You are on page 1of 242

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

2216 Katzakian Way


Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.663-2977
Fax: 209.370.8281
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com

Appellant, In Pro Per

IN THE COURT FOR APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

Jaroslaw Waszczuk Court of Appeal No. C079254


Plaintiff and Appellant
Sacramento County Superior Court
v. No. 34-2013- 34-2013-80001699
California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board Notice of Appeal Filed on May 7, 2015

Defendant and Respondent Appeal to the Honorable Judge Shelleyanne


Chang’s Order Denying Petitioner the Petition for
The Regents of the University of Writ of Mandamus
California
APPELLANT’s REQUEST THAT THE
Real Party of Interest and Respondent COURT PLACE THE CASE ON THE
COURT CALENDAR AND SCHDEULE
THE ORAL ARGUMENT AS SOON
POSSIBLE

TO THE PRESIDING JUSTICE FOR DIVISION OF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT


OF APPEAL:
1
I. THE REQUEST

I, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, Plaintiff and Appellant (hereafter Waszczuk),


requests that the Court place the Case No. C079254, Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) on the Court’s calendar and
schedule the oral argument AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
The Waszczuk v. CUIAB appeal has been pending in 3DCA since May 7, 2015.
On March 12, 2015, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Honorable Shelleyanne
W. L. Chang denied the Waszczuk Writ of Mandamus filed December 2, 2013, against
CUIAB and Real Party In Interest (RPii), the Regents of the University of California
(Regents)
The Waszczuk appeal against CUIAB was pending since May 2015 simultaneously
with the appeal in Case No. C079524, Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California et, al., which was filed one month later on June 11, 2015. The appeal in Case
No. C079524 was from the Sacramento County Superior Court judgment dated April 17,
2015, in the Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
425.16filed by the Regents of the University of California on December 1, 2014.
Case No. C079524 was finalized in January 10, 2018 after 3DCA denied on
November 9, 2017 the Petition for Rehearing. Waszczuk ‘s petitioned the 3DCA’s
decision in Case No. C079524 to the Supreme Court. The Petition for Review was filed
on November 20, 2017, and was docked as Waszczuk v. Regents of the University et al.,
Case No. S245508. Waszczuk’s Petition for Review was denied on January 10, 2018, and
was followed by the Remittitur, which was issued on January 16, 2018.
On March 9 and 19, 2018, by correspondence with the court, Waszczuk asked
3DCA Clerk Anita Kenner to provide him with information about status of the pending

2
second Waszczuk’s appeal , Case No. C079524 appeal Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board case status Bo, (EXHIBIT #1).
On March 20, 2018, almost three years after the Notice of Appeal was originally
filed, Ms. Kenner responded to the inquiry:
• I cannot tell you when a decision will be made in case number C079254. This
case is with the court and has not yet been scheduled for oral argument. I will
inform the court that you inquired as to the status of the case. (EXHIBIT #2)

Thereafter, Waszczuk never heard a word from the court about his writ of mandate
appeal.
The writ of mandate appeal should have been concluded long before the 3DCA
issued its October 10, 2017, Unpublished Opinion in the anti-SLAPP motion. Said
opinion shamelessly praised Douglas Stein as transparent and diligent; however, at the
time, the State Bar of California was prosecuting Stein for gross misconduct. This
prosecution was affirmed by the Supreme Court on March 1, 2018, in Supreme Court
Case No. S245982, Re: Stein on Discipline.
On June 7, 2018, the trial court denied Waszczuk’s continuance of the court
hearing to August 23, 2018, or until the 3DCA finally resolved the writ of mandate
appeal in this case (EXHIBIT #3).
On July 16, 2018, Waszczuk sent correspondence to the Sacramento County
Superior Court Clerk, Department 53, Hon. David Brown. Waszczuk submitted the
Plaintiff’s Disapproval of Defendants’ Proposed Order and Judgment, which should have
been submitted by Defendants’ counsel David Burkett on June 26, 2018 (EXHIBIT #4).
Defendant’s counsel was mandated to do so by California Court Rule 3.21312 (b).
On July 16, 2018, Waszczuk submitted his 94-page Plaintiff’s Disproval of the
Defendants’ Proposed Order and Judgment. On July 19, 2018, the court denied
Waszczuk’s Motion for Reconsideration, which Waszczuk filed on June 18, 2018; the
court did not permit oral argument (EXHIBIT #5).
3
Plaintiff’s Disapproval of the Defendants’ Proposed Order addressed in detail the
terror that Waszczuk experienced and witnessed between 2011 and 2012 in his place of
employment, the UC Davis Medical Center. The order described various incidents that
victimized both Waszczuk and his coworkers. Additionally, in December 2012,
Waszczuk’s psychologist, Dr. Franklin Bernhoft, and Bernhoft’s family from Lodi
became the target of coordinated attacks lead by UC Office of the President Senior Vice
President Dan Dooley, the husband of California Governor Jerry Brown’s chief legal
secretary or chief of staff. Diana Dooley was appointed in May 2018, and she is behind
the attacks on Dr. Bernhoft’s wife. Such attacks were unsuccessful attempts to provoke
and harm Dr. Bernhoft.
Plaintiff’s Disapproval of the Defendants’ Proposed Order also addressed the
suicide of UC Davis Medical Center employee Todd Georlich. Sadly, Georlich
committed suicide in December 2010, and the incident triggered massive witch hunts
against Waszczuk, his coworkers, and anyone who was associated with Waszczuk
including Waszczuk’s physician and psychologist. These witch hunts resulted in
Waszczuk’s termination of employment in December 2012. Waszczuk’s subsequent
losses in income, benefits, and property have exceeded $1,000,000.
Waszczuk is quite certain and sure that Judge Chang and her friend Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) Marilyn Tays who denied Waszczuk’s unemployment benefits have great
knowledge regarding the subject. On February 13, 2013, ALJ Tays presided over Waszczuk’s
CUIAB hearing. When Waszczuk with witnesses arrived in the CUIAB office, we watched ALJ
Tays pace nervously in the hearing room; she was visible through big glass windows that
separated the waiting room from the hearing room. Once the hearing began, she did her best to
silence my witness Kenny Diede when he attempted to cite Georlich’s suicide as an example of
hostility within the UCDMC. ALJ Tays flipped on Kenny Diede and shouted, “All right, I guess
he is not here.” Thus, ended Waszczuk’s witness’s testimony about hostility within the
UCDMC. Additionally, ALJ Tays prevented another witness, William Buckans, from testifying

4
at all; Buckans worked in the plant with Georlich from April 2007 until Georlich’s death in
December 2010. ALJ Tays was so belligerent and hostile toward witnesses that Waszczuk
struggled to argue against her. Wasszczuk’s witnesses reported feeling very uncomfortable in
Tays’s presence and with her bizarre, disrespectful, completely unwarranted behavior. For a long
time, we could not figure out what prompted her to act in such an aggressive and unprofessional
manner.
All facts are pointing to the direction of two CUIAB board members Michael Allen ,especially
Roy Ashburn who knows details about Georlich’s life and his suicide. Both members were
assigned to review the appeal that Waszczuk filed against ALJ Tays’s decision, which she
handed down the day after the hearing on February 13, 2013.
After serving in the Assembly, Allen was appointed to the CUIAB by Assembly Speaker John
Perez in January 2013. It happened one month before Waszczuk hearing with ALJ Tays in
CUIAB office in Stockton. Three years earlier on March 3, 2010, Ashburn, who denied
Waszczuk 's unemployment benefits, was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving; at the time of
the infraction, he was operating a vehicle owned by the State of California. The senator was
pulled over
in Sacramento by the California Highway Patrol shortly before 2:00 a.m. Sources claim that he
was leaving a gay nightclub, Faces, in the Lavender Hill neighborhood and that he was
accompanied by an unidentified male passenger. Ashburn was driving a state-owned Chevy
Tahoe. Ashburn’s blood alcohol content was measured at 0.14%. The arrest “launched
nationwide speculation that the veteran lawmaker is gay and therefore a hypocrite for voting
against gay-rights bills.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Ashburn

This occurred a few months before Georlich’s suicide. Hopefully, the FBI will reveal the
identity of the male passenger in Ashburn’s state-owned Chevy and find out whether it was
UCDMC 27 MMW cogeneration operator Todd Goerlich who hang himself few month later. .
Most likely the UC Davis Chief of Police Joseph A. Farrow knows all details about Senator
Ashburn arrest and who was the passenger in Ashburn’s state -owned Chevy.

5
Joseph A. Farrow served as the commissioner of the California Highway Patrol from 2008
under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and current Gov. Jerry Brown
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/joseph-farrow-takes-post-uc-davis-police-chief/
Mr. Farrow was hired by UC President Janet Napolitano in 2017 and he succeeds Matt
Carmichael, who served as police chief for four years and was disposed by Napolitano in
September 2016. Lt. Jennifer Garcia served as interim chief of police since following
Carmichael's moving to University of Oregon.
Chief Carmichael and Lt. Jennifer Garcia actively participated in despicable witch hunt against
Waszczuk in 2011-2012 .
On July 10, 2013, I submitted a copy of the complaints against Tays, Allen, and Ashburn to State
of California Assembly Speaker Perez with a short cover letter.
Waszczuk has no any doubt that Perez, who became a member of the UC Board of Regents in
November 2014, knows details about Georlich’s suicide as well. It is a great possibility that
Perez was associated himself with Georlich. In 2013 Waszczuk sent an inquiry to Speaker Perez
about CUIAB board members Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn . Perez in his response redirected
Waszczuk for unknown reason to California Assemblyman Richard Pan (EXHIBIT # 6)
Recently, on June 26, 2018, Waszczuk sent the inquiry to California Senator Galgiani and her
asked to schedule an appointment with her. In 2016 Senator Galgiani supposed to help
Waszczuk find out what happened to Waszczuk's complaint with State Bar of California
against his dismissed attorney Douglas Stein . (ATTACHMENT # 7)

From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk


Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 2:27 PM
To: 'Erica.Myers@sen.ca.gov' <Erica.Myers@sen.ca.gov>
Cc: 'Senator Galgiani' <Senator.Galgiani@senate.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Thank You For Contacting Senator Galgiani
Dear Ms . Myers
Would you please schedule for me face to face an appointment with Senator
Galgiani. I need to talk to Senator Galgiani if possible . She knows the LGBT
environment and I need to talk to her.
I appreciate
6
Thank you
Jerry Waszczuk
209-663-2977
From: Senator Galgiani <Senator.Galgiani@senate.ca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:33 AM
To: Jaroslaw Waszczuk <JJW1980@LIVE.COM>
Subject: Thank You For Contacting Senator Galgiani
Thank you for your message.
I truly appreciate that you have taken time to communicate your concerns and
opinions regarding matters before the California State Legislature to me. As
your elected representative in the California State Senate, it is essential that I
know the views of my constituents. Due to the large volume of e-mails I
receive, I am unable to respond personally to each one. However, please be
assured that your concerns will be reviewed by my staff.
To schedule an appointment or invite me to attend an event, please email your
request to Erica.Myers@sen.ca.gov or by fax to 916-651-4905.
If you are seeking assistance resolving an issue with a state government
agency, please call my Stockton District Office at 209-948-7930 or Modesto
District Office 209-576-6273.

If you would like provide feedback on specific Legislation or issues click here
and fill out the form.
Again, thank you for your e-mail. It is an honor to represent you in the State
Senate.
Sincerely,
Cathleen Galgiani
Senator, 5th District

So far, no response from Senator Galgiani office about face to face appointment.
Senator Galgiani is one of eight openly gay legislators serving in the California legislature; she is
familiar with the LGBT community and Todd Georlich’s name .

7
Senator Galgiani served Congressman Garamendi during his tenure as California Insurance
Commissioner; Congressman Garamendi was a close friend of former UC Davis Chancellor
Vanderhoef, who was forced to resign from his position in 2009 because he and his best friend
UC Davis Symphony Orchestra Conductor Kern Holoman were most likely blackmailed by
Danny Gray. UC Davis employee Gray is gay. Allegedly, Holoman raped Gray when he was a
UC Davis student, and later he was sued by UC Davis gay employee Edith Cartwright in
Federal Court in the sexual harassment and wrongful termination lawsuit. .
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/ucd/uc-davis-administrator-levels-sexual-assault-
charges-against-emeritus-professor/
Furthermore, Congressman Garamendi is from Mokelumne Hills, California, which is also the
home of UCDMC plant manager Steve McGrath. After McGrath’s wife, an RN from Jackson
Hospital, committed suicide, McGrath brought Georlich in April 2007 to UCDMC 27 MW
cogeneration plant as a my replacement . This was shortly after I was subjected to a witch hunt
perpetrated by UCOP gangsters; on Chancellor Vanderhoef’s order and Waszczuk was abruptly
removed from the plant and reassigned to the UCDMC HVAC shop. Waszczuk didn’t work
there long before being attacked in a second witch hunt began April 2011 that was meant to
permanently erase him. In December 2010, the plant crew received a 14% pay raise to keep
quiet about Georlich’s suicide. McGrath most likely knows Porter Scott attorney David Burkett.
Both Burkett and McGrath are endurance bicyclist in Triple Crowns Bicycle Raids competition.
Burkett most likely participated together with Cori Dutra from California Social Services in
preparation to provoke and harm Lodi psychologists Dr. Franklin Bernhoft in January 2012,
Burkett represents UC Regents in against Waszczuk in his wrongful termination lawsuit and on
the appeal in unresolved 3DCA Case C079254 Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board (CUIAB) . Ashante Norton from California Attorney General office represents
CUIAB on the appeal and she most likely knows everything about Todd Goerlich life,
employment with UC Davis Medical Center and who and why pushed Georlich to suicide .
I could draw a chart detailing how the California political swamp relates to the corrupt UCOP
crime family that has been run by “Godmother” Janet Napolitano for the last five years.

8
In addition to replacing the deposed UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael with former
California CHP Commissioner Joseph Farrow, Napolitano hired a former U.S. attorney for the
Central District of California, 2002–2011: Alexander A. Bustamante. When Locally Designated
Officer and Senior Vice-President (SVP) Dan Dooley was deposed or quit in 2014 and UCOP
Chief Compliance and Audit Officer SVP Sheryl Vacca left the UCOP in 2016, Napolitano, in
her distrust of replacing Vacca with an outsider, brought John Lohse back from retirement as an
interim replacement.
Most likely, John Lohse is Napolitano’s old friend from Arizona. They even graduated from
Santa Clara University a few years apart. John Lohse was recruited by the UCOP organized
crime in 2004. He came to the UC system in January 2004 after a career with the Federal Bureau
of Investigations, where he served as a special agent, associate division counsel, and chief
division counsel for the FBI’s San Francisco Division. He has also served as a criminal
prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix, Arizona. John Lohse is a
member of the bar in California and Arizona.
Lohse resurfaced and joined the witch hunt against me in May 2012 in relation to Todd
Georlich’s suicide and tens of millions of dollars of tax evasion due to illegal megawatts being
laundered from the UC David Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant, where I was employed
from June 1999 to April 2007.
In my response to Lohse’s letter dated May 14, 2012, I wrote:
I am very impressed with your professional background and your career with law
enforcement. When I read the Association of Workplace Investigators webpage, I said to
myself, “This guy with such an impressive career and connections is the perfect guy to
frame me.”

A few days later on May 31, 2012, my employment with the University of California almost
ended in UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
Napolitano then replaced Lohse with a former U.S. attorney for the Central District of California,
2002–2011, Alexander A. Bustamante. Mr. Bustamante, besides his impressive career with the
U.S. Federal Government as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California from
2002 to 2011, has also served since 2011 as the inspector general for the Los Angeles Police

9
Department. As such, I believe that Mr. Bustamante is very familiar with the Kroll’s Report and
the November 18, 2011 paper spray provocation at the UC Davis Campus, which was crafted by
the order of UCOP SVP gangster Dan Dooley and carried out by UC Davis Chief Counsel
Steven Drown to remove Chancellor Katehi, UCPD Chief Annette Spicuzza, Lt . John Pike, and
Captain Joyce Souza from their posts. Assembly Speaker John Perez’s (today UC Regent)
involvement in hiring former LA Police Chief William Bratton to investigate the provocation
was not coincidental. Mr. Bratton was misled regarding what the November 18, 2011 pepper
spray provocation was about and why was carried out .
The March-August 2016 witch hunt against Chancellor Katehi orchestrated by Janet Napolitano
and carried out by two former U.S. Attorneys, McGregor Scott and Melinda Haag, for a price of
$1,000,0000, did not go as well as anticipated, and Linda Katehi is still around.
In my latest inquiry to the FBI and U.S. Homeland Security Department to protect my family and
myself from the UCOP gangsters, I wrote:

After looking at Haag’s and Scott’s fame and outstanding performances in


prosecuting terrorists from Al Qaeda and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in
2016, I prayed for Chancellor Katehi and her family, especially after
discovering that she had associated herself with the Saudi Arabian University
of King Abdulaziz in Jeddah by serving as a university board member. Fifteen
of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. I thought that Haag and
Scott, who were paid $1 million by Napolitano, would make Chancellor Katehi
an enemy combatant and that Napolitano would send Chancellor Katehi to
Guantanamo Bay. A million dollars is a lot of money to spend in three months
to convert Katehi from UC Davis chancellor to UC Davis chancellor emerita.
Napolitano is a reckless, dangerous, and merciless individual, and her method
of using public funds to deal with her personal adversaries resembles the
tactics of the Soviet Union’s Stalin-era NKVD secret police. I was baffled as to
why two former U.S. prosecutors agreed to participate in her witch hunt
against Katehi. Even a million-dollar price tag on Katehi’s head and
Napolitano’s former position as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security should
not have motivated decent people to commit such underhanded crimes.
The witch hunt against Katehi was timed perfectly not only with Senator Yee’s
sentencing in federal court and his departure to prison but also with the
incoming August 2016 criminal trial of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for
the natural gas line explosion in San Bruno, California, in September 2010.
PG&E was brought to trial following UC Davis Chancellor Emeritus
10
Vanderhoef’s death. After his resignation from the UC Davis chancellor
position in August 2009 and his subsequent one-year sabbatical, Vanderhoef
resurfaced in September 2010 as the chair of the CAPUC’s independent review
panel investigating the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion caused by gas leaks
from a pipeline maintained by PG&E.
When the pipeline exploded, it killed 8 people, injured 50 people, and
demolished 37 houses. The charges against PG&E were filed by Haag just four
days after the FBI arrested Yee on March 26, 2014. Former Chancellor
Vanderhoef had a lot of information about this explosion and might have
shared it with Katehi. Vanderhoef and Yee would have been very inconvenient
and unwelcome witnesses for federal prosecutors and for Haag’s friends in the
PG&E trial, in which millions of dollars were at stake. Before the trial even
began, the potential $500-million settlement for the San Bruno victims was
reduced to $3 million by Haag’s friends from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
UC Davis Chancellors Vanderhoef and Katehi were brought to FBI attention
because they were my chancellors from June 1999 to December 2012.
Chancellor Vanderhoef was ordered to sign my 2009 Settlement Agreement on
behalf of the UC Regents. This Settlement Agreement was trashed by UCOP
bandits between April 2011 and December 2012 when Chancellor Katehi was
in office and when I was disposed of like a piece of garbage.

That the way Godmother Napolitano and her friends guard from investigation and prosecution
the most corrupt public entity in California .
I hope that the FBI office will have no problem determining these connections even without my
chart. Waszczuk hope that the FBI office discovers who pushed Georlich to suicide and why.
Why Waszczuk and others have to pay the enormous price for gays prostitution ring in the
University of California, California legislature and California government and for Todd
Georlich’s suicide whom Waszczuk never knew and never met. ? The puzzle crux of this case
is to find out to whom Georlich was connected from the California political swamp before
Georlich took his life in December 2010.
After trial Court denied Waszczuk Motion for Reconsideration on July 19, 2018 and not
permitted oral argument to Waszczuk than Waszczuk asked Federal Bureau of Investigation to
solve the puzzle of the Tod Georlich’ suicide . Furthermore Waszczuk asked FBI for protection
from further deprivation of Waszczuk’s rights under color of law and violation of his civil and
11
human rights and to prevent further provocative attack and hostile behavior of Porter Scott’s
attorneys in the Court’s building as it happened on February 27, 2015 prior the Court Hearing
with Judge Shelleyan Chang in Sacramento County Superior Court and in the 3DCA on
August 28, 2017 just after the oral argument in Case C079524 . . Waszczuk informed the 3DCA
Court about Porter Scott’s attorney David Burkett’s hostility in his Petition for Rehearing filed
in 3DCA on 10/25/2017.

• “After just 15 minutes of oral argument, the Defendants legal counsel David Burkett
from the Sacramento-based law firm Porter Scott approached Waszczuk in the Court
Hall outside the courtroom and attempted to instigate a confrontation. He made threats
toward Waszczuk wife and tried to exploit the emotional and financial suffering we have
both experienced since UC Regents terminated Waszczuk employment in December
2012 at age 61 without any possibility to find new employment . For the Court
information
, Waszczuk spouse Irena Waszczuk is working in Nordstrom in Sacramento as
seamstress -fitter for almost 30 years and has nothing to do with the University of
California and Waszczuk’ lawsuit , Waszczuk spouse should retire on September 21,
2017 at age of 66 but he can’t due to devastation of Waszczuks life and livelihood by UC
Regents and their collaborators. Burkett knew that Waszczuk was stressed due to
financial hardship caused by his client’s criminal behavior; he thought that his attacks
against my spouse would easily provoke a confrontation. Sadly, this encounter was my
second time experiencing such shameful tactics in the court building. It is a second time
Waszczuk experienced such Defendants attorney behavior . It happened before in 2015,
prior to the court hearing with presiding Judge Shelleyane Chang in the unemployment
benefits Writ of Mandamus case— in which UC Regents is party as a Real Party In
Interest( RPii.) UC legal counsel and UC administrators must be very desperate if they
resort to using such tactics. Trying to provoke the opposing party into a physical
confrontation in an area heavily trafficked by sheriff’s deputies and city police is either
very foolish or very underhanded.”

Most likely no one of 3DCA Justices ever seen or read Waszczuk ‘s Petition for Rehearing ..

II CONCLUSION

Waszczuk is being treated unfairly and unlawfully, and the legal process is being
endlessly delayed by the court staff (see EXHIBIT #8: Waszczuk’s Motion to Deny
Regents’ Counsel David Burkett the Extension of Time to File Respondent’s Brief, which

12
was due on August 22, 2016).
The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution provides that no state “shall . . . deny any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Similarly, the California
Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, provides that “a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law.” Due process “principally serves to protect the personal
rights of litigants to a full and fair hearing” (Miller v. French (2000) 530 U.S. 327). The
constitutional “right to due process is a personal one” (Jones v. Omnitrans (2004) 125
Cal.App.4th 273). The right to due process is not merely afforded to a person in a trial court but
also pervades to all levels of the courts.

For the above reasons and because of Waszczuk’s deteriorating health and medical
conditions, Waszczuk is appealing to 3DCA Presiding Justice Honorable Vance Raye to
issue the order to place Waszczuk’s appeal on the court calendar as soon as possible.
Waszczuk requests that Judge Raye permit and schedule oral argument in order to afford
Waszczuk an opportunity to present and discuss the matter.
Waszczuk’s Motion to Recall Remittitur and Reinstate the Appeal in the Case No.
C079524, Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et al., will follow.
The Waszczuk ‘s Motion to Recall Remittitur and Reinstate the Appeal in the Case C079524
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et, al will follow .

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my
review of the record filed in this matter.
Dated : August 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

By: _
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff & Appellant In Pro Per
13
TABLE OF CONTENTS

NUMBER NAME PAGE NUMBER

I. THE REQUEST
……………………………………………………………...………………...……….1- 13
II. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 13-14
III. EXHIBITS ...................................................................................................................... 16
PROOF OF SERVICE

14
III. EXHIBITS

NUMBER NAME PAGE NUMBER

1. March 9 & 19, 2018 by correspondence with Court Clerk Ms. Anita Kenner ......... 2
2. March 20, 2018 Court Clerk Anita Kenner’s response to Waszczuk inquiry ...................2
3. June 7, 2018 Sacramento County Superior Court Order ................................................... 3
4. July 16, 2018 Waszczuk correspondence submitted to Sacramento County Superior
Court with Plaintiff’s Disapproval of the Defendants Proposed Order and Judgement ….3
5. June 18, 2018 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and the Superior Court Order date
July 19, 2018… ................................................................................................................... 3
6. 2013 Waszczuk sent an inquiry sent to the California Assembly Speaker John Perez
about CUIAB’s board members Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn .................................... 5
7. September 2016 inquiry Waszczuk sent to California Senator Cathleen Galigiani about
his complaint with State Bar of California against attorney Douglas Stein ........................6
8. August 19, 2016 Waszczuk Motion to Deny UC attorney David Burkett extension of
time to file Brief .

15
DECLARATION OF MAILING

I, Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a Plaintiff and Appellant in this , declare under penalty of


perjury that I have this day August 6, 2018 mailed , electronic mail (True Filing )
and by U.S first-class mail , postage fully prepaid, a true and correct copy of the
APPELLANT’s REQUEST TO PLACE APPEAL ON THE COURT
CALENDAR to each of the parties listed below.

David P. E. Burkett, Esq.(electronic mail)


PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

Ashante L. Norton, Esq. (electronic mail )


CUIAB Legal Counsel
Deputy Attorney General
State of California Department of
Justice Attorney General Office
1300 I Street, Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 944255

California Supreme Court U.S Mail


350 McAllister St,
San Francisco, CA 94102

Hon. Shelleyanne Chang U.S Mail


The Sacramento County Superior Court
720 Ninth Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814-1380

Executed in Lodi, California, on August 6, 2018

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK – Plaintiff in Pro Per.

16
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
Plaintiff & Appellant
In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (209) 247-1089
jjw1980@live.com

March 9, 2018

Ms. Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann


Clerk/Executive Officer, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Request for Information


Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al. Case No. C079524
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-34-00155479
Waszczuk v. CUIAB et.al Case No. C079254
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-80001699
Petition for Writ of Mamdamus
Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc Case No C030005
San Joaquin Superior Court Case No CV000737

Dear Ms. Wallin-Rohman,

I was a plaintiff and appellant in case no. C079524 (Anti-SLAPP motion), for which a
remittitur was issued on January 18, 2018. Case no. C079254 (petition for writ of
mandamus), for which an appeal was filed in 3DCA in May 2015, is still unresolved
by the appellate courts after almost three years. I am writing to request the
information from the Court of Appeals on the three cases listed above.

1. Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al., Case No. C079524

In this case, I am preparing to file a motion to recall remittitur. However, I need


further information from the Court of Appeal to do this. One reason for my motion is

Motion to Recall Remittitur 1


that the trial court and the Court of Appeal relied entirely on 3DCA opinion Vergos v.
McNeal, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 647, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal.App. Dist.3 01/23/2007) to
grant the ant-SLAPP motion to the defendants. The other is the misconduct of my
attorney Douglas Stein, who spent my $20,000 retainer on drugs and colluded with
Michael Pott, an other attorney from Porter Scott, and Superior Court Judge David I.
Brown, whom Stein knew for more than twenty years, and caused me a lot of
suffering.

Inquiry: Vergos v. McNeal Case No. C051469

Before filing the motion to recall remittitur, I need to review the following 3DCA
records from the Vergos v. McNeal appeal:

• Reporter transcript filed 12/30/2005, 1 vol. RT (13 pp.).


• Joint appendix filed 04/07/2006, 2 volumes (353 pp.)
• Appellant’s opening brief filed 04/07/2006.
• Respondent’s brief filed 07/16/2006.
• Appellant’s reply brief dated 08/04/2006.
• Transcript of oral argument court hearing dated 12/13/2006.

Inquiry: Cartwright v. Regents of University of California Case No. C052990

Cartwright v. Regents of the University of California (Case no. C052990) is closely


related to Vergos v. McNeal, and I need to review the following documents:

• Appellant’s opening brief filed 12/14/2006.


• Respondent’s brief filed 02/21/2007.
• Appellant’s reply brief filed 03/13/2007.

The unpublished 3DCA opinion of May 17, 2007, on Cartwright’s case is interesting
in relation to the opinion on my case no. C079524 in regards to citing the record on
appeal in briefs. I addressed this matter in my petition for rehearing filed October 25,
2017.

And in Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al., the 3DCA relied on
the outdated and fraudulent Vergos v. McNeal, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 647, 146 Cal.App.4th
1387 (Cal.App. Dist.3 01/23/2007) after having already issued a certified opinion for

Motion to Recall Remittitur 2


publication in Un Hui Nam v. the Regents of the University of California et.al, (case
no. C074796).

I need to review the records of these two cases because it appears the UC Davis labor
relation analyst Dan Grey mentioned in the Vergos v. McNeal opinion (p. 5) is the
same Danny or Daniel Gray employed by UC Davis since 2014 as director of
academic employment and labor relations.

• McNeal attested that plaintiff filed complaints pursuant to PPSM Section 70 on


February 11 and March 4, 2002, accusing Tollefson of sexual harassment. These
grievances were assigned to McNeal as department head. ELR Analyst Dan Grey
was assigned to investigate the complaints and prepare a report for McNeal’s
review. Grey reported that plaintiff’s claims were unsubstantiated by the evidence.
McNeal had no reason to believe Grey harbored any unlawful prejudice against
plaintiff, and McNeal herself did not harbor any unlawful prejudice against
plaintiff. McNeal reviewed Grey’s report, found it to be adequate, and agreed
with its conclusions. She accordingly found plaintiff’s complaints to be without
merit and so notified him. McNeal attested, “To my knowledge, [plaintiff] did not
appeal this decision to the next step in PPSM Section 70 process.”

Danny Gray recently published the story “#MeToo Arrives at the University of
California” in Davis Enterprise (https://dannygray0.wixsite.com/metooucdavis). In it,
he alleges that he was sexually assaulted and raped by UC Davis music professor and
symphony orchestra conductor Kern Holoman three decades ago.

On March 7, 2017, I sent an inquiry to the UC Davis Office of the Campus Counsel
(Public Records Office) to confirm whether the Dan Grey of Vergos v. McNeal is the
person employed by UC Davis as a director of academic employment and labor
relations. (See my letter to Jana Gabby, EXHIBIT 1.)
https://www.scribd.com/document/373268247/20180307-Danny-Gray-Pra-Request

Daniel Gray, Julie McNeal, and sexual predator Allen Tollefson, who is still
employed as by UC Davis as an associate vice chancellor, were sued by Randy
Vergos’s friend Edith Cartwright in Yolo County Superior Court in 2003 (case no.
CV 03-76) on allegations of employment discrimination-retaliation, failure to prevent
discrimination, gender discrimination, age discrimination, race/ethnic origin
discrimination, and sexual harassment.

Motion to Recall Remittitur 3


It is very bizarre that Daniel Gray, who is alleging having been sexually assaulted and
raped, was and is working in the same office as people who were his superiors and
knew that he was raped, gave him a job in 2001 and assigned him to sexual
harassment cases, and used his name in fabricated investigation reports against the
despicably and indecently victimized Edith Cartwright and Randy Vergos. After
Daniel Gray signed the report in the Vergos case, he was deployed to UCLA’s HR
office for the next eleven years.

For clarification of my request to review the court record, see my open letter to UC
Davis Chancellor Gary May, “Chapter XIII: MeToo – Maestro Christian Baldini”
(EXHIBIT 2)
https://www.scribd.com/document/373040097/UC-Davis-Maestro-Christian-
Baldini
written March 5, 2018, and submitted March 7 with my inquiry to UC Davis’s Public
Record Office, and “Chapter I–VIII: Danny Gray – Parts Unknown” to learn whether
Dan Grey is the same person as Danny or Daniel Gray (EXHIBIT 3).
https://www.scribd.com/document/373254651/Danny-Gray-MeToo-Parts-
Unknown-I-VIII

Vergos v. McNeal needs to be decertified by the California Supreme Court. The


3DCA opinion on it is connected to sodomy, rape, suicide, child pornography, abuse
of power, and inhumane harassment and civil- and human-rights violations of UC
Davis employees by individuals with executives titles and salaries. I don’t understand
how the First Justice Lady of California, Chief Justice of the California Supreme
Court Honorable Tani-Cantil Sakauye, a UC Davis alumna, carried this opinion with
her to the Supreme Court and could tolerate its use as precedent in courts throughout
the state, causing harm and suffering to victimized employees of the University of
California and other public entities who dare to make complaints against hostility,
abuse, and the violation of their rights.

“California's chief justice has had her own #MeToo moments” -LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sexual-harassment-courts-20171211-
story.html

If this green-light opinion for sexual harassers and predators and other thugs in the

Motion to Recall Remittitur 4


UC system had a different outcome, similar to that of the “NO MORE” 2016
3DCA Un Hui Nam v. Regents of University of California opinion , Todd Georlich,
my replacement at the UC Davis Medical Center and who committed suicide in
December 2010, would probably still be alive. Todd was bullied and harassed there
much as Randy Vergos and Edith Cartwright were harassed by Allen Tollefson and
other perpetrators on UC Davis’s main campus.

Todd and his friend Dereck Cole, whom I represented in a 2012–13 complaint against
UC Davis Medical Center, were friends of Douglas Stein’s since high school. Stein
was probably blackmailed by Porter Scott’s attorney, who represented the UC
Regents and did what he did with my two cases in the Superior Court. The State Bar
of California should conduct a full investigation and question two former Porter Scott
attorneys Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel about their collusion with Douglas Stein
especially in time period of September 1, 2014 to January 23, of 2015.

It came to my attention that surname (last name) of the attorney who represented
Randy Vargos in 2007 in the appeal of an anti-SLAPP motion, and who represented
Edith Cartwright in discrimination cases in Yolo County Superior Court, is same as
that of judge Lucy Aremendariz, who signed the October 24, 2017 “Stipulation: Facts,
Conclusion of Law and Disposition and Order” approving Douglas E. Stein (Case no.
150-10 1 10-LMA, EXHIBIT 4).
https://www.scribd.com/document/373185976/DOUGLAS-STEIN-ON-
DISCIPLINE-SUPREME-COURT-CASE-NO-S245982

2. Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al., Case


No. C079254. – Petition for Writ of Mandamus Appeal

In this petition for writ of mandamus appeal regarding the denial of my


unemployment benefits, I respectfully ask the court to inform me of when this appeal,
which was filed almost three years ago (May 7, 2015) will be resolved one way or
another, and whether the appeal is on the court’s calendar or in indefinite abeyance.
This case is also linked to the gross professional misconduct of my attorney Douglas
Stein (dismissed in 2014). See the California Supreme Court Decision “Stein on
Discipline” (Case no. 4245982, EXHIBIT 4).

3. Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case No. C030005

Motion to Recall Remittitur 5


This case and appeal were filed in 3DCA on July 9, 1998, and concluded on February
2, 2000. It is an old case, but according to the Register of Action (ROA) the record
was requested from the State Record Center on February 16, 2012, received by 3DCA
on February 22, and returned three month later, on May 22. I would greatly appreciate
the court informing me of who made this request. From February through May 2012,
UC Davis Medical Center’s “witch hunters” and perpetrators were busy preparing
another ill cause for my employment termination.

I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Respectfully submitted March 9, 2018.

________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff & Appellant

Motion to Recall Remittitur 6


DECLARATION OF MAILING

I, Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a Plaintiff and Appellant in this , declare under penalty of perjury that
I have this day March 9, 2018 mailed , electronic mail (True Filing ) and by U.S first-class
mail , postage fully prepaid, a true and correct copy of the above mentioned Letter to 3DCA
Clerk Ms. Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann to each of the parties listed below.

David P. E. Burkett, Esq. ( electronic mail)


PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

Ashante L. Norton, Esq. (electronic mail )


CUIAB Legal Counsel
Deputy Attorney General
State of California Department of Justice
Attorney General Office
1300 I Street, Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 944255

California Supreme Court (U.S Mail )


350 McAllister St,
San Francisco, CA 94102

Hon. David I. Brown (U.S Mail)


The Sacramento County Superior Court
720 Ninth Street, Appeal Unit Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-1380

Hon. Sheleyanne Chang (U.S Mail )


The Sacramento County Superior Court
720 Ninth Street, Appeal Unit Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-1380

Executed in Lodi, California, on March 9, 2018

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK – Plaintiff in Pro Per.

Motion to Recall Remittitur 7


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 06/07/2018 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, M. Oreschak

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013


CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion for Attorney Fees - Civil Law and Motion

APPEARANCES

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Attorney Fees


TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants' Michael Boyd, et al.'s motion for fees and costs pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c) is granted as
set forth below.
Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted.
On April 14, 2015, this Court entered an order granting Defendants' motion to strike the first through
fourth causes of action in self-represented Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk's second amended complaint
and judgment was entered in their favor. The order also awarded Defendants' fees and costs pursuant
to CCP § 425.16(c) to be determined by a separate motion. Defendants' motion for fees was ultimately
stayed on August 12, 2015 by this Court given Plaintiff's appeal. A remittitur affirming the judgment was
issued on January 18, 2018, and Defendants' re-noticed the motion for today's date. The motion is
based on the papers previously filed in connection with the 2015 hearing.
It bears noting what the Court of Appeal stated, preliminarily, in addressing Mr. Waszczuk's appeal from
the SLAPP motion underpinning this motion: "Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, feels deeply aggrieved by the
University of California (the University), his lawyer, the defense lawyer, and the trial judge. A brief
excerpt from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the University reflects his bitterness as well as his
belief that there is much more at stake than his mere wrongful termination lawsuit. [Waszczuk v.
Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6933 *1-2] ... While plaintiff's pain is clear, his
legal analysis is not." (Id. at *3) Much like the appellate court, the Court perceives that nothing this Court
can say will disabuse plaintiff of his "fiercely held belief." (Id. at *9). Nonetheless, as will be addressed,
this motion is not about the merits of Mr. Waszczuk's claims, but rather whether defendant is entitled to
fees under the statutes providing for such fees.
CCP § 425.16(c)(1) provides that a "prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled
to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs." The mandatory fee provision allows the prevailing party
to recover fees and costs incurred in connection with a special motion to strike, including those fees and

DATE: 06/07/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 1


DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

costs incurred in connection with a fee motion. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1133.)
[emphasis added]

The motion sought $32,738 in fees ($29,384 for the anti-SLAPP and $3,354 for the fee motion itself). In
addition Defendants request $2,236 in fees for reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply.
"The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the 'lodestar' method, i.e., the number of hours
reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate." Plcm Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th
1084, 1095. "The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community, for similar work." Id. In
making this determination, the Court may consider "the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount
involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure,
and other circumstances in the case. (Id.) "[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of
the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous."
(Horsford v Board of Trustees of California State University (2005)132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396; Raining
Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1367 [declarations of counsel are also
"sufficient to meet the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the fees incurred, without the need
to produce copies of counsel's detailed billing statements."] A party may redact billing statements to
delete items protected by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. (See Lafayette
Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing. Co.(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1382; Banning v. Newdow
(2004) 119 Cal .App.4th 438,454.) Nonetheless, the Court will reduce the hours it determines were
excessive or not supported. (Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 816
(party seeking attorney fees has the "burden of showing that the fees incurred were 'allowable,' were
'reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation,' and were 'reasonable in amount'"); Christian
Research Institute v. Ahor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326-29 (affirming award for 71 hours of
attorney time in case where attorneys sought fees for over 600 hours).) Fee award amounts are matters
within the trial court's discretion: the "trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services
rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless
the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong." (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122,
1132.)
Plaintiff raises numerous arguments in opposition, yet none of them warrant denial of the instant motion.
First the Court must note that the opposition memorandum exceeds the 15 page limit set forth in
California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113 and Plaintiff failed to obtain an order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1113(e) permitting an oversized memorandum. The Court has previously admonished Plaintiff for
failing to comply with this rule.
At the outset, a large portion of Plaintiff's brief is Plaintiff's recitation of what he believes the facts show in
this case, how he believes he has been mistreated by Defendants, and his belief that the anti-SLAPP
motion was improperly granted. None of these issues have any relevance to the instant motion.
Moreover, the Third District Court of Appeal has affirmed the judgment and it is now final. Plaintiff also
recounts the issues he had with his former counsel, Mr. Stein, which are also not relevant to this motion.
Plaintiff appears to contend that Defendants were aware of the issues he was having with his former
attorney and that Defendants' counsel was somehow collaborating with his former counsel to harm him
(e.g., Defendants' counsel supposedly were aware that Plaintiff's former attorney filed the subject
second amended complaint when his license was suspended). There is no support for this argument
even if it were relevant to the limited inquiry at issue on this motion.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants cannot obtain any fees at all because they did not personally expend
the fees and Defendants' counsel has been paid by the Regents of the University of California. This is
no bar to recovery. (Rosenaur v. Scherer (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 260, 284-285.) "We do not presume
that the Legislature intended to create a disparity between defendants who advance their own attorney
fees and those whose counsel look to an outside source for payment. In each case, the fees have

DATE: 06/07/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 2


DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

accrued and can be recovered." (Id., at 285.) "In conclusion, the plain language and purpose of section
425.16, as well as the decisional law, support the recovery of attorney fees that have accrued in
representing the defendants here, notwithstanding counsel's agreement not to look to defendants for
payment." (Id. at 287.)
Plaintiff next argues that Defendants are not entitled to recovery of fees for clerical work which he
contends amounts to $4,852. Plaintiff, however, fails to specify which charges in the billing records
represent clerical work. Conjecturally, it may be that Plaintiff is referring to the paralegal fees and law
clerk fees set forth in the billing records. If so, these fees are recoverable. (Guinn v. Dotson (1994) 23
Cal.App.4th 262, 268-269.) In any event, courts have no duty to search the record for evidence; it is the
party's duty to point out portions of the record that support his position. See, e.g. Grant-Burton v.
Covenant Care, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1379; see also City of Lincoln v. Barringer(2002) 102
Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239; Salas v. Dep't of Transportation (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 1058 ["We are not
required to search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for [plaintiffs'] contentions."]. .

