.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I.   DEFENDANT MAURA LARKINS' STATEMENTS ARE
NOT DEFAMATORY BECAUSE THEY ARE TRUE

Plaintiff rightly focuses on the definition of what is considered defamatory as a
matter of law.  Unfortunately for the Plaintiff and for the schools of San Diego
County, the statements on Defendant’s website are true.

Plaintiff’s instant motion is powerful evidence in support of the truth of Defendant’s
statement in “fact” number 8: “Many of STUTZ’s filings can not be interpreted as
anything other than bad-faith attempts to mislead the court, obscure the real facts,
and to obstruct and/or harass the plaintiff or to win a victory that is clearly
unjustified by either the facts or the law.”

Plaintiff’s false and prejudicial statements in a single paragraph that starts on page
1, line 28 of its Points and Authorities are as follows:

False Claim
by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz:                                                                          


1. Defendant’s “teaching                            1. Defendant still has her credential; it
credential was revoked.”                             was never threatened at any time.


2. “Several teachers” reported                                                                                       
“psychotic behavior” by Defendant.  
[Maura Larkins comment: actually,
no teacher ever reported
any unusual behavior by Maura
Larkins--see depositions of
Peg Myers, Linda Watson,
Robin Donlan, Gina Boyd]                                                                               
                                                                   






3. Defendant was terminated and                                                                                   
she later sued the school district.  
[Maura Larkins comment:
actually, the complete reverse
is true.]                                                                



4.  SASH was not involved in
termination proceedings                                   
against Maura Larkins.  
[Maura Larkins comment:
On Oct. 4, 2002, Stutz lawyer
Jeffery Morris told Judge William
Nevitt that the district was hoping
that termination proceedings would
resolve Maura Larkins' lawsuit
against the district.]


SASH is a perpetrator of defamation, not a victim.  SASH used perjury and
intimidation to get Defendant’s lawsuit thrown out of court.  SASH’s illegal tactics
have enjoyed a great deal of success in the justice system, and, to their shame,
many school officials are eager to take advantage of SASH’s legal magic.  School
district pay big premiums for liability insurance, not to pay off the victims of a school
district’s mistakes, negligence or wrongdoing, put to protect the perpetrators.  
Politics, not professional excellence, determines who obtains power in schools.  The
taxpayers and parents of students have a right to know that competent individuals
are frequently seen as threats by mediocre school employees, and are targeted for
that reason.

SASH has demonstrated negligence, malice, oppression, fraud and willful/knowing
disregard of the truth in filing this case, which has no merit whatsoever.
  
Triable issues of fact remain in this case.  Plaintiff has offered no evidence to prove
that Defendant’s statements are false, other than the declarations of two individuals,
Ray Artiano and Daniel Shinoff, who either walked out of or never showed up for
their depositions.  Discovery is not nearly complete in the instant case, due to a lack
of cooperation from Plaintiff.  

Plaintiff has not produced a single document.  Plaintiff thinks this is an appropriate
way to conduct litigation; SASH did the same thing in the case that gave rise to the
instant complaint, Maura Larkins v. Richard Werlin.  In contrast, Defendant produced
hundreds of documents and hundreds of pages of deposition transcripts in the prior
case.

No fewer than 19 of Plaintiff’s 34 “undisputed facts” are, in fact, disputed, as can be
seen in Defendant’s separate statement of disputed facts.

Defendant disputes that her statements that are at issue in this case are
defamatory.  Defendant claims that her statements are true and that they concern
public figures regarding matters of public interest.  

II.  SASH IS A PUBLIC FIGURE THAT CONSTANTLY
THRUSTS ITSELF INTO THE MEDIA SPOTLIGHT

If one were to judge solely by media coverage, one would think that SASH must be
one of the most prestigious law firms in San Diego.  SASH lawyers are constantly
turning up in the Daily Transcripts “Top Ten” lists, but that is because SASH
promotes its lawyers by nominating them and then sending in votes.  Truly
prestigious law firms don’t bother to do this.  SASH went to a lot of trouble
advertising itself all over the Internet in an effort to push Defendant’s website off
the first page of search engine results.  However, Internet searchers recognize this
tactic, and tend not to click on results that are purely advertisements.  
But perhaps the most impressive indication of SASH’s power as a public figure is its
ability to keep stories out of the news.  Defendant’s name and the story of her
termination was completely missing from the San Diego Union Tribune and other
local newspapers even when five of the teachers who contributed to the breakdown
of law and order at Defendant’s school, Castle Park Elementary, were transferred
out of the school a year and a half after Defendant was terminated.  A huge
brouhaha in the press ensued, but the underlying causes of the story were never
revealed in the press.

