| .. |
| Biography from OAH site: June 1969 - B.A., Political Science, UCSB May 1972 - J.D., UC Davis 1972-1973 - Staff Counsel, DMV 1974-1975 - Private Practice, Jensen & Ahler 1976-1980 - Private Practice, Roden & White 1981-1990 - Private Practice, Roden & Ahler 1991-1994 - Private Practice, Roden, Ahler & Thompson March 1994-Present - Office of Administrative Hearings, San Diego Regional Office "AV" Rated Attorney with Martindale Hubbell since 1987 [Maura Larkins comment: Apparently Martindale Hubbell is easily impressed.] Recipient, Outstanding Trial Lawyer Award, San Diego Trial Lawyers Association Director, North San Diego County Bar Association [Maura Larkins comment: Ah! Perhaps this explains why Judge Ahler hasn't been fired.] |
H. James Ahler
Administrative Law Judge, OAH
Administrative Law Judge, OAH
Linda Watson report
The Linda Watson story gets
even more bizarre when the
Office of Administrative
Hearings gets involved.
During Maura Larkins' dismissal
hearing, when Maura Larkins
testified about Linda Watson's
fear that she was "going
to be dead," Administrative
Judge Ahler jumped up and
stood a while, while everyone
else in the hearing room sat
silently at attention. Then Ahler
went into a small side room,
about three feet from the
witness chair where Maura
Larkins was sitting.
Ahler motioned the two other
panelists of the Commission on
Professional Competence
(Barbara Abeyta and Terry
Olson) to come into the room
with him. They trotted over
obediently. Out of the hearing of
the court reporter, the judge told
the panelists (within the hearing of
Maura Larkins) that they were to
disregard what Maura Larkins
had just said.
He told them the panelists that
because
Larkins didn't know about
Watson's attitude at the time she
made her allegations against
Larkins, the allegations didn't
have anything to do with
Larkins' state of mind. No--of
course not--but the allegations
certainly did have a lot to do
with LINDA WATSON'S STATE
OF MIND! The accuser was
clearly unreliable! Watson had
a strong motive to lie, to invent a
story that would cause Larkins
to be removed again. This
motive is in addition to her
motive of not wanting Larkins to
find out that Watson had
committed a crime against
Larkins. Perhaps Watson's
guilty knowlege that she had
harmed Larkins made her come
up with the absurd notion that
Larkins would use some forum
other than a legal one to seek
redress. The six years that have
passed since 2001 have proven
that Larkins is interested only in
telling the truth, and pursuing
justice in the courts.
As he gave instructions to the
two panelists out of hearing of
the court reporter, Ahler realized
that Larkins could hear him.
He shut the door, and
remained behind the door for
about 10 minutes.
When he came back out, he made
no mention of the bizarre trip to
the side room. The court reporter
began recording again as if
nothing had happened.
For these actions and other
misbehavior in this case,
Judge Ahler was placed on
a two-week suspension.
[This was after he killed a man when
he was driving drunk. What would
Judge Ahler have to do to actually get
fired?]
The Linda Watson story gets
even more bizarre when the
Office of Administrative
Hearings gets involved.
During Maura Larkins' dismissal
hearing, when Maura Larkins
testified about Linda Watson's
fear that she was "going
to be dead," Administrative
Judge Ahler jumped up and
stood a while, while everyone
else in the hearing room sat
silently at attention. Then Ahler
went into a small side room,
about three feet from the
witness chair where Maura
Larkins was sitting.
Ahler motioned the two other
panelists of the Commission on
Professional Competence
(Barbara Abeyta and Terry
Olson) to come into the room
with him. They trotted over
obediently. Out of the hearing of
the court reporter, the judge told
the panelists (within the hearing of
Maura Larkins) that they were to
disregard what Maura Larkins
had just said.
He told them the panelists that
because
Larkins didn't know about
Watson's attitude at the time she
made her allegations against
Larkins, the allegations didn't
have anything to do with
Larkins' state of mind. No--of
course not--but the allegations
certainly did have a lot to do
with LINDA WATSON'S STATE
OF MIND! The accuser was
clearly unreliable! Watson had
a strong motive to lie, to invent a
story that would cause Larkins
to be removed again. This
motive is in addition to her
motive of not wanting Larkins to
find out that Watson had
committed a crime against
Larkins. Perhaps Watson's
guilty knowlege that she had
harmed Larkins made her come
up with the absurd notion that
Larkins would use some forum
other than a legal one to seek
redress. The six years that have
passed since 2001 have proven
that Larkins is interested only in
telling the truth, and pursuing
justice in the courts.
