From the archives: GCCCD's Rick Walker will challenge corrupt officials

Maura Larkins' note: A few months ago I depublished about 400 posts, and I'm gradually republishing them. I'm working to censor certain allegations against Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm while continuing to make information available about the actions of public officials.

California Attorney Gerneral says Rick Walker should not have been fired as a web analyst simply because he was elected as a non-voting student trustee.]


The problems at Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District (GCCCD) have been growing. Chancellor Omero Suarez (who changed his own contract without permission from the board) and his powerful but unethical friends have been challenged by Rick Walker, a student who was fired by GCCCD because he was a student representative on the board of directors.

Rick Walker press release

Press Conference to Be Held:

Charges of Wrongful Termination, Discrimination, and Retaliation will be brought against Chancellor Omero Suarez, Vice Chancellor Ben Lastimado, Trustee Rick Alexander with additional allegations of public corruption and extortion to be alleged against the three District Officials.

When: September 18, 2007
Where: Governing Board Meeting
Heritage of the Americas Museum
Cuyamaca College

California State Attorney General Issues Legal Opinion:
Grossmont Student Should Not Have Been Terminated

The States Attorney General published opinion 06-406; Is a community college district required to terminate the employment of a student who becomes a member of the district's governing board.

The legal opinion was requested by the Honorable Christine Kehoe, Member of the State Senate on behalf of former Grossmont student and former Grossmont College student trustee Rick Walker who was suddenly terminated December 13, 2005 from his part-time student hourly job as a web analyst which he had been employed at since 2004.

Rick Walker will attend the regular Governing Board meeting on September 18, 2007. Last month Walker requested that board include two items on the Governing Board agenda which would allow him to discuss the ruling by the Attorney General. Trustee Rick Alexander denied his request, Walker made 4 additional requests and has followed Board Policy and state law (Brown Act) which give Walker the right to place
items in front of the Board of Trustees.

The District's flagrant denials are violations of the State Law. Walker will attempt once again to have these items placed on the agenda. If the District denies the request, Walker will hold a press conference at the Heritage of the Americas Museum at Cuyamaca College, to discuss the agenda items that Trustee Rick Alexander is trying to suppress.

Additionally, Walker will bring forward allegations that his termination from his student job was retaliation for Walker's support of Dr. Ted Martinez Jr., and Grossmont College Faculty, he will provide evidence that Chancellor Omero Suarez did in fact use the termination of his employment as a means to extort from Walker his resignation as Grossmont Colleges Student Trustee, the actions by Chancellor Suarez, Vice Chancellor Lastimado and Trustee Rick Alexander is a violation of the State Education Code.

Walker will make an additional plea to District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis to investigate the corrupt practices of the District, and the numerous violations of state law.





OTHER PROBLEMS OF THE GCCCD BOARD:

SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE
Protesters want chancellor to resign
By Leonel Sanchez
November 4, 2006

EL CAJON – Faculty leaders stepped up their demand yesterday that Chancellor Omero Suarez resign from the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District because he had his contract changed without board approval.

“Omero must go! Omero must go!” chanted nearly 100 protesters, mostly Grossmont College faculty members, during a rally organized by the faculty's union outside the chancellor's office.

Others held signs that said: “We want you to resign: Suarez, Weeks, Lastimado.”

Board President Deanna Weeks and Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Ben Lastimado are also targets, Weeks because she signed the altered contract and Lastimado because he allegedly asked a district employee to make the change.

Weeks said she signed without knowing of the change. She issued a statement this week saying she was “appalled” by the chancellor's actions and demanded an investigation.

Reached by e-mail yesterday, Lastimado said he had no plans to resign. He did not respond to questions about the contract.

Suarez, who remained in his office during the rally, said in a statement that an independent investigation is under way. He called the rally an “election-related faculty union” event.

A spokeswoman for the district said the investigation will begin once an outside accounting or legal expert is hired to review the way the contract was handled.

The rally was organized by the United Faculty, the labor union representing faculty at both colleges, four days before the election. Shannon O'Dunn, Mary Kay Rosinski and Greg Barr, three of four candidates supported by Suarez's critics, spoke at the rally.

In addition to Weeks, demonstrators demanded that trustees Bill Garrett and Rick Alexander resign for not supporting a request to hold a special board meeting to address the issue. Weeks, Garrett and Alexander are seeking re-election Tuesday.

Alexander said he's satisfied with the investigation taking place and vowed not to be pressured to do more in a “super-charged political environment.”

“We will handle it after the election,” he said.

Suarez, hired in 1999, came under fire after trustee Tim Caruthers revealed last month that the chancellor had the buyout clause in his contract deleted without board permission...

[NOTE: MARY ANNE WEEGAR INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND HERE.]

From the archives: California Attorney General disagrees with law firm hired by Grossmont-Cuyamaca College

Maura Larkins' note: A few months ago I depublished about 400 posts, and I'm gradually republishing them. I'm working to censor certain allegations against Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm while continuing to make information available about the actions of public officials.

Why did Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College fire non-voting student trustee Rick Walker from his job as a web analyst for the college?  The reason they gave was that he had a conflict of interest if he was employed at the same time that he sat on the board. But he didn’t even vote! All he could do was talk?


Who was it who really had a conflict of interest?

Clearly, the board wanted to silence him.

The California Attorney General issued an opinion that there was no conflict of interest.

Leonel Sanchez of the San Diego Union Tribune wrote on Sept. 11, 2007, "A spokesman for the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office said he was not aware of student trustees at other colleges being told they could not serve on governing boards while working for their districts."

Rick Walker took down his website in or about December of 2007, right after I was sued for defamation by the lawyers for GCCCD.

The "Rethinking"

Nothing much happened when GCCCD trustee Deanna Weeks "rethought" an issue. [Update: Ms. Weeks decided not to run for reelection after several embarrassing episodes when scrutiny of her actions became too uncomfortable.]


October 4, 2007
The "rethinking" allegedly done by GCCCD trustees regarding their firing of non-voting student trustee Rick Walker apparently resulted in no new insights. Certainly, it resulted in no new actions. The board decided to ignore the opinion of the California Attorney General.

Rick Walker succeeded in making GCCC officials at least go through the motions of reevaluating their actions in the light of a California Attorney General legal opinion that contradicts the opinion of Stutz law firm attorney Jack Sleeth.

If GCCCD board members stay true to form, the "reexamination" will result in no action at all.

What they should do, of course, is pay damages to Rick Walker for wrongfully harming him. Especially when they harmed the college by punishing a student trustee for bringing up issues that needed to be addressed for the good of the college.

Leonel Sanchez is doing a great job covering the story for the San Diego Union Tribune.

Here's his September 19, 2007 report:

"The Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District will again review the issue of whether a student trustee can serve on the district's governing board while holding a job in the district.

"The last time the district looked at the conflict-of-interest issue, it led to the firing of former Grossmont College student trustee Rick Walker, who was let go from his job as a Web analyst in December 2005.

"Walker, speaking to the board last night, repeated his claim that he was unjustly fired...

"District officials said Walker was fired after district lawyer Jack Sleeth reviewed state education code and concluded that student trustees should not be allowed to be district employees...

"“You will ultimately find out what the law is if somebody will bring some litigation on this,” Sleeth said.

"Walker has threatened to take legal action. State Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, requested the legal opinion from the Attorney General's Office at his request.

"Trustee Bill Garrett said he found the attorney general's opinion “persuasive” and proposed changing the district's policy to reflect that opinion. No action was taken on his proposal..."


Leonel Sanchez: (619) 542-4568; leonel.sanchez@uniontrib.com

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)

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.


Click image to enlarge.

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

Solana Beach School District ordered to pay $580,000 in attorney fees in Doyle case

Solana Beach School District board members have been called out by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal for wasting taxpayer money and for denying a free and appropriate public education to a little girl. The district has been ordered to pay $580,000 to the little girl's lawyers, who were dragged by the district from court to court, year after year.

Here's what the board members of Solana Beach School District would say in their own defense: we were trying to protect our resources so we  could spend them on regular students.

But if they're like most school districts, of course, they also fail to give an appropriate education to vast numbers of regular students.  The money saved by violating the legal rights of special education students is likely to go to some administrator or outside vendor rather than to a regular classroom.

I'd estimate that the number of regular students who never reach their full potential, and end up locked-out of the American Dream, is much higher than the number of special education students who are left behind. 

So, where do school districts get the idea that they are free to violate the law? School boards aren't supposed to substitute their own judgments for the law of the land. 

UT-San Diego notes, "The Solana Beach School District has ended up with more than $800,000 in legal bills in a special-education dispute that started over one family’s $6,100 of private-school tuition. The district unsuccessfully fought the Doyle family, now living in Utah, through several federal appeals and attempted to involve the U.S. Supreme Court. A federal court commissioner on Aug. 1 ordered Solana Beach to pay nearly $580,000 in attorney’s fees for the Doyles, on top of hundreds of thousands the district has paid for its own counsel."

The idea is to make it so costly and onerous to sue a school district that future lawsuits will be prevented, and the district will actually save money in the long run. It's sort of like the Vietnam War: schools know they can't win, but they want to let their enemies know that they will pay dearly for challenging a school district.

But wait, you say, these are our children, not armed adversaries. 

And the parents are part of the public that funds the schools!

Well, apparently that's not how school boards see the situation. Believe it or not, school districts actually have lists of parents that are considered "enemies".

The lawyers representing Solana Beach School District in the Doyle case were just doing their job.

The law holds the client--in this case, the school board--automatically responsible for any improper actions in litigating the case. If the board members were to try to shift the blame to the lawyers, I'm confident they would lose. Afterall, the board knew exactly what it was doing. Solana Beach School District was represented by Fagen, Friedman Fulfrost and Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz in the Doyle case.

Our justice system is based on the theory is that if both sides in a case fight equally hard to win, we'll end up with a fair decision a large part of the time. Young lawyers are instructed to fight like hell for their clients. That's the most important rule, the one that everyone seems to follow.

The goal is to end up with a decision that everyone will be willing to accept, whether or not it is actually just. We go along with the decisions for the sake of peace in society. 

We try to ignore the fact that most parents can't afford $580,000 worth of legal assistance.  (I believe the Doyle's were represented by pro bono attorneys, but there aren't enough pro bono attorneys to keep schools honest.)

Schools, of course, can reach deeply into taxpayer pockets to fund their own legal defense.

Also, most lawyers won't sue public entities (particularly not schools and police agencies).  Why not?  Because the school attorneys will tell the jury, yes, sure, this school district might not be a candidate for sainthood, but you don't want to hold it financially responsible, do you?  You don't want to make a school district pay money, do you?  

The result?  Schools can operate quite freely outside the law.

We actually have a decision-producing system rather than a justice system.

Will the Doyle decision cause a change in schools? 

Not unless the voters take some action at the polls.

Google: Surge in pressure from governments to ERASE CHUNKS of the web

"Judges have asked us to remove information that’s critical of them, police departments want us to take down videos or blogs that shine a light on their conduct, and local institutions like town councils don’t want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes."--Google

I have found that school district and teacher union officials also don't want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes, or have a light shone on their conduct.  They don't want to see information on the Internet that is critical of them.

Google has been asked to shut down this blog, and Yahoo has been asked to shut down my related website.


Chula Vista Elementary School District
board members Pam Smith and Larry Cunningham
have given school tax funds to support
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm's
quest to silence this blog.

Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz are lawyers for many Southern California school districts. Stutz law firm demanded that Google shut down this blog, and Google complied temporarily. Yahoo also complied temporarily by depublishing my related website.

But both Google and Yahoo relented after I argued that they should let the justice system decide how to deal with complaints about free speech.

The Court of Appeal has already thrown out one injunction from Judge Judith Hayes in Stutz' defamation suit against me.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes threw out all my evidence and granted Stutz summary adjudication based on a technicality. Judge Hayes denied all of my many requests that I be allowed a jury trial for damages. Judge Hayes' decisions are under appeal.

Thank you, Google and Yahoo, for keeping speech free.

Google: Surge in pressure from govts to ERASE CHUNKS of the web
Libelous book about MP among stuff pulled offline
By Shaun Nichols
The Register
19th December 2013

Governments, judges, cops and politicians are continuing to lobby Google to tear down online material critical of their operations, we're told.

Today, the advertising giant said that, in the first six months of 2013, it received 3,846 demands from public officials to remove 24,737 personal blog posts, YouTube videos and other pieces of content it hosts. That's up 68 per cent on the second half of 2012.

And according to the web giant, which has just published its latest transparency report, 93 requests focused on content that was critical of people in public office. Defamation and copyright infringement were often cited, but less than one third of the highlighted material was removed in the first half of 2013.

"Over the past four years, one worrying trend has remained consistent: governments continue to ask us to remove political content," wrote Google legal director Susan Infantino, who called out Turkey and Russia for ramping up the number of complaints.

"Judges have asked us to remove information that’s critical of them, police departments want us to take down videos or blogs that shine a light on their conduct, and local institutions like town councils don’t want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes," she added.

In the US, Google said that it saw requests for content removal up 70 per cent over last year. Notable cases include the removal of 76 apps from the Google Play store over alleged infringements of government copyrights and the denied takedown request from a local official who sought to remove pages outlining his record as a police officer.

In the UK, Google said it shot down a request from a local government council to take down a critical website, and upheld a request to pull a preview from a book that alleged illegal activity by an unnamed member of Parliament.

The report is the latest in a transparency program that Google is soon hoping to expand. The company has petitioned the US government to allow it to post information and notifications relating to FISA takedown requests. Thus far the requests have not been granted.

Verizon is also preparing to launch its own transparency report on law enforcement data requests, a particularly interesting development given the mobile carrier's recent interactions with the NSA and the revelations of federal officials collecting mass archives of user activity.

"All companies are required to provide information to government agencies in certain circumstances, however, and this new report is intended to provide more transparency about law enforcement requests," said Verizon general counsel and executive vice president of public policy Randall Milch.

"Although we have a legal obligation to provide customer information to law enforcement in response to lawful demands, we take seriously our duty to provide such information only when authorized by law." ®

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

Court of Appeal says GCCCD defrauded David Agosto

Looking for Kristin Rossum "American Beauty" case? Click HERE.

Click here for lawsuit against Keenan & Associates et al. Also, see San Francisco School District v. Keenan & Associates.


The California Court of Appeal has ruled against Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College and in favor of David Agosto, who appealed the dismissal of his case by Judge Joan Lewis in San Diego Superior court.

Never one to accept a loss, Jack Sleeth says David Agosoto "owes us money."

Ironically, when the case went back to Superior Court after the above decision, Agosto was awarded back pay but denied reinstatement. If the District had filed appropriate papers the District would not have had to pony-up Agosto's back pay. It turns out that if there is no order for reinstatement, there should be no order for back pay.

The Court of Appeal said (in a separate decision from the one above):

"Nevertheless, because District did not file a cross-appeal challenging the trial court's writ of mandate directing District to pay Agosto back pay (for the period of July through November 2006), District cannot now challenge the trial court's error in awarding him back pay..."

Agosto made mistakes, too. Agosto's petition for writ of mandate was denied because he should have filed a complaint for damages instead.


APPEALS COURT JUDGE: GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA RESORTS TO 'FRAUD' IN JUSTIFYING FIRING OF SICK WORKER
By Chris Reed
San Diego Union-Tribune (blog)
July 30, 2008

I've badmouthed the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District for years for its power plays, contempt for ethical standards and atttempts to whitewash scandal. Now I have fresh evidence that district constituents should be ashamed of the people they've elected as leaders. In comes in the form of a sharply worded decision issued yesterday in which an appeals court reversed a Superior Court judge's decision to throw out a lawsuit in which a fired top official at Grossmont-Cuyamaca charges he was denied due process and essentially forced out with a legal dirty trick. The ruling remands the lawsuit back to the lower court and orders its reconsideration. David Jay Agosto was hired in 1995 as executive dean of community services at Cuyamaca College and went on to serve in a variety of big jobs. But in February 2006, while Agosto was on medical leave to cope with kidney disease, he was fired by the Grossmont-Cuyamaca board of directors in a closed-session meeting.

Agosto challenged this ruling, saying his original 1995 contract made him the beneficiary of job protections which required the board to give him notice of at least six months before the expiration of his contract. Here's where the dirty trick comes in: The argument that the GCCCD's lawyers used to persuade Superior Court Judge Joan M. Lewis to throw out Agosto's lawsuit was that the original 1995 contract had never taken legal effect because it was -- for reasons unknown -- never signed by the district's chancellor. It was kept on file, just never signed.

The district argued that contract was invalid under the "statute of frauds" -- a legal provision which requires hard, documented evidence of contracts that last more than a year to ensure that they are not fraudulently redefined at some later date by the employer or employee.

[Maura Larkins note: This is exactly what Chancellor Omero Suarez did: he ordered his contract changed without approval from the board.]

What a joke. The district operated for more than a decade as if the contract were in effect, then, when convenient, declared it null and void. The appeals court figured out this stunk to the high heavens even if Judge Lewis couldn't. Here's a sign of its disgust:The statute of frauds exists to prevent the commission of fraud, not to facilitate fraud.You follow? Judge James A. McIntyre is saying the fraud that's going on here is on the district's part! Wow. He's absolutely right.Now get ready for the members of the district board to blame its lawyers. It's what they do. Lots of rotten stuff happens on their watch, sure. But, you see, it's never their fault.Read the appellate decision here. The passage I cited is on page 5..