| . |
| . |
| . |
| . |
| Email: sandiegoedreport@gmail.com |
22. On or about September 23, 2004, CARLSON and GARVIN,
and each of them,
knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves
that they would
suborn the perjury of Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department
Commander Sam Gross by
preparing a false declaration for San Diego Superior Court case
number GIC
781970, sending it to Mr. Gross, and asking Mr. Gross to sign it
under penalty
of perjury.
23. CARLSON and GARVIN, each acting individually and giving
encouragement,
collaboration, and assistance to the other, conspired to suborn
perjury against
plaintiff by causing witness Sam Gross to commit perjury in San
Diego Superior
Court case number GIC 781970 by signing a false declaration
(Exhibit 1).
24. The conspiracy was committed with malice in that it was
committed with
hatred and ill will toward the plaintiff, and with the desire to
harm, vex,
harass and annoy her, and with the desire to injure her in her
financial
condition, and in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights, in the
knowledge
that the publication was false or with reckless disregard for its
falsity. Due
to defendant’s malice in publishing, plaintiff seeks punitive
damages in a total
amount to be established by proof at trial.
25. Defendants CARLSON and GARVIN, and each of them, did the
acts and things
herein alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy
and
above-alleged agreement.
26. Defendants CARLSON and GARVIN, and each of them,
furthered the conspiracy
by cooperation with and lending aid and encouragement to each
other, in that
they agreed that CARLSON and/or GARVIN would ask Sam Gross
to have an audit
conducted for searches for “Maura and Larkins,” and then
GARVIN would prepare a
false declaration for Sam Gross to sign under penalty of perjury,
which
declaration would say that the audit had looked for searches of
“Maura” or
“Larkins.” CARLSON agreed to pay Garvin for suborning Sam
Gross’s perjury.
27. GARVIN faxed and/or mailed the false declaration to Sam
Gross on or about
September 23, 2004. Sam Gross faxed the two records of
CLETS audits which
GARVIN and/or CARLSON had requested on or about September
23, 2004. Sam Gross
faxed the signed declaration to GARVIN on or about September
27, 2004. GARVIN,
on behalf of CARLSON, caused the perjured declaration to be
filed in San Diego
Superior Court, and served on parties, on or about September
28, 2004, and again
on or about September 29, 2004.
VERIFICATION
I, MAURA LARKINS, am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action.
I have read
the foregoing complaint for violations of California Penal Code
Section 127, 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.
September 22, 2006
_____________________________________
MAURA LARKINS
and each of them,
knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves
that they would
suborn the perjury of Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department
Commander Sam Gross by
preparing a false declaration for San Diego Superior Court case
number GIC
781970, sending it to Mr. Gross, and asking Mr. Gross to sign it
under penalty
of perjury.
23. CARLSON and GARVIN, each acting individually and giving
encouragement,
collaboration, and assistance to the other, conspired to suborn
perjury against
plaintiff by causing witness Sam Gross to commit perjury in San
Diego Superior
Court case number GIC 781970 by signing a false declaration
(Exhibit 1).
24. The conspiracy was committed with malice in that it was
committed with
hatred and ill will toward the plaintiff, and with the desire to
harm, vex,
harass and annoy her, and with the desire to injure her in her
financial
condition, and in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights, in the
knowledge
that the publication was false or with reckless disregard for its
falsity. Due
to defendant’s malice in publishing, plaintiff seeks punitive
damages in a total
amount to be established by proof at trial.
25. Defendants CARLSON and GARVIN, and each of them, did the
acts and things
herein alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy
and
above-alleged agreement.
26. Defendants CARLSON and GARVIN, and each of them,
furthered the conspiracy
by cooperation with and lending aid and encouragement to each
other, in that
they agreed that CARLSON and/or GARVIN would ask Sam Gross
to have an audit
conducted for searches for “Maura and Larkins,” and then
GARVIN would prepare a
false declaration for Sam Gross to sign under penalty of perjury,
which
declaration would say that the audit had looked for searches of
“Maura” or
“Larkins.” CARLSON agreed to pay Garvin for suborning Sam
Gross’s perjury.
27. GARVIN faxed and/or mailed the false declaration to Sam
Gross on or about
September 23, 2004. Sam Gross faxed the two records of
CLETS audits which
GARVIN and/or CARLSON had requested on or about September
23, 2004. Sam Gross
faxed the signed declaration to GARVIN on or about September
27, 2004. GARVIN,
on behalf of CARLSON, caused the perjured declaration to be
filed in San Diego
Superior Court, and served on parties, on or about September
28, 2004, and again
on or about September 29, 2004.
