From the archives: GCCCD's Rick Walker will challenge corrupt officials

Maura Larkins' note: A few months ago I depublished about 400 posts, and I'm gradually republishing them. I'm working to censor certain allegations against Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm while continuing to make information available about the actions of public officials.

California Attorney Gerneral says Rick Walker should not have been fired as a web analyst simply because he was elected as a non-voting student trustee.]


The problems at Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District (GCCCD) have been growing. Chancellor Omero Suarez (who changed his own contract without permission from the board) and his powerful but unethical friends have been challenged by Rick Walker, a student who was fired by GCCCD because he was a student representative on the board of directors.

Rick Walker press release

Press Conference to Be Held:

Charges of Wrongful Termination, Discrimination, and Retaliation will be brought against Chancellor Omero Suarez, Vice Chancellor Ben Lastimado, Trustee Rick Alexander with additional allegations of public corruption and extortion to be alleged against the three District Officials.

When: September 18, 2007
Where: Governing Board Meeting
Heritage of the Americas Museum
Cuyamaca College

California State Attorney General Issues Legal Opinion:
Grossmont Student Should Not Have Been Terminated

The States Attorney General published opinion 06-406; Is a community college district required to terminate the employment of a student who becomes a member of the district's governing board.

The legal opinion was requested by the Honorable Christine Kehoe, Member of the State Senate on behalf of former Grossmont student and former Grossmont College student trustee Rick Walker who was suddenly terminated December 13, 2005 from his part-time student hourly job as a web analyst which he had been employed at since 2004.

Rick Walker will attend the regular Governing Board meeting on September 18, 2007. Last month Walker requested that board include two items on the Governing Board agenda which would allow him to discuss the ruling by the Attorney General. Trustee Rick Alexander denied his request, Walker made 4 additional requests and has followed Board Policy and state law (Brown Act) which give Walker the right to place
items in front of the Board of Trustees.

The District's flagrant denials are violations of the State Law. Walker will attempt once again to have these items placed on the agenda. If the District denies the request, Walker will hold a press conference at the Heritage of the Americas Museum at Cuyamaca College, to discuss the agenda items that Trustee Rick Alexander is trying to suppress.

Additionally, Walker will bring forward allegations that his termination from his student job was retaliation for Walker's support of Dr. Ted Martinez Jr., and Grossmont College Faculty, he will provide evidence that Chancellor Omero Suarez did in fact use the termination of his employment as a means to extort from Walker his resignation as Grossmont Colleges Student Trustee, the actions by Chancellor Suarez, Vice Chancellor Lastimado and Trustee Rick Alexander is a violation of the State Education Code.

Walker will make an additional plea to District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis to investigate the corrupt practices of the District, and the numerous violations of state law.





OTHER PROBLEMS OF THE GCCCD BOARD:

SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE
Protesters want chancellor to resign
By Leonel Sanchez
November 4, 2006

EL CAJON – Faculty leaders stepped up their demand yesterday that Chancellor Omero Suarez resign from the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District because he had his contract changed without board approval.

“Omero must go! Omero must go!” chanted nearly 100 protesters, mostly Grossmont College faculty members, during a rally organized by the faculty's union outside the chancellor's office.

Others held signs that said: “We want you to resign: Suarez, Weeks, Lastimado.”

Board President Deanna Weeks and Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Ben Lastimado are also targets, Weeks because she signed the altered contract and Lastimado because he allegedly asked a district employee to make the change.

Weeks said she signed without knowing of the change. She issued a statement this week saying she was “appalled” by the chancellor's actions and demanded an investigation.

Reached by e-mail yesterday, Lastimado said he had no plans to resign. He did not respond to questions about the contract.

Suarez, who remained in his office during the rally, said in a statement that an independent investigation is under way. He called the rally an “election-related faculty union” event.

A spokeswoman for the district said the investigation will begin once an outside accounting or legal expert is hired to review the way the contract was handled.

The rally was organized by the United Faculty, the labor union representing faculty at both colleges, four days before the election. Shannon O'Dunn, Mary Kay Rosinski and Greg Barr, three of four candidates supported by Suarez's critics, spoke at the rally.

In addition to Weeks, demonstrators demanded that trustees Bill Garrett and Rick Alexander resign for not supporting a request to hold a special board meeting to address the issue. Weeks, Garrett and Alexander are seeking re-election Tuesday.

