School officials seems to take pleasure in the humiliation of both parents and school
employees. Dan Shinoff has supported the use of the criminal justice system as a means of
controlling parents who complained about schools.
Examples are the David Alberts case, the Lindsey Stewart case, the MiraCosta College case
and the Claudia Houston case (below).
Claudia Houston is one of many parents who did not appreciate being called by the school
district to a school meeting, only to have police called to arrest them for causing a
"disturbance." Houston lost her home due to the bogus arrest and payment of attorney's
fees to a lawyer who sabotaged her case and went to work for Daniel Shinoff.
Houston was never charged with any crime pursuant to her arrest.
employees. Dan Shinoff has supported the use of the criminal justice system as a means of
controlling parents who complained about schools.
Examples are the David Alberts case, the Lindsey Stewart case, the MiraCosta College case
and the Claudia Houston case (below).
Claudia Houston is one of many parents who did not appreciate being called by the school
district to a school meeting, only to have police called to arrest them for causing a
"disturbance." Houston lost her home due to the bogus arrest and payment of attorney's
fees to a lawyer who sabotaged her case and went to work for Daniel Shinoff.
Houston was never charged with any crime pursuant to her arrest.
Yet Ms. Houston would be unable to obtain justice.
Dan Shinoff offered work to Houston's lawyer, Mr. Thomas Gill, resulting in Mr. Gill's
dropping Houston as a client. The bigger problem is that Mr. Gill seems to have started
co-operating with Shinoff to the detriment of his client long before he told Houston about the
conflict of interest. (Why is someone who calls his business the "Employment Rights
Center" working with employer attorney Daniel Shinoff?)
Houston sued Daniel Shinoff for tortious interference.
Shinoff's partner Ray Artiano, in his November 2007 deposition, stated under oath that no
one but Maura Larkins had ever complained about Shinoff's ethics.
Had you forgotten about Claudia Houston, Mr. Artiano,
less than three months after you received the pleading
below?
Dan Shinoff offered work to Houston's lawyer, Mr. Thomas Gill, resulting in Mr. Gill's
dropping Houston as a client. The bigger problem is that Mr. Gill seems to have started
co-operating with Shinoff to the detriment of his client long before he told Houston about the
conflict of interest. (Why is someone who calls his business the "Employment Rights
Center" working with employer attorney Daniel Shinoff?)
Houston sued Daniel Shinoff for tortious interference.
Shinoff's partner Ray Artiano, in his November 2007 deposition, stated under oath that no
one but Maura Larkins had ever complained about Shinoff's ethics.
Had you forgotten about Claudia Houston, Mr. Artiano,
less than three months after you received the pleading
below?
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Cases Involving Daniel Shinoff |
Related Case
MiraCosta
College
Daniel Shinoff ordered
top administrator Julie
Hatoff at MiraCosta
College to be escorted by
police off campus, which
made the faculty very
angry. Hatoff later won a
large settlement from the
college. Mr. Shinoff
worked closely with
President Victoria Richart
to get rid of Julie Hatoff,
who was apparently
perceived as a rival by
Ms. Richart. Richart was
asked to leave after
spending $1.5 million on
an investigation led by
Shinoff into the loss of
$305 worth of palm
trees. Richart and Shinoff
stuck their fists deep into
taxpayer pockets in an
effort to increase
Richart's power. Shinoff
negotiated a separation
agreement that
transferred another $1.5
million taxpayer dollars
to Richart. Eventually
this agreement was
declared illegal
MiraCosta
College
Daniel Shinoff ordered
top administrator Julie
Hatoff at MiraCosta
College to be escorted by
police off campus, which
made the faculty very
angry. Hatoff later won a
large settlement from the
college. Mr. Shinoff
worked closely with
President Victoria Richart
to get rid of Julie Hatoff,
who was apparently
perceived as a rival by
Ms. Richart. Richart was
asked to leave after
spending $1.5 million on
an investigation led by
Shinoff into the loss of
$305 worth of palm
trees. Richart and Shinoff
stuck their fists deep into
taxpayer pockets in an
effort to increase
Richart's power. Shinoff
negotiated a separation
agreement that
transferred another $1.5
million taxpayer dollars
to Richart. Eventually
this agreement was
declared illegal
| Diane Crosier, Executive Director of SDCOE-JPA |
| Question: Why has Daniel Shinoff been the favored lawyer of San Diego County Office of Education-Joint Powers Authority for over 20 years? |
| Answer: Diane Crosier, Executive Director of SDCOE-JPA, has supported Shinoff unwaveringly, refusing to investigate complaints of obstruction of justice. |
Claudia Houston
wins against
Daniel Shinoff in
the Ninth Circuit
Federal Court of
Appeal
wins against
Daniel Shinoff in
the Ninth Circuit
Federal Court of
Appeal
On January 29, 2008 the
Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeal for the United
States said that Claudia
Houston should have
been allowed to prove
that she had exhausted
administrative remedies.