III.  SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS IMPROPER WHEN A
TRIABLE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT EXISTS AND THE
MOVING PARTY IS NOT ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT AS
A MATTER OF LAW

A.        Rules Governing Summary Judgment Procedure.

  It is proper for a court to grant a motion for summary judgment only if the
supporting papers are sufficient to sustain a judgment as a matter of law in favor of
the moving party and the opposing party has not presented any facts which give rise
to a triable issue as to any material fact [Code Cov. Proc. Section 437c(c)].  In
examining the supporting and opposing papers, the moving party’s affidavits or
declarations are strictly construed and those of the opposing party are liberally
construed.  Statements of fact contained in the affidavits or declarations in
opposition to the motion should be accepted as true, and doubts as to the propriety
of granting the motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion.  
Summary judgment is a drastic procedure and should be used with caution so that it
does not become a substitute for the open trial method of determining facts [Corwin
v. Los Angeles Newspaper Service Burequ, Inc. (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 842, 851-852, 94
Cal. Rptr. 785, 484 P.2d953; Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Downey Distributor (1980)
109 Cal. App. 3d 908,914,916, 167 Cal. Rptr. 510).

B.        Burden on Moving Party.
The burden is on the moving party in a Motion for Summary Judgment, and doubly so
when the moving party is the plaintiff [Code Civ. Proc. Section 437c(p)(2); Aguilar
v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 841].  A
moving party must present evidence and support the motion with evidence including
“affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and
matters of which judicial notice” must or may be taken [Code Civ. Proc. Section 437c
(b)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 854-855, 107 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 841, 24 P.3d 493].  

F. Moving Party’s Pleadings Will Not Support Motion.

  If the evidence accompanying the summary judgment motion is deficient, the
moving party cannot rely on the unsupported allegations in his or her pleadings to
support the motion [Lipson v.Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 362, 374, 182 Cal.
Rptr. 629, 644 P.2d 822].

  Not only Defendant’s verified answers to complaints dispute Plaintiff’s “Facts,” but
a mountain of evidence (2288 pages of documents) also disputes them.


J. Sole Declaration of Party Raising Triable Issue of Fact Sufficient

The sole declaration of a party opposing a summary judgment motion which raises a
triable issue of fact is sufficient to deny the motion.  Code of Civil Procedure Section
437c(e) does not allow a trial court to weigh the credibility of a declaration
submitted by the party opposing a summary judgment motion and then grant the
motion, except where the declaration is facially so incredible as a matter of law that
the moving party otherwise would be entitled to summary judgment [Estate of
Housley (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 342, 359-360, 65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 628].

Respectfully submitted,
December 23, 2008   
Maura Larkins, Defendant in pro per
34. Defendant’s declaration.  
Defendant would be anxious
to remove any defamatory
statement that might find its
shameful way onto her
website.  Defendant wishes
to have only statements that
are true and are about
matters of public interest on
her website.
MAURA LARKINS
Defendant in pro per
Maura Larkins' Opposition to Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz'
Motion for Summary Adjudication
6. Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s
statement 6, which is a wildly inaccurate
extrapolation of Plaintiff’s own
statements in RFAs 10 and 11.  Plaintiff’s
original statements refer to very specific
conduct.  The idea that SASH could have
engaged in “the exact same conduct as
is described in the order” in the Moser
case is preposterous on its face (the
order is 83 pages long), and Defendant
would never say such a thing.  
Defendant said that some, not all, of the
conduct of Lozano Smith in the Moser
case was the same as conduct of
Plaintiff.

