| ... |
Former CVE Pres Gina Boyd forbade member to make ethics complaint--about Gina Boyd
herself! Boyd also supported administrator Richard Werlin when he investigated himself.
herself! Boyd also supported administrator Richard Werlin when he investigated himself.
5. Linda Watson deposition
Q. Did you call Rick Werlin at his home at any time?
A. No.
Attorney Kelly Angell Minnehan: Ms. Watson indicated to me on the break that she needs to
make a correction to earlier testimony.
A. ...I'm pretty sure that if I did, and I'm not even sure I did, that it was one time to his house
on a weekend...
Q. Did you call Rick Werlin at his home at any time?
A. No.
Attorney Kelly Angell Minnehan: Ms. Watson indicated to me on the break that she needs to
make a correction to earlier testimony.
A. ...I'm pretty sure that if I did, and I'm not even sure I did, that it was one time to his house
on a weekend...
Q. Were you curious as to what my behavior might have been that caused them to fear for
their lives? Gina Boyd: (long pause) I guess...I don't know...
their lives? Gina Boyd: (long pause) I guess...I don't know...
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
FOR blog posts: Click HERE
for the most recent blog
posts regarding the lawsuit.
Discussion of case.
for the most recent blog
posts regarding the lawsuit.
Discussion of case.
Maura Larkins removed
the case to Federal Court
the case to Federal Court
Missing SDCOE invoices from
Stutz: June, October and
November 2003
Stutz: June, October and
November 2003
Motions
2nd Compel Shinoff Deposition
1st Compel Shinoff Deposition
Meet and Confer
Summary Judgment
August 7, 2009 Motion to
Enforce Permanent Injunction
Opposition to Enforce
Objections to Tentative Ruling
(not accepted by court)
Motion to Reconsider
2nd Compel Shinoff Deposition
1st Compel Shinoff Deposition
Meet and Confer
Summary Judgment
August 7, 2009 Motion to
Enforce Permanent Injunction
Opposition to Enforce
Objections to Tentative Ruling
(not accepted by court)
Motion to Reconsider
Subpoenas
Sheriff of Santa Barbara
Diane Crosier
CVESD officials
Sheriff of Santa Barbara
Diane Crosier
CVESD officials
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
101 pages
includes the following
depositions:
Linda Watson (contd.)
Teresa Coffey
99 pages
includes depositions of:
Richard Denmon
Attorney Elizabeth
Schulman,
Maura Larkins
includes the following
depositions:
Linda Watson (contd.)
Teresa Coffey
99 pages
includes depositions of:
Richard Denmon
Attorney Elizabeth
Schulman,
Maura Larkins
Related
depositions
posted by US
District Court
125-page Federal Court
Exhibit
Depositions of Sam
Gross,Santa Barbara
Sheriff's Commander;
Gina Boyd;
Peg "Peggie" Myers
100 pages
includes the following
depositions:
Richard Werlin
Robin Donlan
72 pages includes:
Robin Donlan (contd)
Maura Larkins,
Linda Watson
depositions
posted by US
District Court
125-page Federal Court
Exhibit
Depositions of Sam
Gross,Santa Barbara
Sheriff's Commander;
Gina Boyd;
Peg "Peggie" Myers
100 pages
includes the following
depositions:
Richard Werlin
Robin Donlan
72 pages includes:
Robin Donlan (contd)
Maura Larkins,
Linda Watson
Apparently, this deposition didn't go as well as Stutz expected. Dan Shinoff refused to show
up for his deposition. Maura Larkins filed a Motion to Compel.
up for his deposition. Maura Larkins filed a Motion to Compel.
Defamation cases
(All of which seem to have
been ignored by Judge
Judith Hayes)
(All of which seem to have
been ignored by Judge
Judith Hayes)
Depositions and subpoenas
The Backstory of
this lawsuit
this lawsuit
SDCOE
4. Gina Boyd deposition--former president of CVE
Motions
April 6, 2009 Stutz Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude
Testimony Related to Issues of Liability
Testimony Related to Issues of Liability
I am not Daniel Ellsburg but that
hasn't stopped Stutz law firm from
launching an attack on my First
Amendment rights reminiscent of the
actions of Richard Nixon in the
Pentagon Papers case.
Strangely, the judge in my case
(Judith Hayes) seems unaware of
the 1971 Supreme Court decision
that ruled that even the Top Secret
documents published by the New
York Times did not meet the high
standard for justification of prior
restraint: "Prior restraints require an
unusually heavy justification under
the First Amendment."
Link to Supreme Court decision
article
Two years later Chief Justice Burger
wrote: "Every member of the Court,
tacitly or explicitly, accepted
the...condemnation of prior
restraints as presumptively
unconstitutional."
