Feed a lawyer, or else …

Family Law

Hunger Strike – Day 1

April 9, 2012

Today was the first day of my strike. I woke up at 7 AM, called a reporter in New York to give him an update on my situation. After I took a shower I called a law office that advertises taking cases considering fraud. I spent half hour on the phone with them and they promised to call me back in two or three days. Next phone call was to the  Serbian Consulate in Chicago to let them know that I am starting the strike and gave them instructions what I would like them to do in case something happens to me (I remind you, I’ve received death threats in the past).

Just when I was ready to depart for the court, around 9 AM, I found an eviction notice placed on my door by the Sherriff. It said that I must vacate my house by midnight on Tuesday, 4/19/2012. The definitiveness of the approaching homelessness struck me like a hammer. My whole body started shaking and in spite of my attempts to remain calm, I was not able to control it. I had to sit down, but even that didn’t help. Years of constant stress finally caught up with me. I was not able to move. I found the whole situation bizarrely funny. My brain was saying “Move, this is ridiculous”, but my legs didn’t listen and my hands were shaking uncontrollably. For years I resisted taking anti-depressant pills doctor prescribed me long time ago, but this time I decided to take them. This was stronger than me. I popped two pills and went to bed. I was out in minutes.

Woke up around noon, my body still weak, but I was determined not to be deterred by that. After all I am a grown man with a strong will and some funny feeling in my legs never stopped me in the past. I drove myself to the friend’s house and from there we drove to the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. I wanted to see if they would be interested to take my case on pro bono basis. The lady who works in Public Interest Division was not there and I was given her direct number to call her back later.

From there we went to the Court House at 170 Park Plaza, downtown San Jose. I unloaded my things, banners, garden chair, small table and Petition against fraud and perjury for people to sign. As I set up my “shop”, new wave of strength overflew my body and I was ready to roll. Some of the Court sheriffs recognized me and greeted me with a smile. That felt nice. I was always pleasant with them in the past and ready to pop the joke. They took good care of me when I had my last strike two years ago. I felt good and ready to engage people who were passing in and out of the court to sign my petition.

I will talk about those encounters more in my next diary logs, but I must mention two cases today. First, it was a guy in his thirties who literary cried in front of me; he also lost everything due to false accusations he had to endure for three years of divorce proceedings, and the only thing that prevented him from becoming homeless was that he still has his mother who took care of him when he was down. He is still fighting for his son that he claims his ex neglects and leaves him for days unattended with some distant relative when she takes off on vacations with her new boyfriend.

There was also a lady with four kids who experiences the same treatment from her ex, for whom she claims that he is a drug addict. Her youngest son who was jumping all over the place had a chocolate mustache, which was cute, and we joked about that.

It felt good. People were talking to me, telling me their stories, as if they finally found somebody who would listen to their problems. One guy even called me “his hero”. Go figure; me and a hero in a same sentence. Eat your heart out Chuck Norris. 🙂

Friend of mine picked me up around 5 PM and I went home. I was done for the day. My girlfriend came around six and that gave me more strength. We spent cozy evening talking and watching TV. First we watched NCIS, which was a “boy’s” stuff and then we watched some “girly” stuff on Lifetime channel. Then it was time to go to bed. Tomorrow is the new day.

Good night everybody!  🙂




April 10, 2012 Posted by | Family Law, Law | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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).




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