Defendant officially objected to RFAs 10
and 11.  Objection 11 states:

“…  The statement is worded in a
manner that could be misinterpreted.  
The truth is that I searched the
Moser v.
Bret Harte Union High School District
decision for descriptions of attorney
behavior that accurately described the
behavior of Plaintiff’s attorneys, and
then stated that Stutz law firm attorneys
had engaged in those behaviors...”
Defendant’s Exhibit J  
(Defendant’s responses to RFAs
10 and 11) is attached since
Plaintiff's Exhibit B has three
pages missing, pages 2, 3, and 4,
which contain  responses 10 and
11.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit A
(Plaintiff’s RFAs 10 and 11);
5. Plaintiff’s Exhibit “I,”  
a printout of the “Stutz Artiano
Shinoff & Holtz” webpage from
Defendant’s site (see page 4,
right hand column).  

This Exhibit is also Exhibit 2 in
the
deposition of Maura
Larkins.
) Case No. 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL
) Judge:                 Hon. Judith F. Hayes
) Dept:                68
) Date                 January 9, 2009   10:30 a.m.
)
) SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
) DISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION
) TO PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION FOR SUMMARY
) JUDGMENT        
)
) TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
) CASE FILED: OCTOBER 5, 2007
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF             
& HOLTZ, APC,                         
Plaintiff,                       


vs.                             
        
                 
MAURA LARKINS,                           
Defendant.                        


______________________________
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Exhibit B has three pages
missing, pages 2, 3, and 4

Exhibit C fails to include
errata and signature sheet,
even though the pages
chosen by Plaintiff are
referred to five times on the
errata sheet, specifically
pages 159, 161 (two
errors), 165 and 198
I.
ISSUE 1
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS ARE NOT DEFAMATORY BECAUSE THEY ARE TRUE
AND CONCERN MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
8. Statement 8 is not disputed by
Defendant:

“…Defendant states that ‘Many of
STUTZ’s filings cannot be
interpreted as anything other than
bad-faith attempts to mislead the
court, obscure real facts, and to
obstruct and/or harass the
plaintiff, either to wear down the
plaintiff or to win a victory that is
clearly unjustified by either the
facts or the law.’”
9. Plaintiff’s statement 9 is disputed.  
Plaintiff seems to have intended to
refer to statement 8, not 7, in this “fact.”

Defendant has a reasonable basis for
her statements as described in either
or both 7 and/or 8, and took care to
make sure they were true before she
published them.
11.   Plaintiff’s statement 11 is
disputed.  

Plaintiff seems to have intended to
refer to statement 10, not 9, in this
“fact.”

Defendant had a reasonable basis
for her statements as described in
either or both 9 and/or 10, and she
took care to make sure they were
true before she published them.

Defendant has even more support
for her statements now, since
Daniel Shinoff has refused to
produce the documents in
question even after filing a lawsuit
in which he
claims that he doesn't keep
documents locked up in his files.
10.  Statement 10 is not disputed by
Defendant:

“In two different locations on her
website, Defendant makes the
statement that ‘Shinoff keeps important
documents locked up in his files.’”
11.   Defendant's Exhibit M,
Deposition of Ray Artiano
(page 4, line 22 through page
12, line 3)

Defendant disputed this
"undisputed fact" in her answer
to the instant complaint.

Defendant’s statements are
based on her personal
experience and voluminous
documents, including
deposition transcripts and
court pleadings that have been
filed and served in this case.
12 is not disputed by Defendant:

"In two locations on her website,
Defendant states that "Shinoff...presents
perjured testimony."
13 is disputed.  

Defendant has a reasonable basis for
her statements, "Shinoff...presents
perjured testimony."
Defendant disputed this
"undisputed fact" in her answer
to the instant complaint.

Defendant has a reasonable basis
for her statement, "A favorite Daniel
Shinoff tactic is to try to get plaintiff's
arrested."