VERIFICATION
I, MAURA LARKINS, am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action.
I have read
the foregoing complaint for violations of California Penal Code
Section 127, 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.
September 22, 2006
_____________________________________
MAURA LARKINS
MAURA LARKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL CARLSON,
DEBORAH K. GARVIN
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
__________________
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL CARLSON,
DEBORAH K. GARVIN
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
__________________
| VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 127 AS TO DEFENDANTS CARLSON AND GARVIN |
(See the first five paragraphs below)
...6. On or about September 23, 2004, CARLSON and GARVIN,
knowing that they were suborning perjury, did intentionally
prepare a false declaration (Exhibit 1) to be signed under
penalty of perjury by Sam Gross and be filed in San Diego
Superior Court case number GIC781970.
7. On or about September 23, 2004, CARLSON and GARVIN
asked Sam Gross to fax to GARVIN’s office two audits which Mr.
Gross had conducted at their request. Mr. Gross faxed the
requested documents on or about September 23, 2003.
8. CARLSON and GARVIN asked Mr. Sam Gross of Kern County,
California, to perform and print out audits of all CLETS
(California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System)
searches for “Maura” and “Larkins” in 2000 and 2001.
(Bolding and underlining added.) CARLSON and GARVIN knew
that CARLSON had searched CLETS in 2000/2001 separately
for each of the terms “Maura,” “Larkins,” and that CARLSON’s
searches would not show up in the audit if the audit were
conducted as they requested.
9. Knowing that they were designing a false document with a
hoax exhibit, CARLSON and GARVIN prepared a declaration that
stated that no one had searched for “Maura” or ‘Larkins” in
2000 or 2001. A later audit by Mr. Gross revealed
that there were eight searches for “Maura” or “Larkins” in 2000
and 2001, but the identity of the person(s) who conducted
those eight searches have not yet
been revealed to Plaintiff. Since GARVIN and CARLSON asked
Mr. Gross to create a document showing that there were no
searches, when there were actually eight
such searches, it appears extremely likely that the legitimate
audit results show CARLSON as conducting some or all of the
eight searches.
10. The false declaration prepared by CARLSON and GARVIN
was signed by Sam Gross on September 27, 2004. The act of
perjury suborned by GARVIN and CARLSON was committed on
or about September 27, 2006, when Sam Gross signed the
declaration.
11. The declaration was filed in San Diego Superior Court and
served by Andrew Chivinski on or about September 28, 2004
(Exhibit 1).
12. GARVIN prepared a declaration identical to the first one, but
she attached the words “AMENDED TO ATTACH EXHIBITS,” and
attached the audits, which she had forgotten to attach to the
original declaration (Exhibit 2).
13. This amended declaration (Exhibit 2) was filed in San Diego
Superior Court and served on or about September 29, 2004
(Exhibit 2).
14. Commander Sam Gross of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s
Department has stated, both in a letter (Exhibit 3) and in his
November 17, 2004 deposition, that the declaration prepared
by GARVIN on behalf of CARLSON is false.
15. The fact that CARLSON did not find a CLETS record for
Plaintiff was not for lack of trying. There is no record of
Plaintiff on CLETS, according to Mr. Gross. However, CARLSON
continued to make illegal searches of law enforcement
records until he found a false accusation by Kathleen Elton to
San Diego police, which accusation was made in an effort to
help Elton’s ex-husband gain control of Maura Larkins’
inheritance. Plaintiff’s suit against Kathleen Elton for filing a
false police report was settled in Plaintiff’s favor for
approximately $75,000.
16. CARLSON illegally provided the police record of Kathleen
Elton’s false allegations to his sister, Robin Donlan, who used it
to get Plaintiff fired.
This was the reason for 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. CARLSON AND/OR GARVIN committed the above-described
violation of Penal Code Section 127 in order to harm Plaintiff in
her lawsuit, in her financial
condition, and in her reputation.
19. The above-described violation of Penal Code section 127
was committed with malice in that it was committed with hatred
and ill will toward the plaintiff, and with the desire to harm, vex,
harass and annoy her, and with the desire to injure her in her
financial condition and employment, and in conscious disregard
of plaintiff’s rights, and in the knowledge that the action was
illegal. Due to defendant’s malice in publishing, plaintiff seeks
punitive damages in a total amount to be established by proof at
trial.
20. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct as described
in this cause of action, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to
suffer humiliation, embarrassment, and discomfort, and
substantial financial losses, in an amount to be proven at trial.
...6. On or about September 23, 2004, CARLSON and GARVIN,
knowing that they were suborning perjury, did intentionally
prepare a false declaration (Exhibit 1) to be signed under
penalty of perjury by Sam Gross and be filed in San Diego
Superior Court case number GIC781970.
7. On or about September 23, 2004, CARLSON and GARVIN
asked Sam Gross to fax to GARVIN’s office two audits which Mr.
Gross had conducted at their request. Mr. Gross faxed the
requested documents on or about September 23, 2003.
8. CARLSON and GARVIN asked Mr. Sam Gross of Kern County,
California, to perform and print out audits of all CLETS
(California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System)
searches for “Maura” and “Larkins” in 2000 and 2001.
(Bolding and underlining added.) CARLSON and GARVIN knew
that CARLSON had searched CLETS in 2000/2001 separately
for each of the terms “Maura,” “Larkins,” and that CARLSON’s
searches would not show up in the audit if the audit were
conducted as they requested.
9. Knowing that they were designing a false document with a
hoax exhibit, CARLSON and GARVIN prepared a declaration that
stated that no one had searched for “Maura” or ‘Larkins” in
2000 or 2001. A later audit by Mr. Gross revealed
that there were eight searches for “Maura” or “Larkins” in 2000
and 2001, but the identity of the person(s) who conducted
those eight searches have not yet
been revealed to Plaintiff. Since GARVIN and CARLSON asked
Mr. Gross to create a document showing that there were no
searches, when there were actually eight
such searches, it appears extremely likely that the legitimate
audit results show CARLSON as conducting some or all of the
eight searches.
10. The false declaration prepared by CARLSON and GARVIN
was signed by Sam Gross on September 27, 2004. The act of
perjury suborned by GARVIN and CARLSON was committed on
or about September 27, 2006, when Sam Gross signed the
declaration.
11. The declaration was filed in San Diego Superior Court and
served by Andrew Chivinski on or about September 28, 2004
(Exhibit 1).
12. GARVIN prepared a declaration identical to the first one, but
she attached the words “AMENDED TO ATTACH EXHIBITS,” and
attached the audits, which she had forgotten to attach to the
original declaration (Exhibit 2).
13. This amended declaration (Exhibit 2) was filed in San Diego
Superior Court and served on or about September 29, 2004
(Exhibit 2).
14. Commander Sam Gross of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s
Department has stated, both in a letter (Exhibit 3) and in his
November 17, 2004 deposition, that the declaration prepared
by GARVIN on behalf of CARLSON is false.
15. The fact that CARLSON did not find a CLETS record for
Plaintiff was not for lack of trying. There is no record of
Plaintiff on CLETS, according to Mr. Gross. However, CARLSON
continued to make illegal searches of law enforcement
records until he found a false accusation by Kathleen Elton to
San Diego police, which accusation was made in an effort to
help Elton’s ex-husband gain control of Maura Larkins’
inheritance. Plaintiff’s suit against Kathleen Elton for filing a
false police report was settled in Plaintiff’s favor for
approximately $75,000.
16. CARLSON illegally provided the police record of Kathleen
Elton’s false allegations to his sister, Robin Donlan, who used it
to get Plaintiff fired.
This was the reason for 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. CARLSON AND/OR GARVIN committed the above-described
violation of Penal Code Section 127 in order to harm Plaintiff in
her lawsuit, in her financial
condition, and in her reputation.
19. The above-described violation of Penal Code section 127
was committed with malice in that it was committed with hatred
and ill will toward the plaintiff, and with the desire to harm, vex,
harass and annoy her, and with the desire to injure her in her
financial condition and employment, and in conscious disregard
of plaintiff’s rights, and in the knowledge that the action was
illegal. Due to defendant’s malice in publishing, plaintiff seeks
punitive damages in a total amount to be established by proof at
trial.
20. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct as described
in this cause of action, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to
suffer humiliation, embarrassment, and discomfort, and
substantial financial losses, in an amount to be proven at trial.
| CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE PENAL CODE SECTION 127 AS TO DEFENDANTS CARLSON AND GARVIN |
| EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 2 |
| EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 3 |
| EXHIBIT 2 (TWO ADDED PAGES) |
| Plaintiff alleges: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. 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. 2. MICHAEL CARLSON is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, resident of Kern County, California. 3. DEBORAH K. GARVIN is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, an attorney practicing in San Diego County, California and a resident of SanDiego County, California. 4. 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. 5. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the General Allegations as though fully set forth herein. 21. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the General Allegations as though fully set forth herein. |
| Second additional page |
2007 Perjury Lawsuit against Attorney Deborah K. Garvin and
Michael Carlson in San Diego Superior Court
Michael Carlson in San Diego Superior Court
) Case No. GIE 034328
) Judge: Eddie Sturgeon
) Dept: 14
) Date:
)
) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
) AND OTHER RELIEF:
) VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE
) SECTION 127 (SUBORNATION
) OF PERJURY); CONSPIRACY
)
) Judge: Eddie Sturgeon
) Dept: 14
) Date:
)
) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
) AND OTHER RELIEF:
) VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE
) SECTION 127 (SUBORNATION
) OF PERJURY); CONSPIRACY
)
Santa Barbara Sheriff's Commander SAM GROSS Declaration
| Perjury Lawsuit EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 1 |
Does the law allow law
enforcement officers to
commit perjury?
enforcement officers to
commit perjury?
| EXHIBIT 3 Letter to Maura Larkins from Commander Sam Gross |
In his Nov. 4, 2004 deposition, Santa Barbara Sheriff's Commander Sam Gross admitted
that this declaration was false. Paragraph 10 contains the false statement.
that this declaration was false. Paragraph 10 contains the false statement.
School Attorneys
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
More about this case:
Blog posts re Michael Carlson
Law Enforcement
Robin Donlan
Sheriff's Subpoena--audits given
to attorney Deborah Garvin by Santa
Barbara Sheriff without a subpoena,
but denied to Maura Larkins in
violation of subpoena
Blog posts re Michael Carlson
Law Enforcement
Robin Donlan
Sheriff's Subpoena--audits given
to attorney Deborah Garvin by Santa
Barbara Sheriff without a subpoena,
but denied to Maura Larkins in
violation of subpoena
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, EAST COUNTY DIVISION
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, EAST COUNTY DIVISION
Commander Gross' letter
(below) claiming that the
requested information can not
be provided is disingenuous.
Similar audits were provided to
Deborah Garvin (see below);
they are apparently public
records. It would appear that
the Sheriff is trying to hide
something; apparently he is
hiding the proof of Deputy
Michael Carlson's criminal
actions.
1) The nine searches done for
Maura or Larkins were done
separately, for Maura, and for
Larkins, never for Maura
Larkins.
2. The record referred to, "the
record for Maura Larkins via
CLETS" is non-existent. The
nine searches, however, were
very real.
This letter admits the truth, then
tries to confuse the meaning of
the truth. It should perhaps be
noted that Jim Anderson, the
Sheriff-Coroner of Santa
Barbara County, whose name
appears just above the name of
Sam Gross in the letter at right,
was thrown out of office in
November 2006 amid
allegations of abuse of his
office.
(below) claiming that the
requested information can not
be provided is disingenuous.
Similar audits were provided to
Deborah Garvin (see below);
they are apparently public
records. It would appear that
the Sheriff is trying to hide
something; apparently he is
hiding the proof of Deputy
Michael Carlson's criminal
actions.
1) The nine searches done for
Maura or Larkins were done
separately, for Maura, and for
Larkins, never for Maura
Larkins.
2. The record referred to, "the
record for Maura Larkins via
CLETS" is non-existent. The
nine searches, however, were
very real.
This letter admits the truth, then
tries to confuse the meaning of
the truth. It should perhaps be
noted that Jim Anderson, the
Sheriff-Coroner of Santa
Barbara County, whose name
appears just above the name of
Sam Gross in the letter at right,
was thrown out of office in
November 2006 amid
allegations of abuse of his
office.
Complaint
| . |
Paragraph 10 contains the false statement.
Commander Sam Gross admitted in his deposition--
and in the following letter--that someone,
presumably Deputy Michael Carlson, did indeed try
to find information about "maura" and about
"larkins", but he searched for one name at a time.
Commander Sam Gross admitted in his deposition--
and in the following letter--that someone,
presumably Deputy Michael Carlson, did indeed try
to find information about "maura" and about
"larkins", but he searched for one name at a time.
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
| Warning: Why you shouldn't file a lawsuit like this one regarding perjury. LITIGATION PRIVILEGE GOVERNED BY CIVIL CODE SECTION 47 This information is provided to inform the public about perjury committed to hide wrongdoing by public entities. Perjury must be challenged during the case in which it occurs, not in a separate lawsuit. |