Dear Google Blogger: Please quit sabotaging this blog; public has right to know about decision of California Court of Appeal

See the post that was sabotaged on June 20, 2014.

Dear Google legal department:
You sabotaged, within the past couple of hours, a completely legitimate post.

I assume that someone has asked you to enforce Judge Judith Hayes' injunction, but it seems that you don't understand exactly what the injunction is. Here it is:

"... injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant from continuing to publish or republishing by any method or media, including but not limited to all electronic data, websites and web pages, the defamatory statements alleged in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pertaining to Plaintiff and any of its lawyers past or present, and future publication of statements with regard to Plaintiff and its lawyers accusing illegal conduct or violation of law, unethical conduct, lack of professional competence or intimidation…”

This injunction was issued after the court granted a summary adjudication without weighing any evidence.  Does Google want to conceal the actions of the court from the American public?

Clearly, I did not violate this injunction in the post (see below) that you have sabotaged. In fact, I have erased over 400 posts about Stutz law firm.  Why isn't that enough for Google and the people who are asking your legal department to censor my blog.

But you seem to want to prevent me from mentioning anything about the case just decided by the California Court of Appeal.

Shame on you. Why are you doing this? The post does NOT contain any statement "accusing illegal conduct or violation of law, unethical conduct, lack of professional competence or intimidation" on the part of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm.



Here is the post:

The Court of Appeal issued a decision yesterday in the Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins defamation case.  It upheld the anti-free speech injunction and default entered by Judge Judith Hayes against me in San Diego Superior Court.



Judge Hayes' 2009 injunction in this case was ruled unconstitutional.
So what was different this time?


The only area in which I prevailed in my appeal of was getting the $10,000 punitive damages award thrown out.  The Court didn't have much choice about this.  The plaintiff had provided no evidence of my ability to pay.

So, obviously, since the Court of Appeal conclude that my appeal of the unwarranted imposition of punitive sanctions was worthy, there's no way the Court would have ordered me to pay Stutz' costs, right?

Wrong.

The court has revealed its thinking very clearly in its decision to order me to pay Stutz' costs.  The Court apparently feels strongly that blogs like mine that criticize trial courts and attorneys should be silenced. Even though I prevailed in part, the Court ordered me to bear costs!

It's odd--and interesting.  The Court appears to be sending a warning to all bloggers who might want to inform the public about the tactics of public entity lawyers--and the judges who go beyond the law to defend them. In fact, the Court of Appeal ruled in 2011 that Judge Judge Hayes had violated the Constitution.
 

I can't entirely blame the Court of Appeal for taking the side of the big law firm.   I should have filed more and better oppositions, and earlier and better appeals.

And I should have had a lawyer.  Not just any lawyer, but one who holds a position of respect in the community of judges and lawyers.

 In this same case, the Court of Appeal threw out a different injunction of Judge Hayes as unconstitutional.  Professor Shaun Martin represented me in that appeal.  I wrote the Opening Brief, but I have the feeling that the Court might have ruled differently if Mr. Martin hadn't written the Reply and given the oral arguments.

Also, it probably wouldn't have hurt if I had done a fundraiser for one of the judges running in the recent election.  One of the partners of Stutz law firm did that.  I imagine I didn't earn any Brownie points from the Court by publicly pointing out the questionable behavior of Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes.

THE FUTURE

I've erased about four hundred posts from this blog today, and I'll do more erasing as soon as I can.  Many of the posts I erased contained only a tangential reference to Stutz law firm.  When I have time, I'll find those posts and erase the names of Stutz and/or its lawyers, and republish the post.

It's kind of a good feeling to take these names off my blog.  I feel free, light, unburdened.   I think I'm going to enjoy not thinking about the lawyers at Stutz.

Google sabotaged my blog by making all the links and labels disappear from the right-hand column.

MORE GOOGLE SABOTAGE

Google sabotaged the above post by adding the following to the html code (actually, Google added about TWELVE times this much garbage, but this is enough to give the idea:

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

Also, Google has made my post titles very faint, and taken away my ability to fix the problem using the advanced customization for my template.

Google has moved my labels on my home page to the very bottom of the page--below all the posts!  Who would know to look there for the labels?

Hey, Google. This isn't Europe. We have the First Amendment here. Update: All links and labels disappeared from the right column of the home page of this blog:

Where did they go?  To the very bottom of the page! I don't think Google really wants to harm this blog; it probably got one of the "take-down" requests that have become so common. But who could have sent the request? Perhaps it was someone in the office ofMichael Roddy, chief executive of the San Diego Superior Court. He has approved some strange antics at the Court involving this case.