| Deposition of Maura Larkins by Ljubisa Kostic June 16, 2008 Pages 95-105 |
| < < < This question needs to be asked of Daniel Shinoff and the CVESD board and Parham & Rajcic law firm. Stutz law firm explains in this deposition why I need these depositions. page 97 |
| Mr. Kostic is absolutely right in his implication that the people who were at the meeting need to testify about the extent of Shinoff's guilt. pages 99-100 It makes sense that I should talk to someone who was at the meeting about what was said, as Mr. Kostic makes clear. |
| Corruption page 101 |
| Timeline: Feb. 12, 2008 First violation of Labor Code 432.7 by CVESD Mark Bresee, who was working with Parham & Rajcic at that time, was advising Chula Vista Elementary School District Oct. 4, 2001 Maura Larkins filed tort claim; Attorney Daniel Shinoff took over the case Nov. 13, 2001 Larkins filed 3 grievances, and the district retaliated one day later by threatening dismissal. The district did not act on the threat. March 12, 2002 Maura Larkins filed suit in Superior Court for CVESD's violation of Labor Code 432.7 May 7, 20002 CVESD board retaliated by voting to dismiss Larkins--a clear violation of Labor Code 1102.5. Feb. 11, 2003 Maura Larkins was dismissed for filing grievances and a lawsuit. |
| Defending myself for publishing my website by Maura Larkins Stutz lawyer Ljubisa Kostic made clear when he deposed me on June 16, 2008 that I need to depose Chula Vista Elementary School District officials to defend myself in Stutz v. Larkins. Nevertheless, On November 28, 2008 Mr. Kostic filed objections to the deposition subpoenas I served on CVESD officials on November 18, 2008. Also, on November 14, 2008 Stutz filed an objection to the deposition of CVESD lawyer Daniel Shinoff--one of the lawyers who are suing me, and the lawyer most often discussed on my website. Mr. Shinoff shouldn't bring a lawsuit if he won't submit to a deposition regarding his own allegations. These actions are a continuation of Stutz' efforts to cover up its wrongdoing (and that of CVESD). |
| Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz (and CVESD?) defamation lawsuit against Maura Larkins |
| To "bring an end to the lawsuit"? I suppose this is true: Shinoff's goal was to bring the lawsuit to an unjust end, to cover up the violations of law enumerated in the lawsuit. But the goal should have been to bring the school district into compliance with the law. Stutz is still trying to cover-up the same wrongdoing by suing Larkins for defamation. The fact is that Stutz avoided fact-finding in the past. If Stutz and CVESD want to prove that my statements are false, they need to submit to the discovery process. They don't want this, of course. The lawsuit was brought purely for purposes of intimidation, and is itself another act of wrongdoing. It's malicious prosecution by Stutz, and also, apparently, CVESD. page 103 |
| page 95 Lines 9-16 Question [by Ljubisa Kostic] Okay. So, again, I was asking you whether you have any information that would specifically link Mr. Shinoff, or any attorney with our firm here, to the decision by the board on May 7th, 2002 to initiate proceedings against you to terminate your employment? You have told me about Cheryl Cox and her statement. I just need to know if there was anything else. Lines 17-24 Answer [by Maura Larkins] Mr. Shinoff was in charge of my case. He would have been remiss in his duties if he had not advised the board on how to handle it. They were pretty much at sea as far as dealing with the case, and they exhibited no sign ever of doing any independent thinking. It was very clear from what Cheryl Cox told me and everything else, that they were simply following their lawyer's instructions. 25 Q. Again, you told me that the reason why you page 96 1 think that Daniel Shinoff was in charge of your case, 2 you are talking about the hearing to terminate your 3 employment. 4 A. He was in charge of the Superior Court case. 5 Q. I am trying to stick with your termination. 6 I understand that our firm represented the district 7 and others in the Superior Court case. I understand 8 that the Rajcic firm represented the district at the 9 Office of Administrative Hearings... page 97 line 22--page 98 line 15: Answer. It was a violation of the law to dismiss me in retaliation for my filing a lawsuit. He would have been completely incompetent if he had been unaware that the district was contemplating dismissing me right after I filed my lawsuit. I don't think that they did come up with the idea apart from him. But if they had, he just was not communicating well with his clients. He was violating rules of professional conduct by not communicating -- or he had years afterwards to say, "Hey, wait a minute. That was wrong. You guys should not have done that." He must have assured them that he could help them get away with that violation of law. They would not have done it without that assurance. They would not have done it without discussing it with him. They would not have done it at all if he had given them good legal advice and told them that it was against the law. He must have reassured them that they could get away with it, and he was right. 