CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

Overview. This document consists of three sections, namely:

1) Summary, which outlines the basis of the criminal complaint

in general terms, and provides an overview of the key facts

that comprise a violation of the statutes listed therein;

2) Descriptive narrative, which explains the nature of the

crimes complained of in requisite detail, and supports the

claims made therein by making reference to the relevant

exhibits attached hereto; and,

3) Exhibits, which describes the relevance of each exhibit to

the claims made herein this criminal complaint, and points to

the specific parts of the exhibits that correspond to the

claims made therein.

Summary. This is a criminal complaint brought by James Alan Bush

(hereinafter "complainant"), a pretrial detainee being held by the

Santa Clara County Department of Correction, against MaryAnn Barry

(hereinafter "BARRY"), Associate Director, Santa Clara Valley

Health & Hospital Systems, for perjury, in violation of Penal Code

§ 118a, which, in relevant part, states:

Any person who, in any affidavit taken before any person authorized to administer oaths…declares…that he will testify…before any competent tribunal…in any case then pending…to any particular fact, and in such affidavit willfully and contrary to such oaths states as true any material matter which he knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.

In any prosecution under this section, subsequent testimony of such in any action involving the matters in such affidavit contained, which is contrary to any of the matters in such affidavit contained, shall be prima facie evidence that the matters in such affidavit were false.

Complainant alleges that BARRY, in a sworn declaration

administered under oath by Neysa Fligor (hereinafter "FLIGOR"),

Deputy Counsel, Santa Clara County Counsel, who is duly authorized

to administer such oaths, declared that she would testify before

the Superior Court of California in a case in which the

complainant petitioner the court for redress for the refusal by

the Santa Clara County Department of Correction to provide the

same specialized treatment and care for his life-threatening

illness, i.e., HIV/AIDS, that is otherwise afforded to all

similarly situated inmates, that the complainant had received such

treatment, in spite of her knowledge to the contrary, committing

perjury thereby, and thus causing the petitioner to be wrongfully

denied.

In subsequent testimony in a related civil matter brought in

the United States District Court, BARRY stated in her answer to

interrogatories propounded upon her by the complainant that he did

not receive any specialized treatment and care for HIV/AIDS as

described in her sworn declaration, constituting prima facie

evidence that proves the contradictory statement made therein was

false.

This is also a criminal complaint brought against FLIGOR for

subornation of perjury, in violation of Penal Code § 127, which,

in relevant part, states that:

Every person who willfully procures another p e r s o n t o c o m m i t p e r j u r y i s g u i l t y o f subornation of perjury.

Complainant alleges that, as the legal representative of the

Santa Clara County Department of Correction, FLIGOR procured BARRY

to make the aforedescribed false statement in her sworn

declaration in order to cause the dismissal of the petition, and

that this was a willful act on the part of FLIGOR, in that the

complainant's medical records were readily available to both

FLIGOR and BARRY, allowing them to easily ascertain whether the

complainant had received the specialized treatment and care that

was the subject of the petition, and also in that FLIGOR knew that

the only viable defense to the allegation made in the petition

would be that the complainant had received such care.

Descriptive narrative. On August 1st, 2010, the complainant filed

a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Superior Court of

California under case number EE605073, which alleged that:

1) a contractor for the Santa Clara County Department of

Correction, namely, Dr. Dean Winslow, M.D., P.A.C.E. Clinic,

who, as the sole provider of specialized treatment and care

of HIV/AIDS for HIV-positive inmates, refused to provide such

treatment and care to the complainant subsequent to March

8th, 2010, in retaliation for the complainant having filed a

lawsuit against him; and,

2) Dr. Winslow refused to direct that alternative specialized

care be provided to the complainant in his stead.

The petition sought an order from the aforementioned court,

directing that the Santa Clara County Department of Correction

provide to the complainant the same specialized treatment and care

for HIV/AIDS that is otherwise afforded to all HIV-positive

inmates, which is necessary and essential for those suffering from

this life-threatening condition. [See Exhibit 1.]

On October 7th, 2010, the court, upon conducting a review of

the petition to evaluate its merit, and having found that the

petition stated a prima facie case for relief, ordered the Santa

Clara County Department of Correction, by and through its counsel

of record, the Santa Clara County Counsel, to file a response to

the petition. [See Exhibit 2.]

On October 22nd, 2010, FLIGOR filed a response to the

petition on behalf of the Santa Clara County Department of

Correction, containing a sworn declaration by BARRY, in which

BARRY declared, under penalty of perjury, that, prior to the

August 1st, 2010, filing of the petition, and subsequent to the

March 8th, 2010, termination of the doctor-patient relationship by

Dr. Winslow, the complainant received specialized treatment and

care for HIV/AIDS on March 17th, 2010, and July 30th, 2010, even

though the medical records she would had to have consulted in

order to make this determination do not support her statement, a

fact she later attested to in a separate legal proceeding;

moreover, in an attempt to obfuscate the issue presented in the

petition, specifically, that no specialized treatment and care for

HIV/AIDS was provided to the complainant, Dr. Winslow, upon being

served a copy of the aforementioned petition, ordered the

complainant to be seen by another physician specializing in the

treatment and care of HIV/AIDS on August 19th, 2010, which FLIGOR

and BARRY erroneously cited as proof that the allegation made by

the complainant was baseless, even though the physician referral

was made 18 days after the petition was filed. [See Exhibit 3 and

Exhibit 4.]

