(Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 [a copy of the deposition subpoena that was served on Peg
Myers] was marked for  identification.)

Q.   Ms. Myers, does this document look familiar to you?


7         A.   It just looks like a subpoena to me.  I mean,
8   familiar -- I don't know what you mean by familiar.
9         Q.   Have you ever seen this document before?
10         A.   I couldn't -- I couldn't be sure.
11         Q.   Were you served at your home with a subpoena from
12   the -- Stephen V. Love, the clerk of the Superior Court?
13         A.   Yes.
20         Q.   Okay.  And do you remember that the subpoena
21   concerned me?
22         A.   Yes.  I assumed that.
page 11
5         Q.   Okay.  Did you know that the subpoena came from me?
6         A.   Yes.
7         Q.   Okay.  How did you feel when you received the
8   subpoena?
9         A.   I was upset that it was delivered to me late at
10   night.
11         Q.   How late at night was it delivered?
12         A.   I don't remember, but I was falling asleep on the
13   couch.
14         Q.   Okay.  Was there anything else about it that upset
15   you?
16              MS. ANGELL:  And I'm going to object that this
17   line of questioning is not reasonably calculated to lead to
18   the discovery of admissible evidence.  For the record,
19   plaintiff has offered a one-page copy of a document
20   purporting to be a deposition subpoena in the matter of
21   Larkins V. Schulman, GIC 823858, and this is -- appears not
22   to be related to the instant case.  So I'll give you some
23   latitude here.  I don't know what you're going for, but if
24   you could kind of get to the point.
25              MS. LARKINS:  Well, would you like me to tell you
1   what I'm going for?
2              MS. ANGELL:  Sure.
3              MS. LARKINS:  What I'm going for here is attitudes
4   and motivations of employees of Chula Vista Elementary School
5   District regarding me and the events surrounding my removal
6   from my classroom at Castle Park Elementary School.
7              MS. ANGELL:  
17              This business about your -- your -- the reasons
18   for your dismissal from employment with the district other
19   than issues having to do with your allegations that people
20   had information from your arrest records is totally
21   irrelevant to this case.  
25              MS. LARKINS:  Ms. Angell, would you like to have
page 13
1   this objection which you have just made be a standing
2   objection to all the questions I ask today?
3              MS. ANGELL:  Relevance?
4              MS. LARKINS:  Yes.
5              MS. ANGELL:  Yes.
6              MS. LARKINS:  Okay.  Well, then you won't have to
7   state that over and over and over again because I stipulate
8   that this will be a standing objection to every question I
9   ask today.
19              MS. LARKINS:  Well, Ms. Angell, I hope that when
20   you feel that you don't want the witness to answer any more
21   questions along a certain line that you will simply instruct
22   her not to answer the question.
23              MS. ANGELL:  I will.
24              MS. LARKINS:  Thank you.
25         Q.   Okay.  Ms. Myers, did you have -- was there
page 14
1   anything else about receiving this subpoena that caused you
2   to be upset other than the fact that it was delivered when
3   you were falling asleep on the couch?
4         A.   No.
5         Q.   Okay.  
Did you appear for a deposition on
6   July 27th, 2004, at 10:00 a.m.?
7         A.   No.
8         Q.   Why did you not appear?
9              MS. ANGELL:  To the extent that you know.
10              THE WITNESS:  Because there was a --
11              MS. ANGELL:  And not --
12              THE WITNESS:  -- proceeding.
13              MS. ANGELL:  -- revealing any communications
14   between you and counsel.
  THE WITNESS:  There was a proceeding that
16   precluded me from having to attend.
18         Q.   Oh, okay.  So you understood that you were not
19   allowed to attend the deposition that was -- you were
20   subpoenaed for here?
25         Q.   Can you answer the question?
Page 15
2         Q.   Did -- is it your understanding that you were
3   forbidden to appear for this deposition?
4         A.   The wording of that question is a little bit --
5   it's worded strangely that I was forbidden.  What does that
6   mean?
7         Q.   That means that you were prevented by some
8   proceeding from attending this deposition.
9              MS. ANGELL:  Do you mean was she prevented from
attending the deposition versus did the court order that the deposition not
proceed?  I think you're trying to confuse the witness.
13              MS. LARKINS:  No.
14              MS. ANGELL:  She's saying she can't understand
15   your question.
20              MS. ANGELL:  She said that the deposition had been
21   precluded.

Page 16

2         Q.   Now, by the word precluded do you understand that
3   to mean forbidden?
4         A.   No, I don't.
5        Q.   What do you mean when you say it was precluded?
6         A.   There was a proceeding that took place that
7   basically said I did not have to attend.
8         Q.   Okay.
9         A.   That's much different than forbidden.
10         Q.   It certainly is.
11         A.   Yes.
12         Q.   I'm glad I understand that now.  Okay...
22              MS. LARKINS:  Ms. Angell, I am not asking the
23   witness for legal conclusions.  I'm asking her why she didn't appear at
the deposition.

page 17

We're going off the record.
12   The time is 10:34 a.m.
(Recess taken.)
We're going on the record.  
The time is 10:43 a.m.

18   (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.)
Exhibit   2    Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash   
Subpoenas for Third-Party Discovery and, Alternatively, Motion for
Protective Order, two pages

21         Q.   Ms. Myers, have you ever seen this document before?

22              MS. ANGELL:  Objection.  Not reasonably calculated
23   to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Seeks to
24   invade the attorney/client privilege.  Seeks to invade
25   attorney work product, and the witness will not answer this
page 18
1   question or any questions in this line.  And I would ask you
2   to move on to your next topic.

3              MS. LARKINS:  Okay.  That's fine with me if the
4   witness doesn't answer, but in order that I can compel
5   testimony in the future I want to make sure that I get the
6   questions on record.

8 MS. ANGELL:  She will not answer the question.

12              Or maybe I should just have a motion to compel
13   that whole line of questioning.  Maybe I'll move on for right
14   now, because I do want to know why she came to you to ask
15   that she be excused from going to that deposition.

page 19

7         Q.   Ms. Myers, have you ever told anyone that I'm
8   crazy?
9              MS. ANGELL:  Objection.  Seeks to invade attorney/
10   client privilege.  Not reasonably calculated to lead to the
11   discovery of admissible evidence.
13         Q.   Have you ever told anybody other than your
14   attorney that I'm crazy?
15         A.   Not to my knowledge that I can remember.
16         Q.   Is it your opinion that I am crazy?
17              MS. ANGELL:  Relevance.  This is not an expert
18   witness unless you'd like to qualify her as an expert
19   witness.  I don't believe that she's qualified to give an
20   opinion on whether or not you're crazy.  And vague and
21   ambiguous as to term crazy.
22              MS. LARKINS:  Unfortunately, Ms. Angell, people do
23   not seem to need to be qualified psychologically to give such
24   opinions about other people, and that's why we have laws
25   against slander.
Page 20
1              MS. ANGELL:  Well, Mrs. Larkins, you do not have a
2   cause of action for slander here.
3              MS. LARKINS:  I don't?
4              MS. ANGELL:  Nope.
5              MS. LARKINS:  Well --
6              MS. ANGELL:  Not against this witness.  You have a
7   cause of action for slander against Mr. Carlson.  That's the
8   only witness I'm aware of.
9              MS. LARKINS:  I don't have any cause of action
10   against this witness.  This is a witness to slander.
19              MS. LARKINS:  Okay.  
Now, Ms. Angell, it would
20   really help things a lot if you would make clear when you're
21   objecting and when you're instructing the witness not to
22   answer.  Because -- have you explained to the witness that
23   after an objection, she is then to answer the question?
24              MS. ANGELL:  I'm not here to dialogue with you,
25   Mrs. Larkins.

Page 21

2         Q.   Okay.  I'm going to explain it to you then.
3   Ms. Myers, the way this is done is, for example, let's say I
4   asked you if you had ever told Ms. Angell that I was crazy,
5   Ms. Angell would have a legitimate objection in that and the
6   judge would uphold it.  Now, there's two things she can do.
7   She can either say objection, attorney/client privilege and
8   then you answer the question despite the objection, or she
9   can instruct you not to answer the question.  It's really two
10   different things.  If she objects, you answer the question.
11   If she instructs you not to answer the question, then you
12   don't answer it.
13              Okay.  Is it your opinion that I am crazy?
14              MS. ANGELL:  Same objections.  Calls for expert
15   testimony.  Vague and ambiguous as to crazy.  Not reasonably
16   calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.
18         Q.   Now you may answer.
19              MS. ANGELL:  If you understand the question.
20   Answer anything that does not have to do with attorney/client
21   privilege.
22              THE WITNESS:  What's the question again?
24         Q.   Is it your opinion that I'm crazy?
25         A.   I don't even know how to answer that.  I have no
1                  opinion.
[She expressed exactly that opinion to the person who served her with the
subpoena for this deposition.]
2         Q.   Is it your opinion that I'm sane?
3         A.   I have no opinion on that either.

4         Q.   Okay.  I would like to ask that this document be labeled as Exhibit 3.
6              (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.)
9         Q.   Have you ever seen this article before, this news
10   article before?
11         A.   I am not sure if I've seen this one.
12         Q.   Were you aware that there was an article in The
13   Star News on or about August 20th, 2004, which discussed
14   details about you?
22              MS. ANGELL:  -- any attempt to discuss this
23   witness's employment, the current status of this witness's
24   employment beyond who her employer is, where she works, what
25   her duties are, particularly your attempt to discuss a recent
page 23
1   transfer by this employee by her employer.  I'm going to
2   object to that and instruct her not to answer.  It's not
3   reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
4   evidence, and it's designed solely to harass this witness.
      MS. LARKINS:  Ms. Angell, this is absolutely
6   necessary for me to prove my case.  The atmosphere of
7   hostility at Castle Park School that boiled over into the
8   press is an ongoing thing which was there long before Ollie
9   Matos came and was responsible for my being removed from
10   Castle Park.  In a sense Ms. Myers and I are both victims of
11   the sick culture at Castle Park.

12              MR. HERSH:  Ms. Larkins, this is Michael Hersh for
13   the association defendants.  I would move to strike your
14   monologue there, and I would also point out as a matter of
15   fact that the facts that you're stating are not correct.  You
16   were removed from your teaching position from Castle Park
17   because of your refusal to return to work when you were
18   instructed to do so.  I don't believe that Ms. Myers was
19   removed from her employment as a result of insubordination.

20              MS. LARKINS:  Mr. Hersh, I think you're quite
21   confused about things.  I was removed from my teaching
22   position at Castle Park more than a year before I was
23   dismissed for insubordination.

page 24

7              MS. LARKINS:  Ms. Angell, your client made her
8   employment, particularly her transfer out of Castle Park
9   Elementary School, a matter of public discussion when she
10   went to the press.

13              MS. ANGELL:  If you would like to ask the witness
14   anything about what she said to a reporter, that kind of
15   thing, then I'm not going to object to that.  As far as other
16   aspects of this employment matter, the witness asserts her
17   right to privacy and will not be responding.

