Why is Darren Chaker stalking Maura Larkins--even though the conditions of his release from federal prison forbid it?

Related story: Completely false allegations made in an effort to banish woman from California school (Article about a situation similar to the story below; the accusers were the ones who ended up in jail when two parents at an Irvine, California elementary school tried to destroy the reputation of a parent volunteer)  See also The Letter that got Maura Larkins fired regarding Castle Park Elementary School in Chula Vista.

Why is Darren Chaker so interested in Maura Larkins?

by Maura Larkins
Jan. 24, 2015

In San Diego, Darren Chaker, who is currently on supervised release from federal prison for bankruptcy fraud, is stalking me (teacher/blogger Maura Larkins).  As his rap sheet makes clear, Chaker doesn't let honesty interfere with his efforts to achieve his goals.

Why is this man so interested in me?

Darren Chaker has been sending letters about me to people on my street. Some of us are a little bit nervous, since Mr. Chaker has a troubling law enforcement record.

It seems clear that Darren Chaker got interested in me because I reminded him
of Wendy Mateo, the grandmother of his child.  A few years ago Chaker sued Mateo for calling
him a "deadbeat dad".   His suit was thrown out as a "SLAPP" by San Diego
Superior Court.

In July 2011, Chaker was appealing his loss to the Court of Appeal.

At the same time, I was appealing a ruling by Judge Judith Hayes, who ordered
me never to speak or write the names of Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm or
any of its attorneys.

My case was clearly very similar to the Mateo case.

Mr. Cahker sat down next to me at the Court of Appeal in July 2011 on the day
that attorney Shaun Martin presented winning arguments in my case.

I spoke to Chaker for a while, then I moved to the front row of the gallery.

My friend remained seated near Chaker.  She reported to me that Mr. Chaker
became very disturbed as he listened to the oral arguments and the comments
of the judges.  I suspect that Mr. Chaker was upset because it seemed likely
that the judges were going to come down on the side of free speech.

If that is what he believed, he was right.

On August 5, 2011 the California Court of Appeal in San Diego ruled that Judge
Hayes' injunction permanently forbidding me from mentioning the name of Stutz
law firm, either orally or in writing, was "exceedingly unconstitutional."

As I walked out of the Court of Appeal after oral arguments, I was approached by
Darren Chaker.

From the FBI website:
Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Dec. 17, 2013
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...


A sampling of Darren Chaker cases: 
Wendy Mateo
Chaker v. Crogan
Zaya v. Chaker

 
Mr. Chaker advised me to take down my website in exchange for the law firm's
agreement to not to make me pay attorney's fees.

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 two members of the Plaintiff's law firm, and walked
out of the courtroom chatting with them! I do not believe that they had asked him
to approach me.  I believe he hatched the plan all by himself.

I reported the Court of Appeal incident with Mr. Chaker on my blog, thus apparently earning the ire of a man who is widely known for dishonest, malicious and aggressive behavior.

Mr. Chaker seems to have became even more enraged when he lost the appeal in the Mateo case.

He makes bizarre accusations about all sorts of people.  He refuses to acknowledge that Chula Vista
Elementary School District desperately tried to get me to go back to work after I
had been viciously harassed by Robin Donlan and other teachers at Castle Park Elementary.

I refused to go back to work without an investigation into the harassment I
suffered.  The district refused to produce a report on the "investigation" it claimed
to have initiated.

I was fired for "insubordination" because I refused to go back to work.  Here are
the charges against me.

Darren Chaker fails to mention that Robin Donlan and other teachers who
harassed me were transferred out of Castle Park Elementary when the district
realized that it had made a mistake by paying huge amounts of taxpayer money to
defend teachers who had behaved unlawfully.

Castle Park Elementary was out of control, with a $20,000 PTA embezzlement by Kim Simmons,
a parent who was a close associate of Robin Donlan.  The school was almost ungovernable as 11 principals in 11 years struggled to create a professional working climate.


Complaint board on Darren Chaker 

Blog posts on child molestation

Hobby Lobby demonstrates that RFRA violates the establishment clause

Hobby Lobby demonstrates that RFRA violates the establishment clause

by Armando

Daily Kos

Jul 06, 2014

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [. . .] (First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

In Employment Division v. Smith, Justice Scalia wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court that:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes). [Emphasis supplied.]

