Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Do not submit to statists and their 'carrots' because they wield the left's whip arrantly.
http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinions/99/pdf/99-1338.pdf
[Excerpt]
Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Schudson, JJ.
¶1 SCHUDSON, J. Jerry Lu Epstein appeals from the circuit court
order affirming the 1998 administrative decision of the Department of Public
Instruction (DPI) revoking all of her DPI-issued licenses.1 Challenging DPI’s
decision, Epstein presents numerous arguments, several of which overlap. We
focus on three of her theories: (1) that DPI’s decision “was an abuse of
departmental discretion in light of the record as a whole”; (2) that Superintendent
John T. Benson’s executive assistant “subtly changed several factual findings
without consulting the examiner,” thus rendering the decision “procedurally
flawed”; and (3) that DPI erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that her actions
were immoral.
¶2 We conclude that DPI’s conduct following this court’s remand of
Epstein’s previous appeal was unconscionable; its delays and evasions fully
support Epstein’s request for reversal “in light of the record as a whole.” We also
conclude that DPI’s decision was procedurally flawed; Superintendent Benson’s
executive assistant, to whom he delegated the decision-making authority in this
case, did not confer with the hearing examiner before rendering her decision and,
therefore, improperly altered at least one of the hearing examiner’s most
1 Epstein held three licenses issued by DPI: a five-year license as a teacher for hearingimpaired
(grades K-12); a five-year license as a teacher for elementary education (grades 1-6);
and a lifetime license as a school social worker. In 1994, DPI revoked her two teaching licenses,
but not her school social worker license; in 1998, however, DPI revoked all three.
References to
“license” and “licenses” appear throughout the record and the parties’ briefs, without any
apparent significance being attached to this distinction, or to the difference between Epstein’s
licenses for teaching and social work, or to the difference between the revocation of two licenses
in 1994 and three in 1998. Therefore, for convenience in this opinion, we will simply refer to
Epstein’s “license.”
Do not submit to statists and their 'carrots' because they wield the left's whip arrantly.
http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinions/99/pdf/99-1338.pdf
[Excerpt]
Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Schudson, JJ.
¶1 SCHUDSON, J. Jerry Lu Epstein appeals from the circuit court
order affirming the 1998 administrative decision of the Department of Public
Instruction (DPI) revoking all of her DPI-issued licenses.1 Challenging DPI’s
decision, Epstein presents numerous arguments, several of which overlap. We
focus on three of her theories: (1) that DPI’s decision “was an abuse of
departmental discretion in light of the record as a whole”; (2) that Superintendent
John T. Benson’s executive assistant “subtly changed several factual findings
without consulting the examiner,” thus rendering the decision “procedurally
flawed”; and (3) that DPI erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that her actions
were immoral.
¶2 We conclude that DPI’s conduct following this court’s remand of
Epstein’s previous appeal was unconscionable; its delays and evasions fully
support Epstein’s request for reversal “in light of the record as a whole.” We also
conclude that DPI’s decision was procedurally flawed; Superintendent Benson’s
executive assistant, to whom he delegated the decision-making authority in this
case, did not confer with the hearing examiner before rendering her decision and,
therefore, improperly altered at least one of the hearing examiner’s most
1 Epstein held three licenses issued by DPI: a five-year license as a teacher for hearingimpaired
(grades K-12); a five-year license as a teacher for elementary education (grades 1-6);
and a lifetime license as a school social worker. In 1994, DPI revoked her two teaching licenses,
but not her school social worker license; in 1998, however, DPI revoked all three.
References to
“license” and “licenses” appear throughout the record and the parties’ briefs, without any
apparent significance being attached to this distinction, or to the difference between Epstein’s
licenses for teaching and social work, or to the difference between the revocation of two licenses
in 1994 and three in 1998. Therefore, for convenience in this opinion, we will simply refer to
Epstein’s “license.”
