05 24 2018 Anti slapp legal fees mail freedom of speech electricity in costa rica for travelers


Waszczuk was defrauded of his retainer in the amount of $20,000 by Stein. In other words, Stein spent Waszczuk’s retainer not what he was hired for . Attempted to sell Waszczuk’ two cases to the Defendants’ attorneys for $300,000 after his unsuccessful attempt in August 2014 to extort approximately $60,000 from the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston shows Douglas Stein desperation and struggle with his life and problems of which Porter Scott’s attorney took advantage in unscrupulous and merciless way.

It would be completely improper for the Court to award legal fees for the attorneys who took advantage of Stein’s drug addictions and his grave financial state and blackmailed or coerced him to “utilize” his over 20-year-long relationship with Superior Court Judge David Brown. As early as December 19, 2014, Waszczuk informed the Court by letter, followed by Waszczuk’s December 29, 2014 Ex-Parte Application, of how the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion was crafted, filed, and pursued and asked the Court to place the motion into abeyance or dismiss it. This was to no avail.

It would be very improper for the Court to award any legal fees to the Defendants after the Court was informed in details of Waszczuk’s attorney’s gross misconduct and misrepresentation, which included and was not limited misappropriation of Waszczuk’s retainer and collusion with Porter Scott attorneys, which caused and lead to a despicable unacceptable and destructive to Waszczuk livelihood miscarriage of justice by the Sacramento County Superior Courts Judges and 3DCA Justices.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

“The United States and California constitutions grant every person the rights to participate in government and civic affairs, speak freely on public issues and issues of public interest, and petition government officials for redress of grievances. The right to freedom of expression is also recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any ot