Feed a lawyer, or else …

Family Law

Ring Around the Rosie, Part 2

Today, December 14, 2011, I received a letter from The Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP). Letter states that CJP has determined “not to take further action with respect to 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. (link1) (link2)


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:


1.   Hon. Erica R. Yew was appointed to CJP by the Supreme Court of California. (link)

2.   Hon. Erica R. Yew is at the same time a member of the Supreme Court’s Judicial Council. (link)

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…” (link)

4.   Again, according to the Judicial Council’s website, Task Forces and Other Advisory/Working groups include (link):

……….a.   Commission for Impartial Courts, whose members are Justice Ming Chin and Lynn Duryee. (link)

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

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


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.


What about recusing Honorable Judith D. McConnell, Committee’s Chairperson? She is a member of the Commission for Impartial Courts Steering Committee, where Justice Ming Chin is the chairman (link).  Judge Lynn Duryee is also a member of the Commission for Impartial Courts.


Further discovery is needed to find out what really happened. Stay tuned; update will be available soon.


December 14, 2011 Posted by | Family Law, Law, Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Ring Around the Rosie …

… or, how to deflect the responsibility by being psychic.


Sometimes it feels like I am playing some kind of a weird game with these people… A child’s game… or childish, maybe?

I remember when I was in the Army, the way to avoid doing something was to “play stupid“. They can punish you for refusing to carry out an order, but there is no penalty for “being stupid“. Is that what these people are doing here?


On December 7, 2011, I sent a letter to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye with all the supporting documents related to the Disqualification of Judge Neal A. Cabrinha, outlining how he and Judge Lynn Duryee made mockery of CCP 170.3.  (link)

Today, December 9, 2011, I received a letter from Frederick K. Ohlrich (Court Administrator and Clerk of the Supreme Court) in which he returned the documentation with the following cover letter:

Dear Mr. Vojnovic,

Your document, received today, to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, has been referred to this office for a reply.

It appears from your documents that you wish to file a complaint against a California judge(s). Such complaints should be directed to the Commission on Judicial Performance…”



Well, Mr. Frederick K. Ohlrich,  I had already filed my complaint with the CJP (thank you very much for asking, … and yes, they are taking their sweet time). (update)

This document was sent to Chief Justice, … to be put in the same file with the accusation against attorneys Kennedy and Costa; because they belong to the same case.  Your job is not to read my mind and assume what I want to do; your job is to add the documents to the file, … and God forbid, maybe act on it?


I also understand, Mr. Frederick K. Ohlrich, that this time you were not able to ignore my letter as you did it with the one sent to Chief Justice on November 4, 2011. The reason is simple, this time I sent it via CERTIFIED mail. You had to sign the receipt, right?

December 9, 2011 Posted by | Family Law, Law | , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Color of Law


This is the best example of how corrupt judges play “street politics” with the support of California Supreme Court.   (Connections)

Based to my sincere belief that judge’s conduct of evading prosecuting perjurious attorneys Kennedy and Costa was unlawful and contrary to the Codes of Judicial Ethics and that it represents obstruction of justice (which is a federal crime under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”), I filed a “Notice of Disqualification and Verified Statement for Disqualification of Judge Neal Cabrinha, Set 1”, based on CCP 170.1 (6)(A)(iii) and violation of Code of Judicial Ethics 3D(2).

September 21st, 2011, Wednesday

Notice of Disqualification and Verified Statement for Disqualification of Judge Neal Anthony Cabrinha, Set 1, was filed. Judge was served personally at 2:03 PM.    (Disqualification, Set 1)

September 30th, 2011, Friday

I received a letter with “Verified Answer of Judge Neal A. Cabrinha to Statement of Disqualification”. According to mailed proof of service the document was filed on September 28th, 2011. In his declaration Judge Cabrinha denies any wrongdoing.    (Cabrinha, answer)

October 11th, 2011, Tuesday

As I noticed some of the case law Judge Cabrinha was quoting was not applicable in this particular matter, I wrote and filed on October 11th, 2011, a “Verified Response to Verified Answer of Judge Neal A. Cabrinha to Statement of Disqualification, Set 2” and moved the court to strike inapplicable case law from the record.    (Disqualification, Set 2)

October 18th, 2011, Tuesday

At 3:40 PM, I went to Santa Clara Family Court Clerk’s office to file a document regarding other upcoming hearing and at the same time I inquired about the “Disqualification” documents and whether they had been submitted to the court file as public record.[1]

I was informed by the clerk that  “Disqualification” related documents were never filed.

October 19th, 2011, Wednesday 

At 10 AM, I called Judge Cabrinha’s clerk and left a message on her answering system, asking about the filing of the “Disqualification” documents.

At 7:30 PM, I received a phone call from court’s clerk who claimed that she was working late, and she told me that “Disqualification” documents were filed earlier, but they were not entered into the electronic file. She stated that the error had been corrected and that records now reflect the filing. EXHIBIT 1 is October 20th, 2011, CASE FILE printout from the Superior Court of Santa Clara website which shows that documents were filed and postdated on 9/21/2011 and 9/28/2011 respectively, with the latest Number-Sequences of 0350-000 and 0351-000, respectively. Older Number-Sequence 0349-000 relates to newer 10/18/2011 filing.

Please note that by that time THREE documents were filed in regards to “Disqualification”, but only two were submitted to the file on the record. Also note that filing on 9/28/2011 was attributed to my filing (“For: Mirko Vojnovic/PTR”, PTR stands for petitioner), even though, based on the date, it should have been Judge Cabrinha’s filing of his “Verified Response”. Something looked very “fishy” and improper regarding all of that filing business.

This was additionally very suspicious as I already had previous bad experience with Judge Cabrinha’s “altered and doctored” Court Transcripts.[2]

October 20th, 2011, Thursday 

All of the above prompted me to call California Supreme Court Office of the Courts, to inquire about the status of the “Disqualification” process. At that time I learned that my case was assigned to Judge Lynn Duryee.

October 20th, 2011 – October 23rd, 2011, Thursday – Sunday

Immediately, I started researching Judge Duryee’s qualifications and what I found shocked me. It turned out that public and legal community view of Judge Duryee is that she is a judge with questionable ethics and who apparently had been involved in “document shredding”, State Audited incident in Marine County Family Court.

In addition, I found that Judge Cabrinha and Judge Duryee know each other outside the regular court business and that both of them are graduates from The University of San Francisco School of Law.

I found out that Judge Cabrinha’s long time friend and partner from his University of San Francisco School of Law student days is Supreme Court Associate Justice Ming W. Chin.

Justice Chin is the chairman of Supreme Court’s Commission for Impartial Courts that is involved in “disqualification” processes.

I also found out that Justice Chin is Judge Duryee’s boss, as she is also a member of the Commission for Impartial Courts.

Relationship between Justice and two Judges is undisputable and it raises great suspicion that the whole “disqualification” process is staged as a “kangaroo trial”.

October 24th, 2011, Monday

As a result of my research regarding Judge Cabrinha’s, Judge Duryee’s and Justice Chin’s relationships, on Monday  October 24th, 2011, I filed “Notice of Disqualification and Verified Statement for Disqualification of Judge Lynn Duryee Re. Disqualification of Judge Neal Anthony Cabrinha”.    (Disqualification, Set 3)

October 24th, 2011 – October 27th, 2011, Monday- Thursday 

I was checking Court Case Information website all these days; in the morning, in the afternoon and in the evening to find out whether there were any new developments in the Disqualification case.

October 28th, 2011, Friday 

At 10:25 AM I checked Court Case Information website again.  It stated that Lynn Duryees Order Denying Disqualification to Judge Cabrinha (as expected 🙂 ) was filed on October 27th, 2011. Around 2PM I went to Court Clerk’s Office to obtain the copy of that Order.  Order states that Judge Duryee made her ruling on October 17th, 2011.   (Duryee, Order)

Judge Duryee filed her Order THREE DAYS AFTER I requested her disqualification, stating that she made the order SIX DAYS BEFORE I requested her disqualification. Smart, she created  fait accompli (An accomplished fact, something that has already occurred; a done deal. Often said of something irreversible or performed without going through standard procedure). But, how bogus is that? Do they really believe this does not look like a scam? 🙂


  1. Fact is that I had not been informed about any developments in “disqualification” proceedings until I inquired about it myself on October 20th, 2011.
  2. Fact is that, pursuant to CCP 170.3 (5)[3], the judge selected to hear the case of disqualification shall be determined by mutual agreements of all parties involved.
  3. Fact is that, pursuant to CCP 170.3 (5), in the event that parties are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer (filed by Judge Cabrinha on September 28th, 2011), only then judge hearing the disqualification shall be selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Counsel or his or her vice chairperson. This step had been completely bypassed and 25 days had passed since Judge Cabrinha’s filing of his “Verified Answer”.
  4. Fact is that selection of Judge Lynn Duryee was not transparent and not agreed upon by me, i.e. Petitioner.
  5. Fact is that Judge Lynn Duryee was appointed illegally and against the law, by whoever appointed judge Duryee (most likely by Justice Ming Chin, who is the chairman of The Commission for Impartial Courts).
  6. Fact is that, pursuant to CCP 170.3 (5), no challenge may be made against the judge who is selected to decide the question of disqualification.
  7. By forcing the selection of Judge Duryee on me and me not having a legal recourse to challenge her appointment, and taking into the account trio of Justice-Judges’ personal relationships, a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the stage was set up for “kangaroo hearing”.
  8. Fact is that, pursuant CCP 170.3(d)[4], once the decision regarding the disqualification is made, the order is not appealable and I would be left with no recourse to challenge the apparent scam.
  9. Fact is that Judge Lynn Duryee signed an Order to deny my motion for disqualification of Judge Neal Cabrinha on 10/17/2011 and postdated and filed on 10/27/2011, three days after I filed Motion for her disqualification.
  10. Fact is that such conduct is criminal.

November 4th, 2011,  Friday

Letter was sent to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye outlining what happened in this disqualification case; urging her to review the process. To this date, December 4th, 2011, there was no reply. (update)


[1] Judge Cabrinha was served with the original documents and it was his clerk’s duty to file them on the record.

[2] I had my first bad experience with Judge Cabrinha’s Court Reporter, Melody Dickinson’s transcripts related to October 14th, 2011, hearing. In that transcript certain words had been added to Judge Cabrinha’s statements which completely altered the meaning of my subsequent arguments. I can provide you with that transcript (19 pages long), per your request, if you think it is relevant.

EXHIBIT 2 is my April 7th, 2011, letter to Judge Cabrinha’s Court Reporter Melody Dickinson regarding April 5th, 2011, hearing, regarding other separate incident.

[3] CCP 170.3 (5)

A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible. No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be made against the judge selected to decide the question of disqualification.

[4] CCP 170.3(d) The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought only by the parties to the proceeding.

November 2, 2011 Posted by | Family Law, Law | , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

I spy …

… with my little eye, something beginning with C


Find three small objects in the big picture



A.      Judge Neal Cabrinha, Santa Clara Family Court.  Protector of perjurious attorneys Stefan Kennedy and Tamara Costa.  Motion for disqualification filed and in process.




B.      Judge Lynn Duryee, Marin County, California. Selected by the Supreme Court of California to decide whether Judge Cabrinha should be disqualified. She is a member of the Supreme Court’s Commission for Impartial Courts.




C.      Associate Justice Ming W. Chin of the Supreme Court of California and Chairman of the Supreme Court’s Commission for Impartial Courts.
















Judge M. Lynn Duryee ’79 of the Marin County Superior Court, Judge Neal A. Cabrinha ’64 of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, and Justice Ming W. Chin ’67 of the California Supreme Court serving as guest “panel judges” at The University of San Francisco School of law annual competition event.  All three are USF Law Alums. Their service as “judges” reunited Cabrinha and Chin, who partnered as a moot court team as students.



Nice try guys 🙂

October 25, 2011 Posted by | Family Law, Law | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

And God said, Let there be light…


… and God divided the light from the darkness.

Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. This singularity is sometimes called “the Big Bang”,but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the “birth” of our Universe.
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially. After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles. Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.
The Universe continued to grow in size and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form. After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs, so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the Universe was dominated by photons.
A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion Kelvins and the density was about that of air, neutrons combined with protons to form the Universe’s deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei. As the Universe cooled, the rest mass energy density of matter came to gravitationally dominate that of the photon radiation. After about 379,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Over a long period of time, the slightly denser regions of the nearly uniformly distributed matter gravitationally attracted nearby matter and thus grew even denser, forming gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and the other astronomical structures observable today. The details of this process depend on the amount and type of matter in the Universe. The four possible types of matter are known as cold dark matter, warm dark matter, hot dark matter and baryonic matter.

And what about “material matter” as defined by legal theory, you may ask…


… that is when somebody turned off the light…


Is legal “material matter” really a dark matter?

For those who filed perjury cases and had to deal with legal Einsteins and their interpretation of General Theory of Relativity, let’s shine some light on the topic:

The fundamental rule of perjury law is codified in California Penal Code § 123:

“It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury that the accused did not know the materiality of the false statement made by him; or that it did not, in fact, affect the proceeding in or for which it was made. It is sufficient that it was material, and might have been used to affect such proceeding.”

