the industry standard and they could not compete in the already crowded and historically highly-competitive california marketplace – particularly in light of the overwhelming number of foreclosures in california forcing ex-homeowners into the rental market.

Also, california law states that liquidated damages may not be used as a penalty or fee provision as follows: “where a liquidated damages clause is seen as a penalty rather than an effort to agree upon a reasonable amount of estimated damages, the clause will not be enforceable.

(2) udr charges late fees that are overstated contrary to recent california case law and rulings thereon

As a result of the precedent-setting case, orozco v. casimiro [ [protected] cal. app.4th supp. 7], california deemed “late fees” within rental agreements to also be within the definition of liquidated damages, therefore ruling them to be subject to strict guidelines. of course, landlords can collect late fees. however, california law specifies the manner in which the fee is to be calculated.

California civil code section 3302 states that the late fee amount cannot exceed the standard interest rate of 10% of the base rent (noncompounded) or 1/3650th of the base rent. for example, if the base rent is $1, 700, the daily interest would be $.47 per day (3650 divided by 1700) with a maximum late fee charge of $14.10 for any given 30-day period. udr charges a flat fee of $50.00 which, according to california law, is grossly exorbitant and as such, udr tenants are entitled to a refund of the difference.

(3) udr intentionally contracts with tenants using false names to obtain & sustain a legal advantage over its tenants resulting in significantly diminished tenant-based litigation

Udr fails to properly identify the legal name of “landlord/owner” in its california rlas, rendering the rla invalid.in contract law, there are three important elements: the offer, the acceptance and consideration. therefore, udr must use the legal name it has set up for doing business in california (as it is an out-of-state corporation) to contract with tenants in california.

For example, the legal name of one of its apartment complexes, villa venetia in costa mesa, is “udr villa venetia apartments, l. p however, udr’s rla for that property identifies the landlord/owner as “villa venetia this name is not only factually incorrect but it’s not even a valid legal entity. rather, it’s an expired fictitious business name that belonged exclusively to vista del lago, llc, the former owner of villa venetia. according to the orange county recorder’s office, the name expired on august 20, 2006 and udr has knowingly and fraudulently used it to contract with tenants since the date it purchased the property in 2004.

Udr may not make an offer to rent a prospective tenant an apartment under an invalid legal entity; the parties must be properly defined in order for an offer to be effective. a udr tenant would not know whether the legal name is on the rla or not. therein lies the fraud mentioned above as udr has intentionally misrepresented, concealed and omitted a significant material fact required to form a proper contract. the law states that fraud renders a contract void, ab initio, or “from the beginning.”

The fact that a tenant has accepted the terms and conditions under the rla does not relieve udr of liability because udr and its agents knew when they presented the offer that is was improper. a similar set of facts applies to all california udr properties and we believe it is a conscious attempt by udr to prevent tenants from exercising their constitutionally-guaranteed right to file a grievance in a court of competent jurisdiction. if a tenant assumes the name represented as landlord/owner on the rla is the proper legal name and goes to file a complaint, the court will reject the pleading for not properly stating the parties.

In addition, udr fails to state the name, address and telephone number of the agent for service of process on the face of its rlas as required by california civil code section 1962. this further prevents tenants from locating the proper person or company to whom a tenant-based complaint would be served. as an out-of-state landlord, california law requires that it states the name, address and telephone number of its in-state agent for service of process on the face of its rla. udr fails to do so and as well, fails to maintain a complete corporate record on the california secretary of state website also required by law.

(4) udr illegally profits from its ratio utility billing system (rubs) in violation of california public utilities commission’s (cpuc)

Regulation prohibiting a non-utility from “selling” energy or water
Udr defers the cost of utilities for common areas, vacant units during repair and cleaning, property lighting, leasing offices, water for landscaping, swimming pools, and jacuzzis, as well as its public laundry facilities to its tenants through its ratio utility billing system (rubs). udr does not have a logistical need to do so as there are a sufficient number of residential energy and water meters at each of its 48 properties so as not to require tenants pay its utilities through a pro-rated billing system.

