Perjury Michael Carlson and atty Deborah K. Garvin
|
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, EAST COUNTY DIVISION
|
General Allegations
1. California Civil Code §47(b)(2), which allows civil prosecution of perjury when combined with spoliation of documents, was
written so that the instant case could be prosecuted.
However, it is deeply uncertain that the instant case will be allowed to go forward because CCC 47(b)(2) is a law whose
existence the courts have systematically ignored. Why? Because the courts do not want the judgments that resulted from
perjury and spoliation to be overturned.
This “public policy” preserves the pervasive presence of perjury in our judicial system. Half of all lawyers say that perjury is
a problem for them: the other half are apparently not bothered by it.
In the one case where this law was followed, Terry Rusheen v. Barry H. Cohen, et al, the California Court of Appeal made sure
to tag the case for non-publication.
And yet, California courts are unwilling to say that this law should not be followed, or that “public policy” trumps a legitimate
law, because the courts know that this legitimate law should trump public policy.
As long as perjury in furtherance of destruction of evidence is sanctions by our courts, we don’t have a true justice system.
We merely have a decision-making system.
2. It’s time for California Civil Code §47(b)(2), which became law in 1991, to be directly addressed by a California court.
Over the past fifteen years CCC §47 has been frequently cited in case law, and has been upheld without fail. The courts have
obviously read CCC §47(b)(2); they couldn’t have missed it. Still, these courts claim that the litigation privilege is absolute.
CCC §47(b)(2) says it is not absolute; there is an exception when evidence is destroyed or altered and unlawful statements
are made “in furtherance” of such an act. CCC §47(b)(2) states:
) Case No.
37-2007-00058893-CU-MC-EC
) Judge: Eddie Sturgeon
) Dept: 14
) Hearing date:
)
) COMPLAINT FOR
) NON-MONETARY RELIEF
)
) VIOLATION OF STATUTE:
) PERJURY AND SUBORNATION
) OF PERJURY WITHOUT IMMUNITY
) (CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
) §47 (b)(2) ; CONSPIRACY)
)
)
)
)
) COMPLAINT FILED:
) TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
MAURA LARKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LINDA WATSON
VIRGINIA BOYD
BEVERLY TUCKER
MICHAEL D. HERSH
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
a California labor organization,
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
a California labor organization,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
______________________________
3. Aside from one or two indirect mentions (Laborde v. Aronson (App. 4 Dist. 2001) 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 119,92 Cal.App.4th
459), and one unpublished decision, (Terry Rusheen v. Barry H. Cohen, et al.), California courts have behaved as if this
law did not exist.
4. In Terry Rusheen v. Barry H. Cohen, et al., the judgment was set aside and a trial granted because, due to falsification of
documents, the original case had been dismissed without trial (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC022640) SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR).
5. This is exactly what occurred in the instant case. In San Diego Superior Court case number GIC 781970 was dismissed
without trial, without any decision on the merits, due to spoliation and falsification of documents furthered by perjury.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
15. On May 14, 2004, defendants intentionally prepared
a false declaration (Exhibit 1) to be signed under penalty of
perjury by CVE President VIRGINIA BOYD.
16. Virginia Boyd knowingly signed the false document under penalty of perjury and
HERSH, TUCKER, WATSON, CVE AND CTA suborned the perjur. BOYD, HERSH,
TUCKER, WATSON,CVE AND CTA filed the document in San Diego Superior Court case
number GIC 781970.
17. Defendants’ conduct as alleged in this cause of action constitutes an unlawful act
in violation of Penal Code section 127, which states, “Every person who willfully
procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and is
punishable in the same manner as he would be if personally guilty of the perjury so
procured.”
18. The perjured declaration signed by BOYD on May 14, 2004 stated that BOYD’s
notes of a February 12, 2001 meeting CVESD meeting regarding plaintiff were
accidentally lost or destroyed (Exhibit 1).
In fact, the notes were intentionally destroyed by BOYD, TUCKER, WATSON, HERSH,
CTA AND CVE, either directly or by conspiracy to destroy the notes, on or about May
14, 2004. These notes constituted "physical evidence" as specified in Section 250 of
the Evidence Code or evidence that is property of any type specified in Section 2031
of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
19. In or about October of 2004, WATSON, BOYD, TUCKER, HERSH, CTA AND CVE,
through subornation or false testimony under oath, committed perjury again in
furtherance of this act of destruction of documents and in order to deprive plaintiff of
the use of this evidence.
20. The double felony of spoliation and perjury was committed by WATSON, BOYD,
HERSH, TUCKER, WATSON, CVE AND CTA to hide crimes by WATSON and Robin Colls
Donlan. In 2000, WATSON had received information from an arrest record illegally
obtained by Robin Donlan, and in 2001 WATSON took part in a conspiracy to violate
Labor Code 432.7 against plaintiff.
