You are on page 1of 198

FILED.

JAN 102018
CASE NO 1 Jorge Navarrete Clerk
S245879
Deputy
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
En Bane

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, Plaintiff and Appellant,

V.

CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and


Respondent;

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest.

The petition for transfer of this cause pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule
10.1000(a), is denied.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Chief Justice
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ……..……………………………...…….iii-iv

MOTION -INTRODUCTION -.........................……………………...……1

STAEMENTS OF FACTS ……..………….……..………………………..6

A. The State of Emergency and California Governor Gray Davis’s Tour


of the UCDMC 27 MW Cogeneration Power Plant……..………….6
B. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Administrative
Law Judge Marilyn Tays (ALJ Tays) and Sacramento County
Superior Court Judge Hon. Shelleyanne W. L. Chang (Judge Chang)
………………………………………………………..……………..8

THE APPELLANT’S DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL……...….12

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES……………….…15


A. Waszczuk has good cause to believe that the appellate review by the
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, would be not impartial in
this case…………………………………………………………….15
B. The US and the California Constitution guarantee a fair and
impartial hearing in a Court of Appeal…………...………………..20
CONCLUSION ……………………...…………………..……….……….20

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT ………………………………..…..……24

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL ………...….26

EXHIBITS A- H…………...………………..……………………………28

A. Governor Gray Davis ‘s photo which shows his touring of the


UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant on Febrbruary 14, 2001 and
Copy of the Waszczuk’s Fax (cover page) dated 2/14/2001 to Gov.
Davis’s office …………………...…………………….…………….3

B. 11/22/2017 Waszczuk’s letter to State Bar of California Investigator


Laura Sharek and Trial Deputy Counsel Laura Huggins and State

i
Bar Stipulation in Re: Case No . 15- O-10110-LMA – Waszczuk ‘s
former attorney Douglas Stein’s misconduct. ……………………..4

C. 3/2/2015 Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang’s


Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandamus; Administrative
Mandamus………………………………………………………..…8

D. May 31, 2012 Power Purchase Agreement between UC Regents and


Sacramento Municipal Utility District -SMUD …………..……….12

E. Petition for Rehearing dated filed in 3DCA on 10/25/2017 in anti-


SLAPP motion appeal Case No. C079524…………………...……15

F. Waszczuk’s March 11, 2014 letter to UCOP Principal Investigator


Judith Rosenberg…………………………………………………..18

G. Photo of the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant and plaque


from the entry to the plant show names of participants in the illegal
power sale and tax fraud including and not limited to UC Davis
Chancellor Larry Vanferhoef and Associate or Assistant Vice
Chancellor Vice Chancellor Dr. Dr. Shelton Duraisseau………….18

H. 8/24/2016 letter Waszczuk received from the State of California


Commission on Judicial Performance and Waszczuk’s 8/30/2016
complaint/inquiry submitted to the Sacramento County Superior
Court Presiding Judge Hon. Kevin R. Culhane about corruption in
the Sacramento courts……………………………………………...22

ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

People v. Grimes, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 787, 172 Cal. App. 4th 121 (Cal. App.
Dist. 3 03/16/2009)………………………………………......................…14

People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 550, 566-567…………………….....14

Alonso v. California, 50 Cal. App. 3d 242, 123 Cal. Rptr. 536


(Cal.App.Dist.2 07/30/1975)…………………………………..……….19

Miller v. French (2000) 530 U.S. 327)…………………..………………..20

Jones v. Omnitrans (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 273)………………………...20

Paratransit, Inc v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, No.


C063863 (Cal. App. Dist.3 05/31/2012)…………………...…………..21

Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160,


165)……………………..…………………………………………………21

STATUTES
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170 § 170.6…………….……2
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 Section 501(C)(3)………….…….…18
California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5…………………......….18,20
State of California Unfair Business Competition law; Business and
Professions Code § 17200………….. ………………………...………18,20

CONSTITUTION
California Constitution SEC. 12. (a).......................................................1,2
Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution…………….…………….20
California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7…………………...…………20

iii
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT
California Rules of Court ,Rule 10.100………………..……………. ….1,2
California Rules of Court Court, Rule 8.23……………………..………..14
California Rules of Cour,t Rule 8.122 (d)…………………………...……14
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.304(c)(1)………………………………14

OTHER AUTHORITIES
San Diego Gas & Electric Company v . Sellers of Energy and Ancillary
Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System
Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange et, al (Docket
No. EL00-95-000; EL00-98-000)…………………..……………….……6,7
The Justice Hon. Vance Raye’s biography on the 3DCA website
http://www.courts.ca.gov/2648.htm............................................................16
African-American magazine Sac Cultural Hub-
(http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-look-back)interview.............17
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)…...……………17
18C.F.R.§ 292.203(b)and 292.205………………………..………………17
18 C.F.R. § 292.20……………………………...…………………………17
Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a)………………………………..…16
UC Davis Policy PPSM 23…………………………………..……………21

iv
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com

Appellant, In Pro Per

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

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 FOR TRANSFER
Defendant and Respondent THE CAUSES PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE
The Regents of the University of 10.1000 AND THE CAL.CONS. ARTICLE VI
California . SEC.12, MEMORANDUM POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION IN
Real Party In Interest. SUPPORT

Appeal to the Honorable Judge Shelleyanne


Chang’s Order Denying Petitioner the Petition
for Writ of Mandamus

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE AND


TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Rule 10.100, Transfer of Causes 1 and California Constitution
Article VI Judicial Section 12 2, Plaintiff and Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk

1
Rule 10.1000. Transfer of causes
-1-
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
(pronounced Vashchook; hereafter “Waszczuk”) respectfully requests by this
motion that the Supreme Court transfer the pending case Waszczuk v. California
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) Case No. C079254 from the Court of Appeal
Third Appellate District (3DCA) to the Supreme Court or other California Court
of Appeal District.
The California appellate justices are exempted from disqualification
provisions of the Code. Civ. Proc. section 170 § 170.6 thus is no other
choice for Waszczuk but to submit this motion and ask the Supreme Court
to move the cause away from the Sacramento courts which caused already
to Waszczuk and Waszczuk’s family non-recoverable damages , harm and
pain.
It is still beyond and above Waszczuk imagination that after
Governor Gray Davis with other State of California dignitaries toured on
February 14, 2001 the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration

1
The Supreme Court may transfer a cause:
To itself from a Court of Appeal;
From itself to a Court of Appeal;
Between Courts of Appeal; or
Between divisions of a Court of Appeal.
2
California Constitution SEC. 12. (a) The Supreme Court may, before
decision, transfer to itself a cause in a court of appeal. It may, before
decision, transfer a cause from itself to a court of appeal or from one court
of appeal or division to another. The court to which a cause is transferred
has jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court may review the decision of a court of appeal in any
cause.
The Judicial Council shall provide, by rules of court, for the time and
procedure for transfer and for review, including, among other things,
provisions for the time and procedure for transfer with instructions, for
review of all or part of a decision, and for remand as improvidently granted.

-2-
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
plant where Waszczuk was employed , Waszczuk sent the fax with
concerns for Davis’s safety, (EXHIBIT - A) the Governor’s former deputy
Administrative Law Judge from CUIAB Marilyn Tays almost exactly 12
years later on February 13, 2013 denied Waszczuk’ unemployment benefits
in the manner and behavior which is unforgettable and inexcusable.
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 has been 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 425.16 filed by the Regents of the University of California on
December 1, 2014.
Case No. C079524 was finalized on November 9, 2017, by denying
Waszczuk’s Petition for Rehearing. Waszczuk petitioned the 3DCA
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 is asking the Supreme Court to transfer the Waszczuk v.
CUIAB case to another appellate district court because Waszczuk
vehemently doubts that the case could be reviewed fairly and impartially by
3DCA justices after 3DCA Presiding Justice Honorable Vance Raye signed
-3-
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
an Unpublished Opinion that—aside from being discriminatory, offensive
and demeaning—shows malice toward Waszczuk and unbelievable
miscarriage of justice. The Unpublished Opinion shamelessly commends
Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein—who was dismissed for gross
misconduct after misrepresenting Waszczuk in both cases and colluding
with University of California legal counsel Michael Pott and Judge of
Superior Court Hon. David Brown; after such heinous offenses, Stein
proceeded to steal the entire retainer paid to him by Waszczuk. Stein’s
crimes and unethical behavior would not have been possible without
cooperation and collusion from other parties—especially university legal
counsel who acted with the full permission of UC General Counsel Charles
Robinson.
The 3DCA Unpublished Opinion in Case No. C079524 praising
Stein as transparent and diligent was issued by 3DCA and signed by
Presiding Justice Vance Raye while the State Bar of California was
prosecuting Stein for gross misconduct; Stein’s license to practice law was
ultimately suspended (see: EXHIBIT -B) [The Stipulation, Re: Facts,
Conclusion of Law and Disposition and Order Approving filed in the State
Bar of California Hearing Department, San Francisco on October 24, 2017,
and Waszczuk’s November 22, 2017, response to Stipulation submitted to
State Bar Investigator Laura Sharek and Deputy Trial Counsel Laura
Huggins]. The 17-page State Bar Stipulation was prepared and signed by
Stein on the very same day (October 10, 2017) that the 3DCA issued the
derogatory and discriminatory Unpublished Opinion in the anti-SLAPP
motion for Case No. C079524. Despite Waszczuk’s October 10, 2017,
request to State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Laura Huggins for a continuance
in Trial in Bar Court for the following month due to illness, Judge of the
-4-
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
State Bar Court Hon. Lucy Armendariz signed the Stipulation and Actual
Suspension Order on October 24, 2017, the day before Waszczuk filed his
Petition for Rehearing with 3DCA in the anti-SLAPP motion.
Apparently 3DCA knew all the facts yet did not hesitate to deny
Waszczuk’s very detailed and truthful Petition for Rehearing that described
Stein’s collusion with Superior Court Judges and university legal counsel
from Porter Scott law firm Michael Pott. This was a blatant attempt to sell
Waszczuk’s wrongful termination case for approximately $300,000.
Based on such past misconduct, Waszczuk has no hope or
confidence that his Writ of Mandamus appeal case would be reviewed by
the 3DCA justices without bias and discrimination. The justices have
already proven their prejudice toward Waszczuk. Both cases are
interconnected, relying on the same merit and including many of the same
evidential documents; only the purposes of the complaints vary.
Both cases are deeply rooted in the era surrounding the California
energy crisis of 1999-2003 as well as tax fraud committed by the
administrators of the University of California in relation to the illegal
power sale and power laundering worth tens of millions of dollars from the
UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27 MW cogeneration plant where
Waszczuk was employed from June 1999 to April 2007.
The Writ of Mandamus should have been resolved long ago;
however, the corrupt Sacramento courts aim to destroy Waszczuk’s life
further by forcing spurious legal fees attached to the Regents’ fraudulent
anti-SLAPP motion, which UC Regents Counsel Douglas Ropel demanded
in May 2015 in the amount of $32,000. Douglas Ropel was the second UC
Regents Counsel who quit the Waszczuk case and the Porter Scott law firm.

-5-
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The State of Emergency and California Governor Gray Davis’s


Tour of the UCDMC 27 MW Cogeneration Power Plant

On January 17, 2001, California’s governor declared a state of


emergency because California Independent System Operator Corporation
(CAISO), California Power Exchange (CalPX), CPUC, and Governor Gray
Davis lost control over out-of-state power producers including Enron
Corporation and Waszczuk’s former employer Dynegy Inc. The rolling
blackouts in the richest US state reminded Waszczuk of his native country,
Poland, during 1970 to 1981. The time and era were dominated by
communists and the Soviet Union. Energy shortages and rolling blackouts
were a normal part of a life controlled by the communist dictators.
On February 14, 2001, Governor Gray Davis toured the UCDMC’s
cogeneration plant and blessed the ongoing power sale fraud and unlawful
operation of the facility. During the tour, Governor Davis stated that he
hoped to announce a plan to shelter Pacific Gas and Electric Company and
Southern California Edison from bankruptcy. Davis could not have found a
better place than the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility to make such
announcements. The tour happened just a few months after the San Diego
Gas & Electric Company, in a joint venture with Pacific Gas and Electric
Company and Southern California Edison, filed a complaint with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against Sellers of Energy
and Ancillary Service into Markets Operated, CAISO, and CalPX. [San
Diego Gas & Electric Company v . Sellers of Energy and Ancillary
Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System

-6-
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange et, al (Docket
No. EL00-95-000; EL00-98-000)]
The complaint included the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant and
alleged ancillary manipulation of the western electricity markets in all
fashions—including but not limited to claims of economic and physical
withholding; gaming; fraud; and misrepresentation in exporting and selling
electrical energy via Automated Power Exchange Inc. (APX), CAISO, and
CalPX.
Prior to the aforementioned tour, Waszczuk was very concerned
about the governor’s safety. Commissioned in 1998, the plant was still
unfinished and not yet up to safety standards. Waszczuk’s main concern
was the plant’s 12.5 kV high-voltage switch gear room, which was
protected from fire by a water sprinkler instead of a carbon dioxide (CO2)
system. Before the tour, Waszczuk sent a 27-page fax to the governor’s
office with advice not to enter the room. The cover page of the fax (dated
February 14, 2001) attached as the Exhibit -A. Waszczuk’s concerns about
the governor’s safety were related to the fire protection system in the
Central Plant High Voltage Room as well as other safety issues with
UCDMC HR Consultant Hugh Parker and Cal/OSHA District Manager
William Estakhri; these are summarized in the following inquiry (dated
January 15, 2001) that was sent to Estakhri.
• “The last issue I would like to mention is the unnoticed hazard
related to the fire protection system in the central plant. I am not
sure if your team noticed this, but the High-Voltage Switch Gear
Room in the central plant is equipped with smoke detectors, which
are connected to the water sprinkler system. This system would be

-7-
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
activated if fire occurs in the 12.5 kV High-Voltage Switch Gear
Room.
I would not like to elaborate too much about this concern. However,
in my thirty years’ experience, I have before never seen or heard of
a fire safety system using water to extinguish a fire on electrical
equipment. I do not even want to imagine what would happen if
these water sprinklers went off and sprayed water over the hot
breakers, switch gears, generators, synchronizers, and so on. I can
only assume that it would be a disaster for the central plant and the
hospital. The 12.5 kV High-Voltage Switch Gear Room in the
central plant controls the small electrical grid of UCDMC Campus.
If this part of central plant were to get wet and stop working, then
everything would go down without the possibility of supplying
emergency power, steam and chilled water to the campus. Such
possibilities makes me very nervous, as somebody could he
electrocuted and patients in the hospital could die because of the
decision to install a water sprinkler system instead of a CO2 system
to protect the high-voltage electrical and electronic equipment in the
control room, which controls operation of the entire central plant.”

B. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board


Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Tays (ALJ Tays) and
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. Shelleyanne W.
L. Chang (Judge Chang)

In the tentative ruling dated February 27, 2015, the Court denying
Waszczuk‘s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and unemployment benefits
Judege Chang disclosed that : (EXHIBIT -C).

-8-
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
Preliminarily, Judge Chang discloses that she and
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tays worked together in the
Office of Legal Affairs of Governor Gray Davis in
approximately 2001 or 2002 for about 6 months. ALJ Tays was
on temporary loan from another state department to the
Governor's Legal Affairs Office ; Judge Chang was the Chief
Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary during that time frame. The
Court knows of no reason that it cannot be fair and impartial in
this matter.”

Waszczuk has yet to determine why Judge Chang disclosed the


above information about her employment together with ALJ Tays in
Governor Gray Davis’s office—though he suspects the decision was a
result of Waszczuk’s complaints against ALJ Tays and two other corrupt
CUIAB members, Michael Allen and Roy Auburn, with different CUIAB
Chief Administrative Law Judges. From 2013 through 2014, the complaints
were investigated by CUIAB Chief Counsel Kim Steinhardt but were never
concluded. On December 4, 2013, two days after Waszczuk filed a Petition
for Writ of Mandamus in the Sacramento County Superior Court,
Waszczuk received information from the CUIAB Chief Counsel’s office
that Chief Counsel needed more time to review the Waszczuk complaint;
this was the last time that Waszczuk was updated on the ongoing issue.
Judge Chang’s statement did not specify exactly which time period she
worked with ALJ Tays in Davis’s office. However, Judge Chang’s
information about her tenure prompted Waszczuk to check his files from
2001 and 2002; Waszczuk concluded that most likely on February 14,
2001, Judge Chang toured the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility where
Waszczuk was employed at that time as an operator. Judge Chang’s

-9-
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
disclosure also led Waszczuk to the FERC e-library where he discovered
why he was attacked by white-collar criminals from the UC Office of the
President (UCOP) and their thugs from the UC Davis Campus and
UCDMC. This harassment has been occurring for six years, and his life has
been devastated and destroyed by them with unlimited help from their
friends in Sacramento’s two courts.
On February 13, 2013, almost exactly 12 years after Governor Gray
Davis with other State of California dignitaries toured the UCDMC 27 MW
cogeneration plant and Waszczuk sent the fax with concerns for Davis’s
safety, the Governor’s former deputy ALJ Tays denied Waszczuk’s
unemployment benefits. Her manner and behavior during the hearing were
unforgettable and inexcusable.
On February 13, 2013, at 3:15 p.m., Waszczuk attended the
scheduled hearing with ALJ Tays; he brought along two former coworkers,
Kenneth Diede and William Buckans, as witnesses.
Waszczuk and his witnesses arrived at the Stockton, California,
EDD’s office a half hour before the hearing. The waiting room was
attached to the hearing room and was separated by a wall with big glass
windows. Waszczuk and his witnesses noticed that the person in the
hearing room—ALJ Tays—was pacing nervously. Waszczuk briefly left
the waiting room to return to his car for some documents and notes he’d
forgotten. One of Waszczuk’s witnesses reported that, while Waszczuk was
gone, ALJ Tays grew more nervous and agitated and eventually stormed
into the waiting room. She proceeded to very loudly ask Waszczuk’s
witnesses why Waszczuk had left and where he had gone.
The February 13, 2013, hearing with ALJ Tays continued to grow
more disturbing.
- 10 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
Waszczuk had also appeared in an unemployment case before
another CUIAB administrative law judge. That being said, Waszczuk had
never before seen a judge act so unprofessionally and with such visible and
unprecedented bias, prejudice, and negative attitude toward him and his
witnesses. ALJ Tays’s unusual and unbelievable favoritism toward
Waszczuk’s employer was shamefully blatant.
From the beginning of the hearing, ALJ Tays acted so belligerently
and hostilely toward Waszczuk and his two witnesses that Waszczuk
struggled to argue against her; his two witnesses reported feeling very
uncomfortable in her presence and with her behavior. ALJ Tays’s
disrespectful attitude toward Waszczuk and his witnesses could best be
described using the statement she made after Waszczuk or his witness
remarked on Waszczuk’s coworker’s suicide; ALJ Tays responded, “All
right, I guess he is not here.” When Waszczuk heard this, he lost all
confidence in ALJ Tays’s professionalism.
For a long time after the hearing, Waszczuk could not figure out why
ALJ Tays chose to be belligerent, offensive, and hostile toward Waszczuk
and his witnesses. Later, Waszczuk determined that ALJ Tays’s main target
was Waszczuk’s witness William Buckans. Her main goal was to neutralize
Buckans and not let him testify. Buckans was and is still being employed as
an operator in the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant; he knew that on
June 12, 2012, the UC Regents had resumed the illegal power sale from the
UCDMC 27 MW facility through an unlawful power purchase agreement
with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). Waszczuk did not
personally know this fact until later because UCOP white-collar criminals
removed Waszczuk from the UCDMC premises on September 1, 2011, and
never let Waszczuk return to work. They terminated his employment on
- 11 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
December 7, 2012, by fabricating false cause for termination and
terrorizing Waszczuk every few weeks with Investigatory Leave letters,
suspensions, and other means of blatant harassment. Buckans did not
initially tell Waszczuk that the Regents resumed power sales because
apparently it was not Waszczuk’s or any operator’s concern if the plant was
selling or not selling power. Waszczuk was hired to operate the plant not to
deal with the Regents’ white-collar crime. After Judge Chang disclosed
information about her position in Governor Davis’s office, Waszczuk
checked the FERC library and asked Buckans if the plant resumed selling
power after Waszczuk was removed from the premises. Buckans faxed
Waszczuk a copy of the Power Purchase Agreement with SMUD. This
document was found in the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant control
room and was signed on May 31, 2012. (EXHIBIT- D ) The Power
Purchase Agreement could be located in the Augmented Record on Appeal
in Case C079524 (CAT Vol. I Page 156-177)
The UCDMC again ceased illegal power sale in December 2013, just
a few days after Waszczuk filed his wrongful termination lawsuit against
UC Regents and his Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Sacramento County.
Former Governor Gray Davis Chief Deputy Legal Secretary Honorable
Shelleyanne Chang was assigned to Waszczuk’s Writ of Mandamus in
order to protect white-collar criminals from the University of California.

