Showing posts with label . Loy (ACLU David Loy). Show all posts
Showing posts with label . Loy (ACLU David Loy). Show all posts

Monday, December 8, 2014

The bizarre choices of San Diego ACLU legal director David Loy


UPDATE Dec. 8, 2014 10:39 am:

 Wow!  It took less that 10 minutes for Leagle.com to fix the defaced Stutz v. Larkins decision after I complained. ACLU legal director David Loy didn't want the First Amendment to be enforced in this case, perhaps because of loyalty to someone he worked with.  But I doubt that he was involved in defacing the decision.  Here's the comment I sent to Leagle.com:

Who defaced this decision?  This page was perfectly legible for several years after the 2011 decision.   On December 8, 2014, I find that a large amount of the decision has been overwritten, making it indecipherable.  Was this page hacked, or does Leagle.com want it to be largely unreadable?

Here is what the Leagle.com page looked like before 10:30 am today:



ORIGINAL POST:

Today I was reading David Loy's biography on the San Diego ACLU website, and I was struck by the irony of his claims to fame.  Freedom of speech?  Open government and public disclosure?  You've got to be kidding.

David Loy was indeed chosen as a Top Attorney in 2009 and 2010, but I suspect the reason was NOT that he defended free speech, but that he cozied-up to individuals who crafted a couple of agreements with him regarding student speech.

Those agreements generated some nice media attention for Mr. Loy.  But what was he doing behind the scenes?

He was pressuring me to remove the names of public entity attorneys from my website.  He wrote to me telling me that I must remove every mention of public attorneys he had worked with!

The Court of Appeal disagreed with Mr. Loy that I must remove those names.  See story in Voice of San Diego.

If you want to see something truly bizarre, look at the Stutz v. Larkins decision from the Leagle website.  It was largely unreadable for as much as several months in 2014. It was fixed on Dec. 8, 2014. You can see the repaired web page HERE.


I wonder what Mr. Loy thinks of concealing Court of Appeal decisions from the public. 

Here's the decision that somebody doesn't want you to see.  Clearly, David Loy didn't even want this case to be heard, so I'm sure he wasn't happy with the decision.

So how does David Loy get off claiming to be an expert in free speech and a champion of sunshine in government?  He most certainly is NOT a supporter of transparency in public entities, as shown by his efforts to silence public discussion of public attorneys.

Legal Director, David Loy
After graduating law school, Loy clerked for Judge Dolores K. Sloviter of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He worked as a staff attorney with Office of the Appellate Defender in New York City and public defender and civil rights attorney in Spokane, Washington before joining the ACLU in 2006. He previously served on the Southern District Lawyer Representative Committee and the board of California Appellate Defense Counsel. Loy was named one of San Diego’s Top Attorneys 2009 and 2010 by San Diego Daily Transcript. He supervises all legal advocacy at the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, and has particular expertise in freedom of speech and religion, open government and public disclosure, police misconduct, and constitutional criminal procedure. Loy has a law degree from Northwestern and a B.A. from Brown, and is licensed to practice in California and New York (with inactive licenses in Illinois and Washington).
--from ACLU website 


David Loy is also in the news today courtesy of the San Diego Union-Tribune due to his objections to a religious organization that is involved in raising money in public schools.

I share Mr. Loy's concern about a charity that public schools in San Marcos are involved with.  I have two criticism's of the charity.

First, I don't like the idea of feeding kids for a limited period of time and then walking away.

I would urge citizens of San Marcos to give to Oxfam rather than this questionable charity.

Oxfam helps people create better economic conditions.  They teach people how to fish rather than giving them a fish to eat.  They create jobs for parents, and let the parents feed their kids with the money they make.

The San Marcos charity simply serves meals to kids.

Well, actually, I suspect that's not all they do.  Which brings me to my second criticism: the violation of the First Amendment.

Second, I suspect that the charity is serving meals for a limited time because it wants to give religious training to kids.  After they're converted, the charity's goals have been achieved, and the feeding of the kids is no longer a priority.

I can understand that Mr. Loy would be worried about the slippery slopes that surround enterprises like this one, but if he's going to worry about the dangers of everyday activities that threaten the First Amendment, he should worry first about his own efforts to quash free speech.  Why should he hold San Marcos Middle School to such an exacting standard when he is so lax about the First Amendment in other situations?







ACLU says San Marcos school raising funds illegally


San Marcos Middle School may be breaking state law by raising money with a religious group to feed children in East Africa, according to the San Diego and Imperial counties chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The school is partnering with a local nonprofit called Friends and Family Community Connection, with the support of Illinois-based Kids Around the World, to raise $3,500 to provide 14,000 meals for children in Tanzania..

Thursday, August 7, 2014

David Loy versus Sam Abed in Escondido regarding housing of migrant children

http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/08/06/aclu-appeals-escondido-rejection-of-housing-for-migrant-children/#ixzz39k1Qd2aW">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...

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

The Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Larkins case is a window into how San Diego Superior Court functions; also, two decisions by Judge Lisa Schall overturned


Our justice system works some of the time. But is that enough? How much of the time does it function adequately? And how often is it abused by the powerful to achieve unjust goals that harm the public good?

Is Judith Hayes a typical San Diego Superior Court judge or is she unusual in her brazen refusal to follow the law when she wants a litigant to lose?

See a synopsis of Judge Hayes' actions in the defamation case against me by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz. The case record could serve as a manual for judges who want to deprive a defendant of a jury trial. I have not been able to find any attorney who knows of another case in which a default was granted AFTER summary adjudication. If Judge Hayes' actions are upheld by the Court of Appeal, I imagine it will happen more often.

I don't want to believe that Judith Hayes is typical of San Diego judges. I want to believe that many, if not most, of our Superior Court judges are interested in honestly applying the law to every case. Still, assuming that there is a majority of judges who carefully follow the law, I have come to believe that it is not an overwhelming majority.

I have learned over the past few years that a good number of Judge Hayes' colleagues feel that their job is simply to churn out decisions that preserve the status quo for people in power in both public and private spheres. It's not a justice system for these judges, it's a decision-making system meant to preserve the power of whatever individuals, no matter how incompetent or corrupt, have attained positions of influence. It's no wonder our schools are failing, our pocketbooks are shrinking and our quality of life is diminishing.

This is why I support the election of federal prosecutor Carla Keehn to replace Judge Lisa Schall. We need judges who aren't completely plugged-in to the current web of alliances at the court.

We need to chip away wherever we can at the power of those who prevent change for the better in how people and organizations treat each other in San Diego.

My own case is a testament to the disregard for the law by many highly respected members of the local bar, including attorneys who have contracts with local public entities.

I have defended myself from Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz to the best of my ability even though I knew that I would continually make serious errors in my conduct of the case. My goal was to create a record, which would be valuable whether I won or lost. In fact, it is more valuable when I lose. By winning, I don't prove that the justice system works, I only prove that it worked on one occasion.

The record of my case is a fascinating story. USD professor Shaun Martin was kind enough to take over one of my appeals pro bono (and give me a win in the Court of Appeal), but he was not in a position to work on the complex and compromised Superior Court case. If one of the other 5000 local members of the bar had been willing to stand up to Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, I would have more money, but I wouldn't know how corrupt the Superior Court--and the myriad officers of that court--can be. I'm glad I know. Ignorance isn't as blissful as some people claim.

Et tu, ACLU? Can the ACLU be "bought" by those opposed to free speech?

I owe a debt of gratitude to David Loy, the San Diego ACLU general counsel, for providing me with some hard evidence of the connection between power and injustice in San Diego. Mr. Loy instructed me to take down every mention of Stutz law firm on my websites--even though Mr. Loy said the ACLU wasn't going to give me any legal advice. Perhaps Mr. Loy figured that if he was simply intimidating me, that wouldn't count as legal advice. Obviously, Mr. Loy's behavior was diametrically opposed to the principles to which he has devoted his career.

I would never have believed the truth if I hadn't experienced it directly.

