Susan Kagan Waitkus and LAP Sued Delacruz

}
Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 1 of 105
2
3
Daniel Delacruz, Sr.

In Pro Per Plaintiff
PO Box 1425
Salinas, Ca. 93902
Telephone: (831) 754-1037
Danieldlc@aol.com
OR
E-illng
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Ie
Daniel Delacruz Sr., an individual;

Plaintiff,
11
12
13
15
16
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
v.
;::~:V;Ni'61 D;\~~ 3 3
)
)
)
)
)
The State Bar of California, a California

public entity; the State Bar of California
Client Security Fund, a California public
)
entity as the successor in interest for debtor
)
Richard McLaughlin, an individual; Lucy
Armendllriz, in her official and individual
capacity; Catherine D. Purcell. in her official)
and individual capacity; Judith A. Epstein, in )
her official and individual capacity: JoAnn M. )
Remke, in her official and individual capacity; )
Cydney Batchelor, in her official and
)
individual capacity; AUen Blumenthal, in his
official and individual capacity; Susan Chan,
in her official and individual capacity; Lisa
Cummins, in her official and individual
capacity; Richard Frankel, in his ofiicial and
individual capacity; Rachel S. Grunberg, in
her official and individual capacity; Starr
Babcock, in his otlicial and individual
capacity; Richard Zanassi, in his orAcial and
individual capacity; William Shaffer, in his
of1icial and individual capacity; Manuel
Jimenez, in his official and individual
Complaint For Damages Case No.
I. Discrimination and Retaliation

(DISABILITY) [42 US.C. 2000ff-l ofth
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act of2008, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.,
12102(3)(A), 12203(a), 28 C.F.R. 36.206,
and 29 C.F.R. 1630.12(a) of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990];
2. Discrimination (RACE, COl.OR,
RELIGION) [42 U.s.c. 1981, 1982 and
42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), 2000e-2, and
2000e-5, of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964];
3. Discrimination (RETALIATION) [29
U.S.C. 215 of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938];
4. Discrimination (DEPRIVATION OF
CIVIL RIGHTS) [42 U.S.c. 1983 ofTitl
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, II
U.S.C. 525 of the Bankruptcy Act, the
First, Fifth, and Foul1eenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution and 42
U.S.C. 12101, et seq. of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990];
5. Conspiracy (INTERFERENCE WITH
CIVIL RIGHTS) [42 U.s.C. 1985(3),
2000e-3(a), 2000e-2, and 2000e-5 ofTitl
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.c. 121OI.etseq., 1220:1(a),
Page 1
HRL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
,,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
:t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
capacity; Susan Kagan, in her official and

individual capacity; Jayne Kim, in her official
and individual capacity; Debra Lawson, in her
official and individual capacity; Sean McCoy,
in his official and individual capacity; Donald
Steedman, in his official and individual
capacity; Larry Sheingold, in his official and
individual capacity; Bill Stephens, in his
official and individual capacity; Vincent Au,
in his official and individual capacity; Randy
Difuntorum, in his official and individual
capacity; Lauren McCurdy, in her official
and individual capacity; Andrew Tuft, in his
official and individual capacity; Tanimura &
Antle, Inc., a California Corporation; Mike
Antle, an individual; Rick Antle, an
individual; Carmen Ponce, an individual; Sue
M, Antle as the personal representative for the
Estate of Robert V, Antle; John Doe, and
unknown individual; James Sullivan, an
individual; L&G, LLP, a California Limited
Liability Partnership; Richard Harray, an
individual; the Judicial Council of
California, a California public entity; Julie R.
Culver, in her official and individual capacity;
Sayler Legal Service, Inc" a California
Corporation; Stephanie Sayler, an individual;
Joshua Sigal, an individual; RaqueI Ramirez,
an individual; Gordon & Reese, LLP, a
California Limited Liability Partnership;
Heather Irwin, an individual, City of Salinas
and the Salinas Police Department, as
municipal corporations; City of Fresno and
the Fresno Police Department, as municipal
corporations; Steven Card, in his official and
individual capacity; Fenton & Keller, a
California Professional Corporation; Sara B,
Boyns, an individual;
Defendants
12102(3)(A), 28 C.F.R. 36.206, and 29

C.F.R. 1630.12(a) ofthe Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, I I U.S.C. 525 0
the Bankruptcy Act, the First, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution];
6. Fraud (rN CONNECTION WITH
COMPUTERS) [18 U.S.C. 1030 et seq.];
7. Threats by Interstate Communications
(ATTEMPTED CONSPIRACY TO
COMMIT EXTORTION) [18 U.S.c.
1349 and 18 U.S.C. 875];
8. Attempted Extortion (BY A UNITED
STATES EMPLOYEE)[18 U.S.C. 872]
and Breach of Contract, Fraud, Damages;
9. Discrimination (DISABILITY) [Ca.
Civil Code 51 et seq. a.k.a. Unruh Civil
Rights Act, and Ca. Civil Code 54 et
seq. a.k.a. Disabled Persons Act];
10. Discrimination (RACE) [Ca. Civil
Code 51 et seq.];
II. Violence and Intimidation by Threat 0
Violence (DISCRIMINATION BASED
ON SEX, RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
ANCESTRY, NATIONAL ORIGIN,
DISABILITY, MEDICAL CONDITION)
[Cal. Civil Code 51.7(a)];
12. UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO
COMPUTERS rCa, Penal Code 502];
13. Breach of Contract, Damages, Fraud
and Malpractice (LEGAL) [California
Code of Civil Procedure 340.6(a)(l )];
14. Tortious Interference With Contract
Rights Re: Richard McLaughlin;
15. Breach of Contract and Damages;
16. Specific Performance Injunctive Relief
17. Tortious Interference With Contract
Rights Re: Tanimura & Antle et al.;
18. Tortious Inducement Of Breach Of
Contract Re: Tanimura & Antle et al.;
19. Motion For Relief From Permanent
Injunction Pursuant to Rule 60(b)( 5) and
(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Declaration in Support Thereof.
DOES 5 through 20, inclusive,
DEMAND FOR WRY TRIAL
Page 2

.)
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2
l. This is an action for damages sustained by a United States citizen against:
a.
The State Bar of California as the employer, principal, and successor in interest
for the personnel, employee defendants, volunteers, and fonner licensed attorney named
and involved in the misconduct underlying this Complaint;
b.
who is named and involved in the misconduct underlying this Complaint;
c.
unlawful conduct of certain State Bar of California employees, agents, and volunteers an
The Judicial Council of California as the employer for defendant Julie R. Culver
Jayne Kim and Susan Kagan as the supervisory officers responsible for the
10
for their failure to; (i) take corrective action with respect to its employees and personnel
11
whose retaliatory propensities were notorious; (ii) assure proper training and supervision
12
of the personnel; or (iii) implement meaningful procedures to discourage lawless official
"
conduct, are sued under 42 U.S.c. 12102(3)(A), 1210 I, et seq., 12203(a), 29 C.F.R.
14
1630.12(a), and 28 C.F.R. 36.206, of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42
15
US.c. 2000ff-1 of the Genetic Infonnation Nondiscrimination Act of2008, 29 U.S.c.
1E
2 I 5 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 42 U.S.c. 2000e--3(a), 2000e--2, 2000e--
17
5,1981,1982, 1983,and 1985(3) of Title VII of the Civil RightsActofI964,and 11
18
U.S.c. 525 of the Bankruptcy Act, as well as Ca. Civil Code 51 et seq., 51.7, 52,
:9
52.1,54 et seq., Gov. Code 12948, 12965, 12966, among other pendent state claims.
20
d.
21
Vincent Au, Cydney Batchelor, Allen Blumenthal, Susan Chan, Lisa Cummins, Richard
22
Frankel, Rachel S. Grunberg, Starr Babcock, Richard Zanassi, William Shaffer, Manuel
23
Jimenez, Susan Kagan, Jayne Kim, Debra Lawson, Sean McCoy, Donald Steedman,
24
Larry Sheingold, Bill Stephens, Randy Difuntorum, Lauren McCurdy, and Andrew Tuft
25
as State Bar of California official employees and individuals and Mike Antle, Rick Antle,
26
Cannen Ponce, Sue M. Antle as the personal representative for the estate of Robert V.
27
Antle, John Doe, James Sullivan, Richard Harray, Julie R. Culver, Stephanie Sayler,
28
Joshua Sigal, Raquel Ramirez, Heather Irwin, and Sara B. Boyns as individuals who
Lucy Armendariz, Catherine D. Purcell, Judith A. Epstein, JoAnn M. Remke,
Page 3
unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff and responsible for their
2
unlawful conduct and failure to take corrective action with respect to their own conduct,
are sued under 42 U.S.c. 12102(3)(A), 1210 I, et seq., I 2203(a), 29 C.F.R.
1630. 12(a), and 28 C.F.R. 36.206 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,42
US.c. 2000ff-1 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of2008, 29 U.S.C.
215 ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,42 U.S.c. 2000e-3(a), 2000e-2, 2000e-
5, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985(3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and II
U.S.C. 525 of the Bankruptcy Act, as well as Ca. Civil Code 51 et seq., 51.7, 52,
52.1, 54 et seq., Gov. Code 12948, 12965, 12966, among other pendent state claims.
The City of Salinas, the Salinas Police Department, the City of Fresno, and the
10
e.
11
Fresno Police Department as the municipal corporation and employers ofthe personnel
12
and employee defendant Steven Card as an official Salinas Police Department and Fresno
13
Police Department employee and individual who unlawfully discriminated and retaliated
14
against Plaintiff are sued under 42 U.S.C. 12102(3)(A), 12101, etseq., I 2203(a), 29
15
C.F.R. 1630.12(a), and 28 C.F.R. 36.206 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
16
1990,42 US.c. 2000ff-1 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of2008, 42
17
U.s.c. 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985(3) ofTitie VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 as
18
well as California Civil Code 51 et seq., 51. 7, 52, 52.1, and 54 et seq., Government
19
Code 12948, 12965, and 12966, among other pendent state claims;
20
f.
21
Legal Service, Inc., Gordon & Reese, LLP, and L&G, LLP, as the private corporations
22
and limited liability partnerships responsible for their unlawful conduct and for their
23
failure to; (i) take corrective action with respect to its personnel, attorneys, and agents
24
whose unlawful propensities were notorious; (ii) assure proper training and supervision
25
ofthe personnel; or (iii) implement meaningful procedures to discourage unlawful
26
conduct, are sued under 42 U.S.c. 12102(3)(A), 12101, et seq., 12203(a), 29 C.F.R.
27
1630.12(a), and 28 C.F.R. 36.206 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42
28
US.c. 2000ff-1 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act 0[2008,29 U.S.c.
Fenton & Keller, a Professional Corporation, Tanimura & Antie, Inc., Sayler
Page 4
215 ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), 2000e-2, 2000e-
5, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985(3) ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, II U.S.C.
525 of the Bankruptcy Act, as well as Ca. Civil Code 51 et seq., 51.7, 52, 52.1, and
54 et seq., Gov. Code 12948, 12965, and 12966, among other pendent state claims.
FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988 of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution as well as pendent state claims for which this Court has jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.c. 1367.
10
2. The jurisdiction of this Court is predicated on 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343, 1345 and 1367.
11
3. The proper venue for this case is in the San Jose Division of the Northern District of
12
California because a substantial part of the acts, omissions, violations, events, and conduct
13
alleged herein which gave rise to this claim occurred in the county of Monterey.
PARTIES
14
15
4. Plaintiff Daniel Delacruz, Sr. (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), at all times relevant to the
16
allegations of this Complaint, is a disabled and Latino male, and a resident of the State of
17
California and a citizen of the United States.
l8
5. The State Bar of California Office of Professional Competence is a California public
19
entity within the same California public entity of the State Bar of California and, at all times
20
relevant hereto, employed defendants Randy Difuntorum, Lauren McCurdy, and Andrew Tuft,
21
all residents of the State of California, who are named in their individual and official capacities.
22
6. The State Bar of California Committee of Bar Examiners, the State Bar of California
23
Office of Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court of California are all California public
24
entities within the same California public entity of the Defendant State Bar of California, and at
25
all times relevant hereto, employed or appointed the following employees, agents, or volunteers:
26
Lucy Armendariz, Catherine D. Purcell, Judith A. Epstein, JoAnn M. Remke, Vincent Au,
27
Cydney Batchelor, Allen Blumenthal, Susan Chan, Lisa Cummins, Richard Frankel, Rachel S.
28
Grunberg, Starr Babcock, Richard Zanassi, William Shaffer, Manuel Jimenez, Susan Kagan,
Page 5
Jayne Kim, Debra Lawson, Sean McCoy, Larry Sheingold, Donald Steedman, and Bill Stephens
(hereinafter all defendants collectively "State Bar"), all residents of the State of California and
named in their individual and official capacities.
7. The defendant Judicial Council of California is a California public entity and, at all times
relevant hereto, employed the defendant Julie R. Culver, a resident of the State of California.
8. The defendant Julie R. Culver, at all relevant times, was employed by the Judicial
Council of California in the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, is a resident of
the State of California, who is named in her individual and official capacity.
9. The defendant Tanimura & Antle, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place
10
of business in the County of Monterey in the State of California and, at all relevant times, it
11
employed the defendants Robert V. Antle (Sue M. Antle as the personal representative for the
12
estate of Robert V. Antle who became deceased as of August 3, 2014), Mike Antle, Rick Antle,
13
Carmen Ponce, and John Doe (hereinafter all defendants collectively "TAl"), all residents ofthe
14
State of California, who are named in their individual and official capacities.
15
16
17
10. TAl also retained as its legal counsel defendants Richard Harray and James Sullivan, all
residents of the State of California, who are named in their individual and official capacities.
II. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true name and capacity of John Doe and on that basis sues him
18
or her under the fictitious name of John Doe. Plaintiff is informed and believes and hereon
19
alleges that the Defendant Doe is legally responsible in some manner for the damages
20
proximately caused thereby. Plaintiff alleges that Doe is contractually, strictly, negligently,
21
intentionally, vicariously liable and/or otherwise legally responsible in some manner for each
22
and every act, omission, obligation, event or occurrence referred to herein. Plaintiff will amend
23
his complaint to identify Doe upon discovery of Doe's true identity and capacity.
24
12. The defendant Sayler Legal Service, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal
25
place of business in the County of Monterey, State of California and, at all relevant times, it
26
employed the defendant Stephanie Sayler (hereinafter all defendants collectively "SLSI"), a
27
resident of the State of California, who is named in her individual and official capacity.
28
13. The defendant L&G, LLP, is a California Limited Liability Partnership and successor of
Page 6
,-
:i
Lombardo & Gilles, LLP and, at all relevant times, it employed the defendant James Sullivan, a
resident of the State of Cali fomi a, who is named in his individual and official capacity.
14. The defendant State Bar of Califomia Client Security Fund is a California entity and at
all relevant times, is named as the successor in interest for the fonmer licensed California State
Bar attorney Richard McLaughlin, an individual debtor who filed bankruptcy on or about August
I I, 2014, and named Plaintiff as a creditor.
15. The defendant Fenton & Keller, is a Professional Corporation in the State of California
and, at all relevant times, it employed the defendant Sara B. Boyns, a resident of the State of
California, who is named in her individual and official capacity.
10
16. The defendant Gordon & Reese, LLP, is a California Limited Liability Partnership and, a
11
all relevant times, it employed the defendant Heather Irwin, a resident ofthe State of California,
12
who is named in her individual and official capacity who, at all relevant times, represented the
13
defendant State Bar as legal counsel.
14
15
16
17
18
17. The defendant Raquel Ramirez, at all relevant times, is a resident of the State of
California, who is named in her individual capacity and official capacity.
18. The defendant Joshua Sigal, at all relevant times, is a United States Employee, and a
resident of the State of California, who is named in his individual and official capacity.
19. The defendants City of Salinas, Salinas Police Department, City of Fresno, and Fresno
19
Police Department are municipal corporations within the State of California (hereinafter
20
collectively "Municipalities") and, at all relevant times, employed the defendant Steven Card.
,.1
21
22
23
20. The defendant Steven Card (hereinafter "Card"), at all relevant times, is a resident of the
State of California, who is named in his individual and official capacity.
21. Plaintiff is infonmed and believes and hereon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned
24
herein, Defendants Does 5 through 20, and each of them, were the employees or agents of
25
Defendant State Bar of California, and each was acting within the purpose and scope of said
26
agency and appointment.
27
22. Plaintiffis infonmed and believes and hereon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned
28
herein, Defendants Does 5 through 15, and each of them, were the agents of Defendant Tanimur
Page 7
1
2
& Antle, Inc., and each was acting within the purpose and scope of said agency.
23. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and hereon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned
herein, Defendants pursued a common course of conduct, acted in concert with, conspired with
each other, and have aided and abetted one another to accomplish the wrongs alleged herein.
24. The use ofthe terms "Defendant" and "Defendants" in any of the allegations in this
Complaint, unless otherwise specifically set forth, is intended to include and charge both jointly
and severally, not only the named Defendants, but all Defendants designated as Doe as well.
25. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and hereon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned
herein, Defendants were agents, servants, employees, alter egos, superiors, successors-in-interest
10
joint venturers, and/or co-conspirators of each ofthe co-Defendants and in doing the acts herein
11
alleged, or acting within the course and scope of their authority of such agents, servants,
12
employees, alter egos, superiors, successors-in-interest. joint venturers, and/or co-conspirators
13
with the pennission and consent of co-Defendants and, consequently, each Defendant named
14
herein, and those Defendants named herein as Does 5 through 20, inclusive, are jointly and
15
severally liable to Plaintiffforthe damages and hann sustained as a result of their wrongful acts.
16
26. Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted, encouraged, and rendered substantial
17
assistance to the other Defendants in breaching their obligations to Plaintiff, as alleged herein. In
18
taking action, as alleged herein, to aid and abet and substantially assist the commissions of these
19
wrongful acts and other wrongdoings complained of, each of the Defendants acted with an
20
awareness of its primary wrongdoing and realized that its conduct would substantially assist the
21
accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and wrongdoing.
22
27. Defendants, and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired, engaged in a common
23
enterprise, and engaged in a common course of conduct to accomplish the wrongs complained of
24
herein. The purpose and effect of the conspiracy, common enterprise, and common course of
25
conduct complained of was, inter alia, to benefit Defendant State Bar of California in denying
26
Plaintiff a license to practice law by engaging in tortious conduct at the expense of Plaintiffs
27
Civil Rights, inter alia. Defendants accomplished their conspiracy, common enterprise, and
28
common course of conduct by misrepresenting and concealing material infonnation, and by
Page 8
taking steps and making statements in furtherance of their wrongdoings as specified herein.
28. Each Defendant was a direct, necessary and substantial participant in the conspiracy,
common enterprise, and common course of conduct complained of herein, and were aware of
their overall contribution to and furtherance thereof. Defendants' wrongful acts include, inter
alia, all of the acts that each of them are alleged to have committed in furtherance of their
wrongful conduct complained of herein.
29. Any applicable statutes oflimitations have been tolled by the Defendants' continuing,
knowing, and active concealment of the facts alleged herein. Despite exercising reasonable
diligence, Plaintiff could not have discovered, did not discover, and was prevented from
10
11
discovering numerous wrongdoings complained of herein.

30. In the alternative, Defendants should be estopped from relying on any statutes of
12
limitations because Defendants owed Plaintiff an affirmative duty of full and fair disclosure, but
13
Defendants knowingly failed to honor and discharge such duty.
"
15
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

31. Plaintiffs prima facie case of discrimination: (i) As a Latino, Plaintiff is a protected class
'6
member of minorities pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
:7
Because Plaintiff has a medical condition of Fabry's Disease, he is also a member ofa protected
:8
class of disabled Americans pursuant to 42 U.S.c. 121 01 et seq. of the Americans with
:9
Disabilities Act of 1990 and California Civil Code 54 et seq. of the California Disabled
20
Persons Act; (ii) Plaintiff was qualified to become licensed to practice law and/or be hired as a
21
paralegal, administrative assistant, or legal secretary by the State Bar because he has a law
22
degree, has passed both the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam and the California State
23
Bar exam; (iii) Plaintiff suffered adverse employment action because the State Bar denied
24
Plaintiff a law license and also denied employment to Plaintiff and; (iv) on or about June 25,
25
2010, and continuing to the present Defendants Does 5 through 20 colluded, retaliated, and
26
discriminated against Plaintiff in blatant violation of the foregoing federal and state statutes.
27
28
32. From 1996 through 1997, Plaintiff was being subjected to domestic violence. At the time,
Plaintiff was a surveillance equipment dealer and had access to specialized surveillance
Page 9

"
equipment and utilized them to document the domestic violence.

2
33. On or about February 20, 1997, a hidden video camera placed in Plaintiff's living room
recorded Plaintiff defending himself from on-going domestic violence. The Salinas Police
Department was called and Officers Steven Card and Lance Miraco arrived at Plaintiff's home.
34. Despite Plaintiff's legal right to self-defense, Card arrested Plaintiff for domestic
violence and subsequently threatened to use deadly force against Plaintiff when Card put his
hand on his gun and then simultaneously verbally threatened Plaintiff with, "If you ever hann
your wife again, I'm going to take it upon myself and make it my personal business."
35. Plaintiff was in a vulnerable position because he was enduring a medical crisis of Fabry's
10
Disease, which at the time meant a prognosis of certain death. Card had actual knowledge
11
thereof because Plaintiffinfonned Card that Plaintiff needed to take his medications related to
12
symptoms of the disorder, which Card retrieved from Plaintiffs home so that his medication
13
would be available while in the custody of the Monterey County Sheriffs Department.
14
36. Officer Card also made sexual advances towards Plaintiffs wife with inappropriate
15
touching and tried to coerce Plaintiffs wife by stating to her, "if you don't testify against your
16
husband, you're going to make me look bad" and "I care about you", while stroking her ann.
17
37. In the wake of legislation enacted to aggressively combat domestic violence against
18
women resulting from 0.1. Simpson's infamous criminal trial acquittal, Card then fabricated his
19
police report in order to secure a conviction against Plaintiff by wording his police report so that
20
Plaintiff, being a male, was the aggressor against his female wife. Card also falsely claimed that
21
Plaintiff made terrorist threats against his wife by paraphrasing statements in his police report
22
that were made to him by Plaintiff, his wife, and his seven year-old son.
23
38. Officer Card discriminated against Plaintiff because Plaintiff was suffering from a life or
24
death medical crisis of Fabry's Disease and believed that his falsified police report would never
25
be divulged because Officer Card expected Plaintiff to succumb from his deadly medical crisis.
26
39. As a result of Card's fabricated police report, Plaintiff was facing two felony charges that
27
could result in prison time if convicted. The fabricated police report combined with Card's threat
28
to use deadly force against Plaintiff caused Plaintiff to fear for his life.
Page 10
.'
...J
40. Plaintiff was unwilling to risk prison time and on or about April 24. 1997, Plaintiff
reluctantly opted instead to plea nolo contendre to one count of domestic violence on the
conditions that his conviction would not result in a felony and that Plaintiff would be granted
home confinement in lieu of serving any time in jail so that Plaintiff could deal with his life or
death medical crisis of Fabry's Disease for which at the time there was no treatment available to
prevent the eventual organ failure and premature death. Plaintiff merely served 45 days of home
confinement and continued his search for a possible treatment for his deadly hereditary disorder.
8
9
41. On or about June of 1999, Plaintiff traveled to New Yark State to begin an experimental
intensive enzyme replacement therapy to treat his deadly medical crisis resulting from his
10
hereditary disorder of Fabry's Disease. Plaintiff was also required to return to New York every
11
two weeks because it was the only location for receiving such treatment. Each enzyme
12
replacement therapy lasted at least eight hours per treatment.
13
42. Around January of2000, Plaintiff continued his intensive enzyme replacement therapy in
14
Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff was also required to return to the state of New York and Los
15
Angeles, California throughout the year to undergo numerous biopsies of his organs as part of hi
16
treatment. As a result, Plaintiff reasonably delegated his duties to address his income tax issues
17
to the fiduciary responsibilities ofa professional tax preparer and his bankruptcy attorney.
18
43. On or about March 11,2000, Plaintiff sought the professional services of an income tax
19
preparer to determine his 1999 tax liability for a $50,000 settlement resulting from a lawsuit for
20
racial discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress, inter alia, against Plaintiff's
21
former employer TAL Plaintiff, through his professional tax preparer, listed the $50,000
22
settlement as non-taxable income in his 1999 federal and state tax returns.
23
44. Plaintiff's experimental treatment ultimately proved successful in preventing major organ
24
failure and premature death and on or about January of 200 I, Plaintiff continued his intensive
25
experimental treatment for Fabry's Disease in San Francisco, California.
26
45. On or about March 28, 2001, the IRS informed Plaintiff that they disagreed with the non-
27
taxable income status for his $50,000 TAl settlement. Through his professional tax preparer,
28
Plaintiff challenged the IRS finding. Plaintiff eventually partially agreed with the IRS finding
Page 11
,'
.'
}
,~
and entered into an agreement with the IRS to a reduced tax liability amount to $39,249. On or
about April 16,2001, Plaintiff retained an attorney and filed bankruptcy in which a payment plan
was established through the bankruptcy proceedings to pay the tax liability owed to the IRS.
46. Subsequent to the IRS tax issue notification, the Franchise Tax Board notified Plaintiff of
the tax issue. Plaintiff notified his bankruptcy attorney multiple times from 2001 through 2003
regarding the tax issues because Plaintiff was traveling throughout California and New York to
receive his intensive enzyme replacement therapy for medical crisis of Fabry's Disease.
47. Plaintiff reasonably and repeatedly instructed McLaughlin to add the Franchise Tax
Board as a creditor in Plaintiff's bankruptcy proceedings. However, McLaughlin delegated his
10
fiduciary duty to his secretary and then focused on illicit drug use and playing his guitar. Rather
11
than adding the Franchise Tax Board as a creditor, around April 30, 2003, McLaughlin's
12
secretary sent a letter to the Franchise Tax Board notifying them to submit a proof of claim in
13
order to be paid through Plaintiffs chapter 13 bankruptcy payment plan.
14
4S. After Plaintiff completed his law school studies, in February of2011, Plaintiff took and
15
passed the California State Bar exam. Plaintiff awaited his moral character determination from
16
the State Bar in which he disclosed his misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence in his
17
moral character application along with his racial discrimination and disability related lawsuits.
18
49. Beginning on or about September 02,2011, the State Bar denied Plaintiff a law license
19
claiming that Plaintiff lacked the requisite good moral character. Plaintiff appealed the negative
20
moral character determination to the State Bar Hearing Department in which an administrative
21
moral character determination trial was held around May 14, 2012, through about May IS, 2012,
22
in which Manuel Jimenez, under the direct supervision of Susan Chan, represented the State Bar.
23
50. Throughout the foregoing trial and on or about May 23, 2012, Jimenez repeatedly
24
violated Plaintiffs civil rights including: (i)falsely claiming that Plaintiff was convicted ofa
25
felony; (ii) withholding evidence from Plaintiff including documents submitted by Richard
26
McLaughlin, Richard Harray, James Sullivan, SLSI, TAl, Joshua Sigal, Raquel Ramirez, Julie R.
27
Culver, Lisa Cummins, and Larry Sheingold so that Plaintiff could not effectively defend himsel
28
resulting in unfair surprise in violation of due process oflaw pursuant to the Fourteenth
Page 12