Plaintiff next argues that fees for attorney Douglas Ropel from December 1, 2014 to January 23, 2015
should not be awarded because no record is shown that he represented Defendants (apparently
because he was not listed on the captions of pleadings during that time). However, Defendants have
provided declarations with billing records showing attorney Douglas Ropel performed legal work in
connection with the anti-SLAPP motion.
Plaintiff next challenges the hourly rates charged for Defendants' counsel. First he argues that attorney
Douglas Ropel's $260 hourly rate is inflated because at the time he was an associate attorney with little
experience and is seeking the same rate as attorney Michael Pott who is a shareholder. Defendants'
declarations demonstrate that it charged the same rate ($260/hr) for all attorneys that worked on this
case. (Burkett Decl. ¶ 4.) The fact that Defendants' counsel may have charged the same rates for the
attorneys with differing levels of experience does not render the rate unreasonable. Further this Court is
well familiar with billing rates in this community and a $260 hourly rate is reasonable. Plaintiff's citation
to non-binding federal authority awarding $250/hr for partners and $150/hr for associates does not
change this Court's finding.
Plaintiff next argues that Defendants cannot be awarded fees in the amount of $7,630 which represent
the fees incurred by Defendant responding to opposition papers filed by his former counsel Douglas
Stein on December 23, 2014. Plaintiff argues that Defendants' counsel was informed on December 16,
2014 that Douglas Stein no longer represented Plaintiff. However, as pointed out by Defendants in
reply, Douglas Stein represented to Defendants' counsel and the Court at an ex parte hearing on
December 17, 2014 that he represented Plaintiff in asking for relief related to timely filing an opposition.
(ROA 29) It was not until the Court issued a tentative ruling on January 6, 2015 continuing the
anti-SLAPP motion to February 6, 2015 indicating that Plaintiff had filed declarations on December 29,
2014 stating that he terminated Douglas Stein as of December 16, 2014 that it was clear that Mr. Stein
no longer represented Plaintiff. (ROA 45) The Court therefore disregarded the opposition filed by
Douglas Stein, continued the anti-SLAPP motion to allow Plaintiff to file a new opposition and ordered
Plaintiff to file a substitution of attorney. (Id.) But up until that time, the opposition filed by Douglas Stein
was the only opposition on file for Defendants' motion and they had no choice but to reply to it.
Moreover, a substitution of counsel was not actually filed until January 14, 2015. (ROA 50.) On the
facts presented, the Court will not disallow these fees.
Plaintiff's "notice of objection" to Defendants' supplemental declaration does nothing more than repeat
the issues discussed above related to his previous counsel and the alleged collusion with Defendants'
counsel in addition to alleging that Defendants' counsel had attempted to provoke him into a physical
confrontation. The Court would note Defendants' supplemental declaration merely indicated that this
Court had previously stayed the hearing on the fees motion pending the appeal of the anti-SLAPP ruling

DATE: 06/07/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 3


DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

and that the Third District Court had affirmed the decision granting Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion.
There was no basis to file an "objection." Plaintiff also requested a continuance of the instant motion
until August 23, 2018 because he needs extra time to finish his motion to recall the remittitur issued by
the Third District Court of Appeal and because he is seeking to file a third amended complaint. The
Court declines the request to continue the fees motion.
Defendants are clearly entitled to their fees as the prevailing parties on their anti-SLAPP motion. (CCP
§ 425.16(c).) The Court is well familiar with the history of this action and the voluminous complaint and
filings associated with the anti-SLAPP motion. To that end, the second amended complaint contained
165 paragraphs, many which contained subparagraphs and which covered many years of time and
which were directed at many different parties and non-parties. In addition, after the anti-SLAPP was
filed, two oppositions were filed, each with many exhibits. Moreover, Plaintiff filed motions for
reconsideration and motions to dismiss Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion which Defendants were forced
to respond to. (Ropel Decl. ¶¶ 8-10, 12, 15-17.) Defendants seek $32,738 which represents 94.4 hours
of attorney time, 43.2 hours of law clerk time and 5.2 hours of paralegal time. The following
attorneys/legal assistants worked on this matter in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion and charged
the following rates:
-Michael W. Pott worked 31.5 hours at $260/hr for a total of $8,190
-David P.E. Burkett worked 1.2 hours at $260/hr for a total of $312
-Douglas L. Ropel worked 61.7 hours at $260/hr for a total of $16,042
-Douglas L. Ropel (as a law clerk) worked 43.20 hours at $100/hr for a total of $4,320
-Marilyn Gamper (paralegal) worked 5.2 hours at $100/hr for a total of $520.
The Court concludes that the hourly rates are reasonable. However, after a careful review of the
declarations and billing records, the Court does find that a reduction is required in the number of hours.
To that end, the billing records are replete with block billing and contain a level of vagueness that
suggests a duplication of efforts. The Court will not conduct a line by line analysis of the billing records
in this ruling but simply notes that they fail to demonstrate that all of the 142.8 hours are reasonable.
Given the Court's review of this matter and its familiarity with anti-SLAPP motions in general, the Court
will award the following hours: Michael W. Pott 25 hours at $260/hr (reduced from 31.5) for $6,500;
David P.E. Burkett 1.2 hours at $260/hr (no reduction) for $312; Douglas L. Ropel 40 hours at $260/hr
(as an attorney) (reduced from 61.7 hours) for $10,400; Douglas L. Ropel 30 hours at $100/hr (as a law
clerk) (reduced from 43.2 hours) for $3,000; and Marilyn Gamper 5.2 hours at $100/hr (no reduction) for
$512. The hours awarded for the work associated with the anti-SLAPP motion and the instant fee
motion are 101.4 which is reduced from 142.8 for a total of $20,724.
Defendants are also entitled to $166.20 costs in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion.
In addition, the Court will award Defendants an additional 3 hours at $260/hr for work associated with
the reply for a total of $780.
The total award of costs and fees is $22,284.
The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order for the Court's signature pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312.
COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.

DATE: 06/07/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 4


DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
1 Jaroslaw Waszczuk,
2216 Katzakian Way
2 Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209)663-2977
3 Fax: (209)817-7080
E-Mail: jjw1980@live.com
4
Plaintiff In Pro Per
5

6
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
7

8
) Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK )
9 )
Plaintiff, ) PLANTIFF’ DISAPPROVAL OF THE
10 ) PROPOSAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
vs. ) GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COST TO
11
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ) DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION
CALIFORNIA; ANN MADDEN RICE, ) C.C.P 425.16 (C)
12 ) California Rules of Court 3.1312(a)
DANESHA NICHOLS MIKE BOYD , )
13 CHARLES WITCHER;STEPHEN ) Court Issued Order on : June 7, 2018
CHILCOTT;CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT )
14 ) Department 53
SEIFERT , PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN
15 DANILIUC , and does through 50, inclusive ) Honorable Judge David Brown
Defendants ) Complaint Filed: 12/04/2013
) First Amendment Filed: 06/16/2014
16 Second Amendment Filed: 09/30/2014
17 )
)
18

19 PLANTIFF’ DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING


LEGAL FEES AND COST TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P 425.16 (C)
20
I. INTRODUCTION
21

22 A. California Rule of Court 3.1312(a)


23

24 Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312(a), Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced Vash-chook;

25 hereafter Waszczuk) has five days to approve the respondent’s Order and Judgment via form or
26
submission of proposed court order.The prevailing party must, upon expiration of the five-day period
27
provided for approval, promptly transmit the proposed order to the court together with a summary of any
28

1
1 responses of the other parties or a statement that no responses were received pursuant to California Rule
2 of Court 3.1312(b).
3
On June 14, 2018, Waszczuk received by U.S. mail the Respondent’s Proposed Order together with
4
Judgment dated June 12, 2018, in favor of Defendants. The due date to respond was June 17, 2018.
5 Plaintiff asked Defendants’ counsel David P. E. Burkett for extension of time to submit disapproval of
6 the proposed order at the later date. Via electronic mail, Defendants’ Counsel granted Plaintiff extension
7 until Friday June 22, 2018.

8
B. Explanation of Waszczuk’s Disapproval of the Defendants’ Proposal Order and Judgment
9

10
Waszczuk presented to the Court his stand and his opposition to the Court Order on legal fees in his
11
Motion in Consideration filed on June 18, 2018. However, Waszczuk would like to present to the Court
12
his disproval statement of Defendants’ Proposed Order and Judgment regarding the facts about the
13

14
University of California Office of the President (UCOP) mafia’s four different but closely connected

15
witch hunts and vendettas aimed at Waszczuk; three UC Davis Police officers; UC Davis Chancellor

16 Linda Katehi; and Waszczuk’s former psychologist, Dr. Franklin Bernhoft. Dr. Bernhoft was targeted by

17 the UCOP mafia and set up to be eventually killed by the Lodi Police in the despicable and ill-minded

18 provocation orchestrated by former UC Senior Vice President Daniel Morris Dooley and his wife Diana

19 Dooley of Sacramento. Mrs. Dooley has been recently appointed Executive Secretary in the Office of

20 Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. She has also served as Secretary of the California Health and Human

21 Services Agency since 2011. Waszczuk pointed out to Mr. and Mrs. Dooley that they share a stake in
22 this case according to the Court of Appeal in the unpublished opinion issued on October 10, 2017. The
23 trial Court repeated the Court of Appeal’s statement in the June 7, 2018, order that granted legal fees and
24 costs for Defendants’ attorneys from Porter Scott Law corporation. The attorneys conspired with
25 Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein. Waszczuk entirely disapproves of the Defendants’ Proposed
26 Order and Judgement and will ask federal law enforcement agencies for help in this case.
27 //

28
//

2
1 II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MODIFICATION OF THE COURT
ORDER DATED JUNE 7, 2018
2

3
On June 18, 2018, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1008, Waszczuk filed his Motion for

4 Reconsideration and Modification of the Court Order dated June 7, 2018: Motion for Attorney Fees and

5 Costs. He did so in a timely manner.


6 This Motion for Reconsideration contains Waszczuk’s strong disapproval and condemnation of the
7 Court Order dated June 7, 2018, and the Proposed Order and Judgment sent to Waszczuk by Burkett
8 (Defendants’ attorney from Porter Scott law firm), who has been listed as leading attorney in in the anti-
9 SLAPP motion proceeding since January 23, 2015.

10 The legal fees awarded by the trial Court amount to $312. The Court concluded that Burkett was not

11 involved at all in anti-SLAPP motion proceeding. The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District

12 (3DCA) awarded him no legal fees on appeal.

13 Waszczuk’s Motion for Reconsideration is based on Stein’s gross professional misconduct and his

14 collusion and conspiracy against Waszczuk with Defendant’s attorneys Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel

15 from Porter Scott Law corporation and trial Court Judge David I. Brown; Stein has had a 20-year

16 relationship with Judge Brown.

17 Burkett appears to be claiming legal fees on behalf of Pott and Ropel. This is because Pott and Ropel are

18 not entitled to claim the fees on their own behalf due to their professional misconduct. In fact, they have

19 not represented Defendants or worked for Porter Scott for quite a long time. Waszczuk addressed this

20 matter in his Motion for Reconsideration

21 In his Motion for Consideration, Waszczuk condemned the UC Davis leadership for repeatedly violating

22 Waszczuk’s and other UC Davis employees’ civil and human rights. Furthermore, Waszczuk asked
23 Judge Brown to recuse himself from the proceedings in these cases due his 20-year relationship with
24 Stein. Judge Brown’s relationship with Stein led to further devastation of Waszczuk’s life and livelihood
25 as well as the loss of at least $200,000 of his retirement savings. Because of blatant corruption, bias, and
26 discrimination in the California courts, Waszczuk has been doomed to a legal hell. He is stuck futilely
27 attempting to restore the parts of his life that were destroyed by UC mafia and gangsters.
28

3
1
The reasons outlined above are more than sufficient justification for Waszczuk’s disapproval of
2
Burkett’s Proposed Order and Judgement.
3
III. THE COURT ORDER DATED JUNE 7, 2018: LEGAL FEES AND COSTS
4
A. The Court Calculation of Legal Fees and Arguments Against Waszczuk’s Opposition
5

6 -Michael W. Pott worked 31.5 hours at $260 per hour for a total of $8,190.
7 -David P. E. Burkett worked 1.2 hours at $260 per hour for a total of $312.

8
-Douglas L. Ropel worked 61.7 hours at $260 per hour for a total of $16,042.
-Douglas L. Ropel (as a law clerk) worked 43.2 hours at $100 per hour for a total of $4,320.
9
-Marilyn Gamper (paralegal) worked 5.2 hours at $100 per hour for a total of $520.
10

11 Waszczuk is not quite sure why the Court’s arguments are based on Waszczuk’s three-year-old

12 opposition to legal fees awarded to Pott and Ropel, who have not represented the Defendants or worked

13 at Porter Scott for quite some time.

14 Waszczuk entirely agrees with Court that

15 Fee award amounts are matters within the trial court's discretion: the trial judge is the
best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his
16
judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate
17 court is convinced that it is clearly wrong. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122,
18
1132.)

19 Waszczuk does not question the trial judge’s expertise in the calculation of legal fees. However,
20 Waszczuk does question the trial judge’s attempt to legitimize these legal fees through two illegitimate
21 Court Orders dated September 22, 2014, and December 17, 2014. The Court Orders approved
22 illegitimate anti-SLAPP fees crafted by Pott during the 2014 Thanksgiving weekend and filed in

23 emergency on December 1, 2014. This was against the First Amended complaint to preclude Waszczuk

24 from correcting the defective Second Amended Complaint. On September 30, 2014, Stein filed the

25 Second Amended Complaint against Waszczuk’s will and instruction and also did so with a suspended

26
attorney license and in collusion with Pott. The illegitimate Second Amended Complaint was filed by Ex
Parte Application stipulated between Stein and Pott to bypass the filing Drop Box and prevent any Court
27
Clerk from detecting that the Second Amended Complaint was the same as the First Amended
28

4
1
Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint grossly violated the Cal. Rule of Court 3.1324. Judge
2 Brown abused his discretion and jurisdiction in accepting the Second Amended Complaint and deeming
3 it valid by Court Order dated December 17, 2014. Judge Brown’s two orders dated September 22, 2014,
4 and December 17, 2014, and another Order dated June 7, 2018, are beyond abuse of discretion and
5 jurisdiction of the court. These three orders are gross miscarriages of justice that clearly prove
6 corruption and total disregard for Waszczuk’s right to equal access to justice. The orders also violated
7 Waszczuk’s “Color of Law” rights and caused Waszczuk enormous financial damages that amounted to

8 at least $200,000.

9 The Court argued that Waszczuk was admonished for an opposition memorandum exceeding the 15-

10 page limit set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113; Plaintiff failed to obtain an order

11 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1113(e) permitting an oversized memorandum. The Court had previously
12 admonished Plaintiff for failing to comply with this rule. However, in light of Judge Brown’s 20-
13 year relationship with Waszczuk’s crooked attorney Stein and Judge Brown’s two damage control
14 Court Orders, which were intended to keep his friend Stein on the case despite clear malfeasance,
15 this admonishment is ridiculous and outrageous.
16
IV. JUNE 7, 2018, COURT ORDER STATEMENT: “PLAINTIFF, A POLISH
17 IMMIGRANT AND THAT THERE IS MUCH MORE AT STAKE THAN HIS
18 MERE WRONGFUL TERMINATION LAWSUIT.”

19
A. There is much more at stake
20
Waszczuk’s appeal in the anti-SLAPP motion was entirely based on Stein’s gross misconduct and
21
collusion with Defendants’ attorneys and Judge Brown.
22

23 On October 10, 2017, the 3DCA issued an unpublished opinion in the anti-SLAPP motion and
wrote that
24

25 Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his failure to cite to the
record. He makes grandiose accusations against the University for illegally generating
26
and selling electric power and for tax evasion, but those allegations are not supported
27 by citations to the record and are not relevant to the special motion to strike. Plaintiff
fails to appreciate the limited scope of our review, which stands in stark contrast to the
28 wide-ranging allegations plaintiff lodges which are untethered to the second amended

5
1 complaint or the special motion to strike. We are compelled to ignore any factual
allegations that are not supported by citations to the record.
2

3 The 3DCA’s statement would be acceptable if the Defendants’ Respondent Brief had also been entirely

4 stricken by the Court for failure to cite the record on appeal. However, only Waszczuk was penalized for

5 such failure. Waszczuk provided plenty of information and evidence in the court record about the

6 university’s illegal electric power generation and sale as well as its subsequent tax evasion.

7 Waszczuk based his appeal on Stein’s gross misconduct and collusion with Defendants’ attorneys and
8 Judge Brown. The 3DCA acknowledged those accusations in its opinion:
9 “Although Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a self-represented plaintiff, purports to appeal the trial
10 court’s order granting five individual employees of the University of California’s
special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) four causes of action arising from
11 their involvement in his termination, he does not argue the merits of the motion but
12 insists the judgment must be reversed because of systemic corruption including
collusion between his then lawyer, defense counsel, and the trial judge. He
13
misunderstands his burden on appeal, ignores the dispositive issues, provides no
14 evidence of corruption or untoward collusion, and fails to demonstrate either relevance
or prejudice from the shortcomings he cites. We need go no further than to answer the
15
contentions he raises, and in finding no merit in those claims, we affirm.”
16
Waszczuk still does not understand why the 3DCA Court deliberately sought to further aggravate
17
Waszczuk with such inflammatory remarks.
18

19
The 3DCA Court’s remarks—“Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his failure

20 to cite to the record” and “We have carefully scrutinized his briefs and the record in a diligent attempt to

21 decipher his legal theories”—are very contradictory. Furthermore, the 3DCA’s statements regarding

22 Waszczuk’s status as a Polish refugee, which were repeated by the trial court in the Order dated June 7,

23 2018, encouraged Waszczuk to look more deeply for the cause of two the witch hunts perpetrated

24 against him by the UCOP mafia and gangsters during 2007–2009 and 2011–2012.

25 The 3DCA repeated a statement taken from Waszczuk’s January 4, 2015, motion, which was addressed
26 to UC General Counsel Charles Robinson in the very early stage of the anti-SLAPP case. The statement
27 was buried in a 12-page letter and was not easy to find in the Court Record:
28

6
1 Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, feels deeply aggrieved by the University of
California (the University), his lawyer, the defense lawyer, and the trial judge.
2
A brief excerpt from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the University
3 reflects his bitterness as well as his belief that there is much more at stake
than his mere wrongful termination lawsuit. [Waszczuk v. Regents of the
4
Univ. of Cal., 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6933 *1-2] . . . While plaintiffs
5 pain is clear, his legal analysis is not. (Id. at *3) Much like the appellate court,
6
the Court perceives that nothing this Court can say will disabuse plaintiff of
his “fiercely held belief.”
7

8 The Ninth Circuit stated in Public Utility Dist. No. 1 v. FERC (471 F.3d 1053, 1069; 9th Cir. 2006, cert.
9 granted, 128 S. Ct. 30; Sept. 25, 2007; No. 06-1457) that
10
California is part of a single integrated electricity market in the West. Its energy problems
11 therefore created a “dysfunctional marketplace both in California and the remainder of
the West.” . . . For example, in the Pacific Northwest, prices have historically averaged
12
approximately $24/MWh. During this period, short term prices spiked to unprecedented
13 levels, peaking at $3,300/MWh in early December of 2000.

14

15
During the California energy crisis of May 2000 to October 2001, the UC Davis Medical Center’s 27-

16 MW cogeneration power plant sold approximately 140,000 MWh at gouged prices, free of tax. The

17 profits generated illegally in this period exceeded $100,000,000 when the special natural-gas discount

18 purchase allowance is taken into account. Waszczuk is not sure today whether it was in December 2000
19 or at another time that plant manager Tom Kavanaugh disclosed with pride that this tiny plant had made
20 more than $20,000,000.
21
• 1999: Sold 8,875 MWh (Sacramento Municipal Utility District, SMUD).
22
• 2000: Sold approximately 70,000 MWh (date missing, in October–December).
23 • 2001: Sold 75,767 MWh (via CaPX -CAISO).
• 2002: Data missing, no sale. CalPX filed for bankruptcy.
24
• 2003: Sold 17,793 MWh (to SMUD, by power purchase agreement signed by UC Regents on
25 02/13/2003).
26 • 2004: Sold 13,810 MWh (SMUD).
• 2005: Sold 27,580 MWh (SMUD).
27
• 2006: Sold 3,783 MWh (SMUD; new power purchase agreement with SMUD effective
28 06/01/2006).

7
1 • 2007: Sold 2,917 MWh (SMUD; Waszczuk was removed from the plant on 3/23/ 2007 by UC
Regents in preparation for full-scale power sale).
2
• 2008: Sold 7,884 MWh (SMUD; at the end of 2008, Waszczuk prevailed in the arbitration
3 process against the Regents for abruptly and unlawfully removing him in 2007).
4 • 2009: Sold only 342 MWh ( to SMUD; to avoid costly litigation, in February 2009 the UC
Regents signed a settlement agreement with Waszczuk).
5
• 2010: Sold only 355 MWh (to SMUD, at $45/MWh; dump energy).
6 • 2011: Sold 155 MWh (to SMUD, on September 1; Waszczuk was removed from UCDMC
premises as an obstruction to the Regents preparations to sign a new power purchase agreement
7
with SMUD).
8 • 2012: Sold only 312 MWh from January 6 to December 31. (UC Regents signed the new power
purchase agreement with SMUD on May 31. The same day, Waszczuk was lured to the
9
premises so his employment could be ended through a heinous provocation to physical
10 confrontation with department manager and then being shot and delivered dead or alive to
11
UCDMC’s trauma unit, which was prepared to receive him. The provocation was unsuccessful
and Waszczuk’s employment was terminated on December 7, 2012, following the August 2012
12 order of UC General Counsel Charles Robinson.)
13 • 2013: Sold only 1,383 MWh (to SMUD; sale to SMUD was discontinued in December, a few
days after Waszczuk filed a wrongful termination suit against the Regents and a petition of writ
14
of mandamus for denied unemployment benefits in Sacramento County Superior Court.
15 EXHIBIT #.)
• 2014: No power export.
16
• 2015: No power export.
17 • 2016: No power export.
18 • 2017: No power export.
• 2018: No power export.
19

20 From July 1999 to December 2003, the plant sold a total of around 170,000 MWh total (3 1/2 years, but
with no power sale in 2002). Sale data are missing for October through December 2000, but the total
21
power generation was in similar to 2001 so sales also had to be similar because the in-house load was
22
the same in 2000 and 2001. From January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008 (4 years), total power sale was
23
only 55,974.5 MWh, with UCDMC campus having a slightly higher demand than in 1999–2003. From
24
January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2017 (8 years), the plant sold only 2,563 with availability to export
25 nonstop at an average of 8 MWh in the summer and 12–15 MWh the rest of the year. Not exporting
26 available power translates to tens of millions of dollars lost. Waszczuk estimates the losses due to lack
27 of export to be 50–80 million dollars for the 2009–2017 period. This is the stake for the investors in

28 power sale from UCDMC’s 27-MW plant.

8
1
The UC Regents tens of millions of dollars’ worth illegal powers sale from UCDMC 27 MW
2
cogeneration plant in years of 1999 to 2009.The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration never
3
should have been built or commissioned or operated in the UC Davis Medical Center Campus, generate
4
and sell electricity because the plant was built in violation of the 18 C.F.R. § 292.20 requirements,
5
Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a), 1978 U.S Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).
6
Unlawful operation of the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant where Waszczuk was employed as an
7 operator lead to violation of the California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, State of California
8 Unfair Business Competition law, Business and Professions Code § 17200, California Commodity Law
9 of 1990 (Corp. Code, § 29500 et seq., "CCL"), and 7 U.S. Code § 6b by the UC Regents or by owner of
10 the plant who spent $65 million to build the plant. Unlawful operation of the plant and illegal power sale
11 and collaboration and conspiracy with California Independent Systems Operators, Pacific Gas &
12 Electric, Sacramento Municipal Utility District. the State of California Franchise Tax Board, California
13 Attorney General office and California Public Utilities Commission lead to enormous tax evasion due to
14 violation of section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the State of California Revenue
15 and Taxation Code besides the every possible state and federal environmental law applicable to
16 operation of the congregation facilities.
17 Waszczuk responded to the 3DCA opinion with a very detailed Petition for Rehearing. He paid
18 utmost attention to citing the record on appeal and followed with Petition for Review with California
19 Supreme Court. Both Petitions were denied by rubber stamp signature of 3DCA Presiding Justice Hon.

20 Vance Raye and Chief of California Supreme Court Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye. The two justices worked
together in California Governor George Deukmejian’s office and met again in the 3DCA. Justice Raye
21
and Justice Cantil-Sakauye were both elevated by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Chief Hon. Cantil-
22
Sakauye was involved in the 2007 Randy Vergos appeal, which resulted in the anti-gay opinion issued
23
on January 23, 2007. The case is known as Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 13999
24
(Vergos).
25
A lawsuit filed in Federal Court, CV 05 02439 MCE-KJM Edith Cartwright v. UC Regents, relates to
26
the Vergos case because UC Davis employee Edith Cartwright was a lesbian and friend of Randy
27 Vergos. This Federal Court lawsuit against many individuals from the UC Davis system sounds like a
28 terrifying horror about anti-gay genocide and prosecution in Germany during the Nazi era or today by
9
1 ISIS, Taliban, or Boko Haram. Everyone should be appalled to know that such atrocities are occurring in

2 the United States of America and within the public university system, which preaches zero tolerance for

3 discrimination but runs gays and lesbians off cliffs with the blessing of judges and justices. Basically,

4
all three Courts told Waszczuk, “You are on your own in your fight with the UC mafia.”

5 B. The provocations
6 In his Petition for Rehearing, which was denied by the 3DCA on November 9, 2017, Waszczuk
7 described the two confrontations instigated in the Court buildings by Porter Scott attorneys Ropel and
8 Burkett:
9

10
After just 15 minutes of oral argument, the Defendants legal counsel
11 David Burkett from the Sacramento-based law firm Porter Scott approached
Waszczuk in the Court Hall outside the courtroom and attempted to instigate a
12 confrontation. He made threats toward Waszczuk wife and tried to exploit the
emotional and financial suffering we have both experienced since UC Regents
13
terminated Waszczuk employment in December 2012 at age 61 without any possibility
14 to find new employment . For the Court informationWaszczuk spouse Irena Waszczuk
is working in Nordstrom in Sacramento as seamstress -fitter for almost 30 years and
15 has nothing to do with the University of California and Waszczuk’ lawsuit , Waszczuk
spouse should retire on September 21, 2017 at age of 66 but he can’t due to
16
devastation of Waszczuks life and livelihood by UC Regents and their collaborators.
17 Burkett knew that Waszczuk was stressed due to financial hardship caused by his
client’s criminal behavior; he thought that his attacks against my spouse would easily
18 provoke a confrontation. Sadly, this encounter was my second time experiencing such
shameful tactics in the court building. It is a second time Waszczuk experienced such
19
Defendants attorney behavior . It happened before in 2015, prior to the court hearing
20 with presiding Judge Shelleyane Chang in the unemployment benefits Writ of
Mandamus case— in which UC Regents is party as a Real Party In Interest( RPii.) UC
21 legal counsel and UC administrators must be very desperate if they resort to using
such tactics. Trying to provoke the opposing party into a physical confrontation in an
22
area heavily trafficked by sheriff’s deputies and city police is either very foolish or
23 very underhanded.

24
The other provocative heated discussion was instigated by the Judge David Brown during the Court
Hearing on April 10, 2015 after which the Judge Brown sent Lodi Police to Waszczuk residence in
25
Lodi .
26
It happened just one month after the similar provocation instigated by Porter Scott attorney Douglas
27
Ropel in the . As these two provocation were make sense to Waszczuk because it occurred before
28

10
1 Waszczuk was tipped off by the Judge Shelleyanne Chang’s February 27, 2015 decision about the UC

2 Regents illegal powers sale and tax fraud

3 However , the provocation instigated on August 28, 2017 by Porter Scott attorney David Burkett did not
4 make much sense to Waszczuk because everything was known already about tUC Regents illegal power
5 sale and tax fraud and attempt to provoke Waszczuk for physical confrontation in Court House did
6 make sense at all in attempt to convince Waszczuk to settle for legal fees which were not awarded yet
7
especially for David Burkett, Burkett behavior sounded that is more there than a legal fees .
8
Thereafter Waszczuk analyzes the events which triggered the vicious and without any pardon witch hunt
9
aimed at Waszczuk and anybody who got close to Waszczuk
10

11
V. THE WITCH HUNT OF 2007-2009
12
A. Key Perpetrators and Decision makers in 2007- 2009 witch hunt
13

14 1. RICHARD BLUM - UC Regent Richard Blum, a U.S. banker, investor, and husband of U.S.
15 Senator Dianne Feinstein, became chairman of the UC Board of Regens in January 2007

16 2. CHARLES ROBINSON – UC Senior Vice President and General Counsel since January 2007
17 Charles Robinson was transferred from California Independent System Operator to the
University of California Office of the President (UCOP) as the university’s new general counsel,
18
reporting directly to the UC regents. Charles Robinson replaced Eric K. Behrens, who was
19 handling the UC Davis Medical Center’s 27 MW cogeneration plant’s involvement in the illegal
power generation and sale and tax fraud, as well as manipulation of the power market, together
20
with the major power producers, sellers, and distributors. In January 2007, Richard Blum and
21 other UC white-collar criminals were preparing to resume illegal power sale at full scale
22 from the the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility after sale was decreased after time
period entitled ‘California Energy Crisis “ 1999-2003
23

24 3. LARRY VANDERHOEF - UC Davis Chancellor -very personal friend of U. S Congressman


John Garamendi from Mokelumne Hill , California . In January 2007 John Garamendi was
25
elected State of California Lieutenant Governor and by was automatically became a UC Regent .
26
4. STEVEN DROWN -UC Davis Campus Chief Counsel
27
5. ANNA RICE – UC Davis Medical Center(UCDMC) Chief Operating Officer .
28

11
1
6. STEPHEN CHILCOTT – UCDMC HR Investigator -witch hunter investigator -Attorney at Law
2
7. MICHAEL BOYD -UCDMC Executive Director –Step II-Reviewer of Waszczuk complaint
3
8. ROBERT TAYLOR -UCDMC Director -Step I Reviewer of Waszczuk complaint
4 9. DR. SHELTON J. DURUISSEAU- The UCDMC Executive Director and Affirmative Action
5
Officer
10. BETTYE ANDREOS – UCDMC Pathology Department Manager -Assigned by HR Witch
6 Hunter to fabricate report for Waszczuk’s termination of employment
7 11. DANESHA NICHOLS – UC Davis HR attorney
12. HUMBERTO GARCIA – UCDMC HR Labor Relation Supervisor transferred to UCDMC
8
from UC Davis Campus after witch hunt of gay people . Sued in Federal Court .
9
13. MICHAEL SHEESLEY – UCDMC HR Labor Relation Department
10 14. CHARLES WITCHER – UCDMC Interim Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager
11 15. STEVE MCGRATH – UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant newly promoted superintendent
12

13 Waszczuk believe that the witch hunt of 2007-2009 against Waszczuk was triggered in retaliation for
helping Waszczuk’s coworker William Buckans with his whistle blowing complaint about massive
14
machine discharge from the Cooling Tower fans defective gear Boxes to the Scaramanto river via storm
15
drain .The outside investigation by environmental law enforcement could lead to disclosure of unlawful
16
plant operation and illegal power sale .
17
After one year and half of fierce battle Waszczuk defatted UC bandits by their UC Davis policies and
18
procedures which they should enforce and follow instead violating it . The witch haunt resulted in
19
February 2009 Settlement -Agreement signed by Steven Drown , Robert Taylor and Charles Witcher
20
signed with Waszczuk on the University of California . The 2009 Settlement -Agreement promoted
21

22
Waszczuk from cogeneration plant operator to Associate Development Engineer with assignment in

23 HVAC Shop of the same UCDMC Department with Charles Witcher and Bob Taylor in charge.

24 As Waszczuk mentioned above, the illegal power sale from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration was

25 ceased after UC Regents signed with Waszczuk February 2009 Settlement -Agreement which

26 guaranteed Waszczuk indefinite employment with University of California as Associate Development

27 Engineer. in February 2009 Waszczuk did not know that the February 2009 Settlement -Agreement

28 was nor really agreement by time given to UCOP bandits to prepare and launch new witch hunt against

12
1
Waszczuk and anybody who associated with Waszczk and was view as an abstraction to resume illegal
2
powers sale
3
VI. TODD GOERLICH SUICIDE IN DECEMBER 2010
4
A. Todd Goerlich, Employee in UCDMC 27 MW Cogeneration Power Plant
5

6
Todd Goerlich was brought to the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant by his gay friend and
7

8 one of the superintendents in the plant Steve McGrath, who participated actively in the witch hunt aimed

9 at Waszczuk in 2007. The other plant superintendent, Tom Kavanaugh, was also gay. McGrath was gay

10 but was married to a registered nurse who worked in a hospital in Jackson, California. Waszczuk does
11 not know what happened; however, McGrath’s wife was apparently tipped off that her husband was gay,
12
and she committed suicide in 2004 or 2005. Waszczuk met her once when McGrath brought her to the
13
plant. She was a beautiful and well-mannered lady. McGrath quickly remarried to a woman he met
14
during a bicycle riding competition, the California tours “Triple Crowns.” In 2007, McGrath brought
15
Goerlich to the plant, and Goerlich almost instantly replaced Waszczuk in April 2007. Waszczuk
16

17
eventually learned that Goerlich was a muscular and well-mannered gay man who drove an expensive

18 Ferrari Testarossa.

19 Apparently, the Ferrari Testarossa drew the attention of the three other operators who were brought to

20 the plant by McGrath from his previous employment. These operators bullied and harassed two other

21 plant employees, William Buckans and Rick Tunello. The bullying had been going on since Buckans
22 and Tunello were hired in 2000–2001. Because of Waszczuk’s defense of Buckans and Tunello, Jeff
23 Lancaster, Chris Gangl, and Greg Russ helped the witch hunters in 2007 by giving false testimony to
24
remove Waszczuk from the plant.
25
Goerlich’s Ferrari Testarossa caught the attention of these three bullies, especially Lancaster. Obviously,
26
Lancaster was a bully and blackmailer.
27

28

13
1
In September 2010, Lancaster and his buddies submitted a blackmail petition to Department Head
2
Charles Witcher. The petition asked for a $4 pay raise as a reward for helping Witcher and Robert
3
Taylor remove Waszczuk from the plant in 2007. In order to achieve this $4 pay raise, the authors of the
4
petition attacked Waszczuk.
5
In the meantime, agitated from being bullied, harassed, and blackmailed by Lancaster, Goerlich became
6
aggressive and hit operator Philip Galik, who was hired after Waszczuk was removed from the plant in
7
2007. Shortly before Goerlich committed suicide, he charged at Buckans with his fists. According to
8
Buckans, he was searching for parts on a computer in plant control with Kevin Ingelsby, who was a
9 maintenance worker. Goerlich entered the control room and angrily shouted, “Are you watching gay
10 porn?!” Buckans jokingly answered, “Yes, we do and found you.” Almost instantly, Goerlich charged
11 Buckans. Buckans did not report this incident to HR until after Goerlich committed suicide.
12 Shortly after Goerlich attacked Buckans on December 17, 2010, in response to bullying and harassment
13
from Lancaster, Goerlich broke into Lancaster’s locker and burglarized photos and other items.
14
On December 17, 2010, Principal Engineer Mike Lewis, who was in charge of the central plant, issued a
15
dramatic memo stating that
16

17 One of the Central Plant Operator’s locker was broken into and personal effects were
removed. This is a very serious offense and will not be tolerated. This incident has
18
been reported to UCDMC Police department and to UCDMC Human Resources
19
department for appropriate investigation and action. In my entire career that consists
20
of work at facilities both in the United States and abroad I have never experienced an
21
incident such as this. If the perpetrator is found, appropriate action will be taken
22
B. Todd Goerlich’s Suicide on December 22, 2010
23

24
Five days after the Principal Engineer Mike Lewis issued his dramatic memo about the incoming
25
investigation to find perpetrator Central Plant Operator, Todd Goerlich committed suicide. Then, the rest
26
of the Central Plant Operators received a 12% pay raise despite strict UC budget constraints and
27
furlough in UC Campuses and no power sale contract . Thereafter, everything got quiet. Nobody was
28

14
1
questioned by an HR investigator or the UC Davis Police Department about locker burglary. No more
2 comments were made by any Central Plant supervisors about Jeff Lancaster’s burglarized locker, no
3 more dramatic memos from the Principal were issued and Todd Georlich’s tragic death was quickly
4 forgotten.
5
C. The Secret 12 % Pay Raise For Central Plant Operators –March 2011
6

7
Around March 5, 2011, Waszczuk somehow got into a conversation with the operator from the central
8
plant William Buckans about the December 2010 12% pay raise, and Waszczuk received from Buckans
9
a copy of the UCDMC Plant Operation and the letter from maintenance manager Charles Witcher dated
10
December 20, 2010, which confirmed a 12% pay raise for the central plant operators.
11
The December 2010 12% pay raise that was secretly provided to central plant operators was
12
discriminatory to other non-union employees of the UC Davis Medical Center who did not get one
13
penny in wage increase in the last three years due to strict budget constraints in the whole University of
14 California system. The disclosure about the secret pay raise for small groups of employees became a
15 subject of discussion among workers at the other shops in the UC Davis Medical Center. Waszczuk
16 confronted his shop manager Patrick Putney and Waszczuk asked Putney why the HVAC shop staff did
17 not get a pay raise. Putney’s response was that he knew about the pay raise, but was told to be silent
18 about it to avoid any turmoil among the other shops’ workers. Following the discussion with Patrick
19 Putney, Waszczuk wrote an eight-page letter to the department manager about the central plant
20 operators’ December 2010 pay raise that was no longer a secret, and he asked department head Charles
21 Witcher for a one-step wage increase.
22

23
D. The Restricted Access to the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant
in March 2011
24

25 Consequently, right after Waszczuk asked his supervisors about the secret 12% pay raise for the Central
26 Plant Operators, Department Principal Engineer Mike Lewis issued a memo dated March 11, 2011,
27 instructing Central Plant crew to do the following:
28

15
1 “Please inform all Central-Plant personnel that access to the Central
Plant is restricted to operators on duty and vendors performing work requested by the
2
University. All operators not on duty and other personnel with no direct reason to be
3 in the Central Plant shall not be granted access to the Central Plant. If illegal access is
gained to the Central Plant please call 4-2555 for a non-emergency event or 911 for an
4
emergency.“If an employee not on duty or other individuals with no direct need to
5 gain access to the Central Plant request access to the Central Plant please contact
6
Charles Witcher, Mike Lewis, or Dennis Curry for direction. Thank you.”

7 That was a shocking memo. Never before had access to the Central Plant been restricted for off-shift
8 personnel.
9 E. The March 13, 2011, Waszczuk’s letter addressed to UCDMC Plant Operation and
Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher
10

11 A few days after Mike Lewis issued the memo about access to the Central Plant, Waszczuk on March
12 14, 2011, sent a letter to Charles Witcher and asked him respectfully for a one-step salary increase;
13 Waszczuk also brought to Witcher’s attention safety and hygiene issues in the HVAC Shop and
14
mentioned Tod Georlich’s suicide, who was Waszczuk’s replacement in the Central Plant in March
15
2007, and he did not survive hostility created by UC Davis Medical Center management through
16
unwritten policies and its own rules .
17
Dear Mr. Witcher:
18
I hope it's not any surprise for you that an employee is getting concerned after he
19 found out or discovered that one group of employees in the same department got quite
20
secretly a significant wage increase (over 10%) and he was left behind and forgotten
and did not receive a penny in this share of dollars.
21
It is appears that Cogen Operators wages under Title Code 8094 for Non —
22 Represented were increased from level 5. to level 11.0. (Six levels up)
23 I would not write this letter but money talk and stirring people mind and saying more
simply I just feel discriminated in this share of goods.
24
At the best of my ability to write, I will try to explain why I feel discriminated and left
25
behind like an orphan in abandoned orphanage.
26
Last year in August 2010 after I came back to work from vacation, my coworker from
27 HVAC shop, Bill Rabidoux asked me if I will be willing to work swing shift because
HVAC shop manager told him that second shift would be created for the Metasys
28 System operation outside the Central Plant.
16
1 I responded that it would be no problem.

2 However, whole conversation got my attention and I concluded that during my


vacation absence the Metasys Operation is still unresolved issue for somebody inside
3 the department and he is trying to fix something that is not broken.
4 My other thought was that Central Plant Operators submitted complaint and they are
5 asking to remove the Metasys Operation from the Central Plant

6 Shortly after, in September 2010, I received by copy of the undated but signed petition
by four Central Plant operators in regards to Metasys Operation
7
After I read the petition and attached to the petition the wages disclosure printed from
8 the Sacramento Bee website, the first my thought was that the petition is a follow up to
their earlier complaint which I thought they submitted in August during my vacation
9
absence. The petition itself alleged that Metasys System operation has became full
10 time job to monitor and it was my understanding from the petition that the $ 4.00
/hour wage increase for them would magically convert the full time Metasys
11 Operation job to relaxing leisure in nice resort.
12 Furthermore , the individuals who signed the petition alleging (without
mentioning my name) that I am making $ 15,000.00 more than they are( I wish)
13
earning and I am doing considerably less than they are .
14
On top of this, petitioners are raising issue of three managers for twelve person crew
15 in the Central Plant.

