Monday, May 12, 2014
Updates on San Diego Reader story about Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Larkins
The San Diego Reader has finally allowed me to correct an error and add some crucial information to a June 26, 2013 article about me:
1. There was no weighing of evidence involved in Judge Judith Hayes' decision that I had defamed Stutz law firm. The judge's decision was based on a technicality--that I hadn't used the updated format in my opposition to summary adjudication--so the decision was not based on fact. Stutz won the decision automatically when my opposition was thrown out.
2. Regarding the Vito Corleone error: documents show that I was not the author of the Vito Corleone quote.
Here are my comments on this story in the San Diego Reader:
MauraLarkins May 11, 2014 @ 11:45 a.m.
I liked Mr. Hargrove's article about me, but I would like to correct one error. In fact, the comment about Vito Corleone was not written by me, but rather by an anonymous visitor to my website. Mr. Hargrove's mistake can be explained by the fact that Judge Judith Hayes ignored the documentary evidence (exhibits that included printouts of my blog) when she issued a decision saying that I had published the comment!
In fact, I don't believe that Dan Shinoff makes Vito Corleone look like an altar boy. I'd say the exact opposite: that Vito Corleone makes Dan Shinoff look like the personification of moral purity.
I bear no malice toward Mr. Shinoff. I simply believe that the public has a right to know what our tax dollars are paying for, and how our schools are being run.
MauraLarkins May 12, 2014 @ 10:02 a.m.
There was no trial in this case. In fact, there was no weighing of evidence by the judge, either. Judge Judith Hayes made her decision based ONLY on a technicality: that I hadn't used the updated format when I prepared my opposition to summary adjudication.
My statements were NOT found to be defamatory in fact, but only as a matter of law.
The judge could have weighed the evidence, but she chose not to do so. Why not?
To insulate herself even further from the facts of the case, Judge Hayes also threw out all my evidence. That was overkill, of course, since she had thrown out my opposition to summary adjudication.
MauraLarkins May 12, 2014 @ 4:33 p.m.
The law does NOT allow prior restraint of speech except for statements found to be defamatory "at trial". Judge Hayes did not have the right to deprive me of my constitutional rights without due process. Obviously, throwing out my evidence and my opposition to summary adjudication does not constitute due process.