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

See all posts regarding this case.

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

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

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



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

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

So why did she do it?

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

NO WEIGHING OF EVIDENCE, NO JURY TRIAL FOR DAMAGES

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

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

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

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

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

The calculation for the $30,000 is based on a ludicrous,
unreasonable and illogical conclusion drawn from Exhibits D and E...
If the trial court had looked at Exhibit E of the prove-up, it would
have seen that visitors to Defendant’s site were looking for CVESD, CTA,
MEA, Fagen Friedman Fulfrost, Emily Shieh, Voice of San Diego Education,
Procopio, Kaiser Permanente, Vickie Gilbreath, medical records,
insurance, the new teacher project, Cornell, Bonifacio Bonny Garcia, CTA
lawyer, and Councilman Castaneda.

It isn’t until page AA 2510 that we see the

two (2!) total queries...referring to Plaintiff. 

These two queries would appear to

justify damages of $.86...

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

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

Erasing information on my websites

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

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

Deposition page plus six additional pages

Motion to compel

Oral arguments took place May 16, 2014 in Stutz V. Larkins defamation case; James Holtz did not appear

I was very nervous yesterday when I made my oral argument before the Court of Appeal, but apparently James Holtz was even more nervous. He didn't show up at all, nor did any of the other Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz attorneys who have been involved in this case. James Holtz had been appearing frequently in the Superior Court hearings in the case, but he was nowhere in sight on Friday.

Stutz law firm sent a new contender, Scott Ingold, to do the honors.

Mr. Ingold spoke smoothly, while I had a couple of embarrassing pauses. Mr. Ingold seemed detached, which was appropriate. It would have been unseemly for him to get up on his high horse when the whole case was based on a summary adjudication based on a technicality, devoid of any weighing of evidence.

In February 2009 Judge Hayes threw out my opposition because of a small mistake in format. Then, based on this technicality rather than a jury verdict, Judge Hayes issued a couple of unlimited injunctions. One was thrown out by the Court of Appeal in 2011 for being an overly broad prior restraint on speech.

Now the other injunction is at issue. Here's how Judge Hayes explained this injunction in June 2012: "I'm not giving you permission to put anything on [your website]." In other words, it's exactly the same injunction that was found "exceedingly broad" by the Court of Appeal in 2011.

The Presiding Justice pointed out to Mr. Ingold that there didn't seem to be any information in the record about my financial condition. A showing of my ability to pay should have been required by Judge Judith Hayes of the San Diego Superior Court before she approved punitive damages against me.

But perhaps Judge Hayes wasn't focused on such small details after granting a default to Plaintiff FIVE YEARS AFTER I FILED MY ANSWER--and four years after she had granted summary adjudication with NO weighing of evidence. I paid my jury fees and asked repeatedly over the years for a jury trial on damages, but was always ignored or refused. The judge didn't want a jury trial on damages; she wanted a default.

Young Mr. Ingold admitted that he, too, had failed to find any evidence in the record of my financial condition, but he insisted that I should pay punitive damages anyway. I didn't bother to say anything in response to that.

I did respond when Mr. Ingold said that there was no evidence in the record about my negotiations with James Holtz on April 6, 2009 (regarding the agreement I signed that day). I pointed out that there were multiple declarations signed by me under penalty of perjury in the record, and that Mr. Holtz had never denied the truth of my declarations. I'm guessing that James Holtz didn't want to discuss this issue in person.

See all posts re Stutz v. Larkins in San Diego Education Report Blog.

Updates on San Diego Reader story about Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Larkins

The San Diego Reader has finally allowed me to correct an error and add some crucial information to a June 26, 2013 article about me:

1. There was no weighing of evidence involved in Judge Judith Hayes' decision that I had defamed Stutz law firm. The judge's decision was based on a technicality--that I hadn't used the updated format in my opposition to summary adjudication--so the decision was not based on fact. Stutz won the decision automatically when my opposition was thrown out.

2. Regarding the Vito Corleone error: documents show that I was not the author of the Vito Corleone quote.

Here are my comments on this story in the San Diego Reader:

MauraLarkins May 11, 2014 @ 11:45 a.m.

I liked Mr. Hargrove's article about me, but I would like to correct one error. In fact, the comment about Vito Corleone was not written by me, but rather by an anonymous visitor to my website. Mr. Hargrove's mistake can be explained by the fact that Judge Judith Hayes ignored the documentary evidence (exhibits that included printouts of my blog) when she issued a decision saying that I had published the comment!

In fact, I don't believe that Dan Shinoff makes Vito Corleone look like an altar boy. I'd say the exact opposite: that Vito Corleone makes Dan Shinoff look like the personification of moral purity.

I bear no malice toward Mr. Shinoff. I simply believe that the public has a right to know what our tax dollars are paying for, and how our schools are being run.

MauraLarkins May 12, 2014 @ 10:02 a.m.

There was no trial in this case. In fact, there was no weighing of evidence by the judge, either. Judge Judith Hayes made her decision based ONLY on a technicality: that I hadn't used the updated format when I prepared my opposition to summary adjudication.

My statements were NOT found to be defamatory in fact, but only as a matter of law.

The judge could have weighed the evidence, but she chose not to do so. Why not?

To insulate herself even further from the facts of the case, Judge Hayes also threw out all my evidence. That was overkill, of course, since she had thrown out my opposition to summary adjudication.

MauraLarkins May 12, 2014 @ 4:33 p.m.