Alexander said he's satisfied with the investigation taking place and vowed not to be pressured to do more in a “super-charged political environment.”

“We will handle it after the election,” he said.

Suarez, hired in 1999, came under fire after trustee Tim Caruthers revealed last month that the chancellor had the buyout clause in his contract deleted without board permission...

[NOTE: MARY ANNE WEEGAR INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND HERE.]

From the archives: California Attorney General disagrees with law firm hired by Grossmont-Cuyamaca College

Maura Larkins' note: A few months ago I depublished about 400 posts, and I'm gradually republishing them. I'm working to censor certain allegations against Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm while continuing to make information available about the actions of public officials.

Why did Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College fire non-voting student trustee Rick Walker from his job as a web analyst for the college?  The reason they gave was that he had a conflict of interest if he was employed at the same time that he sat on the board. But he didn’t even vote! All he could do was talk?


Who was it who really had a conflict of interest?

Clearly, the board wanted to silence him.

The California Attorney General issued an opinion that there was no conflict of interest.

Leonel Sanchez of the San Diego Union Tribune wrote on Sept. 11, 2007, "A spokesman for the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office said he was not aware of student trustees at other colleges being told they could not serve on governing boards while working for their districts."

Rick Walker took down his website in or about December of 2007, right after I was sued for defamation by the lawyers for GCCCD.

The "Rethinking"

Nothing much happened when GCCCD trustee Deanna Weeks "rethought" an issue. [Update: Ms. Weeks decided not to run for reelection after several embarrassing episodes when scrutiny of her actions became too uncomfortable.]


October 4, 2007
The "rethinking" allegedly done by GCCCD trustees regarding their firing of non-voting student trustee Rick Walker apparently resulted in no new insights. Certainly, it resulted in no new actions. The board decided to ignore the opinion of the California Attorney General.

Rick Walker succeeded in making GCCC officials at least go through the motions of reevaluating their actions in the light of a California Attorney General legal opinion that contradicts the opinion of Stutz law firm attorney Jack Sleeth.

If GCCCD board members stay true to form, the "reexamination" will result in no action at all.

What they should do, of course, is pay damages to Rick Walker for wrongfully harming him. Especially when they harmed the college by punishing a student trustee for bringing up issues that needed to be addressed for the good of the college.

Leonel Sanchez is doing a great job covering the story for the San Diego Union Tribune.

Here's his September 19, 2007 report:

"The Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District will again review the issue of whether a student trustee can serve on the district's governing board while holding a job in the district.

"The last time the district looked at the conflict-of-interest issue, it led to the firing of former Grossmont College student trustee Rick Walker, who was let go from his job as a Web analyst in December 2005.

"Walker, speaking to the board last night, repeated his claim that he was unjustly fired...

"District officials said Walker was fired after district lawyer Jack Sleeth reviewed state education code and concluded that student trustees should not be allowed to be district employees...

"“You will ultimately find out what the law is if somebody will bring some litigation on this,” Sleeth said.

"Walker has threatened to take legal action. State Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, requested the legal opinion from the Attorney General's Office at his request.

"Trustee Bill Garrett said he found the attorney general's opinion “persuasive” and proposed changing the district's policy to reflect that opinion. No action was taken on his proposal..."


Leonel Sanchez: (619) 542-4568; leonel.sanchez@uniontrib.com

Sharon McClain wins against Dan Shinoff and Del Mar Union School District; award is $388,537 plus interest

Sharon McClain

See all Sharon McClain posts.

Former Del Mar Union School District superintendent Sharon McClain won her case for wrongful termination/breach of contract.

McClain's attorney Dale Gronemeier successfully argued that the board didn't want to admit that it couldn't get along with its superintendents, and was worried about the political repercussions of buying out two different superintendents in two years, so it sought to trump up accusations against McClain and fire her for cause. The district was unable to convince the court that the firing was justified.

On October 3, 2012 the Court issued the following order (found on the Court's website):

COURT RULING: The Court finds judgment on the Amended Complaint(First Amended Complaint) for Sharon McClain Ed D and against Del Mar Union School District in the amount of: $388537.00 principal, $0 punitive damages, $0 attorney fees, $ interest, $0 prejudgment costs and $0 other costs. Interest is awarded from the time of breach at the rate of 7%.