Mr. Loy is on the record praising himself for reaching settlements with Stutz lawyer Dan Shinoff regarding student speech in schools. It would seem that the deals Mr. Loy struck with Stutz caused him to feel obliged to undermine employee speech in schools on be. His goal was apparently to get good publicity for the ACLU, and he figured no one would ever know how much effort he put into enforcing an injunction that the Court of Appeal found to be unconstitutional.

Perhaps money also has something to do with the actions of the San Diego ACLU. They may have figured that they needed money to achieve SOME of their goals, and calculated that it would be a good bargain to abandon some of their principles in exchange for contributions. The San Diego ACLU has made it clear that it wants to focus on certain specific issues, including immigration and gay rights. But are immigrants and gay individuals really being served by making San Diego a 1st-Amendment-free zone?

I am not surprised that former executive director Kevin Keenan chose to leave the San Diego ACLU. I suspect he tries not to think about some of the cases he was forced to work on, or prevented from working on. The bizarre Johnson v. Poway Unified School District case comes to mind, in which the San Diego ACLU insisted that local high school students should be forced to sit in class under large signs with Christian messages on them. That was a case in which the San Diego ACLU should have been on Dan Shinoff's side.

IF SHE IGNORES THE LAW AND THE FACTS IN CIVIL COURT, THEN WHAT DID JUDGE HAYES DO BEFORE SHE WAS FORCED OUT OF CRIMINAL COURT?

It seems likely that mine is not the only case in which Judge Judith Hayes ignored the facts and the law. Certainly District Attorney seems to believe that Judge Hayes did the same thing in the criminal court. Hayes was forced to move to civil court when the district attorney's office refused to try any cases before Judge Hayes.

I suspect that Judge Hayes abused many individuals who didn't have enough money to pay for their own attorneys. The Public Defenders office is famous for getting criminal defendants to plead guilty. I sometimes felt that when Hayes spoke to me, she was repeating the exact words she had said to threaten criminal defendants.


Two decisions of Judge Lisa Schall reversed

Sometimes I think judges might just be lazy, repeating their usual actions instead of thinking hard about a case.

San Diego Trial Court REVERSED (Again) in MOVE-AWAY Case
Thurman Arnold
May 3, 2011

Parental Relocations and Move-Away

In response to a recent article I posted about the case of F.T. vs. L.J., the mother of the Mother in Mark T. vs. Jaime Z. submitted a comment about a new reversal of a case involving Judge Lisa C. Schall, in San Diego, on this Blog - for which I thanked her. I am grateful that family law litigants in these published appeals are increasingly airing their side of the experience here, and I invite you to as well!

The decision in her daughter's case was published on Friday, last week, so I now understand what the maternal grandmother, "Shelly," was referencing.

My sense is that appellate courts are expecting more out of trial judges, like never before, and lawyers too, to be sure, and therapists and court services personnel and litigants themselves! An interesting footnote is that the father's attorneys in this case were certified family law specialists, and (presumably) local San Diego heavyweights, and the mother represented herself and yet succeeded "against all odds." Is this an Elkins Aftermath, leveling the playing field for unrepresented parties against experienced adversaries?

Mark T. and Jamie Z. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1115

In Mark T. v. Jamie Z. certified for publication on April 28, 2011 by the Fourth Appellate District, a San Diego trial court was again reversed in a move-away case where she effectively refused to permit a custodial parent to move out of state without addressing what custody orders should issue if the parent did move. In F.T. vs. L.J. it was the Father who wanted to relocate - here it was the Mother but in both cases it was the same judicial officer.

Judge Lisa C. Schall doesn't like move-aways, it appears. These applications challenge the non-moving parent and can negatively impact a child's access to that parent, and disrupt parent-child bonding, if a holistic parenting plan under the move-away regime is not developed.

Judge Schall bears the indignity of being reversed twice now in less than 30 days in a reported appellate decision - quite a scolding. Family law is damned tough for judicial officers, who are doing their best to protect children and weigh in consistently with the cutting edge policies of current mental health science as well as their in-house (FCS) advisors. The problem at present is that the opinions of MHP's (mental health providers), and the wisdom of the reviewing courts, are in conflict. The science of move-away as it affects families from the MHP perspective is still developing, and it collides with certain cherished assumptions the law makes about the rights of Americans, and specifically parents in California under our current statutory scheme (see Family Code section 7501 and the Burgess case) to move freely.

In both cases Judge Schall accepted (mostly) the independent opinions of outside, court-appointed, mental health forensics and ignored the opinions of the Family Court Services mediator - here the very same Lynne Waldman who made recommendations in the F.T. case. FCS mediator Waldman's belief was that Jamie's move away request should be granted, noting that Jamie had been L.'s primary caretaker since his birth, that Jamie had been unable to find a job in San Diego and was "living in poverty," and that Jamie appeared "to have a clear plan for the move."

Judge Schall now has two strikes against her for using judicial body language to create a result that she felt was fair and appropriate, and her findings on the record illustrate her dilemma. I'm reminded of my early youth playing pool (not so much) and hoping if I twisted my body hard enough, the ball would fall in the pocket. Most of us are doing the best we can. Trial judges, however, have a script they must follow.

In effect, Judge Schall's mistake was to refuse to permit a move-away by a Mom with a 22 month old child who had indeed been the child's "primary caretaker since birth." By effectively coercing Mom not to move by denying her move-away request, and by ignoring the question of "in whose custody" the child's best interests were served" or what arrangement should be imposed were Mom to move, Judge Schall committed reversible error. The justices ruled:

"The court must decide de novo what physical custody arrangement would be in the child's best interests, assuming that the requesting parent will relocate ." Therapist Dr. Lori Love (we can't invent this name stuff) was appointed to evaluate the family for the Court and opined that "[t]his examiner understands the importance of having extended family around for support however this cannot be justified as being in [L.'s] best interest[s] when it means removing him from a loving and capable father. Jamie stated that she did not have an active father in her life and very much wants that to happen for [L.] It would be virtually impossible for Mark to be an active father from across the country." Dr. Love urged the child was too young for the move and went on to recommend that Mom not "be permitted to move out of the County of San Diego. At the same time, this forensic therapist was unwilling to recommend a primary change in custody and assumed that the mother would in fact remain the primary caretaker in San Diego county. She made no recommendations about what custodial arrangement should become effective when or if the Mother moved.

The appellate justices ruled: "Where, as here, a parent who shares joint custody of a minor makes a request to relocate the child in the context of an initial custody determination, the trial court must decide de novo what physical custody arrangement would be in the child's best interests. In making its custody determination, the court must proceed on the assumption that the parent who is making the request will relocate his or her own residence, regardless of whether the court grants or denies the request. In this case, the court erroneously failed to conduct its best interests analysis based on the presumption that Jamie would be relocating to Minnesota."

The trial court adopted the recommendations of Dr. Love, even though Dr. Love failed to address what should happen if and when Jamie relocates out of state. "The very issue that Dr. Love was supposed to address is what parenting plan would be in L.'s best interests, given that Jamie intended to move to Minnesota .... The court misapplied the law in adopting Dr. Love's recommendations, because in making those recommendations, Dr. Love incorrectly assumed that preserving the status quo parenting arrangement was an option, even in the face of Jamie's expressed intent to move...." At trial the Father's attorney asked Mother whether she would move if the court were to deny her request to relocate, and Mom's response showed she was tortured by the question. The appellate court ruled that this question by counsel was improper - courts cannot consider whether the primary parent might alter their plan of relocate depending upon how the court rules. As a trial lawyer this is interesting to me, because this question is often used to telegraph a message to the Court that implies it can deny the move because the moving parent evidently doesn't want to move 'badly enough.'

