1.         Plaintiff, MONIQUE S. SIDAROSS, is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned herein, residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

            2.         Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant California Department of Transportation, DOT, DPA, hereinafter referred to as CALTRANS, is a government entity of the State of California. CALTRANS designs, builds, maintains, repairs and otherwise operates all highways, bridges, and rights-of-way in and for the State of California. CALTRANS maintains offices throughout the state, including in the county of Los Angeles, state of California.

3.         At all relevant times Plaintiff was employed by CALTRANS as an engineer; as a graduate engineering student in 1994 and a Civil Service Transportation Engineer, Civil, as of 1998. Plaintiff graduated with Honors from the CALTRANS Bridge Design Academy in Sept. of 2000. In her capacity as a CALTRANS employee, Plaintiff was involved in the design and building of bridges as well as the reviewing and issuing of structural engineering permits.

4.         Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the following defendants are each individuals: Paula Durham (“Durham”), Steve Nakao (“Nakao”), Tom Rutt (“Rutt”), Gedion Werrede (“Werrede”), Barton Newton (“Newton”), Shannon Post (“Post”), Phil Lutz (“Lutz”), Jim Calkins (“Calkins”), Mohammad Hadi Behrooj (“Behrooj”), Mohammad Ali Molla (“Molla”), Steve Takigawa (“Takigawa”), Lydia Lewis (“Lewis”) are state employees in managerial positions. -- Art Salazar (“Salazar”), Art Duffy (“Duffy”), Safwat Salahieh (“Salahieh”), Kamal Abdul Karim (“Karim”), Gay Norris (“Norris”), Bob McNew (“McNew”) are state employees acting as Union PECG officers. -- Marian Woo (“Woo”) is EEO manager for the Downtown Los Angeles Office, was intentionally put in this position only on or about March 2002 for retaliation of management-union against Plaintiff. --   Members of the State Personnel Board (“SPB Members”), Administrative Law Judge Bretcher (“ALJ Bretcher”), Administrative Law Judge Segal (“ALJ Segal”), and Administrative Law Judge Brown (“ALJ Brown”) are SPB Adm. Judges and board members. -- Superior Court Judge Ross (“Judge Ross”), and Superior Court Judge Stoll (“Judge Stoll”) are superior court judges. -- Richard Knickerbocker (“Knickerbocker”), Leonard Chaitin (“Chaitin”), Wayne Dryden (“Dryden”) are Plaintiff’s ex-attorneys. -- Executive officer of Board of Engineers Cindi Christenson (“Christenson”).

5.         Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant Board of Engineers of California is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, an unincorporated association with its principal office located in the County of Los Angeles, California.

6.         Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant State Bar of California is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, an unincorporated association charged with monitoring and regulating attorneys duly admitted to practice law in the state of California and to protect the public from any legal malpractice.

7.                  Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendants Second Appellate Court of the State of California, and the Supreme Court of California are judicial unincorporated entities in the State of California and their existence is for justice and protection of the public and enforcement of the Constitution equally without bias or conspiracy.

8.                  Defendants Jerry Montoya and Caltrans Legal office are added as new defendants to this matter due to acts of legal malpractice, violation to Plaintiff’s civil right and medical protection acts, disrespecting and misusing their power as legal personnel against In Pro Per who is without legal advice, violating the law and the constitution just to win a legal matter though knowing it is injustice and illegal to cover up on violation of the employer and its employees who will continue abusing other women engineers in the future. This practice in the court and legal systems should stop. Plaintiff did not intend to sue this office, or to name Mr. Montoya as individual or for any effort to prevent him from representing his clients. Mr. Montoya can continue representing his client and his office without retaliation against Plaintiff. I am one of the employees of this employer that this office would have represented me too for justice instead representing these defendants who are abusing the work environment, the economy, and taxpayers’ money. Plaintiff believes Mr. Montoya is representing and signing all documents for the legal office within which all attorneys are accepting and agreeing on this legal malpractice and attacks to Plaintiff believing that In Pro Per is stupid, does not know her rights, and incompetent in the legal process and the law. Though the fact that Plaintiff In Pro Per is incompetent in the legal practice but courtesy should be taken into consideration as if In Pro Per would have been an attorney. This legal office had no human value to consider the health problem of Plaintiff begging all parties in the court to postpone the hearings for some time to treat/ save her leg from a disaster that has been persistent for years due to medical malpractice of the State Fund that will be sued soon. If Mr. Montoya or any attorney in this legal office would practice this permanent injury they would know how to use the law to get their right of medical treatment, expenses & compensation BUT now they caused harm to my health and are using their power to prevent my treatment or get rid of the employees. This shall not happen with me. If they try to kill me as it has been happening many times, all defendants shall be accused officially including courts and judges and union due to misusing the power. But now this office harass me in the court process and request hundred proofs of hospitalization to escape from dealing with the crime occurred by their clients the defendants. That is dumb and illegal .   papers. times while suffering pain and in bed. Your action was unfair and anti constitution and anti any religion. So why should Plaintiff consider the courtesy and let these attorneys harass my life and career just for them to show giants, to keep their job and income, and to cover up on their clients’ violation and harassment to a woman engineer? Now you know how is your job and challenge and income are important, so why you are taking my job and income from me and disturb my future and put me in debt for no violation or accusation on my part but I was trying to help in solving the corruption in the country?   I believe I am one of the rare engineers who are honest to Caltrans, to the State, to engineering ethics, and to the society of the State Right of Way and worldwide, and God knows too. I do not need human being witnesses with personal reason and benefits. Also, regarding the faxing, you have your own reason of heavy number of faxing in the office that does not cost you any from your own pocket or your own time or free overtime in the middle of the night or losing your education and income, but Plaintiff is One Person vs. 36 defendants in a complex matter, no due dates or restriction on complex matter as such, and Plaintiff has no income to send heavy expensive mails every time or to use paid server to serve in person, though those volunteering friends deserve to be paid for their time and out of pocket cash and my accumulated expenses of gratuity. The fact of costing me $250 ONLY for certified mails to properly serve the original summons and complaints early last year, then those defendants (35) and their attorneys committed crime of spying and willfully misused their authorities and immunity to cause hiding all 35 certified proof of service (not knowing that God has arranged to get me a copy for my proof in timely manner but the crime shall never die), and also they committed Federal crime on US mails breaking into the post office a couple of days or so before the hearing of March 2007 as you recall, AALL these willful crime and fear and debts are unforgivable and unforgotten. Who is the honest person now? PLAINTIFF or the 35 defendants? Why should you fight to dismiss them? I am the last person in the world that this nasty action be taken against me by the Union and employer but they chose the wrong women this time. Those defendants should not be dismissed as Judge Stoll dismissed them in 2004 and caused me to get terminated unfairly because of his personal benefit or prejudices against women, and then caused me to be under threat of assassination every day. It is terrible life that you cannot feel it unless you are in it. But people expect me to be cool and acting normal as others, though God gave me the strength and protected me until now!!! Why should you fight to dismiss your clients and other defendants before the trial and compensating the victim? Give me ONE reason!!! 

9.                  The events and transactions, which are the subject of the litigation herein, were entered into and/or occurred in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby providing jurisdiction.

10.              Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, but is informed, believes and thereon alleges that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is liable to Plaintiff, as alleged, and sues the Defendants, and each of them by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint when the true names and capacities have been ascertained.

11.              Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them, including those sued as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, were the agents, servants, employees and/or alter egos of each of the other remaining Defendants, co-owners, and partners and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the full course and scope of said agency, service and/or employment and with the full knowledge and consent, express or implied, of each of the other Defendants. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, all of the acts done by the Defendants, including those sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, were so done at the specific instance and request of the other Defendants and each is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged.

12.              Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the Defendants, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, were supervisors and in positions of authority and influence over Plaintiff in the workplace, agencies, and in courts.

STATEMENT OF FACTS – GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

            This case is complex in nature and warrants a summary of germane facts and a history of events, which undoubtedly tie in to, shed light on, and effect, the instant litigation:

            12.       Plaintiff began her employment with CALTRANS on or about February 22, 1994, as a graduate engineering student assistant, in the District, and then in the Program for Seismic Retrofitting in Southern California (“Program”). Plaintiff was the only student that was kept out of 400 students in the student program that was terminated in August 1994 and all got laid off. Due to best personality, performance, and education Plaintiff was favored to Caltrans management in Southern California, and there were 15 undergraduate students in the Program, working in a different district, in Sacramento. 

13.       On or about September 1, 1994, Plaintiff was transferred to the Structural Engineering Unit, where she was hired pursuant to a two (2)-year contract, in the Program, specializing in structural/ seismic design. Contract does not fall under statue of limitation due to and illegal acts, abuse of power among parties, and conspiracy.

            14.       While a student engineer in 1994, the Administrative Supervisor, Defendant Paula Durham, persistently asked Plaintiff to go out on weekends, for non-work related outings, of a romantic/ sexual nature. Defendant Durham romantically pursued the Plaintiff, daily, for approximately two months. Defendant Durham abused her authority as supervisor and would proposition the Plaintiff while in the workplace (the CALTRANS building) and during work hours. Without reason or authority for doing so, Defendant Durham singled out the Plaintiff and arranged for Plaintiff to have an individual office removed from the training area where Plaintiff had worked alongside colleagues and other supervisors. 

15.       After Plaintiff rejected Durham’s invitations to “go out,” and resisted the remote office, Defendant Durham caused Plaintiff’s funding to be cut and laid her off in or about November 1994. Plaintiff filed a claim about said wrongful conduct on behalf of Durham, the Equal Employment Office (“EEO”), in District 7. At that time, Plaintiff was working in the Structural Division, which was the only division that was exempt from lay offs due to the damage caused by the Northridge Earthquake that occurred earlier that year.

16.       During the EEO formal investigation, which was initiated in CALTRANS headquarters in Sacramento, Plaintiff had meetings with EEO officers in the Los Angeles building in which she had worked. On a particular morning in December 1994, Plaintiff reported to the Los Angeles building for a meeting with EEO and was requested to reschedule same for after lunch on that same day. Plaintiff left her belongings in a colleague’s office and went to lunch. Upon return to the building, Durham caused CALTRANS security to stop Plaintiff at the door and would not allow her access; and there was a photograph of Plaintiff indicating Plaintiff was “wanted” and not allowed to enter the building. Plaintiff had to be escorted by a security guard to reclaim her belongings. After going home, Plaintiff complained to EEO officer who followed up and reported the head of Security; and closed a non-union function existed since prior to 1994 and organized by Defendants Salahieh and Art Salazar and others but did notprotect woman engineer such as Plaintiff when EEO requested support. EEO ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and that she should not get laid off, accounting said that there is fund for Plaintiff contract, but management did not listen or respect EEO decision in 1994. But rather, recently, in 2002, EEO willfully hired Defendant Marian Woo who is following bias of management and Union against a woman engineer, Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff reported since 1998 that EEO function should be reformed for protection of employees and women engineers. Unfortunately, Plaintiff was denied her right for First Amendment and received the first suspension on basis of criticizing EEO system and claiming discrimination in Caltrans against women engineers. 

