HOME | stanford

Roy Hong, MD and Robert Lastinger Take Cell Phone Photos of Sedated Patients at Stanford

Stanford has a pattern of abuse of process and malicious, scorched earth defense.

STANFORD Rapist ( Stanford Student) gets 3 months sentence in Santa Clara by Judge Aaron Persky ) a Stanford Alumni who failed to disclose any ties to Stanford.

The Stanford Family Judge Video Posted by Stanford Surreptitiously Disappeared from Youtube days after a Judicial Challenge Statement with the video evidence was filed in Judge Zayner's Court.

Mrs. Judge Theodore Charles Zayner ( Dawn Neisser Class of '79) , The "Stanford Family Judge"

JUDGE ZAYNER in SANTA CLARA COURT ASSIGNED TO VOLUMES OF STANFORD CASES.

Stephanie Akens-gunn Vs The Board Of Trustees Of The Leland Stanford Junior University Et Al

Case Number XXXXXX8133

On 10/25/2017 a Labor - Wrongful Termination case was filed by Stephanie Akens-gunn against The Board Of Trustees Of The Leland Stanford Junior University in the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California.

Assigned to Judge

Zayner, Theodore C

16CV300476 Baez vs. Stanford

Stanford Hospitals and Clinics permits staff to take unlawful personal cell phone photos of sedated patients and patients' bodies while under general anesthesia and freely disseminate those photos.

Young vs. Stanford RG17877051 ( Alameda County)

16CV300476 Baez vs. Stanford (Santa Clara Court)

14-1-CV-263807 Lyons vs. Stanford

( Santa Clara Superior Court)

14-CV-261702 Doe vs. Hong and Stanford (Santa Clara Superior Court)

CIV 537723 Mark Roe vs. Stanford

(San Mateo Superior Court

16CIV01627 Robert Doe vs, Stanford

(San Mateo Superior Court)

DECLARATIONS WILLENBURG

DECLARATIONS MARK KRUMM

Stanford Staff Cell Phone photos of patients' "dicks" " breasts" " perineum" and " fat women" documents in aforementioned cases; staff cell phone photos are unlawful and actionable by the District Attorney and State Attorney General

Stanford's Unlawful Cell Phone Photos

BATTERY OF PATIENTS

Stanford allows battery of patients by its staff while patients are helpless and under anesthesia. Stanford will conceal, suppress, and obsficate to not produce the evidence of its misconduct.

16CV300476 Baez vs. Stanford

14-1-CV-263807 Lyons vs. Stanford

14-CV-261702 Doe vs. Stanford

San Mateo 16CIV01627 Robert Doe vs, stanford healthcare et al 09/28/2016

STANFORD'S CONCEALMENT CULTURE

Stanford's modus operandi is conceal, conceal, conceal,

16-CV-300476 Baez vs. Stanford

14-1-CV-263807 Lyons, M.D. vs. Stanford

14-CV-261702 Does M.D. vs. Stanford

PHILLS vs. STANFORD 2014-1-CV-263146

16CV297062 | Maria Neal vs. Stanford Hospital

San Mateo CIV 537723 Mark Roe vs. Stanford

San Mateo 16CIV01627 Robert Doe vs, Stanford

Martin Collins and Virginia Mitchell Collins v. Stanford Hospital & Clinics

No. 2013-1-CV-247673

2013-1-CV-251641 | Y. Mirza vs Stanford University

Denise Johnson MD vs. Stanford

2015-1-CV-285792 | L. Powell, et al vs Stanford

2014-1-CV-272872 Lisa Campanella v. Stanford Hospital & Clinics, Dr. Ernest Kaplan

Tomaya Gaines v Stanford Health Care 316-cv-02831 vc Federal court 9th division : False Billing and Fraud

1-06-CV-077191 DENISE Walther and KALANOO WALTHER , et al vs F. Dirbas, M.D., Stanford

Victims vs. Stanford and Roy Hong, M.D.: other cases
Case No.: 1-01-CV-801706 and
Case No.: 1-04-CV-02872

Jane Doe vs. Stanford 2016, Northern District California

( Attorney jreisch@equalrights.org)

MEDICARE BILLING FRAUD AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT , AND TAX FRAUD

Stanford is a non-profit entity. It is also the third most profitable medical facility in the United States. From 2012 to 2016, Stanford DOUBLED it's Medicare revenues which is entirely derived from tax payer dollars. Thus, while Stanford pays no taxes benefiting from its U.S. tax exempt status, it derives exorbitant fees in unjust enrichment from the Federal government from unlawful upcoding and unbundled billing of medical services.

