Why Do Courts Tolerate Perjury?

I, Alexander Baker, hereby accuse Clara Veseliza Baker, aka Clair Marlo, of the crime of perjury. That a litigant would lie under oath to win in court is not surprising to me. What is surprising is that the Courts allow and even seem to encourage perjury. That is my purpose in this post - to encourage a discussion on why courts allow perjury.

I brought the below evidence and argument to the Court, who would not consider it. After you listen to the recordings of the  phone calls in question, and consider the facts, see if you don't agree. And then ask yourself why Courts routinely allow clear perjury to  stand. In my view, it is court corruption.

Here is Credit Card Phone Call #1:


Here is Credit Card Phone Call #2:


Singer-songwriter Clair Marlo has already been found liable for copyright infringement. My civil case against her for fraud and conversion is pending. Two top handwriting experts have already found that what purport to be my signatures on multiple music contracts and other documents are forgeries. Only Clair Marlo was in a position to forge those papers.

In her continuing effort to evade justice, Clair Marlo brought a domestic violence restraining order ("DVRO") hearing against me. There is not, and never has been, any allegation that I have committed any sort of violence, as that term is commonly understood. However, California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act ("DVPA") allows for a finding that "non-physical" acts can be considered "abuse" and therefore restrained.

"Disturbing the peace" constitutes "abuse", and that includes "disturbing the peace of mind", which the case law defines as "any conduct that  destroys the mental or emotional calm" of the other person. Anybody with any sense knows that this definition can mean essentially anything. 

In my case, the Court found that my pending civil litigation against Clair Marlo was domestic violence "abuse", "irrespective of whether the cases have merit or not". All that matters is "the effect that they have on her". This is postmodern justice at its finest, and a matter presently before the United States Supreme Court.

The only part of Clair Marlo's DVRO not relating to my litigation against her involves my getting myself removed as an authorized user from an Exxon Mobil credit card that had showed up negatively on my credit report.

As the following brief clearly shows, Clair Marlo (real name Clara Veseliza Baker) committed perjury by falsely telling the court that I had a “used a third person, Lisa Margulies, to get [Clara’s] information or contact a creditor and impersonate [Clara] in order to make changes to the [credit card] account. Lisa got on the phone and identified herself as [Clara], impersonated [Clara] at [Alex’s] direction."

Unfortunately, I was only able to obtain the recordings of the phone calls in question after the DVRO hearing was over. 

-Alex Baker, May 20, 2019

I.             INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Alexander Collin Baker ("Petitioner" or "Alex") is subject to the September 29, 2017 Domestic Violence Restraining Order ("DVRO"). (See EX I, DVRO Order and Ruling, pp. 84-144) The DVRO is unprecedented and unconstitutional in that it finds Petitioner's pending litigation against his ex-wife (and ex business partner), Respondent Clara Veseliza Baker ("Respondent" or "Clara") to constitute domestic violence 'irrespective of the potentially meritorious nature of the suits." (EX I, DVRO Ruling, 4810:8-12, p. 103.)

Alex has been attempting to sue Clara for fraud, conversion and other torts since 2015. Pending is related LASC case LC103241, in Dept. T of the Northwest District. (Baker Dec. ¶6.) As discussed below, the totality of Alex's litigation is held to constitute DV "abuse", because it "destroys the mental or emotional calm" of Clara, i.e. it satisfies the definition of "disturbing the peace" as interpreted by In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1495. (See EX. H, Appeal Court Opinion, p. 82.) This unconstitutionally vague and overbroad definition of "abuse" is the subject of case S254132, pending before the California Supreme Court. (Baker Dec. ¶7.)

To properly trace Clara's finances, and present findings at trial, Alex must of course retain a financial expert. Alex's girlfriend, Lisa Margulies is a financial expert, with over 30 years as a fiduciary with an unblemished record. Ms. Margulies has served as a court qualified expert witness in both criminal and civil cases. In 2016, Ms. Margulies conducted a review of Clara's finances based on bank records obtained in discovery, and submitted a report and declaration to the Family Court pursuant to Alex's request to modify child support payments, which request was successful. (Baker Dec. ¶3.)

Subsequently however, the DVRO found that Alex disseminated Clara's financial information to "his girlfriend", and found that such constituted DV abuse. (EX. H, Appeal Court Opinion, p.74.)