Materiality has been defined to include anything “capable of influencing the court on the issue before it, or which has a natural tendency to influence or impede the decision of the decision-making body to whom it is addressed.”

Importantly, when applying the materiality test, California law focuses not on whether, as a matter of historical fact, the false statement probably did influence the outcome of the proceedings, but instead on whether the false statement, at the time it was made, had the tendency to probably influence the outcome of the proceedings.  In other words, under California law, materiality is evaluated from an ex ante, not an ex post perspective.   See, e.g., People v. Poe, 265 Cal.App.2d 385, 71 Cal.Rptr. 161, 164-65 (1968).

Thus, the testimony need not actually have influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding. A potential interference with Court’s decision making is sufficient to establish materiality. The statement need not be material to any particular issue, but may be material to the subject of the inquiry in general[1]. The statement may be material to collateral matters that might influence the outcome of decisions… Thus, a statement is material if it is relevant to a subsidiary issue under consideration[2] or to an issue of credibility.

[1] United States v. Ostertag, 671 F.2d 262 (8th Cir. 1982).

[2] United States v. Sisack, 527 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 1975).



I’m done… Somebody call PG&E. 🙂

September 21, 2011 Posted by | Family Law, Law, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Keep it in the family …

… and don’t let anybody in.


Yet another dueling match with The State Bar of California. These guys don’t write, don’t call, … they simply play possum… 🙂


September 15, 2011

Patsy Cobb

Deputy Chief Trial Counsel

The State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street

Los Angeles,CA90015

RE: Inquiry # 11-0-13436 (Kennedy) and 11-0-13437 (Costa)


Dear Ms. Cobb:

I’m writing this letter to voice my protest against The State Bar’s practice of not corresponding with the party that has interest in this case.

On 8/9/2011 I wrote a letter to Audit and Review Unit to request attorney Kennedy’s and attorney Costa’s declaration that “local judge dismissed my case in Civil Court” (per Djinna Gotchis). I find that statement to be untrue because case was never tried in Civil Court. It is patiently unfair to deprive me of evidence that I am entitled to examine (as was recently stated by the First District Court of Appeal in the matter of Sander v. State Bar of California). My letter was never answered.

On 8/22/2011 at 3:30 PM, I called Audit and Review Unit. I talked to a lady from the message center who informed me that calling hours have changed and that calls are not accepted until 4 PM any more. She took a message and promised that somebody will call back tomorrow. No follow up call was received.

On 8/25/2011 at 11:15 AM, after I left a message on Audit and Review Unit’s voice mail, I talked to Zoe and she informed me that you would be a person to contact if I have any problems with feedback from your office.  I received no feedback from Audit and Review Unit after I left a message.

On 9/8/2011 at 11 AM, I called Audit and Review Unit again and left a message. Nobody called back again.

Two days ago around 1 PM, I left a message on your voice mail to call me back and give me an update on the status and to let me know what is happening with my request to review attorney Kennedy’s and attorney Costa’s “declaration”. You did not call back.

I find this lack of correspondence very disturbing as if things are being decided behind the closed doors, and the person that has the greatest interest in the process is shunned from the process.

As I had more than one bad experience with the State Bar (Towery, Gochis and now this) I filled protest with the office of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and case has been opened regarding this matter (Case # S196062). I will keep her office apprised of any further problems I encounter with the State Bar.

I would also like to take this opportunity to request again copies of witness declarations given to Ms. Djinna Gochis by the attorneys Kennedy and Costa, as they seem like yet another falsehood invented by those attorneys to protect themselves.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.




Mirko Vojnovic


Cc: Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.



Update, September 22, 2011


And you would think they would respond addressing the issues I wrote about, namely -> copies of opposing attorneys’ declarations .  Nope! It’s yet another “sit and wait”. Note that they are referring  to my telephone message dated September 8, 2011.  It took them 12 days for the template letter. I’m surely glad these people do not work in industry. We’d be bankrupt country long time ago.


September 16, 2011 Posted by | Family Law | 2 Comments


Ich Lieb Dich Nicht, Du Liebst Mich Nicht  (I love you not, you love me not) -> Trio, 1982


Trio: DaDaDa


What better song is there to describe my relationship with Santa Clara DA (DA DA) office?