She had provided the
proof to her lawyer,
Thomas Gill, but he had
not filed it with the court.
The court did not rule on
whether Encinitas Union
School District was
wrong to throw Claudia
Houston in jail for a week
because she "disturbed"
the school. In my own
experience, I have known
school officials to invent
false accusations out of
whole cloth to exert raw
power. They don't seem
to care at all that having
a parent arrested may
harm children. To make
matters worse, Claudia
Houston was the sole
surviving parent of two
youngsters. But when
schools wants parents to
stop making demands,
throwing them in jail
usually works.
It wasn't enough to stop
Ms. Houston.
Dan Shinoff hired Ms.
Houston's lawyer, who
then dropped Houston as
a client. I'm sure that
Shinoff thought he'd
heard the last of her, but
she seems to have done
very well representing
herself.
Click HERE to read the
opinion in case number
D.C. No.
CV-00-02475-WQH.
Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeal for the United
States said that Claudia
Houston should have
been allowed to prove
that she had exhausted
administrative remedies.
She had provided the
proof to her lawyer,
Thomas Gill, but he had
not filed it with the court.
The court did not rule on
whether Encinitas Union
School District was
wrong to throw Claudia
Houston in jail for a week
because she "disturbed"
the school. In my own
experience, I have known
school officials to invent
false accusations out of
whole cloth to exert raw
power. They don't seem
to care at all that having
a parent arrested may
harm children. To make
matters worse, Claudia
Houston was the sole
surviving parent of two
youngsters. But when
schools wants parents to
stop making demands,
throwing them in jail
usually works.
It wasn't enough to stop
Ms. Houston.
Dan Shinoff hired Ms.
Houston's lawyer, who
then dropped Houston as
a client. I'm sure that
Shinoff thought he'd
heard the last of her, but
she seems to have done
very well representing
herself.
Click HERE to read the
opinion in case number
D.C. No.
CV-00-02475-WQH.
School officials abused Claudia Houston and other parents and employees
Claudia Houston v. Daniel Shinoff, Thomas Gill, et al
Documents in Claudia Houston case:
Parent
Demonstration
was held at the belated
training of OAH judges on
MARCH 10, 2008 at the
University of San Diego
(USD).
The Office of
Administrative Hearing
Judges attended training
courses at University of
San Diego campus for the
entire week of March 10th
though March 14, 2008.
Parents of Children With
Disabilities
Demonstrated Against the
California Department of
Education Contract With
The Office of
Administrative Hearing
Judges “OAH”.
Lack of oversight and
fairness, decisions are
biased and
disproportionably skewed
in favor of the school
districts. School districts
with their high paid
attorneys win over 90%
of the administrative
hearing cases with the
new OAH”s officers
against parents with
student with disabilities.
With the former California
Department of Education
contract with the Special
Education hearing
officers “SEHO” at Mc
George School of Law,
parents won 50% percent
of the time.
Lack of legislative
oversight and
transparency has been
lacking with gaps in OAH’
s reports regarding their
activities.
