| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
The Dec. 11, 2009 injunction by Judge Judith Hayes against this website was
overturned by the California Court of Appeal Aug. 5, 2011
overturned by the California Court of Appeal Aug. 5, 2011
Court of Appeal decision in favor of this website
was defaced on Leagle.com
was defaced on Leagle.com
The following pages on Leagle.com were fixed after I complained.
| News, information and ideas about our education system, courts and health care by Maura Larkins |
| The first page of the decision was left pretty much intact, with just the date and the case number concealed, but later pages have been heavily altered. |
No. D057190
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
& HOLTZ, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. MAURA
LARKINS, Defendant and
Appellant.
Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District,
Division One.
Filed August 5, 2011.
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
& HOLTZ, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. MAURA
LARKINS, Defendant and
Appellant.
Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District,
Division One.
Filed August 5, 2011.
| Footnote #16: "In light of our reversal of the December 11, 2009 modified injunction, we need not consider the Stutz Firm's contention that the trial court provided Larkins with "sufficient due process" when the trial court modified the injunction sua sponte at the October 30, 2009 hearing so as "to prevent any mention of [the Stutz Firm] on [Larkins's] Web sites."" [Interestingly, Leagle.com's version of the decision omitted most of footnote #4, which states:] "Larkins expressed her interpretation of the injunction in part as follows: The injunction does not allow [the Stutz Firm] to completely silence [Larkins]. For example, if a Stutz lawyer were to come to [Larkins's] house and shoot her dog, the injunction would prevent her from saying, 'A Stutz lawyer committed a crime.' However, the injunction would not prevent her from saying, 'A Stutz lawyer shot my dog.' [The Stutz Firm] wants the court to rule that [Larkins] could not even say, 'A Stutz lawyer shot my dog.' Such a ruling would violate the [C]onstitutions of California and the United States." [Maura Larkins' note: In the above scenario, Judge Judith Hayes' interpretation of the injunction would prevent me from calling the police and reporting the name of the person who shot my dog. It would prevent me from talking to an attorney about any person in Stutz law firm, no matter what they did to me.] |
< < < [Maura Larkins' note: Important information in
the public interest--specifically, the governing law in
this case--was concealed here.]
Governing law from Evans v. Evans was contained in two
missing paragraphs under "2. Governing Law":
"`The right to free speech is . . . one of the cornerstones
of our society,' and is protected under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution and under
an `even broader' provision of the California Constitution.
[Citation.] An injunction that forbids a citizen from
speaking in advance of the time the communication is to
occur is known as a `prior restraint.' [Citation.] A prior
restraint is `"the most serious and the least tolerable
infringement on First Amendment rights.'" [Citations.]
Prior restraints are highly disfavored and presumptively
violate the First Amendment. [Citations.] This is true even
when the speech is expected to be of the type that is not
constitutionally protected. [Citation.]
"To establish a valid prior restraint under the federal
Constitution, a proponent has a heavy burden to show the
countervailing interest is compelling, the prior restraint is
necessary and would be effective in promoting this
interest, and less extreme measures are unavailable.
[Citations.] Further, any permissible order `must be
couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the
pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate
and the essential needs of the public order. . . .' [Citation.]"
the public interest--specifically, the governing law in
this case--was concealed here.]
Governing law from Evans v. Evans was contained in two
missing paragraphs under "2. Governing Law":
"`The right to free speech is . . . one of the cornerstones
of our society,' and is protected under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution and under
an `even broader' provision of the California Constitution.
[Citation.] An injunction that forbids a citizen from
speaking in advance of the time the communication is to
occur is known as a `prior restraint.' [Citation.] A prior
restraint is `"the most serious and the least tolerable
infringement on First Amendment rights.'" [Citations.]
Prior restraints are highly disfavored and presumptively
violate the First Amendment. [Citations.] This is true even
when the speech is expected to be of the type that is not
constitutionally protected. [Citation.]
"To establish a valid prior restraint under the federal
Constitution, a proponent has a heavy burden to show the
countervailing interest is compelling, the prior restraint is
necessary and would be effective in promoting this
interest, and less extreme measures are unavailable.
[Citations.] Further, any permissible order `must be
couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the
pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate
and the essential needs of the public order. . . .' [Citation.]"
| < < < [Maura Larkins' note: Someone doesn't want the public to know what the court reasoned! Here is what Judge Judith Hayes said on March 10, 2010:] "The Court finds defendant Maura Larkins has continued to violate the Court's order resulting from the parties' stipulation of April 6, 2009. The Court finds [Larkins] is currently in violation of the Court's further order of December 11, 2009. [Larkins] implicitly concedes she is in violation of the Court's orders. [Larkins] argues the orders are unconstitutional, illegal and impossible to comply with. "[Larkins's] position is based in part, on her misunderstanding of constitutional law. " |
| [Maura Larkins' note: "Misunderstanding of constitutional law"? Not so. Judge Hayes misunderstood the constitution. Consequently, her December 11, 2009 injunction was ruled unconstitutional. Judge Hayes' contempt decision relied completely on her unconstitutional order. She imposed $3000 in sanctions without mentioning a single instance in which I had done anything other than simply saying the name of Stutz law firm. Even after the injunction was ruled unconstitutional, Judge Hayes refused to reverse the sanctions.] |
| [What's missing? The injunction at issue in this case! It was in the second paragraph of part C. Here it is: ] "1. . . . [The Stutz Firm] is entitled to an injunction enjoining and restraining [Larkins] from continuing to publish or republishing by any method or media, including but not limited to all electronic data, Web sites and Web pages, the defamatory statements alleged in [the Stutz Firm's] first amended complaint pertaining to [the Stutz Firm] and any of its lawyers past or present, and future publication of statements with regard to [the Stutz Firm] and its lawyers accusing illegal conduct or violations of law, unethical conduct, lack of professional competence or intimidation." |
| Note: Judge Judith Hayes did not consider evidence to find that Maura Larkins had defamed Stutz law firm. Instead, Judge Hayes threw out all Larkins' evidence and also threw out her opposition to summary judgement. Then Judge Hayes behaved as if there had actually been a finding of fact that Maura Larkins had committed defamation. |
| What's missing here? > > > See below. |