In addition to a general finding that Alex's meritorious litigation constitutes "abuse", the DVRO prohibits specific actions which impair Alex's ability to prepare for trial - Alex is enjoined from videotaping Clara's deposition (see EX I, Court's ruling, p. 138), and from contacting Clara's business associates who are necessary trial witnesses. (See EX. I, DV Trial Court Ruling, p. 140.)

The only portion of the DVRO not based on Alex's litigation is that related to an Exxon Mobil credit card account. Clara alleged and the DVRO found that Alex used a third person, Lisa Margulies, to "impersonate" Clara to Exxon Mobil for the purpose of obtaining information. (EX. I, DVRO Ruling, 4807:17-22, p. 100.)

Subsequent to the DVRO, Alex was able to obtain the audio recordings of the two phone calls related to the Exxon-Mobil issue - the call made by Alex and Lisa to Exxon-Mobil, and the call made by Clara to Exxon-Mobil. (EX. D, pp. 12-18.) As set forth in the transcripts, the audio recordings demonstrate conclusively that Alex merely removed himself as an authorized user of the credit card, that Lisa Margulies properly identified herself as a Financial Advisor, and that Clara was told in no uncertain terms that authorized users may remove themselves, and that nobody impersonated Clara.

 For the reasons set out below, the Court should Vacate the DVRO based on new evidence of Clara's perjury; or alternatively Modify the DVRO to allow Petitioner to (1) videotape deposition; and/or (2) publish properly redacted documents; and/or  (3) contact protected party's business associates as trial witnesses; and.or (4) disseminate protected party's financial records to expert witnesses; and/or (5) litigate meritoriously even if it destroys protected party's mental or emotional calm.

II.          FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.        Alex-and-Lisa's Call to Exxon Mobil Credit Card

On January 29, 2016 Alexander Baker ("Alex") and financial advisor Lisa Margulies called Exxon Mobil Credit Card for the purpose of removing Alex as an authorized user of the card. The following is a transcript of the relevant portion of the audio recording of that phone call:

Exxon Mobil Agent: Hi Mr. Baker, my name is Kristen, how are you?

Alex: I’m doing OK Kristen.

Exxon Mobil Agent: Wonderful. From what I understand you had a Exxon Mobil account, and you just want to make sure it’s closed, is that correct?

Lisa: I don’t think that is . . .  My name’s Lisa, I’m Mr. Baker’s financial advisor. I don’t think he can, he’s only an authorized user on the account, so…only his card, or only ... he doesn't want to be an authorized user, if that’s what... that's what his credit report says, I'm just going to say it that way.

Exxon Mobil Agent: OK, is there an account number?

Lisa: We don’t have an account number. He didn’t know that...he didn't know about the account. So, we’re calling because it’s in the credit report.

Exxon Mobil Agent: OK.

Lisa: And it's showing.

Exxon Mobil Agent: All right, just bear with me on moment, and we’ll see what we can do. This call may be monitored or recorded for quality and training purposes. Let’s see, is there a phone number, maybe, that would be attached to this? Or who signed him up?

Alex: Well, I’m going to guess it was my wife, and I could offer a few phone numbers to try.

Exxon Mobil Agent: OK, we’ll try it, let’s see what’s going on. Go ahead, I’m ready when you are.

Alex: Oh, well wait a minute, this was back in 1987.

Lisa: This card...the card that's showing up on his credit report, was opened in December 1987. It has a $200 limit. And it should be the primary is Clara Veseliza Baker's name, and he should be an authorized user on it.

Exxon Mobil Agent: OK, but I’m going to need a social, or something to try to load this.

Alex: OK, I’ll pull up the social, hang on one sec.

Lisa: You want hers?

Alex: Yes please. . I know we have her social.

Lisa: [REDACTED]

Exxon Mobil Agent: OK, thank you. OK, just bear with me one moment, I’m loading this. And your name is Mr. Baker?

Alex: My name's Alexander Baker.

Exxon Mobil Agent: OK, thank you. So you want to remove yourself as an authorized user on this card?

Alex: Yes, please.

Exxon Mobil Agent: There’s a password on here, it may be a maiden name.

Alex: It may be what?

Exxon Mobil Agent: A maiden name.

Alex: OK.

Exxon Mobil Agent: I need you to guess it please.

Alex: [REDACTED]

Exxon Mobil Agent: No.

Alex: [REDACTED]

Exxon Mobil Agent: Thank you. OK, let's see here.  Just bear with me, let me notate the account and we’ll get you removed, OK?

Lisa: Thank you.

Exxon Mobil Agent: You’re welcome. [on hold]. OK, we are almost done with this process. [on hold] OK, and that process has been completed. Is there anything else I can help you with today?

Alex: No, I’m fine.

Exxon Mobil Agent: OK. You have a wonderful night.

Lisa: Thank you.

Exxon Mobil Agent: You’re welcome.

(EXHIBIT D, Transcript of Exxon-Mobil Phone Calls, p. 13-14)

B.        Clara’s Call to Exxon Mobil Credit Card

About 3 days later, on or about February 2, 2016, having received an automated email customer satisfaction survey, Respondent Clara Veseliza Baker ("Clara") called Exxon Mobil. The following is a transcript of the relevant portion of the audio recording of that phone call:

Exxon Mobil Agent: Thank you for calling Citi services in Idaho, this is Kristen. Can I get your name please?

Clara: It’s Clara Baker. Kristen, somebody called about my account a few days ago. Do you have notes to that effect?

Exxon Mobil Agent: I show you’re at a zero balance. Let me look at the notes. Bureau flag. Some sort of, yeah.

Clara: So explain…what notes do you have? Somebody called using my identity, and I’m trying to get to the bottom of it. So what notes do you have and when did they call? 'Cause it would have been a few days ago, two or three days ago.
 

Exxon Mobil Agent: Two, three days ago I have on..

Clara: Go ahead.

Exxon Mobil Agent: 1-29 “removed an authorized user”.   
   

Clara: Right. But who called? What does it say? Who called?

Exxon Mobil Agent: I don’t show that it called. I’m trying to…

Clara: I mean, how...what’s the procedure for, would I be the only person who could remove an authorized user? Or could the authorized user remove themselves?

Exxon Mobil Agent: Authorized user may remove themselves.
 

Clara: OK. But I got an email from Exxon Mobil, like one of those “please take a survey, how was our business, or how was our call”, and it said that I had called, but I didn’t call. And I believe I know who did, but…

Exxon Mobil Agent: Alexander Baker. 

Clara: Right. But did you have a woman call? Did a woman talk to you? Or just Alexander Baker?

Exxon Mobil Agent: Alexander. It says, “removed authorizer user Baker, Alexander”. 

Clara: Well, that’s the authorized user. 

Exxon Mobil Agent: Right. And that’s who asked to be removed. And we can do that. 

Clara: OK.

Exxon Mobil Agent: And then the survey would just pop up saying the account was accessed, and we want to know how our service was. So you would be the one we would contact for that.

Clara: OK, but is there any way to know if a woman called?

Exxon Mobil Agent: No, because we don’t mark our notes whether it’s male or female.

Clara: Right. So you only have Alexander Baker. Do you have any notes that I called?

Exxon Mobil Agent: No. 

Clara: OK, that’s what I needed to know.

(EXHIBIT D, Transcript of Phone Calls,  pp. 16-17.)

C.        Clara’s First Statement

On December 8, 2016, while under oath and under penalty of perjury in the DVRO hearing in Department J of the Northwest District of Los Angeles Superior Court, Clara made the following statement:

"She [Lisa Margulies] called up [Exxon] Mobil [credit card], pretended she was me to get information about my Mobil credit card."

(EX J, Hearing transcript, 325:10-11, p. 146)

D.        Clara’s Second Statement

On January 6, 2017, while under oath and under penalty of perjury in the same DVRO hearing in Department J of the Northwest District, Clara made the following statement:

"I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Clara's permission]".

(EX K, Hearing transcript 910:3-4, p. 148)

E.         The DV Trial Court’s DVRO in Reliance on Clara’s Statements

On September 29, 2017, in Dept. J of the Northwest District of Los Angeles Superior Court, the Honorable Alicia Y. Blanco issued a DVRO against Alex, finding that Alex:

“used a third person, Lisa Margulies, to get [Clara’s] information or contact a creditor and impersonate [Clara] in order to make changes to the [credit card] account. Lisa got on the phone and identified herself as [Clara], impersonated [Clara] at [Alex’s] direction."

(EX. I, DVRO Ruling, 4807:17-22, p. 100)

III.       ARGUMENT

A.        The Court Should Set Aside or Vacate The DVRO Based On Perjury

1.          Legal Standard to Set Aside Order for Perjury

 Petitioner hereby requests judicial notice of Cal. Family Code § 3691(b), which provides that an order may be set aside for perjury; and of Cal. Penal Code § 118, which sets forth the definition of perjury:

(a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.

