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
December 11, 2009
Injunction
“Due to Defendant’s continued
circumvention of this Court’s
orders, the Court hereby
modifies the Injunction to
prevent Defendant from making
any mention of Plaintiff law firm
or any of its attorneys, past or
present. Defendant is enjoined
and restrained from continuing
to publish or republishing, by
any method or media, including
but not limited to all electronic
data, websites and web pages,
any statements pertaining to
Plaintiff and any of its lawyers,
past or present, and future
publication of statements with
regard to Plaintiff and its
lawyers. Defendant is ordered
to remove all mention of
Plaintiff and any of its lawyers,
past or present, from her
websites or websites under her
control within twenty days.”
Injunction
“Due to Defendant’s continued
circumvention of this Court’s
orders, the Court hereby
modifies the Injunction to
prevent Defendant from making
any mention of Plaintiff law firm
or any of its attorneys, past or
present. Defendant is enjoined
and restrained from continuing
to publish or republishing, by
any method or media, including
but not limited to all electronic
data, websites and web pages,
any statements pertaining to
Plaintiff and any of its lawyers,
past or present, and future
publication of statements with
regard to Plaintiff and its
lawyers. Defendant is ordered
to remove all mention of
Plaintiff and any of its lawyers,
past or present, from her
websites or websites under her
control within twenty days.”
The four statements that
triggered the injunction
below:
1 “Who trains school attorneys?
Attorneys who have helped schools
avoid revealing events in schools are
in charge of training both new board
members and new school
attorneys…Mr. X trains board
members and employees as well as
attorneys.”
2. “One of Mr. X’s specialties
is planning legal tactics against
parents who complain that their
kids aren’t getting the right
education.”
3. “Mr. X should be ashamed
of misusing the suffering of his
wife’s relatives to gain an
advantage in the courtroom.”
4. “MS. A WAS THE NUMBER 2
OFFICIAL IN THE OFFICE OF CITY
ATTORNEY when the city made
deals which the SEC and the FBI are
now investigating. Perhaps this one
bit of information explains why Ms. A
is outraged at Aguirre’s efforts to
expose the facts about actions by
public officials! [Plaintiff's law firm] to
which the SDCOE JPA steers the lion’
s share of its cases, is closely tied to
right-wing Republicans such as Ms.
A. Ms. A joined the Stutz law firm
after losing to Michael Aguirre in the
race for San Diego City Attorney.
Ms. A has recently admitted that if
she had been elected, she would
HAVE HELPED city officials and
employees, not the public, regarding
the secret 2002 pension
underfunding deal. I think the city
attorney should, in the public
interest, demand explanations from
officials.”
Plaintiff discussed a fifth statement in
its motion, but that statement had
been removed from her website by
Defendant since Defendant. The
fifth statement was, “Attorney Dan
Shinoff fools the US Office of Civil
Rights…In fact, Stutz law firm itself
used the courts to try to force a paid
expert witness to testify as the school
district wished” [Vista Unified School
District v. Dr. B. J. Freeman, a case
that was wisely dropped by the
school district in its early stages].”
Defendant has made a sincere effort
to obey the stipulated injunction, and
in order to err on the side of caution,
removed the statement because it
contained the words “fooled the
Office of Civil Rights” and “used the
court to try to force a paid expert
witness to testify as the school district
wished.” It is a simple fact that
Plaintiff's law firm filed a lawsuit
against a psychologist because she
refused to testify in support of Vista
Unified School District’s
determination that a specific child
was ineligible for special education,
but Defendant is willing to go out of
her way not to publish her own
opinions about the legality and ethics
of Plaintiff’s actions. Defendant
does, however, realize now that the
stipulated injunction amounted to a
blatant subterfuge by Plaintiff and
Judge Hayes, and is
unconstitutionally broad, as proven
by the infinite vastness of statements
that it prohibits in the interpretation of
the Superior Court, and
unconstitutionally vague, as proven
by the fact that it has been
interpreted by the Superior Court to
mean something completely different
from what Defendant understood
when she agreed to it.
triggered the injunction
below:
1 “Who trains school attorneys?
Attorneys who have helped schools
avoid revealing events in schools are
in charge of training both new board
members and new school
attorneys…Mr. X trains board
members and employees as well as
attorneys.”
2. “One of Mr. X’s specialties
is planning legal tactics against
parents who complain that their
kids aren’t getting the right
education.”
3. “Mr. X should be ashamed
of misusing the suffering of his
wife’s relatives to gain an
advantage in the courtroom.”
4. “MS. A WAS THE NUMBER 2
OFFICIAL IN THE OFFICE OF CITY
ATTORNEY when the city made
deals which the SEC and the FBI are
now investigating. Perhaps this one
bit of information explains why Ms. A
is outraged at Aguirre’s efforts to
expose the facts about actions by
public officials! [Plaintiff's law firm] to
which the SDCOE JPA steers the lion’
s share of its cases, is closely tied to
right-wing Republicans such as Ms.
A. Ms. A joined the Stutz law firm
after losing to Michael Aguirre in the
race for San Diego City Attorney.
Ms. A has recently admitted that if
she had been elected, she would
HAVE HELPED city officials and
employees, not the public, regarding
the secret 2002 pension
underfunding deal. I think the city
attorney should, in the public
interest, demand explanations from
officials.”
Plaintiff discussed a fifth statement in
its motion, but that statement had
been removed from her website by
Defendant since Defendant. The
fifth statement was, “Attorney Dan
Shinoff fools the US Office of Civil
Rights…In fact, Stutz law firm itself
used the courts to try to force a paid
expert witness to testify as the school
district wished” [Vista Unified School
District v. Dr. B. J. Freeman, a case
that was wisely dropped by the
school district in its early stages].”
Defendant has made a sincere effort
to obey the stipulated injunction, and
in order to err on the side of caution,
removed the statement because it
contained the words “fooled the
Office of Civil Rights” and “used the
court to try to force a paid expert
witness to testify as the school district
wished.” It is a simple fact that
Plaintiff's law firm filed a lawsuit
against a psychologist because she
refused to testify in support of Vista
Unified School District’s
determination that a specific child
was ineligible for special education,
but Defendant is willing to go out of
her way not to publish her own
opinions about the legality and ethics
of Plaintiff’s actions. Defendant
does, however, realize now that the
stipulated injunction amounted to a
blatant subterfuge by Plaintiff and
Judge Hayes, and is
unconstitutionally broad, as proven
by the infinite vastness of statements
that it prohibits in the interpretation of
the Superior Court, and
unconstitutionally vague, as proven
by the fact that it has been
interpreted by the Superior Court to
mean something completely different
from what Defendant understood
when she agreed to it.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz Respondent's Brief
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
Now the true identities of
the lawyers in the
statements below can be
revealed:
Mr. "X" is Daniel Shinoff.
Ms. "A" is Leslie Devaney.
the lawyers in the
statements below can be
revealed:
Mr. "X" is Daniel Shinoff.
Ms. "A" is Leslie Devaney.
Note: I'm in the process of posting this document. M.L.
University of San Diego (USD) law professor Shaun Martin represented Maura Larkins pro bono in
the Court of Appeal. He is the author of the blog California Appellate Report.
the Court of Appeal. He is the author of the blog California Appellate Report.
August 5, 2011 UPDATE:
California Court of Appeal decision: Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura Larkins injunction is overturned
& Holtz v. Maura Larkins injunction is overturned
Stutz attorney Daniel Shinoff is the favorite attorney of San Diego County Office of Education.