
| There was no litigation, only a tort claim, but after October 4, 2001, teachers were made to believe that litigation was in progress. That was when Daniel Shinoff became involved, according to his own statement. Mark Bresee was still very much involved. |
| Fears were encouraged, to the extent that M.S. wrote the following two letters. Most likely, Werlin suggested to Scharmach that she ask for a restraining order. |
| Maura Larkins sued some of her accusers in March 2002 for defamation of character. |
| Maura Larkins, teacher at Castle Park Elementary, voluntarily spent hundreds of dollars to get a fitness for duty examination by a psychiatrist after she was falsely accused of "being the type of person who commits mass murders." The doctor faxed his report to CVESD. Why did Cheryl Cox and the CVESD board and their attorneys Daniel Shinoff and Kelly Angell continue to foment hysteria at Castle Park Elementary even after receiving this doctor's letter in August 2001? Answer: They wanted to smear Maura Larkins in order to prevent her from revealing their violations of law. Was this smart? It would have been smarter to retract the false accusations and apologize. Instead, they stopped Maura Larkins pay (in violation of the contract) and refused to grant her the hearing to which she was entitled (also in violation of the contract). Robin Donlan (who became famous in 2004 as one of the San Diego Union-Tribune's "Castle Park Five," then in 2007 for claiming that she had no idea how her school teacher husband suddenly came to possess 7 million dollars) also worked hard, along with her personal friend, Chula Vista Educators' President Gina Boyd, and Beverly Tucker of the California Teachers Association, to smear Larkins. But it appears that there was another reason for Cheryl Cox's support of violations of law and the contract: she wanted to get rid of Superintendent Libia Gil. In May 2002 Cox was willing to violate yet one more law against Maura Larkins, Labor Code 1102.5, in order to get rid of Libia Gil. Cox and Bertha Lopez went along with the BIG THREE, PATRICK JUDD, PAMELA SMITH, AND LARRY CUNNINGHAM, and voted to dismiss Maura Larkins less than two months after Larkins filed suit against the district. Clearly, these people felt so certain that they were above the law, that they were not afraid to flagrantly violate it. Cox and Lopez got something in return: Libia Gil's resignation. Gil made her resignation official in March 2002, but said she wouldn't be leaving until October. She announced that she had accepted a job at New American Schools in Virginia, but she never left San Diego, and continued, without success, to seek employment around the country and around the county as a public school superintendent. Gil claimed to travel for New American Schools, which came in handy when she wanted to avoid depositions. |

| Does the following letter contain an offer that you would accept if you were not involved in covering up wrongdoing? |



| Merry Christmas, Michelle! |
| From Maura Larkins |
| Maura Larkins had to file her lawsuit very soon, but she wanted to give one teacher on Werlin's list, whom she had always thought of as a nicer person than her other accusers, the opportunity to avoid being sued. She delivered the following letter in person, to give Michelle Scharmach more time to decide how to respond. |
| Despite Michelle's request, which apparently was suggested by Richard Werlin, no restraining order was sought by the district. Why? Because that would have required the district to actually make a written accusation, and Maura Larkins would have an opportunity to respond! |
| Michelle seemed to be projecting her own feelings onto Maura Larkins, who never said she wouldn't forgive her. That seems to be Michelle's own feelings of guilt talking. Why did the district take such drastic action without asking to hear the other side of the story? |
| Was MIchelle Scharmach afraid of physical harm, or was she afraid of being exposed as someone who had aided and abetted a crime? Clearly, Michelle Scharmach knew something she didn't want to tell Maura Larkins. She was helping to cover up crimes and other wrongdoing. |
| But Werlin never followed through on the restraining order idea. He would have had to provide some actual, specific accusation against Larkins, and that he could not do, because Maura Larkins had never threatened anybody. Also, if he put the accusations in writing, they would no longer be secret from Maura Larkins, and she would be able to respond to them. |
| After Maura Larkins sued, Michelle Scharmach wrote a letter which the district used as a major justification for firing Mrs. Larkins. Obviously, a letter written after you've been sued is not reliable. So the district erased the date on the letter, and pretended it had been written over a year earlier. That summer, Werlin removed the date from the letter, and changed his Nov. 21, 2001 report to appear that the letter had arrived BEFORE Nov. 21, 2001. This is a felony. Mark Bresee presented Michelle Scharmach's letter to the Office of Administrative Hearings as if it had been received before Nov. 21, 2001, even though he himself had not included it in his Feb. 22, 2002 PERB filing. He had, however, included the two letters below, which were written by Scharmach in 2001. |
| Larkins first heard the allegations against her NINE MONTHS after she was taken out of her classroom. Why the long delay? |
| Scharmach had the opportunity to avoid being sued for her false allegations against Maura Larkins, so it would appear that she acted against her own best interests when she obeyed instructions of CVESD lawyers. |