It is monotonous, goes forever, and yet, it is captivating, entertainingly stupid and lyrics fit, too. 🙂


Once Upon a Time…

… there was a simple pauper who wrote a letter to a king, asking him to use his royal powers to right some wrongs.


Here is my letter to Santa Clara DA Jeffrey Rosen regarding the perjury committed by attorneys Stefan Kennedy and Tamara Costa:

Santa Clara


To:       Mr. Jeff Rosen, Santa Clara DA

Dear Mr. Rosen,

I am informing you with great sadness that I am accusing your office of aiding and abetting perjury and racketeering and that I find your office guilty of public corruption.

I base my accusations on two time failure by your office to take action when evidence was presented to you showing that attorneys Stefan Kennedy and Tamara Costa committed perjury in Santa Clara Family Court, case 1-05-FL-129014.

I have strong suspicions that Assistant DA Karyn Sinunu Towery is behind this plot. Her husband James Towery was already eliminated from the State Bar when he tried to close my complaint against the same attorneys. His conflict of interest in this case was easily proven through party’s connections with the law firm Hoge, Fenton, Jones and Appel. The same forces seem to be in place within your office.[1]

First time my case was dismissed when I was told over the phone that attorney Kennedy’s statement (given under the oath) was a “statement of opinion” and not a “statement of the fact” and as such did not constitute perjury. Such conclusion by your office was ridiculous.

Kennedy’s stated in his trial brief Re. Attorney’s fees: “Husband did not produce anything”, referring to stock options and interest I had with my company. However, attorney Kennedy already had my stock options certificate and company offer letter in his possession for several months before he made that statement. The complete documentation with supporting evidence was given to your office. Mr. Ken Rosenblatt was in charge of the inquiry.

Second time I submitted evidence that I obtained through subpoena which proved that Stefan Kennedy and Tamara Costa committed perjury when they claimed in their sworn declaration that my ex-wife Vesna Vojnovic had TEMPORARY employment with Samsung Hospitality. Documents I provided consisted of attorneys’ declaration, proof that their claim was fraudulent and proof that attorneys already possessed knowledge that their claims were fraudulent, thus proving the intent to commit fraud.  Case was handled by Paul Colin whom I met in the lobby for less than five minutes. He just glanced through the evidence (half inch thick stack of papers) and dismissed the case. From the beginning I was under the impression that he felt very uncomfortable and that he wanted to leave the meeting as soon as possible as if he came to the meeting with the decision already made.

Before I take this matter to the Attorney General, I would like to give you an opportunity to remedy this situation. If you are willing to learn more about this case, please contact me via e-mail at: mirko_vojnovic@yahoo , or via phone: 408-663-9883.

As I had already lost my company and source of income due to the perjurious activities of attorneys Kennedy and Costa and that I stand to lose my home and shelter for my daughter at the beginning of September 2011, I am planning to go on hunger strike with the support of certain foreign government. I am sure that negative publicity will not be for anybody’s benefit.



Mirko Vojnovic

[1] Even though the referred inaction took place during Dolores Carr’s tenure, I am also aware of the fact that Karyn Sinunu Towery supported your nomination for the Office of District Attorney.


And king sent his trusted minister to solve the problem

Or did he send a jester? You be the judge…


Pay attention to Mr. Chase’s definition of a “temporary job”. It is the job that “does not last forever”. How hilarious is that? 🙂



And simple pauper took the stand…

… to seek for justice based on the law of the land.



Santa Clara,CA

Dear Mr. Chase,

I received your letter in which you inform me that you are “declining to take further action on (my) complaints”.

First I would like to apologize for sending you an incomplete “Motion to Set Aside Order After Hearing Re: Attorney’s Fees and Costs, Set One”.  It only came to my attention that FedEx Kinko’s copier “swallowed” few pages out of that document when I filed the complaint with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

I am positive that one of the pages was page 00007 of Exhibit 2, in which you can find “Contractor Employment Agreement” and that is in stark contrast with the first job offer letter on page 00005. This Contractor’s agreement can be called “TEMPORARY” but the first one was NOT.  Wife was given permanent position first time but she lost her job because of excessive vacationing and vacationing plans. She was re-hired second time as a contractor only because one of the ladies from the department went on a maternity leave. Even that Contract was open ended, and wife ended it on July 13, 2006 just three days before she left on yet another seven week vacation that she scheduled in February when she still had permanent job offer. Wife and her attorneys knew that, and yet they claimed wife only had a “temporary” job. Not only that, attorney Costa committed subordination of perjury by having Ms. Hannah Han sign her Declaration, that the attorney Costa wrote.

