On October 30, 2009 Judge Judith Hayes ordered that information be removed from this
website-- when she wasn't even asked to do so by a litigant!
Even stranger, Judge Hayes kept the ruling under wraps even after it had become final. I went down to the courthouse on November 5, 2009 to get a copy of the order. I discovered that I had won the decision, but that the judge, without putting any explanation in writing, had at the same time ordered that my website be censored.
I was not given a copy of the ruling when I appeared for the hearing on October 30, 2009.
The ruling concerned a Motion to throw out my official response (my "answer") to the lawsuit, an answer that I filed two years ago. Strangely, a summary judgment had already been issued against me. So why did my opponents want a default?
Wasn't it enough that the judge based her decision on the declaration of a man who refused to be deposed or turn over documents? Weren't they satisfied that Judge Hayes threw out my declaration even though I underwent a 6-hour deposition and turned over hundreds of documents?
I suppose the advantage of a default would be that my opponents could collect damages
without having the jury trial that I insist on.
Stay tuned for more of this bizarre saga--unless I am thrown into jail by Judge Hayes. I wonder if the mainstream media will cover this case if that happens?
--Maura Larkins, author of this website
P.S. I worked hard removing information. Here's a sample page.
No comments:
Post a Comment