Recordings Prove Clair Marlo Committed Perjury

to Falsely Convict Alex Baker of Domestic Violence

In Los Angeles Superior Court case LD068701, Baker v. Baker, in the 2016-2017 DVRO, Clair Marlo lied and Commissioner Alicia Y. Blanco found that Alex Baker used a third person to impersonate Clair Marlo to obtain her personal information. It's clear perjury. Recordings below, followed by the legal argument, and transcripts of the phone calls below that.

Exxon Mobil Call1_Alex and Lisa
Exxon Mobil Call 2_Clair Marlo
Screen%20Shot%202021-02-02%20at%207.14_e

INTRODUCTION

Marlo alleged and the Trial Court found that Alex:

 

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

 

(Commissioner Alicia Y. Blanco, DVRO Transcript, 4807:17-22)

Commissioner Blanco's finding was based on two false statements, under oath, by Clara Veseliza Baker, aka Clair Marlo, during her trial for Domestic Violence against Alexander Baker.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PHONE CALLS

The first audio recording ("Exxon Mobil Call1_Alex and Lisa") is a phone call made by Alex and his financial advisor Lisa Margulies to Exxon Mobil credit card. The recording clearly shows that the call was made for the legitimate purpose of Alex removing himself as an authorized user on Marlo's credit card, and that Lisa Margulies properly identifies herself. At no time does Alex attempt to obtain any information from Exxon Mobil .

The second audio recording ("Exxon Mobil Call2_Clair Marlo") is the phone call of Marlo contacting Exxon Mobil and asserting that:

"someone called using my identity"

(Marlo, See Call 2 Transcript)

 

It is clearly shown that the Exxon Mobil agent told Marlo that (1) authorized users may remove themselves; and (2) nobody impersonated her. After being told, Marlo stated, "thanks, that's all I needed to know".

ELEMENTS TO PROVE PERJURY

To prove perjury, it must be shown that the witness (1) made a false statement (2) under oath (3) about a material (important) issue. We will examine two of Marlo's statements, and prove that each of them was perjury used to falsely convict Alex Baker of domestic violence.

 

MARLO STATEMENT 1

At the DVRO trial, Marlo stated:

 

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

DVRO Transcript, 325:5-11)

Marlo Statement 1 is False and About a Factual Matter

Marlo's statement 1 - "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 Marlo. As the audio recording clearly confirms, Lisa Margulies stated:

 

"My name’s Lisa, I’m Mr. Baker’s financial advisor."

 

Lisa, See Call 1 Transcript

Marlo specifically asked if anybody had impersonated her, and acknowledged that the answer is no:

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.

See Call 2 Transcript

Marlo'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. (See Call 1 Transcript below)

Statement 1 was Under Oath

Marlo'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"

DVRO Transcript, 301:21-27

Statement 1 is Material

Marlo'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 [Marlo’s] information or contact a creditor and impersonate [Marlo] in order to make changes to the [credit card] account. Lisa got on the phone and identified herself as [Marlo], impersonated [Marlo] at [Alex’s] direction."

 

Commissioner Alicia Y. Blanco, DVRO Transcript, 4807:17-22

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

Conclusion to Statement 1

Therefore, the Reader should find that Marlo's statement - "She [Lisa Margulies] called up [Exxon] Mobil [credit card], pretended she was me to get information about my mobil credit card" - constitutes perjury.

 MARLO STATEMENT 2

At the DVRO trial, Marlo stated:

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

DVRO Transcript, 910:3-4

Statement 2 is False

Marlo's statement - "I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Marlo's permission]"  - is false because Marlo was informed in no uncertain terms by Exxon Mobil that:

 

"Authorized user may remove themselves".

Exxon Mobil Agent, See Call 2 Transcript.

Marlo further demonstrated that Statement 2 is false, because she knew that Exxon Mobil does allow an authorized user to remove themselves, because right after she was informed by Exxon Mobil, Marlo texted Lisa Margulies and stated:

 

"So I checked with Exxon Mobil and you are cleared."

DVRO Transcript, 911:9-10

 

Statement 2 was Under Oath

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

 

See  DVRO Transcript 603:6-13 

Statement 2 is Material

Marlo's statement - "I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Marlo's permission]" - is material, because the Trial Court issued a DVRO against Alex, finding that Alex:

 

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

 

Commissioner Alicia Y. Blanco, DVRO Transcript, 4807:17-22

The Trial Court clearly relied upon the false, material, under oath statement in ordering the DVRO.

Conclusion to Statement 2

Therefore, the Reader should find that Marlo's statement - "I know Exxon Mobil would not have done that [allowed Alex and Lisa Margulies to remove Alex as authorized user without Marlo's permission]" - constituted perjury.

 

CONCLUSION

In consideration of the audio recordings of the phone calls to Exxon Mobil, there can be no question about the truth of this matter. Alex and his financial advisor Lisa Margulies called Exxon Mobil for the the legitimate purpose of removing Alex as an authorized user of Marlo's credit card. That's all. Lisa Margulies identified herself, and no improper information was sought or obtained.

Marlo called Exxon Mobil a couple days later and was told in no uncertain terms that authorized users were allowed to removed themselves, and that nobody had impersonated her. Marlo went so far as to send Lisa Margulies a text saying "I checked with Exxon Mobil and you are cleared".

Marlo came to Family Court and succeeded in obtaining a DVRO against Alex, claiming that Lisa Margulies impersonated her and that Alex obtained her information. Marlo somehow convinced the Court that when she told Lisa Margulies "you are cleared" that this was only done to "placate" Alex. See DVRO Transcript, p. 410

The Reader should conclude that this is a grave injustice, in which provably false statements made under oath have led to severe Parental Alienation and the destruction of the constitutional rights of an innocent man, Alexander Baker. Justice requires that this Court consider the audio recordings of the phone calls, and the transcripts, and to make the findings requested.

PHONE CALL TRANSCRIPTS

Alex and Lisa call to Exxon Mobil - January 29, 2016 (5:29)


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, Alex incorrectly guesses password]


Exxon Mobil Agent: No.


Alex: [REDACTED, Alex correctly guesses password]


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.


END OF CALL.

 

------


Clara call to Exxon Mobil - About February 2, 2016 (2:45)


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 authorized 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.