18              MR. HERSH:  I of course join that objection.  And
19   I would also remind you that insofar as you attempt to
20   question Ms. Myers concerning protected activities that are
21   under litigation in the grievance and possible unfair
22   practice charge being filed by the Chula Vista Educators on
23   Ms. Myers' behalf, I will also be instructing the witness as
24   counsel for Chula Vista Educators.
Page 25
6              MR. HERSH
12   I would --
I will basically as counsel for the Chula Vista
13   Educators seek to protect Ms. Myers and Chula Vista Educators
14   from inquiries
that are protected by the First Amendment of
15   the Constitution of the United States of America and this --
16   and the California Constitution, and I believe are
17   privileged.
18              MS. LARKINS:  Okay.  
Are you Ms. Myers' boss or
19   are you going to ask her if she wants to be represented by
20   you?
21              MR. HERSH:  At this point I'm not going to ask
22   Ms. Myers that question.  I'm just going -- I'm telling you
23   as a matter of the record what I intend to do.
24              MS. LARKINS:  Well, Mr. Hersh, I'm very concerned
25   about your attitude.  You have stated that you are going to
page 26
1   be telling her what to do.  Why don't we just ask her.  I'll
2   ask her for you.
3              Is Mr. Hersh your counsel?  Is he representing you?
4              MS. ANGELL:  Objection.  Vague and ambiguous.
5   Seeks to invade attorney/client privilege.
6              MS. LARKINS:  That's not a privilege.  If
7   Mr. Hersh is representing her during this deposition, I have
8   a right to know that.
9         Q.   Is Mr. Hersh representing you?
10         A.   It is my knowledge that I did talk to --

11              MS. ANGELL:  Do not disclose anything that you've
12   discussed with counsel.
THE WITNESS:  Okay.  I did call the union and ask
14   if there would be someone that would be representing me as far as
questions that deal with this issue.
16              MS. LARKINS:  Okay.  So Mr. Hersh, are you
17   offering to represent Ms. Myers?
20              MR. HERSH:  Yeah.  I am representing the Chula
Vista Educators, and insofar as you attempt to question
Ms. Myers concerning her Chula Vista Educator activity such as filing a
grievance, to that degree I will be representing
Ms. Myers as a representative of Chula Vista Educators,
Ms. Myers being a representative of Chula Vista Educators.


1              MS. LARKINS:  Mr. Hersh, I think this smacks of
really top-down control of C.T.A. which is a real serious
problem.  Ms. Myers is an individual, and she has a right to testify as
an individual.  And you can -- if you're not
representing her, you can object on behalf of Chula Vista
Educators but you cannot instruct her.  So why don't -- I'm
sure she'll agree to let you represent her.  Why don't you
just offer to represent her?

11              MR. HERSH:  Sure.  Well, if you want to take a
12   break in the proceeding and allow me to consult with
13   Ms. Myers, I'd be happy to do that.  I don't really feel it's
14   an appropriate topic for the deposition.

page 28

1 And if you want to go off the record and
2   allow me to consult with Ms. Myers, I'd be happy to do that.

3              MS. LARKINS:  Yes, I would.  But first I'd like to
4   say that I think it's you that is ignoring the rules.
 If you
5   think you have a right to instruct a witness in a deposition
6   just because you're a C.T.A. attorney, you certainly can
7   object, but you cannot instruct until you make that agreement
8   with her that you are representing her.  So I'm agreeable to
9   going off the record now.

15              THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're going off the record.
16   The time is 11:01 a.m.
18              THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're going on the record.  The
19   time is 11:27 a.m.

21         Q.   Okay.  Ms. Myers, is Michael Hersh representing
22   you?
page 29
2              THE WITNESS:  Okay.  He is representing me as far
3   as any C.V.E. related activity or business.
5         Q.   Okay.  So are -- let's see.  
When you were at
6   Castle Park were you a member of the C.V.E. Representative
7   Council?
8         A.   Yes, I was.
9         Q.   Did you hear any discussion of my case at any rep
10   council meeting?
11              MR. HERSH:  Just for the record, this is an area
in which I will be representing the witness.  I object to
these questions.
 They're harassing the witness concerning
matters that have nothing to do with this litigation.  
I'm not going to instruct the witness not to answer at this
time, but if you continue asking these questions concerning discussions at
the -- related to the grievance, I will
instruct the witness not to answer.

19              MS. ANGELL:  Object.  Not relevant.  Vague and
20   ambiguous as to time.  Vague and ambiguous as to discussing
21   Larkins.

Q.   Ms. Myers, did you ever hear my name mentioned at
24   any Representative Council meeting for C.V.E. that you
25   attended?

Page 30
1         A.   C.V.E. rep council meeting?
2         Q.   Uh-huh.
3         A.   Not to my recollection.
4         Q.   Okay.  I want to make sure I understand what you
5   mean when you say not to my recollection.  Is there some
6   uncertainty in your answer?
7         A.   I do not remember any conversation.

