| Maura Larkins' Answer to Stutz Defamation Complaint |
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF &
HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAURA LARKINS,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
________________
HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAURA LARKINS,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
________________
) Case No. 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL)
) Judge: Linda B. Quinn
) Dept: 74
)
) MAURA LARKINS’ VERIFIED
) ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED
) COMPLAINT
)
)
)
) CASE FILED: OCTOBER 5, 2007
) Judge: Linda B. Quinn
) Dept: 74
)
) MAURA LARKINS’ VERIFIED
) ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED
) COMPLAINT
)
)
)
) CASE FILED: OCTOBER 5, 2007
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
COMES NOW the defendant, MAURA LARKINS, for herself alone, and answers the
allegations of the above-entitled complaint, affirms, denies, and alleges as
follows:
This complaint constitutes malicious prosecution by a plaintiff who is a public
figure and is itself guilty of egregious defamation of defendant. Plaintiff’s
awareness of its own guilt is made clear by its refusal to produce even one of the
documents requested for its deposition.
Two representatives of plaintiff, Ray Artiano and Daniel Shinoff, came to the
deposition of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, APC (“SASH”), but they walked out
after two hours, having refused to answer questions (see Exhibit 1--rough draft
of November 8, 2007 deposition of SASH).
Hours later, Daniel Shinoff failed to show up for his deposition at all, without
serving an objection beforehand.
It is clear that this lawsuit is an attempt to use malicious prosecution to stifle
defendant’s First Amendment right to publish material on a website to inform the
public of matters of public concern.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Plaintiff is a public figure)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes
and thereon alleges that plaintiff waived its right to privacy to the issues in
question by being a public figure. (Johnson v. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc.
(1974) 43 Cal. App. 3d 880m 892, 118 Cal. Rptr. 370).
SASH and all others mentioned on defendant’s website became public figures
either by achieving such pervasive fame or notoriety that they became public
personages for all purposes and in all contexts, and/or by voluntarily injecting
themselves or by being drawn into a particular public controversy, in which they
became public figures for the limited issues relating to the controversy (Kinsey
v. Macur (1980) 107 Cal. App. 3d 265, 273, 165 Cal. Rptr. 608).
Daniel Shinoff and SASH have acted in place of public officials, and as agents for
public officials, usurping to a remarkable degree the functions and obligations of
public officials in public entities. Shinoff not only has acted as the public face of
public entities, but has made decisions and presented those decisions as if he
himself were a public official.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Defendant’s statements about a public figure were not published with malice)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant alleges that the
publication complained of in plaintiff’s complaint was not published by the
defendant either with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
the truth of the statements. Because plaintiff is a public figure, defendant is
protected by constitutional privilege from defamation actions in which the
statements were not published with actual malice.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Defendant did not publish statements about public official with malice)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes
and thereon alleges that the publication complained of in plaintiff’s complaint
concerned plaintiff’s official conduct as legal representative of public entities and
their elected officials, acting in lieu of and on behalf of those public entities and
public officials. The statement was not published by the defendant either with
knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of the truth of the
statements. It thus is protected by constitutional privilege.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Truth)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes
and thereon alleges that the statements complained of in plaintiff’s complaint
were not false. To the contrary, they were completely truthful in that
1) Lozano, Smith uses the same practices as Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz,
specifically, repeated misstatements of the record, frivolous objections to
plaintiff’s statements of facts, and repeated mischaracterizations of the law.
2) SASH engages in unprofessional and unethical conduct and lacks
professional competence or integrity in its chosen profession.
3) A culture of misrepresentation and deception exists at Stutz, Artiano &
Holtz (sic) and/or Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz.
4) The firm (SASH) clearly suffers from a lack of professionalism or a lack
of understanding of the law.
5) Many of STUTZ’s filings cannot be interpreted as anything other than bad-
faith attempts to mislead the court, obscure the real facts, and to obstruct and/or
harass the plaintiff, either to wear down the plaintiff or to win a victory that is
clearly unjustified by either the facts or the law.
6) While isolated errors or misstatements might be excused, given the size
of the record, the sheer volume of misstatements, the only reasonable inference
that can be drawn is that Daniel Shinoff, Jeffery Morris, Kelly Angell and many
other Stutz lawyers intended to obstruct at every step and stand education law,
as well as labor law, the Penal Code, and the constitutions of California and the
United States, on their heads.
