| The Claudia Houston case |
| Lindsey Stewart case |
| David Alberts Defamation case involving atty. Deborah K. Garvin. (Garvin perjury.) |
| School lawyers v. parents and students |
| Fred Kamper case |
| June 2007 Supreme Court Decision against CTA regarding child sexual abuse |
| Vista USD/Guajome Park sues student for exposing teachers who changed grades |
| Blogs |
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
| On October 30, 2009 Judge Judith Hayes ordered that information be removed from this website-- when she wasn't even asked to do so by a litigant! Even stranger, Judge Hayes kept the ruling under wraps even after it had become final. I went down to the courthouse on November 5, 2009 to get a copy of the order. I discovered that I had won the decision. Without putting any explanation in writing, the judge had at the same time ordered that my website be censored. I was not given a copy of the ruling when I appeared for the hearing on October 30, 2009. The ruling concerned the plaintiff's motion to throw out my official response (my "answer") to the lawsuit, an answer that I filed two years ago. Strangely, a summary judgment had already been issued against me. So why did my opponents want a default? Wasn't it enough that the judge based her decision on the declaration of a man who refused to be deposed or turn over documents? Weren't they satisfied that Judge Hayes threw out my declaration even though I underwent a 6-hour deposition and turned over hundreds of documents? I suppose the advantage of a default would be that my opponents could collect damages without having the jury trial that I insist on. Stay tuned for more of this bizarre saga--unless I am thrown into jail by Judge Hayes. I wonder if the mainstream media will cover this case if that happens? --Maura Larkins, author of this website |
| Instead of posting this ruling on the courthouse website with all the other tentative rulings, Judge Judith Hayes posted a message that said: "The court elects not to post a tentative ruling on this motion." |
| Strange Events at the San Diego Superior Court Regarding this Website |
| I worked hard removing information. Here's a sample page. But now I'm going back to the version that's more acceptable in a society with a Bill of Rights. |
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz vs. Larkins
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
| School attorneys Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz are trying to jail me for five days and make me pay $9,000 plus a daily fee because I didn't erase every mention of their name from every page of my website, so I calculate that there's really no benefit achieved by my removal of some mentions. I am now erasing the little black "censored" boxes from my website as fast as I can. I am also preparing a petition for Writ of Prohibition to file in the Court of Appeal. The rulings of Judge Judith Hayes have been unconstitutional. For example, the ruling below is impermissible, and the ruling became even more unconstitutional on December 11, 2009 when the Judge added prior restraint. |