17.       In 1995, said claim simultaneously went before Judge Ross of the Los Angeles Superior Court and Administrative Law Judge Segal of the State Personnel Board. Without giving Plaintiff a fair opportunity to be heard, both matters were wrongfully closed. The claim went up to the Second Appellate Court which, on June 23, 1997, reversed the lower court’s ruling and held that Plaintiff should be compensated for her loss and receive all costs on appeal. The matter was then remanded in or about July 1997, to be heard before Judge Ross, who effectively overruled the Appellate Court decision by closing the matter again, without notice. Judge Ross’ wrongful action sent a message that sexual harassment was “okay” in the workplace

            18.       The Board of Engineers exhibited unfair and discriminatory grading of Plaintiff’s engineering licensing exam (“PE”) in 1995 and 1996. At all relevant times complained of herein, Defendant Art Duffy (Caltrans employee, Union President) is currently the President of the Board of Engineers as well and may prove the link. Plaintiff submitted an exam grades dispute in 1997, which was ignored; while male engineers received invitations to meet and discuss the disputes, were compensated and obtained their PE engineering licenses. An appeal to one of plaintiff’s PE exams, in 1997, revealed that plaintiff’s design was correct and deserved a score of 10/10, although she had received a score of only 6/10 for two purported design problems while Plaintiff needed only 1 or 2 points in her exams to pass the remaining parts in 1995 and 1996 and 1997. During the Quarterly meeting that Plaintiff attended as the Treasurer representing the Union in February 2000, the Board of engineers announced that they have 4 lawsuits (causes were reported as confidential and not announced). The Board settled one lawsuit for $400,000 and remaining three lawsuits but the board had no money to pay for it, so they requested raising the exams fees on examinees of the license exam. Plaintiff, as the Treasurer Union officer representative for memberships, disagreed on this issue in the meeting, for some reason the fee was not raised until 2003 when it was announced in EC meeting of the Union in January 2003 that the Board of engineer is proposing raising the fee from $175 to $400 per exam twice a year for thousands of engineers. Plaintiff, as the President Elect, suggested during the EC meeting in January 2003 that engineers should take action to stop this abusive act from the Board and make limits to the cause of these lawsuits, so on February 5, 2003, the recall for Plaintiff President Elect started to be organized and headed by Art Duffy, President of HQ Union, with disparaging statement and insult on a package of 45 pages sent over the State Computer to all 35 EC members supervisors and colleagues and others behind the scene for defamation reason. See more details for reply to demurring of Board of engineers on P. 43.

            19.       In or around August of 1997, Plaintiff obtained her Master’s Degree from the University of Southern California, passed the appropriate CALTRANS exam, and was hired as a Civil Service Engineer, Civil. Upon reporting to work in 1998, the negative implications of the sexual harassment suit against Durham lingered and Plaintiff was continuously harassed on the basis of her gender, i.e., being a female engineer, and faced sexual harassment.

            20.       Plaintiff’s first line and hiring supervisor, Defendant Hadi Behrooj, began sexually harassing the Plaintiff and making improper advances toward her. Defendant Behrooj would continuously ask Plaintiff for her home address. Also, as an example, in or about March 1998, after Plaintiff repeatedly rejected Defendant Behrooj’s improper and unwanted sexual advances, Behrooj responded in essentially the following manner: “If you [Plaintiff] complain again about sexual harassment, no one will believe you and I will not get fired, I will fire you. Did you see, I hired you, but the judge and EEO fired you and never got you back your job? It is just politics, sexual harassment is okay.” Plaintiff reported this harassment during 1998 to the Appeal Court on about Dec. 1998 accusing Judge Ross by causing this abuse at work for woman engineer and conditioned if Plaintiff would lose her job, Judge Ross shall be liable of all losses and harm and debt that Plaintiff got into using credit cards paying legal fees and court fees for the lawsuit and appeal for 3 years since 1995-early 1998 then the judge just close the matter and support sexual harassment and abused career and advancement of a woman engineer in the mail dominated field. Now Judge Ross should pay what he owes. And, should correct the bankruptcy occurred after 7 years paying for Credit card interest with no ending. Plaintiff record has to be cleared up in order to go with my life at this time, now. Compensation is requested for the loss of opportunities and suffering occurred since 2003 on credit bureau and until now difficulty of receiving student loan.

            21.       Plaintiff joined the Professional Engineers in California Government – Los Angeles Section (hereinafter “PECG-LA”) on March 9, 1998. She remained an active member in the PECG-LA union for over 5 years with good standing and honest serving to community.

            22.       Also on or about March 9, 1998, Plaintiff was employed in the Division of Structural Maintenance and Investigation (SM&I) with duty to Perform Structural Engineering Review for Permits for State Right of Way in Southern California.

            23.       Defendant Mohammad Ali Molla was also assigned to that position. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Molla was placed in a higher rank, “Range D,” that of California Licensed Engineer, despite lack of background and qualifications for holding that position. Plaintiff confronted Behrooj about Molla’s lack of qualification for Range D status, Behrooj admitted same. Plaintiff requested to be placed on Range D since she has her Engineering license and Experience equal to SE California Engineering License. But thepersonnel office who supported Behooj and Nakao demoted Molla to “Range C,” he was placed at “Third Level of Range C,” which was two (2) levels higher than that of Plaintiff, who was on “First Level of Range C,” despite being more qualified.

            24.       In or around the Spring of 1998, Defendants Behrooj and Molla, knowing that Plaintiff is of the Christian religion, tried to convert Plaintiff to the Islamic religion, during work hours and while in the workplace. Defendant Molla would continuously insult Plaintiff’s faith and yell at Plaintiff how Christianity is a “wrong religion.” Molla would also do prayers and read Islamic books excessively during working hours, daily. When does he work for the State and for the income he receives?

25.       Plaintiff complained to her supervisor, Defendant Behrooj, of Defendant Molla’s improper conduct, and Behrooj threatened Plaintiff that he would have her fired at the end of her probation period (which was to be the end of that year) and would hire, in Plaintiff’s place, a male Muslim engineer. Plaintiff notified the personnel office and the EEO Manager of this religious discrimination and Behrooj’s threat of her job. At the end of the year, Defendant Behrooj requested to have Plaintiff fired, as he had threatened. As a result Defendant Behrooj was demoted and Plaintiff was awarded her Civil Service Status after facing a year of suffering and fear and humiliation. But Behrooj never paid the overtime owed to Plaintiff throughout the year before his demotion.

            26.       In mid-1998, Defendant Behrooj continued to harass Plaintiff, adding to the already-existent hostile work environment. At that time, Defendant Nakao was Plaintiff’s second line supervisor. In Nakao’s absence, Defendant Behrooj tried to coerce Plaintiff into making a false report about the “fill in” supervisor Ben Borovia. When Plaintiff refused to submit a false report, Behrooj began to yell at her and insult her by saying: “Do you support American over Middle Eastern?” Plaintiff responded that she does not support any one, Plaintiff only say the truth and does not lie or discriminate against any one. But Behrooj caused a hostile work environment around Plaintiff again for this subject. 

            27.       In or around March 1999, Plaintiff was given Civil Service status by CALTRANS and was assigned to work alongside and/or under the supervision of Defendants Gedion Werrede Behrooj, Molla and Nakao. Collectively, said defendants credited the work of Plaintiff to themselves and prevented Plaintiff from participating in meetings, which she was entitled to attend. Nakao, in a supervisory role, would prefer Gedion and Molla, both males, to Plaintiff, a female. In fact, Defendant Nakao would take Molla, instead of Plaintiff, to attend meetings on Plaintiff’s own projects and would fail and/or refuse to advise Plaintiff as to the content of those meetings on Plaintiff’s projects. Further, when Plaintiff submitted a “future plan” concerning her advancement at CALTRANS, supervisor defendants Werrede and Nakao would ignore said plans and only consider those plans submitted by males.

            28.       Plaintiff was subjected to negative treatment and baseless reprimand for simply doing her job and reporting the wrongdoing and discrimination by management. As part of her responsibilities, Plaintiff was charged with ascertaining problems and determining solutions for same. However, when Plaintiff would suggest a solution, Defendant Nakao would accuse Plaintiff of insubordination.

            29.       In September 2000, Plaintiff was enrolled in the Rotation Program and was an engineer rotator in Sacramento, California. Shannon Post was Plaintiff’s second line supervisor. From the beginning of Plaintiff’s rotation, Defendant Post was hostile towards the Plaintiff and harassed Plaintiff in her cubicle while Plaintiff was trying to work. Defendant Post even physically struck the Plaintiff with a folder, while yelling at the Plaintiff, and raised her hand to Plaintiff behind closed doors, in the workplace. As a result of this physical assault by her supervisor, Plaintiff had to take sick leave. Contrary to the governing rules, Defendant Post wrongfully prematurely terminated Plaintiff’s rotation.

            30.       Defendant Lutz was the Project Leader in said Sacramento Rotation Program that Plaintiff had begun in September 2000. Defendant Lutz added to the hostile work environment by yelling, and utilizing profanity in the workplace, including around the Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendant Lutz would boast about situations wherein he had utilized his power as a policeman to mistreat and take advantage of women. Plaintiff worked overtime in order to complete Defendant Lutz’ assignments and then Lutz would take all the credit for Plaintiff’s work and, to date, Plaintiff has not been compensated for those hours worked. However, based upon information and belief, Defendant Lutz was compensated for his claimed overtime.

            31.       On or about December 18, 2000, Plaintiff was transferred to the bridge maintenance division. While in that division, Defendant Lutz would underhandedly take Plaintiff’s work and credit it to himself. Upon report of Plaintiff complaining about Phil Lutz wrong bridge design that Plaintiff corrected during 1 ½ month, and complaining about violence and harassment about Shannon Post to Plaintiff and physically hit Plaintiff and raise hand inside the office on Plaintiff, and crediting Plaintiff’s work to Phil Lutz, so, Investigation went on from EEO, Personnel office, and finance department for loss of fund and wrong bridge design over the Division of Bridge design caused Plaintiff to be moved to Division of Structural Maintenance and investigation in Dec 18, 2000, during the investigation against superiors. But later, Plaintiff was not returned to another branch to continue her rotation program of Bridge design per the contract of 9 months.

            32.       Third Line Supervisor, Chief Division of Structural Maintenance and Investigation, Defendant Rut reprimanded Plaintiff for documenting her legitimate complaints. Defendant Rut, without reason therefore, cut Plaintiff’s Rotation Program on February 1, 2002 even though Plaintiff had a contract to go to a nine (9)-month construction rotation in San Francisco Bay area commencing February 4, 2002.

            33.       Plaintiff’s first suspension was issued in or about April 15, 2002, and was to last ten (10) days, for allegedly criticizing the EEO system, for complaining about discrimination against women engineers in the workplace Caltrans, and misusing the e-mail system in reporting the work place violation thru e-mails to hierarchy superiors and EEO and to the personnel office or as needed. They are all in Sacramento or in remote areas of Plaintiff’s work place. Administrative Law Judge Bretcher ignored the issues and allowed the meritless suspension. Plaintiff needed to document the violation in e-mail for protection reason, when the court needs it as now in this court filing. While preventing Plaintiff from using the e-mail system, Tom Rut insulted Plaintiff on the e-mail cc: to Investigator and Caltrans Director on About March 2002, Rut was retired in November 2002 after the investigation. 

            34.       On or about September 15, 2002, Plaintiff successfully ran for, and was elected, to the office of President-Elect, with the PECG-LA, for the 2002 – 2003 term. Plaintiff expressed her platform as a commitment to improving the rights and working conditions of her fellow members and women engineers of the PECG-LA. Plaintiff’s official duties as President were to commence in September of 2003. Plaintiff was the first woman elected as President in the entire 36-year history of the PECG-LA.

            35.       On or about January 27 and 28, 2003, several of the Plaintiff’s posts to the Executive Committee yahoo group site, of the PACG-LA, were the subject of vicious attacks by various named defendants, including Salazar and Abdul-Karim. Said defendants’ comments were personal and defamatory in nature, as against the Plaintiff. This wrongful conduct was to be discussed at the February 5, 2003 Executive meeting, but it was taken off calendar without notice given to the Plaintiff and the meeting was urgently cancelled and announced on the e-mail to all EC members an hour before the meeting scheduled time.

            36.       An Executive Committee meeting was scheduled for or about February 13, 2003. On that date, when Plaintiff arrived for the meeting, defendants Norris and Salahieh confronted Plaintiff at the elevator, physically prevented her from entering the meeting room and insisted that Plaintiff meet with them in a nearby empty room. Once behind closed doors, defendants Norris and Salahieh presented Plaintiff with a pre-typed letter of resignation as President-Elect and insisted she sign it; threatening her reputation and that she be recalled if Plaintiff refused to sign. Although intimidated, Plaintiff refused to acquiesce to the forced resignation.

            37.       Plaintiff indicated she would contact her attorney to determine her rights as President-Elect. Defendants became visibly enraged, raising their voices and threatening to make the matter very “embarrassing” for Plaintiff. Defendant Norris acted hysterically by physically approaching the Plaintiff, coming into nose-to-nose proximity, and yelling at her. Salahieh ordered president Saghafi to hang up the phone on the attorney during the meeting.

            38.       At the February 13, 2003 Executive Committee meeting, defendants Norris and Salahieh and Salazar made two unnoticed motions, in violation of PECG-LA bylaws. The first said motion was to amend the bylaws to effectively take the removal power away from the members and place it with the Executive Committee only in closed door, and by secret ballot. Following this unlawful amendment, depriving the members who elected the President-Elect to have any influence concerning her removal, defendant Norris made a motion to remove Plaintiff as President-Elect in order for her to take over that year.

            39.       A Special Executive Committee meeting was set for or about February 27, 2003, wherein Defendant Salazar renewed the motion to remove of Plaintiff from her position as President-Elect. Because the entire Executive Committee was not present, another motion was made to yet again amend the Bylaws to allow for a vote by secret ballot via U.S. mail. The motion passed and the bylaws were amended for the blatant purpose of facilitating the removal of Plaintiff from office. Defendant Norris urged: “We have to get rid of her [plaintiff] now. It will be harder later.” Consequently, and by surreptitious means, Plaintiff was removed from office. An EC member requested postponing the vote for 30 days for Plaintiff to get opportunity to reply to accusations by claiming that the package was prepared in 30 days so Plaintiff had the right for a 30 days as well, all meeting agreed. While plaintiff started to write the rebuttal, but the letter of removal was posted and distributed on the computer to all 1772 memberships without notice violating the EC meeting votes. A woman engineer EC member supporting Plaintiff in the vote, came few minutes late traveling an hour and a half from her work to attend the vote but President Abdi asked her to leave and did not take her vote to be count among the vote of the recall. In a series of e-mails later after the removal, EC members discussed together and opposed this recall among each other by saying: “Why guys to forced us to recall her, normally I do not treat woman as such”.  

            40.       Upon information and belief, on or about March 13, 2003, Union LA Section President, Abdul Saghafi sent a letter, via electronic mail correspondence, to the 1,772 section members of the PECG-LA concerning the removal of President-Elect plaintiff, although they were not involved in the meetings amending the bylaws or the vote to remove plaintiff from office. Said correspondence was published to all section members and contained disparaging remarks about the plaintiff.

            41.       On or about March 23, 2003, Plaintiff received an anonymous e-mail from one of her co-workers threatening her if Plaintiff did not essentially sit and keep quiet concerning the wrongful conduct of the PECG-LA. This correspondence also threatened that plaintiff would be left “penniless” ” and the Union will sue her, take all her money, and put her in the prison and she will writ her e-mail from a jail cell if she did not drop this matter. Here when Judge Stoll comes in the picture and did nothing about this threat e-mail while in the settlement meeting, Plaintiff was told that “the Union did not mean it” and Defendant Chaitin, Plaintiff’s attorney and the arbitrator told Plaintiff that the SPB is the one who wrote the threat e-mail along to support the Union, but further Judge Stoll sent a mess encouraging the Union corruption and violence toward a woman engineer in the community among the public and in the male dominated field, as Judge Ross did previously. 

            42.       On or about April 02, 2003, Plaintiff filed an action against PECG-LA, in the North Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. EC036538, for Breach of Contract; Civil Conspiracy; Violation of Civil Rights; Defamation; Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. This lawsuit was assigned to Judge Charles W. Stoll, in Department D of the Glendale Courthouse.

            43.       Plaintiff’s wrongful suspension for the second time on or about July 29, 2003 through October 2003, was initiated simply to harm Plaintiff and cause damage and defamation to her due to whistle blower on the Union corruption and misuse of money of memberships. The matter came before ALJ Segal, who refused to recuse himself despite inability to remain neutral as a result of presiding over the prior 1995 claim against Defendant Durham discussed above, herein. At that hearing, Department Rep notified the ALJ Segal by the hearing of 1995 when he resided. This suspension came after Plaintiff had already notified Judge Stoll on July 2003 in the court in person that she would be abused and loose her work due to his denial of the injunction and his support to the Union in its violation overruling the original election of memberships and sending threat e-mail to Plaintiff threatening to take all her money and leave her penniless and put her in the prison for no reason, then they enforced their threat by retaliatory suspensions employer/ union conspiracy, termination, abuse around her life in the free country, and alter her personal information on the computer system to cause harm and set her up in faults.   Plaintiff requested that Judge Stoll should recuse himself due to his prejudice against Plaintiff and has no respect to woman engineers and the justice but he persisted to stay which made him liable any way in both situation for Plaintiff loss of job and threat of life.

            44.       On or about December 17, 2004, while Plaintiff was inside her office eating lunch, Plaintiff’s superior Gedion Werrede accompanied by three (3) security guards, marched in front of colleagues and secretary and served Plaintiff with Suspension and Job Termination papers.

            45.       Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Third Line supervisor, Defendant Barton, signed off on Plaintiff’s second suspension as a condition to obtaining said position.

46.       As a result of Plaintiff’s wrongful suspension in July of 2003, Plaintiff had retained the services of attorney Defendant Knickerbocker, to file a civil lawsuit following receipt of the DFEH’s Right to Sue Notice. Based on his misrepresentations, Plaintiff paid Knickerbocker $7,000.00 to perform this task. However, Defendant Knickerbocker took Plaintiff’s money and then failed to file a timely complaint causing Plaintiff’s rights to lapse, through no fault of her own.

            47.       On or about March 26, 2004, Plaintiff paid attorney Defendant Chaitin a sum of $5,000.00, based on his representation that he would provide counsel for Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the PECG. Specifically, Defendant Chaitin represented that he would conduct depositions of four (4) defendants and prepare the matter for trial, which he failed and/or refused to do. Without performing any of the promised work, only one (1) week before said trial in the PECG matter, Defendant Chaitin presented Plaintiff with a meaningless settlement offer and threatened to withdraw if Plaintiff refused to sign. After Plaintiff refused to sign said offer, Defendant Chaitin violated his confidentiality obligations to the Plaintiff, while still her counsel, and submitted the settlement offer to the Court.

            48.       On or about December 17, 2004, while Plaintiff was inside her office eating lunch, Plaintiff’s superior accompanied by three (3) security guards, marched in front of colleagues and secretary and served Plaintiff with Suspension and Job Termination papers.

            49.       In purported support of Plaintiff’s suspension, it was alleged that Plaintiff disobeyed her supervisor in performing the review of three permits. Said permits were under the control and responsibility of Defendant Molla. Also, Werrede would take Plaintiff’s work into his office and then said work would be credited to, and/or submitted under, Defendant Molla.

            50.       On or about June 17, 2005, Plaintiff received a Notice of Case Closure and Right to SueNotice from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in connection with a claim that Plaintiff had filed for discriminatory and retaliatory acts that took place in the workplace and continuous retaliation acts.

            51.       Plaintiff retained the services of attorney Defendant Dryden, and paid a total of $5,000.00 to file an Appeal of the Union Matter which was due on or about April 26, 2006, which he failed to effectively do. For an additional $500.00, Defendant Dryden was to file a summons and complaint for wrongful termination as against CALTRANS and certain named individuals. Throughout his representation of the Plaintiff, Defendant Dryden made sexual advances towards Plaintiff, falsified documents and misrepresented the occurrences of the case, including withholding material information from Plaintiff, his client; but further he is requesting collection on money Plaintiff does not owe. Details will be discussed in the trial.

            52.       In or around November or December of 2006, Plaintiff discovered that the Board of Engineers had submitted claim G506955, which included Plaintiff’s name, without notifying Plaintiff of same, or of the contents or subject matter of the claim. Although Plaintiff only recently discovered this, this unverified claim concerned an act that took place on or about July 18, 2000. This filing was found on record with “Government Claims Victim Compensation, State Board of Control,” but was filed without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.

            53.       In December 6, 2006, plaintiff submitted the Appeal to Supreme court regarding the Union matter, but next day, the appeal was altered and distorted (14 copies that cost about $200) while another set of 14 false copies were prepared to go to judges! Plaintiff submitted complained about cutting and pasting the caption and falsifying the documents, but never received any response from the court of Appeal or Supreme court. Plaintiff In Pro Per are treated with top disrespect by the legal system following system of ignoring issues and putting people under duress claiming COURTS SYSTEMS.  Humanity and justice and superiors over courts system that cause injustice.

54.       December 11, 2006, SPB and its ALJ judges were served as defendants but did not appear in CMC of December 18, 2006. SPB sent letters with missing attachments and ambiguous issues about the Administrative hearing for the termination. SPB has been biased and discriminatory supporting the Union since 1995 and in prior 2 suspensions to Plaintiff. Plaintiff issued and requested a suspension in July 2004 to 2 ALJ judges to be dismissed for illegality and supporting the Union and management in violation against Plaintiff to be addressed during the trial time. Relevant documents shall be submitted during the trial for discussion.

            55.       On May 10, 2005, May 4, and throughout the years of 2005, 2006, and 2007, Plaintiff objected to abuse in the SPB hearing in May and further meetings, harassment on the road with false parking tickets, invasion of privacy at residence, disabling her 3 phone lines in the middle of the night for no reason, breaking into her business storage and stealing her computer, hiding her certified mail as a proof for serving the summons and complaint on courts and attorneys and judges and individual defendants in March 2007. What does the Attorney General does about all this crime and harassment to women? When contacted him he expressed that he support government against the public while he and all the government are paid from taxpayers’ money.

CAUSES OF ACTION

First Cause of Action - Gender Discrimination

            56.       Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            57.       At all relevant times, there was a blatant pattern and practice of disparate treatment on the part of CALTRANS management with respect to favoring males over females. Specifically, and for example, there was a lack of training and availability of instruction for design and inspection techniques for women engineers, compared to that afforded to male engineers.

            58.       Also there was preferential treatment for male engineers over Plaintiff, and other female engineers, in job assignments and assignments of classifications, despite Plaintiff’s, and other female engineers’, eligibility by virtue of their background qualifications for higher pay ranges which were assigned to male engineers.