The law does NOT allow prior restraint of speech except for statements found to be defamatory "at trial". Judge Hayes did not have the right to deprive me of my constitutional rights without due process. Obviously, throwing out my evidence and my opposition to summary adjudication does not constitute due process.

Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz is heavily represented on the San Diego Legal Secretaries board

Legal secretaries install 2014-15 board
By DOUG SHERWIN
The Daily Transcript
May 6, 2014

Linda L. Moore of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz APC was installed last month as president of the San Diego Legal Secretaries Association for 2014-2015.

Other new officers and members of the board of directors include Latham & Watkins' Becky Neidhardt as vice president; McKenna Long & Aldridge's Heather Schlaefli as secretary; Cynthia Halvax of Neil, Dymott, Frank, McFall & Trexler APLC as treasurer; Ann Posthill of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz APC as governor; Stokes Wagner Hunt Maretz & Terrell's Leanna Pierce as executive advisor; and J. Cori Mandy of Procopio Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP as parliamentarian;

David Merino, Donna Mihalco, Maria Simental of Wingert, Grebing, Brubaker & Juskie LLP, and Procopio's R. Marina Durazo were installed as directors while Merino, Mihalco and Maria Simental were named as annual conference delegates.

County of San Diego awards contract for services to Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz

See all posts re Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz.

County of San Diego
PUBLISHED: Thursday March 27, 2014

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING
5560 OVERLAND AVE, STE 270
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
---

...11. Approve and Authorize the President/CEO to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz APC for General Legal Services: The Board is requested to award a contract...

General Counsel Report:
Business and Travel Expense Reimbursement Reports For Board Members, President/CEO, Chief Auditor and General Counsel When Attending Conferences, Meetings, and Training at the Expense of the Authority...

Officials are working hard keeping secrets in San Diego's public schools

UPDATE: March 27, 2014 ruling from the Court of Appeal in a San Jose public records case.

Paper’s ‘sunshine week’ project seeking private-account emails on public business is mostly cloudy
By Terry Carter
ABA Journal
Mar 24, 2014

The San Diego Union-Tribune got very practical with its celebration of the recent national Sunshine Week—itself the brainchild of the American Society of News Editors for educating the public on the need for more openness and less secrecy in government.

The U-T published a lengthy feature based on its request for certain email records from more than 100 government administrators across the region. The newspaper asked to see samples of personal emails discussing the public’s business—emails sent from workers' Gmail, Yahoo or other personal accounts.

The effort did not stuff the newspaper's inbox. Samples came back from just two of the more than 100 administrators queried: Grossmont Healthcare District and the city of Lemon Grove.

[Maura Larkins' comment: In my experience, Lemon Grove is one of the most ethical public entities in San Diego county.}

Some responded that they had no such records, some said the emails are not for public viewing and others simply did not respond.

The San Diego law firm Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz represents 40 of San Diego County 42 school districts, and told the newspaper that emails in private accounts don’t fall under the California Public Records Act “because the district does not have actual or constructive possession over any such private account.”

The firm pointed to a California appeals court decision in 2012 concerning the City of Selma in Fresno County, which said that an agency has constructive possession of records “if it has the right to control the records, either directly or through another person.”

But the U-T also asked for emails sent to and from the top executive of each local government agency. In March 2013, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge ruled in a case involving San Jose officials that government business done through private email accounts “reasonably falls within the definition of a record ‘retained' by the city.”

San Jose is appealing.

“My sense is that many local governments haven’t updated their policies to cover what happens with personal email,” Jodi Cleesattle, a San Diego lawyer and member of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Freedom of Information Committee.

Too much collegiality among judges at the San Diego Superior Court?

UPDATE: Bonnie Dumanis is no longer on Judge Lisa Schall's list of endorsers. Here's the earliest list I can find. Bonnie Dumanis was no longer on the list on March 21, 2014 when I downloaded a new version of the list from Schall's website.


I understand that San Diego Superior Court judges don't want to be unseated in elections. In fact, I agree that judges should not be subject to elections. I'd like to see a lottery of highly qualified applicants for judicial positions. (The appointment process is almost as political as elections.)

The San Diego Superior Court judges are all interested in protecting the status quo. They've all endorsed Schall.

But the upcoming election battle between sitting judge Lisa Schall and challenger Carla Keehn seems to offer an opportunity for judges and lawyers in San Diego to make some changes to a system that has produced so many abuses. . One of those abuses is the injunction against this website that Mr. Shinoff's law firm got from Judge Judith Hayes. That injunction was thrown out by the Court of Appeal.

If you look down at the bottom of Judge Schall's list of endorsements as of March 21, 2014, below the bigshot right-wingers and retired judges, you'll see the endorsements by local "professionals". Two facts are noteworthy:

1. the list is very short;

2. Judge Schall is endorsed by not one, but TWO, of the lawyers for Manuel Paul and other school officials who have been charged with (and in some cases pleaded guilty to) public corruption--(Daniel Shinoff and James Pokorny). Why do these lawyers support Schall? Perhaps Shinoff is grateful to Schall for dismissing the Sarquilla case. Or maybe he figures this is a chance to curry some favor with ALL the judges of the Superior Court. He figured out what can happen to people opposing a sitting judge. (See more on Mr. Shinoff at the bottom of this post.)


School lawyer Dan Shinoff
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz

School lawyer Dan Shinoff and James Pokorny
are two of the seven "professionals" who have
endorsed Judge Lisa Schall over challenger Carla Keehn.
Pokorny (not pictured) is the criminal lawyer for
several of Shinoff's clients.