"
Amendment of the United States Constitution; (iii) accusing Plaintiff of illegal conduct and then
2
refusing to recognize Plaintiff's right from self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment
of the United States Constitution for allegations that Plaintiff (a) violated a court order (b)
illegally tape-recorded various parties and (c) stalked, intimidated, and cyber-stalked members
the State Bar; (iv) accusing Plaintiff of abusing the legal process in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (v) accusing
Plaintiff of abusing the legal process in violation of the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution which guarantees Plaintiff with the rights to (a) petition the government for redress
of grievances (b) freedom of association and (c) freedom of religion; (vi) retaliating against
10
Plaintiff for filing bankruptcy in violation of II U.S.C. 525 of the Bankruptcy Act; (vii)
11
accusing Plaintiff of defaming TAl in violation of Plaintiff's right to free speech pursuant to the
12
First Amendment of the United States Constitution; (viii) accusing Plaintiff of misleading the
13
IRS and Franchise Tax Board in violation of 42 U.S.c. 12101 et seq. of the Americans with
14
Disabilities Act because Plaintiff delegated his tax issues to his professional tax preparer and
15
attorney due to his Fabry's disease treatment; (ix) retaliating and discriminating against Plaintiff
16
for his disability of Fabry's disease in violation of 42 U.S.C. 12102(3)(A) of the Americans
17
with Disabilities Act; (x) violating Plaintiff's right to a livelihood pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 121 0 I
18
et seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act and; (xi) violating Plaintiff's right to a livelihood
19
of his own choosing pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
20
51. As a result of the State Bar's fraud, due process of law violations, discrimination, and
21
retaliation, on or about August 07, 2013, Catherine D. Purcell, Judith A. Epstein, and JoAnn M.
22
Remke perpetuated their colleagues' fraud and subjugation of Plaintiff's civil rights with the
23
fraudulent claims that Plaintiff lacked the requisite good moral character to practice law by
24
doctoring testimony and laws to rule that Plaintiff: (i) had a felony conviction; (ii) misled the lR
25
and Franchise Tax Board; (iii) used the legal process to harass various parties; (iv) made false
26
statements of fact; (v) violated the reasonable privacy expectations of those he recorded; (vi)
27
could have repaid TAl's attorney fees even after filing bankruptcy; (vii) lacks insight into his
28
misconduct all the while portraying himself as the victim and; (viii) alleged that the Americans
Page 13
with Disabilities Act was not applicable to moral character proceedings. Plaintiffs damages
were ascertained when the foregoing became final around April 28, 2014.
52. Because Plaintiff asserted that Defendants retaliated and discriminated against Plaintiff as
a protected class member of disabled Americans and minorities, in violation of federal and state
statutes, on or about December 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") for medical, disability, and racial discrimination and retaliation.
s
9
10
11
53. Around December 05,2013, the DFEH issued Plaintiff a right to sue letter. (Exhibit A).
Around June 18, 2014, Plaintiff obtained a DFEH right to sue letter against more defendants
because Plaintiff obtained evidence that was deliberately withheld by the State Bar. (Exhibit B).
54. In November of2014, Plaintiff received right to sue letters from the EEOC against TAl e
12
aI., (Exhibit C-I) Sayler Legal Service, Inc. et al. (Exhibit C-2) and a right to sue letter against
13
the State Bar et al. from the U.S. Department of Justice in December of2014. (Exhibit C-3).
14
15
16
17
18
55. Plaintiff has timely filed a government tort claim form with the State Bar of California.
City of Fresno, City of Salinas, and Judicial Council of California.
56. Plaintiff has timely filed a creditor's claim with the personal representative for the Estate
of Robert V. Antle in Monterey County Superior Court case #MP21635.
57. Plaintiff has timely filed a creditor's claim against debtor Richard McLaughlin with the
19
United States Bankruptcy Court Northern District of California San Jose Division in Case No.
20
14-53245 and has also timely filed a claim with the State Bar of California Client Security Fund.
21
SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
22
58. On or about July 28, 1996, after being terminated by TAl, Plaintiff applied for
23
unemployment benefits with the Labor Commissioner because TAl had discriminated against
24
Plaintiff for racial discrimination, inter alia. Plaintiff's unemployment benefits were approved by
25
the Labor Commissioner. TAl appealed the findings and an admini strative hearing was held in
26
which Plaintiff prevailed. TAl appealed to the appeals board claiming that the hearing judge
27
abused his discretion. The appeals board reversed the hearing judge's decision. However,
28
Plaintiff subsequently discovered that TAl had terminated Jerry Ligon - a non-Latino employee-
Page 14
subsequent to having terminated Plaintiff as a pre-text to undermine Plaintiffs racial
discrimination claim, because TAl did not dispute Ligon's unemployment benefits.
59. On or about March 29, 1999, Plaintiff filed claim with the EEOC because of a 1.8 million
dollar settlement agreement reached between EEOC et al. v. Tanimura & Antle, Inc. The EEOC
contacted Plaintiff to file any claim related to the foregoing settlement agreement. Plaintiff filed
a claim because TAl had discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff by falsely claiming that
Plaintiff had a contagious and loathsome sexually transmittal disease when TAl knew factually
that Plaintiff had a non-contagious and hereditary disorder of Fabry's Disease.
10
11
60. On or about September 2 I, 1999, Plaintiff filed a claim with the Social Security
Administration for disability benefits related to Plaintiffs Fabry's Disease.
61. On or about April 16,2001, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, which was challenged by TAl
12
et aI., based on the frivolous claim that Plaintiffs filing was in bad faith. On or about October
13
29,2001, Plaintiffs attorney, Richard McLaughlin, filed a Motion for Sanctions against TAl et
14
al. and their attorney James Sullivan in the bankruptcy case for filing frivolous objections stating
15
in relevant part, "Daniel De La Cruz suffers from Fabry's Disease, a progressive and ultimately
16
fatal genetic illness. He is disabled and receiving disability payments from the Social Security
17
Administration. To claim as does [TAl's1attorney, that [Plaintiff] somehow proposed (in bad
18
faith) to develop a fatal disease, staggers the imagination. (Parenthetical wording as original)."
19
62. On or about March 04, 2014, Plaintiff discovered that on or about April 17, 2013,
20
Sullivan retaliated against Plaintiff because of his foregoing motion for sanctions against TAl
21
and Sullivan in which Plaintiffs motion was protected by 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. of the
22
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and California Civil Code 54 et seq. of the California
23
Disabled Persons Act because of Plaintiffs life or death medical crisis of Fabry's Disease.
24
Specifically, using L&G, LLP letterhead Sullivan retaliated by stating, "I testified under oath and
25
stated my opinion that [Plaintiff] was not qualified for admission to the State Bar. I further stated
26
that in the matters I had handled, [Plaintiff] showed a consistent lack of judgment."
27
63. On or about April 17, 2013, with actual knowledge that his foregoing retaliatory
28
comments were not protected by California Civil Code 47(b), Sullivan recklessly retaliated
Page 15
..
further because Plaintiff filed a complaint against Richard MCLaughlin for violating 42 U.S.C.
12102(3)(A) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because McLaughlin discriminated
and retaliated against Plaintiff with McLaughlin's reckless sham claim that Plaintiff had
"persecution complex". Using L&G, LLP letterhead Sullivan stated, "Richard McLaughlin [is]
among the respondents to his complaint of discrimination" and thus, Plaintiffs "complaint of
discrimination is merely further proof that [Plaintiff] lacks the judgment required for attorneys."
64. On or about April 03, 2012, Carmen Ponce retaliated by alleging to Bill Stephens,
"[Plaintiff] was terminated and was so upset he filed a lot of complaints that went nowhere." Vet
as described herein, several complaints resulted favorably towards Plaintiff and TAl's employee
10
both monetarily and safer working environments that reasonably prevented death and injury
11
because on previous occasions, TAl employees have been injured and even electrocuted to death.
12
65. TAl and James Sullivan had actual knowledge of Plaintiffs life or death medical crisis
13
Fabry's Disease through Plaintiffs relatives and through his disability benefits. Vet, on or about
:4
August 31, 200 I, TAl and Sullivan, retaliated against Plaintiff by falsely claiming that Plaintiff
15
was not disabled in their Responses to [Plaintiffs] First Set ofInterrogatories verified by
16
Carmen Ponce. After Plaintiffs foregoing motion for sanctions was filed, on or about December
17
2S, 2001 , TAl and Sullivan withdrew their objections to Plaintiffs bankruptcy confirmation.
18
66. On or about May IS, 2012, Manuel Jimenez and James Sullivan retaliated against
19
Plaintiff for his disability of Fabry's Disease by stating in relevant part:
20
Jimenez: "Recognizing that this litigation happened and the circumstances
21
underlying it, ... do you have an opinion as to whether a person who had done
22
those actions and has failed to repudiate those actions, whether they have the
23
moral character to practice law?"
24
Sullivan: "[Plaintiff] would not be qualified to practice law."
25
Jimenez: "Would failure of redemption and change ... be a problem for you?"
26
Sullivan: "Ves."
27
28
67. On or about April 01, 2011, the State Bar submitted a volunteer questionnaire to James
Sullivan stating in relevant part, "From your personal knowledge, do you believe that the
Page 16
[Plaintift] is of good moral character with respect to honesty, faimess, candor, trustworthiness
and observance of fiduciary responsibility?" Sullivan then retaliated against Plaintiff for his
conduct in legal matters related to his disability of Fabry's Disease, by submitting the volunteer
questionnaire to the State Bar with the chosen option, "No or not to my knowledge."
68. As alleged herein, on or about May 18, 2012, Sullivan retaliated by recommending to the
State Bar that Plaintiff should be denied a law license because on or about March 04, 200 I,
Plaintiff exercised his equal protection rigbt to modify a contract in case # M49083.
8
9
69. On or about May 18,2012, in violation of Plaintiff's privacy rights pursuant to Article I
Section I of the Califomia Constitution, TAl's attorney James Sullivan admitted that he
13
disseminated Plaintiffs social security number to excite@home in Redwood City, California.
11
Sullivan's conduct was an egregious breach of the social nonms underlying constitutional privacy
12
rigbts because Sullivan irrationally believed that disseminating Plaintiff's social security number
13
would identify the author of anonymous emails sent to TAl's attorney and Sullivan's law finm.
C4
70. On or about October 28, 1998, in a deposition of Plaintiff for his lawsuit against TAl for
15
racial discrimination, inter alia, in the presence of Cannen Ponce and Richard Harray, Plaintiff
16
stated that TAl managers made the racial slur of "nigger" during his employment with TAL
17
71. During Plaintiff's employment with TAl, Caesar Romero, a non-Latino employee ofT AI,
18
admitted to possessing a federal firearms license for the sole purpose of purchasing numerous
19
tireanms at wholesale prices for Caesar Romero's own personal use. On more than one occasion,
20
Romero would become verbally abusive towards Plaintiff and on at least one occasion threatene
21
to kill Plaintiff over a dispute involving a forklift. Plaintiff had also previOUSly witnessed
22
Romero with a gun on TAl's property. On or about October 28, 1998, Plaintiff reiterated
23
Romero's death threat and gun possession on TAl property during his foregOing deposition.
24
72. On or about April 16, 2012, after retrieving and perusing the foregoing transcript,
25
Canmen Ponce, Rick Antle, Mike Antle, and John Doe, retaliated because Plaintiff filed racial
26
discrimination and disability related complaints against TAl, by fabricating a claim that Plaintiff
27
carried a fireanm on TAl property, which was relayed to the State Bar on or about May of2012.
28
73. TAl also forwarded the October 28, 1998, transcript to the State Bar and after perusing it,
Page 17
the State Bar had actual knowledge that TAl's gun allegation against Plaintiff was a corruption
of Plaintiffs deposition in which he stated under oath that TAl employee Caesar Romero had
carried a gun onto TAl's property and subsequently made a death threat against Plaintiff.
74. Determined to deny Plaintiff a law license by any means necessary, the State Bar
intentionally withheld TAl's fabricated gun allegation from Plaintiff so that he would be
subjected to unfair surprise when Ponce reiterated the gun allegation on or about May 16,2012.
75. Moreover, Ponce subsequently admitted on or about May 16, 2012, that the foregoing
gun allegation against Plaintiff never existed in the past and was only alleged shortly after she
was subpoenaed by the State Bar to testify against Plaintiff. Ponce further admitted that she
10
spoke with Rick Antle and Mike Antle regarding her subpoena to testify against Plaintiff.
11
76. Caesar Romero's numerous firearms collection was also well known to TAl president
12
Rick Antle as a result of their close relationship. Specifically, Romero had become estranged
13
from his wife and moved out of the marital home that Romero had shared with his wife. Upon
14
Romero's request, Rick Antle went to Romero's estranged wife's home with the specific purpose
15
of retrieving Romero's expansive gun collection. Romero also subsequently remarried in which
:6
his ceremony and reception took place on TAl's property with Rick Antle's blessing.
17
77. At least three other death threats made by TAl agents and employees were also cited
18
around January 12, 2001, in Plaintiffs litigation involving TAl including: (i) telephoned terrorist
19
threats against Plaintiff; (ii) a threat to mail a bomb to Plaintiff and; (iii) an emailed death threat
20
to Plaintiff. These death threats were consistent with TAl vice-president Mike Antle's ominous
21
threat of "these things get pretty ugly", which Plaintiff tape-recorded on or about July 10, 1996.
22
78. On or about March 18,2012, James Sullivan, retaliated by stating to the State Bar that
23
Plaintiff was unfit to practice law because of Plaintiffs actions in the TAl related litigation,
24
which dealt with racial and disability discrimination and death threats made against Plaintiff.
25
79. Plaintiff asserts that his complaints against TAl et al. for racial discrimination, inter alia,
26
his equal protection right to modify the TAl settlement contract on or about March 04, 2001, and
27
his constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances, were all proper.
28
80. On or about May 16,2012, Carmen Ponce retaliated by opining that Plaintiff would not
Page 18
,'
be qualified to practice law stating "if [Plaintiff's] mind set is still where it was, [she] would
2
3
question [Plaintiff's] ability to have some good judgment about counseling others."
81. On or about May 16, 2012, Ponce retaliated because TAl never received any attorney's
fees for the breach of contract related to case #M40802 after Plaintiff "declared bankruptcy" and
further claimed that Plaintiff had trespassed onto private property of TAl family members.
82. On or about May 18, 2012, TAl, through its attorney James Sullivan, retaliated because
Plaintiff filed bankruptcy for which TAl, as the State Bar characterized for Sullivan, never
received a "red cent" oftheir attorney's fees for the breach of contract case #M 49083.
83. On or about April 17,2013, James Sullivan colluded with the State Bar, TAl, and SLSI
10
against Plaintiff because he exercised his constitutional right to earn a living of his own choosing
11
and retaliated by opining that Plaintiff "was not qualified for admission to the State Bar."
12
84. On or about May 18, 2012, Sullivan admitted under oath that neither he nor TAl has ever
'3
sued Plaintiff for defamation. Plaintiff's Boycott TAl website for racial discrimination, inter alia,
14
contained a legal disclaimer in which visitors had to agree that the website's contents were
15
Plaintiff's own personal opinion. Ifvisitors disagreed to the disclaimer, a cancel button would
16
redirect visitors away from Plaintiff's website. On or about April 17,2013, Sullivan retaliated by
17
falsely stating in L&G, LLP letterhead, "[Plaintift] admitted posting the defamatory materia!'''
18
19
20
21
85. Between 2010, and April 03, 2012, Richard Harray submitted a volunteer questionnaire
that impugned Plaintiff's character, which the State Bar used to deny Plaintiff a law license.
86. On or about April 23, 2012, Richard Harray disseminated to the State Bar the allegation
that Plaintiff trespassed onto his private property at 14 Mentone Drive, Carmel Highlands, Ca.
22
87. However, the State Bar was determined to deny Plaintiff a law license by any means
23
necessary and deliberately withheld Harray's volunteer questionnaire, inter alia, from Plaintiff.
24
88. Beginning on or about March 8,2012, through April 19,2012, Plaintiff made three good
25
faith and reasonable attempts to informally resolve the State Bar's failure to produce all required
26
discovery documents. On or about April 19, 2012, Manuel Jimenez responded by falsely stating,
27
"You have all statements of witnesses we intent (sic) to cal!."
28
89. Around April 03, 2012, Plaintiff filed with the State Bar Hearing Department motions to
Page 19

"
compel discovery and sanctions against the State Bar for their refusals to comply with Plaintiffs
requests for discovery and for submitting over 2,500 jumbled pages of discovery documents.
90. On or about April 26, 2012, Manuel Jimenez filed with the State Bar Hearing Department
the State Bar's opposition to Plaintiffs foregoing motion and falsely claimed that Plaintiffs
motion was "untimely", that documents Plaintiff requested were either "not in its possession, if
they exist at all" or that Plaintiff was "in possession of all discovery due him". As a result of the
State Bar'sfalse claims, the State Bar Hearing Department denied Plaintiffs motion and Plainti
was unable to adequately defend himself during his moral character determination trial.
91. On or about March 04, 2014, Plaintiff acquired SLSI documents that were intentionally
10
withheld by the State Bar that corroborates that on or about July 28,2010, SLSI colluded with
Richard Harray, James Sullivan, and TAl, to deny Plaintiff a license to practice law. However,
12
Plaintiff has still been unable to obtain other documents that were withheld by the State Bar.
13
92. On or about October 25, 1997, Plaintiff responded to SLSI's newspaper employment
14
advertisement. On or about November 10, 1997, SLSI interviewed Plaintiff and upon learning
15
that his skill sets and hobbies included audio/video surveillance and had also been a surveillance
16
equipment dealer, SLSI hired Plaintiff as a process server and photocopier technician.
17
93. On or about January 20, 1998, Plaintiff was repeatedly berated by Scotch House, et al.
18
with the racial slur of "wetback" and physically pummeled resulting in cuts to Plaintiffs nose
19
and brow while conducting his duties as a licensed process server for SLSI. Prior to the attack,
20
Plaintiff repeatedly tried to diffuse the hostile environment by stating "excuse me sir", "would
21
you please move?", "would you stop pushing me?", "Ok. Fine, would you back off?", "you don't
22
have to be so vulgar. Ok? I'm a licensed process server" and "there's no need for violence."
23
Immediately after the attack, Scotch House, et al. had stated that Plaintiff"deserved it."
24
94. The foregoing racial discrimination attack took place in a publicly accessible area and
25
was tape-recorded by Plaintiff. SLSI heard and reviewed the tape-recorded attack on the same
26
day and encouraged Plaintiff to file a racial discrimination lawsuit against Scotch House, et al.
27
95. SLSI also notified its client about the attack and informed its client in writing stating in
28
relevant part, "Blackstock's grandson became very violent at the time of service. He blocked the
Page 20
exit of the premises trapping our server until a police officer arrived. Our server sustained cuts
on his face and was shoved and verbally abused with racist remarks. A claim is pending."
96. Subsequent to the foregoing tape-recorded racial attack, SLSI gave Plaintiff two wage
increases and excellent job performance reviews stating to Plaintiff, "You're doing really good!!!
Thanks so much", "Thanks for always doing a great job!" and "You always do such a great job.
Every time I go to court they tell me how much they enjoy working with [you] and the clients
always tell me how courteous you are. Thanks for being so stable in this unstable world!"
8
9
:0
11
97. Significantly, while employed with SLSI, around July of 1998, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit
against his former employer TAl for racial discrimination, inter alia. TAl retained attorney
Richard Harray to defend the lawsuit. Richard Harray was also SLSI's biggest client.
98. On or about May 10, 1999, SLSI acknowledged in a tape-recording that TAl and Richard
12
Harray were employing psychological warfare against Plaintiff by stating in relevant part:
13
"They're trying to piss you off. That's their profession ... Those attorneys are worth
14
their weight in gold to big corporations because they just push, push, push people.
15
They push them and they just blow up ... That's his job, his job is to belittle
16
you ... He's a good attorney. I mean that's what a good attorney, that's why
17
everybody wants to kill attorneys. That's what people ... , because they're
18
conniving, that's what they're paid to do. They get paid to lie, to do all that....He's
19
very cocky ... It was like the next day or something and I ran into him. He was
20
wondering if you had said anything about him being an asshole ... He's a hard
21
ass .. .! mean Rick is like the biggest hot head, spoiled brat type. He's almost
22
violent...That'sjust wrong ofhirn to involve me .... which is real dirty."
23
99. On or about May 27, 1999, Plaintiff requested a medical leave of absence with his
24
employer SLSI to cornmence on June 11, 1999, so that Plaintiff could travel to New York to
25
receive intensive experimental enzyme replacement therapy to treat his life or death medical
26
crisis of Fabry's Disease. However, on June 11, 1999, SLSI terminated Plaintiffs employment.
27
28
100.
Beginning on or about June 25, 2010 through about March 16, 2012, in retaliation
for Plaintiffs foregoing complaints to the DFEH and EEOC, SLSI communicated with the State
Page 21
Bar at least three times to insure that Plaintiff's law license was denied.
101.
As alleged herein, SLSI had actual knowledge of Plaintiff's skills and hobbies
involving surveillance and enthusiastically commended him for being "so stable in this unstable
world!" However, in collusion with TAl et al. and their attorney Richard Harray - whom SLSI
opined "got paid to lie", was "conniving", and a reputed "asshole" by "everyone who knows
him"- on or about July 28, 2010, SLSI retaliated by falsely disseminating to the State Bar that
Plaintiffs "moral standards were below an acceptable level and he did not conduct himself
professionally while working for my company", and "I fear for anyone that crosses or offends
this individual:'
10
102.
Yet, on or about May 10, 1999, SLSl stated to Plaintiff"l don't care" regarding
11
Plaintiffs boycott website about "Rick Antle and those guys". On or about July 20, 1999, SLS[
12
also did not contest Plaintiffs unemployment benefits after terminating Plaintiff around June 11,
13
1999. On or about July 21, 1999, SLSl also refused to provide Plaintiff with a letter of
14
termination or any official reason for having terminated Plaintiffs employment with SLSI
15
because SLS[ needed more time to fabricate a basis for terminating Plaintiff's employment.
16
103.
On or about September 02, 1999, Plaintiff, a Latino, filed a complaint with the
'7
DFEH and EEOC against SLSl for racial discrimination, inter alia. On or about June 25, 20 I 0, in
18
collusion with TAl, Richard Harray, and James Sullivan, SLSl retaliated against Plaintiff by
19
selecting the "Yes" option to the State Bar's question, "[s there any reason known to you why
20
this applicant should not be recommended for a position of trust and responsibility?"
21
104,
Under the duress of Richard Harray and consistent with his "almost vio[ent"
22
temperament as opined by SLS[, around July 28, 2010, SLSl "hesitated in completing [a State
23
Bar] questionnaire with honesty for fear of [SLS['s] personal wellbeing and the wellbeing of
24
[SLS['s] family," SLSI also "received threatening emails anonymously with the definition of
25
'murder', etc." - a veiled threat consistent with prior threats made against SLSl by clients of
26
SLS[, as alleged herein.
27
28
105.
Around January 28, 1999, consistent with SLSl's propensity to fabricate claims,
Plaintiffs manager, on behalf of SLSl, instructed Plaintiffto lie to courthouse personnel by
Page 22
leaving Plaintiff a note stating, "The court thinks you were sick on 01/27/99, so Stephanie used
that to her advantage to get all the filings done. So just in case they ask you, you were sick. Ok?"
106.
SLSI also knew that around January 20, 1998, Plaintiff was physically injured on
the job while employed as a process server, as described supra. Yet, around September 06, 2007,
SLSlfalsely stated in a newspaper article, "In all these years I have never had anyone injured."
107.
On or about January 12, 2001, in the lawsuit case # M49083 involving Plaintiff
and TAl, Plaintiff had asserted his rights from being discriminated and retaliated against by TAl
because of Plaint iff's life or death medical crisis of Fabry's Disease.

108.
On or about July 28, 2010, SLSI retaliated against Plaintiff for having exercised
10
his disability rights protected by 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 by stating, "The second lawsuit (Case M49083) is Tanimura & Antle v. Daniel Delacruz
12
...
13
Mr. Delacruz has found creative ways for monetary gain using the judicial system."
109.
On or about July 28, 2010, underthe duress of Richard Harray and consistent wit
:4
SLSI's opinion that Richard Harray would "push, push, push people" and "got paid to lie" for
15
TAl, SLSI retaliated against Plaintiff for having filed a lawsuit against TAl et aI, for racial
16
discrimination inter alia, by stating, "(Case M40802) is Daniel Delacruz v. Tanimura & Antle ...
17
Mr. Delacruz has found creative ways for monetary gain using the judicial system. In the cases I
18
describe above, he uses employment terminations as the too!..."
19
110.
Despite Plaintiff's excellent job performance reviews and two wage increases
20
given by SLSI, on June 25, 2010, SLSI retaliated by urging the State Bar that Plaintiff should not
21
be given a "position of trust and responsibility" and not be issued a law license because "as an
22
attorney, he will be provided access to information that he would otherwise not be granted."
23
III.
SLSI also falsely alleged that Plaintiff engaged in "fraudulent and deceitful
24
conduct" and attached a copy of Monterey County Superior Court lawsuits - M40802 and
25
M49083 - involving TAl in which Plaintiff sued for racial discrimination, inter alia, and asserted
26
defenses related to his deadly medical crisis caused by a genetic defect of Fabry Disease.
27
28
112.
SLSI retaliated further because Plaintiff exercised his federal and state
constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances by attaching an index
Page 23
printout displaying Plaintiff's lawsuits involving Raquel Ramirez and Joshua Sigal and also cited
Plaintiff's claim against SLSI with the Labor Board for unpaid overtime wages.
113.
Around July 28, 2010, SLSI retaliated against Plaintifffor having filed lawsuit
case # M39913 against Scotch House, et al. for racial discrimination, inter alia, by falsely stating:
"He was preying on servees emotions for monetary gain. He was using his
employment with my company as a tool against unsuspecting individuals that he
was serving. Due to the sensitive nature and emotionally charged arena in which
my industry creates, he was capitalizing on this environment in an immoral way.
Good process servers diffuse tense confrontations, not encourage them. In
10
addition, by filing suit against a person he was serving for one of my clients, he
11
could possibly jeopardize the success of my client's lawsuits."
12
114.
Yet, Plaintiff's supervisor Janel Pace - a non-Latino - was nicknamed by SLSI as
13
"Leona Helmsley" after the public figure notoriously referred to as the "Queen of Mean" becaus
14
of Helmsley's tyrannical behavior. SLSI gave Pace this notorious nickname because Pace - with
15
impunity - would: (i) along with another employee, flaunt lurid details about their sexual
16
relationship that are too lewd and lascivious to repeat herein; (ii) disparage SLSI clients and
17
employees; (iii) use invectives including "nigger rigged", all of which occurred during official
18
work hours. As a result, SLSI often sent flowers to various clients for "damage control."
19
115.
SLSI's own lewd and retaliatory conduct set a precedent for Pace to emulate
20
including: (i) displaying sexually explicit jokes involving the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky
21
sex scandal; (ii) flaunting a sexual relationship SLSI had with a married attorney; disparaging he
22
then boyfriend with invectives because he would not propose marriage to SLSI; (iii) flaunting
23
how she withheld coitus from her boyfriend to coerce him into a reluctant marriage proposal; (iv)
24
disparaging clients including Richard Harray which she described Harray as being the "biggest
25
hot head, spoiled brat type", "almost violent", got "paid to lie", and used "real dirty" tactics and;
26
(v) flaunting how one attorney/client threatened SLSI with "I will personally kill you" because
27
the statute oflimitations would lapse on a lawsuit ifSLSI failed to file it in court that same day.
28
116.
On or about March 04, 2014, Plaintiff acquired SLSI documents that were
Page 24
deliberately withheld by the State Bar that corroborates that on or about July 28, 20 I 0, SLSI
colluded with the State Bar, Richard Harray, James Sullivan, and TAl, to deny Plaintiff a license
to practice law. Specifically, SLSI had disseminated a retaliatory questionnaire to the State Bar
and urged the State Bar to contact Richard Harray, James Sullivan, and TAl, by stating in
relevant part, "Please contact the entities/individuals on the following page to substantiate any of
the information I have provided, and to obtain more opinions regarding Mr. Delacruz."
117.
On or about March 04,2014, Plaintiff discovered that about June 25,2010, and
July 28, 2010, SLSI informed the State Bar, "I discovered a reference that I had received from
[Plaintiff] during the employment screening process was a relative, and not a prior non-partial
10
supervisor." Because Plaintiff's "relative and prior non-partial supervisor" is a TAl employee,
11
only TAl, or their agents, or employees, could have disseminated such information to SLSI.
"
118.
On or about July 28, 20 I 0, SLSI also stated to the State Bar that Plaintiff "could
13
possibly jeopardize the success of my client's lawsuits." However, SLSI's clients had conflicts 0
14
interests with Plaintiffs State Bar proceedings because SLSl's clients include the State Bar, and
15
TAl's attorney Richard Harray and James Sullivan's employing law firm of Lombardo & Gilles,
16
which is now called L&G and still employs James Sullivan.
17
119.
On or about March 04, 2014, Plaintiff discovered that on or about July 28, 2010,
18
SLSI also retaliated against Plaintiff for his Monterey County lawsuit case # M39913 against
19
Scotch House, et al. for racial discrimination, inter alia, by falsely stating to the State Bar:
20
"His moral standards were below an acceptable level and he did not conduct
21
himself professionally while working for my company .... While acting as a process
22
server (employee) of my company, he was secretly voice recording the service of
23
process with a hidden microphone ... He also secretly recorded me in my office."
24
120.
Yet, SLSI never terminated any non-Latino office staff for their failure to conduct
25
"follow-up" status reports resulting in "unhappy clients", which on or about November 24, 1998,
26
SLST stated was "on the brink oflosing several clients and may have lost some already".
27
28
121.
SLSI also retaliated against Plaintiff by stating to the State Bar on or about March
16,2012, that Plaintiffs "various legal actions cost me money, and ... 1 had to hire an attorney."
Page 25
122.
SLSI's repeated retaliation against Plaintiff is consistent with SLSI's ominous
tape-recorded admissions that Richard Harray would "push, push, push people", was the "bigges
hot head, spoiled brat type", "almost violent", and got "paid to lie" for TAL These admissions
combined with SLSl's propensity to lie and urging the State Bar to "contact [Richard Harray,
James Sullivan, and TAl] to substantiate any of the information I have provided, and to obtain
more opinions regarding Mr. Delacruz", corroborate that SLSI was pressured by Harray to
fabricate numerous claims in order to have Plaintiff's law license denied by the State Bar.
8
9
123,
Plaintiff's foregoing documents inculpating SLS[ were disclosed to the State Bar
through discovery during Plaintiff's moral character proceedings, However, the State Bar was
10
determined to deny Plaintiff a law license by any means necessary and deliberately withheld
11
from Plaintiff documents dated around June 25, 2010, and July 28, 2010, that SLSI disseminated
12
to the State Bar even after Plaintiff filed motions to compel the State Bar to comply with
13
discovery requirements. Along with denying Plaintiff's inquiry of John Doe's identity, Lucy
14
Armendariz denied Plaintiff's discovery motions for documents that corroborated that Plaintiff's
15
law license was denied significantly based on the State Bar's witnesses' collusion.
16
124.
On or about March 04, 2014, Plaintiff discovered that on or about May 0 I, 2013,
17
SLSI interfered with the contractual obligations that TAl - and any person acting by, through,
18
under or in concert with them - to not harass Plaintiff or disseminate information regarding
19
Plaintiff by instructing Sara B. Boyns to disseminate to the DFEH all ofSLSI's foregoing
20
retaliatory documents regarding Plaintiff.
21
22
23
125.
On or about March 04, 2014, Plaintiff discovered that around May 0 I, 2013, Sara
B. Boyns disseminated to the DFEH SLSI's foregoing retaliatory documents regarding Plaintiff.
126.
On or about August 30, 2005, Plaintiff obtained real estate services from Raquel
24
Ramirez et al. to purchase a home contingent upon selling Plaintiff's home. However, Ramirez'
25
agent - Ray Jeter -listed Plaintiff's home for $100,000 above the agreed upon sale price to
26
prevent any offers to purchase Plaintiff's home in order to renegotiate the sales commission.
27
28
127.
On or about October 06, 2005, Ramirez et al. obtained a pre-approved real estate
bank loan byfalsely tripling Plaintiff's actual household income. Plaintiff refused to sign the
Page 26
falsified bank loan. As a result of the fraudulent conduct committed by Ramirez et al., Plaintiff
2
3
4
5
6
7
lost his $5,000 security deposit since the purchase of the other home could not be completed.
128.
On or about January 04,2006, Plaintiff filed a claim with the DFEH against
Raquel Ramirez et aI. for real estate fraud and forgery, inter alia.
129.
On or about August 08, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH against
Joshua Sigal and Raquel Ramirez, et al. for discrimination inter alia, related to real estate fraud.
130.
On or about May IS, 2012, Steven Gordon stated that "clients have come into my
office in those years and had complaints against [Ramirez' agent Ray Jeter] for putting them into
mortgages that they absolutely had no way of paying. He was writing loans as fast as he could to
10
11
make commissions, and there were a number of people who had complaints against him."
131.
On or about July 27, 2006, Raquel Ramirez' agent, Ray Jeter, had assaulted and
12
placed Plaintiff and his wife in danger when Ray Jeter recklessly drove his vehicle across three
13
lanes of traffic and blocked Plaintiff and his wife from egress on a public street.
14
15
16
132.
On or about April 23, 2007, Jeter and Joshua Sigal further assaulted Plaintiff with
menacing looks and verbally lashed out at Plaintiff after a small claims hearing in a Monterey.
133.
On or about April 24, 2007, Plaintiff notified the Santa Clara County Association
17
of Realtors regarding the foregoing assaults. As a result, reasonable accommodations to protect
18
Plaintiffs personal safety from further threats of violence by Sigal and Jeter in an upcoming
:9
disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff was seated adjacent to the exit door and Raquel Ramirez was
20
seated as a buffer between Jeter and Sigal who were both seated on the opposite side of the exit.
21
134.
On or about May 21, 2007, in a unanimous decision by a five member
22
disciplinary panel, the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors disciplined Raquel Ramirez
23
and her agent Ray Jeter for breaching their fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff because they failed
24
to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his real estate contract. Jeter was further disciplined for falsely
25
advertising himself to be a licensed attomey, for listing Plaintiff's home $100,000 over the
26
agreed upon price, and for taking ten days to change the listing price. As a result, Plaintiffs
27
home did not receive any offers to purchase. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff's home value dropped
28
by over eighty thousand dollars because the real estate market began to collapse.
Page 27
135.
Because Ramirez intentionally destroyed the real estate contract without
providing Plaintiff with a copy thereof, Plaintiff was hampered in pursuing a civil lawsuit against
Ramirez et al. for breach of fiduciary duties, inter alia. Ramirez admitted on May 17, 2012, that
she failed to keep Plaintiffs real estate contract for the mandatory three years required by law.
136.
On or about November 02,2009, Ramirez attempted to extort Plaintifffrom
pursuing a lawsuit over Plaintiffs property right worth over eighty thousand dollars that resulted
from Ramirez' et al. foregoing breach of fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff by emailing his law
school with the threat of reporting Plaintiff to the State Bar and would "explore all possible
claims against Mr. Delacruz and anyone else who facilitates his abuse of the legal process."
10
137.
On or about December 22,2009, Plaintiff filed restraining order applications
11
against Ramirez for her unlawful harassment and also filed against Joshua Sigal asserting that
12
Sigal facilitated in drafting the threatening email. On or about May 17,2012, Sigal admitted
13
under oath that he was a federal employee and helped draft the foregoing threatening email.
14
138.
Around October 10,2006, Ramirez et al. had obtained a small claims judgment in
15
their favor through fraud by sending the Monterey County small claims court an ex-parte real
16
estate contract with Plaintiffs forged signature in order to conceal the forgery from Plaintiff.
17
18
:9
20
21
139.
On or about July 21, 2006, Plaintiff reported Ramirez and her agent Ray Jeter to
the Monterey County District Attorney consumer fraud division for real estate fraud and forgery.
140.
On or about January of 2007, Plaintiff reported Raquel Ramirez and her agent
Ray Jeter to the federal government for real estate fraud and forgery.
141.
On or about August 08,2007, Plaintiff filed a claim with the DFEH against
22
Ramirez, and Jeter, et al. for disability discrimination, inter alia, for their retaliation committed
23
on or about April 16,2007, against Plaintiff because Ramirez and Jeter, et al. fraudulently
24
charged Plaintiff$3,541 in real estate services that non-disabled persons received free of charge.
25
142.
To conceal the foregoing real estate fraud committed by Sigal, Ramirez, and Jeter,
2E
three restraining order applications were filed against Plaintiff from 2006 through 2009 using the
27
pretext that Plaintiff was harassing Sigal, Ramirez, and Jeter. The court denied all applications.
28
143.
On or about December 21,2009, Ramirez' agent, Ray Jeter, surrendered his real
Page 28
estate license in connection with disciplinary action and an investigation for real estate fraud.
2
144.
On or about June 13, 2012, after several years of investigation, Ramirez was
indicted for seven felonies and was facing 2 \0 years in prison related to real estate bank fraud
that cost banks over five and a half million dollars. Ramirez was subsequently convicted for
conspiracy to commit real estate related bank fraud and sentenced to IS months in prison.
145.
On or about May 17,2012, Sigal admitted under oath that he was responsible for
insuring that all real estate documents were in legal compliance while employed as an officer
with his wife's company - the same documents for which his wife is now a convicted felon.
146.
On or about May 17, 2012, Sigal abused the prestige and status of his federal
10
employment to retaliate against PlaintifTby asserting to the State Bar with the sham claim that
11
Plaintiffs complaints against Ramirez et at. were unmeritorious and vexatious when Sigal was in
12
fact colluding with his wife to conceal their fraudulent real estate business practices. Plaintiffs
13
complaints against Ramirez et at. were corroborated by the foregoing federal indictment and
14
conviction against Ramirez for conspiring in targeting Latinos with sham real estate bank loans.
15
147.
Moreover, on or about March 18,2006, Ramirez' agent - Ray Jeter- admitted
16
that Ramirez et at. "crossed the line in arranging [a] loan", which PlaintifTrefused to sign
17
because Ramirez et at. obtained the loan by falsely tripling Plaintiffs actual household income.
18
14S.
On or about March IS, 2006, Jeter also claimed that attorneys charged Ramirez et
19
at. nearly $S,OOO to defend themselves from Plaintiffs actions. Yet, on or about November 07,
20
2006, under penalty of perjury Ramirez admitted having "no direct knowledge of how much time
21
and/or expenses Mr. Jeter spent .. .in responding to [Plaintiffs] threats and motions oflitigation."
22
149.
On or about May 17, 2012, Sigal retaliated by stating that his wife Ramirez was
23
"tired of[Plaintift] and his antics and is frustrated that so much of her life has been wasted with
24
all his frivolous filings" and "she paid thousands of dollars for an attorney to try to help her."
25
Sigal also stated that his wife Ramirez "couldn't sleep at night" because of Plaintiffs filings.
26
150.
On or about December 20,2006, and July 23,2009, Ramirez had claimed to
27
PlaintifTto direct all legal matters to her attorneys Roger Wintle and Steven Gordon,
28
respectively. On or about January OS, 2007, Ray Jeter and Raquel Ramirez also claimed to the
Page 29
Santa Clara County Association of Realtors that they "have retained Roger Wintle ... as legal
counsel" to represent them for their disciplinary hearing to be held on or about May 21, 2007.
151.
On or about May 17, 2012, Ramirez retaliated against Plaintiff by claiming, "I
had to go pay an attorney just for a retainer offive thousand dollars right off the bat." Yet, under
cross-examination Ramirez admitted she never retained any attorney related to Plaintiffs claims.
In reality, Ramirez retained Wintle and Gordon to defend her in lawsuits unrelated to Plaintiff.
8
9
152.
Moreover, the State Bar had certified copies of the foregoing documents that
incriminated Ramirez and Sigal prior to their testimony and thus, conspired to suborn perjury.
153.
From about June 2008 through August 05,2008, Plaintiff repeatedly requested his
18
bankruptcy file from his attorney Richard McLaughlin so that Plaintiff could submit his file to
11
the State Bar as required for his moral character application. McLaughlin was also notified in
12
writing by an attorney to return Plaintiffs file to no avail. On or about September 17, 2008,
13
Plaintiff filed a State Bar complaint against McLaughlin for his ethical violation.
14
154.
On or about February 22, 2012, in blatant violation of 42 U.S.c. 12102(3)(A) of
15
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and with actual knowledge of Plaintiff s life or
16
death medical crisis of Fabry's Disease and that Plaintiff does not have a mental disease,
17
McLaughlin unconscionably and recklessly discriminated against Plaintiff by falsely stating to
18
the State Bar that Plaintiff"has a persecution complex Newt Gingrich would be proud of."
09
155.
On or about May 14, 1999, Plaintiff received $50,000 in a settlement agreement
20
to dismiss Plaintiffs lawsuit in case # M40802 against TAl et al. for intentional infliction of
21
emotional distress, inter alia. On or about March 11, 2002, Plaintiff s professional tax preparer
22
opined that because the foregoing settlement was paid for intentional infliction of emotional
23
distress, it was not taxable income in Plainti ff s 1999 income tax fonns. Around 2001, Plaintiff
24
was notified by both the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and the State of California Franchise
25
Tax Board ("FTB") in which the $50,000 settlement was disputed as taxable income.
26
156.
Plaintiff relayed both the IRS and FTB notices to McLaughlin with the
27
instructions to add both as creditors to Plaintiffs bankruptcy case. Around August 13, 2001, the
28
IRS filed a claim to be paid through Plaintiffs bankruptcy plan. On or about January 23, 2003,
Page 30
Plaintiff received a second notice from the FTB and again relayed the notice to McLaughlin and
reiterated his directions to include the FTB as a creditor to Plaintiffs bankruptcy filing.
157.
Although McLaughlin fraudulently informed Plaintiffthat the FTB issue had been
resolved, McLaughlin had in fact breached his fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiff by repeatedly
omitting the FTB as a creditor and instead delegated his fiduciary duty to his secretary who also
repeatedly failed to add the FTB as a creditor. As a result, after Plaintiff's bankruptcy was
discharged in March of2005, the FTB contacted Plaintiff a third time to pay the taxes owed on
the $50,000 settlement amount for the 1999 tax year. Plaintiff was forced to enter into a payment
plan on April 15, 2005, with the FTB because of McLaughlin's fraudulent misrepresentations.
10
158.
Significantly, McLaughlin believed that he could fraudulently misrepresent
11
Plaintiff with impunity because Plaintiff was inflicted with Fabry Disease, a hereditary disorder
12
that, inter alia, leads to major organ failure and death. Thus, McLaughlin believed that Plaintiff
13
would succumb from his deadly medical crisis.
14
159.
On or about August 07,2013, as a result of the McLaughlin's foregoing fraud,
15
discrimination, and retaliation, Plaintiff's law license was denied by the State Bar based in
16
relevant part because Plaintiff did not pay the additional state tax liability until 2005.
17
160.
On or about February 13, 2012, Bill Stephens spoke to Officer Steven Card who
18
stated that he could not remember Plaintiffs domestic violence incident. Disappointed from
19
Card's foregoing response, on or about February 24, 2012, Bill Stephens then sent Officer Lance
20
Miraco a copy of Plaintiffs domestic violence police report for his review. However, on or abou
21
March 2 1,2012, Lance Miraco responded to Bill Stephens stating "\ read the report you sent me
22
however after 15 years and hundreds of arrests I have no specific recollection of that incident."
23
161.
Determined to have Plaintiffs law licensed denied by any means necessary. on
24
about May 16, 2012, the State Bar induced Officer Card to reverse his foregoing "could not
25
remember" statement and claim that Plaintiffs domestic violence incident was distinguishable
26
from at least two hundred other domestic violence cases he had investigated.
27
28
162.
However, as alleged herein, after learning of a hidden camera and of Plaintiffs
surveillance profession, Card subsequently testified evasively over 20 times responding "I can't
Page 3 I

J
1.
recall" and "I don't remember." Card also reluctantly admitted that he threatened Plaintiff with
the use of deadly force by putting his hand on his gun along with the verbal threat, "If you ever
harm your wife again, I'm going to take it upon myself and make it my personal business."
163.
Card also admitted the foregoing after being warned that committing perjury
could jeopardize his pension. Card also admitted telling Plaintiffs wife, "I care about you" and
admitted that he paraphrased statements that were made to him on or about February 20, 1997.
7
8
9
164.
Card's testimony corroborated Plaintiffs long held contention since 1997 that
Officer Card fabricated the police report in order to secure a conviction against Plaintiff.
165.
Around August 07,2013, Defendants Catherine D. Purcell, Judith A. Epstein, and
10
JoAnn M. Remke reversed Lucy Armendariz' unreasonable finding that Plaintiff had minimized
11
the facts surrounding his 1997 conviction. However, said Defendants denied Plaintiff a law
12
license in relevant part due to the State Bar'sjalse claim that Plaintiffs conviction was a felony
13
instead of a misdemeanor.
14
166.
As a result of Card's fraudulent police report and violations of Plaintiffs civil
15
rights committed while conducting his official duties as an employee ofthe Salinas Police
16
Department, Plaintiff was coerced into pleading nolo contendre to domestic violence - a
17
conviction which in relevant part led the State Bar to deny Plaintiffs license to practice law.
18
167.
Plaintiff, a disabled Latino, had filed disability and racial discrimination related
19
lawsuits against his former employer TAl. At the time of Plaintiff's lawsuits, Julie R. Culver was
20
the wife of Anthony Lombardo - a law partner with Lombardo & Gilles who had represented
21
Plaintiffs former employer TAl in the case #M 49083 for an injunction to enforce a settlement
22
agreement in case #M 40802, and had unsuccessfully challenged Plaintiffs bankruptcy filing, as
23
alleged herein. Julie R. Culver also attended law school with State Bar moral character officer
24
Lisa Cummins who, on or about August 19, 2011, obsessively questioned Plaintiff over the TAl
25
lawsuit case # M49083 and the subsequent related bankruptcy filing, as alleged herein.
26
168.
Beginning on or about July 29, 20 I 0, Culver, a non-Latino and a Superior Court
27
Judge with the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, singled out Plaintiff, a Latino,
28
in her courtroom and demanded his identification. Culver obtained Plaintiffs State Bar issued
Page 32
law clerk certification and wrote down his name and law clerk certification number. Culver then,
acting by, through, under or in concert with TAl, disseminated Plaintiffs foregoing information
to Lisa Cummins so that Plaintiffs moral character application and law license would be denied.
169.
As a Monterey County Superior Court Judge, Julie R. Culver exceeded her
jurisdiction through her foregoing conduct with Plaintiffs moral character proceedings and
thereby abused the prestige of the judicial office as a Monterey County Superior Court Judge.
170.
On or about May 08, 2012, Culver was served with a subpoena to testify at
Plaintiffs moral character trial. Shortly thereafter, Culver's attorney notified Plaintiffrequesting
that Plaintiff rescind the foregoing subpoena on the basis of Culver's evasive response that she
lC
"could not recall" the July 29, 2010, incident. Plaintiff agreed to rescind the foregoing subpoena
lion the condition that Culver executes an affidavit attesting that Culver did not communicate with
12
13
Lisa Cummins regarding Plaintiffs State Bar moral character application.

171.
However, Culver refused to sign any affidavit and instead took extreme measures
14
in suppressing her collusion with TAl and Cummins by sending her attorney to San Francisco,
15
Ca. on or about May 14,2014, to quash Culver's subpoena based in relevant part that Culver's
16
statements and conduct were privileged and confidential and thus, exempt from discovery.
17
18
19
20
21
172.
As a result of Culver's unlawful retaliatory conduct and her dissemination of
Plaintiffs information to Cummins, the State Bar denied Plaintiff a license to practice law.
173.
On or about April 26, 2001, after applying for benefits due to his hereditary
disorder of Fabry's Disease, the Social Security Administration deemed Plaintiff to be disabled.
174.
On or about April 16,2001, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and on or about October
22
29,2001, filed a motion for sanctions against TAl et al. and James Sullivan for their frivolous
23
objections to Plaintiffs bankruptcy confirmation, resulting in TAl withdrawing their objections.
24
175.
On or about August 29, 1996, Plaintifffiled a claim with the California Labor
2S
Commissioner against TAl resulting in overtime wages of $662.93 being paid to Plaintiff by TAl
26
and overtime wages also being paid to all other TAl employees in both back pay and henceforth.
27
28
176.
On or about October 22, 1996, Plaintiff filed a claim with the Division of
Occupational Safety and Health ("OSHA") against TAl for safety violations at a cooling facility
Page 33
"
..J
in Oxnard, Ca. that was leased by TAl resulting in compliance with O~HA regulations by the
ordering and installation of safety devices that were missing from the l>regoing leased facility.
177.
On or about December 28, 1999, Plaintiff filed a claim with the California Labor
Commissioner against SLSI for overtime pay owed to Plaintiff, resulting in a dismissal because
Plaintiff could not attend due to medical treatment for his medical crisis of Fabry's Disease.
6
7
8
9
10
"
178.
On or about March 02, 1998, Plaintiff filed case # M39913 against Scotch House,
et al. for racial discrimination inter alia, resulting in an out of court monetary settlement.
179.
After filing a complaint with the DFEH and EEOC and being issued a right to sue
letter, on or about July 10, 1998, Plaintiff filed case # M40802 against TAl et al. for racial
discrimination inter alia, resulting in a $50,000 out of court settlement.
180.
On or about September 02, 1999, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH and
12
EEOC against SLSI for racial discrimination inter alia, and was subsequently issued a right to
13
sue letter. However, Plaintiff's experimental and intensive enzyme replacement therapy for his
14
foregoing life or death medical crisis prevented Plaintiff from pursuing a lawsuit against SLSI.
15
181.
On or about May 15,2006, Plaintiff filed an ethics complaint against Raquel
16
Ramirez and Ray Jeter resulting in disciplinary action against both Ramirez and Jeter for
17
breaching their fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff.
18
182.
All of Plaintiff's foregoing filings were protected by Plaintiff's right to petition
19
the government for redress of grievances pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States
20
Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the
21
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Yet, on
22
or about August 19,2011, Sean McCoy retaliated against Plaintiff by stating:
23
"We're looking at your fitness to be an attorney. And judging your fitness to be an
24
attorney based on [the] civil actions or administrative actions to which you, which
25
you initiated or were a party, ... Iooking back at this history judging your fitness to
26
be an attorney prospectively what is the lesson that you take from that we should
27
consider? In other words, ... you don't regret bringing any of those actions?"
28
183.
On or about September 02,2011, Debra Lawson informed Plaintiff that the State
Page 34
Bar declined to grant him a positive moral character determination based on inter alia, theJalse
claim that Plaintiff"violated an Order of the Court in your case involving Tanimura and Antle."
184.
On or about September 18, 20 II, Plaintiff requested an informal conference with
the State Bar to present documentary evidence regarding the factors that were considered in
denying his moral character application in accordance with State Bar Rules 4.46(B) and 4.46(C).
However, on or about September 22,2011, Debra Lawson refused Plaintiff's formal request.
185.
On or about October 17,20 11, Plaintiff filed an appeal with the State Bar because
his license to practice law was denied. Plaintiff then filed several disability related pleadings that
were protected by 42 U.S.C. 121 01 et seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
10
186.
Specifically, on or about March 12,2012, in accordance with California
11
Government Code 68753, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Deposition to perpetuate his wife's
12
testimony because she was a material witness who could not attend Plaintiff's moral character
13
determination trial because of her disability of degeneration oflumbar disc causing low back
14
pain, lumbar radiculopathy, and lumbar strain. In violation of disability rights, the State Bar
15
opposed Plaintiff's motion, which Lucy Armendariz ratified by denying Plaintiff's motion.
16
187.
On or about March 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Settlement Conference Statement,
17
which included facts related to TAl's false claims including one that Plaintiff had a loathsome
18
disease when TAl knew that Plaintiff was battling a life or death medical crisis of Fabry's
19
Disease, a non-contagious and deadly hereditary disorder. Plaintiff had also stated that he
20
endured sustained verbal abuse by alcohol and substance abusing supervisors at TAl.
21
188.
Moreover, TAl vice-president Mike Antle acknowledged such foregoing abuse in
22
Antle's tape-recorded admissions of, "I'm not denying any oftha\", "there's no question that the
23
alcohol's a problem", and "he'd just like, he'll fall down and you can't even understand him",
24
but nonetheless terminated Plaintiff's employment with TAlon or about July of 1996.
25
189.
On or about April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Abatement requesting for
26
his State Bar Moral Character trial to be abated for the day of May 22, 2012, and reconvene the
27
following day of May 23, 2012, so that Plaintiff's enzyme replacement therapy for his disability
28
of Fabry's Disease, which prevents major organ failure, would not be disrupted.
Page 35
190.
On or about April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Pretrial Statement included
statements related to his disability of Fabry's Disease, stating, " ... [Plaintiff] has Fabry's Disease
and was diagnosed on or about June 30, 1992 ... Fabry's Disease is a hereditary and ultimately
terminal disorder ifleft untreated." Yet, on or about May 14,2012, Manuel Jimenez retaliated
against Plaintiff by stating, inter alia, that Plaintiff has "doubled down and exasperated the
conduct in the litigation in this case, and I would request that this court keep in mind all of the
pleadings that have been filed in this case because all of them are judicial admissions."
191.
On or about May 14,2012, Manuel Jimenez retaliated further by stating:
192.
"[Plaintiff] is a victim of the [State Bar] ... , he is a victim of the police, a victim
:0
his employers ... When something doesn't go the [Plaintiff's] way, he turns around, looks around
11
and attempts to shift blame to somebody else. He synthesized disparate and unrelated events into
12
a world view, and in this world view, in his mind is reality, irrespective of what the facts are, yet
13
none of this self diagnosed victimization is based in fact ... The evidence will show that the
14
[Plaintiff] will get up on that stand and he'll testilY to the following. He'll testify that the [State
15
Bar] abused the legal process. He'll testilY that the [State Bar] is biased and impartial against
16
him. He will testify that the [State Bar] acted with deceit and collusion against him, and he'll
17
testify that the [State Bar] denied his application as retaliation .... and I would ask the court to
:8
at the pleadings in this case. For instance, the [State Bar] filed a response to his application
19
basically stating that he has inappropriately and repeatedly used the litigation process,
20
administrative proceedings to harass and intimidate and coerce people."
21
22
193.
On or about June 0 1, 20 II, the State Bar researched and obtained medical
information on Fabry's Disease, which stated in relevant part:
23
"The disorder belongs to a group of diseases known as lysosomal storage
24
disorders .... Symptoms of 'classic' Fabry's Disease may include ... excruciating
25
pain in the fingers and toes, and abdominal pain. Later in the course of the
26
disease, kidney failure, heart disease, and/or strokes cause serious complications."
27
28
100
194.
On or about December 13, 2011, with full knowledge that Plaintiff did not file 44
lawsuits and that his Fabry's Disease does not cause mental illness, Cydney Batchelor recklessly
Page 36
and falsely stated to Plaintiff's then attorney in a phone call, "I looked online to research Fabry's
Disease. [Plaintiff's] Fabry's Disease probably caused him mental issues because he's filed 44
lawsuits." Batchelor then lamented how Plaintiff was able to get so much information on the
State Bar after Plaintiff's investigation uncovered their conflicts of interest. Batchelor then
attempted to extort Plaintiff out of his property rights of a law license by threatening that unless
Plaintiff abandoned his law license appeal, the State Bar would charge him with stalking the
State Bar and would also permanently ban Plaintiff from ever reapplying for a law license.
8
9
195.
On or about February 8, 2012, Manuel Jimenez mailed Plaintiff a letter with an
attached Authorization to Release Medical Records from Plaintiff's physician, stating in relevant
10
part: "It appears that the subject of Fabry's disease has some relevance to your moral character
11
application ... ~ I am also writing to inquire as to whether you would be amendable to stipulating
12
to having and Independent Medical Evaluation so that we may assess your suitability to practice
13
law." Plaintiff declined the State Bar's foregoing requests.
14
196.
Moreover, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
15
protects Plaintiff's medical records from the State Bar and 42 U.S.C. 12102(3)(A) of the
16
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 protects Plaintiff from the State Bar's discrimination on
17
any "perceived mental impairment" and from any compelled Independent Medical Evaluation.
18
197.
On or about April 02, 2012, Jimenez persisted in attempting to have Plaintiff
19
waive his medical privacy and disability rights by inquiring if Plaintiff would stipulate to having
20
an independent medical evaluation performed. Plaintiff immediately informed Jimenez that there
21
was no good cause for an evaluation and therefore would not stipulate to such an evaluation.
22
198.
In violation of 42 U.S.C. 12 I 02(3)(A) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
23
1990, on or about April 03, 2012, Manuel Jimenez attempted to bootstrap a sham Independent
24
Medical Evaluation by asserting the discriminatory andfalse claim that Plaintiffs "filings in the
25
instant matter appear to show that [Plaintiff] may suffer from some mental disorder, disease or
26
defect that puts into question his ability and suitability to practice law. [Plaintiff's] filings in the
27
instant matter show a manifestation of paranoia and a persecution complex."
28
199.
Moreover, Jimenez had actual knowledge that Plaintiff's hereditary disorder of
Page 37
'
Fabry's disease does not cause mental illness based on the State Bar's research of the extent of
its symptoms obtained on or about June 01, 2011. Jimenez was also informed by Plaintiffs
physician that his enzyme replacement therapy "allows Plaintiff to function as a lawyer."
200.
Jimenez also reasonably knew that Plaintiff's former disgruntled attorney,
Richard McLaughlin, who made the reckless false claim that Plaintiff"has a persecution
complex Newt Gingrich would be proud of', had no factual basis and was an unconscionable an
gratuitous insult in retaliation against Plaintiffs foregoing complaint against McLaughlin.
201.
Adding to the irony of Jimenez' foregoing reckless remarks, on or about March
05,2012, Jimenez had accused Plaintiff with irrational allegations of "intimidation and stalking
10
behavior" towards Bill Stephens and Larry Sheingold simply because Plaintiff investigated the
"
State Bar members during the discovery process while Plaintiff was representing himself pro se.
12
202.
Additionally, on or about August 19, 2011, Richard Frankel inquired with
13
Plaintiff during an informal State Bar proceeding, "are you personally tape-recording this
14
conversation?" and "the box sitting to your left, does that contain a recording device?" On or
15
about April 04, 2012, Jimenez reiterated Frankel's irrational inquiry by asking Plaintiff, "are you
16
recording us?" and "do you have any recording devices on you?"
17
18
19
203.
On or about April 27, 2012, Jimenez persisted in accusing Plaintiff with the
irrational allegations of "intimidation and stalking behavior" towards Stephens and Sheingold.
204.
Based on Jimenez' reckless and frivolous attempt to bootstrap the foregoing sham
20
Independent Medical Evaluation Motion, on or about April 06, 2012, Plaintiff filed his
21
Opposition Motion and prevailed by having Jimenez' motion denied. Unwilling to treat Plaintiff
22
with the dignity and respect owed to him under 42 U.S.C. 12102(3)(A) of the Americans with
23
Disabilities Act of 1990, on or about May 14,2012, Jimenez again unconscionably, egregiously,
24
and recklessly retaliated against Plaintiff by stating:
25
"In the [State Bar's] April 03, 2012, Motion for an [independent medical
26
evaluation], which by the way, was vastly needed in this case, and if it's not -- if
27
this court doesn't have the power to do it, which I'm surprised it doesn't, then
28
changes need to be made. Be that as it may we stated that the [PlaintiffJ has a
Page 38
manifestation of paranoia and a persecution complex." (Emphasis Added)