16 I don't know how they omitted Mr. Mike Lewis in their calculations who appears to be
in charge of these three mentioned managers. I don't know if it is lack of respect for
17 Mr. Lewis or they are targeting Central Plant Maintenance Supervisor who I as heard
he became a salt in their eyes. Few days later after I got the petition I have heard from
18
source different than Central Plant that Central Plant Manager Mr. Steve McGrath
19 making accusations that I was involved in writing this petition for Central Plant
Operators.
20
I did not want to engage myself in any conflict or discussion with these individuals
21 who are attacking my wages and my duty and I did pass the copy of the petition to Mr.
Dennis Curry.
22
Thereafter I forgot about it and concluded this event as a "NEVER ENDING
23
TRAUMA IN THE CENTRAL PLANT " taking in consideration that the same group
24 of individuals viciously and recklessly attacked me and other people in the past,
caused me enormous stress, suspension, my departure from the Central Plant and loss
25 of thousands of dollars in my earning"
26 At the end of December 2010 I got e-mail from William about his pay raise and I
thought that he is joking and I wrote him back that I got five thousand dollars raise,
27
than he sent me congratulation etc. I did not believe him in spite of State financial
28 crisis, furlough, budget constraints and UC President memos about the cuts and

17
1 possibility of big lay off in IJC system. Basically, I ignored William information and
was no further discussion about the pay raise in the Central Plant.
2
The other subject in December 2010 in discussion was the tragic death of the Central
3 Plant employee who took his own life. Just day or two before it happened, I was
4
joking with Tods over the phone and such news was very terrible and unprecedented
news for me. I have a problem to get this tragic event off my mind because Todd was
5 working in the place where I have experienced bully behavior toward, Rick Tunello
and William Buckans and later toward me from well known group of employees in
6 Central Plant and authors of the last year petition for wage increase and remarks
7
toward me in this petition.

8 The other December 2010 story from the Central Plant is a story of the Jeff Lancaster
burglarized locker and supposedly stolen photos from the Jeff's locker protected by the
9 secret lock combination.
10 After I read the William's statement, talk to him and I read Mr. Lewis letter, I
understood that somebody supposedly opened Jeff's Lancaster locker and took his
11 personal photos.
As I remember the only Plant Manager had the list of all lockers codes and he could
12
only open somebody's locker. This whole story sound and looks like total hoax made
13 up for who knows what reason or for April 1s` fool's day. Who want's somebody's
family photos and for what reason?
14 Mr. Lewis stating that he never experienced an incident such as this, he probably was
not aware that in the past the former Central Plant Manager got into people lockers
15
without their presence to search for sleeping equipment because he was informed that
16 operators are sleeping on the night shift.
My Wages and Working Condition
17 Dear Mr. Witcher:
The wages subject came again to my attention last week because William did mention
18
again his raise and again I thought that he is trying to "pull my legs" and is joking. and
19 in light of budget cuts e.tc I did not believe what is William telling me until he sent me
copy of your memo which stated that he got the pay raise.
20 I am working in UC Davis Medical Center almost 12 years. A lot longer then many
operators in the Central Plant.
21
With my departure from the Central Plant I received by the Settlement —Agreement
22 $70, 000 per year salary and Associate Development Engineer Position.
I am not sure how we got to this $70, 000.00 salary, because according to the HR
23 Salary Scale under Title Code 7182 as Non —Represented employee I should be in
the Middle Range or step with $ 71640.00 per year or $34.31/hr which is closest to the
24
$70,000.00 per year I got two years ago . No one step in salary range under Title code
25 7182 is set at $70,000.00
The $ 70,000.00 partially compensated my overtime and other extras I was receiving
26 as Central Plant Operator. I am estimating that Central Plant Operators wages with
their new over 10% raise would be around $85-90 K per year taking in consideration
27 their overtime and other extra pay they are getting.
28

18
1 The next range for salary scale under Title Code 7182 is $ 80922.00 per year which I
believe it would comparable what the Central Plant Operators will make after the
2 December 2010 pay raise.
3
I wrote the introduction and I summarized the latest events in the Central in this letter
not without reason
4 The petitioners have the right to say in the petition whatever they want about my job
but I know how to operate the Central Plant and could go and do it if really needed or
5 requested by management
I am not sure if the petitioners would be so happy to work in the place where no
6
designated place to eat meal at lunch is or break, where they would have to use
7 filthy bathrooms, no warm and clean locker room to change clothes at the winter
time. I am happy for Central Plant operators they got the wage increase.
8 However, I am asking for fair and equal treatment in regards to wages
It is my understanding from my job description that my position has primary
9
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Central Plant.
10 It is also my understanding that Metasys System is integrated part of the Central Plant
and I have this duty for the full time.
11
Beside the Metasys Alarms I am doing other stuff requested by Patrick Putney and I
12
have well documented what I am doing beside the Metasys Operation.
13 Some days I am very busy and "dizzy" from the alarms but I don't have any major
problem to handle the job.
14 I don't take brakes with exception to lunch and I would like to have both brakes
integrated into lunch and take one hour lunch instead of two 15 minutes brakes and 1/2
15
hour lunch. This would allow me to leave the shop to eat lunch outside in cafeteria or
16 walk around the campus to relax and get my blood circulation normal
In conclusion I am respectfully asking and I would appreciate if my salary will
17 accordingly to next level under Title Code 7182 for Non —Represented employees
which I believe is a level 3.0
18
Sincerely
19 Jaroslaw Waszczuk

20

21 Waszczuk learned that prior to Goerlich’s suicide, Goerlich frequently complained to his friend Dereck

22 Cole and his girlfriend that he had been harassed and bullied in the central plant “by a person named

23 Jeff.” That corresponds with Buckans’s observation of how badly Goerlich disliked Jeff Lancaster and,

24 in particular, how different and unapproachable Goerlich became whenever he worked a shift with Jeff

25 Lancaster.
26 Cole was a newly hired HVAC technician in a shop where Waszczuk worked. Cole was hired just one
27 month after Goerlich committed suicide. Goerlich was the person who provided the recommendation for
28

19
1
Cole to be hired as an HVAC technician by the UC Davis Medical Center, where Waszczuk had been
2
working since 2007.
3
Cole was gay. However, until 2012, Waszczuk did not know that Goerlich and Cole were both gay.
4
Waszczuk did not care or actively seek to find out whether his coworkers were gay.
5
The news about the pay raise got around. In fear of turmoil, the UC Davis Chancellor’s Office or UCOP
6
ordered a 2% pay raise for all UC Davis Medical Center non-union employees, including the central
7
plant operators who had already received a 12% pay raise. Normally, employees would receive a pay
8
raise on July 1—if such a raise were approved after the annual performance review. Waszczuk and
9
others received the pay raise in May 2011, and his salary increased from $70,000 to $71,600 per year.
10

11
VII. APRIL 2011- OCTOBER 2014 WITCH HUNT AGAINST WASZCZUK
12

13

14
A. The Witch Hunt 2011-2014

15
The bringing to the UCDMC management attention the Todd Georlich’s suicide which should

16 investigated by UCDPF Police in collaboration from Police in Rancho Cordova very quickly

17 accelerated vicious and beyond human decency and with out any mercy witch new witch hunt against

18 Waszczuk and anybody who got Waszczuk’s information and refused to participate .

19 In 20111-2012 Waszczuk was subjected 60-year-old Waszczuk to malicious psychological terror

20 unthinkable for any normal person and beyond the bounds of human decency from April 2011 to

21 December 2012 and prior to this, in 2006-2007, with involvement of four of five listed defendants in the
22 lawsuit, Michael Boyd, Cindy Oropeza, Stephen Chilcott, and Charles Witcher.
23 The terror and witch hunt aimed at Waszczuk between 2006 and 2012 included unwarranted suspension
24 and reassignment interrogations in a style Waszczuk knew from his native country during the
25 Communist era, when Waszczuk was subjected to such interrogation by Communist secret police for his
26 political activities against communism in 1980-1981.
27

28

20
1
Furthermore, the psychological terror and which hunt aimed at Waszczuk included and was not limited
2
to stalking Waszczuk; maliciously sabotaging Waszczuk’s job and the duty assigned to him to set
3
Waszczuk up for failure; falsely accusing Waszczuk of racism, bigotry, and antisemitism; not providing
4
Waszczuk with a mandatory annual Employee Performance Review for the years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 to
5
let Waszczuk know that he was a persona non grata and to let him know that he had been singled out and that
6
his employment days were numbered; an attempt to force Waszczuk to file a fraudulent workers compensation
7
claim and thus remove Waszczuk from the premises; and reassignment of Waszczuk’s job, which was
8
guaranteed by a Settlement Agreement Waszczuk signed with the UC Regents in 2009, to an individual who
9
bringing on premises a twice-convicted child pornography felon and who was then allowed to illegally surf
10
shop computers (Case: 2 :6 –cr- 00418-LKK, The United States of America v. Sean Christopher Robideaux,
11
United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Indictment Violation(S) 18 U.S.C § 2252 () (4)(B) –
12
Possession of Visual Depiction of Minors in Sexually Explicit Conduct ).
13

14
After Waszczuk and his coworker reported the above-mentioned crime, Waszczuk and his coworker Kenneth

15
Diede automatically became subjects of a witch hunt by the Defendants in July 2011, and Waszczuk was not

16 allowed to come back to work on September 1, 2011, after one month of sick leave for work-related stress.

17 In addition to the above-listed acts of terror against Waszczuk, the Defendants denied Waszczuk’s disability

18 income in an attempt to force him to take UC retirement and quit; placed Waszczuk on investigatory-

19 administrative leave for over one year and did not let Waszczuk know when the administrative leave would

20 end; sent Waszczuk threatening letters, even during the time when Waszczuk was placed on work-stress-

21 related sick leave and was under physician and psychologist care; denied Waszczuk health care insurance in
22 December 2011 and January 2012; changed Waszczuk’s title from Associate Development Engineer, given to
23 Waszczuk by the Settlement Agreement that Waszczuk signed with UC Regents in 2009, to Programmer I
24 without Waszczuk’s knowledge or okay; crafted false, defamatory, and defacing investigatory reports about
25 Waszczuk; and, in May 2012, attacked Waszczuk and Waszczuk’s two coworkers, to whom Waszczuk was
26 providing representation, with unwarranted disciplinary action in the form of suspension and ill-crafted letters
27 of expectations to prime Waszczuk for heinous ill-orchestrated but unsuccessful provocation on May 31, 2012,
28

21
1
in order to end Waszczuk’s employment in UC Davis Medical Center Nursing Trauma Unit No. 11. For this
2
purpose they bribed UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour with a $35,000.00 wage increase as the executor and
3
assigned Trauma Unit Supervisor Karen Kouretas to receive Waszczuk if provocation was successful.
4
The order to use UC Davis Police forces and lethal weapons against an employee to end his employment by
5
landing him in the UC Davis Medical Center Mortuary or Trauma Unit had to be given to UC Davis Police by
6
UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, who in November 2011 ordered a confidential report on Waszczuk from
7
Defendant Stephen Chilcott and Danesha Nichols . However Chancellor Linda Katehi refused to fire
8
Waszczuk and participate in the witch hunt.
9

10
B. 2011-2014 Perpetrators , participants and collaborators
11

12 1. Janet Napolitano – President of the University of California


13
2. Dan Dooley - was appointed UC senior vice president for external relations on March 19,
2009, after leading the division on an interim basis since Nov. 5, 2008. In making the
14 appointment, UC President Mark G. Yudof cited Dooley’s decades of experience in developing
15 constituent and legislative support for important public policy priorities and the high level of
respect he enjoys in both Sacramento and Washington, D.C. http://www.ucop.edu/external-
16
relations/daniel-m.-dooley.html- UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley from November 2011-
17 April 2012 was a member of the Task Force Team, which investigated a pepper spray attack
provocation orchestrated by him , UC General Counsel and UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven
18
Drown in conspiracy with Vice Chancellor and Provost Ralph Hexter and UCDPD Lt. Matt
19 Carmichael . UC Davis paper spray provocation attack against protesting students on
November 18, 2011 was ill crafted by perpetrators to remove UC Davis Chancellor Linda
20
Katehi , UCDPD Chief Annette Spicuzza , Lt. John Pike and Captain Souza
21
Dan Dooley was a key player to destroy Waszczuk -reason not fully known but for sure Waszczuk
22
knows that it something to do with illegal power sale , tax fraud and TODD GEORLICH’s suicide
23 which Waszczuk reported to Chancellor Katehi , Annette Spizucca , Lt. john Pike and Captain Souza in
24
October 2011. .
3. Sherryl Vacca – UC Senior Vice President -Compliance Office . Resigned and moved to East
25 Coast
26
4. Judith Rosenberg - The UC Office of the President Principal Investigator was assigned to
27 investigate Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint submitted to the UC
28 Davis

22
1 Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter on March 7, 2013. Compliant
transferred to the UCOP in June 2013 for investigation. The investigation was presided over by
2
two UC Senior Vice Presidents, Sheryl Vacca and Daniel Dooley. In June 2014, Judith
3 Rosenberg issued her investigation Report in which she defamed and defaced Waszczuk defaced
Waszczuk as same as four other witch hunters , Bettye Andreos in 2007 , Danseha Nichols ,
4
Brent Seifert and Cindy Oropeza in 2012
5

6
5. John Lohse –Director of Investigations in the Office of the Senior Vice President and Chief
Compliance and Audit Officer of the Regents of the University of California. He is responsible
7 for coordinating, tracking, managing and conducting investigations at the Office of the President
8 and system-wide. Mr. Lohse came to the University of California in January 2004 after a career
with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), where he served as a Special Agent, Associate
9 Division Counsel and Chief Division Counsel for the FBI’s San Francisco Division. In addition,
10 the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California appointed Mr. Lohse as a
Special Assistant United States Attorney. Prior to his service with the FBI, he was a criminal
11
prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix, Arizona. Mr. Lohse is a
12 member of the State Bars of California and Arizona. He is also a Private Investigator, licensed by
the State of California. He was at relevant time is a Director of Association of Work Place
13
Investigators (AWI).” Plaintiff was convinced that Director Lohse was coordinating unknown
14 actions against Plaintiff and that Director Lohse perfectly fit the profile of framing Plaintiff.
Plaintiff expressed his thoughts in a response letter to Director John Lohse dated May 14, 2012.
15
After Plaintiff responded to Mr. Lohse’s letter and sent to his office a few other documents
16 related to the case, Plaintiff never heard from Lohse again.
6. Charles Robinson – UC General Counsel. In January 2007, for his effort to cover up the UC
17
Regents approximately $80,000,000 fraud, the CALISO General Counsel Charles Robinson was
18 awarded by the Regents of the University of California the position of General Counsel and
19
Senior Vice President of the university, with a $400,000 annual salary. Robinson was a key
participant in witch hunt to destroy Waszczuk with help of his three deputies , Karen J.
20 Petrulakis, UCOP Chief Deputy General Counsel ,Cynthia A.Vroom, UCOP Senior Counsel ;
21 Margaret L Wu, UCOP Managing Counsel
7. Mia Belk – UCOP attorney - in September 2012 Mia Belk, as university-employed counsel, sent
22 her decision or report to UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, J.D.,
23 and based on her decision or report Stephen Chilcott pursued unlawful termination of Waszczuk
employment
24
8. Ralph Hexter – UC Davis Vice Chancellor and Provost -Openly gay .
25 9. Steven Drown -UC Davis Campus Chief Counsel key participant in witch hunt in 2007and in
2011-2012.
26
10. Michael Boyd -UCDMC Executive Director –Step II-Reviewer of Waszczuk complaint in
27 2007 and in 2013 -Key participant in Waszczuk employment termination in 2007 and 2012
28

23
1 11. Allen Tollefson – UC Davis UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor – Skelly Reviewer of my
employment termination in December 2012. Tollefson appeared into anti- SLAPP motion
2
3DCA opinions - Ricci v. Tollefson, No. C041456 (Cal.App. Dist.3 04/03/2003) and Vergos v.
3 McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 13999(Vergos ) certified for publication on January 23,
2007 anti-gay opinion which involved todays’s California Chief Justice Hon. Tani -Cantil
4
Sakauye who was then elevated to 3CA from Sacramento County Superior Court .
5 By reading only in Vergos v McNeal that: Tollefson followed plaintiff around, sometimes
6
came up behind him, stared at plaintiff’s hair and body, made comments about the penises of
other men, said one man had pretty lips, tugged at his own (Tollefson’s) crotch, and got angry
7 when plaintiff refused to move into Tollefson’s office. 2003 & 2007 Vergos and Ricci anti-
8 SLAPPS are products of notorious Porter Scott Law Corporation Attorneys . The Ricci was a
first desperate UC Davis tugs and sexual predators attempt to establish anti-gay, ant-SLAPP
9 precedence but UC Davis thugs and bandits and their Devil Advocates from Porter Scott were
10 out of lack to assemble Justices Panel to establish to fabricate precedence until Hon. Tani Cantil
Sakauye was elevated by Arnold Schwarzenegger to 3DCA . Verogs was used against
11
Waszczuk in anti-SLAPP appeal in 2017 . Unpublished Opinion was delivered by Presiding
12 Justice Vance Raye , friend and co-employee of Hon. Tani -Cantill Sakauye . They worked
together in anti -gay Governor George Deukmejian office and met again in 3DCA in 2005.
13

14 Ann Madden Rice – UC Davis Medical Center Chief Executive Officer (CEO) - key participant
in witch hunt in 2007 and in 2001-2012
15
12. STEPHEN CHILCOTT J.D. – SBN # 1969905 Executive Director of the UC Davis Health
16 System Seventeen Human Resources Department and Services since July 1, 2010,
17
13. Mike Boyd – UC Davis Medical Center Facilities and Construction Executive Director
18 (Waszczuk’s Superior)
19
14. Charles Witcher – UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M)
Manager (Waszczuk’s superior and Mike Boyd’s subordinate) By his PO&M Manager signature,
20 Charles Witcher also is responsible for issuing an investigatory leave letter dated May 31, 2012.
21 Witcher issued this letter immediately after the 10 days' wrongful suspension without pay letter.
Having read the documents I received under the provisions of the Public Records Act, I
22 understand clearly and without any doubt that the investigatory leave letter issued just after my
23 suspension from work was a maliciously crafted provocation, which I believe was intended to
make me so mad and violent than I would be sent to the UC Davis Trauma Unit or that I would
24
be killed or badly harmed by UC Davis Police's By his PO&M Manager signature, Charles
25 Witcher is additionally responsible for retaliatory and malicious actions that threatened my
health and my and my spouse's livelihood, namely the letter of intent to dismiss for serious
26
misconduct. The letter was based on three coerced employees' false accusations and
27 allegations provided to two UCDMC investigators who have issued false statements about
me. The false investigation report became the cause of my employment termination with
28

24
1 University of California on December 7, 2012. Charles Witcher signed my employment
termination letter.
2

3 15. Danesha Nichols J.D. – UC Davis Health System Human Resources (HR) Department
Investigator and attorney at law licensed by the California State Bar (Stephen Chilcott’s direct
4
subordinate) -key player and key witch hunter . Fabricators of false reports for Waszczuk
5 employment termination in 2011-2012
6
13. Robert Taylor -UCDMC Director -Step I Reviewer of Waszczuk complaint in 2007- key
participant in witch hunt in 2007 and in 2012
7 14. Dr. Shelton J. Duruisseau- The UCDMC Executive Director and Affirmative Action Officer -
8 key participant and collaborator in witch hunt against Waszczuk in 2007 and 2011-2012
15. Carol Kirshnit -licensed clinical psychologist and the coordinator of the Academic and Staff
9 Assistance Program at UC Davis Health System, and Marjorie Trogodon Shock is a licensed clinical
10 social worker with over 20 years of clinical experience.
Carol Kirshnit, Ph.D, was the person who, as a doctor of psychology, professionally advised her
11
Superior HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and the UC Davis Death Squad coordinator
12 Hugh Parker as to whether Plaintiff was properly primed and aroused to be provoked and killed
on May 31, 2012, and whether Plaintiff’s employment would end in the UC Davis Medical Center
13
Trauma Unit .
14 16. HUGH PARKER—UC Davis Health Systems Manager, Workers’ Compensation, Ergonomics,
Disability Management. HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s direct subordinate. Plaintiff
15
knew Hugh Parker since 2000 and met Hugh Parker two times when Hugh Parker held a
16 Consultant position in HR Labor Relations. Plaintiff never expected that Hugh Parker, as HR
Workers Compensation Manager, would become a Trojan Horse in Plaintiff’s employment
17
termination and that Parker would become a coordinator of the UC Davis Death Squad and of the
18 maliciously crafted provocation to kill Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, or end Plaintiff’s employment
19
at the UC Davis Medical Center.
17. Humberto Garcia – UCDMC Labor Relation Manager – involved in witch hunt against
20 Waszczuk in 2007-2009- sued in discrimination complaints in state and federal courts .
21 18. Since 2008, Jill Noel VanDeviver J.D in collaboration with Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert ,
Travis Lindsey , Danesha Nichols and UCDMC administrators and management , and others
22 engaged in misconduct involving dishonesty, the cover up of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation
23 of her position as a UC Davis HR attorney with the title of Principal Consultant . For unknow to
Waszczuk reason Jill Vandeviver and Humberto Garcia were removed from Waszczuk’s witch
24
hunt case in June 2012 , disposed and replaced by Travis Lindsay and Gina Harwood .
25 19. TRAVIS LINDSEY- licensed attorney at law—The New UCDMC HR Labor Relations Manager
who replaced Mike Garcia on May 1st 2012. Direct subordinate of HR Executive Director Stephen
26
Chilcott. Travis Lindsey was the most active and notorious member of the assembled UC Davis
27 Death Squad.
20. Cindy Oropeza –UCDHS Manager Benefits, EEO, Resident/Fellow Program HR Administrator,
28

25
1 Title IX Officer - Sexual Harassment, Mediation Services, ASAP, Early
Resolution/Inclusion - “UC Davis Death Squad” member together with Hugh Parker , David
2
Levine, Debra Schmidt, Marjorie Trogodon Shock, Neil Speth, Carol Kirshnit, Karen Kouretas,
3 Cindy Oropeza, Glynis Foulk, James Barbour, and Travis Lindsay,& Brent Seifert – together with
Brent Seifert fabricated in September 2012 false report for Waszczuk employment termination .
4

5 21. LT. JAMES BARBOUR—UC DAVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT Lt. James Barbour in May
6
2012 was assigned by the new UC Davis Police Chief Matt Carmichael to kill or harm Plaintiff
with a deadly weapon on May 31, 2012, in a maliciously crafted unsuccessful provocation in
7 exchange for a $35,000 wage increase
8 22. KAREN KOUERTAS—R.N., M.S.N. Nurse Manager for UC Davis Medical Center Trauma
Nursing Unit (TNU) # 11
9
The Davis 11 Trauma Nursing Unit (TNU) is a 36-bed acute care specialty and
10
telemetry unit that primarily provides inpatient care and treatment for patients
11 who have sustained blunt or penetrating injury, as well as those who may require
surgical intervention. This includes care of patients with suspected or confirmed
12
intra-abdominal injuries, complex wound management, orthopedic fractures,
13 head/neck/face injuries, brain trauma, chest trauma, and pulmonary injury.
14 By reading the purpose of Trauma Nursing Unit # 11 at UC Davis Medical Center, it creates an
15
unbelievably chilling picture of what the “UC Davis Death Squad Members,” including Karen
Kouertas, had in their sick minds in relation to the meticulously and maliciously crafted
16 provocation of May 31, 2012, to eliminate Plaintiff from UC Davis Medical Center landscape.
17

18 23. Matt Carmichael -UCDPD Police Chief since November 19, 2011 .Stepped down in August
19 2016 and moved to Oregon.
24. Wendy Delemendo – UC Davis Chief Compliance officer -key player in witch hunt against
20
Waszczuk and his coworkers .
21 25. Anna Orlowski – UCDMC Chief Counsel
26. James Barbour -UCDPD Lt. Police Office bribed by $35000 wage increase to end Waszczuk
22
employment with UCDMC in Trauma Unit # 11 on May 31, 2011 .
23 27. Robert J. Waste- Assistant Director of Government and Community Relations for UC Davis
Health System.
24
28. Teresa Porter – UC Davis Health System (UCDHS) Chief Compliance Officer
25 29. Gina Gaullaume-Holleman -Investigator from the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) Chief
Compliance Office On July 18, 2012,
26
30. Vncent Johnson- UCDHS -Chief Operating Officer
27 31. Marilyn Elizabeth Tays- Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB)Administrative Law
28
Judge . Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Tays- assigned by UCOP mafia to deny

26
1 Waszczuk’s unemployment with outrageous misconduct during the hearing on March 13, 2013
witnessed by two Waszczuk’s former coworkers
2
ALJ Marilyn Tays’ hostility toward Waszczuk’s and and his witnesses could best be described
3 with her statement after Waszczuk’ witness made a statement about his coworker’s Todd
Goerlich suicide, caused by Defendants’ hostile working environment. ALJ Marilyn Tays
4
responded: “All right, I guess he is not here.” The case is still pending in 3DCA since May
5 2015
6
32. Michael Allen - was appointed to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board by the
7 Assembly Speaker John Perez in January 2013 . Therafter John Perez became a UC Regent .
8 Assembly Speaker John Perez appointed Michael Allen to the CUIAB as a member in January
2013 after Michael Allen lost reelection in the 10th Assembly District in 2012 and landed in
9 CUIAB with a six-figure job of $128,109. It happened just after my employment was terminated
10 by the Regents of the University of California in December 2012 and just after I filed my claim
for the unemployment insurance benefits with EDD.
11
Michael Allen was born and raised in Los Angeles by his Latina mother, who immigrated to the
12 United States after she married an American mining company attorney. When his mother was
widowed when he was just 6 years old, Michael learned firsthand the value of hard work as his
13
mother raised him on her own and worked as a seamstress to support them. Waszczuk wife
14 is a seamstress and has to support him because I am 67 years old and have been without a job
for the last five years because of corrupted politicians like John Perez and Michael Allen and
15
others like them
16
33. Roy Ashburn,- The other person listed on the CUIAB decision dated May 31, 2013, denying
17
my unemployment insurance benefit is John Perez’s former colleague, Mr. Roy Ashburn, who
18 was California State Assemblyman from 1996 to 2002 and California State Senator from 2002 to
19
2010.

20 According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn voted against every gay rights measure in
the State Senate since taking office all of which subsequently passed.[
21
On March 3, 2010, Ashburn was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving while
22
operating a State of California owned vehicle. The Senator was pulled over
23 in Sacramento by the California Highway Patrol shortly before 2 a.m.,[12] with sources
24
saying he was leaving a Sacramento gay nightclub, Faces, in the Lavender Hill
neighborhood, with an unidentified male passenger in a state-owned Chevy
25 Tahoe. Ashburn’s blood alcohol content was measured at 0.14%.] The arrest
26 “launched nationwide speculation that the veteran lawmaker is gay and therefore a
hypocrite for voting against gay-rights bills.”[16] In response to those accusations,
27 during an interview on KERN radio, Ashburn stated that he is gay and that he believes
28 “that my responsibility is to my constituents When asked during the interview whether

27
1 he personally agreed with votes he made on gay rights issues, Ashburn didn’t answer
the question.[20]
2

3
On April 14, 2010, Ashburn pleaded no contest to the charge of driving under the
influence in Sacramento County Superior Court. He received a sentence of three years
4 of informal probation and 48 hours in the county jail, though was given credit for one
5 day for the night of his arrest and will serve the remaining day on a work project.
Fines and other fees cost Ashburn $1,900 to $2,000.
6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Ashburn
7 Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn were perfect candidates to be handpicked by Speaker John Perez for
8 the job to victimize me on behalf of the corrupted and rotten university administration. In November
2014, John Perez became a member of the University of California Board of Regents, appointed
9
by Gov. Jerry Brown.
10 The California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Marilyn Tays, together with my employer the University of California (UC) Employment
11
Development Department (EDD) and two CUIAB members, Michael Allen and Roy Ashuburn,
12 defrauded Waszczuk of his unemployment benefits in a malicious and despicable way.
13
34. Ashante Noroton and Ismael Castro – Two California Attorney General representing CUIAB
14 in Waszczuk unemployment Case . 3DCA Case No.C079254 As a Attorney General deputies ,
15
Norton and Castro have all information what the Waszczuk’s wrongful termination is about
and with whom the UCDMC gay worker, UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant operator Todd
16 Goerlich who committed suicide in 2010 was connected with his Ferrari Testarsoa and who
17 push him to committ suicide beside being harassed and bullied in UCDMC by his coworkers .

18 35. Shelleyanne Chang -Scaramento County Superior Court Judge. Besides working together with
19 ALJ Marilyn Tays in the Office of the Legal Affairs of Governor Gray Davis, graduated from
the same University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law as ALJ Marilyn Tays in the same
20
time period of 1991, Both were admitted to the State Bar of California six months apart.
21 Furthermore, Hon. Shelleyanne Chang graduated in the same time period of 1991 from the same
University of the Pacific George School of Law as UC Davis Health System and UC Davis
22
Medical Center Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski. Both Hon. Shelleyanne Chang and Chief Counsel
23 Anna Orlowski were admitted to the State Bar of California in December 1991.
After Judge. Shelleyanne Chang in March 2015 denied Plaintiff’s Writ of Mandamus Petition
24
after Waszczuk oral arguments, the victimized Waszczuk had no doubt that Judge .
25 Shelleyanne Chang’s ruling had nothing to do with State of California justice system beside
corruption of this system .
26

27

28

28
1 VIII. THE FINAL WORDS FROM THE UC SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT DAN DOOLEY
ABOUT UCOP MAFIA WITCH HUNT AIMED AT WASZCZUK TO DESTROY HIM
2 AND TO COVER UP THE UCOP WHITE COLLAR CRIMES
3

4 A. March 7, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint with


UC Davis Vice Chancellor and Provost Office Ralph HEXTER
5

6 On March 7, 2013, Waszczuk filed a Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint with the
7 UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s Office due to Waszczuk’s protected activities by the GOVERNMENT
8 CODESECTION 8547-8547.13, which states:
9
8547.10. (a) A University of California employee, including an officer or faculty
member, or applicant for employment, may file a written complaint with his or her
10 supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer designated for that purpose
11 by the regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar improper acts for having made a contents of the written complaint
12 are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. The
13 complaint shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained
about.
14
(b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
15 coercion, or similar acts against a University of California employee, including an
officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for having made a protected
16
disclosure, is subject to a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and
17 imprisonment in the county jail for up to a period of one year. Any university
employee, including an officer or faculty member, who intentionally engages
18
protected disclosure, together with a sworn statement that the in that conduct shall also
19 be subject to discipline by the university.
20

21 Waszczuk with his Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference complaint form submitted to the UC
22 Davis Vice Chancellor’s office a 35-page brief, 1500 pages of supportive documents and a cover letter,
23 which stated:
24
‘March 7, 2013
The Honorable Ralph J. Hexter
25
Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
Mrak Hall, Fifth Floor
26
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
27
Re: Retaliation and Interference Complaint
28

29
1
Dear Vice Chancellor Hexter,
2 “Enclosed is a copy of my Retaliation and Interference Complaint against certain
individuals who are managing the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento,
3
California, where I was employed for over thirteen years and where my employment
4 was abruptly and without valid and legitimate reason terminated on December 7,
2012.
5
In addition to the managing officers at the UC Davis Medical Center, who are
6 included in the complaint, UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and his
7
subordinate, Lieutenant James Barbour, are included in the complaint for alleged
act(s) of provocation and conspiracy with other individuals listed in the complaint in
8 an attempt to murder me on May 31, 2012 or send me to the UC Davis Medical Center
9 Trauma Unit in a state of extreme harm.
It is very disturbing—even unthinkable—that UC Davis leaders should use the
10 UC Davis Police Department to resolve labor disputes with employees who are
11 making complaints. The original Retaliation and Interference Complaint included
approximately 1,500 pages of documents and photos that I sent to your office
12
yesterday by U.S. Certified Mail.
13 I would like to inform you that I am representing myself in this matter until such time
as I decide to hire an attorney at law.
14
If you have any questions or concerns, the University of California Legal Counsel or
15 other investigators may contact me at their convenience in the event that you decide to
review the complaint and investigate the allegations.
16
Best Regards
17 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
CC: UCDMC Principal; HR Labor Relations Consultant Gina Harwood; UC President Mark
18
Yudof; UC Regents Office; UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi”

19
B. Transfer of Waszczuk’ Whistleblowing Interference Complaint

20
In June 2013, Waszczuk’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint was transferred from
21
the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s and Provost office to the UC Office of the President (UCOP) Ethics,
22 Compliance and Audit Services. The UC Office of the President Principal Investigator Judith
23 Rosenberg was assigned to investigate Waszczuk’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference
24 Complaint.

25 The investigation was presided over by two UC Senior Vice Presidents, Sheryl Vacca and Daniel

26
Dooley.
Waszczuk met UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg twice. Waszczuk’s coworker William Buckans
27
witnessed the meetings. Investigator Judith Rosenberg was not very anxious to investigate and she
28

30
1 showed her feelings about. The UCOP Principal Investigator probably knew that the Regents, Office of

2 the President and UC Office of the General Counsel were responsible for Waszczuk’s termination

3
without knowing the cause.
One year later in June 2014, Judith Rosenberg issued her investigation Report, which had nothing to do
4
with any investigation. Judith Rosenberg repeated the defaming and defacing statements made about
5
Waszczuk by three previous investigators, Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindi Oropeza who
6
portrayed Waszczuk far worse, as a two time convicted child pornography felon who was illegally
7 accessing UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop computers while on parole.In the one letter after the
8 meeting with Judith Rosenberg, Waszczuk asked her not to copy Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and
9 Cindi Oropeza in her investigation and said that Waszczuk liked to remember Rosenberg as a good
10 person. This did not happen.

11 C. UC Vice President Danie Dooley’s Decision .


12

13
On September 10, 2014 more than 18 months after Waszczuk filed his 35-page long Whistleblowing and
14
Interference Complaint with 1500 supportive documents, Waszczuk received a half-page decision
15
signed by the UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley With the Decision Waszczuk did not received
16
copy of investigation report fabricated by the UCOP witch hunter Judith Rosenberg
17
UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley wrote in his decision:
18 September 10, 2014
19 Re: Your Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint
20

21 Dear Mr. Waszczuk:

22 In my role as the Locally Designated Official (LDO) for the University of California
System, I have carefully reviewed the investigation report prepared by Judith
23
Rosenberg, who investigated your allegations of whistleblower retaliation under the
24 University's Whistleblower Protection Policy. While Ms. Rosenberg found that you
25
had made protected disclosures under the Whistleblower Policy, she concluded that
the preponderance of the evidence did not substantiate your allegation that your
26 protected disclosures were a contributing factor in the University's decision to suspend
27 you without pay from May 16 to May 30, 2012, or in the University's subsequent
decision to terminate your employment. She further concluded that the University's
28

31
1 decision to place you on investigatory leave and the California Employment
Development Department's denial of unemployment benefits did not constitute
2
adverse employment actions.
3 I agree with Ms. Rosenberg's analysis and conclusions. In light of the foregoing, it is
my decision that you have failed to meet your burden of demonstrating by a
4
preponderance of the evidence that you were subjected to adverse employment action
5 as a result of engaging in conduct protected by the Whistleblower Protection Policy. I
6
am therefore closing the University's file with regard to your complaint.

7 Thank you for cooperating with the University's investigation.

8 Sincerely,

9
Daniel M. Dooley
Senior Vice President
Locally Designated Official
10 cc: Senior Vice President Vacca
Chief Compliance Officer Delmendo
11

12
D. The Waszczuk response to Dan Dooley’s Decision .
13

14
The 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed with the Regents of the University of
15
California was not mentioned in one word by UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley in his half page
16 decision.
17 Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk
18
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95240
19 Phone: 209-339-1 982/Cell: 209-663-2977
20 Fax: 209-247-1089

21
October 14, 2014
22

23 Dan Dooley - Locally Designated Official


24 SVP External Relations
Department: External Relations
25
1 111 Franklin St., 12th Floor
26 Office: 12301
Oakland, California 94607-5200
27

28

32
1 Re: Response to your September 10, 2014 Whistle Blowing Retaliation Complaint Decision-OPEN

2 LETTER- The complaint was filed with the UC Davis Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor on

3
March 7, 2013.

4
Dear Vice President Dooley:
5

6
“The decision you have issued after 18 months of investigation is not only outrageous insult to
7 me but is also a total fraud and can't be accepted. I am running a little late with my response dealing
8 with my health problem, lawsuit against University and providing representation to other University
9 employee.
10 I don't have any details of Ms. Judith Rosenberg's investigation yet, so I will refrain from any allegations

11 about why this insulting and fraudulent decision was sent to me from the office of the University of
California's Senior Vice President. I don't know at this point whether the decision was made base on Ms.
12
Rosenberg's investigation or my case was forgotten then somebody reminded you that eighteen-month
13
time limit set by law is running out and you ad hoc fabricated few words to be in compliance set by the
14
CAL. GOV. CODE § 8547.10.
15
Your decision is also discriminatory, just like UC Davis Investigators Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert,
16 Cindi Oropeza, Bruce Hupe, Molly Theodossy, Bettie Andreos. and Veronica Busby's Investigation
17 Reports issued about rue and other UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) employees I was helping and
18 am still helping or providing representation with their complaints against UC.DMC management

19 retaliation and discrimination.


Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the decisions of the Liberty Life
20
Assurance Company of Boston, in cooperation with UCDMC HR Management, about my Supplemental
21
Term Disability claim which was denied in fall 2011, leaving me without income.
22
Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the UC Davis Chief Compliance
23
Officer Wendy Delmendo's decision in the Whistle Blowing Complaint issued on
24 March 7, 2012.
25 Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the discriminatory and retaliatory
26 notice of intent to suspend dated April 13, 2012 and discriminatory and retaliatory letter of suspension
27 for 10 days without pay dated May 11, 2012. Both documents were signed by UCDMC Plant Operation

28 & Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher, who is UCDMC Director Mike Boyd's subordinate.

33
1 Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like Skelly Reviewer Michael Pansius'

2 discriminatory and retaliatory decision issued by him in my wrongful suspension in May 2012. Michael

3
Pansius was a subordinate of UCDMC Executive Director Mike Boyd, who was directly responsible for
my suspension and later termination of my employment.
4
Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the discriminatory and retaliatory
5
Notice intent to dismiss dated September 25, 2012 and discriminatory and retaliatory Letter of
6
Employment Termination dated December 5, 2012. The both documents were signed by UCDMC Plant
7 Operation &Maintenance Manager, Charles Witcher who is UCDMC Director Mike Boyd's subordinate.
8 Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the Skelly Reviewer and UC Davis
9 Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson's discriminatory and retaliatory decision dated December 3,
10 2012 for my wrongful termination appeal I filed with his office.

11 Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the UC Davis Administration
discriminatory and retaliatory request submitted to the State of California Employment Development
12
Department (EDD) after I filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits with EDD after my
13
employment termination in December 2012
14
Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the January 11, 2013 State of
15
California EDD decision based. on UC Davis Administration lies and slander.
16 Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the February 1, 2013 decision issued
17 by Thomas Rush in my Step I PPSM 70 Appeal
18 Mr. Rush was assigned by HR to review the Appeal Step I from termination of my employment I filed

19 with UCDMC HR under the UC Davis Policy ?PSM 70 provision, Mr. Rush, like Mr. Pansius
mentioned above, was a subordinate of UCDMC Executive Director Mike Boyd, who was directly
20
responsible for my suspension and termination of my employment.
21
Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the State of California Unemployment
22
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIA[3) Judge Marlin Tay's February 14, 2013 decision which denied me
23
unemployment insurance benefits on the appeal.
24 Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the UCDMC Executive Director Mike
25 Boyd's, dated May 2, 2013, in the PPSM 701 Step 11 Appeal I filed from his subordinate Thomas Rush's
26 decision dated February 1, 2013.
27 Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the State of California Unemployment

28 Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) members Michael Allen's and Roy Ashburn's May 31, 2013 decision

34
1 which denied me unemployment insurance benefits on the appeal I filed against CUTAB's

2 Administrative Judge Marlin Tay's decision.

3
Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the frivolous Joiner in Motion
(Demurrer) filed on April 17, 2014 in. Count of Sacramento Superior Court by University of California
4
Office of the President four legal counsels, Karen Petrulakis, Margaret Wu, Cynthia Vroom and UCOP
5
Chief Counsel Charles Robinson. Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk v. California
6
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The frivolous and retaliatory Joiner in Motion (Demurrer) was
7 filed in support the Demurer filed with the court on April 1, 2013 by State of California Attorney
8 General Office legal counsel Ashante Norton who provides legal representation for the CUIAB in this
9 case. The frivolous Demurrer and Joiner in Motion was removed from the court by CUIAB's legal
10 counsel 'Ashante Norton on June 9, 2013

11 Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the Liberty Life Assurance Company
of Boston which two months ago insulted me with an outrageous offer to settle the 2011 Supplemental
12
Term Disability Liberty denial with apparent UCDMC HR department advice and cooperation to make
13
me suffer.
14
Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the many retaliatory decisions I came
15
across by providing help and representation to other employees from UCDMC during my courses of
16 employment.
17 Your decision is even, more despicable, insulting, and discriminatory because it came from highest
18 office of the University of California, thus I expected a little more than half a page of ambiguity and

19 vagueness for 18 months' investigation, The investigation was not conducted by Gina Harwood or
Shawn Hadnot from UCDMC HR office but by the UC Office of the President Principal Investigator
20
Judith Rosenberg and this investigation was monitored by UCOP HR Director Joseph Epperson and two
21
UC Senior Vice Presidents, Ms. Sheryl Vacca and yourself.
22
No to elaborate any further who else was involved or not involved in this 18 months investigation
23
resulting in one half-page decision written and signed by UC Senior Vice President, I would like ask you
24 two simple questions.
25 I. Has UCOP Principal investigator Judith Rosenberg provided you with my employee performance
26 reviews (evaluations) for the 13 years of my employment with UCDMC?
27 2. Has Rosenberg written in her' Final investigatory Report anything about those evaluations?