What puzzles me even more is that you did not find curious that some of the pages in written Declaration were missing, too. For anybody who was carefully reading the material, that would open some questions and would contact the person who filed those documents for clarification. You failed to do so. That signals to me that the intention was from the beginning to make this complaint go away and use whatever rationalization to do so. I have experienced that with your office in the past.

Second curious point is that you “interviewed a witness”, who was probably contradicting my claims and that you did not contact me to confront his or her statements. Again this is not zealous approach that is required from the attorneys when they take the case.

You also write: “Additionally, the word “temporary“ is ambiguous. There is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether the declarants used that word according to strict statutory definition or its common everyday meaning”. Anybody who works in the industry, when they see the first job offer, would tell you that it was for a PERMANENT position with three months probation, not a TEMPORARY one.

Even Mr. Michelangelo Lecce (Operations Manager with Samsung Hospitality America Inc., tel 408-544-4562) told me in person that the job offer was for a permanent position.

Statutory definition and common every day meaning of that job offer was and is PERMANENT position. It is well known in industry what temporary position is and attorneys have a duty not to mislead the judge, otherwise they are committing perjury. Material matter means pertinent matter, and attorney Kennedy’s and Costa’s claims were definitely pertinent in this matter.

Third point, you wrote: “Your ex-wife’s job certainly was temporary in the sense that it was sporadic and it did not last forever.”

FOREVER??? Mr. Chase, did you even read what you wrote? Whose job lasts forever? Does that mean that you are TEMPORARY DDA? Is your job going to last forever? Your statement was ridiculous to say the least.

Fourth point is that this was not the first perjurious claim by attorneys Kennedy and Costa. As I have written in my letter to Mr. Jeffrey Rosen, one other incident (and there are more minor ones) involves attorneys claiming that I had not provided any documentation regarding community interest in the company I was working for. I hope your office still has the documents I submitted; if not I will be happy to provide them to you.

However, your failure to even mention that point is another indication that your office just wishes this matter to go away.

Based on all of the above, I find that DA’s office is again trying to dismiss the case for some internal reasons. I will be filing official complaint against Santa Clara DA’s Office with the Office of Attorney General tomorrow.



Mirko Vojnovic

NOTE: The complete “Motion to Set Aside Order After Hearing Re: Attorney’s Fees and Costs, Set One”is included with this letter.


The End!

… or, is it? 🙂



NOTE:  For those who would like to see complete documentation sent to DA’s office, you can find them from the links below.

September 13, 2011 Posted by | Family Law | 1 Comment

First, deny everything… and if that doesn’t work



Send some letters…


And if that doesn’t work…

Attack some tires!




Well, this might have worked…

… if I was a Chicken Little. But, my “fight or flight” instinct says FIGHT when I’m threatened and I know the cause is just.



My tire went flat less than one mile away from my driveway. No puncturing object was ever found and it would be strange to run over a nail that does not puncture your front tire, but attack your rear tire instead. On top of that, puncture hole is in the dead center of the tire. How likely is that?

Both incidents were reported to local FBI office and names of potential suspects were provided.

Let’s play the game gentlemen! 🙂

September 11, 2011 Posted by | Family Law | 1 Comment

How to track an Invisible Elephant?

Use —> Google <— , lots of  “elbow grease”, and of course… have “Preparation H” handy, ’cause you’ll be spending lots of time sitting in front of the computer. .


Here we go:


  1. Mr. and Mrs. Attorney commit perjury and you try to get the remedy through official “remedy procedure”.
  2. You are instructed to “File a Complaint with the State Bar of California”.
  3. You do that and wait.
  4. You are instructed to “File with the District Attorney Office”.
  5. You do that and wait.
  6. You call them up to inquire about your complaint.
  7. You are instructed to wait more.
  8. … and more.
  9. And then one day letters come to inform you that your Complaints are rejected.
  10. Then you start to wonder…
  11. Then you start to research.
  12. Then you find:

. .


Just follow the trail on the chart and pieces start to fall into place.


You be the judge!

September 11, 2011 Posted by | Family Law | 2 Comments

Curious case of $Benjamin CalBar

So, this is how it goes…

Some guy by the name of F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote a short novel about some guy named Benjamin Button who ages in reverse. Then some guy by the name of David Fincher directed a movie where some guy by the name of Brad Pitt played Benjamin and some lady by the name of Cate Blanchett played the love of his life. Both of them died in the end.  As a result of all that effort some guy from The New York Observer by the name of Rex Reed wrote that this is “A movie that must be experienced. A monumental achievement”.

Monumentally experienced, indeed.   In this production of docu drama, the main character is $Benjamin (as on a dollar bill) and his curious connections with other main characters.  Time is his weapon, and his opponents are, hopefully, aging out of existence (doesn’t matter in which direction).   Keep in mind, tragedy is that $Benjamin and his buddies are not supposed to be actors, but responsible members of our legal community.


This is my latter to California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tni Cantil-Sakauye regarding malversations within the State Bar of California and how powerful insiders protect their protegees.


Santa Clara,CA

August 16, 2011

Chief Justice Tani Cantil
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister St
San Francisco,CA94102


Re:   State Bar of California, inquiry number: 10-28699, 11-0-13436 (Kennedy), 11-0-13437 (Costa)

Dear Chief Justice,

My name is Mirko Vojnovic and I’m writing this letter convinced that my complaint to the State Bar of California against attorneys Stefan P. Kennedy and Tamara T. Costa who committed perjury in case Vojnovic v. Vojnovic in Santa Clara Family Court was closed without any basis.

As the California Supreme Court is charged with overseeing the State Bar of California, it is imperative that you be made aware of these facts and issues.

Attorneys Kennedy and Costa committed several acts of perjury during their engagement in my divorce case, but for the sake of simplicity and because evidence to prove perjury was very clear, I limited my initial complaint to only one example.

Former State Bar employees, Chief Trial Counsel  James Towery (who was forced to resign amid ethics probe on July 1st, 2011) and Assistant Chief Trial Counsel Djinna Gochis (who was fired on July 8th, 2011) dismissed my complaint as a personal favor to those attorneys, regardless of the obvious conflict of interest they had when they made their decisions.

Attorney Costa was employee at Hoge, Fenton, Jones and Appel, a law firm where James Towery was a senior partner prior to his nomination as the Chief Trial Counsel. At the same time attorney Kennedy hired an “expert witness” Daniel Fenton in the same case. Daniel Fenton is a son of late Lewis Fenton, who was one of the founders of the said law firm.  Even State Bar at one point admitted that James Towey had a conflict of interest in evaluating my complaint.

Further, taking into the account James Towery’s long lasting connections and influence with/within the State Bar (President 1995-1996, Chief Trial Counsel 2011); Towery’s close ties with the former State Bar President Howard Miller (Member of Board of Governors 2006 – 2009, President 2009 – 2010), and his connections and influence with/within the State Bar; and Djinna Gochis’ long lasting employment with the State Bar (Assistant Chief Trial Counsel, Intake Unit Manager 2001 – 2004,Assistant Chief Trial Counsel, Manager, 2004 – 2011), it is fair to conclude that Djina Gochis had strong personal and professional ties with James Towery and therefore had a conflict of interest in my case against attorneys Kennedy and Costa.

Also, Ms. Gochis, prior to making her decision  never asked for any additional explanation, or the complete original documentation that I offered to support my claims, or any additional evidence to clarify any questions that she might have had regarding my claims.

The facts stated above, her sudden dismissal from office shortly after Towery’s resignation, combined with her unqualified reasons for case dismissal, hastily made on the first working day after she officially took over the case (Fourth of July weekend between Towery’s resignation on Friday, July 1st, 2011, and her letter dated July 5th, 2011, Tuesday) only confirm this conclusion


California State Bar Case

In my complaint I presented to the State Bar documents supporting that:.

  1. Attorneys Kennedy and Costa made false claims to the court, given under oath and in writing where they claimed “temporary” nature of my ex-spouse’s employment in order to justify her extensive vacationing during which she was receiving child and spousal support as if she was unemployed..
  2. Documents that prove their claims were fraudulent; ex-spouse’s original job offer and  W-2 forms..
  3. Documents that prove that the attorneys had previous knowledge their claims were fraudulent, thus intentionally misleading the court. I presented the documents that court file already had ex-spouse’s paystubs that listed her earnings as salary, as well as the original job offer where she was offered health and other benefits.


This is a clear violation of the Business and Professions Code 6106:

“The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension. If the act constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to disbarment or suspension from practice therefore.”


