Bill Brown, Sheriff of Santa Barbara
Commander Sam Gross
Kelly Duncan Scott, Esquire
I no longer need the two audits that the three of you are hiding. (Or perhaps you are not hiding them. Perhaps they have been destroyed!?)
I know what those audits contain (or contained). If the audits had not contained evidence of Michael Carlson’s guilt, Michael Carlson would not have been transferred from Information Services to patrol duty, and the audits would have been included in Sam Gross’s declaration.
I urge each of you to make this right.
Michael Carlson got away with the misdemeanors and felonies he committed—as far the courts are concerned. There’s not a chance in the world that Tom Sneddon or Bonnie Dumanis will prosecute him for his crimes, or that I will win my appeal.
But the three of you and Carlson are incorrect that this matter will be permanently concealed. The damage that Michael Carlson and Sam Gross and Deborah Garvin did to children, adults and taxpayers is too great to ignore. The fact that felonies are being committed by people in a position to put others in jail and prison for the exact same crimes is ridiculous. People who lie out of sheer arrogance don’t just do it one time. I’ll bet the Sheriff of Santa Barbara has covered up this type of wrongdoing more than once. Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying the sheriff’s department to cover up crimes.
It’s time to rehabilitate the reputations of the innocent—and the behavior of the guilty.
Yours truly,
Maura Larkins
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
These people can't tell the innocent from the guilty
From the Seattle Times, February 12, 2007:
"Every day for more than five months, Jeff Schmieder walked hundreds of laps around the courtyard at the Regional Justice Center in Kent, where he was serving time for a first-degree rape he did not commit. "Walking was the only thing I had left. It just gave me a lot of time to think to myself and get my head straight," said Schmieder, who was convicted in 1998 and faced more than 11 years in prison. "Everyone in there says they're not guilty, of course. But when you're really not, it does things to your mind that you can't even imagine." Schmieder, 49, and another man, Mark Clark, were freed in 1999 after NEW EVIDENCE SHOWED THE ALLEGED VICTIM WAS IN JAIL HERSELF AT THE TIME SHE SAID SHE WAS ATTACKED."
It amazes me that intelligent people are so willing to believe an accusation.
In my case, a homeless person to whom I had given shelter was believed by police when she told them I was mentally ill, violent, and had a hand gun. They gave her MY KEYS and took me to jail FOR TRESPASSING!!!
But for some reason, no one wants to believe an employee's accusations against an employer.
People assume, for example, that an Assistant Superintendent of a school district is not emotionally troubled, dishonest and hostile. Someone in such a position can say ANYTHING about an employee, no matter how preposterous and false, and it will be believed.
Recently a teacher in Richmond was put on leave for "erratic" behavior. I happen to know the district administrator who put her on leave, and I know that he has a serious problem with dishonesty and false accusations. His behavior perfectly fits the description "erratic." When this man loses his temper, it's not a pretty sight. He goes off like a loose canon. Werlin caused the "erratic" teacher in Richmond to be handcuffed in front of her second-grade students and jailed for two days on suspicion of holding her students hostage--because she didn't leave the school in the middle of the day when she was placed on administrative leave for reporting school bullying to the media.
About two years ago I put the facts about this individual, Richard Werlin, former Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources at Chula Vista Elementary School District, on my website.
So why did West Contra Costa County Union School District hire him as their Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources in 2006? Did they flunk Google? No, they just doubted that what I was saying was the truth. After all, he was the district administrator, and I was just a teacher.
I wonder what Werlin told the folks at WCCCUSD was his reason for leaving Chula Vista Elementary School District? They must have wondered why he hadn't worked in so long. Apparently they didn't consider the possibility that he might have left CVESD because the district was unhappy about paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. (CVESD clearly didn't think that Werlin's crimes and other violations of law were reason to fire him.)
Or maybe their motives weren't so innocent. Be honest, folks in Richmond. Your district has done the same things that Werlin did, hasn't it? Didn't you back up administrators even though you knew they had done wrong? You need to keep teachers in line, right? The facts of any individual case don't matter to you. What matters is to keep everything under control, and present an appearance of having no problems, so those in power can stay in power, right? You'd rather protect the guilty than actually solve problems, wouldn't you? Or perhaps you just do what your lawyers tell you to do, committing perjury when they tell you to, fighting lawsuits you ought to settle. You don't stop to think that IT'S NOT IN THE LAWYERS' BEST INTEREST FOR PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED. THE MORE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE, THE MORE MONEY THEY GET.
