The Commission Misconstrued the Law

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

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.

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.signonsandi
ego.com/news/metro/2
0020921-9999_1mi21jud
ge.html

Members of the COMMISSION
signed outright falsehoods.

(See more
documents
below.)

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

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.

San Diego OAH Judge
James Ahler 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."

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

Regarding the practice of
urging jurors 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.

mauralarkins.com

SAN DIEGO EDUCATION REPORT

Illegal OAH Decision
Page 22

Alher

Judge Ahler gets a
two-week
suspension for
calling panelists into
a side room for a
conference while a
hearing was still in
session.

S an Diego Education
Report Blog

Problem Lawyers Blog

Site Map

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