THE APPELLANT’S DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

The history of designated record on appeal in this case combined with the
Petition for Review (Case No. S245508)—filed in the Supreme Court on
November 20, 2017, and detailing the history of anti-SLAPP motion appeal
manipulation in the 3DCA—are further reasons for Waszczuk to ask the Supreme

- 12 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
Court to transfer this case to the Supreme Court or an alternate Court of Appeal
District.
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, 2015.
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 the Court Rule 8.23. By
the notice, Waszczuk requested two binders of the Administrative Record from
the California Unemployment Insurance Board (CUIAB), including binders with
the Administrative Record from the Employment Development Department
(EDD), Case No. 0410 BYB, dated December 16, 2012; CUIAB, Case No.
4729869, dated January 15, 2013; and the California Insurance Appeal Board
(CIAB), Case No. A0-30198805, dated March 11, 2013.
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 filing the Notice Designating Record
on Appeal, Waszczuk had not received any notification from the clerk, and
Waszczuk became concerned that something was wrong. Waszczuk’s inquiries
were docketed in the Court of Appeals on October 29, 2015. Afterward, the Court
clerk informed Waszczuk that Waszczuk had to pay $325 for the court reporter
transcript. Waszczuk sent the Court $325—accompanied by 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.
After seven months—starting from June 22, 2015, when Waszczuk filed
the Appellant Notice Designating Record on appeal—the Superior Court clerk

- 13 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
from Appeals finally filed 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, Appellate Unit, and informed the Court clerk that both transcripts were
over 30 days late to be transmitted to the Appellate Court. Furthermore, the court
record shows that no request for a time extension had been submitted to the Court
of Appeal prior the due date to transmit the transcripts to the Court of Appeal, as
is mandated by law and Court Rule 8.122 (d).
On April 6, 2016, Waszczuk filed the Appellant’s Motion for Sanction to
Compel Compliance Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.23.
As the authority 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 that 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 as follows: “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 lower courts
of the grave consequences that 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).
On April 13, 2016, the Record on Appeal was transmitted from the
Superior Court to the Court of the Appeal and filed.
However, the filed Record on Appeal did not include the Administrative
Proceeding Record, which Waszczuk requested in his Appellant Notice
Designating Record on Appeal.

- 14 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
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 have been transmitted and filed in the Court of Appeal within 30 days
from the date Waszczuk filed his Appellant Notice Designating Record on
Appeal, which occurred on June 25, 2015.
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.
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; he believes that he is being denied access to justice in the Sacramento
County Superior Court even while paying all appropriate fees for properly filed
documents.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

A. Waszczuk has good cause to believe that the appellate


review by the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District,
would be not impartial in this case.

After Waszczuk received the October 10, 2017, 3DCA Unpublished


Opinion in Case No. C079524 (anti-SLAPP) and responded with his very
detailed Petition for Rehearing on October 25, 2017, (EXHIBIT E)—
which was denied on November 9, 2017, by 3DCA Presiding Justice
Honorable Vance Raye’s rubber-stamp signature—Waszczuk has lost all
expectation that his Writ of Mandamus appeal would be heard fairly or
result in a different fate than his anti-SLAPP motion appeal did in the
3DCA.

- 15 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
Waszczuk already provided information that two former deputies
who worked in former Governor Gray Davis’s office prior to his recall—
ALJ Marilyn Tays and Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang—were
assigned to deny unemployment benefits to 62-year-old UC Davis Medical
Center (UCDMC) worker Jerry Waszczuk—who served the university for
13 years with a near perfect employment record.
The stake in Waszczuk’s two cases is not Waszczuk’s $20,000
unemployment benefits or damages that the university should pay for
Waszczuk’s wrongful termination.
The issue in this case is whether 3DCA Presiding Justice Hon. Vance
Raye—who is or was member of UC Davis Medical School Leadership
Council—is personally acquainted with two executive from the UCDMC
who are defendants in Waszczuk’s lawsuit. If 3DCA Presiding Justice Hon.
Vance Raye wants to end his legal career by blatantly protecting white-
collar criminals from the University of California, then that is his
prerogative. The Justice Hon. Vance Raye’s biography on the 3DCA
website http://www.courts.ca.gov/2648.htm ,shows that Justice Raye is
very busy man being member of the California Judges Association, the
Council of Chief Judges, and has been involved in many law related
activities including service as chair of the National Governors Association
Staff Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety (1988);
the California Council on Criminal Justice Gang Violence Task Force
(1988); the Task Force on Victim Restitution (1989); chair of the Judicial
Council Committee on Family Law (1992-1993); Executive Committee of
the California Judicial Council Commission on the Future of the Courts and
chair of the Commission’s Family Relations Committee (1993); Member,
American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standards Committee; Member,
- 16 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
California Judicial Council Appellate Courts Advisory Committee and
chair of the Committee’s Legislative Subcommittee; chair of the California
Commission on Judicial Performance; and member of the Elkins Family
Court Reform Task Force. He currently serves as President and Master of
the Bench, Milton Schwartz/ David Levi Inn of Court, and co-chair of the
State Child Welfare Council, in addition to service on numerous civic
associations including the UC Davis Medical School Leadership Council,
Board of Directors of the Center for Health Care Decisions, and the 100
Black Men of Sacramento.
Justice Raye,
If Justice Raye is or was a member of 100 Black Men of Sacramento and
member of UC Davis Medical School Leadership Council , then most likely
Justice Raye knows or knew former UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor
for Equal-Opportunity and Inclusion in the UC Davis Medical Center, Dr.
Shelton Duraisseau, who was and perhaps still is an activist in the Black
community in Sacramento and a friend of former Mayor of Sacramento
Kevin Johnson.
Dr. Shelton Duraisseau retired from the UC Davis Medical Center in 2012.
Just after he retired, Dr. Duraisseau gave an interview to the Sacramento
African-American magazine Sac Cultural Hub
(http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-look-back). The interview was
conducted by Donna Michelle Ramos on August 6, 2012 and was entitled
“A Look Back".
As a psychologist by education, Dr. Shelton Duraisseau was not familiar
with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the
requirements set in 18 C.F.R. §§ 292.203(b) and 292.205 for the operation,
efficiency and use of energy output to be certified as a qualified facility
- 17 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
(QF) (pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 292.20 requirements; Federal Power Act 16
U.S.C. § 824d(a); California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5; State of
California Unfair Business Competition law; Business and Professions
Code § 17200; Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954;
and State of California Revenue and Taxation Code, the laws which
regulates power plant operations and power distribution and sale in the
United States). What was unintentionally disclosed during the interview
was that the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant was
illegally selling and laundering power during the California energy crisis of
1999-2003 and, together with Enron, was gouging prices and defrauding
California ratepayers and taxpayers (see Waszczuk’s March 11, 2014 letter
to UCOP Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg ( EXHIBIT-F ) (Case
C079524 Petition for Rehearing Page No. 45, Vol III, CT 793-801). Dr.
Shelton Duraisseau’s interview with Sac Cultural Hub took place two
months after the UC Regents resumed illegal power sale on June 1, 2012
and nine years after illegal power sale was ceased due to Governor Davis’s
recall from office in 2003. The Dr. Shelton Duraisseau’s name is proudly
displayed on the plaque in the entry of the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration
plant . (EXHIBIT -G)

Besides being an Associate Vice Chancellor for the UC Davis Medical


Center, Dr. Duraisseau was appointed to the Medical Board of California,
Division of Medical Quality by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004.
He was also a member of the California Health Professions Education
Foundation Board of Trustees.
On February 12, 2002, during the Hearing before the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the United States Senate One
- 18 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
Hundred and Seventh Congress Second Session, California Senator Barbara
Boxer stated:
• The University of California says it lost nearly $145 million on its
investments in Enron stock, while two of the state's public­ employee
pension funds also lost nearly $90 million.
The respected California Public Employees Retirement fund, which had
been known as an advocate for stronger corporate governance, was
embarrassed by revelations that it had invested in one of the dubious
partnerships that Enron used to hide its debt from investors. Calpine scales
back.
The University of California lost another $200,000,000 because of building
the 27 MW cogeneration plant in the UC Davis Medical Center to sell
illegally electric power instead to build the Plant in the UC Davis Main
Campus in Davis. Mini Enron white collar crime.
Waszczuk has been a legal resident of the United States of America
since 1982 and a legal resident of California since 1989. Contrary to the
situation in Alonso v. California, 50 Cal. App. 3d 242, 123 Cal. Rptr. 536
(Cal.App.Dist.2 07/30/1975), Waszczuk’s immigration status to receive
unemployment benefits is indisputable; Waszczuk provided all necessary
documents to the State of California Employment Development
Department in order to qualify for his unemployment insurance benefits.
Waszczuk never should have been victimized by two corrupt judicial
officers who were formerly employed together in the office of recalled
California Governor Gray Davis.
The victimization of 66-year-old Waszczuk and the destruction of
his life is being further exacerbated by discrimination against Waszczuk
carried out by justices from the 3DCA.

- 19 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
The highly problematic discriminatory decision in the anti-SLAPP motion
(C079524) is also undeniable evidence of partiality and most likely of 3DCA
Presiding Justice Hon. Vance Raye’s collusion with two defendants in Case No.
C079524 who were participants in white-collar crime related to illegal power sale
from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility and tax fraud due to violation of
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the requirements
set in 18 C.F.R. §§ 292.203(b) and 292.205 for operation, efficiency and use of
energy output to be certified as a qualified facility (QF) (pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §
292.20 requirements; Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a); California Public
Utilities Code Section 218.5; State of California Unfair Business Competition
law; Business and Professions Code § 17200; Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954; and State of California Revenue and Taxation Code.( See
Petition for Review in Case No. S245508.)
B. The US and the California Constitution guarantee a fair
and impartial hearing in a Court of Appeal.

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; therefore, causes in this
appeal must be transferred to the Supreme Court or another appellate district to be
impartially reviewed. The decision should be based on facts and Waszczuk’s
employment record—especially on Waszczuk’s employee performance reviews
for the 13 years of his employment with the University of California (evaluation)

- 20 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
and in the spirit of Paratransit, Inc v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals
Board, No. C063863 (Cal. App. Dist.3 05/31/2012).
The annual evaluations are mandated by UC Davis Policy PPSM 23,
which has the force and effect of state statute (see Kim v. Regents of University of
California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 165).

CONCLUSION

In his Petition for Review filed on November 20, 2017, Waszczuk pointed
out and provided information to the court record of the Supreme Courts that both
Sacramento Courts—trial court and 3DCA—placed Waszczuk into and then
proceeded to manipulate a legal roller coaster. The speed of the legal proceedings
was manipulated by court staff, judges, and justices. Bias and discrimination
should not be permitted in Waszczuk’s cases just because the defendants are high
ranking executives of the University of California.
Sacramento County Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-
2010-0079869, Janet Keyzer v. The Regents of the University of California,
3DCA Case No. C067346 & C077974, included two high ranking University of
California executives—UC Davis Chancellor Larry N. Vanderhoef and UC
President Mark Yudoff. On February 24, 2014, former Gov. Gray Davis Chief
Deputy Legal Secretary Hon. Shellayanne Chang was disqualified by the
Plaintiff’s legal counsel by Peremptory Challenge Code of Civil Proc. § 170.6.
She resurfaced one month later and was assigned to the Waszczuk Petition for
Waszczuk’s Writ of Mandamus. This followed the unprofessional actions of her
friend from CUIAB ALJ Marilyn Tays.
The 3DCA Unpublished Opinion issued on October 10, 2017, in Case
C079524 has made a factual showing of discrimination and bias in violation of
Canon 3(B)(7)(a) of the Code of Judicial Ethics and Government Code section
68070.5—these prohibit communications between appellate and trial judges.
- 21 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
Faced with such corrupt judges serving in the Sacramento Courts, Waszczuk has
no desire to waste further time there being illegally denied and discriminated
against. The partiality, prejudice, discrimination, and bias toward Waszczuk are
likely driven by the Courts’ close proximity to the UCDMC administrators and
are so obvious that Waszczuk feels trapped and hopeless.
On August 30, 2016, with recommendation from the Commission of
Judicial Performance, Waszczuk submitted the complaint to the Sacramento
County Superior Court Presiding Judge Hon. Kevin R. Culhane (EXHIBIT- H).
In his complaint, Waszczuk wrote:

If the presiding judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court


read my request for intervention letter submitted to California
Chief Justice Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye and the last two
motions I submitted to the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
District, then the presiding judge would see how ruthlessly and
despicably the corrupt staff from both courts collaborated to
prevent me from finishing the appeal. Apparently, they know
from information given to them by the university’s mafia that due
to my financial status and health condition, any delay or
derailment of the process would affect my health due to
enormous stress and other serious health problems and that
eventually I would find myself homeless due to being
unemployed for four years and the subsequent financial disaster. I
am not there yet, but the corrupt court personnel collaborating
with the university’s organized crime cost me a significant
amount of money and stress. They did so by blocking the court
record from being submitted to the Court of Appeal for almost
one year and denying my motion to transfer records for sanction
by using a rubber stamp with a Court of Appeal Presiding
Justice’s name on it.
- 22 -
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-339-1982
Cell: 209-663-2977
Email: jjw1980@live.com

November 22, 2017

Laura Huggins, Deputy Trial Counsel


Laura L. Sharek, Investigator Supervisor
The State Bar of California
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel Enforcement
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639

SUBJECT: STIPULATION: FACTS, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DISPOSITION


AND ORDER APPROVING – Filed on October 24, 2017
Complaint against Attorney at Law Douglas E. Stein – Case Number: 15-
O-10110-LMA; Douglas E. Stein’s misrepresentation and misconduct in
the Sacramento Superior Court Case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479 – Wrongful
Termination – Hon. David Brown and Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Case 34-2013-80001699

Dear Ms. Huggins and Ms. Sharek,

This is my response to your STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND


DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING filed in the State Bar of California Hearing
Department, San Francisco on October 24, 2017.

I. INTRODUCTION

I had no time earlier to comment on or respond to the Stipulation Re: Facts, Conclusion
of Law and Disposition and Order Approving that you filed on October 24, 2017 in the
State Bar Court in the above captioned complaint against Douglas E. Stein.

I was preoccupied with my Petition for Rehearing in the Third Court of Appeal (3DCA)
against the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Defendants on December 1, 2014 in the
above wrongful termination case after 3DCA issued an Unpublished Opinion on October
10, 2017. I filed my Petition for Rehearing on October 25, 2017, the day after you filed

1
your Stipulation, which was approved by the State Bar Court Order and signed by Judge
Hon. Lucy Armendariz.

Also, I was preoccupied with the Petition for Review that I submitted on November 18,
2017 to the State of California Supreme Court after my Petition for Rehearing was denied
by the 3DCA Presiding Justice Hon. Vance W. Raye.

II. THE STIPULATION FILED IN THE STATE BAR COURT ON


OCTOBER 24, 2017

I am responding to your STIPULATION for the record and because your filed
STIPULATION in the State Bar Court of California contains unacceptable misstatements
that don’t correspond with the true facts. In addition to misstatements within the FACTS
in the STIPULATION on page no. 10, certain important facts are missing because, for
some reason, the State Bar-assigned Investigator and the Trial Counsels did not
acknowledge the details of the provided documents regarding December 16, 2014 and
information on my meeting with both of you in your San Francisco State Bar office on
October 2, 2017, eight days before 3DCA issued the Unpublished Opinion in the anti-
SLAPP motion.

The State Bar and Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown was informed as early as
December 2014 and January 2015 that Douglas Stein defrauded me of my retainer and
colluded with the opposing lawyer Michael Pott from the Porter Scott law firm in
addition to having an over 20-year friendship with Superior Court Judge Hon. David
Brown. 1 The State Bar was given clear, black-and-white evidence on December 14, 2014
and in January 2015 that Douglas Stein stole my retainer, and the State Bar failed to take
any action about this for almost three years. The State Investigator who was initially
assigned to the cases, Amanda Gormley, made a good effort to prosecute Douglas Stein
in October 2015, but somebody stopped her, and the case and she disappeared altogether
for another two years.

2
In my Petition for Review that I submitted on November 18, 2017, I provided an
explanation of what had happened with my Complaint with the State Bar against Douglas
Stein and my Appeals in two cases in 3DCA. The Partnership between the Court of
Appeal Third Appellate District and the arm of the California Supreme Court State Bar of
California devastated my life completely. I am defenseless against uncontrolled
corruption in the Sacramento courts and the State Bar of California, but this does not
mean that I will be silent about it. I dealt with $100,000,000 worth of fraud, corruption,
and deception in the state court and state agencies almost 20 years ago when retired
Judge from the San Joaquin County Superior Court Hon. Duane Martin did not hesitate to
tell me that “Lawsuits are expensive for immigrants in this country.” State Labor
Commissioner Jose Milan permitted my employer from Texas who was doing business in
California to violate state overtime law, and 119 workers lost over $1,000,000. The
3DCA Unpublished Opinion in Case No. C030005 is related to overtime, and the
unpublished 3DCA opinion helped to restore proper Industrial Welfare Commission
Order (IWC), which applied to overtime pay for Power Plant Operators working on an
alternative work schedule in the State of California.

Waszczuk v. Destec Energy, Inc., issued in 1999, is related to the mentioned overtime
fraud permitted by the State Labor Commissioner Jose Milan. If you would like to see the
documents about it, I could provide them to you without a problem.

My wrongful termination cases in the Sacramento State Court are similar to a


continuance of the previous wrongful termination case against Destec Energy, Inc. almost
20 years ago because of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) involvement in my
wrongful termination case against Destec Energy, Inc. Almost twenty years ago, based on
my information, PG&E recovered $100,000,000 from Destec Energy Inc., a subsidiary of
the major power producer Dynegy, Inc., for its ratepayers and California’s taxpayers.