2.          Clara's Statement "She [Lisa Margulies] called up [Exxon] Mobil [credit card], pretended she was me to get information about my Mobil credit card" is False, Material and Under Oath

a)     The Statement is False and About a Factual Matter

Clara's statement "She [Lisa Margulies] called up [Exxon] Mobil [credit card], pretended she was me to get information about my Mobil credit card" is false because Lisa Margulies did not pretend she was Clara. As the audio recording clearly confirms, Lisa Margulies stated "My name’s Lisa, I’m Mr. Baker’s financial advisor." (Exhibit D, p. 13.)

Clara's statement "She [Lisa Margulies] called up [Exxon] Mobil [credit card], pretended she was me to get information about my Mobil credit card" is false also because Alex and Lisa Margulies did not seek nor obtain information from Exxon Mobil. (Exhibit D, p. 13-14.)

Therefore the Court should find that Clara's statement "She [Lisa Margulies] called up [Exxon] Mobil [credit card], pretended she was me to get information about my Mobil credit card" is a false statement about a factual matter.

b)     The Statement is Material

Clara's statement "She [Lisa Margulies] called up [Exxon] Mobil [credit card], pretended she was me to get information about my Mobil credit card" is material, because the Trial Court issued a DVRO against Alex, finding that Alex “used a third person, Lisa Margulies, to get [Clara’s] information or contact a creditor and impersonate [Clara] in order to make changes to the [credit card] account. Lisa got on the phone and identified herself as [Clara], impersonated [Clara] at [Alex’s] direction." (EX I, DVRO Ruling, 4807:17-22, p. 100.)

The Trial Court echoed Clara's false statement, nearly word-for-word, and clearly relied upon the false statement in ordering the DVRO.

Therefore, the Court should find that Clara's statement "She [Lisa Margulies] called up [Exxon] Mobil [credit card], pretended she was me to get information about my Mobil credit card" was material.

c)     The Statement was Under Oath

Clara's statement "She [Lisa Margulies] called up [Exxon] Mobil [credit card], pretended she was me to get information about my Mobil credit card" was made under oath. The Hearing Transcript records that on December 8, 2016,  "Clara Veseliza Baker and Alexander Collin Baker, called as witnesses on their own behalf, were sworn and testified as follows"  (EX. L, Hearing transcript, 301:21-27, p. 150)

Therefore, the Court should find that Clara's statement "She [Lisa Margulies] called up [Exxon] Mobil [credit card], pretended she was me to get information about my Mobil credit card" was made under oath.

d)     Conclusion to Perjury #1

Therefore the Court must find that Clara's statement "She [Lisa Margulies] called up [Exxon] Mobil [credit card], pretended she was me to get information about my Mobil credit card" is false, material and under oath, thus perjury.

3.          Clara's Statement "I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Clara's permission]" is False, Material and Under Oath

a)     The Statement is False and About a Factual Matter

Clara's statement "I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Clara's permission]" is false because Clara was informed in no uncertain terms by Exxon Mobil that "Authorized user may remove themselves".  (Exhibit D, p. 16.)

Therefore the Court should find that Clara's statement "I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Clara's permission]" is false and about a factual matter. 

b)     The Statement is Material

Clara's statement "I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Clara's permission]" is material, because the Trial Court issued a DVRO against Alex, finding that Alex “used a third person, Lisa Margulies, to get [Clara’s] information or contact a creditor and impersonate [Clara] in order to make changes to the [credit card] account. Lisa got on the phone and identified herself as [Clara], impersonated [Clara] at [Alex’s] direction." (EX. I, DVRO Ruling, 4807:17-22, p. 100.)

The Trial Court clearly relied upon the false statement in ordering the DVRO.

Therefore, the Court should find that Clara's statement "I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Clara's permission]" was material.

c)     The Statement was Under Oath

Clara's statement "I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Clara's permission]" was made under oath. (EX M,  Hearing transcript, 603:6-13, p. 152.)

Therefore the Court should find that Clara's statement "I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Clara's permission]" was made under oath.

d)     Conclusion to Perjury #2

Therefore the Court must find that Clara's statement "I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Clara's permission]" is false, material and under oath, thus perjury.