Feed a lawyer, or else …

Family Law

World’s Dumbest Criminal


Plain and simple -> some people should not be doing what they are doing:

.

World’s Dumbest Criminal

.

We have already met Santa Clara Deputy District Attorney John Chase and his definition of  “temporary job which is a job that doesn’t last forever” (click on the image below or click on the link).

.

Now…

.

Enter California State Bar’s Supervising Trial Counsel Allen Blumenthal and see how twisted logic is applied by some of our “finest” legal minds.  After you read the article, ask yourself -> are these people really dumb?

.

The answer is NO!

.

They just feel too powerful, protected by their institutions, that they really do not care what people think of their actions..  and they treat you like trash.

.

But, there is a good reason for that: scamming divorcees is a multi billion dollar business in California.

.

Letter to Bill Herbert, President of the  State Bar Board of Governors, that went unanswered:

.

Santa Clara,CA

November 20, 2011

Inquiry Number: 10-28699, 11-0-13436 (Kennedy), 11-0-13437 (Costa)

.

Dear Mr. Herbert,

I received a letter from State Bar’s Supervising Trial Counsel Allen Blumenthal, dated November 9, 2011, in which he informs me that my complaint against attorneys Stefan Patrick Kennedy and Tamara Tandoc Costa is denied again. (EXHIBIT 1)

After I studied that letter and reasons why my complaint was denied, I realized that there is still at least one person with decision making powers within your organization that is eager to see my complaint go away. The fact that you did not take any action for months and that you wrote your response only two days after I informed State Bar of FBI’s involvement, only reinforces this conclusion.

The reasons stated in Mr. Blumenthal’s letter are ridiculous and insult to common sense to say the least.

1.   State Bar wrote: “You (meaning I,  Mirko Vojnovic) alleged  that respondents submitted a false statement by claiming you submitted a declaration of person who does not speak English. You claim you made efforts to ensure that the declaration was accurate. That respondents expressed their opinion in a court pleading does not qualify as a basis for finding a misrepresentation. You may disagree, but law is that an opinion is not basis for finding a misrepresentation. As you know, the Santa Clara District Attorney’s office came to the same conclusion when you complained to them and they refused to prosecute for the same reason. We do not find there is clear and convincing evidence that this is a misrepresentation to the court.”

There are several claims that are wrong in that statement.

  1. I DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DECLARATIONS of a person “who does not speak English”.  I made that clear in my complaint, so next time READ before you make fools of yourselves.
  2. It was attorneys Kennedy and Costa who drafted the Declaration of Hannah Han (ex-spouse’s former supervisor), and submitted it to the court.  Once you get that fact right all other excuses you gave for these attorneys become invalid.
  3. It is obvious from ex-wife’s work records that Hannah Han’s Declaration was not corresponding to truth.
  4. By drafting Hannah Han’s Declaration (per Costa’s admission and you have the document that confirms that) and having Ms. Hannah Han sign it under penalty of perjury, Kennedy and Costa committed SUBORDINATION OF PERJURY by tricking non-English speaker to sign something she did not fully understand. I will not go into the details here, have decency to READ documentation I’ve submitted with my complaint.
  5. By submitting perjurious Declaration to the court, in order to reinforce their claim, Kennedy and Costa did not express their “opinion”, but made factual claim. Materiality of that factual claim can not be disputed. You should know how the “materiality” is defined. I should not be the one to teach you that.
  6. Time and again you put foot in your mouth by quoting some other agency, or court decision, to justify your own conclusions. And yet you claim that “… it is not that civil court judge has to make findings prior to our investigating” (Djinna Gochis’ letter, dated April 13, 2011).  So, which one is it? Do you make your own decisions or do we play “merry go round” where one crook quotes another?
  7. I think we had already established that James Towery and his gang have acquaintances in other legal institutions. In case of Santa Clara District Attorney’s office it is his wife, Assistant DA Karyn Sinunu Towery.  She was already, at least once, under the investigation for conspiracy to derail coke-dealing charges against an attorney (EXHIBIT 2).

And now, just for fun, since you like quoting such moral authorities like Santa Clara DA’s office, let me give you another quote you may use next time: “Your ex-wife’s job certainly was temporary in the sense that it was sporadic and IT    DID NOT LAST FOREVER” (Santa Clara DDA John  Chase’s letter, dated September 9, 2011).

You can find this and other “jewels” of legal thought, including some of your “finest” on my blog:   https://feedalawyer.wordpress.com/

.

2.   State Bar wrote: “You alleged that respondents also claimed that you failed to provide documents that were subpoenaed (The subpoena was to Pixel Instruments.) You claim that this statement was a misrepresentation because they omitted to state the reason you did not provide it was because respondents would not accept conditions you required for the providing of the documents, namely that you claim the documents were confidential and you required that they agree that the documents were “for attorney’s eyes only.” That they refused your conditions does not change the fact that you refused to honor their subpoena and they were entitled to state that you failed to comply with their subpoena. We do not find their statement to be a misrepresentation.

Major fallacy can be found in the above statement:

  1. You correctly acknowledge that subpoena was issued to Pixel Instruments Corp.
  2. Pixel Instruments Corp. is a SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY from me, Mirko Vojnovic, petitioner in the divorce proceedings. Pixel Instruments Corp. was not a party to the divorce proceedings[1].
  3. Then, by some foul logic, you, as well as attorneys Kennedy and Costa, equate Pixel Instruments Corp. with me, Mirko Vojnovic, petitioner in the divorce proceedings, and conclude that I failed to comply with the subpoena that was never issued to me.  Such conclusion is preposterous, if not comical, but a very good indicator of how far you would go to stretch the facts in order to deny my complaint. This is an excellent indicator of foul play on your part.
  4. However, you failed to address MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM I complained about, and that is that attorney Kennedy made factual statements claiming that I never provided any documents regarding my interest in Pixel Instruments Corp.  On January 8th, 2008, I provided the documents to attorney Kennedy which clearly showed that my interest in Pixel Instruments stock was acquired after the date of separation. You have that document. The purpose of the discovery process was to find out whether there was “community property” involved.  In light of that Kennedy’s subsequent statements that I did not provide ANY documents were perjurious. Any further “discoveries” and subpoenas initiated by attorney Kennedy were completely frivolous and served no other purpose but to frustrate the proceedings and line up his own pockets.  State Bar can not pretend you did not receive evidence which supports this fact.
.

3.   You are quoting Santa Clara Family Court and Appellate Court to reinforce your decision. You are pretending that you researched the issue, but if you really did, you would find that attorney Kennedy financed Santa Clara Family Court judge Susan Bernardini’s election campaign. Bernardini’s California Form 700 clearly establishes that. Bernardini was the one, who made the order that I was “recalcitrant and evasive regarding disclosure”, completely disregarding documents I provided on January 8, 2008.  As far as the Appellate Court goes, it was Judge Nathan Mihara who expressly denied my motion to augment the record to include ex-spouse’s work record in the proceedings. Mihara’s ties to Hoge, Fenton, Jones and Appel, thus James Towery, can easily be established. Once again, crook quotes crook to justify and cover up their criminal activities.

.

4.   The rest of my claims were just supporting evidence to exemplify dirty tactics those two attorneys used to frustrate the proceedings and violate code of professional conduct. None of them are “crown jewels” that could get them prosecuted, but they are good supporting evidence. Again, you concentrated on those minor issues using one whole page, out of two and a half, as if that was the main body of my complaint. What a waste of time, energy and taxpayers money. However, that again points out that you were not serious about disciplining those two attorneys.

.

5.   On your own website you claim that: “The State Bar’s discipline system is designed to protect the public, the courts and the profession from attorneys who violate ethical rules covering their professional conduct.” [2]  In this case you are clearly acting as an advocate for attorneys Kennedy and Costa and not as a protector of public interest. Further, by denying me insight into opposing party’s claims while not acting as my representative (as a member of public) in zealously protecting public interest, and hiding behind Business and Professions Code section 6086.1(b), makes you to operate in secrecy acting under “color of law” which violates the mandate given to you by The Supreme Court of California. It is violation of due process, thus it is unconstitutional.

.

At this point and taking into the consideration all of the above I hold each and every person that has been involved in this case, either as an active participant or as a decision making authority that has been informed of the current state of the affairs, personally responsible for public corruption under USC Title 18. I will be filing formal verified accusation against State Bar and each one of you with the Supreme Court and the State Auditor.

.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

.

Mirko Vojnovic

Santa Clara

.

Cc:      Allen Blumenthal, Supervising Trial Counsel

Jayne Kim, Interim Chief Trial Counsel.

Joseph Dunn, Executive Director of the State Bar.

Bill Herbert, President, State Bar Board of Governors

Tani Cantil-Sakauye, ChiefJustice,  CaliforniaSupreme Court




  1. [1] Pixel Instrument’s Board of Directors, is a decision making body for the corporation.
  2. It is by law that all documents on the record in divorce proceedings are public and available for anybody to inspect, including business competition. That fact, you and attorneys Kennedy and Costa can not claim you don’t know.
  3. In order to protect Company’s trade secrets and intellectual property because the subpoena was extremely broad and non-specific, (intentionally frivolous and burdensome), Company’s founder and main investor James Carl Cooper and Marketing Director Christopher Jefferson Smith made the decision that subpoena should be handled by one of Mr. Cooper’s attorneys, acting as a Company’s attorney. At that point it would had been illegal for me to hand over any documents without Company attorney’ approval. It was the Company attorney John Arai Mitchell who requested “for attorney’s eyes only”.  (Correspondence between Company’s attorney, Arai Mitchell, and attorneys Kennedy and Costa was provided to you, and if you read it you will see what where Mr. Mitchell’s concerns).
[2] What is the attorney discipline system and how does it work?

The State Bar’s discipline system is designed to protect the public, the courts and the profession from attorneys who violate ethical rules covering their professional conduct. (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/StateBarOverview.aspx)

February 4, 2012 Posted by | Family Law, Law | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Singing to the deaf


Deaf Karaoke Live – The Ultimate Version

.

After receiving a letter from The Commission on Judicial Performance that my complaint against judge Neal Cabrinha and judge Lynn Durjee was rejected, I called them and talked to staff counsel Karen Clay.  She advised me to write a letter to Director Chief Counsel Victoria B. Henley.   If you think I received an answer – think again.  Letter outlining conflict of interest was completely ignored.

I was singing to the deaf… 🙂

Today is February 4th, 2012…

.

.

Santa Clara,CA

January 2, 2012

Director Chief Counsel Victoria B. Henley
Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco,CA94102

 

Dear Chief Counsel,

My name is Mirko Vojnovic and I’m writing this letter appalled by the way CJP handled the case of Santa Clara Family Court Judge Neal Cabrinha and Marine County Judge Lynn Duryee.

On December 14, 2011, I received a letter from The Commission on Judicial Performance. Letter states that CJP has determined “not to take further action with respect to (my) complaint dated August 17, 2011…“.

The said complaint was against Santa Clara Family Court judge Neal Anthony Cabrinha for failure to prosecute perjury and for staging fake disqualification hearing involving Marine County judge Lynn Duryee and possibly Supreme Court’s Justice Ming Chin.    Connection between those three individuals is documented in my complaint.

CJP’s letter also states that Commission member, Honorable Erica R. Yew, was recused.

So, question arises… why? …who is she?

Closer look at what is available on the web reveals (link):

  1. Hon. Erica R. Yew was appointed to CJP by the Supreme Court of California.
  2. Hon. Erica R. Yew is at the same time a member of the Supreme Court’s Judicial Council.
  3. According to the Judicial Council’s website: ”The council carries out this mission primarily through the work of its advisory committees and task forces…”
  4. Again, according to the Judicial Council’s website, Task Forces and Other Advisory/Working groups include:

a.   Commission for Impartial Courts, whose members are Justice Ming Chin and Judge Lynn Duryee.

b.   Domestic Violence Practice and Procedure Task Force, Hon. Erica R. Yew is a member.

c.   Self-Represented Litigants Task Force, Hon. Erica R. Yew is also a member.

Commission’s decision to recuse Hon. Erica R. Yew seems appropriate, but it also means that Commission acknowledged that at least one of their members had conflict of interest in this case.

HOWEVER!

Honorable Judith D. McConnell is CJP Committee’s Chairperson. She is also a member of the Commission for Impartial Courts Steering Committee, where Justice Ming Chin is the chairman (EXHIBIT 3).  Judge Lynn Duryee is also a member of the Commission for Impartial Courts. Why was Hon. Judith D. McConnell not recused? She definitely had the conflict of interest being involved with this case and as CJP Committee’s Chairperson had/has the biggest possible influence on the case. Where is non appearance of bias here?

Prompted by my research I wanted to learn more about how my case was handled. On December 21, 2011, at 3:45, I called CJP and talked to Staff Counsel Karen Clay[1] who was in charge of my case. She confirmed that she was an attorney who was handling the case, and that is all I got from her.

Questions like: Who made the recommendation?… How was the recommendation made”… What was the basis for CJP’s decision to dismiss the case”… all went unanswered. Even though she told me that attorneys usually make recommendations for the Committee, she did not answer whether she, as an attorney who worked on my case, made such recommendation.

When I asked why Hon. Erica Yew was recused, Ms. Clay said that was probably to AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF BIAS and continued to be elusive on other questions. At my remark that without any explanation on how and why CJP made their decision, that would make CJP operating like some secret organization, I was told that was “my opinion”.   She continued to be dismissive as in “decision had been made; case is closed; go away” until I mentioned CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND APPEARANCE OF BIAS that Hon. Judith D. McConnell has in this case. When I requested to know why McConnell was not recused, ONLY THEN, I was given your name, and told to write you a letter. This is what I’m doing now, but without any high hopes, because I experienced how “street politics” and corrupt power brokers conduct their business.

In essence, this case is very simple:

  1. Attorneys lying under oath committed perjury.
  2. Perjury is criminal act under California Penal Code, so those attorneys are criminals.
  3. Judge Neal Cabrinha protects criminal attorneys which is crime in itself; so he is a criminal.
  4. CJP protecting criminal judge is guilty of public corruption.

.

.

Please advise what further action, if any, your organization will take in this case.

Sincerely,

Mirko Vojnovic

Santa Clara


[1]  I called her three times that day but “she was not available”. Previous day I talked to Ms. Clay briefly and asked her to tell me when she is going to be available the next day to answer some of the questions I had. She told me to call her “any time tomorrow”. Apparently, for most of the day on December 21, 2011, I was given a runaround.

February 4, 2012 Posted by | Family Law | , , , , | 3 Comments