Stutz law firm pretended that it would allow depositions in 2002 and
2003.  Many phone calls were made between Maura Larkins and the
Stutz "scheduler."  It was all a sham, a pretense.  None of the
depositions took place.  Instead, Stutz sought, and was granted, a
protective order against depositions.  Why would the court make such
an order?  Apparently Stutz has this type of good luck frequently in state

It comes in handy when San Diego County Office of Education, Keenan
and Associates, and a school district want to cover up illegal acts which,
in this case, included crimes.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Missing Witnesses from CVESD
Finally, in 2004, the depositions began.
Kelly Angell
a tiny
SD Education Rpt Blog
witnesses were
never deposed,

Michael Carlson
Tim O'Neill
Jim Groth
Beverly Tucker
Cindy Miller
Rick Werlin
Lowell Billings
Patrick Judd
Cheryl Cox
On September 27, 2004. the court had
to explain the law to Kelly Angell when
she was trying to prevent Larkins from
having any contact with any employee
December 29, 2003
To: Kelly Angell
From: Maura Larkins                                by FAX only to 619 232 3264

In a recent letter I advised the Chula Vista Elementary School District
School Board regarding the dishonesty of two of their law firms, of which
yours is one.  This is a very serious matter, of great public concern.  This
is information that the board has a right to receive, and I, as a citizen,
have a right to give them, since the CVESD school board consists entirely
of elected public officials.

You make it clear in your letter to me dated December 29, 2003 that you
do not wish me to send such letters.

I can certainly understand why you would not want the board to receive
such a letter, since it pertains to wrongdoing by you, but you have no right
to prevent me from giving them this information.  

Your law firm has asked me not to communicate directly with the board, so
I must send messages through the board’s lawyers.  

If my accusations are “false and baseless,” and my perceptions do not
square with provable facts, why do you continue to refuse to turn over
documents and allow depositions in this case?  When you say that
discovery would be “dangerous” for your clients, are you not admitting
that discovery would prove the truth of my allegations?  You know very
well that my accusations are true, and my perceptions are accurate.  

I suggest that you read again my three letters, instead of complaining
about them.  This time, I suggest you think a little longer and harder about
what they say.