Apparently the trial court suspected Mother's motives for moving might include frustrating Father's access, but the court did not actually make such findings. "The court's comments regarding Jamie's reasons for moving to Minnesota appear to constitute second-guessing as to the wisdom of Jamie's decision to move (i.e., questioning the "necessity" of the relocation), as opposed to a finding that her decision to move was made 'simply to frustrate the noncustodial parent's contact with the minor child.'" There is no requirement that a parent who has the right to custody of a child establish the necessity of a proposed move. "[E]ven where the court finds that a move away request is being made in bad faith, the court must view this finding as only one potential factor in deciding whether to allow the child's residence to be moved; it does not permit the court to deny the move away request on the presumption that in denying the request, the court can assure that the requesting parent will not in fact move, and that the court can thereby maintain the status quo parenting arrangement. That one parent may have been motivated, in part, to relocate the child's residence by a desire to lessen the child's contact with the other parent does not mean that the court should apply any standard other than what would be in the best interests of the child."

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Is the San Diego ACLU a rogue organization, or does the national ACLU support attorney David Loy's bad behavior?



So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy.

-- ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin


I agree with Mr. Baldwin in theory, but in practice, people need to be able, as well as willing, to fight for their rights. Education is needed in order to have a democracy.

Sadly, San Diego ACLU attorney David Loy seems to be working on two fronts to stop the efforts of San Diegans working to improve the functioning of local schools. Worse still, the local ACLU is supporting him.


San Diego ACLU attorney David Loy

First, David Loy has gone out of his way to support a school attorney law firm (Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Hotlz) which has steadfastly worked to silence education bloggers.

Why? And why would the San Diego ACLU support Mr. Loy in this? In an email, Loy pretended he didn't know that that Judge Judith Hayes' injunction against this blog was unconstitutional. Loy demanded that I take all mention of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm off my websites. I knew the injunction was unconstitutional, and I'm just an elementary school teacher without any legal training.

So why didn't Loy know this? Answer: of course he knew the injunction was unconstitutional. He just didn't care. He apparently wanted to score some points with school attorney Dan Shinoff. Certainly, Shinoff would have owed Loy an enormous debt if Loy had succeeded in silencing me.


Judge Judith Hayes

Judge Judith Hayes wrote a brazenly unconstitutional injunction in an effort to silence this blogger. When I objected, she told me that I didn't understand constitutional law. The Court of Appeal agreed with me. It's hard to understand why a judge would engage in this type of behavior. She must have had her reasons.

Happily, the injunction was thrown out by the Court of Appeal, and Mr. Loy's efforts to intimidate me into taking down my website failed completely.

But why is the San Diego ACLU working behind closed doors in direct opposition to its stated goals?

My theory is that David Loy tries to get publicity by complaining to the media about, ironically enough, freedom of speech for students in San Diego County, and then getting school attorneys like Dan Shinoff to settle out of court. The problem arises when Mr. Shinoff wants consideration for his cooperation.


Dan Shinoff

The second prong of the San Diego ACLU's efforts to undermine education reform is its startling inaction in cases like the ACLU suit regarding teacher quality in lower socioeconomic schools.

Why were San Diego school districts left out? I suspect that the answer is exactly the same as the answer to why the San Diego ACLU would support silencing education bloggers.

--San Diego blogger Maura Larkins

(See biographies of national ACLU leaders below.)


Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU

Steven R. Shapiro is the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, the nation's oldest and largest civil liberties organization. He directs a staff of approximately 90 full-time lawyers who maintain a large and active docket of civil liberties cases around the country. Those cases cover a broad range of issues, including: free speech, racial justice, religious freedom, due process, privacy, reproductive and women's rights, immigrant's rights, gay rights, voting rights, prisoner's rights, and the death penalty.

Shapiro has been the ACLU's Legal Director since 1993, and served as Associate Legal Director from 1987–1993. During that time, he has appeared as counsel or co-counsel on more than 200 ACLU briefs submitted to the United States Supreme Court.

Shapiro is also an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Columbia Law School, and a frequent speaker and writer on civil liberties issues.

After graduating from Harvard Law School and spending one year as law clerk to Judge J. Edward Lumbard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Shapiro joined the New York Civil Liberties Union in 1976. He was a member of the Board of Directors of Human Rights First for twenty years and is now a member of the Policy Committee of Human Rights Watch, as well as the Advisory Committees of the U.S. Program and Asia Program of Human Rights Watch.



Terence Dougherty, ACLU General Counsel

Terence Dougherty joined the ACLU in 2005 and since then has developed an in house legal team that advises the organization on all internal legal matters, including nonprofit governance, charity law, lobbying and political campaign activities, ethics rules and FEC, intellectual property, contract, endowment fund and litigation matters. In addition to serving as the in-house General Counsel, he is the organization's Assistant Corporate Secretary. Prior to joining the ACLU, Terence practiced law at Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, where he represented numerous nonprofit organizations, including educational institutions, advocacy organizations, private foundations, museums and donor advised funds. Prior to that, he practiced tax law at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Dougherty has over a decade of experience working with nonprofit organizations on a wide range of legal issues, and he regularly lectures and gives CLE trainings. Dougherty co-authored an article in 2010, "Newspapers as Tax-Exempt Entities: The Newspaper Revitalization Act of 2009," that addresses proposed legislation that would grant tax-exempt status to certain newspaper entities. He assisted in the preparation of a section of the 2005 Independent Sector, Panel on the Nonprofit Sector's Final Report to Congress and the Nonprofit Sector, "Strengthening Transparency, Governance and Accountability of Charitable Organizations." He is the author of a series of policy studies published by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force in 2004 and 2005 on the economic detriment to same-sex couples resulting from their inability to enter into marriages recognized under federal and state law. He is a contributor to and the coeditor with Martha Fineman of Feminism Confronts Homo Economics, a collection of essays published by Cornell University Press in 2005 that addresses the negative impact of neoclassical economic theory on the study and practice of law.

Dougherty is a graduate of Oberlin College and Columbia Law School, where he was a James Kent Scholar and a recipient of a Human Rights Internship Fellowship. During law school, he interned with Hon. Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, and with Hon. Cheryl Valandra of the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court in South Dakota.

In 2008, Dougherty was appointed as a Commissioner of the Women's Refugee Commission. Since 2005, he has served as a member of the board of directors of the Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Dance Company and has sat on the Government Relations Committee of the Non-Profit Coordinating Committee. He is a former member of the boards of the Columbia University School of Law Alumni Association and the Ohio Public Interest Research Group.

Dougherty is a native New Yorker. Prior to attending law school, he worked as writer assistant to feminist cultural critic Bell Hooks and as a kindergarten teacher at a homeless shelter in the South Bronx.


Susan N. Herman, President of the ACLU

Susan N. Herman was elected President of the American Civil Liberties Union in October 2008, after having served on the ACLU National Board of Directors for twenty years, as a member of the Executive Committee for sixteen years, and as General Counsel for ten years.

Herman holds a chair as Centennial Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, where she currently teaches courses in Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure, and seminars on Law and Literature, and Terrorism and Civil Liberties. She writes extensively on constitutional and criminal procedure topics for scholarly and other publications, ranging from law reviews and books to periodicals and on-line publications. Recent publications include two books, TERRORISM, GOVERNMENT, AND LAW: NATIONAL AUTHORITY AND LOCAL AUTONOMY IN THE WAR ON TERROR, editor and co-author, with Paul Finkelman (Praeger Security International 2008) and THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL (Praeger 2006) (part of a series on the Constitution), and law review articles including The USA PATRIOT Act and the Submajoritarian Fourth Amendment, 41 HARV. CIV. RTS.-CIV. LIB. L. REV. 67 (2006).

Herman has discussed constitutional law issues on radio, including a variety of NPR shows; on television, including programs on PBS, CSPAN, NBC, MSNBC and a series of appearances on the Today in New York show; and in print media including Newsday and the New York Times. In addition, she has been a frequent speaker at academic conferences and continuing legal education events organized by groups such as the Federal Judicial Center, and the American Bar Association, lecturing and conducting workshops for various groups of judges and lawyers, and at non-legal events, including speeches at the U.S. Army War College and many other schools. She has also participated in Supreme Court litigation, writing and collaborating on amicus curiae briefs for the ACLU on a range of constitutional criminal procedure issues, and conducting Supreme Court moot courts, and in some federal lobbying efforts.

