| The Office of Administrative Hearings failed in its assignment to conduct this case lawfully. Why does it refuse to file a petition asking the Superior Court to throw out this illegal decision? Why does Presiding Judge Steven Adler support this decision? |
| San Diego Presiding OAH Judge Steven Adler denied the right of a citizen to see her own file! |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
mauralarkins.com
| "Factual Findings 50, 53, 56, 59 and 73 declare that Documents accepted into evidence and recorded in Judge Ahler’s own handwriting do not exist!" |
| The Office of Administrative Hearings willfully violates the law in order to give arbitrary power to the individuals who have obtained control of school districts. |
| "At this time, Mrs. Larkins was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing regarding the September 26 change from administrative leave to unpaid suspension." |
Ahler's findings are blatantly false for multiple reasons.
1) Judge Ahler declared, to justify his findings 50, 53, 56, 59
and 73, that documents he himself accepted into evidence and
recorded in his own handwriting do not exist. The Clerk’s
Record shows, in Ahler's handwriting, that not only do the
documents exist, but Ahler himself handled them.
2) Factual Finding 50 is contradicted by Exhibit 62, Pamela
Havird’s letter to Mr. Werlin dated September 10, 2001.
3) Factual Finding 53 is contradicted by Exhibit R 34.
4) FACTUAL FINDING 56:
The first part of the letter is a repeat of the information in the
September 17 letter, to which Pamela Havird had already
responded one day earlier, in her September 19, 2001 letter
(Exhibit R34); the second part of the letter was answered by
Mrs. Larkins on September 27, 2001 (Exhibit 33).
5) FACTUAL FINDING 59:
The COMMISSION outdid itself in making this finding. In this
finding the COMMISSION denies the existence of not just one
but six responses sent by MRS. LARKINS to the district. Five of
these responses are in evidence (Exhibits 33, sent to two
people, Exhibit 41, pages 4 and 5, and Exhibit 36.) Although
the sixth response was not taken into evidence, its existence is
proven by other evidence, specifically, the Superintendent’s
letter answering it (Exhibit 39, page 5).
6) FACTUAL FINDING 73:
Neither Mrs. Larkins nor Attorney Havird provided the
DISTRICT with any writing suggesting that Mrs. Larkins’
refusal to work was supported by or justified under the
DISTRICT/CVEA agreement.
This finding is contradicted by Exhibit 41, the November 13,
2001 Level I Grievance filed by Mrs. Larkins regarding
Safety. At this time, Mrs. Larkins was entitled to a full
evidentiary hearing regarding the September 26 change from
administrative leave to unpaid suspension. This pay stoppage
was a violation of the contract for several reasons, as Mrs.
Larkins points out in Exhibit 37.
1) Judge Ahler declared, to justify his findings 50, 53, 56, 59
and 73, that documents he himself accepted into evidence and
recorded in his own handwriting do not exist. The Clerk’s
Record shows, in Ahler's handwriting, that not only do the
documents exist, but Ahler himself handled them.
2) Factual Finding 50 is contradicted by Exhibit 62, Pamela
Havird’s letter to Mr. Werlin dated September 10, 2001.
3) Factual Finding 53 is contradicted by Exhibit R 34.
4) FACTUAL FINDING 56:
The first part of the letter is a repeat of the information in the
September 17 letter, to which Pamela Havird had already
responded one day earlier, in her September 19, 2001 letter
(Exhibit R34); the second part of the letter was answered by
Mrs. Larkins on September 27, 2001 (Exhibit 33).
5) FACTUAL FINDING 59:
The COMMISSION outdid itself in making this finding. In this
finding the COMMISSION denies the existence of not just one
but six responses sent by MRS. LARKINS to the district. Five of
these responses are in evidence (Exhibits 33, sent to two
people, Exhibit 41, pages 4 and 5, and Exhibit 36.) Although
the sixth response was not taken into evidence, its existence is
proven by other evidence, specifically, the Superintendent’s
letter answering it (Exhibit 39, page 5).
6) FACTUAL FINDING 73:
Neither Mrs. Larkins nor Attorney Havird provided the
DISTRICT with any writing suggesting that Mrs. Larkins’
refusal to work was supported by or justified under the
DISTRICT/CVEA agreement.
This finding is contradicted by Exhibit 41, the November 13,
2001 Level I Grievance filed by Mrs. Larkins regarding
Safety. At this time, Mrs. Larkins was entitled to a full
evidentiary hearing regarding the September 26 change from
administrative leave to unpaid suspension. This pay stoppage
was a violation of the contract for several reasons, as Mrs.
Larkins points out in Exhibit 37.
| Illegal OAH Decision Page 17 |
| Maura Larkins was NEVER INSUBORDINATE She bent over backwards trying to help the district escape the consequences of criminal Labor Code violations and violations of contract. |
| "This work environment is too hostile for Mrs. Larkins to dare set foot in the district." |
| Judge Ahler used falsehood after falsehood to justify his LEGAL CONCLUSION 7: Mrs. Larkins Was Guilty of Insubordination (Persistent Violations of District Rules) |
| Judge Ahler wrote: “Mrs. Larkins Was Guilty of Insubordination.” This was clearly false. |
| "The COMMISSION outdid itself in making this finding...the COMMISSION denies the existence of not just one but SIX responses sent by MRS. LARKINS to the district." |
| Is Judge Ahler incompetent, or just dishonest? Or both? |
| Page 17 |
| Petition for Writ of Mandate |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |