MAURA LARKINS
1935 Autocross Court
El Cajon, CA 92019
619 444 0065
Defendant pro se
1935 Autocross Court
El Cajon, CA 92019
619 444 0065
Defendant pro se
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of California |
| "...Judge Ahler jumped up in the middle of Maura Larkins’ testimony, and ordered the two panelists to come into a small side room with him, and told them (out of the hearing of the court reporter) to disregard Larkins’ statements. The court reporter and parties and lawyers sat waiting. When Alher realized that Larkins could hear what he was saying, since she was sitting in the witness stand just a few feet from the little room, he closed the door and remained there for about ten minutes..." |
"...Some pages of this
87-page set of
Bate-stamped
documents were
produced by attorney
Mark Bresee of Parham
& Rajcic, who worked
with SASH, for the
administrative hearing.
SASH refused to
produce a single
document in response
to the very specific
request: 'The Bate
stamps begin with the
number 1, not 01 or
001, and continue
through 87'..."
87-page set of
Bate-stamped
documents were
produced by attorney
Mark Bresee of Parham
& Rajcic, who worked
with SASH, for the
administrative hearing.
SASH refused to
produce a single
document in response
to the very specific
request: 'The Bate
stamps begin with the
number 1, not 01 or
001, and continue
through 87'..."
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Maura Larkins' Opposition to Motion for
Remand in Stutz v. Larkins
Remand in Stutz v. Larkins
Dan Shinoff seems to
think this is unclear:
"...begin with the
number 1, not 01 or
001, and continue
through 87"
He came to Ray
Artiano's deposition
with number 05, not
number 5, etc..
He's been hiding
document #5 for five
years.
think this is unclear:
"...begin with the
number 1, not 01 or
001, and continue
through 87"
He came to Ray
Artiano's deposition
with number 05, not
number 5, etc..
He's been hiding
document #5 for five
years.
) Case number: 07cv02202-WQH (WMc)
)
) Judge: Hon. William Q. Hayes
) (Hon. William McCurine, Jr.)
) Date: February 19, 2008
) Time: 11:00 a.m.
)
)
) OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
) REMAND
)
)
)
) COMPLAINT FILED: 10/05/07
) TRIAL DATE: None set
)
) Judge: Hon. William Q. Hayes
) (Hon. William McCurine, Jr.)
) Date: February 19, 2008
) Time: 11:00 a.m.
)
)
) OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
) REMAND
)
)
)
) COMPLAINT FILED: 10/05/07
) TRIAL DATE: None set
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
& HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAURA LARKINS,
and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendants.
& HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAURA LARKINS,
and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendants.
remand:
Defendant asked that this case be removed to federal court because the
California Superior Court, at least in part due to its being overburdened with
cases—like this one--that should have been settled out of court, was unable to
reach a just outcome in lawsuits previously brought by the current defendant.
Three of those cases are attached as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3. Defendant then
took her case to the court of public opinion by creating a web site and
describing the case and the actions of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz (SASH)
lawyers (Exhibit 5).
SASH’s main complaint seems to be that defendant accuses it of having
suborned perjury, intimidated witnesses and parties, hidden or destroyed
documents, and obstructed justice.
Defendant stands by this accusation, and believes that these actions defeated
the state court’s efforts to reach a just outcome.
The San Diego Superior Court judge who dismissed defendant’s case against
Richard Werlin, Michael Carlson, Robin Donlan, et al, did so very soon after
receiving a declaration from the Sheriff of Santa Barbara which said that those
individuals were innocent. The judge apparently believed that such a
declaration would hold up in court. As it happened, the sheriff’s
representative admitted during his deposition that the declaration prepared by
attorney Deborah Garvin was false (Exhibit 6).
Plaintiffs knew very well that their clients were guilty, yet they believed that
their successful perpetration of multiple frauds on the court would prevent the
truth from ever coming out.
Plaintiffs were clearly wrong about this. The truth came out on defendant’s
website.