Herman received a B.A. from Barnard College as a philosophy major, and a J.D. from New York University School of Law, where she was a Note and Comment Editor on the N.Y.U. Law Review. Before entering teaching, Professor Herman was Pro Se Law Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Staff Attorney and then Associate Director of Prisoners' Legal Services of New York.



Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director ACLU

Anthony D. Romero is the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, the nation's premier defender of liberty and individual freedom. He took the helm of the organization just seven days before the September 11, 2001 attacks. Shortly afterward, the ACLU launched its national Keep America Safe and Free campaign to protect basic freedoms during a time of crisis, achieving court victories on the Patriot Act, uncovering thousands of pages of documents detailing the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. custody, and filing the first successful legal challenge to the Bush administration's illegal NSA spying program. Romero also led the ACLU in establishing the John Adams Project, a joint effort with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to assist the under-resourced military defense lawyers in the Guantánamo military commissions.

Romero has also led the ACLU in its unique legal challenge to the patents held by a private company on the human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer; in its landmark lawsuit challenging Arizona’s anti-immigrant law that invites law enforcement to engage in racial profiling; and in its ongoing campaign to end mass incarceration, which has achieved significant victories, including the 2010 passage of the federal Fair Sentencing Act and the implementation of less punitive, evidence-based criminal justice reforms in several states.

An attorney with a history of public-interest activism, Romero has presided over the most successful membership growth in the ACLU's history and a large increase in national and affiliate staff. This extraordinary growth has allowed the ACLU to expand its nationwide litigation, lobbying and public education efforts, including new initiatives focused on human rights, racial justice, religious freedom, technology and privacy, reproductive freedom, criminal law reform and LGBT rights. In 2010, the ACLU completed the largest fundraising campaign on behalf of civil rights and civil liberties in American history. “Leading Freedom Forward: The ACLU Campaign for the Future,” along with the ongoing Strategic Affiliate Initiative, launched an unprecedented effort to build the organization's infrastructure by increasing funding to key state affiliates, enhancing advocacy capabilities nationwide and securing the ACLU's financial future.

Romero is the ACLU's sixth executive director, and the first Latino and openly gay man to serve in that capacity. In 2005, Romero was named one of Time Magazine's 25 Most Influential Hispanics in America, and has received dozens of public service awards and an honorary doctorate from the City University of New York School of Law.

In 2007, Romero and co-author and NPR correspondent Dina Temple-Raston published “In Defense of Our America: The Fight for Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror,” a book that takes a critical look at civil liberties in this country at a time when constitutional freedoms are in peril.

Born in New York City to parents who hailed from Puerto Rico, Romero was the first in his family to graduate from high school. He is a graduate of Stanford University Law School and Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy and International Affairs. He is a member of the New York Bar Association and has sat on numerous nonprofit boards.



Geri E. Rozanski, Director, Affiliate Support and Advocacy

Geri E. Rozanski joined the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 2002, bringing with her more than 20 years of experience working in nonprofit advocacy.

Currently, Rozanski serves as the Director of Affiliate Support and Advocacy for the ACLU. In this capacity, she develops and implements initiatives and programs that strengthen and maintain the connections between the ACLU and its nation-wide affiliates. Foremost among her responsibilities is ensuring that the ACLU national offices and their affiliates work together as a cohesive nationwide organization that seamlessly promotes and pursues common objectives. Rozanski's supervision of the multi-unit Affiliate Support and Advocacy department also incorporates working with all the ACLU's state affiliates in such areas as organizational development, fundraising, communications, marketing, training, and the advancement of the ACLU's state and federal priorities. As part of this process, Rozanski consults with both professional and lay leaders to establish long-lasting and effective partnerships organization-wide.

Prior to joining the ACLU, Rozanski worked as a public school teacher who also handled community relations issues in New York City and Maryland. She spent a number of years working in traditional and alternative classroom settings. After several years she left public education to pursue a career that would allow her to focus exclusively on community relations, civil rights, and building effective advocacy organizations to advance the progressive agenda. To this end, she joined the American Jewish Committee's ("AJC") Washington, DC chapter office. Working on race and interfaith relations, she eventually moved to the national office in New York City. While at the AJC's National Office, she oversaw program development in field offices on issues ranging from immigrants rights to church-state separation. She subsequently became the director of the AJC's large field operation overseeing thirty-three offices nationwide. This experience gave her a unique understanding of the ways in which a national organization can use its network of offices to leverage its combined strength to create a stronger and more effective organization. Under her leadership, the number of AJC field offices expanded to new geographic locations; fundraising campaigns in the offices reached record numbers; leadership development programs designed to attract young leaders were successfully implemented, and an advocacy network was created. Rozanski left the AJC to help the ACLU build its new Affiliate Support Department.



Emily Tynes, Communications Director

Emily Tynes is Communications Director of the national American Civil Liberties Union, the nation's premier defender of liberty and individual freedom. Tynes returned to the ACLU in 2009, resuming her role as the organization's Communications Director, which she previously held from 2002 to 2006. She currently supervises a three-unit department at the ACLU: media relations, publications and website development. She was most recently Executive Vice President of the Communications Consortium Media Center, a public interest media group that she co-founded in Washington, D.C.

Tynes has over 30 years of experience in communications regarding strategies for achieving policy and social change. She began her communications career as a news reporter with several Gannett Company newspapers, followed by four years as an account executive in the Washington, D.C., office of Ruder & Finn public relations.

In 1983, Tynes became the first communications director for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) — now NARAL Pro-Choice — where she guided the organization's communications program during a highly volatile era of historic abortion rights battles. After that, she co-founded the Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC), where she designed and implemented strategic communications campaigns on women's rights, racial equality, national energy policy and immigrants' rights. She has conducted strategic communications workshops for social justice advocates in the United States, Senegal, Jordan and Argentina.

Tynes initially joined the ACLU as Communications Director in 2002, shortly after the 9/11 terrorists attacks — a period of unprecedented assaults on civil liberties. As Communications Director, Tynes managed all communications functions of the organization and its state affiliates, including brand development, paid advertising, media relations and the development of multifaceted campaign strategies. She was responsible for several successful communications efforts and was the lead architect of the Safe & Free campaign, the organization's communications strategy on civil liberties post 9/11. She also spearheaded the production and distribution of the first-ever ACLU television series, the Freedom Files.

Tynes rejoined the Communications Consortium Media Center in November 2006, and returned to the ACLU in 2009.

Tynes is the editor of two reference books for journalists, The Newsroom Guide to Civil Rights and The Newsroom Guide to Abortion and Family Planning. She is co-author of the Jossey Bass Guide to Strategic Communications, a reference book for nonprofit communication professionals.

[Maura Larkins' comment: I notice that Ms. Tynes came back to the ACLU at about the same time that the organization switched its focus from civil liberties to "relationships".)

Thursday, February 6, 2014

San Diego ACLU new executive director Norma Chavez Peterson (and her senior staff David Loy, Jeff Wergeles, and Rebecca Rauber)


Norma Chavez Peterson
Executive Director ACLU San Diego
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
Phone: (619) 232-2121
Email: info@aclusandiego.org

ACLU STAFF BIOGRAPHIES
Senior Staff

Executive Director, Norma Chavez-Peterson

The ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties’ new executive director, Chávez-Peterson has long been an integral part of San Diego’s organizing community. Chávez-Peterson has nearly two decades of experience in community leadership and nonprofit management, advocating for affordable housing, neighborhood revitalization, and immigrant rights. Since starting with the San Diego ACLU in February 2012 as organizing director, Chávez-Peterson was promoted to associate director to oversee legal, communications, policy, and organizing programs in December 2012. In Chávez-Peterson’s short time as the associate director, she has been instrumental in creating integrated advocacy campaigns advancing priority issue areas, such as criminal justice, immigrant rights, and voting rights. Before coming to the San Diego ACLU, Chávez-Peterson was the co-founder and executive director of Justice Overcoming Boundaries, a network of faith, community, education, business and labor partners working together to advance social justice in San Diego. She has a Bachelor’s degree from SDSU in political science and Chicano/a studies.