205.
Around May 15, 2013, Plaintiff asserted his equal protection rights to make,
modify, and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and file disability claims
protected by 42 U.S.c. 12101, et seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California
Civil Code 54 et seq. of the California Disabled Persons Act. Allen Blumenthal then retaliated
by asserting to Defendants Catherine D. Purcell, Judith A. Epstein, and JoAnn M. Remke to den
Plaintiffs law license.
s
9
206.
On or about October 28, 2011, Cydney Batchelor was assigned by the State Bar a
the primary counsel to prosecute Plaintiffs moral character determination case. On or about
10
January 23, 2012, Plaintiff alleged that the State Bar's denial of Plaintiff's law license was
11
perpetuating "the social tragedy of racism that has plagued [Plaintiff] throughout [his] life."
12
207.
On or about January 31, 2012, Susan Kagan - the State Bar's Assistant Chief Trial
13
Officer and supervising officer - replaced Cydney Batchelor, a non-Latino, with Manuel
14
Jimenez, a Latino, as the primary counsel to undermine Plaintiffs racial discrimination claim.
15
208.
Susan Kagan's conduct in replacing Cydney Batchelor with Manuel Jimenez was
16
a direct violation of the State Bar Chief Trial Officer Jayne Kim's mandate who appointed Susan
17
Kagan to her position as the Assistant Chief Trial Officer. Specifically, Jayne Kim mandated on
18
or about January 25, 2012, a "vertical prosecution model" whereas a prosecutor "assigned to
19
investigations will keep the matters through completion of trial."
20
209.
On or about May 14,2012, Plaintiff asserted that the State Bar was, inter alia,
21
"perpetuating the social tragedy of racism" by denying Plaintiff a law license based on his racial
22
discrimination lawsuits. Manuel Jimenez corroborated Plaintiffs racism allegations because
23
Jimenez immediately retaliated by stating that Plaintiff has "doubled down and exasperated the
24
conduct in the litigation in this case" and urged Lucy Armendariz to "keep in mind all of the
25
pleadings that have been filed in this case because all of them are judicial admissions."
26
210.
On or about May 14, 2012, Jimenez further corroborated Plaintiffs racism
27
allegations against the State Bar because Jimenez retaliated by urging Lucy Armendariz to "take
28
into consideration when making this determination ... he'll testify that the [State Bar] denied his
Page 39
application as retaliation, We've already heard that he believes that the [State Bar] denied his
application because of racism,"
211.
From about September 2011 through about May 2012, during his pro per
representation for his moral character trial proceedings, Plaintiff conducted investigations on
members of the State Bar and discovered several conflicts of interest between the State Bar and
Plaintiffs discrimination lawsuits filed against TAl and Scotch House et al.
212,
Plaintiff discovered that Lisa Cummins attended law school with Julie R, Culver-
wife of Anthony Lombardo and law partner in the Lombardo & Gilles law firm who represented
TAl in their lawsuit against Plaintiff and Plaintiffs subsequent bankruptcy filing that TAl
10
unsuccessfully challenged, Plaintiff also discovered Culver's personal association with TAl's
11
president and CEO Rick Antle in which the two are photographed in a newspaper publication,
12
13
14
213,
Plaintiff also discovered a hit-and-run lawsuit filed against Lisa Cummins and on
or about March 19, 2012, Plaintiff obtained a certified copy of the lawsuit.
214,
Plaintifffurther uncovered that Sheingold had been profiled by a campaigns and
15
elections expert, Dennis Johnson, as having an incredible 90% success rate in getting candidates
16
elected to public office, Sheingold's remarkable success rate is achieved using extremely
17
unethical and ruthless cut-throat tactics described by Dennis Johnson as "crossing the line of
18
decency and fairness" and "descending into the gutter of personal vilification," Such unethical
19
and ruthless tactics are euphemistically referred by political consultants as "opposition research,"
20
215,
Plaintiff also uncovered Sheingold's conflicts of interest with Plaintiffs
21
discrimination lawsuits filed against Scotch House et al. and TAl. Sheingold grew up and
22
attended high school in the small town of Carmel California and is associated with the Carmel
23
family that repeatedly berated and attacked, inter alia, Plaintiff with the racial slur of "wetback",
24
216,
Plaintiff also uncovered Larry Sheingold's publication of sexually charged
25
remarks including "deep-throating", "pastrami porn", "condiment whore" and had parodied
26
President's Clinton's lewd use ofa cigar during Clinton's well publicized sex scandal with
27
Monica Lewinsky stating, "Just because Bill Clinton has strange ideas about what to do with
28
cigars doesn't mean that local politicians just don't smoke theirs,"
Complaint For Damages Case No,
Page 40
217.
On or about December 13, 2012, State Bar Chief Trial Officer Jayne Kim was
informed of the foregoing misconduct and sexually charged remarks. Yet, Jayne Kim, as the
supervisory officer responsible for State Bar personnel conduct, failed to take corrective action.
218.
Plaintiff also discovered a lawsuit that was filed against Larry Sheingold related
to Sheingold's political consultant profession. Sheingold was accused by a competing political
consultant of unethical conduct including luring away an employee and misappropriating
confidential campaign plans. Upon discovering the lawsuit, around December 21, 2011, Plaintiff
contacted Tom Hujar and Margaret Gladstein - who were involved with Sheingold's lawsuit-
and requested their knowledge of "any ethical violations [Sheingold] may have committed".
'0
219.
Furthermore, Larry Sheingold, as a professional political consultant, is associated
"
with TAl through their mutual business relationships with prominent government officials
12
including Anna Caballero and Antonio Villaraigosa.
13
220.
Specifically, Larry Sheingold was a political consultant who owned Sheingold
14
Associates. A 200 I spending notification filing shows that Antonio Villaraigosa, combined with
15
other candidates, spent $7000 for services rendered by Sheingold Associates. Moreover, in April
16
2001, Sheingold, a Sacramento resident with no jurisdictional interest in Los Angeles, as an
17
individual, contributed $250 to Antonio Villaraigosa's Los Angeles mayoral campaign.
18
221.
Additionally, TAl's co-founder Robert V. Antle serves on the Board of Directors
19
of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy located in Monterey County alongside Silva Panetta
20
who is also the co-director and co-founder of the Panetta Institute and wife of the influential
21
public figure Leon Panetta who also co-founded the Panetta Institute. In March 2011, Antonio
22
Villaraigosa participated in the Panetta Institute's Lecture Series of "How Can Public Education
23
Succeed for Our Children?" in which Sylvia Panetta introduced, hugged, and kissed Villaraigosa.
24
222.
In 2001, Plaintiff sought the help of a local attorney and Salinas Mayor Anna
25
Caballero, Bar #96336, in his attempt to appeal TAl's attorney's fees judgment. However,
26
Caballero declined to help Plaintiff. Plaintiff subsequently discovered that TAl was politically
27
involved with Caballero. Specifically, an October 2002 newspaper advertisement for Caballero's
28
reelection for Mayor of Salinas features Robert V. Antle a.k.a. Bob Antle with Anna Caballero.
Page 41
223.
In a May 2008 newspaper article, former Salinas Mayor Anna Caballero is
featured as a Board of Director member of the First Tee of Monterey County. Significantly, the
same article also features Carmen Ponce, Bar #153559, as a Board of Director member. Carmen
Ponce is also TAl's Vice President of Human Resources and General Counsel of TAl.
5
6
7
224.
Plaintiff located a July 2010 newspaper article in which Larry Sheingold, as a
political consultant, was hired by Anna Caballero during her run for the Califomia State Senate.
225.
On or about January 03,2012, Larry Sheingold retaliated because Plaintiff is a
Latino who exercised his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right to sue for racial
discrimination and filed lawsuits and administrative complaints against TAl, SLSI, and Scotch
10
House et al. by complaining to Debra Lawson, stating in relevant part:
11
"A friend, who used to work for me, recently got an email through linked in from
12
a Daniel Delacruz ... asking her if she knows of any ethical violations I may have
13
committed .... " I am wondering what he is cooking up for me - and the others
14
who did his interview and rejected his application. (Either for use in his appeal
15
or for revenge).' ... what (sic) the [State Bar'sJlatitude in dealing with him ifhe
16
goes after us with the same lack of morals he used against Antle and the process
17
server?" (Parenthetical wording as original: Emphasis added; Brackets added)
18
19
20
21
22
226.
As a result of Shein gold's foregoing complaint, Lawson retaliated by colluding
with the other State Bar members to fabricate a stalking and harassment claim against Plaintiff.
227.
On or about March 12, 2012, as a result of the foregoing conflicts of interest and
moral character discrepancies, Plaintiff characterized the State Bar as "hypocrites."

228.
On or about August 19,2011, Larry Sheingold, Lisa Cummins, Richard Frankel,
23
and Sean McCoy obsessively addressed Plaintiffs lawsuits involving TAl and Scotch House et
24
al. including: (i) "a judgment or a court order that ordered you to pay ... and ... you didn't have
25
any respect for the court order."; (ii) "would it be a fair statement to say that the motivating
26
factor behind filing chapter 13 bankruptcy was the attorneys fees judgment against you?"; (iii)
27
"you've got in 1996, a tape-recorded conversation with Mike Antle, which excerpts of which yo
28
used in the 0 1112/01 statement. And then there was also the tape recording of [Scotch House et
Page 42
aLl that was, that you talked about. It, it says, 'Delacruz infonned me' this is the officer, 'that he
2
tape-recorded the encounter there.' Did any of these people know they were being recorded?";
(iv) " ... regarding True Stories on Bob Antle ... from your website and it relates to a DUI
conviction, misdemeanor DUI conviction that Mr. Antle suffered at some point." and; (v) "So do
you regret any of the things that you put on the website, either for Sayler or for Antle?"
229.
As a result, on or about March 09, 2012, Plaintiff filed motions to conduct pre-
trial special interrogatories on Stephanie Sayler, TAl, and Julie Culver, inter alia. However, on 0
about March 15,2012, Manuel Jimenez opposed Plaintiffs discovery motion using the pretext
that Plaintiff "uses the legal process for an improper purpose to harass, intimidate and annoy"
10
and euphemistically labeling the State Bar's conflicts of interest as "tangential relationships".
:1
230.
In May of20I2, Plaintiff subpoenaed Sheingold, Cummins, and Culver to testifY
12
at Plaintiffs forthcoming moral character detennination trial in order to prove that the State
13
Bar's denial of Plaintiffs law license was exercised ex gratia to TAl, inter alia.
14
231.
On or about May 11,2012, Manuel Jimenez filed his motion to quash subpoenas
15
on Cummins and Sheingold and motion to exclude any attempt for Plaintiff to elicit infonnation
16
regarding Cummins' and Sheingold's conflicts of interest and collusion with Culver and TAl.
17
232.
On or about May 14, 2012, Jimenez further colluded to suppress the State Bar's
18
conflicts of interest with Culver by falsely asserting that "there is no nexus" and retaliated by
19
stating in relevant part that Plaintiff was "making aspersions on a sitting Superior Court Judge."
20
233.
On or about January 10,2012, Bill Stephens sent Plaintiff an "authorization and
21
release" for Plaintiffs "consent to have an investigation made as to [his] qualification for good
22
moral character" and to "authorize every ... fonner ... employer ... and their agents, to ... give full an
23
complete testimony concerning [Plaintift]", which Plaintiff had sued for discrimination, inter
24
alia. On or about January 13,2012, Plaintiff infonned Stephens that he was declining to sign any
25
authorization and release fonn after Stephens infonned Plaintiff that his fonner employers were
26
concerned over liability issues regarding their statements towards Plaintiffs moral character.
27
28
234.
On or about May 17, 2012, Bill Stephens retaliated because Plaintiff declined to
sign the foregoing release fonn by stating, "I attributed it to a kind of menacing demeanor,
Page 43
displayed behavior" using the pretext that Plaintiff was "stalking" and "cyber stalking" him.
235.
On or about April 02, 2012, Bill Stephens also retaliated against Plaintiff by
stating, "We received [Plaintiffs] law school transcripts ... ln his personal statement he includes
an unspecified reference to being "physically assaulted and verbally abused with racial epithets."
236.
On or about April 27, 2012, Manuel Jimenez retaliated against Plaintiff for his
foregoing investigation by claiming that Plaintiff"engaged in intimidation and stalking behavior
towards persons involved in his moral character detennination and investigation."
237.
On or about March 15,2013, Donald Steedman retaliated because Plaintiff
exercised his equal protection right to make, modify, and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties,
10
and give evidence and filed racial and disability discrimination related complaints stating:
11
"[Plaintiff] ... brought...lawsuits against individuals who, ... attacked [Plaintiff]
12
during work as a process server ... [Plaintiff] believes that he was fired for
13
complaining about his supervisors and other employees and because of
14
discrimination. [Plaintiff] then brought...proceedings against TAI, ... including a
15
EEOC complaint...After he was tenninated, [Planitiff] (I) sued Sayler in small
16
claims court, (2) filed a complaint against Sayler with the Labor Commissioner,
17
and (3) filed a complaint against Sayler with the Department of Fair Employment
18
and Housing. If allowed to practice law, [Plaintiff] would pose a grave danger to
19
clients, the public, and the legal system."
20
238.
On or about March 15, 2013, Donald Steedman falsely claimed that Plaintiff was
21
convicted ofa felony even after admitting that Plaintiffs was given probation and his conviction
22
was expunged pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4 - a statute specific to misdemeanors.
23
239.
On or about March 15,2013, Donald Steedman retaliated against Plaintiffby:
24
falsely claiming that Plaintiff misled the IRS and Franchise Tax Board, as alleged herein, by
25
falsely portraying that Raquel Ramirez, Joshua Sigal, and Ray Jeter were victims of Plaintiff's
26
"campaign of harassment", with full knowledge that Ramirez and Jeter were disciplined for
27
breaching their fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff, as alleged herein, and with full knowledge that
28
Ramirez was indicted by the federal government for real estate bank fraud on or about June 13,
Page 44
2012, and was facing over 210 years in a federal prison, as alleged herein.
240.
As alleged herein, on or about 1998 through 2000, Plaintiff exercised his
constitutional right to free speech by criticizing and parodying his former employer TAl for their
racial discrimination, alcohol and substance abuse, and criminal convictions, inter alia, in a
Boycott TAl website. Plaintiffs website contained a legal disclaimer stating that the contents
were Plaintiffs personal opinion and that visitors were not to take anything personal. Website
visitors were required to agree to the legal disclaimer before they were able to view the contents
and would be redirected away from the website if visitors disagreed to the disclaimer.
241.
Plaintiffs website was also protected by his constitutional right of freedom of
10
association because his website received over 2200 visits and requested feedback from visitors in
11
which Plaintiff received several anonymous responses including expletives and a death threat.
12
Plaintiff also received anonymous discourse that TAl attorney Rick Harray abused animals and a
13
wedding invitation involving Mike Antle, which Plaintiff vaguely referenced in his website. The
14
wedding invitation was addressed to Plaintiff as "Danny" with his surname spelled using three
15
words of"De La Cruz," which TAl attorney Carmen Ponce admitted was identical to the manner
16
in which she referred to Plaintiff through their mutual employment with TAL Plaintiff also
17
received an inquiry from a TAl family member who requested more information.
18
242.
On or about March 04, 2001, Plaintiff exercised his right to practice his religion
19
pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by sending TAl an offer to
20
modify a contract for case # M40802 to include religion. On or about March 18,2012, TAl's
21
attorney James Sullivan inadvertently corroborated that Plaintiffs offer to modify the foregoing
22
contract was a valid premise because religion was not factored into the contract stating, "I can't
23
imagine how the web site that we had previously seen had related to any religion."
24
243.
Beginning on or about May 14,2012, the State Bar repeatedly violated Plaintiffs
25
Fifth Amendment right from self-incrimination after Plaintiff was accused of criminal conduct
26
including: (i) "intimidation", "stalking" and "cyber stalking" State Bar members because
27
Plaintiff (a) investigated Larry Sheingold - a political consultant, a profession notorious for
28
extremely unethical and cut-throat business tactics - for "any ethical violations he may have
Page 45
committed"; (b) investigated Lisa Cummins, which uncovered a disturbing hit-and-run lawsuit
filed against her; (c) investigated Bill Stephens; (d) monitored Bill Stephens Internet
investigation of Plaintiff and was asked how he knew the State Bar's Internet Protocol address;
(ii) violating Penal Code Section 632 for surreptitiously recording persons and; (iii) violating a
court order that prohibited Plaintiff from publishing a Boycott TAl website.
244.
On or about May 16,2012, Plaintiff testified that he could not address the
foregoing IRS or FTB tax issues because of his necessary medical treatment for Fabry's Disease,
which is terminal if left untreated, by stating, "I was in no position to fight the IRS, particularly
in 2001 ... 1 was traveling to UC San Francisco every two weeks for medical treatment."
10
245.
On May 17, 2012, Plainti ff stated that the FTB had notified him at the same time
11
as the IRS and brought it to his bankruptcy attorney's attention. However, the FTB did not file a
12
proof of claim and waited to collect the debt after Plaintiff's bankruptcy was discharged in 2005.
13
246.
On or about May 23, 2012, Manuel Jimenez retaliated by asserting that Plaintiffs
14
foregoing conduct was moral turpitude by claiming that Plaintiff: (i) was convicted of a non-
15
existent crime offelony probation; (ii) was the victim of verbal and physical abuse at the hands
16
of his wife; (iii) blames his tax preparer for reporting the TAl $50,000.00 settlement as non-
17
taxable income to the IRS and FTB; (iv) filed labor commissioner complaints against his former
18
employers TAl and SLSI; (v) filed discrimination and retaliation complaints against TAl, SLSI,
19
Raquel Ramirez, and Joshua Sigal; (vi) filed breach of contract complaints against Raquel
20
Ramirez et al.; (vii) filed ethical violation complaints against Raquel Ramirez and Joshua Sigal;
21
(viii) reported Raquel Ramirez and Joshua Sigal to the government for their fraudulent and
22
illegal conduct; (ix) improperly investigated the State Bar; (x) surreptitiously recorded many
23
conversations pursuant to the federal one-party recording statute including TAl, SLSI, and
24
Scotch House et al.; (xi) repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege from self-
25
incrimination; (xii) asserted conflicts of interest rights with attorney Steven Gordon through
26
Raquel Ramirez et al. and Lucy Armendariz through TAl; (xiii) failed to regret in exercising his
27
First Amendment right to free speech and; (xiv) exercised his right to file bankruptcy.
28
247.
The State Bar had actual knowledge that on or about June 13, 2012, Raquel
Page 46
Ramirez was indicted by the federal government on seven felonies for real estate related bank
fraud and was facing over 210 years in prison. The State Bar also had constructive knowledge
that on or about August 08, 2013, Ramirez was convicted of conspiracy to commit real estate
related bank fraud and sentenced to eighteen months in prison.
248.
Despite the State Bar's foregoing actual and constructive knowledge of Ramirez'
criminal conduct, on or about October 07,2013, Rachel Grunberg, Starr Babcock, Richard
Zanassi, and William Shaffer continued with the State Bar's unmitigated retaliation by falsely
claiming that Plaintiffs actions to expose Ramirez' real estate fraud were "false and misleading
representations to govemment agencies and courts, harassment, and abuse of the legal process."
10
249.
Grunberg, Babcock, Zanassi, and Shaffer further retaliated by urging the
11
California Supreme Court to deny Plaintiff's petition for review by falsely claiming that Plaintiff:
12
(i) was convicted of a felony; (ii) had a conviction for making terrorist threats; (iii) was never
13
sued by Joshua Sigal and Sigal never represented Plaintiff in any capacity; (iv) tape-recorded
14
persons who violated Plaintiff's civil rights which were "unlawful" and a "failure to deal with
15
others in a professional, civilized and good faith manner"; (v) posted "defamatory statements
16
online"; (vi) violated a court order; (vii) cited anti-retaliation statutes that only apply to
17
employer-employee relationships and; (viii) cited anti-retaliation statutes that are not applicable
18
to this moral character proceeding.
19
250.
Moreover, the State Bar's own "Administrative Advisory No. 12-07" specifically
20
states in relevant part: "It is the policy of the State Bar to comply with the [Americans with
21
Disabilities Act] and [state Fair Employment and Housing Act] ... the State Bar Court will
22
continue to address accommodation (sic) made in connection with the Court's docketed matters."
23
251.
Grunberg, Babcock, lanassi, and Shaffer further unlawfully retaliated by stating:
24
"[Plaintiff] perpetually casts himself in the role of victim, when he is the
25
antagonist and aggressor .... Permeating his entire Petition, [Plaintiff] argues that
26
the ... adverse moral character determination amounts to unlawful retaliation,
27
citing numerous federal statutes ... [Plaintiff's] attempt to cast aspersions on others
28
is troubling and symbolic of his overall inability to conduct himself in an ethical
Page 47
and professional manner, especially when he has not gotten what he wants."
252.
While employed as a process server with SLSI from 1997 through 1999, Plaintiff
became a licensed registered process server pursuant to Ca. Business and Professions Code
22351.5, which prohibits felons and also requires a fingerprinted background check by the FBI
and Department of Justice. Plaintiff also applied for a real estate license and disclosed his
domestic violence conviction as a misdemeanor and was issued a real estate license on or about
April 21, 2007, by the Ca. Department of Real Estate - now called the Bureau of Real Estate.
253.
However, from about September 02, 2011, through about August 07,2013, the
State Bar denied Plaintiff a license to practice law based on thefalse claim that Plaintiff had a
10
felony conviction for domestic violence. Moreover, in a recent attorney disciplinary matter, the
11
State Bar has readily admitted, "Donley v. Davi (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 447, was a case
12
involving professional licensing - a real estate broker case - and is therefore compelling
13
authority for State Bar licensing purposes."
14
254.
Beginning on or about September 02,2011, through the present, as alleged herein,
15
the State Bar deliberately withheld evidence so that Plaintiff could not effectively defend himsel
16
in his moral character trial, resulting in unfair surprise.
17
18
19
255.
On or about March 19,2012, Plaintiff informed Manuel Jimenez that the State
Bar was posting employment ads in Craigslist.com and would likely apply for a position.
256.
Beginning on or about March 27, 2012, through about March 01, 2014, Plaintiff
20
applied for employment as a paralegal, legal secretary, and administrative assistant with the State
21
Bar Office of Professional Competence, in response to the State Bar's employment po stings.
22
257.
Plaintiff first applied for a paralegal position with the State Bar about March 27,
23
2012. About May 14,2013, through the State Bar's attorney, Susan Kagan stated that the State
24
Bar selected an applicant to fill this position effective July 9, 2012, had obtained a Bachelor's
25
degree in Environmental Biology and Management and a Minor in Environmental Toxicology.
26
258.
However, these degrees are inconsistent with the State Bar's criterion for a
27
"Baccalaureate degree in a field which developed skills relating to this paralegal position ....
28
"Knowledge Of: ... Techniques and methodology oflaw library and online legal research, and
Page 48
excellent personal computer and data entry skills."

259.
In contrast, Plaintiff obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Information Technology
with an emphasis in Network Security, which is more consistent with the State Bar's criterion.
260.
Moreover, Plaintiffs Infonmation Technology degree provides him with portable
computer skill sets that the State Bar's hired applicant does not possess. Because Susan Kagan is
the State Bar's supervising officer for moral character trials, Kagan had actual knowledge of
Plaintiffs fonmidable research skills. Specifically, Plaintiff surreptitiously monitored the State
Bar's Internet investigation of Plaintiff in which the State Bar's own 3D-year veteran investigator
10
Bill Stephens - unwittingly facilitated using the State Bar's own Internet Protocol address.
261.
As alleged herein, Plaintiff also utilized his fonmidable computer investigation
11
skill sets and uncovered moral character discrepancies with the State Bar including a hit-and-run
12
lawsuit filed against Lisa Cummins and Larry Sheingold's sexually explicit publications and
13
political consultant profession that is notorious for extremely unethical and "cut-throat" tactics.
14
262.
As alleged herein, Plaintiff also utilized his computer skill sets to uncover several
15
State Bar conflicts of interest. As a result of Plaintiffs fonmidable skill sets, under the direction
16
of Susan Kagan's supervisory authority, Manuel Jimenez bootstrapped the unsuccessful charges
17
that Plaintiff was "intimidating", "stalking", and "cyber-stalking" members of the State Bar. In
18
contrast, the applicant hired by the selection tearn for the paralegal position did not posses any of
19
Plaintiffs fonmidable computer research skill sets in which the State Bar would benefit because
20
of their antiquated investigations as demonstrated supra by their 3D-year veteran investigator.
21
263.
Susan Kagan also claimed that Plaintiff "altended a far less prestigious non-ABA
22
accredited law school," and instead hired a paralegal applicant who attended Golden Gate
23
University School of Law. Yet, Golden Gate University School of Law was previously placed on
24
probation by the American Bar Association because of their low bar passage rates.
25
264.
Susan Kagan also falsely stated that Plaintiff "attended an unaccredited law
26
school" when his law school, Monterey College of Law, is accredited by the State Bar. Susan
27
Kagan also admitted that Plaintiff reapplied "for a paralegal position in January and March ... ln
28
both instances, the selection tearn [Randy Difuntorum, Lauren McCurdy, and Andrew Tuft] did
Page 49
not advance [Plaintift] to the interview stage, as they had more qualified candidates."
265.
Yet, Susan Kagan admitted the "position remains unfilled, as a candidate declined
their job offer. They are in the process of re-interviewing prior top candidates and new
candidates." However, rather than interviewing Plaintiff for the unfilled position, the State Bar
reposted the ads to fill the paralegal position at least three more times on or about April 10, 2013,
January 03, 2014, and January 14,2014, which Plaintiff reapplied for every position to no avail.
266.
The State Bar then posted employment ads to fill similar positions for a Legal
Secretary and Sr. Administrative Assistant on or about February 06,2014, and February 26,
2014, respectively. Plaintiff also applied to both of these positions to no avail.
10
267.
[n all of Plaint iff's foregoing employment applications with the State Bar, the
11
selection team refused to interview Plaintiff and all of his applications were summarily rejected.
12
The State Bar continued to reject Plaintiffs applications that were kept on file and instead
13
reposted two more employment ads for a Sf. Administrative Assistant on or about June 06, 2014.
14
268.
Susan Kagan further claimed that the "individuals making the hiring decisions
15
(Randy Difuntorum, Lauren McCurdy, and Andrew Tuft) had no knowledge of Mr. Delacruz's
16
alleged disability, nor did he make any request for accommodation." However, on at least five
17
occasions, Plaintiff specifically requested special accommodations by asserting "because [ have
18
disability, [ will also require reasonable accommodations pursuant to the Americans with
19
Disabilities Act and the California Disabled Persons Act."
20
269.
Determined to deny Plaintiff a law license by any means necessary, the State Bar
21
utilized fraud, misrepresentations, discovery violations, retaliation, and discrimination in blatant
22
violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, which Richard Frankel has
23
euphemistically labeled, on or about June 10,2009, as an "Aggressive Prosecutorial Standard."
24
270.
Specifically, as alleged herein, Plaintiff was unable to address tax issues due to
25
his disability, which the State Bar falsely claimed around March IS, 2013, that Plaintiff misled
26
the [RS and Franchise Tax Board. Based on the State Bar's/alse claims against Plaintiff and
27
collusion with Lucy Armendariz around August 09, 20[2, and Catherine D. Purcell, Judith A.
28
Epstein, and JoAnn M. Remke around August 07, 2013, Plaintiffs law license was denied,
Page 50
which became final on or about April 28, 2014.

271.
On or about May 14, 2012, and on or about August 07, 2013, based on the State
Bar's repeated collusion with Lucy Armendariz to retaliate against Plaintiff; (i) Plaintiffs
subpoenas of Lisa Cummins, Larry Sheingold, and Julie R. Culver were quashed; (ii) the State
Bar was allowed to cross-examine Plaintiff over the conflicts of interest of the foregoing
witnesses whose subpoenas were quashed, and; (iii) Plaintiff was denied due process since he
could not cross-examine these same witnesses that would have inculpated the State Bar.
8
9
10
11
272.
As alleged herein, around July of 1996, February of 1997, January of 1998, and
May of 1999, Plaintiff tape-recorded persons who - directly or acknowledged that such persons
- had harassed or committed violence or threatened to commit violence against Plaintiff.
273.
Plaintiffs foregoing tape-recordings were legal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d
12
and California Penal Code sections 632(c), 633.5, and 653m. Yet, the State Bar retaliated against
13
Plaintiff and colluded with Lucy Armendariz. As a result, on or about August 09, 2012, and
14
August 07, 2013, Plaintiffs law license was denied based in relevant part that Plaintiff"violated
15
the reasonable privacy expectations of those he recorded" and that Plaintiff "lacks insight into hi
16
misconduct, all the while portraying himself as the victim", respectively.
17
274.
As alleged herein, Plaintiff filed disability and racial discrimination related
18
complaints against TAl and Raquel Ramirez et at. On or about August 09, 2012, and on or about
19
August 07, 2013, based on the State Bar's repeated collusion to retaliate against Plaintiff,
20
Plaintiffs law license was denied based in relevant part that Plaintiff was "using legal processes
21
to harass various parties", "engaged in inappropriate tactics and dishonest conduct in his disputes
22
with his former employer and real estate broker" and used "his legal knowledge and training to
23
manipulate the justice system and abuse the processes ofthe court."
24
275.
On or about May 14,2013, Heather Irwin falsely asserted to the DFEH that
25
"individuals are not liable for discrimination or retaliation" and cited two state statutes with full
26
knowledge that aJederal statute Shotz v. City ojPlantation. Fla. (2003) 344 F.3d 1161, has
27
ruled, "an individual may be sued privately in his or her personal capacity for violating 12203
28
in the public services context." Id. at 1179 -1180.
Page 51
..
..
276.
On or about April and on or about May of2013, Plaintiff was monitoring Internet
connections accessing his computer network and notified Heather Irwin that her law finn's
Internet Protocol address had accessed Plaintiffs network. Subsequently, Plaintiff's email
account was compromised with Spam emails being sent to various recipients including the State
Bar from Plaintiff's email account that included links to pornographic websites.
277.
Plaintiffinfonned Ms. Irwin about the foregoing Spam emails and that Plaintiff's
network was also accessed from an Internet access point just one block away from the State Bar's
San Francisco office just prior to the illegal activity. Plaintiff also infonned Ms. Irwin to warn
her clients - the State Bar and its members - that any illegal activity to compromise Plaintiff's
10
account would not be tolerated. As a result, Gordon & Reese, LLP published a job advertisement
11
in search of employing a tech savy individual to conceal their computer crimes.
12
FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION
13
First Cause Of Action
14
Discrimination and Retaliation (DISABILITY) 42 US.c. 2000ff-l oftke Genetic
15
Information Nondiscrimination Act of2008, 42 U.S.c. 12102(3)(A), 42 V.S.c. 121OJ, et
16
seq., 28 C.F.R. 36.206, 42 U.S.c. 12203 et seq., 29 C.F.R. 1630.J2(a)
17
(Plaintiffv. Defendants Does 5 through 20)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
278.
The allegations set forth in paragraphs I througb 277 are incorporated herein by
reference as ifset forth verbatim.

279.
Congress has abrogated the government's Eleventh Amendment immunity
pursuant to 42 U.S.c. 12202 ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended.
280.
There is no absolute privilege for violations of Title VII or the Americans with
Disabilities Act pursuant to Pardi v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2004) 389 F.3d 840, 851).
281.
Persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42 U.S.c. 1983
25
or 1985(3) cannot be immunized by state law. A construction of a federal statute which pennits
26
a state immunity defense to have controlling effect would transmute a basic guarantee into an
27
illusory promise; and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution insures that the
28
proper construction may be enforced. (Kimes v. Stone (1996) 84 F.3d 1121, 1127).
Page 52

j
..
J.
282.
Defendants are not immune from liability using a "same decision" defense
through alternative motives since disabled plaintiffs are not required to show that a disability was
the sole or motivating factor in order to prevail under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., Inc. (2012) 681 F.3d 312, 315-316).
283.
"[A]n individual may be sued privately in his or her personal capacity for
violating 12203 in the public services context." (Shatz v. City ofPlantation, Fla. (2003) 344
F.3d 1161, 1179-1180)
8
9
284.
"Fraud on the court is fraud which seriously affects the integrity of the normal
process of adjudication. It involves far more than an injury to an individual litigant or a case of a
10
judgment obtained [simply] with the aid of a witness who, on the basis of after-discovered
11
evidence, is believed possibly to have been guilty ofpetjury. The concept embraces that species
12
of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of
13
the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of
14
adjudging cases presented for adjudication." (Citations and internal quotes omitted) (Transaero,
IS
Inc. v. La Fuerza Area Boliviana (1994) 24 F.3d 457, 460).
16
17
285.
'''[F]alse or negative employment references' may constitute adverse employment
actions." (Chapman v. W Exp., Inc. (2011) 815 F.Supp.2d 1274, 1283).
18
286.
Defendants Does 5 through 8 and Does 19 and 20 acted under color of law.
19
287.
As alleged herein, defendants Does 5 through 20 retaliated and discriminated
20
against Plaintiff because Plaintiff has been involved in the foregoing administrative filings that
21
included Plaintiffs genetic defect that caused his life or death medical crisis of Fabry's Disease.
22
288.
It is important to note that Plaintiff has no mental disability. However, the mere
23
fact that the State Bar and Richard McLaughlin subjected Plaintiff to a "perceived mental
24
impairment", as alleged herein, is prohibited under 42 U.S.C. 121 02(3 )(A).
25
289.
As alleged herein, on or about April of2001, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and
26
was challenged by TAl, Mike Antle, Carmen Ponce, and James Sullivan, in which a motion for
27
sanctions was filed against said Defendants by Plaintiffs attorney Richard McLaughlin, for
28
filing frivolous objections that included Plaintiffs life or death medical crisis of Fabry's Disease.
Page 53
.,
290.
Around May 15,2013, Plaintiff asserted that the denial of his law license violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because the State Bar discriminated and retaliated
against Plaintiff based on his foregoing litigation involving his life or death medical crisis.
291.
In blatant violation ofPlaintitrs disability rights, on or about October 07,2013,
the State Bar discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff by asserting that Plaintitrs "attempt to
cast aspersions on others is troubling and symbolic of his overall inability to conduct himself in
an ethical and professional manner, especially when he has not gotten what he wants."
8
9
292.
The acts of Defendants Does 5 through 20 deprived Plaintiff of his particular
rights secured to him by 42 U.S.C. 121DI et seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
10
1990, including but not limited to, his equality of opportunity, full participation and economic
11
self-sufficiency for disabled individuals and the Supremacy Clause of Article Six, Clause 2 of
12
the United States Constitution for failing to recognize Plaintitrs rights under federal law.
13
293.
The acts of all Defendants acted pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy
"
or longstanding practice or custom of an Defendants, including but not limited to withholding
15
evidence in violation of the Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
16
States Constitution, and overprotective rules and policies, exclusionary qualification standards
17
and criteria prohibited by resulting in a loss of jobs and other opportunities in which the nation's
18
proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full
19
participation and economic self-sufficiency pursuant to 42 U.s.c. 121DI et seq. of the
20
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended.
21
294.
This constitutes negligent training and negligent supervision which can be shown
22
by the allegations set forth above and by the records and actions brought in the State Bar and
23
internal disciplinary files containing disciplinary actions against State Bar applicants and
24
licensed attorneys involving similar violations. The totality ofthese violations set forth a policy
25
or practice or procedure on behalf of the State Bar and their departments to deprive United States
26
citizens of the foregoing constitutional protections as well as to deprive disabled persons of
27
rights protected by 42 U.S.C. 121 01 et seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
28
295.
Defendants Does 5 through 8 and Does 19 and 20 acted under color of law, their
Page 54
fraud and collusion with Lucy Armendariz who ratified the acts of State Bar moral character
officers who are named defendants, as alleged herein. These allegations establish a policy or
practices or procedures on behalf of the State Bar of California that deprive citizens of the
foregoing constitutional protections and 42 U.S.C. 12l0l et seq. ofthe Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 protections and these policies, practices, and procedures are, and were,
ratified by Jayne Kim and their policy makers.
296.
Defendant Julie R. Culver acted under color of law, which the State Bar ratified
the acts of Julie R. Culver who exceeded her jurisdiction as ajudicial officer with the Judicial
Council of California, Superior Court, County of Monterey, as alleged herein. These allegations
10
establish a policy or practices or procedures on behalf of defendant Julie R. Culver that deprive
11
citizens of the foregoing constitutional protections and 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. of the
12
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 protections and these policies, practices, and procedures
13
are, and were, ratified by the Defendant State Bar of California and their policy makers.
14
297.
All Defendants' retaliatory conduct, as alleged herein, was a substantial factor in
15
actually and proximately causing Plaintiff's harm and was in oppressive and in reckless
16
disregard to Plaintiffs rights entitling Plaintiff to compensatory, punitive, and treble damages.
17
298.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as requested below.
18
Second Cause Of Action
19
Discrimination and Retaliation (RACE, COLOR, RELIGION) 42 U.S.c. 1981, 1982 and
20
42 U.S.c. 2000e-3(a), 2000e-2, and 2000e-5 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
21
(plaintitTv. Defendants Does 5 through 20)
22
23
299.
The allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 298 are incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth verbatim.
24
300.
Defendants Does 5 through 8 and Does 19 and 20 acted under color oflaw.
25
301.
On or about March 02, 1998, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Scotch House. et
26
al. for racial discrimination inter alia.
27
302.
Around July 10, 1998, Plaintiff sued TAl et al. for racial discrimination inter alia.
28
303.
On or about September 02, 1999, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH and
Page 55
, ..
3
4
EEOC against SLSI for racial discrimination inter alia.

304.
On or about October 17, 201 I, Plaintiff filed an appeal from the State Bar's denial
of a license to practice law in case # II-M-17871-LMA based on racial discrimination, inter alia.
305.
On or about June 25, 2010, and continuing to the present, Defendants
discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff because Plaintiff - a Latino - sued and complained
against Defendants for discrimination based on race, color, and religion which is protected by 42
U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), 2000e-2, and 2000e-5 ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
was entitled to make, modify, and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence pursuant to
the Equal Protection Rights of 42 U.S.C. I 98 I of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and
10
was entitled to purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property pursuant to the
"
Equal Protection Rights of 42 U.S.C. 1982 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
12
306.
On or about September 02, 201 I, and continuing through the present, the State
13
Bar denied Plaintiff a law license because, on or about March 04, 200 I, Plaintiff exercised his
14
Equal Protection Right to modify a contract with TAl in his offer to settle in case # M49083.
15
16
17
307.
As a result of all Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff was denied a license to
practice law which became final on or about April 28, 2014.

308.
18
Third Cause Of Action
19
Discrimination (RETALlA nON) 29 U,S,c. 215 of/he Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
20
(plaintiff v, Defendants Does 6 through 15)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
309.
The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 308 are incorporated herein by

310.
On or about August 29, 1996, Plaintiff filed claim with the California Labor
Commissioner against TAl for overtime pay owed to Plaintiff.

31 I.
On or about December 28, 1999, Plaintiff filed a claim with the California Labor
Commissioner against SLSI for overtime pay owed to Plaintiff.

312.
As alleged herein, on or about June 25, 2010, and continuing to the present,
defendants retaliated against Plaintiff because Plaintiff filed complaints with the Labor
Page 56
Commissioner against TAl and SLSI for back wages which were rights granted and protected by
the anti-retaliation provision of29 U.S.C. 2 I 5(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
4
5
313.
As a result of the Defendants' foregoing fraud, discrimination, and retaliation,
Plaintiff was denied a license to practice law which became final on or about April 28, 2014.
314.
Fourth Cause Of Action
Discrimination (DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS) 42 U.S.c. 1983, 11 U.S.c. 525, 42
u.s.c. 12101 et seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the First, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution
(plaintiff v. Defendants Does 5 through 20)
10
11
12
13
14
15
315.

316.
"The underlying charge need not be meritorious for related activity to be
protected under the participation c1ause."(Brower v. Runyon (1999) 178 F.3d 1002, 1006)
317.
"It is possible for an employee to reasonably believe that specified conduct
16
amounts to harassment, even when that conduct would not actually qualify as harassment under
17
the law" (Quinn v. Green Tree Credit Corp. (1998) 159 F.3d 759, 769)
18
19
20
3 I 8.
Title VII violation does not require discrimination in fact - merely a reasonable
beliefthat a violation occurred. (Petitti v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co. (1990) 909 F.2d 28, 33)
319.
Conduct complained of does not actually have to be a violation of Title VII, but
21
"the plaintiff must have a 'good faith, reasonable belief" that a violation occurred. (Manoharan
22
v. Columbia Univ. Call. of Physicians & Surgeons (1988) 842 F.2d 590,593)
23
24
25
320.
Only when adjudicated to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to CCP 391 can one's
Constitutional Right to Petition be chilled. (Lubetzky v. State Bar (1991) 54 Cal.3d 308, 3 I 7)
321.
"While it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say
26
what the law is, ... it is equally-and emphatically-the exclusive province of the Congress not
27
only to formulate legislative policies ... , but also to establish their relative priority for the Nation.
28
Once Congress, exercising its delegated powers, has decided the order of priorities in a given
Page 57
Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14

, ..Page 58 of 105
..
..."
area, it is for the Executive to administer the laws and for the courts to enforce them when
enforcement is sought." (Citation and internal quotes omitted) (Tennessee Valley Authority v.
Hill (1978) 437 U.S. 153, 194).
4
5
6
322.
The right to eam a living of one's own choosing is a constitutional right under the
Fourteenth Amendment (Connecticut ex rei. Blumenthal v. Crotty (2003) 346 F.3d 84, 95).
323.
The court in McDonough v. Goodcell(1939) 13 Cal.2d 741, 746-747, held that
the California State Bar's discretion in denying a license to practice law must be "exercised
arbitrarily, capriciously, fraudulently, or without a factual basis sufficient to justifY the refusal."
324.
As alleged herein, beginning on or about June 25, 2010, and continuing to the
10
present, said Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom
11
of religion, freedom of association, right to petition the government for redress of grievances,
12
right to earn a living, and right from self-incrimination, in violation of the First, Fifth, and
13
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
14
325.
The acts of the government employees State Bar, Julie R. Culver, Steven Card,
15
and Joshua Sigal, who are named defendants, deprived Plaintiff of his particular rights secured to
16
him by the Constitution of the United States, including but not limited to, his First Amendment
17
right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, right to petition the
18
government for redress of grievances, his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and right
19
to eam a living of his own choosing, and his Fifth Amendment right from self-incrimination.
20
326.
From about September 02, 2011, and continuing through the present, in violation
21
of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, the State Bar denied Plaintiff a license
22
to practice law based on the State Bar's repeated/alse claims that Plaintiff's misdemeanor
23
conviction for domestic violence was a felony, as alleged herein.
24
327.
From about September 02, 2011, through the present, the State Bar denied
25
Plaintiff a law license because he exercised his First Amendment right to free speech and right to
26
associate for publishing a Boycott TAl website for discrimination, inter alia, as alleged herein.
27
28
328.
On or about September 02,2011, and continuing through the present, the State
Bar denied Plaintiff a law license because he exercised his First Amendment right to practice his
Page 58
religion in his offer to settle that he sent on or about March 04, 2001, to TAl in case # M49083.
329.
On or about August 09,2012, and about August 07,2013, as a result of the State
Bar's foregoing fraud, discrimination, and retaliation because Plaintiff exercised his
constitutional rights to: (i) due process; (ii) petition the government for redress of grievances;
(iii) free speech; (iv) freedom of religion and; (v) invoke Fifth Amendment right from self-
incrimination, Plaintiff was denied a law license based in relevant part that: (i) Plaintiffwas
using legal processes to harass various parties; (ii) "false statements offact, such as those made
by [Plaintiff], have no constitutional value" (iii) despite filing bankruptcy "[Plaintiff! could have
taken steps to pay TAl's attorney fees as ordered by the superior court"; (iv) Plaintiff "violated
1e
the reasonable privacy expectations of those he recorded" and; (v) Plaintiff"lacks insight into his
11
misconduct, all the while portraying himself as the victim."
12
330.
As alleged herein, on or about April 17,2013, James Sullivan discriminated
13
against Plaintiff because Plaintiff exercised his federal and state constitutional rights to: free
14
speech, religious beliefs, petition the government for redress of grievances, and right to earn a
15
living of his own choosing pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.
16
331.
The Supreme Court in Maness v. Meyers (1975) 419 U.S. 449 ruled that "the
17
privilege against self-incrimination can be asserted 'in any proceeding, civil or criminal,
18
administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory'." Id. at 464. The Supreme Court also
19
ruled in Spevack v. Klein (1967) 385 U.S. 511, that the Fifth Amendment right from self-
20
incrimination has been absorbed in the Fourteenth Amendment and extends its protection to
21
lawyers as well as to other individuals, and cannot be watered down by imposing the dishonor of
22
disbarment and the deprivation of a livelihood as a price for asserting it. Id. at 514.
23
332.
The court in Us. v. Nipper (2002) 210 F.Supp.2d 1259 held that the privilege
24
against self-incrimination does not require proof of the hazard of incrimination in the sense in
25
which a claim is usually required to be established in court nor does it depend upon ajudge's
2E
prediction of the likelihood of prosecution. Id. at 1261-1262.
27
28
333.
Beginning on or about May 14,2012, the State Bar egregiously and repeatedly
violated Plaintiffs Fifth Amendment right from self-incrimination after Plaintiff was accused of
Page 59
criminal conduct including: (i) "intimidation", "stalking" and "cyber stalking" State Bar
members Larry Sheingold, Lisa Cummins and Bill Stephens; (ii) violating Penal Code Section
632 for surreptitiously recording persons and; (iii) violating a court order that prohibited Plainti
from publishing a Boycott TAl website, as alleged herein.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
334.
As alleged here, beginning around September 02,2011, and continuing to the
present, the State Bar retaliated because Plaintiff filed bankruptcy.

335.
As alleged herein, beginning around July 29, 2010, in retaliation for Plaintiffs
bankruptcy filing, Julie R. Culver interfered with Plaintiffs moral character application.
336.
As alleged herein, on or about May 16,2012, Carmen Ponce retaliated because
TAl was unable to recover any attorney's fees after Plaintiff "declared bankruptcy."
337.
Beginning on or about September 02, 2011, through October 07,2013, the State
Bar retaliated because Plaintiff discharged TAl's attorney's fees award in bankruptcy.
338.
The conduct of said Defendants further violated the anti-retaliation provision of
II U.S.C. 525 ofthe Bankruptcy Act.

339.
16
Fifth Cause Of Action
17
Conspiracy (INTERFERENCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS) violation of 42 U.S.C 1985(3 J,
18
2000e-3(aJ, 2000e-2, and 2000e-5 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First, Fifth
19
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C 121OJ, et
20
seq., 12J02(3)(AJ, 12203(aJ, 28 CF.R. 36.206, and 29 CF.R. 1630.12(aJ of the Americans
21
with Disabilities Act of 1990
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
340.

341.
From June 25,2010, and to the present, Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. 1985(3)
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for interfering with Plaintiffs civil rights by:
a.
(I) agreeing to the objective of; (2) having Plaintiffs law license denied through the
course of actions of; (3) conspiring to violate Plaintiffs federal rights including: the
Page 60
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that protects Plaintiffs medical
records, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq., 12102(3)(A), 12203(a), 28 C.F.R. 36.206, and
29 C.F.R. 1630.12(a) of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 that protects
Plaintiff from disability discrimination and retaliation; 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a),
2000e-2, and 2000e-5 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that protects
Plaintiff's right to sue and tile complaints against Defendants for discrimination
based on race, color, and religion; the Equal Protection Clause of 42 U.S.C. 1981 of
Title VI! of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that protects Plaintiff's right to make,
modify, and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence; the Equal Protection
10
Rights of 42 U.S.C. 1982 ofTitle VI! of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that protects
11
Plaintiff's right to purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property;
12
the United States Constitution that protects Plaintiff's First Amendment rights of
13
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, right to petition the
14
government for redress of grievances, Fifth Amendment right from self-
15
incrimination, Fourteenth Amendment right to eam a living of Plaintiff's own
16
choosing, Equal Protection Rights and Equal Privileges and Immunities; all
17
applicable to the state of California pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the
18
United States Constitution and the Supremacy Clause under Article Six, Clause 2 of
19
the United States Constitution; (4) through the defendants' overt acts alleged herein;
20
b. On or about September 02,2011, and continuing through the present, the State Bar
21
repeatedly violated Plaintiff's foregoing civil rights by colluding with Lucy
22
Armendariz to mislead the California Supreme Court, and Plaintiff with their sham
23
claims alleged herein, and falsely claiming that Plaintiff was convicted of a felony in
24
direct opposition to California Penal Code 17(b) which states in relevant part:
25
"When a crime is punishable, in the discretion of the court, either by ...
26
imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of
27
Section 1170, or by fine or imprisonment in the county jail, it is a
28
misdemeanor for all pumoses under the following circumstances: ". (3)
Page 61
..
When the court grants probation to a defendant without imposition of
sentence and at the time of granting probation, or on application of the
defendant or probation officer thereafter, the court declares the offense to
be a misdemeanor." (Emphasis added),
c, on or about October 07, 2013, the State Bar failed to take corrective action and
ratified the retaliatory conduct alleged herein to the California Supreme Court and
furtherfalsely claimed that Plaintiff had a conviction for making terrorist threats;
d. on or about April 28, 2014, the denial of Plaintiff's law license became final;
(5) resulting in damages to Plaintiff by depriving a United States citizen of a
livelihood and his right to exercise his foregoing constitutional rights.
10
11
342.
12
Sixth Cause Of Action
13
Fraud (IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTERS) 18 U.S,C, 1030 el seq,
14
(Plaintiff v, Defendants Heather Irwin, Gordon & Reese, LLP, and the State Bar)
15
16
17
18
19
343.

344.
As alleged herein, around April and May 2013, Heather Irwin, Gordon & Reese,
LLP, and the State Bar compromised Plaintiff's computer in violation of 18 U.s.C. 1030 et seq.
345.
20
Seventh Cause Of Action
21
Threats by Interstate Communications (ATTEMPTED CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
22
EXTORTION) 18 U.S,c' 1349 and 18 U,S,c, 875
23
(plaintiff v, Defendants Raquel Ramirez, Joshua Sigal, and the State Bar)
24
25
26
346.

347.
As alleged herein, because Plaintiff investigated the State Bar and uncovered their
27
conflicts of interest, the State Bar conspired to extort Plaintiff out of his property rights of
28
obtaining a law license with a phone call threatening Plaintiffto abandon his law license appeal.
Page 62

, '
Otherwise the State Bar would pennanently ban Plaintiff from ever reapplying for a law license.
348.
As alleged herein, Raquel Ramirez and Joshua Sigal conspired to attempt to exto
Plaintiff out of his property rights of over eighty thousand dollars with an email sent to Plaintiff'
law school that threatened to report Plaintiff to the State Bar.
349.
Eighth Cause Of Action
Attempted Extortion (BY A UNITED STATES EMPLOYEE) 18 U.S.c. 872 (Plaintiffv.
Defendant Joshua Sigal) and Breach of Contract, Fraud, and Damages;
(PlaintiiTv. Defendants Joshna Sigal and Raquel Ramirez)
10
11
12
350.

351.
As alleged herein, Joshua Sigal admitted to being a federal employee and helped
:3
his wife in drafting an email sent to Plaintiff's law school that threatened to report Plaintiff to the
14
State Bar, which attempted to extort Plaintiff out of his $80,000 breach of contract property right
15
16
17
352.
This Court has pendent jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate a breach of contract,
fraud, and damages claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

353.
On or about August 30, 2005, Plaintiff entered into two contractual agreements
18
with Raquel Ramirez et al. to represent Plaintiff in purchasing a home and selling Plaintiffs
19
home. Around May 17, 2012, Joshua Sigal finally admitted under oath that a separate contract to
20
sell Plaintiff's home did in fact exist. that he helped draft the email sent to Plaintiffs law school,
21
and that he was responsible for insuring that all real estate documents were in legal compliance
22
while employed with Mission Homes Realty, a company owned by his wife Raquel Ramirez.
23
354.
As alleged herein, from around August 30, 2005, through about May 17, 2012,
24
Raquel Ramirez as the real estate broker and president of Mission Homes Realty and Joshua
25
Sigal as the vice-president and officer of Mission Homes Realty breached their fiduciary duty of
26
good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiff by fraudulently (i) withholding Plaintiff's real estate
27
contract; (ii) forging Plaintiff's signature on a real estate contract; (iii) placing Plaintiff's home
28
$100,000 above the agreed upon sale price; (iv) obtaining a pre-approved real estate bank loan
Page 63
by falsely tripling Plaintiffs actual household income; (v) sending an email to Plaintiffs law
school that threatened to report Plaintiff to the State Bar in the attempt to extort Plaintiff out of
his property rights of a law license and $80,000 breach of contract and; (vi) disseminating to the
State Bar that Plaintiff allegedly harassed said Defendants with false claims of real estate fraud.
355.
The fraudulent conduct of Raquel Ramirez and Joshua Sigal was a substantial
factor in actually and proximately causing financial damage to Plaintiff and his moral character
including the loss of his $5,000 deposit, litigation costs, and deprived ofa livelihood through the
denial of Plaintiffs law license which became final on or about April 28, 2014.
356.
10
PENDENT STATE CAUSES OF ACTIONS
11
Ninth Cause Of Action
12
Discrimination (DISABILITY) Ca. Civil Code 51 et seq., and 54 et seq.
13
(PlaintiiTv. Defendants Does 5 through 20)
14
15
16
17
18
357.

