Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
defamation lawsuit against
Maura Larkins
for statements on this website
Testimony on this page:
Deposition of Maura Larkins
by Ljubisa Kostic
June 16, 2008

Pages 175 to 203
1 Q. If you describe them sufficiently, I
2 suppose. I am going to be very specific.
3 A. I think you wanted all the orders.
4 Q. No, no. I am going to ask you for orders
5 where the judge said anything to the effect that the
6 Stutz firm was making frivolous objections to your
7 statements of fact. That is all I am going to
8 request.
9 A. Yeah. Why don't you do that in an
10 interrogatory.
11 Q. All right. You are not sure if any of these
12 orders --
13 A. I am not sure, no.
14 Q. Did you think about that before you created
15 the column we are looking at?
16 A. I know these things firsthand. I don't need
17 someone else to say it. I know that these things are
18 true.
19 Q. So in your case, the Stutz firm was guilty
20 of making frivolous objections to your statements of
21 fact?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. You will be able to provide me with
24 those -- were those in writing?
25 A. I certainly will.

1 Q. Right. Remember, my question was if you had
2 ever seen an order from a judge that said that.
3 A. I may have in my case. I have to look at
4 those orders.
5 Q. You think the judge might have said that
6 about our firm?
7 A. Something to that effect.
8 Q. But you didn't put that up on your Web site?
9 A. No.
10 Q. How come you didn't put up the orders from
11 your actual case on the Web site?
12 A. Do you know how much work a Web site is?
13 There is so much that I would like to put up here that
14 I have not put up yet.
15 Q. Now, it says here that, "A culture of
16 misrepresentation and deception exists at
17 Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz."
18 A. Well, truer words were never spoken.
19 Q. So that is a fact?
20 A. That is -- I have firsthand knowledge of
21 that.
22 Q. Then, "The firm clearly suffers from a lack
23 of professionalism or a lack of understanding of the
24 law."
25 Is that also a true fact?
1 A. It is one or the other, maybe both, but
2 definitely one or the other.
3 Q. No. 3 says, "Many of Stutz's filings cannot
4 be interpreted as anything other than bad-faith
5 attempts to mislead the court, obscure the real facts,
6 and to obstruct and/or harass the plaintiff, either to
7 wear down the plaintiff or to win a victory that is
8 clearly unjustified by either the facts or the law."
9 A. I stand by that statement.
10 Q. That is a true fact?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Then it says, "While isolated errors or
13 misstatements might be excused, given the size of the
14 record, the sheer volume of misstatements, the only
15 reasonable inference that can be drawn is that
16 Daniel Shinoff, Jeffery Morris, Kelly Angell, and many
17 other Stutz lawyers intend and obstruct at every step
18 and stand education law, as well as labor law, the
19 penal code, and the constitutions of the California
20 and the United States' on their heads."
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, isn't it true that the statement I just
23 read, No. 4, isn't that one of those things you took
24 from Judge Wanger's orders? Then what you did is,
25 where the judge was referring to Lozano Smith and its
1 attorneys, you just put in Daniel Shinoff,
2 Jeffery Morris, Kelly Angell?
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 Q. So you took a statement that judge made and
5 you put in these other people's names, including my
6 firm?
7 A. Um-hmm, only because the new statement was
8 100 percent true.
9 Q. Okay. It is 100 percent true. Let's take a
10 little break -- oh, no, before we do that.
11 How many other lawyers at the Stutz firm
12 intend to obstruct justice at every step and stand
13 education law as well as labor law, the penal code,
14 and the constitution on their heads?
15 A. Well, obviously, Ray Artiano, that was
16 clear. If you just go through the files, the court
17 files, you will see how other unfortunate young
18 lawyers have been pulled into the culture. Some of
19 them, I think, were already corrupt before they came.
20 I should not necessarily -- you know, I was
21 amazed how Kelly Angell and Stutz Law Firm got
22 together. Because she had just been hired just a few
23 months before I filed suit. I kind of wondered how
24 she could know that they would want her to do all
25 these illegal things. I don't know. How do they get
1 that across in the interview?
2 Q. Wow. So you think when the Stutz firm
3 interviews people, they immediately try to isolate the
4 bad apples, the people who will do illegal things?
5 A. Well, I'm just wondering how Kelly Angell
6 got the idea that they would approve of her actions.
7 Q. How do you know, by the way, that anyone
8 approved or disapproved of Kelly Angell's actions?
9 A. Because I complained in December 2003 and
10 they did nothing. They met with me at Starbucks and
11 then after that they just ignored it -- except
12 Robert Gallagher is the only one who seemed to care.
13 Q. Oh, really, because he left?
14 A. Yeah. Everybody else just stayed, kept