The latest update from the State Bar is that my complaint was dismissed by former Assistant Chief Trial Counsel Djinna Gochis.  In her letter dated July 5th, 2011 (three days before she was fired), Ms. Gochis wrote: “It is my assessment that your allegations would not result in discipline”.  In her letter she did not address any specifics, nor did she explain which evidence she disputed. (EXHIBIT 1 – Djinna Gochis’ letter)

Furthermore, Ms. Gochis’ response stated that she had written attorneys Kennedy and Costa and that their response was: “… you (Mirko Vojnovic) had made the same claims of misconduct to the civil court, which had not been sustained.”

That statement is false. I have never filed any documents withCivil Court in this matter. I only filed with the Santa Clara Family Court, and case was dismissed because I filed under the old CCP Section 128.5 (applicable to divorces filed before January 1991), instead of the current CCP Section 128.7. Dismissal was based on procedural error and had nothing to do with the facts presented in this matter.

However, attorneys’ new false[1] statement was enough for Ms. Gochis to conclude: ” The fact that a court, hearing your claims and objections, did not make a finding in your favor only confirms that assessment”.

At the same time that also means that Djinna Gochis was actively working on my complaint even during the period when James Towery was still with the State Bar, and State Bar still had a conflict of interest in dealing with my complaint, per their own admission.


History of the case:

It is worth mentioning that this is not the first time my case has been dismissed by the California State Bar.  The first time it was dismissed was on February 7th, 2011, by James Towery, former Chief Trial Counsel (ethics probe: Miller-Lack-Girardy). His claim was that: “ … the judge did not make any findings against the attorneys”. I challenged this reasoning because it is not written anywhere in the State Bar rules.  I also pointed out that Mr. Towery had conflict of interest because attorney Costa was his employee at Hoge, Fenton, Jones and Appel, and attorney Kennedy used Daniel Fenton as an “expert” witness in my case.

After my complaint the case was reinstated and was handed over to Djinna Gochis.  She admitted that “… the judge not making findings against the attorneys” does not constitute grounds for dismissal and acknowledged State Bar’s conflict of interest. Early June 2011 she appointed outside examiner Gail Charles to investigate my case.

Taking into the account my previous experience with the State Bar’s office of Chief Trial Counsel, it was only prudent of me to find out the eligibility of this outside resource. I contacted Gail Charles via e-mail asking her to clarify whether she had any conflict of interest in this case. She did not respond positively to my inquiry and I informed Ms. Gochis that I would like State Bar to find another outside examiner.

After James Towery left the State Bar on July 1st, 2011, Ms. Gochis concluded, in her letter dated July 5th, 2011, that: “Any claim of conflict (of interest) is now moot” and that she can make a decision in my case.  I strongly disagree with her conclusion for the reasons stated above.



Current reshuffling at the State Bar uncovered years of abuse and personal favoritism among the high ranking officials of the State Bar. It was only after they became too greedy and when they stepped on some very powerful toes (Dole Food Company, which brought the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ involvement; CaliforniaALL money laundering, just to name the few) those things came to light.

But what about all those ordinary people who had been taken to the cleaners by dishonest and downright criminal attorneys? Those people have destroyed more families and children’s future then what they suffer in this economic downturn.  I’ve written a study based on government census data and Nolo press of how much money is embezzled in family courts acrossCaliforniaevery year. We are talking here about 1.1 billion dollars (EXIBIT 2). That is a dirty business that destroys the very fabric of our own society and if it continues unchecked our children will pay the price.

I’m talking from experience. I spent close to $160K in my divorce (my lifetime savings) fighting false accusations and fighting for my child; my business was destroyed in the process and I’m left without any means to support myself. Wherever I turned (over 6 years period) I came across, either personal favoritism or indifference.  Whatever checks and balances were built into the legal system (State Bar, CJP, DA’s office, Appellate Court) those things do not work unless one has unlimited amount of money to hire more attorneys or has backing of some high ranking official.  Honor and moral integrity have been sacrificed to simple survivalism too often these days.  People are disillusioned to fight for their rights. They “cut their loses” and try to disappear from the spot light as fast as they can.


Great Mahatma Gandhi once said: “Become the change you want to see in the World”.

My child deserves better future; I will not stop fighting this corruption and injustice.


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


Mirko Vojnovic

2335 Menzel Place

Santa Clara,CA95050

[1] I strongly disagree with the statement given to me by the State Bar Complaint Specialist Lisa, on July 7th, 2011, regarding State Bar’s practice that accused attorneys’ response is “privileged information” and that it can not be reviewed by the person who made the complaint. As it can be seen in this case, attorneys made another false claim in order to protect themselves.

September 11, 2011 Posted by | Family Law, Law | , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments