Judge Judith Hayes' inconsistencies in two
cases about websites and free speech

Judith Hayes believes in free speech for some people, as shown by this
ruling from Judge Hayes in the Digital Cornerstone v. Kevin Carmony

"...the Defendant had a bona fide noncommercial use for the website,
the Court finds the general purpose of the website to be a free speech
forum wherein Defendant criticized the management of Plaintiff. ..the
Defendant at no time harbored a bad faith intent to profit from a
registered mark and that his use of the website undertaken to inform
consumers and criticize Plaintiff's management constituted a lawful use
of the site."

But Judge Hayes came to a very different conclusion about free speech
in a case where there was no attempt to fool people about who owned
the website, and no profit was made.

The possible explanations for her behavior in my case are considerably
narrowed by her recent ruling in Digital Cornerstone v. Kevin Carmony.

One difference between my case and the Kevin Carmony case is that
I'm a school teacher, not a CEO, and I'm representing myself. Judge
Hayes apparently sees me as someone whose rights can be easily
violated, and no one will notice. Clearly, she sees Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz law firm as a group of people whom no schoolteacher should
ever criticize, no matter how much money they charge the public or
how many documents that refuse to produce. The firm walked out of its
deposition, and the lawyer most involved in my case refused to show
up for his deposition. This was fine with Judge Hayes. I wonder if
Digital Cornerstone also walked out of its deposition? I'm sure
Carmony's lawyer Gil Cabrera wouldn't let the plaintiff and Judge
Hayes get away with such shenanigans. I'm trusting that in my case,
the Court of Appeal will put a stop to the shenanigans of Stutz law firm
and Judge Hayes.

The odd thing is that my case is much clearer and simpler than the
Carmony case. My website is a purely public interest website. I never
allowed advertisements on it, much less advertisements from
competitors of the people I criticized. I never paid a premium ($6000)
to get a domain name that was likely to fool people into thinking my
site was owned by the very people I was criticizing, as Carmony did.
My site has my own name: mauralarkins.com. Judge Hayes and her
research attorney Monica Barry should have had no trouble seeing that
my case was completely different from Del Junco v. Hufnagel,
particularly since they found a difference between Freespire.com and
the website in the Del Junco case.

Judge Hayes made the above ruling in the Carmony case just over a
month after this ruling slapping me with $3000 in contempt sanctions
for not erasing every mention of Stutz law firm from my website.
(Hayes' ruling in my case is so brazenly unconstitutional that Michael
Robertson look like a free speech advocate compared to this
incarnation of Judge Hayes.) Clearly, Hayes knows how to act like a
good judge when she knows she's being watched. She can be quite the
stickler for the appearance of integrity. For example, it was rather
extreme for her to recuse herself just because her bailiff's daughter
was on a high school girls sports team. But she refused to recuse
herself in my case.

I keep asking myself why Judge Hayes would act as she has in my
case, regardless of whether she thought she could get away with it.
What was her motivation? Perhaps District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis
has a theory about this. She forced Judge Hayes out of the criminal
courts even though both Dumanis and Hayes share a conservative
philosophy. Dumanis seems to consider Judge Hayes' behavior on the
bench to be unpredictable.

Freespire.com apparently exists to criticize Michael Robertson. From
the home page of the website: "Freespire.com is dedicated to shedding
light on the REAL Michael Robertson. Robertson tried unsuccessfully to
shut down this site, as he clearly doesn't want the truth about him
known. We've seen Robertson go to great lengths to create a skewed
public persona, quite different from the one you will hear about from
those who know him..."

I could say these same words about Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, the
lawyers who are suing me on their own behalf.

But my site isn't limited to criticizing one person or even one group of
people. It covers a broad range of education issues.

Here's what Wikipedia says about Michael Robertson: "Michael
Robertson (born 1967) is the founder and former CEO of MP3.com,
which quickly became one of the most popular Internet music sites. In
the years following his departure from MP3.com, Robertson launched
several small start-up companies, including Linspire, SIPphone,
MP3tunes, and Ajax 13..."

Here's what Linux Watch says about Kevin Carmony:
Linspire CEO Kevin Carmony resigns
Aug. 05, 2007

In an interview today with Linux-Watch, controversial Linux leader
Kevin Carmony confirmed rumors that he had resigned as CEO of
desktop Linux vendor Linspire on July 31. Carmony said he plans to
work on several of his own business projects, and on Mitt Romney's
presidential campaign.

Carmony said that, after six years at Linspire, it was time to move on.
Projects he plans to work on include continuing as Chairman of the
Board of Sadie's, a nationwide children's photography studio chain, and
serving as CEO of Dating DNA, an online dating service based on social
networks. In addition, Carmony will be working more on Mitt Romney's
campaign to become the Republican candidate for the U.S. Presidency
in 2008.

While he may be leaving Linspire, Carmony said, "I will always be a big
supporter of Linspire and desktop Linux." And, "I will always be a
desktop Linux user."

Carmony also said that Linspire is stronger than ever. "I can't speak for
Linspire now, but I believe the upcoming release of Freespire 2.0 and
open CNR (Click N' Run) will be great for Linspire and desktop Linux."

"With the new Freespire coming along, the continued push of Linspire
to our OEMs [original equipment manufacturers], and CNR making it
easy for other Linux desktop distribution users to install software,
Linspire is doing great, and it was time for someone else to take it
forward from here," Carmony added.

Carmony also said his resignation, contrary to some rumors, had
nothing to do with any disagreement with Linspire's primary owner
Michael Robertson, or with fallout from either of Linspire's recent deals
with Microsoft, which covered technology licensing and patent

Carmony joined Linspire, then known as "Lindows," in June of 2001 to
become its president. Later, he became the company's CEO...
Maura Larkins Case
List of School Districts
Public Entities & Press
The case, Evans v. Evans,
2008 WL 2009669 (Cal.
Ct. App. May 12, 2008),
involves a nasty
post-divorce dispute
between Thomas Evans and
his former wife, Linda
Evans, and her mother,
Shirley Preddy. Linda and
Preddy allegedly posted
false statements about
Thomas on various
websites, filed complaints
about him with his
employer, and published
confidential information
from his medical and
financial records on the
Internet. The lower court
granted Thomas a broad
preliminary injunction
against their alleged
misconduct, without
specifying any particular
forbidden statements or
defining what "confidential
personal information"

The appellate court held
that the preliminary
injunction was an
unconstitutional prior
restraint on speech, and
that it was
unconstitutionally vague
because it failed to alert
Linda and Preddy as to
what conduct would violate
the court's order. The case
itself is relatively prosaic;
it is interesting largely
because it demonstrates
yet again just how
unfamiliar many lower
court judges are with basic
First Amendment
principles. Beyond that, it
tells us two important
things about California law
relating to prior restraints:

1. The venerable principle
that courts cannot enjoin
alleged defamation before
trial still holds despite the
Calfornia Supreme Court's
decision in Balboa Island
Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen,
40 Cal.4th 1141 (2007).
Not a huge surprise.
According to Evans, Balboa
means only that a court
may order a defendant not
to make certain specific
statements found at trial to
be false and defamatory.

2. A court has more leeway
to prohibit the publication
of private personal
information than to prohibit
publication of allegedly
false statements... the
lower court would be "fully
justified" in prohibiting the
disclosure of Thomas's
telephone number, address,
and Social Security number
on the Internet, especially
because he is a police


Courts can prohibit
repetition of defamatory
May 2, 2007 ·
Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press

The California Supreme
Court ruled last week that
it is constitutional for
courts to issue limited
injunctions prohibiting
defendants from repeating
statements that were
determined at trial to be

The ruling arose from a
case where the defendant,
Anne Lemen, vocally
criticized and protested the
noise and activities
occurring at a bar, the
Balboa Island Village Inn,
close to her home.

According to the court's
majority opinion, Lemen
told the neighbors that
there was child
pornography, drug dealing,
and prostitution going on in
the Village Inn. She also
videotaped customers and
made derogatory
comments to employees.

In October 2001, the
Village Inn sued Lemen for
nuisance, defamation and
interference with business,
and sought a court order
against Lemen.

The trial court agreed with
the Village Inn and granted
a permanent injunction
prohibiting Lemen from
contacting the inn's
employees; from repeating
certain defamatory
statements, including that
the bar "acts as a
whorehouse" and
"encourages lesbian
activities"; and from
filming within 25 feet of
the Village Inn. The order
applied not just to Lemen
but also "her agents" and
"all persons acting on her

The appeals court
overturned most of the
See main page for this case
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
defamation lawsuit against this website
The black hole that sucks up judge's orders
and outgoing mail has reappeared at Stutz
Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm

April 08, 2010

Seven minutes after I created this post I got an email from Stutz
Artiano Shinoff & Holtz saying, in so many words, that the black hole
that mysteriously sucks up proposed orders and judge's orders at Stutz
law firm had abated, and Stutz was able to find a letter mailed to the
firm two days ago. (Or perhaps I should say that Stutz was able to
admit that it had the letter in its possession.)
Case law related
to this case
Appellate Court
Forbids Prior

Appellate case law ignored
in San Diego Superior Court

December 11, 2009
injunction prepared by
Stutz law firm and signed
by Judge Judith Hayes of
San Diego Superior Court
says I am permanently
banned from mentioning
the names of Stutz law
firm or its lawyers.

This injunction is clearly
unconstitutional. But Judge
Hayes knows that, right?
She's read the following
cases, I trust. Or is it
possible that she simply
doesn't understand
constitutional law?
Yesterday and today I asked Stutz, via phone calls and emails, if the
check had arrived. After all my efforts, the only response I got was an
email that said, "Who was it addressed to? That may make it easier to
locate. Thank you. -- Richard"

Perhaps Richard was at a loss because his mentors Ray Artiano,
Daniel Shinoff and Jeffrey Wade were not available to tell him
whether or not to tell the truth about receiving my check. I'm guessing
he was able to get an okay from one of them at around 2:28 p.m.
today, so at last he told the truth in an email: "Please disregard my
last e-mail, the check has arrived. Thank you. -- Richard"

This was the fifth incident, since Stutz law firm's defamation case
against me began, that critically important documents in the case
disappeared into the noxious ether that seems to permeate the firm's

NOTE TO JUDGE HAYES: This incident illustrates why we Americans
keep the First Amendment to our Constitution. If law firms that
represent public entities were free to cheat and lie, then government
would become impossibly corrupt. Free speech keeps government
honest, or at least it pushes it in that direction. We've got a long way
to go until we actually have honest public entities, it seems. Why are
you so intent on keeping the public ignorant of the truth about Stutz
law firm?
Evans v. Evans: Appellate
Court Throws Out Prior
May 13th, 2008
by Sam Bayard
Citizen Media Legal Project

Yesterday, a California
appellate court struck down
a brazenly unconstitutional
preliminary injunction
prohibiting two defendants
from making "false and
defamatory statements"
about, or publishing the
"confidential personal
information" of, Thomas
Evans, a deputy sheriff in
San Diego.
Two days ago I had served Stutz with a check for $3000 for sanctions.
Judge Judith Hayes imposed the sanctions because I violated her
shockingly unconstitutional PERMANENT injunction NEVER TO
continued from above

See the injunction on which this
ruling is based. According to case
law, this injunction is wildly

I was surprised recently when I read
that Judith Hayes was actually
ousted from the criminal courts. I
was further surprised that her
removal was not for behavior such
as what I have witnessed. In fact,
she was boycotted by Bonnie
Dumanis because of her surprising
leniency to at least one particular
criminal defendant:

...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...
--San Diego Union Tribune

Here's the problem with what Judge
Hayes' decision, and the reason
Bonnie Dumanis was so outraged.
The killer went home and got a
weapon and came back and
committed the murders. That's
definitely NOT a classic crime of
passion. There is a BIG question
here, which requires the taking of
evidence and a jury's finding of fact
(not a judge's): what was the killer's
psychological state? Judge Hayes
isn't God. She doesn't know the
answer to this question. A more
restrained and respectful jurist
would have had the jury decide this
question. But this leaves me
wondering why Judge Hayes did this.
What would possess a Republican
conservative to suddenly go soft on a

I have to agree with Bonnie Dumanis
that Judge Hayes can not be trusted
to appropriately apply the law.

The injunction ruling on which the
above contempt finding is based is
being appealed.
Judge Judith Hayes finds this blogger in contempt for
mentioning the name of Stutz law firm

March 24, 2010

There was no gag order in this case, nor was there a temporary injunction.
Inexplicably, the judge issued a permanent injunction that this blogger should never
mention the name of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz law firm.

For the past year I've gotten the chills every time I thought of the years Judith Hayes
spent as a criminal judge. If she treated me with so much contempt, and disregarded
the law in my case, I reasoned she must have done the same thing to at least some
criminal defendants, particularly the ones who didn't have their own lawyers. (Public
defenders are so overworked they simply don't have time to give a lot of time to each
defendant.) I wonder how many falsely-accused people went to jail because of Judith

contd. below
San Diego
Education Report
Update August 5, 2011
California Court of Appeal overturns Judge Judith Hayes
injunction in
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins
Story in Voice of San Diego
San Diego Education
Report Blog
Why This Website

Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation



Castle Park
Elementary School

Law Enforcement



Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz

Silence is Golden

Schools and Violence

Office Admin Hearings

Larkins OAH Hearing
See decision