WATSON demanded that her illegal actions against a fellow member of CVE and CTA
be concealed by CVE and CTA. BOYD and CVE thereafter filed a grievance on
WATSON’s behalf to keep her actions secret, and to deprive plaintiff of the use of that
evidence.
21. Defendants BOYD, TUCKER, WATSON, CVE AND CTA conspired to file a grievance
on WATSON’s behalf, and the grievance was filed by CVE, in order to conceal WATSON’
s actions.
The grievance demanded that Assistant Superintendent Richard Werlin of Chula Vista
Elementary School District deny that he made a statement on February 12, 2001 to
the effect that two teachers called him at home on the previous Saturday night.
Werlin agreed to change his story and to say that only one teacher called him. Werlin
kept to the agreement, and committed perjury in 2002 and 2003 regarding this
matter.
BOYD, after destroying her notes, or giving them to HERSH to destroy, apparently
forgot about the agreement to conceal this detail, and three years after making the
agreement, BOYD stated under oath that Richard Werlin announced on Feb. 12, 2001
that two people had called him at home regarding plaintiff.
22. LINDA WATSON committed perjury when she denied under oath that she had
called Werlin, but changed her story when asked if she minded if her Saturday
February 10, 2001 phone records were checked to see if she called Richard Werlin at
his home around 8:30 in the evening.
23. Evidence of the truth about WATSON’s actions was contained in BOYD’s notes of
a meeting at Chula Vista Elementary School District on February 12, 2001. All
defendants conspired to destroy these notes.
24. At the root of all these misdemeanors and felonies were the original
misdemeanors of Robin Colls Donlan and her brother Michael Carlson in or about
September of 2000, in which they conspired to obtain and disseminate, in violation of
multiple California Codes, the record of an arrest that led to neither charges nor a
conviction. BOYD, then-president of Chula Vista Educators (CVE), was a long-time
friend of Robin Donlan, and for that reason decided to commit multiple felonies to
cover up Donlan’s and WATSON’s misdemeanors.
25. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct as described in this cause of action,
Plaintiff and students and teachers of California have suffered from a damaged
educational and legal system caused by the blatant violation of both civil and criminal
statutes by DEFENDANTS WATSON, TUCKER, HERSH, BOYD, CTA AND CVE.
6. Plaintiff MAURA LARKINS is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of San Diego County,
California. Plaintiff was employed as a teacher in Chula Vista Elementary School District from September 1974 until
February 2003, and is now retired.
7. LINDA WATSON, hereinafter referred to as WATSON, is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint has been,
a resident of San Diego County, California and an employee of CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
8. Defendant VIRGINIA BOYD, hereinafter referred to as BOYD, is now and at all times mentioned in this complaint was
a resident of San Diego County, California. At the time of the events referred to in this complaint, BOYD was employed
as President of CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. Prior to her employment by CTA, she was
employed as a teacher at Castle Park Elementary School.
9. Defendant Michael D. Hersh, hereinafter referred to as HERSH, is now and at all times mentioned in this complaint
was a resident of Los Angeles County, California, and was employed as an attorney for the California Teachers
Association, and represented Virginia Boyd, CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, and CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION in San Diego Superior Court case number GIC 781970.
10. Defendant Beverly Tucker, hereinafter referred to as TUCKER, is now and at all times mentioned in this complaint
was a resident of California, and was employed as Head Counsel for the California Teachers Association, and
represented Virginia Boyd, CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, and CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION in San Diego Superior Court case number GIC 781970.
11. Chula Vista Elementary Education Association, hereinafter referred to as “CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION” or “CVE,”
is a labor organization authorized and existing under the laws of the State of California in the county of San Diego. It is
a local chapter of CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.
12. California Teachers Association, hereinafter referred to as CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION or “CTA” is a
labor organization authorized and existing under the laws of the State of California.
13. The true names of defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff sues
those defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to section 474 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is informed
and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, that each of the defendants designated as a DOE is
legally responsible for the events and happenings referred to in this complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and
damages to plaintiff alleged in this complaint.
Link: Exhibit 1
Boyd's declaration regarding destroyed notes
from Feb. 12, 2001 meeting at CVESD
Lawsuit Against California Teachers Association
(CTA) and Beverly Tucker (CTA Head Counsel)
As long as perjury in furtherance of destruction of evidence is
tolerated by our courts, we don’t have a true justice system. We
merely have a decision-making system.
This case involves 3 separate acts of destruction of evidence by CTA Head
Counsel Beverly Tucker and her underlings. It also involves 2 separate acts of
creating hoax documents.
Link: Exhibit 1
Chula Vista Educator's President Gina Boyd's declaration regarding
destroyed notes from Feb. 12, 2001 meeting at CVESD
Maura Larkins
Plaintiff in pro per
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment from defendants in the above causes of
action as follows:
1. That the court order defendants to publicly apologize, both orally and in
writing, to plaintiff, the students and teachers of Chula Vista Elementary School
District, and Judge Nevitt and the San Diego Superior Court for perpetrating a
fraud on the court, and for violating civil and criminal statutes of California, and to
promise to discontinue such violations of statute.
2. Cost of suit;
3. Such further relief as the court deems proper.
May 14, 2007 _____________________________________
MAURA LARKINS
VERIFICATION
I, MAURA LARKINS, am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the
foregoing complaint for violations of California Statutes regarding perjury,
spoliation, and conspiracy, and know its contents. The same is true of my own
knowledge, except as to those matters which are alleged on information and
belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
May 14, 2007 _____________________________________
MAURA LARKINS
“This subdivision does not make privileged any communication made in furtherance of an act of intentional destruction or alteration of physical evidence undertaken for the purpose of depriving a party to litigation of the use of that evidence,
whether or not the content of the communication is the subject of a subsequent publication or broadcast which is privileged pursuant to this section. As used in this paragraph, "physical evidence" means evidence specified in Section 250 of the Evidence Code or evidence that is property of any type specified in Section 2031 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
|
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
35. BOYD, TUCKER, CVE AND CTA created a hoax grievance (Exhibit 3) in 2001 to
fool plaintiff into thinking they were representing her, when actually they were
representing WATSON, and doing everything they could to hide WATSON’s crimes.
This grievance constituted "physical evidence" as specified in Section 250 of the
Evidence Code or evidence that is property of any type specified in Section 2031 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.”
36. In or about October of 2004, this grievance was destroyed by BOYD, TUCKER,
CVE AND CTA in order to deprive plaintiff of the use of that evidence.
37. In or about October of 2004, HERSH, TUCKER, WATSON, CVE AND CTA
committed perjury during testimony under oath San Diego Superior Court case
number GIC 781970 in furtherance of this destruction of evidence and in order to
deprive plaintiff of the use of this evidence.
38. Defendants’ conduct as alleged in this cause of action constitutes an unlawful act
in violation of Penal Code section 127, which states, “Every person who
willfully procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of
subornation of perjury, and is punishable in the same manner as
he would be if personally guilty of the perjury so procured.”
39. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct as described in this cause of action,
Plaintiff and students and teachers of California have suffered from a damaged
educational and legal system caused by the blatant violation of both civil and criminal
statutes by DEFENDANTS WATSON, TUCKER, HERSH, BOYD, CTA AND CVE.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY EVIDENCE AS TO DEFENDANTS
WATSON, TUCKER, HERSH, BOYD, CTA AND CVE
41. On or about September 23, 2004, BEVERLY TUCKER, MICHAEL D. HERSH,
VIRGINIA BOYD, CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, CHULA VISTA
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION and each of them, knowingly and willfully
conspired and agreed among themselves that they would destroy the notes taken by
BOYD during a meeting at CVESD on February 12, 2001. These notes constituted
"physical evidence" as specified in Section 250 of the Evidence Code or evidence that
is property of any type specified in Section 2031 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
42. BEVERLY TUCKER, MICHAEL D. HERSH, VIRGINIA BOYD, CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION, CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, each acting
individually and giving encouragement, collaboration, and assistance to the other,
conspired to destroy the notes taken by BOYD during a meeting at CVESD on
February 12, 2001.
43. Defendants BEVERLY TUCKER, MICHAEL D. HERSH, VIRGINIA BOYD,
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, and each of them, did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to,
and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and above-alleged agreement.
44. The February 12, 2001 notes were destroyed by BOYD or HERSH on or about
May 14, 2004 in furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to deprive plaintiff of the
use of the evidence.
45. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct as described in this cause of action,
Plaintiff and students and teachers of California have suffered from a damaged
educational and legal system caused by the blatant violation of both civil and criminal
statutes by DEFENDANTS TUCKER, HERSH, BOYD, CTA AND CVE.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY EVIDENCE AS TO DEFENDANTS
TUCKER, HERSH, BOYD, CTA AND CVE
41. On or about September 23, 2004, BEVERLY TUCKER, MICHAEL D. HERSH,
VIRGINIA BOYD, CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, CHULA VISTA
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION and each of them, knowingly and willfully
conspired and agreed among themselves that they would destroy the tape recording
made by BOYD during a meeting at CVESD on August 13, 2001, and alter a document
to create fake “notes” of that meeting.