16 Q. What I need to know is why you think that 17 Mr. Shinoff was involved in advising his client in 18 that respect at all, as opposed to the Rajcic firm? 19 A. Because I don't think that Shinoff is 20 completely incompetent, and I don't think that he 21 violated the rules of professional conduct in that 22 manner. 23 Q. Is there any other reason why you think that 24 Mr. Shinoff specifically, as opposed to any other 25 attorney, was the one who advised the board to page 99 1 initiate termination proceedings against you? 2 A. Well, I am not saying that he was 3 necessarily the only one. 4 Q. Is there any other reason why you think he 5 was the one of the attorneys, period, who did that? 11 A. It was his duty to be there at school board 12 meetings. If it were the idea came from another 13 lawyer -- which I don't think it did, because the 14 Superior Court case was the only case that was in play 15 at that time. They had had a long time to dismiss me, 16 if they had wanted to dismiss me before May 7th, 2002. 17 So it would have had to have come from 18 Shinoff. He was the one involved in the only case 19 they had going. He was there. If someone else 20 actually were the first one to bring it up, he would 21 have given his opinion right there and then. 22 Q. Were you at the board meeting on May 7th, 23 2002? 24 A. No. It is a closed meeting. 25 Q. So you don't know what anybody said in that page 100 1 meeting? 2 A. Well, I sure do. I know that they voted to 3 dismiss me. 4 Q. But you don't know what was discussed by the 5 board prior to their ultimate decision? 6 A. I think it is a mistake to think that just 7 because you didn't actually witness an event, that you 8 can't know anything that happened about it. I think a 9 lot of things are pretty obvious. 10 Q. Have you talked to anyone who was at the 11 meeting about what was said? 12 A. No. But they probably would not have told 13 the truth anyway. 14 Q. Now, what we're going to do is we're going 15 to work off of your belief that Daniel Shinoff was the 16 one who directed the district to initiate proceedings 17 to terminate your employment, okay. We are going to 18 assume that's true. We are not going to argue about 19 it. We are just going to -- 20 A. That is not what I said. I really wish you 21 would stop putting words in my mouth. 22 Q. What did you say? 23 A. I said he would have given advice on the 24 subject. He was one of the people -- at least one of 25 the people, there may have been someone else. I never page 101 1 said he was the one. You may recall that I have said 2 that he might have -- someone else might have 3 suggested it first. Please be careful about that. 4 Q. I appreciate your advice. Okay. 5 In doing whatever it is that you think that 6 Daniel Shinoff did to advise the board in any way in 7 connection with whether or not they should bring 8 proceedings to terminate your employment, is it your 9 belief that Mr. Shinoff acted in a way that was 10 corrupt? Lines 11-25 [Answer of Maura Larkins] Yes. I would like to define "corruption" as I am speaking about it. So many people think that corruption -- the word "corruption" has to do with money. I actually believe that that is the less serious form of corruption. I think that the more serious form of corruption has to do with abuse of power and using public entities' power and authority to violate the law. It was a violation of law to dismiss me, and, yes, I believe that it was an abuse of power, and that is what I call corruption by a public entity. It is when people are using the power of the public entity and its authority to take actions in the case of the board to maintain their own political power. page 102 1 In the case of Daniel Shinoff, it is a combination of 2 political power and gaining money. 3 Q. Is it your understanding that Mr. Shinoff 4 gained money because you were terminated? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. How so? 7 A. Because it kept the case going for years and 8 years. 9 Q. Which case, I'm sorry? 10 A. The case that Mr. Shinoff became involved in 11 on October 4th, 2001. 12 Q. How did the fact that you were terminated 13 keep your case against the district and 14 Robin Donlan -- how did your termination keep that 15 case going? 16 A. Because Stutz used that decision more than 17 once, constantly reminded the court that I had been 18 terminated and, therefore, my complaint was not 19 valuable. It really relied on that decision. It 20 wanted that decision to use against me. 21 Q. So what the Stutz firm did is it used the 22 decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings 23 against you in your lawsuit against the district and 24 Ms. Donlan? 