Congress did not like this interpretation of the free exercise clause, and passed the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act by large majorities and President Clinton signed the law. What did RFRA do?  Expressly RFRA was intended to:

The purposes of this chapter are— (1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Justice Scalia could have retorted that he followed Sherbert and Yoder in Smith. So, no "restoration" was required. Justice Alito, writing in Hobby Lobby v. Burford, is dishonest (I use this word purposefully) in his opinion when he writes, as you can see below the flip:

Nothing in the text of RFRA as originally enacted suggested that the statutory phrase “exercise of religion under the First Amendment” was meant to be tied to this Court’s pre-Smith interpretation of that Amendment.

Other than the express language I quoted above from RFRA, of course. And, of course, there are Justice Alito's own words in the same opinion:

Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that “the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test forstriking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.” [Emphasis supplied.]

But leave the dishonesty aside, what of this interpretation of RFRA? IF in fact RFRA means what the Hobby Lobby court says it means, what of the First Amendment's prohibition that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Isn't RFRA a law intended to favor religious exercise over non-religious exercise? As interpreted by the Hobby Lobby court, it is, and thus is unconstitutional. I explored this issue in this post. I quoted Justice Stevens concurrence in the case of Boerne v. Flores:

In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a "law respecting an establishment of religion" that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure. Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52—55 (1985). [Emphasis added]

Justice Stevens' analysis is based solely on the text of RFRA. But the Hobby Lobby decision makes clear that the court's interpretation of RFRA not only will favor "religion, as opposed to irreligion," but certain religious beliefs over others. In Hobby Lobby, Justice Alito insists the decision is narrow, that this does not mean that religious beliefs that are "burdened" because the insurance coverage mandated by the Affordable Care Act, which includes immunizations or blood transfusions, will be relieved of this obligation under RFRA. Alito does not explain why this is so. What is different about the religious belief against immunizations and blood transfusions versus Hobby Lobby's objection to birth control? Or, racial, gender or sexual orientation discrimination or that matter? Here is Alito's hand-waving:

Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them. The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction. See post, at 32–33. Our decision today provides no such shield. The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.

What is Alito saying here? Simply this: Some religious beliefs are more equal than others. Immunization? That's different. Your religious objections on that will hold no water in the court.  You object to interracial relationships? (See Bob Jones University v. United States.) Sorry, that religious belief is not respectable, so no "religious liberty" for you. So you want men and women to be segregated on a public transit bus for religious purposes? Sorry,  that religious objection gets no respect here. Whether this impulse of the court to favor certain religious objections over others is driven by political calculation or just the belief that some religious beliefs are better than others, it runs afoul of the establishment clause...

George Takei's blistering response to HobbyLobby: Could a Muslim Corporation impose Sharia Law?

George Takei's blistering response to #HobbyLobby: Could a Muslim Corp impose Sharia Law?

by Vyan

Daily Kos

 Jul 03, 2014

Some people just know how to say it, so I'm gonna shut up and let the former Mr. Sulu do so.
http://www.rawstory.com/...

"The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion,” Takei wrote. (O)ne wonders,” he said, “whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”
“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that,” he continued. “Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue.Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”

Chillingly he's not even a slightly wrong on that last point, the religious push-back against granting LGBT rights by corporations has already begun... you'll find the details just beyond the Orange Squiggle of Mordor below.

Religious Organizations and companies are in fact already attempting to push back on President Obama's brand new rules requiring LGBT equality for Federal Contractors in the immediate aftermath of Hobby Lobby. 'Cuz clearly, They. Gots. Religion.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

The day after the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, a group of religious leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that he exempt them from a forthcoming executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people. "Without a robust religious exemption," they wrote, "this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom."
The letter didn't mention the Hobby Lobby decision directly. But one of the signees, Michael Wear, the Obama 2012 veteran, told The Atlantic that the court decision meant the administration would need to address such concerns.
"The administration does have a decision to make whether they want to recalibrate their approach to some of these issues," he said.

So just as Justice Ginsberg and Mr Takei have suggested, the Hyper-Religious are already attempting to capitalize on the SCOTUS new granting of the rights of an human individual to a corporate entity for the specific purpose of denying the rights of a human individual. One does wonder just how loudly they would squeal if a non-christian, or a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Ba'hai, a Sikh, a Jewish, a Wiccan, an Amish, an Athiest or a Satanic "closely-held" corporation were to proclaim they no longer had to abide by, respect, hire or provide services for -- Pro-Life Christians?
"Oh, no you don't - No 'Religious Freedom' for You!  Or you, or You!"
I understand that in this decision the SCOTUS Majority opinion claimed that they were not granting the equal legitimacy of such follow on requests, but they've sent up the flare signal, they've kicked open the door, and soon now the potential avalanche may follow.  I'm not really sure they can stop all that snow from crashing down with just one teeny, tiny little rhetorical umbrella of "Because, uh, no".
And why exactly would others - particularly on the hard right - not pile on?  It's not like we've seen anything resembling restraint, or tact, or reason coming from the them in the Hobby Lobby wake.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...
Not From Erick Erickson.
Not from Rush Limbaugh.

"Pregnancy is something that you have to do to cause. ... Yet we treat it as a great imposition that women need to be protected from. It's a sickness, it's a disease, it's whatever, and there's gotta be a pill for it," he said on his show. "Yet they wouldn't have the problem if they didn't do a certain thing. It's that simple."

Yes, that's right women who suffer from polycystic ovarian syndrome, are at a risk of ovarian cancer, Endomitriosis and heavy menstral bleeding don't need a pill, or a shot, or a patch or an IUD to help with that.  Or so the Wingnuts continue to believe.  [It does always amaze me that so many of these "Right-to-Lifers" repeatedly fail to recognize that without access to effective healthcare - regardless of cost - some of us post-embryonic-Americans Will. Not. Live.] And they also don't believe that both men an women have a civil right to enjoy sex with the (adult & consenting) person of their choosing either.
Not according to Rep Mike Lee who was asked....

"whether or not a person who runs a business should be forced to provide something that is largely for recreational behavior, if it goes against their religious beliefs." "Yea, that’s right, that’s right," Lee responded.

No, no - that's kinda wrong - because what you smell right there isn't "Recreation" - it's the very heart and soul of "Freedom, Baby, yeah!". But not Freedom for All because now we're not just having sex between Adam and Eve, or Adam and Steve, we're all having sex with Adam, Eve, Steve and Hobby Lobby.  Gee, is the Bath House is getting kinda crowded in here?  And who keeps putting all these cheesy paper-mache' flowers everywhere? Did we order these?
Takei - bless his soul - also pointed out the basic hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby's business practices in regards to religion.  Noting that...

...Hobby Lobby has invested in multiple companies that manufacture abortion drugs and birth control. The company receives most of its merchandise from China, a country where overpopulation has led to mandatory abortions and sterilizations for women who try to have more than one child.

You would think that in all the time since Hobby Lobby filed this suit in 2010 they might have considered divesting in the manufacture of the same types of drugs they now say are "intolerable" to their religious views, or that they might possibly consider cultivating a supply line that doesn't subsidize forced abortions and sterilization since one would think that might "shock the conscience" of those with such deeply "sincerely held" beliefs. Or apparently not.
The hypocrisy of this is so glaring, that even CNN took a few moments to drop their Malasyan Flight Search Goggles and take notice....
http://www.rawstory.com/...

CNN host Ashleigh Banfield on Wednesday highlighted the “hypocrisy” of Hobby Lobby for investing in companies that made the same birth control products that it refused to provide to female employees.
“The critics are calling Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) investments hypocrisy at its finest,” Banfield emphasized on Wednesday, adding that CNN had not gotten an explanation from the company after giving it “plenty of time” to respond.
“I don’t even know where to begin on this one,” the CNN host remarked. “I kept thinking to myself, this had to be an accident. But then I thought, it’s no accident when you are in the middle of the biggest political storm — all the way to the Supreme Court — and, yet, your guys aren’t aware of what your investments are in your very, very large 401(k)?”

Nope, no way, this was no boating accident, Ultimately Takei called for a Boycott of Hobby Lobby and another other company that attempts to impose it's religion on it's employee or anyone else.

“While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscience should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees,” said Takei. “The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts — in their pocketbooks.”

One wonders - yet again- that if not only boycotters but picketers began to show up at Hobby lobby stores with meme signs that said "Corporation = Person, Blystocyst = Person, Woman = Meh!", or perhaps some giant xerox copies of their 401(k) earnings statements, or pictures of factories in china with women packed into dorms surrounded by suicide nets or maybe just a simple single bloody hanger... That Hobby Lobby would ask the Supreme Court to grant them a 35 Foot Buffer Zone? 

Justice Scalia Tells Law Students ‘Perhaps You Should Revolt’ If Taxes Become Too High

Justice Scalia Tells Law Students ‘Perhaps You Should Revolt’ If Taxes Become Too High
By Adam Peck
Think Progress
April 19, 2014

During an event at the University of Tennessee’s law school on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suggested to the capacity crowd that perhaps they should revolt against the U.S government if their taxes ever get too high.

During a question and answer part of the event, a student asked Scalia about the constitutionality of a federal income tax. Scalia assured the questioner that the tax was in fact permissible by the constitution, but added that if it ever became too high, “perhaps you should revolt.”

The remark, first reported by the Knoxville News Sentinel, has become a common rhetorical flourish for conservatives nationwide during the Obama presidency.

A state Tea Party chairman in Mississippi called for armed rebellion ahead of Obama’s reelection in 2012, and a Texas Judge told a local news station that he was prepared to join a “civil war” if Obama agreed to sign away U.S sovereignty to the United Nations. Michele Bachmann found herself in hot water in 2009, shortly after Obama took office, for calling upon a violent uprising against Obama, and faced accusations of using treasonous language.

Supreme Court justices have largely refrained from such rhetoric. Still, in recent years, Scalia has shifted even further to the right than when he was first appointed.

Days later, at a joint appearance with fellow Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia offered a bit of ironic commentary on inflammatory rhetoric. “It sometimes annoys me when somebody has made outrageous statements that are hateful,” he told the audience at the National Press Club. “Sometimes the press will say, ‘well, he was just exercising his first amendment rights’…You can be using your first amendment rights and it can be abominable that you are using your first amendment rights. I’ll defend your right to use it, but I will not defend the appropriateness of the manner in which you are using it.”

The oath taken by Justice Scalia:

"I, Antonin Scalia, do solemnly (swear or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Alabama Journalist Tells Us What It Was LIke To Spend Five Months In Jail For Reporting A Story

"[The] order included a vague mandate to take down all content related to the alleged affair, without ever deeming which content was actually defamatory."

Alabama Journalist Tells Us What It Was LIke To Spend Five Months In Jail For Reporting A Story
By Nicole Flatow
Think Progress
April 7, 2014

“You get down to survival mode.” That was blogger Roger Shuler’s state of mind after being arrested and hauled off to jail for writing about a politically connected Alabama lawyer.

“Once you’re arrested I mean there’s not much you can do,” he told ThinkProgress in a conversation after his release, explaining that he felt powerless to handle the legal defense of his case. “Your hands are tied literally and figuratively and just to try to figure out how to get out was almost impossible … I really was afraid for my life at times.”

Until last week, Shuler was the only known journalist in the Western Hemisphere jailed for doing his job. Shuler, a former sports reporter and university editor who developed the political blog Legal Schnauzer, is known as a controversial figure in his community. He has fielded other allegations of falsehoods and has been embroiled in numerous lawsuits over his blogging. But even his critics conceded that a court order banning him from writing anything about the alleged extramarital affair of a man rumored to be running for Congress was likely unconstitutional, and a First Amendment outrage.

First, a Shelby County judge ruled that Shuler could not continue writing about the alleged affair of Robert Riley, Jr., the son of former Gov. Bob Riley rumored to be running for Congress. Then, when Shuler refused to comply with the order, police came to his home one evening and arrested him for contempt of court. Contempt of court is a punishment for failure to comply with a court order. In many instances such as this one, it is a “civil” offense, meaning it doesn’t carry long-term criminal penalties. But officials use jail as a means of forcing compliance with the order. So Shuler sat in jail until he complied.

Shuler was initially resistant to the order. But even when he wanted to comply, he didn’t know how.

“At my Nov. 14 hearing, the only hearing I had in the case, the court gave me no direction on how I could purge myself of contempt,” Shuler told the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “I noted that I had no computer or Web access to take down the posts, even though I knew it was unlawful to be forced into taking them down. The court’s response was more or less that I had to resolve that problem myself. With that kind of response from the court I felt caught between the proverbial ‘rock and a hard place.’”

Shuler said if he was lucky, he got to make a 15-minute call three or four times a week. “That’s the only communication I had with anybody,” said.

And getting a lawyer wasn’t easy. While defendants in criminal cases who cannot afford a lawyer have a right to court-appointed counsel, the same is not true in civil contempt cases. Shuler called himself middle class, and said he would “really need either pro bono or contingency type of legal representation and I think it’s a possibility but it’s very slow in trying to make it happen.”

Shuler was supported by legal briefs in his case from the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. But neither organization was representing him directly, and only he had the power to appeal his own case. Shuler didn’t appeal. He said he spent his time in jail fearing for his life, and figuring out how he could comply with a sweeping contempt order and get out of jail. As the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press explained in an October letter, the order included a vague mandate to take down all content related to the alleged affair, without ever deeming which content was actually defamatory.

What ultimately facilitated Shuler’s release was the intervention of his wife, Carol, who drafted an agreement to take down some material that allowed Shuler to be freed at least temporarily. “She was the one that really negotiated getting me out,” he said.

Shuler was perhaps the most prominent inmate in Shelby County jail these last few months, but he says he wasn’t the only one who shouldn’t have been there. Most of the people he met were there for drug and alcohol problems, he said, or for mental health issues the jail didn’t appear suited to handle.

“Jail is I guess by definition a holding facility for people a lot of whom have not yet been found guilty of anything,” he said. (Jails typically hold individuals who have been charged but not yet convicted, or those who receive short sentences, typically less than a year). “I go to bed at night and a lot of times I think there are guys still in there … I get the feeling we’re in a culture right now, it’s sort of like arrest first, and ask questions later.”

Lawyers who skipped the First Amendment: Michelle Bachmann, Judith Hayes (who is now a judge) and the partners at Stutz law firm

Michele Bachmann (top) and Judge Judith Hayes

Michele Bachmann is calling on the Feds to imprison everyone criticizing the Koch brothers.

Daily Kos notes, "Bachmann, who must have skipped class when the First Amendment was taught at her law school, believes critics of Charles and David Koch should be indicted on RICO anti-racketeering charges."

Bachmann attended Oral Roberts University School of Law. Perhaps they teach the Constitution differently there, but Judge Judith Hayes knows better. She attended University of San Diego School of Law. So why has she pretended, in Stutz v. Larkins, that she doesn't know what the First Amendment says?

Education attorney Dan Shinoff and his partners at Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz clearly feel the same way about the Constitution as Michele Bachmann and Judith Hayes. Stutz law firm asked Judge Judith Hayes to put me in jail for MENTIONING THEIR NAMES!

The law schools attended by the three major Stutz law firm partners are Western State (Dan Shinoff) and University of San Diego SOL(both Ray Artiano and James Holtz).

In fairness to University of San Diego, it should be mentioned that USD SOL Professor Shawn Martin wrote the Reply and gave the oral argument that resulted in this Aug. 5, 2011 Court of Appeal win for Maura Larkins. Professor Martin didn't seem to have much trouble convincing the Court of Appeal that the Constitution vehemently forbids such an exceedingly broad prior restraint on speech. In fact, he seemed to convince Stutz attorney Jack Sleeth, as well. When the presiding judge asked Mr. Sleeth if he had any case law to back up his firm's position, he admitted that he did not--even though he had searched long and hard for such case law. "I tried, believe me, I tried!" he told the appeals panel.

Perhaps the law schools that have most reason to think about this issue are Thomas Jefferson, where Ray Artiano currently teachers, and Cal Western, where James Holtz gives classes.

I suspect that the only reason Judge Hayes didn't comply with Stutz law firm's request to put me in jail was that she was afraid the news media would pick up the story. At most other times she has been incredibly compliant with the requests of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm, as detailed in my current appeal.

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)

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.

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)