| SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, EAST COUNTY DIVISION |
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
) 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.
______________________________
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.
| “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.” (Italics added.) |
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.
| 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. 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. 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 |
| Link: Exhibit 1 Boyd's declaration regarding destroyed notes from Feb. 12, 2001 meeting at CVESD |
| Link: Exhibit 3: Jim Groth's Hoax Grievance |
| What should Linda Watson have done to repair the harm done by her crimes? She had two choices: either retract the allegations she made (on February 10, 2001) when she called Richard Werlin at his home, or come forward and make the allegations openly, so that Maura Larkins could respond to them. |
| Link: Exhibit 2 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!) |
General Allegations
| 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. |
| This case involves 2 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. |
| Lawsuit Maura Larkins v. California Teachers Association (CTA) and Beverly Tucker (CTA Head Counsel) |
| Is this case a tempest in a teapot? Not according to the California Teachers Association. CTA's lawyers admit that these charges are very serious. Beverly Tucker and Michael Hersh deny that these charges are true, of course, but they note that if these charges were FALSE, they would be "defamatory" and "outrageous." So why doesn't CTA sue Maura Larkins for defamation? CTA is tacitly admitting that the charges are true. No one has the right to libel or slander anyone by disseminating false allegations. |
| Exhibit 2 Gina Boyd's declaration regarding her tape recording on August 13, 2001 (which vanished). Also, the phony notes she later created. |
| Exhibit 3: Jim Groth's Hoax Grievance (Groth was grievance chair, then president of Chula Vista Educators) |
Fraud #1
Fraud #3
Fraud #2
| 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. |
| Exhibit 1 Gina Boyd's declaration regarding destroyed notes from Feb. 12, 2001 meeting at CVESD (Boyd was president of Chula Vista Educators) |
| School Stories |
| Defamation Suit |
| School Districts |
| Vista Unified School District |
| Covering Up |
| Lawyers |
| Special Education |
| Community Colleges |
| Elem/High Schools |
| BLOGS |
| Talking to Kids Homework Book Boondoggle? Phonics Spanking Nat'l Board Certif Ordinary People Writing Sample |
| Maura Larkins v. CVESD |
| 2004 Stutz invoices |
| 2005 Stutz invoices |
| Public Records Requests |
| Payments to Shinoff |
| CTA MAILS ITS RESPONSE |
| I filed this complaint on May 14, 2007, and worked hard to get an amendment finished in order to add defendants such as Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz. |
| I failed to get my amended complaint ready by July 13, 2007, so I'll need to file a whole new complaint. I'll refile these causes of action in the new case. The bizarre behavior of CTA continues. I never served this complaint on CTA because I wanted to wait and serve the amended complaint. Nevertheless, without having been served, CTA called up the court and got a September 28, 2007 hearing date for its motion to strike the complaint, and mailed a bunch of pleadings to me. The funny thing is that in the past, one of CTA's favorite excuses for not responding to a lawsuit was to claim that it hadn't been properly served. Now it responds to lawsuits that it wasn't even served with! |