Deputy Director, Jeff Wergeles

Wergeles joined the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties in February 2011 as the development director, and in November 2013 was appointed deputy director. In this position he leads our development work, and oversees the organization’s finances and operations. Prior to joining the ACLU, Wergeles was the director of development at the San Diego LGBT Community Center and before at KPBS, public radio and television for San Diego. He has an extensive resume of community involvement, serving as president on the boards of Mama’s Kitchen and the Greater San Diego Business Association. Prior to working at KPBS he was a member of their community advisory board, and also served as vice president of the Diversionary Theater and on the boards of the June Burnett Institute and the Association of Fundraising Professionals. He holds a degree in economics from UCLA.

Communications Director, Rebecca Rauber

Rauber has devoted her professional and personal life to community organizing and community development. She is the former San Diego director of an international hunger relief organization, and program director for the Central American Refugee Organizing Project of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, helping to create the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s. While with the archdiocese, she led delegations of North Americans to see and live the reality of the region’s civil wars. She was a reporter and news anchor for KPFA and has written for numerous publications, including The Daily Cal, San Diego Lawyer, and Boston Phoenix. Rauber has a degree in English from the University of California, Berkeley and a certificate in Marketing and Media from San Diego State University.

Legal Director, David Loy

After graduating law school, Loy clerked for the Hon. Dolores K. Sloviter on the Third Circuit and then worked as a staff attorney with Office of the Appellate Defender in New York City and as a public defender and a civil rights attorney in Spokane. He has served on the Southern District Lawyer Representative Committee and previously served on the board of California Appellate Defense Counsel. Loy was named one of San Diego’s Top Attorneys 2009 and 2010 by San Diego Daily Transcript. Loy has a law degree from Northwestern and a B.A. from Brown, and is licensed to practice in California and New York (with inactive licenses in Illinois and Washington).


Norma Chávez-Peterson Takes the Helm at the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties
Nationwide Search Promotes South San Diego County Latina Leader
San Diego ACLU website
September 17, 2013

SAN DIEGO – Effective today—the birthday of our Constitution—Norma Chavez-Peterson is the new executive director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, the organization’s board of directors announced. She will celebrate her new role by giving Constitution Day presentations at her alma mater Chula Vista High School at 8:15 a.m., and a presentation in Spanish at Lincoln High School at 10:30 a.m. (Open to the media; contact Jess Jollett for details.) Also, this Thursday night, Chavez-Peterson will receive an award on behalf of the ACLU at the Center on Policy Initiative’s gala.

[Lea este artículo aquí en español.]

“We know Norma’s excellent work, and we were deeply inspired by her vision for the organization,” said board president and Qualcomm senior vice president Greg Rose. “We are excited about the ACLU expanding its fight for civil rights and liberties for all people in San Diego.”

A search committee of the board conducted a national search and interviewed excellent candidates. Chavez-Peterson, who started with the ACLU in February 2012 as organizing director, was promoted to associate director in charge of legal, communications, policy, and organizing programs in December 2012.

As organizing director, she led the organization’s Latino voter mobilization campaign in Escondido, which turned out seven percent of that city’s electorate, and the San Diego component of the statewide campaign to replace California’s death penalty (Proposition 34). In Chavez-Peterson’s short time as the associate director, she has been instrumental in creating integrated advocacy campaigns advancing priority issue areas, such as criminal justice, immigrant rights, and voting rights.

She has also been a key leader for the ACLU of California’s efforts in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. Chavez-Peterson was one of the leaders who created an unusual and groundbreaking coalition of San Diego leaders, which included law enforcement, business, and labor leaders, that called upon Congress for commonsense immigration reform.

Chavez-Peterson has nearly two decades of experience in community leadership and nonprofit management, advocating for affordable housing, neighborhood revitalization, and immigrant rights. Previously, Chavez-Peterson served as a senior manager at MAAC Project, a social service nonprofit that promotes self-sufficiency for low- and moderate-income families.

Chavez-Peterson was the founder and director of Justice Overcoming Boundaries, a faith-based leadership development and community organizing nonprofit that addresses issues of people historically excluded from decision-making and political power. She also played a lead role in previous fights for comprehensive immigration reform, leading to massive demonstrations, including a 2006 march of more than 100,000 people through the streets of San Diego. At JOB, Chavez-Peterson worked closely with the ACLU during the 2007 wildfires when false reports of an immigrant family looting goods from the Qualcomm evacuation center led to abuses and intimidation of immigrants and people of color throughout the county.

Key allies shared enthusiasm for the decision. Assemblymember and majority leader Toni Atkins said, “I’m excited for San Diego and California to have yet another strong woman in charge of such an important organization serving our communities.” Nora Vargas, vice president of community and government relations of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest, said, “Norma is one of those exceptionally strong, strategic, inspiring leaders who also draws on a depth of personal experience to inform her work.”

Former Assemblymember and Republican floor leader George Plescia said, “I got to work with Norma in bringing diverse voices together to support commonsense immigration reform at an unprecedented press conference at Qualcomm headquarters. I appreciate her leadership in that effort, her advocacy, and her ability to look beyond labels to find common ground.”

“Building on the steadfast foundation created by our outgoing executive director, Kevin Keenan, I am eager to deepen our roots in communities directly affected by the civil rights and civil liberties issues of our day,” said Norma Chavez-Peterson, executive director of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. “It is tenacity and heart that makes our organization powerful, and I am excited to continue to work with our excellent staff, board, allies and community partners to build a better region and country for all.”

Chavez-Peterson succeeds Keenan who will move to New York City in December due to his wife being hired by the prestigious Union Theological Seminary as an assistant professor of social ethics. During his eight-year tenure, Keenan helped grow the organization from seven to 24 staff and achieve other accomplishments.

In the role of strategic projects director, Keenan will assist with the organization’s transition during the coming months.

Know Your Rights – An Activist’s Guide
Free Speech, Protests & Demonstrations in California
ACLU San Diego website

Download a comprehensive guide for people who care as much about free speech as we do.

In large part created by our sister affiliate, the ACLU of Northern California, we produced a guide for people who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe and those who may never have thought of themselves as protester but who are forced into action to protect a precious freedom or right.

You are part of a vigorous tradition of protest that dates back generations in our state: from the founders of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties who marched alongside of farmworkers in the Imperial Valley in the 1930s to workers who went on strike against exploitative labor conditions on the docks in San Pedro in 1923 to the repressive Red Scare years, when demonstrators were hosed down by police outside House Un-American Activities Committee hearings in San Francisco City Hall; to the civil rights protesters of the 1960s and 70s who helped end segregation throughout the state.

Both the California Constitution and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protect your right to free expression. But there are questions you face when you decide to organize and speak out:

When do you need a police permit?
Are there things you cannot say or do?
Are there any limitations on when or where you can demonstrate?
What about civil disobedience?

We hope this guide will help answer these questions for you.

For more than 75 years, the ACLU has supported the rights of individuals from all walks of life to dissent, demonstrate and make their voices heard. Whatever you believe, we urge you to stand up and speak out.

Legal AS THE LAWYERS FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS we’re committed to defending everyone’s freedom. Yours too.

Take Action Today
“SO LONG AS WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WILLING TO FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS, WE’LL BE CALLED A DEMOCRACY.” -ROGER BALDWIN, ACLU FOUNDER

(All the above downloaded on Feb. 3, 2014)

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Attorney Candace Carroll doesn't flinch in her support of Dan Shinoff's efforts to silence me


Former San Diego ACLU board member Candace Carroll
has been steadfast in ignoring my complaints to the ACLU
about the efforts of David Loy, chief counsel
of the San Diego ACLU, to protect his pal
Dan Shinoff from exposure on my website.

