UPDATE: REPLY TO STUTZ LAW FIRM
Richard E. Romero, Esq.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC
Dear Mr. Romero:
I am aghast at your message, sent by a public entity law firm.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz isn't interested in getting a determination of constitutionality before asking that an opponent in a civil case be jailed for 5 days?
And at the same time Stutz has demanded that I not be allowed to say that Stutz law firm has a habit of using the threat of jail against opponents in civil cases!
Have you no respect for the Constitution? Or for your obligation as an officer of the court not to use the justice system for your personal benefit?
Maura Larkins
UPDATE: STUTZ LAW FIRM REPLIES:
To: Maura Larkins
Feb 3, 2010
RE: Meet and confer: Would your client object to a stay of proceedings in Stutz v. Larkins?
We object. -- Richard
Richard E. Romero, Esq.
ORIGINAL POST:
To: Richard Romero
Feb 2, 2010
Meet and confer:
Would your client object to a stay of proceedings in Stutz v. Larkins?
Hi Richard;
I'm writing to find out if Stutz law firm objects to a stay of proceedings while I petition the Court of Appeal for a Writ of Prohibition/Mandate/Review.
Particularly since you are asking for sanctions including jail time, fines of $2500.00, a daily fee, and attorney's fees of over $$6500.00, it is an urgent matter to have the permanent injunction, which contains prior restraints that are tremendously broad in addition to having been interpreted by the court as extremely flexible and vague, submitted for examination by Court of Appeal.
I am planning to file an ex parte application asking for a stay of
this proceeding while I appeal the constitutionality of the judge's
rulings.
Will your client object?
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
No comments:
Post a Comment