            59.       There was preferential assignments for overtime given to males instead of females. To date, Plaintiff has not been compensated for any of the overtime she worked and reported and to which Plaintiff is therefore entitled.

            60.       Hiring supervisors Hadi Behrooj and Steve Nakao knowingly hired two engineers, Plaintiff and Defendant Molla, for a position that required only one engineer. Behrooj and Nakao placed the newly hired male engineer, Molla, in a position that is higher than that of Plaintiff although Plaintiff was better qualified. Upon information and belief, Molla was categorized as a “Range D” which is reserved for engineers holding a California License, without having the valid licenses, although Plaintiff had acquired all the qualifications for the position. Despite being blatantly unqualified, Molla was promoted over the qualified female candidate, the Plaintiff who was specialized for the position, and Molla was placed in pay level which was three (3) times higher than that of the Plaintiff.

            61.       Wrongful conduct to remove Plaintiff from her office as President-Elect of the PECG-LA, because Plaintiff is female and concerned with female rights. Named defendants involved therein were also Plaintiff’s supervisors in her employment and their actions to remove her were motivated by her were motivated by her gender (plaintiff was the first female to be elected president of that union section).

            62.       As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful action, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income and employment related opportunities, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, and humiliation, in an amount within this court’s jurisdiction, according to proof.

Second Cause of Action - Sexual Harassment

            63.       Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            64.       Named Defendants made continued and unwelcomed sexual advances toward plaintiff, during working hours and in the workplace. Supervisors and others higher on the corporate ladder, misused their authority and their positions to harass Plaintiff in a sexual manner as discussed herein, above.

            65.       As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful action, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income and employment related opportunities, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, and humiliation, in an amount within this court’s jurisdiction, according to proof.

Third Cause of Action - Hostile Work Environment

66.       Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            67.       Conduct in the realm of the PECG-LA, spilled over into Plaintiff’s work environment. After the illegal removal of Plaintiff from her office as President-Elect of the PECG-LA, beginning in March of 2003, Plaintiff began receiving threatening e-mails from co-workers.

            68.       Plaintiff was insulted in the workplace by her superiors and was threatened by same. Unsuccessful efforts were made to coerce Plaintiff to acquiesce with the agendas of those outranking her in the workplace.

            69.       Supervisors credited Plaintiff’s work to themselves, taking credit for Plaintiff’s work and misused their authority in the workplace.

            70.       Plaintiff’s supervisors and colleagues refused to respect Plaintiff’s personal, religious, as well as professional opinions, forcing their beliefs upon the Plaintiff.

            71.       As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful action, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income and employment related opportunities, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, and humiliation, in an amount within this court’s jurisdiction, according to proof.

Fourth Cause of Action - Defamation

            72.       Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            73.       Personal and defamatory attacks were made against Plaintiff by defendants Salazar and Abdul-Karim, in response to internet postings on the Executive Committee’s group site. Salazar spread negative commentary about Plaintiff, over the Yahoo internet group which was reserved for discussion by PECG-LA Executive Committee members about PECG-LA issues. Published statements pertaining to Plaintiff’s ability to perform her duties as President-Elect of the PECG-LA; disparaging comments about Plaintiff, inter alia, that Plaintiff was not worthy of trust, unable to communicate effectively in the English language, and sought to perform acts contrary to the interests of the PECG-LA union.

            74.       Disparaging remarks about Plaintiff were made and distributed in an e-mail correspondence sent by Defendant Norris, to all 1,772 section members of the PECG-LA following her illegal removal from office in March of 2003. False statements implying that Plaintiff was removed for misconduct, which is without merit.

            75.       As indicated above, Defendant Durham made false statements and caused security personnel to publish a “wanted” picture of the Plaintiff in her place of employment.

            76.       Defendants intended to vex, annoy, embarrass and humiliate Plaintiff with their disparaging and false remarks.

            77.       Defendants’ defamatory statements were defamatory per se because they tend, among other things, to injure Plaintiff in her reputation for veracity and ability to pursue her profession, and by imputing her general disqualification for her profession.

            78.       As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful action, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income and employment related opportunities, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, and humiliation, in an amount within this court’s jurisdiction, according to proof.

            79.       Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that in taking the actions alleged above, defendants, and each of them, acted with malice, fraud and oppression and in reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights, with the intent to cause injury and emotional distress to plaintiff. Defendants’ conduct was outrageous and despicable and warrants the award of punitive damages against all defendants, in an amount sufficient defendants and make an example of them.

Fifth Cause of Action - False Imprisonment

            80.       Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            81.       Defendants Norris and Salahieh physically prevented Plaintiff from entering the meeting room at the Executive Committee meeting on or about February 13, 2003. Norris intimidating Plaintiff by yelling at her face-to-face, practically touching.

            82.       As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful action, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income and employment related opportunities, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, and humiliation, in an amount within this court’s jurisdiction, according to proof.

            83.       Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that in taking the actions alleged above, defendants, and each of them, acted with malice, fraud and oppression and in reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights, with the intent to cause injury and emotional distress to plaintiff. Defendants’ conduct was outrageous and despicable and warrants the award of punitive damages against all defendants, in an amount sufficient defendants and make an example of them.

Sixth Cause of Action - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

            84.       Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            85.       Defendants’ conduct, as more fully set forth in the facts, was outrageous conduct. Defendants intentionally insulted, disparaged, coerced and humiliated the Plaintiff in the workplace, with the intention of causing Plaintiff harm.

            86.       The conduct of defendants was intentional and malicious and was carried out for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress.

            87.       Defendants Norris and Salahieh threatened Plaintiff with “embarrassment” if she did not follow their demands and resign from her PECG-LA office as President-Elect. The conduct of defendant Salazar in confirming and ratifying such conduct was done with knowledge that plaintiff’s emotional and physical distress would thereby increase, and was done with wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to plaintiff.

            88.       As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ aforementioned acts, plaintiff has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, depression, insomnia, anxiety, and other emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and body all to plaintiff’s damage, in a sum to be proven at trial.

            89.       By reason of the defendants’ wrongful conduct, plaintiff was required to seek medical assistance, and has incurred medical expenses in an amount which has not yet been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that she will incur additional medical expenses, the exact amount is still unknown.

            90.       The aforementioned conduct of defendants was intended to cause injury to plaintiff and was despicable conduct carried out with the willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of plaintiff and others, and subjected plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

Seventh Cause of Action - Invasion of Privacy

            91.       Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            92.       Defendants accessed Plaintiff’s file in order to obtain information with which to utilize in submitting a claim in July of 2002, by the Board of Engineers, to the Government Claims Victim Compensation, State Board of Control. This filing was done without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent and Plaintiff discovered this in or about November or December of 2006.

            93.       Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have wrongfully and illegally tapped into Plaintiff’s telephone lines, both landlines and cellular, listening to Plaintiff’s private and personal conversations.

            94.       The aforementioned conduct of defendants was intended to cause injury to plaintiff and was despicable conduct carried out with the willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of plaintiff and others, and subjected plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

Eighth Cause of Action – Religious Discrimination

            95.       Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            96.       Defendants, Specifically Behrooj and Molla, refused to respect Plaintiff’s religious beliefs and persistently tried to convert her to the religion of Islam. Defendants would insult her religion and adversely affect her work and progress in employment because of her religion and promote others based on their religious beliefs.

            97.       The aforementioned conduct of defendants was intended to cause injury to plaintiff and was despicable conduct carried out with the willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of plaintiff and others, and subjected plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

Ninth Cause of Action - Quantum Meruit

            98.       Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            99.       During her employ with CALTRANS, Plaintiff repeatedly worked over-time and was never compensated for same. To date, Plaintiff has not received the actual value of services performed for CALTRANS and therefore CALTRANS has been unjustly enriched.

            100.     Defendants knew of the over-time and were aware that monies were owed to Plaintiff for said work. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff made requests for payment of these services. Defendants never compensated Plaintiff for said work performed.

            101.     No payments have been made by Defendants to Plaintiff for over-time work performed, and there is now owing the sum of damages that are outstanding according to proof. Failure to allow just compensation to the Plaintiff will amount to unjust enrichment of all Defendants.

Tenth Cause of Action - Breach of Written Contract

            102.     Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            103.     CALTRANS, on multiple occasions, breached their contract with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s position in connection with seismic retrofitting was immune from lay-offs, yet Defendants breached that agreement and terminated Plaintiff’s employment.

            104.     Plaintiff’s Rotation Program was set to be for a two (2) year term. In breach of that agreement, Defendants caused Plaintiff’s Rotation Program to be cut short and terminated same prior to its expiration.

            105.     Each Attorney Defendant named herein had an agreement to provide Plaintiff with legal counsel and blatantly failed and/or refused to do so, thereby breaching same.

            106.     As a result, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, for an amount to be determined at trial.

Eleventh Cause of Action – Breach of Oral Contract

            107.     Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            108.     Defendants, and each of them, had an agreement to provide Plaintiff with certain services, as alleged herein above, and said Defendants failed and/or refused to comply with the terms of said agreement thereby damaging the Plaintiff.

            109.     As a result, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, for an amount to be determined at trial.

Twelfth Cause of Action-Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

            110.     Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            111.     As is the case with all contracts, the employment contract contained an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by which CALTRANS promised to give full cooperation to Plaintiff and to refrain from doing any act that would prevent or impede plaintiff from performing all the conditions of the contract to be performed, or that would prevent or impede plaintiff’s enjoyment of the fruits of said contract. Specifically, said covenant of good faith and fair dealing required CALTRANS to fairly, honestly and reasonably perform the terms and conditions of the agreement.

            112.     Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon, alleges that defendants and each of them, breached their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to fulfill their obligations under the contract and creating a hostile work environment and ultimately conspiring to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.

            113.     As a result of CALTRANS’ violation of said implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial economic losses and other union and employment benefits which she would have received had CALTRANS not breached said covenant, all to her damage in an amount according to proof.

            114.     Judicial Defendants (including judges, courts and lawyers) breached their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing and/or refusing to fulfill their obligations in protecting the interests of Plaintiff as a private citizen to whom they were legally obligated to protect. (see State Bar under title “REPLY TO DEMUR”)

            115.     As a result of said violation, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial economic losses; and has suffered and continues to suffer the effects of being deprives to pursue her legal rights (i.e., pursue certain causes of action due to failure of attorneys resulting in claims being time-barred).

Thirteenth Cause of Action - Fraud Concealment

            116.     Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            117.     The Board of Engineers concealed a claim that contained Plaintiff’s name and information without her knowledge or consent. The claim concerned an act that transpired in July of 2000, but Plaintiff discovered it in November 2006, due to her own independent investigation.

            118.     Defendants herein were under a duty to disclose material facts regarding the contents of Plaintiff’s own file. However, Defendants failed to disclose the existence of this claim/ complaint in Plaintiff’s file.

            119.     At all relevant times, Defendants conducted proceedings behind closed doors and made decisions concerning the Plaintiff, but said decisions were made in secret.

            120.     As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful action, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income and employment related opportunities, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, and humiliation, in an amount within this court’s jurisdiction, according to proof.

            121.     It is believed Defendants herein concealed these material facts from Plaintiff in an attempt to harm her reputation and future employment opportunities. In committing the acts, as described in this Complaint, the Defendants are guilty of oppression, fraud and/or malice by fraudulently placing material in Plaintiff’s personnel file. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary or punitive damages.

