| Links |
Page 51 line 21-page 52 line 9
Q. How many lawyers were in
the firm when you
founded it?
A. Three of us.
Q. Okay. But now you refer to
him [Robert Gallagher] as an
employee?
A. An ex-employee, yes. I am
an employee of the firm, as well.
Q. Do you sort of -- are you
uncomfortable talking about Bob
Gallagher?
A. In California, everybody has a
constitutional right to privacy.
And --
Q. Well, that's not what I'm
talking about. Really, it struck
me when you referred to him as
an employee. It seemed like you
were trying to diminish his
importance.
Q. How many lawyers were in
the firm when you
founded it?
A. Three of us.
Q. Okay. But now you refer to
him [Robert Gallagher] as an
employee?
A. An ex-employee, yes. I am
an employee of the firm, as well.
Q. Do you sort of -- are you
uncomfortable talking about Bob
Gallagher?
A. In California, everybody has a
constitutional right to privacy.
And --
Q. Well, that's not what I'm
talking about. Really, it struck
me when you referred to him as
an employee. It seemed like you
were trying to diminish his
importance.
November 9, 2007
Deposition of Ray Artiano
Deposition of Ray Artiano
| . |
WHY DID BOB GALLAGHER SUDDENLY LEAVE HIS OWN FIRM,
STUTZ GALLAGHER, IN EARLY 2004?
STUTZ GALLAGHER, IN EARLY 2004?
Why did Robert E. Gallagher, Jr., a founding partner of the firm that was known for
years as "Stutz, Gallagher," leave his own firm?
The timing was interesting. He left right after Maura Larkins wrote a letter to the firm
detailing actions by Daniel Shinoff and Kelly Angell Minnehan.
years as "Stutz, Gallagher," leave his own firm?
The timing was interesting. He left right after Maura Larkins wrote a letter to the firm
detailing actions by Daniel Shinoff and Kelly Angell Minnehan.
It was approximately March of 2004 when Maura Larkins became aware that
Gallagher had left Stutz Gallagher. Kelly Angell informed Judge Nevitt (in Larkins'
presence) that Gallagher was no longer part of the firm, and the firm had changed its
name. Why would this information be announced to a judge? I suspect that Gallagher
demanded it.
Gallagher had left Stutz Gallagher. Kelly Angell informed Judge Nevitt (in Larkins'
presence) that Gallagher was no longer part of the firm, and the firm had changed its
name. Why would this information be announced to a judge? I suspect that Gallagher
demanded it.
After Gallagher left, the firm proclaimed on its website, "Each of the founding
members of the law firm practices with the firm today."
In his deposition, Ray Artiano referred to Bob Gallagher as an "employee."
members of the law firm practices with the firm today."
In his deposition, Ray Artiano referred to Bob Gallagher as an "employee."
Two days after I faxed a complaint regarding this incorrect
information on its website to Stutz law firm, the Stutz website
was changed (see documents below.)
information on its website to Stutz law firm, the Stutz website
was changed (see documents below.)
Stutz law firm website concealed the fact that founding partner
Robert Gallagher left the firm in early 2004:
Robert Gallagher left the firm in early 2004:
After Gallagher left, the firm
proclaimed on its website, "Each
of the founding members of the
law firm practices with the firm
today."
In fact, founding partner Bob
Gallagher had left the firm just
a few months before. (See images
of Stutz website below.)
proclaimed on its website, "Each
of the founding members of the
law firm practices with the firm
today."
In fact, founding partner Bob
Gallagher had left the firm just
a few months before. (See images
of Stutz website below.)
Ray Artiano doesn't like to talk about the fact that Robert Gallagher
founded Stutz Gallagher Artiano law firm in 1982
founded Stutz Gallagher Artiano law firm in 1982
If Ray Artiano wants to obtain a verdict on the facts in his defamation lawsuit against this
website, he is going to have to talk about the complaint of obstruction of justice sent to the firm
by this author in December 2003, just before Mr. Gallagher decided to move to Higgins,
Fletcher and Mack.
Of course, Mr. Artiano doesn't want a finding of facts. He wants the case remanded to state
court, where he trusts that justice will be perverted, and he will be able to prevail simply
because his law firm works for public entities, and the state courts tend to protect public
entities. The California Court of Appeal is responsible for this situation, since it tends to
overturn even the most justifiable jury verdicts without rhyme or reason. Given this situation,
Superior Court judges know that even though Stutz' opponents have the truth and the law on
their side, they will most likely bankrupt themselves fighting the case, without a chance of
obtaining justice in the end.
website, he is going to have to talk about the complaint of obstruction of justice sent to the firm
by this author in December 2003, just before Mr. Gallagher decided to move to Higgins,
Fletcher and Mack.
Of course, Mr. Artiano doesn't want a finding of facts. He wants the case remanded to state
court, where he trusts that justice will be perverted, and he will be able to prevail simply
because his law firm works for public entities, and the state courts tend to protect public
entities. The California Court of Appeal is responsible for this situation, since it tends to
overturn even the most justifiable jury verdicts without rhyme or reason. Given this situation,
Superior Court judges know that even though Stutz' opponents have the truth and the law on
their side, they will most likely bankrupt themselves fighting the case, without a chance of
obtaining justice in the end.
In his deposition, Ray Artiano referred to Bob Gallagher as an "employee" who left the firm.
UPDATE: When I wrote the following article I
believed that Stutz law firm would be required by
Judge Judith Hayes to actually present some
evidence if it wanted to win. It turned out that
Stutz won a summary judgment based on a
three-page declaration by Daniel Shinoff, who
had refused to be deposed or to produce
documents. I later discovered that the
declaration contained false information, but
Judge Hayes ignored the new evidence. The
declaration of Maura Larkins was not considered
by the court.
believed that Stutz law firm would be required by
Judge Judith Hayes to actually present some
evidence if it wanted to win. It turned out that
Stutz won a summary judgment based on a
three-page declaration by Daniel Shinoff, who
had refused to be deposed or to produce
documents. I later discovered that the
declaration contained false information, but
Judge Hayes ignored the new evidence. The
declaration of Maura Larkins was not considered
by the court.
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Attorney Robert Gallagher
Why would Mr. Artiano want
others to believe that Bob
Gallagher was not a founding
partner of Stutz law firm?
Mr. Artiano must have been
quite upset when Gallagher
left in 2004.
Gallagher had obviously
demanded that his name be
removed from the firm's title.
But the following bizarre claim
could be found on the firm's
website just a few months later, in
July 2004:
"Each of the founding
members of the law firm
practices with the firm
today."
Three and a half years later,
Mr. Artiano was apparently still
unable to accept the reality of
the situation--even when he
was testifying at a deposition
in a defamation case he
himself had brought against
this writer.
others to believe that Bob
Gallagher was not a founding
partner of Stutz law firm?
Mr. Artiano must have been
quite upset when Gallagher
left in 2004.
Gallagher had obviously
demanded that his name be
removed from the firm's title.
But the following bizarre claim
could be found on the firm's
website just a few months later, in
July 2004:
"Each of the founding
members of the law firm
practices with the firm
today."
Three and a half years later,
Mr. Artiano was apparently still
unable to accept the reality of
the situation--even when he
was testifying at a deposition
in a defamation case he
himself had brought against
this writer.