You are on page 1of 6

Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk

Plaintiff & Appellant

In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (209) 247-1089
j jwl 980(

August 21, ,2016

Hon. Tani G. Cantil -Sakauye

Chief Justice of California
Chair of Judicial Council
Judicial Council of California
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA, 94 105-3688


Court of Appeal -Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al. Case
No. C079524; Superior Court Case No: No. 34-2013-34-00155479.
Court of Appeal Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board,
Case No.079254; Superior Court Case No: 34-2013-34- 00155479.
Complaint with the California State against attorney Douglas Stein
Case No. 15-0-10110

Dear Chief Justice and Chair of Judicial Council of California

lam a self-represented litigant in the above two cases pending in the Court of Appeal
Third Appellate District, Sacramento, and I am a complainer in the California State
Bar Case No. 15-0-10110 against my former attorney Douglas E. Stein.


In December, 1 was forced to take over the two above-captioned court cases due to
dismissal of my counsel Douglas Stein for his professional misconduct and his

California Chief Justice

collaboration with the opposite party's attorney to harm me and misappropriate the
$20,000 I gave him as a retainer.
I filed the complaint against Douglas Stein with the California State Bar in December
2014, and the State Bar assigned the Investigator Ms. Amanda Gormley.
On September 25, 201 5, Ms. Gormley informed me by e-mail that the case file would be
submitted to the California State Bar prosecutor by October 9, 2015 and that I would be
informed through a separate letter from her office about it.

Thereafter I never heard from Ms. Gormley about my case. Concentrating on my two
court cases and struggling to maintain them, I did not pay as much attention to the
complaint against Douglas Stein and I thought that everything was on the right track
with the State Bar and that the case was submitted to State bar prosecutors, as Ms.
Gormley informed me in September 25, 2015 by e-mail.

However, in January 2016 1 asked Ms. Gormley by e-mail and fax inquiry what the status
of my complaint is against Douglas Stein. I did not get a response. In May 2016, 1 sent
again an inquiry about the status of my complaint to Ms. Gormley. This time I received
an automatically generated e-mail that Ms. Gormeley was out of the office and I needed
to contact State Bar Investigation Supervisor Laura Sharek, which I did shortly after.
On May 25, 2016, the investigation supervisor Laura Sharek, in her response, provided
me with information that completely contradicted the September 25, 2015, information
that Ms. Gormley had given that the case was in process and being submitted to the State
Bar prosecutor by October 9, 2015.

I responded to Ms. Sharek's information by a letter dated June 7, 2016, and cc'ed in the
newly appointed State Bar Director Ms. Elizabeth Parker. Thereafter I never heard from
Ms. Laura Sharek. (Letter dated June 7, 2016 enclosed).

On July 11, 2016, 1 sent an inquiry letter to State Bar Director Ms. Elizabeth Parker and
thereafter I sent several follow up e-mails to Ms. Parker. I received no response about the
complaint status from Ms. Sharek or Ms. Parker. There was total silence (Letter to Ms.
Parker dated July 11, 2016 enclosed).

The complaint against Douglas Stein is almost two years old and California State Bar
Investigator Amanda Gormley, who had the complaint prepared for the State Bar
prosecutor, vanished without trace, and her fate is unknown, whether she was just

California Chief Justice 2

removed from the case or was fired from the job because part of investigation was
Douglas Stein's 20 years relation with Judge of Superior Court Hon. David Brown.

What I am asking Chief Justice in this matter is an inquiry for intervention with the State
Bar and to make the State Bar issue a decision in the complaint regardless of whether it
would be favorable to me or not. I would like to finalize this complaint after almost two
years of Amanda Gormley stalling the finished investigation by the investigator. I
understand that the State Bar is the arm of the State of California Supreme Court and that
the Chief Justice has jurisdiction above California State Bar.

The $20,000 I paid to attorney Douglas Stein to represent me, which he grossly
misappropriated, is a lot of money for a 65-year-old four-year-unemployed worker in
poor health after open heart surgery and who uses nine different medicines to survive
without any possibility of obtaining new employment. I would appreciate if the State of
California Chief Justice redirected my inquiry to the proper authorities and would cause
the resolution of my complaint with the California State Bar of California against
Douglas E. Stein which is unresolved for reasons unknown to me.



COURT CASE NO: NO. 34-2013-34-00155479.

I took over these two cases in December 2014 as a self-represented litigant after I
dismissed my above-mentioned attorney who, in collaboration with the Regents of the
University of California and judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court Hon. David
Brown, attempted to destroy me in the court in December 2014.

Consequently, in both cases I was served in March and April 2015 unfavorable decisions
from the Sacramento County Superior Court judges Hon. David Brown in Case No. 34-
2013-34-00155479 (anti-SLAPP motion CCP 425.16) and Hon Shellayanne Chang Case
No. 34-2013-80001699 (Writ of Mandamus).

California Chief Justice


On May 7, 2015, and July 11,2015,1 filed Notices of Appeal in both cases in The Court
of Appeal Third Appellate District due to both the superior court judges' decision, which
was made up out of the blue without any justification in law and with ignorance of
presented evidence and facts.

