|Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
defamation lawsuit against
for statements on this website
|Testimony on this page:
More about March 27, 2001 incident and perjury
Missing Bate-stamped documents
|Deposition of Maura Larkins
by Ljubisa Kostic
June 16, 2008
Pages to 112 TO 120
1 Q. Leave where? I'm sorry. It's not clear.
2 A. Well, leave the school.
3 Q. Permanently as in not teach there, or just
5 A. No, just to leave at that moment, right at
6 that moment.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. Because he wasn't saying anything. He had
9 just walked me out toward the sidewalk and stopped and
10 said nothing. So I took it -- you know, I can take a
11 hint. So I left.
12 At that time I had a habit of walking
13 around -- well, it is kind of good we have a camera --
14 I had a habit of walking around with my books like
15 this (indicating) and I would carry a couple of pens
16 on top like that (indicating) and as I turned, the
17 pens fell to the ground.
18 I actually didn't notice it until I got back
19 to my car and noticed that I did not have my pens
20 anymore. Well, he used that as the germ of the story,
21 that I had thrown pens at him. He said, "And I have
22 the pens as proof." Okay. Now, his story was as I
23 had told you.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. That I had gone completely berserk, that he
1 had asked me to leave, which he did not, and that I
2 had gone completely berserk, yelling, "I want to work.
3 I want to work."
4 You must remember, at this point, I am a
5 person who is on leave and has been for a month and a
6 half because I am suspected of being about to kill two
7 teachers, or other versions of the story were that I
8 was going to kill everybody.
9 Let me see, March 27th -- eight days later
10 he asked me to come back to work without a fitness for
11 duty evaluation, after I had supposedly had this
12 extreme psychotic break.
13 Q. Did Mr. Werlin ask you to come back eight
14 days later in writing?
15 A. That is a very good question. No. As a
16 matter of fact, eight days later was the day he gave
17 me the 10-minute diatribe and he had me -- he had
18 never made any record of when he had taken me out on
19 February 12th. He made the record out April 4th. It
20 was this letter and it said, "You are being suspended
21 because of irrational behavior on March 27th."
22 Q. No. All I need to know is when he asked you
23 to come back; did he do that in person, on the phone,
24 in writing? How did he communicate that?
25 A. Oh, that was done in the meeting, in that
1 big April 4th meeting at the district.
2 Q. That is when he asked you to come back?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I have been very patient. I hope that you
5 would agree with me. What does all that have to do
6 with Stutz, Artiano suborning perjury?
7 A. Because it is obvious that he was lying.
8 Q. So our firm suborned perjury because we
9 should have known that one of our clients' witnesses
10 was lying?
11 A. All of your clients' witnesses were lying.
12 Q. So what should we have done about that in
13 order to do right?
14 A. You should have told the district that they
15 had violated several laws and that they should say
16 they are sorry. Robin Donlan is the one that should
17 have been transferred. Some of these other
18 teachers -- and they finally did end up transferring
19 them a few years later, but they are still causing
20 trouble. There's another one of the Castle Park
21 family that just got transferred a week ago. They are
22 still causing trouble.
23 Stutz Law Firm is largely responsible for
24 this dysfunctional school that has been causing
25 problems for kids ever since these teachers went out
1 of control and the district and CTA helped to cover up
2 their wrongdoing.
3 Q. Have you told me everything about why you
4 think the Stutz firm suborned perjury?
5 A. No. It is just the evidence is massive. I
6 haven't even gotten to these other two parts of your
7 question. You said, "Did they know that they would
8 say." Yes.
9 Q. How would they know what these witnesses
10 would say?
11 A. Because they prepared them beforehand.
12 Q. Did you participate in any of those
14 A. No. But they referred to them during the
15 depositions, like, you know -- it was real obvious
16 that they were -- it was real obvious that
17 Kelly Angell did not want Linda Watson to change her
18 testimony that day. But Linda Watson knew that her
19 phone records would reveal that she had just committed
20 perjury, and she just wanted to get it over with.
21 Boy, Kelly Angell -- it was real obvious that
22 Kelly Angell was -- didn't want her to change her
23 testimony to the truth.
24 Q. How about No. 3, what reason do you have to
25 believe that the Stutz firm would have any way to know
1 who was telling the truth?
2 A. Well, their obvious knowledge of guilt is --
3 for example, hiding documents. They know the truth of
4 these documents that they have been hiding for all
5 these years. They never spoke to me when they were
6 supposedly doing the investigation after the original
7 tort claim. They didn't want to know the true story.
8 They never even -- they accepted this final
9 report from the district -- well, actually, it was not
10 called a final report, but it was the final report.