15 raking in the money for illegal actions.
16 Q. What illegal actions has the Stutz firm
17 profited from?
18 A. Well, all the perjury in my case, all the
19 making misrepresentations to the judge, the entire
20 case. What they should have done is said -- at the
21 very first as soon as they learned what happened, they
22 should have said, "You should settle this case. You
23 should say you are sorry. She has not been harmed
24 that much. Now, just say you are sorry and tell these
25 other teachers that they better quit committing crimes
1 because it is going to cause problems." But, no, he
2 kept it going for years.
3 So what other possible motive could he have
4 other than to benefit himself both politically and
5 financially.
6 Q. What if Mr. Shinoff believed that these
7 people were telling the truth and that you should be
8 terminated and that the district had every reason and
9 right to defend itself from your lawsuit.
10 A. I don't think he is that stupid.
11 Q. So the only way he could think that is if he
12 was stupid?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And all the judges that have
15 considered all these claims you've brought, they are
16 all stupid too?
17 A. They never considered the facts of the case.
18 The facts of the case were never considered except for
19 Judge Ahler, the one who fired me for filing
20 grievances in a lawsuit.
21 Q. He is obviously stupid too, or corrupt?
22 A. He obviously made an illegal decision.
23 Q. Do you think it was because he's stupid or
24 corrupt, or something else?
25 A. Well, he actually put down his intelligence
1 during the case. I remember he was talking about if
2 it got appealed. He said, "Then there are three guys
3 smarter than me that will decide."
4 But I think, actually, his main motivation
5 was -- is that he was interested in the woman who was
6 on the side of the district. Her name was
7 Terry Olson. She was pretty. If you have looked at
8 Page 22 on my Web site, you will see that he was
9 sending her very different letters from what he was
10 sending to the other panelists. I really think that
11 part of his desire was to please her, to be on her
12 side.
13 Q. All right. So that would make him corrupt,
14 because he had his own motivations that were something
15 other than the truth and justice?
16 A. You know, I don't really know. He behaved
17 very badly. I don't know what the -- you know,
18 sometimes it is hard to tell the proportions of
19 foolishness and intentional wrongdoing.
20 Q. Okay. Let's take just a very short break.
21 MR. KOSTIC: Does anybody else need a break?
23 Q. Do you need a break?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay. Then I will be real short. I'll be
1 right back.
2 A. You forgot to ask me if I agree to having a
3 break.
4 Q. Oh, no, I am calling the break. It is my
5 deposition.
6 A. Both parties have to agree.
7 Q. No, no, they don't.
8 A. Oh, yes, they do.
9 (Recess taken.)
11 Q. Ms. Larkins, do you have any intention of
12 creating a blog of things that you think are pertinent
13 from today's deposition?
14 A. I had not thought about it. So I would have
15 to say at this time, no, I don't have any intentions.
16 Q. Okay. Have you done any research to
17 determine when it is appropriate and when it is not
18 appropriate for a litigant to make statements to the
19 public about the subject of the litigation?
20 A. Not really research. But I do know that if
21 you want to keep these depositions secret, you should
22 go and ask the court, you know, to order it, like you
23 did in my other case.
24 Q. I understand. I mean, there's a difference
25 between keeping the transcript sealed and making
1 comments about the facts underlying the case.
2 What I am saying is, have you done any
3 research to determine when it is inappropriate for a
4 litigant to make public statements about the facts
5 underlying the case that might influence a future jury
6 who is going to hear evidence?
7 A. Yeah, yeah. They don't allow it in England;
8 this is the United States.
9 Q. So you think that here in the United States
10 you are free to make any statements that you wish
11 about the subject of the pending litigation --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- under the freedoms afforded you by the
14 first amendment?
15 A. But you can go and ask the court for a gag
16 order.
17 Q. So you understand that there are
18 circumstances under which a court has the right to, as
19 you put it, issue a gag order?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right.
22 A. Were you trying to convince me that you had
23 the right to gag me?
24 Q. No, no.
25 A. It sounded like it.
1 Q. You are certainly good at drawing
2 inferences.
3 A. Okay. I would like to talk about the fact
4 that you say that we don't have to agree about going
5 off the record. You have told me that you have given
6 hundreds of depositions and that you know the rules
7 and that you don't consider me an expert and you don't
8 care to listen to what I have to say, which is that I
9 believe that I have to agree before it is permissible
10 to go on a break.
11 Now, I am happy to say yes, if you want to
12 go to the bathroom anytime. If you want to go every
13 20 minutes, I will say yes. But I wish you would
14 begin asking me if I agree that we will go off the
15 record.
16 Q. Okay. Have you stated your position?
17 A. I have stated one of my positions.
18 Q. I just mean with respect to taking breaks.
19 Okay.
20 A. When you said "okay," did that mean you were
21 agreeing to ask me?
22 Q. No, no, I am not agreeing to ask you
23 permission to go use the restroom. But as I told, I
24 will happily not take breaks while there is a question
25 pending. I don't want to have a further debate about
1 it, if that is okay?
2 A. Well, actually, I believe that you are
3 ignoring the rules of civil procedure here, and I
4 think it is important that we talk about it. I think
5 it is important that we agree before going off the
6 record.
7 For example, as far as going off -- you
8 know, I don't care about bathroom breaks. Fine with
9 me if you go take a bathroom break anytime. I am
10 curious, though, about what happens when you want to
11 go off the record.
12 Do you plan on continuing this deposition
13 for another day?
14 Q. I don't know if we are going to finish. I
15 am going to go to 5:00.
16 A. Oh, are you planning on asking me at 5:00 if
17 I agree to go off the record? Because, if I recall,
18 your deposition notice said that it would be
19 continuous, the deposition would be continuous.
20 Q. So do you want to stay past 5:00?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Well, then let's see if we need to talk
23 about that. I really hadn't thought about it. I am
24 certainly not trying to invent arguments with you
25 about things that may or may not happen.
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. We could talk about whether you have a right
3 to insist that I keep going past 5:00.
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. If we get to that, we'll --
6 A. That is exactly what I would like to talk
7 about.
8 Q. But you do want to wait until 5:00 to talk
9 about that to see if we are done before then, right?
10 A. I would prefer to talk about it now.
11 Q. Well, if we take the time to talk about it
12 now -- and we have already had about a 20-minute
13 interruption here, I think, we are making it where I
14 may not finish by 5:00. If we just keep going with my
15 questions, we may finish by 5:00. There may be
16 nothing to talk about.
17 So why is my approach not reasonable?
18 A. Because why don't we just let the secret out
19 now and just say if you plan to ask me at 5:00 if I
20 agree.
21 Q. Only if I need to go past 5:00, which I was
22 not really planning on. But I don't know, if you keep
23 talking like this and interrupting my deposition, I
24 might have to.
25 A. Well, that is pretty silly. Because
1 obviously I would not want to stay if the deposition
2 were over.
3 Q. I suppose that was my point all along,
4 Ms. Larkins, that if we don't have to talk about it,
5 let's not. Let's see if we need to go past 5:00.
6 Is that acceptable to you?
7 A. I am willing to start talking. But I am
8 disappointed in you and your refusal to admit that you
9 are obliged to have an agreement with me before we go
10 off the record.
11 Q. Okay. Let's see what other little nuggets
12 we have about the Stutz firm in here. It says here
13 that, "Daniel Shinoff keeps important school-case
14 documents locked up in his files."
15 Have you ever reviewed Mr. Shinoff's files
16 to see what he keeps locked up?
17 A. Well, it is either that or he has destroyed
18 evidence. I am kind of being -- I am assuming that he
19 did not destroy the evidence, that he is just keeping
20 it hidden.
21 Q. The only documents you know of that you
22 think the Stutz firm ever hid were Pages 1 through 87,
23 some of them that we talked about earlier, right?
24 A. Right, yeah.
25 Q. Those pages that are missing, you have never
1 seen them?
2 A. No.
3 Q. What this says is that, "Daniel Shinoff
4 keeps important school-case documents locked up."
5 How do you know that the documents that you
6 believe exist but were not produced are important?
7 A. Well, one of the pages I am really
8 interested in was Page 39. Because Page 38 is there
9 and Page 40 is there and it was just -- it was a real
10 crucial thing that was being discussed. These were
11 continuations of the same person writing about an
12 event, and it just was real obvious that there was
13 something on Page 39 that Stutz didn't want me to see.
14 Q. Is that the only document that you know to
15 be important for the reasons you have said?
16 A. 55, I was also interested in -- you know
17 what really interested me, was when there was just one
18 document missing in a stream. You know, when there is
19 a whole group of documents missing -- maybe they are
20 all real important, but when there is just one, you're
21 pretty sure that must be really important. That is
22 why on the deposition notice I said that I
23 particularly would like to see 39 and 55.
24 Q. Okay. Again, how do you know that
25 Mr. Shinoff or this firm has those documents?
1 A. Because he produced some of them to
2 Mark Bresee.
3 Q. Did Mark Bresee tell you that Mr. Shinoff
4 had more than what he produced to Mark Bresee?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did Mr. Shinoff tell you that he had more
7 documents than he produced to Mr. Bresee?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Once again, you don't know who numbered the
10 documents?
11 A. I have every reason to believe it was the
12 Stutz Law Firm.
13 Q. For the reasons you already told me about
14 before?
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. You say here that your own personal opinion
17 is that, "If a public entity is doing business with
18 Daniel Shinoff of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz,
19 that public entity is probably involved in dirty
20 business."
21 A. Yup, I believe that.
22 Q. Why do you believe that?
23 A. Because that's what Stutz Law Firm is paid
24 to do. Like Terry Ryan said at that memorable board
25 meeting at Grossmont Union High School District, he
1 said, "We want someone who will win every time." He
2 never said he wanted to make sure that they did the
3 right thing. Absolutely clear that he was not
4 interested in that. That is not what the lawyer was
5 for. The lawyer was to give him exactly what he
6 wanted.
7 Q. Did you vote in the election between
8 Leslie Devaney and Mike Aguirre?
9 A. I am so interested to know why you would
10 like to know that.
11 Q. That's okay.
12 A. Oh, just to see if I had a political
13 prejudice against her?
14 Q. No, no. I just want to know if you voted in
15 the election.
16 A. No, I did not. Do you mind if I take a peek
17 at those documents?
18 Q. No, no. Our exhibits?
19 A. Yeah. Thank you.
20 Q. It says on your Web page, it says, "Is there
21 anything that Daniel Shinoff won't do to ingratiate
22 himself with abusive individuals in schools?"
23 Do you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What has Mr. Shinoff done to ingratiate
1 himself with abusive individuals at schools?
2 A. Helped them cover up their crimes.
3 Q. What else?
4 A. Commit crimes to help them get what they
5 want.
6 Q. Which crimes has Mr. Shinoff committed other
7 than subornation of perjury, because we already talked
8 about that?
9 A. I would say obstruction of justice.
10 Q. Any others?
11 A. No -- well, wait a minute. Let me think,
12 gosh. At the moment, I can't think of anything else.
13 Q. What has Mr. Shinoff done to obstruct
14 justice?
15 A. Well, obviously the subornation of perjury.
16 The misrepresentations to the court.
17 Q. Did Mr. Shinoff personally sign any
18 documents that you believe misrepresented facts to a
19 court? I don't know if he signed them, if his name
20 was on them.
21 If I requested from you specific documents
22 where Mr. Shinoff misrepresented facts to a court,
23 would you be able to produce those to me?
24 A. Yes.
25 You do realize, don't you, that I consider
1 him as Kelly Angell's boss. He was supposed to be
2 supervising her. I went to him in December of 2003
3 and told him about the things she was doing.
4 So he knew about it. So I consider him
5 responsible for her actions.
6 Q. No. What I want to be sure about is if I
7 asked you the documents that you believe show that
8 Mr. Shinoff, by whichever way you hold him
9 responsible, misrepresented facts to a court, you
10 would be able to identify those documents for me?
11 A. You know what, really what we would need are
12 the transcripts from the case management conferences
13 and hearings. That is where a lot of the
14 misrepresentation went on.
15 Q. So they were not in pleadings to the court.
16 It was orally and in writing?
17 A. Oh, both. In pleadings, too.
18 Q. So if I asked you for documents that you
19 have in your possession, you would be able to provide
20 me those pleadings that you believe show that
21 Mr. Shinoff misrepresented facts to the court?
22 A. Yeah. That would be a good question for an
23 interrogatory. If you really want to continue with
24 this malicious prosecution, I would really advise you
25 not to.
1 Q. Thanks.
2 A. I think you're complicit. This is malicious
3 prosecution.
4 Q. That's fine. Are you going to sue me later?
5 A. Is that all you care about is if you get
6 sued? Don't you care about violating the law?
7 Q. Do you believe I am violating the law?
8 A. Malicious prosecution is against the law,
9 yes.
10 Q. Why do you believe that this prosecution is
11 malicious?
12 A. Because you know very well that what I say
13 on my Web site is true.
14 Q. Do you think there is any possibility that I
15 believe that this is a very ethical firm and that I
16 truly care for the people I work with and find them to
17 be very ethical individuals who care about the truth,
18 and that I am outraged and shocked by the things that
19 you say about us.
20 Is that a possibility?
21 A. That is a possibility. But only if you are
22 delusional.
23 Q. By "delusional," do you mean I have to be
24 mentally ill to think that?
25 A. People, I think, can have selective -- I
1 think human beings -- a lot of human beings are very
2 good at being selective about what they believe, you
3 know. You have your mind set and any information that
4 comes in that contradicts what you want to believe,