28

35
1 I submit these two questions not only because you have been assigned as U COP's Locally Designated

2 Official to oversee the investigation and write the final decision but also because you are theUC Senior

3
Vice President who manages and supervises people in your office. It is my understanding that you, as a
manager with that title, have to annually apprise your office staff, such as UC Senior Vice President
4
Sheryl Vacca and UCOP HR Director Joseph Epperson, per UCOP Human Resources Procedure PPSM
5
23, which states:
6
"The UC-PPSM states that each employee shall be appraised in writing at least annually by the
7 employee's immediate supervisor. However, additional appraisals may be conducted at any time the
8 supervisor, or employee, feels it would be of value."
9 This is very clear and simple. You do not need to be a J.D. Graduate from the McGeorge School of Law
10 at the University of Pacific to understand the language of UC Policies.

11 I ask you these two questions about my reviews because I do not think any supervised employee in the
University of California can work without being evaluated at least once a year. I believe that you would
12
have no problem agreeing with my statement based on PPSM 23.
13
If you disagree with that, I have to know the reason why, and you must provide an answer to me either
14
voluntarily or through deposition.
15
The reason for this request is my two evaluations for the two final years of my employment with
16 UCDMC. Either I was fired without being evaluated for the last two years or the evaluations were
17 submitted to HR by my supervisor with my forged signature or without my signature with notethat I
18 refused to sign my evaluation.

19 My two Employee Performance Reviews for the last two years of employment with UCDMC is the also
reason that I am writing this response to your decision. This is also the reason that J am stating in my
20
response that your decision and other decisions I received in the last two years of my employment and
21
after being fired from the job are despicable insults, fraud, discriminatory, malicious, and retaliatory
22
regardless of decisions from UC Davis Management and HR staff or whether decisions were issued by
23
the State of California Offices,
24 If I would receive my last two evaluations for years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 and I would get a chance
25 to challenge the evaluations by filing a complaint under UC Davis Policy and Procedure PPSM 70 if I
26 disagree with them than I would not be writing this letter today.
27 Suspending me without pay and firing me from the job based on fabricated accusations and allegations

28 in Investigatory Reports fabricated by Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindy Oropeza is not a

36
1 substitute for my evaluations, letter of expectations, verbal and written warnings, or any part of

2 progressive discipline required by UC Policies to correct the problems with employee performance and

3
behavior.
In Section 23A the UC Davis PPSM 23 states:
4
'Note 1—Ongoing Communication. The supervisor and the employee share responsibility for ongoing,
5
timely and productive communication throughout the year. Supervisors must
6
clearly communicate goals and objectives, competency expectations and performance measures. The
7 employee must provide the supervisor with timely information about both successes and challenges in
8 meeting goals and objectives and seeking help when needed (e.g., additional resources necessary to be
9 successful or prioritization of functions and tasks). The supervisor and the employee must be proactive
10 and accountable in the communication and feedback process and take initiative to insure that

11 communication is continuous and productive."


The above excerpt from PPSM 23 sounds similar to the Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th
12
958,18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 (Cat Ct. App. 1993) decision, In Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co. court held as
13
follows:
14
"In light of the multitude of laws designed to protect the employee from oppressive employment
15
practices, evaluations serve the important business purpose of documenting the employer's hiring,
16 promotion, discipline and firing practices. Moreover, the laudable practice of evaluating employees is to
17 he encouraged for other important reasons. The performance review is a vehicle for informing the
18 employee of what management expects, how the employee measures up, and what he or she needs to do

19 to obtain wage increases, promotions or other recognition Thus, the primary recipient and beneficiary of
the communication is the employee."
20
The above UC Davis PPSM 23 and the California Appellate Court statement speaks for itself. UC tired
21
me from the job in unlawful and baseless reasons not providing me evaluation for last two years of my
22
employment regardless what was written in fabricated maliciously and in slanderous way and defacing
23
me investigatory reports and other decisions I received.
24 It also worth calling your attention to a significant change in the whistleblower statute in California. It
25 went into effect on January 1, 2014. The statute, Cal, Lab. Code section 1102.5, has been substantially
26 expanded beyond its prior form to now protect employees from retaliation for making internal
27 complaints or even potential complaints about suspected violations of federal, state or local law. Under

28 the revised provisions of Labor Code section 1102.5, it is unlawful for any person acting on behalf of the

37
1 employer to retaliate against the employee based on a belief "the employee disclosed or may disclose"

2 the information, either internally or to a government agency. In effect, the revamped law protects

3
employees who have not yet even complained against "anticipatory retaliation."
In addition to the above, the failure to provide me with evaluations for the last two years is
4
discriminatory itself by nature due to threating me differently than any other UC Davis employee.
5
The UC Davis management's measure unlawfully deprived me of resolving the disagreement with my
6
direct supervisors Dorin Daniluc and Patrick Putney (if any) through the UC Davis administrative
7 remedies outlined in the UC Davis Policy and Procedure PPSM Policy 70, including mediation process.
8 This began when I would have received my evaluation in June of 2011 (the annual evaluation process in
9 UC Davis begins and ends in June). In that month, 1 was on premises in my office every day and
10 nothing precluded my manager Patrick Putney, his

11 assistant Dorin Daniluc, UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department Assistant
Manager Dennis Curry and Department head from serving me with a letter of expectation, giving me
12
verbal or written warning or even sending me home. Instead, I was stalked, intimidated, and sabotaged
13
by Patrick Putney after I wrote a letter to Department Head Charles Witcher outlining working condition
14
in the shop and other problems in the department included and not limited to my coworker's suicide.
15
This ongoing harassment caused intolerable conditions in the shop and my physician placed .me on
16 work-related sick leave on August 2, 2011. Thereafter, I was never permitted to come back to work. My
17 position was awarded to a person who was bringing to the HVAC shop a twice-convicted child
18 pornography felon and shop manager Patrick Putney and assistant Dorin Daniluc permitted him illegally

19 surf the Internet. This felon was on probation and prohibited by court to touch any computer. Instead of
reporting this person to UC Police, HR Investigators Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert
20
made me look worse in their maliciously fabricated and defacing me Investigatory Reports than child
21
pornography twice convicted felon accessing illegally UC computer. (see attached copy of the case
22
United States of America v. Sean Christopher Robideaux, Case No. CR S-06-0418).
23
The State of California Appellate Courts in Janet Campbell v. Regents of the University of California
24 S113275; Ct.App.]/J A097560; San Francisco Super. CT No. 312736 and Patricia M. Palmer v. Regents
25 of The University of California 2" App, Div. 78154868; Los Angeles County Super. ('t. No. BC 187036
26 is very clear and decisive about the meaning of Administrative Remedies under PPSM 70 for the
27 University of California itself and for the University of California employees.

28

38
1 The UC Davis management's deliberately maliciously and unlawfully deprived .me of administrative

2 remedies in 2011.

3
This is also the reason that I am stating in. my response that your decision and other decisions I received
in the last two years of my employment and after being fired from the job are despicable insults, fraud,
4
discriminatory, malicious, and retaliatory and without any legal ground regardless whether they come
5
from UC Davis Management and HR staff or from the State of California Offices.
6
Furthermore, the UC Legal Counsel Michael W. Pott representing UC Regents in my wrongful
7 termination lawsuit against UCDMC managers and administrators
8 http://www.davisvanguard.org/politica1-refuee-from-poland-files-whistleblower-retaliationcase-against-
9 uc-davis/ is an legal expert who advising employers on his web page how the employees should be
10 evaluated to avoid costly litigations in wrongful termination lawsuits

11 (http//www.porterscott.coni/articles/takenote/94).
In his article entitled "Six Tips for Preparing Employee Evaluations" (enclosed) UC Regents legal
12
counsel Mr. Port wrote,
13
"Employee performance evaluations are a critical part of the employer-employee relationship. Well-
14
done evaluations provide guidance and feedback to employees to help them develop and improve their
15
skills This, in turn) benefits the organization. Performance evaluations are also an important part of
16 minimizing liability if an employment dispute arises.
17 If an employee challenges a disciplinary action or termination based on performance problems, a fair
18 and accurate evaluation can be a critical piece of evidence in defending the case. Conversely, a poorly

19 prepared evaluation can undermine the employers credibility before a judge or jury worse, provide the
plaintiff-employee with the evidence needed to prove their claim."
20
The UC Regents legal counsel in my wrongful termination lawsuit does not advise employers what
21
would happen in the court if employers fail to evaluate employee performance. Mr. Pott, however,
22
clearly advises correspondents with UC Policy PPSM 23 and Jensen v Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal,
23
App. 4th 95&,18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 (Cat Ct. App. 1993) decision.
24 However, I don't believe that UCDMC HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and HR Labor Relation
25 Manager Travis Lindsey on behalf of UC Regents hired Mr. Michael Pott as a legal counsel because Mr.
26 Pott knows what employee performance review stands for.
27

28

39
1 I. have no doubt that Mr. Pott was hired by Mr. Chilcott and Mr. Lindsey because Porter and Scott

2 represents Dignity Health where the former UCDMC HR Labor Relation Principal Consultant Ms. Jill

3
Noel Vandeviver is working as a Director of Employee & Labor Relations (see attachment).
It would be nothing unusual and important in this proceeding that Ms. Vandeviver is an employee of
4
Dignity Health and Mr. Pott represents University of California and Dignity Health in employment
5
related matters.
6
However, in 2012, Ms. Vandeviver, as principal consultant in IJCDMC HR labor relations, was
7 intensively involved in my labor relation dispute with UCDMC Management and in the cases of other
8 UCDMC employees I was providing representation with their complaints against Plant Operation and
9 Maintenance management. It is appears from the documents I received under the Public Record Act that
10 in May o2012 Ms. Vandeviver and her manager, Mr. Humberto Garcia, was under enormous pressure in

11 handling my case and my coworkers' cases for which I was providing representation. In May of 2012,
Plant Operation and Maintenance Management together with HR launched despicable and vicious
12
attacks against the two coworkers I was representing and crafted ill-minded, unsuccessful provocation
13
on May 31, 2012. They either sought to end my employment in UCDMC Trauma Unit 11 or kill me. It
14
is still unsolved mystery in this case.
15
Apparently something happened in May and June 2012 and I received a letter dated June 22, 2012 from
16 another HR labor relation consultant Gina Harwood who informed me that Ms. Vandeviver and her
17 manager Mr. Garcia were no longer employees of HR Labor relation and that she was taking over my
18 case (Gina Harwood's letter enclosed).

19 I would like to mention that Mr. Humberto Garcia removed Ms. Gina Harwood from my case sometimes
in January or February 2012 and assigned Ms. Jill Noel Vandeviver to handle my and the my coworkers
20
case I was involved in. . In February 2012, Mr. Garcia held a meeting with me to resolve the dispute
21
informally. Instead of responding to my offer, Mr. Garcia was replaced by
22
a graduate attorney-at-law from McGeorge School of Law at the University of Pacific, Mr. Travis
23
Lindsey on May 1, 2012. Then, right away, my coworkers I was representing were attacked and I almost
24 got killed or badly harmed in ill minded provocation set UC Davis Administration for May 31, 2012
25 would succeed. Mr. Garcia and Ms. Vandeviver disappeared from the UCDMC Landscape shortly after.
26 I would like to mention without particular reason that you are the seventh attorney who graduated from
27 McGeorge School of Law at the University of Pacific and I am dealing with, including my present

28 attorney who is handling my wrongful termination lawsuit against University of California for now.

40
1 As I see it, Ms. Vandeviver is a potential key witness in my wrongful termination lawsuit against the

2 University of California and hiring Mr. Poit, who also represents Dignity Health, where Ms. Vandeviver

3
is HR Labor Relation Director, is done only to neutralize Ms. Vandeviver as a potential witness,
I am waiting for UC Regents to file tomorrow the answer or responsive plea with court to my second
4
amended complaint filed with court on September 30, 2014 which I already consider the same as any
5
other answers or decisions I received from University of California officials and State of California
6
offices. I will ask the California State Bar whether Mr. Michael Pott or his law flrm did not violated the
7 Canons of Ethics by providing legal representation to Dignity Health and UC Regents under such
8 circumstances.
9 In conclusion I would like to emphasize that your deceptive, despicable, fraudulent, insulting, and
10 discriminatory approach to the problem together with Sheryl Vacca, Judith Rosenberg, and Joseph

11 Epperson is nothing else but further destruction of my family life and my livelihood.
I am 63 years old, in deteriorating health, draining my retirement and savings for the litigation against
12
UC and to maintain my normal standard of living which will probably only last for another year. It
13
appears, I have to pay the ultimate price to prove my case and escape further humiliation, insults and
14
discrimination I received and am receiving for the good service I provided for my employer for 13 years.
15
It is happening because, as is shown in this ease and other eases I am handling, the UC system is corrupt
16 to the bones, from the bottom to the top—the UCDMC HVAC shop supervisors, plant operation and
17 maintenance management with Charles Witcher and his superior Executive Director Mike Boyd, HR
18 Management with Stephen Chilcott and Travis Lindsey in charge, UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer

19 Wendy Delmendo and her staff. UC's two Senior Vice Presidents, Sheryl Vacca, yourself, and UCOP
Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, in addition to UCOP HR Joseph Epperson.
20
I will instruct my attorney to amend again the Second Amended Complaint and add you, Ms. Sheryl
21
Vacca, Joseph Epperson. and Judith Rosenberg as additional defendants in the complaints for the
22
aforementioned reasons.
23
In addition to the above you together with Ms. Vacca , Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Epperson needs to be
24 reminded more often what you have done to me by your decision. You should be shame of yourself.
25 Sincerely,
26 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
27 CC, UC President Janet Napolitano, UC Regents, UC Senior Vice President Sheryl Vacca and staff,
UOP Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, UC HR Senior Vice President Dwaine Duckét, UCOP HR
28

41
1 Director Joseph Epperson, UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo, State of California
Attorney General Office, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
2

3
C. UC SVP Dan Dooley’s resignation
4

5
UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley resigned or was forced to resign from his $400,000 job
6
with the University of California shortly after he signed the decision in Waszczuk Whistleblowing
7
Retaliation Complaint.
8

9
IX. NOVEMBER 2011- UCOP MAFIA’S WITCH HUNT AND PROVOCATION TO
10 DESTROY LINDA KATEHI , UCDPD CHIEF ANETTE SPICUZZA , LT . JOHN
PIKE AND CAPTAIN JOYCE SOUZA
11

12
A. UCOP mafia’s perpetrators , participants and collaborators to destroy Chancellor Linda
13
Katehi , Annette Spicuzza, Lt. John Pike and Captain Souza

14
1. Dan Dooley – UC Senior Vice President -key player- Mafia Chief
15 2. Charles Robinson -UC General Counsel -key player decision maker
16
3. Richard Blum – UC Regent -key player
4. John Lohse -UC Director of Investigation
17 5. Wendi Delmendo – UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer
18 6. Karen Petrulakis -Deputy General Counsel – key player
7. Ralph Hexter – key player – assigned Linda Katehi’s Replacement
19 8. Steven Drown – UC Davis Campus Counsel – key player , provocation master
20 9. John Lohse – UC Director of Investigation – collaborator
10. Sheryl Vacca – UC senior vice president -collaborator
21
11. Lt. Matt Carmichael – collaborator Annette Spiciuzza Replacement
22 12. Lt. James Barbour – Lt. Matt Carmichael’s replacement in UCDMC bribed in 2012 with
$35,000 to deliver Waszczuk to UCDMC Trauma Unit on May 31, 2012.
23
13. Cruz Reynoso – Professor Emeritus, School of Law, UC Davis, and Former Associate Justice,
24 California Supreme Court- Chair of Reynoso Task Force
14. Alan Brownstein Professor- School of Law, UC Davis- Member of Reynoso Task force
25
(nominated by the Academic Senate)
26 15. Penny Herbert Director of Strategic Planning, UC Davis Health System, and Staff Advisor to
the UC Board of Regents-Member of Reynoso Task Force
27
16. Porter Scott Law Corporation -Attorneys .
28

42
1

3 B. NOVEMBER 2011- Danesha Nichols’ undated “CONFIDENTIAL” Summary of Events


Regarding “Jaroslaw “Jerry Waszczuk
4

5
In May or November of 2012 Waszczuk received under the Public Record Act request a copy of the
6 undated confidential report about me which was sent to UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi by Danesha
7 Nichols in November 2011 according to Danesha Nichols’ e-mail dated May 14, 2012 to UCD Public
8 Record Act (PRA) Analyst Elizabeth Wisnia.

9 Waszczuk never pay much attention to this confidential summary because was nothing in the summary
about ongoing despicable attacks against me since April 2011 with attempt to provoke me and
10
terminated my employment on September 23, 2011. In the summary Danesha Nichols admitted
11
mentioned the mistreatment complaint against her Waszczuk filed with HR Mistreatment office.
12
Apparently Danesha Nichols was told or was ordered by HR Director Stephen Chilcott J.D or UC Davis
13
Chief compliance officer Wendy Delmendo J.D who was overseeing together with Chilcott the ongoing
14 assault against Waszczuk not to provide any information to Chancellor Katehi. Wendi Delmendo was
15 an experienced attorney and she coordinated all moves with the UCOP Director John Lohse who, the
16 longtime FBI employee in San Francisco office and who was recruited by UCOP gangsters in 2004 to
17 keep FBI agents out of UC campuses by his presence and credibility after UCOP mafia defrauded

18 Medicare and Medicaid and paid $ 22,500,000 fine in the settlement. In 2004 IRS raided UC San Diego
campus. The 2000-2001 illegal power sale alone from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant and
19
related to a tens of millions of dollars tax evasion made looks the Medicare and Medicaid fraud and
20
other UCOP white collar crimes like drops in the Pacific Ocean. In 2000-2001 UCDMC 27 MW plant
21
sold illegally over 100 million worth electricity in violation of violation of section 501(c)(3) of the
22
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the State of California Revenue and Taxation Code.
23 It would be worse for the UCOP white collar criminals to let the Chancellor Katehi to order an
24 investigation about UCDMC cogeneration plant operator TODD GEORLICH’S suicide, locker burglary
25 and look into my complaints a little. Chancellor Katehi was new in UC Davis but she is Electrical

26 Engineer with Ph.D. and she know about electrons VARS and MWh’s. In would be unfortunate for
UCOP white collar criminals if the very business and money oriented Chancellor Katehi in November
27
2011 would find out that the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant has spare capacity during the peak
28

43
1 hours around 12 MW and off peak hours between 15-17 MW of electricity which since February or

2 March 2009 is not being sold or transmitted to UC Davis Main campus in Davis in which demand for

3
electricity is over 100 MWh and UC Davis Main Campus has no own cogeneration plant and has to buy
all power paying millions of dollars. Twenty miles away from main campus UC Davis has cogeneration
4
plant which can’t not to be utilized as designed and university is losing millions of dollars every year.
5
It was not the option for the UCOP white collar criminals to let Chancellor Katehi to find out who is real
6
owner of the UC Davis 27 cogeneration plant commissioned and unlawfully operated and since 1998
7 and selling illegally power since 1999 with full knowledge of California Attorney General office to
8 mention that plant grossly violated state and federal environmental laws.
9 I don’t know exactly what caused that Chancellor Katehi requested from Danesha Nichols to be briefed
10 about me and when she requested the report. For sure, it happened after September 23, because latest

11 written date in the summary is September 23, 2011.


Perhaps the my October 9, 2011 e-mail short letter entitled “ I Feel Like a Hunted Jew During the
12
Holocausts “ got Chancellor Katehi attention. I sent this correspondence to Members of UC Davis Ethics
13
and Compliance Risk Committee (ECRC), California State Assembly Members and the Regents of the
14
University of California. It possible that some of the California Lawmakers called Chancellor Katehi
15
and she reacted. Chancellor Katehi is from Greece and she knows a lot about Holocaust and European
16 Jewish Diaspora.
17 Wendi Delmendo reacted to my feeling I expressed in my email to ECRC, UC Regents and California
18 lawmakers about being hunted down like a Jew during the Holocaust in her e-mail dated 10/11/2011.

19
-Wendi Delmendo <wjdelmendo©ucdavis.edu> wrote:
20 To: "Jaroslaw Waszczuk (jaroslaw.waszczuk©ucdmc.ucdavis.edu)"
21 <jaroslaw.waszczuk©ucdmc.ucdavis.edu>
From: Wendi Delmendo <wjdelmendocucdavis.edu>
22
Date: 10/11/2011 08:43AM
23 Subject: Your email message to ECRC members
Dear Mr. Waszczuk,
24
Your messages to the UC Davis Ethics and Compliance Risk Committee were forwarded
25 to me for response. The individual members of this committee do not intervene in the
complaint resolution process. Accordingly, I ask that you continue to communicate with
26
me regarding the complaints that you have raised and with Steve Chilcott regarding the
27 complaints that have been raised against you. As you know, the University has defined
28
procedures for resolving complaints. With respect to the complaints you have raised, the

44
1 applicable procedures are contained within the Whistleblower and Whistleblower
Protection Policies. I acknowledge your belief that these policies are not effective.
2
However, I must disagree. I believe you need to allow the process to work and again
3 encourage you to cooperate with the assigned investigator by scheduling a time for an
interview before she concludes her fact-finding efforts.
4
Regards,
5 Wendi Delmendo
6
Wendi Delmendo
Chief Compliance Officer - General Campus
7 University of California, Davis
8 I Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
(530) 752-94661(530) 752-0853 (FAX)
9

10 Almost seven years later after my e-mail nothing changed. I being still hunted down like Jew during the
11 holocaust by UCOP mafia which is friends from California Courts and crooked lawyers from the
12 notorious Porter Scott’s law firm to finish Waszczuk
13 C. NOVEMBER 2011- Steps taken by the UCOP white collars criminals to neutralize
Chancellor Linda Katehi, UCDPD Chief Annette Spicuzza, Lt. John Pike and Captain and
14
Joyce Souza
15
The UCOP white collar criminals especially UC SVP Dan Doooley connected with government , UC
16
General Counsel Charles Robinson and UC Regents Richard Blum did not want to see any investigation
17
in UCDMC Plant Operation Department (PO&M ) where 27 MW cogeneration plant was unlawfully
18
operated at labor cost of $1,500,00 per year and plant was idling at minimum load instead of making
19 money.. The investigation about TODD GOERLICH’s suicide could lead to unpredictable
20 consequences .
21 At same UCDMC HR thugs in conspiracy with Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston,
22 (LIBERTY) claim adjusters Patricia Coombs, Courtney Frazier and Karen McKenzie were taking care

23 of my physician Dr. Harvey Hashimoto of decade and my psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft Ph.D. from
Lodi who was helping me to survive and not go crazy from being non stop attacked by UCOP thugs
24
from UCDMC HR office . Waszczuk’s almost three decades of his hard work and his live and
25
livelihood was going up to smoke being quickly and systematically devastated and destroyed at my
26
retirement age in my senior age of 60, after open heart surgery and nine medicines every days to survive.
27
Event thinking about that Waszczuk would be left with nothing was only worried me was driving to
28

45
1 resist such inhumane treatment and violation of employee rights, civil right and my human rights. Worse

2 of everything was that Waszczuk did did not know in 2007-2009 and 2011-2015 what caused such

3
merciless attacks against him and against anybody who was associated anyway with Waszczuk
After Waszczuk wrote the letter which apparently got Chancellor Katehi attention and which was
4
entitled “ I feel like Hunted Jew during the Holocausts “ UCDMC thugs blocked Waszczuk access to
5
the university e-mail which I was using for sending Waszczuk’ complaints to university officials in
6
which Waszczuk was crying for help. The university e-mail system was convenient to find recipients
7 address and because the sent e-mails were not blocked and were seen, read or deleted by recipients.
8 Situation to neutralize Chancellor Katehi, Chief Spicuzza, Captain Souza and Lt. Pike was urgent
9 because if Chancellor Katehi would order Chief Spicuzza to investigate UCDMC PO&M Department or
10 interview Waszczuk than ill planned termination of Waszczuk employment by UCOP gangsters could

11 be postponed indefinitely.
In October 6, 2011 inquiry Waszczuk sent to Captain Souza he stated that:
12

13 “I would appreciate if you let me know if any compliant had been filed
by anybody against me with UC Davis Police Department (UC Campus or UC
14
Medical Center) for above mentioned fabricated accusations and allegation for the
15 period from March 1, 2011 to the present time
16 If so than I would be glad to hear about it from the UC Davis Police
17 Department that the allegations against me are being investigated and I will be glad to
answer any question related to the complaint. I would be gladly to talk with the UC
18
Police Investigation Unit/Detectives instead of crooked HR Attorney from UCDMC”
19
On Tuesday, November 8, 2011 at 4:43:4 P.M I received e-mail with attached letter signed by Plant
20 Operation and Maintenance Department Manager Charles Witcher which stated that my university e-
21 mail account was blocked with usual threat of my employment termination.
22

23 To: Jaroslaw Waszczuk


Associate Development Engineer Plant Operations and Maintenance
24
From: Charles Witcher Manager
25 Plant Operations and Maintenance
Subject: Access to University Email Account
26
Dear Jerry:
27

28

46
1 Recently you have sent multiple emails from your University email
account to several individuals in Human Resources, Office of the President and the
2
UC Davis Campus. Many of the emails contained unprofessional statements and
3 confidential information regarding the ongoing investigation. In addition to sending
the emails to the above locations, you sent copies to individuals at UCDMC who were
4
not privy to this information and have no business need to receive such information.
5 Your disclosure to these individuals was inappropriate.
6 Due to your failure to abide by my directives, your access to your
7 University email account has been suspended for the duration of your leave. If you
wish to communicate regarding work related or leave matters, you must direct all
8
communications to me. You may continue to communicate with Human Resources or
9 the Compliance Officer on the Davis campus, Wendi Delmendo, about whistleblower
and retaliation matters. Failure to comply with this directive to cease and desist
10
sending unsolicited inappropriate communications to University employees, will result
11 in discipline up to and including dismissal.
12 Attachment: Proof of Service
Charles Witcher, Manager
13 Plant Operations & Maintenance
14 UC Davis Health System
Phone: 916-734-5508
15 Fax: 916-734-2773
16
Waszczuk read the Witcher‘s letter and said to himself that history is repeating itself than in response
17
Waszczuk explained to Charles Witcher why he feels like a hunted like Jew during the holocausts and
18
why Waszczuk comparing him and other like him to the members of the NSDAP
19
(Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) in English commonly known as a Nazi Party. On top of
20 this Waszczuk advised Witcher that if he has legitimate reason to terminate Waszczuk employment
21 than he should not hesitate to do it but he should not any more threats about of my employment
22 termination because it very unprofessional and getting old.
23
If you believe that you have legitimate reason to terminate my employment than do not hesitate
24 to do it but don't make any threats. It is very unprofessional and getting old.
25

26
Jerry
27
CC: Office of the President -HR Vice President and Directors
28

47
1 UCDMC HR Society Including and limited to Danesha Nichols UCDMC CEO - Ann Rice

2 UC Campus Including and not limited to Mrs. Delmendo. UC Davis Ethics and Compliance
3
Risk Committee, California State Assembly Members from the Committee on Higher
Education and from the Committee on Labor and Employment & Regents of The University of
4 California
5
D. NOVEMBER 2011- The 2011 Student Protests on the UC Campuses and UCDPD
6 pepper spray attack against protesting students on UC Davis Quad.

8 The 2011 student protests on the UC Davis campus was the perfect opportunity for UCOP white collar

9
criminals and gangsters to divert Chancellor Katehi attention TODD GOERLICH’s suicide and from
their other r crimes and resume the illegal power sale from the 27 MW cogeneration power plant which
10
was ceased after February 2009. The lack of power sale since 2009 cost owners or co-owners of the
11
UCDMC plant approximate tax free $ 20, 000,000. It is a lot of money and UCOP’s Mafiosos were
12
ready to waste anybody who obstruct their way to get the money in their banks by laundering the
13
megawatts out of UC Davis Medical Center cogeneration plant.
14 By the attacking peacefully protesting students at 4: 00 PM with who were sitting on the UC Davis
15 ground with 2011 student protests on the UC campus was the perfect was a perfect idea for Dan Dooley
16 , UC General Counsel Charles Robinson and UC Regents Blum to remove, Chancellor Katehi , Chief

17 Annette Spicuzza, Lt Pike and Captain Souza, whose did not have a clue, a about UC General Counsel
Charles Robinson’s dirty plan to use UCDPD Police officers to cover his and other criminal activities in
18
the shadow of the UC Davis Campus protest.
19
After Waszczuk’s UC Davis e-mail account was disabled on November 8, 2011, the UCOP gangsters
20
had to take care of Chancellor Linda Katehi, UCDPD Chief Spicuzza, Lt John Pike and Captain Joyce
21
Souza to make sure that Wazczuk would not send them any more stuff and information about
22 corruption and employees civil and human rights violations and to prevent any possibility that
23 Chancellor Katehi will order Chief Spicuzza to look into my allegation about child pornography and
24 UCDMC cogeneration plant employee TODD GEORLICH suicide in December 2010 or a in to

25 violation of environmental law due to discharging machine oil to Sacramento River for seven years from

26
UC Davis Medical Center cogeneration plant defective leaking cooling tower gear boxes.. UCDPD
Police investigation in UC Davis Medical Center could lead to discovery similar to my discovery during
27
my dispute with my previous employer Dynegy Power Corporation about unpaid overtime. The dispute
28

48
1 about unpaid overtime lead to $ 240,000,000 Dynegy’s fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company

2 (PG&E) ratepayers and California taxpayers. The UC General Counsel Charles Robinson who was

3
transferred to UCOP in January 2007 from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) where
he held General Counsel position as well since April 2000 and willfully participated in megawatts
4
laundering from UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant and related to millions of dollars tax fraud
5
perfectly aware was aware was is stake to have any UCDDP investigation in the UC Davis Medical
6
Center PO&M Department. Involvement in the illegal power sale and tax fraud of the UC Regent
7 Richard Blum, banker, billionaire and husband of US Senator Dianne Feinstein added gravity to the
8 situation. Waszczuk does not know how SVP Dan Dooley got himself into this mess bur Waszczuk
9 suspecting that TODD GEORLICH suicide was caused by his relation somebody who was associated
10 with Dan Dooley in California Government office or state agency .

11 Dan Dooley and Charles Robinson to neutralize or remove Chancellor Katehi, Chief Spicuzza, Captain
Souza and Lt. John Pike they assigned, UD Davis Camus Chief Counsel Steven Drown to assemble the
12
team carry out the operation to remove and replace Chancellor Katehi, Chief Spicuzza, Captain Souza
13
and Lt. John Pike before Waszczuk would be eradicated from UC landscape after unsuccessful attempt
14
on September 23, 2011 to lure him to on UCDMC premises , provoke him eradicated him from UC
15
payroll .
16 Steven Drown was knowledgeable about the UCDMC 27 MW plant and he was very dedicated witch
17 hunter protect his and UCOP white collar criminals’ status quo. Steven Drown was overseeing the
18 partially successful witch hunt operation against Waszczuk in January 2007-March 2009 which

19 resulted in Waszczuk removal from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant and February 2009
Settlement -Agreement Steven Drown signed with me on UC Regent Richard Blum who I suspect for
20
long time is a co-owner of UCDMC 27 MW plant.
21
It is not important and irrelevant who gave the order on November 18, 2011 to attack students at 4 :00
22
PM with Defense Technology MK-9 Orange Pepper Spray up front of hundreds students with cell phone
23
cameras. The reason behind was important and only a few chosen knew the reason. Collateral damages
24 were not important. White collar criminals who are benefiting from their crime cost tax payers millions
25 of dollars and don’t care about collateral damage and fate of their victims. The November 18, 2011 was
26 a judgment day for Chancellor Katehi, Chief Spicuzza, Captain Souza and Lt. Pike and many others
27 UCPD Police officers. Dan Dooley , Charles Robinson and Steven Drown were hoping that it ill crafted

28 provocation could get a lot worse than Lt. Pike image with M-9 paper spray in his hands and Chancellor

49
1 Katehi will get fires and criminally prosecuted. Lt Pike and Chief Spicuzza’s consultation with Campus

2 Counsel Drown and Sweeney prior the pepper spray attack help them only to be wasted like a piece a

3
garbage and replaced by the crooked cops protecting UCOP mafia.
Chancellor Linda Katehi found herself in wrong place at the wrong time not knowing what is in the
4
background, what is about and who is who around her. The UCOP white collar criminals brilliant idea
5
to take care of Chancellor Linda Katehi and three good UCPD Police officers due to their eventual
6
interference with ongoing nonstop attacks against me in attempts to erase me from UCDMC landscape.
7 This idea was the ill but it well planned professional operation with enormous psychological terrifying
8 impact on Chancellor Katehi, students and other good UCD Police officers and myself. Lt. John Pike
9 image with M-9 paper created especially for Chancellor Linda Katehi by UCOP white collar criminals
10 was used later over and over to intimidate and harass Chancellor Katehi and to frame her again for new

11 witch hunt in 2016.


It was not coincident that image of Lt. Pike with can of the Defense Technology MK-9 Orange Pepper
12
Spray was created for Chancellor Linda Katehi on the 8th Anniversary of the students’ massacre at
13
Athens Polytechnic by the Greek Fascist Military Junta, in which 25 people were killed and over 1,000
14
injured. In 1973, Linda Katehi was a student at Athens Polytechnic. Thereafter Greek native UC Davis
15
Chancellor Linda Katehi was further victimized by media and defamed and defaced and labeled
16 “Chemical Katehi”.
17 In November 2011 the student’ s protest was used by UCOP as the first attempt to remove Katehi from
18 the UC Davis Chancellor position. It would be applauded by many from the old UC Davis

19 establishment. She was a stranger for them. However it was not the primary reason that she was targeted
in November 2011.
20
She was too short on her position and as she was too new to be trusted that she would be willing to
21
participate as the Head of the UC Davis in the unlawful power sale deal from the UC Davis Medical
22
Center(UCDMC) 27 MW cogeneration facility. The Todd Goerlich suicide , illegal medical experiments
23
in UCDMC , unlawful UC Davis medical research on prisoners in San Quintin added gravity to the
24 situation .
25 In 2007 I was able to repeal my dismissal and I survived as Chancellor Katehi survived 2011
26 provocation attack The Lt. Pike image with M-9 can of paper spray which was created especially for
27 Chancellor Katehi did not look promising for her future employment with the University of California. It

28 was Chancellor Katehi intelligence in such extreme situation to shield herself and protect her family she

50
1 brought with her to California and to UC Davis was the main factors that she and her family survived

2 the UCOP white collar criminals’ assault on her life and livelihood she worked so hard for many years

3
in Greece and the United States.

4 Just after the premediated pepper spray attack, Lt. Matt Carmichael, who prior and on November 18, 2011,
5 patrolled UC Davis Medical Center, instantly was assigned as the interim UC Davis chief of police. Today I am
6 not surprise why Lt. Matt Carmichael in May 2012, as a new UC Davis chief of police participated with Lt. James
7 Barbour in the operation to end my employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
8
When Waszczuk looked at the photo published in the Davis Vanguard article entitled “Appointment of
9
Carmichael to Chief For One Year Raises Questions”
10
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2012/04/appointment-of-carmichael-to-chief-for-one-year-raises-
11
questions/
12

13 which shows how the UC Davis Vice Chancellor and Provost Ralph Hexter welcoming Matt Carmichael than it

14 shows that Hexter was the future appointee to replace Chancellor Linda Katehi’s after November 18, 2011 pepper

15 spray provocation by taking into consideration $113,916 extra pay for year 2011 he received from UCOP

16 Mafia . . Chief Counsel Steven Drown was awarded by regents a 21.9% pay raise effective December 1,

17 2011. The numbers are speaking who got paid for job well done to prepare and execute Chancellor on

18 the November 18, 2011. New interim UCPD Chief Matt Carmichael and his buddy Lt. James Barbour
19 also were awarded. In April 2012 Matt Carmichael was promoted to permanent UCDPD Chief of Police
20 with significant wage increase and Lt. James Barbour received $ 35,000 salary increase to assassinate
21 me on May 31, 2011.
22 In 2011 and many years thereafter I viewed Chancellor Katehi as my enemy especially after in 2012
23 Waszczuk received under Public Record Act provision a copy of “Confidential Summary on Waszczuk

24 “ which supposedly Chancellor Katehi requested from UC Davis Medical Center witch hunter in
November 2011. Waszczuk should look more closely to this summary in 2012 , but Waszczuk was so
25
preoccupied with my struggle to survive UCOP organized whited crime mob unstoppable attacks to
26
erase me from UC landscape and the Plant Earth.
27

28

51
1 The pepper spray provocation to remove Chancellor Katehi, Chief Spicuzza, Lt. Pike and Captain Souza

2 cost to compensate the victimized students and lawyers was approximate $ 2,000,000 which could be

3
easily recovered in one or two months if the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration would
resume the illegal power sale tax free after the November 18, 2011 pepper spray assault ill crafted
4
provocation which could cost a lot more if something would go wrong and UCDPD officers would be
5
attacked by protesters in defense to pepper sprayed victimized students.
6
What caught Waszczuk’ attention in March Reynos’s Task Force Report was lack of John Lohse or
7 SVP Sheryl Vacca name or any skilled investigator from UCOP SVP Sherryl Vacca’s office . John
8 Lohse is very experienced former FBI agent and employee . He would most likely figure out right away
9 that something is wrong with Reynos’s investigation or Kroll ‘s nvestigation .
10

11 Waszczuk in his March 2016 Application for Award with US Department of Treasury wrote .
12
“There was no needed to be a former Professor Emeritus, School of
13 Law, UC Davis, and Former Associate Justice, California Supreme Court Cruz
Reynoso, Professor, School of Law, UC Davis Alan Brownstein or Senior Vice
14
President, External Relations, UC Office of the President and Designated System-wide
15 Administrator for Whistleblower Complaint Dan Dooley to figure out that something
was wrong with the national media’s publicity of Lt John Pike’s action by portraying
16
him as a walking prima donna with the can of M-9 pepper spray and spraying
17 protesters without any hesitation. It looked on video that Lt. Pike was doing it with joy
18
and pleasure.

19 However, UC Davis Police Department Lt. John Pike did not spray
protesters with joy and pleasure. According to the Kroll Report marked Confidential—
20
Do Not Distribute, on the relevant Friday morning, November 18, Lieutenant Pike and
21 Officer P contacted Campus Counsel Sweeney and discussed their concerns with him.
Sweeney told them he would get back to them, and at around 1:00 p.m., a conference
22
call was conducted in Chief Spicuzza's office with Pike, Officer P. Sweeney and
23 Steven Drown. Both Officer P. and Pike "had several questions about the legality of
conducting a planned operation during the middle of the afternoon versus the early
24
morning hours. Pike's description of the subsequent discussion on the conference call
25 was redacted, apparently due to attorney-client privilege.
26 Furthermore, the same Kroll Report states that Chief Annette Spicuzza was the
27 representative of UCDPD on the Leadership Team and communicated her
understanding of the guidance from the Leadership Team to Lieutenant Pike and
28

52
1 Officer P., including that the operation was not to be "like Berkeley" and was to be
conducted on Friday afternoon.' When her Lieutenants questioned the legal basis for
2
the operation, she joined them for a call with Campus Counsel Steven Drown. When
3 her Lieutenants called the 3 p.m. period a "bad idea," she told them that this direction
came directly from the Chancellor's office. At UCDPD headquarters, during the 24
4
hours leading up to the police operation on November 18, the legal basis for the
5 operation, the timing of the operation, and the use of force options were questioned by
6
Lieutenant Pike, Officer P., and other officers.

7 UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown is same person who orchestrated together with
his colleague UCDMC HR Director Steven Chilcott by the UC Regents or UC General
8
Counsel (attorney) witch hunt against me and my coworkers in 2007 and other
9 personnel and later again in 2011 prior and after pepper spray provocation. I have no
any doubt that UC Chief Steven Drown on behalf of Chancellor Katehi and UC Vice
10
Chancellor Hexter made the verbal assurance or clear suggestion for Lt. Pike and
11 Chief Spicuzza that they are well protected and they have to go with the plan as
ordered by Chancellor Katehi.
12

13 UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown was the person who signed the Settlement
Agreement on the Regents of University of California’s behalf in February 2009 and
14 three years on May 31, 2012 in an ill-crafted but unsuccessful provocation almost got
15 me killed by two corrupted UC Davis cops, new Chief Matt Carmichael and Lt. James
Barbour, who were who replaced by Chief Annette Spicuzza and Lt. John Pike after
16 setting them for pepper spray action against protesters on November 18, 2011.
17
For his effort to remove Chief Spicuzza and Lt. Pike, the UC Davis Chief Counsel
18 Steven Drown was awarded by regents a 21.9% pay raise effective December 1, 2011.
The UC Davis Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter was awarded $113,916 extra pay for
19
year 2011. The UC Board of Regents awarded the raises, effective Dec. 1, 2012 during
20 protests and turmoil in UC campuses with only Regent Eddie Island voting in
21
opposition.”