            122.     As a result of Defendants’ concealment of material information, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount that will be proven at trial.

Fourteenth Cause of Action - Fraud Misrepresentation

            123.     Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            124.     Attorney Defendants misrepresented that they would perform acts on behalf of, and as legal counsel for, Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiably relied on those representations, retained their respective legal services and paid an upfront retainer. As a result of the reliance, Plaintiff did not pursue the action herself nor did she seek additional or distinct counsel. Attorney defendants knew they would not perform the promised services and only sought to obtain the retainer money. After obtaining said monies, defendant attorneys did not follow through with their obligations and failed to protect the interests of Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered damage and was not afforded her right to pursue claims.

            125.     Defendant attorneys’ representations of counsel was an immediate cause of Plaintiff’s conduct, in retaining them as counsel, which conduct altered her legal relations. Without such misrepresentation she would not have entered into the contract for services.

            126.     As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful action, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income and employment related opportunities, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, and humiliation, in an amount within this court’s jurisdiction, according to proof.

Fifteenth Cause of Action - Negligence

            127.     Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            128.     Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants herein owed a duty to Plaintiff due to their employment, contractual, and/or special relationship. The duty owed to Plaintiffs by Defendants herein was to act as a reasonably prudent employer, supervisor, and/or judicial officer would act under the circumstances. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by not providing the standard of care. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that Defendants’ actions, described herein above and below, constitute a breach of Defendants’ duty. Therefore Defendants, and each of them, breached their standard of care.

            129.     Defendants’ negligent actions are the legal and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ damages, which is an amount to be proven at trial.

            130.     As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful action, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income and employment related opportunities, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, and humiliation, in an amount within this court’s jurisdiction, according to proof.

Sixteenth Cause of Action - Unlawful Business Practices

            131.     Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            132.     California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. …”

            133.     California Business & Professions Code Section 17203 provides that “[t]he court may make such orders or judgments … as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of unfair competition.”

            134.     California Business & Professions Code Section 17204 provides for suits for injunctive relief to be brought by both public officials and private attorneys general: “Actions for injunction pursuant to this chapter may be prosecuted by … any person acting for the interests of itself, its members or the general public.”

            134.     Defendants have committed acts in violation of the following:

a.                   Contract Fraud - - Civil Code Sections 1571-1573

b.                  Deceit - - Civil Code Sections 1709-1710

c.                   Invasion of Privacy

d.                  Abuse of Discretion

e.                   Abuse of Judicial Immunity

f.                   Sexual Harassment

g.                  Gender Discrimination

136.     By their activities and omissions alleged above in violation of the statutes listed above, Defendants have engaged in unlawful or unfair business practices within the meaning of Business & Professions Code Section 17200.

137.     Defendants threaten to and unless restrained, will continue to act in violation of the statutes listed above and thereby continue and repeat their violations of the Unfair Practices Act.

138.     The actions and omissions of Defendants alleged above in violation of the statutes and laws listed herein, have and will continue to irreparably harm Plaintiff and the general public. Plaintiff has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.

Seventeenth Cause of Action - Wrongful Termination

            139.     Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

            140.     Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated from her employment in December of 2004, based upon falsified suspension papers, as part of a long-standing retaliatory effort to remove Plaintiff from her position based on her gender, religion, and fact that Plaintiff would not acquiesce to pressures to cover-up on wrongdoings.

            141.     As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful action, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income and employment related opportunities, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, and humiliation, in an amount within this court’s jurisdiction, according to proof.

            142.     It is believed Defendants herein concealed these material facts from Plaintiff in an attempt to harm her reputation and future employment opportunities. In committing the acts, as described in this Complaint, the Defendants are guilty of oppression, fraud and/or malice by fraudulently placing material in Plaintiff’s personnel file. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary or punitive damages.

Eighteenth cause of action - Abuse of discretion, power and Immunity

(State Bar, Supreme court, Appeal court, SPB,

Judge Ross, Judge Stoll, ALJ Bretcher, Segal, Brown)

143.     A judge shall be disqualified in any proceeding when for any reason [Code Civ. Proc. 170.1(a)(6)] if the judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice. If there is a substantial doubt as to his ore her capacity to be impartial. If a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

144.     Plaintiff requested many times from Judge Stoll to recuse himself for the finding of being impartial and discriminate against Plaintiff. Therefore, his ruling is biased and invalid and the matter of the union shall be reconsidered and the judgment is null.

 145.   Plaintiff asked ALJ Brown to recuse himself due to bias observed. But he insisted to deny the matter with no trial at all although plaintiff was sick under treatment for a month abroad since Plaintiff’s injuries are workers’ comp but the state does not treat Plaintiff appropriately. Also, Plaintiff health is deteriorating considering being without income since 2005 while working for the court filing for free handling multiple legal matters and pursuing her education as well.

146.     ALJ Brown did not care or consider Plaintiff’s sickness or her traveling back the night of the hearing especially in order not to miss the hearing. While Mr. Dryden promised Plaintiff to represent her in that hearing and prepare for it while Plaintiff abroad, but he disappeared and never showed up. ALJ Brown, follow nonsense system, but making fun of Appellant by saying “if the governor told me to change the system, I will” but without taking serious action to hold the proceeding and seek former order from the governor; rather ALJ Brown ruled by denying the meeting and intimidating Appellant, so that she left the meeting for protection reason that was sent to SPB and the Governor. ALJ Segal should have recused himself as well, but he misled Plaintiff believing she will not discover, but Plaintiff discovered the link and requested suspension for ALJ judges. 

147.     ALJ Bretcher – biased and ignored civil right and dignity of plaintiff, denying Plaintiff’s Freedom of Speech and Constitutional Right in the Free Country, encouraged management in committing the crime and violence again by supporting the illegality.

148.     State Bar and Arbitrators are biased to attorneys against clients with our money. What is behind the scene? In the trial, we will discuss issues of legal fees paid with no representation that caused loss of job and the legal matter by Knickerbocker and Chaitin while State Bar supported this corruption, then Supreme Court followed, twice.

149.     Supreme court mistreatment to clients and falsify documents behind the scene.

150.     Appeal court judges adopt conflict of interest ruling. Does not respect client Plaintiff’s presence. If the attorney is biased, client should respond given the fact the client is attending the hearing. But a nonsense system is adopted overruling the justice. But Plaintiff still pay for that kind of system. This will be discussed during the trial due to injustice of the ruling.

151.          Bias or prejudice towards a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification [Code Civ. Proc. 170.1(a)(6)]. Judge stoll was biased against Plaintiff’s attorney who was serious to represent Plaintiff and caused him to leave the matter twice. Although blaming Plaintiff but Plaintiff was under stress and fear from nonsense system of immunity and power of judges vs. fear of attorneys from judges. But Plaintiff and clients still pay any way.  

152.          A judge who commits legal error which, in addition, clearly and convincingly reflects BAD FAITH (Broadman v. Commision on Judicial Performance, supra, 18 Cal.4^th 1079, 1091-1092) is subject to investigation.

153.     A judge who commits legal error which, in addition, clearly and convincingly reflects BIAS (Kennick v. Commision on Judicial Performance (1990) 50 Cal.3d 297, 327-331 [267 Cal.Rptr. 293, 787 P.2d 591, 87 A.L.R.4^th 679]) is subject to investigation.

154.     A judge who commits legal error which, in addition, clearly and convincingly reflects ABUSE OF AUTHORITY (Spruance v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 13 Cal.3d 778, 786-795 [119 Cal.Rptr. 841, 532 P.2d 1209]) is subject to investigation

155.     A judge who commits legal error which, in addition, clearly and convincingly reflects DISREGARD FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 49 Cal.3d 826, 849-854) is subject to investigation

156.     A judge who commits legal error which, in addition, clearly and convincingly reflects INTENTIONAL DISREGARD FOR THE LAW (Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra, 45 Cal.3d 518, 545-546 [247 Cal.Rptr. 378, 754 P.2d 724, 76 A.L.R.4^th 951]) is subject to investigation.

Nineteenth Cause of Action -

Breach of constitution and first Amendment

157.          Paragraphs 1 through 55 are realleged as if set forth fully herein.

158.     Plaintiff, as an American Citizen, has been denied the right for the constitution and Free speech in every step of her career, actions, work activities, and in the courts systems in the American System and has been objected to persistent attack at her residence and on the road.

159.     In the Threat of life and career e-mail that Union / SPB sent to Plaintiff, it was written “….You have no right in this country for what you are asking for….. if you do not stop, the Union will have the right to sue you….” because Plaintiff asked for women engineers’ right, the spending of our millions of dollars Union dues, and other employment rights issues. Conflict of interest acts dominate the union role and functions while it does not serve employees well including Plaintiff, with the excuse that the Union does not have money, and careless about well being and life of engineers, and negligent and inconsiderate for women engineers career and advancement at work.

160.          Plaintiff has been objected to assassination several times on the road and in place of residence right after judges dismissed Defendants Union and Caltrans. On Nov 2004, J. Stoll willfully initiated and caused the crime to start by misusing his immunity and power of court order to breach the constitution and ignore safety of life act for Plaintiff woman engineer and allowed release of her residence address to her enemy defendants who threaten Plaintiff, Union/ SPB and their attorneys, to get rid of Plaintiff and cover up on his violation forever. Why doesn’t he release his address as well??!! This is top crime and not a justice or attitude, he is not qualified for position of judging litigants, how many victims came out from his court thru the years and are hidden in the law books, and how many false discriminatory precedents are there harming others, as consequences of his immunity??? This is hassle NOT a court. 

161.          Then on Nov 2007 This current Court, dismissed same defendants Union and Caltrans but with no intention to hurt Plaintiff, and not knowing about, or did not trust Plaintiff when reporting, the fact of prior harm and trial to imprison and assassinate Plaintiff by Union/ SPB to accomplish their threat e-mail with conspiracy of J. Stoll and Mr. Chaitin. But the fact was repeated and occurred in 24 hours of the dismissal of Nov 28, 2007, and was documented as well. Plaintiff hope for the consideration and understanding of This Court to protect Plaintiff life by litigating this matter in proper way considering the justice without dismissing any individual or agency; they are all linked with the Union and the favoritism of judges/attorneys/courts/state bar whom are defendants on the caption and willfully caused these series of crimes to happen although Plaintiff’s WARNING TO THE COURTS AND JUDGES AHEAD OF TIME, but they all were careless. 

162.          First suspension against Plaintiff on April 2002 was issued alleging that Plaintiff Criticized EEO system, reported discrimination against women engineers in Caltrans, and misused the e-mail system; while Plaintiff reported ONLY work related issues or discrimination acts thru the e-mail system to the Personnel office or EEO or related superiors whom are spread in offices around the State, and even in same big building itself, and for documentation reason as well. This is denial of the constitution and civil right of Plaintiff and woman engineer state employee, and ceasing infringing freedom of speech Many issues as such occurred thru the years due to injustice and system of courts. Therefore the courts should be reformed for protection of humanity and civilization.

1.       REAL LIFE INCIDENTS

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION- JUSTICE REQUESTED

159. It is anti-constitution and inequality to let a person get terrorized, coerced, and bullied when has no power to fight back equally.