| Was Scharmach blind in her trust in Richard Werlin? Did she believe that Maura Larkins was a dangerous person? It appears that Michelle Scharmach was duped by Richard Werlin, Robin Donlan, Linda Watson, and other teachers, who created false allegations to cover up the crime they committed when they conspired to use Kathleen Elton's allegations to remove Maura Larkins from her classroom. Of course, it's also possible Michelle just wanted to be on the winning team, and was convinced that Werlin would prevail. |
| Maura Larkins wanted to give Michelle Scharmach the opportunity to avoid being sued for defamation of character. She didn't feel that Michelle belonged on the list of accusers. Maura Larkins was mistaken on this point. Michelle's attitude had undergone a 180 degree change since April of 2001. |
| Since May 2001, Maura Larkins' lawyer had been asking Rick Werlin for information about the allegations against Larkins. The only information so far was Alan Smith's report. |
| Scharmach was convinced by the District to keep her allegations against Maura Larkins secret from Maura Larkins. Werlin did not reveal that the allegation that Larkins had a gun was made by a mentally ill woman, about whom he received evidence on April 3, 2001, the day before he asked Maura Larkins to return to work in April 2001, mentally ill. He also failed to reassure teachers with the letter f from the psychiatrist who examined Maura Larkins. |
| Larkins' responded to the duo's hostility with puzzlement because Scharmach had never before been hostile to Larkins. Larkins had no idea why the librarian had used Larkins' class library period the previous day as her personal time, while keeping Larkins in the dark about when her class was supposed to come to the library. |
| Larkins thought that this was odd behavior, but believed it would take only a moment to fix the problem. Larkins was wrong. Apparently, the librarian had been affected by Robin Donlan's false allegations, and had suddenly developed a strong hostility not only to Larkins, but to Larkins' students. The librarian refused to make up the missed lesson, and told Larkins to leave the library! |
| Librarian Michelle Scharmach and teacher Lynne Del Galdo were unexpectedly hostile to Maura Larkins in the library in September 2000, but Larkins was not the type of teacher who ran to report to the principal whenever she had a problem. |
| When she learned that Michelle Scharmach was one of her accusers, Larkins wrote the following letter to her lawyer. |
| [There was never any investigation of these allegations by the district. The district never asked Maura Larkins for her side of the story. This was the district's final report on why Maura Larkins was taken out of her classroom in the middle of the year. Here is the section regarding Michelle Leon-Scharmach.] |
| Larkins was puzzled when she saw Michelle Scharmach's name on the list. |
| When attorney Daniel Shinoff got involved in this case on October 4, 2001, he wanted written evidence to use against Larkins. He never appears to have advised the board to obey the law and set things right. Until this time, Rick Werlin had told employees that he didn't want anything in writing. Now Werlin wanted written reports. For six months Maura Larkins' lawyer had been asking Rick Werlin for information about the allegations against Larkins. The only information so far was Alan Smith's report. |
| On November 21, 2001, Richard Werlin gave Maura Larkins a list of six names of her accusers, but he didn't say what the specific accusations were. |
| Richard Werlin changed this document in 2002, and district lawyer Mark Bresee submitted the falsified document to the Office of Administrative Hearings. The original document had already been submitted to PERB. |
| In December 2001, the statute of limitations was fast approaching. |
| The CVESD board continued to foment hysteria about violence at Castle Park Elementary even after receiving an expensive, reassuring psychiatrist's report about the person falsely accused of being potentially violent. Why? |
| The CVESD board used an unsigned, undated letter from Michelle Scharmach as Exhibit A in its case to dismiss Larkins. Where did this document come from? Was it yet another entry in a long string of hoaxes perpetrated by Richard Werlin and Chula Vista Educators? |
| Letter from Dr. Otis to Richard Werlin regarding Maura Larkins |
| Even after they were warned that Assistant Superintendent Richard Werlin was committing misdemeanors and felonies and encouraging false accusations to cover up those crimes, the CVESD board (Cheryl Cox, Patrick Judd, Pamela Smith, Bertha Lopez and Larry Cunningham) pretended to be unaware of the overwhelming evidence against Richard Werlin. The board allowed Werlin to take serious actions again and again without creating a paper trail. |
| Hoax documents were produced through the collaboration of Michelle Leon-Scharmach, Richard Werlin and Mark Bresee after Maura Larkins sued Michelle Scharmach for defamation. |
| A Fraud on the Court |
| A fraudulent, altered document was presented by the district as Exhibit 44 and represented as being the "November 21, 2001" letter that Richard Werlin had hand-delivered to Maura Larkins. Exhibit 44 contained an unsigned, undated letter which was not contained in the true document (because in November 2001, it had not yet been written). This new mystery letter was also offered by the district as Exhibit 7, the first exhibit offered by CVESD to justify the dismissal of Maura Larkins. |
| Did mental illness afflict the accusers, or the accused at CVESD? |
