Kathleen Elton
Restraining Order
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
What happened the day
before this meeting?
April 4, 2001

Maura Larkins attended a
meeting with Assistant
Superintendent Richard
Werlin, Chula Vista
Educators President Gina
Boyd, and CTA Executive
Director Tim O'Neill at
CVESD on April 4, 2001.

The day before this meeting
the district and Tim O'Neill
had received
Maura Larkins'
fax, and realized that Maura
Larkins had figured out why
she had been removed from
her classroom.  

The night before this
meeting, the CVESD cabinet
had held a meeting and
decided to ask Maura
Larkins to return to work.  

But instead of an
apology, Richard
Werlin and CTA
operatives Tim
O'Neill and Gina
Boyd had
something else in
On April 4, 2001 CVESD asked teacher Maura
Larkins to return to work--and started a  
To go back to
page 4
What was the plan of Richard Werlin, Gina Boyd and Jim Groth?
They wanted to protect teachers who had committed a variety
of illegal acts.

The plan:

1) I was asked to come to a meeting on April 4, 2001.

2) Werlin made sure that no other administrators were present.

3)  Werlin let loose with a verbal tirade against me.  It lasted about ten
minutes, was extremely unprofessional, and was totally bereft of any
emotional control or common decency.  
Gina Boyd warned me ahead of time
that Werlin was frequently verbally abusive.

4)  Werlin handed me a letter (below).  

This belatedly-dated document was an effort to set up a fake paper trail for
Werlin's  February 12, 2001 decision to put me on leave.  (The document
mentions Feb. 8, 2001;  apparently so much time had passed that Werlin
couldn't remember what he himself had done.   It's understandable that he'd
forget, after all, he was writing about it for the first time almost two months
after it happened.)  

Since the truth was too embarrassing for Werlin and the district,
letter contains no mention of the reasons for the
Feb. 12, 2001 action.

And for good reason!  The reasons were illegal.

The letter contains an odd statement about March 27, 2001. But that
wouldn't explain why I'd been placed on leave in February, would it?

And more to the point, any untoward event on March 27, 2001 would make
Werlin seem like a madman to have asked me to return to work on April 4.
When CVESD Asst. Supt. Richard Werlin met with
me on April 4, 2001, he asked me to return to
work from leave.  

He desperately wanted to cover-up what he had
done 7 weeks earlier, but he didn't want to write
me an apology.

Instead, he created a fraudulent document of which Bertha Lopez and her
fellow Chula Vista Elementary School District board members should be

The school board knew that Werlin was covering
up a variety of illegal actions by himself and his

Richard Werlin had created NO paper trail at all seven weeks
earlier when he had placed me on leave.  

On April 4, 2001 he created a document
pretending I was being placed on
administrative leave--when he actually asked
me to return to work.

The following payroll document dated 4-4-01
shows that on April 4, 2001 Werlin instructed the
payroll office to issue me a
reimbursement of lost
pay during my leave.
Apr 3 01  to Werlin
Apr 4 01  from Werlin
"It was so vicious
it took my breath
--a witness to Richard Werlin's
verbal tirade that went on for
ten minutes right before he
asked Maura Larkins to return
to work.
Richard Werlin had a
bad habit of falsifying
documents.  Another
bad habit was failing to
create any document
at all at the time of an
event, and then
creating document
long after when he
decides what story
would serve his

In the Maura Larkins'
case, the paper trail is
shocking mostly for
what does not exist,
but also because of
what does exist.   Here
is one document that
reveals one of Werlin's
changes on April 4,
San Diego Education Report
San Diego
Education Report
News, information and ideas about our
education system
by Maura Larkins
Sound familiar?  
Two more cases
bullying of
adults, by adults,
in schools

1) The Maura Larkins
case is similar in many
respects to  the
Allyn case in nearby

2) Completely
false allegations
were made in an
effort to banish a
woman from a
California school

The accusers were the
ones who ended up in
when two parents at
an Irvine, California
elementary school tried to
destroy the reputation of a
parent volunteer).

At an elementary school in Irvine,
California, two attorneys (parents
of a boy at the school) tried to put
an innocent woman in jail, and
ended up in jail themselves.  See
first story below.

Sadly, not all false allegations are
so clearly exposed.

School districts are hotbeds of
abuse and hostility among adults.

How Two California
Parents Ended Up in Jail
Over After-School Spat
ABC News
Jan 15, 2015

...A Mysterious Call to Police Over
an ‘Erratic Driver’
A year went by as Peters and the
Easters battled in court. Then, on
Feb. 16, 2011, the Irvine Police
Department received a call
around 1:15 p.m. on a school
day, reporting an erratic driver at
the Plaza Vista School. The
person on the phone said his
name was “Vijay Chandrasekhar,”
and he was concerned about the
welfare of his child, who he said
attended the school.