On May 28, 2015, and July 9,2015,1 filed the Appellant's Mediation Statements. Both
Mediation Statements were denied by Acting Presiding Justice Honorable Kathleen Butz.
I became very concerned as to why both the cases were not selected for mediation,
especially Case No. C079524 Waszczuk v. Regents et al. (anti-SLAPP motion). I spent a
lot of time writing the 69-page mediation statement.
In preparation for the mediation statement and my opposition to the Regents Motion for
Cost and Fees in June 2016,1 discovered why I had been subjected to psychological
terror and abuse by the university's ruthless administration for almost six years. I finally
found out that the real reason behind the termination of my employment on December 7,
2012 with unsuccessful attempt to assassinate me or end my employment at the UC Davis
Medical Center Trauma Nursing Unit # 11 on May 31, 2012. Bribed with a $35,000
wage increase, the crooked UC Davis cop Lt. James Barbour was assigned this task.

I was led to discovery of 2012 fate by Superior Judge Hon. Shelleyanne Chang's
statement in her March 2015 decision in the writ of mandate cases, which was about her
previous employment before she was appointed to the bench by recalled Governor Grey
Davis. The other factor that led to my discovery was UC Davis Associate Vice
Chancellor Shelton Duruisseau's August 6, 2012 interview with the African-American
Magazine Sub Cultural Hub about UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
facility, which was solely constructed and built at the cost of $65,000,000 in public funds
in 1998 by UC Regents and UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef to sell power
illegally for cash, which meant committing enormous multimillion dollar tax fraud.

The disclosure of the Regents' and Vanderhaven's Al-Capone mafia-type activities in my

opposition to the Regents' motion for cost and fees filed in court on July 15, 2015
triggered coordinated action between the courts personnel and the Regents' attorneys
from the Porter Scott law firm to delay and derail my appeals.

On September 25, 2015, the Regents' attorney filed a frivolous motion for Automatic
Stay to delay the appeal against my proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC), which I
never filed in the court in No. 342013-34-00155479. Hon. David Brown granted the
motion to the Regents. This delayed the appeal for at least three months due to record
augmentation on appeal.

California Chief Justice 4


Few days ago, on August 18 and 19, 2016 , I submitted two motions to the Court of
Appeal, the Third Appellate District, in response to the Regents' attorney David Burkett
and the court clerks' action to attempt to delay and derail my appeals. Both motions are
self-explanatory and show clearly and undoubtedly the Sacramento Courts clerks' corrupt
intent to harm me and devastate my life, which was already devastated by the University
of California's rotten and corrupt administration and corrupt court personnel.
At this point, I am concerned about my paper Appellant Reply Brief in case No.
C079524. It was rejected on July 15, 2016, by a clerk as a clear attempt to prevent it from
being delivered to the Court of Appeal Justices for decision on the appeal.

The clerk Anita Kenner and her superior rejected the paper copy of my Appellant Reply
Brief (ARB) in Case No, C079524 (anti -SLAPP motion), extended the time to July 22,
2016, and told me to file the ARB electronically by TrueFiling, bookmarked and
I am not familiar with bookmarking and hyperlinking and on 18, 2016, 1 sent the ARB
paper copies of the brief with an attached motion to accept the ARB paper copies.

I am not sure what the clerk's intention is with the ARB by rejecting paper brief and
demanding electronic filing. I suspect that, due to any minor mistakes or lack of proper
bookmarks, the ARB will be defaulted and not filed at all and it will be open door for
Regents to defeat me. . My ARB is more important than my Appellant Opening Brief.

The other possibility is that, even if I file the brief electronically, the clerk could easily
alter the brief by Acrobat DC Pro before submitting it to the Justices.
Where millions of dollars in illegal cash are involved, including tax fraud connected to
the former California government officials, I would not exclude the possibilities of them
harming me.
If court clerks handled the court record on appeal in a capital punishment case in the
same way that they handled the record on appeal in my two cases, somebody could die or
spend the rest of his life in prison.
As I pointed in my August 19, 2016, motion to deny extension to file Respondent Brief to
the Regents' attorney in case No. C079254, I am very concerned about one clerk from the
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. Her name is Kathrin Wojnarowski, and this
Court clerk vanished from view in the same way as the California State Bar Investigator
Amanda Gormley, who handled my case in State Bar against my dismissed attorney
Douglas Stein
The Court clerk Ms. Kathrin Wojnaraowski was handling my cases for a short time and
she then disappeared in May 2016 and I began dealing with a newly assigned clerk Ms.
Anita Kenner. Then began a completely different game, which involved deception and an
attempt to maliciously deceive me and derail my appeals. Wojnarowski is a Polish name
like mine, and it looks as if Ms. Wojnarowski was viewed as a threat and was removed

California Chief Justice 5

and disappeared from view without trace. I asked about her twice but did not receive an
My last concern is that, most likely, I am not the only victim of corruption among court
personnel taking into consideration that UC Davis Medical Center has hundreds of
malpractice court cases in the Sacramento County Superior Court. If Plaintiffs in these
cases have to deal with the Sacramento County Superior Court personnel as I was dealing
with it, many people may have been victimized with expectation that justice would be
served and was not because almighty University of California corruption spider web in
State of California.

In conclusion of this letter, I am asking respectfully the State of California Chief to

intervene with the California State Bar Director and CEO Ms. Elizabeth Parker to resolve
my complaint against attorney Douglas Stein one way another.

Furthermore, I am asking respectfully for intervention with the Court of Appeal, Third
Appellate District, Honorable Presiding Justice Vance Raye to make sure that my briefs,
especially my Appellant's reply Brief in case No. C079524, will not be blocked or their
filing delayed by corrupted clerks who are apparently using the Presiding Justice's stamp
with his signatu e on.


slaw Waszczuk

Enclosed. Copy of motion to deny extension of time dated August 19, 2016 and
Copy of motion to accept paper Appellant Reply Brief rejected on
August 15, 2016 by court clerk Anita Kenner.

California Chief Justice 6