| Assistant Superintendent Richard Werlin kept secret the evidence that Maura Larkins was a non-violent person, and also kept secret the evidence that accuser Kathleen Elton was mentally ill. The District had used Kathleen Elton's false allegations as a justification for removing Maura Larkins from her classroom on February 12, 2001. Three months after receiving the above letter that Maura Larkins was fit and healthy, Richard Werlin asked teachers to write letters requesting a restraining order against Maura Larkins. The alternative would have been to apologize to Larkins. Apparently not one single individual was willing to consider that option. Larkins' accusers felt safe because they had the school board, with its unlimited taxpayer-funded legal resources, on their side. |
| Here are principal Gretchen Donndelinger's notes of Michelle Scharmach's visit to her THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT OCCURRED. Why the long delay, Ms. Scharmach? |
| (to be scanned) |
| In an effort to protect Michelle Scharmach from being sued, and to find out the truth, Maura Larkins wrote the letter below to Michelle Scharmach. Larkins had no idea that Scharmach was so deeply involved with Robin Donlan, Lynne Sallans and other accusers. |
| Dr. Otis Letter (Psychiatrist said the accused was mentally healthy, but the evidence indicates that the accusers were not.) |
| Michelle Scharmach Hoax (Letter feloniously added to Werlin's November 21, 2001 report) |
| What was Michelle's motivation for writing the letter? To try to cover up her own and Lynn Del Galdo Sallans' aggressive and hostile behavior in front of children. Maura Larkins was not hostile, merely surprised at the unprovoked and unprofessional attack in front of children. But Maura Larkins did not have the habit of complaining about other teachers. Apparently feeling guilty, Scharmach stated in paragraph four: "[We]...wanted to voice our side of the story in case she made a complaint against us." |
| Many documents clearly answer the question. |
| Michelle Leon-Scharmach: Employee has indicated that she felt that Ms. Larkins was hostile toward her, over reacted, and demonstrated hostile behavior in front of students. Ms. Leon-Scharmach stated that one incident took place in front of Ms. Del Galdo's Kindergarten students in the beginning of the 2000-01 school year. |
| Richard Werlin's Nov. 21, 2001 "INTERIM SUMMARY OF CONCERNS/ALLEGATIONS" |
| Version #1 Original November 21, 2001 Report |
| Below is the report created by Richard Werlin, clearly after February 22, 2002, and almost certainly after March 13, 2002. This document was feloniously submitted in place of the true "November 21, 2001 Report "to the Office of Administrative Hearings by CVESD, through its attorney Mark Bresee of Parham & Rajcic. |
| Why did the CVESD board, administration and lawyers feel the need to commit multiple felonies? What was so bad about the truth? Answer: The district was covering up crimes committed by itself and the employees who attacked Maura Larkins. |
| Exhibit 7 was written after Michelle Scharmach was sued by Maura Larkins, but presented as if it were written almost two years before. |
| Answer: To cover up violations of law. CVESD decided to cover up with felonies instead of simply apologizing to Maura Larkins for having committed misdemeanors against her. |
| Here are two versions of Assistant Superintendent Richard Werlin's November 21, 2001 report. Werlin collected allegations, but never allowed the accused to respond. He kept secret the fact that Michelle Scharmach had made a general allegation, and never asked Michelle Scharmach to give a detailed account of her allegation. |
| Why did CVESD and Attorney Mark Bresee perpetrate the Michelle Scharmach hoax & then change the one and only report about Maura Larkins? (The Nov. 21, 2001 Report of Allegations) |
| Version #2 Fraudulent "November 21, 2001" Report |

| The first six exhibits were legal documents, not attempts to prove the allegations against Maura Larkins were true. Michelle's hoax letter, therefore, was exhibit #7. |
| But Werlin never followed through on the restraining order idea. He would have had to provide some actual, specific accusation against Larkins, and that he could not do, because Maura Larkins had never threatened anybody. Also, if he put the accusations in writing, they would no longer be secret from Maura Larkins, and she would be able to respond to them. |
| This is one of the reasons that schools are failing Because those in control are unable, or unwilling, to put kids first. Below are all-too-typical examples of the type of behavior to which many board members, administrators and teachers devote enormous amounts of time, energy and taxpayer money. Then they devote more taxpayer money to covering up their wrongdoing. Are these people crazy? Are they ignorant or dim-witted? Or are they corrupt? The public has a right to know the answer to these questions. |
| Why did Michelle Scharmach walk out in the middle of her 2004 deposition? Because her lawyer, Kelly Angell Minnehan, ordered her to do so. |
| Fourth page--written after Michelle Scharmach was served with a lawsuit for defamation of character on March 13, 2002. Michelle addressed the letter to Gretchnen Donndelinger, almost certainly at Rick Werlin's request, even though Donndelinger had already gone to another school. It was probably originally addressed to Rick Werlin or Superintendent Libia Gil. Libia Gil resigned a few days after the suit was filed and served. Maura Larkins was dismissed by the board several weeks later. |
| Exhibit 7 This hoax document was also attached to the altered, back-dated document presented as Exhibit 44. |
| True version: |
| Altered version: |
| Chula Vista Elementary School District Castle Park Elementary School |
| Attorney Mark Bresee Bresee and Werlin Bresee OAH hearing Bresee and school attorneys |




| Some people who have no coping skills imagine that everyone thinks in the same distorted way that they think. |