A man tells the dispatcher, “I’m
concerned one of the parent
volunteers there may be under
the influence or using drugs... I
just had to go over to the school
and I saw a car driving very

The caller gave a description of
the car, a white PT Cruiser, and
said the volunteer’s first name
was “Kelli.” Officer Charles
Shaver with the Irvine PD was
dispatched to the school and
found the car in the parking lot.
“The caller that indicated the
erratic driving also said there was
a potential that the driver put
drugs or pills behind her seat,”
Shaver said, “So, I went to the
driver’s side and looked in the
window... There was a large bag
of marijuana that was protruding
out of the seat pocket, behind the
driver’s seat.”

‘Please Put the Drugs Away ...
They’re Not Mine’

Officer Shaver went into the
school to find the PT Cruiser’s
owner, and discovered it
belonged to Kelli Peters.
Peters said when the officer first
came in, she panicked, thinking
something had happened to her
husband. But it then became
clear the officer was inquiring
about her.

“And he said, ‘Somebody said,
after they saw you driving
erratically, that you put drugs in
the backseat of your car,’ and I
was like, ‘there’s no way… they’re
lying to you,'" Peters said.
Shaver said Peters began crying
hysterically as the police
searched her car and pulled out a
large bag of marijuana, a bag of
Percocet and a bag of Vicodin.
She begged police to believe that
the drugs didn’t belong to her.
"They put it up on top of the
police car for everybody to see,
which was really hard, because I
kept thinking ‘my daughter’s
getting out any minute.’ ... And I’m
just thinking the whole world is
looking at this right now … no one’
s ever going to get this image out
of their head,” Peters said. “I said,
‘Please put the drugs away. You’
re going to find out they’re not
mine and you’re going ruin my life
Peters was further questioned
and given a sobriety test, which
she passed. When Officer Shaver
asked if there was anyone she
knew who would go after her,
Peters told him, “Jill Easter.”
Police searched Peters’ home
and conducted DNA tests on her
and her family. The results
showed zero evidence of the
Peters family’s DNA on the drugs
found in Kelli Peters’ car.

She was not charged with drug
possession and police opened an
investigation into the drug
planting. They traced the call
made to the Irvine Police
Department to a hotel business
center in Newport Beach,
California, about 11 miles from
Irvine. They watched the hotel
surveillance cameras from the
date and time the call came in
and saw Kent Easter walking into
the hotel. Kent worked for a law
firm located next door to the hotel
where the call was placed.

Police also discovered that drugs
found in Peters’ car showed the
Easters’ DNA on them. Cell phone
records, prosecutors said, also
showed that the Easters’ phones
pinged a tower near Peters’ home
the night before the drugs were

Story #3:
Many school district
employees function as
"honor brigades" to
silence discussion of

Meet the honor brigade, an
organized campaign to silence
debate on Islam
Asra Q. Nomani
Washington Post
Jan. 16, 2015

“You have shamed the
community,” a fellow Muslim in
Morgantown, W.Va., said to me
as we sat in a Panera Bread in
2004. “Stop writing.”
Then 38, I had just written an
essay for The Washington Post’s
Outlook section arguing that
women should be allowed to pray
in the main halls of mosques,
rather than in segregated spaces,
as most mosques in America are
arranged. An American Muslim
born in India, I grew up in a
tolerant but conservative family.
In my hometown mosque, I had
disobeyed the rules and prayed
in the men’s area, about 20 feet
behind the men gathered for
Ramadan prayers.
Later, an all-male tribunal tried to
ban me. An elder suggested
having men surround me at the
mosque so that I would be
“scared off.” Now the man across
the table was telling me to shut up.
“I won’t stop writing,” I said. It was
the first time a fellow Muslim had
pressed me to refrain from
criticizing the way our faith was
practiced. But in the past decade,
such attempts at censorship have
become more common. This is
largely because of the rising
power and influence of the
“ghairat brigade,” an honor corps
that tries to silence debate on
extremist ideology in order to
protect the image of Islam. It
meets even sound critiques with
hideous, disproportionate
The campaign began, at least in
its modern form, 10 years ago in
Mecca, Saudi Arabia, when the
Organization of Islamic
Cooperation — a mini-United
Nations comprising the world’s 56
countries with large Muslim
populations, plus the Palestinian
Authority — tasked then-
Secretary General Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu with combating
Islamophobia and projecting the
“true values of Islam.” During the
past decade, a loose honor
brigade has sprung up, in part
funded and supported by the OIC
through annual conferences,
reports and communiques. It’s
made up of politicians, diplomats,
writers, academics, bloggers and
In 2007, as part of this playbook,
the OIC launched the
Islamophobia Observatory, a
watchdog group based in Jiddah,
Saudi Arabia...

