Merely addressing directly to the plaintiff communications which offered mediated settlement and which demanded retraction of alleged defamation was deemed by the three justices of the appeal court to be sanctionable harassment by defendant.
We certainly hope other petitioners who have told harassing police to contact petitioner's attorney but nevertheless received a direct contact from police appear in front of this set of justices for similar protection from police harassment! Alas, we imagine on that day underneath their robes will be found a set of flip-flops perhaps constructed of Republican cloth.
Declaring the opinion "not for publication" offers the "protection of darkness". We reverse. Respectful of the actual value of the Justice's product, Civilharassment.com shines the bright light of civil publication upon it. We remand for legislative, executive, and public review.
Opinion of Forth DCA, Div 3 affirming, not "published"
SHEEHAN v. SKERSTON
LINDA SHEEHAN, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
PAULA SKERSTON, Defendant and Appellant.
G039592
Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three
December 3, 2008
Not to be Published
Thomas H. Wolfsen for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.
Paula Skerston appeals from an injunction against harassment issued at the behest of Linda Sheehan. Skerston argues her conduct was constitutionally protected and served a legitimate purpose, and there was insufficient evidence of emotional distress to establish harassment. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
Skerston is an attorney who, on her own initiative, investigates suspected animal abuse and provides the information she gathers to animal control officials and police departments.[ 1 ] She also represents plaintiffs in animal abuse litigation. Sheehan rescues cats. Skerston believed Sheehan was doing it for the money and then killing the cats.