FIRST:
When the young girl (just little girl with no authority or influence) wrote an e-mail threat against the President, she was put in the prison without any court trial. 
vs.
When Union and SPB Judges (adult and authority officials educated enough and adopting the laws) wrote an e-mail threat against a woman engineer employee of the State of California, judge Stoll ignored safety and civil right of a woman engineer state employee and ruled against Plaintiff creating a victim under threat, as well! This is one of the corruption, crime, and illegality that Appeal court and Supreme Court supported

SECOND:
When the recall of Governor Gray Davis was initiated (on about April 2003), 10 judges of State and Federal were not able to overrule People Election....why?  

Note: the recall opened to the public. 
Note: The Governor was assuming the office and did specific mistakes
vs.
When Union recalled the President Elect of LA Section (on about March 2003), ONE judge in superior court allowed himself to rule and support Union corruption, hidden letter of resignation and threat e-mail to Plaintiff, and overruled People’s Election... WHY?
Note: the recall was not open to the public of that members engineering community who DID NOT REQUEST to recall the President Elect.
Note: The President Elect was not assuming office yet, and did not do any mistake yet, but making hope and agenda for good changes for women engineers’ right and good representation since there is no enough money for women representation.

This may proof the conflict of interest in applying the constitution and laws singling women out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2.       Points and authorities:

160.                 In an effort to use credible theory and research, the applicant is referring to some documented histories:

1) On May 31, 2005 -- the “National Medical Foundation for Asset Protection” announced the following article titled: “ Doctor Takes Own Life to Incite Change in Legal System. ……Dr. Ticktin spent five years defending himself in a baseless lawsuit. ……he is now praying the injustices of the current system will be corrected so that the medical profession he dearly loved will not die as he did. Dr. Ticktin made many attempts to change the unjust system. His attempts at change resulted in additional complaints against him. As he wrote in his suicide note, "Hopefully my death will shed light on the problem”.”

2) From article on the Internet titled: “Legal Reform Resources”, I cote the following: “America has three distinct types of legal reform groups: civil justice legal reform groups; family law legal reform groups; and criminal justice legal reform groups. Over 140 civil justice legal reform groups in this country.”  

3) “The committee for the Rule of Law” is a legal reform group in California stated the following cote: “… the law is so inconsistently applied that the Chief Justice of California has publicly said: "You’d have a hard time telling the wheat from the chaff" when reviewing Court of Appeal decisions.”

4) “Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse” a legal reform group in Arizona reported the following statement: “The group wishes to educate the public about the costs and problems associated with lawsuit abuse. It is a group of small businessmen which focuses on trial lawyer spin doctors”. 

5) A study by Angela Delmedico posted on September 23, 2003 titled: “Half of women engineering majors don’t work in their field”. I cote a paragraph:  “National Science Foundation study suggests approximately half of women who major in engineering subjects go to work in their fields, leaving University officials wondering why the discrepancy exists”. 

6) From official publication on “California Bar Journal” January 2000, I cote: “Title: Honest Lawyers. By: Congressman John Culberson. Statement: “Legal Reform Now! is developing criteria to determine what is required to be an honest lawyer. Any help in this regard would be appreciated”. Statement by Richard Wayne Garganta: “One of the main problems with our system of Justice is the Judiciary at every stage of litigation assumes all prior litigation has been handled thoroughly and properly when usually the exact opposite is true.”

7) Clara Barton, American humanitarian, organizer, and first president of the American Red Cross, long career of public service: “I have an almost disregard of precedent and a faith in the possibility of something better. It irritates me to be told how things always have been done. I defy the tyranny of a closed mind. I go for anything new that might improve the past.”

3.       SEAL ON THE CAPTION

161.     The seal on the caption is inserted for protection and safety of life reason NOT to be of any offense to THIS COURT. Plaintiff has high respect and admiration to THIS COURT and to Hon. JUDGE HELEN. 

162.     This seal and its details below are NOT objected to any striking or demurring. Plaintiff has been facing dangerous life and terrible experiences due to Judge Stoll dismissed key defendants of the Union officers, falsified the complaint issue, and dismissed causes of actions upon his own opinion!! Or upon request of defendants who wanted to escape from the crime while the judge helped them to escape!!!! What was his benefit?? Plaintiff was not going to the court to seek opinion of the judge while conspiring with her attorney Chaitin to abuse a woman engineer career, life, and business, while both sided the defendants. As a result, Plaintiff has been objected to harm in her life, trial to get her killed in numerous incidents until now, on the road and at her residence. If Plaintiff gets killed at any time, Judge Stoll shall be the one who caused it with his signature and immunity to dismiss defendants and alter the caption and causes of actions careless about women’s civil right and career in the free country. Incidents were reported to the governor, the police, and worldwide in numerous occasions for documentation purposes. Immunity of Judge Stoll does not give him authority or freedom to issue illegal court order to locate and release the residence address of Plaintiff, woman engineer, to her enemies because the judge likes those enemies!! This is a crime NOT immunity. He should release his home address as well to Plaintiff and to the public. As human being, we have to distinguish issues by logic, NOT by brainwash using laws and rules and discrimination inside the court, then we call it “IMMUNITY”, while causing crime around the community of women and educated people and creating victims. Life and career of a woman engineer is not a joke for judges and attorneys and Union corruption.

4.       Department of justice

Edmund G. Borwn Jr., D.L. Helfat, attorneys for Defendants:

Board of Engineers and land Surveyors, Cindi Christenson

Reg. motion to dismiss; dated July 17, 2007

163.     Plaintiff is wondering about the malpractice, nonsense requests, and fears that the Board of Engineers and Cindi Chirstenson expressed in this pleading papers by trying to escape from facing their illegal acts in court forum, and request dismissals!!! All allegations reported in this notice of hearing are threats to Plaintiff, false, and misleading to the facts. Ms. Christenson is disputing lack of causes of action that may be related to her. As mentioned above, the causes of action are applied on her actions against Plaintiff, as accusations are reported below. As she may recall that the correspondences between us were big and involved. Plaintiff will provide the details as needed. 

164.     On page 2: The NewSAC alleged some facts but there are additional facts that shall be added with documentation provided in the trial. Plaintiff needed the time to do so, but she has been abused by hundred mails in untimely manner while she was sick. Facts such as discrimination, retaliation, mangling with exams, unfair grading, leaking of exams, careless about safety of the public, false and illegal charges and lawsuits for malpractice of the Board. Compliance with applicable government claim filing requirements was filed properly and copy of the documents shall be submitted once the Third Amended Complaint is completed.

165.     This action shall not be barred due to any compliance issue or Immunity conferred by government simply because Plaintiff is In Pro Per, a complex matter, the Board abused Plaintiff income and career sneakily, and immunities shall not be considered in illegal situations such as conspiracy with Union in bad faith, misuse of authority under cover, harming to the community, abuse woman engineer career in the free country, stealing money of engineers by sneaky way to pay Board violation and hidden lawsuits, violation of ethics, and hiding behind government immunity. This is a crime not immunity.

166.     Why should the Boars asks for relief and demur without giving chance and opportunity to Plaintiff to be heard in trial?

167.     Summary and discussion P.4, 5: The paper claims that defendant liability was well beyond the statue of limitation. Plaintiff reply that she became aware of the defamation in her record only on December 2006, her career has been abused without her knowledge, career of woman engineer does not fall under statue of limitation games, exams are leaked to others with no qualification to pass, no attorneys help or fight for woman engineer’s career, Plaintiff has only the fact and seek justice and shall not play the sneaky game.

            168.     The grading affects the whole career, promotion, and success in the field. If a public entity misuses its authority, it loses the right for application of the immunity or demur or any benefit. These rules belong to attorneys, but this plaintiff is In Pro Per and has limited research, Plaintiff is a woman and lacks the support of attorneys as a male engineer would. Therefore, it is unfair to apply rules strictly while the community is violating the laws against women.

            169.     The paper is presenting lying information to maneuver facts by mentioning that Plaintiff dispute of the exam was for 1996 and filed late, while it was for 1997 and the appeal was filed immediately. The dispute was on going with Ms. Christenson in writing when she insulted Plaintiff in her mail and asked Plaintiff to file lawsuit against the Board instead she solves the problem. If this is the management style of Ms. Christenson or the Board, I would claim that she is not qualified to hold managerial position that affects the whole community. It is obvious though the whole problem the country face is due to reckless of the Board of engineers running by Cindi and the Union officers…No wonder the economy is in a trouble, and bridges and houses are damaged, while the board just care about paying their lawsuits under cover. This became childish. 

170.     When Plaintiff was the Treasurer for the Union PECG on 2000, she was assigned to represent the Union before the Board of engineers in its quarterly meeting on February 2000 and made a speech about correcting the system and reported concern of members. During that meeting the board announced that there was a need to collect more money because the Board had a lot of lawsuits that needed to be paid, one of them was settled for $400,000. I questioned: How the Board get the money to pay ONE litigant so much while it is non-profit organization? Plaintiff requested that the Union in 1999 to intervene and solve the problem with the board, but Art Salazar, defendant in this matter and non-licensed engineer was so jealous enough to refuse the appeal and was a block against best interest of Plaintiff, a challenging woman engineer in order to hold her advancement back. For the record that Art Salazar, Safwat salahieh, and Bob McNew defendants acquire no engineering license. Art Duffy is a supervisor with PE engineering license and not qualified by law to run or be a part of the employees’ Union. He is in violation of the bylaws and ethics and the constitution and his existent in the Union is conflict of interest; it is like, employees complain about their supervisor to another supervisors!! Duffy insulted Plaintiff on official documents of the Union and sent it on the Internet on the computer system of Caltrans for willful defamation purpose and abuse to Plaintiff career and job among all supervisors and colleagues on 2003. He abused the e-mail system of the State, why he was not fired or penalized? These documents shall be submitted in the trial. Art Duffy is a President of the Board of Engineers recently and has authority and power to mangle with all exams and computer and record of every engineer as he wishes. The board and the Union have to be cleaned up because those are reflecting on the community and the economy that are destroyed and swindled. This is not a community any more; it has to be cleaned up.   

            171.     Cindi’s liability is inclusive with many accusations. The letter found on Dec. 2006 is a hidden defamation letter that is considered black list to Plaintiff for years without Plaintiff knowledge. This is a crime alone. She is not qualified for the position of executive officer since she abuses the ethics of the engineering and the humanity and career of honest woman engineer for her personal reason behind the scene, to harm Plaintiff career with discriminatory act, retaliation and conspiracy with the Union officers. 

Plaintiff did not intend to file lawsuit against the board, was not after collecting any money from the board. Plaintiff needed to run her career honestly and with service to the community; but the continuous abuse, bad faith of the Board, document discovered on Dec. 2006 to harm record and career of a woman engineer, and conspiracy with the Union, have called for it.

            172.     The demur papers claim on page 7 line 15 reports that “cc section 47(b)(2) provides that any publication made “in another official proceeding authorized by law is privileged”!!! This is crazy. They admitted the guilt. [this is a crime NOT privilege] Plaintiff requests compensation in this regard, and requests officially to take this concept off the law for protection of the public and the country from such individuals who sneak on us. This is discrimination hidden in the law and abuse to targeted employees or women engineers and retaliation or for money reason sharing with the union. HIPPA violation laws and rules should be applied on the engineering community as EIPPA violation. 

            173.     It is a crime and malpractice to initiate action with another agency by ambiguous way without notifying the party while the mail itself lacks the address of Plaintiff while the Board of Control questioned Cindi to locate that person to notify her but she elected to keep it that way by her will and own choice. Therefore, Plaintiff is requesting the most damage allowed by law against Cindi and against the Board of engineers, in an amount that will be proven at trial.