5 you just kick it right out. It is possible you have
6 that problem, if indeed you honestly believe that this
7 firm is ethical.
8 Q. Okay. All right. How do we go to continue
9 to Page 2? Where is that?
10 A. Gee, it would be -- click on it. See if
11 it's -- no, I guess it would be underlined if it were
12 a link. Maybe I meant the next column. Let's see.
13 "He urges all attorneys to use their power carefully
14 by being diligent in their practice and not using
15 their powers." Let's go up here and see if it seems
16 to -- no.
17 Q. It says, "Continued from Page 1." So maybe
18 it just talks about these columns. Okay. I think I
19 get it.
20 A. Oh, you know what, that might have been on
21 the site that I got it from.
22 Q. Now, I thought that just a moment ago you
23 admitted to me under oath that there was some
24 inaccurate information on your Web site?
25 A. It's just a detail. The basic premise of
1 the Web site is very important and very true. If you
2 want to compare my little mistake about putting Stutz
3 instead of Vista Unified School District -- which
4 takes its orders from Stutz -- and compare that to the
5 huge unethical, illegal, and criminal actions of
6 Stutz, you are just being ridiculous. There is no
7 comparison.
8 Q. Okay. All right. So you think that if we
9 prove that specific things on your Web site are false,
10 you think that it is still a malicious action because
11 these are minor details? As long as the gist of it
12 all is true, it doesn't --
13 A. Absolutely. Because you could have just
14 asked me to change that one word, you know, change
15 Dan Shinoff to V.U.S.D., and I would have done it.
16 You didn't need to file a lawsuit.
17 Q. Well, what if I asked you to get rid of all
18 statements about the Stutz firm from your Web site,
19 you would not be willing to do that, would you?
20 A. Absolutely not.
21 Q. Unless we get a court order to prevent you
22 from doing that, you are going to continue to make
23 statements about Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz to
24 put them in a negative light?
25 A. No. I make statements that are true to help
1 the people who are paying for your work, for public
2 entities, know the truth about how their money is
3 being used, and how their public entities are
4 committing wrongdoing to benefit individuals instead
5 of the public.
6 Q. Okay. Unless a court tells you to stop
7 doing that, you are going to continue?
8 A. Well, there are other possibilities. I
9 would not say that that's a true statement.
10 Q. Do you have any intentions of taking down
11 the statements about Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz
12 from your Web site anytime in the near future?
13 A. You know, I am glad you asked me that.
14 Because I was just thinking -- night before last, I
15 was thinking about what to do with this case. Really
16 what I want to accomplish is to help education.
17 Education is what I care about.
18 I was thinking I think that I actually have
19 some ideas what could help fix the horrible, horrible
20 situation in our educational system, where we produce
21 a huge percentage of the population that can't make a
22 living.
23 Q. Have you considered running for public
24 office?
25 A. Please let me finish. I really -- this is
1 something real important.
2 Q. I could have sworn that you did. We have a
3 video that will show there was at least a five-second
4 comparison.
5 A. Yeah, okay.
6 Q. I am very sorry, I assumed you were done.
7 A. Also, it is -- what possible relevance does
8 that have?
9 Q. I am trying to explore whether or not there
10 is any possibility that you are going to take down
11 what we believe are defamatory statements. When I
12 asked you if you have any intention of doing it, you
13 said -- you went off on the side on me, started
14 talking about how you really just want to help
15 education. I would like to keep us focused.
16 But to the extent you need to tell me about
17 how you want to help education, I am wondering how
18 you're going to do that. Because I need to know if
19 it's going to continue to involve statements about my
20 law firm on the Web site. That's all I am interested
21 in.
22 A. If you will help education, I will consider
23 taking off my -- Stutz off my Web site.
24 Q. How do we do that?
25 A. I want help with fixing Castle Park
1 Elementary. It just -- it is horrible there.
2 Q. What is wrong with Castle Park Elementary?
3 A. The teachers have been forced by not just
4 Stutz, but the California Teachers Association and the
5 district, to cover up crimes. They have actually been
6 made ill. For example, one of the teachers involved
7 was Nikki Perez. She was not responsible for
8 initiating actions against me, but she was and
9 supporting the cover up.
10 Anyway, when I last knew her in 2001, she
11 didn't have parents complaining about her. She was a
12 popular teacher. She taught first grade, and it
13 seemed to me that she was doing just great. Then
14 there were these horrible things that the teachers did
15 against me. It was like they just had to -- it was
16 like it turned the school into Salem, Massachusetts.
17 They had to act paranoid and hostile, and they did
18 such harm to children. It was just such a bag thing.
19 Then -- let's see, I left in 2001. It was
20 not until 2004 that the district finally said, "You
21 know, the school is out of control," and it sure was
22 not my fault. This was three years after I had left.
23 They transferred five teachers out of the school.
24 Jo Ellen Hamilton -- no, no, it wasn't Jo Ellen
25 Hamilton. She left later. Robin Donlan was one of
1 them, and Nikki Perez was another one.
2 Well, anyway --
3 Q. You thought the kids would be better off if
4 these -- if Robin Donlan was not transferred out of
5 the school?
6 A. I think that really what should have been
7 done was that the teachers should have all been sat
8 down and said, "Look, you know, this was wrong. We
9 have to stop telling lies, especially under oath. We
10 have to stop harming the children." I really think it
11 would have been better to leave the staff intact.
12 Maybe Robin Donlan should have gone. She was recently
13 sued for $7.7 million in stock options fraud. Maybe
14 she really was a bad apple. But the rest, I don't
15 think that anyone else should have been transferred.
16 I really think that what they did was they spread the
17 virus to other schools by transferring all to
18 different schools.
19 Anyway, to get back to my point,
20 Nikki Perez -- I was just contacted recently, like I
21 don't even know, a few weeks ago, with people at
22 Castle Park who had become aware of my Web site and
23 wanted to get in touch with me. It seems that poor
24 Nikki Perez, who used to be a perfectly fine normal
25 person, she has gotten mentally ill or something. I
1 don't know what her deal is, but she yells so much.
2 She has these rules on the door if parents come into
3 her classroom that they can't talk and can't -- well,
4 anyway. One little boy, she was yelling at him so
5 badly he actually passed out while she was yelling at
6 him, and he hit his head and had to go to the
7 emergency room.
8 Other people have been real -- one year at
9 the end of the year, she only had six kids left in her
10 class because everybody wanted to transfer out. That
11 never happened before.
12 Q. You think that all a result of the fact that
13 you were terminated and the events connected to you?
14 A. I think it's a result of the fact that the
15 teachers were allowed to lie at first and then forced
16 to keep lying and they got a feeling of -- that they
17 were -- it totally was their school -- that they
18 didn't have to take orders from anybody, not -- that
19 the law didn't apply to them. The district could not
20 push them around.
21 After they got transferred out, the union
22 filed a complaint on their behalf, and arbitrator was
23 not told about all the hundreds of thousands of
24 dollars the district had spent defending them in
25 court, and he found on their behalf. Only one of
1 them, Nikki Perez, chose to go back to the school.
2 The others could have, but they chose not to.
3 Q. The teachers who replaced the transferred
4 student -- or the teachers, rather, what do you know
5 about the new ones?
6 A. I don't know much about them particularly.
7 Although, now a principal has just been fired too.
8 Nikki Perez has just been transferred out for the
9 second time because of all the parent complaints.
10 The principal, the new principal, the 10th
11 in 11 years, has just been fired because the teachers
12 didn't like him.
13 So now they now have their 11th principal in
14 11 years. The whole time I was there, there was only
15 one principal.
16 The school is sick and the new teachers have
17 been inducted into the -- they call themselves the
18 "Castle Park family." They have been, you know -- the
19 culture, they have been inducted into the culture.
20 This new principal that was just fired, you might be
21 having a lawsuit from him pretty soon that probably
22 Stutz would be defending. It was new teachers that
23 were involved, along with the old teachers that have
24 been there before in this idea that "We are in charge
25 and the district and the principal don't tell us what
1 to do. We are in charge of the school."
2 Q. Okay. How do you propose that the Stutz
3 firm help you to fix the sickness at Castle Park
4 Elementary?
5 A. Well, you know, obviously have to work with
6 Chula Vista Elementary School District. I think
7 absolutely what is needed is -- you know, I was
8 entitled to a full, evidentiary hearing in September,
9 October of 2001, because I was put on suspension
10 without pay. The contract is very clear, that I
11 deserved a full evidentiary hearing. I should not
12 have had to file a lawsuit. I should have had a
13 hearing right then without anybody threatening to
14 dismiss me or anything.
15 Just when I was put on suspension without
16 pay, that is when I had a right to that. That would
17 be one way to do it. If I could have that full,
18 evidentiary hearing now at Chula Vista.
19 Q. That would fix the school?
20 A. It would be a start. Am I just wasting my
21 breath here?
22 Q. No. I am just -- you mentioned it. I am
23 asking.
24 A. Well, obviously -- did you think that I just
25 had the one idea and then that would fix the school?

