Judge Judith Hayes, San Diego Superior Court See all posts re Dr. B.J. Freeman.
See all posts re Stutz v. Larkins.
Is a judge allowed to order a citizen to agree with the actions of public entities and their lawyers? Am I allowed to say that I think a lawyer made a mistake, or that I disagree that a public entity should behave a certain way? Of course I am, but Judge Judith Hayes is trying to convince me otherwise. She tells me I don't understand constitutional law. Judge Hayes' May 30, 2012 decision in Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Larkins states (page 2, paragraph 6), “…[Stutz] sought to remove a statement made by defendant that plaintiff paid witnesses to testify as plaintiff’s clients desired.”
This is a false statement by the court. Not only did I never make such a statement, but Plaintiff never even accused me of making such a statement.
The words have been changed by the judge to create a different meaning. Paying a witness to testify a certain way is different from suing an expert whom one has paid to do an evaluation.
The case at issue is the lawsuit against Dr. B. J. Freeman by Vista Unified School District for failing to testify as the district wished in a special education hearing. Dr. B. J. Freeman was sued for violating her contract. She objected that she wasn’t paid to testify a certain way; she was paid to evaluate students. At first Stutz argued that she was also obliged to testify as the school wished, but then Stutz realized that this was not true, and the lawsuit against Dr. Freeman was dropped. Stutz implicitly admitted that she hadn't been paid to testify a certain way.
Dr. Freeman's contract did NOT include a requirement that she testify as the district wished, at least not if she believed such testimony to be false, and I never said that it did.
But Judge Hayes' May 30, 2012 decision becomes more blatantly inaccurate in paragraph 7 of page 2: “Defendant continues the same here, stating that plaintiff has pressured witnesses to perjure themselves (See Plaintiff’s Ex. C, p. 5)
In fact, Plaintiff’s Exhibit C, p. 5 says, “Attorneys who have helped schools avoid revealing events in schools are in charge of training both new board members and school attorneys. Dan Shinoff trains board members and employees as well as attorneys.”
Keeping events secret and pressuring witnesses to perjure themselves are completely different things. The court’s reference to Ex. C, p. 5 was made without regard to the truth.
Judge Hayes' recent decision denies my constitutional right to due process and fair and equal treatment under the law.
Judge Hayes should have ordered Stutz law firm to return the $3000 March 10, 2010 sanction that was based on an injunction that was ruled unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal.
See California Court of Appeal Aug. 5, 2011 decision in Maura Larkins' favor). Instead, the judge now gives a new $5000 sanction based on that very same March 10, 2010 decision. And what is the purpose of the $8000 in sanctions? It seems to be to impoverish me so that I will not be able to proceed in court to obtain a minimal standard of justice.
Also, Judge Hayes claims that I currently have third-party comments on my site that have been removed. I produced print-outs that showed the comments had been removed; still, the court claims these comments are currently on my site and uses the comments to justify sanctions. Also, the sanctions are justified by my having certain public records on my site.
Here are more details from the Freeman case:
I am not expressing any opinion about the ethics or legality of the actions of Vista Unified's lawyers in this case. I'm just reporting what the case was about.
Dr. B. J. Freeman's defense against VUSD's breach of contract lawsuit was that there was nothing in her contract that required her to make statements under oath that she believed to be untrue.
Attorney's Daniel Shinoff and Gil Abed's described Dr. Freeman's position in their Opposition to Demurrer, p. 4, lines 21-28:
"...Defendant [Dr. B.J. Freeman] urges the court to make the District plead ‘specific language which purportedly bound Dr. Freeman to offer testimony that she believed was not accurate, i.e., that she had contracted to give testimony in support of a plan developed by plaintiff which was inconsistent with her recommendations and which was changed without her input.'
"...This curious passage is pregnant with Defendant’s factual opposition to the Complaint—that the plan was changed without her knowledge or input, and that the District asked her to perjury herself. The Court simply must ignore these allegations which belong in an Answer."
Page 5, lines 6-11:
“The DISTRICT has alleged that ‘one week before a hearing was to begin, after the DISTRICT had expended substantial resources and payments preparing for the Due Process Hearing, FREEMAN, without justification, cause, or reason, indicated that she would not…testify on behalf of the DISTRICT…
"This was, at the very least, an anticipatory breach. The DISTRICT’s settlement with the student may be relevant as to damages, however, that is a factual issue not properly raised on Demurrer.”
Apparently the district considered, but did not follow, the doctor’s recommendation for placement, but the District nevertheless felt that the doctor would still be required to testify under oath that the District’s decision was in line with her evaluation of the child.
Page 5 lines 22-26
"Defendant promised to…support the DISTRICT if students contested the DISTRICT’S placement where the placement was based on [emphasis added] Defendant’s assessment of the program and recommendation for placement…"
Here's another judge who likes to keep public records secret, and to flagrantly favor one side over the other in litigation.
The courts: Judge tried to keep evidence secretBy David Heath Seattle Times June 14, 2012 Judge Sharon Armstrong ordered InfoSpace records sealed when a shareholder, arguing that executives had deceived investors, sued the company. Then she sealed her order that put the case on hold.
For more than two years, reams of documents showing that InfoSpace executives deceived stockholders were sealed in a shareholder lawsuit at the King County courthouse.
The records contained evidence that some InfoSpace executives used accounting tricks to create the illusion of success — information that the company's faithful investors would certainly want to know.
But King County Superior Court Judge Sharon Armstrong allowed InfoSpace lawyers to stamp as confidential hundreds of documents in the case.
If the documents got out, they might fall into the hands of stockholders who were suing InfoSpace executives for deception and self-enrichment in a class-action lawsuit being heard a few blocks away in federal court, she reasoned.
"I've never heard of a judge doing that," said Steve Berman, a lawyer in the federal lawsuit who has read Armstrong's ruling. "It seems to me a very strange logic. Her role is not to be taking the side of the company."
Armstrong also said she was concerned that if the shareholder lawsuit went forward, InfoSpace might have to admit to financial misdeeds by insiders that could cause the company to report a $1 billion loss, which "would destroy the company."
"She was acting on behalf of the company and not on behalf of the public," said Judith Endejan, an attorney who argued the case for The Seattle Times.
Armstrong recently told The Seattle Times by e-mail: "The decisions made in the InfoSpace case, like decisions made in all cases, were based on the law and the factual record presented to the court."
InfoSpace, once the region's biggest dot-com, provides Internet services such as search engines. At the height of the Internet stock mania, the company was worth $31 billion.
In early 2003, The Seattle Times asked Armstrong to unseal InfoSpace records filed in the shareholder lawsuit, citing the state's constitution and past court cases. After she refused, The Times appealed her decision to the Washington Supreme Court.
In a 9-0 decision last year, the justices reversed Armstrong's decisions that allowed wholesale sealing of the court records.
"Proceedings cloaked in secrecy foster mistrust and, potentially, misuse of power," Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the opinion. In the landmark decision, the justices ruled that court records in civil lawsuits are open unless there are compelling reasons for closing them.
Armstrong had ruled that many of the records were protected by attorney-client privilege and should be sealed. But the Washington Supreme Court said the privilege was lost once such documents were filed in court and used by her to make a decision.
[Maura Larkins comment: Who was Judge Armstrong protecting? Naveen Jain! His company Intelius was taking $19 a month out of my checking account as part of a widespread fraud. I believe a class action suit is pending on the Intelius fraud.]
The King County case, known as Dreiling v. Jain, was brought by shareholder Thomas Dreiling, a Seattle lawyer. His lawyers sued InfoSpace founder Naveen Jain and others, accusing them of deceiving shareholders and illegally selling stock based on insider information.
The suit was a "shareholder derivative action." In such cases, a shareholder can ask the company to pursue alleged misconduct against the wrongdoers, with any money recovered going to the company. Usually, the company creates a special committee that investigates the claims and decides whether to pursue the action. InfoSpace's committee investigated and sent a report to Judge Armstrong, asking her to dismiss the case. Instead, she put it on hold and sealed her order.
"There are very narrow circumstances under which a judge can seal her own orders," such as matters of national security or protecting trade secrets, said Floyd Abrams, a First amendment lawyer in New York.
[Maura Larkins comment: Not surprisingly, the company's lawyer has lovely things to say about Judge Armstrong. See next.]
But Steve Sirianni, plaintiff's lawyer in the case, defended Armstrong. "I know of no lawyer appearing before Judge Armstrong in this case who has anything but the utmost respect for her rulings, fairness and impartiality," he said last week in an email to the judge, who had her bailiff send it to The Times.
The federal class-action suit was settled last year for $34.3 million.
In December, Jain and more than a dozen key InfoSpace officials settled the Dreiling lawsuit, with Jain agreeing to pay $3 million. Others are paying $3.4 million. InfoSpace's insurance, covering executive misdeeds, is paying up to $43 million to settle outstanding lawsuits.
As part of the settlement, Dreiling, Jain and the former InfoSpace executives signed confidentiality agreements and will not comment.