358.
This Court has pendent jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate these claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.c. 1367.
359.
California Civil Code 51(f) states, and the courts have recognized, that a
19
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act is a per se violation of the Unruh Civil Rights
20
Act. (Enyart v. National Conference ofBar Examiners, Inc. (2011) 823 F.Supp.2d 995, lOIS).
21
22
23
360.
An Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 violation constitutes a per se
violation of the California Disabled Persons Act pursuant to California Civil Code 54 (c).
361.
As alleged herein, beginning on or about March 27,2012, through about March
24
0 I, 2014, Plaintiff applied for the State Bar Office of Professional Competence employment
25
postings for a Paralegal, Legal Secretary, and Sr. Administrative Assistant.
26
27
28
362.
However, because of Defendants' unlawful discrimination and retaliation alleged
herein, the selection team refused to interview Plaintiff and declined all of his job applications.
363.
Page 64
"
...
Tenth Cause Of Action
Discrimination (RACE) Ca. Civil Code 51 el seq.
5
6
364.

365.
Because Defendants have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
they have also violated California Civil Code 51 (I) pursuant to California Civil Code 51 (I).
366.
Eleventh Cause Of Action
1C
Violence and Intimidation hy Threat of Violence (DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX,
1:
RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, ANCESTRY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY,
12
MEDICAL CONDITION) Ca. Civil Code 5I. 7(a)
13
(Plaintiff v. Defendants Does 5 through 20)
14
15
16
17
18
367.

368.
As alleged herein, Steven Card, TAl, Scotch House et a!., and Joshua Sigal et a!.,
used violence, or intimidated by threats to use violence against Plaintiff.

369.
On or about May 14,2012, the State Bar discriminated against Plaintiff for his
19
complaints against the foregoing unlawful conduct by asserting that Plaintiff "is a victim of the
2C
police, a victim of his employers ... When something doesn't go the [Plaintiffs1way, he turns
21
around, looks around and attempts to shift blame to somebody else."
22
370.
On or about March 15,2013, Donald Steedman discriminated against Plaintifffor
23
his "secretly recorded conversations" of Scotch House et a!. and TAl agents and employees who
24
made terrorist threats and threats to use violence against Plaintiff, as alleged herein.
25
371.
On or about October 07, 2013, Rachel Grunberg, Starr Babcock, Richard Zanassi,
26
and William Shaffer discriminated against Plaintiff for "surveillance and tape-recording of
27
individuals" who made terrorist threats and threats to use violence against Plaintiff.
23
372.
As alleged herein, TAl and SLSI discriminated against Plaintiff for his complaints
Page 65
,~
.-
against the terrorist threats that TAl and Scotch House et al. made against Plaintiff by asserting
respectively, "I would question [Plaintiffs] ability to have some good judgment about
counseling others" and Plaintiff"was capitalizing on this environment in an immoral way. Good
process servers diffuse tense confrontations, not encourage them."
373.
On or about May 01, 2013, Sara B. Boyns discriminated against Plaintiff for his
complaints against the terrorist threats that Scotch House et al. made against Plaintiff by alleging
that Plaintiff was (i) "had been using the hidden microphone to illegally record segments of his
conversations with individuals while he served them with process with [SLSI]; (ii) was "filing
lawsuits against those individuals who had become understandably upset during the service of
,0
process; (iii) "was presumably saving the recordings he had illegally made during the course of
11
employment at [SLSI] to use as evidence against those defendants in those actions"; (iv) "was
12
engaging in illegal activity in the course of his employment at [SLSl], and; (v) "encouraging
13
confrontations with those he was serving instead of diffusing them."

374.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
As alleged herein, James Sullivan discriminated against Plaintiff because of his
complaints against the terrorist threats that TAl's employees and agents made against Plaintiff.
375.
As alleged herein, Julie R. Culver discriminated against Plaintiff because of his
complaints against the terrorist threats that TAl's employees and agents made against Plaintiff.
376.
As alleged herein, Joshua Sigal and Raquel Ramirez discriminated against
Plaintifffor complaining against Sigal's and Ray Jeter's intimidation and threats to use violence.
377.
As alleged herein, Richard McLaughlin discriminated against Plaintiff because of
the terrorist threats that TAl's employees and agents made against Plaintiff.
378.
As alleged herein, by compromising Plaintiffs email account and computer
network, Heather Irwin discriminated against Plaintiff for his complaints against the State Bar.
379.
All of the Defendants' foregoing unlawful conduct was in violation of Cali fomi a
25
Civil Code SI.7(a) for discriminating against Plaintiff through the use of violence and/or
26
intimidation by threatening to use violence based on Plaintiffs sex, race, color, religion,
27
ancestry, national origin, disability, and medical condition, as alleged herein.
28
380.
Page 66
't'
Twelfth Cause Of Action
1
2
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTERS (Property Crime) Ca. Penal Code 502
(plaintifTv. Defendants Heatber Irwin, Gordon & Reese, LLP, and tbe State Bar)
4
5
6
7
381.
The allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 380 are incorporated
herein by reference as if set forth verbatim.

382.
As alleged herein. on or about April and May of2013. Heather Irwin. Gordon &
Reese. LLP, and the State Bar compromised Plaintiffs computer in violation of Ca. P.C. 502.
383.

Tbirteenth Cause Of Action
10
Breach of Contract, Damages, Fraud Malpractice (LEGAL) Ca. c.c.P. 340.6(a)(J)
11
(Plaintiff v. Defendant State Bar Client Security Fund Re: Richard McLaughlin)
12
13
14
15
16
384.

385.
On or about April 16, 2001, Plaintiff entered into a contractual agreement with
attorney Richard McLaughlin to represent Plaintiff in filing for bankruptcy.

386.
Plaintiff repeatedly instructed McLaughlin to add the Franchise Tax Board as a
17
creditor in Plaintiff's bankruptcy proceedings. However, McLaughlin delegated his fiduciary
18
duty to his secretary and then focused on illicit drug use and playing his guitar. Me Laughlin then
19
fraudulently infonned Plaintiff that the state tax issue had been resolved when he actually
20
breached his fiduciary duty by repeatedly omitting the Franchise Tax Board as a creditor.
21
387.
Around February 22, 2012, McLaughlin breached his fiduciary duty of good faith
22
and fair dealing owed to Plaintiff by fraudulently and deliriously disseminating to the State Bar
23
that Plaintiff allegedly: (i) had "persecution complex"; (ii) was a "virulent homophobe"; (iii) was
24
"erratic"; (iv) was "prejudiced"; (v) was "going offhalf-cocked"(vi); "had totally unreasonable
25
expectations"; (vii) made "defamatory statements" against TAl and; (viii) was a "whack job".
26
388.
Moreover, on or about July 08, 2010, McLaughlin also the breached the attorney-
27
client privilege and contractual agreement in violation of Business and Professions Code section
28
6068(e) by disseminating to the State Bar a volunteer questionnaire regarding Plaintiff's
Page 67
. .
detennination of moral character, which the State Bar has repeatedly withheld from Plaintiff.
389.
The fraudulent conduct of MCLaughlin was a substantial factor in actually and
proximately causing damage to Plaintiff's moral character including that Plaintiff allegedly had
"persecution complex"; "not paid the additional 1999 state tax liability until 2005; made "false
statements of fact" and; financially damaged with litigation costs and deprived ofa livelihood
through the denial of Plaintiff's law license which became final on or about April 28, 2014.
390.
Fourteenth Cause Of Action
Tortious Interference With Contract Rights Re: Richard McLaughlin

(plaiotiffv. Defendants Does 6)
10
11
12
13
391.

392.
On or about April 16. 2001, Plaintiff and Richard McLaughlin entered into a
14
contractual agreement in which an attorney client relationship existed for Plaintiff's bankruptcy
15
filing. The State Bar had actual knowledge of the foregoing contractual agreement because they
16
obtained Plaintiffs bankruptcy file in which MCLaughlin was Plaintiffs attorney of record.
17
393.
The State Bar intended to disrupt the contractual confidential attorney client
18
privilege between Plaintiff and his attorney McLaughlin because on or about July 08, 2010, the
19
State Bar sent McLaughlin a questionnaire regarding Plaintiff and his foregoing bankruptcy
20
filing involving TAl and on or about February 22,2012, the State Bar telephoned McLaughlin
21
and further solicited privileged and confidential infonnation regarding Plaintiff.
22
394.
The State Bar applied its "aggressive prosecutorial standard" alleged herein and
23
thereby abused its exclusive authority in licensing attorneys which prevented enforcement of the
24
attorney client privilege by soliciting privileged infonnation alleged herein from Plaintiffs
25
attorney Richard McLaughlin under the threat of disciplinary action against McLaughlin.
26
395.
The State Bar made enforcement of the attorney client privilege more difficult an
27
expensive because the State Bar violated Plaintiffs right to due process oflaw by withholding
28
discovery documents related to McLaughlin and Plaintiff also expended thousands of dollars
Page 68
pursuing equitable relief through the State Bar Review Board, California Supreme Court, and
2
United States Supreme Court to try and rectify the damage resulting from the State Bar's
disruption of Plaintiff's constitutionally protected privileges and violation of his civil rights.
396.
The conduct of the Defendants State Bar were a substantial factor in actually and
proximately causing damage to Plaintiff's reputation including that Plaintiff allegedly had
"persecution complex"; defamed TAl and its employees, agents, and attorneys and; financially
damaged with litigation costs and deprived of a livelihood through the denial of his law license
which became final on or about April 28, 2014.
397.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for reliefas requested below.
10
Fifteenth Cause Of Action
11
BREACH OF CONTRACT AND DAMAGES
12
13
14
15
398.

399.
On or about May 14, 1999, Plaintiff and TAl et a!. entered into a Mutual
16
Settlement and Release Agreement (hereinafter "AgreemenC) (Exhibit D), in reference to a prior
17
lawsuit, Monterey County Superior Court case #M 40802, brought by Plaintiff against TAl et a!.
18
for which Plaintiff accepted $50,000 and TAl et a!. accepted the following relevant conditions:
:9
400.
Paragraph 2.b.i. of the Agreement, reads in relevant part:
20
"Defendants, on behalf of themselves and their respective agents, associates,
21
representatives, predecessors, executors, attorneys, administrators, successors,
22
beneficiaries, heirs, and assigns, and any person acting by. th[rlough. under or in
23
concert with them. hereby release and forever discharge Plaintiff... from any and
24
all claims, demands, causes of actions, costs, expenses, damages, losses,
25
judgments, orders and liabilities of whatever kind of nature. in law. equity or
26
otherwise whether now known or unknown, vested or contingent, suspected or
27
unsuspected, and whether related or unrelated to the subject malter of the claims,
28
reflected in Plaintiff's action, Case Number M 40802, which Defendants have
Page 69
,
~.
..
"'
now or ever had, ever claimed to have had, or hereafter may have against
Plaintiff...arising out of or related in any manner whatsoever to Plaintiffs
employment with TAl." (Emphasis added.)
401.
Defendants further expressly waived California Civil Code Section 1542.
402.
Paragraph 4.b. of the Agreement, reads in relevant part:
"Consistent with the desire to avoid any physical or verbal altercation with
Plaintiff, Defendants agree to keep themselves physically removed from Plaintiff,
his known family members and agents." (Emphasis added.)
403.
In violation of the Agreement, TAl and its attorneys, agents, and employees
10
repeatedly breached the Agreement because: (il on or about October 30, 2003, Cannen Ponce di
11
not physically remove herself from Plaintiff during a luncheon that Ponce attended at CSU,
12
Monterey Bay ("CSUMB") in which Plaintiff - a high profile student at CSUMB - arrived first
13
and was being recognized for his academic prowess; and; (ii) on or about September 30, 2007,
14
Mike Antle and his wife attended Plaintiff cousin's funeral in which Plaintiff had arrived first in
15
which Antle did not physically remove himselffrom Plaintiff.
16
404.
Paragraph D of the Agreement also reads in relevant part:
17
"Defendants claim that, since Plaintiff's tennination by TAl, Plaintiff has
18
trespassed on the real property of Defendants, defamed Defendants, cast
19
Defendants in a false light, sought a boycott of TAl's businesses and committed
20
slander and various libels, which libels have been recently republished by
21
Plaintiff, Plaintiff however denying these claims by Defendants."
22
405.
Paragraph 2.b.iii. of the Agreement also reads in relevant part:
23
"Defendants fully understand and agree that the release contained in this
24
Agreement includes, but is not limited to, all contract, tort, or personal injury
25
claims, ... or any other benefit incident to Plaintiffs employment with TAl, and
26
any other state. federal or local laws or regulations of any kind. whether
27
administrative. regulatory. statutory, or decisional." (Emphasis added.)
28
406.
Paragraphs 4.a. and 4.d. of the Agreement, respectively reads in relevant part:
Page 70
,
~,.

I
"Defendants further agree not to disseminate information to the public by other
means regarding Plaintiff, his known family members or agents" and "Defendants
agree not to harass Plaintiff," (Emphasis added,)
407.
Paragraph 4.g. of the Agreement reads in relevant part:
"Defendants agree not to take or publicize photographs of Plaintiff, his
residence(s), or his known family members." (Emphasis added.)
408.
In violation of the Agreement, Defendants Does 6 through 15 individually, or
acting by, through, under or in concert with TAl, repeatedly made claims against Plaintiff,
harassed Plaintiff, took and publicized photographs of Plaintiff's residence, and disseminated
10
information regarding Plaintiff during administrative and decisional proceedings involving the
11
State Bar because: (i) on or about May 16,2012, Carmen Ponce disseminated that Plaintiff
12
declared bankruptcy after TAl was awarded attorney's fees related to the subject matter of case
13
#M40802; (ii) on or about May 18, 2012, James Sullivan disseminated that TAl was unable to
14
collect any attorney's fees related to the subject matter of case #M40802 because Plaintiff
15
declared bankruptcy; (iii) on or about April 23, 2012, Richard Harray disseminated that Plaintiff
16
allegedly trespassed on his real property; (iv) on or about May 16,2012, Carmen Ponce
17
disseminated that Plaintiff allegedly trespassed on TAl's and their attorney's real property; (v)
18
on or about May 16,2012, Carmen Ponce disseminated that Plaintiff allegedly defamed TAl; (vi
19
on or about May 18, 2012, James Sullivan disseminated that Plaintiff allegedly defamed TAl;
20
(vii) between 2010 and May 16,20 12, TAl or its agents disseminated an October 28, 1998,
21
deposition of Plaintiff; (viii) between 2010 and May 16,2012, TAl or its agents disseminated
22
private email communications dated October 23, 1997, through December 27, 1997, between
23
Plaintiff and Glenn Tanimura; (ix) between 2010 and May 17, 2012, TAl or its agents
24
disseminated a June 01,2001, appraisal of Plaintiff's private residence; (x) on or about February
25
20,2012, Richard McLaughlin disseminated that Plaintiff allegedly "posted anti-gay comments
26
on a website about [TAl et al.] and then would not remove them"; (xi) on or about April 03,
27
2012, Canmen Ponce disseminated that Plaintiff allegedly "was terminated [fTom TAl] and was
28
so upset he filed a lot of complaints that went nowhere"; (xii) on or about July 29, 2010, Julie R.
Page 71
r '.t '
'.
Culver demanded Plaintiff's identification and obtained his State Bar issued law clerk
certification number and disseminated Plaintiff's personal information to Lisa Cummins to have
Plaintiff's license to practice law denied; (xiii) on or about May 16,2012, Carmen Ponce
disseminated that Plaintiff allegedly did not comply with the physical separation of not less than
100 feet provision pursuant to an injunction to enforce the Agreement because Ponce attended a
luncheon at CSUMB in which Plaintiff - a high profile student at CSUMB - arrived first and was
being recognized for his academic prowess; (xiv) on or about May 18,2012, James Sullivan
disseminated that Plaintiff"would not be qualified to practice law"; (xv) between 2010 and April
03,2012, Richard Harray disseminated a retaliatory volunteer questionnaire that impugned
1C
Plaintiff's moral character; (xvi) on or about May 16,2012, Carmen Ponce disseminated that
11
Plaintiff allegedly "had carried a firearm on TAl property"; (xvii) between 2010 and May 14,
12
2012, James Sullivan disseminated a retaliatory volunteer questionnaire in which Sullivan
13
asserted that Plaintiff did not posses good moral character with respect to honesty, fairness,
14
candor, trustworthiness and observance of fiduciary responsibility"; (xviii) on or about July 28,
15
20 I 0, and July 29, 2010, SLSI disseminated a retaliatory volunteer questionnaire which asserted
16
that Plaintiff did not posses good moral character with respect to honesty, fairness, candor,
:7
trustworthiness and observance of fiduciary responsibility, "was capitalizing on this environment
18
in an immoral way. Good process servers diffuse tense confrontations, not encourage them";
19
(xix) between 2010 and May 17,2012, TAl or its agents disseminated a November 01, 2001,
28
deposition of Plaintiff; (xx) on or about April 03, 2012, Carmen Ponce disseminated that "after
21
[Plaintiff] was terminated by [SLSI]", Plaintiff allegedly "went to TAl's attorney Richard
22
Harray's office and got behind the counter and was trying to find his file" and; (xxi) between
23
2010 and May 17, 20 12, TAl or its agents publicized photographs of Plaintiff s residence."
24
409.
In further violation of the Agreement, Defendants Does 6 through 15 individually,
25
or acting by, through, under or in concert with TAl et aI., repeatedly made claims against
26
Plaintiff, harassed Plaintiff, took and publicized photographs of Plaintiffs residence, and
27
disseminated information regarding Plaintiff to various businesses, entities, and persons because:
28
(xxii) on or about June of 1999, Richard Harray disseminated to SLSI that Plaintiff was an
Page 72
=
, r
.3'-
II!
'
.......
alleged felon and thereby could not be a licensed process server for SLSI; (xxiii) after June of
1999, TAl or its attorneys or agents disseminated to SLSI that Plaintiff's reference used to obtain
employment with SLSI "was a relative, and not a prior non-partial supervisor"; (xxiv) on or
about April 17,2013, James Sullivan disseminated to the DFEH that Plaintiff's complaint filed
against his attorney Richard McLaughlin for violating Plaintiffs rights under 42 U.S.C.
12102(3)(A) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was "further proof that [Plaintiff]
lacks the judgment required for attorneys"; (xxv) on or about May 18,2012, James Sullivan
admitted that he disseminated Plaintiffs social security number to excite@home in Redwood
City, California; (xxvi) on or about June 01, 2001, TAl disseminated Plaintiff's resident address
10
to Appraisal Resource Group; (xxvii) on or about June 01, 2001, TAl commissioned Appraisal
1l
Resource Group to take and publicize photographs of Plaintiffs residence; (xxviii) on or about
12
June 01, 2001, TAl commissioned Appraisal Resource Group to disseminate an appraised value
13
of Plaintiffs residence; (xxix) on or about May 01,2013, Sara B. Boyns disseminated SLSI's
14
foregoing retaliatory volunteer questionnaire to the DFEH; (xxx) between June II, 1999, and
15
January 3, 2000, Richard Harray disseminated to SLSI of Plaintiff's "practices" and "should
16
expect" that Plaintiff file "a race discrimination lawsuit via the [DFEHJ" and a "Boycott
:7
webpage" against SLSI; (xxxi) on or about October 30, 2003, Carmen Ponce disseminated to the
:8
CSUMB Women's Leadership Council that Plaintiff - a high profile student at CSUMB and a
19
Women's Leadership Council scholar - had allegedly defamed TAl and thus, Plaintiff must not
20
be granted any subsequent scholarships; (xxxii) on or about February 17,2006, through February
21
2007, Robert V. Antle disseminated to CSUMB personnel, including president Dianne Harrison,
22
that Plaintiff - a high profile honors student at CSUMB - had allegedly defamed TAl and must
23
not benefit from TAl's $4 million donation to the CSUMB TAl Family Memorial Library and;
24
(xxxiii) around 2002, Robert V. Antle disseminated to the Monterey County Recorder-County
25
Clerk I Assessor that Plaintiff accessed the publicly assessed value of Antle's residence at 1410 I
26
McNerney Lane in Salinas, Ca. and unlawfully directed the removal of all public access thereto.
27
28
410.
In further violation of the Agreement, Defendants Does 6 through 15, repeatedly
harassed Plaintiff with their retaliatory conduct alleged herein that interfered with Plaintiff's
Page 73
right to: (xxxiv) a livelihood of his own choosing pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution; (xxxv) a livelihood pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 121 0 I et seq. of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; (xxxvi) file bankruptcy pursuant to II U.S.C. 525 of
the Bankruptcy Act; (xxxvii) petition the government for redress of grievances pursuant to the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution; (xxxviii) exercise his religious beliefs
pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; (xxxix) file disability claims
and defenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 and California Civil Code 54 et seq. of the California Disabled Persons Act; (xxxx)
make, modify, and enforce contracts, be parties to, give evidence, and sue pursuant to the Equal
'0
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (xxxxi) one-
11
party consent recordings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) and California Penal Code Sections
12
632(c), 633.5, and 653m; (xxxxii) happiness and privacy pursuant to Article 1 Section 1 of the
13
California Constitution; (xxxxiii) right to petition the government for redress of grievances
14
pursuant to Article I Section 3 of the California Constitution and; (xxxxiv) exercise his religious
15
beliefs pursuant to Article I Section 4 of the California Constitution.
16
411.
The conduct of said Defendants were a substantial factor in actually and
'7
proximately causing damage to Plaintiffs reputation including that Plaintiff allegedly had
18
defamed TAl and its employees, agents, and attorneys, "abused the legal process", "illegally
19
tape-recorded various parties" and; financially damaged with litigation costs and deprived of a
20
livelihood through the denial of his law license which became final on or about April 28, 2014.
21
412.
22
Sixteenth Cause Of Action
23
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
24
25
26
27
28
413.

414.
Paragraph 4.h. of the Agreement reads in relevant part, "The provisions contained
in Paragraph 4 are hereby stipulated to have the full force and effect ofa Court restraining order.
Page 74
f' .'
!
..
Violations of any these terms may result in an Order to Show Cause before a Court oflaw and
such terms may be enforced by Court contempt order."
415.
As alleged herein, Defendants Does 6 through 15, and those acting by, through,
under or in concert with Defendants Does 6 through 15, have failed and refused, and continue to
fail and refuse, to perform the conditions of the Agreement on their part in that they have
repeatedly harassed Plaintiff and disseminated information regarding Plaintiff.
416.
For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks this Court's enforcement of the Agreement.
417.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for reliefas requested below.
Seventeenth Cause Of Action
Tortious Interference With Contract Rights Re: Tanimura & AntIe et al.
10
(Plaintiffv. Defendants Does 6 througb 15)

12
13
14
418.

419.
On or about May 14, 1999, Plaintiff and TAl et al. entered into the foregoing
15
Agreement. On or about March 04, 2014, Plaintiff discovered that on or about July 28, 2010,
16
SLSI disseminated to the State Bar a copy of TAl's lawsuit #M49083 against Plaintiff for breach
17
of contract, specific performance, injunctive relief, and damages. As a result, SLSI had actual
18
knowledge of the Agreement entered between Plaintiff and TAl et al. and its restrictive
19
provisions that prohibited TAl or its attorneys or any person acting by, through, under or in
20
concert with TAl from harassing Plaintiff or disseminating information regarding Plaintiff.
21
420.
Even more inculpating, SLSI added a notation to provisions of Paragraph 4.a. of
22
the Agreement emphasizing that TAl's attorney Richard Harray - who is also SLSI's biggest
23
client - was bound to the restrictive terms of the Agreement by writing "Attorney" with an arrow
24
pointing to Harray's name in the clause.
25
421.
Additionally, on or about July 28, 2010, SLSI further acknowledged the
26
restrictive terms of the foregoing Agreement by stating in relevant part, "(Case No. M49083) is
27
Tanimura and Antle v. Daniel Delacruz - this suit involves the non-compliance of Mr. Delacruz
28
in closing down and not maintaining the Boycott Tanimura and Antle website."
Page 75
422.
On or about March 04, 2014, Plaintiff discovered that on or about July 28, 2010,
SLSI intended to disrupt the contractual obligations that TAl et al. owed to Plaintiff to not harass
Plaintiff or disseminate information regarding Plaintiff because SLSI urged the State Bar to
contact Richard Harray, James Sullivan, and TAl by stating in relevant part, "Please contact the
entities/individuals on the following page to substantiate any of the information I have provided,
and to obtain more opinions regarding [PlaintiffJ."
423.
SLSI intended to disrupt and violate the foregoing Agreement because SLSI
disseminated: (i) "Mr. Delacruz uses the same tactics against employers that have terminated
him. I've attached the first 2 pages of the complaints for 2 separate lawsuits filed in Monterey
10
County. The first lawsuit (Case M40802) is Daniel Delacruz v. Tanimura & Antle. This case is
11
against his previous employer"; (ii) "He even created the Boycott Tanimura & Antle website and
12
attempted lawsuits against them"; (iii) "Similar behavior and tactics were used by Mr. Delacruz
13
against Mr. Richard Harray, the attorney working for Tanimura & Antle"; (iv) "Mr. Harray's
14
neighbors received obscene letters, as well as other occupants of his law office building" and; (v)
15
"Mr. Delacruz has found creative ways for monetary gain using the judicial system. In the cases I
16
describe above, he uses employment termination as the tool."
17
424.
On or about March 04, 2014, Plaintiff discovered that on or about May 0 I, 2013,
18
SLSI intended to disrupt and interfere with the Agreement's restrictive obligations because SLSI
19
instructed Sara B. Boyns to disseminate SLSI's retaliatory questionnaire to the DFEH regarding
20
Plaintiff's alleged conduct towards TAl, its employees, family members, agents, and attorneys.
21
425.
On or about March 04, 2014, Plaintiff discovered that on or about May 01,2013,
22
Sara B. Boyns intended to disrupt and interfere with the Agreement's restrictive provisions to no
23
harass Plaintiff or disseminate information regarding Plaintiff because Sara B. Boyns had actual
24
knowledge of the Agreement's foregoing restrictive provisions that prohibited TAl, or its agents,
25
or attorneys, or any person acting by, through, under or in concert with TAl from harassing
26
Plaintiff or disseminating information regarding Plaintiff by attaching a copy of SLSI's
27
foregoing notation to provisions of Paragraph 4.a. of the Agreement and disseminated to the
28
DFEH all ofSLSI's foregoing documents regarding Plaintiff that included Plaintiff's alleged
Page 76
"- ... :l
4
.;
..-
conduct towards TAl, its employees, agents, and its attorneys including Richard Harray.
426.
The State Bar had actual knowledge of the foregoing restrictive provisions that
TAl's employees, agents and attorneys, including Carmen Ponce, Richard Harray and James
Sullivan, owed to Plaintiff because on or about June 14, 2010, the State Bar obtained a copy of
the Agreement in case #M 40802 and injunction to enforce the Agreement in case #M 49083.
427.
The State Bar also underlined and asterisked at least 16 sections of the Agreement
including the provisions restricting TAl, its employees, agents, and attorneys from harassing
Plaintiff and disseminating information regarding Plaintiff.
428.
The State Bar also intended to disrupt and interfere with the foregoing contractual
:0
obligations that TAl, its attorneys, employees, and any person acting by, through, under or in
11
concert with TAl owed to Plaintiff because the State Bar: (i) on or about May 18, 2012, induced
12
James Sullivan to respond that Plaintiff "would not be qualified to practice law"; (ii) between
13
2010 and April 03, 2012, sent Richard Harray a volunteer questionnaire regarding Plaintiffs
14
moral character; (iii) on or about June 25, 2010, sent SLSI a volunteer questionnaire regarding
15
Plaintiffs moral character; (iv) on or about March 16,2012, "asked [SLSI] ifshe knew Richard
16
Harray" and obtained Harray's contact information from SLSI and; (v) on or about July 08,
17
2010, sent Richard McLaughlin a volunteer questionnaire regarding Plaintiffs moral character.
18
429.
On or about January 10,2012, the State Bar, on behaJfofPlaintiffs former
19
employers, sent Plaintiff an authorization and release form that in effect attempted to have
20
Plaintiff release any liability against his former employers for breaching their performance
21
obligated by the Agreement - for TAl or its attorneys or any person acting by, through, under or
22
in concert with TAl from harassing Plaintiff or disseminating information regarding Plaintiff.
23
430.
As alleged herein, on or about April 16, 2012, after learning that Carmen Ponce
24
was going to testify at Plaintiffs moral character determination and knew that such information
25
would be relayed to the State Bar, John Doe interfered with the foregoing contractual obligations
26
that TAl et al. owed to Plaintiff by fabricating a firearms claim against Plaintiff and stating to
27
Carmen Ponce, "were you aware that [Plaintiff] had carried a firearm on TAl property?"
28
431.
As an employee or agent of TAl, John Doe knew of the contractual obligations
Page 77
that TAl et al. owed to Plaintiff to not harass Plaintiff or disseminate information regarding
Plaintiff because John Doe had actual and constructive knowledge of the Agreement.
432.
Said Defendants made enforcement of the Agreement more difficult and
expensive because the State Bar violated Plaintiffs right to due process oflaw by withholding
discovery documents related to said Defendants and Plaintiff also expended thousands of dollars
pursuing equitable relief through the State Bar Review Board, California Supreme Court, and
United States Supreme Court to try and rectify the damage resulting from said Defendants'
disruption of the foregoing Agreement and violations of Plaintiff's civil rights.
433.
Said Defendants disrupted and prevented Plaintiff from receiving the performance
1C
obligated by the Agreement - for TAl, or its attorneys, or any person acting by, through, under
11
or in concert with TAl from harassing Plaintiff or disseminating information regarding Plaintiff.
12
434.
The conduct of the Defendants Does 6 through 15 were a substantial factor in
'3
actually and proximately causing damage to Plaintiffs reputation including that Plaintiff
14
allegedly had "persecution complex"; defamed TAl and its employees, agents, and attorneys and'
15
financially damaged with litigation costs and deprived of a livelihood through the denial of his
16
law license which became final on or about April 28, 2014.
}7
435.
'8
Eigbteenth Cause Of Action
19
Tortious Inducement Of Breach Of Contract Re: Tanimura & Antle et al.
20
(Plaintiffv. Defendants TAl, Ricbard Harray, SLSI, State Bar)
21
22
23
436.

437.
On or about June II, 1999, SLSI terminated Plaintiffs employment in which
24
SLSI acted in collusion with TAl's attomey Richard Harray who induced SLSI to breach the
25
terms of the Agreement, as alleged herein. Harray had no privilege to act because Harray was a
26
named beneficiary of the Agreement and the attorney who represented TAl in the formation of
27
the Agreement. Thus, Harray acted with actual knowledge ofthe Agreement's existence.
28
438.
As alleged herein, on or about July 28, 2010, SLSI induced the State Bar to
Page 78
breach the terms of the Agreement by urging the State Bar to contact Richard Harray, James
Sullivan, and TAL SLSI had no privilege to act because SLSI acting by, through, under or in
concert with TAl and its agents and with actual knowledge of the existence of the terms of the
Agreement because SLSI previously obtained a copy of the Agreement and highlighted its terms.
439.
On or about March 16,2012, SLSI induced the State Bar to breach the terms of
the Agreement by informing Manuel Jimenez that she knew Richard Harray, that he was an
attorney, and providing Manuel Jimenez with Richard Harray's contact information.
8
9
440.
Between 2010 and May 14, 2012, the State Bar induced SLSI, TAl, James
Sullivan, and Richard Harray to breach the terms of the Agreement by submitting volunteer
10
questionnaires to said Defendants. The State Bar had no privilege to act because they obtained a
11
copy of the Agreement and had actual knowledge of the Agreement's restrictive terms which
12
prohibited TAl or its agents, employees, or attorneys or any person acting by, through, under or
13
in concert with TAl from harassing Plaintiff or disseminating information regarding Plaintiff.
14
441.
The conduct of said Defendants were a substantial factor in actually and
15
proximately causing damage to Plaintiffs reputation including that Plaintiff allegedly had
16
"abused the legal process"; defamed TAl and its employees, agents, and attorneys and;
17
financially damaged with litigation costs and deprived of a livelihood through the denial of his
18
law license which became final on or about April 28, 2014.
19
442.
20
Nineteenth Cause Of Action
21
Motion for Relief From Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) and (6) of the
22
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Declaration in Support Thereof
23
24
25
26
443.

444.
"It is beyond question that a federal court may investigate a question as to
27
whether there was fraud in the procurement of ajudgment...lt is thus fraud where the court or a
28
member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not
Page 79
performed his judicial function -- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been
directly corrupted." (Citation omitted) (Bulloch v. United States (1985) 763 F.2d 1115, 1121).
445.
On or about January 31, 2001, TAl obtained a permanent injunction in Monterey
County Superior Court case # M49083 for Plaintiffs specific performance of the foregoing
Agreement and further requiring Plaintiff to maintain a physical distance of not less than 100 fee
from TAl's employees, family members, attorneys, agents, etc.
446.
However, the foregoing injunction is overly broad because it violates Plaintiffs
freedom of association rights pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
because TAl has extensive employees, family members, and agents that have been present at
10
social functions including those held by Plaintiffs family and his alma maters CSUMB and
11
Monterey College of Law where Plaintiff has been an invited guest. As a result, Plaintiff had to
12
abruptly leave in order to comply with the physical separation provision of the injunction or
:3
neither Plaintiff nor TAl had any reasonable alternative to comply with the foregoing injunction.
14
447.
Specifically: (i) On or about March 18,2013, Plaintiff was invited and attended a
15
"Careers in Business Law" presentation held at his alma mater Monterey College of Law.
16
However, Plaintiff abruptly left upon learning that Carmen Ponce was appearing as a speaker;
17
18
19
20
(ii) On or about April 27, 2005, Plaintiff was invited and attended a CSUMB fundraiser
event. However, Rick Antle was also in attendance causing Plaintiff to abruptly leave;
(iii) On or about February 17,2006, Plaintiff was invited and attended a CSUMB fundraiser
event. However, Robert V. Antle also attended causing Plaintiff to abruptly leave;
21
(iv) On or about June of2008, Plaintiff and his wife were invited and attended their son's
22
high school graduation ceremony in Salinas, Ca. However, Mike Antle and his family were also
23
in attendance for their own son's graduation ceremony. However, because there was no
24
reasonable alternative for neither Plaintiff nor Antle to enjoy their respective son's graduation
25
ceremony, neither complied with the foregoing injunction.
26
(v) On or about October 30, 2003, Plaintiff was a high profile honors student and was being
27
recognized for his academic prowess at a CSUMB luncheon. However, Carmen Ponce was also
28
an invited guest and attended the luncheon. As a result, neither Plaintiff nor Ponce had any
Page 80
n .. ~
reasonable alternative to comply with the foregoing injunction;
(vi) On or about September 30, 2007, Plaintiff attended his cousin's - Aaron Montoya-
funeral. However, Mike Antle and his wife were also invited and attended. As a result, neither
Plaintiff nor Antle had any reasonable alternative to comply with the injunction.
448.
The foregoing injunction is also overly broad because Plaintiff has a right to
associate with family members pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution because TAl employs several of Plaintiff's family members. On or about September
14,2001, TAl's attorney James Sullivan admitted that TAl employs Plaintiff's family members.
449.
The foregoing injunction is overly broad because it violates 42 U.S.C. 121 0 I et
10
seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and California Civil Code 54 et seq. of the
11
California Disabled Persons Act because the foregoing physical separation provision prohibits
12
Plaintiff from coming within 100 feet ofTA!,s extensive employees, family members, and
13
agents who visit medical facilities for which Plaintiff receives treatment Jhat is necessary to
14
prevent major organ failure as a result of his hereditary disorder of Fabry's Disease.
15
450.
The foregoing injunction is also overly broad because it violates Plaintiff's right
16
to earn a living pursuant to 42 U.S.c. 12101 et seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
17
1990 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because businesses that
18
are not owned by TAl can and do employ TAl's extensive family members and agents or family
19
members of such persons thereby causing such persons to be in close proximity to Plaintiff.
20
451.
For example, Plaintiff has worked as a paralegal in which his duties require him
21
to utilize the services of the Monterey County Recorder and Superior Court in which the wife of
22
TAl employee Fred Cauntay, who is a named beneficiary ofthe Agreement, also utilizes such
23
services for her employment causing her to repeatedly be within two feet of Plaintiff.
24
452.
The foregoing injunction was also issued ex gratia to TAl in violation of due
25
process because the issuing Judge - Richard Silver - had conflicts of interest with TAl through
26
Silver's personal and professional association with TAl executive Robert V. Antle resulting from
27
their mutual association with the influential public figure Leon Panetta. Significantly, in 2002,
28
Leon Panetta was the keynote speaker for Judge Richard Silver's honorary retirement.
Page 81
453.
Robert V. Antle is also professionally associated with Leon Panetta because Antle
- alongside Leon Panetta's wife - serves as a Board of Director of the Panetta Institute for Public
Policy located in Monterey County in which Leon Panetta is the co-founder and co-director.
454.
Robert V. Antle is also personal friends with Leon Panetta. Significantly, in 2005,
Robert V. Antle and his wife celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary in which Leon Panetta
was a distinguished guest. Robert V. Antle even flaunted his association with the influential
Leon Panetta in January 2006 by publishing his 50th wedding anniversary photo in a Monterey
County newspaper in which Antle and his wife are pictured with Leon Panetta and his wife.
Leon Panetta also gave a eulogy during Robert V. Antle's Celebration of Life Ceremony held on
10
"
or about Monday August 11,2014 at the CSU Monterey Bay World Theater.
455.
Moreover, Robert V. Antle was not a named party in TAl's foregoing lawsuit for
12
injunctive relief against Plaintiff. Yet, on or about June 14, 2000, Robert V. Antle, a.k.a. Bob
13
Antle, filed a declaration in support of an injunction to insure Judge Silver's ex gratia order.
14
456.
Judge Silver is also a friend of Richard Harray who was not a named party in
15
TAl's foregoing lawsuit for injunctive relief against Plaintiff. Yet, on or about June 13, 2000,
16
Harray filed a declaration in support of an injunction to insure Judge Silver's ex gratia order.
17
457.
As a result, during an injunction hearing on or about June 16,2000, Judge Silver
18
was incandescently hostile towards Plaintiff and his attorney Steve Gordon, bar license #95174.
19
Specifically, in reference to an alleged homosexual wedding invitation about Mike Antle, Judge
20
Silver incandescently erupted, "I sure hope [Plaintiff] didn't send those wedding invitations!"
21
Silver then angrily pointed his finger at Plaintiff and shouted, "We're going to find out during his
22
deposition!" Silver also refused to allow Plaintiff's attorney to address the legal authorities for
23
opposing TAl's injunction motion by repeatedly and angrily interrupting his attorney. Shortly
24
afterwards, Steve Gordon stated to Plaintiff that he was "shocked" by Judge Silver's demeanor.
25
458.
Additionally, in TAl's foregoing breach of contract claim, TAl merely alleged
26
damages but failed to show any appreciable and actual damages as required by law. (See In re
27
Zynga Privacy Litig., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154237 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2011)["California law
28
requires a showing of 'appreciable and actual damage' to assert a breach of contract claim, but
Page 82
",1
'.
Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14

Page 83 of 105
~_l
lt
"'"
Plaintiffs only allege that they have 'suffered and will continue to suffer damages and losses.' "]
459.
Bulloch v. Unites States (1985) 763 F.2d 1115 has ruled "Rule 60(b) does not
impose a time limit on motions asserting fraud on the court. The rule also, of course, recites that
it does not limit the power of the courts to consider independent actions to relieve a party from a
judgment."!d. at 1121. Thus, Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court to null and void the foregoing
permanent injunction pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
because applying it prospectively is no longer equitable and because the order was issued ex
gratia to TAl in violation of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process oflaw.
DECLARATION
10
460.
I, Daniel Delacruz, Sr. declare:
11
461.
[ am the Plaintiff in this matter. All facts alleged in the above motion for relief not
12
otherwise supported by citations to the record on appeal or the exhibits submitted to this court,
13
are true of my own personal knowledge and on information and belief.
14
15
462.
[ declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct under the
laws of the State of California and was executed this
16
463.
17
464.
213 -j<, day of November 2014.
'<:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
18
19
2C
21
465.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands the following relief against all of the
defendants, individually and jointly and severally:

a. Actual damages suffered in an amount to be determined by the evidence presented at
22
trial, but in no event less than the jurisdictional minimum of this Court or treble
23
damages of at least the $4,000 minimum established in Ca. Civil Code 52 and 52.1.
24
b. Consequential damages, including but not limited to attorneys fees and costs incurred
25
to pursue this litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k), 2000e-5(g)( I), 1981 et
26
seq., and 1985(3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ca. Civil Code 52,
27
52.1 and 54.3, California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5, and Ca. Penal Code 502.
28
c. Consequential damages, including but not limited to Statutory penalties under
Page 83
California Civil Code 52 pursuant to 52.1 in the amount of twenty-five thousand
dollars ($25,000.00) per violation against each defendant who was involved in
violating Plaintiff's federal and California Constitutional and statutory rights.
d. Compensatory damages in the amount up to $300,000.00 for each violation of 42

U.S.C. 198Ia(a)(J)ofTitieVII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
5
6
e. Punitive damages in the amount up to $300,000.00 for each violation of 42 U.S.C.

1981 a(a)(I) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
7
8
f.
Compensatory damages for each violation of 42 U.S.c. 1985(3) and 2000e-3(a) of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 29 U.S.C. 215 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938;
10
11
g. Punitive damages for each violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) and 2000e-3(a) of Title
12
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 29 U.S.C. 215 of the Fair Labor Standards Act;
13
h. Lost compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 706(g) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act;
14
I.
Injunctive relief from Monterey County Superior Court case #M49083 injunction;
15
j.
Other damages pursuant to all other relevant statutes;
16
17
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands ajury trial of this action.
18
:9
Dated this 26 Ii--, day of November 2014
Daniel Delacruz, Sr., In P
Per
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 84
\,""',
..
.
Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD
Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 85 of 105
t, ;;i
~
~"',It"'l~~,
It!' '., . _; );~'f

' ,r~\ili ")ll;'
~.I."\.=.hll.
... til
..../l11eJ
~fI
-, -""<i;_~/;
STATE OF CAlIFORNIA tausineas. Consumer Sef'Jices and Housing A.gency
GOVERNOR EDMUND G_ BROWN JR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
DIRECTOR PHYLLIS W, CHNG
2218 Kausen Drive. Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA 195758
800-884-1684 I Videophone 916-226-52851 TDD 800-700-2320
'VVYffl,dfeh,ca.govt email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
December 05,2013
Daniel Delacruz
PO Box 1425
Salinas, Ca 93902
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
DFEH Number: 83946-38392-R
EEiOC Num ber:3 '7A~20~~1i:t~Iil~,,&i);~S~!jl;r:cilooj\?iilti;~bI)
Delacruz I State of California Committee of Bar Examiners
Dear Daniel Delacruz:
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has closed your case for the
following reason: Investigated and Dismissed-Insufficient evidence. Based upon its
investigation, DFEH is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes a
violation of the statute. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with
the statutes. No finding is made as 10 any other issues that might be construed as
having been raised by this complaint.
This is your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12966,
subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. This is also applicable
to DFEH complaints that are filed under, and allege a Violation of, Government Code
section 12948, which incorporates Civil Code sections 51, 51.'7, and 54. The civil action
must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. However, if your civil complaint
alieges a violation of Civil Code section 51,51.'7, or 54, you should consult an attorney
about the applicable statutes of limitation.
Your complaint is dual filed with the.UnltE!.dStllcte$E~l!alEirhployment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) .. YouMve.!ilrighttor~:lqu!iSt~~~P,;t6perforrhasublltantial
weight review of Qurnndings. Tfliilrequest rflustl)erol!\d~witlllr'l;rifteell(15) days of
your receiptof this .. nQtice.:.pursu.at\t.to.Goverr:1I"t)entCQ~!i!sSUgl1/1;21:!1.>5,subdivision (d)
(1), your right sue may hetoll.addunng thep~ll(jency,o~.m~~C'sre",ieWOf. yOUr
complaint. To seoutethisreviewty\:)u mUl;lt requestit ir1 writing. toti)e .State and.Local
Coordinator nearest you;
to
EEOC NorthemCalifornilli
450 Golden.Gate Avenue.5t~FlclorWest
P.O Box 36025
San Francisco,CA941oa"3661
1Exhibit A -11
EIii.oc S@uthEi/l'n California
ROYr.~.aIEe.dr~f BlHlding
255IllastT~mple.Ste.,4th Floor
. l.QsiMIWIQSi CA90012
'1
j
i!
;
..
Notice of Case Closure and Righi to Sue

December 5,2013
Page 20f 4
(415) 645-5600
(219) 894t100
You may file an appeal with DFEH which is a written request made to the District
Administrator for reconsideration of the decision to close your case. Your appeal should
include a 1) summary as to why you disagree with the reason; and/or, 2) any new
detailed information (e9., documents, records, witness information) that supports your
claim. If you appeal, the information you provide will be carefully considered.
Although DFEH has concluded that the evidence and information did not support a
findin9 that a violation occurred, the allegations and conduct at issue may be in Violation
of other laws. You should consult an attorney as soon as possible regarding any other
options and/or recourse you may have regarding the underlying acts or conduct.
Should you decide to bring a civil action on your own behalf in court in the State of
California under the provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA) against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named
in your complaint, below are resources for this. Please note that if a settlement
agreement has been signed resolving the complaint, you might have waived the right to
file a private lawsuit.
Finding an Attorney
To proceed in Superior Court, you should contact an attorney. If you do not already
have an attorney, the organizations listed below may be able to assist you:
The State Bar of California has a Lawyer Referral Services Program which can be
accessed through its Web site at www.calbar.ca.gov or by calling (866) 442-2529
(within California) or (415) 538-2250 (outside California).
Your county may have a lawyer referral service. Check the Yellow Pages of your
telephone book under "Attorneys."
Filing in Small Claims Court

The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) has a publication titled "The Small
Claims Court: A Guide to Its Practical Use" online at of "The Small Claims Court: A
Guide to Its Practical Use" online at
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/small claims. You may also order a free copy of
"The Small Claims Court: A Guide to Its Practical Use" online, by calling the DCA
Publication Hotline at (866) 320-8652, or by writing to them at: DCA, Office of
Publications, Design and Editing; 1625 North Market Blvd., Suite N-112;
Sacramento; CA; 95834.
The State Bar of California has information on "Using the Small Claims Court" under
the "Public Services" section of its Web site located at www.calbar.ca.gov.
1Exhibit A - 21
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

December 5, 2013
Page 3 of 4
Sincerely,
Maxwell Nwaopara
Consultant III-Supv
510.789.1058
cc:
State of California Committee of Bar Examiners
180 Howard Street 6th Floor
San Francisco Ca. 94105
State of Ca. Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
Susan Kagan
180 Howard St FI 6
San Francisco Ca 94105
Tanimura and Antie, Inc.
1 Harris Rd. Salinas
Salinas California 93908
Sayler Legal Service Inc.
12 Thomas Owens Way, Suite 100
Monterey Ca 93940
Julie Culver
240 Church St #320
Salinas Ca 93901
James Sullivan
PO Box 2119
Salinas Ca 93902
Mike Antle
1 Harris Rd
Salinas Ca 93908
Joshua Sigal
37779 ALTA CT
Fremont Ca 94536
1Exhibit A - 31
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

December 5, 2013
Page 4 of 4
Richard McLaughlin
6705 Leon Dr
Salinas Ca 93907
Carmen Ponce
1 Harris Rd
Salinas Ca 93908
[Exhibit A - 4[
AMENDED
Jun 18,2014
Daniel Delacruz [part 1]

PO Box 1425
Salinas CA 93902
RE: Notice of Case Closure and RIght to Sue
DFEH Matter Number: 10 1129-11l865-R
Right to Sue: Delacruz [part 1)/ The State Bar Of California
Dear Daniel Delacruz [part 1),

This letter infonns you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DPER) has been closed effective Iun 18, 2014 because an immediate Right to
Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, suhdivision
(b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair employment and Housing Act against
the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced
complaint. The civil action must be filed within OOe year from the date of this letter.
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must visit the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DPEH Notice of Case Closure
or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
1Exhibit B - 11
.. tt, ..
AMENDED
Enclosures
cc; The State Bar Of California Vincent Au
The State Bar Of California Manuel Jimenez
The State Bar Of California Starr Babcock
The State .Bar Of California Susan Kagan
The State Bar Of California Cydney Batchelor
The State Bar Of California Allen Blumeuthal
The State Bar Of California Susan Chan
The State Bar Of California Lisa Cummins
The State Bar Of California Richard Frankel
The State Bar Of California Rachel S. Grunberg
1Exhibit B - 21
....
./
~,
'i..'\,
i.{,. ~.lilij'
~ ltiiH.
I
,~
I51"ATE'Jl" c.:;UfORN!4:
5u~'''_ Coc~um~' Sm~:a:>d ~!>ngAQan.:y
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
2218 Kausen Dove, Suite HIO ! Eli-: Grove I GA I e5'7SB

aOQ-BS4--1B84 I fIT -SOO?o-J-232fi
IVWW dfBlh}8,golo'
AMENDED
Jun 18,2014
Daniel Delacruz [part 2]
POBox 1425
Salinas CA 93902
RE: Nolice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
DFEH Matter Number: 101l29-1l6027-R
Right to Sue: Delacruz [Part 2] / The State Bar Of California
Dear Daniel Delacruz [part 2],
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint Was filed with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective Jun 18,2014 because an immediate Rigbt to
Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision
(b), a civil action may be brought underthe provisions of the Fair employment and Housing Act against
tbe person. employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced
complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this lelter.
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must visit the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure
or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
IExhibit B -
31
AMENDED
Enclosures
cc: The State Bar Of California Larry Sheingold
The Stale Bar Of California Sean McCoy
The State Bar Of California Jayne Kim
The State Bar Of California Donald Steedman
The Stale Bar Of California Bill Stephens
The State Bar Of California William Shaffer
The State Bar Of California Richard I. Zanassi
The State Bar Of California Randy Difuntorum
TIle State Bar Of California Lauren McCurdy
The State Bar Of California Andrew Tuft
The State Bar Of California Debra Lawson
Exhibit B -
41

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
EEOC FCfm 161 (11109)
DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS

To:

P.O Box 1425
Salinas, CA 93902
From:
San Jose Local Office

96 North Third Street
Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95112
On be/lelf of person(s} aggrieved whose identity is

CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR 1601. 7(a/)
EEOC Charge No.
EEOC Representative
Telephone No.
550-2014-01115
Harry R. Geise,
Investigator
(408) 291-2623
THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:
D
D
D
The Respondent employs less than the required number of employees or is not otherwise covered by the statutes.
Your charge was not timely filed with EEOC; in other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged
The facts alleged in the charge fail to state a claim under any of the statutes enforced by the EEOC.
Your allegations did not involve a disability as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
discrimination to file your charge
[]J
The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to condude that the
information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with
the staMes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge.
The EEOC has adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this charge.
Other (briefly state)
- NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS (See the additional information attached to this form.)
Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you.
You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your
lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be
lost. (The time limit for filing surt based on a claim under state law may be different.)
Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be filed in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the
alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years 13 years\
before you file suit may not be collectiblti.;--."
Endosures(s}
cc
(Date Mail.d)
TANIMURA & ANTLE, INC. ET AL

Attn: Director of Human Resources/Personnel
1 Harris Road
Salinas, CA 93908
1Exhibit C -11
/'
U.S. EQUAl EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
eeoc Form 161 {1 1109)
DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS

To:

P.O. Box 1425
Salinas, CA 93902
From:
San Jose Local Office

96 North Third Street
Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95112
On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is

CONFIDENTIAL 129 CFR 1601. 71a
EEOC Charge
No.
5502014-01114
EEOC Representative
Telephone No"
Harry R. Geise,
Investigator
(40812912623
THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:
D
D
D
The facts alleged in the charge tail to state a claim under any of the statutes enforced by the EEOC.
Your allegations did not involve a disability as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Acl.
The Respondent employs less than the required number of employees or is not otherwise covered by the statutes.
o
m
Your charge was not timely filed with EEOC; in other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged
discrimination to file your charge
The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the
information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does nol certify that the respondent is in compliance with
the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge.
The EEOC has adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that Investigated this charge.
Other (briefly state)
NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS

(Se8 the additional information attached to this form)
Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you.
You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your
laWSUit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this nolice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be
lost. (The time limit for filing suit based an a claim under state law may be different.)
Equal Pay Act (EPAI: EPA suits must be filed in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the
alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 yearsl
before you file suit may not be collectible.
@-3t?-/1
Enclos1Jres(s)
(Date Mailed)
cc:
SAYLER LEGAL SERVICE, INC. ET AL

Director of Human Resources/Personnel
12 Thomas Owens Way
Monterey, CA 93940
1Exhibit C 21
- - - - _ ...._-._-_ ... _--_..
U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division
NOTICE OP RIGHT TO SUE WITHIN 90 DAYS
CERTIFIED MAIL
20143371
950 Pennsylvania Avomrc. N. W,

Klllv:n Ferguson. BMP, PHB, Room 4239
Wlishingion. DC 20530
December 04,2014
Mr. Daniel Delacruz, Sr.
P.O. Box 1425
Salinas, CA 93902
Re: EEOC Charge Against State Bar of California, et a!.
No. 550201401055
Dear Mr. Delacruz, Sr.;
Because you filed the above charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the
Commission has determined that it will not be able to investigate and conciliate that charge within
180 days of the date the Commission assumed jurisdiction over the charge and the Department has
determined that it will not file any lawsuit(s) based thereon within that time, and because you have
specifically req~lested this Notice, you are hereby notified that you have the right to institute a civil
action under TitkVII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., against
the above-narned respondent.
If you choose to commence a civil action, such s~lit must be filed in the appropriate Court within
90 days oryour receipt of this Notice. If you cannot afford or are unable to retain an attomey to
represent you, the Court may, at its discretion, assist you in obtaining an attomey. If you plan to ask
the Court to help you find an attorney, you must make this request of the Court in the form and
manner it req~lires. Your request to the Court should be made well before the end ofthe time period
mentioned above. A request for representation does not relieve you of the obligation to file suit
within this 90-day period.
The investigative file pertaining to your case is located in the EEOC San Francisco District Office,
San Francisco, CA.
This Notice should not be taken to mean that the Department of Justice has made a judgment as to
whether or not your case is meritorious.
Sincerely,
Vani ta Gupta
Acting Assistant Attorney General
by
cr:::j~
~
L. Ferguson
Supervisory Civil Rights Analyst
Employment Litigation Section
IExhibit C - 31
av-
' .. lip. 22. 2000 [0:46AM