In similar misconduct to Douglas Stein, my attorney misrepresented me and did not


inform me that his law firm also represented PG&E and did not secure an agreement with
PG&E for the 25% promised to me between PG&E executives, myself, and my lawyer in
his office. When PG&E filed the lawsuit against Destec, it was too late to secure an
agreement, and I, my lawyer, and his law firm lost $25,000,000. Instead of getting at least
$1,000,000, I got a token from PG&E in the amount of $150,000 and a token in the same
amount from my lawyer by suing them both and settling with them out of court. It is
apparent that PG&E breached the Settlement Agreement by participating in the case
together with the Regents that was pending since August 2000 with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). The case was filed in August 2000 with FERC against
CAISO. The Case included the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW and the possibility that
3
the UC Berkeley and UC San Diego cogeneration plants were involved in the illegal
powers sale and tax fraud.

My other lawyer in the overtime case, Anton Zybach, exactly like Douglas Stein, robbed
his clients of the money they gave him, and he has not been permitted to practice law in
the State of California since 1998.

I am writing to you about these previous cases to let you know that corruption,
conspiracy, deception, and crooked lawyers are not new to me.

III. FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW IN THE ATTACHMENT TO


STIPULATION FILED ON OCTOBER 24, 2017 IN THE STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA

A. FACTS Page No. 10 § 4, § 5 & § 8

• §4. Between June 2, 2014 and December 3, 2014, respondent wrote checks to
himself totaling $15,375 for attorney fees. At the time respondent issued these
checks, he did so under the mistaken belief that the fee agreement provided for
advanced fees in the amount of $14,500.
• §5. Between June 2, 2014 and December 2, 2014, respondent issued fourteen
checks and initiated thirty-one debits directly from the trust account totaling
$4,991.82 for personal transactions.

It is my understanding from these two paragraphs that Douglas Stein from June 2, 2014
to December 2, 2014 withdrew from the trust account $4,991.82 and that, on December
2, 2014, Douglas Stein had $14,508.18 left in the trust account of the $19,500 he
deposited on June 2, 2014. However, on December 3, 2014, Stein must have withdrawn
$14,702.51 if the account reached a negative balance, as stated in paragraph No. 7:

• § 8. On December 3, 2014, the client’s trust account had a negative balance of


$194.33.

The above paragraphs do not make sense if § No. 6 states that the respondent deposited
$600 he got from his mother on October 21, 2014 and $200 on November 12, 2014
according to paragraph No. 7. Thus, it indicates that the trust account was empty in
October 2014.

B. FACTS Page No. 11 § 10

4
• §10 states: On December 16, 2014, Waszczuk terminated respondent as legal
counsel due to a disagreement regarding case strategy.

Waszczuk did not terminate Douglas Stein due to a disagreement regarding case strategy.
Waszczuk dismissed Stein for gross misrepresentation, failure to properly amend
complaint, not objecting to the anti-SLAPP motion, defrauding Waszczuk of his
retainer, and especially sending a text message to Waszczuk on December 15, 2014 about
his twenty years plus friendship with Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown.

C. FACTS Page No. 11 § 16

• §16 states that, between June 2, 2014 and December 16, 2014, the respondent
developed a friendship with Waszczuk. During this time, Waszczuk purchased
gifts for the respondent's daughter and offered to pay for the respondent's living
expenses. Waszczuk also encouraged and permitted the respondent to use
Waszczuk's credit cards for personal expenses.

I am not sure where this idea came from. There was no friendship from June 2,
2014 to December 16, 2014. My good relations with Douglas Stein ended after he got
paid $ 20,000 on June 2, 2014 and after he filed the First Amended Complaint on June
16, 2014 and visited my home at the beginning of July; thereafter, Stein turned evil. (See:
Initial Complaint submitted to the State Bar on January 28, 2015.)

I had a friendly relationship with Stein from December 2013 to July 2014, not
from June 2, 2014 to December 16, 2014. I hired Stein in November 2013 for the Writ of
Mandamus against the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board The case is still pending
in the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (Case No. C079254).

After he visited my home in July 2014, I did not see Stein until November 25,
2014, when I drove to his residence in El Dorado Hills and gave him $500.00 to amend
the Second Amended Complaint, which he filed with a suspended attorney license
against with collusion of Defendants Attorney Michael Pott and Judge of Superior Court
Hon. David Brown . He should return this $500 as well. It was not a gift. It was for
repairing the damage he did with the First and Second Amended Complaint. I believe that
it was in June 2014 that I bought the small iPad for his daughter and repaired her Mac
laptop computer. I did not offer to pay for Stein’s living expenses. This is a crazy made

5
up out blue statement for unknown to me reason. I permitted Stein to use my credit card
for court filing, gasoline to drive to the Sacramento Court to file documents, and the
office supplies needed to run the two lawsuits. I also bought him a new scanner, printer to
heve proper tools to handle the lawsuits from his home. Also I bought a new briefcase to
make him look like an attorney in the court.
Stein is friend of my former coworker from UC Davis Medical Center to whom I
provided representation in the complaint against department management for “ Does
not meet expectation performance review , letter of expectation and whistle blowing
complaint” under the UC Davis Policies and Procedures .

D. FACTS Page No. 11 § 15

• § 15 states: Between June 2, 2014 and December 16, 2014, respondent performed
legal services related to the Regents case, which amounted to approximately 100
billable hours.

On July 18, 2014, Douglas Stein sent a letter to Liberty Mutual Life Assurance
Company of Boston in regard to my being denied a supplemental disability claim in
2011. What caught my attention in the letter was Mr. Stein's statement that he spent 350
hours of work over 6 weeks on my wrongful termination first amended complaint.

I was surprised that Liberty responded to Mr. Stein's letter and offered to pay a
settlement of $1,900.00. Douglas Stein, who had not been hired for this case, tried to
force me through intimidation and threats to sign this settlement. If it had been at least
$25,000.00, I would have considered the offer. Stein sent a letter without my
authorization to Liberty based on documents he received for my wrongful termination in
May 2014, which included a complaint with the State Insurance Commissioner’s office
against Liberty for denying my Short-Term Disability in the Fall of 2011. The complaint
was not resolved by State Insurance Commissioner. In addition to the complaint against
Liberty, furthermore, Stein received from me a letter dated October 13, 2013 to the
Liberty Chief Operating Officer, in which I demanded to be paid $500,000 for the harm
that Liberty did to me by conspiring with UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources
executives, depriving me of income by denying me the benefits to which I was entitled.

In May or June, I asked Stein if he wanted to handle it or add Liberty to the


lawsuit as a co-defendant. Douglas Stein refused to do this and did not want to hear about
it. The mentioned 350 hours that Stein supposedly worked on my wrongful termination
translates to $64,750, considering Douglas Stein’s hourly billing practices of $185/hour
according to retainer agreement.

6
The letter that Stein sent to Liberty without my knowledge and authorization
because he was devastated financially and, having a lot of legal knowledge about medical
and insurance claims, attempted to extort money from Liberty using my 2011 claim
against Liberty. He was apparently successful, since Liberty sent him a settlement for me
to sign with a $1,920.00 pay off. Stein was furious at my refusal to sign the settlement. It
should be investigated by State Bar how much Liberty offered his effort to make the
problem vanish . If I had been offered at least $25,000 from this deal, I would have
considered signing. I even told Stein that if he got more money from Liberty for me, I
would add more money to the wrongful termination. He did not want to hear such a
proposition and furiously demanded that I sign the Settlement with Liberty for $1,928.70.

It is a possibility that Liberty agreed to pay Stein a lot more as legal fees, than damages
Liberty did to me as the victim. Another possibility was that University Attorney Michael
Pott asked Stein to take care of Liberty so as not to have Liberty as a potential co-
defendant or any witnesses from Liberty in my wrongful termination lawsuits against
University and nine individual defendants who were involved in m short term disability
claim Liberty Assurance Company of Boston.

After the deal with Liberty failed because I turned down the settlement for $ 1,900,
Douglas Stein turned to Michael Pott and offered to him to sell my case. In September,
Stein asked for help from David Greenwald, the owner of the internet newspaper “The
Davis Vanguard” where Stein publicized my wrongful termination in this venue in June
2014. In September 2014 at the same time Stein was dealing and wheeling with Michael
Pott to file the Second Amended complaint with suspended attorney license, Greenwald
got information from UC Davis under the Public Record Act about an unspecified lawsuit
from 2007 in which UC Davis paid $340,000 in legal fees and provided it to Stein. This
happened just before Stein filed the Second Amended Complaint in close collaboration
with UC attorney Michael Pott and with the help of the Superior Court Judge Hon.
David Brown.

All of the facts indicate that Douglas Stein cut a deal with Michael Pott. Most likely,
David Greenwald knows something about why Stein needed information about some
thousands of legal fees UC Davis for some lawsuit. Greenwald is always begging for
donations to run his internet-based Davis Vanguard. The best proof that Stein sold my
lawsuit to Michael Pott was that I gave Stein $500.00 on November 25, 2014 to amend
the complaint, and, instead of an amended complaint, I was attacked by an anti-SLAPP
motion on five days later December 1, 2014, which in fact was the redacted old demurrer.

The even better proof is that, in November, I offered $20,000 extra for Stein to get
somebody to help him run the wrongful termination case. Stein was completely broke in
November 2014, but he did not take the money $ 20,000 from me. On December 3, 2013
his trust account was negative in balance. . The anti-SLAPP was an emergency measure
crafted at hoc over Thanksgiving of 2014. The real deal between Douglas Stein and

7
Michael Pott was not the anti-SLAPP motion, but it was a Summary Judgment which
would be granted by Judge Brown to university and it would end my wrongful
termination lawsuit. Michael Pott would file the anti-SLAPP in July 2014 if it would be
beneficial for his client. It would be done of the First Amended Compliant which was no
different than Second Amended Complaint. My Petition for Rehearing filed in 3DCA on
October 25, 2017 described in detail how Pot and Stein and Judge Brown were planned to
end my lawsuit. (Enclose)

When I questioned Stein on the phone on what I believe was December 16, 2014 about
my retainer and empty trust account with Wells Fargo Bank, he told me that I should not
be worry and that he would have money in January 2015 to pay me back. Stein never got
any money in January 2015 because he was fired on December 16, 2014 and Michael
Pott quit or got fired by Porter Scott in January 2015 .
The Court Hearing to hear the Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike (that was unopposed
by Stein was scheduled to be heard) on December 30, 2014. State Bar investigators
should look at the Douglas Stein

Stein is important in this whole mess. He the lead to find out who from the University
of California approved the deal to pay Stein for his service to end my lawsuit in
December 2014. Most likely the UC General Counsel Charles Robinson was behind
operation. Robinson is one of many white collar criminals from CAISO responsible
directly for California Energy Crisis . He was transferred from CAISO to the UC Office
of the President in January 2007 and I was hit first time in January 2007 UC white collar
criminals in attempt to end my employment with UC Davis Medical Center. I have no
choice but to ask District Attorney and FBI in three different counties to question Stein
and Pott and others. $ 300, 000 and collusion with opposite party attorney and Judge of
Superior Court is a very serious stuff. It is a lot more serious than Waszczuk’ friendship
with broken financially Stein and more serious and more important than Waszczuk’ $
20,000 retainer stolen by Stein.

IV. FINANCIAL CONDITION

The calculations on Page No. 7 are wrong. They should be $15,694.33 plus the $500.00
that I gave to Stein on November 25, 2014 to amend the complaint. This totals
$16,194.33.

$14,694.33 + $4,500 = $19,194.33, not the $20,000 that I paid to Stein as retainer. The
stipulation must be corrected, and a new order must be issued.

V. CONCLUSION

By his misconduct and collusion with the defense attorney Michael Pott and Judge of
Superior Court Hon. David Brown, Douglas Stein caused me to lose $200,000 from my

8
retirement savings by setting me up for the frivolous anti-SLAPP motion, which was
dragged out for three years by lawyers and judges with help from the State Bar of
California. Taking $20,000 from a client and not telling that client about SLAPP and anti-
SLAPP is an unforgivable crime.

Additionally, I am curious if the Judge of the State Bar Hon. Lucy Armendariz is in any
way related to an Attorney from San Francisco, Ms. Geraldine Armendariz, SB# #97196

The final question is: How Douglas Stein would repay the stolen money if his attorney’s
license is suspended and his financial situation is not better than it was in 2014 .? When I
filed complaint with State Bar , I was informed by State Bar that I would be reimbursed
by State Bar from the State Bar Client Security Fund ? Please let me know when I get my
money back and who is going to pay. Every licensed attorney should be obligated by the
State Bar of California to carry malpractice liability insurance than problems to recover
the stolen money would be easier to solve .

Sincerely,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

CC: Judge of State Bar Court Hon . Lucy Armendariz


California Attorney General office

Enclosed:

Petition for Rehearing filed in 3DCA on 10/25/2017 Case No. C079524 (Petition
Denied)
Petition fie Review (Supreme Court Case No. S245508) Filed on Nov. 18, 2017
January 28, 2015 -Complaint against Douglas Stein (Amanda Gormley )
July 18,2014 -Douglas Stein letter to Liberty Assurance Company plus Liberty offer to
settle short term disability claim and 10/19/2013 letter to Liberty CEO David Long .

9
Court of Appeal Case No. C079524

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents,

APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING

On Appeal from a Judgment of the Superior Court,


County of Sacramento
The Honorable David I. Brown, Judge
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34201300155479CUWTGDC

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com

1
TO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
APP-008
Court of App<l&I Caoo Number.
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELL.ATE DISTRICT, DIVISION CIVIL
C079524
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY {N9me, Sta!e Bar number. Md sd1ress): Superior Court case Number.

-Jarosluw Waszczuk In Pro Ptlr 34-2013-00155479


2216 Katzakian Way FOR COURT USE ONLY
Lodi, CA 95242
TELEPHONE NO" 209.663.2977 FAX NO. (Optlon81): 2 09 .3 70. 82 8 I
E-MP.ILADDRESS (Op/jonal) _jjW J 90@liVe.COITI

mORNEY FOR !Natnt1): Jaroslaw Waszczuk (self respresented) ln Pro Per

APPELLANT/PETITIONER: Jaroslaw Waszczuk

RESPONDENT/REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CA

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS


(Check one): 0 INITIAL CERTIFICATE 0 SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE
Notice: Please read rules 8.208 and 8.488 before completing this form. You may use this form for the initial
certificate In an appeal when you file your brief or a prebriefing motion, application, or opposition to such a
motion or application in the Court of Appeal, and when you file a petition for an extraordinary writ. You may
also use this form as a supplemental certificate when you learn of changed or additional information that must
be disclosed.

1. This form is being submitted on behalf of the following party (name): JAROSLAW WASZCZUK

2. a. 0 There are no interested entities or persons that must be listed in this certificate under rule 8.208.
b. D Interested entities or persons required to be listed under rule 8.208 are as follows:

Full name of Interested Nature of interest


entity or person (Explain):

( 1)

(2)
(3)

(4)

(5)

D Continued on attachment 2.
The undersigned certifies that the above-listed persons or entities (col'porations, partnerships, finns, or any other
association, but not including government entities or th air agencies) have either (1) an ownership interest of 10 perc,nt or
more in the party if it is an entity; or (2) a financial or other i nterest in the outcome of the proceeding that the justices
should consider in determining whether to disqualify themselves, as defined in rule 8.208(e)(2).

Date: October 25, 2017

JAROSALAW WASZCZUK
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

Page 1 of 1
Form Approved for OptloMI Use C.I. Rul�• of Coo�. rule& 8.208, 8.488
Judicia CouncJ of California
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS �c:-.o.Jrl,nfa.ca.gav
APP-008 [Rov. January 1, 2009]

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

II. THE COURTS' BIAS, DISCRIMINATION, AND PREJUDICE TOWARD


WASZCZUK AND FAVORITISM GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANTS AND
DEFENDANTS' ATORNEYS... ............................... ............ ...........4

A. The Oral Argument...... ....................................... ... .............. ......... 4


B. The Court's Preliminary Statement in the Opinion...................................8
C. The old Defendants' demurrer filed as the Special Motion to Strike by the
Defendants' attorney Michael Pott on December 1, 2014 ............... ........ 10
D. Waszczuk's pleading in the Superior Court entitled "Plaintiffs Ex-Parte
Application for Postponement"
.......................................... ..............15
E. Waszczuk's Opposition to the Defendants' anti-SLAPP Motion and
Waszczuk's Motion for Reconsideration...... ..................... ................. 15
F. Waszczuk's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion because
of violation by the Defendants of Discovery Stay Code of Civ. Proc. §
425.16(g)............................................................ ..................... 16
G. Appellant Mediation Statement.................................... ............ ........ 17

III. THE MERIT OF THE CASE.................................... ............ ..........18


A.Superior Court Judgment Affirmation by the Court of Appeal ......... ..........18
B.
Waszczuk's Proposed third Amended Complaint ........................ ......... 20
C.The Defense Michael Pott's August 19, 2014 confer letter and Douglas Stein's
response dated August 26, 2014 ...... ........................... ..................... .20
D. The Second Amended Complaint is not valid.............................. .........22
IV. ARGUMENTS..................... ............................. ............... ......... 27
A. First Cause of Action ............................................. ......................27
B. Second Cause of Action: Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage... 31
C. Third Cause Of Action [Harassment and Failure to Prevent Harassment,
Discrimination, Retaliation: Government Code § 12940 (A)] ... .................32
D. The Fourth Cause of Action - Violation of California Government Code
Section 8547 .10(b), which allows people to sue University of California
employees who intentionally engage in acts of reprisal........................ .33
3
TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE AND THE HONORABLE
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT:

PETITION FOR REHEARING


FOR ERROR IN LAW OR PROCEDURAL PROCESS

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to rule 8.268 of the California Rules of Court, appellant


Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk (hereafter Waszczuk) petitions this Court for a
rehearing in the above-entitled matter after the Court issued an unpublished
opinion, dated October 10, 2017. The Court of Appeal, by the issued
Opinion, affirmed the April 14, 2015, State of California, County of
Sacramento Court Judgment signed by the Honorable Judge David I. Brown
(AOB 2) (Vol.VI, CT 1554-1562).
With the Judgement granted to the five Defendants, MICHAEL
BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
OROPEZA, and BRENT SEIFERT, the Special Motion to Strike entered
judgment in favor of the five individual Defendants pursuant to the Code of
Civil Procedure, Section 425.16. The Court Order also granted to the
Defendants the right to strike the first four Causes of Action (COA) from the
Second Amended Complaint (SAC), which was crafted and unlawfully filed
against Waszczuk’s will and instruction by Waszczuk’s former attorney
Douglas Stein on September 30, 2014 (Vol. I, CT 170-244). The SAC was
filed by Stein with a suspended attorney’s license and with help or
collaboration from the Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott, and the defective
SAC was approved by the Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown (Vol. I

8
CT 164-168). Waszczuk is submitting this Petition for rehearing because the
Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District (hereafter
Court or 3DCA) unpublished Court Opinion in the above captioned case was
issued by the Court with unbelievable blunt bias against Waszczuk and with
favoritism given to the Defendants. Waszczuk views the Court decision as
prejudicial and discriminatory against and a large part of the Opinion as
merely a redacted Defendants’ Respondent Brief (RB) and other documents
filed by the Defendants in the Superior Court.
In the biased Opinion, the Court did not even mention the Oral
Argument which took place on August 28, 2017. The Superior Court and the
Court of Appeal also completely failed to address in their ruling the breached
2009 Settlement Agreement by the Defendants in relation to the Code of
Civil Procedure section 425.16 and to Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146
Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos) in the light of Navellier v. Sletten 29
Cal.4th 82, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530, 52 P.3d 703 (ARB 47). Regardless of the
fact that Waszczuk had nothing to do with the defective Second Amended
Complaint filed by his former attorney Douglas Stein with a suspended
attorney license, the Superior Court and the 3DCA completely failed to
properly address the law and establish whether Waszczuk had a probability
of prevailing in the first causes of action defectively pleaded by Waszczuk’s
attorney sufficient to meet the minimum requirement under § 425.16, subd.
(b).
The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal failed to establish
whether the Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike pursuant to § 425.16 had
anything to do with Waszczuk’s complaint in furtherance of his right of
petition or free speech under the United States and California Constitutions
in connection with a public issue (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)), or whether it is a
form of abusive litigation to throw Waszczuk out of court and not let him

9
find out through litigation about the Defendants’ electric power laundering
from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility in relation
to enormous tax fraud.
The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal completely failed to
establish that their speech and writings are constitutionally protected, and
both Courts’ decisions are fraudulent in light of information and evidence
that Waszczuk provided, which were ignored after citing Vergos v. McNeal
(Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165)
and repeating aspects of the Defendants’ Respondents Brief (RB 16) in a
redacted statement that Waszczuk’s disregard of the Rules of Court should
not be overlooked, citing Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Ca1.App.4th 1229, 1246-
1247 and other cases in the Court Opinion PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
on page 2. In this matter, Waszczuk agrees with the Superior Court and the
Court Appeal. However, both Courts should apply the same rules to both
parties and should not discriminate against Waszczuk and use Waszczuk’s
unintentional mistakes against him because of his lack of proper knowledge
in litigations while ignoring the Defense attorney’s mistakes and violation of
court rules and conspiracy against Waszczuk regarding Waszczuk’s
dismissed attorney, Douglas Stein.
Instead, the Court should writ something about the age discrimination
law by the Defendants, Skelly Law (AOB 15) [Waszczuk Ex-Parte
Application] (Vol. II 493-494) [Brief for Skelly Reviewer] (Vol. IV CT 983-
1005) regarding two of Waszczuk’s employees’ performance reviews for
2010/2011 and 2011/2012. Additionally, by some statements written in the
Opinion, the Court implies that the 66-year-old Waszczuk is an obsessive
lunatic.
Waszczuk was unlawfully fired from his job at age 61 without the
possibility of obtaining new employment and lost his house. Waszczuk’s life

10
was entirely destroyed after 13 years of service to the University of California
with an outstanding employee record, provided in [SAC] (Vol. I CT 175).
Waszczuk is happy in having no need to be more aggrieved by the Court of
Appeal than already caused by the Superior Court Judges Hon. David Brown
and Hon. Shelleyanne Chang.