In its california rla, udr sets forth a “rubs” calculation that its tenants must agree is fair and equitable and by which they must rely to calculate their “fair share” of the pro-rated utilities. unfortunately, it is incredibly vague, uncertain and unintelligible due to the fact that all the formula’s variables are outside the control and/or knowledge of its tenants:

“total monthly utility cost for the community (minus an allowance for common area use if applicable [which is not applicable in the present case]) divided by the number of persons residing at the community times the number of persons residing in the premises using the applicable ratio multiplier [1 person = 1; 2 persons = 1.6; 3 persons = 2.2; 4 persons = 2.6; 5 persons = 3; each additional person, add..4 to the multiplier.”

In addition, udr maintains another double revenue stream by not only charging its tenants to source the energy and water being supplied to the onsite public laundry rooms but by also charging them to use the coin-operated machines.

(5) udr illegally defers injury liability via its “hold harmless” clauses in violation of california law and fails to maintain habitable premises

Udr’s california rla contains several “hold harmless” clauses creating a perception of justifiable negligence in its failure to maintain habitable premises including, but not limited to, vector control, water quality, construction defects, as well as tenant and guest safety standards for security, apartment, garage and vehicle intrusion, sexual offenders, theft, and violence.

According to california civil code section 1668: “all contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.

(6) udr withholds security deposit sums via illegal fees and penalties which must be properly defined as landlord’s operating costs and responsibility

Udr’s california rla paragraph 37, “resident’s other liabilities contains the following language: “in addition to all other obligations of resident and remedies of landlord under this lease and the law, and to the fullest extent lawful, resident shall be liable to landlord for charges including, but not limited to sixteen (16) items that constitute fees and penalties that may be deducted from a tenant’s security deposit.

These items include such things as the leasing agent’s time to let a repairman into an apartment unit, replacing dead or missing smoke detector batteries, reasonable administrative charges for landlord’s time and inconvenience for eviction of resident, special trips for trash removal and so on. udr is attempting to defer its operating costs on to its tenants and said costs do not represent legally sufficient deductions from a tenant’s security deposit. (california civil code section 1950.5)

(7) udr illegally evicts its tenants and acts in collusion with the orange county superior court judicial system

Tenants that have been or are presently in the process of being evicted under the terms and conditions of udr’s california rla have significant defenses against this eviction.

If the terms and conditions of the rla are deemed illegal under california law, and udr has not named itself as a proper plaintiff, then udr will have difficulty evicting a tenant under those illegal terms and conditions.

Notice to all udr california tenants

For further information please send a request to erin baldwin at mailto:[protected]@gmail.com with your full name, telephone number and preferred email address.

Or, you may visit our blog at http://badbizfinder.wordpress.com, find the link to your complex on the left side of the home page and leave the same information there.

Please note that no comments of this type will be posted in a public forum as we respect your privacy and all records will be held in the strictest of confidence.

About bad biz finder

Bad biz finder is a consumer advocacy organization based in fremont, california with volunteer-run chapters all over the state.in march of 2009, we set up a southern california hub center in orange county to handle the overwhelming demand we are facing with our present cause: consumer protection from loan modification and rental landlord fraud.

Our mission is to offer consumers a source of unbiased facts vital to making informed decisions about issues facing them every day. we seek to educate consumers about unethical, illegal and unconscionable practices so that those who have been harmed have a remedy, and those who have not, are warned.

Our roots go back to the early 1980s when our founder began to vocalize the vulnerability of consumers and the companies, individuals and agencies that preyed on this vulnerability. over the past three decades, bad biz finder has championed hundreds of causes and has been an agent for positive change so that the so-called “little guy becomes “a giant” with purpose and power.

Due to constant and unnerving legal and personal threats against the organization and its volunteers, bad biz finder chooses to remain anonymous. over the past 30 years, we’ve moved locations, changed our name, added an army of volunteers and called upon consumer rights attorneys to better serve the public.

Bad biz finder is self-supporting and asks for nothing in return. we do not accept payment, donations, or gifts, as we must remain objective in order to be helpful to consumers. we encourage the consumers we help to “pay it forward, ” and reciprocate by helping someone else for free. every single day our organization helps scared and hopeless consumers gain footing again, armed with facts that empower them, and for that we are proud.