22 Shortly after I sent my “Application for Award in March 2016 “ to IRS, UC President Janet Napolitano,
intensified and escalated already ongoing since February 2016 unbelievable intense and merciless and at
23
enormous scale “WITCH HUNT” and “BLITZKRIEG” against Chancellor Linda Katehi. Janet
24
Napolitano was finishing the job of November 18, 2011using her two friends former U.S Attorneys
25
Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott employed by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, a San Francisco law
26
firm. The witch hunt against Chancellor Katehi and her family employed in UC Davis started sometime
27 in February 2016 and ended only partially successful at cost of $1,000,000 from public funds in August
28

53
1 2016. The witch hunt resulted in resignation of Chancellor Katehi with Chancellor Emerita title and

2 teaching one class in UC Davis.

3
X. UCOP MAFIA PREPARATION TO SEPARATE WASZCZUK FROM HIS
PHISICIAN DR. HARVEY HASHIMOTO AND HIS PSYCHOLOGIST DR.
4 FRANKLIN O. BERNHOFT

5 A. Perpetrators , participants and collaborators


6
1. Stephen Chilcott J.D – UCDHS Executive HR Director – key player, decision maker and
7 perpetrator
2. Hugh Parker – UCDHS Workers Compensation Manager – perpetrator and collaborator -
8 coordinator in the ill crafted provocation to harm physically Waszczuk
9
3. John Peklar -UCDHS Benefits Manager – collaborator
4. Danesha Nichols J.D – assigned witch hunter with HR Investigator title to fabricate reports for
10 Waszczuk employment termination
5. Gina Harwood – UCDHS HR Analyst – collaborator
11 6. Humberto Garcia – UCDHS HR Labor Relation Manager – collaborator
7. Charles Witcher – UCDMC Plant Operation & Maintenance Manager -vicious perpetrator and
12
collaborator
13 8. Mike Boyd – UCDHS Facility Director – key perpetrator, decision maker and collaborator –
Charles Witcher ‘s superior
14 9. Shelton Duruisseau, Ph.D- Associate Vice Chancellor – key decisionmaker , perpetrator
participant and collaborator
15
10. Patricia Coombs - Disability Claims Case Manager-Benefits Disability Claims -Liberty Life
16 Assurance company of Boston-collaborator
11. Courtney Frazier-Appel Review Manager - Benefits Disability Claims -Liberty Life Assurance
17 company of Boston-collaborator , participant
18
12. 'Karen.McKenzie- Manager - Benefits Disability Claims -Liberty Life Assurance company of
Boston-collaborator , participant
19 13. Marie Williams- Director- UCOP Mafia Short Term Disability Administrator -collaborator
14. David Vlach M.D. - Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston- collaborator , participant
20
15. Michael Waldman -UCOP Mafia liaison with Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston -
21 participant , collaborator
16. Lee I. Shimmin - State of California Department of Insurance Claim Service Bureau
22

23

24
B. OCTOBER 1, 2011- Authorization to Obtain and Release Information and
25
Reimbursement Agreement
26

27

28

54
1 As Waszczuk wrote and described previously two weeks after November 18, 2011 paper spray

2 provocation in UC Davis campus UC mafia was taking care by their way very quickly of my physician

3
and psychologist to separate them from me.
I learned from the Authorization to Obtain and Release Information that:
4

5 “Company or Plan Sponsor will use the information obtained under this
Authorization or directly from me to determine eligibility for insurance benefits,
6
which may include assessing ongoing treatment. Any information obtained will not be
7 released to any person or organizations EXCEPT to the Plan Sponsor “
8
It is obvious that Liberty got permission to share all information about my health and wellbeing and any
9
other information I provided to my physician Dr, Harvey Hashimoto or psychologist Franklin O.
10
Bernhoft Ph.D. with UCOP mafia which was after me for the reason I or Dr. Hashimoto or Dr. Bernhoft
11
were not aware or known why I am being hunted down like an animal by UCOP thugs from UC Davis
12
and UCDMC HR.
13
C. OCTOBER 20, 2011- David L. Vlach M.D. Liberty’s Consulting Psychiatrist Review and
14 Report sent to Liberty Case Manager Patricia Coombs

15

16 On October 27, 2011 Liberty’s Consulting Psychiatrists David Vlach M.D send the Conclusion and
17 Recommendations to Liberty’s Case Manager Patricia Coombs in regards to his finding about my
18 condition.. Dr Vlach Conclusion was based on the phone conversations with Dr. Hashimoto and Dr.
19 Bernhoft which he confirmed and briefly summarized the conversations by the two letters addressed to
20 Dr. Hashimoto dated 10/20/2011and Dr. Bernhoft dated 10/27/21.
21 In his Review - Conclusion Dr. Vlach wrote:
22 From: David L. Vlach M.D. Date: October 20, 2011
To: Patricia Coombs
23 Claim: 4154074
Claimant: Jaroslaw Waszczuk- File Review
24
Conclusions and Recommendations:
25

26 What diagnosis is supported by the medical evidence in the file?

27 Answer: Currently available evidence supports a diagnosis of


Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depression.
28

55
1 Please clarify whether or not the claimant has a co-morbid diagnosis
that is impacting the impairment.
2

3
Answer: No co-morbid conditions impacting impairment have been
identified.
4
Provide a description of the claimant's impairments, if any, and outline
5
how any impairment translates to restrictions and limitations. Please include the
6 expected duration for any supported restrictions.

7 Answer: The claimant currently has no impairments precluding


participation in work-related activities.
8

9 Please advise if the claimant can sustain a full time work capacity.

10 Answer: Based on the currently available information, the claimant is


capable of full time work.
11

12
Does the medical evidence support any side effects from the prescribed
medications? If yes, please provide the supported impairments and outline how any
13 impairment affects functional capacity.
14
Answer: The medical evidence does not support medication side
15 effects creating any sort of impairment for the claimant.

16 Please review the treatment plan. Please indicate whether or not it is


17
consistent with the current standard of care. If not, please provide evidence based
documentation to support your opinion.
18
Answer: The claimant's current treatment is adequate, appropriate and
19
meets the standard of care
20
In addition, please contact the listed treating physicians in order to
21 clarify the information reviewed and discuss your opinion if it differs from that of the
treating provider. Indicate if you have reached a consensus with the treating provider.
22
If not, document your final assessment after the call. Answer: Both treating clinicians
23 were contacted and concurred with the position that the claimant is ready to return to
24
work.

25 Analysis

26 OV note from Dr. Hashimoto on 8/8/11 indicates claimant complained


of four months of work stress and anxiety due to being harassed by his superiors.
27
Claimant felt he could not work and had restarted Lexapro 10mg daily and Ativan
28 0.5mg bid as needed for anxiety. Claimant also requested to see a counselor about this
56
1 problem. He was continued on the same psychiatric medications and put off work until
9/1/11. At a 9/26/11 OV, claimant reported early morning awakening, ongoing anxiety
2
with improved depression and no suicidal or homicidal ideation. Mental status
3 examination was normal and psychiatric medications were continued unchanged. Dr.
Hashimoto further indicated: "Pt. on Lexapro currently and seems to have responded
4
as best as possible. Until the situation resolves itself, we can only manage the
5 stress...." Follow up was scheduled in two months. On 9/30/11, Dr. Hashimoto
6
completed a form indicating that the claimant could return to work on 1/5/12.
Attending physician statement completed on 10/3/1 l gave a diagnosis of Adjustment
7 Disorder with anxiety and depression and a mental/nervous impairment of 4,
8 indicating inability to engage in stressful situations or interpersonal relations.

9 The form also indicated estimated return to work of 1/5/12 and follow
up visits every two months. Functional mental status evaluation completed by Dr.
10
Bernhoft on 10/10/11 indicated mild depression and moderate anxiety stemming from
11 the fact that the claimant was not at work (and presumably wanted to return). Claimant
was further noted to be oriented, and free from psychotic symptoms with intact
12
memory, cognition and judgment. He was given a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder
13 with anxiety and depression, a GAF score of 73 and no functional limitations. Dr.
Bernhoft further opined that the claimant should be allowed to return to work as soon
14
as possible. In separate telephone conversations, both Dr. Hashimoto and Dr. Bernhoft
15 confirmed that the claimant was not impaired from performing his job duties and that
16
the problem appeared to be a disagreement between the claimant and his employers.

17 Historical

18 Review of Liberty Mutual claim notes and referral questions


Review of office visit notes and attending physician statement from
19
Harvey Hashimoto MD, Primary Care Physician
20 Review of Functional Mental Status Evaluation by Franklin Bemhoft,
Ph.D
21
Telephone conversation with Dr. Hashimoto on 10/20/11
22 Telephone conversation with Dr. Bemhoft on 10/20/11.
23 -Electronically Signed -
24 David L. Vlach M.D.
25 Consulting Psychiatrist
Board Certified in Psychiatry,
26 American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
27
In addition to the letters which summarized phone conversation with Dr. Hashimoto and Dr. Bernhoft,
28

57
1 Dr. Vlach sent to Patricia Coombs some of the Dr. Bernhof’s notes from therapy sessions with me. Dr.

2 Bernhoft notes which were provided via Patricia Coombs to the UCOP mafia caused Dr. Bernhoft’s

3
family especially his spouse Dorothy enormous suffering and stress not to mention financial losses.

4 Dr. Bernhoft’s Notes and statements:


5 9/09/2011 - Friday - 6:15-7:20 p.m.- (90806)
6
Jerry shared the recent letters/emails on their "investigative leave.. and
7 his strong response to the attorney in HR_ He will not go to her office but will respond
to her questions in writing. He's had a triple bypass in the past and sent these photos to
8
them! (with his letter) - To self-clinical hypnosis to reduce his stress via elevator to the
9 ocean beach... with post-hypnotic suggestion of touching thumb and finger" to return.
Gave
10

11 EE Miller's catalogue for him to peruse (i.e. for high BP)-

12

13 $20.00
14 9/15/2011 - Thursday - 9:00-l 0:00 a.m. - (90806)
15
Jerry shared his response in writing to C. Witcher and C.W.'s response.
16 Jerry spent a day or two in SF, relaxing at the beach, seeking PNS activation. He is not
returning to work for an unknown period due to the «investigation_ ' He spoke of
17
WWIJ history in Poland, etc. and some of his awareness of Korea and Vietnam. He
18 offered bis history of work in USA with understanding of a Lodi station north of G.
19
Mills., activated from Roseville remotely. He knew of the "hero" of the film
"Defiance" and his poor treatment of a 90 year old Polish woman. Gave him the
20 EMDRIA.com website for possible future EMDR work.
21
$20.00
22
9/20/2011 -Tuesday -9:00-10:05 a.m. - (90806)
23

24
Jeny with another response letter with some satire as well. Do we get
25
more with sugar? or with salt? He has tried the sugar (used to make breakfast for his
26 boss!). He has a need. perhaps. for power when he's confronted with bureaucratic
ignorance and pressure. Years ago, he responded to the boss's cutting off internet for
27
the workers, a need they had to do their job- Within three days the computers were
28 installed. Do they need power due to Adlerian Psychology and the striving for

58
1 superiority? The "felt minus to a fictional plus"? Those who seek positions of control
probably should not have those jobs. Dr.B. shared some comparable memories.
2

3
$20.00

4 9/29/2011 - Thursday -· 12:05-1:05 pm_ - (90806)

5 Jerry with three months of stress leave through his MD/PCP_ Shared
his latest email on the "child pornography” son of a worker there> using state
6
computer for his porno addiction. Also shared the U-tube address where he had
7 videotaped (sheepy and goats) in his office being sold! He'll wait now to see the
response from his office. Does get input from friends there (i.e. that he has been
8
fired)... but has input later that he has not
9
Dr. Bernhoft by providing such information to UCOP mafia via Patricia Coombs set himself up for
10
provocation and his execution which was set for January 31, 2012.
11

12 D. NOVEMBER 28, 2011- Waszczuk last visit with Dr. Harvey Hashimoto M.D.
13

14 The November 28, 2011 was my last scheduled appointment with Dr. Harvey Hashimoto. Dr.
Hashimoto was my physician more than for decade and he was taking care of me prior and after my
15
open-heart surgery I had on January 1, 2006. During the 11/28/2011 visit Dr. Hashimoto unexpectedly
16
told me that cannot provide medical care and services to. I was not very happy about because is hard to
17
find new physician in Lodi. I asked Dr. Hashimoto why I can’t be his patient anymore. He vaguely told
18
me that is getting supervisory position in Lodi Hospital. I congratulated Dr, Hashimoto with new job
19 wished him well and thanked him for taking care of me for a long time. I was referred by Dr. Hashimoto
20 to new physician Victor Gellineau M.D in same clinic with next scheduled appointment on March 28,
21 2012.

22 Losing Dr. Hashimoto It meant that Dr. Hashimoto can’t provide me more sick leave if needed being

23
stressed out to the maximum due to constant harassment and unknown tomorrow.
On my first visit on March 28, 2012 with Dr. Victor Gellineau, he or his assistant nurse was curious
24
why I am not longer with Dr. Hashimoto after so many years. When I told him or her that Dr.
25
Hashimoto has new job in Hospital I got response that it is not true and that Dr. Hashimoto is still in the
26
clinic and he is does same job serving as family general medicine physician. I was a little surprise and I
27
never was thought that maybe Dr. Hashimoto was told by UCOP mafia not to provide me more work-
28 related stress leave.
59
1 The December 5, 2011 Charles Witcher’s threatening letter which was sent to Waszczuk was making

2 reference to October 27, 2011 Liberty’s Consulting Psychiatrists David Vlach M.D Review –

3
Conclusion and apparently was the result of Dr. Vlach conversation with Dr. Hasimoto and Dr.
Bernhoft.who did not a clue as I did not what they dealing with and who. Witcher by 12/5/2011 letter
4
threating me with words that:
5

6 “This directive is made under University Personnel Policy and


Procedures for Staff Members, Section 63. You are expected to cooperate with the
7 investigation, despite your previous refusal to do so. Your failure to attend the
8 investigatory interview and participate in the investigation will be deemed
insubordination on your part and you will be subject to discipline up to and including
9
dismissal
10
The threat was exactly based on Dr. Vlach Review -Conclusion:
11

12 “But based upon the information from Dr. Hashimoto and Dr. Berhoft,
you are able to perform work duties and return to work. Both Dr. Hashimoto and Dr.
13 Berhoft state that your disagreement with your supervisors need to be resolved. As
14 you know, the University is investigating matters underlying your disagreement with
your supervisors; and thus you need to and are being directed to participate in the
15 investigation. The investigative process is the manner to address resolution of
16 disagreements with your supervisors.”

17 I still don’t know what UCOP thugs were planned for me on December 12, 2011 if I would show up in

18 the UCDMC campus.


It is appears from the above pasted fragment of Witcher’s signed letter that Dr. Hashimoto was
19
successfully pushed back or was neutralized by UCOP mafia and by dismissing Waszczuk as his patient
20
Dr. Hashimoto escaped a mafia assault. Most likely he would lose his physician license at least if he
21
would continue to provide me with medical services. One of UCDMC key player in witch hunt
22
orchestrated in January 2007-February 2009 and again in 2011 -2012 against me was an Associate Vice
23 Chancellor Shelton Duruisseau, Ph.D was also appointed to the Medical Board of California in 2004 by
24 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and he would take care of Dr. Hashimoto if needed
25

26
E. “Shelton Duruisseau, Ph.D”
27

28

60
1 Dr. Duruisseau was appointed to the Medical Board of California, Division of Medical Quality, by

2 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004. He is also a member of the California Health Professions

3
Education Foundation Board of Trustees.
Duruisseau is the Associate Vice Chancellor of UC Davis Health System and serves as its Chief
4
External Affairs Officer. He is responsible for the Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Community
5
Engagement. “
6
Shelton Duruisseau was the one who unintentionally in August 2012 in his interview to Sacramento
7 Hub disclosed information about illegal power sale from UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant and
8 related to massive millions of dollars tax evasion due to violation of violation of section 501(c) (3) of the
9 Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the State of California Revenue and Taxation Code besides the
10 every possible state and federal environmental law applicable to cogeneration plants

11

12

13 F. JANUARY 12, 2012 - Independent Psychiatric Evaluation.

14 Waszczuk did not know in January 2012 what further and addition harm the UCOP gangsters were
15 planning to inflict to make me disappeared from the UC payroll and UCDMC landscape where
16 Waszczuk was not physically present anyway since August 3, 2011. Theoretically Waszczuk should be

17
dismissed after he did not show up for interview on December 12, 2011 with UCDMC HR witch hunter
Danesha Nichols. The interview was ordered by UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager
18
Charles Witcher threating letter that Waszczuk would be dismissed for insubordination if he will not
19
show up for interview. The early morning e-mail on December 12, 2012 I received from HR Benefits
20
Manager John Peklar most likely was an attempt to find out whether Waszczuk will show for interview
21
with witch hunter Danesha Nichols on that day. It is was obvious that Waszczuk’ psychologist
22 12/14/2011 Dr. Bernhoft letter addressed to UCOP gangster’s co-conspirators from Liberty postponed
23 temporarily Waszczuk execution.
24 Until January 5, 2012 by my Dr. Harvey Hashimoto medical permit Waszczuk was officially on work

25 stress related sick -leave which was not paid because I used in 2011 all my sick leave hours and my
vacation hours to survive because my Short Term Disability (STD) was denied by Liberty and my
26
appeal all appeals were rejected by Liberty as well. On top of this by Charles Witcher by his letter dated
27

28

61
1 December 5, 2011 removed me from sick leave without my care providers Work Clearance which was

2 required by UC Policy and which allowed me to resume my duty.

3
After the meeting with UCDMC HR witch hunter Danesha Nichols I was not allowed to go back to
work and Waszczuk was placed on pay administrative leave simultaneously with work stress related sick
4
leave until January 5, 2012
5
On January 12, 2012 after Waszczuk’s work related sick leave expired and was not seeking with my
6
physician Dr. Harvey Hashimoto to extend the sick-leave unexpectedly I received letter from the
7 Sacramento, CA “ MLS NATIONAL MEDICAL EVALUATION SERVICES” office informing me as
8 follow
9 RE: (Short-Long) Term Disability Benefits
Company Name Liberty Mutual Claim #: 4154074
10
Dear Jaroslaw Waszczuk:
11

12
Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, your disability benefits
13 provider, has requested that MLS National Medical Evaluation Services schedule you
for an independent psychiatric evaluation.
14

15
You may not cancel or change this appointment without the approval of
your claims case manager. If an emergency situation arises which prevents you from
16 attending this appointment you must contact your claims case manager at Liberty
17 Mutual as soon as possible at 800-210-0268.

18 This examination will he performed by


DOCTOR; Glenn Hakatison, M.D.
19 ADDRESS: 2300 N. St., Ste, 4
Sacramento, CA 95816
20 PHONE: 916-444-9231
21 Your appointment has been scheduled for:
DATE: 2/1/2012
22 TIME; 12:00 PM
23 Please contact the doctor's office to confirm your appointment and, if
necessary, obtain directions to the office. Liberty is responsible for paying for the
24
IME, however, should you fail to attend the IME and you fail to cancel the IME within
25 the required timeframe (7 business days prior to the appointment), you will be
26 responsible for paying any missed appointment fee that is assessed to Liberty

27
Sincerely,
28 MLS National Medical Evaluation Services

62
1 cc: Liberty Life, Barbara Keaveney
File
2 On January 19, Waszczuk sent his opinion about MLS letter to the UCOP gangsters and their thugs
3 from UCDMC HR office co -conspirator from Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, Disability
4 Claims Case Manager Ms. Patricia Coombs. The 1/12/2012 MSL’ notification and my1/19/20120

5 opinion letter is attached as a


January 19, 2012 Via Fax /US MAIL
6
Patricia Coombs
7 Disability Claims Case Manager Benefits Disability Claims Liberty
Life Assurance company of Boston
8 P.O. Box 7209
London, KY 40742-7209
9

10

11
Re: CLAIM NO.; 4154074-MLS National Medical Evaluation Services
Letter Dated January 12, 2012 - N.A.I.C. 4 0111-65315 Liberty Life Assurance
12 Company of Boston, CSB Number -6707505
13
Dear Mrs. Coombs:
14
Yesterday, on January 18, 2012 I received letter dated January 12, 2012
15 from the MLS National Medical Evaluation Services.
16 The above mentioned letter states that Liberty Life Assurance
17 Company of Boston, has requested that MLS National Evaluation Services scheduled
me for an independent psychiatric evaluation with Doctor Glenn Hakanson, MD in
18
Sacramento on February 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM (Lunch Time).
19
Furthermore, the letter states that Waszczuk may not cancel or change
20 this appointment without the approval of your claims case manager who is Mrs.
Patricia Coombs.
21

22 My first question is:

23 Is this a Polish Joke Mrs. Coombs? It sound like it is and I will tell you
why?
24

25
I could tolerate the Polish Jokes until the jokes won't cost me money
and would not affect my health condition.
26
You had been informed by the proper documents that I had been placed
27
on work related sick leave by my physician Dr. Harvey Hashimoto from September
28 22, 2011 to January 5, 2012

63
1 My second question is:

2 Did you get any information from me, my employer or my physician


3
that my work related stress sick leave had been extended beyond the January 5, 2012?

4 Today is January 19, 2012 and my sick leave ended two weeks ago and
your jurisdiction to schedule me for independent medical evaluation ended on January
5
5, 2012.
6
You had a chance to schedule me for such evaluation since October
7 2011 and you fail to do so.
8 I am sick and tired of your dilatory tactic not to pay to me the
9 Supplemental Disability Benefit from the September 29, 2011 to January 5, 2012
(seven days waiting period)
10
The independent medical evaluation scheduled by MLS after my sick
11
leave end is the another Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston example of
12 tactical and deliberated fraudulent activities not to pay and rip off sick people of their
benefits.
13

14 You, as claim manager probably getting bonuses by ripping off sick


people from their benefits. I don't have the other explanation for your action. The
15 Liberty Life ripped me off few years back after I had an open heart surgery.
16
I did not pursue the case to get my money back because I was more
17 worry about my health condition but not this time.
18 By collecting the premium and denying my claim, you not only caused
19 me additional enormous stress and anxiety but also you caused me financial
difficulties including and not limited to falling behind with my mortgage payments,
20 payments for other creditors as well cancelation of visits with my psychologist and no
21 money to buy my prescription medicines.

22 Instead of scheduling me for the psychiatric evaluation, maybe you


should advise my employer and the administrator of the Supplemental Disability
23
Insurance Plan to send the UC Davis Medical Center psychopath Supervisors for
24 psychological and psychiatric evaluation. The Supervisor who telling me that,
"Somebody will give this Pollack bad evaluation and fire him" or" I will send Gestapo
25
on your Ass " are perfect patients for psychologist and psychiatrist.
26
Psychiatrist or psychologist will be not able to help for my last
27 supervisor probably This individual guy thinks that stalking his subordinates, having
28 roosters, goats, chickens, ducks in his office and shop and cheat employer is very cool

64
1 and it is a way to run shop and supervise the HVAC and Plumbing shop employees
where I worked.
2

3
If you will make such recommendation than in the future will be no
disability cases like mine and I will stop complaining that: “I feel like a "hunted Jew
4 during the Holocaust"
5
In conclusion, once again I am requesting and demanding from the
6 Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston to pay my Supplemental Disability
Benefits without any further delay. As I stated I am sick of such Polish Jokes which
7
are causing me stress, sickness and financial loses. The Liberty Life Assurance
8 Company by collecting the premium every month and denying paying the benefit is
committing fraud and acting like a thief and corporate bandit.
9

10 Of course, by this letter I am canceling appointment with Glenn


Hakanson, M.D scheduled on February 2/1/2012
11
Sincerely;
12

13

14 Jaroslaw Waszczuk

15 CC: UCDMC HR Benefits Office -Dan Goldberg Karen McKenzie,


Courtney Frazier
16 Lee Shimmin -State of California Insurance Compliance Officer.
University of California - Office of The President - STD Administrator. UC Regents
17
Office
18 MLS National Medical Evaluation Services Glen Hakanson, M.D.

19
G. JANUARY 24, 2012 –The Short Term Disability Cancelation
20

21 On January 24, 2012 the Waszczuk sent a letter to UC Davis Medical Center HR Benefits
22 Manager, John Peklar and requested to cancel my Supplemental -Short Time Disability
23 Insurance with the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston and I advised John Peklar that he

24 make sure that that premium for this insurance will not be collected anymore through the
University of California payroll system as follow;
25

26 January 23, 2012 Via Fax IE Mail


27 John Peklar, M.S.
Benefits Manager
28

65
1 UC DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM
Human Resources Department
2 2730 Stockton Boulevard
3
Sacramento, CA 95817

4
Re: Request to Cancel My Supplemental Disability Insurance
5

6 Dear Mr. Peklar:


7

8 Please cancel my Supplemental Disability Insurance with the Liberty


Life Insurance Company of Boston and make sure that premium for this insurance will
9
not be collected anymore through the University of California Payroll system.It is
10 clearly appearing from my claim that the above-mentioned insurance company is a
crooked company and is running fraudulent operation in the State of California with
11
full support and help of University of California which is collecting premium on
12 behalf of this corporate bandit from other state.They defrauded me twice. That
13
enough. (See attached letters)

14 I am not willing any more to support the fraud by my premium which is


probably ending on the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston cronies accounts
15
and supporting their lavish life style.
16
Sincerely;
17
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
18
CC: UCOP HR, UCDMC CEO, UC Employees, State Insurance
19 Commissioner.
20

21
In addition to the above or about January 10, 2012, Waszczuk noticed on his pay stub for the pay period
22
with an end date of 12/24/2011, that Waszczuk title had been changed without his knowledge, and for
23
an unknown reason, Waszczuk title Associate Development Engineer became the Programmer I.
24
Waszczuk was promoted to Associate Development Engineer by the February 2009 Settlement-
25
Agreement that Waszczuk signed with the Defendant, the UC Regents of the University of California.
26 The Associate Development Engineer, under UC Davis Title Code 7182, was an exempt position.
27 Programmer I, under Title Code 7281, was a non-exempt employee title, with a maximum earning of
28 $30.69/hour, which translated to $3.62 less per hour than Waszczuk was making under Title 7182 in

66
1 Middle Step, with a Maximum Step earning of 43.20/hour for Title Code 7182, translating to $12.51 less

2 per hour for Title Code 7281 maximum earnings.

3
Waszczuk did not know why the job title change was made and could only speculate that
somebody made the decision to demote Waszczuk and reassign him to a different location. However,
4
Waszczuk failed to understand why nobody approached him and made the proposition to Waszczuk to
5
find out if Waszczuk would be willing to make a change from the signed 2009 Settlement-Agreement,
6
and work in a different shop.
7 Waszczuk would have no problem to renegotiate the signed February 2009 Settlement-Agreement
8 regardless of the psychological terror, harassment and despicable attacks on him and violation of his
9 civil and human rights at age of 60. Waszczuk just wanted to go back to work and forget about whole
10 mess.

11 Waszczuk still have no clue as to why this was done or who did it in violation of the February 2009,
the Settlement-Agreement, which stated position and work place cannot be changed without Waszczuk
12
consent or a Court Order. Waszczuk asked Mr. Peklar to correct this problem.
13
On January 18, 2012, Waszczuk noticed by looking at his pay stub dated January 18, 2012, that he had
14
been de-enrolled by the UCOP-UCDMC Mafia from the medical, dental and vision insurance coverage
15
plans.
16 On the same day, January 18, 2012, Waszczuk sent a letter to UC Davis Medical Center
17 Benefits Manager John Peklar, who tried in December 2012 to convince Waszczuk to make him
18 to quit, and Waszczuk asked Mr. Peklar to immediately reinstate Waszczuk’s medical Benefits.

19 Waszczuk urgently needed to get his prescription medicine, and his medical lab had to be done
soon, so the de-enrolling an employee from his medical insurance benefits was beyond
20
harassment..
21
I asked UCOP Mafia Liaison Mike Waldman, who was responsible for administrating the
22
supplemental short-term disability benefits, to intervene with Liberty Assurance Company
23
Boston to pay me legitimate benefits, which were denied in November and December 2012. I
24 did not get any response from Waldman.
25 XI. THE JANUARY 31, 2012 UCOP MAFIA PROVOCATION TO KILL OR
26 HARM WASZCZUK’S PSYCHOLOGIST DR. FRANKLIN O. BERNHOFT

27 A. Perpetrators, Participants, and Collaborators


28

67
1 1. Daniel Morris Dooley: UCOP senior vice president; UCOP mafia chief until October 2014. Key
decision maker, perpetrator, and coordinator in the attacks on Waszczuk in 2011–2014 and on
2
UC Chancellor Linda Katehi on November 18, 2011. The pepper-spray provocation was carried
3 out and executed by UC Davis mafia chief Steven Drown as well as his thugs and collaborators.

4 2. Diana Dooley: Daniel Dooley’s wife; key perpetrator. On Daniel Dooley and the UCOP mafia’s
5
behalf, she ordered and set up the confrontation on January 31, 2011, to provoke and kill Lodi
psychologist Dr. Franklin O. Bernhoft. The attack destroyed Bernhoft’s family and life.
6

7 Diana Dooley is a Democratic political advisor working in the State of California. She is the
8 executive secretary, a role comparable to chief of staff, for Governor Jerry Brown. She was
9 appointed to the position on May 31, 2018.
10
On May 31, 2012, Daniel Dooley, Richard Blum, and Charles Robinson ordered Chancellor
11 Katehi or her deputy Fraga-Decker to sign an unlawful power sale agreement with the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District. The agreement was to resume the illegal sale of tax-free
12
power from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant. These criminals
13 were attempting to recover the losses that they incurred when the plant ceased the illegal power
14
sale after the UC mafia signed the February 2009 Settlement Agreement with Waszczuk. They
eventually trashed the agreement in April 2011.
15

16 Also on May 31, 2012, the UCOP mafia carried out a heinous and unsuccessful provocation in
an attempt to end Waszczuk’s employment in the UC Davis Trauma Unit (#11).
17

18 From 1974 to 1975, Diana Dooley worked as an analyst at the State Personnel Board. Starting in
1975, she worked as legislative director and special assistant during Governor Jerry Brown’s (D)
19
first term (1975–1983).
20
In 2011, Diana Dooley became secretary of the California Health and Human Services
21
Agency.
22
3. Will Lightbourne: Director of the California Department of Social Services; key perpetrator. On
23
January 31, 2012, based on Diana Dooley’s orders, Lightbourne coordinated vengeance and
24 provocation against psychologist Dr. Bernhoft. Lightbourne went to Dr. Bernhoft’s residence in
25
Lodi to kill or harm Dr. Bernhoft and his wife, Dorothy Bernhoft.
In April 2011, California Health and Human Services Secretary Diana Dooley named
26 Lightbourne director of the California Department of Social Services. Lightbourne served in
27 this new post through an interagency agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the State
of California.
28

68
1

2
Since 2000, Lightbourne has served as agency director of Santa Clara County Social Services.
3
4. Michael Weston: Deputy director of California Health and Human Services secretary since
4 February 2012; key perpetrator. Weston collaborated to harm Dr. Bernhoft and his family.
In February 2011, Diana Dooley promoted Weston to the deputy director position. This
5
promotion occurred after the unannounced January 31, 2012, Social Services raid of Bernhoft’s
6 residence in Lodi, California. The goal of the raid was to provoke Dr. Bernhoft and lure him into
a trap that was professionally set and carried out by the malicious perpetrators. After the
7
unsuccessful attempt to lure Dr. Bernhoft to his residence and provoke him, Weston orchestrated
8 mass media coverage of the alleged crimes of Dr. Bernhoft’s wife, Dorothy Bernhoft. Thereafter,
9
Waszczuk disconnIected himself from Dr. Bernhoft’s services and distanced himself from Dr.
Bernhoft personally as well.
10

11 From July 2000 to March 2006, prior to the Social Services raid, Weston was employed as a
television news producer in a very popular local news station, KCRA3. Weston’s connections at
12 the television station allowed him to orchestrate enormous media coverage of the Social Services
13 raid on Dr. Bernhoft’s residence. The degree of coverage was similar to what was seen during
the pepper-spray provocation aimed at Chancellor Katehi; the pepper-spray incident took place
14
on the UC Davis campus on November 18, 2012.
15
5. Sharon Ogbodo, Tawny Grossman, and Alison Newkirk: Collaborators. Social Services
16 employees. On January 31, 2012, on the order of Director Lightbourne or his deputy Weston,
17 Ogbodo, Grossman, and Newkirk stayed in Bernhoft’s residence until Dr. Bernhoft arrived home
between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. They were present to ensure that Bernhoft would clash with the
18
Lodi Police. Ogbodo, Grossman, and Newkirk called before they left the Bernhoft residence at
19 4:00 p.m.

20 6. Mark M. Reese, Assistant Social Services Chief Counsel; Cori A. Dutra, Staff Attorney;
21 and Jeffrey Hiratsuka, Deputy Director of Social Services, Services Licensing Department:
Perpetrators and collaborators with JD degrees. On February 3, 2012, three days after the
22 unsuccessful attempt to harm Dr. Bernhoft, these individuals filed mostly false charges against
Dorothy Bernhoft.
23

24 Recently, Reese resigned from the State Bar of California. Dutra is a friend of Porter Scott Law
Corporation attorney David P. E. Burkett—who represented the UCOP mafia in this litigation.
25
7. Kristine Reed, San Joaquin County District Attorney: In 2012, Reed filed criminal charges
26 against Dorothy Bernhoft.
27

28

69
1 8. Brett H. Morgan, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge: Before Judge Morgan was appointed
to the bench, he was chief deputy for the State of California Inspector General and chief of staff of the
2
State of California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.
3 Judge Morgan harshly punished Dorothy Bernhoft by sentencing her to four years’ probation
with many conditions—including not being alone with her own grandchildren. She had to serve
4
416 hours of community service at an approved nonprofit organization and pay many thousands
5 of dollars in restitution. She also had to complete a child abuse course and seek mental health
6
counseling.

7 http://www.recordnet.com/article/20131001/A_NEWS/310010317
8

9
All of the individuals listed above are guilty of willfully depriving Dorothy and Franklin Bernhoft of

10
rights and privileges protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The above

11 individuals destroyed the Bernhoft family and forced them to live in fear.

12

13
B. Franklin O. Bernhoft Ph.D
14

15 Dr. Franklin Bernhoft and his family reside in in Lodi, California, in San Joaquin County where

16 Waszczuk has lived with his family since 1989.


Dr. Franklin Bernhoft, as a psychologist, was not only helping Waszczuk in 2011-2012 to cope with
17
enormous stress and anxiety caused by the UCOP gangsters and their thugs from UC Davis and UC
18
Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), but Dr. Bernhoft was also intensively involved in Waszczuk’s Short
19
Term Disability (STD) claim dispute with the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston. The STD was
20
administrated by the UCOP Mafia During the therapy sessions with Dr. Bernhoft in the period of time
21 from August 2011 to December 2011 Waszczuk provided a lot of information to Dr. Franklin Bernhoft
22 about his place of employment, the UC Davis Medical Center. The information included corruption
23 among UCDMC management and administrative abuse of power, vicious management retaliations
24 against employees, and violations of employees’ civil and human rights. Waszczuk provided Dr.

25 Bernhoft with copies of multiple correspondences/complaints, which included


correspondences/complaints submitted by Waszczuk to the UC Davis Chancellor and the UC President’s
26
office. Dr. Bernhoft provided some of this information to the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston
27

28

70
1 claims reviewers, which were handling Waszczuk’ Short Term Disability and conspired with UCOP

2 gangsters to destroy my and the Dr. Bernhoft’ s family life.

4
C. FEBRUARY 3, 2012- The Lodi News-Sentinel article “Lodi day care provider Dorothy
Bernhoft gives up license” and TV KCR 3
5

6 On February 3, 2012, Waszczuk learned from the local newspaper The Lodi News-Sentinel (“Lodi day
7 care provider Dorothy Bernhoft gives up license” by staffer Katie Nelson) that investigators from the

8 Department of Social Services on January 31, 2012 conducted an unannounced visit to Bernhoft house
on the 2300 block of Woodlake Circle after someone complained Bernhoft was not properly taking care
9
of the children in her care The accusations and allegations were serious and very disturbing.
10
http://www.lodinews.com/news/article_10e93e82-4e9b-11e1-9f2b-0019bb2963f4.html
11

12

13 By Katie Nelson/ News-Sentinel Staff Writer

14
State officials are moving to permanently revoke a Lodi woman's child
15 care license after they say they found multiple violations in her home. The alleged
16 violations range from having too many children in her care to placing some infants in
darkened closets.
17

18

19
DOROTHY BERNHOFT has been licensed to run daycare programs
since 1982.
20
This week, investigators from the Department of Social Services paid
21
an unannounced visit to her house on the 2300 block of Woodlake Circle after
22 someone complained Bernhoft was not properly taking care of the children in her care.

23 Investigators spent 4 1/2 hours at the home during their visit on Jan. 31,
and according to DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON MICHAEL WESTON, at the
24
conclusion of the visit parents were called and notified to pick up their children.
25
BERHNHOFT'S husband, DR. FRANKLIN BERNHOFT, said that
26
while he could not comment on the investigation, the whole situation was strange.
27
FRANKLIN BERNHOFT said his wife was "the most spiritual woman
28 he knows," and that his wife would never hurt any children.

71
1 DOROTHY BERNHOFT herself would not comment on the
investigation and said any questions should be directed to Stockton attorney Joel
2
Perisho, who is representing her.
3
According to the complaint, infants were observed to be without
4 supervision and buckled in car seats in darkened closets with the door shut.
5
The complaint goes on to state that investigators found radios playing
6 in the house, making it difficult for BERNHOFT to hear the infants or children crying
or calling for her.
7
BERNHOFT is also accused of having an assistant, CONNIE DUFF,
8
who was not fingerprinted or approved to work in a daycare facility.
9
BERNHOFT also was over capacity at her home, the complaint stated.
10 She was approved to care for eight children in her home. However, nine infants and
11 one child over the age of two were in her care the day of the investigation, according
to the complaint.
12
Bernhoft provided a statement to the department acknowledging she
13
was giving up her license as of the day of the visit, though the complaint stated the
14 department could still take legal or administrative action against her.
15 According to WESTON, a complaint was originally lodged with the
16 department in December, and after investigators inspected BERNHOFT'S home this
week, WESTON said the next step is to permanently ban BERNHOFT from being
17
able to ever provide child care services anywhere in the state of California.
18
WESTON said department officials planned late Friday to serve
19 BERHNOFT with the accusations and documents to start the process of revoking her
license permanently. As of press time, it was unclear if that service had occurred.
20

21 "We are starting legal actions that will never allow her to have any
association with any facility licensed by us and to never be able to get licensed by the
22
state of California ever again," he said.
23
BERNHOFT was originally licensed with the state of California to
24 provide child care for six children in her home in Roseville in 1982.
25 On September 20, 1994, BERNHOFT asked the department to increase
26 the number of children she could care for in her home in Lodi to 12, according to
department documents.
27

28

72
1 BERNHOFT requested the department place her license on "inactive
status" beginning March 1, 2008, with the inactive status being lifted on July 1, 2010,
2
according to department documents.
3
In a letter to BERNHOFT dated May 28, 2010 to notify her that her
4 inactive status was about to expire, BERNHOFT requested that the department have
5 her inactive status be extended through July 1, 2013.

6 But according to court documents, BERNHOFT asked to have her


license reactivated on Dec. 21, 2011.
7
Contact reporter Katie Nelson at katien@lodinews.com.
8

9
The popular local KCR3 TV on same day station reported he Department of Social Services has shut
down a Lodi day care facility after an investigation revealed the provider strapped babies in car seats
10
and left them in dark closets.
11
MIKE WESTON from the Department of Social Services said parents and police were immediately
12
contacted after the discovery.
13
MIKE WESTON before working for the Department of Social Services (CDSS) he was employed from
14 2000- 2006 as KCR3 TV -Television News Producer.
15 I read the Complaint Investigation Report posted online. The unannounced CDSS visit in Bernhoft’s
16 residence was supposedly result of somebody’s January 27, 2012 complaint against Dorothy Bernhoft

17 CDSS office received on January 27, 2012. Dorothy Bernhoft was supposedly was reported by her
housekeeper but it was no disclosed when in the court documents or investigation report
18
I was shocked by the serious allegations. I had never met Dorothy Bernhoft, but in addition to Dr.
19
Franklin Bernhoft serving as his psychologist, he had known their son Bradley for years. Waszczuk’s
20
son George counted Bradley as one of his best friends since Elementary and High School personally
21
knew both Bradley’s parents.
22 Dr. Bernhoft was well known in the Lodi community and Lodi School District as a Licensed
23 Psychologist
24 Licensed Educational Psychologist, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, Nationally Board
25 Certified Counselor

26
Would he not know what his wife was doing to kids in his home?
Thereafter the news about Ms. Bernhoft Day Care was all over in TV news and newspapers with posted
27
video with Bernhoft’s home in Lodi. http://archive.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=176541
28

73
1 The mass-media coverage of Ms. Bernhoft Day Care placed Bernhoft’s family in spot light and basically

2 Ms. Bernhoft was found guilty before her statutory time to appeal the Department of Social Services

3
charges was expired.
Waszczuk found it strange and odd that Ms. Bernhoft, a school teacher for many years, and Mr.
4
Bernhoft, a psychologist with a doctoral degree, former soldier and Vietnam veteran in rank of captain
5
and well known Lodi resident could be responsible for little children engagement and mistreatment
6

7 D. JUNE 21, 2012 - UC Davis Police Department Sergeant Jennifer Garcia’s e-mail to Gina
8 Guillaume-Holleman from the UC Davis Medical Center Chief Compliance

10
From the close examination of all documents, facts, and events during pending litigations in which
11
Waszczuk representing against the University of California Waszczuk discovered in June -July 2015
12
why the UCOP mafia has haunted Waszczuk down like an animal since December 2006 and terminated
13 his employment in six years later in December 2012.
14 In July–August of 2015, Waszczuk was preparing the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) to file in my
15 wrongful termination case and Dr. Bernhoft became a subject again in my prepared TAC. This inquiry

16 for assistance is in some parts updated the Third Amended Complaint which I intend to file in
Sacramento County Superior Court shortly
17
After the order of the Sacramento Superior Judge David I. Brown blocked Waszczuk’s attempt to file a
18
very detailed 295-page TAC in October 2015, Wasszczuk reviewed the documents university attorney
19
produced and I found the June 21, 2012 email dated June 21, 2012 which was sent by UCDPD Sergeant
20
Jennifer Garcia who informed Gina Guillaume-Holleman from the UC Davis Medical Center Chief
21 Compliance office and UCDPD Lt. James Barbour by e-mail, as follows:
22

23
“Jerry” is clear any warrants, has no guns registered and no current
24
dealer of sales for guns and has negative criminal history. Lodi PD informed they
25 have nothing on him. “
26

27 James Barbour was UCPD Lieutenant who replaced UCPD Lt. Matt Carmichael after Carmichael
28 participation in UCOP Mafia plot t to remove Chancellor Katehi , Chief Spicuzza , Lt . Pike and Captain

74
1 Souza was promoted to UCDPD Chief after November 18, 2011 pepper spray attack aimed at

2 protesting students.

3
When Waszczuk read this e-mail the first time in November 2015, Waszczuk had no doubt that UCOP
gangsters were looking at every available option to frame me and terminate my employment whatever
4
steps is necessary to take and inflict more harm Waszczuk was absent since August 3, 2011 but he was
5
still on UC payroll after three unsuccessful provocations to erase him from the UC payroll. Physically
6
Waszczuk was not present in the UCDMC almost one year. Waszczuk have any doubt that if he
7 would be a gun owner or had even outstanding warrant for traffic ticket, then Lodi Police would ride
8 and search his home and he would face San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Hon. Brett Morgan
9 who was assigned to the Lodi Branch of San Joaquin County Superior Court.
10

11 E. The San Joaquin Superior Court files of the Case No. LM051206A; LPD CASE, DA
Case CR-2012-4029037
12

13 On January 5, 2016, Waszczuk copied San Joaquin Superior Court files of the Case No. LM051206A;
14 LPD CASE, DA Case CR-2012-4029037-The People of the State of California Plaintiff v. Dorothy

15 Bernhoft, Defendant, filed on August 6, 2012 and Civil Case No. 39-2012-00283391-CU-PO-STK;
Chiari Colarossi, through her Guardian ad Litem, Alison Colarossi; Alison Colarossi; Robert
16
Colarossi; Maia Nabholz, through her Guardian ad Litem, Joanna Wlodawer; Joanna Wlodawer; and
17
Trevor Nabholz v. Dorothy Bernhoft; Franklin Bernhoft.
18
Waszczuk noticed the following surprising facts:
19

20
1. The California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division Complaint
21 Investigation Report contains three different dates of 01/27/2012, 01/30/2012, and 01/31/2012.
22
2. The Complaint Investigation Report Page #1, the most important page of the report, was not signed by
23 Dorothy Bernhoft, who should acknowledge by her signature that she received the allegations and
24 findings and understands the appeal rights as explained and received.

25
3. During the 4.5-hour visit, the Department of Social Services’ Sharon Ogbodo, Tawny Grossman, and
26 Alison Newkirk toured the entire facility including the garage, upstairs and yard.

27

28

75
1 Complaint Investigation Report and findings completely does not correspond in some ways with the

2 complaint in the Matter of DOROTHY BERNHOFT dba Family Day Care Home 2363 Woodlake Circle

3
Lodi, CA 95242 filed by Department of Social Services Legal Division on February 2, 2012. CDSS No.
7012032101; CDSS No. 7012032101B and with Search Warrant dated January 31, 2012.
4
The Department of Social Services Legal Division filed the complaint with the following accusations
5
just two days after, not mentioned in January 31, 2012 Complaint Investigation Report issued by the
6
licensing evaluator Jeanne Smith.
7

8 • Failure to fence or barricade the facility stairs;


9
• Two loaded firearms (shot guns) and ammunition stored in a closet where an infant in a
car seat was found
10 • Plastic dry cleaner bags accessible to children in care
• Cleaning materials, medication, scissors, and knives accessible to children in care;
11
• Failure to maintain heat in the facility where children were kept;
12 • A roster for children in care at the facility;
• Immunization records for children in care at the facility;
13 • Signed and dated parents’ rights forms for children in care
14 • Failure or refusal to respond to children upstairs when they cried and called ‘Mammy,
Mommy” and “Help, Help”;
15 • On or about December 20, 2011, five (5) infants and three (3) preschool children present
in the facility without an assistant;
16
• Children restrained and/or confined in car seats, from which they ate insulation. It is
17 unknown who provided the car seats and whether Ms. Bernhoft purchased the car seats or
children’s parents were delivering infants to the Ms. Bernhoft Day care in the car seats.
18

19 Waszczuk noticed the fact that the Department of Social Services on December 20, 2011 visited
20 Dorothy Bernhoft’s home and acknowledged that Dorothy Bernhoft operates facility without inactive
21 license, without assistant, and most likely in same way as it was described in the January 31, 2012

22
Complaint Investigation Report. It was no any problem for the Department of Social Services and
Complaint Investigation Report was not issued because apparently Dorothy Bernhoft’s Day Care was in
23
compliance with law and regulations with maybe the exception that her license was activated on
24
December 21, 2012.
25
THE LODI POLICE SEARCH WARRANT
26

27

28

76
1 The Search Warrant dated January 31, 2012 and Statement of the Probable Cause was signed by Lodi

2 Police Detective Michael Mannetti and Hon. Lauren P. Thomasson. (

4
1. Affidavit to search Bernhoft’s residence was signed by Hon. Lauren Thomasson at 4:11 P.M.,
11 minutes after unannounced Department of Social Services visit/investigation was completed.
5

6 2. The date and time that the warrant was served is not stated on the designated line and is
unknown.
7

8
3. Lodi Police Detective Michael Manetti signed the Statement of Probable Cause which was
9 attached to the Search Warrant in presence of the Hon. Lauren P. Thomson on January 13th 2012
(handwritten date) but is dated January 31st (handwritten date) by Detective Michael Manetti.
10

11 These date of January 13th 2012 shows that Social Services or somebody provided all information to
12 Lodi Police Detective Michael Manetti about the planned “unannounced “raid” by Social Services on

13 Bernhoft’s residence in Lodi. If the Social Services and Lodi Police knew before January 13, 2012 what
is going in the Dorothy Bernhoft’s Day Care than why Police did not intervened earlier to protect
14
children from endangerment and why District Attorney office was not informed about . ?
15
The issuance of search warrant on January 31, 2012 at 4: 11 P. M clearly indicated that time was 4: 11
16
P.M that time correspondences with the time Dr. Franklin Bernhoft would come back home to from his
17
office after work day. Dr. Bernhoft’ office is locate 3-4 miles away from his residence in Lodi. Dr.
18
Bernhoft most likely was profiled if he would be easy to provoke after he sent to Liberty Assurance
19 Company of Boston lot of information he received from Waszczuk about himself and after phone
20 conversation with Liberty consultant Dr. Vlach at the end of October 2016. Dr. Franklin Bernhoft was
21 Vietnam Veteran at Captain rank and coming home and seeing the police searching his home without

22 informing him about and taking his guns could lead easily to the heated confrontation between Dr.
Bernhoft and Lodi cops It is not Waszczuk imagination. Waszczuk talked about with Dr. Bernhoft in
23
2016 and Waszczuk could only imagine how the ill crafted UCOP mafia provocation to get Dr.
24
Bernhoft would end regardless whether Social Services found some violation in the Dorothy Bernhoft’s
25
Children Day Care or not.
26
It was no needed for Social Services personnel inspecting Dr. Bernhoft home to stay in Bernhoft’s
27 residence from 11: 30 AM until 4: 00 PM and wait until Lodi Police and Dr Bernhoft will show up after
28 coming back from work.

77
1 Why the Social Service did not call Lodi Police one hour after they arrived in Dr. Bernhoft Residence

2 and let the Lodi Police witness the strapped children in car seats in dark rooms closet with guns

3
unloaded guns next to children? It is mystery for Waszczuk why these facts were not noticed by Deputy
District Attorney Kristine Reed who filed on March 18, 2012 filed charges against Dorothy Bernhoft
4
with 35 Counts which most were filed CRUELTY TO CHILD BY ENDANGERING HEALTH PC.
5
273A(B) On April 6, 2016 Waszczuk shared my opinion about Bernhoft’s prosecution with San Joaquin
6
Deputy District Attorney Kristine Reed as follow::
7

8
April 6, 2016
9 Kristine Reed
Deputy District Attorney
10 San Joaquin County
222 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202
11
Re: The Dorothy and Franklin Bernhoft San Joaquin County Superior
12
Court Cases:
13
The San Joaquin Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
14 Lodi Branch - Complaint Case No. LMOS l206A LPD CASE, DA Case CR-2012-
15 4029037-The People of the State of California Plaintiff v. Dorothy Bernhoft,
Defendant.
16
The cross-connected civil case:
17

18
The San Joaquin Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
Civil Case No. 392012-00283391-CU-PO-STK; Chiari Colarossi, through her
19 Guardian adLitem, Alison Colarossi,' Alison Colarossi; Robert Colarossi; Maia
20 Nabhoiz, through her Guardian ad Litern, Joanna Wlodawer and Trevor Nabholz v.
Dorothy Bernhofl; Franklin Bernhoft.
21
Dear Ms. Reed:
22

23
Recently, I filed a complaint with the State of California Commission
on Judicial Performance against the Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon.
24 Shelleyanne Chang for misconduct. In the mentioned complaint against Judge Chang,
25 I included the two San Joaquin County Superior Court cases filed against the
Bernhoft’s.
26
It is my understanding that you are the San Joaquin County District
27
Attorney who brought the criminal charges against Ms. Dorothy Bernhoft in 2012,
28

78
1 I am bringing the two court cases involving the Bernhofts (captioned
above) to your attention because Defendant Franklin Bernhoft, Ph.D., in the Civil
2
Case No. 39-2012- 00283391-CU-PO-STK, was my retained psychologist from
3 August 2011 to January 2012.
4 It is not my intention by this letter to question the charges the District
5 Attorney's office brought against Ms. Dorothy Bernhoft. However, I found both of the
cases involving the Bernhoft’s very odd and bizarre in relation to the service Franklin
6 Bernhoft was providing to me in 2012.
7
For the above reason, I am sending the part of my complaint against the
8 Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang to your office for your
review and consideration, plus a copy of the complaint cover letter addressed to the
9
State of California Commission on Judicial Performance Chairperson, Honorable
10 Erica R. Yew.
11 If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at your
12 convenience.

13 Sincerely,

14 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
15 CC: Maria Gross; Cori Dutra, Esq.; Mark Reese, Esq. - California
16 Department of Social Services

17 Waszczuk attached to my letter the June 21, 2012 e-mail UCDPD sergeant Jennifer Garcia sent to Gina

18 Guillaume-Holleman from the UC Davis Medical Center Chief Compliance office and UCDPD Lt.
James Barbour about inquiry about me with Lodi Police.
19
Also, Waszczuk enclosed the copy of the Lodi Police Search Warrant dated January 31, 2012.
20
IWaszczuk sent copy of my correspondence with District Attorney office to Maria Gross – listed on the
21
1/31 /2012 Investigation Report as a CDSS supervisor and two California Department of Social Services
22
(CDSS) attorneys Cori Dutra and Mark Reese listed on CDSS Complaint filed- dated February 2, 2012
23 was issued days after Bernhoft’ s home was raided by CDSS.
24 The CDSS raided Bernhoft’s home on January 31, 2012 in Lodi one day before my scheduled visit on
25 February 1, 2012 with the MLS National Evaluation Services for an independent psychiatric

26 evaluation which was requested by Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston after Dr. Bernhoft sent

27
to Liberty update about my health condition and postponed my termination for another year thus causing
indirectly for UC Mafia losses at least $ 5,000,000 to unsold illegally power from UCDMC 27 MW
28

79
1 cogeneration plant. Waszczuk still wondering what the UCOP bandits in collaboration with their

2 Liberty’s buddies were planning for me on February 1, 2012 in MSL National Evaluation Services

3
office in Sacramento if Waszczuk would show up there as requested by Liberty.
It still makes me wonder Waszczuk if the Complaint filed against Dorothy Bernhoft on February 2,
4
2012 by CDSS attorney Cori Dutra and Mark Reese was dictated whether Waszczuk will show up in
5
MSL office for psychiatric evaluation on February 1, 2012.
6
According to State Bar of California record CDSS attorney Mark Reese resigned on 8/24/2017 (Causes
7 unknown)
8 It is appear that CDSS attorney Cori Dutra is a friend (Facebook, Law School) of Porter Scott attorney
9 David Burkett who represents UCOP mafia against me in Sacramento County Superior Court in two
10 cases.

11 David Burkett attempted to provoke Waszczuk into physical confrontation in the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District (3DCA) by making threats toward my wife in the Court building just after
12
scheduled Oral Argument which took place in the August 28, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.
13
Waszczuk described the Mr. Burkett’s behavior as follow in the Petition for Rehearing from
14
unpublished Court decision in Anti-SLAPP motion Case No. C079524 issued on October 10, 2017.
15
“After just 15 minutes of oral argument, the Defendants legal counsel
16
David Burkett from the Sacramento-based law firm Porter Scott approached
17 Waszczuk in the Court Hall outside the courtroom and attempted to instigate a
18
confrontation. He made threats toward Waszczuk wife and tried to exploit the
emotional and financial suffering we have both experienced since UC Regents
19 terminated Waszczuk employment in December 2012 at age 61 without any possibility
20 to find new employment. For the Court information Waszczuk spouse Irena Waszczuk
is working in Nordstrom in Sacramento as seamstress -fitter for almost 30 years and
21 has nothing to do with the University of California and Waszczuk’ lawsuit, Waszczuk
22 spouse should retire on September 21, 2017 at age of 66 but he can’t due to
devastation of Waszczuks life and livelihood by UC Regents and their collaborators.
23
Burkett knew that Waszczuk was stressed due to financial hardship caused by his
24 client’s criminal behavior; he thought that his attacks against my spouse would easily
provoke a confrontation. Sadly, this encounter was my second time experiencing such
25
shameful tactics in the court building. It is a second time Waszczuk experienced such
26 Defendants attorney behavior. It happened before in 2015, prior to the court hearing
with presiding Judge Shelleyane Chang in the unemployment benefits Writ of
27
Mandamus case— in which UC Regents is party as a Real Party In Interest (RPii.) UC
28 legal counsel and UC administrators must be very desperate if they resort to using

80
1 such tactics. Trying to provoke the opposing party into a physical confrontation in an
area heavily trafficked by sheriff’s deputies and city police is either very foolish or
2
very underhanded.”
3
It is customary for the UC mafia, which is interconnected with the state government and state
4
agencies, to go after vindictively and brutally retaliate against family members or friends of
5 complaining employees as a terrorizing tactic to discourage employees from pursuing complaints
6 against the university management and administration. This happened in the case of Janet Kyzer
7 when the university thugs retaliated against her husband and fired him from his job. It happened in

8 my case when university legal counsel from Porter Scott law firm Douglas Ropel was making threats
that he will go after my wife for the legal fees that the university had not yet been awarded. This
9
occurred on February 27, 2015, during the discussion with Douglas Ropel just before entering the Court
10
hearing with Judge Chang in Sacramento County Superior Court. My wife works not for the university
11
but for Nordstrom Corporation, where she has been employed for 26 years. Apparently it does not
12
matter if millions of dollars in fraud , tax evasion and mysterious UCDMC employee Todd Georlich’s
13 suicide which created so much stir are at stake. Douglas Ropel quit Porter Scott after years and half just
14 before UCOP second witch hunt in spring of 2016 against Chancellor Linda Katehi was orchestrated and
15 launched by the UCOP Mafia’s President Janet Napolitano with her two friends Melinda Haag and
16 McGregor Scott who was sworn on December 29, 2017 as the new United States Attorney by United

17
States District by Judge Morrison C. England Jr..
The United States District Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. presided over the almost 10 years long
18
lawsuit(s) Case No . Case 2:05-cv-02439-MCE-KJM filed in Ninth District by UC Davis employee
19
EDITH F. CARTWRIGHT against UC Regents and UC Davis sexual predators an bandits including
20
and not limited to Allen Tollefson who was subjected by two state lawsuit and is California Supreme
21
Court Chief Tani Cantil -Sakauye’s “HERO” in the January 2007 3DCA published opinion Vergos v.
22 McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 13999(Vergos) which was invented by Porter Scott Law
23 Corporation attorneys . Hon. Cantil -Sakauye worked with Judge Morrison C. England Jr in Sacramento
24 County Superior Court before she was elevated to 3DCA as a Justice to punish Randy Vergos for

25 being gay and friend of Edith Cartwright .

26 Plaintiff in the above mentioned case was a Latina, Mexican-


27 American, Native-American homosexual female, began working for the University of
California, Davis, in August 1987, as an employee in the Physical Plant-Facilities-
28

81
1 Operational Department. Despite her repeated complaints to various authorities,
Plaintiff claims she was subjected to a litany of discriminatory and retaliatory acts
2
based on her race, gender, and sexual preference during her sixteen-year tenure of
3 employment with the University.
4 Shortly after being hired, Plaintiff alleges that two of her male
5 superiors began subjecting her to discrimination and harassment. The discrimination
and harassment was ongoing and ultimately prompted Plaintiff, in 1991, to file
6 complaints with the University, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and
7 the Yolo County Superior Court. The University entered into a written settlement
agreement with Plaintiff under which Plaintiff agreed to release her claims in return
8
for $30,000 and a promise by the University not to retaliate.
9
The UC gangsters are so vicious and unscrupulous in violation of its own employees civil and human
10 rights that they did not hesitate to attack Waszczuk’s coworker and friend when he was arranging a
11 funeral for his mother.
12 It is ALSO a mystery for Waszczuk why San Joaquin Superior Court Judge Hon. Brett Morgan did not

13 look the record and examine closely the Lodi Police issued Search Warrant and if Dorothy Bernhoft has
negative criminal record prior the CDSS raid on Bernhoft’s home.
14
In contrary to my physician Dr. Harvey Hashimoto who was most likely persuaded by UCOP gangsters
15
or their collaborators to abandon me on October 28, 2011, Dr. Bernhoft still providing me his services
16
thereafter and he became a target to be neutralized as it was done on November 11, 2011 with
17
Chancellor Katehi, UCDP Chief Annette Spicuzza, Lt. John Pike and Captain Joyce Souza.
18 Based on the close examinations of documents related to my association with Dr. Bernhoft in the course
19 of my employment with the University of California, the criminal and civil complaints documents filed
20 in the San Joaquin Superior Court against Dorothy and Franklin Bernhoft, the January 2012 State of
21 California Department of Social Services charges against Dorothy Bernhoft, the Lodi Police Search

22 Warrant dated January 21, 2012 related to accusations and allegations against Dorothy Bernhoft, and the
media and press publications orchestrated by deputy Director of California Social Services and former
23
KCR3 TV -Television News Producer Michael Weston per order of his superior Director of CDSS
24
WILL LIGHTHBOURNE
25
It is my understanding from the 2/2/2012 CDSS complaint that MICHAEL WESTON as CDSS Deputy
26
Director had WILL LIGHTBOURNE delegated authority of or power to launch unwarranted attack with
27 others against Bernhoft’ s family since December 2, 2011
28

82
1

2
“I hereby delegate to JoAnn Hirai, as Chief of Investigations Branch,
3
John Rodriquez. as Chief of Continuing Care Contracts Branch.
4
Gloria Merk, as Program Administrator of Child Care Program, Mary
5 Jails as Program Administrator of Adult and Senior Care Program,
6 Kathi Mowers-Moore, as Chief of the Central Operations Branch; my
power to issue the following administrative pleadings under the
7
Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code Section 11500 et
8
seq.:
9
(a) Accusations and orders for temporary license suspension prior to
10 heating, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 1550. 1550.5, 1568.082,
1569.50, 1569.51, 1569.885, or 1596.886.
11
(b) Statements of issues pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections
12 1526. 1568.063. 1569.22, or 1596.879.
13
(c) Orders to require that an employee or prospective employee of a
14 facility not work or be present in a facility pending a final decision of the matter,
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 1558, 1568.066. 1569.58, or 1596.8897.
15 They may exercise this power when, in their opinion, the action is necessary to protect
the residents or clients from physical or mental abuse, abandonment, or any other
16 substantial threat to the health and safety of the residents or clients.
17 These delegations are made pursuant to Government Code Section 7.
18
They shall remain in effect until explicitly revoked.
19 DATE: December 2, 2011
20
WILL LIGHTBOURNE Director
California Department of Social Services”
21 Michael Weston was appointed as CDSS Deputy Director in February 2011
22 Will Lightbourne was appointed as the CDSS Director in April 2011

23
Lodi Psychologist Dr. Franklin Bernhoft and his wife, Dorothy Bernhoft, were not employees of the
University of California or my friends, but this case shows how the UC mafia and white collars criminals
24
operates and how ruthless they are if somebody obstruct their path of endless criminal activities
25
meticulously covered up by these who should enforce the law without any consequences for criminals and
26
their covering up crimes collaborators.
27
It is terrifying thinking about what the UC mafia has already done to Waszczuk and others and
28 what would have happened to Waszczuk if he would have had registered guns with a current dealer
83
1 record of sales. I had no doubt that I would have faced Judge Morgan like 65 years old Dorothy Bernhoft

2 who became completely defenseless and without any given chance to proof her innocence with such

3
meticulously organized vendetta against her husband Dr. Franklin Bernhoft. Mr. and Mrs. Bernhoft
naively thought that they are living in lawful country and their civil and human rights are protected by
4
California and US Constitution and common law. Judge Brett Morgan had a news for Bernhofts in open
5
Court
6
On July 3, 2012, several individuals filed civil lawsuit in San Joaquin Superior Court against Waszczuk’s
7 psychologist Dr. Franklin Bernhoft and his wife Dorothy Bernhoft. The lawsuit is still pending. The filed
8 complaint is entirely based on the Department of Social Services Legal Division complaint, which was
9 filed two days after Bernhoft’s residence was raided by the Department of Social Services and Lodi Police.
10 On August 6, 2012, the San Joaquin County District Attorney Office informed Dr. Bernhoft’s spouse

11 Dorothy Bernhoft that that a criminal complaint charging her with a violation of Twenty-Four
Misdemeanor Counts Of Penal Code Section 273a(B), To Wit: Cruelty To Child By Endangering
12
Health, One (1) Misdemeanor Count Of Penal Code Section 273a(A), To Wit: Child
13
Abuse/Endangerment And One (1) Misdemeanor Count Of Penal Code Section 475(A), To Wit: Forgery
14
had been filed against Dorothy Bernhoft in the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin,
15
Lodi Branch.
16 In December 2012, all Dorothy Bernhoft certification documents under the jurisdiction of the California
17 Commission on Teacher Credentialing, were revoked, and any pending applications were denied as a
18 result of misconduct pursuant to Education Code sections 44421 and 44345.

19 On August 13, 2013, Dr. Franklin Bernhoft’s wife, 65-years-old Dorothy Ann Bernhoft, voluntarily
plead guilty to five counts and was sentenced to four years of formal probation, with supervision. Also,
20
Dorothy Bernhoft was ordered by the San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Hon. Brett H. Morgan
21
to pay thousands of dollars in restitution to victims with words for Dorothy Bernhoft “ You are on
22
different Planet”
23

24
By Kristopher Anderson/News-Sentinel Staff Writer- August 13, 2013
25

26 Droves of emotional mothers and fathers stood in a San Joaquin


County Superior courtroom for the long-awaited opportunity to address an elderly
27 Lodi daycare provider who last month pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of child
endangerment and forgery.
28

84
1 On Monday, Dorothy Bernhoft, 67, was sentenced to four years’
probation and 416 hours of community service, and ordered to pay restitution to the
2 families of 24 children involved in the case, whose ages range from 6 months to 4
3
years old.

4
Bernhoft must also attend a child abuse treatment program if ordered
by her probation officer, and cannot come within 100 yards of the victims, their
5 parents and numerous places children frequent.
6 San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney Kristine Reed and
Bernhoft’s defense attorney Joel Perisho agreed to the terms prior to Monday’s
7 hearing.
8
Bernhoft listened to many of the 20 parents in attendance for the
9 sentencing hearing, some of whom fought back tears as they conveyed the horror they
felt after learning their children were left in darkened closets strapped into car seats for
10 hours on end.
11 Some parents talked about the guilt they felt when listening to their
children cry from horrible baby rash that they thought was their fault. Others described
12
the physical and psychological effects their children are still battling today.
13
“You have victimized everyone who’s touched your life,” one parent
14 wrote in a letter read by Reed.

15 Following 30 minutes of victim impact speeches, Bernhoft stood up,


turned toward the parents and denied any wrongdoing.
16
“I know that no harm was ever done to a child in my home,” she said
17 while brushing away tears. “Your children were not left in car seats or portable cribs
all day. This is simply not true.”
18
Bernhoft went on refute several of the findings made by the California
19
Department of Social Services during an unannounced four-hour visit to her home on
20 the 2300 block of Woodlake Circle in Jan. 2012.

21 Officers said they discovered that Bernhoft did not change the
children’s diapers until minutes before parents picked them up. She used diaper rash
22 ointment to hide any rashes the children received from wearing the same diaper all
23
day, the report claimed.

24
The report also stated that radios were playing throughout the house,
making it difficult for Bernhoft to hear the infants or children crying or calling for
25 their mothers. In addition, she was caring for more children than her license allowed.
26 Bernhoft, with her final words, did offer an apology.
27 “With all my heart, I’m so sorry for any discomfort I have brought,”
she said.
28

85
1 Before announcing the terms of Bernhoft’s sentence, presiding Judge
Brett H. Morgan addressed her statement, saying, “You’re on a different planet.”
2
Morgan said despite his attempt to remain “emotionally neutral,” he
3 believed she should “go to state prison.”
4 He added that one mother’s story during the hearing described the
5 totality of Bernhoft’s crimes.

6 With tissues in one hand and her speech in the other, the young mother
talked about finding horrible diaper rashes on her infant daughter.
7
She remembered her daughter’s screams of pain as she applied
8 ointment to the rash, and thought they formed while in Bernhoft’s care.
9 So she consulted her trusted daycare provider, who instead blamed it on
the mother and the sweet potatoes she fed her daughter.
10
“I couldn’t believe I was giving my child the rashes,” the mother said.
11
“I cried myself to sleep. I thought I was a horrible mom.”
12
The mother said she later saw on television that Bernhoft had been
13 arrested and accused of neglecting the children she’d been hired to look after.

14 The reporter said some children went without food for several hours
and were so starved they ate the foam from the car seats they were strapped to.
15
The mother said that after hearing the news report, she checked her
16 child’s car seat and found the foam torn apart.
17 “It was all true,” she said. “You were the monster I thought you
18 were.”

19 F. Conclusion

20

21 The Bernhoft case is not just another example how powerful is UCOP mafia and how deeply UCOP

22 gangsters infiltrated California justice systems, legislature, and state and federal law enforcement

23 agencies. UC Regents and UCOP is a rotten by corruption monstrous out control shadow government

24 and legislature of Sanctuary State of California and it is very scary to think about how UCOP mafia

25 attacking own employees but also victimizing and destroying UC employees family. friends , doctors

26 and anybody who got in UC Mafia’s destructive path.

27 After unsuccessful attempt to kill Dr. Franklin Bernhoft on January 31, 2012 , the UCOP mafia in
28 February 2012 ordered the record of the Appeal Case Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case No.

86
1
C030005. The case was linked to enormous $240,000,000 farud committed by Waszczuk former
2
employer Destec Energy Inc. (later Dynegy Power Corp. ) against Pacific Gas & Electric company
3
ratepayers and California taxpayers.
4 This case and appeal were filed in 3DCA on July 9, 1998, and concluded on February 2, 2000. It
5 is an old case, but according to the Register of Action (ROA) the record was requested from the
State Record Center on February 16, 2012, received by 3DCA on February 22, and returned
6
three month later, on May 22, 2012 . After file of the case was returned to the Court archive on
7 May 22, 2012, UC Mafia decided to assemble the “ Death Squad “ than lure Waszczuk on the
8 UCDMC premises on May 31, 2012 . provoke him and kill him by utilizing for this purpose
newly promoted UCDPD Chief Matt Carmichael and his deputy James Barbour who bribed by
9
mafia with $ 35,000 pay raise . The provocation although unsuccessful was very similar to the
10
XII. 2016 UCOP MAFIA CHIEF JANET NAPOLITANO’S ONE MILLION DOLLARS
11 WITCH HUNT LAUNCHED UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR LINDA KATEHI AND
12 HER FAMILY

13
A. Witch hunt perpetrators , participants and collaborators
14

15 1. Janet Napolitano – President of the University of California – attacker, accuser and


16
perpetrator
2. Melinda Haag – participant and collaborator, former U.S Attorney; Orrick, Herrington &
17 Sutcliffe.
18 2. McGregor Scott – participant and collaborator, former U.S attorney
3. Luis Alejo, Lorena Gonzales, Mike Gato, and Freddie Rodriguez- California Assemblymen
19 participant and Janet Napolitno’s supporters against Chancellor Katehi
20 4. Joel Anderson- California Senator Joel Anderson-Janet Napolitano supporter
5. Diana Lambert and Sam Stanton – Sacaremento Bee journalist who supporter Janet Napolitano
21
against Linda Katehi and published articles which smeared Chancellor Linnda Katehi.
22 Katehi’s

23
B. Aftermath the November 18, 2011 pepper spray provocation
24
After UCOP mafioso SVP Daniel Morris Dooley resigned in October or November 2014 it was obvious
25
that sooner or later Chancellor Katehi will find out that SVP Dooley was behind paper spray
26

27
provocation to remove her from office with her three UCDPD cops ,Chief Annette Spicuzza , Lt. John

28
Pike and Captain Joyce Souza . The provocation did not turn as a mafioso Dooley and his thugs

87
1
anticipated and Chancellor Katehi survived the assault. After the paper spray November 2011 paper
2
spray provocation it was impossible to launch another attack right away. President Mark Yudof was still
3
in power and Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vanderhoef was still alive .
4
C. President of the University of California, Janet Napolitano
5
In 2013 UC President Mark Yudof (real president) resigned and the former U.S Secretary of
6
Homeland Security and current President of the University of California, Janet Napolitano, was brought
7
in September 2013 to the UC System by U.S Senator Dianne Feinstein, her husband and UC Regent for
8
life Richard Blum, and California Governor Jerry Brown who by the law is the President of the UC
9
Board of Regents. At the same time, Governor Jerry Brown dispatched his Chief Deputy Jacob
10
Applesmith to UC Davis as a new campus counsel to help Janet Napolitano to take care of Chancellor
11
Linda Katehi and help to UC Mafia to finish the most vocal UCOP Mafia adversary California Senator
12
Leland Yee who was already under the FBI surveillance since May 2011.
13

14
D. $1,000,000 Witch Hunters Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott.
15

16 By Employing two former federal prosecutors for $ 1, 000,000 to knock down Linda Katehi at the same
17 time Senator Leland Yee was heading to the federal prison was more than Katehi’s joining the board of
18 the for-profit education group and textbook publisher DeVry, which allegedly violated university

19 policies, served to ignite the flames of distraction and disorientation. Several California legislators
swallowed the bait. The smear attacks against the chancellor escalated to the point that students
20
protesting the chancellor occupied the UC Davis Mark Hall demanding her resignation. One state
21
lawmaker, apparently alluding to the prosecution of Senator Leland Yee, told reporters that if he had
22
done what Chancellor Katehi had done, he would have ended up in federal prison.
23
The publisher DeVry board could be easily investigated by Senior Vice President Sheryl Vacca office
24 staff like former FBI super agent John Lohse or other investigators like Judith Rosenberg without
25 spending $ 1,000,000 on Haag and Scott . What was so urgent for Janet Napolitano to dispose Linda
26 Katehi .
27 Whether Napolitano’s gesture to benefit her colleagues, two former U.S attorneys Melinda Haag and

28 McGregor Scott, with $1,000,000 check to knock down UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi from her

88
1 position or throw her into prison as it was done to Senator Leland Yee under the 18 U.S.C. § 1349 -

2 Honest Services Conspiracy was related to the former mafia type activities of the SVP Daniel Dooley’ and

3
his wife Diana Dooley or Janet Napolitano hated Linda Katehi because she did not fit Neapolitan’s profile
and she had Greek accent .
4
Mafioso Daniel Dooley vanished , Mia Belk vanished , Sheryl Vacca vanished , Karen Petrulakis
5
vanished , John Lohse vanished but came back to UCOP . Daniel Dooley must have know something
6
what is a lot bigger than the DeVry’s board or the gay employee Todd Georlich ‘s December 2010
7 suicide and previous owner of his Ferrari Testarosa .
8 Janet Napolitano’s and U.S Senator Diane Feinstein’s endorsement of an Republican McGregor Scott
9 to be appointed as the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California and to be
10 sworn by District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. was a serious and urgent business .

11 If I would be in Chancellor Emerita Linda Katehi shoes I would probably vanish like Sheryl Vacca did
or Karen Petrulakis or Matt Carmichael . Ms. Janet Napolitano , Senator Dianne Feinstein and Sir
12
McGregor Scott is very powerful trio and trio could get very inpatient.
13
In 2016 Waszczuk interpreted the involvement of Scott in Katehi’s persecution as a message to him
14
that he would share the fate of Hamid Hayat taking into consideration that he lives live in Lodi where
15
Hamid Hayat lived.
16 On May 19, 2016, the UC President Janet Napolitano travelled to Washington DC to meet Vice
17 President Joe Biden apparently gearing herself to be a next US Attorney General.
18 On May 25, 2016, I received another letter from U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, wife of UC regent and

19 billionaire Richard Blum, advising me to contact California Governor Jerry Brown office for help in
dealing with the devastation caused by the University of California white collar criminals.
20
On June 18, 2005, after Senator Feinstein had officiated at the wedding of Governor Jerry Brown in the
21
Rotunda Building in downtown Oakland when Brown was the mayor of Oakland. I considered the
22
Senator Feinstein’s advice to contact Governor Jerry Brown for help as the not very tasty joke .
23
In August 2016, UC President Janet Napolitano removed Linda Katehi from her position as chancellor,
24 Senator Yee found a new home in the FCI Fort Worth in Texas.
25

26 XIII. CONCLUSION

27 The Waszczuk new discovery about Dan Dooley and his wife Diana Dooley is unbelievable and
28 shocking to Waszczuk

89
1
Waszczuk entirely disproving Defendants attorney David Burkett’s Proposed Order and Judgment
2

3
Waszczuk in his disproval statement of the Defendant’s Proposed Order and Judgment followed the
4

5
3DCA and trial Court suggestions outlined in repeated by the Courts statement :

6 “Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, feels deeply aggrieved by the University of


7 California (the University), his lawyer, the defense lawyer, and the trial judge.
A brief excerpt from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the University
8
reflects his bitterness as well as his belief that there is much more at stake
9 than his mere wrongful termination lawsuit. [Waszczuk v. Regents of the
Univ. of Cal., 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6933 *1-2] ... While plaintiffs
10
pain is clear, his legal analysis is not." (Id. at *3) Much like the appellate
11 court, the Court perceives that nothing this Court can say will disabuse
plaintiff of his "fiercely held belief."
12
At the best of my knowledge I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
13
that the foregoing is true and correct.
14

15
Respectfully Submitted on June 25, 2018
16
Lodi, CA
17
____________________________
18
Jaroslaw Waszczuk , In Pro Per
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

90
1

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
PLANTIFF’ DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING
4 LEGAL FEES AND COST TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P 425.16 (C)

5 ……………………………………………………………………………………………...…………….. 1

6 I. INTRODUCTION………………………………...……………………………………………1
7 A. California Rule of Court 3.1312(a)……………...…………………………………….……….1

8 B. Explanation of Waszczuk’s Disapproval of the Defendants’ Proposal Order and


Judgment……………………………………………………………..……….………………..2
9
II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MODIFICATION OF THE COURT ORDER
10
DATED JUNE 7, 2018……………….…………………………………………….…………..3
11
III. THE COURT ORDER DATED JUNE 7, 2018: LEGAL FEES AND COSTS…………..…...4
12
A. The Court Calculation of Legal Fees and Arguments Against Waszczuk’s Opposition
13
…………4
14 IV. JUNE 7, 2018, COURT ORDER STATEMENT: “PLAINTIFF, A POLISH IMMIGRANT
15 AND THAT THERE IS MUCH MORE AT STAKE THAN HIS MERE WRONGFUL
16 TERMINATION LAWSUIT.”…..5

17 A. There is much more at stake ………………………………..…………………………………5


B. The provocations……………………………………………………………………………….9
18
V. THE WITCH HUNT OF 2007-2009 ………………………………………….…………….11
19
A. Key Perpetrators and Decision makers in 2007- 2009 witch hunt……………………..……..11
20
VI. TODD GOERLICH SUICIDE IN DECEMBER 2010……………………………..……….12
21
A. Todd Goerlich, Employee in UCDMC 27 MW Cogeneration Power Plant
22 ……………………….……13
23 B. Todd Goerlich’s Suicide on December 22, 2010……..………………………….………….14
24 C. The Secret 12 % Pay Raise For Central Plant Operators –March 2011………….…..15

25 D. The Restricted Access to the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant


in March 2011……………………………………..………………………………………..15
26

27

28

91
1 E. The March 13, 2011, Waszczuk’s letter addressed to UCDMC Plant Operation and

2 Maintenance Manager Charles

3
Witcher…………………………………………….………………………….…………….16
VII. APRIL 2011- OCTOBER 2014 WITCH HUNT AGAINST
4
WASZCZUK…………………………………………………………….…..………………20
5
A. The Witch Hunt 2011-2014 ……………………………………………..……………………20
6
B. 2011-2014 Perpetrators , participants and collaborators …………………;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;……..22
7 VIII. THE FINAL WORDS FROM THE UC SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT DAN DOOLEY
8 ABOUT UCOP MAFIA WITCH HUNT AIMED AT WASZCZUK TO DESTROY HIM
9 AND TO COVER UP THE UCOP WHITE COLLAR CRIMES ………………………..29
10

11
A. March 7, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint with UC
Davis Vice Chancellor and Provost Office Ralph HEXTER …………………….………….29
12
B. Transfer of Waszczuk’ Whistleblowing Interference Complaint ……………………….….30
13

14
C. UC Vice President Daniel Dooley’s Decision . …………………………………………….31
15
D. The Waszczuk response to Dan Dooley’s Decision ……………….…………………………32
16 E. UC SVP Dan Dooley’s resignation ………………………………………………………….42
17 IX. NOVEMBER 2011- UCOP MAFIA’S WITCH HUNT AND PROVOCATION TO
18 DESTROY LINDA KATEHI , UCDPD CHIEF ANETTE SPICUZZA , LT . JOHN PIKE

19 AND CAPTAIN JOYCE SOUZA.. 42


A. UCOP mafia’s perpetrators , participants and collaborators to destroy Chancellor Linda
20
Katehi , Annette Spicuzza, Lt. John Pike and Captain Souza………….………………..…..42
21
B. NOVEMBER 2011- Danesha Nichols’ undated “CONFIDENTIAL” Summary of Events
22
Regarding “Jaroslaw “Jerry Waszczuk……………………………………...………………..43
23
C. NOVEMBER 2011- Steps taken by the UCOP white collars criminals to neutralize
24 Chancellor Linda Katehi, UCDPD Chief Annette Spicuzza, Lt. John Pike and Captain and
25 Joyce Souza…………………………………………………………………………..………46
26 D. NOVEMBER 2011- The 2011 Student Protests on the UC Campuses and UCDPD pepper
27 spray attack against protesting students on UC Davis Quad. ………………………….…….48

28 X. UCOP MAFIA PREPARATION TO SEPARATE WASZCZUK FROM HIS

92
1 PHISICIAN DR. HARVEY HASHIMOTO AND HIS PSYCHOLOGIST DR. FRANKLIN

2 O. BERNHOFT……………………………………………………………………………….54

3
A. Perpetrators , participants and collaborators………………,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,………………………54
B. CTOBER 1, 2011- Authorization to Obtain and Release Information and Reimbursement
4
Agreement……………………………………………………………….…………………..54
5
C. OCTOBER 20, 2011- David L. Vlach M.D. Liberty’s Consulting Psychiatrist Review and
6
Report sent to Liberty Case Manager Patricia Coombs……………………….…………….55
7 D. NOVEMBER 28, 2011- Waszczuk last visit with Dr. Harvey Hashimoto M.D……….…..59
8 E. Shelton Duruisseau, Ph.D”………………………………………………….……………….60
9 F. JANUARY 12, 2012 - Independent Psychiatric Evaluation…………………………………61
10 XI. THE JANUARY 31, 2012 UCOP MAFIA PROVOCATION TO KILL OR HARM

11 WASZCZUK’S PSYCHOLOGIST DR. FRANKLIN O. BERNHOFT………...….68


A. Perpetrators, Participants, and Collaborators …………….…………………………………68
12
B. Franklin O. Bernhoft Ph.D ………………………………………………………………….70
13
C. FEBRUARY 3, 2012- The Lodi News-Sentinel article “Lodi day care provider Dorothy
14
Bernhoft gives up license” and TV KCR 3 ………………………………………………….71
15
D. JUNE 21, 2012 - UC Davis Police Department Sergeant Jennifer Garcia’s e-mail to Gina
16 Guillaume-Holleman from the UC Davis Medical Center Chief Compliance………………74
17

18 E. The San Joaquin Superior Court files of the Case No. LM051206A; LPD CASE, DA Case

19 CR-2012-4029037……………………………………………………………………………75

20
G. Conclusion ………………………………………………..………………………….. ……..86
21

22
XII. 2016 UCOP MAFIA CHIEF JANET NAPOLITANO’S ONE MILLION DOLLARS WITCH
23
HUNT LAUNCHED UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR LINDA KATEHI AND HER FAMILY.
24

25 B. Witch hunt perpetrators , participants and collaborators………………….………………….87


26 C. Aftermath the November 18, 2011 pepper spray provocation ………………………………87
27 E. President of the University of California, Janet Napolitano ………………………………..88

28 F. $1,000,000 Witch Hunters Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott. …………………………….88

93
1 XIII. CONCLUSION……………………………………………….………………………………90

4
PROOF OF SERVICE
5

8
I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred; my business/residence
9
address is: ADDRESS OF PERSON SERVING DOCUMENTS.
10
Jaroslaw Waszczuk , 2216 Katazakian Way , Lodi , CA 95242
11
On 6/25/2018 I served the foregoing document(s) described as: _
12 PLANTIFF’ DISAPPROVAL OF THE DEFENDNANT PROPOSAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COST TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P
13
425.16 (C)
California Rules of Court 3.1312(a)
14 NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH ATTORNEY OR PLAINTIFF WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY
15

16 PORTER I SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
17 David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
18 Sacramento, California 95825

19

20 [X] (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) FROM Waszczuk e-mail jjw1980@live.com


21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
22 is true and correct.
23

24

25 DATED: ___June 25,2018___________


26

27
_______________________________________
28

94
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 07/19/2018 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, M. Oreschak

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013


CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion for Reconsideration - Civil Law and Motion

APPEARANCES

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Reconsideration


TENTATIVE RULING
Self-represented Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting
Defendants' fees and costs pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c) is denied.
On June 7, 2018, the Court granted Defendants Michael Boyd, et al.'s motion for fees and costs in the
amount of $22,284. A formal order was entered on June 29, 2018. Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of
the order granting the fees' motion.
"When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in
part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10
days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different
facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to
reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application
shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or
decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown."
(CCP § 1008.)
Plaintiff argues that new or different facts were discovered since December 16, 2014, January 23, 2015,
and May 11, 2015. Essentially Plaintiff (as he has before) argues that Defendants are not entitled to
fees based on a conspiracy between his former attorney Douglas Stein and Defendants' attorneys.
None of these are new or different facts. The Court's ruling granting Defendants' motion for fees
specifically noted Plaintiff's contentions regarding his former attorney and how he believed Defendants'
counsel was collaborating with his former attorney to harm him. The Court noted the issue and indicated
that it had no relevance to the fee motion.
In reality, Plaintiff is simply trying to reargue the fees motion. His motion is replete with arguments that
he has previously raised to this Court and his declaration even states that he "pointed so many times to
the court that Waszczuk has nothing to do with the second amended complaint but is being forced to

DATE: 07/19/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 1


DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

deal with because of his dismissed attorney Douglas Stein conspiracy inclusion [sic] with defendants two
attorneys Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel." (Plf's Decl. ¶ 4.) At base, Plaintiff is essentially arguing that
the Court's ruling on the fee motion was wrong. This is not a basis for reconsideration. (Gilberd v. AC
Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)
Here, Plaintiff presented no "new or different facts, circumstances, or law." A court "acts in excess of
jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon 'new or different facts,
circumstances, or law.'" (Id.) The Court has no jurisdiction to grant the instant motion.
The motion is denied.