7) SASH has engaged in violations of the law.
8) Defendant has never suggested that SASH was involved in the Moser
case, or that SASH has been sanctioned by a federal court. Defendant has
certainly implied that SASH should be sanctioned by some court.
9) STUTZ works hard to make sure that LOTS of tax money goes to lawyers
who:
A) prevent legitimate investigations of problems in schools; and
B) make sure that tax dollars do not go to victims.
10) Public officials who want to keep the public in the dark call on Dan
Shinoff and Mark Bresee to keep witnesses quiet and to finesse the paperwork.
Defendant possesses a wealth of testimony and documentation to prove this
statement.
11) SASH has a habit and custom of having parents of students arrested,
while, in fact, SASH itself is guilty of egregious wrongdoing that qualifies for
incarceration under California law.
12) The lawyers provided by SDCOE Joint Powers Authority to Chula Vista
Elementary School District, Daniel Shinoff, Jeffery Morris, and Kelly Angell, as
well as Stutz partner Ray Artiano, violated California law in case after case.
Defendant informed Ray Artiano of obstruction of justice by Daniel Shinoff and
his assistants, and Ray Artiano worked hard to cover up that wrongdoing instead
of putting an end to it. Bob Gallagher left the firm at that time, quite possibly
because he could not tolerate the violations of law by lawyers in the firm.
13) Daniel Shinoff, Kelly Angell Minnehan, Jeffery Morris and their law firm,
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz took $100,000s of taxpayer dollars to cover up
crimes at Chula Vista Elementary School District.
14) Robert Gallagher left his own law firm after Defendant sent a complaint
in December 2003 to the firm about obstruction of justice on the part of its
lawyers. Defendant learned in early 2004 that Mr. Gallagher had left, when Kelly
Angell announced that fact to the judge at a hearing in defendant’s case.
Defendant suspects that Mr. Gallagher wanted Judge William Nevitt to be
informed that Gallagher was no longer associated with that case or Stutz law
firm.
allegations of the above-entitled complaint, affirms, denies, and alleges as
follows:
This complaint constitutes malicious prosecution by a plaintiff who is a public
figure and is itself guilty of egregious defamation of defendant. Plaintiff’s
awareness of its own guilt is made clear by its refusal to produce even one of the
documents requested for its deposition.
Two representatives of plaintiff, Ray Artiano and Daniel Shinoff, came to the
deposition of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, APC (“SASH”), but they walked out
after two hours, having refused to answer questions (see Exhibit 1--rough draft
of November 8, 2007 deposition of SASH).
Hours later, Daniel Shinoff failed to show up for his deposition at all, without
serving an objection beforehand.
It is clear that this lawsuit is an attempt to use malicious prosecution to stifle
defendant’s First Amendment right to publish material on a website to inform the
public of matters of public concern.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Plaintiff is a public figure)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes
and thereon alleges that plaintiff waived its right to privacy to the issues in
question by being a public figure. (Johnson v. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc.
(1974) 43 Cal. App. 3d 880m 892, 118 Cal. Rptr. 370).
SASH and all others mentioned on defendant’s website became public figures
either by achieving such pervasive fame or notoriety that they became public
personages for all purposes and in all contexts, and/or by voluntarily injecting
themselves or by being drawn into a particular public controversy, in which they
became public figures for the limited issues relating to the controversy (Kinsey
v. Macur (1980) 107 Cal. App. 3d 265, 273, 165 Cal. Rptr. 608).
Daniel Shinoff and SASH have acted in place of public officials, and as agents for
public officials, usurping to a remarkable degree the functions and obligations of
public officials in public entities. Shinoff not only has acted as the public face of
public entities, but has made decisions and presented those decisions as if he
himself were a public official.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Defendant’s statements about a public figure were not published with malice)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant alleges that the
publication complained of in plaintiff’s complaint was not published by the
defendant either with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
the truth of the statements. Because plaintiff is a public figure, defendant is
protected by constitutional privilege from defamation actions in which the
statements were not published with actual malice.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Defendant did not publish statements about public official with malice)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes
and thereon alleges that the publication complained of in plaintiff’s complaint
concerned plaintiff’s official conduct as legal representative of public entities and
their elected officials, acting in lieu of and on behalf of those public entities and
public officials. The statement was not published by the defendant either with
knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of the truth of the
statements. It thus is protected by constitutional privilege.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Truth)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes
and thereon alleges that the statements complained of in plaintiff’s complaint
were not false. To the contrary, they were completely truthful in that
1) Lozano, Smith uses the same practices as Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz,
specifically, repeated misstatements of the record, frivolous objections to
plaintiff’s statements of facts, and repeated mischaracterizations of the law.
2) SASH engages in unprofessional and unethical conduct and lacks
professional competence or integrity in its chosen profession.
3) A culture of misrepresentation and deception exists at Stutz, Artiano &
Holtz (sic) and/or Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz.
4) The firm (SASH) clearly suffers from a lack of professionalism or a lack
of understanding of the law.
5) Many of STUTZ’s filings cannot be interpreted as anything other than bad-
faith attempts to mislead the court, obscure the real facts, and to obstruct and/or
harass the plaintiff, either to wear down the plaintiff or to win a victory that is
clearly unjustified by either the facts or the law.
6) While isolated errors or misstatements might be excused, given the size
of the record, the sheer volume of misstatements, the only reasonable inference
that can be drawn is that Daniel Shinoff, Jeffery Morris, Kelly Angell and many
other Stutz lawyers intended to obstruct at every step and stand education law,
as well as labor law, the Penal Code, and the constitutions of California and the
United States, on their heads.
7) SASH has engaged in violations of the law.
8) Defendant has never suggested that SASH was involved in the Moser
case, or that SASH has been sanctioned by a federal court. Defendant has
certainly implied that SASH should be sanctioned by some court.
9) STUTZ works hard to make sure that LOTS of tax money goes to lawyers
who:
A) prevent legitimate investigations of problems in schools; and
B) make sure that tax dollars do not go to victims.
10) Public officials who want to keep the public in the dark call on Dan
Shinoff and Mark Bresee to keep witnesses quiet and to finesse the paperwork.
Defendant possesses a wealth of testimony and documentation to prove this
statement.
11) SASH has a habit and custom of having parents of students arrested,
while, in fact, SASH itself is guilty of egregious wrongdoing that qualifies for
incarceration under California law.
12) The lawyers provided by SDCOE Joint Powers Authority to Chula Vista
Elementary School District, Daniel Shinoff, Jeffery Morris, and Kelly Angell, as
well as Stutz partner Ray Artiano, violated California law in case after case.
Defendant informed Ray Artiano of obstruction of justice by Daniel Shinoff and
his assistants, and Ray Artiano worked hard to cover up that wrongdoing instead
of putting an end to it. Bob Gallagher left the firm at that time, quite possibly
because he could not tolerate the violations of law by lawyers in the firm.
13) Daniel Shinoff, Kelly Angell Minnehan, Jeffery Morris and their law firm,
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz took $100,000s of taxpayer dollars to cover up
crimes at Chula Vista Elementary School District.
14) Robert Gallagher left his own law firm after Defendant sent a complaint
in December 2003 to the firm about obstruction of justice on the part of its
lawyers. Defendant learned in early 2004 that Mr. Gallagher had left, when Kelly
Angell announced that fact to the judge at a hearing in defendant’s case.
Defendant suspects that Mr. Gallagher wanted Judge William Nevitt to be
informed that Gallagher was no longer associated with that case or Stutz law
firm.
15) Defendant assumes that some of Mr. Shinoff’s clients do not wish to
violate contracts or laws, or do harm to others. Defendant can only assume, of
course, since she does not have information about all the public entities working
with Mr. Shinoff. However, judging by Mr. Shinoff’s methods as observed in her
own and quite a few other cases, defendant has come to believe that Mr. Shinoff is
generally called in by SDCOE-JPA when there is something to hide. Defendant can
only guess at the percentage of Mr. Shinoff’s cases which involve dirty business by
a public entity, of course, since she does not know all the public entities working
with Mr. Shinoff, nor all the cases they are involved in. Nevertheless, defendant
has come to hold the personal opinion that if a public entity is doing business with
Daniel Shinoff of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, that the laws of probability would
predict that, more often than not, the public entity is involved in some dirty
business.
16) In its deposition on November 8, 2007, SASH claimed that it had not
destroyed or hidden the documents that defendant has been requesting for more
than five years. Therefore, SASH itself admits that Shinoff keeps important
documents locked up in his files.