I recommend that the entire staff of Sheldon Elementary School (that would include teacher Jenny Mo), participate in a class by Patrick Lencioni on the Five Dysfunctions of a Team. You've got serious problems at Sheldon Elementary. I somewhat regret that I left so quietly when Werlin put me on administrative leave in 2001. But I'm afraid that our newspapers are so protective of the corrupt school districts and teacher unions in San Diego that the exact same scenario could have happened at Castle Park Elementary, and it wouldn't have made it into the newspaper. The public in Chula Vista still isn't aware of how serious the problems are at my old school, Castle Park Elementary. Even when then three teachers who made false accusations against me were transferred out of Castle Park Elementary in 2004, the papers never mentioned my case, even though I had fully informed them.
I am afraid that Jenny Mo will never return to Sheldon Elementary. That's how the system works. But something should be done about the out-of-control principal and staff at Sheldon. This situation sounds eerily similar to what happened at Castle Park Elementary in Chula Vista.
In addition to getting the staff of Sheldon Elementary functioning in a positive manner, Superintendent Bruce Harter should fire Assistant Superintendent Richard Werlin. Werlin triggered the fiasco at Sheldon Elementary, a scenario so bizarre that only Richard Werlin's involvement can explain it.
"Every day for more than five months, Jeff Schmieder walked hundreds of laps around the courtyard at the Regional Justice Center in Kent, where he was serving time for a first-degree rape he did not commit. "Walking was the only thing I had left. It just gave me a lot of time to think to myself and get my head straight," said Schmieder, who was convicted in 1998 and faced more than 11 years in prison. "Everyone in there says they're not guilty, of course. But when you're really not, it does things to your mind that you can't even imagine." Schmieder, 49, and another man, Mark Clark, were freed in 1999 after NEW EVIDENCE SHOWED THE ALLEGED VICTIM WAS IN JAIL HERSELF AT THE TIME SHE SAID SHE WAS ATTACKED."
It amazes me that intelligent people are so willing to believe an accusation.
In my case, a homeless person to whom I had given shelter was believed by police when she told them I was mentally ill, violent, and had a hand gun. They gave her MY KEYS and took me to jail FOR TRESPASSING!!!
But for some reason, no one wants to believe an employee's accusations against an employer.
People assume, for example, that an Assistant Superintendent of a school district is not emotionally troubled, dishonest and hostile. Someone in such a position can say ANYTHING about an employee, no matter how preposterous and false, and it will be believed.
Recently a teacher in Richmond was put on leave for "erratic" behavior. I happen to know the district administrator who put her on leave, and I know that he has a serious problem with dishonesty and false accusations. His behavior perfectly fits the description "erratic." When this man loses his temper, it's not a pretty sight. He goes off like a loose canon. Werlin caused the "erratic" teacher in Richmond to be handcuffed in front of her second-grade students and jailed for two days on suspicion of holding her students hostage--because she didn't leave the school in the middle of the day when she was placed on administrative leave for reporting school bullying to the media.
About two years ago I put the facts about this individual, Richard Werlin, former Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources at Chula Vista Elementary School District, on my website.
So why did West Contra Costa County Union School District hire him as their Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources in 2006? Did they flunk Google? No, they just doubted that what I was saying was the truth. After all, he was the district administrator, and I was just a teacher.
I wonder what Werlin told the folks at WCCCUSD was his reason for leaving Chula Vista Elementary School District? They must have wondered why he hadn't worked in so long. Apparently they didn't consider the possibility that he might have left CVESD because the district was unhappy about paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. (CVESD clearly didn't think that Werlin's crimes and other violations of law were reason to fire him.)
Or maybe their motives weren't so innocent. Be honest, folks in Richmond. Your district has done the same things that Werlin did, hasn't it? Didn't you back up administrators even though you knew they had done wrong? You need to keep teachers in line, right? The facts of any individual case don't matter to you. What matters is to keep everything under control, and present an appearance of having no problems, so those in power can stay in power, right? You'd rather protect the guilty than actually solve problems, wouldn't you? Or perhaps you just do what your lawyers tell you to do, committing perjury when they tell you to, fighting lawsuits you ought to settle. You don't stop to think that IT'S NOT IN THE LAWYERS' BEST INTEREST FOR PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED. THE MORE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE, THE MORE MONEY THEY GET.
I recommend that the entire staff of Sheldon Elementary School (that would include teacher Jenny Mo), participate in a class by Patrick Lencioni on the Five Dysfunctions of a Team. You've got serious problems at Sheldon Elementary. I somewhat regret that I left so quietly when Werlin put me on administrative leave in 2001. But I'm afraid that our newspapers are so protective of the corrupt school districts and teacher unions in San Diego that the exact same scenario could have happened at Castle Park Elementary, and it wouldn't have made it into the newspaper. The public in Chula Vista still isn't aware of how serious the problems are at my old school, Castle Park Elementary. Even when then three teachers who made false accusations against me were transferred out of Castle Park Elementary in 2004, the papers never mentioned my case, even though I had fully informed them.
I am afraid that Jenny Mo will never return to Sheldon Elementary. That's how the system works. But something should be done about the out-of-control principal and staff at Sheldon. This situation sounds eerily similar to what happened at Castle Park Elementary in Chula Vista.
In addition to getting the staff of Sheldon Elementary functioning in a positive manner, Superintendent Bruce Harter should fire Assistant Superintendent Richard Werlin. Werlin triggered the fiasco at Sheldon Elementary, a scenario so bizarre that only Richard Werlin's involvement can explain it.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Who is protected when law officers commit perjury?
I agree that officers should be supported when they are doing their duties. Some situations can be very difficult to handle. Adrenaline is needed to keep reaction time swift, to keep deputies alert. As long as they don’t go nuts, officers need to be given the benefit of the doubt.
I have a related question for Santa Barbara Sheriff's deputies.
Does it raise morale when the sheriff protects deputies who do wrong OUTSIDE the course and scope of their duties, in a cold and calculating manner? With no adrenaline in their systems?
I'm a teacher in San Diego who had no idea that a Santa Barbara Sheriff's deputy had committed a crime against me until long after the fact. It took me two years to find out his identity. It wasn't such a terrible crime. The deputy wasn't fired when the sheriff found out. He’s still working in the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department. There was no reason not to tell the truth, except to make sure I didn’t get my job back. Instead, both the deputy and the sheriff committed perjury (a far more serious crime) in 2004 to cover up the original misdemeanor. Why?
Bill Brown asked deputies, "If you were the new Sheriff, what would you do?"
I'd like to hear from deputies, too. If you were Bill Brown, would you continue to aid and abet this perjury? Or would you set the record straight and turn over the two audits as promised by Commander Gross?
If the sheriff openly supports perjury, aren’t you afraid that juries will stop believing Santa Barbara deputies?
The story of what happened to me is at mauralarkins.com.
I have a related question for Santa Barbara Sheriff's deputies.
Does it raise morale when the sheriff protects deputies who do wrong OUTSIDE the course and scope of their duties, in a cold and calculating manner? With no adrenaline in their systems?
I'm a teacher in San Diego who had no idea that a Santa Barbara Sheriff's deputy had committed a crime against me until long after the fact. It took me two years to find out his identity. It wasn't such a terrible crime. The deputy wasn't fired when the sheriff found out. He’s still working in the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department. There was no reason not to tell the truth, except to make sure I didn’t get my job back. Instead, both the deputy and the sheriff committed perjury (a far more serious crime) in 2004 to cover up the original misdemeanor. Why?
Bill Brown asked deputies, "If you were the new Sheriff, what would you do?"
I'd like to hear from deputies, too. If you were Bill Brown, would you continue to aid and abet this perjury? Or would you set the record straight and turn over the two audits as promised by Commander Gross?
If the sheriff openly supports perjury, aren’t you afraid that juries will stop believing Santa Barbara deputies?
The story of what happened to me is at mauralarkins.com.
Santa Barbara Sheriff's department isn't alone
My two friends at the Santa Barbara Sheriff's department are not alone.
Here's a website that tells about other cases of database abuse.
Here's a website that tells about other cases of database abuse.
The Santa Barbara Innocence Project
A group of people is interested in finding out how many innocent people have been convicted in Santa Barbara County. The Santa Barbara Sheriff's department is currently covering up perjury by two employees in San Diego Superior court. Did these two employees also commit perjury in court in Santa Barbara?
DNA evidence has resulted in the release of many wrongly-convicted people in recent years, but the Innocence Project is now working on cases with no DNA evidence.
One big target of the Innocence Project is unreliable witnesses, including jail-house informants who lie at the request of police and prosecutors in order to get leniency in their own cases.
Yesterday "marked the end of another long, grinding slog through the criminal justice system to exonerate the wrongfully convicted."* Timothy Atkins was released in Los Angeles after two decades of unjust incarceration. He was convicted on the word of two perjurers--a woman who invented a story about hearing him confess, and a jail-house informant who gained his freedom as a result. The third witness was a victim who got a one-second look at the perpetrator.
The first woman recanted years ago, but prosecutors are slow to admit when they make a mistake.
The jail-house informant tried to recant at trial, but prosecutors ironically argued that he was lying when he tried to recant.
The victim-witness made a cross racial identification, which is notoriously unreliable.
Who is against the Innocence Project? Last year Arnold Schwarzeneggar vetoed two bills that would have drawn up new guidelines for law enforcement regarding witness testimony.
Arnold isn't thinking. We are in danger when perpetrators walk the streets while innocent people are locked up. We are vulnerable not only to being victimized by the perpetrators, but to becoming victims of false charges backed up by perjury and unreliable testimony.
*"Wrongly convicted man walks free after 2 decades" by Greg Moran, San Diego Union Tribune, Feb. 10, 2007
DNA evidence has resulted in the release of many wrongly-convicted people in recent years, but the Innocence Project is now working on cases with no DNA evidence.
One big target of the Innocence Project is unreliable witnesses, including jail-house informants who lie at the request of police and prosecutors in order to get leniency in their own cases.
Yesterday "marked the end of another long, grinding slog through the criminal justice system to exonerate the wrongfully convicted."* Timothy Atkins was released in Los Angeles after two decades of unjust incarceration. He was convicted on the word of two perjurers--a woman who invented a story about hearing him confess, and a jail-house informant who gained his freedom as a result. The third witness was a victim who got a one-second look at the perpetrator.
The first woman recanted years ago, but prosecutors are slow to admit when they make a mistake.
The jail-house informant tried to recant at trial, but prosecutors ironically argued that he was lying when he tried to recant.
The victim-witness made a cross racial identification, which is notoriously unreliable.
Who is against the Innocence Project? Last year Arnold Schwarzeneggar vetoed two bills that would have drawn up new guidelines for law enforcement regarding witness testimony.
Arnold isn't thinking. We are in danger when perpetrators walk the streets while innocent people are locked up. We are vulnerable not only to being victimized by the perpetrators, but to becoming victims of false charges backed up by perjury and unreliable testimony.
*"Wrongly convicted man walks free after 2 decades" by Greg Moran, San Diego Union Tribune, Feb. 10, 2007
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Friday, February 02, 2007
What makes these two audits of criminal records searches so different?
February 2, 2007
Bill Brown
Sheriff of Santa Barbara County
Dear Sheriff Brown:
Commander Sam Gross was only too happy to provide two red herring audits that he contributed to a false declaration. But it was a different story when I asked him to provide me with the two audits that he partially described in a letter to me. He refuses.
What makes these two audits so different?
I spoke to Sheriff’s counsel Kelly Duncan Scott today. She refused, as she has repeatedly done in the past, to provide the two CLETS audits for “maura” or “larkins” that were described in detail by Sam Gross in his November 24, 2004 letter. These audits turned up eight searches in 2000 and 2001. To make clear precisely which audits I’m talking about, I have circled the pertinent section of Mr. Gross’s letter, and attached the letter to this fax. The letter is also on my website at the bottom of the page that contains my complaint against Michael Carlson..
Kelly Duncan Scott refuses to discuss these two audits with me. In fact, she even refused to return my call to the switchboard when she was finished talking to me. Her secretive behavior makes me quite certain that these two audits show the precise dates on which Michael Carlson conducted illegal searches and began a long string of criminal acts which did enormous damage to Chula Vista Elementary School District. Kelly and Sam Gross wouldn’t be trying so hard to cover up these audits if they didn’t reveal Carlson’s first crime, committed long before Carlson obstructed justice and suborned perjury.
Why wouldn’t Kelly transfer me back to the switchboard? I think she’s afraid that I might actually find someone who disapproved of sweeping felonies under the rug. I’d very much like to know who is that person that Kelly fears—the one who would disapprove of hiding a series of crimes committed by Sheriff’s employees. I’m hoping that person is you, Sheriff Brown. Sam Gross and Kelly Scott would not be so determined to cover up these audits if they were not incriminating.
Please consider this letter an ethics complaint about Michael Carlson, Sam Gross and Kelly Duncan Scott. I believe Kelly has been giving very bad legal advice to the Sheriff of Santa Barbara for many years, advising cover-ups of crimes committed by sheriff’s employees. Of course, I also believe that that’s the kind of advice the sheriff’s department wanted in past years when Jim Anderson was sheriff. If this letter is not adequate to initiate an official complaint process, please inform me of the proper procedure.
I am aware that Michael Carlson’s demurrer to my complaint may well be sustained on February 16, 2007. At that time, I plan to go to the Court of Appeal.
I believe that the policy giving complete tort immunity to those who suborn and commit perjury in lawsuits is the most important tort reform needed in our society. There are some powerful dissent opinions in case law that disagree with the current situation that allows law enforcement officers should go “Scott” free (pun intended) when they turn our justice system into a joke, a circus, a sham.
I plan to make a public issue of this matter.
Yours truly,
Maura Larkins
Bill Brown
Sheriff of Santa Barbara County
Dear Sheriff Brown:
Commander Sam Gross was only too happy to provide two red herring audits that he contributed to a false declaration. But it was a different story when I asked him to provide me with the two audits that he partially described in a letter to me. He refuses.
What makes these two audits so different?
I spoke to Sheriff’s counsel Kelly Duncan Scott today. She refused, as she has repeatedly done in the past, to provide the two CLETS audits for “maura” or “larkins” that were described in detail by Sam Gross in his November 24, 2004 letter. These audits turned up eight searches in 2000 and 2001. To make clear precisely which audits I’m talking about, I have circled the pertinent section of Mr. Gross’s letter, and attached the letter to this fax. The letter is also on my website at the bottom of the page that contains my complaint against Michael Carlson..
Kelly Duncan Scott refuses to discuss these two audits with me. In fact, she even refused to return my call to the switchboard when she was finished talking to me. Her secretive behavior makes me quite certain that these two audits show the precise dates on which Michael Carlson conducted illegal searches and began a long string of criminal acts which did enormous damage to Chula Vista Elementary School District. Kelly and Sam Gross wouldn’t be trying so hard to cover up these audits if they didn’t reveal Carlson’s first crime, committed long before Carlson obstructed justice and suborned perjury.
Why wouldn’t Kelly transfer me back to the switchboard? I think she’s afraid that I might actually find someone who disapproved of sweeping felonies under the rug. I’d very much like to know who is that person that Kelly fears—the one who would disapprove of hiding a series of crimes committed by Sheriff’s employees. I’m hoping that person is you, Sheriff Brown. Sam Gross and Kelly Scott would not be so determined to cover up these audits if they were not incriminating.
Please consider this letter an ethics complaint about Michael Carlson, Sam Gross and Kelly Duncan Scott. I believe Kelly has been giving very bad legal advice to the Sheriff of Santa Barbara for many years, advising cover-ups of crimes committed by sheriff’s employees. Of course, I also believe that that’s the kind of advice the sheriff’s department wanted in past years when Jim Anderson was sheriff. If this letter is not adequate to initiate an official complaint process, please inform me of the proper procedure.
I am aware that Michael Carlson’s demurrer to my complaint may well be sustained on February 16, 2007. At that time, I plan to go to the Court of Appeal.
I believe that the policy giving complete tort immunity to those who suborn and commit perjury in lawsuits is the most important tort reform needed in our society. There are some powerful dissent opinions in case law that disagree with the current situation that allows law enforcement officers should go “Scott” free (pun intended) when they turn our justice system into a joke, a circus, a sham.
I plan to make a public issue of this matter.
Yours truly,
Maura Larkins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)