"...[T]he General Counsel of The
Times said that the promise to obey
the injunction was ill-conceived. In
later cases the Times reserved to
itself the right to decide whether it
would obey an injunction directed
against publication."
In Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart,
Chief Justice Burger wrote that the
question was whether "the gravity
of the 'evil', discounted by its
improbability, justifies invasion of
free speech."
Stutz law firm--and Judge Judith
Hayes--seem determined to shut
down my website before the Court
of Appeal can rule in my favor.
--Maura Larkins
hasn't stopped Stutz law firm from
launching an attack on my First
Amendment rights reminiscent of the
actions of Richard Nixon in the
Pentagon Papers case.
Strangely, the judge in my case
(Judith Hayes) seems unaware of
the 1971 Supreme Court decision
that ruled that even the Top Secret
documents published by the New
York Times did not meet the high
standard for justification of prior
restraint: "Prior restraints require an
unusually heavy justification under
the First Amendment."
Link to Supreme Court decision
article
Two years later Chief Justice Burger
wrote: "Every member of the Court,
tacitly or explicitly, accepted
the...condemnation of prior
restraints as presumptively
unconstitutional."
"...[T]he General Counsel of The
Times said that the promise to obey
the injunction was ill-conceived. In
later cases the Times reserved to
itself the right to decide whether it
would obey an injunction directed
against publication."
In Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart,
Chief Justice Burger wrote that the
question was whether "the gravity
of the 'evil', discounted by its
improbability, justifies invasion of
free speech."
Stutz law firm--and Judge Judith
Hayes--seem determined to shut
down my website before the Court
of Appeal can rule in my favor.
--Maura Larkins
Defamation case law
Depositions
Deposition of Ray Artiano
p 1-30
Deposition of Maura
Larkins
Notice of Dan Shinoff
Deposition
Dan Shinoff Public Figure
Deposition of Ray Artiano
p 1-30
Deposition of Maura
Larkins
Notice of Dan Shinoff
Deposition
Dan Shinoff Public Figure
Declarations
Dan Shinoff Declaration
Maura Larkins Declaration
Dan Shinoff Declaration
Maura Larkins Declaration
Subpoenas
Sheriff of Santa Barbara
Diane Crosier
Sheriff of Santa Barbara
Diane Crosier
Maura Larkins' Opposition to Summary judgment
Ruling (Judge later explained that she tossed out Defendant's
opposition)
Basis of Ruling: Declaration of Dan Shinoff
Ruling (Judge later explained that she tossed out Defendant's
opposition)
Basis of Ruling: Declaration of Dan Shinoff
Declarations
| Appeals |
| Maura Larkins removed the case to Federal Court |
| Stutz Defamation suit |
| Missing SDCOE invoices from Stutz: June, October and November 2003 |
| Subpoenas Sheriff of Santa Barbara Diane Crosier CVESD officials |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 101 pages includes the following depositions: Teresa Coffey 99 pages includes depositions of: Richard Denmon Attorney Elizabeth Schulman, Maura Larkins |
| 125-page Federal Court Exhibit Depositions of Sam Gross,Santa Barbara Sheriff's Commander; Gina Boyd; Peg "Peggie" Myers 100 pages includes the following depositions: Richard Werlin Robin Donlan 72 pages includes: Robin Donlan (contd) Maura Larkins, Linda Watson |
Update August 5, 2011
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins: injunction is
overturned by Court of Appeal
overturned by Court of Appeal
Complaints and Answer
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
Mar. 1, 2013 hearing
Larkins Motion to set aside default and dissolve the April 6, 2009 injunction
Larkins Motion to set aside default and dissolve the April 6, 2009 injunction
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins defamation
lawsuit regarding this website
lawsuit regarding this website
STUTZ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE, requesting that Court of
Appeal ignore Larkins' Opening Brief, and allow Stutz to ignore it
Appeal ignore Larkins' Opening Brief, and allow Stutz to ignore it
Maura Larkins' Opposition
Court decision denying Stutz' motion to allow Maura Larkins only
ONE opening brief for TWO appeals, but giving Stutz another
extension of 30 days in addition to previous extension of 46 days to
respond to Larkins' opening brief
Court decision denying Stutz' motion to allow Maura Larkins only
ONE opening brief for TWO appeals, but giving Stutz another
extension of 30 days in addition to previous extension of 46 days to
respond to Larkins' opening brief
3. 2012 Petition for Writ re Sanctions--D062214
3rd Motion to Strike
Exhibit list
Exhibit list
Court transcripts