The transcript pretty much explains the case.

But apparently somebody doesn't want the public to see the transcript. Who could that be, I wonder? I got a message today from the court reporter telling me I should erase the transcript from my website. But how did she get my private email address?


UPDATE October 9, 2012: EXCELLENT REPORTING BY THE DEL MAR TIMES

To its shame, U-T San Diego has not reported on the trial outcome in this case, although it published the details of the district's criticisms of McClain.

It appears that education commentator Marsha Sutton was unable to bring herself to write about the conclusion of this case, although she started out with a bang. I saw Marsha in court during the trial, but something seems to have stopped her from reporting about the outcome.

Fortunately, reporter Karen Billing takes up the slack in these situations:

Judge rules in favor of former Del Mar school district superintendent
By Karen Billing
Del Mar Times
October 9, 2012

While the trial ended Oct. 3 in the case of former Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Sharon McClain versus the district, the specifics of the judgment of the wrongful termination lawsuit won’t be known for weeks.

“I won,” McClain said. “I feel vindicated. … The most important thing was the vindication to me that they did the wrong thing. I’m glad it’s been proven that they were wrong.”

McClain said she will be owed two years and three months in back payments, plus retirement from the California State Teachers Retirement System (STRS).

McClain’s attorney, Dale Gronemeier, emailed this newspaper copy from the court’s statement of intended decision that said: “The Court finds in favor of plaintiff for breach of contract in the sum of $413,500, which includes the district’s STRS contribution plus $32,000 for the tax sheltered annuity less the consulting income earned mitigation of $56,963. The total award to plaintiff is $388,537 plus 7 percent interest from the time of breach.”

However, the district’s attorney Dan Shinoff said that the judge did not blanket order those two years and three months in compensation and he believes the amount owed to be more like $156,000.

“I think that the verdict was in her favor,” Shinoff said. “I think it’s our obligation as officers of the court to make sure we’re never ever critical of a decision that a judge makes, but that doesn’t mean there still aren’t issues capable of being viewed from a different perspective.”

The Del Mar school board met in closed session on Monday. Oct. 8, to discuss the case but no action was taken. President Scott Wooden said that they are awaiting the court’s judgment and nothing will happen until that point.

“We’d all like to see it resolved,” Wooden said.

... Doug Perkins and Comischell Rodriguez are the only current board members who were a part of the previous board that fired McClain.

[Maura Larkins comment: Doug Perkins voted to fire McClain, costing the district much time and money. Comischell Rodriguez was the only board member with the courage to vote against the firing.]

...The transcript of the case will be made available later this week...

Read more: Judge rules in favor of former Del Mar school district superintendent



THE BIZARRE REPORTING OF U-T SAN DIEGO

On October 9, 2012 I added the following to this post: "To its shame, U-T San Diego has not reported on the trial outcome in this case, although it published the details of the district's criticisms of McClain."

Later that day, at 6:28 p.m., U-T San Diego published the bizarre and false headline, "Suit settled in favor of former Del Mar Superintendent."

But this lawsuit is most definitely NOT settled.

Why would anyone want the public to believe it was settled?  I think the answer is clear. Schools want to maintain the fiction that when they settle, it isn't because they violated the law, it's just to avoid legal fees, even though they never did anything wrong. The opposite is true. The system is set up so that lawyers, rather than wronged employees and students, receive the largesse of school insurer SDCOE-JPA (San Diego County Office of Education). 

A reasonable person would conclude that the court had actually overseen a settlement of the case. The word "trial" does not occur anywhere in the U-T article. The article refers to "legal proceedings" and mentions the name of the judge, and includes a recitation of board complaints against McClain.

The name of Dan Shinoff is entirely missing from the U-T article. Interestingly, the Union-Tribune completely failed to cover the sexual harassment lawsuit of former CVESD board member Patrick Judd, former superintendent of Mountain Empire Unified School District, although the Union-Tribune had endorsed Mr. Judd repeatedly.