II. THE COURTS’ BIAS, DISCRIMINATION, AND PREJUDICE


TOWARD WASZCZUK AND FAVORITISM GIVEN TO THE
DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANTS’ ATORNEYS

A. The Oral Argument


On June 19, 2017, Pursuant to Rule 8.256 (c)(1) of the California
Rules of Court, Waszczuk conditionally requested the Oral Argument due to
the procedural posture of this case.
In his June 19, 2017 Oral Argument request, Waszczuk wrote to the
Court:
“JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, Plaintiff and Appellant (hereafter
Waszczuk),request respond to the June 9, 2017 (enclosed) inquiry by the
Court as to whether oral argument is sought by Appellant in the instant
matter. Due to the procedural posture of this case, Waszczuk conditionally
request oral argument.
The conditional request is a result of the new finding and discovery after
Waszczuk filed this appeal in June 11, 2015 and the new facts and
discovery basically changed the venue of the case and appeal. In June -July
2015, Waszczuk discover new facts and why Waszczuk was
unscrupulously hunted down since January 2007 by Respondents and
Defendants until his employment was terminated in December 2012 with
the University of California after 13 years of service.
After the discovery of new facts which are partly outlined in Waszczuk’s
Augmented Record on Appeal, Waszczuk intended to File Third Amended
11
Complaint) in the Sacramento County Superior Court but Waszczuk
intentionally was blocked by the Respondents Motion to Stay on September
25, 2015 before Waszczuk actually was able pursue his idea to file the
Third Amended Complaint.
The new evidentiary material and corresponding arguments with
Appellant's Reply Brief need some clarification from Waszczuk especially
some statements from the February 2009 Settlement -Agreement, the
Regents of the University of California signed with Waszczuk. The grossly
violated and breached by the Respondents the February 2009 Settlement -
Agreement is the written contract enforceable only by the State of
California Courts if breached or violated by either party.
For the above reasons Waszczuk reverently requests that oral argument is
permitted and scheduled by the Court to afford Waszczuk an opportunity to
present and discuss the matter. Waszczuk, also considerately requesting
from the Court, not to grant Respondent’s any Motion to Strike before the
scheduled oral argument date.
Waszczuk’ conditional request for oral argument is based on the
appeal records and files in this matter.”
Waszczuk’ conditional request for oral argument is based on the
appeal records and files in this matter.”
The above case was ordered on the calendar for a hearing on Monday,
August 28, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. Waszczuk argued for himself in Pro Per, and
the Defendants were represented by an attorney from the Porter Scott law
firm, David Burkett.
According to Waszczuk’s recollection, in his 15 minutes allotted time
to speak, he pointed out to the Court that this appeal never should and never
would take place if Waszczuk’s attorney Douglas Stein would file a motion
pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 to enforce the Settlement

12
Agreement that the Regents of the University of California signed with
Waszczuk in February 2009 after Stein filed the First Amended Complaint
on June 16, 2014. Waszczuk visited Douglas Stein in El Dorado Hills just
before the Defendants filed the Special Motion to Strike with the hope that
Stein would cure the faulty pleading in the Second Amended Complaint.
Stein finally agreed to amend the complaint after Waszczuk gave him an
extra $500.00 in cash, thinking that the extra money would encourage Stein
to properly amend the complaint (AOB Page #14). Stein was very pleased to
have the $500.00 cash bonus from Waszczuk before Thanksgiving.
As Waszczuk pointed out to the Court, a few days later, instead of the
Third Amended Complaint to cure the defective SAC, Douglas Stein with
the Defense Attorney Michael Pott served Waszczuk the Special Motion to
Strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP) in order
to teach Waszczuk a lesson about the First Amendment.
The last of Waszczuk’s issues during the oral argument was that he
attempted to amend the defective Second Amended Complaint and to dismiss
all individual Defendants after dismissing Douglas Stein on December 16,
2017. However, the Hon. Judge David Brown did not let Waszczuk do this.
In the October 10, 2017 Opinion, the Court did not mention by one
word that an Oral Argument took place nor that the Court Opinion
completely ignored Waszczuk’s argument and the information that his
attorney took Waszczuk’s money and did nothing for it.
The Court of Appeal shall not ignore Waszczuk’s Oral Argument
about the money that Waszczuk paid Stein for representation. The fact that
Stein purposely did not inform Waszczuk about the anti-SLAPP law and the
grave consequences of this law for Waszczuk’s wrongful termination lawsuit
is proof of the collusion between him and the Defense Attorney Michael Pott.
Hiding information from Waszczuk about the anti-SLAPP law and teaching

13
Waszczuk a lesson about the First Amendment in the form of a Special
Motion to Strike pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 425.16 for the cost of a
$20,000 retainer to destroy Waszczuk’s lawsuit and devastate his life further
is too extreme, and the Court of Appeal should recognize this.
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.

14
B. The Court’s Preliminary Statement in the Opinion

On pages no. 1 & 2 of the Preliminary Statement, the Court stated:


“We must reiterate what the trial court admonished plaintiff. “At the
outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated
like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater
consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific
Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941, 944.) Thus, as is the
case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules
of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247;
see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.” We add
that plaintiff has an equal responsibility to follow the California Rules
of Court applicable to appeals, no matter how sympathetic his claims
may seem to himself or us. It is a responsibility he has ignored to his
peril.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 and selling electric power and for tax
evasion, but those allegations are not supported 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 wide-ranging allegations plaintiff lodges which are
untethered to the second amended complaint or the special motion to
strike. We are compelled to ignore any factual allegations that are not
supported by citations to the record.”

Waszczuk sincerely apologizes to the Courts for his unintentional


mistakes in relation to the record on appeal. However, Waszczuk found the

15
Court statement discriminatory, biased, and prejudicial toward himself.
Regardless of what Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein and the
Defense attorney Michael Pott did to Waszczuk, forcing him to maintain his
lawsuit in Pro Per, the Court of law shall not use a double standard giving
preferential treatment to the Defendants.
The Court of Appeal record (Register of Action) shows that this
appeal was initially declared by the Court as fully briefed on August 23, 2016
after Waszczuk filed his Appellant Reply Brief. It appears that two and half
months later, after the case was fully briefed, the Court reviewed the case
and issued the following order on November 9, 2016:
“On the court's own motion, the respondent's brief filed July 25, 2016,
is stricken for failure to ‘[s]upport any reference to a matter in the
record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record
where the matter appears.’ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)((1)(c).)
A respondent's brief with proper citations to the record must be filed
on or before December 15, 2016.” RAYE, P.J.”
The Order was electronically filed on 11/9/2016 by Deputy Clerk
Anita Kenner.
In their July 25, 2016 RB, on pages 16 and 17 – “LEGAL
ARGUMENTS” – the Defendants cited Nwosu v. Uba (2004) (122
Ca1.App.4th) and complained about how Waszczuk disregarded the Rules
of Court by not citing the record and had their entire RB Brief stricken, which
had to be corrected and refiled. The incident with the RB in November 2016
indicates that the Court reviewed and screened all briefs to issue the Opinion.
If Waszczuk’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules was his
failure to cite the record, then Waszczuk would appreciate if he would be
given the same chance as the Defendants’ attorney to correct his briefs and
resubmit. For the above reason alone, Waszczuk’s Petition for Rehearing

16
should be granted because Waszczuk sees many Court statements in the
issued Opinion that do not correspond with the facts. Waszczuk does not
understand why the Court placed Waszczuk’s appeal in abeyance for another
10 months after the Defendants’ attorney corrected their RB and refiled on
December 15, 2016. The Court’s delay to resolve the appeal for almost a year
translated to Waszczuk being unemployed for another year and a $70,000
loss for Waszczuk, since he was dismissed by the Defendants in December
2012. Five years without a job translated to $350,000 lost since December
2012. The October 10, 2016 Court Opinion added more devastation to
Waszczuk’s life and health.

C. The old Defendants’ demurrer filed as the Special Motion to Strike


by the Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott on December 1, 2014

On September 1, 2017, just two days after Waszczuk’s Argument in the


Court of Appeal Third Appellate District (3DCA), the State Bar of California
suspended the attorney license for Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas
Stein for matters supposedly unrelated to Waszczuk’s complaint violations:
the failure to pay the Bar members’ fees and Administrative Inactive/MCLE
noncompliance. The Case No. 15-O-10110, previously No. 14-31877,
against Douglas Stein, who defrauded Waszczuk of his $20,000 retainer, has
been pending in the State Bar since December 2014, as long as the Special
Motion to Strike that the Defendants filed against Waszczuk on December 1,
2014 [5/1/15 letter to State Bar Senior Trial Counsel Donald R. Steedman]
(AOB 18-19;27) (Vol. III 672-680). Waszczuk made multiple inquires with
the State Bar and asked California Senator Kathleen Galgiani to help resolve
the case against Douglas Stein in a timely manner. Apparently, the State Bar
was timing the resolution in Stein’s case with the 3DCA resolution in

17
Waszczuk’s Special Motion to Strike appeal, which is connected to Douglas
Stein.
On September 8, 2017, Waszczuk received a subpoena from the State
Bar to appear as a witness in the State Bar Court to testify against Douglas
Stein on October 12, 2017, just two days after the 3DCA issued the
Unpublished Opinion affirming the Superior Court’s Judgement.
On September 9, 2017, a State Bar Notice of Disciplinary Charges
was filed against Douglas Stein in the State Bar Court in relation to
Waszczuk’s complaint.
On October 11, 2017, Waszczuk informed State Bar Investigator Ms.
Laura Sharek and Deputy Trial Counsel Ms. Laura Higgins that Waszczuk
was ill and asked for a trial continuance for one month.
On October 12, 2017, the California State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel
Ms. Laura Higgins informed Waszczuk that he had no need to appear on
the Bar Court Trial and that Douglas Stein had agreed to return the
advanced costs specified in the fee agreement ($14,500) in addition to the
costs Waszczuk incurred when closing Douglas Stein’s Wells Fargo
account.
During his preparation for the trial set for October 12, 2017 in the
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-SLAPP motion was filed just
5 days after Waszczuk visited Douglas Stein’s residence in Eldorado Hills
on November 25, 2014 and paid him $500. 00 to fix the Second Amended
Complaint that was filed on September 30, 2014 with a suspended attorney
license in collaboration with the Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott. (Oral
Arguments on August 28, 2017)

18
While examining the documents, Waszczuk noticed that the Special
Motion to Strike all pleadings included five individual Defendant
Declarations and one Declaration that was not by a Defendant are the old,
altered Defendants’ Demurrer documents striking Waszczuk’s First
Amended Complaint or part of it with the pleading front pages, which instead
read “Amended Complaint filed: September 30, 2014,” whereas in the
Second Amended Complaint (SAC), all filed pleadings read “Amended
Complaint filed June 16, 2014,” referring to the First Amended Complaint
(FAC).
• APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS (VOL. I , CT 255-256)
• DECLARATION OF STEPHEN CHILCOTT – HR EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR (Vol. II CT 338-343)
• DECLARATION OF DANESHA NICHOLS (Vol. II, CT 386-388)
• DECLARATION OF WENDI DELMENDO (Vol. II, CT 394-396)
• DECLARATION OF CINDI G. OROPEZA (Vol. II, CT 404-406)
• DECLARATION OF BRENT SEIFERT (Vol. II, CT 408-410)
• MEMORANDUM OF POINT AND AUTHORITIES (Vol. II, CT
451-475)
• DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BOYD (Vol. II, CT 440-442)
• NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
(Vol. I, 251, CT 251-254)
• DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. POTT (Vol. I, CT 258-259)
Michael W. Pott is an expert in SLAPP law and public employment
law, and, as the Defendants’ attorney, he ad-hoc redacted and converted his
July 2014 Demurrer to anti-SLAPP motion against Waszczuk’s First
Amended Complaint and filed the defective pleading. The Proof of Service
attached to Michael Pott’s Declaration in Support of the Special Motion to
Strike states that:
19
“On the date below, I served the following document:
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. POTT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
COMPLAINT. Declaration was dated July 23, 2014 and was sent to
the Law office of Douglas E. Stein.”

The fact is that the Special Motion to Strike was fabricated from the
old Demurrer in a rush manner during the long Thanksgiving weekend when
the University of California employees are off work for four days (ARB 26)
(Vol. V, CT 1479;1515). 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 Waszczuk’s defective complaint
pleading for $500. The Defense attorney Michael Pott filed the old Demurrer
on December 1, 2014 as an anti-SLAPP motion, which never should have
been accepted by the Court . A special motion to strike is governed by section
Code of Civ. Proc. 425.16(f):

“The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the
complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it
deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court
for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion
unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing.”

The pleadings filed as a Special Motion to Strike fabricated during the


Thanksgiving weekend and filed by the Defense attorney Michael Pott on
December 1, 2014 are not the valid Special Motion to Strike court document,

20
but a fraudulent court document that should be rejected and dismissed by the
court.
Waszczuk’s attorney did not file an objection to the Defendants’
Motion to Strike due on December 15, 2014, and he panicked when
Waszczuk told him on December 15, 2014 that he would report him to the
State Bar, then sent Waszczuk a text message saying that he had known the
Honorable Judge David Brown for more than 20 years and would get an
extension to file. The text message about the Hon. Judge Brown 1 was the
main reason that Waszczuk fired Stein. Waszczuk hates corruption and
corrupted lawyers.
Waszczuk is bringing up the issue of the old Defendants’ Demurrer
because it shows that the Special Motion of Strike was fabricated at the last
minute during the Thanksgiving weekend, which makes Waszczuk believe
that the Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott and Waszczuk’s attorney Douglas

21
Stein had something completely different on their minds to end Waszczuk’s
lawsuit.

D. Waszczuk’s pleading in the Superior Court entitled “Plaintiff’s


Ex-Parte Application for Postponement”

On December 29, 2014, Waszczuk filed a pleading in the Superior


Court entitled Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Application for Postponement (Vol. II &
Vol. III CT 485-656).
In his “Ex-Parte Application,” Waszczuk requested from the Court
that the Court dismiss the pending anti-SLAPP motion "without
possibility to refile.” (p. 14, II. 14-15); (2)
The Court declared Waszczuk’s Ex-Parte Application defective in the
Court Order dated December 30, 2014 (Vol. III CT 657-658) and denied
Waszczuk’s requests. However, the December 30, 2014 Court Order shows
that Waszczuk’s “Ex-Parte Application” first pleading document caught the
Court’s attention.

E. Waszczuk’s Opposition to the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motion


and Waszczuk’s Motion for Reconsideration

On January 23, 2015, Waszczuk filed a Plaintiff Opposition to the


Defendants' anti-SLAPP Motion (Vol. III CT 00704-00740) with 42
exhibits totaling 443 pages (Vol. III & IV CT 741-1145) and the
Motion for Reconsideration (Vol. V; CT 1252-1275) with 10 exhibits
(Vol. V; CT 1276-1354) on February 20, 2015. Waszczuk’s Opposition
and Motion for Reconsideration were ignored as usual by the Court as
a formality with the words (Vol. VI; 1551-1553): 2

2 “A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled


to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.
22
The Hon. David Brown granted the anti-SLAPP Motion to the
Defendants, affirming the tentative decision after a court hearing that
took place on February 6, 2015 (Vol. V CT 1246-1251) (RT 0001-
00018), and the Court affirmed its own position against Waszczuk by
the Court Order (Vol. VI; CT 01551-01552) dated April 14, 2015,
granting the Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike. The Court Order
prepared by the Defendants’ attorney was signed on the same day, April
14, 2015 (Vol. VI, CT 1554-1562).
On March 16, 2015, Waszczuk filed the Notice of Objection to the
Proposed Court Order Granting Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motion due to
violation by the Defendants of California Court Rule 3.1312(b) (Vol V. CT
1403-1461). Waszczuk’s Notice of Objection was ignored by the Court as
well.