Ms. Carroll hasn't flinched in her determination to ignore violations of the First Amendment by the San Diego Superior Court. Well, perhaps she flinched a little bit. Instead of simply ignoring me, she caused me to be notified that she did not want to learn about recent revelations in the San Diego Union-Tribune about Mr. Shinoff. At least she's acknowledging my existence, right? And making sure that I can't prove that she knows about the witness tampering in San Ysidro Schools.

Attorney Candace Carroll was an ACLU San Diego board member when the organization tried to shut down my website exposing school attorney Dan Shinoff.

Yes, you heard it right. The San Diego ACLU tried to silence a citizen's speech on matters of public interest. Clearly, all the people who told me to go to the ACLU for help when Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm sued me for defamation didn't know the truth about the San Diego ACLU. And neither did I until I got this message from ACLU attorney David Loy.

Attorney Candace Carroll does not want to revisit her long term support of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz' and David Loy's efforts to force me to remove all mention of Dan Shinoff and friends from my website. It would have taken me months and months to go through my large website, so essentially the San Diego ACLU was telling me to take down my website completely. Instead of helping me, the San Diego ACLU tried to force me to obey an exceedingly unconstitutional anti-free speech injunction by Judge Judith Hayes in San Diego Superior Court. The Court of Appeal had this to say about that injunction.

I thought Ms. Carroll might change her attitude after the FBI caught Dan Shinoff on tape sitting by while his client tampered with a witness.

Yesterday I sent her this email:

In the light of new revelations, does the San Diego ACLU board and legal team stand by your efforts to silence my blog re Dan Shinoff?

(Email was sent to "Candace M. Carroll" )

Today I got a message that Candace Carroll had reviewed my email and rejected it!


Intended Recipient : carroll@sullivanhill.com (Candace Carroll)

Message Subject : In the light of new revelations, does the San Diego ACLU board and legal team stand by your efforts to silence my blog re Dan Shinoff?

Message Date : Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:29:22 -0800

Reviewer : carroll@sullivanhill.com (Candace Carroll)

Rejection Reason : Message goes Against Email Policies


Apparently Ms. Carroll's "Email Policies" include support for friends of San Diego ACLU officials, no matter what they do. It seems Ms. Carroll isn't a true believer when it comes to the First Amendment.

But I do notice that Ms. Carroll is no longer on the board of the San Diego ACLU. Did she get disgusted and leave? Or was she just trying to escape from responsibility?

I sent the same email to Greg Rose, president of the ACLU San Diego board. I wonder if I'll hear from him.

ACLU OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES BOARD OF DIRECTORS - 2013 Term
Board of Directors

Mark Adams
Nasser Barghouti
Warner Broaddus
Elizabeth Camarena
Jeff Chinn
Debra Coplan
Michele Fahley
Deborah Fritsch
David Higgins
Jonathan Lin
Jim McElroy
Udoka Nwanna
Norma Rodriguez
Greg Rose, Board President*
Madison Schockley
James Stiven [Retired judge! I talked to him personally and he refused to look into the matter.]
Joanna Tan
Luz Villafana
Stephen Whitburn
Andy Zlotnik


Board President, Greg Rose

Brief Biography
Greg Rose recently retired from QUALCOMM Incorporated, where he was a Senior Vice President of Engineering working on cryptographic security and authentication for mobile phones and other technologies. He holds a number of patents for cryptographic methods and has successfully cryptanalyzed widely deployed ciphers. Rose was program chair of the 1996 and 2000 USENIX Security Symposia, and General Chair of Crypto 2003. Rose has been an active participant in the ACLU’s Constitution Day program since its founding in 2007. He is also on the board of the International Association of Cryptologic Research.

Skimming money off the top is penny ante corruption.

Subverting the purpose of an organization in exchange for favors or friendship is true corruption.


I found this article about Candace Carroll. Perhaps Dan Shinoff is one of the people she loves, and she trusts him to do the right thing.

Attorney Candace Carroll says great public schools brought her family to La Jolla
La Jolla Light
April 13, 2012

Candace Carroll has lived in La Jolla for more than 20 years and is an appellate practitioner with Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel. She has more than 30 years experience handling appeals in the federal and state courts, and has handled cases on a wide range of subjects, including contract disputes, insurance and indemnity issues, wrongful termination, intellectual property, personal injury and family law matters.

She has taught seminars in Advanced Legal Writing at Duke University and the University of San Diego Law Schools, and supervises a Ninth Circuit Legal Clinic at the University of San Diego Law School.

Carroll chairs Senator Barbara Boxer’s Judicial Appointments Committee for the Southern District of California. She is a past president of the San Diego County Bar Association and of California Women Lawyers, the statewide women’s bar association. She is a life member of the Duke University Law School Board of Visitors, and serves on the California Western Law School Council of Visitors. She is married to attorney Leonard Simon, with whom she has raised three sons, Dan, David, and Matt Simon. She sits on the board of the San Diego International Rescue Committee.

What brought you to La Jolla?
It was the public schools. Len and I are both the product of public schools and wanted that for our kids.

What makes this area special to you?
The weather; our boys could play outside 12 months a year and never need snowsuits!

What might you add, subtract or improve in the area?
I would paint over the garish and unnecessary red curbs that have eliminated about a third of the parking in the Village.

Who or what inspires you?
People who devote their lives to helping others inspire me.

If you hosted a dinner party for eight, whom (living or deceased) would you invite?
I would send invitations to President and Mrs. Obama, Sean Penn, Tiger Woods, Elizabeth Warren, Barney Frank, Bono and Hillary Clinton.

[Maura Larkins' comment: What about Dan Shinoff?] What are your five favorite movies of all time?
“The Phantom of the Paradise,” “Almost Famous,” “Casablanca,” “The Usual Suspects,” and “Body Heat.”

What is your most-prized possession?
That would be my wedding ring.

What would be your dream vacation?
I would love to take our extended family someplace exotic like Tahiti.

What is your most marked characteristic?
My optimism.

What is your philosophy of life?
Trust the people you love to figure things out and do the right thing.


Sunday, January 5, 2014

Darren Chaker Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud

See two posts about Darren Chaker HERE on my San Diego Education Report blog. I assume that San Diego attorney David Loy is sad about what's happened to his pal Darren Chaker, who supported Loy's position that all mentions of Dan Shinoff and his law firm Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz should be removed from my websites and I should never mention their names again in my life. My position is that schools and other public entities should not conceal events and information that the public needs to make decisions at the voting booth. The public is entitled to the facts about the performance of public officials and public employees.

Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud
U.S. Attorney’s Office
December 17, 2013
Southern District of Texas

HOUSTON—Darren David Chaker, 41, of Beverly Hills, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, has been ordered to federal prison following his conviction of bankruptcy fraud, announced United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson. Chaker was found guilty April 4, 2013, following a five-day bench trial before U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas.

Today, Judge Atlas sentenced Chaker to a term of 15 months in prison, to be immediately followed by a three-year-term of supervised release. He was further ordered to pay a $2,000 fine. As part of the sentencing, Judge Atlas included special conditions that he not stalk or harass anyone and obtain mental health counseling and anger management. In handing down the sentence, Judge Atlas noted that the bankruptcy system depends on the reliability of those who petition for bankruptcy relief and added that the case involved a defendant who could not tell the truth to the court. She rejected Chaker’s request for a sentence of probation, calling this a significant crime and finding that a sentence of custody is critical.

The evidence at trial showed that Chaker filed bankruptcy under Chapter 13, in which a debtor is required to propose a plan of reorganization to pay the debtor’s creditors over time. The debtor is required to pay at least as much as the creditors would receive if the debtor’s assets were liquidated on the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The process is designed to achieve an orderly transfer of a debtor’s assets to creditors from available assets truthfully and accurately disclosed and to provide a “fresh start” to honest debtors by allowing them to obtain a discharge or release of debt incurred prior to filing bankruptcy.

