ADL and the Chula Vista Elementary School District

This program was tried at Castle Park Elementary soon after the Castle Park Five episode. It might have been more appropriate to teach these principles to the teachers! The bullying of principals (and other teachers) by the clique of teachers who called themselves the "Castle Park Family" resulted in eleven principals in eleven years at the school. Teacher bullies and a tiny group of parents also brought about a $20,000 embezzlement at the PTA and large amounts of tax dollars spent on defending teachers for criminal actions.

ADL and the Chula Vista Elementary School District: Working together to make the places we learn No Place for Hate®
May 31, 2012
ADL.org

The Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) has participated in the ADL’s No Place for Hate® initiative since it was launched in San Diego in 2009. We celebrated another successful year with a Banner Presentation Ceremony at the CVESD Education Services and Support Center on May 23, 2012.

Assistant Superintendent Sandra Villegas Zuni began by commending all the educators and administrators for their commitment to providing a learning environment where students feel accepted and safe. Parents, Ms. Villegas Zuni said, entrust their children to the schools, and it is the responsibility of everyone in the school to honor that trust through programs that promote an appreciation for diversity and proactively address bullying.

Tina Malka, ADL Associate Director, spoke about the ADL’s mission to "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." ADL recognizes that in order to keep the Jewish community safe, we need to keep all communities safe. Ms. Malka thanked our CVESD partners for their commitment to combating intolerance, bullying, and hatred in their schools.

Antwon Lincoln, Coordinator of Instructional Technology, shared the District’s partnership with iSafe, which provides educational programs that empower students to safely, responsibly and productively use Information and Communications Technologies. iSafe is a valuable tool in addressing cyberbullying. Mr. Lincoln then introduced the winner of CVESD’s 2012 Speech Contest. The 6th grade students’ topic was “How will you positively impact the world?” The winner, Discovery Charter School’s Miguel Aldrete, spoke eloquently and engagingly about his efforts to combat deforestation, educate the youth about obesity, and “motivating for education.” Miguel uses the Internet to spread his message effectively in a positive way.

Representatives for several schools spoke about the No Place for Hate® activities they conducted throughout the year and the impact they have made on the students. The No Place for Hate® banners were then presented to individual schools.

We look forward to another successful partnership with the Chula Vista Elementary School District during the 2012-2013 school year!

Peg Myers, meet Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin won't stop complaining that the media has portrayed her unfairly. Apparently this is because the media talks about things that Palin herself would prefer not to discuss, such as Palin's using the fact that Russia is within sight of Alaska to prove that she is ready to handle international foreign policy.

Our own Peg Myers won't stop complaining that this blog has portrayed her unfairly. Again, this seems to be because this blog talks about things that Peg herself would prefer not to discuss, such as her actions against teachers at Castle Park Elementary when Peg was working on behalf of administrator Richard Werlin and some of her other friends.

Latest correspondence in Stutz v. Larkins defamation suit

Here's the message I just send to Stutz law firm regarding its demands for changes in my website, pursuant to its defamation suit against me.

June 9, 2009

Dear Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz:

A person can disagree with Stutz without saying or implying that Stutz' actions are illegal or unprofessional. Obviously, there was a parting of the ways between Stutz and Bob Gallagher. Bob clearly did not see eye to eye with Dan Shinoff, Ray Artiano, James Holtz, etc. There's nothing in the court order that prevents me from saying so. People are allowed to dislike Stutz law firm, and they're not legally required to keep their feelings secret.

And, conversely, Stutz is allowed to nurture whatever hostile feelings it wishes against me and others.

Some Stutz lawyers get so angry that one would hardly be surprised to see smoke rising from the top of their heads. Ray Artiano was so mad during his deposition that his face kept twitching. Kelly Angell pointed both her index fingers at me in court, with thumbs cocked as if she were shooting me with two guns at once. (And I'll bet Stutz doesn't even charge the taxpayers for the theatrics. Rage and fury are thrown in for no charge!)

Citizens are allowed to criticize the actions of public entities and other organizations, such as tax-free educational institutions like Californians Against Lawsuit Abuse. America is what it is because of freedom of speech. You have no authority to stop me from presenting my ideas about education and the justice system.

Stutz obtained a summary judgment that it didn't deserve in its defamation case against me. The judge didn't consider my evidence, and relied on the declaration of a man (Dan Shinoff) who refused to be deposed and refused to produce documents. I would think that Stutz wouldn't want to push this too far.

If I were Stutz, I'd quit while I was ahead. But I guess that sort of advice is lost on Stutz. Stutz has had so many chances to quit while it was ahead in my case, but didn't take advantage of any of them. You know when the perfect time would have been to settle with me? Feb. 11, 2003, the day my OAH decision came out. Or Dec. 18, 2004, when my Superior Court case got thrown out.

