San Diego Education Report
San Diego
Education Report
San Diego Education
Report Blog
The Dec. 11, 2009 injunction by Judge Judith Hayes against this website was
overturned by the California Court of Appeal Aug. 5, 2011
Story in Voice of San Diego
See decision
Court of Appeal decision in favor of this website
was defaced on
The following pages on were fixed after I complained.  
News, information and ideas about our
education system, courts and health care
by Maura Larkins
The first page of the decision was left
pretty much intact, with just the date and
the case number concealed, but later
pages have been heavily altered.
No. D057190
& HOLTZ, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. MAURA
LARKINS, Defendant and
Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District,
Division One.
Filed August 5, 2011.
Footnote #16:

"In light of our reversal of the December 11, 2009
modified injunction,
we need not consider the Stutz
Firm's contention that the trial court provided
Larkins with "sufficient due process" when the
trial court modified the injunction sua sponte
the October 30, 2009 hearing so as "to prevent any
mention of [the Stutz Firm] on [Larkins's] Web sites.""

[Interestingly,'s version of the decision
omitted most of footnote #4, which states:]

"Larkins expressed her interpretation of the injunction
in part as follows:  The injunction does not allow [the
Stutz Firm] to completely silence [Larkins]. For
example, if a Stutz lawyer were to come to [Larkins's]
house and shoot her dog, t
he injunction would
prevent her from saying, 'A Stutz lawyer committed
a crime.'

However, the injunction would not prevent her from
saying, 'A Stutz lawyer shot my dog.'
[The Stutz Firm]
wants the court to rule that [Larkins] could not even
say, 'A Stutz lawyer shot my dog.' Such a ruling
would violate the [C]onstitutions of California and the
United States."

[Maura Larkins' note:  In the above scenario, Judge
Judith Hayes' interpretation of the injunction would
prevent me from calling the police and reporting the
name of the person who shot my dog.  It would prevent
me from talking to an attorney about any person in
Stutz law firm, no matter what they did to me.]
< < < [Maura Larkins' note: Important information in
the public interest--specifically, the governing law in
this case--was concealed here.]

Governing law from Evans v. Evans was contained in two
missing paragraphs under "2. Governing Law":

"`The right to free speech is . . . one of the cornerstones
of our society,' and is protected under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution and under
an `even broader' provision of the California Constitution.
[Citation.] An injunction that forbids a citizen from
speaking in advance of the time the communication is to
occur is known as a `prior restraint.' [Citation.] A prior
restraint is `"the most serious and the least tolerable
infringement on First Amendment rights.'" [Citations.]
Prior restraints are highly disfavored and presumptively
violate the First Amendment. [Citations.] This is true even
when the speech is expected to be of the type that is not
constitutionally protected. [Citation.]

"To establish a valid prior restraint under the federal
Constitution, a proponent has a heavy burden to show the
countervailing interest is compelling, the prior restraint is
necessary and would be effective in promoting this
interest, and less extreme measures are unavailable.
[Citations.] Further, any permissible order `must be
couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the
pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate
and the essential needs of the public order. . . .' [Citation.]"
< < <  [Maura Larkins' note: Someone doesn't want the
public to know what the court reasoned!  Here is what Judge Judith
Hayes said on March 10, 2010:]

"The Court finds defendant Maura Larkins has continued to violate
the Court's order resulting from the parties' stipulation of April 6,
2009. The Court finds [Larkins] is currently in violation of the
Court's further order of December 11, 2009. [Larkins] implicitly
concedes she is in violation of the Court's orders.
argues the orders are unconstitutional, illegal and
impossible to comply with.

"[Larkins's] position is based in part, on her
misunderstanding of
constitutional law.
[Maura Larkins' note:  

"Misunderstanding of constitutional law"?  
Not so.  Judge Hayes misunderstood the
constitution.  Consequently, her
11, 2009 injunction was ruled

Judge Hayes' contempt decision relied completely on her
unconstitutional order.  She imposed $3000 in sanctions

without mentioning a single instance in which I had done
anything other than simply saying the name of Stutz law
.  Even after the injunction was ruled unconstitutional,
Judge Hayes refused to reverse the sanctions.]
[What's missing?  The injunction at issue in this case!  It was in the second paragraph of
part C.  Here it is: ]

"1. . . . [The Stutz Firm] is entitled to an injunction enjoining and restraining
[Larkins] from continuing to publish or republishing by any method or media,
including but not limited to all electronic data, Web sites and Web pages, the
defamatory statements alleged in [the Stutz Firm's] first amended complaint
pertaining to [the Stutz Firm] and any of its lawyers past or present, and future
publication of statements with regard to [the Stutz Firm] and its lawyers
accusing illegal conduct or violations of law, unethical conduct, lack of
professional competence or intimidation."
Note: Judge Judith Hayes did
not consider evidence to find
that Maura Larkins had
defamed Stutz law firm.  
Instead, Judge Hayes threw out
all Larkins' evidence and also
threw out her opposition to
summary judgement.  Then
Judge Hayes behaved as if
there had actually been a
finding of fact that Maura
Larkins had committed
 > > >

See below.