["Not to my recollection"]

8         Q.   Okay.  Now --
9              MS. ANGELL:  Excuse me.  You don't remember any
10   conversation coming up concerning Mrs. Larkins or you don't
11   remember any conversation at any of these meetings?
12              THE WITNESS:  I don't recall any conversation
13   regarding Maura at these C.V.E. rep council meetings.
15         Q.   Okay.  When you say you don't recall, do you mean
16   that you clearly remember that there was never any discussion
17   of me or that -- okay.  Let's leave it at that.  
Are you
18   saying that you clearly remember that there was never any
19   discussion of me?
20         A.   I do not remember any discussion of you.
21         Q.   Okay.  Could there have been a discussion of me
22   that you might have forgotten?
23              MR. HERSH:  Objection.  Calls for speculative
24   answer.
25              MS. LARKINS:
 Well, I'm trying to gauge her degree
1   of certainty about whether or not I was discussed at these
2   meetings.
3              MR. HERSH:  And I'm objecting because your
4   question requests a speculative answer.
5              MS. LARKINS:  Okay.  Are you instructing her not
6   to answer?
7              MR. HERSH:  I objected on the basis that I stated
8   on the record.
10         Q.   Okay.  Would you please answer the question.
11         A.   I do not remember.  I don't remember.
12         Q.   No.  This is a yes or no question.  Are you
13   certain that no one ever spoke of me at a rep council meeting?
14              MS. ANGELL:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
15   Argumentative.  Could you move on to the next question, please.
16              MS. LARKINS:  You may instruct your client not to
17   answer.
18              MR. HERSH:  I'm not going to instruct my client
19   not to answer at this point, but I do join Ms. Angell's
20   objection on the basis of it being argumentative and asking a
21   question that has already been asked and answered at least
22   twice.
23              MS. LARKINS:  No, this question has not been asked
24   and answered.  What I'm trying to find out is if Ms. Myers'
25   memory is vague or if she is -- if her memory is clear.
Page 32
[Peggy refuses to answer]
1   There's a big difference between having problems with
2   remembering things and clearly remembering that there was
3   never any discussion.  Ms. Angell, are you instructing your
4   client not to answer the question?
5              MS. ANGELL:  I haven't done that.
9         Q.   The question is, are you sure there was never any
10   discussion of me at any rep council meetings?
11              MS. ANGELL:  Same objections.
14         A.   I don't remember any conversations.
15         Q.   That's -- you're not answering my question.  It's
16   a yes or no answer.
17              MS. ANGELL:  Objection.  Argumentative.  The
18   witness has answered.
19              MS. LARKINS:  No, she hasn't.  It's -- it's
20   unresponsive.  Her answer is unresponsive to the question.
21              THE WITNESS:  Repeat the question again.
23         Q.   The question is, are you certain that I was never
24   discussed at any rep council meeting?
25         A.   I do not remember any conversation about you at a
page 33
1   rep council meeting.
2         Q.   Okay.  Are you answering no?  Is that what your
3   answer is then, no, you're not certain?
4         A.   Once again, my answer is I don't remember any
5   conversation regarding you at a rep council meeting.
6         Q.   Ms. Myers, we've got a little problem here.  I
7   guess I'll have to just compel you.  
page 34
Page 35
1         Q.   Ms. Myers, do you have a good memory?
2         A.   Fairly.
3         Q.   Okay.  Who was the next principal after Oscar