On November 9th, 2010, in spite of assertions made by the

complainant to the contrary, Judge Gilbert T. Brown denied the

petition based on the false statements made in the sworn

declaration by BARRY. [See Exhibit 5.]

On April 29th, 2011, in her answer to interrogatories

propounded upon BARRY by the complainant in a related civil suit,

which raises the same issues as presented therein the petition,

BARRY, by and through her counsel of record, FLIGOR, admits that

the complainant was not seen by any physician on March 17th, 2010,

and that on July 30th, 2010, the complainant was treated, rather,

by a regular jail physician, who does not specialize in the

treatment and care of HIV/AIDS, and who treated the complainant

for an issue not even related to HIV/AIDS; and, although a moot

point within the context of this criminal complaint, the answer to

the interrogatories by BARRY, when combined with the medical

records of the complainant (not attached), further evidence

prevarication on the part of BARRY and FLIGOR, in that the

aforedescribed answer to interrogatories and medical records show

that not all of the orders and recommendations made by the other

physician-specialist were implemented at the jail, effectively

rendering the provided treatment and care incomplete and

noncomprehensive. [See Exhibit 6.]

To-date, as a result of the wrongfully denied petition, the

complainant is still not receiving any specialized treatment and

care for HIV/AIDS, such as regularly scheduled visits to the

P.A.C.E. Clinic, for example, as was ordered by the physician-

specialist, but was not carried out at the jail.

Consequently, the complainant is seeking civil remedy in the

United States District Court under docket number 09-cv-01022 (PR)

RS; however, FLIGOR continues to make, and to procure others to

make, false statements in her filings in an attempt to obtain

another dismissal, all to the ongoing detriment to the health of

the complainant.

Accordingly, the complainant is hereby requesting that a

report be made by a qualified law enforcement officer and then be

filed with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and that such

report be submitted in a timely manner to the Santa Clara County

Office of the District Attorney.

Exhibits. In support of his criminal complaint, the complainant

attaches the following exhibits:

1) Exhibit 1: In the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the

complainant alleges that, subsequent to the March 8th, 2010,

termination of the doctor-patient relationship by Dr.

Winslow, and, by inference, until the August 1st, 2010,

filing of the petition, specialized treatment and care for

HIV/AIDS was unlawfully denied him.

2) Exhibit 2: Having determined that the complainant stated a

prima facie case for relief in the petition, the Superior

Court of California ordered the Santa Clara County Department

of Correction to file a response by and through their counsel

of record, the Santa Clara County Counsel.

3) Exhibit 3: On page 3, lines 6 through 8, of the Informal

Response to H abeas Corpus of County of Santa Clara, FLIGOR

claims that the complainant "received medical care for his

subject condition," i.e., HIV/AIDS, "at least three times

since the alleged incident," specifically, the aforementioned

termination of the doctor-patient relationship by Dr.

Winslow, "including treatment on March 17th, 2010, a week

after the alleged incident."

4) Exhibit 4: Likewise, on page 1, line 28, of her sworn

declaration, which was attached to the Informal Response

(above), BARRY states that the complainant "received

treatment for the medical condition he describes in his

claims on…March 17, 2010, July 30, 3010," and "August 19,

2010."

5) Exhibit 5: Instead of ordering an evidentiary hearing in

order to receive the conflict between the statements made by

the complainant and by FLIGOR and BARRY, in which medical

records could be presented to definitively settle the

dispute, Judge Gilbert T. Brown denied the petition based on

the false statement made by FLIGOR and BARRY.

6) Exhibit 6: In a related civil proceeding, which was held

subsequent to the wrongful denial of the petition, BARRY, in

her Response to Interrogatory No. 6, on page 14, states that

she has "not seen any records of a physician examination of

[the complainant] on 3/17/10," and that the complainant was

not examined by a P.A.C.E. Clinic physician, i.e., a

physician specializing in the treatment and care of HIV/AIDS,

on July 30th, 2010, as she implied in her sworn declaration,

rather, she stated that the complainant was treated by a

regular jail physician, who does not provide such specialized

treatment. Also, in her Response to Interrogatory No. 5, also

on page 14, she states that the complainant did not receive

any further specialized treatment after August 19th, 2010,

even though such treatment was ordered by a physician-

specialist.

Dated: May 9th, 2011

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 5

EXHIBIT 6