Deposition of Maura Larkins
by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz attorney
Ljubisa Kostic
June 16, 2008

Pages 89--91
Free Speech
Team Success
Ethics in gov't
Defamation Suit
Cheryl Cox Games
Free Speech
Success
Retaliation
Coverups
Conflicts of interest
Federal Judges
College presidents
Highest paid
Gov't eavesdropping
Typical abuse by teachers
ADD at Olympics
African Am Ed
Bullies in Schools
Fixing Education
Peters case in Vista
Schools and violence
Fred Kamper case
Kids bullying kids:
Jeremiah Lasater case
Bullies are popular
Lawyers
Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz v. Maura Larkins
Stutz' First Amended
Complaint
Elizabeth Schulman
appeal
Elizabeth Schulman and
Larkins case
Rock Star Superintendent
Failure to Think
BLOGS
SD Education Report BLOG
Education and the Culture
Wars Blog
San Diego
Education Report
Home
Education Reform
Home
Larkins case summary
Return to "Why this
website"
Site Map
Case Timeline
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
defamation lawsuit against
Maura Larkins
for statements on this website
1 Q. I am concerned that you have accused me of
2 not allowing you to respond fully. I want to be sure
3 that there is nothing further you want to say about
4 any of the questions I have asked so far.

5 A. Let me just say this;
when we were talking
6 about whether or not the Office of Administrative
7 Hearings' decision was reasonable, it should be noted
8 that at one point while the court reporter was still
9 on duty and reporting, the judge got up, walked into a
10 little room behind the witness stand, summoned the
11 other two panelists to come, and started talking to
12 them off record -- well, outside of the court
13 reporter's hearing -- and giving them -- telling him
14 that they were to disregard everything -- well, they
15 should disregard what I had just testified about
16 Linda Watson.

17 The reason I could hear them is because I
18 was on the witness stand, and I was just a few feet
19 away. Then when he noticed that I was there
20 listening, he closed the door. They remained in there
21 for about 10 minutes while everyone else in the room
22 was just sitting and waiting. That is how reasonable
23 that hearing was.

24 Q. Is it your understanding that panelists at
25 the Office of Administrative Hearings are not entitled


90
1 to confer amongst themselves without having the
2 litigants hear what they are saying to each other?
3 A. Yes. That was extremely bad behavior. I am
4 surprised that you would want to condone that in any
5 way, shape, or form.

6 Q. I am not condoning anything. I am asking
7 you whether you think that it was improper for one of
8 three panelists to take the other two into a separate
9 room.

10 A. It was extremely improper for the judge to
11 do that. He was given two weeks suspension for it.

12 Q. Okay. How do you know he was suspended for
13 two weeks?

14 A. Because I made a complaint about it and
15 talked to the Office of Administrative Hearings in
16 Sacramento. I noticed that on the calendar he was
17 scheduled for well into the future, and then for two
18 weeks he was removed.

19 Q. That is the reason you think he was
20 suspended?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Have you now covered all of the things that
23 you felt you did not have an opportunity to say
24 earlier?

25 A. Only the ones I wrote down, but I don't


91
1 remember any others.

2 Q. So at this time you don't want to say
3 anything more. I can go on with my questions?

4 A. Go ahead, Mr. Kostic.

5 Q. Was there any attorney with the Stutz firm
6 at the hearing that you just described, where the one
7 judge left?

8 A. No.
Judge H. James Ahler at Office of
Administrative Hearings
092704 Nevitt statements
Main Timeline
Motivations CP teachers
Case Summary
2003 Stutz invoices
2002 SDCOE payments
to Daniel Shinoff
2003 part 2 Stutz invoices
2004 Stutz invoices
2005 Stutz invoices
Public Records Requests
SDCOE Crosier denial
Payments to Shinoff
Maura Larkins
v. CVESD
Deposition of
Maura Larkins

Judge Ahler OAH
page 89-91

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


CVESD objects to
depositions
pages 95-105