As he gave instructions to the
two panelists out of hearing of
the court reporter, Ahler realized
that Larkins could hear him.
He shut the door, and
remained behind the door for
about 10 minutes.
When he came back out, he made
no mention of the bizarre trip to
the side room. The court reporter
began recording again as if
nothing had happened.
For these actions and other
misbehavior in this case,
Judge Ahler was placed on
a two-week suspension.
[This was after he killed a man when
he was driving drunk. What would
Judge Ahler have to do to actually get
fired?]
| Judge Ahler's letter to Barbara Abeyta dated February 13, 2003, two days AFTER THE DECISION HAD BECOME FINAL. |
| Why did Judge Ahler not provide a copy of the decision to Abeyta and Olson before it became final? Was he afraid they might object to the blatant falsehoods it contained? If so, his precautions seem to have been unnecessary. Abeyta and Olson appear to have no interest in whether or not the decision they signed is illegal and dishonest. Abeyta continues to serve as a representative to the National City Elementary Teachers Association. |
| What did Barbara Abeyta and Terry Olson get for being docile, cooperative and supportive of Judge Ahler's arbitrary and illegal actions? They got the almost identical letters below sent to their school district superintendents. |
| Letter to Terry Olson's Superintendent |
| Letter to Barbara Abeyta's Superintendent |
| Letter to Judge Ahler, Terry Olson, and Barbara Abeyta from Maura Larkins: In the interest of justice, why don't you petition the court to set aside your decision? In your defense, you did not know that CVESD and CTA were guilty of crimes when you signed your angry decision. But you knew that you were ignoring the law and the evidence. Why not do the right thing? Why not do as the state of Alabama is now doing in the Rosa Parks case? Unfortunately, Alabama waited until Rosa Parks was dead. Can you do better than that? No, I didn't think so. I just wanted to point out that you could, if you wanted, right the wrong you have committed. Maura Larkins |
| Copyright © 2006 Maura Larkins' San Diego Education Report. All Rights Reserved. |
Judge Ahler's use of the word "immediate"
is ironic.
Maura Larkins quietly stayed home for months and months, patiently
waiting for an end to the violations of law against her to end.
The first "wrong" against her occurred on February 12, 2001, when
she was placed on administrative leave in violation of the Labor Code
and the contract.
Maura Larkins went back in March 2001 and April 2001, and each
time new false allegations were made against her. The first time she
refused to go to work was October 5, 2001, when there STILL HAD
BEEN NO INVESTIGATION OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HER.
is ironic.
Maura Larkins quietly stayed home for months and months, patiently
waiting for an end to the violations of law against her to end.
The first "wrong" against her occurred on February 12, 2001, when
she was placed on administrative leave in violation of the Labor Code
and the contract.
Maura Larkins went back in March 2001 and April 2001, and each
time new false allegations were made against her. The first time she
refused to go to work was October 5, 2001, when there STILL HAD
BEEN NO INVESTIGATION OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HER.
