Why is Darren Chaker stalking Maura Larkins--even though his conditions of 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.

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

Why is Darren Chaker stalking Maura Larkins?

by Maura Larkins

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..

 
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 
Scott McMillan 
Child molesters

Why is Darren Chaker stalking Maura Larkins--even though his conditions of 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
Child molestation

San Diego ACLU's David Loy and Darren Chaker demanded that blogger silence herself, but Court of Appeal upheld First Amendment

[A story about husband and wife attorneys in Irvine who harassed a volunteer at their son's school (and ended up in jail) can be found here: Sound familiar? Completely false allegations made in an effort to banish woman from California school.]


Update Jan. 2015: 

Darren Chaker appointed himself in July 2011 to do negotiations for Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm (see below).  More recently, Mr. Chaker started a public relations campaign on behalf of Stutz law firm.  I doubt that Stutz law firm ever wanted his help.

Darren Chaker pretends that there was a trial in which in this blogger was found to have defamed Stutz law firm.  This is false.

In fact, there was no finding of fact in Stutz v. Larkins.   

Instead, Judge Judith Hayes, who was found to have acted in an "exceedingly unconstitutional" manner in the case,  threw out my opposition to summary adjudication because of a small error in format.   She also threw out all my evidence.

Thus, her ruling of defamation did not claim to based on a weighing of the evidence.  It was a decision of "law", not of "fact."  Judge Hayes simply announced that there was "no opposition" to Stutz' motion for summary adjudication, and granted the motion.

This past week Darren Chaker has written to people on my street to report that I "was found to have made defamatory statements about an upstanding law firm who represents schools" and then he went on to name Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz.

I became acquainted with Stutz law firm several years ago after I was harassed at my workplace in Chula Vista Elementary School District.  I refused to go back to work until there was an investigation.  The district refused to investigate, and wrote me many letters demanding that I return to work.  The district has concealed the results of its "investigation" to this day.  The district fired me a year later, immediately after I filed suit against the district, claiming that I had been "insubordinate" by refusing to return to work.

Update 2013: David Loy's pal Darren Chaker Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud

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


ORIGINAL POST:

The following story was first posted Feb. 13, 2012 :

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 free speech case, but at the same time, 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 a group of San Diego attorneys from my website; he has never modified his position, even when I won in the Court of Appeal on August 5, 2011.

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, the 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.

The law firm attorney 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 the Plaintiff 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 the 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 two members of the Plaintiff's law firm, and walked out of the courtroom chatting with them!

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 those who are 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)

Anti-SLAPP motion wins: Court of Appeal Says Online Comments by Mother, Grandmother of Plaintiff’s Child Were Opinions

Update Dec. 2013: Darren Chaker Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud

See my earlier post about Darren Chaker.

See Court of Appeal decision in Chaker v. Mateo.

Panel Says Online Comments by Mother, Grandmother of Plaintiff’s Child Were Opinions
Defamation Suit Over ‘Deadbeat Dad’ Reference Held SLAPP
By KENNETH OFGANG
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
October 5, 2012

Two women who referred to a San Diego man, in an online posting, as a “criminal and a deadbeat dad” who “may be taking steroids” were expressing protected opinions and cannot be liable for defamation, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. Div. One affirmed a San Diego Superior Court judge’s ruling that the suit by Darren D. Chaker against Wendy and Nicole Mateo was a strategic lawsuit against public participation. The justices agreed with Judge Timothy Taylor that the suit arose from speech on a public issue, and that the action is barred by the First Amendment.

The evidence, Justice Patricia Benke explained, showed that Nicole Mateo became pregnant during a brief relationship with Chaker, resulting in contentious paternity and child support litigation in Mateo’s home state of Texas. In 2010, comments about Chaker and his forensics business, including claims that he was involved in fraud and prostitution, as well as the deadbeat dad and steroid references, began showing up in the comments sections of websites such as Topix, where he had posted a profile, and the Ripoff Report.

Anti-SLAPP Motion

Chaker attributed some of those statements to Nicole Mateo and her mother Wendy Mateo, and sued both of them, as well as others. Wendy Mateo brought an anti-SLAPP motion, which the judge granted.