Judge Lisa Schall's
Professional Endorsements:

Mr. Daniel Shinoff [civil attorney for several school officials before and after they were charged with public corruption]
Ms. Lori Clark Viviano (child custody attorney)
Mr. Douglas Brust [attorney Douglas V. Brust, I assume]
Ms. Sharon Blanchet [another family law attorney; she is a co-defendant with Schall in this case]
Dr. Nolan Bellisario [a dentist--how many people with that name could be living in San Diego?]
Mr. Bruce Beals [yet another family law attorney]
Mr. James Pokorny[criminal defense attorney for several local school officials, many if not most of whom were/are Daniel Shinoff clients]
Mr. Casey Gwinn, President, Family Justice Center Alliance

Meanwhile, federal prosecutor Carla Keehn is endorsed by the following on March 21, 2014:

Carla Keehn's
Professional Endorsements

Greg Vega, Esq.
Alex Kreit, Esq.
Alex Landon, Esq.
Bridget Kennedy, Esq.
Charles Rees, Esq.
Craig Leff, Esq.
Daniel Drosman, Esq.
Daniel Smith, Esq.
David Lamb, Esq.
Ellis Johnston, Esq.
Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq.
Eric Mitnick, Esq.
Ezekiel E. Cortez, Esq.
Francisco Sanchez, Esq.
Jason Forge, Esq.
Jedd Bogage,Esq.
Joseph Daley, Esq.
Linda Hughes, Esq.
Lisa A. Damiani, Esq.
Mark Strazzeri
Mayra Garcia, Esq.
Michael E. Burke, Esq.
Michael Stein, Esq.
Paul Turner, Esq.
Rafi Rokach
Sharon Roberts
Sylvia Baiz, Esq.
Ted Pintar, Esq.
Jacqueline Crowle, Esq.
William Mathew Brown, Esq.
(partial list)

More on Lisa Schall's supporter Dan Shinoff:
Mr. Shinoff's law firm tried valiantly to get the Court of Appeal to agree that I, a retired school teacher, should be forbidden from speaking his name, or the name of his firm. Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm has spent over 6 years trying to shut down my little blog that gets 300 hits on a good day. Why would a large firm of lawyers that rakes in millions from local school districts try to get the Court of Appeal to approve an obviously unconstitutional prior restraint by San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes? The Court of Appeal declined to uphold the preposterous injunction. On the other hand, Shinoff's firm must have been pleased when the American Bar Association published a glaringly incorrect report about the case.

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.

Omar Passons, United Way board member and lawyer for Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz

Omar Passons, an attorney, United Way board member, Rachel’s Women’s Center volunteer, and resident of North Park, has a passion for Mid-City. Omar Passons, an attorney, United Way board member, Rachel’s Women’s Center volunteer, and resident of North Park, has a passion for Mid-City.

See all Omar Passons posts on this blog and Omar Passons posts on SDER blog. Former foster child returns many favors
By Karla Peterson
March 4, 2014

In the ever-expanding adventure that is Omar Passons’ life, there is always room for one more great thing. One more North Park restaurant to visit. One more craft beer to try. More bike paths to travel with wife Erin, more “House of Cards” episodes to watch, more tweets to send.

But mostly, there is more good to be done. A United Way board meeting to attend. Voices for Children volunteers to recruit. A community park to check in on. Graffiti to be removed. The 38-year-old attorney never stops reaching out and giving back. And why should he? He learned early, and he learned from the best.

“My parents were pretty incredible, and I tell people I am involved now because I am so blessed,” said Passons, who went into foster care at 10 months old and was adopted by his first foster parents — Tom and Phyllis Passons — when he was 6. “I had parents who loved me, I got a good education and I have my health. I can give back, so I do.”

He was born in San Diego to a deaf mother who struggled with homelessness and mental-health issues. Passons was her fourth child, and the fourth to be taken away. But what could have been the beginning of a long, sad story for baby Omar was actually the start of a full and happy life.

In addition to Omar and their five biological children, the Passons took care of more than 100 foster children. Some of them were victims of abuse, others were medically fragile or severely injured. And all of them are a part of who Passons is now.

“I had black brothers and sisters, white brothers and sisters, I had brothers and sisters who were abused or neglected. I had a wide range of people who I called brother and sister,” Passons said over coffee at the Young Hickory cafe in North Park. “And because of that, what matters to me is being able to connect with people and connect with family.”

Passons grew up in Clairemont and Lemon Grove. The family moved to Benson, Ariz., when he was a teenager. (“It was interesting,” he says of being a black kid in that small town. “And not in a good way.”) Passons got his master’s degree in public health at the University of Arizona and his law degree from the George Mason University School of Law in Virginia. After a stint as a policy analyst with the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C., Passons returned to San Diego. He is now an attorney with Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, where he specializes in construction, land use and real estate cases.

And whether he was going to school in Arizona, or working in Washington or San Diego, Passons was doing volunteer work. He started an after-school tutoring program for a Boys & Girls Club in Arizona. He spent two years mentoring four young Somali brothers and three years working on the North Park Community Park project. Passons has volunteered for the Rachel’s Women’s Center and for the Voices for Children foster-child support group. And he continues to find time for community cleanup and graffiti-removal projects.

It helps that Passons can live on coffee, craft beer and no sleep. It really helps that he is a policy-geek who thrives on meeting people, tackling issues and helping public entities work for the public.

[Maura Larkins' comment: Mr. Passons' own statements indicate that he wants to help public entities work for the powerful than for the public as a whole.]

