MedWhat’s CEO Arturo Devesa responds to Interrogatories in Stanford-MedWhat lawsuit Discovery phase and in turn Devesa as an individual is sanctioned by Judge Ethan Schulman $11,000 ordering Devesa to answer to all questions without objections, pay Stanford University $11,000, even though Devesa responded to 90% of questions and explained 10% of questions sent by Stanford University to him were not relevant to him as individual. Non-profit Stanford University’s Debra Zumwalt and Robert Wallace, in turn, are compelled by MedWhat and Devesa to respond to their Interrogatories containing information about Stanford-StartX Fund LLC operations. Zumwalt, Stanford and Wallace don’t answer a single question and object to entire Discovery. Judge Ethan Schulman appointed Pro Temp assistant Judge Scott Borrowman rules Stanford, Zumwalt, and Wallace don’t have to answer to a single question of Interrogatories as part of Discovery. Instead court sanctions Devesa $12,000 for attempting to compel Stanford, Zumwalt, Wallace to answer to Interrogatories and allows Stanford, Zumwalt, Wallace to object to all Interrogatories and not answer a single question while being awarded thousands of dollars.
If the previous statement seems like it doesn’t make sense, double standard, unjust, or straight out of an article from satirical newspaper The Onion, this is in fact what happened in the Superior Court of California of San Francisco County Court between MedWhat’s CEO Arturo Devesa and Debra Zumwalt and Robert Wallace from Stanford University on August 9th, 2019 in a court of “law”.
In a previous ruling on the same case, a Stanford University Law School Judge Richard Ulmer, working alongside with Judge Ethan Schulman, ruled against Devesa and removed Tax Fraud and Money Laundering counts in an amended cross-complaint against Stanford University, Robert Wallace and Debra Zumwalt. When Devesa protested and asked for Appeal, Court didn’t allow Devesa to Appeal.
In an incomprehensible ruling by Judges, Devesa has filed documents stating corruption and Ethics violations by Judge Ethan Schulman, double standards, violations of court procedure, procedural manipulation and protection of IRS tax-exempt non-profit Stanford University, Mr. Wallace and Ms Zumwalt to not provide documents and information as part of Discovery.
According to documents, Stanford University has stonewalled, withhold documents, and generally obfuscated and delayed discovery because it is more beneficial for them not to comply with discovery than to produce documents that would reveal damaging evidence of Tax Fraud, Securities Fraud and Money Laundering. According to Devesa, Stanford University’s lawyers made in his opposition to Motion to Compel false and frivolous pleadings to mislead Judge, attempting, by other tactics of delay, oppression, harassment, and massive expense to reduce the respondent to exhausted compliance.
In another previous ruling, Judge Ethan Schulman appointed a Temporary Judge to provide him with recommendations on a Motion to Compel against Devesa and MedWhat. The temporary Judge, Jeff Wohl, turned out to be a full-time lawyer at private equity firm Paul Hastings, a law firm with numerous business relationships with Stanford University and in Stanford-StartX Fund LLC’s venture capital and artificial intelligence space. When Devesa asked Judge Ethan Schulman to recuse Judge Wohl, Schulman refused.
The Tax Fraud and Money Laundering counts against Stanford University’s Robert Wallace and Debra Zumwalt are based on evidence that the venture capital fund Stanford-StartX Fund LLC. never wired any money to Devesa’s MedWhat as a member of startup accelerator StartX. Instead, Stanford University wired money to MedWhat as part of investments of separate entity Stanford-StartX Fund LLC. from Stanford University’s own tax-exempt bank accounts. This was while Stanford-StartX Fund LLC according to Devesa gave detailed instructions to MedWhat, and all 250 companies at StartX startup accelerator, to never use Stanford University’s name or logo as investor, and only use the Fund’s official name. According to court documents, Devesa believes this critical piece of evidence and wrongdoing by Cross-Defendants was thrown out by Stanford University Law School alum Judge Richard Ulmer to hide securities fraud committed by Stanford University’s endowment Robert Wallace and Stanford University’s General Counsel Debra Zumwalt. Zumwalt appears in Incorporation documents for the Stanford-StartX Fund LLC. as the officer and person of service for the for-profit fund. Devesa claims this is IRS and SEC violations. Stanford-StartX Fund LLC official manager was Suzanne Fletcher, a person which Stanford University’s lawyers in a bizarre admittance went on record Fletcher had no authority to run the fund, instead the fund being ran by Stanford University employees Susan Weinstein, Stanford Universit’s VP of Business Affairs, and Sabrina Liang, Head of School Funds, under the direction of endowment CEO Robert Wallace and Stanford’s General Counsel lawyer Debra Zumwalt.
Devesa states in lawsuit the structure of his investor Stanford-StartX Fund LLC was illegal and a violation of IRS and SEC laws and Devesa and his company suffered as a result damages from conflicts of interest, securities fraud, illegal competition, misrepresentation of his investor’s real identity, operations, and structure. According to court documents, Stanford-StartX Fund LLC is also an investor in MedWhat’s direct competition Sensely.
Stanford-StartX Fund LLC shutting down upon the filing of the lawsuit and Suzanne Fletcher let go.
Arturo Devesa has filed complaints with regulatory bodies alleging corruption by Judge Ethan Schulman, Judge Richard Ulmer, and their assistant temporary judges in the San Francisco County Court.
This is not the first time San Francisco Superior Court Judges are in the hot seat for ethics violations. According to ABC local news, on March of 2018, an ethics violation complaint was filed against San Francisco Superior Court Presiding Judge Teri Jackson and Assistant Presiding Judge Garret Wong.
Winnie Porter walked into the offices of the watchdog Commission on Judicial Performance and filed the complaint. It alleged that Presiding Judge Teri Jackson and Assistant Presiding Judge Garrett Wong of the San Francisco Superior Court violated the State ethics code by using Court letterhead to endorse four incumbent judges in the 2018 judge elections.
Although they didn’t endorse the judges outright, they write “we stand firmly behind” the incumbents.
The state’s Government Code states judges and other public officials cannot “use public resources for a campaign activity.”
According to court records, Judge Ethan Schulman is currently an unelected Judge in San Francisco. As an unopposed incumbent, he was automatically re-elected without appearing on the ballot. He was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown on December 5, 2013 to replace retired judge Ellen Chaitin. His term expires in January of 2021. Incumbent Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. ran unopposed in the election for Seat 15 of the San Francisco County Superior Court. If an incumbent judge is running unopposed in an election, his or her name does not appear on the ballot. The judge is automatically re-elected following the general election.
sftc.org Case Number: CGC18565596