.. '.
TAN1MUH & ANTLE

t :
P. 22152
No. 3626
~-'
MUTUAL SE'ITLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
This Mutual Settlement and. Release Agreement (the "Agrtti\\ellt'1 is entered into by and
between Damel Oe La CIilZ (''l'laiotift',), 011 the one hand, and Tanimura 8i Antle, Inc, a
.
California Corporation, (together with itllllffiliates, owners, olicers,.di=tors and employees
being hetcinafler collectively refetred to a.3 "TAl~), Mib 'Antle. an individual. and Allie Padgett,
Sr" an individual ("Defendants,,) on the oilier hand. (plaintiff and Dtfendants herein ue '
eollectiv!ly rcfetred to as the "Parties,,).'
A
RECITAlS
A.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffwas emplQyed by TAl from on or about April 9, 1988 to on
or about July 8, 1996i
B.
WHEREAS, on. or about July 8, 1996, TAl terminated Pla.intiff's employment;
C.
WHEREAS, on lilly 10, 1993, Plajntifi commenced. an action against Ddecdmts
in the Superior CQlJl'I Qf!he County o!Montere)', Case NUIll'ber M~802 by ruing a complaint
alleging ~ causes ofactio.a, 1Ild Defendants have fUed In answer tel the ~mpl&!nt denying
th! all~tions tbcreln;
D.
'WHEREAS, Defendants claim that, sicc.e Plaintlff's termication by TAI, Plaintiff
bas trespassed. 011 the leal property ofDefc:nclants, defamed Defendants, cast De!/:ndant.! in a
false light, sought a. boycott afTAl's business and commi~ slander and various libels, which
libels have b= recently republished by Pla.intiff, Plaintiff however denying these claims by
Defendants;
E.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants desire to settle. on mutually alJIceable
terms, 1.1\ actions :md claims between them; and
.
F.
WHEREAS, Plainliffand Defendants have pursued discussions concerning the
possible resolution of said actions and the claims in order to avoid. incurring Iht mutual
inconvenience and I!Xjlcnse oilitigation Uld, lIS a ICsult or such discussioll$, have reached
mutually agreeable terms for the rC5QI\ltions oftlteir respective actions and daims.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration oithe ioregoing premises and oflheirrespc~llve
and mutual obligations and co=itments herein. the Parties do heteby covenant and aglee with
e~d\ other as follows:
t~,
.. _ ,....... , .......' ...... 10""'.1 ... ...- _ _ .. _ _ _
.'.' ,IIi" 2,2,
20~O_
10:47AM
TANIMURA &ANTLE
\ . J
No, 3626
p, 23/52
AGRl$MENT
'.
a.
SimultaJieously with the execution of this Agr~enient, Plaintiffhas
deliv~red to Harrat &. Linker, Defendmt' 5 counsel. a dismissal:with ptejudice' of the enfue action
Number M 40802 and any olhcr actions or proceedings py Pl~agaimt Defendants (the
"Dismissal"), Said Dismissal haA been reviewed'and approved as to fOIDl and i1lbsUnce by
Plaintiff's attolllcy, Brad Christopher Holbrook, md is in a Iorm ~dy for filing by Defendants'
co\lnSel.
,,- -
-,
'b.
COIl~!,Il:rently with delivery of the executed Di!missal wtth pteJ udi~ and
this AtreclI1ent, Defendants shl\ll deliver to PlaJnliff's attorney, Brad Christopher Holbrook, fot
delivery to Plaintiff, a cb=k from TAl ill the mount of'Fif'ty 'Ihousand Dollars ($50.000),
paYAble jointly to Daniel Da La. C.uz and Brad Christopher Holbrook, as full compensation and
satisfaction for all thc allc3c!d damages Stt fcnh in the <lmplaJnt for damageS in M 40802, and
all other claims 2.SSelUd or unasserted of an'J type by Plaintiff' against Defendants and any of
them;
c,
Defendants exeeuted this Agrecment ;md deUvered .. copy thcrcofto
Plaintift"s attorney, Brad Christopher Holctook.
d.
Defendants will proce~d prompuy to file the Distillssal wi1h the Co~
ending the civil matt& :filed against Defendant5-
c.
Each party shall bear his, or its own costs and attomey3 fees arising from
this action.
'!he Parties agrees to camp ly with the eXllress p!'Qvisicl\.!! whicl!.
:~C(;tively petlaining to lllem in Paragraph 4, herein.
f.
2.
Reluse of Claims,
a.
P!ahJtiff's Release,
i.
Plalnrlff, on behalf of himself and his agCl'lts, I>Ssociates, .
r~prcsentatives, predecessors, executors, attorneys, administratOrs, successOr!, beneficilllies, heirs
and assigns, and arty llerson acting by, mough, under or in concert with him. haeby releases me!
for~ver discharges DefendantS and ea~h oflheir respective beneficiaries, heirs, successors,
assigns, parents, officers, directors, shareholders, owners, affiUaIe$, paMers, associates,
consl.11!lU1!$, representatives, employees, agents and attorney S, past and present, and any person
acting by, though, under or In concm witll them, from any and all claims, demands, causes of
action, costS, e:qle!\Ses, damages, losses, iudgm~nts, orders and liabilities of whatever kind of
, ....... _ '.. "'-'IJ"I-tI_ .. \ot-.''''' ..
.IU.OI_ ... __ _
/ 'May, 22, 2000 IO:47AM
TANIMURA & ANTLE

\,J
No, 3626
p, 24/52
nat\lre, in law, equity or otherwise whether nowlmown or unknown, vested or contingmt,

suspected or IlJlSUSpected, and whether related or umclatcd to !he subject matter of the, claims,
rcfleeted in Plaintifrs actioll, Case Number M 40802, Wllicb. Plaintiff'hllS now or ever M.d, ever
claimed to have had, or hereaftetmay have against Defendaots Slld cAh ot'them and their
respective beneficiaries, heits, silee~ssors. assigns, parents, officers; directors, shareholders,
owners, a:ffiljates, partnCr.l, assodates. cOl1Sllt1ants, represelltlltives, employees, agents 8lld " ,
attomeys, past orpresmt, 8lld anYllersOIl.8.~g'oy, ':hcu~, UIlderor in eoncertVr'ith. them,
arising Q\1t of or related in any manner whatsoever ~ Pl~s employment)lm TAl; provided"
how,vtt. that UlisAgreement does not rclw~ or di:>clw'gc ~ Panics from. ~ respective
:
a bligationj WIder this A.greemeJ1t
,
ii.
Plaintiff acknowledges that he has been advised by legal counsel
and is familiar with California Civil CodeSeclioA 1542, Whlc.hIeads as fallows:
A GENERAL RELEASBDOES NOT EX'ID!D
, TO CLAIMS WHICH IRE CREDITOR. DOES
NOT KNOW OR. SUSPEcr TO EXIST IN HIS
FAVOR. AT THS TIME OF EXECU'ID'lG THE
RELEASE, WEICH lf KNOWN:BY HIM MUST

HAVE MA'fERIALLY AFFECTEP BIS
SE'ITLEMENT WJlR TIm DEBTOR.
Plaintiff, b!ing 'WIle of said Code S~on, HEREBY .

EXPRESSL'Y WAIVES />JIT RIGHTS HSMAY HAVE THEREUNDERAS WELL AS
UNDER AllY OTHER STATUTE OR COMMON LAW PRINCIPLE WlTH A SIMILAR.
EfFECT. PlaiDtiff' agrees that this full release otbOW'll and Ulllalown claims applies in any
juri$diction wlJere an action or claim inconsisteIlt with w J.,i~ might be filed, notwithstmding
the existence in $uchjurlsdiction ofa sutute simillil to section 1542 cf1he California Civil Code.
iii.
PlaintUl fully understands and agrees that the releaSe ofDefen.dants
contaitled in 1his Agreement includes, but is not lUnited to, all contract, tort, or personal ini'JIY
c;Wms, all claims for wages, stock opuom or any other 'ome1i.t incldent to Plaintiff' 5 emlllOYment
with TAI, all clallJl$ based on my legal restrictiooa lipan TAl's light to \em:!.inate Pla.intifrs
employment at will, and any other state, fed.m1 or local laws or r~la1iOllll of any !cind, whether
administrative, rcgulatoI1. statutCt)'. or deQisionaL
Iv.
"
__
/'wooIl , _ , ..
Plaintiff understands lhat there are various sta'te, !edera1, and local
lal'lS that prohibit employment discrlmination on the basis of ngc, sex, n~e, color, national
Qrigirt, tcligiQn, hand\eap, memcal condition, veteran Status, and. other protected ctltegorles and
that these laws ate enforced lh!ough the E~ual Employment OppOrt\Ul.ity Commission, the U.S.
Department of Labor, and the Califomla Department of Fair Employment and HouslIlg. Plajnliff
intends to and does give up, release, and forever waive any and all rights Plaintiff may have
againSt. Defendants under these laws 01' any other law!,
_ _ _ _ __
'. ',Ma", '.22, 2000

. . lO:47AM
UNIIlURA & ANTLE

\'
No, 3626
p, 25/52
"
v,
P\aUJ.tiffreprcsents and warrants that he bas the sole right and
exclusive authority to cj(eeutc lhls Agreement and that be bas not sold, IISSigned, transferred,
conveyed, or otherwise disp~scd of er.y cl;im or demand, or any portion of or interest in any
claim or demalld, roanng to any matter cOl/cred by this Agreement. Plaintiff agrees to indemnify
and bold pefel!dants hannless from sny claim, demand, controversy, damage, debt, llability.
account, obligation, cost, expen.se, lie:o, action. 01' cause ofaction (mcluding the payment of
iUtorneys' fees and com actually mcurred whether or not litigation is commenc'ed) oased on or
arising OUt of any such actual or ptlt]lortcd sale. assigwnemt, transf~ IJt, conveyance.
,
b,
Defendants' Release.
i.
Defendants. on behili of theJDSelves and 1heirrespecuve &gmt!,
associates, representatives, predec:esson. executotlS, littol'lleys, ac!mini&t!aIQrs, successors,
bcneficia:ie~, heirs and assigm, and any perscn acting by, tboueh. under er mcouc:crt with them,
hereby release and foreVer dische:ge Plailltiffanci his beneficiaries. beirs, SUCl:cssors, assif;!l8,
associates, cOl1SUitan'l3. reprt8!l1tauves, ageuU and attorney 5, past wi pte3ent, and any penon
actiDg by, thouih. under or in concert with them, !i'om any a:nd all claims, dem.and.!, causes of
action, costs, expenses, damages. losses, judgmen'l3, ofder,s and liabilities of whatever kind of
natlJre, in ~w, equity or othetwise whetlu:r now kIiown or \ll:IknQmI, vested or contlni~nt,
suspected or unsu.speeted, and whether related or unrelated to the subj cct mailer of the claims,
reflected in Plaintifi's action. Case Number M 40802. which Defenllant! have now or ever had,
ever claimed to ha.'1e bad, or hereafter mP:J bave ag;jnst Plabuifr and hl.! respective benmiciaries.
heirs, SlXcesSOn., assigns, associates, cOllSllltants, repres~ves, agents am! attorneys, past or
ptesent, and my penon actiI!g by, thousJt, undcror in concert "I'Iith thelll, arising out of or related
il1 any manner whatsOever to Plaintiff's CDlployment with TAl: ptpyjded. however.lhat this
A&rectnent does lIot release Cit 4lscbarge the Parties from Illeir respective coUgations under th!$
Agrcement.
--------------.:ii._....DefcodanucknoYdg4ges that they- ba~,bccn adviscdJlyJ<;gal
______ _
counsel2l1d are f:unillar with California CiVil Code Section ~S41, which reads as follows:
A general release does oot extend to claWs wh!~h

Ille cre4itor does not know or suspect to eldst in ~
favot at the lillie Clf clcecuting the release, which if
known b)' him must have materially afi'ec.t!d his
setTlement with Ille debtor,
Defendants, being !WllIe of said Code Section, HEREB Y
EXPRESSLY WANE ANY. RlGHTS TIm'( MAY HAVE THEREUNDER AS WELL AS
UNDER ANY OTHER STATUTE OR COMMON LAW PRlNCIPLE WITH A SIMILAR
EFFECT. Defendants agree !hat this fullrcltMc of known OJ.ld u.nXnown,c\aims applies in any
'"\,.001
.~I"
1..... 1.,-...'0..
o:".c..o .,..... ",, _ _ _ "'_.....-~
,.1 . Jla.y.'22.
20~~
TAlflMURA & ANTa
10:48AM
r-
<
"
'.,
No, 3626
p, 26/52
jurisdiction where an action or e!.ai!l1 Lnonsistent with the release might be flled, notwithstanding
the existence in S\len jurisdiction of a StaP.llC similar to section 1542 of the California Civll Code.
'.
Defendants fully understaIld and agree that the release contained in
this Agreement iIieludes, but is nat limited to, all contract, tort, or personal.injUIy claims, ~ij
claims for wag~, stoek options or any other benefit i,neident to Plaintiff's employment '-0!h TAr,
and any other state, federal or local laws or regulations of any kind, whether adminislrative,
regulatoryI ru.tutory, or dc~isional.
iii
.
lv.
Defendants represent and wamUn that they have the sole right and
exclusin a\lthority to execute this Agrc~ent 011 their respective behavC1 and that
have not
sold, usigned, transfen-ed, conveyed, or otherwise disposed of lilly daim or d~d, or any
portioll of Or interest in my claim or clc:mand. relatmg to any lmtter covered by this Agreement
Defendants agree to indcmni1}' and bold PlaintiiIha:nnIcs$ from my claim, demand, controversy,
damage, debt, liability, acount, obligation, cost, expense, lien. action. or c.a.use of action
(including the payment of atlorncys' fees anel costs actually incurred whether or not litigatiOll is
commenced) based on or arising out of any S\ldl actual or purported sale, assignment, transfer or
they
~on.,.eyt..1ec.
3.
No AdmIssion orLillbilitv.
The consideration provided for herein Is being cxc.hanged solely for the purpOS! of
purchasing pe.ace and preventing involvcrtlcnt in protracted and costly litigation based upon
disputel1 claims. Neither the exchange of SUGh consideration, nor anytlUng comalned herein,
shall be taken or collS1rued iQ be 31 any tlme or pIaU an admission on the part oithe Parties of
any of the claims alleged or aOlQ\IIlts cJalrc.ed by the Parties, and Ci.:h of the Pan1~ expressly
deny nny such clahns or amolllllS claimed.
4.
Additional Consideration.
Ibel'UUes1i11!'6"yadamwle<lgenml-agred-to-compiy-with-me-foUowing1enns-.- - - - - .
as express conditions for entering into this Ai!'umcn.t:
With respect to the Internet website which Pla.il!tiff has crealtd and
manages, whelh" directly or through othe~, which weQsite is identified as "BOYCOtt TA" and is
IOiied with AOL and oiherv.ise referred to as "memberuol.comJBOYCOTTA," as well as any
other website pertaining 10 or rderencing Defendants or the Boycott TA websi1e (all such
w!bsites, together with any chat rooms, list serve or other Internet, c\ct!:(onio or h.ard-copy
publishing medium in which infom1alion involving, reflecting, refening to or llcrtainlng 10
Defe!l~ts, or my oithen!, or their reSllective famUics ~d affiliates, or any present or future
employees, omc~rs, directors, owners, a~ents, attorneys or other representatives of TAl or any
cntily own~d Ot eonuolled by any member of the Tanimura or Anile farnilie~, being hereinafter
referred to as the "TAIReI3ted Web,ltes"), Plaintiffwill close down md will not m.lnt:J.in any
a.
,~
, _ ,.. '-J .......... r-.""o..\U
_ _ _ _ _-
." :iI,Y. 22. 2000
10:4BAM
nNIMURA & ANiLE
\,,,
No. 3626
P. 27/52
TAI-Related Website, and will further cease a:nd d~ist from disseminating further inforznation
about Defendants, their families, heirs, ~sjgn, agents, and employees of Defendants as well as
other per.;ODS already named. ir. MY TAI-Related Websit~ including, but not limited to, Bob
Allt1=, Rick Antle, Mile! Ande, Allie Fadgett. Sr., Allie Padgett, Jr" RQ)' Gay, Frank Garcia,
Bobby Calderon, James Cobb, ellc!iar Romero, Fred Call1ltay, W~yne Wooten, 10e l<Ii.ne, Joo
Benitez, Kenneili Lee Antle and Rick Hany,
Defendants agree not to initiate an Interne! website referencing Plaintiff or
his kc.<l\llll. fmlly memben. DefClldants further agree not to disseminate infctmation to the
public by other mems regarding Plaintiff, his family knov.m. mC!Dbers or agenr.s. .'
'"
b.
To avoid any physical or verbal a1t=1ioli with Defendants, PlBilltiff .,
agrees to keep himself physically removed frOrl1 De!endants, ~ persODS IlJ!lW:! in my TAI.
Related Website, their known family membus, employees, and agents. ConslS'!ent with tho
desire to avoid anyphY5ical or verbal altemtion with. Plaintiff, Defendants agreHO keep
!helI\Sclves llhysice!ly remo1(ed from PlainIifl'. his mown [wly mcmb~, IIId agents.
c.
Pla.intiffa&recs not to communicate by tc:lcpbone,lcttcn, volce-mai!,
electronic commumoation or s:rJ other mWlS with Defendants, all persons named. in any TAl.
Related Websi1I:, ~eir knoWII family members, employeu, and aaelloU, except as may be required
b)' this AgrecmCllI, in the ord.!!!aIy coune o!busiDess 01' by laW. Defendants agree not to
comm'micate by WcpnollC, letters, voice-mall, electronic tornmunica:tlon ot my other mean!
. with p~ his !mom:! family men1bcn lind agents, ucept 3$ may bo required by this
Agreement, in thc ordinary eourse of business or by Jaw.
d.
Plaintiff agrees to ceas~ ilrtd desist from any harassment of the Dd'endants,
all persom named in any TAIRdated WebSite, their lmo'Wn family members, cmployee3 IIlI.Q
agents. Defendants agxee not to harass Plaintiff, his known famlly members and agents.
~.
Plaintiff will cease and desist all fu:1her mtries onto the prop~ of the
- - -_.J.,.Defu!dants,~LperSOll!.namcd1n..an't-TAH~;lated. Website, their known fami1'tE?-embCE.SL __ .__ ..
employees and agents. Defendants a.gree llDt to enter onto f'laintif's private property.
f.
Plabltiff \\Iill not enter the prctniscs ofTAI or any of its affiliates,
subsidiaries or other businesse:s except a.:! required by Jaw,
g,
Plailltifi'1Hil1 caase 1nd desist from taking and publicizing photographs of
DefendantS aJld thdr respeetive resid!ncC$ and will c~ase ilrtd desist nom tiling and publicizing
phQtograplu QfDefendants' known family members, emplo),f1.es, agents and all persons nam~d in
any TAl-Related. Website, including meir known family members. Defend1Jlts agree not to take
or publicize photographs ofPlainlilf, his residence(s), or his known fumiJy members.
'~11_'._I_""_"",_"Loo"'
___ '-- __
, . ,
.,' . May. 22. 2000
10:~8AM
fANIMURA &ANTLE
i
No. 3626
P. 28/52
h.
Plaintiff will not apply for re-employment or othexwise seek. to be rehired,
employed or reinstated by TAI. or any of its affiliates, agents, employed, subsidianes or Qther
ousillesses.
The pro'li.ions contained in this ?aragrap1l4 are hereby stipulated to have the full
force and effect of a Coun r~g order. Violations of any of\h!!Se terms may result in an
Order To Show Caus~ before a Court of law and such !e.tms milt be en:fo~d by CO\lrt contempt
order.
5.
R!present2t!On! bv COtlll!el.
'.
TIle Parties acknowledge that they hilve been represented by legal counsel ohheir
Owtl choice !brollghOU! all of the Il!gotiations which pr~ed the exet:1ItiOIl ofthh Agreemlmt
and that they have executed this Agreement with the COllSCnt and ollll\e advice of NCb. legal
counsel. The Parties fi.trthtt acknowledge thaI they and their counsel have had an adequate
opporrunity to make whatever investigation or inquiry they may de= nccessazy or d~5irable in
connectioll with the subject matter oithis Agreement prier to the =den bereof and the
delivery and a~ptance of the comlderatioll specified berem
6.
~ffed
efAereement.
!his Agreement shall bind and inure to the ben!fit of the Parties, and each. of
them. their agents, officers, directors, employees, eonsulTl!Ilts, 5ubsidiaries, parlmt corporations,
affiliates, ~socia1c!, repre$enta!ives, heirs, predecessors, su~es$Qrs, and assigns.
7.
Entire Agreelllent.
!his document contairt6 thc entire agreenltllt and understanding concemiDg !he
subject matter betWWl the Parties and supersedes and xeplaces all prier negotiations. prOpOsed
agreements Md agreements, written and oral. The Parties acknowledge thunone of the Parties,
their agents or attorneys hllve made any promise; Tepm~tion""I'-wamnty"whatsoever,-l!XpIess----
or implied, not contained herein eoncerning!he Nbj~t /lllItter h=~ to induce the Parties to
execute Thill Agreement, and acknowledge that the Parties have not executed this A~eemcnt in
reliance 011 ally Nch pronllse, re:preslmution ot warranty not contailllid herein. This AgreemeiU
is the product ofnegotiatioD.$ between the Parties_ Hcnce, the Parties waive Civil Code Section
1654 ccncemi:cg My uncerWnty or ambiguity of interpretation.
8.
Action! to Enforce This Agreement.
a.
The terms of this A~ement may be enforced by Court action by the
Defendants, or their agents, servants, or assigns. It i~ stipulated that a breach oftbe provisions
contained in Po.rograph 4, herein, will create irreparable damage enlilling DefendantS to
injunctive rellef should such breach(cs) of this Agreement be proven.
'~I._'-_l~I_
.. Lo"'.""" ___ "" _ _ ""
,; 'Mid2, 20~Q 10 :49AM
7ANIMURA &ANTLE
'
.~ l
No, 3626
'
p, 29/52
b.
This Agreement and the matters related to !he dispute 5ettl~ hereby shall
be governed b)' and COnstI'Ued in accotdanc.e: with tho laWs of the state of California. In the event
any provlsion of this A&reement or 1he application of any SIlch p~vision shall be held by a
tribunal of competent jurisdiction 10 the contrary to law, then the rCl!'laining provisions of this'
Ag.-eement shall remain in full force and effect EachParty waives any judicial interpretation of
the Agreement which would create a presumption against the other as a result of its having
drafted any provision of the Agreement
c.
In the event thal any of the Parties shall bring any action orpl'Oc~g in
collJlection with this Agretlnent, the pre.vailing party shall be entitled to recover a.s a part of such
action or proceeding its rea50JIable attorneys' fees and COIllt costs.
',
9.
Confidential!tv.
a.
Plaintiffaclcnowledscst understands lind agrees that during the course of
his employment with TAt be has bad access to infonnation and data peml.ning to T"AI, its
owners 1IIld its businessd, whleh mfonnation includes software 6nd other eotnputer-related
property, and all of which infonllation is eonfidential and proprietary to TAI (the 'Company
InfolIllation"). PlainillIcovemnts and agrees thzlh~ will at all times keep the Company
ImolIlla.tion private and confidential and will not divulge the same to any penon, finn, entity.
ageney or body, exeept as COlllpeJled by legal proCC~3Cl1. and Ihen oIlly ~ar notification to TAl
(tllrougb. its Director ofHuma4 Resources), which shall thereupon b.ave Ihe right, a.t its COst alld
eJqlem!, to contest such c.ompeUcd disclosure.
b.
The }lwes ac:knowlcdge and agree lhallhe provisions of this Agr~ent
and its existence are strictly confidential as between Plaintiff and Ddendants. Plaintiff and
Oefendants agree that the tCllll, 'Company InfO\1lllltion, as used herein, includes this
Agreem~t, it!l existence, andiu provisiol\S. Accerdingly, lhe Parties agree to keep this
Agreement. as well a.s its existence and provisionS, strictly collfideJltial and further agree net to
disclose the same to any person. titm, entity, agC1lcy or body except as otherwise contemplated
and pennittcd in this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge !hat disclosures through third parties
by pUblication, media or el~tronic diuemillation m:e all prohibited means of disclosutC. As a
limited exccption, PI,intiff and Defendants underStand and agree tilat they may discuss the tenns
and conditions of this Agreement on.a need.to-know basis with immediatei'amily members and
financial, legal and talC advison so long as the intended recipients are infoImeQ of and IIgm\ to
abide by confidentiality and enio!t.c:Illel!t proviSions of this Agreement as a condition of
d.isclosure.
1/
fI
1/
lUoa.! '.I-01.u..fl.J,,,...,I_:..'''t ......... _ - - - - _ _
,'""".....
, ~ .. ~ilY.:z2. 20~O 10: ml{
TAN1MURA &ANTL~
No. 3626
P. 30/52
C(?unterp~rts.
10.
TIlls Agreement may be e~cuted in an)' number of countcIl'artS, each ofwruch

shall be deemed to be an original and all ofwhich shall constitute one and the same agreement.
AGREED 'to BY TIIE. PARTIES as of the dates set forth below.

Dateci:
5 -I q ... q 9
,1999
pated:---.:S"-....../..:-7-.:r...:..1_~I, 1999
i:lat~d:__~_-.4-_I_~_ _
...-J.
MIKE ANTLE
1999
CARMEN A. PONCE, Vice President

TANiMURA & ANTLE, INC.
Dated:
'1,'",1 ...... r
S"'I~ >t~
_/ot1'~I_,.'
,1999
..... flft ... _ _ _ I. _ _ _
.
.
. - .1(11: 22.,2000
[0:49AM
iANIMURA & ANTLE
No,3626
"
P. 31152
REVIEWED AND APPROVED A.S TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
Da~ed: _ _---",)f-I.:...I+7'_ _-,. 1999
HAR1U.Y & LINKER
By:---,=k~')
=cO
kJ~_
.=.::.=?.:....t..:;.
CHRISTINE BALBO REED, Esq.

for Defendants.
TANIMURA & ANTI.E, INC.,
MlKE ANTLE, and ALLIE
PADGETT, SR.'
Attam~s
f-f----', 1999
F ICES OF BRAD C. HOLBROOK
Dated:_=S::'11-7_,
.
BROOK, Esq.
Attorney fQr Plaintiff,
DANIEL DE LA CRUZ
r""""'_""-""''''-'_~I<",-.l~
_____ _
10

Susan Kagan Waitkus and LAP Sued Delacruz

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Susan Kagan Waitkus and LAP Sued Delacruz

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

}

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 1 of 105

Daniel Delacruz, Sr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Daniel Delacruz Sr., an individual;

The State Bar of California, a California

I. Discrimination and Retaliation

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 2 of 105

capacity; Susan Kagan, in her official and

12102(3)(A), 28 C.F.R. 36.206, and 29

DOES 5 through 20, inclusive,

DEMAND FOR WRY TRIAL

Complaint For Damages Case No.

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 3 of 105

l. This is an action for damages sustained by a United States citizen against:

and involved in the misconduct underlying this Complaint;

who is named and involved in the misconduct underlying this Complaint;

of the personnel; or (iii) implement meaningful procedures to discourage lawless official

US.c. 2000ff-1 of the Genetic Infonnation Nondiscrimination Act of2008, 29 U.S.c.

5,1981,1982, 1983,and 1985(3) of Title VII of the Civil RightsActofI964,and 11

Lucy Armendariz, Catherine D. Purcell, Judith A. Epstein, JoAnn M. Remke,

Complaint For Damages Case No.

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 4 of 105

are sued under 42 U.S.c. 12102(3)(A), 1210 I, et seq., I 2203(a), 29 C.F.R.

US.c. 2000ff-1 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of2008, 29 U.S.C.

1990,42 US.c. 2000ff-1 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of2008, 42

ofthe personnel; or (iii) implement meaningful procedures to discourage unlawful

US.c. 2000ff-1 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act 0[2008,29 U.S.c.

Complaint For Damages Case No.

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 5 of 105

FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE

California and a citizen of the United States.

5. The State Bar of California Office of Professional Competence is a California public

Complaint For Damages Case No.

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 6 of 105

named in their individual and official capacities.

Council of California in the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, is a resident of

Complaint For Damages Case No.

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 7 of 105

I I, 2014, and named Plaintiff as a creditor.

California, who is named in her individual and official capacity.

defendant State Bar as legal counsel.

agency and appointment.

Complaint For Damages Case No.

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 8 of 105

employees, alter egos, superiors, successors-in-interest. joint venturers, and/or co-conspirators

accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and wrongdoing.

common course of conduct by misrepresenting and concealing material infonnation, and by

Complaint For Damages Case No.

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 9 of 105

wrongful conduct complained of herein.

discovering numerous wrongdoings complained of herein.

Defendants knowingly failed to honor and discharge such duty.

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Complaint For Damages Case No.

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 10 of 105

equipment and utilized them to document the domestic violence.

Complaint For Damages Case No.

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 11 of 105

replacement therapy lasted at least eight hours per treatment.

experimental treatment for Fabry's Disease in San Francisco, California.

Complaint For Damages Case No.

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 12 of 105