| mauralarkins.com |
SAN DIEGO EDUCATION REPORT
| The San Diego Education Report reports on Education, Politics and the Connection between them in San Diego and California |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Other blogs: CVESD Report CVESD Reporter Learning Boosters |
| Make a comment ! Maura Larkins' blog: San Diego Education Report Blog |
| Email: sandiegoedreport@cox.ne t |
Published by Maura Larkins
| Now reporting in detail on Grossmont Union High School District. |
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
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
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, EAST COUNTY DIVISION
MAURA LARKINS,
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 |
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.
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 |
are disingenuous for two
reasons.
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.
reasons.
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.
| 2007 Perjury Lawsuit against Attorney Deborah K. Garvin and Michael Carlson filed 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
)
| SEE SAM GROSS LETTER AT BOTTOM OF PAGE |
| EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 1 |
| See bottom of page for actual documents proving perjury |
| See also: Does the law allow law enforcement officers to commit perjury? |
| EXHIBIT 3 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
In his
deposition,
Commander
Sam Gross
admitted that
this declaration
was false.
deposition,
Commander
Sam Gross
admitted that
this declaration
was false.