11 It was this tentative report written -- given to me on
12 November 21st, 2001, and all it was, was the original
13 allegations. There was never any investigation. I
14 have looked at other Stutz cases in the files at the
15 Superior Court. Other schools, they actually do
16 investigations. They really do real investigations.
17 Q. Stutz does?
18 A. The schools did.
19 Q. Oh.
20 A. I don't know if Stutz encouraged them or
21 not. But they really are. I could see in those files
22 that some schools -- I am specifically thinking of
23 Grossmont Union High School District. I remember
24 seeing this investigation here. I don't think Stutz
25 was involved in it. But I was thinking, wow, you
1 know, some school districts actually do investigations
2 and there is a paper trail.
3 So, obviously, Stutz knows about
4 investigations. Stutz knew what was not done in my
5 case and what should have been done, and Stutz did
6 nothing to remediate the problem.
7 Q. What I want to know is why do you think that
8 Stutz knew what actually happened as opposed to
9 whether they investigated it or not?
10 A. It was really obvious. I mean, look -- for
11 example, all you do is have to look at the allegations
12 of my complete, insane behavior on March 27th, and
13 then look that I was asked to come back to work
14 without even a fitness for duty. And there was no
15 documentation of my being asked to come back to work.
16 The letter that I signed on that day, it
17 said, you know, "You are being suspended on
18 February 12th." This is the letter that was first --
19 saw the light of day on April 4th. Then as soon as I
20 had signed that I received that letter where they were
21 suspending me retroactively, he asked me to come back
22 to work and made no paper trail about it.
23 Stutz knew that, that there was no paper
24 trail. It was obvious that Rick Werlin was lying,
25 violating laws, and Stutz knew it.
1 Q. Earlier we talked about what lawyers should
2 do, and one of the things you said is you said that
3 lawyers should follow the law.
4 Do you remember that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Who do you think should decide whether a
7 lawyer has followed the law in any particular
9 A. Well, I certainly don't think that you can
10 rely on the bar association, if that's what you're
11 getting at. They protect lawyers who violate the law.
12 I certainly don't think that you can rely on the
13 courts. Because they -- for one thing, like in my
14 case against Elizabeth Schulman, her behavior was just
15 unconscionable. It was really a behavior of a corrupt
16 lawyer. The bar association just said, "No, we don't
17 see anything wrong with this."
18 Q. Have you made any complaints to the bar
19 association against a lawyer with the Stutz firm?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Now, I was asking you who should decide if a
22 lawyer has followed the law. You told me the
23 different people we can't depend on. We can't depend
24 on the State Bar. We can't depend on the judges.
25 Who should decide if a lawyer has followed
1 the law?
2 A. It should be a person who has either good
3 reading comprehension so that they can read the law
4 and know what it is, or good listening comprehension
5 so they can hear the law and what it is, and a person
6 who can understand a set of facts and then compare the
7 law to the set of facts involving a lawyer's behavior.
8 Q. You believe that our judiciary and our
9 State Bar system lack these basic skills?
10 A. Well, the judiciary. Because the cases
11 don't come before them often enough. I certainly
12 think the judiciary failed in my case against
13 Schulman. But also, you know, the system, it largely
14 relies on people with money who can hire lawyers to
15 come to court.
16 So the system obviously misses a lot of
17 cases, where the person who was the victim is not able
18 to bring the matter to the attention of the court.
19 Q. Now, you said that Stutz was hiding
20 documents. Which documents is Stutz hiding?
21 A. The documents that I have been asking for,
22 for years. The documents in my deposition notice and
23 subpoena for Mr. Artiano and Mr. Shinoff.
24 Q. I don't need you to tell me where else I
25 could go find them. I need to know specifically which
1 documents these are.
2 A. It was a set of 87 Bates-stamped documents
3 that were collected by Daniel Shinoff at Castle Park
4 Elementary in the fall of 2001. They were
5 Bates stamped with the Nos. 01, 02, et cetera.
6 Q. Was there any letter associated with it or
7 just numbers?
8 A. No, just the numbers.
9 Q. Do you remember how many leading zeros there
11 A. Yeah. It was 01.
12 Q. 01 to 87.
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. So no additional leading zeros?
15 A. No.
16 Q. How did you find out that Daniel Shinoff
17 collected these documents at Castle Elementary?
18 A. Because some of those 87 documents were
19 produced for my administrative hearing.
20 Q. Right. How did you know that Daniel Shinoff
21 collected them at the school?
22 A. I heard Mark Bresee call up on his cell
23 phone in the hallway outside of Elizabeth Schulman's
24 office, calling up Stutz -- oh, and before he made the
25 call, he said that he would call up Stutz and ask for
"...[T]heir obvious knowledge
of guilt is -- for example, hiding
beforehand: see Michele
"Who do you think should decide
whether a lawyer has followed the law
in any particular instance?"