4   Perez?
5         A.   I believe Gretchen Dondelinger.
    Q.   Yeah.  Do you know why she was chosen to be
7   principal at Castle Park?
8         A.   I was on the interview committee, but I signed a
9   confidentiality statement.
[She thinks that holds up in Superior Court?]
19         Q.   Did you ever apologize to other teachers for
20   having been part of -- been involved in choosing Gretchen
21   Dondelinger?
Page 36
      Q.   Did you ever apologize to any of your fellow
5   teachers for choosing Gretchen Dondelinger as principal of
6   Castle Park?
7         A.   I --
8              MS. ANGELL:  Objection.  Misstates the evidence.
9   This witness did not say that she choose Dr. Dondelinger as
10   the principal of Castle Park.  She said she was on an
11   interview committee.
13         Q.   Okay.  I'm going to make a statement and ask you
14   if you ever made a statement similar to this statement.
15   apologize for choosing Gretchen Dondelinger as principal.
16   Did you ever make a statement similar to that one?
17         A.   I don't recall.
18         Q.   Okay.  How many principals have there been at
19   Castle Park during the last ten years?
20         A.   I don't know the exact number but more than five.
21         Q.   The number eight has been printed in the newspaper
22   a couple of times recently.  Does that sound about right to
23   you?
page 37
1              THE WITNESS:  I don't really know.
3         Q.   
Well, even if it's -- you said -- even if it's
4   just more than five, let's say six then, do you think that
5   Castle Park has had a higher rate of turnover of principals
6   than most elementary schools?
7         A.   I really can't answer that.  I don't -- I don't
8   look around to see how many years principals stay at schools.
9         Q.   Okay.  Let's see.  When you first arrived it was
10   Oscar Perez, then Gretchen Dondelinger.  Were there several
11   short-term principals after Gretchen Dondelinger left?
12         A.   Yes.
13         Q.   And who were they?
14         A.   I couldn't even tell you who they all were.
15         Q.   Was one of them Sam Snyder?
16         A.   Yes.
17         Q.   Was one of them a woman?  Her name -- was Sam
18   Snyder co-principal with a woman?
19         A.   Yes.
20         Q.   Do you remember that woman's name?
21         A.   I had forgotten about Sam until you mentioned it.
22   Helen?
23         Q.   Okay.  You're not real sure about that, though?
24         A.   I believe her name was Helen.
25         Q.   Okay.  And then after Sam Snyder and the woman --
page 38
1   did they work as principals for just a few months?
2         A.   I believe so.  I don't remember the time line.
3         Q.   Okay.  
And then did Lowell Billings become interim
4   principal?
5         A.   At one point Lowell did, but I don't know if there
6   was somebody before him or not.
7         Q.   Okay.  Other than Sam Snyder and the woman?
8         A.   What's the question that you're asking?
9         Q.   You said you didn't know if there was anyone there
10   before Lowell Billings, and I'm asking you if you mean other
11   than Sam Snyder and the woman?
12         A.   There were other interim principals.  I don't know
13   if they came after Sam, before Lowell or after Lowell.  I
14   don't remember.
15         Q.   Okay.  Did you find it at all --
did you consider
16   it at all odd that Castle Park was getting all these interim
17   principals instead of having regular principals?
18         A.   There's a process for hiring principals and that
19   process hadn't been initiated yet, so I -- that would be why
20   we would have interim principals, because the process hadn't
21   started.


Page 39
2         Q.   Was the process to choose a new principal for
3   Castle Park somewhat delayed after Gretchen Dondelinger left?
4         A.   I would have no idea.
5         Q.   Okay.  But let me go back and ask you a question
6   about the transition between Oscar Perez and Gretchen
7   Dondelinger.  
Were there any interim principals between Oscar
8   Perez and Gretchen Dondelinger?
9         A.   I don't remember.
10         Q.   Yet you were on the interview committee
13         Q.   Okay.  And then who was the principal after all
14   these interim principals?
15         A.   After what -- I'm not --
16         Q.  
 Sam Snyder, the woman, and Lowell Billings.
17         A.   I really don't remember the time line.  There were
18   principals in and out.  I don't -- I don't remember.
Q.   Was there a Hispanic woman who became principal?
23         Q.   After Lowell Billings, a young Hispanic woman?
24         A.   There was a woman who was an interim principal,
25   but I -- once again, the time line, I'm being confused
Part 1 (below)
Part 2
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
MAURA LARKINS v. RICHARD T. WERLIN,  et al.,  Defendants
November 29, 2004

November 29, 2004

Examination by Ms. Larkins     
EXHIBITS:                                                                                                               PAGE

1    Deposition Subpoena, one page                                                                     10

2    Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Third-Party
Discovery and, Alternatively, Motion for Protective Order, two pages        

3    The Star News article dated 8-20-04   two pages                              22

4    La Prensa San Diego article dated 9-17-04, two pages                            50

5    Excerpt from Education Code, Sec. 44930-44936, in part, two pages   63

6      Excerpt from Labor Code, Section 430-432.7, in part, two pages        66

 La Prensa San Diego article dated 10-8-04, one page                         108


21   17
2   55
20   64
8   94
9  123

For the Plaintiff:   
(In Propria Persona)

Chula Vista Educators,

California Teachers Association,

Virginia Boyd

and Timothy O'Neill:

Post Office Box 2153
11745 East Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, California 90670
(562) 942-7979
(Appeared telephonically)

Robin Donlan
and Linda Watson:
Page 8 line 14

...Why did you choose Ms. Angell
to represent you here today?
16              MS. ANGELL:  Objection.  
Not reasonably calculated
17   to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.  It seeks to
18   invade attorney/client privilege.
    MS. LARKINS:  Are you
telling her to refuse to
20   answer the question?
21              MS. ANGELL:  You're
seeking to invade the attorney/client
23              MS. LARKINS:  Well,
why don't you instruct your client
not to answer then.
[Ms. Angell makes no answer for a
long time.]
25              Ms. Angell, you are
staring at me in a very hostile

Page 9

2              MS. ANGELL:  Move to
strike plaintiff's characterization of
me.  I'm just sitting here at the table
not talking.
5              MS. LARKINS:  For the
record, I would like to state that Ms.
Angell just made a severe grimace
with her mouth moving it far over to
the right, and she was trying to stare
me down a minute ago when I asked
her if she was instructing her client
not to answer the question.
18         Q.   Ms. Myers, why did you
choose Ms. Angell to be -- to
represent you here today?
20              MS. ANGELL:  Do not
respond to any attorney/client
privileged information.  Anything that
you've discussed with me is not within
the realm of your knowledge for
purposes of any question in this
Deposition of Peg Myers
President of Chula Vista Educators
Are Peg Myers and Kelly
Angell really unaware of the
meaning of the word


1.         to prevent the
presence, existence, or
occurrence of; make
impossible: The insufficiency
of the evidence precludes a

2.         to exclude or debar
from something: His physical
disability precludes an
athletic career for him.
Why did Peg Myers seek a
protective order from testifying in
Larkins v. Schulman?

Why does she say she was
"precluded" from attending her
Did Peg Myers get Google to temporarily
block a post about this deposition?
Deposition of Gina Boyd
in this same case
Deposition of Ray Artiano
in related case
Deposition of Ray Artiano
in related case
"Students think nothing of plagiarizing papers, having their parents do
their homework, and use their electronic gadgets to get better grades on
tests. Where do they learn this behavior? Oh, adults, look in the mirrors.
Modern ethics says break the laws, deny when you get caught, and then
look stupid and plead ignorance when your bad deeds are revealed. It
used to be that you did the right thing even if no one was looking. That
day may be lost to us forever along with truth and honor."
Posted by Leanne, Voice of San Diego
August 14, 2009
Women who thought of themselves as
pretty showed the same pattern of
greater aggression.
--Time Magazine

Letter from Peg Myers' husband
Jim Groth's hoax

Peg Myers' husband's

Robin Donlan

Peg Myers

Gina Boyd  

(See also: more perjury
by Gina Boyd)

Linda Watson

Maura Larkins
San Diego Education
Report Blog
Why This Website

Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation



Castle Park
Elementary School

Law Enforcement



Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz

Silence is Golden

Schools and Violence

Office Admin Hearings

Larkins OAH Hearing
San Diego Education Report
San Diego
Education Report
San Diego Education Report
San Diego
Education Report
Deborah Garvin
perjury in this case