top of page

Judge Shirley K. Watkins Falsifies Docket to Cover Up Joe Yanny Connection to Marc Angelucci Murder

L.A. Superior Court Judge Shirley K. Watkins is provably guilty of the crimes of forgery and perjury. She altered the docket in my fraud case so as to remove the names of Clair’s attorney Joe Yanny (criminal lawyer for, and proud member of the Mongols) and my attorney Marc Angelucci (murdered on July 11, 2020).

The docket has also been altered to remove the names of prior judges who made rulings in the case – Judges Huey P. Cotton and Rupert A. Byrdsong, and replaced with the name of Judge Theresa M. Traber, who never had anything to do with this case whatsoever, and who is judge a completely different courthouse. [1][2]

Judge Watkins Confronted in Court with the Evidence of Forgery

Twice I confronted Judge Watkins with the evidence that the docket had been so altered. The first time was at a December 2020 hearing to stay the case, which hearing was brought by Judge Watkins herself (not the other side, since the other side had already lost that argument repeatedly). Judge Watkins just lied, stating that the docket had not been altered. Judge Watkins granted her own motion, and the case was stayed.

The second time I confronted Judge Watkins with the evidence that the docket had been altered was in July 2021, when I filed a Motion to Disqualify her for creating the appearance of bias.

Judge Watkins Commits Perjury and Forgery

In Striking my Motion, Judge Watkins “doubled down,” stating under oath and under penalty of perjury that:

Concerning paragraph 9, I did not cause any names to be cleansed from the docket, nor do I have the ability or, the authority to do so. The names which Mr. Baker says are “cleansed” continue to show on the electronic court file.
Concerning paragraphs 9 and 10, the electronic court file clearly reflects that both Judge Byrdsong and Judge Convey were previously assigned to this this case. (See attached Exh. 1.)
- Judge Shirley K. Watkins, July 27, 2021 sworn affidavit. [3]

Judge Watkins’ “Exh. 1” is this:

The above document, which Judge Shirley K. Watkins swears is an official record of the judicial assignments in my case, is a forgery. According to that paper, Judge Byrdsong was assigned the case at the very beginning, on 08-04-2015, the date the original case was filed. But this is not true.

Judge Watkins Fell Into My Little Trap

In fact, the case was originally assigned to Judge Huey P. Cotton in August 2015. Judge Cotton made numerous rulings, including the July 2016 Order denying Clair’s Motion to Consolidate my fraud case with the Family Law case.

You see, in drafting my Motion to Disqualify, I set a little trap for Judge Watkins by not mentioning that Judge Cotton had the case from the beginning in August 2015. Almost 2 years later, on May 17, 2017, the Court Ordered:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that effective May 17, 2017, an order was made that the above-entitled action, previously assigned to HUEY P. COTTON, is now and shall be assigned to Rupert A. Byrdsong as an Individual Calendar (IC), direct calendaring judge for all purposes, including trial, in Department NWU. [4]

I gave Judge Watkins just enough rope to hang herself. She dug her own grave by fabricating a false document, under oath and under penalty of perjury. If Judge Watkins was really just presenting copies of the court record, it would show that Judge Byrdsong took the case in May of 2017, not August of 2015.

Judge Watkins’ Explanations Fall Flat

The only version of the court docket that is available to me is the “Case Access”, available to the public at Judge Watkins tries to explain it all away:

I do not know if they [the missing attorney and judge names] appear on the "Case Access" information available to the public online and have no information about who creates and maintains the "Case Access" information online, but the electronic record that is accessible to me clearly shows this information.
- Judge Shirley K. Watkins, July 27, 2021 sworn affidavit.

Really? So the judge in the case doesn’t even know anything about the “Case Access”, i.e. the public record? Can’t even look for herself to see what it says? Appears completely unconcerned with the fact that names are missing from the record, and those names just happen to be (1) Joe Yanny, the Mongols Nation mob lawyer, and (2) Marc Angelucci, my civil rights lawyer who got murdered in the middle of all this?

Even if it was true that Judge Watkins had no knowledge of how the public record of the docket is created, would she not take steps to correct it, now that the whole thing has been drawn to her attention? Why even have “Case Access” at all, if you’re going to allow unknown rogue agents to control it? After all, that is exactly what Judge Watkins wants us to believe – that some unknown rogue agents are somehow in charge of the “Case Access” docket information, and that the actual judges in the cases don’t give a flying fuck. Really?

And, if it was true that the docket information Judge Watkins sees on her computer was the actual truth, then why bother to forge a false document? No matter what we’re supposed to believe about the public-facing “Case Access” version of the docket, the judicial assignments presented under oath by Judge Shirley K. Watkins is a forgery. Period. Judge Watkins is chargeably guilty of both forgery and perjury.

Judge Watkins’ Motive Appears to be Covering Up the Connection Between Joe Yanny and Marc Angelucci

In prosecuting Judge Watkins for forgery and perjury, we must consider motive. What drove her to commit these crimes? To sort this out, we must review the background on my underlying civil fraud case, and take a look at some of Judge Watkins’ previous orders, including the time she deliberately misstated the text of a statute, while pretending to read it verbatim.

Perhaps when you realize that a sitting judge can just lie under oath and fabricate documents, you will see why they made up a rule called “Judicial Immunity,” which means judges are allowed to commit crimes and are above the law. Judicial Immunity is the essence of a totalitarian government.


Excerpted from "Railroading, Stonewalling & Gaslighting", upcoming book. Please share and subscribe.


[2] LASC case LC103241 is in the Northwest District, aka Van Nuys. Judge Theresa Traber is at the Central District in downtown L.A., aka the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.


bottom of page