Asra Q. Nomani, a former Wall
Street Journal reporter, is the
author of “Standing Alone: An
American Woman’s Struggle for
the Soul of Islam.”
School districts are hotbeds of
abuse and hostility among adults.

Chula Vista Elementary School
wanted to get rid
of me when I refused to
be silent about rampant
wrongdoing.  "You
must forget the past,"
said Assistant
Superintendent Rick

Werlin demanded again and
again that I return to work
without producing the results
of the investigation he kept
claiming to be conducting.

Scores of documents went

Werlin spoke on behalf of
Superintendent Libia Gil and a
school board that consisted of
Cheryl Cox, Pam Smith, Bertha
Lopez--yes, the Bertha Lopez
who pled guilty to corruption
Patrick Judd--yes, the
one found liable in court for
shocking sexual harassment of
an employee, and Larry
Cunningham.  In a bid to protect
abusive teachers, CTA leaders,
including Jim Groth, refused to
require that the district obey the
law and the contract.  
More retaliation

Darren Chaker has retaliated viciously against the attorney, Scott McMillan, who beat him in the free speech
Chaker v. Mateo.  Chaker pretends to be Scott McMillan.  Chaker began stalking me, in violation of his
conditions for release from federal prison.  He came to my oral arguments for my own free speech case, Stutz
v. Larkins,
apparently because he saw me as being similar to Wendy Mateo.  
See also Werlin's
Humiliation and Frustration
by Maura Larkins
Werlin's April 4, 2001 letter was a completely deceptive document.

Werlin pretended that he was placing me on administrative leave on April 4,
2001, when in the real world he was assuring me that I would never again
suffer harassment by rogue teachers at Castle Park Elementary School.

Naively, I believed him.  

I thought that his out-of-control ranting and raving, followed up by his
dishonest letter, was simply a desperate attempt to save face.  

If there had been an ounce of truth in his letter, then
Werlin should
never have been allowed to work another day in
any school,
since he would have been acting with extreme disregard for
the safety of children and adults at
Castle Park Elementary.

The April 4, 2001 letter should have been an apology after a terrible mistake
had been made.  Werlin had banned a teacher from her classroom for 7 weeks,
and replaced her with a substitute who had not even done her student
teaching, due to
false accusations of two teachers who
claimed to fear for their lives.  The teachers, who
were inveterate bullies, changed their stories
during their depositions.   
The district tried again and again to get Maura Larkins to come back to
work.  The district clearly knew that Richard Werlin and
Dennis Doyle
(who later resigned mysteriously as superintendent of National School
District) fabricated excuses for their own behavior.  
If Werlin had told the truth, he would have said
that I was sent home on Feb. 12, 2001 because
J H and L W said they feared I would kill them.  

These two teachers made fools of themselves in
their depositions.  

They provided no reason for their bizarre

JH claimed she had only called Werlin to ask when a meeting would be held.  

LW said she hadn't called Werlin, but when Larkins asked if it would be okay
to check her phone records, she asked to take a break with her lawyer
(whose services were provided by the district).  When LW came back she
said yes, she might have called Werlin, but she didn't remember any
conversation with him.  

How can you forget a conversation when you told the Assistant
Superintendent that you thought your fellow teacher was going to kill you?

Events in the following years showed that these
two teachers were at the heart of a
group of
bullying teachers who chewed up and spit out 11
principals in 11 years, and came close to
Castle Park Elementary.  

Werlin was also too embarrassed to provide any details of his overwrought
story about March 27, 2001, when he
took me out of the
school office to a place where there were no

If I had behaved emotionally, as Werlin falsely claimed, just EIGHT DAYS
BEFORE APRIL 4, 2001, AT A TIME WHEN I was supposedly being
investigated for the possibility that I was going to kill two teachers, why on
earth was I asked to return to work?  

There is not the slightest chance I would
have been asked to return to work if the
district had the slightest concern that any
allegation against me were true.  

I was asked to return to work because the district had determined that the
two teachers--and Richard Werlin--had been lying or delusional

The district created a monster

The "Castle Park Family" almost destroyed the school.

I was asked to come back to work because
and the district eventually realized that it created a
monster when it protected teachers who had concocted a bizarre and
harmful hoax.

The culture at Castle Park Elementary was sick,
and  the district realized too late that the "Castle Park Family" was
destroying the school.  This group of powerful teachers chewed up and spit
out 11 principals in 11 years.  There were two separate embezzlements.  

In 2004 the district tried to
fix the problem.

I was asked on April 4, 2001 to return to work
without  any fitness for duty examination, even
though if Werlin had been telling the truth, there
is not the slightest chance I would have been
asked to return to work.

Werlin's idiotic story was that I was running and saying, "I want to work!  I
want to work!"  In fact, I was not eager to come back without guarantees of
protection from bullies.  Werlin spent two days, April 5 and April 6, trying to
talk me into returning to work.  

I did come back to work for a short time, but eventually the situation became
unsupportable and I refused to come back to work without a thorough
investigation, as the record shows.  

Here are Werlin's letters demanding that Larkins come back to work.

But Werlin never completed his "investigation" and I refused to go back to

Clearly, Werlin was lying about what happened on March 27, 2001 when he
took me to a place where there were no witnesses.  On the two occasions
when he told his false story under oath, he committed felonies.  It is beyond
belief that anyone could have been so deeply confused and unaware of the
testimony and documents presented to them during
my hearing  that they
could have believed Werlin's story.  The justice system leaves much to be

Werlin's letter below gives no indication that
BEFORE the letter was written,
Werlin had been
directed by his superiors to return me to my

Mr. Werlin falsely told the payroll clerk that I never went back to work in
April 2001.  He was clearly already planning on finding a pretext to remove
me again.  Maureen Grove was shocked when I told her I had worked in April

Why did Werlin lie?  

My guess is that he wanted complete, arbitrary power, and did not want legal
niceties or common decency interfering with it.  And, of course, he was
covering up a multitude of illegal actions, as well as violations of contract,
committed by himself,
Robin Donlan (yes, that Robin Donlan, of the $7 million
Wireless Stock Options fraud), Michael Carlson,
Gina Boyd, Tim O'Neill, and

5)  After I signed that I had received the April 4, 2001 letter, Werlin asked
me to come back to work.  

6)  I had no concept at that time of the deep
corruption in the school district.  I naively
agreed to come back to work.  But when
Werlin tried desperately to get me to come
back to work in September, I refused.

7) Richard Werlin worked closely with fellow Assistant Superintendent
Dennis Doyle to cover up the truth about Castle Park Elementary.  Former
Chula Vista Elementary Superintendent Libby Gil and CVESD board members
Patrick Judd, Pamela Smith, and Larry Cunningham, Cheryl Cox and Bertha
Lopez aided in the cover-up.
There are only two possibilities: Werlin was
1) lying, or
2) acting with extreme disregard for the safety
of children and adults at
Castle Park Elementary.
The district had determined that Asst. Supt. Richard Werlin and the
two teachers who made accusations had been lying or delusional.
The truth
Story #4:
Here is another case where a
person in authority
took a
woman to a place where there
were no witnesses, then made
false allegations, and also lost
his notes--just like Richard

Debra Milke, who spent
22 years on Arizona
death row, has murder
case tossed
By Saeed Ahmed and Greg
Botelho, CNN
March 24, 2015

There was no evidence tying
her to the crime, but a
detective said she confessed
This detective had a "history
of misconduct," including lying
under oath

Debra Milke spent 22 years on
death row, convicted of conspiring
with two other men to kill her son
allegedly for an insurance payout.

On Monday, a judge ruled that
the Arizona woman is innocent
and dismissed all charges
against her.

This makes Milke only the second
woman exonerated from death
row in the United States.

More importantly, the judge's
decision finally clears Milke after
years of legal back-and-forth in a
case where she steadfastly
maintained her innocence.

Key to the case's dismissal was

misconduct, mainly that
of a detective, Armando
Saldate, who said Milke
confessed to the crime
to him -- even though
there was no witness or

Prosecutors withheld from the
jury Saldate's personnel
record which showed
instances of misconduct in
other cases, including lying
under oath.

The two men with whom Milke was
accused of conspiring were tried
separately and are still on death

No other witnesses or direct
evidence linked Milke to the crime
other than Saldate's testimony.

Milke's 'confession'

Saldate further said that Milke
confessed to her role in the
murder plot during interrogation
and said it was a "bad judgment

There was no recording of the
interrogation, no one else was in
the room or watching from a
two-way mirror,
and Saldate
said he threw away
his notes shortly after
completing his report.

...Ultimately, the jury believed the
detective and convicted Milke of

Saldate's past

What prosecutors didn't tell
the court was the detective's
long history of lying under
oath and misconduct.

Saldate had been suspended
five days for taking "liberties"
with a female motorist and
lying about it to his
supervisors. Four confessions
or indictments had been
tossed out because Saldate
had lied under oath. Judges
suppressed or vacated four
other confessions because
Saldate had violated a
person's constitutional rights...

"The state knew of the evidence
in the personnel file and had an
obligation to produce the
documents," Kozinski said. "...
There can be no doubt that the
state failed in its constitutional

...The state appealed the decision
to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The ending

Last week, the Arizona Supreme
Court refused to hear the appeal.
And on Monday, all charges
against Milke were finally dropped.

The ankle bracelet she had been
wearing while on bail was
removed. And Milke left the court
room, sobbing in relief.

The case is now closed. Debra
Milke is finally a free woman.