“You look at Omar and you can see how active he is in the community and how engaged he is. He doesn’t do anything halfway,” said Shaina Gross, vice president of impact strategies and mobilization for the United Way of San Diego County, where Passons is a board member. “I first saw his passion at a Voice of San Diego event at the Alpha Project tent for the homeless. He was there and listening and asking very thoughtful questions, and I thought, ‘This is the kind of person we need to help lead our organization.’”

Passons met his biological mother nine years ago. She drifts in and out of homelessness, but he stays in touch through email as best he can. His adoptive father died some time ago, but 81-year-old Phyllis Passons lives in La Mesa and often accompanies her son on his craft-beer excursions. An older brother, Tom Passons, works at Sea World and continues to be a best friend and role model. Passons has connected with a biological sister in Texas, and some of his many foster brothers and sisters are still part of his life.

And every day, Passons looks at the gifts of love and opportunity he was given and gets busy returning the favor.

“I have always believed that everyone has a talent or a small piece of themselves that can benefit someone else, and I definitely have a place in my heart for creating opportunities for young people,” Passons said. “Why not do something with the chances we have?”

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.

District Attorney candidate Robert Brewer basks in the admiration of Dan Shinoff and Leslie Devaney

Robert Brewer

Leslie Devaney's and Dan Shinoff's endorsements of Robert Brewer can be found HERE.

“I have had the great privilege of knowing Mr. Brewer for over 30 years. He is an outstanding individual who is the consummate professional who treats everyone he deals with with great respect and always is a person of tremendous integrity. The County would be most fortunate to have Robert Brewer as District Attorney.”

Daniel R. Shinoff
STUTZ ARTIANO sHINOFF & HOLTZ

I imagine Mr. Shinoff is quite incensed at Bonnie Dumanis for indicting his clients Manuel Paul, Bertha Lopez, and others at Southwestern College, Sweetwater Union High School District, and San Ysidro School District.

Of course, it's sort of strange that Dan Shinoff feels he has to muzzle a retired teacher in order to protect his own reputation as person of integrity. (See my San Diego Education Report blog posts re Stutz v. Larkins.) Does Mr. Shinoff really think that people who have known him for years will think his ethics are questionable just because of something I say? Most of the facts that I discuss have been published in newspapers, or at least in court documents, and few people read my websites, anyway. Why does Mr. Shinoff see me as a threat to his reputation?

Linda L. Moore of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz elected president of San Diego Legal Secretaries Association

Moore elected president of SD Legal Secretaries Association
By Daily Transcript Staff Report
March 29, 2013

Linda L. Moore of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz APC was elected president of the San Diego Legal Secretaries Association (SDLSA) at the group's March meeting.

The other offices elected included Linda Gubba-Reiner of Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel as vice president; Becky Neidhardt of Latham & Watkins as secretary; Cynthia Halvax of Neil, Dymott, Frank, McFall & Trexler APLC as treasurer; Leanna Pierce of Stokes, Roberts & Wagner ALC as immediate past president; and Annie Parrish of Hooper, Lundy & Bookman P.C. as governor.

Barb Bretherton of Network Depositions; Judy Johns of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP; Heather Schaefli of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP; and Lynda West of Office Assistance 4 U were elected to the board of directors.

Delegates to the annual conference, which will be held in San Jose in May, will be Vanessa Luna, Michele Mitchell and Judy Johns.

Michael Roddy silent after receiving reports of shenanigans by clerks at San Diego Superior Court

*
UPDATE JANUARY 30, 2013

In the same case discussed below, Stutz v. Larkins, we now have documents missing from the case file.

UPDATE JANUARY 3, 2013 re Michael Roddy silent about document falsified by clerk

Karen Dalton, in charge of public relations for the court, was able to get a response for me from Mr. Roddy. Here it is:

Dear Ms. Larkins,

The October 2012 inquiries cited in your blog were received and investigated by the court. After investigating the issues you raised, we concluded that no improper action has been taken by any court employees related to your case. The matter has been closed.


Sincerely,
Mike Roddy
Executive Officer

(I guess this means business as usual will continue in the court.)

Maria Hayes is the Supervisor of the Superior Court Appeals Division. Kathy Williams is the Manager of that Department and several other departments. Stephen Cascioppo is the Assistant Executive Officer, Central Division. And of course, Michael Roddy is the Executive Officer. Michael Roddy has clearly approved the creation of a false document to get rid of Appeal regarding one of the decisions of Judge Judith Hayes and her research attorney, Monica Barry.

ORIGINAL POST:

At a time of layoffs of clerks, why is the court forcing clerks to spend time creating false documents and then more time correcting the record?

Michael Roddy is silent regarding the bizarre and unsuccessful effort of the San Diego Superior Court Appeals Division to default my September 6, 2012 appeal regarding an injunction in the Stutz v. Larkins case.

The Court of Appeal has already ruled one of Judge Judith Hayes' injunctions unconstitutional in this same case. It would seem that Mr. Roddy wants to protect judges who ignore the law. He has not responded to either of the two letters below.

Notice the two signatures on the document at left. Someone has merely written "/s/" on each signature line! This suggests that the clerk didn't like having to sign this document, so she applied this imprecise symbol. Perhaps she feared she'd lose her job if she didn't put something on the signature line.

It appears that Superior Court Appeals division clerk ZZZ ordered her subordinate to dismiss my appeal, claiming that my Designation of Record was unacceptable because there were no hearings on three of the dates I had listed in my Designation of Record.

