 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Stutz law firm silences all CVESD employees |
| Stutz tells the court that Maura Larkins should not be allowed to obtain any information from any employee of CVESD. |
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
MAURA LARKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD T. WERLIN,
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a California public entity,
KATHLEEN ELTON,
ROBIN COLLS,
and DOES 2 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
____________________________) TRIAL DATE: February 18, 2005
Comes now Plaintiff and offers the following Opposition to Defendants’ ex
parte application.
PLAINTIFF HAS NOT COMMUNICATED WITH MS. ANGELL’S CLIENTS IN
THIS CASE
Plaintiff has not contacted either of Kelly Angell’s clients, Robin Donlan or
Linda Watson. Plaintiff has contacted potential witnesses and public
officials. Board members of Chula Vista Elementary School District, and
employees of the district other than Robin Donlan and Linda Watson, are not
parties in this case.
JUSTICE IN THIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT CVESD EMPLOYEES BE
LIMITED TO COMMUNICATING ONLY WITH DEFENDANTS CONCERNING
THIS CASE
Recently Michelle Scharmach and Teresa Coffey were subpoenaed as
witnesses in Plaintiff’s related lawsuit for malpractice against lawyer
Elizabeth Schulman. At first, it appeared that Ms. Scharmach and Ms. Coffey
were willing to testify, but after a time, these two individuals belatedly
joined the list of witnesses seeking a protective order against depositions.
One possible explanation for this would be that these witnesses had been
pressured to keep silent. In 2002, Assistant Superintendent Richard Werlin
went around to several schools in the district and spoke to every single
witness Plaintiff had called in her administrative hearing. One wonders if
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz are aware that intimidation of witnesses is
against the law.
NEW PROBLEMS IN CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Some defendants in this case are currently publicly smearing Principal Oly
Matos and Superintendent Lowell Billings of Chula Vista Elementary School
District regarding the transfers of five teachers, including defendant Robin
Donlan, out of Castle Park Elementary School.
The reason there is so much shock at Castle Park Elementary over the
recent transfers appears to be that Defendants’ counsel convinced Robin
Donlan and other teachers that they had nothing to worry about, and that
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz would take care of all their problems in this
case. Defendants’ counsel apparently never told defendants that sometimes
people who commit crimes get caught and they have to pay. Defendants
(and perhaps their counsel?) seem to have been in a delusional state since
2001.
WHOSE SIDE IS MS. ANGELL ON?
Ms. Angell’s client Robin Donlan and co-defendant Gina Boyd are acting in
direct opposition to the superintendent of Chula Vista Elementary School
District, maligning him in the press, and urging parents to work to negate
his authority.
A blistering personal attack on current Castle Park principal Olimpio Matos
was published in Chula Vista Star-News on September 10, 2004 (Exhibit
A), but letters and information which Plaintiff sent to the Star-News was
ignored. The attack on Mr. Matos is poorly argued, containing information
about a survey of Castle Park teachers without revealing what percentage
of teachers were polled, and without telling how those seventeen
individuals were chosen. Seventeen is approximately half the number of
teachers at Castle Park Elementary, and Plaintiff suspects that those
seventeen were self-selected. It is clear from the Star-News article that no
attempt was made to talk to the “ELAC parents” (the Hispanic parents)
about the allegations.
Ms. Angell and her superior, Mr. Shinoff, have apparently communicated to
Castle Park teachers that the truth can and will and should be kept hidden.
Plaintiff suspects that teachers’ published fears that Mr. Matos might not be
“trustworthy in confidence” (Exhibit A, page 1, last paragraph) relates to
their fears that he might not lie under oath for them regarding this case.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The public attacks by defendants against current district administrators
make clear that Ms. Angell and her co-counsel Mr. Shinoff have a serious
conflict of interest in this case, since their client Robin Donlan is maliciously
attacking the district administration in the press, while the district is paying
Donlan’s legal bills!
Ms. Angell has frequently, angrily and falsely stated to Plaintiff that all
employees of Chula Vista Elementary School District are her clients. This is
obviously false for two reasons. First, some employees do not wish to be
represented by Ms. Angell’s law firm. Second, Ms. Angell’s client Robin
Donlan and her associates are viciously attacking Oly Matos and Lowell
Billings. If Oly Matos and Lowell Billings truly were clients of Stutz,
Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz at this time, Ms. Angell would have to immediately
make arrangements to find them another lawyer.
DEFENDANTS’ VIEWS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN THREE NEWSPAPERS,
WITH NO MENTION OF ANOTHER SIDE TO THE STORY
Defendants have been able to publish their views in three different
newspapers, while keeping an important part of the Castle Park story
hidden from the public. The San Diego Union Tribune, southern edition,
published five letters to the editor, one editorial, and two articles in support
of the five transferred Castle Park Elementary teachers, but refused to
publish Plaintiff’s letter to the editor or to tell the full story. In addition, La
Prensa printed one very biased story (Exhibit B).