Benke, like the trial judge, rejected Chaker’s argument that the allegedly defamatory statements related to a purely private dispute, thus falling outside the scope of the statute. The justice cited Wilbanks v. Wolk (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 883, which held that the Internet is a public forum, as well as cases holding that public statements about private conduct—such as criticism of the treatment of young athletes by their coaches— may be matters of public interest for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 425.16.

“Like the court in Wilbanks, we view the Internet as an electronic bulletin board open to literally billions of people all over the world,” the jurist wrote. “...The Internet is a classic public forum which permits an exchange of views in public about everything from the great issues of war, peace, and economic development to the relative quality of the chicken pot pies served at competing family restaurants in a single small neighborhood.”

She went on to say:

“The statements posted to the ‘Ripoff Report’ Web site about Chaker’s character and business practices plainly fall within in the rubric of consumer information about Chaker’s ‘Counterforensics’ business and were intended to serve as a warning to consumers about his trustworthiness.”

By posting his profile on Topix, she added, Chaker “made his character a matter of public interest as the term has been interpreted.”

Because the comments deal with a matter of public interest, Benke wrote, the burden shifted to Chaker to show that he was likely to prevail. But because the First Amendment protects opinion, she said, he could not make such a showing.

Opinion, Not Fact

Citing a number of recent cases holding similar online comments to be opinion, rather than assertions of fact, the justice said the statements challenged by Chaker had to be understood in the context of the litigation between him and Nicole Mateo, particularly since they “were made on Internet Web sites which plainly invited the sort of exaggerated and insulting criticisms of businesses and individuals which occurred here.”

Attacking Chaker as “dishonest and scary,” the justice said, “is on its face nothing more than a negative, but nonactionable opinion.

A different result might have been reached, Benke suggested, if, instead of mere generalized attacks on the plaintiff’s character, the defendants made allegations of specific wrongdoing at specified times and places.

The reference to Chaker as a “criminal,” the justice added, was arguably defamatory, but is nonactionable because Chaker was convicted of a crime, although the conviction was expunged.

The case is Chaker v. Mateo, D058753

Attorney David Loy of the ACLU tells a blogger she must remove all mention of Stutz law firm from her website

The email below was sent to me by Mr. David Loy, head counsel of the San Diego ACLU, in April 2010.  Shockingly, Loy was trying to silence my criticism of public school attorneys.  At the time of this email, I had already filed an appeal that I would later win regarding an injunction by San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes.

Judge Hayes ordered me never in my life to mention the name of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm--not even to whisper it to my husband, or to seek counsel from a lawyer, or to report a problem to the police.  The Court of Appeal found this injunction to be unconstitutional and "exceedingly broad." 

But the San Diego ACLU chief counsel insisted that I should remove all mention of Stutz law firm from my website! In fact, since I had filed an appeal, the mandatory aspects of the injunction were stayed and I was not required to take down my web pages about Stutz. I think Mr. Loy knew this. It appears that Mr. Loy himself was intentionally trying to undermine the rule of law, even though he tried to appear to be championing it:

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

Why did Mr. Loy go out of his way to try to get me to remove all mention of Stutz law firm from my blog?? I believe  that the answer lies in Mr. Loy's relationships with school attorneys.

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 regarding the defamation case against me by Stutz law firm. 

Mr. Loy 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.)

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, apparently taken at some ACLU event.

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. 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 courtroom chatting with Mr. Sleeth! Mr. Chaker later told me that he believed Stutz law firm might represent him pro bono. 

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 those who are tasked by local schools with the job of limiting free speech.

Loy refused to litigate abuses by school officials at Southwestern College and other schools, claiming that litigation is the worst option.  More than one of the beneficiaries of David Loy's gentle approach, including Southwestern's Raj Chopra, was later indicted.

Loy refuses to confront schools regarding issues that seriously damage thousands of students, but seeks media attention for his little settlements free speech for a few individual student reports and student newspapers.

But no, Loy doesn't just refuse to deal with the serious issues.  He actively works to undermine those who are trying to talk about the big issues.

Why did the ACLU board support Mr. Loy's actions? 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.




Update Dec. 2013: David Loy's pal Darren Chaker Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud

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

431 438 041315