Correction regarding Coziahr case

David Bejarano
I made an error when I created my Feb. 17, 2008 post about Chula Vista Elementary School District and David Bejarano. I said that CVESD had decided not to appeal the Coziahr case. I found out how wrong I was on Feb. 21, 2008, and immediately removed the incorrect statements.

When CVESD didn't file an appeal within 60 days of the verdict, I thought it had decided not to appeal, and said so in the Feb. 17, 2008 post. I was wrong. The actual deadline is determined by this rule: "Unlimited Civil appeals are filed within 60 days from the date of mailing of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or if the notice is not
mailed, 180 days from the date of entry of judgment."

I made an incorrect assumption based on my own personal experience in this case. My appeal of a Superior Court decision was rejected as late-filed because I didn't file it within 60 days of the decision. My lawyer, Elizabeth Schulman, wrote me a letter telling me that the deadline was 90 days. So I thought the Danielle Coziahr v. CVESD case had the same deadline.

In my first version of this post, I wrote that David Bejarano seemed to be improving CVESD.

It turns out that the reality is not quite so positive.

Which is not to say that David Bejarano is doing anything particularly wrong. Even if he wanted to change things at CVESD, he only has one vote.

The only honorable thing he could do would be to resign from a corrupt board, and as we all know, Americans are not in the habit of resigning on principle anymore. The days of the decent and honorable US Attorney General Elliot Richardson are long gone. Many current government officials are making Richard Nixon look good. The CVESD board seems to be following the Nixon playbook line for line.

Is David Bejarano improving CVESD?

I made a big error when I created this post on Feb. 17, 2008. I found out how wrong I was on Feb. 21, 2008, and immediately removed the incorrect statements.

I made an incorrect assumption based on my own personal experience in this case. My appeal of a Superior Court decision was rejected as late-filed because I didn't file it within 60 days of the decision. My lawyer, Elizabeth Schulman, wrote me a letter telling me that the deadline was 90 days.

So I thought the Danielle Coziahr v. CVESD case had the same deadline. When CVESD didn't file an appeal within 60 days of the verdict, I thought it had decided not to appeal, and said so on this post. I was wrong. I apologize. The actual deadline is determined by this rule: "Unlimited Civil appeals are filed within 60 days from the date of mailing of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or if the notice is not
mailed, 180 days from the date of entry of judgment."

In my first version of this post, I wrote that the answer to the title question (Is David Bejarano improving CVESD?) was "yes."

It turns out that the true answer is not quite so positive.

Which is not to say that David Bejarano is doing anything particularly wrong. Even if he wanted to change things at CVESD, he only has one vote.

The only honorable thing he could do would be to resign from a corrupt board, and as we all know, Americans are not in the habit of resigning on principle anymore. The days of the decent and honorable US Attorney General Elliot Richardson are long gone. Many current government officials are making Richard Nixon look good. The CVESD board seems to be following the Nixon playbook line for line.

-Posted by Maura Larkins on Feb. 22, 2008

Incompetent teachers don't get fired, but watch out if you're in someone's way

Teachers rarely get fired for incompetence. Usually the reasons are political. Readers might be surprised to know how vicously teachers and school administrators can fight when they want power.

The Office of Administrative Hearings tends to rubber stamp whatever districts ask for, especially when the judge is trying to cozy up to an administrator on the panel.

In THIS CASE, teachers and administrators in Chula Vista Elementary School District had committed crimes and were trying to cover them up.

But corrupt attorneys Mark Bresee, Daniel Shinoff and Elizabeth Schulman worked to keep those crimes covered up.

Schulman admits illegal behavior

Schulman #1:

New York attorney Steven Schulman, formerly with the law firm of Milberg Weiss, pleaded guilty yesterday to participating in a $250 million kick-back scheme for class action lawsuits.

His plea follows the guilty plea of famed San Diego lawyer William Lerach, another Milberg Weiss attorney. Lerach reached a plea agreement a few weeks ago. The firm's co-founder Melvyn Weiss has been indicted.

It's about time. The investigation took seven years. You can't hide the truth forever, but sometimes it seems that way.


Schulman #2:
Elizabeth Schulman, a San Diego attorney who calls herself the "Queen of sexual harrassment lawsuits," also has a little problem with honesty. Her behavior in one case is described here. Elizabeth seems to be having a little better luck than Steven in keeping the truth hidden. The California Bar Association says that there is nothing illegal about this behavior.