Even if the court had been correct regarding this issue, it is normal practice to allow the appellant a grace period to correct such mistakes.

In fact, the court was completely, absolutely, wrong.

Not only were there hearings on those dates, but the transcripts of those hearings had actually been received by the Superior Court Appeals division in 2010 for my earlier appeal about the other unconstitutional injunction in this same case. The court apparently invented this excuse in an effort to find any reason at all to justify defaulting my appeal.

What would be the motive? To make sure than Judge Judith Hayes didn't have another injunction overturned by the Court of Appeal in the Stutz v. Larkins case.


October 23, 2012

Michael Roddy, Executive Officer
Stephen Cascioppo, Assistant Executive Officer, Central Division
Third Floor
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

Dear Executives of San Diego Superior Court:

Following is not necessarily word-for-word accurate, but all the ideas expressed are accurate. Not every word spoken is recorded here, but this transcript contains about 80% of what was spoken. Some parts were repeated.

I spoke to deputy clerk XXX in the Appeals Section on October 22, 2012 about the fact that all three of the dates she used to justify Defaulting my Appeal were, in fact, dates on which hearings had occurred.

Ms. XXX went to her computer and checked all three dates, then came back to me and said, “There were no minute orders on those dates.”

“Were there hearings on those dates?” I asked.

Instead of answering this question, she repeated a couple more times that there were no minute orders on those dates.

“What if the judge took the matter under submission?” I asked. “There wouldn’t be any minute order, even though there had been a hearing.”

Ms. XXX told me that her computer does not show whether a hearing has occurred—unless there was a minute order!!!!

I showed Ms. Rodriquez two Reporter’s Transcript cover sheets for my 2010 appeal in the same case. I had drawn circles around the three dates in question. Ms. XXX made copies of the two cover sheets, and said that this cleared up the problem.

I said, “No, it doesn’t. The fact that this happened is a problem. Someone told you to do this, didn’t they?”

She said that no one had told her to do it.

I said, “You’re going to take the fall for this?”

I said I didn’t believe she could have made three mistakes like this, and she didn’t have any motive to sabotage my appeal.

When she went to her desk, her supervisor ZZZ came up to her and told her she should leave. Then she said, “It’s your break. I’ll take care of it.”

Then they both came over to where I was sitting, and XXX explained the situation to ZZZ.

ZZZ said to XXX, “Did you look it up on the V3 system?”

XXX said she did.

I said, “So the name of the system you use is V3?

ZZZ waved her hand dismissively, ending the gesture with her palm stationary in front of my face, and said, “It’s nothing for you to worry about.”

I requested that she not stick her hand in my face and asked, “Do you not want me to have information about what system you use?”

ZZZ said she didn’t mind giving me the information, and said that V3 was the system used by the Court.

“Does it show when a hearing has occurred?” I asked.

“Yes,” ZZZ said.

“That’s interesting. XXX said that it didn’t,” I said.

ZZZ said, “No, it doesn’t show hearings. It shows the minute orders. The minute orders are printed on yellow paper and placed in the file.”

I said, “So there’s no record on your computer of hearings at which no minute order was issued?”

ZZZ said, “Well, yes, there’s a little one line notation showing that there was a hearing.” She held up her two index fingers, a short distance apart, to show how small the notation was, apparently to demonstrate how easily it could be overlooked. I said, “Someone must have told XXX to do this. Was it you?”

ZZZ said, “No.”

ZZZ turned to XXX and told her to leave.

XXX was obviously uncomfortable to be asked to leave. It was clearly not her normal break time. I happen to know that clerks sometimes take their breaks at their desks, so it was not necessary for XXX to leave even if it actually had been her break time. XXXX did not feel good to be told to leave; her facial expression and body movements revealed that she was unhappy and anxious. I interpreted the order to leave as ZZZ’s effort to prevent XXX from revealing that ZZZ had told her to create the Notice of Default. This was quite paranoid of ZZZ, since XXX was absolutely steadfast in sticking to the story that the Notice of Default was entirely her own idea.

I asked to speak to Ms. ZZZZ’s supervisor, but Ms. ZZZZ said the supervisor had her door closed and was in a meeting.

I gave ZZZ my 1-page letter with three attachments, addressed to Mr. Roddy, Mr. Cascioppo, and XXXX, and she stamped it received and stamped my copy. I went to Michael Roddy’s office, but it was closed for lunch. I went back and asked ZZZ to put another copy in Mr. Roddy’s mail box. I saw her put the letter in a mail box on the west wall.

It’s worse to force a young, vulnerable person to subvert justice than it is to simply subvert justice oneself. And whoever pressured ZZZ was worse than ZZZ. Sincerely,

Maura Larkins



October 21, 2012

Michael Roddy, Executive Officer
Stephen Cascioppo, Assistant Executive Officer, Central Division
XXXXXXXX, Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court, 3rd Floor, Room 3005
220 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101

Dear San Diego Superior Court:

Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court XXXXXX states in her October 18, 2012 Notice of Default (attached) that for the dates 4/25/08, 4/03/09 and 3/05/10 “there are no minutes/hearings for those dates according to our record.”

I can’t begin to imagine how Ms. XXX could come up with not one, but three separate mistakes of this type. Not only did hearings occur on all three of these dates, but court reporter Marvie Votaw delivered the transcripts of these three hearings to your Appeals Section in connection with my March 2010 appeal. I have attached Ms. Votaw’s cover pages showing that transcripts were prepared for these dates. Also, in September 2012 the court reporters had no trouble preparing estimates for the cost of preparing the current record because I obviously designated the record with adequate specificity.

It is bizarre that the Superior Court would interfere in this way with my appeals process. If the deputy clerk didn’t have enough time to check carefully, why would she go out of her way to prepare a Notice of Default? Left to her own devices, she would have left it alone rather than picking three dates and declaring that hearings didn’t happen on those days. More likely, someone else picked those three dates and told Ms. XXXX that no hearings occurred on those days.

I suspect that someone in San Diego Superior Court who wanted to get rid of my appeal asked XXXX to prepare this Notice of Default.

Please investigate this shocking subversion of the judicial process.

XXX had no motive to do this on her own initiative, but obviously there is at least one person in San Diego Superior Court who does have a motive. Judge Judith Hayes almost certainly wants to prevent another ruling by the Court of Appeal that finds one of her injunctions to be “exceedingly broad.” But Judge Hayes probably didn’t talk directly to Ms. XXXX. More likely it would have been xxxxxx or xxxxxx.

Sincerely,

Maura Larkins



The clerk seemed quite happy to reverse the default she had been forced to prepare. She sent me the following:

Here's a recent court transcript revealing the judge's bizarre behavior in this case.

See all posts re Stutz v. Larkins.

Michael Roddy is employed directly by the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).

Melissa Lewis Joins Stutz Artiano's Employment Practice

Here's my question: if my website has damaged Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm's business so much that they felt they had to sue me for defamation, then why does it seem that Stutz is constantly adding more lawyers? How did Stutz calculate that it has suffered significant damage from my website and blogs?

PRESS RELEASE

Lewis Joins Stutz Artiano's Employment Practice
SAN DIEGO
MARKETWIRE via COMTEX
June 4, 2012

Melissa A. Lewis has joined the law firm of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz APC as an Associate. Ms. Lewis graduated Thomas Jefferson School of Law, Summa Cum Laude, Valedictorian. She is a graduate of Hawaii Pacific University and Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, graduating with honors. Ms. Lewis joins the Employment Practice Group at Stutz Artiano, representing employers in all aspects of the employment relationship, including litigation, administrative hearings, advisory, development of policies and procedures, preparation of handbooks, employee and supervisor training and conducting internal investigations.

Discovery suddenly stayed in Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz defamation suit against this blogger

See all posts re Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins

I got a minute order from the San Diego Superior Court in the mail today. The timing is very, very strange. The last hearing in the case was March 9, 2012--two months and three weeks ago. My discussion with Commander Darin Fotheringham in the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office two days ago is the only event that I can connect even remotely to this bolt out of the blue.




June 1, 2012

Commander Darin Fotheringham
Office of the Sheriff of Santa Barbara

Dear Commander Fotheringham:

I was amused that on the very day I contacted you about my subpoena for business records from the Sheriff of Santa Barbara showing that Deputy Michael Carlson and his sister Robin Donlan involved Chula Vista Elementary School District in criminal actions, Judge Judith Hayes suspended all discovery in the case at issue.

My, my. The timing is fascinating. No papers had been filed asking that discovery be stayed. In fact, no papers had been filed in this case for two months.

I bow to your amazing—what shall I call it?—luck, perhaps?

Sincerely,

Maura Larkins



Note: I tried to fax the above letter to the fax number Commander Fotheringham gave me on May 30, 2012 for faxing the subpoena to him. My fax machine dialed the number, then the call was picked up. Next I heard a raspberry sound, and soon a man was telling me that if I'd like to make a call, I should hang up and dial again. I guess the guys who work for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara like to have fun. They seem to be really funny guys.

I think that it is highly unlikely that Commander Fotheringham or Sheriff Bill Brown contacted Judge Hayes. Here's the scenario I came up with for what most likely happened:

Commander Fotheringham may have talked to Michael Carlson. Michael Carlson went into cover-up mode (again). Carlson seems to have no remorse at all, not even for causing problems for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara. My guess is he thinks of himself as a victim. He has never indicated any regret for all the problems his actions caused to me, to my school district (including $100,000s in legal fees to defend Carlson's sister and others), and to the children in my school.

I imagine Michael Carlson would have called his attorney, Deborah Garvin, after Commander Fotheringham spoke to him. And perhaps his sister, Robin Donlan, who turned his misdemeanor into a huge mess for Chula Vista Elementary School District.

Deborah Garvin and Robin Donlan would probably each have contacted Dan Shinoff of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, with whom they worked in the earlier case involving Carlson.

And that's where the chain of likely events gets murky for me. What happened next???? I'm simply unable to conjure an explanation for what could have happened.

The minute order I received from Judge Hayes says that discovery is stayed.

But actually it's a lot more complicated. Hayes also finally made a decision about two of the three March 9, 2012 motions. After almost three months of silence, she finally denied my motion to set aside the summary adjudication, even though I was able to provide documentary evidence proving that the decision was deeply flawed.

For the past two months and three weeks she pretended that discovery was open--even gave us a discovery cut-off date--but obviously it was never really open, since the summary adjudication was never set aside. I suspected that I would be shut down the minute I started discovery, so I gave myself a long vacation (including a month in Washington DC) and waited as long as possible to start discovery.

Judge Hayes is still delaying (until August 27, 2012) her decision on Stutz' motion to strike my answer. There is absolutely no case law to support such a decision in a case with a history like this one. San Diego County Office of Education has also refused to allow discovery in this case. It even hired Stutz law firm to make sure Diane Crosier didn't have to take a deposition or produce documents. I recently filed a public records request to at least get the records.

Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz answers special interrogatories

It's always instructive to learn how a big, successful law firm answers special interrogatories.


Rancho California RV Resort Owners Association v. Outdoor Resorts of American, Inc.
STUTZ, ARTIANO, SHINOFF & HOLTZ DEFENDANT OUTDOOR ...
www.morrissullivanlaw.com

STUTZ, ARTIANO, SHINOFF & HOLTZ. A Professional Corporation.
Robert R. Templeton, Jr., Esq., State Bar No. 116557.
Casey Pope, Esq

The ethics of the San Diego Ethics Commission: keeping secrets from "two-bit newspapers" about lobbyists who serve as its attorneys

“You have an excellent reputation in the community; you are an extremely careful person, and I don’t see why your answer should not be sufficient,” Commissioner and retired Judge William Howatt Jr. told Fulhorst.

The ethics of the Ethics Commission
By Dave Maass
San Diego City Beat
Oct 12, 2011

At a September meeting of the San Diego Ethics Commission, the agency’s executive director, Stacey Fulhorst, presented the mother of all catch-22s.

While inspecting lobbyist-activity records, CityBeat had learned that private attorneys retained by the Ethics Commission are also working as counsel for the Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC), a city redevelopment agency, and as lobbyists for private companies. The relationships seem to present a potential conflict of interest on multiple levels, since the commission both regulates lobbyists and enforces ethics in city government, including SEDC. Asked about this, Fulhorst said the law firm—Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz—and the commission have put several firewalls in place.

However, since attorney-client confidentiality covers legal agreements, Fulhorst couldn’t offer proof of these safeguards without first asking the commission’s seven members to release the information.

“I would personally recommend that you do approve a waiver, a very limited waiver of just, literally, a handful of paragraphs, because I do think it’s important to demonstrate to the public that we recognize it would not be appropriate for us to receive legal services from the same law firm that was providing general counsel to SEDC on SEDC matters,” Fulhorst told commissioners on Sept. 23.

Paradoxically, Fulhorst couldn’t show the commissioners the relevant paragraphs because they’d then become public record. Nor could the commission turn to its legal counsel for advice, since the lawyers were the subject of the discussion.

The commission deliberated for 15 minutes on whether an agency that investigates conflicts of interests should be transparent regarding its own potential conflicts. Some members wondered why CityBeat wouldn’t just take Fulhorst’s word.

“You have an excellent reputation in the community; you are an extremely careful person, and I don’t see why your answer should not be sufficient,” Commissioner and retired Judge William Howatt Jr. told Fulhorst.

Some worried about setting a precedent.

“I just think we should be careful with granting such a waiver,” Commissioner Larry Westfall, an accountant, said. “Once you do it, we start to open the door for every little, two-bit newspaper in town to come here and make requests for information, too.”

Some recognized the public interest in releasing the document, but Commissioner and attorney John O’Neill alone saw that as overriding other concerns.

“I think it puts to rest any suspicion there is any impropriety here,” O’Neill said. “I don’t think it helps us to not give the document.”

The commission voted 5-1 (one member was absent) against releasing the information, rejecting Fulhorst’s offer to conduct more research on an issue that wouldn’t have come up a year ago.

With Proposition E in 2004, San Diego voters authorized the Ethics Commission to hire its own legal counsel instead of relying on the advice of the City Attorney’s office. Proponents argued it was problematic for the city attorney to represent both the commission and the city officials subject to commission investigations. They also noted that City Attorney staff are also subject to commission enforcement actions.

For the first five years, the commission employed a staff attorney, but when the lawyer departed last year, the agency decided to contract with an outside firm to allow more flexibility. The Stutz firm submitted a bid and, Fulhorst said, was selected because of the “unique expertise and knowledge” of Christina Cameron, a longtime City Hall staffer specializing in ethics and campaign reform who’d recently earned a law degree. Under the terms of the bid, Cameron would serve as a general counsel, working under the supervision of “associate general counsel” Prescilla Dugard and Leslie Devaney. All three were serving as counsel to SEDC and lobbyists, but the firm agreed that Cameron would be severed from SEDC matters and no longer register as a lobbyist.

In the first half of 2011, the Ethics Commission paid the Stutz firm $48,000 in fees, and another $3,000 to a second firm that handles cases when a conflict arises. During the same period, the Stutz firm collected at least $203,000 from SEDC. As a lobbying organization, the firm represents EverFlow Resources, Staff Pro and Western Towing.

Fulhorst, Cameron and Devaney described to CityBeat many of the physical and procedural measures in place to protect against a conflict. The firm also amended its lobbyist reports following CityBeat’s inquiry to better reflect Devaney and Dugard’s involvement with the Ethics Commission: Each provided less than an hour of legal services in the first half of the year.

Tracy Westen, CEO of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles-based watchdog organization, says he’s less concerned with the specific SEDC issue than he is alarmed to learn that registered lobbyists are providing legal advice to lobbyist regulators.

“Ideally, if you contract for ethics advice with outside counsel, you want that outside counsel to give you independent advice,” Westen says. “But if the outside counsel is also lobbying the city, its advice may tilt in favor of lobbyists in general. Simply recusing themselves from judgments involving a client they’re lobbying for is a good idea, but it does not purge them of pro-lobbyist sentiments.”

Of the 106 complaints processed by the commission in 2010, 38 percent—the largest portion—were alleged violations of the city’s lobbying ordinance, according to the commission’s annual report.