Bad Biz Finder Forms Class Action Lawsuit Against Landlord, UDR, on Behalf of CA Tenants

June 3, 2009 — badbizfinder |

On behalf of California tenants past and present, Bad Biz Finder, a Fremont, California-based consumer advocate announced today that it is forming a federal class action law suit against UDR, Inc., a real estate investment trust (REIT) that owns, acquires, renovates, develops and manages apartment communities nationwide.

The company was formed in 1972 as a Virginia corporation and in June of 2003 altered its state of incorporation to Maryland. Defendant UDR’s subsidiaries include two operating partnerships, Heritage Communities, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership and United Dominion Realty, L.P., also a Delaware Limited Partnership.

UDR is a publicly-traded Maryland corporation (Corporate Number D07353964 formed on May 2, 2003) (NYSE:UDR) with its principal place of business and agent for service of process located at 300 East Lombard Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21202. UDR, Inc.’s corporate headquarters are located at 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, 80129.

Bad Biz Finder will handle the Notice to UDR Shareholders of a pending class action lawsuit as proscribed by the Securities & Exchange Commission.

The preliminary causes of action will be UDR’s longstanding practice of:

1. Illegal collection of early lease termination liquidated damage fees (amounting to 2.25 times base rent) motivating a higher than industry-standard eviction rate to facilitate a “double rent” revenue stream on vacated and quickly reletted apartments.

2. Illegal withholding of security deposits via unconscionable and oppressive hidden fees and penalties not apparent nor defined at the time of lease execution nor within the standard of acceptable normal wear and tear as prescribed by law.

3. Illegal and intentional misrepresentation, concealment and omission of proper legal name of “Landlord/Owner” on Lease contracts and illegal and intentional misrepresentation, concealment and omission of proper agent for service of process of “Landlord/Owner” in order to obtain and sustain a legal advantage over tenants resulting in a extremely low probability of tenant-based litigation. This also amounts to a violation of the tenant’s civil right to expeditiously bring a grievance to a court of competent jurisdiction.

4. Illegal profit-earning as a publicly-traded non-utility business via its Ratio Utility Billing System (RUBS) in violation of the Public Utilities Commission Act forbidding said profit. UDR is liable for deferring common area property utilities, utilities to vacant units and units under repair to tenants without a logistical need with the motivation of defraying property costs to tenants. In addition, UDR sustains another double revenue stream by not only charging its tenants to source the energy and water being supplied to the onsite public laundry rooms but by also charging them to use the coin-operated machines. Finally, UDR’s Lease requires that tenants deem the RUBS formula as fair and equitable even though it is solely comprised of calculated variables outside the control and knowledge base of its tenants.

5. Illegal deferral of liability via “hold harmless” clauses creating a “perception of justifiable negligence” in UDR’s failure to maintain habitable premises with regard to vector control, water quality, construction defects, as well as tenant and guest safety standards for security against unit and vehicle intrusion, sexual offenders, theft, and violence.

6. Illegal collection of late fees in excess of the standard of law which must be set at an annualized and noncompounded 10% interest rate.

7. Illegal and intentional misrepresentation, concealment and omission of material facts in Lease agreements with the express purpose to defraud tenants in order to create a cause of action for unlawful detainer to perpetuate the collection of early lease termination liquidated damage fees.

If you were or are a California tenant that has:

1. Signed and paid rent under a UDR Lease that does not state on the face of the Lease, the legal fictitious business name of “Landlord/Owner” as set forth with the Secretary of State;

OR

2. Signed and paid upon a Lease that does not contain the name, address and telephone number of the person or company to which you should serve legal documents (known as “the agent for service of process”);

OR

3. Paid 2.25 times your rent to vacate your apartment prior to Lease termination under the following Lease clause:

“Paragraph 37(a) Liquidated Damages for Landlord’s Lost Rent and Additional Reletting Costs. In the event this Lease is terminated early due to Resident’s breach, Resident shall pay Landlord the sum of $_______ (which represents 2-1/4 times the monthly rent due hereunder) as liquidated damages to cover Landlord’s resulting lost rent and additional reletting costs. In accordance with California Civil Code section 1671, Resident and Landlord agree that it is impractical and impossible to determine what Landlord’s actual lost rent and additional reletting costs will be if the Lease is terminated, because it cannot be predicted when during the Lease term resident may breach, what the rental market conditions will be at that time, and how long the Premises may stay vacant despite Landlord’s good faith efforts to relet the same. Resident and Landlord agree that the sum above is fair and reasonable, regardless of when the Lease is terminated. This limited liquidated damages sum covers Landlord’s lost rent and reletting costs ONLY.”

OR

4. Paid in excess of 1/3650th of your base rent for a late fee (divide your base rent by 3650 to come up with a daily rate and multiply it by 30). For example, if your rent is $1, 700, your daily rate would be $.47 per day or $14.10 for a 30-day period;

OR

5. Paid utilities under a RUBS utility calculation as follows:

“Total monthly utility cost for the community (minus an allowance for common area use if applicable [which is not applicable in the present case]) divided by the number of persons residing at the community times the number of persons residing in the Premises using the applicable ratio multiplier [1 person = 1; 2 persons = 1.6; 3 persons = 2.2; 4 persons = 2.6; 5 persons = 3; each additional person, add..4 to the multiplier.]”;

OR

6. You or a guest of yours was injured, harmed, or violated on Premises and UDR deflected the liability back to you by pointing to the “hold harmless” clause in your Lease;

OR

7. You relied upon any of the above intentional misrepresentations, concealments, or omissions as true and correct statements of fact and were harmed as a result of your reliance ….

Then you qualify to participate in our Class Action Lawsuit.

Please email us the following information to [protected]@aol.com or visit our blog at http://badbizfinder.wordpress.com and leave a comment:

1. The exact dates of your tenancy with UDR;

2. The full names of all parties that signed the Lease as a tenant (as they were at the time you executed the Lease);

3. The name, address and telephone number of the UDR property where you were a tenant;

4. Your current address, email and telephone number if you are no longer a UDR tenant;

5. The name of the UDR agent that executed the Lease on behalf of UDR; and

Even though this is a California-based class action lawsuit, we will initiate the action in federal court for the following reasons:

1. The amount in controversy will exceed $5, 000, 000;

2. All members of the class to be certified will be citizens of a state different from the defendant, UDR.

3. Even if we initiated the action in a California state court, UDR would more than likely fight to move it to a federal court
Your Lease agreement is a “California Version 2007” Lease and California law controls.

This case will be based on your common injury sustained as a result of the action taken by UDR pursuant to its policies that apply to all California tenants as set forth in you “CA Version” Lease. Because of the fact that the issues are the same for all California tenants, there is a much better chance that you can overcome any objection by UDR to try the cases individually.

Bad Biz Finder

Udr apts in orange county-arboretum–coronado–foxborough-harbor mesa verde–huntington villas–huntington vista–missions back bay–pacific palms–pacific shores-pine brook-rosebeach-villa venetia-vista rey

#9 of top 10 ways udr is screwing its orange county, ca, tenants & making $75 mil a year

#9

Udr uses liquidated damages clauses in their lease as a way of collecting double rent on apartments

What the hell are “liquidated damages” anyway?

A liquidated damages clause in a lease establishes in advance the monetary damages the tenant will owe if they breach the lease.in another words, if a tenant leaves or is evicted before the end of their lease, the tenant agrees to pay the landlord a set amount.

The reason why california outlawed these liquidated clauses for residential lease agreements is two-fold:

(1)

The courts were seeing landlords (like udr) perverting the true purpose of a liquidated damages clause.

A liquidated damages clause is only to be used when it is impossible to determine the harm that could result from a breach of the contract.

It’s not impossible for udr to determine the harm that could result from a breach of their lease. they know (within a reasonable variable) how long it takes to fill a vacancy; that variable is a critical part of their sales projections!

They’ve been in this business since 1972, folks, they have charts out the wazoo with every possible marketing trend, economic cycle, geographic variable, etc. just google udr 10-k and see what we're talking about.

Udr wants you to believe that it’s “reasonable” that it could take them 2-1/4 months to re-lease your apartment if you leave before the end of your lease. listen, if it took udr 68 days to fill a vacancy – they’d be out of business long ago and they sure wouldn’t be making $75 million per year in orange county alone.