Oral argument will not be permitted.


The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice
is required.

COURT RULING
The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.

DATE: 07/19/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 2


DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
1 Jaroslaw Waszczuk,In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
2 Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.663.2977
3 Fax: 209.817.780
jjw1980@live.com
4

5
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
7

9 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK ) Case No. 34-2013-00155479


)
) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
10 PLAINTIFF, ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE
)
11
VS. ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
) ORDER FOR GRANTING TO
12 ) DEFNDANTS LEGAL FEES AND COST
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ) PURSUANT TO C.C.P 425.16 (C)
13 ,ANN MADDEN RICE . MIKE BOYD, )
STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES )
DDECLARATION IN SUPORT
14 WITCHER , DANESHA NICHOLS, ) DATE: July 19, 2018
CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, ) TIME: 2:00 P.M
15 ) DEPT: 53
PATRICK PUTNEY , DORIN DANILIUC )
16 AND DOES 1-50 ) HON. DAVID I. BROWN
)
17 )
DEFENDANTS. )
18

19
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
20

21
I.

22 INTRODUCTION

23
Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a) states that:
24
“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and
25
refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any
26 party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of
written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts,
27
- 1 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the
order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.”
2

3 In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1008, Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced
4 Vash-chook, hereafter Waszczuk) submitted in a timely manner his Motion for Reconsideration and

5 Modification of the Court Order Dated June 7, 2018: Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.
On April 14, 2015, this Court (Hon. David I. Brown) entered an order granting Defendants’
6
motion to strike the first through fourth causes of action in self-represented Plaintiff Waszczuk’s
7
second amended complaint, and judgment was entered in Defendants’ favor.
8
On August 28, 2017, the Court of Appeal , Third Appellate District (3DCA) heard Plaintiff’s
9
appeal and affirmed Judgement . A remittitur affirming the judgment was issued on January 18, 2018;
10 Defendants’ attorney David P. E. Burkett re-noticed the motion for May 24, 2018, with Supplemental
11 Declaration for additional legal fees in the amount of $2,236, thereby bringing the total for the anti-
12 SLAPP motion to $32,738. The Court never should have permitted the anti-SLAPP motion to be

13 pursued. The case involved fraud, misrepresentation, deception, collusion, and conspiracy perpetrated
by Defendants’ attorneys Michael W. Pott and Douglas R. Ropel and Waszczuk’s attorney Douglas
14
E. Stein, who had a twenty-year relationship with Judge David I. Brown (EXHIBIT #1). Instead of
15
representing Waszczuk, Stein represented Defendants’ interests and spent Waszczuk’s $20,000
16
retainer on drugs and other selfish purposes.
17
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE
18

19 On June 16, 2016, Waszczuk's counsel, Douglas Stein, filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC)
20 on Waszczuk's behalf without mentioning one word of Waszczuk' Employee Performance Review for
21 the last two years of Waszczuk's employment from 2011-2012. Stein pleaded in the Eight Cause of

22 Action (COA) Rescission of the February 2009 Settlement Agreement that signed by UC Regents
with Waszczuk. Through the Eight COA, Stein declared the 2009 Settlement Agreement as the
23
unlawful Contract against Waszczuk's will.
24
On September 10, 2016, Waszczuk's attorney, Douglas Stein, who had 30 years' experience
25
practicing law under false pretenses, and in collaboration with the Regents' counsel, Michael Pott,
26
filed a faulty Second Amended Complaint without Leave to the Court.
27
- 2 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 The filed SAC, without Leave to Court, was deliberately done by Stein in order to cause the SAC

2 filing to be rejected by the Court Clerk and to redirect the SAC to Department 53 by the Ex-Parte
Application Stipulation for Leave to File with the Regents' counsel, Michael Pott, dated September
3
14, 2014
4
On September 22, 2014, Douglas Stein filed Ex-Parte Application for Leave to File Second
5
Amended Complaint by Stipulation and Order Theron.
6
On the same day, September 22, 2014, Stein's Ex Parte Application was granted by Judge David
7 Brown.
8 On September 30, 2014, Douglas Stein filed the SAC, which was exactly the same as the FAC in
9 regard to the COA's
10 On November 25, 2014, Waszczuk visited his attorney, Douglas Stein, in his residence in

11 Eldorado Hill after Stein refused to meet with Waszczuk since July 2014 and properly amended the
FAC.
12
On November 25, 2014, Waszczuk gave $500.00 to Stein and left Stein's home with the
13
impression that he would properly amend the SAC, as per Waszczuk's instruction in regard to
14
Waszczuk's evaluations, February 2009 Settlement Agreement and other fault pleadings . Waszczuk
15
also offered Stein $20,000 to hire help for the wrongful termination lawsuit.
16 On December 1, 2014, instead of amended properly complaint Waszczuk was ambushed by
17 by anti-SLAPP motion by Defendant attorney Michael Pott from Porter Scott Law Corporation
18 Waszczuk's attorney, Douglas Stein, communicated with Michael Pott that Waszczuk

19 demanded to properly amend his complaint, and then Michael, during the long Thanksgiving
weekend, crafted the anti-SLAPP motion to prevent Waszczuk's correction of the SAC.
20
lf Waszczuk would not have access the court filing via Public Case Access System than
21
Waszczuk's wrongful termination would go to the drain most likely on December in month of
22
December 2014
23
On December 14, 2014 Wells Fargo Bank informed Waszczuk that Waszczuk retainer’s
24 account maintained by Douglas Stein is empty and has negative balance . Waszczuk called Stein and
25 Stein and asked him what he did with $ 20,000 Waszczuk gave him in June 2014. Stein told
26 Waszczuk that he will get the money in January 2015 without explanation how he will get money
27
- 3 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 being completely broke financially . On December 14, 2014 Douglas Stein has no desire to object or

2 oppose Defendant’s anti -SLAPP motion. The stake was very big in December 2014 for the
Regents of the University of California and even give to Stein $ 500, 000 for help to throw
3
Waszczuk out of court was drop in the ocean in comparison to benefit from such transaction .
4

5
On December 15, 2014, Stein informed Waszczuk by text massage that he had known Judge
6
David Brown for 20 years and he would get an extension of time to file opposition to the Defendants
7 anti-SLAPP motion. Stein in his panic sounded that Defendants anti-SLAPP motion is good and
8 beneficial for Waszczuk’s lawsuit .
9 On December 16, 2014, Waszczuk dismissed Stein, informing him and Defendnats’s counsel
10 Michael Pott by fax and e-mail about dismissing Douglas Stein. Waszczuk informed Stein by the

11 letter that he Stein has no rights to represent Waszczuk and should not appear in Court on
Waszczuk’s behalf. (EXHIBIT # 2)
12
On December 17, 2014, like nothing happened, Douglas Stein filed the Ex­ Parte Application
13
for Relief for SAC defective filing, and together with Defendants attorney Michael Pott appeared in
14
the Court Department 53 and obtained an Court Order from Judge David Brown, which stated that
15
SAC filled on September 30, 2014, was deemed valid because it was filed per agreement between
16 Douglas Stein and Michael Pott.
17 Furthermore, Waszczuk asked Court for a two -month extension to find the counsel and
18 amend and correct the defective SAC.

19 On January 6, 2015, Waszczuk submitted to the Court a letter that was directly addressed to
the Judge David Brown. With the letter, Waszczuk also submitted a bulk of documents, including and
20
not limited to the December 31, 2014 complaint letter addressed to Wells Fargo Bank about
21
Waszczuk’s retainer account of $20,000 which Stein spent on drugs and for his personal pleasure.
22
On January 7. 2014. the Judge David Brown issued the Court Order acknowledging that
23
Douglas Stein was dismissed on December 16, 2014 but failed to invalidate the faulty SAC filed on
24 September 30, 2014 by Stein. Waszczuk already was aware of the harm Stein had done to Waszczuk
25 in collaboration with the Defendants counsel, Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel . Furthermore, the
26

27
- 4 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 Court ordered Waszczuk to file Opposition to the Defendants anti-SLAPP motion on January 21,

2 2015.
On January 23, 2015, Waszczuk filed the PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO REGENTS'
3
ANTI-SLAPP MOTION, which was over 400 pages. Waszczuk in January 2015 did not know what
4
is different between SLAPP and anti-SLAPP and had no clue why such this law which is making
5
reference to the First Amendment of the United States of America is protecting bandits like Chilcott
6
, Nichols , Oropeza , Boyd , Witcher , Seifert , Delmendo and others .
7 One hour after Waszczuk filed his opposition, the Defendant’s counsel, Michael Pott,
8 informed Waszczuk by e-mail that he was no longer representing the Defendants and was leaving the
9 Porter/Scott law firm. Michael Pott was substituted by David P.E. Burkett and Douglas Ropel as the
10 new Defendants ' counsels . (EXHIBIT #3)

11 On February 5, 2015, Judge David Brown granted the anti-SLAPP Motion for Defendants by
the Tentative Court Order
12
On February 6, 2015, Waszczuk argued against the Court Order Tentative Ruling. Waszczuk
13
clearly pointed out to the Court during the Court Hearing that Douglas Stein, together with the
14
Regents' counsel, had no right to go to the Court on December 17, 2014 and represent Waszczuk.
15
Stein was dismissed on December 16, 2014 for gross misconduct and misrepresentation and
16 defrauded Waszczuk of $20,000.
17 On February 9, 2015, Judge Brown affirmed tentative ruling and granted the anti-SLAPP
18 motion to the Regents, regardless of the fact that the anti-SLAPP motion was filed against the

19 defective SAC by Douglas Stein with his suspended attorney license and against Waszczuk' s will
On February 20, 2015, Waszczuk filed Motion or Reconsideration of Order Dated February 9,
20
2015 Anti­ SLAPP Motion CCP § 425.16
21
On March 2, 2015, Waszczuk Filed Motion And Motion To Dismiss Defendants' Anti-Slapp Motion
22
with prejudice for Violation by Defendants of Discovery Stay CCP § 425. I6(G))
23
On March 16, 2015, Waszczuk Filed Notice of Objection To The Proposed Order Granting
24 Defendants' Motion To Strike First Through Fourth Causes Of Action Of Second Amended
25 Complaint CCP § 425.16 Due to Violation By Defendants California Curt Rule 3.1312(B)
26

27
- 5 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 On April 4, 2015, Judge David Brown denied Waszczuk’ Motion to Dismiss the Defendants'

2 Anti-SLAPP Motion due to Violation by the Defendants Discovery Stay (CT 0549-01550).
On April 10, 2015, Waszczuk appeared at the Court Hearing for oral arguments with the
3
Presiding Judge David Brown in order to argue the Court's Tentative Ruling denying Waszczuk's
4
Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion for Reconsideration that caused
5
Waszczuk’ increased for entire month.
6
On May 11, 2015 Defendants Attorney Doulas Ropel filed Motion for Legal Fees and Cost
7 with supported motion declaration and exhibits
8 On June 11, 2015, Waszczuk timely filed a Notice of Appeal to the April 14, 2015 Order by
9 the Hon. David I. Brown granting the Defendants' Anti-SLAPP Motion
10 On July 9, 2015, Waszczuk filed a 69 pages long Appellant Mediation Statement in the Court

11 of Appeals Third Appellate District. The eligibility for mediation was denied by the Court of Appeals
Justice Honorable Kathleen Butz, the former longtime employee of UC Davis .
12
On July 15, 2015 Waszczuk filed his Opposition to he Defendants Motion for Legal Fees and
13
Cost
14
In August 2015, Waszczuk informed Defendants' counsel of record, Douglas Ropel , that Waszczuk
15
intended to file a third amended complaint ("TAC") after the Court granted the Defendants's anti-
16 SLAPP special motion to strike five individual Defendants and the first four causes of action from the
17 SAC.
18 On September 15, 2015, Defendants' counsel David Burkett responded to the Plaintiff's

19 intention to file TAC that if Waszczuk would provide them with a copy of the proposed TAC for
approval, then they would arrange to prepare the stipulation to get the court's approval of the court
20
agreement to file the TAC.
21
Waszczuk responded that he would ask the Court without stipulation, having in mind
22
WASZCZUK' S corrupted counsel of record Douglas Stein's stipulation, which was made in
23
conspiracy with Defendants' counsel, Michael Pott, in September 2014. The SAC with defective
24 pleading was filed on September 30, 2014 for the sole purposes of attacking Waszczuk with an anti­
25 SLAPP motion and to end rapidly Waszczuk ' s lawsuit in December 2014.
26

27
- 6 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 Furthermore, on September 16, 2015 the Defendants' counsel repeated his offer for TAC stipulation

2 via email correspondence dated September 15 and September 16, 2015.


On September 22, 2015 Waszczuk sent the TAC draft to Defendants' counsels.
3
Without wasting time or waiting for Waszczuk to file the motion for leave to amend, on September
4
25, 2015 the Defendants filed the Motion for Automatic or Discretionary Stay pursuant to C.C.P.
5
§916(a).. Judge Brown blocked Waszczuk attempt to file TAC by Court Order on October 28, 2015.
6
The two Causes of Action (COA) from the 2015 Draft of TAC with cover letter to David Burkett
7 and Douglas Ropel and the Court Order dated October 28, 2015 attached as a (EXHIBIT # 4)
8 On December 15, 2016 more the one year and half after Waszczuk filed the Notice of Appeal
9 the Case No C079524, Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et, al was fully
10 briefed .

11 After 3CA issued the Unpublished Opinion on 10/10/10 and Waszczuk’s Petition for Rehearing was
denied by 3DCA on 09/11/2017 ,Waszczuk submitted to the Supreme of California the Petition for
12
Review. The Supreme Court of California denied Waszczuk’ Petitions for Review on the January
13
10, 2018 .
14
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
15
A. This Court Has the Statutory Power to Reconsider a Prior Order and Modify, amend or
16 Revoke the Order

17
Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a) states that:
18

19 “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and
refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any
20
party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of
21 written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts,
circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the
22
order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The
23 party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made
before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new
24
or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”
25

26

27
- 7 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 Waszczuk viewed the court order dated June 7 , 2018 on internet which was issued by -

2 Honorable David. I Brown . Waszczuk did not receive written notice of entry of the order by U.S
Mail or Electronic Mai. Therefore this motion is timely.
3
This court has jurisdiction to reconsider the Court Order dated June 7, 2018 dated by which
4
Defendants attorneys were awarded legal fees and costs was $22,284 , the amount they are not
5
entitle because of their collusion and conspiracy with Waszczuk’ attorney Douglas Stein
6
against Waszczuk.
7 B. Waszczuk’s Objection to Defendants Attorney David P. E. Burkett’s Supplemental
8 Declaration and Waszczuk’s Objection to the Declaration

9
On May 24, 2018, after Waszczuk submitted and filed his May 18, 2018, Notice of Objection
10
to the Defendants’ Supplemental Declaration of David P. E. Burkett for Fees and Costs or
11
Alternatively Request to Continue Court Hearing to August 23, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., the Court reset the
12 Court Hearing from May 24, 2018, to June 7, 2018.
13 With his May 18, 2018, Objection to Defendant’s Attorney David P. E. Burkett’s
14 Supplemental Declaration, Waszczuk enclosed three different documents as one exhibit. The

15 documents were strictly related to Stein’s misrepresentation, misconduct, deception, and collusion.
The documents submitted in May as Exhibit #1 included:
16

17 1. Stipulation: Facts, Conclusion of Law and Disposition, and Order Approving—Filed On


18 October 24, 2017, in State Bar Court Clerk Office In San Francisco By Deputy Trial Counsel
19 Laura Huggins: EXHIBIT #5
20 2. Waszczuk’s November 22, 2017, Response to Stipulation Re: Facts, Conlusion Of Law And

21 Disposition, and Order Approving—Filed in the State Bar Court Clerk Office: EXHIBIT #6
Department, San Francisco On October 24, 2017
22
3. March 1, 2018—The California Supreme Court Order In Supreme Court Case S245982, Stein
23
On Discipline: EXHIBIT #7
24
The California Supreme Case No: S245982- RE: STEIN ON DISCIPLINE Decision dated March 1,
25
2018 in which California Supreme Court ruled:
26 “03/01/2018- Recommended
27
- 8 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 The court orders that Douglas Edward Stein, State Bar Number 131248, is
suspended from the discipline practice of law in California for two years, execution
2
of that period of suspension is stayed, and imposed he is placed on probation for
3 three years subject to the following conditions:
4
1. Douglas Edward Stein is suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of
5 the first year of probation, and he will remain suspended until the following
6 conditions are satisfied: i. He makes restitution to Jaroslaw Waszczuk in the
amount of $14, 694.33 plus 10 percent interest per year from June 2, 2014 (or
7 reimburses the Client Security Fund, to the extent of any payment from the Fund to
8 Jaroslaw Waszczuk, in accordance with Business and Professions Code section
6140.5) and furnishes satisfactory proof to the State Bar's Office of Probation in
9
Los Angeles; and ii. If he remains suspended for two years or more because of not
10 satisfying the preceding condition, he must also provide proof to the State Bar
Court of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the
11
general law before his suspension will be terminated. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit.
12 IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, st<l. 1.2(c) (1).) 2.
13 C. The Court two orders signed by Hon . David I Brown
14
Waszczuk is appealing the California Appellate Courts concerning the April 14, 2015,
15
decision by Hon. David I. Brown that granted Defendants’ motion to strike the first through fourth
16 causes of action in self-represented Plaintiff’s case. This case was based strictly on Douglas Stein’s
17 gross misconduct, misrepresentation, and collusion with two of Defendants’ attorneys, Michael Pott
18 and Douglas Ropel. Stein’s gross misconduct and collusion with Pott, who was from Porter Scott
19 Law Corporation, were affirmed and recorded by two Court Orders issued and signed by Judge

20
Brown. The first Court Order, signed on September 22, 2014, was Stein’s stipulation with Pott’s Ex
Parte Application to file Second Amended Complaint (EXHIBIT # 8)
21
On September 9, 2014, Douglas Stein submitted the SAC to the Court to be filed via Drop Box
22
without being required to do so by Cal. Rule of Court 3.1324 Leave of Court Douglas Stein, as a
23
licensed attorney who had practiced law for 27 years, knew perfectly well that he could not file the
24
SAC without Leave of Court. Also on September 9, 2014, Douglas Stein knew that he did not pay his
25 members’ dues and child alimony that his attorney’s license from the State Bar of California was
26 about to be suspended.
27
- 9 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 On the same day, September 9, 2014, a Clerk of the Court returned the SAC to Stein, stating: “Leave

2 of Court is required for all subsequent amended complaints after the first amended.”
The filing without Leave of Court was a premeditated and well- planned move by Stein and
3
Defense Counsel Michael Pott to get the SAC to be returned and to manipulate Judge David I Brown
4
into their dirty game Douglas Stein had known for 20 years. Nothing was amended, and Stein and
5
Pott needed Judge Brown to approve Stein’s Ex-Parte Application for Leave to File the SAC. The
6
SAC did not meet the strict requirements of the Cal. Rule of Court 3.1324, as was stipulated by
7 Stein’s and Pott’s Ex-Parte Application for Leave to File SAC on 9/19/2014 and the Order approving
8 the Ex-Parte Application was signed on September 22, 2014 by the Hon. David I. Brown from the
9 Department 53 Law and Motion Department without appointment or the appearance of the parties
10 On December 17, 2014, Judge Brown signed the second Court Order as a form of damage

11 control. The order was for Stein and Pott’s stipulated Ex Parte Application to legitimize the
conspiracy concocted by Stein, Pott, and Ropel. Their collusion to deceive the Court of Law and
12
Waszczuk took place in September 2014 and thereafter (EXHIBIT # 9)
13
The second Court Order, dated December 17, 2014, was an issue for the State Bar of California and
14
the California Supreme Court—not for the trial court. Judge Brown should not have been allowed to
15
decide whether Stein was permitted to represent Waszczuk with a suspended attorney license and
16 whether Stein was permitted to file the court documents that went against Waszczuk’s will and
17 instructions.
18 No one may practice law in California without being an active member of the State
Bar of California, admitted to practice by the California Supreme Court. (Bus. &
19 Prof. Code, §§ 6064, 6125.) The California Supreme Court controls both
admissions and attorney discipline (including suspension and disbarment). (Saleeby
20
v. State Bar (1985) 39 Ca1.3d 547, 557-58 [216 Cal.Rptr. 367].) The Supreme
21 Court's control over these issues is absolute. (Ibid.)
The State Bar of California acts as the Supreme Court's administrative arm for
22 purposes of admission, discipline, and regulation of attorneys. (In re Rose (2000)
22 Ca1.4th 430, 438-446 [93 Cal.Rptr.2d 298]; In re
23
Attorney Discipline System (1998) 19 Ca1.4th 582, 599-600 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 836].)
24 Attorney discipline proceedings are prosecuted by the State Bar's Office of Chief
Trial Counsel ("OCTC") before the State Bar Court. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6079.5;
25 Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.4(16).
A. The old Defendants Demurer filed as anti -SLAPP motion on December 1, 2014
26

27
- 10 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 During his preparation for the State Bar of California Court trial set for October 12, 2017 in the

2 disciplinary matter pending against Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein, Waszczuk reviewed
the Special Motion to Strike documents filed by the Defendant on December 1, 2014. The anti-
3
SLAPP motion was filed just 5 days after Waszczuk visited Douglas Stein’s residence in Eldorado
4
Hills on November 25, 2014 and paid him $500. 00 to fix the Second Amended Complaint that was
5
filed on September 30, 2014 with a suspended attorney license in collaboration with the Defendants’
6
attorney Michael Pott. While examining the documents, Waszczuk noticed that the Special Motion to
7 Strike all pleadings included five individual Defendant Declarations and one Declaration that was not
8 by a Defendant are the old, altered Defendants’ Demurrer documents striking Waszczuk’s First
9 Amended Complaint or part of it with the pleading front pages, which instead read “Amended
10 Complaint filed: September 30, 2014,” whereas in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), all filed

11 pleadings read “Amended Complaint filed June 16, 2014,” referring to the First Amended Complaint
(FAC).
12
• APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
13
• DECLARATION OF STEPHEN CHILCOTT – HR
14
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
15 • DECLARATION OF DANESHA NICHOLS

16 • DECLARATION OF WENDI DELMENDO


17 • DECLARATION OF CINDI G. OROPEZA
18 • DECLARATION OF BRENT SEIFERT
19 • MEMORANDUM OF POINT AND
AUTHORITIES
20 • DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BOYD
21 • NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION
22
TO STRIKE
• DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. POTT
23
Michael W. Pott is an expert in SLAPP law and public employment law, and, as the Defendants’
24
attorney, he ad-hoc redacted and converted his July 2014 Demurrer to anti-SLAPP motion against
25 Waszczuk’s First Amended Complaint and filed the defective pleading. The Proof of Service
26 attached to Michael Pott’s Declaration in Support of the Special Motion to Strike states that:
27
- 11 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 “On the date below, I served the following document: DECLARATION OF
MICHAEL W. POTT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO
2
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT. Declaration was dated July 23, 2014
3 and was sent to the Law office of Douglas E. Stein.”
4 The fact is that the Special Motion to Strike was fabricated from the old Demurrer in a rush
5 manner during the long Thanksgiving weekend when the University of California employees are off

6 work for four days. This shows that Defense Attorney Michael Pott was tipped off by Stein that
Waszczuk was demanding changes in SAC after Stein agreed on November 25, 2014 to fix
7
Waszczuk’s defective complaint pleading for $500. The Defense attorney Michael Pott filed the old
8
Demurrer on December 1, 2014 as an anti-SLAPP motion, which never should have been accepted by
9
the Court . A special motion to strike is governed by section Code of Civ. Proc. 425.16(f):
10
“The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's
11 discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk
12 of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket
13 conditions of the court require a later hearing.” The 60 days time limit was no problem for
14 Defendants attorneys from Porter Scott law corporation . Previously in August 2005 , Porter Scott’s

15
filed anti -SLAPP motion against UC Davis employee Randy Vergos three years after Vergos filed
lawsuit against university . Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)
16
EXHIBIT # 10
17
The urgency to file the anti-SLAPP against Waszczuk without objection from Waszczuk’s attorney
18
Douglas Stein was the chance to resume on December 22, 2014 illegal power sale tax free from the
19
UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant via California Independent System Operator .
20 In the new attempt to illegally launder megawatts from the University of California campuses was
21 the CAISO notification dated December 22, 2014 witch stated that: “ The Regents of the University
22 of California successfully completed the CAISO Congestion Revenue Rights registration process”

23 EXHIBIT # 11 . After UC Regents signed with Waszczuk in February 2009 Settlement -Agreement
the illegal power sale tax free from UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant was ceased and owner or
24
owners of the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plan lost approximate 80 million dollars tax free .
25
Unbelievably, the Courts are still issuing orders and opinions to cover up the University of
26
California’s white-collar crimes and protect white-collar criminals.
27
- 12 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 Judge Brown’s June 7, 2018, Court Order entirely ignored the three submitted documents listed

2 above. The documents are the most important ones in this proceeding. In particular, the
California Supreme Court Order issued in March 2016 shall not be ignored by the Court and
3
Judge Brown. Stein and his partner in crime should be thankful that they are not both in prison
4
today. The award that Stein expected to receive from Pott for his efforts to engage Judge Brown
5
against Waszczuk in September 2014 was exactly $341,915. UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC)
6
employee Dereck Cole was Waszczuk’s coworker and Stein’s friend (Exhibit #). From 2012 to 2014,
7 Waszczuk was not aware that Cole and another of Stein’s friends, UCDMC employee Todd Goerlich,
8 were bullied and harassed for being gay. If he had known that Cole was gay, then Waszczuk would
9 have defended him. Maybe Cole would not have committed suicide in December 2014. (EXHIBIT #
10 12)

11 In July 2014, Stein began making angry demands of Waszczuk and insisting that Waszczuk should
not defend and represent other harassed UCDMC employees. Stein claimed that doing so would
12
significantly decrease Waszczuk’s chance of prevailing in his own lawsuit. Stein refused to disclose
13
why Waszczuk’s efforts to defend others would negatively affect Waszczuk’s case. Since that time,
14
Waszczuk learned about Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos). In January
15
2007, this case was invented by two clever attorneys from the notorious Porter Scott Law
16 Corporation, Pott and George Acero. In November 2012, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen
17 Tollefson was assigned as Skelly Reviewer to review Waszczuk’s termination of employment. By By
18 assigning Tollefson as a Skelly , Waszczuk was basically told by his employer, “Don’t defend gays.

19 They don’t deserve to live.” This was a little dash of Nazi Germany in UC Davis. It is not coincident
that during the hearing for unemployment insurance benefits in February 2013 , Administrative Law
20
Judge Marilyn Tays commented UCDMC employee Todd Georlich suicide with words “
21
I GUESS HE WON'T BE HERE" after witness told her why Todd Georlich committed suicide.
22
The UC Davis Law School should change the name of Martin Luther King Hall to Martin Borman
23
King Hall. The situation is terrible and unbelievable.
24 Waszczuk still does not know how much Pott promised Stein in return for such disgusting efforts.
25

26
The March 1, 2018, California Supreme Court Order concerning Stein’s gross professional
misconduct and gross misrepresentation shall not be ignored by this Court and Judge Brown. If
27
- 13 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 Stein was properly prosecuted in October 2015, as was planned by State Bar Investigator

2 Amanda Gormley, then Pott and Ropel would most likely not have current licenses to practice
law, and Waszczuk would not be presenting this Motion for Reconsideration.
3
On January 14, 2015, State Bar of California Supervising Senior Trial Counsel Robert A. Henderson
4
informed Waszczuk that his December 16, 2014, complaint against Stein had been reviewed and
5
forwarded to the Enforcement Unit for further investigation and prosecution (Case No. 15-0-10110).
6

7 The Robert A. Henderson’s letter with Waszczuk’s response dated January 28, 2015 is attached as a
8 EXHIBIT # 13
9 On September 25, 2015, State Bar Investigator Amanda Gormley informed Waszczuk that
10 his complaint against Douglas E. Stein would be submitted to the prosecutor on October 9, 2015

11 (EXHIBIT # 14).
Almost a year after State Bar of California Investigator Amanda Gormley sent information to
12
Waszczuk that complaint against Douglas Stein would be submitted to the prosecutor, Waszczuk
13
on August 21, 2016 Waszczuk sent request for intervention to Hon. Tani G. Cantil -Sakauye Chief
14
Justice of California Chair of Judicial Council. The inquiry was entitled:
15
Request for Intervention; the Access to Justice and the Evil of Corruption in the Sacramento County
16 Superior Court, the Court Of Appeal Third Appellate District and The California State Bar Court of
17 Appeal -Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al. Case No. C079524; Superior Court
18 Case No: No. 34-2013-34-00155479 Court of Appeal Waszczuk v. California Unemployment

19 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-O-10110
20
(EXHIBIT # 15)
21
The State Bar of California Executive Director Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker on August 26,2016
22
reacted by the letter to my inquiry I sent to California Chief Justice on August 21, 2016.
23
(EXHIBIT # 16).
24 Waszczuk responded to Ms. Rinskopf letter on September 1, 2016 (EXHIBIT # 17) and followed
25 his response with another inquiry Waszczuk sent on September 15, 2016 to California Senator
26 Cathleen Galgiani and California Assembly Member Jim Cooper in attempt to find what happened to
27
- 14 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 Waszczuk complaint against Douglas Stein which should be resolved in October 2015.No avail

2 (EXHIBIT # 18)

3
D. The Court Order dated June 7, 2018
4
On June 7, 2018, the Court awarded
5

6
• $8,190 to Michael W. Pott, for 31.5 hours of work at $260 per hour;
• $312 to David P. E. Burkett, for 1.2 hours of work at $260 per hour;
7 • $16,042 to Douglas L. Ropel, for 61.7 hours of work at $260 per hour;
• $4,320 to Douglas L. Ropel (as a law clerk), for 43.2 hours of work at $100 per hour; and
8
• $520 to Marilyn Gamper (paralegal), for 5.2 hours of work at $100 per hour.
9
The total award of legal fees and costs was $22,284, which was less than the $36,014 that
10
Burkett requested in his Supplemental Declaration; the difference of $13,730 was an approximately
11 39% reduction.
12 Burkett has not contested the Court’s 39% reduction of the legal fees. As the leading attorney in this
13 case after Pott quit or got fired on January 23, 2015, Burkett emerged with only $312.

14 After the Court issued the Order on June 7, 2015, Burkett quickly sent Waszczuk a proposed Order to
sign. Burkett knew perfectly well what Pott, Ropel, and Stein did.
15
Waszczuk is not aware of how the Porter Scott attorneys calculated $36,014 in fees and costs—
16
especially when the Court arrived at the amount of $22,284. If Waszczuk had ever added extra hours
17
that he did not work to his time card, he would’ve been fired and possibly arrested for fraud.
18

19 In his May 11, 2015, declaration for the legal fees and costs, Ropel stated under penalty of perjury
that
20
Information and belief as to such facts, I believe them to true. If called upon to do
21 so, I could and would competently testify about the matters asserted herein. I
22 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 11,
23
2015, at Sacramento, California.
24
Three years later, in a declaration for legal fees and costs, Burkett repeated Ropel’s words, claiming
25 under penalty of perjury that the information he provided was true and correct. These declarations
under penalty of perjury don’t seem to have any meaning for the Court or its judicial officers. The
26

27
- 15 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 five previously listed Defendants perjured themselves in their declarations, and the Court and Judge
Brown severely punished Waszczuk for their lies.
2

3 According to Penal Code section 118(a),


4 Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose,
5 or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases
in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully
6 and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to
7 be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies
under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations,
8
depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California,
9 under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or
she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.
10
Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corporation, 93 P.3d 386, 33 Cal.4th 601, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d
11
793 (Cal. 07/19/2004); Supra S115654; People v. Laws, 120 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 178 Cal. Rptr. 102
12 (Cal.App.Dist.1 06/26/1981)

13 Additionally, Penal Code section 134 states,


14 Every person guilty of preparing any false or antedated book, paper, record,
instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to produce it, or allow it
15
to be produced for any fraudulent or deceitful purpose, as genuine or true, upon any
16 trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, is guilty of felony.
17 People v. Jensen, 94 Cal. App. 3d 451, 156 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal.App.Dist.1 06/27/1979)
18
E. The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Unpublished Opinion regarding
19 legal fees and costs, Case No. C079524, Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California
20

21 In Disposition of the unpublished opinion in the previously mentioned case (EXHIBIT #), the 3DCA
stated,
22

23 The judgment striking the four causes of action against defendants Nichols,
Oropeza, Seifert, Boyd, and Chilcott is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own
24
costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5))
25
The Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5) states,
26

27
- 16 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 In the interests of justice, the Court of Appeal may also award or deny costs as it
deems proper.
2

3 In his May 18, 2018, Opposition to David Burkett’s Supplemental Declaration, Waszczuk pointed out
4 that the Court of Appeal denied any legal fees to the Defendants’ attorneys. After Pott was fired from
5 or quit Porter Scott on January 23, 2015, Burkett was leading Porter Scott’s attorneys in the anti-

6
SLAPP motion; Ropel was his associate. However, the record shows that Burkett as the leading
attorney worked on the anti-SLAPP motion for only 1.2 hours.
7
On June 30, 2016, Burkett filed in the 3DCA the Application for Extension of Time with Declaration
8
in Support to File Respondent Brief (EXHIBIT #19). The Application for Extension shows that
9
Record on Appeal contained 2,383 pages of documents for Burkett to review in order to write the
10
Respondent Brief. He probably needed at least 200 hours to review the documents, which should
11 have translated to $52,000 in legal fees. However, Burkett got nothing from the Court of Appeal. On
12 August 28, 2017, after Oral Argument, he angrily confronted Waszczuk and made threats toward
13 Waszczuk’s spouse.

14
Appellate attorney fees incurred in sustaining the anti-SLAPP result are
15 recoverable. Trapp v. Naiman, 218 Cal. App. 4th 113(2013). Dowling v.
Zimmerman reasoned that, “[a] statute authorizing an attorney fee award at the trial
16
court level includes appellate attorney fees unless the statute specifically provides
17 otherwise,” and authorized an award for fees incurred on an appeal, because Code
of Civil Procedure Section 425.16(c), “provides that a prevailing defendant is
18
entitled to recover attorney fees and costs, and does not preclude recovery on
19 appeal.”
20 The 3DCA was biased and discriminatory in its opinion but still did not award Burkett one penny in
21 legal fees because the 3DCA Justices knew that doing so would be very improper.
22 On August 28, 2017, when he confronted Waszczuk in the 3DCA building after Oral

23
Argument and tried to provoke Waszczuk, Burkett complained and cried about 3DCA Justice Hon.
Vance Raye’s statements concerning the legal fees. Burkett wanted to settle the case with Waszczuk
24
for the legal fees, but no fees had been awarded to him in the settlement. He is crazy. Ropel, who quit
25
the case and Porter Scott in April 2016, also confronted Waszczuk in the Superior Court building just
26
before the March 2015 hearing with Judge Shelleyanne Chang. During the incident, Ropel tried to
27
- 17 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 convince Waszczuk to settle the anti-SLAPP case for the legal fees that he supposedly accrued in

2 2015.
F. Defendants’ May 11, 2015, Motion for Legal Fees and Costs
3

4
Defendants’ attorney Ropel filed the Motion for legal fees more than three years ago on May 11,
5
2015.
6
Waszczuk does not understand how the Court could award legal fees to Pott and Ropel. They haven’t
7 represented the Defendants since 2015 and 2016, respectively, and they no longer work for Porter
8 Scott. Waszczuk cannot confirm or cite any authorities as to whether Burkett is legally permitted to
9 represent Pott and Ropel without providing new Declarations from these two attorneys confirming
10 that they would like to be awarded legal fees for their work in a case that involves their well-

11 documented deception, as outlined in the Supreme Court Decision in Case S245982—Stein on


Discipline . The Court cannot even confirm whether Ropel and Pott are still alive today or finally in
12
prison where they belong.
13
On July 15, 2015, in his opposition to the Defendants’ legal fees, Waszczuk pointed out to the Court
14
that Ropel was not involved in the preparation of the anti-SLAPP motion between September and
15
December of 2014.
16 During that time period, Ropel was a legal clerk and worked under Pott’s supervision. Waszczuk has
17 not been provided Pott’s Declaration confirming that Ropel worked on the anti-SLAPP motion
18 between September and December of 2014.

19 In his Declaration, Ropel is not permitted to speak on behalf of Pott to argue for Pott’s legal fees.
Legal fees should not even be considered for Pott until he submits a Declaration to the Court with his
20
calculations. Pott was the leading attorney in this anti-SLAPP motion, but he was most likely fired
21
from Porter Scott for his misconduct.
22
After Ropel filed the Motion for legal fees and costs three years ago on May 11, 2011, Waszczuk was
23
especially concerned about Ropel’s clerical work and communication with a Sedgwick representative
24 name Gustavson.
25 On May 31, 2015, Waszczuk sent a letter to Carmen Angeles (Sedgwick Litigation Specialist from
26 Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.) concerning Ropel’s alleged communication Waszczuk
27
- 18 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 has attached this inquiry to Angeles and his May 21, 2015, response to Burkett’s May 19, 2015,

2 Settlement Offer email (EXHIBIT #20)

3
IV. CONCLUSION
4

5 Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown created a legal mess because of his
6 longtime relationship with Douglas Stein, who with his colleague from the Porter Scott law firm.
7 Stein dragged Judge Brown into the despicable miscarriage of justice that is the enormous, vicious,

8 out-of-control vendetta against Waszczuk. Judge Brown can’t seem to resist harming 67-year-old
Waszczuk, who has already been harmed and devastated by California Court judges. These
9
individuals have not served justice in the name of free speech and the First Amendment.
10
Enclosed Pages 274–299,—Draft of 2015 Third Amended Complaint, First Cause of Action,
11
BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT—shows approximate financial loses and damages caused by
12
the reckless and ruthless disregard of the 2009 Settlement Agreement. The UCOP white-collar
13 criminals’ breach of the Settlement Agreement resulted in termination of Waszczuk’s employment;
14 financial loses of over $1,000,000; and unimaginable suffering and other consequences for Waszczuk
15 and his family.

16 The Code of Civil Procedure 1008 (a) states that application (Motion for Reconsideration) has to be

17
made to the same judge or court that made the original order; the same judge or court must
reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. This is unfortunate. In the
18
interest of justice and fairness, Judge Brown should remove himself from hearing this motion, and a
19
new judge should be assigned.
20
Stein and the court committed fraud, and the bad faith judgments further victimized Waszczuk.
21
A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance that permits the trial court
22 to reduce the award or deny one altogether. (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Ca1.4th 970,
23 990.) Thus, the fee award here must account for the fact that much of the fees requested were claimed
24 in bad faith. As the Supreme Court held in Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635, merely

25 cutting the inflation does not adequately address the bad faith involved in the fact that the clearly
inflated request was made at all. Accordingly, under Chavez and Serrano, the Court may completely
26
deny fees or make large across-the-board reductions in response to the bad faith.
27
- 19 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1

2
TABLE OF CONTENST
3

4 I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..……………………. . 1

5 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE………….…………..……….1


III. LEGAL ARGUMENT………………………………………………...……………………….7
6
A. This Court Has the Statutory Power to Reconsider a Prior Order and Modify, amend or
7
Revoke the Order…………………………………………………...………………………….7
8 B. The Court two orders signed by Hon . David I Brown …………………..……….…………10
C. The old Defendants Demurer filed as anti -SLAPP motion on December 1, 2014…….……11
9 D. The Court Order dated June 7, 2018………………………………………………………….15
10
E. The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Unpublished Opinion regarding legal
fees and costs, Case No. C079524, Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
11 California……………………………………………………………………………………..17
F. Defendants’ May 11, 2015, Motion for Legal Fees and Costs…………………...…………..18
12

13
IV. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………..……………………..19
V. DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW WASZCZUK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
14 FOR RECONSIDERATION……………………………………………..…………………21

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
- 22 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
2
,
3
Saleeby v. State Bar (1985) 39 Ca1.3d 547, 557-58 [216 Cal.Rptr. 367..………………………...….11
4
In re: Rose (2000) 22 Ca1.4th 430, 438-446 [93 Cal.Rptr.2d 298]………………………….…….…11
5 In re :Attorney Discipline System (1998) 19 Ca1.4th 582, 599-600 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 ………..…11
6 Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399…………………………………….…..13,14
7 Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corporation, 93 P.3d 386, 33 Cal.4th 601, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d

8 793 (Cal. 07/19/2004 Supra S115654………………………………………..……………………….……..16


People v. Jensen, 94 Cal. App. 3d 451, 156 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal.App.Dist.1 06/27/1979)…………...17
9
Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Ca1.4th 970, 990…………………………………………20
10
Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635…………….…………………………………………..20
11
STATUTES
12

13 Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a)….......................................................................……..……1,2,7,20,

14 Code of Civil Procedure § 425.15 …………………………………………………………...………..5,


Code of Civil Procedure § 916(a)………………………………………………………………..……7
15
Code of Civ. Proc. 425.16(f):………………………………………………………..……………….12
16
California Penal Code section 118(a)……………………..…………….……………………………15
17
Penal Code section 134………………………………………………………………………………16
18
Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16(c)………………………………………………………………….18
19
OTHER AUTHORITIES
20
California Curt Rule 3.1312(B………………………………………………………….6,
21

22 California Supreme Case Decision No: S245982- RE: STEIN ON DISCIPLINE Decision dated

23 March 1, 2018 in which California Supreme Court ………………………………………………..…8


California. Rule of Court 3.1324…………………………………..………………….……………..10
24
Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6064, 6125…………………………..………………………………………..11
25
Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6079……………………………………………………………………………11
26
Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.4(16)………………………………………..……………………………….11
27
- 23 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1
EXHIBITS
2
Exhibit Number Page Number
3
1. Copy of Douglas Stein’ December 15, 2015 text message about his 20 years relationship
4 with Judge David I Brown …………………………………………………..………………..2

5 2. December 16, 2014 Notification which informed attorney Douglas Stein that he dismissed a
as Waszczuk counsel due to his gross misconduct and misrepresentation.
6
……………………………………………….……………………………………………….. 4
7
3. Defendant’ attorney Michael Pott’s January 23, 2015 a e-mail message which informed
8 Waszczuk that Michael Pott quit Porter Scott Law Corporation ………….…………………..5
9
4. Two Causes of Action (COA) from the Waszczuk’ 2015 Draft of the Third Amended
10 Complaint with cover letter to Defendants attorney David Burkett and Douglas Ropel and
the Court Order dated October 28, 2015…………………………….……………………….6
11
5. Stipulation: Facts, Conclusion of Law and Disposition, and Order Approving—Filed On
12
October 24, 2017, in State Bar Court Clerk Office In San Francisco By Deputy Trial Counsel
13 Laura Huggins…………………………………………………………………………………8

14 6. Waszczuk’s November 22, 2017, Response to Stipulation Re: Facts, Conclusion of Law And
Disposition, and Order Approving—Filed in the State Bar Court Clerk Office On October 24,
15
2017…………………………………………………….………………………………………8
16
7. March 1, 2018—The California Supreme Court Order In Supreme Court Case S245982,
17 Stein On Discipline……………………………...……………………………………………..8
18
8. The Court Order, signed on September 22, 2014 by Hon. David Brown - Stein’s stipulation
19 with Pott’s of Ex Parte Application to file Second Amended Complaint……………………10

20 9. December 17, 2014, Judge Brown’ signed Court Order as a form of damage control. The
order was for Stein and Pott’s stipulated Ex Parte Application to legitimize the conspiracy
21
concocted by Stein, Pott, and Ropel…………………………………………….……………10
22
10. The Court of Appeal , Third Appellate District Opinion issued on January 23,2007 Vergos v.
23 McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)…………………..…………………..12
24 11. The Regents of the University of California CAISO Congestion Revenue Rights registration
25 process “notification dated December 22, 2014……………………………..……………….13

26 12. UCDMC employee Dereck Cole’s October 30, 2012 e-mail to UCDMC HR Labor Relation
Department and Waszczuk Public Record Act Request dated November 1, 2012
27
- 24 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
1
Documents shows unbelievably hostile and violent working environment in UC Davis
2 Medical center aimed at gay people . ……………..……………………………………………..13
3
13. January 14, 2015 State Bar of California Trail Counsel Instruction Letter and January 28 ,
4 2015 Waszczuk response -Re: Complaint against attorney Douglas Stein …………….……14

5 14. September 25, 2015, State Bar Investigator Amanda Gormley e-mail which informed
Waszczuk that his complaint against Douglas E. Stein would be submitted to the prosecutor
6
on October 9, 2015…………………….……………………………………………………..14
7
15. August 21, 2016 Waszczuk’ inquiry sent t to Hon. Tani G. Cantil -Sakauye Chief Justice of
8 California Chair of Judicial Council. The inquiry was entitled:
Request for Intervention; the Access to Justice and the Evil of Corruption in the Sacramento
9
County Superior Court, the Court Of Appeal Third Appellate District and The California State
10 Bar 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.
11 California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Case No.079254; Superior Court Case
No: 34-2013-34- 00155479 Complaint with the California State against attorney Douglas
12
Stein Case No. 15-O-10110…………………………………………………………………..14
13

14 16. The State Bar of California Executive Director Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker August 26,2016 r
15
letter -response to my inquiry I sent to California Chief Justice on August 21, 2016. ……...14

16 17. Waszczuk response to Ms. Rinskopf letter dated September 1, 2016………………...……14


17
18. Waszczuk September 15, 2016 inquiry sent to California Senator Cathleen Galgiani and
18 California Assembly Member Jim Cooper in attempt to find what happened to Waszczuk
complaint against Douglas Stein which should be resolved in October 2015…………..……14
19
19. June 30, 2016, Defendants attorney Davis Burkett 3DCA Application for Extension of Time
20
with Declaration in Support to File Respondent Brief ………………………………………17
21
20. May 31, 2015, Waszczuk letter to Carmen Angeles (Sedgwick Litigation Specialist from
22 Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.) concerning Ropel’s alleged communication
Waszczuk has attached this inquiry to Angeles and his May 21, 2015, response to Burkett’s
23
May 19, 2015, settlement offer ……………………………………………………………..19
24

25

26

27
- 25 -
28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION-MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS
A. Signature
E Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
" 0 Agent
• Print your name and address oM X
" 0 Addressee
so that we can return the cab
• Attach this card to the ba9th pl
Recl Z~ C. Date of Delivery

or on the front if space it A


1 Article Addressed to: I deli r nj~lt01 0 Yes
erel
* I E ~ eliveryi addre
.rl 7 s o 0 No
SEP 13
HON. CATHLEEN GATLGIANI
CALIFORNIA SENATOR
State Capitol, 1 59
Sacramento, CAI4 -

3. Service D Prjoiity Mail Express®

1111111 IIIJ I IJI 11111 li i IJI JI IJ I111111111 o Adult Sign atur


o Adult Sign a ture
C] Certified Mail®
'egistered
ö Registered Mail Restricted
Delivery
9590 9403 0172 5120 2495 47 C1 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery
o Collect on Delivery
0 Return Receipt for
Merchandise
O Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature Confirmation-
2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 0 Signature Confirmation
1-1 Insured Mail
I Insured Mail Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery
fl15 1730 0001 1069 3309 (over $500)
c0 F'j 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt
DECLARATION OF MAILING

I, Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a Plaintiff and Appellant in this case, declare under penalty of
perjury that I have this day mailed, by first-class mail, postage fully prepaid, a true and
correct copy of the above mentioned motion to each of the parties listed below.

DAVID P. E. BURKETT, ESQ.


PORTERISCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

ASH ANTE NORTON


1300 1 Street
Sacramento. CA 95814

CHIEF JUSTICE
I-ION. TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
350 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94102

Executed in Lodi, California, on August 19,, 2016

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK - Plaintiff/Appellant In Pro Per.


Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-821
E-mail: jjw190'dlive.com

Appellant, In Pro Per

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,


THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

Jaroslaw Waszczuk Court of Appeal No. C079254


Plaintiff and Appellant
Sacramento County Superior Court
V. No. 34-2013- 34-2013-80001699

California Unemployment Insurance Notice of Appeal Filed on May 7, 2015


Appeal Board
Appellant's Motion to Deny Real Party of
Defendant and Respondent Interest and Respondents the Application for
Extension of Time To File Respondent Brief
The Regentsof the University of Points and Authorities and Declaration In
California Support Cal. Court Rules 8.63
Appeal to the Honorable Judge Shelleyanne
Real Party of Interest and Respondent Chang's Order Denying Petitioner the Petition
for Writ of Mandamus

TO THE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL:

I.
INTRODUCTION

1, Plaintiff Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced Vashchook, hereafter


Waszczuk) in the above-captioned case respectfully request that the Court of Appeal
void or nullify the court order which on August 16, 2016 granted the Application for
Extension of Time to the Regents of the University of California (hereafter Regents)
The Regents counsel declaration supporting application for extension did not provide
one single legitimate reason or good cause outlined in the California Rules of Court,
Rule 8.63(b) (9) to justify Court order granting extension which should not be
granted under any circumstances because is grossly prejudicial to Waszczuk
(EXHIBIT # 1)

IL.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. RECORD ON APPEAL IN THIS CASE

It took seven months, from June 22, 2015, when Waszczuk filed the appellant notice
designating record on appeal, for the superior court clerk from appeals to file the
notice to prepare one volume of the 284-page clerk transcript and one volume of the
12-page court reporter transcript.
On June 22, 2015, Waszczuk filed the appellant's notice designating record on appeal
(notice) in a timely manner, which was docked in the Court of Appeal on June 25,

In the appellant's notice designating record on appeal, Waszczuk clearly marked the
box requesting that the clerk transmit the record of the administrative proceeding to
the reviewing court under court rule 8.23. Waszczuk requested by the notice that two
binders of the administrative record from the California Unemployment Insurance
Appeals Board, including binders with the administrative record from the
Employment Development Department (EDD), Case No. 0410 BYB, dated
12/16/2012; CUIAB, Case No. 4729869, dated 01/15/2013; and the California
Insurance Appeal Board (CAB), Case No. AO-30198805, dated 03/11/2013.

-2-
On October 28, 2015, Waszczuk sent an inquiry to the Superior Court clerk from the
appeal unit to determine the status of the clerk transcript and the court reporter status
and preparation. Since Waszczuk filed the notice designating record on appeal, he has
not received any notification from the clerk and became concerned that something
was wrong. His inquiries were docketed in the Court of Appeal on October 29, 2015.
Afterwards, four months after Waszczuk filed the notice for record on appeal the
court clerk informed Waszczuk that he had to pay $325 for the court reporter
transcript.
Waszczuk sent $325 to the court, together with a letter that was docked in the Court
of Appeal on November 18, 2015.
On January 20, 2016, the Superior Court clerk from the appeal unit filed the notice of
filing of designation and notice to reporters to prepare transcripts with a due date of
February 22, 2016.
It took seven months, from June 22, 2015, when Waszczuk filed the appellant notice
designating record on appeal, for the Superior Court clerk from appeals to file the
notice to prepare one volume of the 284-page clerk transcript and one volume of the
12-page court reporter transcript.
On March 24, 2016, Waszczuk sent a letter to the clerk of the Superior Court's
appellate unit informing the court clerk that both transcripts were over 30 days late to
be transmitted to the appellate court. (EXHIBIT # 2)
Furthermore, the court record shows that no request for a time extension had been
submitted to the Court of Appeal prior to the due date to transmit the transcripts to the
Court of Appeal, as mandated by law and Court Rule 8.122 (d).
On April 6, 2016, Waszczuk filed an appellant's motion for sanction to compel
compliance pursuant to California's rules of court, rule 8.23. (EXHIBIT # 3)

-3-
As the authorities in his motion, Waszczuk cited People v. Grimes, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d
787, 172 Cal, App. 4th 121 (Cal. App. Dist, 3 03/16/2009), in which the court held the
following:

The superior court clerk must "promptly mail" to the Court of Appeal
notification of the filing of a notice of appeal (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.304(c)(1); further rule references are to these rules). "The failure of a
court reporter or clerk to perform any duty imposed by statute or these
rules that delays the filing of the appellate record is an unlawful
interference with the reviewing court's proceedings...." (Id., rule 8.23).

In the same case, the court reminded the parties and clerks in the lower courts what
could happen and how grave consequences could result from the failure of a clerk to
perform his or her duties:

In 1935, the mishandling of a timely notice of appeal resulted in


defendant Rush Griffin's execution before his appeal could be heard.
The ensuing furor led to the "automatic" appeal procedure now
employed in capital cases (See People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal. 4th
550,566-567).

After almost 10 months, on April 13, 2016, from the dated June 22, 2015 (notice of
designation record of appeal), the record on appeal was transmitted from the Superior
Court to the Court of Appeal and filed.
However, the filed record on appeal included the administrative proceeding record,
which Waszczuk requested in his appellant notice designating record on appeal. The
administrative proceeding record, which contains almost 1,000 pages, is the most
important record in this appeal.
The administrative proceeding record did not require preparation and should be
transmitted and filed in the Court of Appeal within 30 days of the date Waszczuk filed
his appellant notice designating record on appeal, June 25, 2015.

-4-
On April 14, 2016, Waszczuk was left without any choice but to file another motion
with a request to mandate the Superior Court clerk from the appeal unit to fulfill his
duty and transmit the requested administrative proceeding record. (EXHIBIT # 4)
On April 15. 2016, the day after Waszczuk filed his motion, the administrative record
was transmitted to the Court of Appeal. Waszczuk never received any explanation for
why he was being treated with ignorance, prejudice and bias and was denied access to
justice in the Sacramento County Superior Court while paying for the service for the
filed documents.
The courts were grossly prejudiced against Waszczuk in this case, and he could have
died before the clerks from both courts could no longer hold the record in this
Superior Court case. He views what happened in both of his cases as a crime against
him and the general public because the party in the case is the University of
California's (UC) corrupt administration with baggage of the white-collar crime
related to the investment of $65,000,000 public funds by the regents and former UC
Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef with premeditated intent to commit the crime,
resulting in millions of dollars of illegal power sales and significant tax fraud.
Waszczuk and many others are paying a heavy price because the California
government and courts are protecting the university's white-collar criminals. How it is
possible that such things happen in court law that the court record was manipulated in
both cases and was not transmitted to the Court of Appeal as required by law and the
court rules and that the regents' lawyers are filing applications for extension of time to
file briefs. The UC Davis Medical Center has or had hundreds of medical-malpractice
cases in the Sacramento County Superior Court. How many plaintiffs in these cases
were victimized because of corruption among the court personnel and officers of the
courts? Helping the university's white-collar criminals, is not the job and duty of the
courts personnel and such activities should be subjected to audit and to criminal
investigation.
--
The above record of appeal statement of facts shows that the regents and their counsel
had sufficient time to obtain the court record and familiarize themselves with the
record regardless of the unlawful interference of the court staff with the judicial
process in this case and the other interconnected case pending appeal, Waszczuk v.
Regents et al., Case No. C079524.
The manipulation of the Waszczuk' cases and court records by court staff in
collaboration with regents attorneys has been occurring for a long time.
As early as April 2015, Waszczuk complained to California State Bar Investigator
Amanda Gormley about the manipulation of the court records. In his letter with the
attached Register of Action (ROA's ) pages from the Sacramento County Superior
Court, he wrote the following:
• In addition to my two previous complaint letters that I sent to your office on
January 28, 2015 and March 25, 2015, 1 have some major concerns about filing
documents in the court by two opposite party's attorneys in two interconnected
cases in which I am representing myself.
Waszczuk is in the process of preparing and filing with the California State Bar and
State Of California Commission on Judicial Performance two different complaints in
relation to the two abovementioned cases and Douglas Stein's representation
(EXHIBIT # 5).
State Bar Investigator Amanda Gormley was assigned to investigate the gross
professional misconduct of his former attorney Douglas Stein, who, in addition to
misappropriating my $20,000 retainer to handle his wrongful termination case, had
unspecified relations with the Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Honorable
David Brown, leading to the corruption and destruction of Waszczuk' wrongful
termination case.
On September 25, 2015, Amanda Gormley informed Waszczuk that the case against
Douglas Stein would be submitted to the state bar prosecutor by October 9, 2015.

-6-
On the same day, September 25, 2015, Porter/Scott attorney Douglas Ropel and
Burkett, representing the UC Regents, filed a motion for automatic stay under C.C.P.
919(a) or alternative motion for alternative stay to block the proposed 295-page third
amended complaint (TAC) in wrongful termination with two cause of action. The
Thereafter, State Bar Investigator Amanda Gormley was silenced, and Waszczuk
never heard from her or the state bar about the investigation against Douglas Stein.
His multiple inquiries about the complaint status against him with State Bar
Investigation Unit Supervisor Laura Sharek and California State Bar Director and
CEO Elizabeth Parker resulted in no response. Nobody wanted to deal with Douglas
Stein's complaint, despite knowing what happened in the court in 2014 and about his
collaboration with the Porter/Scott attorneys Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel with
clear corrupt intention of ending Waszczuk's litigation in December 2014 to protect
the rotten by corruption UC administration which is interconnected with the State of
California government officials and legislature and the state agencies and courts of
law.
Waszcziik's former attorney Douglas Stein, the regents' former counsel Michael Poff
and the judges of the Superior Court and their professional misconduct as officers of
the courts are the subject of the Waszczuk briefs in both cases, especially in case No.
C079524. In this case, the regents and Burkett attempted to prevail using the Superior
and Appellate Court clerks to defeat Waszczuk by not transferring the record to the
Court of Appeal for 10 months and denying Waszczuk the right to file documents
under false pretenses or because of minor mistakes that Waszczuk made in the
documents. At this point, Waszczuk is not certain whether corruption or law will
prevail in either court, the Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of
Appeal Third Appellate District.

-7-
B. THE COURT ORDER GRANTING REGENTS APPLICATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
In the previous chapter entitled "The Record on Appeal in this Cases" Waszczuk
provided information how much extra time Regents were granted by the corrupted
courts personnel. The Regents' attorney's deception to drag this cases as long as it is
possible to with help of court clerks is taking place in both courts, the Sacramento
County Superior Court and the Court of Appeal 3th Appellate District
The Regents's counsel Burkett declaration to support the application for extension
was the formality for the court clerk to have the excuse to stamp the application and
mark the application "Granted: The court clerk even did not care that Regents is not
primary Defendant and Respondent in the ease. The Court Clerk stamped the
application and marked "Granted" anyway not waiting if the primary Defendant in
this case , the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) will file
application for extension of time to tile brief. The RB is due to tile on August 22,
2016. Regents' counsel Burkett in his declaration provided the following information
about the California Attorney General office counsel Ashante Norton who represents
CUIAB in this case.
• Norton, counsel for Respondent, the California Unemployment Insurance
Appeals Board ("CUIAB"). The CUIAB is considering its position on appeal
and whether it will file a Brief in addition to the one filed by the REGENTSOF
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Their current position is that they will
not file an additional Brief. Ms. Norton also informed Ms. Guevara that the
CUIAB did not receive a copy of Appellant's Opening Brief (AOB), and was
in the process of obtaining said Brief.

In the above statement, Burkett is attempting to confuse the issue and implies that
the regents are the primary defendant and respondent and CUTAB's brief is
additional brief to the Regents' brief and this is why Regents should have an
extension. Furthermore, in his deception and damage control. Burkett is implying
that Waszczuk did not send a copy of the appellants opening brief to CUTAB
counsel Ashante Norton. In his last words in the declaration, Burkett requested
that:

• extension also be granted to the primary defendant, CUTAB, should


they decide to file a brief.
How it is happened that the extension was granted to David Burkett and who in the
Court of Appeal is responsible for this decision? The decision granting Regents this
extension is nothing else but an attempt to derail the judicial process on the appeal by
the Regents' counsel Burkett and the court personnel which unlawful interfering in
the appeal process and harming Waszczuk.

Ill.
THE REGENT' COUNSEL AND THE COURT OF APPEAL CLERKS'
COLLABORATION AGAINST WASZCZUK

A. THE JUNE 30, 2016 REGENTS APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF


TIME TO FILE RESPONDENT'S BRIEF

On June 30, 2016, Regents counsel Burkett submitted to the Third Appellate District
Court of Appeal an additional application for extension of time to file the
respondents' brief in the pending interconnected case Waszczuk v. Regents et al., Case
No. C079524, which was due to be filed on July 5, 2016.(EXIHIT #6)
Both of Waszczuk's cases against the UC regents, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus
and the wrongful termination case, are highly interconnected and have similar court
records. Both cases are linked to multimillion dollar tax fraud committed by the UC
regents and former UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef.
The multimillion-dollar fraud is related to unlawful energy sales from UC Davis
Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility, where Waszczuk was employed by the

S
university as an operator from June 1999 to March 2007 and then abruptly and
unlawfully removed from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility.
In Case No. C079524, the Regents had already exhausted the statutory 60-day
extension of time to file the respondent's brief (rule 8.212 (b)).
Under penalty of perjury, Burkett provided false information to the court that
Waszczuk was unwilling to stipulate to an extension without making any attempt to
contact Waszczuk or to send him an application for stipulation to sign. Effective
September 14, 2015, pursuant to the California Rules of Court, rule 8.70 (rule 5
Electronic Filing), the Third Appellate District Court of Appeal requires that all
filings in this district be made through the court's electronic filing system (EFS) via
the TrueFiling portal. The use of the EFS is mandatory for all attorneys filing in this
district unless an exemption is granted.
The regents' counsel bluntly disregarded the electronic filling mandated by the Court
for the licensed by California State Bar attorneys pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 8.70, and Rule 5 and obtained an extension on June 30, 2016, by filing a
hard copy of the application for extension of time directly in court. This was a
deliberate move by the defendant and respondent's counsel to prevent Waszczuk from
obtaining a copy of the signed application for extension via TrueFiling on the same
day of filing and for which Waszczuk is registered as a user. Burkett knew that filing
the application for extension directly in court and sending it by regular United States
(U.S.) mail one day before the long weekend for July 4 would preclude Waszczuk
from filing an objection to the application on the same day if he chose to do so.
Burkett's declaration in support of the application for extension of time to file the
respondent's brief is full of false and misleading statements and untrue allegations
toward Waszczuk.
After Waszczuk read the respondents' extension of time, which he received via U.S.
mail on July 1, 2016 (Saturday afternoon), Waszczuk learned that, according to the
-10-
Third Appellate District Court's website, the defendant had been immediately granted
an extension of 21 extra days to file the respondent's brief without a good and
legitimate cause and without contacting Waszczuk to stipulate the extension.
Waszczuk felt that the defendant's counsel and the Court Clerk was prejudiced
against him and disrespected him.
The court clerk granted the extension on the same day, June 30, 2016, as it was
submitted, according to an email from the Court of Appeal on July 7, 2016 (copy
enclosed) and the court ROA, without waiting to hear whether Waszczuk would file
an objection or motion to deny the application.
Waszczuk could not file an objection due to the long weekend for July 4. On July 6,
2016, he submitted via TrueFiling his opposition to the application for extension of
time to file the respondents' brief, which was due to be filed on July 5, 2016.
(EXHIBIT #7)
He could not file the opposition sooner because it was a long weekend and [had to
send my draft for correction to a professional proofreading company because English
is my second language.
The application was based on the Burkett's lies and false statements in his declaration
to obtain the 21-day extension of time that is prejudicial to the applicant without
attempting to stipulate the extension.
The reason for filing the objection to the application was to ask the court to nullify the
order that granted an extension obtained based on lies and Burkett's perjury in the
application and his declaration.
On July 7, 2016, at 3:15 P.M., Court Clerk Anita Kenner from the Third Appellate
District Court of Appeal 3rd left a voicemail message on Waszczuk's phone that
informed him that the court received his opposition on July 6, 2016. However, the
Court of Appeal had already granted a 21-day extension to the respondents on July 1,
2016, Furthermore, Ms. Anita Kenner's voice message informed Waszczuk that his
opposition will be kept on file and that if the regents submitted another application for
extension of time, my opposition would be submitted to the court.
Waszczuk did not expect to receive such a result from the court in submitting his
opposition. He spent significant time, effort and money to write the opposition and
expected it to be presented to the presiding justice of the Third Appellate District
Court of Appeal and that justice would be served with regard to the opposition. He
expected the respondents' order obtained through their counsel's deception and lies
would be voided and that the extension would be denied. Waszczuk's opposition was
denied three week later on the same day, July 25, 2016, that the regents filed their
respondent's brief which was due to file on July 5, 2016

B. THE AUGUST 16, 2016 REGENTS' APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION


OF TIME TO FILE RESPONDENT'S BRIEF

On August 16, 2016, Regents' counsel Burkett filed another application for
extension of time to file the respondent's brief in this that is due on August 22, 2016.
In the same scenario as that of June 30, 2016, the court clerk informed Waszczuk on
August 17, 2016, at 9:25 AM by email that ha e had been served with a document in
Case No. C079254, JVaszczuk v. C'alifirnia Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Waszczuk printed the document and found out that the regents' application was
signed by Honorable Presiding Justice Vance Raye on the same day as it was filed on
August 16, 2016, regardless of Clerk Anita Kenner informing Waszczuk on July 6,
2016, that his opposition to the previous application extension would be kept on file
and if the Regents submitted another application, his opposition would be submitted
to the court
The application for extension was electronically received on August 16, 2016, by
Andrea K. Wallin-Rohniann, clerk and administrator, and filed on the same day by

-12-
Deputy Clerk J. Swartzendruber. Waszczuk- spoke on August 15, 2016, directly to Ms.
Wallin-Rohmann, Ms. Swartzendruber and Ms. Kenner, all of whom were involved in
denying Waszczuk from filing his appellant reply brief in Case No. C079524,
Waszczuk v. Regents et al.
In March, April and May 2016, a different Court of Appeal clerk was handling
Waszczuk's cases. The clerk's name was Kathryn Wojnarowski. She vanished in the
same way from handling Waszczuk's case as previously mentioned California State
Bar Investigator Amanda Gormley, who was assigned to the case of Waszczuk's
dismissed attorney who had relations with Sacramento County Superior Court Judge
Honorable David Brown. The former Waszczuk attorney Douglas Stein's friendship
with Honorable David Brown and his collaboration with Regents attorney from
Porter Scott law firm against Waszczuk caused Waszczuk financial losses amounted
in over S 50, 000. Honorable David Brown, the Regents' former counsel Michael
Poll, the Honorable Shelleyanne Chang and CUIAB Administrative Law Judge
Marilyn Tays spent lot of time and effort and cost lot of tax payers money to
protect status quo of their corrupt colleagues at the University of California.

Iv.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

A. THE PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT OF THE REGENTS'S ATTORNEY


DAVID BURKETT'S AND HIS COLLEGUES FROM PORTER SCOTT LAW
FIRM

In the statement of facts Waszczuk provided history of the Waszczuk' court record

on the appeal and the Regents counsels undoubted collaboration with the courts

personnel to derail the judicial process of the pending Waszczuk's appeals in the two

interconnected cases No. C079524 Waszczuk v. Regents eL al, (C.C.P 425.16 anti-
-13-
SLAPP motion) and this cases No. C079254 Waszczuk v. California Unemployment

Insurance Appeal Board in which Regents are the Real Party in Interest.

The denial Waszczuk by court clerks to file his Appellant's Reply Brief in Cases No

C079524 on August 15, 2016 and granting to Regents' counsel David Burkett the

application for extension of extra time to file Respondent Brief which is due August

22, 2016 was not coincidental It was well coordinated interference in judicial

process on appeal between Regents' attorney and the Court of Appeal Clarks to stop,

delay and derail Waszczuk appeals knowing that Waszczuk is a self -represented

litigant and they took advantage of Waszczuk deceive him and disregard the law

The Regents counsel David Burkett should be sanctioned for filing the application for

extension of time for the only reason to delay the process on appeal, harass Waszczuk

and deceive Waszczuk and the court by his deception. This is not the first time David

Burkett with his colleagues from Porter Scott and court personnel practicing the law

in such way.

A court may consider a lawyers past conduct in determining whether a lawyer has
engaged in impermissible dilatory tactics. Sabado v. Moraga (Schuckman) (3rd Dist.
1987) 189 CaLApp.3d 1, 234 Cal.Rptr. 249.
This why Waszczuk' s provided to the in his statement of facts the history of record of
appeal and David Burkett's previous frivolous and dilatory application for extension
of time.
A lawyer will be suspended for submitting a false pleading even though there is no
evidence of malice, intentional deception, or motivation for personal gain. Giovanazzi
v, State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 465, 169 CaLRptr. 581, 619 P.2d 1005. Also, there is no
requirement that actual harm must result in order to impose discipline. Garlow v.
State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 689, 244 CaLRptr. 452, 749 P.2d 1307,
The Regents counsel David Burkett's declaration in support was written with corrupt
and malicious and deceptive intent to harass Waszczuk and delay legal process on
appeal.
For bad faith actions or tactics arising from a complaint filed or proceeding
initiated on or before December 31, 1994,
the trial court may order a party, the
party's lawyer, or both to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees,
incurred by another party as a result of "bad faith actions or tactics that are
frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." Civ. Proc. Code
128.5(a)
A bad faith action or tactic is considered "frivolous" if "totally and completely
without merit" or instituted "for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party."
California Civ. Proc. Code 128.5b)(2)
The Regnant' counsels are obligated to represent their client as best as they can
However premediated and evil spirited with corrupt intent collaboration with the
courts personnel to prevail in the cases by deception and fraud upon the court is
beyond the harassment aimed at opposing party with advantage that opposing
party is not attorney at law but a 65 years old worker from the UC Davis
Medical Center whose life was devastated by the University of California
administrators and management rotten by corruption.
In the Matter of Varakin (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179
(suspending attorney for "repeatedly filing frivolous motions and appeals for the
purpose of delay and harassment.").
In the interconnected case No. C079524 Waszczuk v. Regents et.al Regents' gross and
prejudicial violation of the Discovery Stay

- 15-
CCP 425.16(g) (CT 01376-01402) should have resulted of dismissal of the Regents
ant-SLAPP frivolous motion. However, Regents lawyers from Porter Scott law get
away with the violation and abuse of the judicial system because of the Hon. David
Brown's 20 years friendship and collaboration with crooked Waszcziik's attorney
Douglas Stein, Regents attorneys Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel from the Porter
Scott law firm to harm Waszczuk The Other example is gross and prejudicial
violation by the Regents the Curt Rule 3.1312(b) (CT 01403-01413). Gross and
prejudicial to Waszczuk the perjury of the five defendants in their declaration in
support of the despicable Regents ant-SLAPP motion to prejudice Waszczuk and
deceive the court of law

B. THE COURT ORDER DATED AUGUST 1 6, 2016 SHOULD BE REVERSED


AND TRW EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONDENT BRIEF MUST
BE DENIED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

This court may extend the time for filing a brief for good cause shown. (Cal. Rules of

Ct, rule 8.63

The Regents counsel David Burkett instead of showing good cases in his declaration

he shows reckless deception in prejudice and harassment aimed at Waszczuk in

attempt to maliciously delay the appeal and to further devastate unemployed for four

years Waszczuk Waszczuk financial resources and his life.

Burkett filed the application for extension of time with malicious intent to prejudice
the court against Waszczuk and without any valid cause justifying the extension under
the California Rules of Court, rule 8.63(b)(8), which allows an extension if "the client
needs additional time to review the document."
The primary defendant and respondent in this case is the CUIAB, not the regents, and
court clerk who granted the regents' extension should know this. The extension was
filed day after the three ahovementioned court clerks did not allow Waszczuk to file
an appellant reply brief in Case No C079524, Waszczuk v. Regents et al.
Waszczuk believes that the arguments he provided to the court in his statement of
facts are adequate for the court to reverse their decision with the presiding justice or
court clerk's stamp with the presiding justice's signature. These arguments concern
the extension of almost one year in which the regents were waiting for the court
record on appeals to be transmitted from the Superior Court to the Appellate Court;
this was more than enough time for the regents' counsel to obtain the record.

Burkett's reason for an extension in his declaration is as follows:

• Good cause also exists due to other time-limited commitments. Thus, counsel
for THE REGENTSOF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA respectfully
requests an extension of time to file the Respondent's Brief.

The Regents' counsel Burkett has commitment and Waszczuk who is an unemployed
65 years' Polish man whose life derailed and devastated by the Regents of the
University of California is not important and his life does not matter and his
disposable by Porter Scott attorney . In February 2009 Porter Scott client the
University of California signed with Waszczuk Settlement -Agreement which
Waszczuk believed that the signed agreement will provided Waszczuk with
employment in UC Davis Medical Center until Waszczuk will retire at age 66.
Waszczuk was not aware that the signed settlement was the only short delay in the
Regents evil plan to erase penitently Waszczuk from the UC Davis Medical Center
landscape in attempt to cover up multimillion dollars fraud committed by the
Regents.

-17-
Are there no better authorities that could work on both of Waszczuk's cases in this
matter in which the miscarriage of justice is so visible and was outlined clearly in the
appellant opening brief in Case No. C079524, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board, and in the appellant's opening brief and reply brief, which
were denied by the court clerks to be filed in Case No. C07524, Waszczuk v. Regents
et al. Waszczuk's Appellant Opening Brief in Case No. C07254 and ARIA in Case
No. C0754 are briefs that the regents lawyers do not want the justices from the Court
of Appeal to read because the regents have nothing left to argue against Waszczuk
these two briefs. No one appellate case or precedence supports corruption, deception,
racketeering, the illegal sale of commodities, tax fraud or the miscarriage of justice.
In People v. Superior Court (1st Dist. 1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 32, 237 Cal.Rpfr. 158,
the issue was whether defense counsel, who comes into possession of physical
evidence related to charges against the client, must turn that evidence over to the
police and prosecution.
Maybe the People v. Superior Court is not the best case to cite in this motion,
However, Regents counsel Burkett is well aware of the Al-Capone type crime
Regents committed together with the former UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef
by selling illegally electric power (commodity) amounted in millions of dollars
profit in violation of the State of California Revenue and Taxation Code 23701 and
violation of Section 501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

V. CONCLUSION

Waszczuk believes that Waszczuk provided enough legitimate reason to nullified the

order and deny to David Burkett's the extension of Time . The Porter Law firm is

not a single attorney law firm that David Burkett could not handle brief he could write

- 18 -
within few hours

Accordingly, Waszczuk respectfully requests that the Court deny the extension of

time to Regent's attorney David Burkett.

DATED: August 19 .2016

Respectfully su itted,

A /AJ

Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff and Appellant

-19-
VI. DECLARATION IN SUPPORT

I, Jaroslaw Waszczuk, plaintiff and appellant, declare the following: I am


representing myself in pro per as the plaintiff and appellant in this appeal.
The regents who caused Waszczuk's unemployment and destruction of his life shall
not be granted this extension under any circumstances. Attorney David Burkett is
acting as the defense attorney for the primary defendant and respondent, the
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB), applying for an
extension on CUIAB's behalf and deceptively trying to force CUIAB to join into his
deception of the court and prejudice them against Waszczuk.
This case and Waszczuk's wrongful termination case against the regents are deeply
rooted in the almost two-decade-old California Energy Crisis in 1998, when
Chancellor Larry Vanderohoef, together with the regents, misappropriated
$65,000,000 million dollars to build a slot machine in in the form of the e 27 MW
cogeneration facility in the University of California (UC) Davis Medical Center
where to illegally make millions of dollars quickly and free of tax. Larry Vanderhoef
and the regents' crooked investment of public funds and this expensive slot machine
cost UC Davis a loss of at least half a billion dollars in revenue and the devastation of
Waszczuk and his family's life. It affected many other UC Davis employees' lives as
well. UC's corrupt administration's violation of Waszczuk's civil and human rights is
worse than what he experienced under the communist regime in Poland where he was
a political prisoner.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my
review of the record filed on this matter. Executed in this 9th day of August 2016 at
Lodi, California. I

Jarow Wászczuk
Plaintiff and Appellant
-20-
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROOF OF SERVICE
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................2


A.RECORD ON APPEAL IN THIS CASE...............................................2

B.THE COURT ORDER GRANTING REGENTS APPLICATION FOR


EXTENSION OF TIME ......................................................................8

Ill. THE REGENTS' COUNSEL AND THE COURT OF APPEAL CLERKS


COLLABORATION AGAINST WASZCZUK ....... .................................... 9

A.THE JUNE 301) 2016 REGENTS APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF


TIME TO FILE RESPONDENT BRIEF .................................................9

B. THE AUGUST 16, 2016 REGENTS APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF


TIME TO FILE RESPONDENT BRIEF ................................................12

IV. POINTS OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT ............................................13


A.THE PROFFESSSIONAL MISCONDUCT OF THE REGENTS
ATTORNEY DAVID BURK[TT AND HIS COLLEGUES FROM THE
PORTER LAW FIRM .......................................................................13

B.THE COURT ORDER DATED AUGUST 16, 2016 SHOULD BE


REVERSED AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONDENT BRIEF
MUST BE DENIED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL .................................16

V. CONCLUSION.................................................................................18

Vi. DECLARATION IN SUPPORT ............................................................20

EXHIBITS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
People v. Grimes, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 787,172 Cal. App. 4th 121 (Cal. App. fist. 3
93/16/2009 ..........................................................................................4
People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 550, 566-567.........................................4
Sabado v. Moraga (Schi.ckrnan) (3rd Dist. 1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1, 234 CaLRptr.
249.................................................................................................14
Giovanazzi ". State Bar (1980) 28 CaI.3d 465, 169 CaI.Rptr. 581, 619 P.2d 1005..14
Garlon' P. State Bar (1988) 44 CaI.3d 689, 244 Cal.Rptr. 452, 749 P.2d 1307.......15
Matter of Varakin (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179 ............. iS
People v. Superior Court (ist Dist. 1987) 193 CaLApp.3d 32, 237 CaI.Rptr.
158.................................................................................................18
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 Section 501(C)(3).......................................1$

STATUTES:
Cal. Code of Civil Procedure Section 916(a)......................7
Cal. Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 .................................13
Cal Civ. Proc. Code 128.5(a)...............................................................15
Cal Civ. Proc. Code 128.5(b)(2)............................................................15
Cal. Code of Civil Procedure 425.16(g) .............................16
California Revenue and Taxation Code 23701...........................................18

OTHER AUTHORITIES:
Cal. Rule of Court 8.63 ............ .......................... ................ I
Cal. Rule of Court 8.63(b) (9) ...... ......... ......... ................... 2-
-22-
Cal. Rule of Court 8.122 (d)) .3
Cal. Rule of Court 8.304(c)(1) ............................................4
Cal. Rule of Court 8.122 (b)) ............................................10
8.70 (b))Rule 5(electronic filing) ......................................10
Cal. Rule of Court 8.63(b)(8) ........................................................ 16
Cal. Rule of Court 3.1312(b).......................................................................16

-23-
EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT NUMBER: DESCRIPTION


PACE NO.

1. REGENTS' APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE


RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ............................................................................. 1

2. MARCH 24, 2016 LETTER TO SUPERIOR COURT CLERK, RE:


RECORD ON APPEAL..................................................................

3. APRIL 6. 2016 WASZCZUK MOTION FOR SANCTION TO COMPEL


.....................................................................3
4. APRIL 14, 2016 WASZCZUK MOTION TO MANDATE SUPERIOR
COURT CLERK TO PRODUCE ADM. RECORD ON APPEAL...........5

5. WASZCZUK'S APRIL 1ST 2015 LETER TO CALIFORNIA STATE BAR


INVESTIGATOR AMANDA GORMLEY , RE; MANIPULATION OF
COURTRECORD .....................................................................6
6. JUNE 30. 2016 REFENTS' COUNSEL DAVID BURKETT'
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN THE CASE NO. C079524 Waszczuk v.
Regents et.al -anti -SLAPP APPEAL............................................9
7. JULY 6, 2016 WASZCZUK OBJECTION TO DAVID BURKETT'S
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF

-24-