“If a matter were heavily related to lobbying and I felt it was inappropriate to talk to [Devaney or Dugard] because they are registered lobbyists, then I have other partners and other senior attorneys that I can work with if I need to,” Cameron says.

Westen says that’s not enough. “It’s very difficult for a law firm to purge itself of this appearance of a conflict if some partners are lobbying and others are not,” Westen says. “I think the city really needs to go to a law firm that is not doing lobbying.”

Fulhorst says that’s an impractical idea coming from someone “working in academia,” since the “vast majority of law firms” in San Diego are registered as lobbyists under the city ordinance...

Teacher talks back: Retired San Diego teacher Maura Larkins doesn't lose her First Amendment rights

Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS: Our daily legal-news aggregator for Aug. 9
By Joseph Schuman

...Teacher talks back: Retired San Diego teacher Maura Larkins doesn't lose her First Amendment rights just because she has made defamatory statements on her website in the past, an appeals court has ruled. Larkins had a history of criticizing Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, a law firm which often defends school district, the Voice of San Diego reports. Among other charges, Larkins wrote that the firm fosters "a culture of misrepresentation and deception." Stutz Artiano sued, and two years ago a San Diego court approved a settlement between the two parties. Though Larkins was ordered by the judge to remove defamatory statements about Stutz Artiano, she continued to post new criticism. Judge Judith Hayes eventually ordered her to stop making any statements about it "by any method or media." But an appeals court concluded that the order is "exceedingly broad."

Attorney Bradley Marshall tries to intimidate Seattle Blogger

Apparently a lot of lawyers think that bloggers are easy to intimidate. I also have had the honor of having an eminent lawyer (actually, a whole firm of them) try to intimidate me into silence.

Lawyer Tries to Intimidate Seattle Blogger

From Hominid Views: People, politics, science and whatnot
July 31, 2008

What is this world coming to when a high-powered attorney to sports stars (and a now-deceased famous talk-radio host) goes on the attack against a lowly blogger?

You see, Bradley Marshall, attorney extraordinaire (well… if you don’t count the recent 18 month suspension of his license) just sent a letter to Seattle liberal blogger and journalist (and friend of mine) Michael Hood at Blatherwatch requesting that Michael yank some old blog posts and cease writing about him.

Michael is certainly not the first blogger to get such requests, but it must be quite the honor for Michael to get a letter from a lawyer of such stature...

Legal opinions for sale; those who control San Diego schools pay millions of tax dollars for them

At last, someone with a high profile has spoken out about character and integrity among lawyers. I have done this, but the unethical lawyers at Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz that I have written about believe that they can intimidate me into silence.

San Diego County Office of Education has continued to cover up Daniel Shinoff and Stutz law firm's criminal actions on behalf of school district officials. SDCOE-JPA executive director Diane Crosier (above photo), not the board, controls the legal representation of SDCOE and most county schools.

Fortune Magazine has published a great article on the subject:

Fortune Magazine
May 30, 2008
Blowing the whistle on unethical lawyers
By Roger Parloff, senior editor
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/28/news/newsmakers/legal_opinions_for_sale.fortune/

"In August 2001, when in-house accountant Sherron Watkins warned Enron CEO Ken Lay that the company might "implode in a wave of accounting scandals," Lay asked the firm's regular law firm, Vinson & Elkins, to do a "preliminary investigation." Though V&E had worked on the very transactions Watkins was questioning, it took the assignment and reported back on Oct. 15 that there was no cause for concern. About a month and a half later Enron filed for bankruptcy, having, in fact, imploded in a wave of accounting scandals.

"When V&E was summoned before a congressional committee to account for the breathtaking shallowness of its probe, it produced a letter blessing its performance from one of the nation's most highly credentialed experts on legal ethics: Charles Wolfram of Cornell University Law School. Wolfram opined that it is "customary and appropriate" for a company to conduct a "preliminary investigation" before undertaking a "full-scale" one, and that the firm had not violated conflict-of-interest rules because Watkins had raised "business and accounting" issues, not issues regarding V&E's "own legal services."

"In a forthcoming Stanford Law Review article titled "The Market for Bad Legal Advice," Columbia Law School professor William Simon cites Wolfram's opinion as just one example of patently bad advice offered in exchange for lucrative compensation by academics whom he contends are becoming "enablers of pernicious... practices."

"...Simon isn't talking only about V&E and Enron. He cites the example of lawyers at another law firm who "gave hundreds of opinions to taxpayers to the effect that bizarrely complex and economically substanceless transactions... were acceptable ways to reduce taxes. Some of them were virtually copies of transactions that the IRS had specifically condemned."

"Or of Department of Justice luminaries advising that "various statutory and international law constraints on the President in the 'war on terror' were un-constitutional or otherwise not binding" in opinions that "exaggerated the authority for the conclusions and omitted inconsistent arguments and precedent."

"Simon's article seeks not just to diagnose the problem but also to prescribe and administer remedies. The most controversial will surely be the measure he calls "shaming." That process consists of having other academic ethics experts - like Simon - write law review articles brutally critiquing the opinions that their colleagues have offered while under retainer. This, he believes, will help deter the delivery of bad advice.

"Like most ethics experts contacted for this article, New York University School of Law's Stephen Gillers declines to share his thoughts on the ethics disputes that Simon discusses, observing that he socializes with all the experts named, including Simon. But he does venture this: Simon's article is "unique in my 30 years as a law teacher. It's unique for law professors to so aggressively criticize the behavior of other law professors - not their intellectual positions. This is about character and integrity..."