| The two school-employee panelists now know that their decision was illegal, but refuse to ask that it be set aside. But letters (see below) from James Ahler indicate that they signed the decision without discussing it, and without reading it. |
| Abeyta and Olson followed Judge Ahler like sheep, with no apparent concern for the truth or the law. |
| The Feb 13, 2003 letter below from Judge Ahler to Terry Olson indicates that Olson signed the decision page on Mon Feb 10, 2003 NOT Feb 7, 2003 and signed the decision page without reading the 27 pages of factual findings and without meeting with the other two panelists! Ahler's letters indicate that Terry Olson and Barbara Abeyta DID NOT GET A COPY OF THE FIRST 27 PAGES OF THE DECISION until after the decision had become final. |
| The three OAH panelists all falsely wrote the same date on the decision page: Friday February 7, 2003. This was apparently an attempt to pretend that the signers met together to discuss the decision. |
| The Falsely-Dated Decision Page of the 28-Page Decision of the Maura Larkins' Case at the Office of Administrative Hearings; Olson and Abeyta signed it without discussing or even seeing the "findings of fact." |
| James Ahler's behavior would not be tolerated in Pennsylvania. |
| San Diego Administrative Law Judge James Ahler The San Diego Union Tribune reported that "an administrative law judge with the State Personnel Board ruled Ahler violated his duty as a judge... "'Such conduct does not comply with the law, does not promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and demeans the judicial office,' Judge William A. Snyder wrote..., paraphrasing the Canons of Judicial Ethics in his decision upholding Ahler's demotion." http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/2 0020921-9999_1mi21judge.html |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Members of the COMMISSION signed outright falsehoods. |
| Panelist felt an obligation to CTA (which wanted to cover up crimes), but no obligation to tell the truth |
| Barbara Abeyta, representative, National City Elementary Teachers Association, signed the decision as OAH panelist in the Maura Larkins case. The California attorney general's office reported to Maura Larkins that Ms. Abeyta, in serving on the OAH panel, felt an obligation as a union representative. Clearly, Ms. Abeyta felt no obligation to honor the rights of a fellow teacher, only to be loyal to the union. Questions for Barbara Abeyta 1) Did CTA pressure you to keep quiet? 2) Did Mary Kay Rosinski arrange for CTA Attorney Emma Lehaney to help you get out of testifying in the Schulman case? |
Feb 13, 2003
Two days after the decision against Maura Larkins
had become final, Judge Ahler sent copies of the
decision to the two panelists--who had already
signed the last page without seeing the 28-page
decision
Two days after the decision against Maura Larkins
had become final, Judge Ahler sent copies of the
decision to the two panelists--who had already
signed the last page without seeing the 28-page
decision
Judge Ahler dishonestly pretended that it was safe for Maura Larkins
to go to work, and that the school district wanted her to go to work.
to go to work, and that the school district wanted her to go to work.
San Diego OAH Judge James Ahler
was anxious to "send a message"
rather than apply the law
was anxious to "send a message"
rather than apply the law
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Ronald Castille, in 2004,
wrote: "Deliberate attempts to destroy the objectivity and
impartiality of the (jury) so as to cause the verdict to be a product
of emotion rather than reflective judgment will not be tolerated."
wrote: "Deliberate attempts to destroy the objectivity and
impartiality of the (jury) so as to cause the verdict to be a product
of emotion rather than reflective judgment will not be tolerated."
| San Diego Education Report Blog |
Judge Ahler wanted to let all teachers know that administrators can
violate the law against them, but teachers can't stay home to protect
themselves
violate the law against them, but teachers can't stay home to protect
themselves
Regarding the practice of urging jurors
to "send a message"
to "send a message"
| Judge James Ahler made it clear in his decision that he did not have ANY CONCERN AT ALL for Maura Larkins' students who lost their teacher On Feb 12, 2001, in the middle of their critical transition year to English-only instruction, Maura Larkins' students were given a series of substitutes who knew very little about how to teach that class. Judge Ahler claimed that it was perfectly acceptable that the district took Maura Larkins out of her classroom for seven weeks, then, after asking Maura Larkins twice to come back during that school year, each time demanded that she leave again. Judge Ahler had before him evidence that Asst. Superintendent Rick Werlin was running around desperately looking for someone who would make an allegation against Maura Larkins. Gretchen Donndelinger's notes showed how hard he tried, and how unsuccessful he was. Attorney Mark Bresee of Parham & Rajcic either instructed or advised Werlin to violate the law again and again, or was willing to accept taxpayer money for covering up school district wrongdoing, or both. James Ahler clearly did not care about Maura Larkins' students, yet he dishonestly pretended to care about STUDENTS IN A CLASS AT A DIFFERENT SCHOOL WHO NEVER MET MRS. LARKINS! |
| Judges who ignore the law |
| James Ahler, Terry Olson and Barbara Abeyta signed a compendium of Findings and Legal Conclusions which is staggering in its self-contradictions and outright falsehoods. 2. THE COMMISSION MISCONSTRUED CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTIONS 44932(a)(7), 44932(a)(5) and 44939. A. The COMMISSION misconstrued the meanings of “persistent” and “reasonable” in the context of “persistent violation of and refusal to obey the school laws of the state or reasonable regulations prescribed by the governing Board” in CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTION 44932(a)(7). B. The COMMISSION misconstrued the meaning of “evident unfitness for service” in CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTION 44932(a)(5). C. The COMMISSION misconstrued “willful refusal to perform regular assignments without reasonable cause, as prescribed by reasonable rules and regulations of the employing school district” in CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTION 44939. The COMMISSION construed this section of the law by proceeding as if the word “reasonable” were nowhere to be found. D. The COMMISSION failed to consider Maura Larkins’ Affirmative Defenses, including hostile environment, and to properly construe the law regarding such defenses. E. The COMMISSION improperly construed the MORRISON criteria. F. The COMMISSION failed to consider rights of Maura Larkins according to the contract, the Constitution, and the laws of California. |
| To Terry Olson, Judge Ahler was "Jim." Olson, a school administrator who refused to get CLAD training, got an invitation to stop by the judge's chambers. The other panelist, a teacher, did not get such an invitation. |
| To Barbara Abeyta, Judge Ahler signed his name as "Jim Ahler." Unlike Olson, Abeyta didn't get an invitation to stop by. |
| What was Maura Larkins' lawyer doing during this hearing? Attorney Elizabeth Schulman was trying to protect administrator Richard Werlin. She told Maura Larkins that Werlin was guilty of a crime, but when Larkins asked that the crime be revealed in the hearing, Attorney Elizabeth Schulman said, "I'm more conservative than you think." She said, "It shouldn't be mentioned." |
| Chula Vista Elementary School District lawyers Mark Bresee, Daniel Shinoff, Jeffery Morris and Kelly Angell worked to cover up crimes committed by the district and Castle Park Elementary teachers. |
During the hearing Judge Ahler said, "I
love the practice of law." Exactly.
Ahler was acting like an oppositional
lawyer against Larkins, not an
unbiased judge.
love the practice of law." Exactly.
Ahler was acting like an oppositional
lawyer against Larkins, not an
unbiased judge.
Alher
The Killing is Ironic...
or the Irony is Killing?
Judge Ahler complained bitterly
when he was merely demoted for
driving drunk (an incident in which
Judge Ahler struck and killed a
pedestrian), yet he seems to have
no difficulty tossing off decisions
like this one:
"He promised several courts that
he would not appear drunk in
public and/or would not operate a
motor vehicle under the influence
of alcohol, promises that were
broken due to the unremitting
nature of Ramirez’ disease."
BEFORE THE
PHYSICAL THERAPY BOARD OF
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER
AFFAIRS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Statement of
Issues Against:
ANDREW J. RAMIREZ
1771 Smoketree Drive
El Centro, CA 92243
Respondent.
Agency No. 1D-2002-62967
OAH No. L2003040008
PROPOSED DECISION
James Ahler, Administrative Law Judge,
Office of Administrative Hearings, State
of California heard this matter in San
Diego, California, on July 2, 2003.
Alvin J. Korobkin, Deputy Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General,
State of California, represented
Complainant Steven K. Hartzell, the
Executive Officer of the Physical Therapy
Board of California, Department of
Consumer Affairs, State of California.
Robert Alan Soltis, Attorney at Law,
represented Respondent Andrew J.
Ramirez, who was present throughout
the administrative proceeding.
On July 2, 2003, the matter was
submitted.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
Application History
1. On January 18, 2002, the Physical
Therapy Board of California (the Board)
received an application from
Respondent Andrew J. Ramirez
(Ramirez) in which Ramirez sought the
issuance of a physical therapist license.
...Cause Exists to Deny the Application
13. Ramirez failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that he
has rehabilitated himself from several
alcohol-related criminal convictions that
are substantially and adversely related
to the qualifications, functions and
duties of a physical therapist. These
convictions span the period from
September 1, 1994 through July 12,
2002, and a criminal action related to
Ramirez’ drinking and driving is
pending. By his own admission,
Ramirez is powerless over alcohol and
he had just 60 days of continuous
sobriety at the time of the administrative
hearing despite years of warnings from
friends and family and numerous
ineffective judicial interventions.
This conclusion is based on Factual
Findings 6, 7 (subparts A-G) and 8-14
and on Legal Conclusions 1-4 and 6.
14. Ramirez failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that he
has recovered from his alcoholism or
that he has rehabilitated himself to the
extent that he can practice safely as a
physical therapist. Ramirez was a
practicing alcoholic for at least 15 years.
He was treated as an inpatient at
Scripps-McDonald and received fairly
intensive counseling in two separate SB
38 programs. He promised
several courts that he would
not appear drunk in public
and/or would not operate a
motor vehicle under the
influence of alcohol, promises
that were broken due to the
unremitting nature of Ramirez’
disease.
While it is sincerely hoped Ramirez
has had his last drink, history warns
us that Ramirez made similar
promises in the past and was unable
to keep them. In light of this
discouraging history it would not in the
public interest to issue Ramirez a
license at this time, even if it were to be
issued on a probationary basis and
even if it were strictly tied to his
abstinence from the consumption of
alcohol.
This conclusion is based on Factual
Findings 6-14 and on Legal
Conclusions 1-6.
ORDER
The application for licensure filed by
Andrew J. Ramirez with the Physical
Therapy Board of California is denied.
DATED: July 8, 2003 Original signed by
James Ahler
JAMESAHLER
AdministrativeLawJudge
Office of Administrative Hearings
[Maura Larkins comment: I'm glad if
Judge Ahler has learned not to drink
and drive, but it seems that the logical
inconsistencies of an alcoholic mind
may be present in his thinking.]
or the Irony is Killing?
Judge Ahler complained bitterly
when he was merely demoted for
driving drunk (an incident in which
Judge Ahler struck and killed a
pedestrian), yet he seems to have
no difficulty tossing off decisions
like this one:
"He promised several courts that
he would not appear drunk in
public and/or would not operate a
motor vehicle under the influence
of alcohol, promises that were
broken due to the unremitting
nature of Ramirez’ disease."
BEFORE THE
PHYSICAL THERAPY BOARD OF
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER
AFFAIRS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Statement of
Issues Against:
ANDREW J. RAMIREZ
1771 Smoketree Drive
El Centro, CA 92243
Respondent.
Agency No. 1D-2002-62967
OAH No. L2003040008
PROPOSED DECISION
James Ahler, Administrative Law Judge,
Office of Administrative Hearings, State
of California heard this matter in San
Diego, California, on July 2, 2003.
Alvin J. Korobkin, Deputy Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General,
State of California, represented
Complainant Steven K. Hartzell, the
Executive Officer of the Physical Therapy
Board of California, Department of
Consumer Affairs, State of California.
Robert Alan Soltis, Attorney at Law,
represented Respondent Andrew J.
Ramirez, who was present throughout
the administrative proceeding.
On July 2, 2003, the matter was
submitted.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
Application History
1. On January 18, 2002, the Physical
Therapy Board of California (the Board)
received an application from
Respondent Andrew J. Ramirez
(Ramirez) in which Ramirez sought the
issuance of a physical therapist license.
...Cause Exists to Deny the Application
13. Ramirez failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that he
has rehabilitated himself from several
alcohol-related criminal convictions that
are substantially and adversely related
to the qualifications, functions and
duties of a physical therapist. These
convictions span the period from
September 1, 1994 through July 12,
2002, and a criminal action related to
Ramirez’ drinking and driving is
pending. By his own admission,
Ramirez is powerless over alcohol and
he had just 60 days of continuous
sobriety at the time of the administrative
hearing despite years of warnings from
friends and family and numerous
ineffective judicial interventions.
This conclusion is based on Factual
Findings 6, 7 (subparts A-G) and 8-14
and on Legal Conclusions 1-4 and 6.
14. Ramirez failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that he
has recovered from his alcoholism or
that he has rehabilitated himself to the
extent that he can practice safely as a
physical therapist. Ramirez was a
practicing alcoholic for at least 15 years.
He was treated as an inpatient at
Scripps-McDonald and received fairly
intensive counseling in two separate SB
38 programs. He promised
several courts that he would
not appear drunk in public
and/or would not operate a
motor vehicle under the
influence of alcohol, promises
that were broken due to the
unremitting nature of Ramirez’
disease.
While it is sincerely hoped Ramirez
has had his last drink, history warns
us that Ramirez made similar
promises in the past and was unable
to keep them. In light of this
discouraging history it would not in the
public interest to issue Ramirez a
license at this time, even if it were to be
issued on a probationary basis and
even if it were strictly tied to his
abstinence from the consumption of
alcohol.
This conclusion is based on Factual
Findings 6-14 and on Legal
Conclusions 1-6.
ORDER
The application for licensure filed by
Andrew J. Ramirez with the Physical
Therapy Board of California is denied.
DATED: July 8, 2003 Original signed by
James Ahler
JAMESAHLER
AdministrativeLawJudge
Office of Administrative Hearings
[Maura Larkins comment: I'm glad if
Judge Ahler has learned not to drink
and drive, but it seems that the logical
inconsistencies of an alcoholic mind
may be present in his thinking.]
| Blogs |
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
Drunk jurist's penalty ruled appropriate
State panel OKs demotion; fatal crash involved judge
By Onell R. Soto
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
September 21, 2002
A judge who was driving drunk when he struck and killed an intoxicated
pedestrian crossing a dark street was rightly disciplined by supervisors
who demoted him, a state panel ruled last week.
H. James Ahler, 54, of Escondido, hit and killed a pedestrian in
Escondido within an hour of drinking three glasses of wine a year ago,
according to the decision by the California State Personnel Board
released this week.
Ahler has been an administrative law judge with the Office of
Administrative Hearings in San Diego since 1994, typically hearing
cases in which professionals challenge license suspensions.
After the fatal Sept. 18, 2001, crash, he served a night in jail, pleaded
guilty to misdemeanor drunken driving, paid $1,200 in fines and had to
attend counseling and a session in which victims described the impact
of drunken driving, court records show.
Because of his conviction, Ahler – who had been promoted in June
2001 from a position paying $102,614 annually to a higher rank as an
administrative law judge specialist, which pays $107,641 – was
demoted.
Ahler told officers when he was arrested that he drank three glasses of
wine within an hour of the crash, according to documents from the
personnel board, which hears appeals from state employees who feel
they've been wrongly disciplined.
In Vista Superior Court, Ahler admitted his blood-alcohol level at the
time of the crash was .15 of a percent, nearly twice the .08 of a
percent at which California motorists are presumed to be too drunk to
drive.
Ahler was not charged with killing 67-year-old Charles Ames of
Escondido because his drinking didn't contribute to the death, said
prosecutor Evan Miller.
Miller said Ames, whose own blood-alcohol level was .28, crossed
against a red light in a dark corner wearing dark clothing. None of a
half-dozen witnesses to the crash saw him before impact, he said.
Defense lawyer Daniel Cronin said Ahler was not responsible for the
death.
"The pedestrian ran out in front of him," he said. "It would have
happened if he was stone cold sober."
Ahler challenged the demotion, which took place during the standard
probationary period relating to the June 2001 promotion.
In his defense, Ahler argued that his supervisors should have simply
written a letter disapproving his actions, not taken away his promotion.
He said that, except for the conviction, he continues to do his job well.
Lawyer Everett Bobbitt, who represented Ahler before the personnel
board, said the demotion was too harsh, especially because Ahler
continues handling complicated cases and deserves the higher rank.
"It's really not a demotion. They're just taking money away," Bobbitt
said. "The work hasn't changed at all."
But an administrative law judge with the State Personnel Board ruled
Ahler violated his duty as a judge by driving drunk.
"Such conduct does not comply with the law, does not promote public
confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and demeans the judicial
office," Judge William A. Snyder wrote two weeks ago, paraphrasing
the Canons of Judicial Ethics in his decision upholding Ahler's
demotion.
Snyder said some of the people coming before Ahler might question
his impartiality. He noted that Ahler and his colleagues decide whether
people caught abusing drugs or alcohol can keep their professional
licenses.
State panel OKs demotion; fatal crash involved judge
By Onell R. Soto
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
September 21, 2002
A judge who was driving drunk when he struck and killed an intoxicated
pedestrian crossing a dark street was rightly disciplined by supervisors
who demoted him, a state panel ruled last week.
H. James Ahler, 54, of Escondido, hit and killed a pedestrian in
Escondido within an hour of drinking three glasses of wine a year ago,
according to the decision by the California State Personnel Board
released this week.
Ahler has been an administrative law judge with the Office of
Administrative Hearings in San Diego since 1994, typically hearing
cases in which professionals challenge license suspensions.
After the fatal Sept. 18, 2001, crash, he served a night in jail, pleaded
guilty to misdemeanor drunken driving, paid $1,200 in fines and had to
attend counseling and a session in which victims described the impact
of drunken driving, court records show.
Because of his conviction, Ahler – who had been promoted in June
2001 from a position paying $102,614 annually to a higher rank as an
administrative law judge specialist, which pays $107,641 – was
demoted.
Ahler told officers when he was arrested that he drank three glasses of
wine within an hour of the crash, according to documents from the
personnel board, which hears appeals from state employees who feel
they've been wrongly disciplined.
In Vista Superior Court, Ahler admitted his blood-alcohol level at the
time of the crash was .15 of a percent, nearly twice the .08 of a
percent at which California motorists are presumed to be too drunk to
drive.
Ahler was not charged with killing 67-year-old Charles Ames of
Escondido because his drinking didn't contribute to the death, said
prosecutor Evan Miller.
Miller said Ames, whose own blood-alcohol level was .28, crossed
against a red light in a dark corner wearing dark clothing. None of a
half-dozen witnesses to the crash saw him before impact, he said.
Defense lawyer Daniel Cronin said Ahler was not responsible for the
death.
"The pedestrian ran out in front of him," he said. "It would have
happened if he was stone cold sober."
Ahler challenged the demotion, which took place during the standard
probationary period relating to the June 2001 promotion.
In his defense, Ahler argued that his supervisors should have simply
written a letter disapproving his actions, not taken away his promotion.
He said that, except for the conviction, he continues to do his job well.
Lawyer Everett Bobbitt, who represented Ahler before the personnel
board, said the demotion was too harsh, especially because Ahler
continues handling complicated cases and deserves the higher rank.
"It's really not a demotion. They're just taking money away," Bobbitt
said. "The work hasn't changed at all."
But an administrative law judge with the State Personnel Board ruled
Ahler violated his duty as a judge by driving drunk.
"Such conduct does not comply with the law, does not promote public
confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and demeans the judicial
office," Judge William A. Snyder wrote two weeks ago, paraphrasing
the Canons of Judicial Ethics in his decision upholding Ahler's
demotion.
Snyder said some of the people coming before Ahler might question
his impartiality. He noted that Ahler and his colleagues decide whether
people caught abusing drugs or alcohol can keep their professional
licenses.
Compare James Ahler's own behavior with his
judgments against others:
judgments against others:
From San Diego Union Tribune:
Demotion of jurist after drunken-driving death ruled appropriate
Onell R. Soto; The San Diego Union - Tribune; Sep 21, 2002; pg. B.3.7;
Panel says drunk jurist was properly disciplined
Onell R. Soto; The San Diego Union - Tribune; Sep 21, 2002; pg. NC.1;
Crashes on North County roads kill 3 from Vista | 4 others are injured in 2 deadly
wrecks
Elizabeth Fitzsimons; The San Diego Union - Tribune; Sep 21, 2001; pg. NC.3.NI;
Man hit by suspected drunken driver dies from his injuries
The San Diego Union - Tribune; Sep 20, 2001; pg. NC.2.NI;
"Police said Charles Ames of Escondido was walking against a red light just
before 9 p.m. at Centre City Parkway and Mission Avenue. He was struck by a
2001 Nissan driven by James Ahler, 53, of Escondido, police said."
Demotion of jurist after drunken-driving death ruled appropriate
Onell R. Soto; The San Diego Union - Tribune; Sep 21, 2002; pg. B.3.7;
Panel says drunk jurist was properly disciplined
Onell R. Soto; The San Diego Union - Tribune; Sep 21, 2002; pg. NC.1;
Crashes on North County roads kill 3 from Vista | 4 others are injured in 2 deadly
wrecks
Elizabeth Fitzsimons; The San Diego Union - Tribune; Sep 21, 2001; pg. NC.3.NI;
Man hit by suspected drunken driver dies from his injuries
The San Diego Union - Tribune; Sep 20, 2001; pg. NC.2.NI;
"Police said Charles Ames of Escondido was walking against a red light just
before 9 p.m. at Centre City Parkway and Mission Avenue. He was struck by a
2001 Nissan driven by James Ahler, 53, of Escondido, police said."
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |