Friday, August 22, 2014

Remittitur issued in Stutz v. Larkins on Aug. 20, 2014--but Judge Judith Hayes issued new default judgment TWO WEEKS EARLIER

See all posts regarding this case.

On August 20, 2014 the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur in Stutz v. Larkins. 

But Judge Judge Hayes issued a new judgment two weeks earlier--on August 6, 2014--in San Diego Superior Court!  [In typical fashion, Judge Hayes didn't bother to have her clerk serve me with the judgment.  I didn't know about it until I was served with a copy by plaintiff on August 19, 2014.]

I have no idea why the Court of Appeal bothered to issue the remittitur.  Judge Hayes certainly wasn't waiting for it.

UPDATE: It turns out that there's case law that says that Judge Hayes did not have jurisdiction on August 6, 2014 to issue a new judgment:

‘Until remittitur issues, the lower court cannot act upon the reviewing court’s decision; remittitur ensures in part that only one court has jurisdiction over the case at any one time.”  (People v. Saunoa (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 870, 872.) 

So why did she do it?

Don't ask me.  I still don't understand why she felt it was in the interest of justice to throw out my opposition to summary judgment because I made a small mistake in format.  For good measure, she also threw out my evidence (which seems sort of redundant, right?) and then granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.


Why didn't Judge Hayes want to weigh the evidence?

And then why did she rant and rave about defamation ever since, as if the evidence had been weighed and there had been a factual finding of defamation?

There was no justification for outrage or anger when the decision was based on a pure technicality.  And there was no justification for denying me a jury trial regarding damages for four years.

Judge Hayes granted default four years after granting summary judgment.  She then awarded nominal damages of $30,000 based on the fact that there were TWO (yes, 2!!!) Internet searches for Plaintiff in a certain month. 

Here's what I wrote in my Opening Brief regarding the $30,000 in "nominal" damages:

The calculation for the $30,000 is based on a ludicrous,
unreasonable and illogical conclusion drawn from Exhibits D and E...

If the trial court had looked at Exhibit E of the prove-up, it would
have seen that visitors to Defendant’s site were looking for CVESD, CTA,
MEA, Fagen Friedman Fulfrost, Emily Shieh, Voice of San Diego Education,
Procopio, Kaiser Permanente, Vickie Gilbreath, medical records,
insurance, the new teacher project, Cornell, Bonifacio Bonny Garcia, CTA
lawyer, and Councilman Castaneda.

It isn’t until page AA 2510 that we see the
two (2!) total queries...referring to Plaintiff. 
These two queries would appear to
justify damages of $.86...

It was unreasonable for the trial court to order Defendant to pay Plaintiff
$.43 every single hit on the site, when almost all of the hits were by
Defendant herself; search robots; visitors who only stayed on the site a
second or two; people looking for health and insurance information--
particularly Kaiser Permanente; visitors wanting information about
schools, education and San Diego politics; or non-Plaintiff lawyers.

The Court of Appeal backed-up Judge Hayes, also based mostly on technicalities.

Erasing information on my websites

I've been working hard erasing web pages and blog posts that could be considered violations of  Judge Judith Hayes' injunction.

In the past couple of months I've depublished hundreds of blog posts and erased or edited several web pages.  I'm starting to erase web pages with public records:

Deposition page plus six additional pages

Motion to compel

Monday, August 18, 2014

Statute of limitations didn't start to run while defendant didn't know that evidence had been fabricated

    "San Diego, Dugo, Dumanis and Lattuca attacked the claims as time barred and demanded absolute immunity.
     U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Whelan disagreed last week, however, saying that Tamara's 2004 conviction did not start the statute of limitations because, at that time, she had no reason to suspect that Marugg had fabricated evidence.
     The facts in McAnally's complaint "support Tamara's allegation that Marugg intentionally fostered a dependant and trusting relationship that he used to try to start a sexual relationship with her," Whelan wrote. "Under these circumstances, Tamara did not have reason to suspect before 2010 that Marugg fabricated evidence in her case."
     Thus, the window for Tamara to sue did not open until after her conviction was overturned in 2011, Whelan ruled."

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Fresh doubts over a Texas execution; New evidence revives concerns that a man was wrongly put to death in 2004

New evidence revives concerns that a man was wrongly put to death in 2004
Published on August 3, 2014
CORSICANA, Tex. — For more than 20 years, the prosecutor who convicted Cameron Todd Willingham of murdering his three young daughters has insisted that the authorities made no deals to secure the testimony of the jailhouse informer who told jurors that Willingham confessed the crime to him.

About this project: The investigation was reported and written by Maurice Possley for The Marshall Project, a new nonprofit news organization focused on the criminal justice system. Sign up for updates on their launch.

Since Willingham was executed in 2004, officials have continued to defend the account of the informer, Johnny E. Webb, even as a series of scientific experts have discredited the forensic evidence that Willingham might have deliberately set the house fire in which his toddlers were killed.
But now new evidence has revived questions about Willingham’s guilt: In taped interviews, Webb, who has previously both recanted and affirmed his testimony, gives his first detailed account of how he lied on the witness stand in return for efforts by the former prosecutor, John H. Jackson, to reduce Webb’s prison sentence for robbery and to arrange thousands of dollars in support from a wealthy Corsicana rancher. Newly uncovered letters and court files show that Jackson worked diligently to intercede for Webb after his testimony and to coordinate with the rancher, Charles S. Pearce Jr., to keep the mercurial informer in line...

Thursday, August 7, 2014

David Loy versus Sam Abed in Escondido regarding housing of migrant children">ACLU appeals Escondido rejection of housing for migrant children
Fox News
Christian De La Rosa
Aug. 6, 2014

ESCONDIDO, CA — There is a new push to open a detention facility for migrant children in San Diego County. “The commission’s decision is not substantiated by the facts,” said David Loy, legal director for the San Diego American Civil Liberties Union.
The A.C.L.U. is appealing the city of Escondido’s denial of a land use permit to open a housing facility for unaccompanied minors crossing the Mexico border...
“The planning commission the decision was based purely on land use,” said Escondido City Mayor, Sam Abed.
But attorneys with the ACLU say city officials haven’t presented enough factual evidence to deny the housing facility, which would provide over 100 new jobs...
“I don’t understand why the A.C.L.U.’s position in getting involved with the land use, I think the ACLU has a political agenda,” said Abed...

Monday, August 4, 2014

Aaron Schwartz' suicide: why was this computer whiz placed in solitary confinement even after his bail was processed?

Did MIT go too far in the Aaron Schwartz case?  Why are universities so secretive about their research?  Why did the Department of Justice go after Aaron so savagely?

Aaron Swartz's father: He'd be alive today if he was never arrested

June 27, 2014

In 2013, Internet activist and Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz ended his life while facing up to 35 years in prison for hacking.

Swartz faced multiple charges for breaking and entering into an MIT wiring closet and downloading academic journals, including two counts of wire fraud and 11 counts of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Swartz, who was battling the court, also battled with depression. Prosecutors dropped the charges after his death.

I first met Swartz's father, Robert, last year as he explained his mission to fight for his son's memory by helping to change outdated laws. He wanted answers about why he lost his son.

His son's story is now the subject of a new documentary called "The Internet's Own Boy: The story of Aaron Swartz."...