17) Shinoff presented a good deal of perjured testimony in my case. The proof
is in the attached depositions, which may be compared and contrasted with each
other, and documents in the record.
Truth is a complete defense to an action for defamation (Draper v. Helllman
Commercial Trust & Sav. Bank (1928) 203 Cal. 26, 34, 263 P. 240: Swaffield v.
Universal Ecsco Corp. (1969) 271 Cal. App. 2d 147, 164, 76 Cal. Rptr. 680).
Defendant affirmatively asserts that all statements and comments by Defendant
about Plaintiff were true and thus, can not be the basis for a defamation action.
Defendant’s statements are supported by the deposition transcripts attached,
specifically:
Exhibit 1: Rough draft
Deposition of Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz November 8, 2007
Exhibit 2 Deposition of Commander Sam Gross,
Sheriff’s Department of Santa Barbara, California Nov. 17, 2004
Exhibit 3: Deposition of Virginia (“Gina”) Boyd, former President of
Chula Vista Elem. Education Association (CVE) Mar. 22, Oct. 11, 2004
Exhibit 4: Deposition of Margaret (“Peggie”) Myers,
President of Chula Vista Educators (CVE) Nov. 29, 2004
Exhibit 5: Deposition of Richard T. Werlin, Assist. Superintendent Human Res.,
Chula Vista Elem. School Dist. (CVESD) Sept. 4, 2002
Exhibit 6: Deposition of Gretchen Donndelinger,
Principal of Castle Park Elementary, CVESD Sept. 10, 2002
Exhibit 7: Deposition of Robin Colls Donlan Nov. 4, 2004
Exhibit 8: Deposition of Maura Larkins Oct. 28, Nov. 1, Nov. 2, 2004
Exhibit 9: Deposition of Linda Mae Watson April 30, 2004
Exhibit 10: Deposition of Teresa Coffey Nov. 8, 2004
Exhibit 11: Deposition of Karen Snyder Nov. 9, 2004
Exhibit 12: Deposition of Nikki Perez Nov. 29, 2004
Exhibit 13: Deposition of Michelle Scharmach Nov. 10, 2004
Exhibit 14: Deposition of Richard Denmon Nov. 30, 2004
Exhibit 15: Deposition of Jo Ellen Hamilton Sept. 10, 2002
Exhibit 16: Deposition of attorney Elizabeth Schulman July 16, 2004
Exhibit 17: Deposition of Maura Larkins by Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz
Oct. 25, 2004 and Nov. 11, 2004
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(GOOD MOTIVE – FAIR COMMENT)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that all statements and comments made by Defendant about
Plaintiff were made by the Defendant with good motive and were fair comments
made as a private citizen about education and politics in San Diego, along with
many other matters of public concern, exercising her right of free speech,
discussing matters of public importance, as a concerned citizen of the community.
All statements complained of in plaintiff’s complaint were made by defendant in
good faith, honestly, and not maliciously, in that defendant researched many
hundreds of documents and news reports, meticulously took notes of meetings and
phone calls, and deposed over a dozen individuals, while interviewing many more
individuals, as well as having first hand knowledge of many of the events she
reported on.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(PRIVILEGE)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that the allegedly defamatory statement of which plaintiff
complains related to a matter of public concern and thus is constitutionally
protected in the absence of fault. The defendant was not negligent in publishing
the statements complained of. Therefore, defendant is protected from liability by
constitutional privilege.
The matters addressed by Defendant concerning Plaintiff concern matters which
affect the interest of the general public. These statements were made in good faith
with the proper motives of informing the public, informing elected officials, to poor
performance and of negative developments. Therefore the Defendant’s statements
are protected by both qualified and conditional privilege.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
LACK OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY DEFENDANT
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that no act or omission on the part of Defendant either caused or
contributed to whatever injury (if any) the Plaintiff may have sustained. Plaintiff’s
own actions have caused any loss of business it might have suffered. In its
November 8, 2007 deposition, SASH admitted that it knows of no financial losses
caused by defendant’s website (Exhibit 1). In its deposition, SASH even had
trouble remembering (or admitting) that it had claimed over $100,000 damages in
its complaint.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that Plaintiff has failed to properly mitigate its damages by ceasing
its unethical and illegal behavior. For example, this lawsuit is itself an action that
is likely to harm plaintiff’s reputation as it is an effort to stifle discussion protected
by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
WHEREFORE, defendant prays:
a. that plaintiff take nothing by way of its Complaint for Damages;
b. recover costs of suit herein incurred; and
c. such other relief as the court may deem proper.