According to the evidence, Chaker filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 on March 6, 2007. Specifically, on or about March 26, 2007, during a bankruptcy hearing before the Honorable Jeffrey Bohm, while under oath, Chaker falsely and fraudulently represented to the court that the property was never leased out prior to January 2007, when he had in fact previously contracted with a realtor who secured at least two rental contracts with Chaker personally. Chaker failed to disclose income and the existence of past and present residential leases of a residential property facing foreclosure in Houston to his creditor, Saxon Mortgage in the hearing and to the court.

In order for the bankruptcy system to work for all parties, it is imperative for the debtor to be truthful and forthright in all aspects of the bankruptcy process. The bankruptcy system is based on an honor system—the debtor agrees to provide all the necessary information requested by the trustee and to assist the trustee in collecting all assets of debtors and comply with the court’s orders to obtain the relief desired under the chapter the case was filed.

Chaker will remain in custody pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

This case was investigated by the FBI, with assistance from the United States Trustee’s Office and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Carolyn Ferko and Sharad Khandelwal.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Kevin Keenan says ACLU used to focus on civil rights, now it focuses on "relationships"


See all posts on San Diego ACLU from this blog.

Kevin Keenan says ACLU used to focus on civil rights, now it focuses on "relationships".

Unfortunately, the "relationships" that ACLU lawyers focus on are too often with lawyers, such as school attorneys, who are defending violations of civil rights.

San Diego ACLU attorney David Loy has gone out of his way to support violations of the First Amendment such as Judge Judith Hayes' December 11, 2010 injunction. Mr. Loy gave me legal advice without being my lawyer. He told me to erase all mention of Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz from my website. Also, see this update on that case.

from: ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties
date: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM
subject: New year, new ACLU

"We've changed from the local civil-rights powerhouse that you know to a more community-connected, relationship-based, comprehensive advocacy organization. I don't have a good name for what that is...It may just be the new ACLU." – Kevin Keenan, Executive Director.

As you may have read in the San Diego Union Tribune last week, the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties will celebrate its 80th anniversary this year. To put it simply, "We've come a long way, baby."

Thanks to a long legacy of members, volunteers, board members, and staff in San Diego, we have had a solid foundation on which to build. Thanks to your most recent support, we have been able to triple in size over the past six years. We are now a staff of twenty-one, including teams of legal, policy, and organizing experts who work proactively on the issues most affecting our community today.

With this growth, we are adapting to our new proactive, community orientation and keeping up with changes in the area. We've promoted our organizing director Norma Chavez-Peterson to the new position of Associate Director in charge of supervising our array of justice-making programs and tools.

Norma's ability to build strong relationships with the community to affect positive change reflects a new emphasis in the way we work. It was exemplified most recently in a campaign to enlist local volunteers to mobilize thousands of Latino voters in Escondido – a city fraught with civil liberties abuses.

Our relationships with you, the community, and lawmakers, combined with our organizing, litigation, and advocacy capacity, will help us move closer to our vision of an equitable and just society.

Please share your thoughts and ideas on the new ACLU with us. You can respond to this email, "like" us and post on our Facebook page, and follow us on Twitter.

Thank you again for making us more effective through your consistent support. Happy New Year!

Kevin Keenan
Executive Director
ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties

Comments on ACLU Facebook page:

James Thinkstoomuch
decent article, but the local ACLU has seriously dropped the ball on local police accountability issues - especially with respect to their illegal and criminal acts during the suppression of Occupy San Diego. December 31, 2012 at 3:14pm ·

Maura Larkins
Unfortunately, the "relationships" that San Diego ACLU lawyers focus on are too often with lawyers who are defending violations of civil rights, such as school attorneys. San Diego ACLU attorney David Loy has gone out of his way to support violations of the First Amendment such as Judge Judith Hayes' December 11, 2010 injunction. The Court of Appeal disagreed with David Loy that I should remove all mention of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz from my website.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Is the ACLU actively supporting the suppression of free speech in schools?


See all posts on the San Diego ACLU.

Why is the San Diego ACLU trying to silence free speech for teachers at the same time that it is protecting free speech for students? I understand why school attorneys want to keep the public unaware of what goes on behind closed doors in our schools, but why is ACLU attorney David Loy so interested in helping them?

I have long wondered if the ACLU was doing California Teachers Association little favors by refusing to take free speech cases for teachers. The recently-retired CTA head counsel Beverly Tucker had previously worked for the ACLU.

I got my answer on April 28, 2010 (see email below from David Loy). Yes, I learned, the ACLU definitely tries to silence teachers who don't speak through the union.

I attended the Annual Membership meeting of the San Diego ACLU today, and listened to ACLU attorney David Loy boast about how the ACLU had protected student free speech.

I asked him, "What about free speech for teachers?"

Mr. Loy responded with only one case, Johnson v. Poway, a case in which the ACLU supported a teacher who draped huge banners with religious admonitions across his classroom. The ACLU's victory in the district court was overturned by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal:

"We thus reverse and remand with instructions that the district court vacate its grant of injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as its award of damages, and enter summary judgment in favor of Poway and its officials on all claims. Johnson shall bear all costs. Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(3)."

Daniel R. Shinoff, Jack M. Sleeth, Jr. (argued), Paul V. Carelli, IV, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC, San Diego, California, for defendants-appellants Poway Unified School District, et al

David Blair-Loy, ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, San Diego, California, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties in Support of plaintiff (Johnson)


Apparently California Teachers Association didn't take part in this case.

Neither David Loy nor Kevin Keenan could think of another case in which the ACLU had defended freedom of speech for teachers, but they noted that the ACLU frequently defends the free speech rights of law enforcement officers. Is this perhaps because the police unions don't donate to the ACLU like the teacher unions do?

Even Lori Shellenberger, the San Diego ACLU's "civic engagement" attorney, is vehemently uninterested in free speech for teachers. She spoke at the Annual Membership meeting about the voting rights workshops she held for parents throughout the school district, and giving parents the chance to speak about what they wanted from schools. I told Ms. Shellenberger, "What good are voting rights when parents don't know what is going on in schools? Democracy requires an informed electorate. You want to expand parent participation, but you keep parents ignorant by silencing teachers who know what's going on in schools." Ms. Shellenberger said she wasn't interested in free speech. Her associate Vince Hall specifically told me he wasn't interested in my letter to the ACLU board.

It would seem to me that Shellenberger and Hall are unlikely to improve schools unless they're willing to work toward transparency in schools, to reveal the secret life of schools. They are basically asking parents to stand up and address the powers behind the curtain of secrecy in schools in the manner in which Dorothy, the Tin Man and friends addressed the Wizard of Oz. The ACLU wants to make sure the curtain is not pulled back revealing a charlatan pulling strings.

Interestingly, Mr. Keenan is convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court will overrule the Ninth Circuit. "We always win," said Kevin Keenan. If the ACLU wins in the U.S. Supreme Court, it will not be with the aid of the civil libertarians on the court, I believe. It will be with the aid of those who want the U.S. to be a Christian nation. Mr. Keenan's goal is apparently to win, not to stick to the ACLU's principles. He spends years trying to get the cross taken down from Mount Soledad in San Diego, only to turn around and try to get it erected (figuratively speaking) in a classroom in Poway.

Not so. The ACLU tried to silence my website discussions about Stutz law firm, which represented the school district in this case. The Court of Appeal didn't go along with the ACLU's position, ruling instead that an injunction completely silencing my discussion of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz was "exceedingly unconstitutional."

Mr. Keenan bemoaned the fact that the San Diego Zoo has more members that the ACLU does, even when counting all ACLU members in the entire country. The reason might be that the ACLU compromised its principles a bit too often, pushing out ordinary people who demand equal treatment with the good old boys and girls in the ACLU power structure. In fact, Mr. Keenan said to me, "I'm surprised you're still a member." I'm not the one who has a problem with equal treatment for everyone, Mr. Keenan. But I'm curious, how many ordinary people has the ACLU intimidated into giving up their civil rights? They tried to get me to take down my website, but I didn't think much of their exhortations.