At that time I probably would have exchanged confidentiality for a song.

Why did Stutz wait until I was back up and running, with a successful website, and THEN ask me to keep my information under wraps? Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the guys in charge of your firm have common sense.

I've heard that Daniel Shinoff considers "The Art of War" to be his personal bible, but I don't think he's read it carefully. Charging ahead with as many weapons as you can muster is not always the best plan. Sometimes you can defang an opponent with a smile and a handshake.

Can you believe that our trial date is just a month away? Maybe that's what we should be focusing on, rather than whether it is defamatory to say that Bob Gallagher left the firm because he didn't like Stutz' tactics.

Respectfully,
Maura Larkins

[Maura Larkins' comment: A report I found on NPR today helped me understand what's going on here. "Through their research, Kahneman and Tversky identified dozens of these biases and errors in judgment, which together painted a certain picture of the human animal. Human beings, it turns out, don't always make good decisions, and frequently the choices they do make aren't in their best interest...In other words, if the human brain is hard-wired to make serious errors, that implies all kinds of things about the need for regulation and protection."

Will the court quash my deposition subpoenas of CVESD officials?

I just checked online to see the Tentative Rulings on CVESD's motion to quash my deposition subpoenas of Tom Cruz and Susan Fahle (in photo at left), and found that the court has continued the motion for two weeks.

This means I don't have to put my suit on tomorrow morning and go down to the courthouse, which is a relief, even though I always enjoy visiting downtown San Diego and the stately Hall of Justice. It's just that I've got a lot going on right now.

Also, my motion to compel the deposition of attorney Daniel Shinoff will have to wait two weeks, as will the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Stutz law firm.

CVESD and Maura Larkins: a summary of the case

>Many people have told me that my case is so complicated that they simply don't understand it. They have asked for a summary, and here it is.

Maura Larkins v. CVESD was the result of an odd confluence of circumstances, and at the same time it was a typical event in the system that prevails at many schools across the United States. This system values politics and personal loyalty among adults over the duty to educate and protect children.

MY EX-SISTER-IN-LAW WANTED TO BE MANAGER OF MY FATHER'S APARTMENTS

I had been teaching at Chula Vista Elementary
School District for 27 years when the problem began.
It started with a family problem: I was
co-administrator of my father's estate,
and one of my brothers was secretly
unhappy about it. He and his ex-wife decided
to use the police to remove me from my position.

MY TROUBLED EX-SISTER-IN-LAW IS TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY THE DISTRICT

I was removed from my classroom
on February 12, 2001 due to a false police report
(see "A False Police Report" on this page)
made by my mentally-ill and substance-abusing
ex-sister-in-law. However, the district didn't
want to admit this, since using the
illegally-obtained police report
(no charges were filed against me)
was a misdemeanor.

THE DISTRICT DECIDES TO COVER-UP ITS MISTAKE

There is no chance that the district
would have been charged with a crime
for its silly little misdemeanor
(Labor Code section 432.7), but the district
decided it would rather spend $100,000s
of tax dollars to pay its lawyers to cover up the mistake
than to simply admit it made a mistake.

THE DISTRICT COMES UP WITH A STORY

The reason given by the district for my removal was that
two teachers had called assistant superintendent Richard Werlin
at home on a Saturday evening and said they believed
I might be about to kill them. Oddly, the district
created NO DOCUMENT at this time to explain
the reason I was removed from my classroom,
nor did it investigate the alarming report.

THE DISTRICT CHANGES ITS STORY

Within a month, the district changed its story,
saying that only one teacher, Jo Ellen Hamilton,
had called Richard Werlin about me. Hamilton later
testified under oath that she had simply called
Werlin at his invitation to discuss a planned meeting.

THE FAX THAT CAUSED CVESD TO DO AN ABRUPT ABOUT-FACE

On April 3, 2001 I sent a
fax to the district. The next day I was abruptly
asked to return to work, and at the
same time the district belatedly
prepared a document to explain why
I had been removed from my classroom
in the first place. The document
contained a new, completely false
accusation by Richard Werlin and
never mentioned the teacher reports.

I GO BACK TO WORK

I went back to teach in April 2001 because
it seemed clear that my accusers had
been deemed unreliable (either crazy
or dishonest or some combination of the two),
and I assumed that the fabricated excuse in
Richard Werlin's document , was merely
an effort by an embarrassed human resources director
to cover up his mistake.


But I was wrong. It was more than a cover-up;
it was, in fact, a set-up.