174.     When reading the minutes in regard of Board of engineers, plaintiff would like to express to Hon. Judge Helen that plaintiff was not aware of the hearing of October 25, 2007 otherwise she would have submitted information as she used to do with other hearings. Also On 10/1/07 minute, it is noted that 11/1/07 was a case management conference for complex case. But Plaintiff was not aware of this since she was in sick period.

            175.     After reading the minutes of August and September 2007, Plaintiff would like to thank Hon. Judge Helen for her consideration to all Plaintiff’s requests in the correspondences sent to the court in timely manner once Plaintiff became aware that a hearing is conducted even Plaintiff was in sick period. While Plaintiff was aware of any hearing during her absence, she communicated with the court in timely manner by sending servers during the hearing though Plaintiff was uncomfortable and felt disrespected as In Pro Per. When Plaintiff was not aware of other dates, she did not mean to ignore to contact the court. When Plaintiff gained her health reasonably, she immediately appeared and performed a lot of work and replied to all mails and attended all hearings after Nov 1, 2007. All minutes prior to Nov 1, 2007 includes dates that passed due while plaintiff was absence by the knowledge of the court and all parties. All future dates and hearings that related to absence period of Plaintiff are not liability of Plaintiff while in sick period. Plaintiff sent interrogatories Set One to Defendants who should reply by Jan 30, 2007 (Plaintiff considered extended time for courtesy reason of the holidays). Plaintiff replied to Defendants interrogatories on Feb. 2007 and continued and sent them after the sick period immediately. Also, the amended complaint has been into consideration but Plaintiff was responding to the issues of medical reports that are not the subject of the legal matter, in addition to being ONE person In Pro Per vs. 36 defendants in complex matter and incurred health problem due to work injury.

176.     While Plaintiff was not aware of the court action until reading the minutes in details recently in Dec 2007, Plaintiff would like to explain where the conflict came from: All dates and rulings and future hearings are related to the sick period during absence of Plaintiff. Reading the papers and minutes that include past due dates do not solve problems and Plaintiff is asking This Court to reconsider the situation and help in solving this problem. 

177.          Plaintiff appeared in the court before end of October 2007, though she was not recovered completely, and was not aware of any CMC meeting arranged by the court for Nov 1, 2007. Plaintiff assumed that Oct 29, Nov 1, 2007 would be a discussion with all parties of how to plan for the a CMC meeting in a month by Dec 1, 2007 for example and what requirements the judge would like to have it ready in the CMC? It was misunderstanding among all parties but Plaintiff should not be the victim and is expecting the justice from Hon Judge Helen. I am still sick and under treatment and my education is delayed, homework and research are late, and the final is by end of February 2008. Plaintiff has wasted too much time in just writing and rewriting in out of subject issues with no benefits and do not wish to waste $6000 of tuition as well. It is 4:00 a.m. now on Jan 16, 2008 as every day writing for this legal matter.

5.       STATE BAR

178.          Plaintiff replies to State Bar demur in regard to 12^th cause of action and 18^th cause of action. Plaintiff is disputing real life violation of governmental and judicial agencies and their immunity (immunity is misinterpreted and shall not be used to cover up on crime and discrimination against women and creating false precedents to harm future women). Therefore in this legal matter the ABSOLUTE IMMUNE from liability and other excuses such as government privilege are irrelevant and invalid. We need to deal with the real violation without hiding issues under any excuses. Plaintiff shall not use any codes or section # or precedents since they are old fashion and not updated and not credible. Please see the research provided in this regard “Points and authorities” P. 43 (7) as well as all the section in regard of suffering of the educated public from the legal system and attorneys malpractice and the organizations that are being organized years and decades after decades with no successful improvement or action from authorities. Did the State Bar read these issues in the NewSAC complaint? Why should the complaint be dismissed covering on the violation of the system? Plaintiff asks the community of attorneys and judges NOT to keep offense from Plaintiff honesty in addressing the issue of violation. The good individuals should help in improving things not fight Plaintiff and destroy her career and time and income. Plaintiff aims for improvement of the system NOT to fight the State Bar for no reason or for money reason. The compensation shall be paid for sure because it is not fair that I work for the benefit of the whole community for free while I have no income and I be objected for retaliation to assassinate me as well!! Is this the justice and immunity and public entity roles? Therefore, the California Code sec818.4 and 821.2 statements “A public entity/ public employee is not liable for an injury caused by the issuance, denial, suspension…..”   the statement itself is illegal, deceiving to the public, and violation to the civil right of taxpayers’ money, it is written for personal reason of groups or functions that posses a power and harass the public for no reason upon INK on PAPERS writing as such codes and call it “LAWS”. The Public entity and its employees are existed and living with taxpayers’ money and should offer the service not to hide and misuse the law and the immunity in illegal acts and bias and discrimination. The laws are incomplete and misapplied on the public by a way to create injustice that no one acted on it thru the decades. I have faced all these issues and brought it here for amendment to the corruption and to reach a fair solution for the benefit of the public and the Free Country and compensating me as well without escaping from the justice and call it IMMUNE from liability!!!! This old fashion thinking should be terminated. I am asking the State Bar 

179.          The State Bar wrote that Plaintiff failed to state facts, but missed to read about details of the three attorneys as defendants in this matter, and the illegal handling of Second appellate court, and fraud of Supreme court. Thus, Plaintiff will mention the big story in short in the following items.

180.          Mr. Knickerbocker, ex-attorney for Plaintiff. Was hired on about May 2004 for only purpose to file Two suspensions in the supreme court to protect Plaintiff job from the retaliation of getting the termination. This is per the contract and state personnel policy for state employees. I was accused by the state personnel board of not filing the suspension in timely manner before the termination, but Mr. Knickerbocker wrote a contract that attorneys usually draft, and charged Plaintiff $7000 and disappeared and never filed the two suspensions until this moment. He is allowed to do any work but what plaintiff asked for. He knows the laws and policy and willfully caused Plaintiff to get fired by Dec 2004. 

181.          Since Mr. Knickerbocker did not file the suspension in the superior court in timely manner, he was supposed to file for EEOC at the end of 2004 and update the first suspension with EEOC, he did nothing and ignored all his responsibility towards Plaintiff and willfully and knowingly caused loss of job of woman engineer. The purpose of attorneys of acting as such is to file lengthy lawsuit for few years and collect all salary and took it, or lose the matter for Plaintiff while attorneys makes profit behind the scene, THEN charge the client again to file for the appeal, then go back to the superior court, or the supreme court and take the route up again…. This is game and closed circle and nonsense and theft to the public and the economy for no service to the community. Our life is not for attorneys and the legal system to abuse and use women engineers for their gains while we lose our career and income that we deserve for our high career and education all our life. 

182.          Therefore, Plaintiff lost all her right for both suspensions. Now he has to pay for these rights. But mainly, Plaintiff blames the higher authority in allowing this corruption and theft in the country and it became a system. Therefore, State Bar and Supreme court are liable. Mr. Knickerbocker stopped at State Bar before the lawsuit started, but Mr. Chaitin were supported by the State Bar and referred me to the Supreme court that supported his corruption and illegality and lies on his client for malpractice. Do we call this Supreme Court??? The violation occurred from Mr. Chaitin as follows: he charged Plaintiff $5000 cash on about March 2004 to conduct the trial and deposition of 4 defendants for the filing against the Union officers (individuals of the Union in the caption and the Union itself). But unfortunately Mr. Chaitin violated all agreement and never replied to any pleadings of defendants at all. He wanted to settle the matter against best interest of his client one month before the trial; I disagreed and went to the trial when he wanted to withdraw because he does not know how to proceed. Plaintiff had no idea about the court before and what to do. The judge denied Chaitin withdrawal. So, During the trial Mr. Chaitin told Plaintiff: “If you lose, do not call me for appeal, or any such matter again. I am attorney for criminal matters only and know nothing about the labor matters”!!! I was shocked and felt betrayed. Is this the legal service and licensed attorneys that the State Bar licenses and the Supreme Court supports? They both denied my rights for my complaint and compensation and abused my career and loss of my money and injustice and encouraged the legal malpractice?? Now they have to pay me my losses and adjust the system for the rest of the community as well for justice reason. There is no immunity to be considered in here. Mr. Chaitin took side and made friendship with defendants Union attorneys, picked them up from the airport and sent them back and talked with them all the time ignoring Plaintiff sitting alone in the court alley. He insulted Plaintiff in front the Union attorneys in the court such as Mr. Gerald James and another attorney at that time. This is malpractice because I was the Union officer and State employee while the Union and its attorney should represent me but they never represent women engineers and we get no use of our paid union dues. Mr. Chaintin conducted deposition without Plaintiff knowledge and in her absence for his personal reason and making friends men together, conducted all confidential personnel at my work and worked against my best interest and helped to lose me my job for men to support each other… What was his benefit? What is the benefit of the Supreme Court and State Bar from hiding his violation when I filed to get my right last few years?? Many other issues as such. Is this the kind of attorneys that the State Bar guarantees and licenses them for the public to use?? Where are my right and my losses from both attorneys? 

183.          Mr. Chaitin with Judge Stoll and State Personnel Board and the Union conducted attacks on my life and personal information on State computer and harassed my life for years with others behind the scene, while Governor Schwarzenegger was kind enough to patience to support all my claims for years and had better and immediate result than court system and attorneys and state bar. Then we are asked to sue the attorney in the court to get the run around again and collect our money again and then we lose because of papers or dates or something has nothing to do with our right and the violation we report. This is terrible. That is the reason the economy is destroyed and educated people cannot so any service to the country, as I have been now for few years wasting my time and money. I have no idea what are we doing exactly for a year by now. The immunity in this matter does not have basis and no one shall be dismissed or escaped as Mr. Knickerbocker or judges and courts until they correct their mistakes and correct the system and pay back my losses as the $7000 and penalty, and $5000 and penalty for legal malpractice. The problem never ends by penalizing the violators; the victim has to be satisfied in order for the problem to end safely. 

184.          The role of the State Bar in here is the following: The State Bar office in San Francisco conducted an arbitration for Plaintiff started in 2005 after my termination from work, they are nice employees wanted the justice, but Mr. Knickerbocker kept escaping from the arbitration appointments for 2 years until this lawsuit, or the arbitrator abused his authority and supported the attorney against the client, I requested to change him. The State Bar had showed no authority or power to control the sneaky acts of the attorney. After arranging the hearing for three months ahead with the arbitrator upon Mr. Knickerbocker schedule by mid June of 2006, Mr. Knickerbocker cancelled in 24 hours again before the hearing… The State Bar had no power to keep the appointment and protect Plaintiff from this abuse for 2 years after causing the termination. I had to travel for my trip for my education abroad the next day for 1.5 month, which all parties know about it. Here is the surprise comes in the picture. The arbitration meeting was willfully arranged during Plaintiff absence abroad and the parties met without Plaintiff who called for the arbitration for more than 2 years !!! This is top illegal, insult, theft, and anti-constitution. While attorneys and the legal system keep talking about the laws and enforce it unfairly on the public, they are the one who violate the law in every step. Which laws or system or code # in the State Bar that allows this hassle to happen. I did not receive any mail of course or any information, but I heard that they ruled against my money somehow. I do not care about the Arbitrator decision any more, it is illegal and I have no time to call for the arbitrator, it is liability of the State Bar and the attorney in subject. Plaintiff wonders why Mr. Knickerbocker is excluded or dropped off from the list of defendants used in the service? All services of all defendants are illegal and invalid since they missed to serve Mr. Knickerbocker for a year while Plaintiff always serves him and put him on the list. Why they make decision by themselves disregarding the Plaintiff the main party of the matter. Plaintiff mentioned this issue many times in her writing and her serving but defendants still ignore and disrespect Plaintiff In Pro Per, the owner of the matter and the issues and the defendants list. No one can change this until every one be questioned without regard to immunity or excuses for justice reason.

