Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Randolph "Randy" Ward and Diane Crosier are using public funds to advance Dan Shinoff's private lawsuit against this blogger

When San Diego County Office of Education-Joint Powers Authority executive director Diane Crosier recently got subpoenaed by me (Maura Larkins) to testify in the defamation lawsuit against me by Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, Crosier was determined not to testify. She is the individual who has assigned millions of dollars worth of SDCOE-JPA cases to her friend Stutz lawyer Daniel Shinoff, and she's as loyal as they come.

Crosier wasn't in her office on our first attempt to serve the subpoena, but the secretary in the office assured us that Crosier would be in the next day after 1:30 p.m.

But lo and behold, Ms. Crosier was nowhere to be seen at 1:45 p.m. the next day. "She has a right to change her schedule," the secretary said. (I guess she felt defensive; she must have known that evading a subpoena is against the law.)

Another woman in the office aggressively demanded my name and the name of the server. The woman told me I couldn't serve the subpoena since I was a party in the case. I pointed out to her that I had brought someone else to serve. We left quickly.

Next I got a message from Stutz law firm that Shinoff was representing his benefactor Diane Crosier in the matter, and his office would accept service. My server went to Shinoff's office for a final, successful attempt at service.

Yesterday I got a letter from Stutz attorney Jeffrey Wade saying Crosier would not testify.

Apparently Crosier and her boss, Randolph Ward, are so anxious to help Shinoff shut down my website that they are not only devoting the public resources of SDCOE to Shinoff to prevent Crosier's deposition, but are devoting public resources to harrassing and intimidating me.

They have filed a lawsuit against me for harrassment.

Apparently they think I shouldn't be allowed to serve subpoenas on them. I haven't seen the lawsuit, but it is clearly related to the deposition subpoena served on Diane Crosier. It would seem that one of the labels for this post should be abuse of power, and another should be misuse of taxpayer dollars for private purposes.

It's legally prohibited for public entities to sue for defamation, but Diane Crosier and Randall Ward have found a way to use public resources to advance Stutz law firm's defamation suit against me.

Diane Crosier and Randolph Ward are being sued by SDCOE-JPA insider Rodger Hartnett.


Anonymous said...

I know Maura. She went to San Diego High School in the 60s. She was the kind of girl who always got invited to the science fair, but never got invited to the prom. I don't remember talking to her. I just remember she was pretty quiet, the nut-genius type. Glasses. Long hair and sandals before the hippies, and very serious. I remember some girls followed her one day when she got off the bus, and it turned out she was stopping at a Catholic Church on the way home. Those were the days. Anyone could walk into a Catholic Church, 24/7. It was just like the Middle Ages, when all a hunted man had to do was get inside the railing in front of the altar, and suddenly he was safe from any bloodthirsty band that might be chasing him. No one would kill a man in the sanctuary of a church. Now it seems to be one of the favorite places to kill people.

But back to Maura. She must have been lonely, but what do you say to someone like that? She didn't know how to talk. Zero conversation skills. She talked to the few friends she had, but that's different. There's social skills, and then there's talking to your friends. Friends don't care if you say the right thing.

I remember she was a year younger than the rest of the class. Someone told me that when we were talking about her, as if that explained why she didn't fit in. Maybe it was part of it.

It seems pretty weird that SDCOE is suing her for harassment. That sure doesn't sound like Maura.

Anonymous said...

Well she's not very quiet anymore. It's about time the authorities stepped in and shut down this cuckoo blog.

Anonymous said...

I have experience with school attorneys, and I'm not saying they're all paragons of virtue, but I'm beginning to think that most of them are more decent than Daniel Shinoff and Diane Crosier.

Anonymous said...

I will stongly support anyone who can put a stop to the accusations this woman tosses about. She needs psych meds and professional help. She will never stop, it will only get worse. Anyone who visits her sites can see that her thought processes are scattered, and borderline psychotic!

Maura Larkins said...

If I were willing to keep my mouth shut about relatively mild wrongdoing, when the retaliation against me is probably going to be limited to the courtroom, what chance is there that I would have the courage to speak out if public officials began to engage in truly serious wrongdoing? To those who want me to be silent: should the citizens of Germany also have kept their mouths shut in the 1930s and '40s? It seems that you are afraid that the truth will come out. If I'm wrong, what do you have to fear? Come forward and address the issues. Prove me wrong. Let's have a public debate. Don't try to crush free speech; take part in the process!

Maura Larkins said...

To Anonymous Commenter #4: Yes, I do need help. I need you to help me understand what you are talking about. Can you give me an example of a "borderline psychotic" statement I've made? Just one example? From the safety of your anonymity you should be able to do that.

Anonymous said...

Those who disagree should prove her wrong with facts. If what she has written is slanderous than prove her wrong with facts.

To accuse someone of being psychotic is an old trick played out by school officials.

Here is the chance to prove her wrong. Lets find facts that prove her wrong and post them on her own website.

Anonymous said...

Did Daniel Shinoff give PROOF the to court that Larkins was wrong?

If so can someone post this proof?

What was the legal basis for the judges ruling? What was the case law that the judge used?

I like to read it can someone post it?

Anonymous said...

One example and only one...you stated that Kelly Dupuis from the Star news stated a "parent" comented on the mexican parents. That comment was made by the then principal Ollie Matos. This comment was one of many the lead to his removal from Castle Park. You were wrong.

Maura Larkins said...

Thank you for the example. Now we can look at the evidence. I just now looked up the September 10, 2004 issue of the Chula Vista Star-News, and found that reporter Kelly Dupuis quoted parent Felicia Starr as saying, "They [ELAC parents] really are involved with the school, and it would be nice to have them on there [the PTA], but not in an antagonistic way." For those who don't know what ELAC means, it's "English Language Acquisition Committee."

Here is the article.

It looks like I was right. Clearly, you were wrong. If we follow your logic, this would mean you are borderline psychotic, and should get medication and professional help. But this logic of yours is wrong; people can make a mistake without being crazy. Perhaps you have a better example of my scattered thought processes?

Anonymous said...

So where does it say "Mexican parents"? And it was from an ELAC meeting in which the parents were very offended by what he said about them.

Maura Larkins said...

Dear Anonymous:

The ELAC parents were Mexican, as you well know. Ollie Matos got along great with them. They were upset when "the Castle Park Family" got rid of Mr. Matos. The Mexican parents were also upset by the accusations of Felicia Starr in the
Star-News article.

Felicia Starr accused the Mexican parents of printing illegal PTA ballots and hiding them. The parents thought they were allowed to nominate someone to the PTA board, and they weren't being sneaky about it. That's why Felicia Starr saw them at the copy machine--they were not hiding anything.

But perhaps Felicia Starr did the Mexican parents a favor by keeping them off the PTA board. Before the school year was out, $20,000 had been embezzled from the PTA. Kim Simmons, who was elected PTA president with Felicia Starr's help, was arrested for that crime. It certainly puts the
accusations of Felicia Starr and Kimberlee Simmons into a fresh light, doesn't it?

Now there is no PTA at Castle Park Elementary. It seems that Kimberlee Simmons had a lot of enablers, including yourself, perhaps, but there is one group that can be completely ruled out as responsible: the Mexican parents.

Maura Larkins said...

P.S. to Anonymous:

I am intrigued by your reference to an ELAC meeting. Can you tell me more about this meeting? I could do some research into the matter if you would give me more information. What was said that caused offense?

Are you claiming that I made a statement on my website about this ELAC meeting? What do you claim my statement was? Perhaps we could do a search of my website to see if its there.

Anonymous said...

Just because a person is Latino or Hispanic does not make it ok to use the term "Mexican parent" for you to use it to describe the ELAC is disrespecful. Mr. Matos was the ONLY person who used that terminology. Till now, you keep referring to it. My point was no one used the WORD Mexican parent in those articles.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing wrong with using the term “Mexican parent” and absolutely nothing disrespectful. Gee Wizz! What type of comment is this? This is crazy this comment takes me back 70 years. This is precisely what is wrong in San Diego most of the population is undereducated and misinformed. To suggest that a website should be taken down because someone used the word, “MEXICAN PARENT.” It is totally ludicrous and not surprising. It appears to be the same mentality of this judge, SDCOE and the Stutz law firm.

Maura Larkins did nothing to help herself to the contrary she helped Stutz get a summary judgment against her. She did not form a strategic defense and was in complete denial up to now. She did not seek legal advice even after it was offered.

Maura has a legal website and had a “Constitutional and First Amendment Free Speech right.” She on the other hand is clueless as to what this means.


My suggesting to Maura Lakins is to get lawyer and fight back; you made a fool out of yourself in court.

stop being a FOOL!!!

Face reality and get yourself a lawyer NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

Maura Larkins said...

Dear commenter who thinks "Mexican parents" is a slur:

Clearly, the word "parent" is not a slur, right? So you think "Mexican" is a slur. Why would someone's ethnicity be a slur? But perhaps you don't think "English parents" or "Swedish parents" is a slur. So why would "Mexican parents" be a slur? Perhaps you are not aware that Mexico was a cultured and wealthy capital of a great empire when the United States was a collection of log cabins. Fortunes come and go in this world, for countries as well as for individuals.

I suspect that you have spent your life in an environment in which "Mexican" was considered a slur. You're not originally from California, are you? Of course, there are some native Californians who also think that way. Your type of thinking was well-represented among the staff at Castle Park Elementary in Chula Vista.

Do you know that you are making the same argument that Steve Carel, the clueless boss in "The Office" TV series made? In one episode, he asked a Mexican employee what he wanted to be called instead of "Mexican." The employee said that it was fine to call him Mexican. Steve Carel continued to insist that "Mexican" was a slur. Isn't that exactly what you are doing?

Maura Larkins said...

To commenter who wants me to "get a lawyer":

Most San Diego lawyers are loath to go up against Dan Shinoff because he has a "win at any cost" attitude, and the deep pockets of San Diego County Office of Education to fund his scorched earth tactics. In fact, SDCOE has illegally become involved in this private lawsuit. SDCOE and Stutz law firm are working together in this case, even though public entities are not allowed to sue for defamation.

Are you the person who advised me to ask the United States Justice Foundation for help?

I've heard that Gary Kreep is a really pleasant person, but he and I are too far apart politically to work together. I'm sorry, but Gary is far to the right of George Bush, and I'm a solid supporter of President Obama. Gary sued to prove Obama wasn't an American citizen.

I support public education, but Gary sued Escondido school district to force it to provide free PE clothes and make all student activities free--without raising taxes. It seems he's hostile to public schools. (I do, however, agree with him that non-credentialed parents should be allowed to homeschool their children. Congratulations, Gary, on your big win on that one.)

Anyway, my case is virtually over now. The trial will be about damages only. Stutz law firm will finally tell us which clients it lost because of my website.

I have asked mainstream lawyers to represent me, and I'm sure I would have found one if I had a lot of money, but I don't.

You can lead this camel to water, but if that "water" is the United States Justice Foundation, and what I see is a lawyer who was penalized with a judgment of about $100,000 for a frivolous lawsuit against Planned Parenthood, I do not believe that drinking from that water would be helpful to my case--or to my cause.

But if you know of any mainstream lawyers who would take my case, I'm all ears.

Anonymous said...

your case cannot get any worst.
you are your worst enemy..

Maura Larkins said...

To commenter "worst enemy":

Are you angry that I don't want to work with Gary Kreep?

You're not being specific. I understand you want me to do something differently, but you don't say what. You just call me names.

Maura Larkins said...

P.S. To "worst enemy":

Actually, I think my case is set up very well for an appeal.

News update: Stutz law firm sent me its exhibit list this morning, and there is NOT ONE SINGLE EXHIBIT SHOWING THAT THEY SUFFERED ANY DAMAGES.

Sure, it would have been nice to have had a nice mainstream--or liberal--lawyer, but my bank account did not allow it.

It's interesting that there are so many people on both the right and the left who think that Shinoff abuses his power. I'm glad to hear from someone with different political views from my own who agrees with me about Stutz law firm.

Maura Larkins said...

I should mention that Gary Kreep never offered to represent me.

Anonymous said...

The parents Matos referred to were insulted by the comment, they expressed this to the district. If a person is offended by a particular comment, one should take care not to use it. And my point was...the WORDS "Mexican parents" were not in the article shown. And you had to turn it into a debate...figures

Maura Larkins said...

I know several of the parents who were members of ELAC, and they all loved Mr. Matos. I suspect that the parents you are talking about were not regular members of ELAC, and were encouraged by Felicia Starr and Kim Simmons to go to an ELAC meeting and find something to complain about. Was Norma G. one of the parents who complained? The complaint is beyond bizarre. I can imagine what the district thought. Most Mexicans are proud to be Mexican, and don't consider "Mexican" to be a slur.

Maura Larkins said...

Dear Anonymous:

Now I'm curious. What term should I use to refer to Mexicans, if, as you claim, the word "Mexican" is offensive?

Maura Larkins said...

In my bilingual class, 100% of my students were Mexican. In my twenty-plus years of teaching in Chula Vista I had one Puerto Rican student and one Spaniard, but I believe that all the ELAC parents at Castle Park Elementary were Mexican. Do you know of a non-Mexican Hispanic parent at Castle Park Elementary who made a complaint to the district? I suspect you don't, but if you do, the problem could have been solved by the parent simply raising his or her hand and saying, "I'm Guatemalan (or Cuban or some other nationality)." Who would go to the district to complain about something like that? Only someone who had a separate agenda.