Lacks of training as
required by federal law,
OAH judges do not have
any formal training in
special education law and
handle mostly other
unrelated cases.
OAH switched to a more
expensive mediation
system whereby
mediators are regular or
pro term judges. Under
the new contract parents
must be attorneys or hire
attorneys.
Demonstration
was held at the belated
training of OAH judges on
MARCH 10, 2008 at the
University of San Diego
(USD).
The Office of
Administrative Hearing
Judges attended training
courses at University of
San Diego campus for the
entire week of March 10th
though March 14, 2008.
Parents of Children With
Disabilities
Demonstrated Against the
California Department of
Education Contract With
The Office of
Administrative Hearing
Judges “OAH”.
Lack of oversight and
fairness, decisions are
biased and
disproportionably skewed
in favor of the school
districts. School districts
with their high paid
attorneys win over 90%
of the administrative
hearing cases with the
new OAH”s officers
against parents with
student with disabilities.
With the former California
Department of Education
contract with the Special
Education hearing
officers “SEHO” at Mc
George School of Law,
parents won 50% percent
of the time.
Lack of legislative
oversight and
transparency has been
lacking with gaps in OAH’
s reports regarding their
activities.
Lacks of training as
required by federal law,
OAH judges do not have
any formal training in
special education law and
handle mostly other
unrelated cases.
OAH switched to a more
expensive mediation
system whereby
mediators are regular or
pro term judges. Under
the new contract parents
must be attorneys or hire
attorneys.
| Who chose Daniel Shinoff to be the dominant education attorney in San Diego County? |
| The Claudia Houston case (Atty. Dan Shinoff) |
| Lindsey Stewart case (Atty. Dan Shinoff) |
| David Alberts v. Atty. Dan Shinoff--Defamation case involving atty. Deborah K. Garvin. (Garvin perjury.) |
| School lawyers v. parents and students |
| Fred Kamper case (Atty. Dan Shinoff) |
| June 2007 Supreme Court Decision against CTA regarding child sexual abuse |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Vista USD/Guajome Park sues student for exposing teachers who changed grades |
| Why This Website SDCOE CVESD CTA Stutz Artiano Shinoff Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
Previously, under SEHO,
administrators were
trained professionals, in
many cases educators
who were committed to
the special education
mediation process.
Parents are requesting
legislative intervention
and an audit by The
California State Senate.
Without the Senate
intervention thousand of
special education
students will be displaced
and their parents will
continue to incur
astronomical costs with
very little chance of
success.
administrators were
trained professionals, in
many cases educators
who were committed to
the special education
mediation process.
Parents are requesting
legislative intervention
and an audit by The
California State Senate.
Without the Senate
intervention thousand of
special education
students will be displaced
and their parents will
continue to incur
astronomical costs with
very little chance of
success.
NCCSE Director Joe Schwartzberg
See paragraph 6 (in pleading below)
paragraph 18, line 27
"Mr. Shinoff's client, NCCSE Director Schwartzberg, was well aware of the fraud. He had
funded the lawyers who appeared in the due process hearings that Mr. Shinoff denied ever
occurred. And he monitored our litigation against EUSD.
"Thus, Mr. Gill and Mr. Shinoff and NCCSE knowingly withheld documents from the court
in USDC 00/CV/2475 IEG that would have resolved the exhaustion issue 5 years ago."
paragraph 20
24
31
See paragraph 6 (in pleading below)
paragraph 18, line 27
"Mr. Shinoff's client, NCCSE Director Schwartzberg, was well aware of the fraud. He had
funded the lawyers who appeared in the due process hearings that Mr. Shinoff denied ever
occurred. And he monitored our litigation against EUSD.
"Thus, Mr. Gill and Mr. Shinoff and NCCSE knowingly withheld documents from the court
in USDC 00/CV/2475 IEG that would have resolved the exhaustion issue 5 years ago."
paragraph 20
24
31
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report