The reasonable basis for
Defendant's statement is
contained in:
Lindsey Stuart case,
Claudia Houston case,
David Alberts case,
Maura Larkins case (Stutz
motion in 2004) and elsewhere.
14 is not disputed by Defendant:

"Elsewhere on her website,
Defendant states that, "A favorite
Daniel Shinoff tactic is to try to get
plaintiff's arrested."
15.        Plaintiff’s statement 15 is
disputed.

Plaintiff probably meant to refer to
statement 14, not 13, in this “fact.”

Defendant had a reasonable basis
for her statements as described in
either or both 13 and/or 14, and
she took care to make sure they
were true before she published
them.
16 is not disputed by Defendant:

"...Defendant states that 'Daniel
Shinoff, Kelly Angell Minnehan,
Jeffery Morris and their law firm
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz took
$100,000s of taxpayer dollars to
cover up crimes at Chula Vista
Elementary School District.’”
17 is disputed.  Defendant has a
reasonable basis for all the
statements on her website.  It
seems that Plaintiff meant to refer
to 16, not 15, in this statement.
18 is disputed.  Defendant made it
clear on her website that she was
guessing  Bob Gallagher's motives for
leaving the firm he helped to found.  
Plaintiff's own Exhibit "I" shows that
Defendant wrote, "
My guess is that two
things motivated Gallagher: 1) He was
concerned that Shinoff and Artiano
had become reckless in their attitudes
toward use of intimidation as a tactic;
and 2) He couldn't tolerate the
extreme lack of ethics."

Defendant believes it is possible that
Gallagher consulted with his
clergyman in reaching his decision to
leave the firm.  Of course, no honest
and emotionally stable person would
claim that this proves that Defendant
is prejudiced against Catholics.  
19 is disputed.  It seems that Plaintiff
meant to refer to 18, not 17, in this
statement.  Defendant did not make the
statement of which she is accused by
Plaintiff in 18.  Defendant has a
reasonable basis for all the statements
on her website.  
20 is disputed.  

All of Defendant's statements about
SASH are true, except for minor
mistakes which Defendant has
corrected, or would be willing to correct
if and when any minor mistake might be
brought to her attention.  

SASH's statement 20 is hyperbolic, of
course; I trust that even SASH would
admit the truth of the statement, "Dan
Shinoff trains
board members and
employees as well as
attorneys."  

At the very least, SASH would agree that
"Stutz filed suit on Oct. 5, 07 for
defamation against the author of this
website."
Stutz' First Amended
Complaint
Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz v. Maura Larkins
defamation suit
regarding website
5:  Defendant disputes the accuracy of
the typing in this statement.  “Firm” is
correct, not “Firms.”
 A typo apparently
slipped the attention of Plaintiff when
preparing the RFAs, and also got past
Defendant when she was responding to
the RFAs.  In fact, as can be seen in
Plaintiff’s own Exhibit I for this Motion,
the correct quote is
“Education Law
Firm Slammed by Federal
Judge,” not “Law Firms.”
1-4:  Defendant DOES NOT dispute
these statements.
9.   Defendant disputed this
"undisputed fact" in her
answer to the instant
complaint.

Defendant’s statements are
based on her personal
experience and voluminous
documents, including
deposition transcripts and
court pleadings that have
been filed and served in this
case.
Answer of Maura Larkins to
the instant complaint
Answer of Maura Larkins to
the instant complaint
Defendant disputed this
"undisputed fact" in her answer
to the instant complaint.

Defendant’s statements are
based on her personal
experience and voluminous
documents, including
deposition transcripts and court
pleadings that have been filed
and served in this case.
19. Plaintiff's Exhibit "I,"
which is a June 16, 2008
printout of
mauralarkins.com/stutzartiano
shinoff.html (Page 4 of 14)
18. Plaintiff's Exhibit "I,"
which is a June 16, 2008
printout of
mauralarkins.com/stutzartian
oshinoff.html (Page 4 of 14)
21and 22 are not disputed by
Defendant
23 is disputed by Defendant.  SASH
stated under oath in Ray Artiano's
deposition that it has no evidence
of any harm that has occurred to it
as a result of Defendant's website.