According to udr’s own financial statement (10-q), as of march 31, 2009, it owned 4, 067 apartments in the orange county market with an average occupancy rate of 94.4%. (see: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/090511/udr10-q.html.)

That means that in the orange county market of 14 properties (their financials say 13, but you verify 14 on their website) only 204 apartments are vacant at any given time, an average of 14 apartments per complex. so, in order for them to maintain even that pretty low occupancy rate for udr, an apartment can only stay vacant for approximately 18 days.

The bottom line is you’re being screwed to the max.

Furthermore, the securities & exchange commission would never have allowed them to go public and be traded on the new york stock exchange if they were clueless about the turnover rate! the sec requires a sustained history of financial statistics as well as a proven method of quantifying future financial earnings.

(2)

The courts were also seeing landlords (like udr) inappropriately using a liquidated damages clause as a penalty or fee provision.

The law states, “where a liquidated damages clause is seen as a penalty rather than an effort to agree upon a reasonable amount of estimated damages, the clause will not be enforceable.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Let’s have a look at a sample liquidated damages clause from the udr residential lease agreement:

Paragraph 37 (a), entitled, “liquidated damages for landlord’s lost rent and additional reletting costs.”

Here we go:

For this example, we’re going to say that the tenant’s rent is $1, 600.

Udr lease sentence #1: in the event this lease is terminated early due to resident’s breach, resident shall pay landlord the sum of $3, 600 (not to exceed 2-1/4 times the monthly rent due hereunder) as liquidated damages to cover landlord’s resulting lost rent and additional reletting costs.

Red flag: udr states it in the form of a “penalty” for breach of contract by saying, “in the event this lease is terminated early due to resident’s breach [penalty for breach], resident shall pay landlord … [the penalty sum]. can’t do it – bad udr.

Red flag: since it’s not impossible for udr to determine the “lost rent” and “additional reletting costs” as discussed above, this clause is void.

Udr lease sentence #2: in accordance with california civil code section 1671, resident and landlord agree that it is impractical and impossible to determine what landlord’s actual lost rent and additional reletting costs will be if the lease is terminated, because it cannot be predicted when during the lease term resident may breach, what the rental market conditions will be at that time, and how long the premises may stay vacant despite landlord’s good faith efforts to relet the same.

Red flag: udr sets a perfect example of why they changed california law like they did. they intentionally misrepresent and restate the law by presenting it as a fact, not as a mutual agreement opportunity when it says:

“in accordance with california civil code section 1671, resident and landlord agree that it is impractical and impossible to determine ….”

This just pisses us off because udr is capitalizing on the ignorance of tenants about the law. that’s not what the law says.

The law says:

“any provision in a contract liquidating damages for the breach of the contract in a lease of real property for use as a dwelling by the party or those dependent upon the party for support is void …

Except that the parties to such a contract may agree (it doesn’t say “they do agree” or “have to agree”) therein upon an amount which shall be presumed to be the amount of damage sustained by a breach thereof, when, from the nature of the case, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damage.”

Unfortunately, udr assumes their tenants are stupid and frankly, we think that assumption is going to cost them a lot of money. it has been and will continue to be a grave error of judgment on their part.

Did you know that in 2006, a reit (real estate investment trust) just like udr, was sued for the improper assessment of liquidated damages that resulted in a $1.6 million verdict against the reit. you wants to sign up?

The very act of udr intentionally creating a scenario in their lease whereby they are earning double rent should be prosecuted. and udr should be forced to reimburse every tenant it has ever stolen money from under this clause. they should also be reported to the securities & exchange commission. we think we’ll handle that one.

Can anyone say “class action lawsuit”?

Red flag: again, since it’s not impossible for udr to determine the “lost rent” and “additional reletting costs” this clause is void as explained above.

By the way, the orange county leases have a footnote at the bottom of each page that says, “california version 2007.” so, they know that (1) landlord-tenant law differs from state to state; and (2) what the california law is and they don’t give a rip.

Coming up next … a 2004 california case decided that late fees were also illegal due to the same reasoning as above. see our next post.

Bad biz finder