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

Stutz v. Larkins defamation case: why did Court of Appeal allow Judge Judith Hayes' anti-free speech injunction?

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

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

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

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

Wrong.

WHO PAYS COSTS?

The court has revealed its thinking very clearly in its odd decision to order me to pay Stutz' costs. For perspective, note that the Court of Appeal did NOT order Stutz to pay my costs when I completely prevailed in my request to have Judge Judith Hayes' outrageously unconstitutional December 11, 2009 injunction modification thrown out. Such an order would clearly have been in the interests of justice since one way in which powerful organizations escape legal responsibility is by bankrupting those who challenge them.

The Court apparently feels strongly that blogs like mine that criticize trial courts and attorneys should be silenced.  Even though I prevailed in part, the Court ordered me to bear costs!

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

Another odd thing about the decision is that it wasn't sent back to the Superior Court with the direction to issue a new judgment that did not include punitive damages.  Instead, the Court of Appeal modified the decision, and then affirmed its own modification.  I never heard of such a thing before.  It seems that the Court of Appeal didn't want to let Judge Hayes get her hands on the case again for even a brief time.  It seems that the Court of Appeal doesn't trust Judge Hayes.

I can't entirely blame the Court of Appeal for taking the side of the big law firm and the wayward judge.   I wasn't a good lawyer--because I'm not a lawyer at all.  If I had filed more and better oppositions, and earlier and better appeals, I believe the Court of Appeal might have found in my favor.

I should have had a lawyer, but I didn't have the money.  I needed not just any lawyer, but one who held a position of respect in the community of judges and lawyers.

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

Also, it probably didn't hurt that Stutz law firm has lots of political connections.  One partner held a fundraiser for one of the Superior Court judges running in the recent election.

I imagine I didn't earn any Brownie points from the Court by writing about the actions of Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes.

A STRANGE CASE

This case is strange in that there was no weighing of evidence to determine that I had committed defamation.  The judge simply threw out my opposition and all my evidence and granted a summary adjudication to Stutz law firm.

Then the judge proceeded to behave as if there had been an actual finding of defamation, rather than a decision based on a technicality.

The summary adjudication should have been followed by a jury trial for damages.  But my requests for that jury trial were ignored or denied and a default was contrived and damages of over $30,000 were granted based on two--yes, you read that correctly: TWO--internet searches for Stutz law firm.  Those two searches might have been done by Stutz law firm itself, but they translated into $30,000 in "nominal" damages.

THE FUTURE

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

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

Google: 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." ®

The World Is Getting More Corrupt, and These Are the 5 Worst Offenders

In the article below, notice that lawyers aren't on the Top Five in the world list of those considered guilty of corruption.

But perhaps lawyers should be counted as part of the judiciary. After all, who becomes a judge? A lawyer! And who bribes the corrupt judges? My guess is that it's usually a lawyer. 42% of respondents in United States felt that judiciary was corrupt/extremely corrupt. 15% of Americans reported paying a bribe to the judiciary.

I had little personal experience with court corruption until my current case before San Diego Judge Judith Hayes, who was forced out of the criminal courts in San Diego Superior Court. I do not know that she received a bribe in my case, but I know that she declared things to be true that were absolutely false. I cringe to think of what she must have done to people accused in criminal court. I have heard for decades that verdicts could be bought in some courtrooms in San Diego, but I was still shocked when I heard Judge Hayes' deliberately false statements.

I also have some evidence that the selection of a judge for a given case is not always random in San Diego Superior Court. The Administrative Office of the Courts is in charge of this. (See all my posts about the AOC here.)

To put judicial corruption into perspective, I should point out that 34% of respondents in United States felt that education systems were corrupt/extremely corrupt, with 11% reporting having paid a bribe to education services.

43% of respondents in United States felt that medical and health services were corrupt/extremely corrupt.



The World Is Getting More Corrupt, and These Are the 5 Worst Offenders
By SANTIAGO WILLS
ABC News
July 10, 2013

On Tuesday, Berlin-based watchdog Transparency International released its Global Corruption Barometer 2013, a worldwide survey of 114,000 people that analyzes bribery and corruption in 107 countries.

