Chula Vista Educators
Not one teacher
Maura Larkins' at
her OAH hearing.
So how were the
teachers listed below
able to sway the panel?
Five" and PTA
refused to point out to
that the district's
themselves and Richard
|Maura Larkins' own
attorney, and CVESD
attorney Mark Bresee
agreed to allow notes
written by these people
to be writers had been
Why did Schulman do
privately told her client
Richard Werlin had
committed a crime, but
mention it because "it
would hurt [the client]."
Schulman was clearly
determined to sacrifice
her client to save Richard
She indicated that she
believed Werlin would
have been chosen
superintendent if he
hadn't done this, and she
felt that "losing"
Larkins v. CVESD
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Sheriff's deputy Michael
Carlson and his sister
Holtz v. Maura Larkins
Irony of Stutz
Stutz law firm worked hard to
deceive the court and defame
Maura Larkins, but is now
crying foul. Unfortunately for
Stutz law firm, and for the
taxpayers who have provided
millions of dollars to the firm,
what Maura Larkins says about
Stutz is the absolute truth.
The shoe is on the other foot,
and this time it fits.
|Sheriff's deputy Michael
Carlson and his sister
Five" and PTA
|Robin Colls Donlan
Werlin and Libia Gil
I had been at Chula Vista Elementary School District FOR 27 YEARS WHEN THE
It started with a family problem: I was co-administrator of my father's estate, and one
of my brothers was secretly unhappy about it. Also, his ex-wife wanted to be manager
of my father's apartments. The two of them decided to use the police to remove me
from my position.
MY TROUBLED EX-SISTER-IN-LAW WAS TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY THE DISTRICT
I was removed from my classroom on February 12, 2001 due to a false police report
(see "A False Police Report" on this page) made by my mentally-ill and
substance-abusing ex-sister-in-law. However, the district didn't want to admit this, since
using the illegally-obtained police report (no charges were filed against me) was a
THE DISTRICT DECIDED TO COVER-UP ITS MISTAKE
There is no chance that the district would have been charged with a crime for its silly
(Labor Code section 432.7), but the district decided it would rather spend $100,000s
of tax dollars to pay its lawyers to cover up the mistake than to simply admit it made a
THE DISTRICT CAME UP WITH A STORY
The reason given by the district for my removal was that two teachers had called
assistant superintendent Richard Werlin at home on a Saturday evening and said they
I might kill them. Oddly, the district created NO DOCUMENT at this time to explain the
reason I was removed from my classroom, nor did it investigate the alarming report.
Richard Werlin, with the approval of the cabinet (including Libia Gil and Lowell
Billings), had triggered an all-out hysteria at my school. Two staff members told me
that many teachers were afraid that I was "going to come to school and shoot
BIZARRE NEW ALLEGATIONS
A week after I returned, Linda Watson, one of the teachers who had called Richard
Werlin on February 10, and a new accuser, Alan Smith, came forward with bizarre new
I WENT BACK TO WORK
I went back to teach in April 2001 because it seemed clear that my accusers had
been deemed unreliable (either crazy or dishonest or some combination of the two),
and I assumed that the fabricated excuse in Richard Werlin's document , was merely an
effort by an embarrassed human resources director to cover up his mistake.
But I was wrong. It was more than a cover-up; it was, in fact, a set-up.
THE FAX THAT CAUSED CVESD TO DO AN ABRUPT ABOUT-FACE
On April 3, 2001 I sent a fax to the district. The next day I was abruptly asked to return
to work, and at the same time the district belatedly prepared a document to explain why
I had been removed from my classroom in the first place. The document contained a new,
completely false accusation by Richard Werlin and never mentioned the teacher reports.
THE DISTRICT CHANGED ITS STORY
Within a month, the district changed its story, saying that only one teacher, Jo Ellen
Hamilton, had called Richard Werlin about me.
The district took no action on its threats, however, until I filed a lawsuit on March 12,
2002. On May 7, 2002 Patrick Judd, Cheryl Cox, Pamela Smith, Bertha Lopez and Larry
Cunningham voted to dismiss me, thus violating California Labor Code section 1102.5
retaliation against employees for reporting wrongdoing. This was also a violation of the
constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances.
AN IMPENDING ELECTION CAUSED THE TEACHERS UNION TO ABANDON ITS
I did not know it at the time, but the teachers union, Chula Vista Educators, was
working with my accusers. CVE President Gina Boyd had worked at my school until
1995, and although she did not share the motivations of her friends at Castle Park
Elementary, she had her own motivations. She was running for reelection and felt she
needed to keep powerful teachers happy in order to win. This effort was supported by
California Teachers Association Board of Directors member Jim Groth and executive
director Tim O'Neill.
The court reporter and all the rest of us sat at attention during the ten minutes the panel
was in the little room, but the judge's words were not included in the transcript because
the reporter couldn't hear them.
The school district spent many tax dollars, and the California Teachers Association spent
plenty of teachers' dues, to get my lawsuit thrown out. Alteration of documents was
required, as well as perjury by employees and even the Sheriff of Santa Barbara, but the
effort seemed to pay off for the district and CTA when my lawsuit was dismissed in 2005.
DISTRICT LAWYERS BRING THE CASE BACK TO COURT IN 2007
As fate would have it, however, my case is back in court. Ray Artiano, the managing
director of CVESD’s law firm, Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, decided to bring this case
back to San Diego Superior Court in 2007 by filing a defamation suit against me for
publishing this website. So it’s still possible that justice and sanity will find their way
back to Chula Vista Elementary School District.
CVESD DID NOT BOTHER TO INVESTIGATE THE MASS MURDER RUMOR THAT CAUSES
HYSTERIA AMONG TEACHERS
Without making any effort to establish that a Columbine-type event was not in the offing,
the district demanded that I come back to work in September of 2001. This time I
My lawyer demanded an investigation to clear my name and cool down the crucible that
Castle Park Elementary had become, but the district refused. It was clear that anyone
could make any accusation against me, and it would be believed and acted on: I was not
safe at work.
SCHOOL ATTORNEY MARK BRESEE GETS HELP FROM DANIEL SHINOFF
Attorney Mark Bresee, who was then working with Parham & Rajcic and was recently
chosen as chief counsel for Terry Grier at SDUSD, had been giving legal advice to CVESD
up to this point.
When I filed a tort claim on October 4, 2001, attorney Diane Crosier and claims adjuster
Rodger Hartnett of San Diego County Office of Education Joint Powers Authority, along
with their favorite attorney, Daniel Shinoff of Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, became
My dismissal was upheld by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Judge H. James Ahler conducted a hearing that was almost as comical as it was illegal. At
one point Judge Ahler jumped up and ordered the panelists to join him in a side room,
where he told them to disregard my testimony. I heard what he said because I was
sitting on the witness stand a few feet from him.