U.S. vs. Stanford Healthcare et al. ( Debra Zumwalt ) 2017

Gaines v Stanford Health Care 316-cv-02831 vc Federal court 9th division : False Billing and Fraud

Case number CGC19577904 Superior Court of California for San Francisco County on July 24, 2019

16CV300476 Baez vs. Stanford

14-1-CV-263807 Lyons vs. Stanford

14-CV-261702 Doe vs. Hong and Stanford

San Mateo CIV 537723 Mark Roe vs. Stanford

San Mateo 16CIV01627 Robert Doe vs, Stanford

OMERTA: STANFORD ATTORNEYS OBTAIN TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF UNJUST "SANCTIONS" AWARDED BY ALUMNI JUDGES

Stanford's modus operandi is oppress, oppress, and suppress.

16-CV-300476 Baez vs. Stanford

Stanford attorneys awarded more than $2400 in UNJUST monetary sanctions

in one motion

14-1-CV-263807 Lyons, M.D. vs. Stanford

Stanford attorneys awarded more than $23,000 in UNJUST monetary sanctions in several bad-faith motion adjudicated by a Stanford Alumni judge ( Judge Theodore Zayner)

14-CV-261702 Does M.D. vs. Stanford

Stanford attorneys awarded more than $3640 in UNJUST monetary sanctions in one bad-faith motion adjudicated by a Stanford Alumni judge.

PHILLS vs. STANFORD 2014-1-CV-263146

Stanford attorneys awarded more than $2100 in UNJUST monetary sanctions in one bad-faith motion adjudicated by a Stanford Alumni judge Theodore Zayner.

Martin Collins and Virginia Mitchell Collins v. Stanford Hospital & Clinics

No. 2013-1-CV-247673

Stanford attorneys awarded fees and costs and awarded the final win as adjudicated by a Stanford Alumni judge, Theodore Zayner.

STANFORD STOCKS THE SANTA CLARA COURTHOUSE JUDGES

Judge Theodore Zayner, Class of '79

Judge Aaron Persky, Class of '84

Judge Joseph Huber

Class of '67

Judge William Elfing

Class of '62

Judge Homer B. Thompson Class of '72

Judge John Ashton Shidler Class of '32 ( Torrance Court)

Judge Cameron W. Wolfe, Class of '31 ( Northern District of California)

Stanford Chief Counsel

Debra Zumwalt, J.D. Class of 1979, close buds with judges and justices including Supreme Court Justices Kennedy

STANFORD STAFF AND NURSES SMOKE POT ON STANFORD PROPERTY

WHILE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LIVES AND WELL BEING OF SEDATED PATIENTS

(From Young vs. Stanford ) Below are still photos from video of SUDANO and KENT smoking
marijuana together in SUDANO’s vehicle while at STANFORD HEALTH CARE. And yet SUDANO was believed
and MS. YOUNG was accused of lying and of “bullying” KENT –
even when KENT finally admitted that she heard him say the “N” word!

STANFORD IS AN UNFAIR ADVERSARY AT TRIAL

Stanford is a non-profit entity operating out of Santa Clara County. In its tax return filed in 2010, Stanford claimed assets of $22 Billion dollars. It scrapes $500,000 from between its couch cushions yet it refuses to be a fair adversary at trial. Stanford moves for monetary sanctions for every motion it makes, and they always try to move trials from other venues into Santa Clara Superior Court where Stanford runs the Courts and stocks the judges.

Stanford always moves to change venue into Santa Clara Court from any other court. As in Young vs. Stanford,

Stanford will nearly file a motion to change venue into its Hometown advantage of Stanford.

Young vs. Stanford RG17877051 ( Alameda County)

Stanford filed to move case from Alameda to Santa Clara Court and asked for sanctions of $3600.

Gaines v Stanford Health Care 316-cv-02831 vc Federal court 9th division : False Billing and Fraud

16CV300476 Baez vs. Stanford

14-1-CV-263807 Lyons vs. Stanford

14-CV-261702 Doe vs. Hong and Stanford

San Mateo CIV 537723 Mark Roe vs. Stanford

San Mateo 16CIV01627 Robert Doe vs, Stanford

WRONGFUL TERMINATION

Stephanie Akens-gunn Vs The Board Of Trustees Of The Leland Stanford Junior University Et Al