Bar association complaints
I need to ask Bresee and Shinoff about
Bate-stamped documents from
Stutz--as Kostic points out here.
events on this
Feb. 12, 2001
Teacher (Maura Larkins)
placed on leave due to
anonymous reports that she
might kill two teachers
March 27, 2001
(The "March 27 Incident")
CVESD's Richard Werlin took
Maura Larkins to a place
where there were no
witnesses, then later claimed
that she started screaming, "I
want to work! I want to work!,"
while at the same time
repeatedly running away and
coming back. Rick Werlin says
she was running and jerking at
the same time. In the interest
of science, a prize is being
offered to anyone who can run
and jerk at the same time.
Feb. 12, 2001 to
CVESD has never done an
investigation of any of the
deadly serious allegations in
April 3, 2001
The teacher sent this fax to
CVESD. 8 days after the
March 27 apparent psychotic
break allegedly witnessed by
Richard Werlin, CVESD did
something it has never
April 4, 2001
CVESD asked the supposedly
dangerous teacher to return
to work without a fitness for
The teacher's health care
provider wanted to know
what was going on. She
called Richard Werlin and he
did not mention a word about
the alleged March 27 incident.
Daniel Shinoff prepared a
document claiming that the
March 27 incident was
genuine for Werlin to sign,
and filed the document in San
Diego Superior Court on
behalf of CVESD.
1 the documents. Then I heard him make the call and
2 saying he needed the documents, and then indeed he
3 produced some documents from this set.
4 Q. How many of the set did he produce?
5 A. Do you want to know what -- I can look up
6 the deposition notice. I have it here somewhere.
7 Do you want me to do that?
8 Q. No. Why don't you give me an estimate of
9 how many you were missing.
10 A. I am going to say it was maybe half.
11 Q. So, again, how do you know that
12 Daniel Shinoff obtained 87 pages on a specific date?
13 A. Oh, I did not say he obtained them on a
14 specific date. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
15 Q. I thought you said that Daniel Shinoff
16 collected documents at the school.
17 A. In the fall of 2001.
18 Q. So it was on several days?
19 A. I don't know. All I know, it was in the
20 fall of 2001.
21 Q. How do you know that Daniel Shinoff was at
22 the school in the fall of 2001 collecting documents?
23 A. Because one or more teachers said so in
24 their depositions. They said -- I remember
25 Jo Ellen Hamilton said she had given her notes to
1 Mr. Shinoff. I don't remember anyone else, but there
2 were notes from other people in that set of 87.
3 Q. How did you determine that what was produced
4 to you was not all of what Daniel Shinoff obtained at
5 the school?
6 A. Because it is ludicrous that he would skip
7 so many numbers when he was Bates stamping a set of
9 Q. Do you know who Bates numbered the documents
10 in question?
11 A. I know it was somebody at Stutz Law Firm.
12 Q. How do you know that?
13 A. Because they were already Bates stamped when
14 Mark Bresee obtained them and -- yeah.
15 Q. How did you find out that the documents were
16 already Bates stamped by the time that Bresee obtained
18 A. From my lawyer, Elizabeth Schulman.
19 Q. How did Ms. Schulman know whether the
20 documents had already been Bates numbered by the time
21 that Mr. Bresee obtained them?
22 A. I imagined that she knew that -- well, here,
23 it is simple logic. If you were going to produce some
24 documents -- if Daniel Shinoff is going to give some
25 documents to Mark Bresee and they are not Bates
1 stamped, well, naturally, Mark Bresee, if he's the one
2 that Bates stamps them, he is going to put them in
3 numerical order. But instead, there were a whole
4 bunch of missing numbers. So, obviously, they were
5 Bates stamped before they were cherry-picked.
6 Q. How do you know that Bresee did not have his
7 staff number the documents and then take out ones that
8 he thought you were not entitled to obtain?
9 A. I don't know for sure. I don't have any
10 direct personal knowledge. Because I was not watching
12 Q. Do you have any information about whether or
13 not Mr. Shinoff provided all 87 pages to Bresee, who
14 then cherry-picked them, or whether Shinoff just only
15 gave them half?
16 A. I believe that I talked about this at the
17 beginning of today's session, the early morning
18 session. I don't.
19 Q. So you don't know who removed the documents
20 that you think are missing?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Other than the numbering system, you would
23 not know that the set was incomplete?
24 A. Exactly.
25 Q. So, in other words, you did not know what
1 was originally provided to Shinoff or anyone else by
2 individuals at the school?
3 A. Exactly.
I don't know what was originally provided to
Shinoff--that's why Shinoff needs to produce the
documents that were provided to him, and to testify
about where he got them.
Another good reason provided by Mr.
Kostic for deposing Shinoff and Bresee
and compelling production of