BIZARRE NEW ALLEGATIONS

A week after returning, Linda Watson, one of the
teachers who had accused me earlier,
and a new accuser who made a written report,
came forward with bizarre allegations.

AN IMPENDING ELECTION CAUSED THE TEACHERS UNION TO ABANDON ITS OBLIGATIONS

I did not know it at the time, but the teachers
union, Chula Vista Educators, was
working with my accuser Linda Watson. CVE President
Gina Boyd had worked at my school until 1995, and
although she did not share the motivations
of her friends at Castle Park Elementary,
she was running for reelection and felt she
needed to keep them happy in order to win.
This effort was supported by California Teachers
Association Board of Directors member Jim Groth.

Richard Werlin, with the approval of the cabinet
(including Libia Gil and Lowell Billings),
had triggered an all-out hysteria at my school.
Two staff members told me that many teachers were afraid
that I was "going to come to school and shoot everybody.”

DISTRICT DOESN'T BOTHER TO INVESTIGATE MASS MURDER RUMOR THAT CAUSES HYSTERIA AMONG TEACHERS

Without making any effort to
establish that a Columbine-type
event was not in the offing, the
district demanded that I come back
to work in September of 2001. This
time I refused.

My lawyer demanded an investigation
to clear my name and cool down the crucible
that Castle Park Elementary had become, but
the district refused. It was clear that anyone
could make any accusation against me, and it
would be believed and acted on: I was not
safe at work.

SCHOOL ATTORNEY MARK BRESEE GETS HELP FROM DANIEL SHINOFF

Attorney Mark Bresee, who was then working with
Parham & Rajcic and was recently chosen as chief counsel
for Terry Grier at SDUSD, had been giving legal advice
to CVESD up to this point.

When I filed a tort claim on October 4, 2001, attorney Diane Crosier and claims adjuster Rodger Hartnett of San Diego County Office of Education Joint Powers Authority, along with their favorite attorney, Daniel Shinoff of Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, became involved.

THE DISTRICT RETALIATES WHEN I FILE GRIEVANCES

I filed 3 grievances on November 13, 2001. The very next day the
district threatened me with dismissal. This was a violation of
the Elementary Education Relations Act (EERA) and other laws.

The district took no action on its
threats, however, until I filed a
lawsuit on March 12, 2002. On May
7, 2002 Patrick Judd, Cheryl Cox,
Pamela Smith, Bertha Lopez and
Larry Cunningham voted to dismiss
me, thus violating California Labor
Code section 1102.5 which prohibits
retaliation against employees for
reporting wrongdoing. This was also
a violation of the constitutional right
to petition for redress of grievances.

THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SEEMS TO HAVE A GIFT FOR COMEDY

My dismissal was upheld by the
Office of Administrative Hearings.
Judge H. James Ahler conducted
a hearing that was almost as comical
as it was illegal. At one point
Judge Ahler jumped up and
ordered the panelists to join him in a
side room, where he told them to
disregard my testimony. I heard his
words because I was sitting on the
witness stand a few feet from him.
The court reporter and all the rest of us
sat at attention during the ten
minutes the panel was in the little
room, but the judge's words were
not included in the transcript
because the reporter couldn't hear
them.

The school district spent many tax
dollars, and the California Teachers
Association spent plenty of teachers'
dues, to get my lawsuit thrown out.
Perjury by employees was also
required, but the effort seemed to pay off
for the district and CTA when my lawsuit was
dismissed in 2005.

DISTRICT LAWYERS BRING THE CASE BACK TO COURT IN 2007

As fate would have it, however, my case
is back in court. CVESD’s law firm,
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz,
brought this case back to San Diego Superior Court
in 2007 by filing a defamation suit against me
for publishing this website.

So it’s still possible that justice and sanity
will find their way back to Chula Vista Elementary
School District.

by Maura Larkins

China, CVESD and Stutz law firm have similar ideas about freedom of speech

As I have explained elsewhere in this blog, CVESD and Stutz, Artiano Shinoff and Holtz are trying to hide the truth about themselves. So is China:

Journalists Say China Is Not Living Up To Openness Pledge

By Maureen Fan
Washington Post

Sunday, August 3, 2008;
"...Chinese authorities and the Western news media apparently have different understandings of "complete freedom." Sun Weida, a spokesman for Beijing's Olympic organizing committee, and Liu Jianchao, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, suggested recently that reporters did not actually need to visit blocked Web sites to do their jobs. Sun was surrounded by a mob of reporters after a news conference, and when he insisted that the Internet was free and open in China, some of them shouted, "That's not true!" ...

CVESD still using illegal tactics to silence critics?