“Q.   Okay.  Well, it seems to me
that you have done a pretty good
argument for saying that my website
has not harmed your firm.  The only
evidence you have is that someone
read my website and then came to your
firm.”  
24 is disputed by Defendant.
24. Defendant’s declaration.

Daniel Shinoff’s declaration
is unreliable: Mr. Shinoff has
refused to sit for a
deposition and has failed to
produce documents.  His
declaration constitutes a
brazen hoax.
Simply because Defendant disputes the defamatory nature of her statements does not entitle
Plaintiff to declaratory relief.  The statement is preposterous.
25 is disputed.  All of Defendant's
statements about SASH are true, except
for minor mistakes which Defendant has
corrected, or would be willing to correct if
and when any minor mistake might be
brought to her attention.  

SASH's statement 20 is hyperbolic, of course; I
trust that even SASH would agree that "Dan
Shinoff trains
board members and employees
as well as
attorneys."  At the very least, SASH
would agree that Stutz filed suit on Oct. 5, 07
for defamation against the author of this
website.

SASH'S listing of this statement as an
"undisputed" fact is a perfect example of
SASH's habit and custom of trying to
deceive the court.
25 is the same as 20
ALL FALSE



















26 and 27 are the same
as 21 and 22
PRIVATE FIRM
TOP HITS





same as 23
AFFECT BUSINESS
















UNWILLING TO CEASE
AND DESIST
26 and 27 are not disputed by
Defendant
28 is disputed by Defendant.  

SASH stated under oath on November
8, 2007 during Ray Artiano's deposition
that it has no evidence of any harm that
has occurred to it as a result of
Defendant's website,
and has produced
no evidence to support the statement during
the year that has passed since then.  This
information could easily have been included
in Plaintiff's declarations.  
28. Ray Artiano deposition,
page 17 line 3 through page 21
line 24
29 is disputed.  Defendant would
eliminate any defamatory
statement that might find its
shameful way onto her website.  It
is only true statements about
matters of public interest that
Defendant wishes to keep on her
website.  Defendant has made no
defamatory statements about
Plaintiff.

II. ISSUE 2

PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO DECLARATORY RELIEF; DEFENDANT HAS A
RIGHT TO REPORT AND DISCUSS MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ON HER
WEBSITE, AND PLAINTIFF IS A PUBLIC FIGURE
The court decision in favor of plaintiff Stutz' motion is here.  

The Court not only ignored this Opposition, but also threw out all my evidence, including
Maura Larkins declaration, and relied entirely on Daniel Shinoff's declaration, in granting
summary adjudication to Plaintiff Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz.  

Daniel Shinoff had refused to show up for his deposition and had refused to produce
documents, while
Maura Larkins sat for a six-hour depostion, so the court's decision to
decide the case based on Shinoff's declaration seems rather odd.
 

But not as odd as Judge Judith Hayes'
brazenly unconstitutional injunction against
Maura Larkins ten months after the peculiar summary judgment decision.
Defendant's declaration,
paragraph 3.

Defendant would be anxious to
eliminate any defamatory
statement that might find its
shameful way onto her
website.  

It is only statements that are
true and are about matters of
public interest that Defendant
wishes to have on her website.
III.  ISSUE 3

PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

THE ONLY REASON PLAINTIFF HAS NO LEGAL REMEDY IS BECAUSE
DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND THIS LITIGATION IS PURELY
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

PLAINTIFF MAY NOT SILENCE DEFENDANT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WANT
THE PUBLIC TO HEAR THE TRUTH ABOUT MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
PLAINTIFF’S LIST OF
“UNDISPUTED FACTS”
REGARDING ISSUE 1
INCLUDES 9 DISPUTED
FACTS
30 IS THE SAME AS 20 AND
25
ALL FALSE
















31 SAME AS   21   AND 26
PRIVATE FIRM
32 SAME AS 22 AND 27
TOP HITS








33 SAME AS 23 AND 28
AFFECT BUSINESS

















34 SAME AS 29
DEFENDANT DISPUTES
30 is disputed.  All of Defendant's
statements about SASH are true, except
for minor mistakes which Defendant has
corrected, or would be willing to correct if
and when any minor mistake might be
brought to her attention.  

SASH's statement 20 is hyperbolic, of course; I
trust that even SASH would agree that "Dan
Shinoff trains
board members and employees
as well as
attorneys."  At the very least, SASH
would agree that Stutz filed suit on Oct. 5, 07
for defamation against the author of this
website.

SASH'S listing of this statement as an
"undisputed" fact is a perfect example of
SASH's habit and custom of trying to
deceive the court.
31 and 32 are not disputed by
Defendant
33. 33 is disputed by Defendant.  SASH
stated under oath on November 8, 2007
during Ray Artiano's deposition that it
has no evidence of any harm that has
occurred to it as a result of Defendant's
website, and has produced no
evidence to support the statement
during the year that has passed since
then.  If it existed, this information
could easily have been included in
Daniel Shinoff's and/or Ray Artiano's
declaration.  
Ray Artiano deposition

Daniel Shinoff's and Ray
Artiano's declarations.  
20  ALL FALSE


























23  AFFECTS HOW?


















24 Malice
34 is disputed.  Defendant would
eliminate any defamatory
statement that might find its
shameful way onto her website.  It
is only true statements about
matters of public interest that
Defendant wishes to keep on her
website.  Defendant has made no
defamatory statements about
Plaintiff.
Statements made by SASH (and
characterized by SASH as "undisputed")
in its Motion for Summary Judgment        
                      
Supporting Evidence
BLOGS
SD Education Report
BLOG
Education and the
Culture Wars Blog
San Diego
Education Report
Home
Education Reform
Home
Larkins case
summary
Site Map
Case Timeline
092704 Nevitt statements
Main Timeline
Motivations CP teachers
Case Summary
2003 Stutz invoices
2002 SDCOE payments
to Daniel Shinoff
2003 part 2 Stutz invoices
Public Records Requests
SDCOE Crosier denial
Payments to Shinoff
Maura Larkins
v. CVESD
Summary Judgment
From Maura Larkins' deposition:

"Q. Did you do a search on any
PACER database to see if any
orders had been issued by any
judge ever, accusing the Stutz
firm of unethical behavior?

"A. No. I knew that from personal
experience."

--Plaintiff's Exhibit C (Larkins
Deposition page 75 lines 7-10)

Exhibit C fails to include
errata and signature
sheet, even though the
pages chosen by
Plaintiff are referred to
five times on the errata
sheet, specifically
pages 159, 161 (two
errors), 165 and 198
Defendant’s Exhibit J  
(Defendant’s responses to RFAs
8 and 9) is attached since
Plaintiff's Exhibit B has three
pages missing, pages 2, 3, and 4,
which contain  responses 8 and 9;

Plaintiff’s Exhibit A
(Plaintiff’s RFAs 8 and 9)
7. Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s
statement #7.

Regarding Plaintiff’s allegations in
statement #7 regarding Plaintiff’s "facts"
5 and 6:

It is preposterous to use RFAs 8 and 9 to
claim that because Defendant admits that
the
Moser decision does not refer to
Plaintiff or any of its attorneys, then it is
therefore unreasonable and reckless for
Defendant to say that Plaintiff is unethical.  

Defendant's  statements are based on
her personal experience with plaintiff,
and voluminous court documents.

Defendant also disputes that she made
statements as described in "facts" 5 and
6.  In fact,  5 and 6 misrepresent  
statements on her website (see
responses to 5 and 6 above).   

Defendant has a reasonable basis for all
statements on her website, and used
care in ascertaining that her statements
were true before she published them.
Ray Artiano deposition

Ray Artiano’s declaration is
brazen given the fact that he
spent two hours making
absurd statements during his
deposition, and then walked out
after promising to file a Motion for
Protective Order, a promise that
he never kept.

Daniel Shinoff’s brazen
declaration is  even less
unreliable than Mr. Artiano’s, if
such a thing is possible: Mr.
Shinoff has refused to sit for a
deposition.

Both Mr. Artiano and Mr. Shinoff
have failed to produce documents.
EX PARTE
CONTINUANCE OR OST
2nd Motion Compel
17. Defendant disputed this
"undisputed fact" in her answer
to the instant complaint.

Defendant’s statements are based on
her personal experience and
voluminous documents, including
deposition transcripts and court
pleadings that have been filed and
served in this case.
It would have taken very little of
the court's time to read Ray
Artiano's deposition.  Every
page is significant.  But the
court said it would not read
depositions.
30. Defendant’s declaration

Documents and deposition
transcripts filed in this case
25. Ray Artiano deposition

Ray Artiano’s declaration is
unreliable given the fact that he
spent two hours making absurd
statements during his deposition,
and then walked out after promising
to file a Motion for Protective Order,
a promise that he never kept.

Daniel Shinoff’s declaration is  even
less unreliable than Mr. Artiano’s, if
such a thing is possible: Mr. Shinoff
has refused to sit for a deposition.

Both Mr. Artiano and Mr. Shinoff
have failed to produce documents.

IN ITS PART I OF THE
INSTANT MOTION, SASH
SAID THAT DEFENDANT
DID NOT DISPUTE THAT
"ALL OF DEFENDANT'S
STATEMENTS ARE
FALSE." IN PART II SASH
SAYS "DEFENDANT
DISPUTES THE
DEFAMATORY NATURE
OF HER STATEMENTS."
SASH'S MOTION IS FULL
OF CONTRADICTIONS.
23. Ray Artiano deposition,
page 17 line 3 through page 21 line 24:

“ …MS. LARKINS:  Did you produce
documents supporting your claim that my
website has caused  financial losses to your
firm?  

“MR. SHINOFF:  We don't have specific
documents other than your website itself…

“MR. ARTIANO: …at least, at the very least,
one new attorney in our firm googled our
website prior to making a decision as to
whether or not he was going to join the firm,
and then had to -- had to check around after
he saw the materials on your website to
determine who this person was and why
these things were being said so that he
could determine whether or not he should
join our firm.   I assume that there are a
number of prospective candidates, as well
as clients that we have, that do exactly the
same thing, come across the same
information, and it causes them concern.
Deposition of Ray Artiano
Judge Ahler OAH
page 89-91

Is Shinoff or Mark
Bresee to blame?
pages 91-94

pages 95-105

pages 105-111

pages 112-123

pages 124-138

pages 138-157

pages 157-175

pages 175-203

pages 203-222

pages 222-239 (end)

Errata and signature
page
Deposition of
Maura Larkins

Richard Werlin changed
the record
pages 1-15

pages 15-25

pages 25-35

pages 35-48

pages 48-60

Pages 60--68

pages 68-73

Lozano Smith order/
Shinoff tactics
pages 73-80

pages 80-89
2. Two teachers Jo Ellen Hamilton and
Linda Watson, said they were afraid of   
Defendant, not for anything they
witnessed, but because they believed a  
police report containing
false and
incendiary allegations made by
Defendant’s ex-sister-in-law.   (The
report was illegally obtained by
Robin
Donlan.)  The depositions of the two
teachers are attached as exhibits to
Defendant’s answer to the instant
complaint.



3. Defendant first sued the school
district and later was (illegally)
terminated in retaliation.
Reality/Truth
The law has
changed, and
this statement
is no longer
true. > > >
4. Defendant was never threatened
with dismissal until SASH was hired
to deal with her case.
Statement 1
Statement 1
SDER.org
Education Reform Report
Warning!   Don't do what I did!  I put statements in the
wrong column--and the judge threw out my opposition!

2013 California Rules of Court
Rule 3.1350. Motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication
(d)    Separate statement in support of motion

...In a two-column format, the statement must state in numerical sequence the undisputed
material facts in
the first column followed by the evidence that establishes
those undisputed facts
in that same column...
(Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2008...)

(f)        Opposition to motion; content of separate statement

... On the right side of the page, directly opposite the recitation of the moving party's
statement of material facts and supporting evidence, t
he response must unequivocally
state whether that fact is "disputed" or "undisputed." An opposing party who
contends that a fact is disputed must state, on the right side of the page directly
opposite the fact in dispute...
(Subd (f) amended effective January 1, 2002.)