Mr. Loy tried to get me to obey an obviously unconstitutional injunction:

from dblairloy@aclusandiego.org
to Maura Larkins
date Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM
...However, the law does not allow anyone - a government official or a private person - to disobey a court order because they believe it is illegal. Under the law, the proper course is to seek appellate review of an order, and/or a stay of the order,rather than to disobey it. The rule of law in our system depends on compliance with court orders until or unless they are stayed or reversed...
David


Mr. Loy must also have known I was not legally required to de-publish the information about Stutz law firm on my website while the injunction was under appeal. (The mandative aspects of an injunction are staying during that time.) Either Mr. Loy was shockingly ignorant of the law, or he was intentionally deceiving me about the law to protect Stutz law firm when he said, “The rule of law in our system depends on compliance with court orders until or unless they are stayed or reversed...”. Why would he do this? To earn “civility” awards from the Bar Association? As a sort of trade-off of free speech rights, helping Dan Shinoff silence a teacher in exchange for Mr. Shinoff’s agreeing to settle student speech cases? To please donors to the ACLU who care less about education than they do about preserving the power of certain individuals in schools?

The Court of Appeal didn’t agree with Stutz law firm and the ACLU; on August 5, 2011 it ruled that the injunction Mr. Loy wanted me to obey was “exceedingly unconstitutional.” Of course, Mr. Loy knew perfectly well that the injunction was unconstitutional when he insisted that I must obey it.

But here’s the larger question: why did the ACLU board support Mr. Loy’s actions?

JUDGE JAMES STIVEN

I asked this question of ACLU board member Hon. James Stiven. He said, "I'm not getting involved because I'm a part of this organization." Wait a minute. Isn't that exactly why he has an obligation to get involved? He's on the board! He's in charge!

I said, "So if ACLU lawyers do something hostile to civil rights, you wouldn't intervene?"

He said, "I don't know that they have done anything wrong."

I said, "Yes you do. You're a judge."

Here's what they've done wrong:

1) To start with, David Loy aided and abetted a violation of my constitutional rights. I believe he intentionally gave me false legal advice in an effort to silence me.

2) The San Diego ACLU seeks and gets money by false advertising. I have heard ACLU speakers around town repeating what Kevin Keenan said at the 2012 Annual Membership meeting, "We guarantee rights for all people, not just the people we like. We stand up for equal protection of all people."

3) The above tactics have been approved at the highest levels of the San Diego ACLU. The San Diego ACLU Board knows about and tacitly approves the above actions.

The San Diego ACLU's odd relationship with local schools

ACLU's David Loy and Darren Chaker

See new posts re David Loy and earlier posts under his former name of David Blair-Loy.

The ACLU claims that it does not give legal advice regarding cases it refuses, but it turns out that this is false. The ACLU refused my case, but I was given very specific legal advice by San Diego ACLU attorney David Loy (formerly Blair-Loy) regarding the defamation case against me by Stutz law firm. In 2010 Mr. Loy wrote to me in an email that I must remove every mention of the names of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm, Daniel Shinoff and all the other Stutz attorneys from my website; he has never modified his position, even when I won in the Court of Appeal.

Why was Mr. Loy so determined to make sure that I obeyed the obviously unconstitutional order of Judge Judith Hayes? I'm a third-grade teacher, and I knew the injunction was unconstitutional. Clearly, Mr. Loy knew perfectly well that he was insisting that I obey an unconstitutional order. I did not follow Mr. Loy's legal advice; I would rather go to jail than obey that order. (And, in fact, Stutz law firm asked Judge Hayes to put me in jail, but she declined.) Instead, I appealed to the California Court of Appeal without the ACLU's help. Stutz law firm attorney Jack Sleeth argued before the Court of Appeal that my appeal should be dismissed because I disobeyed the trial court's order. Attorney Shawn Martin argued on my behalf that no Appeals Court had ever dismissed a case because an appellant disobeyed the very order that was being appealed.

The Court of Appeal asked Mr. Sleeth if he knew of any case law to back up his argument that since the injunction was a sanction, it therefore was not constrained by the Constitution. He said he had not been able to find any such case law, but he added, "I tried, believe me, I tried!" On August 5, 2011 the California Court of Appeal in San Diego ruled that Judge Hayes' (and Mr. Loy's) demand was "exceedingly unconstitutional."

As I walked out of the Court of Appeal after oral arguments, I was approached by Darren Chaker, who has a website sporting a photo of himself posing with a smiling David Blair-Loy. Mr. Chaker advised me to take down my website in exchange for Stutz law firm's agreement to not to make me pay attorney's fees. (Note to Mr. Chaker: the law does not allow attorney's fees in defamation cases.) I told Mr. Chaker that I would rather go to jail. He said, "I'm just advising you to do this because they are so nasty." Then Mr. Chaker went over to Jack Sleeth, and walked out of the building chatting with Mr. Sleeth!

So the question remains, why on earth would David Blair-Loy try to silence someone who criticized public school attorneys? Was he serving his own agenda, or the agenda of the board of the San Diego ACLU? Perhaps both. Loy's goal seems to be to maintain a reputation as "highly civil" with his fellow attorneys in San Diego, particularly Daniel Shinoff, who is often tasked by local schools with the job of limiting free speech.

But the ACLU board supported Mr. Loy's actions. Why? Were they trying to please big donors? I talked to board president David Higgins about this, but he claimed that he understood nothing about the law. I explained it to him carefully, but he continued to insist that he understood none of it. Why is such an individual in the position of board president of the San Diego ACLU? My guess is that he was chosen because he's willing to rubber-stamp every decision that David Loy makes, no matter how hostile it may be to civil rights. I conclude that Mr. Higgins does not really care about the constitution. I suspect he has a personal agenda that is limited to his own interests.

Here is the email sent to me by Mr. Loy:

from dblairloy@aclusandiego.org
to Maura Larkins
date Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM
...However, the law does not allow anyone - a government official or a private person - to disobey a court order because they believe it is illegal. Under the law, the proper course is to seek appellate review of an order, and/or a stay of the order, rather than to disobey it. The rule of law in our system depends on compliance with court orders until or unless they are stayed or reversed...
David


In fact, Mr. Loy gave bad legal advice. The truth is that once I filed my appeal, the mandatory aspects of the injunction were automatically stayed, and I was not required to take down my web pages about Stutz. I think Mr. Loy knew this. What was your motive for giving me legal advice, Mr. Loy?

Following is the 2010-2011 ACLU board in San Diego, each member of which tacitly or actively supported Mr. Loy's actions:

William J. Aceves
Candace M. Carroll--Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel
Paula Doss, J.D.--Director of Human Resources for Equal Opportunity at UCSD
Ruben Garcia
David R. Higgins, Ph.D.
Gregory G. "Greg" Rose
Hon. James Stiven--California Western University
Stephen Whitburn
Mary Cruz
Mark Adams
Pat Boyce
Linda Cory Allen
Michele Fahley
Deborah Fritsch
Kevin "KJ" Greene
Dwight K. Lomayesva
Mark Niblack
Susan Pollock
Yvonne Sanchez

Here is the 2011-2012 ACLU board in San Diego, some of whom are new and were not involved in Mr. Loy's actions:

Mark Adams
Nasser Barghouti (NEW)
Elizabeth Camarena (new)
Candace Carroll
Jeff Chinn (new)
Paula Doss
Michele Fahley
Ruben Garcia
Kevin "KJ" Greene
David Higgins, Board President
Jonathan Lin (new)
Dwight Lomayesva
Jim McElroy (new)
Mark Niblack
Susan Pollock
Greg Rose
Hon. James Stiven
Joanna Tan (AIG!!!) (new)
Stephen Whitburn
Paul Wong SDSU(new)
Andy Zlotnik (new)