Readers believe they are hearing the truth, but clearly, they are not.
Plaintiff suspects that Ms. Angell’s law firm, and Daniel Shinoff in particular,
has been able to keep her story out of the local press. Mr. Shinoff is most
likely the person who asked the San Diego Union Tribune to remove a letter
to the editor about him by Plaintff from the Union Tribune’s online archives.
The letter (Exhibit C) does not show up in a search of the online archives
(Exhibit D). Plaintiff corresponded with the Union Tribune to try to solve
the problem, (Exhibit E), to no avail.
ACCOUNTABILITY IS IMPOSSIBLE IF THE PUBLIC IS IGNORANT OF THE
ACTIONS OF PUBLIC ENTITIES
Plaintiff is particularly concerned because Ms. Angell is representing a
public entity, whose actions should be transparent. Public issues should be
discussed openly. Ms. Angell and Mr. Shinoff are trying to win by covering
up the truth, as evidenced by their refusal to turn over documents, answer
special interrogatories, and allow appropriate depositions. They have
allowed only one deposition in the two-and-a-half years since this case was
filed. Plaintiff suspects Mr. Shinoff has so much control over the media in
the region that he (and others) have been able to cause a completely one-
sided story about this matter to be published in three newspapers.
Plaintiff has a right to communicate with other citizens and public officials
regarding matters of public importance such as education and the actions of
public entities and their lawyers.
PROPER SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS
As Ms. Angell herself has admitted, Plaintiff’s Opposition to Robin Donlan’s
Motion to Compel was not responsive to the motion itself. The Opposition
merely provided information to the court and to Defendants about Plaintiff’s
goals in this lawsuit. The court clearly understood this, and the court’s
decision on the motion was obviously not affected by Plaintiff’s Opposition.
It’s silly to make service of that document an issue. Plaintiff never even
read Robin Donlan’s motion to compel. Plaintiff was happy to have the
court grant the motion, because Plaintiff needed to do more work on her
responses anyway, to get ready for trial.
Clearly this case is no longer a conflict between Plaintiff and Chula Vista
Elementary School District. Plaintiff is on the side of the principal of the
Castle Park Elementary School and the Superintendent of the District, who
are being publicly attacked by two defendants in this case. This case has
become a conflict between Plaintiff and Daniel Shinoff’s law firm and other
politically powerful individuals who are allied with him. The conflict is over
how decisions should be made and public money should be spent in Chula
Vista Elementary School District. (Mr. Shinoff is probably also worried that
this case could affect his dealings with other school districts.) Who has the
best interests of the children of Chula Vista at heart? Daniel Shinoff or
Plaintiff? Defendant Robin Donlan or principal Oly Matos? Defendant Gina
Boyd or Superintendent Lowell Billings?
RULES OF ETHICS
Defendants’ counsel does not appear to have respect for the principle of
ethics. Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz appears to be interested only in the
rules of ethics in order to gain an advantage over its opposition.
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz has a conflict of interest with the school
district which is paying its bills, and if it really want rules of ethics followed
in this case, it should turn the case over to a law firm which does not have
such a conflict.
Dated: September 24, 2004
Maura Larkins, Plaintiff in pro per
) Case No. GIC 781970
) Judge: William R. Nevitt, Jr.
) Dept: 64
) Hearing Date: September 27, 2004
) Time: 8:15 a.m.
)
)
) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
) DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE
) APPLICATION
)
)
)
)
) COMPLAINT FILED: Jan. 24, 2002
) Judge: William R. Nevitt, Jr.
) Dept: 64
) Hearing Date: September 27, 2004
) Time: 8:15 a.m.
)
)
) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
) DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE
) APPLICATION
)
)
)
)
) COMPLAINT FILED: Jan. 24, 2002
| Whose side are Daniel Shinoff, Jeffery Morris and Kelly Angell Minnehan on? Their clients attack CVESD, which is paying their bills and covering up their crimes. |
| When Stutz law firm asked the court to prevent Maura Larkins from contacting any employee of CVESD, Judge Nevitt informed Kelly Angell that parties are allowed to communicate with each other, and that parties are allowed to contact witnesses. |
| CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT |
| At the time this pleading was filed, Maura Larkins thought that CVESD Superintendent Lowell Billings transferred teachers who had committed and covered up crimes because he cared about the law and the education of children. She now believes that he simply does whatever a principal asks him to do. It was a good idea, but done for the wrong reasons. |