VERIFICATION
I, Maura Larkins, am a defendant in the above-entitled action. I have read the
foregoing ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION and know
the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those
matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those
matters, I believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: November 16, 2007
_____________________________________
Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per
violate contracts or laws, or do harm to others. Defendant can only assume, of
course, since she does not have information about all the public entities working
with Mr. Shinoff. However, judging by Mr. Shinoff’s methods as observed in her
own and quite a few other cases, defendant has come to believe that Mr. Shinoff is
generally called in by SDCOE-JPA when there is something to hide. Defendant can
only guess at the percentage of Mr. Shinoff’s cases which involve dirty business by
a public entity, of course, since she does not know all the public entities working
with Mr. Shinoff, nor all the cases they are involved in. Nevertheless, defendant
has come to hold the personal opinion that if a public entity is doing business with
Daniel Shinoff of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, that the laws of probability would
predict that, more often than not, the public entity is involved in some dirty
business.
16) In its deposition on November 8, 2007, SASH claimed that it had not
destroyed or hidden the documents that defendant has been requesting for more
than five years. Therefore, SASH itself admits that Shinoff keeps important
documents locked up in his files.
17) Shinoff presented a good deal of perjured testimony in my case. The proof
is in the attached depositions, which may be compared and contrasted with each
other, and documents in the record.
Truth is a complete defense to an action for defamation (Draper v. Helllman
Commercial Trust & Sav. Bank (1928) 203 Cal. 26, 34, 263 P. 240: Swaffield v.
Universal Ecsco Corp. (1969) 271 Cal. App. 2d 147, 164, 76 Cal. Rptr. 680).
Defendant affirmatively asserts that all statements and comments by Defendant
about Plaintiff were true and thus, can not be the basis for a defamation action.
Defendant’s statements are supported by the deposition transcripts attached,
specifically:
Exhibit 1: Rough draft
Deposition of Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz November 8, 2007
Exhibit 2 Deposition of Commander Sam Gross,
Sheriff’s Department of Santa Barbara, California Nov. 17, 2004
Exhibit 3: Deposition of Virginia (“Gina”) Boyd, former President of
Chula Vista Elem. Education Association (CVE) Mar. 22, Oct. 11, 2004
Exhibit 4: Deposition of Margaret (“Peggie”) Myers,
President of Chula Vista Educators (CVE) Nov. 29, 2004
Exhibit 5: Deposition of Richard T. Werlin, Assist. Superintendent Human Res.,
Chula Vista Elem. School Dist. (CVESD) Sept. 4, 2002
Exhibit 6: Deposition of Gretchen Donndelinger,
Principal of Castle Park Elementary, CVESD Sept. 10, 2002
Exhibit 7: Deposition of Robin Colls Donlan Nov. 4, 2004
Exhibit 8: Deposition of Maura Larkins Oct. 28, Nov. 1, Nov. 2, 2004
Exhibit 9: Deposition of Linda Mae Watson April 30, 2004
Exhibit 10: Deposition of Teresa Coffey Nov. 8, 2004
Exhibit 11: Deposition of Karen Snyder Nov. 9, 2004
Exhibit 12: Deposition of Nikki Perez Nov. 29, 2004
Exhibit 13: Deposition of Michelle Scharmach Nov. 10, 2004
Exhibit 14: Deposition of Richard Denmon Nov. 30, 2004
Exhibit 15: Deposition of Jo Ellen Hamilton Sept. 10, 2002
Exhibit 16: Deposition of attorney Elizabeth Schulman July 16, 2004
Exhibit 17: Deposition of Maura Larkins by Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz
Oct. 25, 2004 and Nov. 11, 2004
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(GOOD MOTIVE – FAIR COMMENT)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that all statements and comments made by Defendant about
Plaintiff were made by the Defendant with good motive and were fair comments
made as a private citizen about education and politics in San Diego, along with
many other matters of public concern, exercising her right of free speech,
discussing matters of public importance, as a concerned citizen of the community.
