CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Overview.

This document consists of three sections, namely: 1) Summary, which outlines the basis of the criminal complaint in general terms, and provides an overview of the key facts that comprise a violation of the statutes listed therein; 2) Descriptive narrative, which explains the nature of the crimes complained of in requisite detail, and supports the claims made therein by making reference to the relevant exhibits attached hereto; and, 3) Exhibits, which describes the relevance of each exhibit to the claims made herein this criminal complaint, and points to the specific parts of the exhibits that correspond to the claims made therein. Summary. This is a criminal complaint brought by James Alan Bush (hereinafter "complainant"), a pretrial detainee being held by the Santa Clara County Department of Correction, against MaryAnn Barry (hereinafter "BARRY"), Associate Director, Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital Systems, for perjury, in violation of Penal Code 118a, which, in relevant part, states: Any person who, in any affidavit taken before any person authorized to administer oaths declaresthat he will testifybefore any competent tribunalin any case then pendingto any particular fact, and in such affidavit willfully and contrary to such oaths states as true any material matter which he knows to be false, is guilty of perjury. In any prosecution under this section, subsequent testimony of such in any action involving the matters in such affidavit contained, which is contrary to any of the matters in such affidavit contained, shall be prima facie evidence that the matters in such affidavit were false. Complainant alleges that BARRY, in a sworn declaration administered under oath by Neysa Fligor (hereinafter "FLIGOR"),

Deputy Counsel, Santa Clara County Counsel, who is duly authorized to administer such oaths, declared that she would testify before the Superior Court of California in a case in which the complainant petitioner the court for redress for the refusal by the Santa Clara County Department of Correction to provide the same specialized treatment and care for his life-threatening illness, i.e., HIV/AIDS, that is otherwise afforded to all similarly situated inmates, that the complainant had received such treatment, in spite of her knowledge to the contrary, committing perjury thereby, and thus causing the petitioner to be wrongfully denied. In subsequent testimony in a related civil matter brought in the United States District Court, BARRY stated in her answer to interrogatories propounded upon her by the complainant that he did not receive any specialized treatment and care for HIV/AIDS as described in her sworn declaration, constituting prima facie evidence that proves the contradictory statement made therein was false. This is also a criminal complaint brought against FLIGOR for subornation of perjury, in violation of Penal Code 127, which, in relevant part, states that: Every person who willfully procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury. Complainant alleges that, as the legal representative of the Santa Clara County Department of Correction, FLIGOR procured BARRY to make the aforedescribed false statement in her sworn declaration in order to cause the dismissal of the petition, and that this was a willful act on the part of FLIGOR, in that the complainant's medical records were readily available to both FLIGOR and BARRY, allowing them to easily ascertain whether the complainant had received the specialized treatment and care that was the subject of the petition, and also in that FLIGOR knew that the only viable defense to the allegation made in the petition would be that the complainant had received such care.

Descriptive narrative. On August 1st, 2010, the complainant filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Superior Court of California under case number EE605073, which alleged that: 1) a contractor for the Santa Clara County Department of Correction, namely, Dr. Dean Winslow, M.D., P.A.C.E. Clinic, who, as the sole provider of specialized treatment and care of HIV/AIDS for HIV-positive inmates, refused to provide such treatment and care to the complainant subsequent to March 8th, 2010, in retaliation for the complainant having filed a lawsuit against him; and, 2) Dr. Winslow refused to direct that alternative specialized care be provided to the complainant in his stead. The petition sought an order from the aforementioned court, directing that the Santa Clara County Department of Correction provide to the complainant the same specialized treatment and care for HIV/AIDS that is otherwise afforded to all HIV-positive inmates, which is necessary and essential for those suffering from this life-threatening condition. [See Exhibit 1.] On October 7th, 2010, the court, upon conducting a review of the petition to evaluate its merit, and having found that the petition stated a prima facie case for relief, ordered the Santa Clara County Department of Correction, by and through its counsel of record, the Santa Clara County Counsel, to file a response to the petition. [See Exhibit 2.] On October 22nd, 2010, FLIGOR filed a response to the petition on behalf of the Santa Clara County Department of Correction, containing a sworn declaration by BARRY, in which BARRY declared, under penalty of perjury, that, prior to the August 1st, 2010, filing of the petition, and subsequent to the March 8th, 2010, termination of the doctor-patient relationship by Dr. Winslow, the complainant received specialized treatment and care for HIV/AIDS on March 17th, 2010, and July 30th, 2010, even though the medical records she would had to have consulted in order to make this determination do not support her statement, a fact she later attested to in a separate legal proceeding;

