| . |
| .. |
| . |
| . |
| Stutz law firm's defamation lawsuit against this website |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| The Claudia Houston case (Atty. Dan Shinoff) |
| Lindsey Stewart case (Atty. Dan Shinoff) |
| David Alberts v. Atty. Dan Shinoff--Defamation case involving atty. Deborah K. Garvin. (Garvin perjury.) |
| School lawyers v. parents and students |
| Fred Kamper case (Atty. Dan Shinoff) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Vista USD/Guajome Park teachers who changed grades |
| School Attorneys |
| Blogs |
| 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 |
April 6, 2009: Stutz
defamation lawsuit trial
against this website
delayed
defamation lawsuit trial
against this website
delayed
Stutz filed suit on Oct. 5,
07 for defamation
against the author of
this website
07 for defamation
against the author of
this website
Stutz Motion to Enforce Permanent Injunction
to be heard August 7, 2009
to be heard August 7, 2009
Maura Larkins Opposition to this motion
> > >
Issue #3: Political
and factual speech
about public figure
Leslie Devaney >>>
It appears that
Plaintiff may be
trying to confuse and
mislead the court.
[UPDATE: Plaintiff
succeeded! At oral
arguments on August
7, 2009, the judge
was focused on
plaintiff's misleading
words in #3.
"Did you say that
Leslie Devaney
collaborated in
crimes?" she
demanded.
It would appear that
the judge did not read
either Plaintiff's
Exhibit B or
Defendant's
opposition, both of
which make clear that
the site says
"actions," not
"crimes."]
The statements
made by defendant
about Leslie
Devaney are simple
facts: she was second
in command when the
city made
deals that the SEC and
FBI investigated.
There is no statement
that Leslie Devaney is
unethical, incompetent
or any of the attributes
specifically listed as
disallowed by the
injunction.
Interestingly, Leslie
Devaney can dish it
out, but she can’t seem
to take it.
Leslie Devaney is a
public figure who ran
for the office of City
Attorney of San Diego
in 2004 and who
continues to invite
attention and comment
by making widely-
published
derogatory virtually
identical to statements
this court has identified
as defamatory
(“Aguirre has engaged
in unethical legal
practices…”) (Exhibit 4,
“The Collateral
Damage of Aguirre's
Furies” by Leslie
Devaney, published in
Voice of San Diego on
Monday, December 12,
2005.)
In Exhibit 6, “Aguirre’s
Foes Search for a
Champion” Devaeny is
quoted as saying she
may run for office in the
future. Devaney is
trying to piggyback on
this court’s finding that
other Stutz lawyers are
not public figures, but
she is clearly a
public figure.
The court needs to
make a separate
determination about
Leslie Devaney’s
status if the court finds
that these statements
are within the purview
of the injunction.
It seems that Ms.
Devaney does not
understand that I have
as much right as she
does to free political
speech outside the
specific limits of the
injunction. This lawsuit
has
only limited me from
making certain
statements. I still have
the right to report facts
and
political opinions other
than those listed in the
injunction.
NOTE:
Five individuals are
being prosecuted for
felonies regarding the
actions the SEC and
FBI investigated.
Issue #3: Political
and factual speech
about public figure
Leslie Devaney >>>
It appears that
Plaintiff may be
trying to confuse and
mislead the court.
[UPDATE: Plaintiff
succeeded! At oral
arguments on August
7, 2009, the judge
was focused on
plaintiff's misleading
words in #3.
"Did you say that
Leslie Devaney
collaborated in
crimes?" she
demanded.
It would appear that
the judge did not read
either Plaintiff's
Exhibit B or
Defendant's
opposition, both of
which make clear that
the site says
"actions," not
"crimes."]
The statements
made by defendant
about Leslie
Devaney are simple
facts: she was second
in command when the
city made
deals that the SEC and
FBI investigated.
There is no statement
that Leslie Devaney is
unethical, incompetent
or any of the attributes
specifically listed as
disallowed by the
injunction.
Interestingly, Leslie
Devaney can dish it
out, but she can’t seem
to take it.
Leslie Devaney is a
public figure who ran
for the office of City
Attorney of San Diego
in 2004 and who
continues to invite
attention and comment
by making widely-
published
derogatory virtually
identical to statements
this court has identified
as defamatory
(“Aguirre has engaged
in unethical legal
practices…”) (Exhibit 4,
“The Collateral
Damage of Aguirre's
Furies” by Leslie
Devaney, published in
Voice of San Diego on
Monday, December 12,
2005.)
In Exhibit 6, “Aguirre’s
Foes Search for a
Champion” Devaeny is
quoted as saying she
may run for office in the
future. Devaney is
trying to piggyback on
this court’s finding that
other Stutz lawyers are
not public figures, but
she is clearly a
public figure.
The court needs to
make a separate
determination about
Leslie Devaney’s
status if the court finds
that these statements
are within the purview
of the injunction.
It seems that Ms.
Devaney does not
understand that I have
as much right as she
does to free political
speech outside the
specific limits of the
injunction. This lawsuit
has
only limited me from
making certain
statements. I still have
the right to report facts
and
political opinions other
than those listed in the
injunction.
NOTE:
Five individuals are
being prosecuted for
felonies regarding the
actions the SEC and
FBI investigated.
| Note: Plaintiff's own exhibit B shows that Defendant's website says "actions" not "crimes." Plaintiff’s statement on page 8 line 14 of this motion, that Defendant’s website contains the words “friends who are still in the city attorney’s office may have collaborated in those crimes” is false. See page 9 of Plaintiff’s exhibit B. Defendant’s site says “actions” not “crimes.” |
Political and factual
speech about
public figure Leslie
Devaney
Plaintiff may have tried
to confuse and mislead
the court in issue #3.
If so, then Plaintiff
succeeded! On August
7, 2009, the judge was
focused on the
misleading words in #3.
"Did you say that Leslie
Devaney collaborated in
crimes?" the judge
demanded of Maura
Larkins on August 7,
2009.
The judge had
apparently not read
either Plaintiff's own
Exhibit B or Defendant's
opposition, both of
which make clear that
the site says "actions,"
not "crimes."]
See page 7 below for
full explanation.
Five individuals are
being prosecuted for
felonies regarding the
actions the SEC and FBI
investigated.
speech about
public figure Leslie
Devaney
Plaintiff may have tried
to confuse and mislead
the court in issue #3.
If so, then Plaintiff
succeeded! On August
7, 2009, the judge was
focused on the
misleading words in #3.
"Did you say that Leslie
Devaney collaborated in
crimes?" the judge
demanded of Maura
Larkins on August 7,
2009.
The judge had
apparently not read
either Plaintiff's own
Exhibit B or Defendant's
opposition, both of
which make clear that
the site says "actions,"
not "crimes."]
See page 7 below for
full explanation.
Five individuals are
being prosecuted for
felonies regarding the
actions the SEC and FBI
investigated.
Judge Judith Hayes granted this motion on August 7, 2009
but has yet to enter the order as of October 7, 2009
but has yet to enter the order as of October 7, 2009
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |