MAURA LARKINS
Defendant in pro per
Defendant in pro per
) Case No. 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL
) Judge: Hon. Judith F. Hayes
) Dept: 68
) Date: February 6, 2009
)
) DECLARATION OF MAURA LARKINS
) IN OPPOSITION TO
) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
) TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
) CASE FILED: OCTOBER 5, 2007
) Judge: Hon. Judith F. Hayes
) Dept: 68
) Date: February 6, 2009
)
) DECLARATION OF MAURA LARKINS
) IN OPPOSITION TO
) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
) TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
) CASE FILED: OCTOBER 5, 2007
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
& HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAURA LARKINS,
Defendant.
________________________
& HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAURA LARKINS,
Defendant.
________________________
| SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |
Maura Larkins' Declaration
in Opposition to Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz motion for summary
judgment in defamation lawsuit
in Opposition to Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz motion for summary
judgment in defamation lawsuit
I, the undersigned, declare:
1. I am the Defendant in pro per herein.
2. I was removed from my classroom on February 12, 2001,
less than three weeks after I reported in writing to my principal
that I was being harassed. I was told on February 12, 2001 that
two teachers feared that I would kill them, but I was not told the
names of the teachers or what I was accused of doing.
3. At that time I began a painstaking process of discovery which eventually
led me to file suit against Chula Vista Elementary School District (“CVESD”) and
California Teachers Association (“CTA”) for violations of Labor Code 432.7 and
other illegal actions. The district had taken action against me based on an
illegally-obtained police report of false allegations by my ex-sister-in-law
Kathleen Elton, who had stated that I was violent and had a hand gun. The
district and CTA were determined to protect a small group of lawless teachers
who had taken control of Castle Park Elementary School. Several of these
teachers were administratively transferred out of the school in August 2004.
4. On April 4, 2001 I was asked to return to work. One day earlier I had
informed the district that I suspected that its actions were based on Kathleen
Elton’s false report.
5. I was reluctant to return to work because I was concerned that new
allegations would be made against me, since the first allegations had never been
retracted and I had received no apology. The district assured me that I would be
protected from new false allegations. However, I was sent home again after a
week. Linda Watson, one of the teachers who had made the original allegations,
but whose identity had been kept secret, made new allegations. The district
punished me for not being silent about the actions against me.
6. On August 13, 2001 I was told that I could not come back to work until I
was ready to “forget the past.”
7. My work environment was intolerable even before I was accused of being
a homicidal maniac and removed from my classroom. My work situation was well
beyond intolerable when I was ordered to return to work in September 2001
without any investigation having been done into illegal actions against me. I
refused to return to work until there was an investigation. No investigation was
ever done.
8. I filed a tort claim against CVESD on October 4, 2001.
9. Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz became involved in my case on October 4,
2001 as a result of my tort claim being filed.
10. I filed three grievances on November 13, 2001, and the next day I was
threatened with dismissal. One day after that, my medical benefits were cut off.
11. I filed suit against the District on March 12, 2002.
12. I was dismissed less than two months later.
13. Judge H. James Ahler of the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”)
filed a decision on February 11, 2003 dismissing me for filing grievances and a
lawsuit, and for not coming back to work and “forgiving” the actions against me.
At the same time Judge Ahler said that no hostile actions had been taken against
me(!?) It would seem that no effort was made by CVESD to create any logical
consistency in the allegations against me, nor was any such effort required by the
OAH.
14. I collected hundreds of documents and thousands of pages of deposition
transcript, and put a great deal of effort into analyzing the events in this case. My
website is the result of careful critical thinking.
15. All the statements on my website are true, and I can back them up with
testimony and documentation. I have corrected minor errors as soon as they
have been brought to my attention. I welcome opinions and facts that might help
make my website more accurate and helpful to the community and electorate. If
any defamatory statement were ever to find its shameful way onto my website, I
would wish to eliminate it immediately. It is only true statements about matters
of public interest that I wish to keep on my website.
16. My website does not contain any defamatory statement. It contains true
statements about matters of public interest. The statements on my website are
supported by my personal knowledge and documents and deposition transcripts,
many of which have been filed in the instant case and in Maura Larkins v. Richard
Werlin.
17. My career was destroyed, ironically, by Plaintiff’s enthusiastic efforts at
defamation. When SASH attorney Daniel Shinoff became involved in my case, I
had not yet been permanently damaged, even though I had been the victim of
slander and several violations of law, including criminal violations of law. Mr.
Shinoff had only to advise the Chula Vista Elementary School District to obey the
law. Instead, he launched his subordinates on a campaign of scorched earth
tactics and he propelled CVESD officials and employees into ever more serious
violations of law.
18. Some people might find it hard to believe, but I harbor no malice toward
Daniel Shinoff. I believe that human beings do the best that they can, and when
they violate the law, it is usually a matter of confused thinking and
overconfidence. My guess is that honest lawyers simply don’t get hired by San
Diego Office of Education-Joint Powers Authority and member school districts.
Schools don’t want lawyers who blindly follow the law. School officials want
lawyers who are willing to take, or create, opportunities to wrestle undeserved
legal victories from the justice system. Plaintiff probably figured that somebody
was going to get rich doing what school officials want, and it might as well be
them. This sort of greed and rationalization is a natural part of the make-up of a
large number of human beings. These natural instincts seem to be the basis of
how the world functions; why would I harbor malice regarding an apparently
immutable fact of life? This does not mean, of course, that I don’t try to make the
world a better place. My website is a major part of my efforts to bring more
respect for the law and for human beings to San Diego schools.
19. I tried hard to help Daniel Shinoff avoid guilt and disrepute in this matter
by trying to set up a mediation session with his religious leader. I did same thing
with another individual involved in this case, who belongs to a different religion.
I think Mr. Shinoff would have made his own life better if he had been willing to
talk to his clergyman about the matter.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: December 23, 2008 _________________________________
Maura Larkins, Defendant in pro per
1. I am the Defendant in pro per herein.
2. I was removed from my classroom on February 12, 2001,
less than three weeks after I reported in writing to my principal
that I was being harassed. I was told on February 12, 2001 that
two teachers feared that I would kill them, but I was not told the
names of the teachers or what I was accused of doing.
3. At that time I began a painstaking process of discovery which eventually
led me to file suit against Chula Vista Elementary School District (“CVESD”) and
California Teachers Association (“CTA”) for violations of Labor Code 432.7 and
other illegal actions. The district had taken action against me based on an
illegally-obtained police report of false allegations by my ex-sister-in-law
Kathleen Elton, who had stated that I was violent and had a hand gun. The
district and CTA were determined to protect a small group of lawless teachers
who had taken control of Castle Park Elementary School. Several of these
teachers were administratively transferred out of the school in August 2004.
4. On April 4, 2001 I was asked to return to work. One day earlier I had
informed the district that I suspected that its actions were based on Kathleen
Elton’s false report.
5. I was reluctant to return to work because I was concerned that new
allegations would be made against me, since the first allegations had never been
retracted and I had received no apology. The district assured me that I would be
protected from new false allegations. However, I was sent home again after a
week. Linda Watson, one of the teachers who had made the original allegations,
but whose identity had been kept secret, made new allegations. The district
punished me for not being silent about the actions against me.
6. On August 13, 2001 I was told that I could not come back to work until I
was ready to “forget the past.”
7. My work environment was intolerable even before I was accused of being
a homicidal maniac and removed from my classroom. My work situation was well
beyond intolerable when I was ordered to return to work in September 2001
without any investigation having been done into illegal actions against me. I
refused to return to work until there was an investigation. No investigation was
ever done.
8. I filed a tort claim against CVESD on October 4, 2001.
9. Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz became involved in my case on October 4,
2001 as a result of my tort claim being filed.
10. I filed three grievances on November 13, 2001, and the next day I was
threatened with dismissal. One day after that, my medical benefits were cut off.
11. I filed suit against the District on March 12, 2002.
12. I was dismissed less than two months later.
13. Judge H. James Ahler of the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”)
filed a decision on February 11, 2003 dismissing me for filing grievances and a
lawsuit, and for not coming back to work and “forgiving” the actions against me.
At the same time Judge Ahler said that no hostile actions had been taken against
me(!?) It would seem that no effort was made by CVESD to create any logical
consistency in the allegations against me, nor was any such effort required by the
OAH.
14. I collected hundreds of documents and thousands of pages of deposition
transcript, and put a great deal of effort into analyzing the events in this case. My
website is the result of careful critical thinking.
15. All the statements on my website are true, and I can back them up with
testimony and documentation. I have corrected minor errors as soon as they
have been brought to my attention. I welcome opinions and facts that might help
make my website more accurate and helpful to the community and electorate. If
any defamatory statement were ever to find its shameful way onto my website, I
would wish to eliminate it immediately. It is only true statements about matters
of public interest that I wish to keep on my website.
16. My website does not contain any defamatory statement. It contains true
statements about matters of public interest. The statements on my website are
supported by my personal knowledge and documents and deposition transcripts,
many of which have been filed in the instant case and in Maura Larkins v. Richard
Werlin.
17. My career was destroyed, ironically, by Plaintiff’s enthusiastic efforts at
defamation. When SASH attorney Daniel Shinoff became involved in my case, I
had not yet been permanently damaged, even though I had been the victim of
slander and several violations of law, including criminal violations of law. Mr.
Shinoff had only to advise the Chula Vista Elementary School District to obey the
law. Instead, he launched his subordinates on a campaign of scorched earth
tactics and he propelled CVESD officials and employees into ever more serious
violations of law.
18. Some people might find it hard to believe, but I harbor no malice toward
Daniel Shinoff. I believe that human beings do the best that they can, and when
they violate the law, it is usually a matter of confused thinking and
overconfidence. My guess is that honest lawyers simply don’t get hired by San
Diego Office of Education-Joint Powers Authority and member school districts.
Schools don’t want lawyers who blindly follow the law. School officials want
lawyers who are willing to take, or create, opportunities to wrestle undeserved
legal victories from the justice system. Plaintiff probably figured that somebody
was going to get rich doing what school officials want, and it might as well be
them. This sort of greed and rationalization is a natural part of the make-up of a
large number of human beings. These natural instincts seem to be the basis of
how the world functions; why would I harbor malice regarding an apparently
immutable fact of life? This does not mean, of course, that I don’t try to make the
world a better place. My website is a major part of my efforts to bring more
respect for the law and for human beings to San Diego schools.
19. I tried hard to help Daniel Shinoff avoid guilt and disrepute in this matter
by trying to set up a mediation session with his religious leader. I did same thing
with another individual involved in this case, who belongs to a different religion.
I think Mr. Shinoff would have made his own life better if he had been willing to
talk to his clergyman about the matter.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: December 23, 2008 _________________________________
Maura Larkins, Defendant in pro per
It is simply not
believable that Maura
Larkins would be
removed from her
classroom because of
Jo Ellen Hamilton's
Saturday night phone
call to Werlin on
February 10, 2001
regarding a minor
incident that had
supposedly happened
four days earlier.
There was another
reason, and it has
been covered-up.
believable that Maura
Larkins would be
removed from her
classroom because of
Jo Ellen Hamilton's
Saturday night phone
call to Werlin on
February 10, 2001
regarding a minor
incident that had
supposedly happened
four days earlier.
There was another
reason, and it has
been covered-up.
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report