| Stutz law firm's defamation lawsuit against this website |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| The Claudia Houston case (Atty. Dan Shinoff) |
| Lindsey Stewart case (Atty. Dan Shinoff) |
| David Alberts v. Atty. Dan Shinoff--Defamation case involving atty. Deborah K. Garvin. (Garvin perjury.) |
| School lawyers v. parents and students |
| Fred Kamper case (Atty. Dan Shinoff) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Vista USD/Guajome Park teachers who changed grades |
| School Attorneys |
| Blogs |
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
| April 6, 2009: Stutz defamation lawsuit trial against this website delayed |
| Stutz filed suit on Oct. 5, 07 for defamation against the author of this website |
| Stutz Motion to Enforce Permanent Injunction to be heard August 7, 2009 |
| Maura Larkins Opposition to this motion |
| Issue #3: Political and factual speech about public figure Leslie Devaney >>> It appears that Plaintiff may be trying to confuse and mislead the court. [UPDATE: Plaintiff succeeded! On August 7, 2009, the judge was focused on plaintiff's misleading words in #3. "Did you say that Leslie Devaney collaborated in crimes?" she demanded. either Plaintiff's own Exhibit B or Defendant's opposition, both of which make clear that the site says "actions," not Clearly, the judge did not read "crimes."] The statements made by defendant about Leslie Devaney are simple facts: she was second in command when the city made deals that the SEC and FBI investigated. There is no statement that Leslie Devaney is unethical, incompetent or any of the attributes specifically listed as disallowed by the injunction. Interestingly, Leslie Devaney can dish it out, but she can’t seem to take it. Leslie Devaney is a public figure who ran for the office of City Attorney of San Diego in 2004 and who continues to invite attention and comment by making widely-published derogatory virtually identical to statements this court has identified as defamatory (“Aguirre has engaged in unethical legal practices…”) (Exhibit 4, “The Collateral Damage of Aguirre's Furies” by Leslie Devaney, published in Voice of San Diego on Monday, December 12, 2005.) In Exhibit 6, “Aguirre’s Foes Search for a Champion” Devaeny is quoted as saying she may run for office in the future. Devaney is trying to piggyback on this court’s finding that other Stutz lawyers are not public figures, but she is clearly a public figure. The court needs to make a separate determination about Leslie Devaney’s status if the court finds that these statements are within the purview of the injunction. It seems that Ms. Devaney does not understand that I have as much right as she does to free political speech outside the specific limits of the injunction. This lawsuit has only limited me from making certain statements. I still have the right to report facts and political opinions other than those listed in the injunction. NOTE: Five individuals are being prosecuted for felonies regarding the actions the SEC and FBI investigated. |
| Plaintiff's own exhibit B shows that Defendant's website says "actions" not "crimes." Plaintiff’s statement on page 8 line 14 of this motion, that Defendant’s website contains the words “friends who are still in the city attorney’s office may have collaborated in those crimes” is false. See page 9 of Plaintiff’s exhibit B. Defendant’s site says “actions” not “crimes.” |
Political and factual speech about public figure Leslie Devaney Plaintiff may have tried to confuse and mislead the court in issue #3. If so, then Plaintiff succeeded! On August 7, 2009, the judge was focused on the misleading words in #3. "Did you say that Leslie Devaney collaborated in crimes?" the judge demanded of Maura Larkins on August 7, 2009. The judge had apparently not read either Plaintiff's own Exhibit B or Defendant's opposition, both of which make clear that the site says "actions," not "crimes."] See page 7 below for full explanation. Five individuals are being prosecuted for felonies regarding the actions the SEC and FBI investigated. |
| Judge Judith Hayes granted this motion on August 7, 2009 but has yet to enter the order as of October 7, 2009 |