1 Q. It is not important what I thought.
2 A. But you asked.
3 Q. No, no, I did not ask.
4 A. Yeah. You said, "And that would fix the
5 school."
6 Q. Well, would that help fix the school? You
7 said that would be a start.
8 A. I think it would be a start.
9 Q. What else?
10 A. I really think that the teachers -- perhaps
11 in small groups to start with, really need to start
12 dealing with reality. You know what they are doing,
13 they're threatening basically to transfer more
14 teachers out. Probably the ones that would be
15 transferred would be like -- oh, I don't know. I
16 could guess that Terri Spurgeon would be one, perhaps
17 Al Smith and Linda Watson. It's a really bad idea as
18 long as it is just power back and forth between the
19 Castle Park family and district, with the union.
20 One of that was transferred out is now
21 president of the local union there.
22 So it is just this Castle Park family versus
23 the district. It is just this one gains the upper
24 hand and this one gains the upper hand.
25 And one thing that makes it really sick is
SD Education Report
Education and the
Culture Wars Blog
San Diego
Education Report
Education Reform
Site Map
092704 Nevitt statements
Main Timeline
Motivations CP teachers
Case Summary
2003 Stutz invoices
2002 SDCOE payments
to Daniel Shinoff
2003 part 2 Stutz invoices
Public Records Requests
SDCOE Crosier denial
Payments to Shinoff
Maura Larkins
Judge Ahler OAH
page 89-91

Is Shinoff or Mark
Bresee to blame?
pages 91-94

pages 95-105

pages 105-111

pages 112-123

pages 124-138

pages 138-157

pages 157-175

pages 175-203

pages 203-222

Errata and signature
Larkins case
Case Timeline
Deposition of
Maura Larkins

Richard Werlin changed
the record
pages 1-15

pages 15-25

pages 25-35

pages 35-48

pages 48-60

Pages 60--68

pages 68-73

Lozano Smith order/
Shinoff tactics
pages 73-80

pages 80-89
Summary Judgment