"...When you work for the public, as I have, you are required to be honest and serve the public..."
By Flo Samuels, Hayward, July 24, 2008 Voice of San Diego


I recently discovered what appears to be a connection between Chula Vista Elementary School District and the lawsuit by their lawyers (Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz) to stop me from publishing my website.

It is illegal for a public entity to sue for defamation.

I suspect that CVESD superintendent Lowell Billings (at left in above photo), and (next to Billings in above photo) board members David Bejarano, Pam Smith, Patrick Judd, Bertha Lopez and Larry Cunningham know this very well. So why don't they operate in an above-board manner, and file a lawsuit against me as individuals?

First, I imagine they don't want to give me a chance to prove my allegations in court.

Second, they are accustomed to having the taxpayers foot the bill for their legal representation.

Stutz attorney Ljubisa Kostic denied that he made an uncustomary and lengthy visit to my website and blogs the day after I participated in a meeting at Castle Park Elementary school. Unfortunately for Mr. Kostic, I was able to match the IP address of his laptop, which he used during my deposition, to the May 28, 2008 visit. That same laptop had made very rare, and usually very short, visits prior to that date.

To top it all off, Kostic issued a Notice of Deposition to me on the very next day (May 29, 2008). He could have done this at anytime during the previous 8 months, and there is no reason to think he would have done it on that day except to retaliate on behalf of CVESD for my public appearance.

This appears to be yet another case of illegal involvement by CVESD in the justice system (see also CVESD's bizarre and successful effort to protect Stutz law firm from obstruction of justice claims), and an effort by CVESD to use intimidation to interfere with my right to free speech.

CVESD lawyers Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins trial February 2009

Stutz law firm asked the court on July 25, 2008 to delay the trial for their lawsuit against me for defamation.

One would think they'd be in a hurry to stop me if I'm truly defaming them.

Either my site isn't really hurting them, or Stutz law firm is tacitly admitting that what I say is true.


The November trial date selected by the court was changed to February 6, 2009.

The Stutz lawyer also said that a court-ordered settlement conference "would not be fruitful." The judge looked at him and said, "Well, then you'll just have to work it out yourselves."

Half a million dollars spent on lawyers didn't fix Castle Park Elementary; how about trying honesty and respect?

Why has Castle Park Elementary had 11 principals in 11 years?

Because past is prologue.

Hiding a seminal event, such as the moral collapse that occurred in 2001, serves only to exacerbate its causes.

He who fails to learn from history is fated to repeat its mistakes.

Teachers and administrators and board members have relied on their lawyer, Daniel Shinoff, to do whatever is necessary to hide the truth about Castle Park, regardless of the cost to the taxpayers. It's time to stop charging the taxpayers for the wrongdoing of public officials and public employees.

The learning curve of those who control Castle Park Elementary has been flat for more than 11 years. When things don't go well, they just get rid of their principal.

But principals aren't the only people they get rid of.

The serious problems at Castle Park Elementary started when the bilingual program was introduced in 1994. Many teachers were furious that the school had a new kindergarten teacher that year-a bilingual teacher named Heather Smith. They got rid of her that very year; she was dismissed by the district. (The district does not make any effort to determine why teachers have been targeted for dismissal; district administrators allow school politics to make those decisions.)

The bilingual program added a teacher a year until it had a final total of four bilingual teachers in September 1997.

Many teachers refused to allow bilingual classes into their teaming arrangements.

Rae Correira, a district administrator who tried to arrange teaming in the 1997-1998 school year was suddenly transferred to a different job in the middle of the year. The teachers ran the school. The principal did exactly what teacher leaders told her to do. And that included dismissing another bilingual teacher--Maura Larkins.

Other excellent teacher forced out of the school for political reasons only include Luci Fowers, Heather Coman, and principal Ollie Matos. Matos was clearly targeted for allowing ELAC parents to have a voice in the school.

Unfortunatley, the teachers committed crimes to achieve their goal, and the district and teachers union also committed crimes at the teachers' request. Then the district spent roughly half a million dollars for Daniel Shinoff's work in covering up the crimes. The teachers became drunk with power. They felt untouchable.

Castle Park teachers seem to think they live in some country where they can silence public discussion of public issues.

It's time to start dealing with reality. I offer to have an open and honest discussion with the Castle Park teachers. It's the only way to solve the problem. Hiding wrongdoing is rarely the best way to bring peace. It's time for the truth dodgers to deal with the problems they have caused.

Castle Park Elementary teachers want to hide their heads in the sand while a Superior Court Case is going on regarding crimes committed at the school.

I've started a new blog in Spanish about these issues.