185.          Though I cannot do investigation as if would be an attorney representing me, but I will rely on the justice of each party and This Court, without taking advantage of In Pro Per.

186.          Regarding the supreme court violation, it was a big shock. After preparing 14 copies at Kinkos that cost me $250 to make them look professional with special cover and special color, we submitted on the due date when we felt that something wrong is being falsified with the caption, we put a complaint for reply and consideration. The complaint was totally ignored and no reply until now. It is not forgivable or forgotten and I am questioning the Supreme court about our time and expenses to follow order under duress of what is called laws and rules and court order!!! Then next day we followed up and found the surprise: All 14 copies were set aside and some of them were opened and papers where I put my complaint and comments were taken out and replaced with papers printed from the supreme court computer to fill my booklets that are going to judges; another 14 copies were created with ugly look: stapled, taped, filled some papers that have nothing to do with my complaint, and ready to go to 14 judges. Are we stupid here? Where is my money? Why should we pay attorneys for this games and crimes and hassle behind the scene? Why should this hassle cost $300 or $400 per hour?   Do we call this immunity and Judicial agencies that we rely on for our justice? I lost trust totally and no one agency has any ruling on me or immunity until award me the justice and humiliation and mess and fear that I faced in every step. I face terrible life at this time too without income or legal advice while I have to keep with the hard work for this writings and my education that has been delayed and cost me losses of income as well. Why should we follow orders and rules and paper color and presentable presentation of our filings if this is the case behind the scene? This is terrible and insult to the public and abuse to our life and money and breaching to the constitution and the law by the supreme court.

187.          Regarding the appeal court: In the first filing on 1995 for sexual harassment and wrongful termination by Paula Durham, Judge Ross closed the matter immediately supporting Caltrans legal office for injustice. The Appeal court ruled that Plaintiff have right and that the court has to be reopened and I get my compensation. The matter reopened on 1997 and trial date set. The attorney was so honest, but judge Ross insulted the female attorney and put her down in the court. During this period I graduated from my master degree and was hired as civil service engineer in Caltrans back while the court is proceeding. So this Caltrans legal office and Judge Ross cooperated and closed my legal matter again in 1998, disobeying the order of the Second appellate court. I was in probation period and could not fight back, but I faced a very tough time, discrimination, retaliation by management and male engineers due to judge Ross gave impression that sexual harassment is ok. I incurred big legal fees amount on the credit cards with high interest rate during 7 years while paying monthly payment but it never ended. I had to file bankruptcy to put end to this mess. Judge Ross is responsible, NO Immunity would allow any judge to harass a woman engineer career and life; otherwise, the court system should be amended. My credit has been abused and I cannot get a loan, or some loans are offered for higher interest rate. I have had hard time for 5 years. Why should I live in this mess because judges’ immunity? This is a crime NOT immunity; this is destroying to women career and record in the Free Country, and establishing false precedents for future victims. The good attorneys and good judges should not get offended from my report of the truth. What is the benefit of the appeal court now? Where is the justice and my benefits and compensation? After complaining to the appeal court on 1999, decision made and Judge Ross was retired that year, but the justice has not been imposed or accomplished yet by ignoring compensating the victim. It is considered theft and has no statue of limitation or immunity. So there is a stop for the immunity and laws to control judges’ misconduct, see my research P.39. Why should the State Bar address the issue of immunity against my civil right? Though decision made for the violator, but problem never ends because compensation was not awarded in timely manner but further resulted in many harm to Plaintiff as Bankruptcy and unhealthy work environment.

6.                 DEFENDANT JERRY MONTOYA AND CALTRANS LEGAL DIVISION

Defendants Jerry Montoya and Caltrans Legal office are added as new defendants to this matter due to acts of legal malpractice, violation to Plaintiff’s civil right and medical protection acts, disrespecting and misusing their power as legal personnel against In Pro Per who is without legal advice, violating the law and the constitution just to win a legal matter though knowing it is injustice and illegal to cover up on violation of the employer and its employees who will continue abusing other women engineers in the future. This practice in the court and legal systems should stop. Plaintiff did not intend to sue this office, or to name Mr. Montoya as individual or for any effort to prevent him from representing his clients. Mr. Montoya can continue representing his client and his office without retaliation against Plaintiff. I am one of the employees of this employer that this office would have represented me too for justice instead representing these defendants who are abusing the work environment, the economy, and taxpayers’ money. Plaintiff believes Mr. Montoya is representing and signing all documents for the legal office within which all attorneys are accepting and agreeing on this legal malpractice and attacks to Plaintiff believing that In Pro Per is stupid, does not know her rights, and incompetent in the legal process and the law. Though the fact that Plaintiff In Pro Per is incompetent in the legal practice but courtesy should be taken into consideration as if In Pro Per would have been an attorney. This legal office had no human value to consider the health problem of Plaintiff begging all parties in the court to postpone the hearings for some time to treat/ save her leg from a disaster that has been persistent for years due to medical malpractice of the State Fund that will be sued soon. If Mr. Montoya or any attorney in this legal office would practice this permanent injury they would know how to use the law to get their right of medical treatment, expenses & compensation BUT now they caused harm to my health and are using their power to prevent my treatment or get rid of the employees. This shall not happen with me. If they try to kill me as it has been happening many times, all defendants shall be accused officially including courts and judges and union due to misusing the power. But now this office harasses me in the court process, and request hundred proofs of hospitalization to escape from dealing with the crime occurred by their clients the defendants, but rather this office commit HIPPA violation and deceived Plaintiff In Pro Per and the court with false papers under oath, while attorneys should defend the illegality for justice, but they don’t!!! That is dumb and illegal while Plaintiff suffered pain and was in bed. Your action was unfair and anti constitution and anti any religion. So why should Plaintiff consider the courtesy and let these attorneys harass my life and career just for them to show giants, to keep their job and income, and to cover up on their clients’ violation and harassment to a woman engineer? Now you know how is your job and challenge and income are important, so why you are taking my job and income from me and disturb my future and put me in debt for no violation or accusation on my part but I was trying to help in solving the corruption in the country?  

I believe I am one of the rare engineers who are honest to Caltrans, to the State, to engineering ethics, and to the society of the State Right of Way, to America, and to worldwide, and God knows that. I do not need human being witnesses with personal reason and benefits. 

Also, regarding the faxing, you have your own reason of heavy number of faxing in the office that does not cost you any from your own pocket or your own time or free overtime in the middle of the night or losing your education and income or expensive parking and gas or paying servers as the situation with Plaintiff In Pro Per, but Plaintiff is One Person vs. 37 defendants in a complex matter. So there is no due dates to be applied or restriction on such a complex matter, and Plaintiff has no income to send heavy expensive mails every time or to use paid server to serve in person, though those volunteering friends deserve to be paid for their time and out of pocket cash and my accumulated expenses of gratuity. The fact of costing me $250 ONLY for certified mails to properly serve the original summons and complaints early last year, then those defendants (35) and their attorneys committed crime of spying and willfully misused their authorities and immunity to cause hiding all 35 certified proof of service (not knowing that God has arranged to get me a copy for my proof in timely manner but the crime shall never die), and also they committed Federal crime on US mails (as the post office called it and reported it) breaking into the post office a couple of days or so before the hearing of March 2007 as you recall, AAALLLLL these willful crime and fear and debts are unforgivable and unforgotten. It has caused me a lot of writing and dispute and time and out of pocket cash. Who is the honest person now? PLAINTIFF or the 35 defendants? Why should you fight to dismiss them? I am the last person in the world that this nasty action be taken against me by the Union and employer but they chose the wrong women this time. Those defendants should not be dismissed as Judge Stoll dismissed them in 2004 and caused me to get terminated unfairly because of his personal benefit or prejudices against women, and then caused me to be under threat of assassination every day. It is terrible life that you cannot feel it unless you are in it. But people expect me to be cool and acting normal as others, though God gave me the strength and protected me until now!!! Why should you fight to dismiss your clients and other defendants before the trial and compensating the victim? Give me ONE reason!!! 

7.       JUDGES AND COURTS

SPB is a function that should be discontinued due to nonsense role, illegal, and retaliatory acts against many women in addition to Plaintiff. All three suspensions were set up by SPB and the Union officers as conspiracy with management supervisors who are running the Union and misusing union fees of employees especially Plaintiff with no representation but conspiracy and retaliation and bias against women. The last termination hearing was not completed but was abused by the ALJ Brown and ignored by Attorney Dryden who set the appointment then disappeared, Plaintiff has the right for reinstatement with condition to be set later.

Appeal court is in violation of the law partially since Appeal court ruled for Plaintiff favor to get compensated on the lawsuit filed on 1995 against Defendant Paula Durham but Judge Ross closed the matter twice due to his prejudice against both women Plaintiff and insulted her female attorney as well. Compensation should be awarded now for that period. 

In the second appeal of Union matter, Appeal court was notified by all corruption and crime and threat e-mail but still supported the corruption, while plaintiff was inside the court for the hearing set with her ex attorney Dryden, but judges ignored Plaintiff when asked to reply after the finding that her attorney cheated on her and never replied to false negative accusation by Union attorney. this is illegal act and humiliation to the public and covering up on the truth but they call it court system. I need my right for that hearing and the Union matter should be reversed and all fees shall be paid to Plaintiff. Judge Stoll is liable of all fees for the superior court, Appeal Court, Supreme Court legal fees and Plaintiff expenses. Shall be determined later.

Supreme Court has lost its credibility in the finding of willfully alter Plaintiff documents and never reply to Plaintiff concern submitted in the court treating In Pro Per as stupid. A woman engineer should be respected in the court of law. My degree and license is credible than California PE and equal to SE degree with my special experience that equal to SE while all PE engineers are not allowed to work or design or build hospitals or school, but Plaintiff build a 7-story hospital and a 4 story building inside the Mediterranean See and assigned to solve problem of others for 6 story university building for research while no one supervisor of Plaintiff or even the board of engineers officers have this unique engineering experience during their career while they have been harassing Plaintiff with nonsense attack and threat of life. Where is the freedom and right of women and equality and NO discrimination and all concepts of the American Constitution in the court?

REFORM THE COURT SYSTEM

            After all this frustration and illegality, Plaintiff is calling to reform the court system as requested from Governor Schwarzenegger and President Bush for the best interest of the public and the court and judges and all United States as a whole. But a special call to create a court for professional with special education to judges and attorneys. Educated people cannot tolerate this system, as I do.

PRAYER

            Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1.                  For economic damages for lost wages, medical expenses, benefits, commissions, bonuses and lost employment opportunities in an amount according to proof at the time of trial;

2.                  For general damages for emotional and physical distress, humiliation, mental anguish, and other relief in an amount according to proof at the time of trial;

3.                  For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof at the time of trial;

4.                  For interest on the sum of damages calculated from the date of wrongful conduct;

5.                  For costs of suit incurred herein; and,

6.                  For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Executed on February 11, 2008 in Rosemead, California.