This story by Tommy Gardner was published by the Stowe Reporter on July 18.
Paige Hinkson received a six-month restraining order against Stuart Stevens. Next Level Performance photo
A judge’s protective order against a Stowe man accused of stalking the wife of a man accused of sexual harassment has expired, and the judge has declined to extend it two more years.
Despite the order being lifted, a civil court case is still scheduled for an August hearing in Vermont Supreme Court.
In February, Lamoille County Judge Megan Shafritz issued the no-stalking order against Stuart Stevens, a writer and political strategist best known for running Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.
Stevens was accused of stalking Paige Hinkson. Her husband, Craig DeLuca, was accused by two different women of sexual harassment and assault while he was president and CFO of Stowe-based software company Inntopia.
One of those women, Lisa Senecal, is Stuart Stevens’ longtime romantic partner.
To secure the stalking order, Hinkson testified that Stevens stalked and harassed her in retaliation for her husband’s alleged misdeeds. She claimed he sent numerous packages to her home and called her phone more than 100 times in a year.
Stevens argued that he was sending books to DeLuca, not Hinkson, and the phone calls he placed were also meant for DeLuca.
On July 1, Hinkson, while out of the country, asked the judge to extend the no-stalking order for two years. Shafritz denied the request on July 8.
“Stowe is a small community, where inadvertent encounters, intersections and overlapping social functions involving Hinkson and Stevens are likely inevitable. The court imagines that these occasions will continue to be uncomfortable and upsetting for Hinkson well into the future,” Shafritz wrote. “However, as the court interprets the statute, such distress and discomfort alone does not support the continuation of a final order beyond its original expiration date.”
Barbara Blackman, Hinkson’s lawyer, issued a statement last week: “Paige is devastated that the anti-stalking order was not extended beyond one year. She continues to be terrified of this man. Without continued court protection, Paige’s only hope is that the publicity from all of this will discourage him from stalking her again.”
Stevens’s lawyer, Craig Nolan, also issued a statement on his client’s behalf: “I am pleased the court rejected this latest misguided effort by Ms. Hinkson, and I am confident the Supreme Court will agree her actions were an attempt to misuse the legal system. As my client Stuart Stevens wrote in response to the recent filing, ‘There is no court that can change the choices Craig DeLuca made and the impact it has had on his loved ones and his survivors and their loved ones. Nothing can change that but everyone must move on.’”
Arguments to extend
On July 1, Shafritz convened a hearing to determine whether to extend the no-stalking order.
Stuart Stevens at home in Morristown on Feb. 12, 2019. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger
Hinkson participated by phone because she was out of the country.
In asking for the extension, Hinkson said Stevens “has never apologized to me or demonstrated remorse for his actions.”
Nolan opposed the extension in an 18-page motion that argued, among other things, that Hinkson was both interfering in Stevens’ life and using the legal system and the press to attack Stevens, not the other way around.
Nolan also said Stevens had not violated the order at all during the five-month period it was in place, something the judge agreed with.
Nolan included testimony from Biddle Duke, former publisher of the Stowe Reporter. In it, Duke said DeLuca was one of his closest friends during his almost 20 years running the newspaper. He said his friendship with DeLuca and Hinkson “ended about 18 months ago, a fallout from the sexual assault allegations and allegations of impropriety against Mr. DeLuca.”
Both sides brought expert witnesses to the hearing. Hinkson’s side brought in Margaret Kuhner, who has worked in the domestic violence field for more than 20 years, most recently with Circle, a Barre organization that serves victims of domestic violence and stalking.
Kuhner used a tool called the Power and Control Wheel developed in the 1980s, also known as “the Duluth Model,” in her testimony. She testified that Stevens’ conduct during the past months — even while the stalking order was in place — is “consistent with stalking” as it relates to that model.
But Stevens’ side brought in Scott Miller, who has worked for the project that created the Duluth Model for 19 years. He testified that the model was designed for victims of domestic abuse by “intimate partners” to identify and understand their experiences. Miller said the model doesn’t apply to “strangers,” such as Stevens, who says he’d never even met Hinkson outside of court.
Barred from graduation
Hinkson pointed to a few incidents since February as proof that Stevens continued to stalk her.
Judge Shafritz notes in her July 8 ruling that the publication of an article in VTDigger shortly after the no-stalking order was issued was “orchestrated” by Stevens, “based on his connections with VTDigger.” In the lengthy piece, Stevens and Nolan talk about the case, among other things.
In Hinkson’s view, the judge writes, the article “seeks to discredit and malign her both personally and professionally.” In her motion to extend the stalking order, Hinkson said Nolan accused her of “engaging in theatrics” in her deposition.
Second, Stevens petitioned the court to allow him to attend the Stowe High School graduation on June 15, two weeks before the protective order was set to expire. Blackman said Hinkson had already planned on attending the graduation, and wrote to Nolan, “I just don’t think that you or your client ‘get it’ — Paige is terrified of Stuart Stevens.”
Blackman also urged Nolan not to file a motion to modify the stalking order to allow Stevens to also attend graduation, saying she and Hinkson would likely view the legal maneuver “as being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or needlessly increase the cost of this litigation.”
Nolan did file, in a motion with the title: “Motion for Clarification That Order Does Not Exclude Mr. Stevens from High School Graduation of Son of Longtime Significant Other on Ground That Plaintiff Will Allegedly Attend Event Despite Having No Child in Graduating Class.”
Judge Shafritz wrote that “Hinkson believes that by claiming graduation as ‘his event’ to attend, Stevens was trying to manipulate her actions and control where she goes and what she does.”
But the judge was less wordy in denying Stevens’ attendance at graduation, noting simply that the order states Stevens “shall remain 300 feet away from Plaintiff.”
Stevens did not attend graduation, even though he, Senecal and Senecal’s son testified in favor of him being there.
Supreme Court appeal
Immediately after Shafritz issued the protective order against Stevens on Feb. 1, Stevens had Nolan appeal the order to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Both sides filed their briefs with the high court over the following weeks, and the court is scheduled to weigh in on the merits of the case Aug. 5. Three justices — Chief Justice Paul Reiber and Associate Justices Marilyn Skoglund and Beth Robinson — will rule on the case without oral arguments.
Stevens’s appeal says, “Hinkson achieved her goal of harming Stevens as punishment for his support of the victims of her husband and smearing Stevens in the press to counter the negative publicity resulting from her husband’s sexual misconduct.
Attorney Craig Nolan represents Stuart Stevens. Sheehey Furlong photo
“The court’s errors allowed Hinkson and her husband to transform the statute from the shield intended by the Legislature for victims of predators like DeLuca to a sword wielded by those such as DeLuca and Hinkson who seek to destroy others and to deflect attention from their own misconduct.”
In March, Blackman said Stevens’ docketing statement “was written for the media, not the Vermont Supreme Court.”
“Unfortunately, to Stuart Stevens, this is just another campaign,” Blackman said. “To Paige, it is her life.”
Blackman argued that Stevens was causing Hinkson more distress simply by appealing the order.
Shafritz notes that Hinkson believes the appeal “is without legal basis and was filed merely to prolong the proceedings and as a means of further harassment.”
Editor’s note: Biddle Duke is an owner of the Stowe Reporter, and its former publisher. Lisa Senecal writes a regular column for the Stowe Reporter.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Judge won’t extend stalking order in Stowe case.