moreover, in an attempt to obfuscate the issue presented in the petition, specifically, that no specialized treatment and care for HIV/AIDS was provided to the complainant, Dr. Winslow, upon being served a copy of the aforementioned petition, ordered the complainant to be seen by another physician specializing in the treatment and care of HIV/AIDS on August 19th, 2010, which FLIGOR and BARRY erroneously cited as proof that the allegation made by the complainant was baseless, even though the physician referral was made 18 days after the petition was filed. [See Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4.] On November 9th, 2010, in spite of assertions made by the complainant to the contrary, Judge Gilbert T. Brown denied the petition based on the false statements made in the sworn declaration by BARRY. [See Exhibit 5.] On April 29th, 2011, in her answer to interrogatories propounded upon BARRY by the complainant in a related civil suit, which raises the same issues as presented therein the petition, BARRY, by and through her counsel of record, FLIGOR, admits that the complainant was not seen by any physician on March 17th, 2010, and that on July 30th, 2010, the complainant was treated, rather, by a regular jail physician, who does not specialize in the treatment and care of HIV/AIDS, and who treated the complainant for an issue not even related to HIV/AIDS; and, although a moot point within the context of this criminal complaint, the answer to the interrogatories by BARRY, when combined with the medical records of the complainant (not attached), further evidence prevarication on the part of BARRY and FLIGOR, in that the aforedescribed answer to interrogatories and medical records show that not all of the orders and recommendations made by the other physician-specialist were implemented at the jail, effectively rendering the provided treatment and care incomplete and noncomprehensive. [See Exhibit 6.] To-date, as a result of the wrongfully denied petition, the complainant is still not receiving any specialized treatment and care for HIV/AIDS, such as regularly scheduled visits to the P.A.C.E. Clinic, for example, as was ordered by the physician-

specialist, but was not carried out at the jail. Consequently, the complainant is seeking civil remedy in the United States District Court under docket number 09-cv-01022 (PR) RS; however, FLIGOR continues to make, and to procure others to make, false statements in her filings in an attempt to obtain another dismissal, all to the ongoing detriment to the health of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant is hereby requesting that a report be made by a qualified law enforcement officer and then be filed with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and that such report be submitted in a timely manner to the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney. Exhibits. In support of his criminal complaint, the complainant attaches the following exhibits: 1) Exhibit 1: In the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the complainant alleges that, subsequent to the March 8th, 2010, termination of the doctor-patient relationship by Dr. Winslow, and, by inference, until the August 1st, 2010, filing of the petition, specialized treatment and care for HIV/AIDS was unlawfully denied him. 2) Exhibit 2: Having determined that the complainant stated a prima facie case for relief in the petition, the Superior Court of California ordered the Santa Clara County Department of Correction to file a response by and through their counsel of record, the Santa Clara County Counsel. 3) Exhibit 3: On page 3, lines 6 through 8, of the Informal Response to H abeas Corpus of County of Santa Clara, FLIGOR claims that the complainant "received medical care for his subject condition," i.e., HIV/AIDS, "at least three times since the alleged incident," specifically, the aforementioned termination of the doctor-patient relationship by Dr. Winslow, "including treatment on March 17th, 2010, a week after the alleged incident." 4) Exhibit 4: Likewise, on page 1, line 28, of her sworn declaration, which was attached to the Informal Response

(above), BARRY states that the complainant "received treatment for the medical condition he describes in his claims onMarch 17, 2010, July 30, 3010," and "August 19, 2010." 5) Exhibit 5: Instead of ordering an evidentiary hearing in order to receive the conflict between the statements made by the complainant and by FLIGOR and BARRY, in which medical records could be presented to definitively settle the dispute, Judge Gilbert T. Brown denied the petition based on the false statement made by FLIGOR and BARRY. 6) Exhibit 6: In a related civil proceeding, which was held subsequent to the wrongful denial of the petition, BARRY, in her Response to Interrogatory No. 6, on page 14, states that she has "not seen any records of a physician examination of [the complainant] on 3/17/10," and that the complainant was not examined by a P.A.C.E. Clinic physician, i.e., a physician specializing in the treatment and care of HIV/AIDS, on July 30th, 2010, as she implied in her sworn declaration, rather, she stated that the complainant was treated by a regular jail physician, who does not provide such specialized treatment. Also, in her Response to Interrogatory No. 5, also on page 14, she states that the complainant did not receive any further specialized treatment after August 19th, 2010, even though such treatment was ordered by a physicianspecialist. Dated: May 9th, 2011

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 5

EXHIBIT 6