The report found that corruption and bribery are prevalent across both developed and underdeveloped nations: More than 50 percent of respondents in the world said corruption had worsened in recent years, and 27 percent admitted to paying bribes in order to access public services and institutions.

Few respondents see an easy way out of this growing problem. The majority of people don’t believe in their government’s capabilities to fight corruption. Nearly 88 percent think that their leaders are doing a poor job at it, and most blame public institutions as the main corruption sources.

Here are five of the world’s most corrupt institutions, according to the survey:

1) The Police

For years now, many people in rural areas of countries like Mexico and Venezuela have learned an important lesson: If you have a problem with the law, avoid the police, because you might end up with even more problems.

In Mexico, cartels pay municipal police $100 million every month, and more than 93 percent of drivers think traffic policemen are corrupt. (One solution to that problem: female police officers.) In Venezuela, the interior minister excoriated his entire force last month.

Those are some of the most extreme cases, but they reflect a general worldwide distrust of cops. Across the globe, police received 3.7 rating on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 means ‘not at all corrupt’ and 5 means ‘extremely corrupt’.

2) Judges

Few forms of corruption can hurt a country more than judicial corruption. The rule of law tends to disappear when people don’t trust the justice system. If you don’t think a judge can help you, there is a greater chance you will take justice in your own hands or allow those who wronged you to escape with impunity.

There are 20 countries where people think the judiciary is the most corrupt institution. In these countries, 30 percent of the survey’s respondents admitted that they had a paid bribe in order to help their cases.

3) Public Officials and Civil Servants

Government employees in charge of land, registry, health, and education have a privileged position controlling access to certain grants or assistance. They can easily ask for bribes.

This sort of corruption has mostly affected countries like Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia –- countries where agrarian and civil conflicts have divided the population and enabled governments to centralize power in big bureaucracies.

On average, public officials received a 3.6 for corruption on the 1-to-5 scale.

4) Political Parties

Citizens of Argentina, Greece, Colombia, the United States, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Israel, Vanuatu, Uruguay, and Jamaica share one belief: They think political parties are their country’s most corrupt institutions. In total, 51 countries around the world expressed contempt for political parties in the survey.

More than half of respondents think that their countries are run by big interests looking out for themselves “entirely” or to a “large extent.” It’s no surprise, then, that protesters in countries like Turkey, Egypt, Chile, Spain, and Brazil have used political corruption as a rallying cry.

In the U.S., 76 percent of respondents said that political parties were affected by corruption. In Greece, the number is currently at 90 percent.

5) The Citizenry

One of the largest problems when dealing with public corruption is the people themselves. According to the report, 27 percent of respondents said that they had paid a bribe in the past 12 months. As Transparency International and other NGOs have repeatedly stated, this ultimately sustains and encourages corruption.

The same goes for citizens' failures to report incidents of corruption. The study found that 21 percent of the people surveyed are not willing to report these incidents, and there are 16 countries where a majority of respondents would prefer to remain silent, for fear of reprisals and lack of faith in their governments.

Judge Judith Hayes respects the public's right to know about child welfare agencies, but not about school lawyers

See all Judge Judith Hayes posts.

Judge rebukes child welfare agency for withholding data on deaths
The Department of Social Services subverted a law giving access to information on youngsters who died while under its supervision, court says.
By Garrett Therolf
Los Angeles Times
January 3, 2013

A San Diego judge has struck down state child welfare regulations that significantly limited public access to information about minors who die from abuse and neglect.

In a stern rebuke, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Judith F. Hayes said the restrictions were "inconsistent and in conflict" with a law meant to greatly expand disclosures.

The Dec. 28 decision came in a lawsuit against the California Department of Social Services and its director, Will Lightbourne. An agency spokesman said Thursday that Lightbourne has not decided if he will appeal the ruling.

When the Legislature passed that law in 2008, members said they hoped policymakers and the public would use the resulting information to better identify flaws in the states' child welfare system that contribute to fatalities. Indeed, the limited information that has since emerged led to improvements in social worker training and information systems.

But Hayes said the regulations subverted the law's intent by limiting disclosure to cases in which officials determined that children died directly at the hands of their natural parents, guardians or foster parents.

The regulations, introduced by former social services Director John Wagner and firmly upheld by Lightbourne despite objections from child advocates, had the effect of excluding deaths at the hands of other people, including extended relatives and parents' boyfriends or girlfriends.

The regulations also caused the exclusion of cases in which abuse was not the sole factor directly causing the death, including suicides involving children who said they were taking the action to end the abuse of their parents.

Furthermore, the regulations prevented child welfare agencies from releasing case files if there was an objection from the district attorney, but the judge noted that this restriction was also not specified in the law.

Hayes' Dec. 28 ruling called the regulation arbitrary and capricious, and said "the restrictions lead to underreporting or inconsistencies in the reporting of child abuse cases involving fatalities."

Los Angeles County and other jurisdictions have struggled to interpret the regulations. As a result, local officials have implemented the law inconsistently, making comparisons of fatality numbers from one year to the next less meaningful.

Steve Keane, an attorney who joined with the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego Law School to argue the case, said the judge's ruling should clear up disclosure standards.

If authorities determine abuse or neglect at the time of a child's death, the details will be made public, he said. Los Angeles County's child welfare chief, Philip Browning, said he welcomed such a standard even though it would mean social workers will be required to acknowledge more deaths of children who had been under the department's watch.

"I'm a firm believer in having the regulations be very clear," Browning said Thursday. Browning said he hoped to spend less time in high-level deliberations discussing whether a case should be disclosed publicly and more time improving systems to prevent future deaths.

"We're going to make mistakes and we are going to just have to own up to them," Browning said. "I know there are going to be situations where we have not done as good a job as we should have...and hopefully we'll use this information to change that."

Lightbourne's nearly two-year tenure in the state post has previously attracted controversy.

After he was appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2011, reporters learned that Lightbourne had been hired under an unusual arrangement designed to skirt a state law that established a lower wage for his job. Lightbourne continued to be paid by Santa Clara County, where he previously served as child welfare chief, and the state reimbursed the county for the full amount. Months later, however, the contract was canceled and he became a state employee subject to the salary cap.

Before taking the state post, Lightbourne had applied to lead Los Angeles County's Department of Children and Family Services. But some officials cooled on his candidacy when he disclosed prior marijuana use, according to two sources involved in the selection process.

Although the officials noted that attitudes on marijuana use have relaxed significantly in California, drug use is often a factor in decisions to remove children from their families.

"Director Lightbourne truthfully and directly answered questions regarding his personal background, including the disclosure of marijuana use as a young man," his spokesman said Thursday.

Judge Judith Hayes gives a win to SDSU education attorneys in Lance Louis case

Former Aztecs reach settlement over attack
Lance Louis, now with the Chicago Bears, allegedly snuck up on teammate in '08
SDUT
By Brent Schrotenboer
January 31, 2011

Chicago Bears offensive lineman Lance Louis has reached a settlement agreement to end the civil suit filed against him by Nick Sandford, his former teammate at San Diego State.

Terms of the settlement were confidential. Louis’ attorney and Sanford’s father each declined comment.

Sandford had filed suit in 2009 alleging that Louis “snuck up” and attacked him in a team meeting room, causing a concussion, ruptured eardrum and facial injuries in early November 2008.

Sanford also sued former SDSU head coach Chuck Long, alleging that he covered up the incident. While Sandford missed the final three games of the 2008 because of his injuries, Long allowed Louis to play because it gave the team a better chance of success, according to the suit. The incident also was not reported to police until 15 day after it happened, according to police records.

Sandford’s suit sought to recover unspecified damages from defendants Louis, Long and the California State University, which oversees SDSU. But earlier this month, San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes dropped Long from the case.

“Long cannot be vicariously liable for the alleged battery against plaintiff,” Hayes wrote in her decision to drop Long from Sandford’s suit.

As a result of that ruling, the case ended for SDSU without any settlement cost to the university, according to a school official. The CSU system also had been dropped from the case in a ruling by Hayes last year.

Louis previously had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery stemming from the same incident and was sentenced to three years of probation, 40 hours of community service and 12 hours in anger management classes.

In 2009, SDSU reached an agreement with Long to pay for his legal representation in the event he was sued by Sandford. Long was fired after the 2008 season and now is the offensive coordinator at Kansas.

I'm excitedly waiting to read what plaintiffs have to say

The lawyers who are suing me for defamation didn't file a response to my appeal regarding Judge Judith Hayes' injunction by the November 29, 2010 due date. Instead, they were given a 30-day extension. And they didn't file by Dec. 29, 2010. Then the court gave them a generous grace period: until January 25, 2011.

I'm excitedly waiting to read what plaintiffs have to say. They've had more time to write a response than I did to write the appeal in the first place. Their pleading should be pretty marvelous.

Judge Halts Construction on Indian Burial Grounds

Judge Judith Hayes seems to like to issue permanent injunctions, so I am confident she will do so in this case.

See all posts re Judge Judith Hayes.

Judge Halts Construction on Indian Burial Grounds
6/07/2010

SAN DIEGO - A judge Monday granted a temporary restraining order stopping the Padre Dam Municipal Water District from doing further construction on a planned reservoir and pumping station near Lake Jennings Park Road and Old Highway 80 on a recently unearthed Indian burial site.

The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians said the restraining order issued by Judge Judith Hayes will halt the water district from further desecrating the burial and ceremonial ground. A hearing is scheduled June 25 to make the injunction permanent...

Judge Judith Hayes made a mistake regarding the law on Feb. 19, 2010

See all Judge Judith Hayes posts.

Judge Judith Hayes made a mistake of law on February 18, 2010. I learned this from this article, which notes, "California law prohibits the recording–without consent of all parties–of a “confidential communication.” (CA Penal Code Sec. 632(a)(emphasis supplied)).

The judge was concerned that I remembered what her clerk had said to me, and asked if I had recorded the conversation. I hadn't. But I did grab a scrap of paper and started taking notes when the clerk began to say repeatedly, "There is no injunction." I have received no apology from the clerk for misleading me, but I have received a $3000 contempt sanction for violating the injunction that supposedly didn't exist.

The judge expressed no concern about the clerk's misleading statements, although Judge Hayes acknowledged the accuracy of my quotes by saying that it seemed like I had recorded the conversation.

Then the judge made her mistake of law. She told me it would be illegal for me to record my conversation with her clerk when I called and asked for a hearing date. It seems Judge Hayes needs some law school refresher courses. There's nothing confidential about a request to a court for a hearing date.

Eastlake girls, the CIF, and Judge Judith Hayes

It's only a game, but what's up with the neighbors getting into each other's business?


Judge denies Eastlake appeal to rejoin girls basketball playoffs

By Brent Schrotenboer
San Diego Union-Trib
March 6, 2009

A San Diego Superior Court judge Friday officially ended the season for the Eastlake High girls basketball team.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Jeffrey Barton told the team he was sorry but that there was enough evidence to support a determination that the team had used an ineligible player. By rule, that means the team must forfeit the 13 games in which the player participated and be kicked out of the playoffs.

...Barton's ruling was especially frustrating for Eastlake players and parents because they thought they were on the verge of winning a restraining order Thursday from a different judge, Judith Hayes, who said she wasn't convinced the player had falsified her residency. But just as Hayes was about to rule, she learned that her bailiff had a daughter on the Eastlake junior varsity team. To avoid the appearance of bias, Hayes recused herself from the case without ruling. This led both sides to re-argue their case Friday in front of a different judge.

To bolster its case, the section on Friday filed the neighbor's declaration, which helped sway the new judge. Brian Burchett, an attorney for Eastlake, said the neighbor wouldn't know where the family really lived because the neighbor didn't live close enough to verify the family's comings and goings.

In the end, Barton made his ruling based on whether the decision by the CIF's San Diego Section was supported by substantial evidence.

“It's the court's decision that in applying that standard, I can't grant the relief that's requested by the petitioner,” Barton said. “In looking at the evidence that's been provided, there is substantial evidence to support the CIF's actions in this case.”

Boycotting of judges nothing new to DA

Boycotting of judges nothing new to DA
At least three others targeted since 2003
By Greg Moran, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
February 28, 2010
Bonnie Dumanis took office in 2003.

When District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis quietly lifted a months-old challenge of Superior Court Judge John Einhorn late last month, it seemed that an uncommon event — the wholesale boycott of a veteran judge’s courtroom — had come to an end.

But Einhorn was not the first judge to have been singled out for such treatment by Dumanis.

Since 2003, prosecutors have targeted at least three other Superior Court judges for whole or partial boycotts.

Sources in the courthouse, the local defense bar and the District Attorney’s Office said all three were targeted shortly after they made rulings that the District Attorney’s Office apparently disagreed with. Two of those judges, Judith Hayes and William McAdam, no longer work in the criminal courts...

[Judge Judith] Hayes was boycotted just months after Dumanis took office in 2003. The former state and federal prosecutor now hears civil cases in downtown San Diego.

She was challenged soon after dismissing murder charges in the middle of a trial against Michael Savala, who was accused of fatally shooting two bouncers at a Bonita restaurant after the prosecution had presented its case. Hayes said the slayings were not premeditated murder but were committed in the heat of passion — “a classic voluntary manslaughter,” as she said.

Savala eventually pleaded guilty to that lesser charge and received a 13-year sentence...

Citizen Media Legal Project website--Will Judge Judith Hayes be able to shut it down?

Someone sent me a link today to Harvard University's website about threats to citizens who try to exercise their freedom of speech.

The website is here.

It's amazing how many powerful people think that the First Amendment doesn't apply to people who criticize them.

Judge Judith Hayes will rule on whether Vista Unifed School District was intimidating, unethical or unprofessional when it sued Dr. B.J. Freeman

UPDATE: Judge Judith Hayes found that Vista Unified School District's behavior was illegal or unethical, and then she ordered me not to talk about it. Ever. How can she justify her decisions? Apparently, the same way that Catholic University of America justifies its refusal to give academic freedom to professors. But isn't San Diego Superior Court supposed to function differently than the Catholic University?  The court isn't a private religious institution.


See all Judge Judith Hayes posts.

The image below is page 2 of VUSD's case management statement in B.J. Freeman case.

Click image to enlarge.

Judge Judith Hayes decided VUSD was intimidating, unethical or unprofessional when it sued a paid expert witness for refusing to testify as VUSD wished about whether a child was eligible for special education classes.

The case in question was filed in 2004 by Vista Unified School District against Dr. B.J. Freeman. Dr. Freeman was willing to testify, but she insisted on saying that the child was eligible for special education.

Here is what VUSD wrote in its 2004 Case Management Statement about why it was suing Dr. Freeman:

"...Dr. Freeman was to support the school in following her assessments..."

You can't get much more mealy-mouthed than that, can you? What it meant was that Dr. Freeman's assessment didn't say what the school wanted it to say.

THE DR. B.J. FREEMAN CASE

Dr. B.J. Freeman noted, in her response to Vista Unified School District's complaint against her, "Plaintiff is purposefully mixing up the issues of the initial assessment of the child, the meetings which occurred to develop a care plan, and the final issue about the Due Process hearing of which Dr. Freeman was not informed until a couple of weeks before the hearing."


See B.J. Freeman Demurrer page 5 line 18.






LET THERE BE NO CONFUSION BETWEEN JUDGE JUDITH HAYES AND THE WRITER JUDITH HAYES.

This shouldn't be a tall order, since the judge and the writer have very little in common other than their name. Here is an article about the writer:

The Happy Heretic
03 18th, 2009
“When people ask me why I write what I write I usually answer, ‘To nudge people.’ This is literally the truth. I try to nudge people into thinking about things they might otherwise never give a passing thought to. I try to make it easier for them to do so by using satire, vivid imagery, and a sprinkling of merry nonsense.”

Judith Hayes, the Erma Bombeck of the secular humanist community, has the unique ability to raise serious points while making us laugh as she throws buckets of cold water on the irrational beliefs and maddening inconsistencies that often characterize popular religion. She’s at her best when recounting modern-day “miracles” such as the apparition of the Virgin Mary’s face in a waffle at a Fresno diner; or when she describes how she started rubbing a stuffed penguin whenever she had the urge to pray, and got the same results. But there are also poignant stories about believing friends and acquaintances whose struggles with irrational beliefs in the face of perplexing dilemmas and personal tragedies are in many cases heartrending. She also devotes a chapter to explaining in clear, concise, layperson’s terms exactly what humanism is and stands for, in particular extolling its tolerance. By turns funny, provocative, and touching, Judith Hayes is the perfect popular spokesperson for clear thinking and reason...