California State Bar

State Bar of CA :: Certification
Provider - YAHOO! INC. ›
Certification Providers

Provider Search
YAHOO! INC.     
701 First Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94118
Contact        Cecilia Yoshida

Web site
Provider Number        11229

Provider Search
Speciality Certification        
One AMD Place, M/S 68
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3453
Contact        Pam Horn
Phone        (512)602-1784
Fax        (512)602-9052
E-mail        pam.horn@amd.
Web site
Provider Number        9418

Provider Search
Speciality Certification        
Contact Address        1279
Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
Contact        Connie
Phone        (408)720-8300
Fax        (408)720-8383
E-mail        connie_epperson-
Web site
Provider Number        1372

[Members Only] [PDF] 43644
... The first one (Yahoo! Inc. v.
La Ligue Contre Le Racisme
et L’Antisemitisme)
involves a French Court order
requiring Yahoo! ...
pdfs/v14n2_ils_practitioner.pdf -

[Members Only] [PDF]
California Real Property
... Collocation Facility and an
IDC Facility is that IDC
Facilities typically house
services and equipment for
"enterprise" customers such
as Yahoo, Charles Schwab ...
3-4.pdf - 4/28/2004

Sections members-only
content [Members Only] [PDF]
... watching the Nasdaq. The
latest raises are the hot topic
on the “greedy
associates” boards that now
permeate Yahoo. In the past
21_no-2.pdf - 4/8/2004

Sections members-only
content [Members Only] [PDF]
... domain of “”
Once you know the domain,
e- mail the entire ...
The State Bar of California
certifies that this activity
conforms to the ...
24_no-2.pdf - 4/7/2004
San Diego
Education Report
Public Entities & Press
Silence is Golden
Public records

Brown Act
Permanent Injunction
Marsha Sutton
Secrecy v. Free Speech
Good Journalists

The ad SDUT didn't print

David Blair-Loy
Shinoff on gay rights
and free speech
David Blair-Loy
Freedom of Speech
Attacks on Free Speech
Don Siegelman Trial
Lawsuit Grijalva
Site Map
San Diego Education
Report Blog
SDER II on Poway USD
gay rights and
free speech
Lawsuit against Danielle
Grijalva for website
revealing violence against
foreign exchange students
Yahoo has little use for the opinion of the California
Court of Appeal's opinion on free speech
Yahoo! censored my website because I published an
Amazon book review
November 18, 2011
by Maura Larkins

Yahoo erased one of my webpages a couple of days ago. Why did Yahoo do it?
Was my website obscene? Did it advocate violence or hatred? Quite the contrary.
See for yourself: I have re-published the information on this new page. It seems
that I stumbled onto some information that someone doesn't want revealed. The
information is contained in an book review.

The webpage in question was written several years ago; the only recent
information on the page was the book review and a short comment, both of which
were located in a difficult-to-find spot that could be reached only after scrolling
down a considerable distance. My page discussed the need to address evil when it
is small in order to prevent greater evils like the Holocaust. Local school attorney
Daniel Shinoff said that comparing local conflicts to pre-Nazi Germany was
unacceptable and he accused me of being anti-Semitic for doing so. He even put
his accusation into a sworn statement in an ongoing legal case.

But in a different legal case, he made a different argument. Voice of San Diego
noted the following regarding a recent case involving Otay Water District:

A History of Death Threats, Scandal and Sewage-Tainted
by Rob Davis
Voice of San Diego

..."When the agency's attorney, Dan Shinoff, presented his case to the ethics
board in March, he zeroed in on what he called Shilling's malicious critique of
Gonzalez and Bonilla. Shinoff, who's paid $250 an hour by the district, appeared to
be settling a campaign score. Talking to commissioners, he unfurled an inflated
oratory filled with its own baseless accusations.

"Shinoff tried to connect Shilling to an anonymous website that attacked Gonzalez.
And yet Shinoff offered no proof it was Shilling's site. Shinoff said the criticism
was symptomatic of the country's devolving political discourse.

"Somebody's going to be a victim if we continue this in this society," Shinoff told the
board, noting the shooting rampage that had left six dead and 13 wounded in
Tucson, Ariz. a few weeks earlier.

He said an ethics board member shouldn't be allowed to make such attacks — not
with so much at stake. A rebuke was absolutely necessary, he said.

"I urge you with my heart and with my soul for you to do the right thing," he said.
"I come from a family of concentration camp survivors. And I can tell you from a
very personal perspective, permitting this sort of dialogue only leads to tragedy..."

My page about the need to discuss evil in its mundane manifestations had existed
for years. It includes a discussion of my shock when I learned that Daniel Shinoff
was not descended from Holocaust survivors. I learned this in an April 27, 2003
story in the North County Times story that has been removed from the
newspaper's archives. The story said that Mr. Shinoff's wife was the daughter of
Holocaust survivors.

Then two-and-a-half days ago I was shocked to find the following book review by
Mr. Shinoff's wife on

Amazon Customer Review
July 29, 2007
By Michelle Shinoff
This review is from: The Outrage (Paperback)
I have been a student of the holocaust since graduating with a major in Judaic
studies. I am also a relative of survivors of the horrors of nazi Germany. Mischa's
experience was an incredibly unique perspective from an unusual human being.
Most Holocaust experiences do not parallel this unique perspective. The lessons
and sense of family that Mr. Kopiec brings to this story are uplifting. I hope that this
book can find its way into the homes of not only the Jewish community but also
those of any human being that has no tolerance for discrimination, or the atrocities
of genocide. Further, I believe that there are important lessons embodied in this
story, that are a contribution to the Jewish people.

Mrs. Shinoff states that she is "a relative of survivors of the horrors of nazi
Germany." Could it be possible that even the NCT story exaggerated Mr. Shinoff's
connection to the Holocaust? I added a short update and the text of the book
review to my webpage. I tucked them both into a spot far down on the page. Here's
the text I added:

Update Nov. 15, 2011
Okay. Now I'm really starting to wonder where the truth lies in this story. It looks like
even the claim that Michelle Shinoff is the daughter of Holocaust survivors might
not be true. Here's something she wrote herself. She describes herself as a
"relative of survivors of the horrors of nazi Germany..."

Exactly what benefit does Yahoo! get by helping Dan and Michelle Shinoff conceal
information that they themselves have placed in the public record? I thought
Yahoo would quit violating the constitution after I won against them in the California
Court of Appeal last August. (Previously, Yahoo had interfered with my site at the
request of Shinoff's law firm, Stutz Artiano Shioff & Holtz.) When a third-grade
teacher wins against a big law firm, you know that the law firm must have been
clearly in the wrong. So what is Yahoo thinking?

This issue is of particular significance since it relates directly to a case that is
ongoing in San Diego Superior Court.
First amendment protects
defendant’s right to accuse
plaintiff of having “fat
There have been a number of cases
involving attempts to force internet
providers to disclose the identity of
persons who post internet messages.
Krinsky v. Doe 6 (Cal. App. Sixth Dist.;
February 6, 2008) [2008 DJDAR 1999]
is another such case. After plaintiff was
fired, scurrilous messages about her
posted on the internet (“fat thighs” was
one of the examples used by the
court, but presumably, that was not
over the case, provided the court
give the parties notice of its intention to
reconsider a prior ruling and give them
an opportunity to be heard. In IRMO
Barthold (Cal. App. First Dist., Div. 4;
January 15, 2008) 158 Cal.App.4th
1301, [70 Cal.Rptr.3d 691, 2008
DJDAR 644] a motion for reconsideration
was filed in violation of §1008.
Nevertheless the Court of Appeal
affirmed the order on reconsideration.
The court held that the court’s inherent
power to correct its own errors applies
even if the court’s attention to the error is
called by an invalid motion.
Note: Barthold creates a dilemma. Le
Francois clearly held that motions to
reconsider may not be filed unless the
requirements of §1008 are satisfied. But
Barthold seems to invite such motions. If
the court does reconsider and change its
ruling in response to an unauthorized
motion, is the error harmless? Counsel
still faces the prospect of sanctions if
such an unauthorized motion is denied.