25 A. Um-hmm. It certainly tried to. Although, page 103 1 the judge did remind them on occasion that my lawsuit 2 had been filed first and; therefore, obviously the 3 decision in the Office of Administrative Hearings 4 having come later, would not decide my case. 5 Q. Obviously, you initiated that lawsuit 6 against the district and Ms. Donlan; Daniel Shinoff 7 did not, true? 8 A. Obviously. 9 Q. If I understand you correctly, the Stutz 10 firm was trying to use the decision to terminate your 11 employment in order to bring an end to the lawsuit 12 that you brought against the district and Ms. Donlan? 13 A. You know, they certainly did use it. 14 Q. Okay. In order to try to bring an end to 15 the litigation? 16 A. In order to damage my credibility and to try 17 to convince the court that the matter was decided. I 18 think they used the phrase "res judicata" a few times. 19 You know, it is really hard for me to know 20 exactly what goes in the mind -- on in the mind of 21 Stutz lawyers, and Dan Shinoff, in particular. 22 One possibility that I have considered is 23 that it is the same thing that David Stevens said. 24 Possibly they thought that the case -- that I would 25 win. I think most people probably would have thought page 104 1 I would have won in the Office of Administrative 2 Hearings. 3 Actually, it is possible they thought that I 4 would win and they would give me a tiny award and then 5 that would prevent them from -- losing some big 6 judgment in Superior Court. That is a possibility. 7 Q. Other than using the decision from the 8 Office of Administrative Hearings in the 9 Superior Court lawsuit, how else do you think that the 10 Stutz firm attempted to keep that litigation going 11 longer in order to make more money from it? 12 A. Well, because they should have said right at 13 the beginning, "You guys, you did wrong," you know. 14 "You basically admitted that you made a mistake when 15 you took her out of her classroom and let these 16 teachers," you know, "commit this crime against her 17 and should not have covered it up and you should say 18 you are sorry and do the right thing." 19 Q. Suppose that Daniel Shinoff gave advice just 20 like you just said and the board said, "No. We want 21 you to defend this lawsuit, Daniel. Do what we are 22 telling you to do." 23 Is it then corrupt for Mr. Shinoff to do as 24 his client requested and defend the client from your 25 claim? page 105 1 A. It is corrupt to do it when you have to 2 suborn perjury to do it. |
| Ljubisa Kostic: "What I need to know is why you think that Mr. Shinoff was involved in advising his client in that respect at all, as opposed to the Rajcic firm?" page 98 |
| Background: Maura Larkins filed a suit against CVESD on March 12, 2002, and was terminated less than two months later. |
| Deposition of Maura Larkins June 16, 2008 |
| Stutz is trying to push the blame for lawyer misconduct in this case onto Mark Bresee of Parham & Rajcic law firm. Certainly the blame for the original 432.7 crimes would seem to fall on Bresee's shoulders, but Daniel Shinoff of Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz is responsible for actions from October 4, 2001 onward. |
I need to ask Shinoff and
the board if this is what
happened.
the board if this is what
happened.
| Public Records Requests |
| Payments to Shinoff |
| Maura Larkins v. CVESD |
| BLOGS |
| 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 page |
| 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 |
| Ironically, the deposition that appears below was triggered by CVESD when it contacted Stutz to complain about my attending a school meeting on May 27, 2008. CVESD was trying to intimidate me, but it ended up providing me with perfect arguments by its own lawyer to support my motion to compel testimony. The fact that Stutz law firm is being paid by CVESD for work in this case is troubling, since it is illegal for a public entity to sue for defamation. CVESD is not only able to influence the tactics used in this case, and to benefit from silencing me, but tax money is being paid to Stutz law firm to conduct its defamation suit against Maura Larkins. Stutz has made its positions clear in the document below: Stutz' argument is that I can not prove the truth of the statements on my website without the testimony of CVESD officials, and that attorney Mark Bresee may be to blame for wrongdoing. Stutz itself has clearly made these points for me: that I need the testimony of CVESD officials, attorney Mark Bresee, and Daniel Shinoff to prove my case. Therefore, Stutz' motion to quash my deposition subpoenas should not be granted. |