All statements complained of in plaintiff’s complaint were made by defendant in
good faith, honestly, and not maliciously, in that defendant researched many
hundreds of documents and news reports, meticulously took notes of meetings and
phone calls, and deposed over a dozen individuals, while interviewing many more
individuals, as well as having first hand knowledge of many of the events she
reported on.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(PRIVILEGE)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that the allegedly defamatory statement of which plaintiff
complains related to a matter of public concern and thus is constitutionally
protected in the absence of fault. The defendant was not negligent in publishing
the statements complained of. Therefore, defendant is protected from liability by
constitutional privilege.
The matters addressed by Defendant concerning Plaintiff concern matters which
affect the interest of the general public. These statements were made in good faith
with the proper motives of informing the public, informing elected officials, to poor
performance and of negative developments. Therefore the Defendant’s statements
are protected by both qualified and conditional privilege.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
LACK OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY DEFENDANT
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that no act or omission on the part of Defendant either caused or
contributed to whatever injury (if any) the Plaintiff may have sustained. Plaintiff’s
own actions have caused any loss of business it might have suffered. In its
November 8, 2007 deposition, SASH admitted that it knows of no financial losses
caused by defendant’s website (Exhibit 1). In its deposition, SASH even had
trouble remembering (or admitting) that it had claimed over $100,000 damages in
its complaint.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES)
As a separate affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
DEFAMATION on file herein, this answering defendant is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that Plaintiff has failed to properly mitigate its damages by ceasing
its unethical and illegal behavior. For example, this lawsuit is itself an action that
is likely to harm plaintiff’s reputation as it is an effort to stifle discussion protected
by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
WHEREFORE, defendant prays:
a. that plaintiff take nothing by way of its Complaint for Damages;
b. recover costs of suit herein incurred; and
c. such other relief as the court may deem proper.
VERIFICATION
I, Maura Larkins, am a defendant in the above-entitled action. I have read the
foregoing ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION and know
the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those
matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those
matters, I believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: November 16, 2007
_____________________________________
Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per
| ANSWER TO paragraphs 1-12 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. This answering defendant admits, on information and belief, the allegations in paragraph 1. 2. This answering defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 2. 3. This answering defendant lacks information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 3, and on that basis, this answering defendant states that the allegations contain legal conclusions solely within the purview of the court and on that basis denies the allegations. 4. This answering defendant denies all the allegations in paragraph 4, since she works alone, but is flattered by Stutz’ apparent belief that there are 100 people who approve of defendant’s actions, and that each of these people is her employee, employer, agent, partner or representative. Apparently SASH thinks of defendant as some sort of Internet mogul. 5. This answering defendant admits that she is a citizen of California. This answering denies that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000.00, and presents Exhibit 1, the deposition of the plaintiff taken on November 8, 2007, in which the plaintiff admitted that it knows nothing of any financial damages it suffered. 6. This answering defendant lacks information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 6, and on that basis, this answering defendant states that the allegations contain legal conclusions solely within the purview of the court and on that basis denies the allegations. 7. This answering defendant lacks information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 7, and on that basis, this answering defendant states that the allegations contain legal conclusions solely within the purview of the court and on that basis denies the allegations. 8. This answering defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 8. 9. This answering defendant admits that SASH represented defendants name in paragraph 8. If the allegations in paragraph 9 are intended to mean that any finding of fact regarding the causes of action was made in the case described in paragraph 8, this answering defendant denies the allegations. In fact, the lawsuit was dismissed as a result of MAURA LARKINS’ failure to file a motion to compel SASH to conform to the rules of discovery when, as the judge noted, there was evidence that SASH was abusing the discovery process. LARKINS paid only court costs after the case was dismissed. 10. This answering defendant assumes that the allegations in paragraph 10 are probably true. 11. This answering defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 11. 12. This answering defendant denies all the allegations in paragraph 12. There are no defamatory statements on defendant’s website. ANSWER TO FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 14. This answering defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 14. 15. This answering defendant admits the allegations in the first three sentences in paragraph 15, however, since the statements are true and SASH is the legal representative for many public entities, defendant’s statements are protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, giving citizens the right to speak publicly about government and matters of public interest. Since SASH is often in the media spotlight, it and its lawyers are public figures who act on behalf of government. In fact, SASH sometimes acts in place of the officials of those public entities (as when Dan Shinoff, not the college president, ordered the removal of Julie Hatoff from MiraCosta College). This answering defendant denies the allegations in the fourth sentence of paragraph 15, and lacks information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations in the final sentence in paragraph 15, and on that basis, this answering defendant states that the allegations contain legal conclusions solely within the purview of the court and on that basis denies the allegations. 16. This answering defendant admits the allegations in the first sentence in paragraph 16, however, since the statements are true and SASH is the legal representative for many public entities, defendant’s statements are protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, giving citizens the right to speak publicly about government and matters of public interest. Since SASH is often in the media spotlight, it and its lawyers are public figures who act on behalf of government. This answering defendant denies the allegation in the second sentence of paragraph 16, and lacks information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations in the final sentence in paragraph 16, and on that basis, this answering defendant states that the allegations contain legal conclusions solely within the purview of the court and on that basis denies the allegations. 17. This answering defendant admits the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 17, however, since the statements are true and SASH is the legal representative for many public entities, defendant’s statements are protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, giving citizens the right to speak publicly about government and matters of public interest. Since SASH is often in the media spotlight, it and its lawyers are public figures who act on behalf of government. This answering defendant denies all the allegations in the remaining sentences of paragraph 17. The complainant has blithely changed defendant’s word “or” to the word “and,” resulting in false allegations. 18. This answering defendant admits the allegation in the first sentence of paragraph 18, however, since the statements are true and SASH is the legal representative for many public entities, defendant’s statements are protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, giving citizens the right to speak publicly about government and matters of public interest. Since SASH is often in the media spotlight, it and its lawyers are public figures who act on behalf of government. This answering defendant denies the allegation in the second sentence of paragraph 18, and lacks information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations in the final sentence in paragraph 18, and on that basis, this answering defendant states that the allegations contain legal conclusions solely within the purview of the court and on that basis denies the allegations. 19. Defendant admits the first and second sentences of paragraph 19, and denies the rest of the paragraph. 20. Paragraph 20 is a flight of fancy which no reader with good reading comprehension would gather from reading defendant’s website. This answering defendant denies all the allegations in paragraph 20. 21. Defendant admits the first and second sentences of paragraph 21, and denies the rest of the paragraph. 22. Defendant admits the first and second sentences of paragraph 22, and denies the rest of the paragraph. 23. Defendant admits the first and second sentences of paragraph 23, and denies the rest of the paragraph. 24. Defendant admits the first and second sentences of paragraph 24, and denies the rest of the paragraph. 25. Defendant denies that her website states that Robert Gallagher left his own law firm in December 2003. Defendants’s website merely states that he left after she sent a complaint to the firm in December 2003. Defendant learned in early 2004 that Mr. Gallagher had left, when Kelly Angell announced that fact to the judge. Defendant suspects that Mr. Gallagher demanded that Judge Nevitt be informed that Gallagher was no longer associated with that case or Stutz law firm. 26. Defendant admits the first and second sentences of paragraph 26, and denies the rest of the paragraph. 27. Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 27, and denies the rest of the paragraph. 28. As to first sentence, Defendant is informed and believes that Stutz was legally required to demand a retraction within 20 days. As to second sentence, Defendant denies this allegation, since she responded with an immediate phone call to Mr. Ray Artiano, and followed up with emails and a fax letter (Exhibit 1). Defendant notes that it appears that Mr. Artiano has hidden facts about this case from Mr. Romero. 29. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph 29. Defendant is the author of her website, but denies that the website is offending. Defendant has used her own name as the name of the website (“mauralarkins. com), and has placed her name all over the site, and clearly states many facts on her website, but does not agree that any of these statements are admissions. 30. With the exception of the incorrect quote in paragraph 17, this answering defendant admits that statements outlined were published on her website. 31. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 31. 32. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 32. 33. This answering defendant denies all the allegations in paragraph 33. 34. This answering defendant denies all the allegations in paragraph 34. 35. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 35. In its deposition, SASH admitted that it knows of no financial damages to itself. 36. All allegations not specifically admitted are hereby denied. |
| Stutz Defamation suit |
| Depositions Deposition of Ray Artiano p 1-30 Deposition of Ray Artiano p 30-40 Deposition of Ray Artiano p 40-58 Deposition of Maura Larkins Notice of Dan Shinoff Deposition |
| Subpoenas Sheriff of Santa Barbara Diane Crosier |
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
| Defamation Law |
| Production by Larkins |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report