This tape recording and notes constituted "physical evidence" as specified in Section
250 of the Evidence Code or evidence that is property of any type specified in Section
2031 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
42. BEVERLY TUCKER, MICHAEL D. HERSH, VIRGINIA BOYD, CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION, CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, each acting
individually and giving encouragement, collaboration, and assistance to the other,
conspired to alter a document and to destroy the tape recording made by BOYD
during a meeting at CVESD on August, 2001.
43. Defendants BEVERLY TUCKER, MICHAEL D. HERSH, VIRGINIA BOYD,
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, and each of them, did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to,
and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and above-alleged agreement.
44. The August 13, 2001 tape recording was destroyed by BOYD or HERSH on or
about June 28, 2004 in furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to deprive plaintiff
of the use of the evidence.
45. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct as described in this cause of action,
Plaintiff and students and teachers of California have suffered from a damaged
educational and legal system caused by the blatant violation of both civil and criminal
statutes by DEFENDANTS TUCKER, HERSH, BOYD, CTA AND CVE.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY EVIDENCE AS TO DEFENDANTS
TUCKER, HERSH, BOYD, CTA AND CVE
40. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, of the
General Allegations, as though fully set forth herein.
41. On or about October of 2004, BEVERLY TUCKER, MICHAEL D. HERSH, VIRGINIA
BOYD, CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired and
agreed among themselves that they would destroy the 2001 hoax grievance (Exhibit
3) to fool plaintiff into thinking they were representing her, when actually they were
representing WATSON, and doing everything they could to hide WATSON’s crimes.
This grievance constituted "physical evidence" as specified in Section 250 of the
Evidence Code or evidence that is property of any type specified in Section 2031 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.”
42. BEVERLY TUCKER, MICHAEL D. HERSH, VIRGINIA BOYD, CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION, CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, each acting
individually and giving encouragement, collaboration, and assistance to the other,
conspired to destroy the 2001 hoax grievance (Exhibit 3) to fool plaintiff into thinking
they were representing her, when actually they were representing WATSON, and
doing everything they could to hide WATSON’s crimes.
43. Defendants BEVERLY TUCKER, MICHAEL D. HERSH, VIRGINIA BOYD,
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, and each of them, did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to,
and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and above-alleged agreement.
44. The 2001 hoax grievance was destroyed by BOYD or HERSH on or about October
of 2004 in furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to deprive plaintiff of the use of
the evidence.
45. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct as described in this cause of action,
Plaintiff and students and teachers of California have suffered from a damaged
educational and legal system caused by the blatant violation of both civil and criminal
statutes by DEFENDANTS TUCKER, HERSH, BOYD, CTA AND CVE.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION § 127
27. BOYD did not write a single word during an August 13, 2001 meeting at CVESD
regarding plaintiff, but sat silent and unmoving during the entire meeting.
Instead of taking notes, BOYD made a tape recording of the August 13, 2001 meeting.
28. After the meeting, BOYD prepared notes of the meeting, cherry-picking items she
wanted to include and items she wanted to leave out, thus altering a document that
was blank, and creating a bogus document.
29. BOYD, TUCKER, HERSH, CVE AND CTA destroyed the tape recording made by
BOYD at that meeting in order to deprive plaintiff of the use of that evidence.
30. TUCKER, HERSH, CVE AND CTA prepared a false declaration for BOYD to sign
(Exhibit 2) regarding the “notes” and the tape recording made at the August 13, 2001
meeting.
31. BOYD signed the false declaration in furtherance of the act of destruction of
evidence and the alteration of evidence, thus committing perjury on June 28, 2004.
This perjury was suborned by TUCKER, HERSH, CVE AND CTA.
32. Defendants’ conduct as alleged in this cause of action constitutes an unlawful act
in violation of Penal Code section 127, which states, “Every person who willfully
procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and is
punishable in the same manner as he would be if personally guilty of the perjury so
procured.”
33. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct as described in this cause of action,
Plaintiff and students and teachers of California have suffered from a damaged
educational and legal system caused by the blatant violation of both civil and criminal
statutes by DEFENDANTS WATSON, TUCKER, HERSH, BOYD, CTA AND CVE.
Exhibit 2 Boyd's declaration regarding her tape recording on August 13, 2001 (which vanished) and the notes she later created (which were phony).
|
Link: Exhibit 2
Gina Boyd's declaration regarding her tape recording on August 13, 2001
(which vanished) and the notes she later created (which were phony).
(I'll scan this document and link to it as soon as I can!)
Link: Exhibit 3:
Jim Groth's Hoax Grievance
(Groth was grievance chair, then president of Chula Vista Educators)
San Diego
Education Report