I've been hacked again by friends of Jim Groth and California Teachers Association

More than 10 years later, hackers are still helping to conceal the 2001 actions of CTA director Jim Groth

HACKED CVESD GRIEVANCE: Who doesn't want you to read what's beneath the black box? (See original image below)

Yes, I've been hacked again, but things are getting better. This time the mysterious black box does not quite cover the targeted image on my related website.

More than 10 years later, hackers are still trying to conceal the 2001-2002 actions of former CVE president and current California Teachers Association (CTA) director Jim Groth, who worked on behalf of disgraced asst. superintendent Richard Werlin and board members at Chula Vista Elementary School District. Or was it the reverse? Were Werlin and CVESD working on behalf of Jim Groth? It's hard to unscramble the egg.

Jim "No response needed" Groth

In 2002 Chula Vista Educators' grievance chair Jim Groth unexpectedly came to a meeting at Chula Vista Elementary School District and announced that Chula Vista Educators did NOT support a grievance that merely asked that the district RESPOND to a teacher's grievance.

Why didn't Jim Groth (now a member of the state board of directors of California Teachers Association) insist that the district respond?

Well, that question seems to answer itself. Obviously, CTA and CVESD were covering up something. It appears that Groth's CTA directorship may be linked to his otherwise inexplicable decision to get in his car and drive to the district office to say that it was fine with him if the district ignored my June 9, 2001 grievance.

Here is what the image looked like before it was hacked:



The CTA website says that Jim Groth "is the past chair of the CTA State Council of Education Communications Committee." Perhaps that committee is in charge of hacking teacher websites?



Teflon trustees?

CVESD board members Pam Smith and Larry Cunningham, who spent tax dollars to cover up crimes, are still on the CVESD board, although the careers of several administrators have ended.

It seems that crime pays, as the saying goes, but only for teachers, union officials and board members--apparently not so much for administrators.

But now that I think about it, I realize that school board members are no longer quite so invulnerable. Bertha Lopez, who went along with the criminal actions of Pam Smith and Larry Cunningham at CVESD, is currently charged with criminal actions by the Public Integrity Unit. Maybe I should say that WASP school board members tend to be teflon.

It should be noted that this same case was investigated by school attorney Daniel Shinoff. A large number of documents he collected at Castle Park Elementary School have gone missing, as Mr. Shinoff and his partner Ray Artiano explained in this deposition.

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." ®

Yahoo!'s Marissa Mayer--an opponent of free speech? Or just a pal of CTA boss Emma Leheny?

UPDATE:

11:27 a.m. August 8, 2012: Wow! That was fast! My website is back up again! I just sent an email to Yahoo! at 10:57 a.m. complaining about my site being down. Yahoo!'s site was available, but not my site. But perhaps it was this post that did it, not my email. The email I sent is at the bottom of this post.

ORIGINAL POST:

No sooner has Marissa Mayer become CEO of Yahoo! than I find that my website about education and politics has been taken down.

In the past it has been Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz that got Yahoo! to take down my website, but today I have a different suspect: California Teachers Association.

Poor Dean Vogel, the CTA president, is a very nice guy, but he has to do what the lawyers tell him to do.

Head Counsel Emma Leheny, the real decision-maker for California Teachers Association?

Chief Counsel Emma Leheny is the real power behind the puppets at CTA. She was personally involved in keeping evidence out of my case. I wish I could put a link to my website to provide detailed information about my case, but my site is offline.

I can provide a link to a California Court of Appeal decision in my favor which overruled a shockingly unconstitutional injunction. But energetic folks at CTA keep trying to get around the Court of Appeal. They figure they can finish off my website before the Court of Appeal can rule again. CTA, I have learned, does not believe in free speech or democracy.

It seems that new Chula Vista Educators president Jennefer Porch got particularly worked up about THIS POST. She must have been on the phone to Emma Leheny in a hot second.



EMAIL SENT TO YAHOO!:

from: Maura Larkins
to: Yahoo! Web Hosting
date: Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:57 AM
The California Court of Appeal has already ruled once against the people you obliged by taking my site offline

Dear Yahoo:

Are you getting as tired of this as I am? You have taken my website mauralarkins.com offline again.

You have taken down my site in the past at the request of various lawyers. Usually it has been Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, who lost in the Court of Appeal when they got a judge to order me never to mention their names. Here is that decision: http://www.leagle.com

I am headed back to the Court of Appeal again, since the judge has tried to use a different injunction to achieve the same goal as the unconstitutional injunction. She refuses to say that ANY statement at all is acceptable, even "Daniel Shinoff trains school attorneys." I will win in the Court of Appeal.

When I win, will Yahoo lose? Are you going to continue to behave as unconstitutionally as Judge Judith Hayes? You certainly did in the past.

It's not always Stutz law firm that asks you to hack my site. It's also California Teachers Association.

Is it in your interest to do these little favors for these people? To blatantly help them violate the First Amendment?

Shame on Yahoo.

I insist that you immediately put my site back online.

Maura Larkins

Has your blog been blocked? Is your platform provider violating its own Terms of Use?

See all posts about Yahoo and free speech.

Account Deactivation and Content Removal
Guiding Principles and Practices for Companies and Users
September 20, 2011
by Erica Newland,
Caroline Nolan,
Cynthia Wong,
Jillian York
Center for Democracy & Technology,
the Berkman Center

This report...recommends principles, strategies, and tools that companies and users alike can adopt.

From the activist who communicates with her network via her Facebook account, the user who posts documentary-style videos to YouTube or the citizen journalist who raises awareness with photos uploaded to Flickr, platforms that host user-generated content are increasingly used by a range of civic actors in innovative ways: to amplify voices, organize campaigns and coordinate disaster response, and advocate around issues of common concern.

However, while the online space may be perceived as a public commons, private entities play a role in shaping online activity, behavior, and content via Terms of Use (ToU), community guidelines, and other mechanisms of control. Platform providers often enforce such rules in response to potential threats, misuse, or ToU violations; users must observe them or risk losing their accounts, their contacts, or their ability to post content.

The clarity, transparency, and consistency of how such terms are established and implemented are important to all users, but for the growing number of human rights activists who depend on web 2.0 platforms for core elements of their work—and for whom removed content and deleted accounts can have severe consequences—the stakes are much higher...