MAURA LARKINS NOTE: 30 DAYS MIGHT REALLY MEAN 30 DAYS

Jack Sleeth and Dan Shinoff don't seem to believe that a law requiring 30 days notice actually means 30 days notice is required. We can all be skeptics, can't we?

pages 18-22 of the trial transcript

THE COURT:

LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU DO THAT AND I'M GOING TO ASK THE DISTRICT THE SAME QUESTION. WHY DIDN'T THEY GIVE HER 30 DAYS' NOTICE? THAT'S SOMETHING I NEVER UNDERSTOOD FROM THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS TRIAL.

MR. GRONEMEIER:

MY ANSWER BEFORE AND MY ANSWER NOW IS THEY MUST HAVE GOTTEN BAD ADVICE...THAT'S THE BEST GUESS I CAN MAKE. I'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION, AND THEY'VE REFUSED LET ANYBODY ANSWER IT [in depositions]...

MR. SLEETH:

I THINK THE OTHER REASON IS WE INTERPRETED THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION DIFFERENTLY AND YOU HEARD OUR ARGUMENT... YOU HEARD OUR ARGUMENT THAT THE 30 DAY NOTICE DIDN'T APPLY TO MATERIAL BREACHES OF CONTRACT...

MR. SHINOFF:

THE DISTRICT SIMPLY HAD A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION ...

THE COURT:

WELL, OKAY...I SUPPOSE THE ANSWER IS THAT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY AND THE SUPERINTENDENT HAD DETERIORATED TO THE POINT WHERE THE DISTRICT WAS WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK THAT THE 30 DAYS MIGHT REALLY MEAN 30 DAYS.




UPDATE OCT. 10, 2012

INVASION OF THE...BROWN ACT?
STUTZ LAW FIRM ADVISES: CALL US "WHEN THE BROWN ACT INVADES"

From the Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz website:
Robert Mahlowitz Presents “Dragged Into Closed Session”

Attorney Robert Mahlowitz will present “Dragged Into Closed Session: The Ins and Outs of California’s Brown Act & Personnel Discussions” at the Fall Training Institute for the Association of Chief Human Resource Officers/Equal Employment Officers (ACHRO/EEO). The event will be held at Harrah’s Lake Tahoe October 24-26.

HR Professionals are often called upon to appear in closed session with their Boards to discuss personnel issues. Limited budgets may restrict access to legal counsel when HR Administrators have concerns about whether matters have been properly noticed, what notice has been provided to an employee and what to do when the employee wants a public airing of the discussion. Concerns also arise about potential personal liability for violation of the Brown Act. For 30 years, Stutz Artiano has served as legal counsel to community college and school districts in California and we will share insights to empower senior HR/EEO professionals for those times when the Brown Act invades.

[Maura Larkins comment: Stutz provided legal counsel to MiraCosta College throughout the Victoria Richart paroxysm, and to Grossmont-Cuyamaca during the Omero Suarez scandal.

Appeal of Poway Unified’s God Banner Ban Filed with U.S. Supreme Court

See new posts re David Loy and earlier posts under his former name of David Blair-Loy.
Update: Appeal of Poway Unified’s God Banner Ban Filed with U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to overturn a decision allowing the district to prevent a math teacher from displaying classroom banners about God.
By Shauntel Lowe
Rancho Bernardo Patch
January 24, 2012

A Michigan-based public interest law firm has filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court objecting to a lower court’s decision allowing the Poway Unified School District to prevent a math teacher from displaying classroom banners with messages about God.

The ruling is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech in a public forum because other types of speech—such as another teacher’s poster with the lyrics to John Lennon's Imagine—are allowed, argues The Thomas More Law Center in its appeal filed Jan. 19 and announced Tuesday.

“What you really had was an egregious demonstration of a double standard,” Richard Thompson, president of the law center and chief counsel, told Patch. “The double standard was used again to censor Christian speech.

“There is this agenda that is out there supported by the ACLU, supported by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, that is trying to cleanse the public square from any kind of Christian message and they’re using the courts to do it.”

In September, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 2010 decision by a federal judge in San Diego that said the district had violated the First Amendment rights of Westview High School math teacher Bradley Johnson in 2007 by ordering him to take down the banners. They bore messages such as “In God We Trust” and “All Men Are Created Equal/ They Are Endowed By Their CREATOR.”

In September 2010, the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties filed a brief with the 9th Circuit Court supporting the district’s decision to have Johnson take the banners down, saying, “The banners’ repeated emphasis on ‘God’ and the ‘CREATOR’ creates a serious risk that reasonable persons would believe the District is endorsing religion.”