SASH’s ability to intimidate witnesses and to cause documents to disappear
led to a disgraceful decision in the California Office of Administrative
Hearings. The Professional Competence Commission dismissed defendant
Larkins from her teaching position because she filed grievances and a
lawsuit. This proved, according to the decision, that Larkins had an
irremediable defect of charater: she was “unforgiving.” The decision
contradicted itself by saying that Larkins had not been the victim of any
wrongdoing, but this was just one of many inconsistencies in the decision.
The judge said documents did not exist, when he had accepted them into
evidence in his own handwriting. He apparently looked up the school district
on a website, which is the only explanation defendant can think of for his
bizarre statement that there were six members on the school board, five of
them elected and one appointed. Judge Ahler must have clicked on the web
page that shows the photo of the superintendent next to the photos of board
members, with the caption “Board of Education.” There was no testimony
about the number of board members in evidence or even discussed in the
hearing.
But the biggest venture into unjudicial behavior came when Judge Ahler
jumped up in the middle of Maura Larkins’ testimony, and ordered the two
panelists to come into a small side room with him, and told them to disregard
Larkins’ statements. The court reporter and parties and lawyers sat waiting.
When Alher realized that Larkins could hear what he was saying, since she
was sitting in the witness stand just a few feet from the little room, he closed
the door and remained there, talking, for about ten minutes (Exhibit 15).
SASH shows its disrespect for the justice system by putting forward this
decision again and again to justify its continuing smear of Maura Larkins
(Exhibits 9 through 16).
SASH’s propensity toward discovery abuse, and its readiness to smear Larkins
are illustrated by the following quotes from the November 9, 2007 deposition
of SASH lawyer Ray Artiano (Exhibit 4), taken for the current case. The first
question below deals with the still-missing documents collected by Daniel
Shinoff at Castle Park Elementary in the fall of 2001. Some pages of this
87-page set of Bate-stamped documents were produced by
attorney Mark Bresee of Parham & Rajcic, who worked with
SASH, for the administrative hearing. SASH refused to produce
a single document in response to the very specific request: "The
Bate stamps begin with the number 1, not 01 or 001, and
continue through 87."
Page 6 line 14 through Page 7 line 11
Q. Mr. Artiano, on page 2, line 15 of Exhibit 1, do you see the sentence, "The
bate stamps begin with the number 1, not 01 or 001, and continue through
87"?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Do you have a document that is bate stamped with a 5,
not a 05 or a 005?
A. Not to my knowledge.
MR. SHINOFF [Acting as Ray Artiano's counsel]: Nor do I.
BY MS. LARKINS: Q. Well, that is very interesting. How about a
document that is bate stamped 06 -- 6, not 06?
A. Not to my knowledge.
MR. SHINOFF: Nor do I.
BY MS. LARKINS: Q. Did you bring any of the documents that
are specifically numbered here in paragraph 1 on page 2 of this
exhibit?
A. Based on what we could make out from your request, we had
the documents gathered, which Mr. Shinoff, my attorney,
brought with him.
Q. Well, it would appear that either intentionally or
unintentionally, you ignored this last sentence in this first
document request...
Page 11 lines 1-14
MR. SHINOFF: Well, I think you need to be clearer then in terms
of what you want.
MS. LARKINS: Mr. Shinoff, I faxed to Kelly Angell the documents
that you did produce (well, actually, you didn't produce them, but Parham
Rajcic produced them from my administrative hearing) so that she could easily
determine what were the missing documents. Your law firm has had years to
produce these documents; and, apparently, they must be very harmful to your
case or you would have produced them.
MR. SHINOFF: Well, you can entertain whatever fantasy you wish to engage
in; and I know that you are prone to fantasies, but I respectfully disagree with
your characterization...
Stutz law firm's attorney Ray Artiano walked out of his deposition, and its
attorney Daniel Shinoff never showed up for his deposition, without having
filed an objection in advance.
Defendant has voluminous evidence of subornation of perjury and other
crimes by SASH. Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz and its agents Daniel Shinoff
and Kelly Angell Minnihan violated the penal code section 127 by committing
subornation of perjury in furtherance of the destruction documents, which
documents included the Feb. 12, 2001 notes of Gina Boyd, notes taken by
Richard Werlin on February 12, 2001, April 4, 2001 August 13, 2001, and the
report of Robin Donlan submitted on April 4, 2001.
Stutz suborned the perjury of Robin Donlan on November 4,
2004. Kelly Angell Minnehan, knowing that she was suborning perjury,
intentionally caused Robin Colls Donlan to change her testimony from a true
statement to a false statement during her deposition for San Diego Superior
Court case number GIC781970. Kelly Angell Minnehan was working under the
supervision of Daniel Shinoff, who had, with Jeffery Morris, set out a strategy
of destruction of documents, dishonesty, and subornation of perjury for this
case, and had, on December 17, 2003 and continually after that time, made
clear to Angell Minnehan that he approved and would help cover-up any illegal
actions she might take to win the case.
ROBIN DONLAN DEPOSITION
November 4, 2004 (Exhibit 1)
Page 99
Q. Do you know that I was dismissed by the school district?
MS. ANGELL: You mean other than conversations that are
attorney-client privileged, attorney work product and information
related to Ms. Donlan in the course of this litigation?
MS. LARKINS: Yes.
THE WITNESS: We were told during a meeting, so--
At this point, the deponent had answered a clear question, AFTER her
lawyer's clarification that the question specifically ruled out information that
was "attorney-client privileged, attorney work product and information related
to Ms. Donlan in the course of this litigation." Ms. Donlan made it clear that
there had been a meeting which was NOT "attorney-client privileged, attorney
work product and information related to Ms. Donlan in the course of this
litigation," in which she had learned that LARKINS had been dismissed from
employment.
As DONLAN answered this question affirmatively, the video camera recorded
her tone of voice, eye movements, and body language, all of which support
the court reporter's record of an affirmative response. This additional
evidence indicates DONLAN'S clear understanding of the question, and her
clear understanding of the clarification by her lawyer.
DONLAN nodded her head affirmatively as she answered, "We were told
during a meeting, so--." She looked at Kelly Angell as she spoke the words,
and spoke in a confidential tone of voice, as if she had never before given this
information to her lawyer, but was giving it to her now.
ANGELL interrupted her client's testimony to give a clear order, a clear
directive, a clear instruction, to Ms. Donlan:
"Well, you don't discuss anything that was told to you by your
counsel, things that you discussed with counsel. So the
question is did you know, other than through your counsel or
through this litigation, that she had been dismissed?
The witness --and a reasonable person informed of ANGELL'S words and
actions--could not help but understand that ANGELL was ordering her client to
change her testimony. And Ms. Donlan did change her testimony:
THE WITNESS: No.
Why did ANGELL want this apparently innocuous information contradicted?
The information is a matter of public record. Because ANGELL was desperate
to avoid any testimony about discussions about the matter by teachers and
Michael Carlson and Rick Werlin at that time, since those discussions involved
covering up crimes by planning new crimes.
This isn’t a private lawyer protecting a client. This is a public entity lawyer
preventing a witness from telling the truth about harm done by the public
entity. This is a representative of a public institution (Chula Vista Elementary
School District) forcing a client to lie to cover up a committed by that
institution. This is public, not private. This is subornation of perjury BY
government, supported by tax dollars, and the public has a right to know about
it. The lawyers provided to CVESD by the San Diego County Office of
Education Joint Powers Authority must stop milking the public and committing
misdemeanors and felonies that harm public education.
Plaintiff's conduct as alleged in this cause of action constitutes an unlawful act
in violation of Penal Code section 127, which states, “Every person who
willfully procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of subornation of
perjury, and is punishable in the same manner as he would be if personally
guilty of the perjury so procured.”
The following quotes from Robin Donlan’s deposition show exactly how she
contradicted the sworn testimony of her principal. SASH knew very well that
these people had violated Labor Code Section 432.7 (a misdemeanor) against
Larkins (Exhibit 8), but instead of an apology to Larkins they continued to bill
the district for their efforts to subvert the justice system.
ROBIN COLLS DONLAN DEPOSITION
November 4, 2004
P123
18 MS. LARKINS: Okay. I would like to ask that
19 this document be labeled -- okay -- as Exhibit 5.
20 I want to make sure that you get one,
21 Ms. Garvin, because this relates so specifically to your
22 client.
P 124
3 (Exhibit 5 marked for identification.)
17 A. "Deposition of Gretchen Donndelinger."
P 125
22 A. "Did Robert -- Robin Colls ever share with you
23 any kind of information concerning a police report
24 allegedly, somehow, involving Maura Larkins?"
P 126
9 Q. Was there ever something about a police report
10 that you didn't want Gretchen Donndelinger to know?
11 A. Not to my recollection, no.
12 Q. Okay. So according to your recollection,
13 Gretchen Donndelinger's testimony about you here is
14 false?
15 A. As far as I recall.
9 Q. Was there ever something about a police report
10 that you didn't want Gretchen Donndelinger to know?
11 A. Not to my recollection, no.
12 Q. Okay. So according to your recollection,
13 Gretchen Donndelinger's testimony about you here is
14 false?
15 A. As far as I recall.
16 Q. Okay. Did your brother ever talk to you during
17 the year 2000 about my having been arrested?
18 MR. GARVIN: Vague and ambiguous.
19 THE WITNESS: No.
21-22 Q. Okay. Would you please read the question on Line 2 of Page
81.
P 127 line 9-16
Q. Okay. Now that you have read almost half a page of Gretchen
Donndelinger's testimony about a conversation she claims to have had with
you, are you getting any memories at all of this conversation?
A. No, none whatsoever.
Q. Okay. Do you have any explanation for why Gretchen Donndelinger would
have said that you talked about a police report?
Page 128 line 8 through page 129 line 5
Q. So could you read the question that was asked of Gretchen Donndelinger
that is recorded here on Line 10 on Page 81.
A. "Was this in a face-to-face conversation with Robin Colls?"
Q. And what was Gretchen's answer?
A. "Yes."
Q. Okay. You don't remember any face-to-face conversation with Gretchen
Donndelinger about a police report that allegedly somehow involved me?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Okay. Do you have any experience of Gretchen Donndelinger having
hallucinations?
A. No. Personally, no.
Q. Okay. But you heard -- her testimony here is false; is that your testimony?
A. I don't have any recollection of that event.
Q. Could this conversation have had happened and you might have forgotten
it?
A. I doubt that.
Q. So you're quite sure this conversation never took place?
A. I don't recall it.
P70
11 Q. When I was working at Castle Park and Gretchen
12 Donndelinger was working at Castle Park, did you ever
13 talk to her about a police report involving me or anyone
14 connected with me?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you ever tell her that you knew something
17 about me, but you -- she wouldn't want to know it?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you ever tell her that there was some sort
20 of non-school relationship between my family and your
21 family?
22 A. Not to my recollection, no.
p71
7 Q. Did you ever talk to Gretchen Donndelinger
8 without an attorney present about me at any other time
9 other than the times you were discussing the white board
10 incident and the notebook incident?
11 A. I don't recall any, no.
12 Q. Okay. If you had knowledge about a police
13 report about a teacher at your school, is that something
14 you'd be likely to remember?
15 A. Probably.
Another individual who committed perjury was Linda Watson (Exhibit 7),
contradicting herself again and again, and changing her testimony when
Larkins asked if Watson would mind if her phone records were subpoenaed.
Defendant respectfully asks that her first amendment rights be protected by
being allowed to fight this lawsuit in federal court.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 1, 2008
Maura Larkins, pro se defendant
Defendant asked that this case be removed to federal court because the
California Superior Court, at least in part due to its being overburdened with
cases—like this one--that should have been settled out of court, was unable to
reach a just outcome in lawsuits previously brought by the current defendant.
Three of those cases are attached as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3. Defendant then
took her case to the court of public opinion by creating a web site and
describing the case and the actions of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz (SASH)
lawyers (Exhibit 5).
SASH’s main complaint seems to be that defendant accuses it of having
suborned perjury, intimidated witnesses and parties, hidden or destroyed
documents, and obstructed justice.
Defendant stands by this accusation, and believes that these actions defeated
the state court’s efforts to reach a just outcome.
The San Diego Superior Court judge who dismissed defendant’s case against
Richard Werlin, Michael Carlson, Robin Donlan, et al, did so very soon after
receiving a declaration from the Sheriff of Santa Barbara which said that those
individuals were innocent. The judge apparently believed that such a
declaration would hold up in court. As it happened, the sheriff’s
representative admitted during his deposition that the declaration prepared by
attorney Deborah Garvin was false (Exhibit 6).
Plaintiffs knew very well that their clients were guilty, yet they believed that
their successful perpetration of multiple frauds on the court would prevent the
truth from ever coming out.
Plaintiffs were clearly wrong about this. The truth came out on defendant’s
website.
SASH’s ability to intimidate witnesses and to cause documents to disappear
led to a disgraceful decision in the California Office of Administrative
Hearings. The Professional Competence Commission dismissed defendant
Larkins from her teaching position because she filed grievances and a
lawsuit. This proved, according to the decision, that Larkins had an
irremediable defect of charater: she was “unforgiving.” The decision
contradicted itself by saying that Larkins had not been the victim of any
wrongdoing, but this was just one of many inconsistencies in the decision.
The judge said documents did not exist, when he had accepted them into
evidence in his own handwriting. He apparently looked up the school district
on a website, which is the only explanation defendant can think of for his
bizarre statement that there were six members on the school board, five of
them elected and one appointed. Judge Ahler must have clicked on the web
page that shows the photo of the superintendent next to the photos of board
members, with the caption “Board of Education.” There was no testimony
about the number of board members in evidence or even discussed in the
hearing.
But the biggest venture into unjudicial behavior came when Judge Ahler
jumped up in the middle of Maura Larkins’ testimony, and ordered the two
panelists to come into a small side room with him, and told them to disregard
Larkins’ statements. The court reporter and parties and lawyers sat waiting.
When Alher realized that Larkins could hear what he was saying, since she
was sitting in the witness stand just a few feet from the little room, he closed
the door and remained there, talking, for about ten minutes (Exhibit 15).
SASH shows its disrespect for the justice system by putting forward this
decision again and again to justify its continuing smear of Maura Larkins
(Exhibits 9 through 16).
SASH’s propensity toward discovery abuse, and its readiness to smear Larkins
are illustrated by the following quotes from the November 9, 2007 deposition
of SASH lawyer Ray Artiano (Exhibit 4), taken for the current case. The first
question below deals with the still-missing documents collected by Daniel
Shinoff at Castle Park Elementary in the fall of 2001. Some pages of this
87-page set of Bate-stamped documents were produced by
attorney Mark Bresee of Parham & Rajcic, who worked with
SASH, for the administrative hearing. SASH refused to produce
a single document in response to the very specific request: "The
Bate stamps begin with the number 1, not 01 or 001, and
continue through 87."
Page 6 line 14 through Page 7 line 11
Q. Mr. Artiano, on page 2, line 15 of Exhibit 1, do you see the sentence, "The
bate stamps begin with the number 1, not 01 or 001, and continue through
87"?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Do you have a document that is bate stamped with a 5,
not a 05 or a 005?
A. Not to my knowledge.
MR. SHINOFF [Acting as Ray Artiano's counsel]: Nor do I.
BY MS. LARKINS: Q. Well, that is very interesting. How about a
document that is bate stamped 06 -- 6, not 06?
A. Not to my knowledge.
MR. SHINOFF: Nor do I.
BY MS. LARKINS: Q. Did you bring any of the documents that
are specifically numbered here in paragraph 1 on page 2 of this
exhibit?
A. Based on what we could make out from your request, we had
the documents gathered, which Mr. Shinoff, my attorney,
brought with him.
Q. Well, it would appear that either intentionally or
unintentionally, you ignored this last sentence in this first
document request...
Page 11 lines 1-14
MR. SHINOFF: Well, I think you need to be clearer then in terms
of what you want.
MS. LARKINS: Mr. Shinoff, I faxed to Kelly Angell the documents
that you did produce (well, actually, you didn't produce them, but Parham
Rajcic produced them from my administrative hearing) so that she could easily
determine what were the missing documents. Your law firm has had years to
produce these documents; and, apparently, they must be very harmful to your
case or you would have produced them.
MR. SHINOFF: Well, you can entertain whatever fantasy you wish to engage
in; and I know that you are prone to fantasies, but I respectfully disagree with
your characterization...
Stutz law firm's attorney Ray Artiano walked out of his deposition, and its
attorney Daniel Shinoff never showed up for his deposition, without having
filed an objection in advance.
Defendant has voluminous evidence of subornation of perjury and other
crimes by SASH. Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz and its agents Daniel Shinoff
and Kelly Angell Minnihan violated the penal code section 127 by committing
subornation of perjury in furtherance of the destruction documents, which
documents included the Feb. 12, 2001 notes of Gina Boyd, notes taken by
Richard Werlin on February 12, 2001, April 4, 2001 August 13, 2001, and the
report of Robin Donlan submitted on April 4, 2001.
Stutz suborned the perjury of Robin Donlan on November 4,
2004. Kelly Angell Minnehan, knowing that she was suborning perjury,
intentionally caused Robin Colls Donlan to change her testimony from a true
statement to a false statement during her deposition for San Diego Superior
Court case number GIC781970. Kelly Angell Minnehan was working under the
supervision of Daniel Shinoff, who had, with Jeffery Morris, set out a strategy
of destruction of documents, dishonesty, and subornation of perjury for this
case, and had, on December 17, 2003 and continually after that time, made
clear to Angell Minnehan that he approved and would help cover-up any illegal
actions she might take to win the case.
ROBIN DONLAN DEPOSITION
November 4, 2004 (Exhibit 1)
Page 99
Q. Do you know that I was dismissed by the school district?
MS. ANGELL: You mean other than conversations that are
attorney-client privileged, attorney work product and information
related to Ms. Donlan in the course of this litigation?
MS. LARKINS: Yes.
THE WITNESS: We were told during a meeting, so--
At this point, the deponent had answered a clear question, AFTER her
lawyer's clarification that the question specifically ruled out information that
was "attorney-client privileged, attorney work product and information related
to Ms. Donlan in the course of this litigation." Ms. Donlan made it clear that
there had been a meeting which was NOT "attorney-client privileged, attorney
work product and information related to Ms. Donlan in the course of this
litigation," in which she had learned that LARKINS had been dismissed from
employment.
As DONLAN answered this question affirmatively, the video camera recorded
her tone of voice, eye movements, and body language, all of which support
the court reporter's record of an affirmative response. This additional
evidence indicates DONLAN'S clear understanding of the question, and her
clear understanding of the clarification by her lawyer.
DONLAN nodded her head affirmatively as she answered, "We were told
during a meeting, so--." She looked at Kelly Angell as she spoke the words,
and spoke in a confidential tone of voice, as if she had never before given this
information to her lawyer, but was giving it to her now.
ANGELL interrupted her client's testimony to give a clear order, a clear
directive, a clear instruction, to Ms. Donlan:
"Well, you don't discuss anything that was told to you by your
counsel, things that you discussed with counsel. So the
question is did you know, other than through your counsel or
through this litigation, that she had been dismissed?
The witness --and a reasonable person informed of ANGELL'S words and
actions--could not help but understand that ANGELL was ordering her client to
change her testimony. And Ms. Donlan did change her testimony:
THE WITNESS: No.
Why did ANGELL want this apparently innocuous information contradicted?
The information is a matter of public record. Because ANGELL was desperate
to avoid any testimony about discussions about the matter by teachers and
Michael Carlson and Rick Werlin at that time, since those discussions involved
covering up crimes by planning new crimes.
This isn’t a private lawyer protecting a client. This is a public entity lawyer
preventing a witness from telling the truth about harm done by the public
entity. This is a representative of a public institution (Chula Vista Elementary
School District) forcing a client to lie to cover up a committed by that
institution. This is public, not private. This is subornation of perjury BY
government, supported by tax dollars, and the public has a right to know about
it. The lawyers provided to CVESD by the San Diego County Office of
Education Joint Powers Authority must stop milking the public and committing
misdemeanors and felonies that harm public education.
Plaintiff's conduct as alleged in this cause of action constitutes an unlawful act
in violation of Penal Code section 127, which states, “Every person who
willfully procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of subornation of
perjury, and is punishable in the same manner as he would be if personally
guilty of the perjury so procured.”
The following quotes from Robin Donlan’s deposition show exactly how she
contradicted the sworn testimony of her principal. SASH knew very well that
these people had violated Labor Code Section 432.7 (a misdemeanor) against
Larkins (Exhibit 8), but instead of an apology to Larkins they continued to bill
the district for their efforts to subvert the justice system.
ROBIN COLLS DONLAN DEPOSITION
November 4, 2004
P123
18 MS. LARKINS: Okay. I would like to ask that
19 this document be labeled -- okay -- as Exhibit 5.
20 I want to make sure that you get one,
21 Ms. Garvin, because this relates so specifically to your
22 client.
P 124
3 (Exhibit 5 marked for identification.)
17 A. "Deposition of Gretchen Donndelinger."
P 125
22 A. "Did Robert -- Robin Colls ever share with you
23 any kind of information concerning a police report
24 allegedly, somehow, involving Maura Larkins?"
P 126
9 Q. Was there ever something about a police report
10 that you didn't want Gretchen Donndelinger to know?
11 A. Not to my recollection, no.
12 Q. Okay. So according to your recollection,
13 Gretchen Donndelinger's testimony about you here is
14 false?
15 A. As far as I recall.
9 Q. Was there ever something about a police report
10 that you didn't want Gretchen Donndelinger to know?
11 A. Not to my recollection, no.
12 Q. Okay. So according to your recollection,
13 Gretchen Donndelinger's testimony about you here is
14 false?
15 A. As far as I recall.
16 Q. Okay. Did your brother ever talk to you during
17 the year 2000 about my having been arrested?
18 MR. GARVIN: Vague and ambiguous.
19 THE WITNESS: No.
21-22 Q. Okay. Would you please read the question on Line 2 of Page
81.
P 127 line 9-16
Q. Okay. Now that you have read almost half a page of Gretchen
Donndelinger's testimony about a conversation she claims to have had with
you, are you getting any memories at all of this conversation?
A. No, none whatsoever.
Q. Okay. Do you have any explanation for why Gretchen Donndelinger would
have said that you talked about a police report?
Page 128 line 8 through page 129 line 5
Q. So could you read the question that was asked of Gretchen Donndelinger
that is recorded here on Line 10 on Page 81.
A. "Was this in a face-to-face conversation with Robin Colls?"
Q. And what was Gretchen's answer?
A. "Yes."
Q. Okay. You don't remember any face-to-face conversation with Gretchen
Donndelinger about a police report that allegedly somehow involved me?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Okay. Do you have any experience of Gretchen Donndelinger having
hallucinations?
A. No. Personally, no.
Q. Okay. But you heard -- her testimony here is false; is that your testimony?
A. I don't have any recollection of that event.
Q. Could this conversation have had happened and you might have forgotten
it?
A. I doubt that.
Q. So you're quite sure this conversation never took place?
A. I don't recall it.
P70
11 Q. When I was working at Castle Park and Gretchen
12 Donndelinger was working at Castle Park, did you ever
13 talk to her about a police report involving me or anyone
14 connected with me?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you ever tell her that you knew something
17 about me, but you -- she wouldn't want to know it?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you ever tell her that there was some sort
20 of non-school relationship between my family and your
21 family?
22 A. Not to my recollection, no.
p71
7 Q. Did you ever talk to Gretchen Donndelinger
8 without an attorney present about me at any other time
9 other than the times you were discussing the white board
10 incident and the notebook incident?
11 A. I don't recall any, no.
12 Q. Okay. If you had knowledge about a police
13 report about a teacher at your school, is that something
14 you'd be likely to remember?
15 A. Probably.
Another individual who committed perjury was Linda Watson (Exhibit 7),
contradicting herself again and again, and changing her testimony when
Larkins asked if Watson would mind if her phone records were subpoenaed.
Defendant respectfully asks that her first amendment rights be protected by
being allowed to fight this lawsuit in federal court.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 1, 2008
Maura Larkins, pro se defendant
Maura Larkins removed
the case to Federal Court
the case to Federal Court
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report