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)

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..

How did Liberty Station get removed from Google streetview?

About six months ago I made a virtual visit to Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz' new offices in Liberty Station via Google's streetview.

I went back today, and found that no part of Liberty Station is available anymore on the service.

Why the secrecy?

Who twisted Google's arm?

Will Shinoff, Sleeth and Stutz law firm finally be forced out of MiraCosta College?

This blog long ago called for Daniel Shinoff to stop digging MiraCosta College ever deeper into the morass he created there. It seems that Superior Court Judge Michael Anello agrees.

Here is an article about the effort to disqualify Shinoff, Sleeth and other Stutz law firm lawyers from representing MiraCosta College.

NORTH COUNTY TIMES
August 25, 2007

VISTA ---- Superior Court Judge Michael Anello heard arguments Friday for and against disqualifying the law firm representing MiraCosta College in the case of a former vice president who has sued the college, but issued no final ruling...

However, in a tentative ruling issued Thursday, Anello sided with attorney Tracy Warren in granting the disqualification.

Warren represents Julie Hatoff, the former vice president of instruction accused by college officials of "wasting taxpayer money" and "protecting a rogue employee." She faces disciplinary action by the college before an administrative law judge.

Hatoff sued the college in May, alleging breach of contract, negligence, extortion, harassment and labor law violations.

In his tentative ruling, Anello said Daniel Shinoff, a partner in the law firm Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz, violated a rule requiring lawyers to clearly inform people who they represent.

Warren said in court Friday and in court documents that Shinoff had opportunities in five meetings during the investigation of the illegal sale of palm trees from the campus horticulture department to tell Hatoff that he represented the college ---- not her as an officer of the college.

Warren said Shinoff guaranteed Hatoff confidential "attorney-client privilege" protection but then used information she provided to build a case against her.

Jack Sleeth, an attorney with Shinoff's law firm, argued Friday that Hatoff was never his client, and so no rules prescribing the attorney-client relationship pertain.


http://northcountytimes.com/articles/2007/08/25/news/coastal/23_47_488_24_07.txt
This is an earlier version of the article:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/08/24/news/coastal/21_08_528_23_07.txt

[Interestingly enough, attorney Ann Smith, of San Diego MEA pension fame, violated the rule to clearly inform a client if they are already representing someone who is in opposition to that client. Ann Smith asked me a lot of questions in January 2002 when I went to her office. Then I found out that she never considered representing my interests, and was helping those who were opposing me].

Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz

Here's a link to my web page about Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz:

mauralarkins.com/stutzartianoshinoff

Update: These are the attorneys Cheryl Cox and I discussed in our phone call on May 15, 2006 (see above).

Castle Park Elementary teachers should not be sued for perjury

Should teachers from Chula Vista Elementary School District be sued for perjury?

Of course not.

But their lawyers should. These lawyers, including Daniel Shinoff and Kelly Minnehan of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, and Beverly Tucker of the California Teachers Association legal department, not only intimidated the teachers before their testimony, but instructed them to cover up the truth.

What teachers am I talking about? I'm talking about some of the teachers which the San Diego Union Tribune wrote about in articles and editorials published from the late summer of 2004 through February 2006. Editor Karen Winner and Don Sevren deceived readers into thinking that the problem was limited to the school principal, even though this principal came to the school after teachers had become embroiled in crimes and misdemeanors.

The teachers remind me of Osama Awadaliah, an honors student at San Diego State University, whom no one suspects of terrorism. NO ONE. But he was prosecuted for doing what Castle Park teachers did: denying being associated with criminals. Mr. Awadaliah had the misfortune to be acquainted with one of the 9/11 terrorists. He admits this. The US Attorney has prosecuted him because he denied being acquainted with a second terrorist. This is a silly way to spend tax dollars. No wonder Mr. Awadaliah's trial ened on May 4, 2006 with a hung jury. Even if he were guilty, he was merely doing what Castle Park teachers did: denying his association with criminals. In fact, officials admit that when they went to question him, he had no involvement in any crime. This is more than can be said for several Castle Park teachers.

Compliance at Last?

May 3, 2006
To: Kelly Minnehan
From: Maura Larkins

I’m delighted that I won’t have to plow through more than 300 pages of documents at your office in search of the small amount of CVESD budget information that I requested over a year ago. I do have better things to do. Thank you for offering to mail me the information.

I look forward to seeing on the Internet those 300+ pages of CVESD budget documents you mentioned--in the near future, in searchable text.

Not enough security at the San Diego Superior Court?

May 2, 2006
To: Kelly Minnehan (AKA Kelly Angell), Attorney
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz
From: Maura Larkins

You filed papers with the San Diego Superior Court about a year ago in which you stated that you did not want to go to the courthouse to attend an ex parte hearing. The reason you gave was that you feared for your safety because I would be there.

Your statements about me were as preposterous as they were false.

You lied because you feared that I would serve you with my complaint for felony obstruction of justice. You calculated that your best defense against my true allegations was to make false allegations about me. You were successful in getting my complaint thrown out of court ONLY because I was an in pro per third-grade teacher unable to keep up with the eight law firms that were working against me.

Clearly, I have much to fear from you.

And you have a bit of explaining to do. Why would you want me to come to your offices, where you have no security at all, when you did not want to meet me at the courthouse, which has a security check at the entrance, and law enforcement officers in every courtroom? Please explain this.

To protect myself from your aggressive dishonesty, I would like to bring a witness and a videocamera with me when I come to your office to view Chula Vista Elementary School District budget documents. Do you have any objections to my doing this?

Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz aided and abetted your obstruction of justice, but now Stutz is apparently spending a lot of money manipulating Google results. It appears that the law firm you work for has gone rapidly downhill since Bob Gallagher left.

But of course, plenty of people can and do access my website without any help at all from Google. And since the Internet isn’t the only means of dissemination of information, Stutz is wasting its money if it thinks it can continue to commit crimes and keep them hidden.

Stutz would be smart to change its illegal behavior, rather than continue to struggle to keep it covered up.

Update: On May 5, 2006 I see that my post on endteacherabuse.org is on the first page of a "Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz" Google search. Stutz somehow got Google to remove MY website, but Stutz might find it harder to get ALL WEBSITES THAT TALK ABOUT STUTZ removed.

Update on "Golden Watchdog or Golden Fleece"

To: Cheryl Cox, Board Member
Susan Fahle, Assistant Superintendent
Kelly Minnehan (AKA Kelly Angell), legal counsel
Chula Vista Elementary School District

Thank you for finally agreeing to allow me to see CVESD budget documents free of charge. This is a big turnaround for you! Would Thursday, May 4, 2006 be convenient for my visit to Ms. Minnehan’s office to see those documents?

I am pleased at the prospect of seeing CVESD budget documents. If the documents you show me do NOT reveal the amount of tax dollars paid by CVESD for lawyers and liability insurance, as I have requested, we can address that problem later. I do hope, however, that you have not removed the requested information from the CVESD budget that you will be showing me.

I have learned that all of CVESD’s budget information is required by law to be on the Internet, yet I have been able to find only a small number of documents on the CVESD website. Obviously, it will be time consuming on Thursday for me to search for a few bits of information among the hundreds of documents you are offering. Fortunately, I’m a fast reader. Obviously, you are intentionally making access to the information I have requested difficult or impossible. You are attempting--in violation of the law—to hide the information I am seeking.

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I hereby request Internet access to CVESD’s budget information. Are CVESD’s budgets available on the Internet in some secret location? If so, where are they hiding? Also, I request Internet access to budget documents with searchable text—as opposed to CVESD’s current format which contains text which cannot be searched. You are determined to violate the Brown Act and hide the truth about how CVESD uses tax dollars, aren’t you?

Yours truly,
Maura Larkins