September’s ruling found that the district’s ban upheld the Establishment Cause prohibiting endorsement of religion.

The Thomas More Law Center—which describes itself as a “not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life”—argues that this is a cherry-picked ban on Judeo-Christian speech. Another teacher displayed Tibetan flags with no recourse, and Lennon’s Imagine promotes an anti-religious point of view but was allowed, showing a bias against Christian speech, the center argues.

But this isn't about clamping down on Christian messaging, said David Loy, legal director for the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties which believes the banners and the Tibetan prayer flags should have been taken down.

"It's our position that both of those were unconstitutional," Loy said. "Public school teachers should not be in the business of promoting religion in the classroom."

The large size of Johnson's banners and that they had been there so long—particularly in a math class and not in a philosophy or literature class—could lead a "reasonable" student to believe that they indicated an endorsement of religion by the school district, Loy said.

Johnson, in a 2007 lawsuit against the district, said the banners are not a means to proselytize but represent historical messaging about the country’s origins. Thompson, too, said the banners are just a means of educating students about the role of Christianity in the nation’s development. Taking the banners down and removing Christian messaging from the classroom runs counter to that, he said.

“It really is a way of indoctrinating our students into believing that our nation was founded on principles other than Christianity,” Thompson said.

The school district, in a statement from its attorneys, said it would file a written opposition to the appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We believe that the Ninth Circuit properly followed the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent in ensuring that all students have a proper environment for learning," attorney Jack M. Sleeth Jr., of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, said in a statement. "The Ninth Circuit correctly found that teachers have no First Amendment right to espouse their personal religious beliefs in the classroom."

The issue about the banners in the classroom of Johnson, who had been with the district for three decades, arose when a fellow teacher questioned the school’s principal about them in late 2006. Johnson, according to court files, said he had had the banners up in some way since 1982. In January 2007, district officials had Johnson take the banners down and he soon filed suit against the district and school board, which approved the decision to take down the banners.

In February 2010, Johnson won his suit, arguing that the district had violated his First Amendment rights, but in September 2011 that decision was overturned on appeal. Poway Unified Superintendent John Collins, in a statement at the time, said the decision to overturn Johnson’s victory was “very consistent with the legal and educational rationale the District has used since the very beginning of this case. We are pleased with the outcome after more than four years in the courts.”

Whether the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case has not been determined. The Court received more than 7,800 requests in the term running from October 2010 to October 2011, but only agreed to hear about 1 percent of the cases.

Miss Porter's school sued for bullying; will Daniel Shinoff and Jack Sleeth ride to the rescue?

See all posts about Miss Porter's School.

It seems that the Connecticut elite are in need of a resource that San Diego has in abundance: school lawyers who defend bullies. This case should fit in particularly well with Daniel Shinoff's and Jack Sleeth's talents since the targeted student has a disability.

Top Boarding School Sued Over Bullies
Associated Press AP
December 11, 2008
HARTFORD, Conn.

The bullying came at school dances and in class, on Facebook and back at the dorm by girls who called themselves "Oprichniki," a Russian attack squad notorious for torturing suspected enemies of a 16th-century czar.

The cruel clique at the exclusive Miss Porter's School allegedly harassed Tatum Bass for months, until two doctors advised her to take a break. That's when her tormentors put a "For Rent" sign on her bed and one of the nation's most selective, all-girls boarding schools threatened to expel her.

Bass and her parents responded with a federal lawsuit that offers a disturbing glimpse into life on the leafy campus in the affluent Hartford suburbs. To match tuition that can cost nearly $43,000, the school has an A-list of socialites, diplomats, artists and public servants among its graduates, including Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Gloria Vanderbilt.

According to the lawsuit, Bass was on the honor roll, played sports and was elected by her peers to a top position in student government before her trouble began earlier this year. As activities director, she proposed holding the senior prom with other schools nearby.

Opposition to the idea ballooned, leading to bullying and taunts that Bass was "retarded" because she has attention-deficit disorder. Bass said in the suit that the girls turned on her, calling her "stupid" and peppering her with profanity and insults. She said she was bullied in front of hundreds of people at a school dance, in classes, around campus, in text messages and online on the Facebook social networking site.

"This was the first time that negative attention was drawn to her disability at (the school)," the lawsuit said. "Oprichniki members were at the forefront of taunting Tatum in class and advising others about her disability."...

Court of Appeal says GCCCD defrauded David Agosto

Looking for Kristin Rossum "American Beauty" case? Click HERE.

Click here for lawsuit against Keenan & Associates et al. Also, see San Francisco School District v. Keenan & Associates.


The California Court of Appeal has ruled against Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College and in favor of David Agosto, who appealed the dismissal of his case by Judge Joan Lewis in San Diego Superior court.

Never one to accept a loss, Jack Sleeth says David Agosoto "owes us money."

Ironically, when the case went back to Superior Court after the above decision, Agosto was awarded back pay but denied reinstatement. If the District had filed appropriate papers the District would not have had to pony-up Agosto's back pay. It turns out that if there is no order for reinstatement, there should be no order for back pay.

The Court of Appeal said (in a separate decision from the one above):

"Nevertheless, because District did not file a cross-appeal challenging the trial court's writ of mandate directing District to pay Agosto back pay (for the period of July through November 2006), District cannot now challenge the trial court's error in awarding him back pay..."

Agosto made mistakes, too. Agosto's petition for writ of mandate was denied because he should have filed a complaint for damages instead.


APPEALS COURT JUDGE: GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA RESORTS TO 'FRAUD' IN JUSTIFYING FIRING OF SICK WORKER
By Chris Reed
San Diego Union-Tribune (blog)
July 30, 2008

I've badmouthed the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District for years for its power plays, contempt for ethical standards and atttempts to whitewash scandal. Now I have fresh evidence that district constituents should be ashamed of the people they've elected as leaders. In comes in the form of a sharply worded decision issued yesterday in which an appeals court reversed a Superior Court judge's decision to throw out a lawsuit in which a fired top official at Grossmont-Cuyamaca charges he was denied due process and essentially forced out with a legal dirty trick. The ruling remands the lawsuit back to the lower court and orders its reconsideration. David Jay Agosto was hired in 1995 as executive dean of community services at Cuyamaca College and went on to serve in a variety of big jobs. But in February 2006, while Agosto was on medical leave to cope with kidney disease, he was fired by the Grossmont-Cuyamaca board of directors in a closed-session meeting.

Agosto challenged this ruling, saying his original 1995 contract made him the beneficiary of job protections which required the board to give him notice of at least six months before the expiration of his contract. Here's where the dirty trick comes in: The argument that the GCCCD's lawyers used to persuade Superior Court Judge Joan M. Lewis to throw out Agosto's lawsuit was that the original 1995 contract had never taken legal effect because it was -- for reasons unknown -- never signed by the district's chancellor. It was kept on file, just never signed.

The district argued that contract was invalid under the "statute of frauds" -- a legal provision which requires hard, documented evidence of contracts that last more than a year to ensure that they are not fraudulently redefined at some later date by the employer or employee.

[Maura Larkins note: This is exactly what Chancellor Omero Suarez did: he ordered his contract changed without approval from the board.]

What a joke. The district operated for more than a decade as if the contract were in effect, then, when convenient, declared it null and void. The appeals court figured out this stunk to the high heavens even if Judge Lewis couldn't. Here's a sign of its disgust:The statute of frauds exists to prevent the commission of fraud, not to facilitate fraud.You follow? Judge James A. McIntyre is saying the fraud that's going on here is on the district's part! Wow. He's absolutely right.Now get ready for the members of the district board to blame its lawyers. It's what they do. Lots of rotten stuff happens on their watch, sure. But, you see, it's never their fault.Read the appellate decision here. The passage I cited is on page 5..

Congratulations to Leon Page!

Judge Nugent says Judge Moon's private opinion will not prevent Leon Page's lawsuit from going forward.

Click here for the judge's decision.

MiraCosta/Richart attorneys Jack Sleeth and Randy Winet do not yet have the approval of the court for the $1.6 million deal to pay Victoria Munoz Richart to leave MiraCosta College and be silent about Daniel Shinoff's $1.5 million investigation which seems to have included extortion against Julie Hatoff. But perhaps the court will grant it in a summary judgment, with Stutz law firm keeping important documents and witnesses under wraps.

If this case goes to trial, I'll be really impressed with the justice system.