F. Waszczuk’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion


because of violation by the Defendants of Discovery Stay Code of
Civ. Proc. § 425.16(g)

On February 28, 2015, Waszczuk’s dismissed attorney, Douglas


Stein, forwarded an email to Waszczuk informing him that the Defendants
violated the Discovery Stay Code of Civ. Proc. § 425.16(g) just six days after
the Defendants filed the Anti-SLAPP Motion in December. Somehow,
Waszczuk overlooked this and did not include it in his AOB or RB during
the pending appeal. The documents that Stein sent to Waszczuk contained a

(Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941,
944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must
follow correct rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th
1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975,
984”

23
Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to obtain
Waszczuk’s record from the State of California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing. The subpoena was issued by the Defendants'
former Counsel, Michael Pott, on December 8, 2014, six days after the
Defendants filed the Anti-SLAPP Motion and violated Discovery Stay CCP
§ 425.16 (g). The Defendants obtained the requested Plaintiff records without
the Plaintiff's knowledge on January 12, 2015, which was five days after the
Court issued an Order on January 7, 2015 stating that DISCOVERY
REMAINS STAYED PENDING RESOLUTION OF THIS MOTION.
On March 2, 2015, Waszczuk filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Defendants’ ant-SLAPP motion with prejudice for violation of Discovery
Stay by the Defendants during the time that the Defendants were pursuing
the anti-SLAPP motion they filed on December 1, 2014 (Vol. V CT 1376-
1402).
Waszczuk’s efforts to dismiss the Defendants’ motion for violation of
Discovery Stay were ignored as usual by the Court Order signed with bias
against Waszczuk by the Hon. David Brown on April 10, 2015 (Vol. VI, CT
1549-1550).
G. Appellant Mediation Statement

On July 9, 2015, Waszczuk filed the Appellant Mediation Statement


with detailed information, hoping that the Court of Appeals Third Appellate
District would consider his Appellant Statement. Instead, the resolve that was
oppressive to Waszczuk, the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, occupied the
Court for another two years.
The eligibility for mediation was ignored and denied by the Court of
Appeals Order signed by the Honorable Justice Kathleen Butz on July 16,

24
2015 (Vol. VI, CT 01725-01800). Waszczuk covered this part in his
Appellant Reply Brief (ARB 13, 14).

III. THE MERIT OF THE CASE

A. Superior Court Judgment Affirmation by the Court of Appeal

In the first part of the Opinion, on pages 1 & 2, the Court, by affirming
the judgment which struck the Waszczuk four causes of action against the
Defendants, stated: 3
Waszczuk sincerely apologizes to the Court for offending the Court
by misunderstanding the burden on appeal and for unintentional ignorance
of the dispositive issue, of which Waszczuk still is not sure to what the Court
is referring. Furthermore, Waszczuk sincerely apologizes to the Court that he
brought to the appeal the issue of corruption, including collusion between his
then lawyer, the Defense counsel, and the trial judge. However, if the Court
felt offended and affirmed the judgment because Waszczuk insisted that the
judgment should be reversed due to systemic corruption, including collusion

3 “Although Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a self-represented plaintiff, purports to


appeal the trial 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 their involvement in his
termination, he does not argue the merits of the motion but insists the
judgment must be reversed because of systemic corruption including
collusion between his then lawyer, defense counsel, and the trial judge. He
misunderstands his burden on appeal, ignores the dispositive issues, provides
no 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 contentions he raises, and in finding no merit in
those claims, we affirm.”

25
between his then lawyer, the Defense counsel, and the trial judge, then
Waszczuk feels that it was unnecessary for the Court to write another 13
pages in legal opinion to further aggrieve a person who is already aggrieved
by the justice that he was served in the Sacramento County Superior Court
by two judicial officers, the Hon. Judge David Brown and the Hon.
Shelleyanne W.L. Chang. The Hon. Judge Chang is handling a cross-
connected case, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board (CUIAB), Case No. C079254; Superior Court Case No: 34-2013-34-
00155479 No. 34-2013-80001699-CU-WM-GDS, which Waszczuk was
hoping would be resolved first by the Court of Appeal instant of slapping
Waszczuk with fraudulent anti-SLAPP Unpublished Opinion
However, even though Waszczuk disagrees with the Court Opinion,
which added more pain and suffering to his devastated life, Waszczuk was
somehow encouraged by the Court Opinion to look harder at where he made
unintentional mistakes and errors due to his lack of proper education and
experience in handling complex litigations, especially the appeals in the
Appellate Courts.
Waszczuk’s insufficient education and experiences in legal matters
does not mean that Waszczuk cannot recognize what is wrong and what is
right and who is wrong and who is right and who devastated Waszczuk’s and
his family’s lives and livelihood at Waszczuk’s retirement age.
Based on facts and the clear and convincing evidence, Waszczuk has
little doubt and strongly believes that corruption, including collusion
between his dismissed attorney Douglas Stein, Defense counsel Michael
Pott, and the trial judge the Hon. David I. Brown took place, and, for this
reason, the Superior Court judgment should be reversed by the Court of
Appeal.

26
B. Waszczuk’s Proposed Third Amended Complaint

This case has merit, but not as the Court of Appeal presented in the
Opinion on pages 9-13. The merit of this case presented by the Court on
pages 9-13 is the fruit of former Defense attorney Michael Pott and
Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein unusual friendship and their
Second Amended Complaint, with which Waszczuk had nothing to do, with
the exception that his name is attached to it. Waszczuk wrote in September
2015 his 295-page detailed amended complaint without individual
defendants and with only two causes of action. Waszczuk provided the
proposed amended complaint to the Defendants’ attorneys David Burkett and
Douglas Ropel because they wanted to see it and they offered to help file it.
[See Waszczuk’s meet and confer letter Augmented Record on Appeal] (Vol.
I CAT 227-228) However, after Waszczuk sent his draft of the Third
Amended Complaint (TAC), it was blocked on September 25, 2015 by the
Defendants’ attorney’s Motion to Stay pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §
916(a) (Vol. I CAT 1-20). Waszczuk filed an objection (Vol. I CAT 126 -
203) to the Defendants’ Stay Motion on October 13, 2015, which did not do
Waszczuk any good, as the Hon. Judge Brown killed Waszczuk’s objection
as usual by the Court Order (Vol. I CAT 231) dated October 28, 2015 without
seeing the proposed TAC.

C. The Defense Michael Pott’s August 19, 2014 confer letter and
Douglas Stein’s response dated August 26, 2014

In the Opinion FACTS on page 5, the Court stated: 4

4 In a meet and confer letter dated August 19, 2014, Michael Pott,
representing the Regents and the employees sued in their individual
capacity, described a number of deficiencies in the first amended
27
Waszczuk understands the definitions of meet and confer and
demurrer and the new changes in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.41 & 472
regarding the demurred and complaint amendment. What the Court presented
in the Opinion is completely irrelevant to Waszczuk’s case, however.
The meet and confer letters exchanged between Stein and Pott
completely left the Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 out of the picture, since
the main goal of Pott and Stein was to avoid letting Waszczuk know about
the anti-SLAPP law. Waszczuk paid $20,000 to be advised about the anti-
SLAPP law and the consequences of this law, having nine individual
Defendants in the complaint. If Waszczuk had known that such a law existed,
then he would not be struggling today to write this Petition. This is why
Waszczuk does not care about the merit of this anti-SLAPP appeal. Stein and
Pott, by their corrupted behavior, caused Waszczuk enormous financial
losses of over $200,000 of his retirement funds through dealing with the anti-
SLAPP motion for three years.
Is the Court trying to imply in its own Opinion that Douglas Stein,
with 30 years of experience as an attorney at law, did not know the Code of

complaint “that warrant the filing of a demurrer unless they can be


resolved by amendment.” Stein spent 10 hours reviewing the first
amended complaint and researching the law in light of the alleged
deficiencies set forth in Pott’s letter. By letter dated August 26, 2014,
Stein agreed to amend the complaint in response to those deficiencies he
found legitimate and he explained why he rejected many others.
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight
causes of action. He signed the second amended complaint on September
8, 2014. Unbeknownst to him at the time, his license to practice law was
suspended on September 24, 2014, due to child support issues that he
resolved by October 7, 2014, but due to logistical aspects of the process,
the State Bar of California did not restore his license to an active status
until October 23, 2014. In the meantime, he filed the second amended
complaint on September 30, 2014.

28
Civil Procedure § 425.16 and what SLAPP meant? Is it not a duty of
attorneys to protect their clients’ interests instead of exposing their clients to
harm by adverse parties?
Waszczuk is rather interested in whether the Court would explain in
the Opinion what would have happened if Stein had not filed a Second
Amended Complaint on September 30, 2014. Waszczuk has nothing to do
with the Second Amended Complaint.

D. The Second Amended Complaint is not valid.


The Court, in the “DISCUSSION” on pages No. 8 & 9, stated: 5

Douglas Stein, in collaboration with the Defense attorney Michael


Pott, by amending the First Amended Complaint, removed the University of
California, University of California Davis Health System, UC Davis Medical
Center, and UC Davis as Defendants, which Stein could just dismiss by the
Notice of Dismissal. Stein also removed some irrelevant material copied
from newspapers into the First Amended Complaint as a pretext to amend
the complaint and as the first stage of derailing Waszczuk’s lawsuit against
the University of California. As the Court noticed, Stein prepared a Second
Amended Complaint with the same eight causes of action, including the same
four causes of action that were sent by Defense Counsel Michael Pott’s

5 Yet plaintiff asserts that defense counsel colluded with Stein to file a second
amended complaint designed to rob him of meritorious claims. He also
contends that Stein bowed to defense counsel’s untoward pressure to amend
the complaint and subjected his pleadings to the anti-SLAPP motion. He adds
the naked allegation that the trial court acted improperly as well because the
trial judge had known defense counsel for a number of years. Plaintiff’s
allegations are without evidentiary support.
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight causes of
action. He signed the second amended complaint on September 8, 2014.

29
Demurrer to Stein on July 23, 2014. Stein did not prepare a second amended
complaint with the same eight causes of action and with the same nine
individual Defendants for Waszczuk’s benefit. The SAC was needed for
Michael Pott to include in the complaint a copy of the 2009 Settlement
Agreement that Douglas Stein declared in the FAC’s eight causes as void,
unlawful, and against public policy (AOB 10) (Vol. I, CT 81-82) (Vol. VI
CT 1706-1707) (Vol. VII CT 1852).
Nothing was held back, allowing Defense attorney Michael Pott to file
the anti-SLAPP motion of the FAC in July or August 2014. Michael Pott is
a skilled attorney in SLAPP lawsuits.
Furthermore, the Court, on the same page of the Opinion, stated: “He
signed the second amended complaint on September 8, 2014.” (Vol. I CT
151) Douglas Stein signed the SAC on September 8, 2014 and submitted it
to the Court to file by the Drop Box with the attached proposed SAC and a
copy of the 2009 Settlement Agreement that the Regents of the University of
California signed with Waszczuk after the Regents were defeated by
Waszczuk in the arbitration process in November 2008 (Vol. I 153-163).
On September 9, 2014, Douglas Stein submitted the SAC to the Court
to be filed via Drop Box without being required to do so by Cal. Rule of
Court 3.1324 Leave of Court (Vol. I CT 244). Douglas Stein, as a licensed
attorney who had practiced law for 27 years, knew perfectly well that he
could not file the SAC without Leave of Court. Also on September 9, 2014,
Douglas Stein knew that he did not pay his members’ dues and child alimony
that his attorney’s license from the State Bar of California was about to be
suspended.
On the same day, September 9, 2014, a Clerk of the Court returned
the SAC to Stein, stating: “Leave of Court is required for all subsequent
amended complaints after the first amended.” (Vol. I, CT 85)

30
The filing without Leave of Court was a premeditated and well-
planned move by Stein and Defense Counsel Michael Pott to get the SAC to
be returned and to manipulate into their dirty game against Waszczuk the
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. David I. Brown, who
Douglas Stein had known for 20 years. Nothing was amended, and Stein and
Pott needed Judge Brown to approve Stein’s Ex-Parte Application for Leave
to File the SAC. The SAC did not meet the strict requirements of the Cal.
Rule of Court 3.1324, as was stipulated by Stein’s and Pott’s Ex-Parte
Application for Leave to File SAC on 9/19/2014 (AOB 25)(Vol. I, CT 164),
and the Order approving the Ex-Parte Application was signed on September
22, 2014 by the Hon. David I. Brown from the Department 53 Law and
Motion Department without appointment or the appearance of the parties
(Vol I. CT 166-167).
On July 15, 2015, Waszczuk filed a Plaintiff’s Opposition to the
Defendants’ Motion for the Fees and Cost (AOB 22) (Vol. VI, CT 1698-
1717). From the Defendants’ Motion for Fees and Cost exhibits (filed on
May 11, 2015) (AOB 22) (Vol. VI CT 1695-1696), Waszczuk found that the
Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP) was approved to be filed by the
Sedgwick Insurance Liability Company on September 24, 2014 (Vol. VI CT
1636). This took place two days after the Hon. David Brown approved the
SAC to be filed in the Court without checking what was different between
the FAC and SAC. The Sedgwick approved the anti-SLAPP motion six days
before Douglas Stein filed the SAC on September 30, 2014 with a suspended
attorney’s license (Vol. VI, CT 1711-1712).
The Sedgwick Insurance Company is a company that is doing serious
business and conducting any lawsuit in which the University of California is
involved. Apparently, the financially insolvent Waszczuk’s attorney

31
provided 100% assurance for the Defense attorney Michael Pott and used his
long friendship with the Honorable David Brown to achieve the above.
Because of the listed and not listed in the lawsuit Defendants
conspiracy 6 Waszczuk life since January 2007 became a misery and since
2012 was entirely devastated by the University of California white collar
criminals and thereafter by corrupted state of California administrative
agencies and corrupted judicial officers who collaborated with Waszczuk
former employer attorneys to harm Waszczuk.
On pages No. 8 of the Opinion Court stated: 7

6 The civil conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more


people to participate in an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful
manner. See Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472, 477 (D.C.Cir.1983);
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 620-21 (7th Cir.1979), modified on
other grounds, 446 U.S. 754, 100 S.Ct. 1987, 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980). An
express agreement among all conspirators is not necessary. "A Plaintiff ...
need not prove that each participant in a conspiracy knew the `exact limits
of the illegal plan or the identity of all participants therein.'" Hampton, 600
F.2d at 621 (quoting Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Greenberg, 447 F.2d 872,
875 (7th Cir.1971)). The conspirators "must share the general conspiratorial
objective, but they need not know all the details of the plan ... or possess
the same motives." Id. Thus, to "demonstrate the existence of a
conspiratorial agreement, it simply must be shown that there was a single
plan, the essential nature and general scope of which [were] known to each
person who is to be held responsible for its consequences." Id. (quoting
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Greenberg, 447 F.2d 872, 875 (7th Cir.1971)).
To make the conspiracy actionable, there must also be an overt act in
furtherance of the object of the conspiracy that injures Plaintiff his or
deprives him of having or exercising any right or privilege of a legal
resident of the United States.
7 “His license to practice was reinstated within about two weeks of his
discovery of the suspension. On these facts, there is not the slightest hint
of impropriety. To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—
making an ex parte application to assure the integrity of the document he
inadvertently filed during the briefest of suspensions for a minor
transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He should be
32
Douglas Stein’s diligence and transparency cost Waszczuk $20,000
of the retainer fee and 3 years of fighting the anti-SLAPP motion instead of
working in the UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop. The breach of the
2009 Settlement Agreement that the UC Regents signed with Waszczuk in
December 2012 resulted in Waszczuk losing approximately $800,000 of
income and benefits.
Because of Stein’s personal problems and misconduct, Waszczuk’s
retainer of $20,000 was basically stolen by Stein. Then, Stein became
vulnerable to conspire with Defense attorneys and Judge of Superior Court
David Brown to end Waszczuk’ lawsuit in December 2014 by the anti-
SLAPP motion. The Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of
Appeal does not have jurisdiction over the attorney Douglas Stein’s
professional misconduct, and judicial officers from both courts knew that.
8Waszczuk knows that the trial court has wide discretion in allowing the

commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of plaintiff’s


interests.

8 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. & Prof. Code, §§ 6064, 6125.) The California Supreme Court
controls both admissions and attorney discipline (including suspension and
disbarment). (Saleeby v. State Bar (1985) 39 Ca1.3d 547, 557-58 [216
Cal.Rptr. 367].) The Supreme Court's control over these issues is absolute.
(Ibid.)
The State Bar of California acts as the Supreme Court's administrative
arm for 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
Attorney Discipline System (1998) 19 Ca1.4th 582, 599-600 [79
Cal.Rptr.2d 836].) 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; Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule
5.4(16).)

33
amendment of any pleading, but, in this case, the Court allowed the
amendment in order to hurt Waszczuk.
After the Appeal is finally concluded, Waszczuk will ask the Court
for Court Order to let Waszczuk include the civil conspiracy cause of action
in the amended complaint pursuant to California Civil Code Section
1714.10(a).

IV. ARGUMENTS

A. First Cause of Action

On page 12 of the Opinion, the Court stated:

“Plaintiff’s first cause of action for the intentional infliction


of emotional distress fails because the tort requires a
showing of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of
human decency.”

Waszczuk is curious whether the Court of Appeal ever came across


any wrongful termination case involving the University of California where,
in any University of California campus, management reassigned a blue collar
worker from one shop to another shop and made him look like a KKK leader
or guard from a Nazi concentration camp in their letter of suspension and
reassignment, (Vol.III, CT 870-875) then, three months later, gave the
employee a normal performance review for the same evaluation period in
which the employee’s alleged gross misconduct took place. (Vol. III, 876-
878)After giving the employee a normal evaluation and acknowledging that
the employee did nothing wrong, the management continued to process the
employee’s Appeal-Complaint under the UC Policy PPSM 70 for another
year and half and lost to the employee in the arbitration process, after which
34
the UC Regents signed a Settlement Agreement with the employee giving
him an engineering title. It will not end until the Court issues a proper
decision.
Furthermore, Waszczuk is curious whether the Justices of the Court
of Appeal who issued the Opinion in this case had ever come across a
wrongful termination case where any University of California employee with
whom the Regents signed a Settlement Agreement to make him isolated from
other department shops removed the employee from the premises for over
one year without alleging one word in any “witch hunt” documents that UC
“witch hunters” generated as a cause of termination without stating
that the employee violated or breached the signed Settlement Agreement?
Furthermore, the UC witch hunters did not provide the employee with
evaluations for the final two years of his employment because they knew
that, once removed from the premises, the employee would appeal the bad
evaluation under UC Policy PPSM 70, and a complaint could take two years
to resolve, during which process the employee could not be fired.
This happened to Waszczuk in the period of time between January
2007 and December 2012 in order to hide an illegal power sale fraud of which
Waszczuk was still unaware. Waszczuk got angry at the Defendant Chilcott
and UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown when Waszczuk, by looking into
US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission e-library documents, found out
why they persecuted him in 2007-2009 and again in 2011-2012. The Defense
attorney Douglas Ropel complained about Waszczuk’s correspondence in
the Defendants’ Motion for Automatic Stay filed on October 19, 2015 to
block Waszczuk’s TAC (Vol. I, CAT 204-228 page 7[17-28]; Vol. I, CAT
2014). Ropel also attached as the Exhibit B to his pleading Waszczuk’s
correspondence in this matter to US Senator Dianne Feinstein. Waszczuk
was exchanging correspondence with the Senator for quite some time, not

35
knowing that Senator Feinstein’s husband ordered Waszczuk’s dismissal
from his job in January 2007 (Vol. I CAT 218-225).
University of California, Davis, administration subjected 60-year-old
Waszczuk to malicious psychological terror unthinkable for any normal
person and beyond the bounds of human decency from April 2011 to
December 2012 and prior to this, in 2006-2007, with involvement of four of
five listed defendants in the lawsuit, Michael Boyd, Cindy Oropeza,
Stephen Chilcott, and Charles Witcher.
The terror and witch hunt aimed at Waszczuk between 2006 and
2012 included unwarranted suspension and reassignment interrogations in a
style Waszczuk knew from his native country during the Communist era,
when Waszczuk was subjected to such interrogation by Communist secret
police for his political activities against communism in 1980-1981.
Furthermore, the psychological terror and which hunt aimed at Waszczuk
included and was not limited to stalking Waszczuk; maliciously sabotaging
Waszczuk’s job and the duty assigned to him to set Waszczuk up for
failure; falsely accusing Waszczuk of racism, bigotry, and antisemitism; not
providing Waszczuk with a mandatory annual Employee Performance
Review for the years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 to let Waszczuk know that
he was a persona non grata and to let him know that he had been singled
out and that his employment days were numbered; an attempt to force
Waszczuk to file a fraudulent workers compensation claim and thus remove
Waszczuk from the premises; and reassignment of Waszczuk’s job, which
was guaranteed by a Settlement Agreement Waszczuk signed with the UC
Regents in 2009, to an individual who bringing on premises a twice-
convicted child pornography felon and who was then allowed to illegally
surf shop computers (Case: 2 :6 –cr- 00418-LKK, The United States of
America v. Sean Christopher Robideaux, United States District Court,

36
Eastern District of California, Indictment Violation(S) 18 U.S.C § 2252 ()
(4)(B) –Possession of Visual Depiction of Minors in Sexually Explicit
Conduct ).
After Waszczuk and his coworker reported the above-mentioned
crime, Waszczuk and his coworker Kenneth Diede automatically became
subjects of a witch hunt by the Defendants in July 2011, and Waszczuk was
not allowed to come back to work on September 1, 2011, after one month
of sick leave for work-related stress.
In addition to the above-listed acts of terror against Waszczuk, the
Defendants denied Waszczuk’s disability income in an attempt to force him
to take UC retirement and quit; placed Waszczuk on investigatory-
administrative leave for over one year and did not let Waszczuk know when
the administrative leave would end; sent Waszczuk threatening letters, even
during the time when Waszczuk was placed on work-stress-related sick
leave and was under physician and psychologist care; denied Waszczuk
health care insurance in December 2011 and January 2012; changed
Waszczuk’s title from Associate Development Engineer, given to
Waszczuk by the Settlement Agreement that Waszczuk signed with UC
Regents in 2009, to Programmer I without Waszczuk’s knowledge or okay;
crafted false, defamatory, and defacing investigatory reports about
Waszczuk; and, in May 2012, attacked Waszczuk and Waszczuk’s two
coworkers, to whom Waszczuk was providing representation, with
unwarranted disciplinary action in the form of suspension and ill-crafted
letters of expectations to prime Waszczuk for heinous ill-orchestrated but
unsuccessful provocation on May 31, 2012, in order to end Waszczuk’s
employment in UC Davis Medical Center Nursing Trauma Unit No. 11. For
this purpose they bribed UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour with a
$35,000.00 wage increase as the executor and assigned Trauma Unit

37
Supervisor Karen Kouretas to receive Waszczuk if provocation was
successful. [Barbour Pay raise](Vol V CT 1354);[ Danesha Nichols
Waszczuk Confidential Summary for Chancellor ]( Vol. V ; CT 1349) -
What the UC Chancellor wanted to know about an immigrant from Poland
.? [ UC Davis Med. Center Poster Boy ) (Vol IV ; CT 1057-1061)
The involvement of the Defendants in the criminally minded pseudo
investigation to terrorize the employee because of believing that the
employee would blow the whistle constitutes the type of outrageous conduct
beyond the bounds of human decency that should not be tolerated by the
Court, and the Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action shall remain in Waszczuk’s
complaint.
Blocking Waszczuk’s Third Amended Complaint by the Court after
the Court was informed about electric power laundering from the UCDMC
27 MW cogeneration plant by the UC Regents violated Waszczuk’s rights
to petition the government for redress of grievances under the First
Amendment of the US Constitution and was akin to close participation in the
Civil conspiracy with the Defendants.

B. Second Cause of Action: Tortious Interference with Economic


Advantage

The Second Cause of Action will be part of the Breach of the


Settlement Agreement Cause of Action in the new Third Amended
Complaint, with already calculated financial damages caused by the
Defendants in the approximate amount of $800,000 due to Waszczuk’s
unlawful termination.

C. Third Cause Of Action [Harassment and Failure to Prevent


Harassment, Discrimination, Retaliation: Government Code §
12940 (A)]
38
The significant change in the whistleblower statute in California went into
effect on January 1, 2014. The statute, Cal, Lab. Code section 1102.5, has
been substantially expanded beyond its prior form to now protect employees
from retaliation for making internal complaints or even potential complaints
about suspected violations of federal, state or local law.
Under the revised provisions of Labor Code section 1102.5, it is unlawful
for any person acting on behalf of the employer to retaliate against the
employee based on a belief "the employee disclosed or may disclose" the
information, either internally or to a government agency. In effect, the
revamped law protects employees who have not yet even complained against
"anticipatory retaliation."
[ See the October 14, 2014 Waszczuk letter to UCOP Senior Vice President
and Locally Designated Officer in regard to his decision in Waszczuk’s
Whistle Blower Retaliation Complaint ]( Vol. IV , CT 1073-1082 page 5)
The Defendants, and especially five individual Defendants, knew and were
aware that Waszczuk is over 60 years old and has had open heart surgery and
life experiences that they have never had and that Waszczuk does not wish
for them to have. What the Defendants have done to Waszczuk and his
family is beyond Government Code § 12940. The Defendants violated
Waszczuk’s human rights and denied him and his family the right to work
and live their normal lives. Even in the Court of Appeal, Hall, their attorney,
did not hesitate to make threats toward Waszczuk’s 66-year-old spouse, who
has nothing to do with the University of California.

39
D. The Fourth Cause of Action – Violation of California
Government Code Section 8547.10(b), which allows people to sue
University of California employees who intentionally engage in
` acts of reprisal

On page 2 in the Opinion Preliminary Statement, the Court stated:

“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. He wrote: ‘The
stake in this lawsuit must be a lot bigger and more important than the life of
a 63-year-old Polish refugee who escaped communist oppression and was
promised protection from oppression in his new country by the US
government. Instead of protection from oppression, the Polish refugee
received treatment from the University of California that has been a lot
worse than the treatment he received in the Polish communist prison, where
the communist’s prison guard was more respectful to the political prisoners
than UC management to its own employees.’ His experience has left him
emotionally distraught. At the end of a hearing in the trial court, he
announced he was done and was going to go outside of the courtroom and
shoot himself.”

Actually, this is not what Waszczuk said at the Court hearing on


Friday April 10, 2014. Waszczuk asked the Hon. Judge Brown if he had to
go outside the Court building and shoot himself to make the judge look for
truth after a heated and lengthy discussion with Judge Brown about his over
20-year relationship with Waszczuk’s dismissed attorney, who stole
Waszczuk’s $20,000 retainer (CRT page 21). The Court hearing was about
the $500.00 that Waszczuk gave to Stein on November 25, 2014 to amend a
40
faulty complaint that he filed with a suspended attorney’s license on
September 30, 2014 in conspiracy with Defense Attorney Michael Pott
(CRT page 20,19-28). Furthermore, Waszczuk disputed two conflicting
statutes: the Code of Civ. Proc 425.16 and Government Code 8547.10(b).
Waszczuk disputed these with the Hon. Judge Brown in his 443-page
opposition to the Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion (CRT page 20). In
addition, Waszczuk disputed the Judge Order dated December 17, 2014 that
approved the Second Amended Complaint, which was filed by Stein
against Waszczuk’s will and instruction and with a suspended attorney’s
license, because nothing was amended in the complaint. Waszczuk pointed
out to the Judge that, by Court Order on January 7, 2014, he nullified all
documents filed after December 16, 2014 by Waszczuk’s attorney Douglas
Stein and the Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott, but let the anti-SLAPP
motion continue (CRT page 22). This was total abuse of discretion by the
Court. It seemed that what was most important to the Court of Appeal was
to twist Waszczuk’s statement about shooting himself within the Opinion to
make Waszczuk look mentally unstable. Waszczuk is stable and will
continue to fight in the Courts of Law against white collar criminals from
the University of California and their collaborators.
Furthermore, on page 3 in the Opinion’s Preliminary Statement,
the Court stated:

“He makes grandiose accusations against the University for


illegally generating and selling electric power and for tax
evasion, but those allegations are not supported by citations
to the record and are not relevant to the special motion to
strike. “

Waszczuk don’t believe that it would proper to have thousands of


documents from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in in anti-
41
SLAPP On top of this Waszczuk found out about the regents and their
collaborators white collar crime during the pending Waszczuk’s
appeals. Hon. Sheleyanne Chang and her friend from California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Marylin Tays are two major
to uncover the UC Al Capones shady businesses UC Davis Medical Center
. The generation , sale and resale illegally power in tens of millions of dollars
from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant in time period of 1999-2003
and resumed in 2012-2013 was closely akin to the crimes committed by
like alcohol is a commodity( Pierce v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1985)
166 Ca1.App.3d 68) and sale of commodities is regulated by the
international law( Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Superior Court (1962)
208 Cal. App. 2d 803, 81) that the sale of a commodity is regulated by
international law and profit from sale is taxable .
Waszczuk is not sure how the Court determined that Waszczuk’s
allegation about the University generating and selling illegal power and
defrauding taxpayers is not relevant to the special motion to strike which
cause of action with the Government Code 8547.11
Waszczuk’s “grandiose” accusations are real. The Court was
properly informed about the Regents’ fraud in Waszczuk’s Augmented
Record on Appeal. In addition, Waszczuk informed the Court about the
Regents’ white collar crime in his Notice of Objection to the Defendant and
Respondents' Application for Extension of Time to File Respondents Brief,
which was due on 7/5/2016, when Waszczuk was being represented by the
Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, and Goldman Professional Law Corporation from
Los Angeles as well as in his complaint against the UC Regents to the US
Treasury Inspector General. This law firm specializes in such fraud cases.
On March 23, 2016, Waszczuk filed a 47-page detailed whistleblower
complaint with 35 exhibits. IRS Whistleblower Office Case No. 2016-007-

42
481 followed with a similar 53-page complaint with the State Board of
Equalization and the Tax Recovery and Criminal Enforcement as well as a
213-page complaint with the State Bar of California against 23 university
and state agency attorneys involved in covering up the fraud, including three
listed defendants in the ant-SLAPP lawsuit and 47 detailed complaints
against Superior Court Judge Hon. Shelleyanne Chang with the Commission
on Judicial Performance.
Keeping Waszczuk out of UCDMC premises for over one year and
persecuting him with pseudo investigations in order to fire him because of an
unlawful contract power sale between the UC Regents and the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District was underway and was signed on May 31, 2012.
Not providing Waszczuk with employee evaluations for the last two years of
his employment is a classic example of a despicable and outrageous violation
of the Government Code 8547.11 by all five individual Defendants: Boyd,
Chilcott, Nichols, Seifert, and Oropeza. Four of these Defendants are UC
Davis Medical Center Human Resources officers. Three of them have law
JD degrees. All of them knew how to harass Waszczuk with interrogations
and pseudo investigation reports for almost two years, but they did not
provide Waszczuk with employee evaluations for two years under UC Davis
Policy 23, making Waszczuk persona non grata
Government Code 8547.11 states: 9

9 (a) A University of California employee, including an officer or faculty


member, may not directly or indirectly use or attempt to use the official authority
or influence of the employee for the purpose of intimidating, threatening,
coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or
command any person for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person
to disclose to a University of California official, designated for that purpose by
the regents, or the State Auditor matters within the scope of this article.
(b) For the purpose of subdivision (a), “use of official authority or influence”
includes promising to confer, or conferring, any benefit; effecting, or threatening
43
In the Discussion on page 13, the Court stated: 10
These five individuals Defendants did not want see Waszczuk death for filing a
whistleblower complaint. Regents and their friends wanted to see Waszczuk W
death because UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant was plant was not selling
power since Grey Davis was recalled from office in 2003 . Waszczuk estimates
no matter who spent $ 65,000,000 in 1998 to build the 27 MW cogeneration
facility in UC David Medial Center lost approximate $ 250, 000,000 from 2003
to 2012. It is a lot of cash free of tax .
The power illegal power sale was briefly resumed on June 1,2012 but was
ceased eight days after Waszczuk filed his wrongful termination lawsuit in
December 2013. [Power purchase Agreement ] (Vol I , ACT ; Vol 156-180)
[Corespondence with US Senator Dianne Feinstein dated 9/26/2015] (Vol I ,
ACT , 195-203)

The five individual defendants were ordered by the Regents to hunt


Waszczuk down and fire him in 2007-2009 and 2011-2012 because

to effect, any reprisal; or taking or directing others to take, or recommending,


processing, or approving, any personnel action, including, but not limited to,
appointment, promotion, transfer, assignment, performance evaluation,
suspension, or other disciplinary action.

10 Finally, the trial court found that plaintiff did not establish that the
individual defendants’ conduct was in retaliation for his whistleblowing. The
court explained: “The mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted
investigations and reached conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree
with does not establish their investigatory findings are an act of retaliation.
Nor can Boyd’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s grievance at the Step II level of
PPSM 70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is no
allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that could
be deemed to be a retaliatory action.” In the absence of any evidence or
analysis provided by plaintiff, we have no basis for reaching a finding at odds
with the trial court. Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on a
whistleblower retaliation cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 8547.10.)

44
whoever invested $65,000,000 into the UCDMC 27 cogeneration facility
in 1998 lost millions of dollars after the illegal power sale was ceased in
2003 due to Governor Grey Davis’s recall from office. Waszczuk was
viewed as an obstruction who could find out about the laundered power
from the UCDMC 27 MW plant because of his involvement in the similar
$100,000,000 fraud in 1990-1998 committed by Waszczuk’s previous
employer, Dynegy, against Pacific Gas and Electric ratepayers and
California taxpayers. Waszczuk learned the real reason for his termination
in June 2015 thanks to an August 2012 interview of the UC Davis
Assistant Vice Chancellor, Dr. Shelton Dur uisseau, which Waszczuk
described in the letter to the University of California Office of
the President (UCOP) Principal Investigator J udith Rosenberg
in the Plaintiff’s Opposition to the anti-SL APP motion (Vol.
III CT 794-802 page 3). Dr. Duruisseau disclosed in the
interview that the plant was built for a 50-year capacity and
that it was currently o nly us ing 9%. [Letter to UCOP Princ ipal
Investigator J udith Rosenberg ](Vol III, CT 793-8 01)
Waszczuk suspected that the UCDMC 27 MW plant was not in
complia nce with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA) or the requirements set in 18 C.F.R.
§§ 292.203(b) and 292.205 for operation, efficiency, and use of energy
output and being certified as a Qualified Facility (QF) pursuant to 18
C.F.R. § 292.20 requirements, the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §
824d(a), California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, State of
California Unfair Business Competition law, and Business and
Professions Code § 17200. The prosecutor’s eye was closed to the tax
evasion and fraud that violated Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954 and the State of California Revenue and Taxation Code in

45
relation to the illegal power sale from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration
plant.
E. February 2009 Settlement Agreement
Since February 2009 Waszczuk was employed by the Defendants per
2009 by written Settlement -Agreement agreement thus Vergos v. McNeal
(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)) has no weight in Waszczuk
case . Defendants did not provided any evidence that they investigation
Waszczuk because breach of settlement agreement . The Settlement
agreement was result of the Defendnts January -March 2007 witch hunt
aimed at Waszczuk and which was orchestrated and supervised by the
Defendant Stephen Chillcott Witch who assigned to this task by the UC
Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven
Drown in 2006. See the UCDM HR assigned witch hunter’s report dated
March 8, 2007 (Vol .III ;CT 858-868) and the Suspension and
reassignment letter dated March 23, 2007 portraying Waszczuk as a a
bigot , Jew heater etc. (Vol.III, CT 870-875) . The Annual Employee
Performance Review (Evaluation ) dated July 25, 2007 for the evaluation
period which Waszczuk included suspension and reassignment was signed
by the same manager Charles who suspend and reassign Waszczuk to
HVAC shop . (Vol. III, 876-878) . The evaluation for 2006/2007 is the best
proof that everything was orchestrated to fire Waszczuk but the plant’s
two managers basically refused to participate in the witch hunt and the
Chilcott’s maliciously planned attempt to destroy Waszczuk failed . In
January 2009 Defendant Chilcott solicited Settlement -Agreement with
Waszczuk . See the Waszczuk’s meet and confer negotiation letter
addressed to Defendant Chilcott and dated January 19, 2009 (Vol. III 881-
883) following by February 2009 Settlement -Agreement Waszczuk signed
with UC Regents (Vol. III, CT 884-899) The peace did not last long and

46
Chilcott promoted from the investigator position to the UC Davis Health
System HR Executive Director position with $ 300, 000 annual salary and
lot of given power employed forces which almost ended Waszczuk
employment with UCDMC in the UCDMC Trauma Unit # 11 on May 31,
2011. See March 7, 2003 Waszczuk Whistle Blowing Retaliation
Complaint ( Vol IV , CT 1015-1057 page 15-23) . On September 26, 2012
Defendant Chilcott in collaboration with new UC Davis Police Chief
distributed Police Poster with Waszczuk photo and description on and did
not inform Waszczuk about (Vol. IV , CT 1057-1061) In October 2011
Waszczuk complained against Defendants Chilcott and Danesha Nichols to
the UC Davis Police Department not knowing why Waszczuk being
attacked so viciously and removed from the premises on September 1, 2011
for over one year until Waszczuk’s employment was terminated on
December 7, 2012. See Waszczuk inquiry to UCDPD Captain Joyce Souza
( Vol IV , CT 1131-1141) In this letter on page 6, Waszczuk provided
information to Captain Souza that Waszczuk complained to State Bar
against Defendands Chillcott and Danesha Nichols.

After February 2009, Waszczuk was employed by the Defendants by


written Settlement Agreement. Thus, Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146
Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)) has no weight in Waszczuk’s case. The
Defendants did not provide any evidence that they investigated Waszczuk
because Waszczuk breached or violated the signed with Regents February
2009 Settlement -Agreement. In Vergos Plaintiff was not employed by
settlement agreement . If five Defendants did not provide Waszczuk with
evaluation for 2 years than Court must decide what polices were applied to
Waszczuk to judge Waszczuk performance as an employee .

47
V. THE DEFENDANTS GROSSLY VIOLATED WASZCZUK’S
RIGHT OF PETITION OR FREE SPEECH UNDER THE
UNITED STATES AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH A PUBLIC ISSUE C.C.P § 425.16.

The five Defendants filed the anti-SLAPP motion against Waszczuk’s


wrongful termination under Code of Civ. Proc. § 425.16, claiming that they
had investigated, represented, and reviewed Waszczuk’s complaints and
were protected from the lawsuit under the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution or State of California SLAPP law, which Waszczuk heard
of for the first time on December 1, 2014.
Waszczuk did not know anything about SLAPP law in December
2014, but he knew that the Defendants lied in their declarations attached to
the anti-SLAPP motion because they did harass and discriminate against
Waszczuk.
Waszczuk does not deny the Defendants their right to free speech, but
their free speech should not have been used to violate Waszczuk’s and other
UC employees’ civil and human rights.
Besides defending himself, Waszczuk was also defending others from
the orchestrated witch hunts that were carried out by other HR employees
and department managers and supervisors under the guidance of Stephen
Chilcott, Bren Seifert, Danesha Nichols, and Cindy Oropeza. The Defendants
were doing everything possible to prevent access to his job site and contact
with employees who Waszczuk represented under the UC Davis Compliant
Resolution Policy PPSM 70 or UC Whistle Blowing Policy. They also
attacked the employees that Waszczuk represented in order to isolate
Waszczuk from them.
On October 23, 2012 after Waszczuk was kept out of the UC Davis
Medical Center premises for more than one year by criminally and ill
minded Defendants HR Consultant Gina Harwood sent a letter to

48
Waszczuk informing him that he is permitted to serve as the representative
in complaint meeting for Kenneth Diede , William Buckans and Dereck
Cole. Gina Harwood forgot mention to Waszczuk that the UC Police
“Most Unwanted” poster with Waszczuk photo and description is still
hanging araound UC Davis Campuses and Ms. Harwood did not say
what is going to happen to Waszczuk if show up in UC Davis Medical
Center . (Vol IV , CT 1106 [letter] and 1057 [Most Unwanted Poster ]
[10/20/2013 Waszczuk ‘s sent inquiry sent to Defendant Boyd in Re :
Request to Schedule a Hearing for the Step II Appeal -Dereck Cole’s
2011/2012 Evaluation UC Davis PPSM 70 . Defendants Boyd and
others did not give a same chance to Waszczuk with his evaluations for
2010/2011 and 2011/2012. ] (Vol VI , CT 1517 -1526) to defend his
employees rights under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70. No one of the
listed Defendants should be dismisses by the court from the lawsuit
because of their notorious violations of UC Policies they were
supposedly to enforce for the employees and university protection and
rights So far no one Judge or Justice had a courage to ask Defendant
attorneys why Defendants did not provide Waszczuk with the
evaluations he was entitle to have as any other UC Davis Medical
Center employees including the Waszczuk represented during the course
of his employment with the UCDMC The Compliance Resolution
Officer (CRO) and listed Defendant Michael Boyd and other highly
skilled professionals were aware that denying Waszczuk administrative
remedies to resolve dispute under the UC Davis Complaint Resolution
Policy PPSM 70 . The California Supreme Court in the quite clear about
the administrative remedies to UC employees under the PPSM 70 These
administrative remedies which are the main subject in Palmer v.
Regents of the University of California, 107 Cal.App.4th 899, 132

49
Ca1.Rptr.2d 567 (Cal.App. Dist.2 04/08/2003) and Janet Campbell v.
Regents of the University of California (Supra S113275.) However, as
Court noticed on the Page No. 4
“ The first amended complaint did not, however, contain a cause of action
for violation of PPSM 23.
However Court anyway affirmed the Superior Judgment having full
knowledge how much effort Waszczuk put to force his crooked lawyer to
amend properly the First Amended Complaint and restore the violation of
PPSM 23 by the five listed Defendants . Four of them are highly skilled
UCDM Human Resources Department including Defendant , HR
Executive Director Steven Chilcott . The Court completely ignored
Waszczuk Oral Argument in this matter during the Court hearing on
August 28, 2017.
Waszczuk was attacked by Defendants in 2007 and again in 2011-2012
Waszczuk because :
On January 5, 2007, respondents in the filed in August 2000 with
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) complaint San Diego Gas
& Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Service Into
Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator
Corporation and the California Power Exchange, Re: Investigation of
Practices of the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the
California Power Exchange (CalPX), Docket Nos. EL00-95-000 and EL00-
98-000, submitted a Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited
Consideration, with accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement and APX
Settlement and Release of Claims Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”), in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 602 of the Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.602 (2007) of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.

50
The APX and APX participants in the January 2007 Settlement and Release
of Claims Agreement § 5.2 entitled Non-Monetary Consideration stated:

“UC Davis Medical Center. The UC Davis Medical center represents that
the generation unit at the University of California Davis Medical Center
only sold ancillary services to the ISO during the Refund Period. APX
submitted unit-specific bids and schedules on behalf of the Regents of the
University of California (“Regents’) to the ISO and APX received unit-
specific dispatch instructions and ancillary service awards from the ISO.
Settlement statements from the ISO clearly identify all UC Davis Medical
Center schedules and transactions by unit designation for instructed energy,
deviations and ancillary service award. If the Regents and the California
Parties reach a settlement of refund issues related to APX Transactions
prior to the Settlement Effective Date, the Regents shall be excluded from
this Agreement. The APX Participants will not impede the Regents from
settling issues directly related to the APX Transactions with the California
Parties.”

A. The Court Hearing on February 6, 2015 – Defendants’ anti-SLAPP


Motion Code of Civ. Proc, 425.16 with Presiding Hon. David I. Brown

Waszczuk does not know why he was not given the same rights as
the Defendants under Code of Civ. Proc. 425.16. Quite a few times,
Waszczuk represented UC Davis Medical Center employees during
pending “witch hunt” action orchestrated and conducted by the Defendants
listed in the lawsuit. Waszczuk was denied access to UCDMC premises for
over one year.
The Defendant Chilcott ordered the employees’ complaint to be
placed in abeyance, and the employees that Waszczuk represented were
harassed, wrongfully accused, and disciplined.
51
This occurred on February 6, 2015 during the discussion with Hon.
David Brown on the issue of Waszczuk’s representation of others (CRT page
8, 25-28) (CRT page 9, 1-28) (CRT 10, 1-5):
THE COURT: Let's talk about the five guys that are implicated by this
motion. After paragraph 70 of your papers, you said, and I believe this was
in your complaint, your first amended complaint, and this is not just the
only paragraph, you said the investigation was flawed, corrupt and biased.
The five people that you're addressing in this particular motion that you're
opposing, this motion, these five you've alleged were involved in the
investigation and proceeding that you alleged are corrupt, fraudulent, and
bad.
MR. WASZCZUK: Exactly, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But it all arises out of the investigation. Their actions all
arise out of the investigation.
MR. WASZCZUK: Your Honor, I cannot be treated differently than other
employees.
THE COURT: Agreed.
MR. WASZCZUK: This is the whole point here. You know, if other
employees are getting an evaluation, then I have to get an evaluation. If
other employees get the same acquisition letter of expectation, then I should
get a letter of expectation, and everything is there in this big pile.
THE COURT: And unfortunately I read all of it; every bit.
MR. WASZCZUK: It's necessary to understand I understand perfectly UC
policies because I represent people, Your Honor, many people. I don't
violate policies. I am representing people who were accused of violating
policies.
THE COURT: What do you mean, you're representing?

52
MR. WASZCZUK: I am representing – I was representing people, my
coworkers, policies PPM 70.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WASZCZUK: I'm still one guy who I still represent. I moved this to
the EEOC. Represent in the EEOC for discrimination.

The above conversation with the Hon. David Brown shows that
Waszczuk’s representation caught the Court’s attention, and Waszczuk
believes that the Court did not read the exhibit, subsequently ignoring
Waszczuk and his representation of others.
After the Court granted the anti-SLAPP Motion for the Defendants,
Waszczuk, in his Motion for Reconsideration filed on February 20, 2015
(Vol. V, CT 1252-1270), on page 2, reminded the Court about his
representation of others and how, at the same time as Waszczuk was denied
access to the employees represented by him, he was attacked by letters of
suspensions, causing him to be absent for eight months from the UC Davis
Medical Center HVAC shop [Suspension Letter absent in shop 8 months]
(Vol. V CT 1316-1354).
If Waszczuk had known anything about SLAPP and the anti-SLAPP
law in December 2014, then Waszczuk would have filed a cross-complaint
against the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP. This should have been done by

Waszczuk representation for Frank Gonzales: Letter of Expectation (Vol


V, CT 1311-1313) ;Frank Gonzales’s Declaration (Vol.III, CT 767-770);
September 30, 2014 Waszczuk letter to Defendant Mike Boy ‘Re: Frank
Gonzales’s letter of Expectation (Vol. IV , CT 1092-1096); November
Waszczuk’s representation for Dereck Cole :-Letter of Expectation (Vol. V,
CT 1319-1335); [Waszczuk’s inquiry to Gina Harwood ; HR SPHR Re:

53
Dereck Cole’s latter of Expectation with copy of the complaint under UC
Davis Policy PPSM 70 ] (Vol IV , CT 1107-1114 ) [10/20/2013 Waszczuk ‘s
inquiry sent to Defendant Boyd in Re : Request to Schedule a Hearing for the
Step II Appeal -Dereck Cole’s 2011/2012 Evaluation UC Davis PPSM 70 .
Defendant Boyd did not give a same chance to Waszczuk with his
evaluations for 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. ] (Vol VI , CT 1517 -1526)
.Waszczuk presented in details how differently Waszczuk was treated by
Defndannt ‘s Boyd in Plaintiff’s Appeal Meditation Statement using Dereck
Cole case in which Waszczuk represented Cole
Waszczuk’s represention for Kenneth Diede: [ Kenneth Diede’s Declaration]
(Vol. III, CT 759-765) ;
Waszczuk’s representation for William Buckans: [William Buckans’;
Declaration ](Vol. III, CT 745-757);
[Waszczuk’s July 12, 2007 Public Record Act Request In Re: Unlawful
machine oil discharge from UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant to
Sacramento River for 7 years] (Vol .III , CT 774-792);[Waszczuk
correspondence with UCOP Principal Investigator dated March 11, 2014] (Vol
III , CT 793 -802) ; [Waszczuk correspondence with US Senator Dianne
Feinstein ](Vol. III, CT 804-814); October 2000 [Eduardo Espinosa
correspondence with UCOP Vice President Judith Boyette ](Vol III. CT 815-
830); [Waszczuk April 2001 letter to CAL/OSHA District Manager and in
regards to unsafe working condition in the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration
plant plus the issued copies of citations by CAL/OSHA] (Vol III, CT 835-
845) [May 24, 2012 Waszczuk inquiry entitled ‘REVANGE ISN’T WISE ‘ in
re of Waszczuk two cowerkers and Waszczuk friends , Kenny Diede and
William Buckans who were viciously attacked by their supervisors at the
order of Defendant Stephen Chilcott ]

54
Waszczuk’s attorney, who wasted Waszczuk’s $20,000 retainer and
conspired with the Defense attorney Michael Pott.

VI. CONCLUSION
The Waszczuk Petition for Rehearing in the above shall be granted
to Waszczuk by the Court for the captioned reasons:

1. The Superior Court abused its own discretion by accepting the Second
Amended Complaint filed on September 30, 2014 against Waszczuk’s
will and instructions. The Second Amended Complaint did not amend
anything relevant that should have been amended. The Second
Amended Complaint was filed with an evil motive by Waszczuk’s
attorney Douglas Stein in conspiracy with the Defendants’ Attorney
Michael Pott in order to harm Waszczuk. The Second Amended
Complaint was filed by Ex Parte Application stipulated between Stein
and Pott to bypass the filing Drop Box and avoid a Court Clerk
detecting that the Second Amended Complaint was the same as the First
Amended Complaint and grossly violated the Cal. Rule of Court 3.1324.
The Superior Court abused its own discretion and jurisdiction in
accepting the Second Amended Complaint and deeming it valid by
Court Order dated December 17, 2014, which was extorted from the
Superior Court Hon. Judge Brown by Waszczuk’s dismissed attorney
Douglas Stein and his partner Michael Pott by Ex Parte stipulated
application for an extension of time to oppose the old, defective
Defendants’ Demurrer, which was filed as an anti-SLAPP motion.

2. The Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike, filed on December 1, 2014,


shall be dismissed by the Court. The motion is actually the old July

55
2014 Defendants’ Demurrer and was filed with a defective pleading as
the anti-SLAPP motion of Waszczuk’s First Amended Complaint.
The Second Amended Complaint, filed on September 30, 2014 by
Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein with a suspended attorney’s
license, should be declared null and void. Douglas Stein is currently
suspended to practice law and is being prosecuted by the State Bar due
to misrepresenting Waszczuk and defrauding Waszczuk of a $20,000
retainer fee. The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal have no
jurisdiction to permit attorneys to practice law with suspended licenses.
The Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion is the old demurrer crafted by
Defense attorney Michael Pott in July 2014 and was filed as the
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint instead of the Second Amended
Complaint. The Plaintiff would never be permitted by the Court to file
such defective documents, and the documents would be stricken by the
Defendants’ motion. Additionally, the individual Defendants’
Declarations are most likely forged.
3. The Superior Court Hon. Judge Brown was biased and prejudiced
against Waszczuk in every Court Order issued and signed since
September 22, 2014 [Ex Parte Application] (Vol. I, 166-167), with the
exception of the Stay Order for the Defendants to attempt to extort legal
fees from Waszczuk in the amount of $32,738 (Vol. VI, CT 1694-
1695).
4. The Court of Appeal Third Appellate District Opinion in the above
captioned case is discriminatory, prejudicial, demeaning, and degrading
toward Waszczuk, using twisted facts and statements. The Opinion
praised Waszczuk’s dismissed attorney, who is an ordinary thief who
stole Waszczuk’s retainer in the amount of $20,000 and caused
Waszczuk enormous damage. Rather than being transparent and

56
diligent, this attorney has had his license suspended for not paying child
alimony and being prosecuted by the State Bar.
The Court’s prejudicial and discriminatory Opinion reminded
Waszczuk of his employment at UC Davis Medical Center and how
differently the five individual Defendants treated other employees in
comparison to Waszczuk. By giving the opportunity to the Defendants
to correct the Reply Brief while denying Waszczuk the ability to correct
his briefs, the Court acted in a similar manner to how the five
Defendants acted in providing evaluations to other employees to give
them a chance to correct their performance but denying this chance to
Waszczuk. The Court used Waszczuk’s mistakes against him in the
discriminatory and outrageously biased Opinion.
For this reason alone, the Petition for Rehearing should be granted to
Waszczuk.
In conclusion of this Petition for Rehearing , Waszczuk respectfully asks the
Court of Appeals to reverse the Superior Court Judgment dated April 14,
2015, and allow Waszczuk to correct and refile the SAC or file the TAC.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 25 day of October 25,
2017, in Lodi, California.

___________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk – Plaintiff and Appellant

57
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.360(b)(1), I certify that

this Petition for Rehearing contains 14257 words, based on the word-
count feature of my word-processing program.

DATED: October 25, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff and Appellant In Pro Per

58
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
TRUEFILING

Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California


Case No.: C079524
I, IRENA WASZCZUK the undersigned, declare that 1 am over 18 years of age
and not a party to the within cause; my address is 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi,
CA . On October 25 ,2017 served a true copy of the attached PETITION FOR
REHEARING on each of the following, by ELECTRONIC MAIL
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814

CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA


County of Sacramento
720 Ninth Street, Department 53, Honorable David I. Brown
Sacramento, CA 95814-1380
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister St,
San Francisco, CA 94102

David P.E. Burkett Esq.


PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Each said envelope was then sealed and deposited in the United States Mail at San
Joaquin County, California, the county in which I am residing, with the postage
thereon fully prepaid.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that

the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 25, 2017 , at Lodi CA
______________________
IRENA WASZCZUK

59
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

August 30, 2016

Hon. Kevin R. Culhane


Presiding Judge
Sacramento County Superior Court
720 Ninth Street
Sacramento , CA 95814

RE. THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND THE EVIL OF CORRUPTION


Court of Appeal-Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al. Case
No. C079524; Superior Court Case No: No. 34-2013-34-00155479.
Court of Appeal Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board,
Case No. 079254; Superior Court Case No: 34-2013-34- 00155479.

Dear Presiding Judge Culhane,

Enclosed is the August 21, 2016 letter to the State of California Chief Justice Hon. Tani
G. Cantil-Sakauye to whom to whom the letter is addressed. It is self-explanatory and
does not require much elaboration.
I am presenting the issue of the evil of corruption in the court directly to the Sacramento
County Superior Court presiding judge on the advice of the letter I received from the
State of California Commission of Judicial Performance dated August 24, 2016.

INTRODUCTION

I am a self-represented litigant in the above two cases pending in the Court of Appeal
Third Appellate District, Sacramento, due to the unfavorable decisions of the Sacramento
County Superior Court Judges Hon. Shelleyanne Chang from Department 24 and Hon.
David I. Brown from the Department 53. I am not happy with Judge Chang or Judge
Brown’s unfavorable rulings; however, their rulings are not the subject of this letter

1
because their decision is being handled by the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District.
This letter concerns a self-represented litigant who has paid to file a motion and amended
complaints and the record on appeals, including the clerk and reporter transcripts. The
cost to maintain two court cases and pay for all court services is quite significant for a 65-
year-old worker whose life was devastated a few years ago by his employer, the UC
Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), which is located a few miles away from the
Sacramento County Superior Court.

Apparently, the significance and relevance of these two cases in which I am representing
myself and which are pending in the Court of Appeal are important for the defendant, the
Regents of the University of California (UC) (hereafter Regents), as they decided to use
corruption to destroy me entirely by derailing the judicial process in the Court of Appeal
by any means and cost and with despicable disregard for the court of law and justice,
which should be served without discrimination to any party regardless of social status,
race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political view, and so on.

If the presiding judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court read my request for
intervention letter submitted to California Chief Justice Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye and
the last two motions I submitted to the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, then
the presiding judge would see how ruthlessly and despicably the corrupt staff from both
courts collaborated to not allow me to finish the appeal. Apparently, they know from
information given to them by the university’s mafia that due to my financial status and
health condition, any delay or derailment of the process would impact my health due to
enormous stress and other serious health problems and that eventually I would find
myself homeless due to being unemployed for four years and the subsequent financial
disaster. I am not there yet, but the corrupt court personnel collaborating with the
university organize crime cost me a significant amount of money and stress. They did so
by blocking for almost one year the court record to be submitted to the Court of Appeal
and denying my motion to transfer records for sanction by using a rubber stamp with
Court of Appeal Presiding Justice’s name on it.

In my last two motions and appellate briefs, I noted California’s Rules of Court, Rule
8.23. As the authorities in my motions and briefs, I 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

2
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 notice of designation record of
appeal dated June 22, 2015, the record on appeal was transmitted from the Superior Court
to the Court of Appeal and filed.

I do not need to explain to the presiding judge that because the record on appeal transfer
was not transferred to the appellate court for almost one year, in light of People v. Massie
(1998) 19 Cal. 4th 550, 566–567), it would be a life-and-death case or a long prison term
for a person who did not commit a crime but was convicted because of prejudice and
corruption in the court.

The above is the worst-case scenario, which happened to Rush Griffin in 1935. In
addition, I lost thousands of dollars due to corruption amongst the court personnel, which
is apparently on UC’s rotten administration’s special Christmas list. If somebody from
court with a long employment history, good salary and future retirement engages himself
in criminal activities and a conspiracy to obstruct and derail the justice process to cover
up others’ corruption and fraud, then the reason for such criminal activities are
racketeering and bribery, the offer of a better position or fear of losing employment and
never being hired for any public employment position. This is how government
corruption works.

As I noted previously, the UCDMC is located a few miles from the Sacramento County
Superior Court, and if the presiding judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court
checks the court’s public case access system, how many hundreds of court cases pended
or were pending in which UCDMC and UC Davis were named the defendants ? There is
no need for further explanation of how many plaintiffs were harmed because they were
served “justice” by the friends of the UC mobsters.

3
My both court cases are deeply rooted in the enormous multimillion-dollar Al Capone–
style illegal power sale activities from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant
called the “central plant,” which I have nicknamed “Vanderhoef”’ $65,000,000 slot
machine.” after the former UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef who died on October
15, 2015 at age of 74 in UC Davis Medical Center .

As I previously mentioned, the multimillion dollars in cash from illegal power sales,
Vanderhoef’s $ 65,000 slot machine Al Capone’s style operation resulted in
multimillion-dollar federal and state tax fraud.

It is unknown to me whether UC Davis long time Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef got


manipulated into crime by his inner circle or whether he was a chancellor whose legacy
was built on fraud and a vision similar to that of dictators or whose priority was to build
unnecessary monolithic structures at the cost of their own citizens suffering who were
struggling to buy food and have a place to live.

In case of UC Davis, Vanderhoef’s expansion of the UC Davis legacy was built on


drastic increases in students’ tuition fees, a lack of affordable housing for students, the
misappropriation of public funds and fraud. His legacy ended in turmoil amongst the
students at UC Davis in the form of massive student protests. Vanderhoef’s past activities
took a toll on his successor Linda Katehi, who was which hunted by UC President Janet
Napolitano not long ago for her attempts to keep up with UC Davis’s expenses, which
Vanderhoef passed to her in 2009 upon his resignation.

For the above reason I would like to present my story about the UC Davis former
Chancellor Larry Vamderhoef which lead to destruction and devastation of my and my
family life and to the evil of corruption in the two courts .

It is appearing that the houses of law are not immune from the vicious cycle of corruption
and discrimination I am challenging for the last eight years because of my employment
with the UC Davis Medical Center(UCDM) . My last day of work with UCDMC was
December 7, 2012 but discrimination against did not end on December 7, 2012 and still
being carry out by state agencies court personnel on rotten by corruption university
administration behalf.

I never would have expected that I became subject of discrimination in access to justice
from the court’s personnel in the Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of
Appeal, 3Rd Appellate because the Defendant(s) or Real Party In Interests are the
Regents of the University of California or their agents

4
I already once asked Hon. David Brown from the Department 53 during the court
hearing in April 2015 whether I would have to go outside the courthouse and shoot
myself to make him look for truth (CR 35, 1-13).

On that day, I did not know yet what the stakes were in both of my cases. However, I was
very close to finding out that the stakes were the $65,000,000 of dirty cash made in 1999-
2003 from the illegal power sale by the former UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. I
believe that Hon. David Brown knew about this from Hon. Shelleyanne Chang or from
my dismissal on December 16, 2014, of my crooked attorney Douglas Stein, who, in
panic, disclosed his 20-year relationship with Hon. David Brown in a text message,
which is part of the court record. This was the main reason why I fired him on December
16, 2014. Nobody would keep an attorney who conspired with a judge he had known for
20 years and with the opposing party’s attorneys to destroy his own client who paid him
$20,000 for representation.

THE SELF-REPRESENTATION

In December 2014, I had no choice but to force myself to take over the two cases from
my attorney Douglas Stein, who, together with the attorneys from the Porter Scott law
firm, Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel representing the UC Regents and Hon. David
Brown, attempted to destroy my wrongful termination lawsuit against the Regents of the
University of California and nine individual defendants, some of whom carried out
vicious assaults against me in different forms of psychological terror in 2006-2008 and
2011-2012, including an attempt to assassinate me on May 31, 2012, in an ill-crafted but
unsuccessful provocation.

Attorney Douglas Stein, together with Michael Pott, as early as June 2014 came up with
the idea to eliminate the most important part of the lawsuit, the Settlement Agreement I
signed with UC Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef in February 2009.
This was done via a First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed by Douglas Stein on my
behalf on June 16, 2014. The next step was to attack the FAC with a Special Motion
Strike (SLAPP 425. 16) with the involvement and help of Hon. David Brown.
Douglas Stein knew Hon. David Brown for 20 years.

To carry out the plan, on September 22, 2014, Douglas Stein arranged the FAC to be
resubmitted as the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) to Department 53 with a
Stipulation for Leave to Amend the Complaint and Ex-Parte Application to File the SAC.
On the same day September 22, 2014, Hon. David Brown approved the Douglas Stein’s

5
Ex-Parte Application, and he filed the SAC with a suspended attorney license on
September 30, 2014, against my will and instruction not to file the improperly amended
complaint.

The price tag for the use of Hon. David Brown to do the dirty destruction job of my
lawsuit was set by Douglas Stein and Porter Scott’s attorney Michael Pott to the
approximate amount of $300,000. It was a token in comparison to the $65,000,000 made
by UC Davis Chancellor Vanderhoef from illegal power sales.
The above approximate guessed by me amount corresponds with Douglas Stein’s legal
fee information in the lawsuit against the UC Davis Health System—Center for
Healthcare Policy and Research with an unspecified plaintiff in the amount of $341,915
he received from the owner of the Internet newspaper Davis Vanguard, David
Greenwald, on September 25, 2014.
Douglas Stein published my lawsuit on Davis Vanguard after he filed the SAC.

The number of legal fees was most likely from Janet Keyzer’s wrongful termination case,
which was resolved by court trial in August 2014. David Greenwald learned the amount
of the legal fees in the above case in August 2014 from UC Davis under a Public Record
Act request. Janet Keyzer’s case was also the subject of Davis Vanguard’s publications
and cover.
In 2015, in a motion for legal fees and cost, Porter Scott attorney Douglas Ropel
confirmed that the SLAPP was very precisely coordinated between Michael Pott and
Douglas Stein. The document filed by Douglas Ropel showed that the SLAPP was
approved on September 24, 2015, by Greer Gustavson from the Sedgwick Insurance
Company, which was covering the cost of the University of California litigations. It
happened two days after Hon. David Brown approved the Ex-Parte Application to File
the SAC. The Sedgwick Insurance Company conducts serious business, and any lawsuit
in which the University of California is involved takes some time for Sedgwick to
approve. In this case, everything was perfectly set and was waiting for Hon. David
Brown to take action against me to rescue the criminals from the University of California
responsible for the Al-Capone-style $65,000,000 worth of gambling with state and
federal taxes and to destroy my existence and life at the age of 63.

These facts also indicate that the UC General Counsel Charles Robinson, who
participated in the $65,000,000 illegal power sale fraud in 1999-2003 and related to tax
fraud and he participated in covering up the fraud in 2007, approved the payoff for
Douglas Stein if my lawsuit would go down the drain on December 30, 2014, due to the
SLAPP motion would left unopposed by Douglas Stein. Stein an Pott and apparently
well informed Hon. Davis Brown never have expected that Stein would be fired from
the case before the lawsuit would go down the drain

6
On December 15 and 16, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank called me on both my cell phone and
home phone and asked about Douglas Stein, saying they were trying to collect debt from
him. Douglas Stein was completely financially broke and emptied the $20,000 retainer in
the Wells Fargo account I had helped to open for him in June 2014 by paying him
$20,000 to take on my wrongful termination. The balance was negative in the retainer
account, and Wells Fargo Bank informed me that I was responsible for the negative
balance of the account. I paid the negative balance, and I was able to close the account to
prevent it from further being used by Stein.
When I pressed Stein about it, he responded that he would get money on January 1, 2015.
Stein’s response corresponded with a scheduled court hearing for the UC Regents’
SLAPP motion on December 30, 2014 which was left unopposed by Stein for the know
reason

Stein got fired on December 16, 2014 for failure to oppose the SLAPP; for filing the SAC
improperly amended in September 2014, for disclosing in panic that he knew Hon. David
Brown for 20 years, and he would get an extension to file opposition because I told him
that I would report him to the California State Bar for his misconduct. When I got his text
message about his 20-year relationship with Hon. David Brown, then it was the end of
Stein’s representation.

On December 17, 2014, Douglas Stein, despite being fired, went to court anyway, and
like in September 2014, Stein’s longtime friend Hon. David Brown issued an order that
the SAC filed on September 30, 2014, by Stein with a suspended attorney license was
deemed valid and order an extension to continue the SLAPP. This was despite Hon.
David Brown being informed by Michael Pott during the ex-parte hearing that I had fired
Stein on December 16, 2014. It should be taken into consideration whether Douglas Stein
and Michel Pott made any offers to Hon. David Brown for destruction of my lawsuit.

On December 24, 2014, I advised Stein by e-mail as follows.


• From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk [mailto:jjw1980@live.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 11:25 AM
To: ‘Douglas Stein’ <attydstein@gmail.com>
Cc: ‘desquire1962’ <desquire1962@hotmail.com>; 9162226684@tmomail.net
Subject: Your deceiving behavior to the very end.

English definition of “deceive”:


to persuade someone that something false is the truth, or to keep the truth hidden
from someone for your own advantage

Good Morning, Doug.

7
I read again your text messages you sent to me last evening, and you were trying
very hard to deceive me to the very end. If I were you and in your place (I never
will be), then I would send a letter to Hon. Judge Brown in Sacramento Superior
Court and apologize for deceiving the court of law and the judge himself
regardless of the consequences.
Second, I would call or write to the California State Bar and provide full
disclosure of why and how you got yourself into a mess with the law, who and
when somebody from UC coerced you and why. I know that your drastic financial
situation made you very vulnerable, helpless and defenseless to corruption and
deception. You took the wrong path and way to solve your problems. I knew right
away that after I offered you a deal that if you quit on your own than I would not
go after the $20K+ retainer I paid to you but you refused to quit. It it was the best
indication that something terrible was happening in your life. I don’t know
whether UC bought you, offered you a job or if they got something on you and
blackmailed you. I think it happened after I hired you for the CUIAB case or just
after you took my wrongful termination case and just before you wrote the First
Amended Complaint. You should make a wise choice and disclose truthfully
everything to the authorities and to the court regarding what caused your deception
and why you deceived your client with the help of Mr. Pott and others. It would be
very beneficial for both of us. Think about it. You are the worst enemy for
yourself. You can change the path of your life for the better if you face the
challenges by lawful means.

Jerry

Thereafter, in my complaint with the California State Bar against Douglas Stein, I
provided all the information and documents to bar investigator Amanda Gormley from
the San Francisco office. Ms. Gormeleyy investigated the case and on September 25,
2015, informed me by e-mail that the case would be submitted to the California State Bar
prosecutor by October 9, 2015. Since then, my case and the investigator, Ms. Gormley,
vanished, and I never heard from her again. Her supervisor, Laura Sharek, gave me a
vague response, and my multiple inquiries with the California State Bar Director
Elizabeth Parker to update me about the status of the cases produced no result.

THE FINAL SOLUTION

The cash flow illegal power sale stopped flowing in 2003 for Vanderhoef and his clique
involved in the fraud. The Vanderhoef miscalculation caused losses of in amount
hundreds of millions of dollars a billion dollars instead of millions of dollars I have
worked in the US for many years for the private power companies, and I know how

8
much money 27 MW cogeneration plant could make in 10 years even selling 10 MW
per hour, especially in peak time during the heat of California’s summer.

In April 2012, Vanderhoef’s ruthless mafia decided that there was no other choice but to
lure me onto the premises, anger me, provoke a physical confrontation and either shoot
me to death or disable me permanently and this way to remove the threat of eventual
disclosure of fraud despite the fact that in 2012 I didn’t have any clue that the fraud had
been committed and I would be more happy seeing UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration
facility selling power instead of idle on minimum load at night and forcing to fire the
auxiliary boilers to make steam for the Medical Center. I never seen such waste of the
millions of dollars in any place of my 30 years employment in United States infour
different states . This is a crime itself .

On May 31, 2012, Vanderhoef’s gangsters lured me onto the UCDMC premises by
bribing UCDPD Lt. James Barbour with a $35,000 wage increase. They had the UCDMC
Trauma Nursing Unit ready to receive me. I calmly walked away from the ill-planned
provocation described in the June 1, 2012, exchange of e-mail correspondence between
the UC Davis group of gangsters, which I nicknamed the “UC Davis Death Squad” after I
learned about it in November 2012 Instead of being able to go back to do my job, which
was guaranteed to me by the Settlement Agreement signed by Vanderhoef in February
2009, I was target to be shot and killed or permanently disabled, taking into
consideration the poster with my photo and physical description issued three months after
death trap provocation by new UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and
distributed around UC Davis campuses without my knowledge (poster enclosed).

On December 7, 2012 my employment was terminated by the order of UC General


Counsel Charles Robinson , the key player in the Vanderhoef’s miscalculated fraud and
key player in covering up the fraud.
The Charles Robinson unlawful order to terminate my employment was legitimized by
Vanderhoef henchman UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Alan Tollefson’ who ws
handpicked as Skelly Reviewer .
On December 2012 UC Davis Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vanderhoef was recovering in
UC Davis Medical Center from the November 2012 ischemic stroke.
Coincidently in December 2012 we were both fighting for our survival and wellbeing.

UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR LARRY VANDERHOEF 1994-2009

A member of Sword and Sandals, Vanderhoef led UC Davis for 25 years, first as provost
and executive vice chancellor (1984-1994) and then as chancellor (1994-2009)

9
Rumors were published that Vanderhoef has a 2-million-dollar special account with
money he could use as he wished. It was allegedly based on the UC Davis Academic
Senate former member’s information. https://localwiki.org/davis/Larry_Vanderhoef

In 2006, Vanderhoef found himself on a collision course with the UC Davis faculty.

Jerold Theis works at UC Davis as a medical microbiology professor; his research


interests include forensic pathology and foodborne parasites. In January 2006, Theis the
chair of the Academic Freedom and Responsibility Committee in the Academic Senate
created a petition for a vote of “no confidence” for Vanderhoef’s leadership. Theis argued
that the university administration had become bloated and that Vanderhoef had “wasted
millions of dollars of state money to preserve the power structure.”
Vanderhoef presided over the largest increase in administrative officers in the history of
the campus.

In late March 2006, Theis began investigating claims made by one of the center’s
former surgeons, Casey Daggett, against the UCDMC. Casey alleged that university
pressured him into resigning by threatening to ruin his medical career after he raised
complaints against the UCDMC’s practices. Casey’s complaints included cases of
“patient maltreatment, inappropriate sexual relations and personal harassment in the
workplace.”
THE UC DAVIS WORLD - CLASS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
BUILD IN 2002 AND NAMED “MONDAVI CENTER”

After being named chancellor in 1994, Vanderhoef vowed to bring a world-class


performing arts center to UC Davis.
• “There were any number of people who advised against building a performing arts
center, told him it was just a pipe dream,” said Don Roth, the center’s executive
director. “He listened to them, but he saw the need. He had the vision to push it
through, knowing it would be meaningful not just to our students but to the entire
region. He’ll be remembered for that.

Read more here:


http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/obituaries/article39380853.html#storylink=cpy

The ‘class performing arts center” in UC Davis became Vanderhoef’s obsession


and is only known is known in other parts of the USA because of November 2011
pepper spray attack against protesting students.

To finance his delusional vision that UC Davis and his art center make him a chancellor
known by the entire world, as same as one one chancellor known from history book.
Apparently somebody who knew well the Vanderhoef’s obsession gave him the idea to
build in the UC Davis Medical Center the 27 MW cogeneration power plant at cost of

10
$ 65,000, 000 which would pay for his $ 60,000,000 world-class performing arts
center” by selling illegally power per contract with public utilities or on the spot
market due to the energy marked deregulation in California in 1994-2001. The power
marked deregulation in California is well remembered by the California residents as the
California Energy Crisis and rolling blackouts and forty billions loses for the California
economy.

The UC Davis Medical Center was chosen by Vanerhoef and his advisor to build at cost
of the $ 65,000, 000 the 27 MW cogeneration power plant because the UCDMC was
already connected to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and did not
require to build transmission line to sell the power. For information the 27 MW plant
could power up town with 25, 000 residents. In 1998 UC Davis Medical Center demand
for power was less than 5 MW in contrary to UC Davis Campus demand of 100 MW .
The UC Davis campus does not have own cogeneration plant .

Under the guidance from his criminally minded advisors and participants in the crime,
Chancellor Vanderhoef’s was dragged into white collar crime scheme and fraud which
outlived his death occurred in October 2015.

The Vanderhoef’s fulfilled his visionary obsession of 1994 and his world-class
performing arts center had an opening ceremony in 2002 at cost of $ 60, 000,000.It was
named the Mondavi Center after the famous California winemakers, the Mondavi family
which contributed $ 10, 000,00 to build Mondavi Center or money were used to build 27
MW cogeneration plant in UCDMC. The Mondavi Center includes Jackson Hall, named
after university professor William Jackson, whose wife Barbara donated $5,000,000 to
the project in memory of him. It seats 1,801, and Vanderhoef Studio Theatre is named
after former university chancellor Vanderhoef himself.

It correspondent with 1999 to 2003 with the UCDM 27 central plant which generated
approximately 65-70 million dollars of dirty cash free of tax, which was most likely used
to pay for Vanderhoef’s visions, including but not limited to the UC Davis Mondavi
Center. It generated millions of dollars of illegal cash not only by selling illegal power
but also gouging the price of energy along with crooked power producers such as Enron,
causing rolling blackouts for California residents, who were paying price for
Vanderhoef’s and other UC administrators’ corruption and greed.

The Vanaderhoef’s obsession to build “world -class performing arts center’ in UC Davis
with Vanderhoef Theatre Studio named after him is closely akin to obsession of the
former Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg . I addressed this subject in my
letter September 25, 2015 letter to U.S Senator Honorable Dianne Feinstein who is a
wife of the UC Regent Mr. Richard Blum . I asked quite few times for help with ssam
result as in attached her one of responses.

11
• “Before I sent my first inquiry to your office, requesting help, I asked for help from
several state agencies and state legislators, including and not limited to Hon. Assembly
Speaker John Perez, who nominated one of the corrupted members of the California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, backed up by the State of California Office of
Attorney General and Judge of the County of Sacramento Superior Court Hon. Sallyanne
Chang.

State of California Assembly Speaker responded to my inquiry with a vague letter


because he had already secured for himself the Regent Position with the University of
California and had replaced Hon. Toni Atkins, who was sworn in as Assembly Speaker.

On June 25, 2013, I sent a seven-page inquiry for help to Hon. Darrell Steinberg-
California Senate President Pro Tempore; Hon. Das Williams-State of California
Assembly Member and Chair of the Higher Education Committee; Hon. Roger
Hernandez-State of California Assembly Member and Chair on the Labor and
Employment Committee with the same result. In 2000, I was briefly involved, together
with Hon. Darrell Steinberg, in bringing back to work four suspended employees at the
UC Davis Medical Center Integrated Access Unit.
These four workers became the target of vicious and unscrupulous retaliatory action by
UCDMC management after they had complained about safety issues in the department,
and they were escorted off campus, suspended without pay, and placed on investigatory
leave. One of the complaining workers was accused of serious misconduct and received a
letter of dismissal.
The Hon. Steinberg responded to my inquiry but refused to help. If I had known in 2013
about the 60-year-old William Prindible, who was fired from his job because he was
doing his duty, I would have mentioned this to Mr. Steinberg as well. The previously
mentioned William Prindible was suffering from bipolar disorder, as was Mr. Steinberg’s
daughter, Jordana, when she was 7 years old, according to many publications. Also, Mr.
Steinberg’s daughter suffered and recovered from a more serious mental illness during a
very challenging and heart-touching journey. Mr. Steinberg daughter’s illness is what
drove Proposition 63.
However, in 2013, I did not know that Mr. Steinberg had secured for himself the
prestigious Director of Policy and Advocacy position for the new UC Davis Behavioral
Health Center of Excellence, the $7.5 million UC Davis center funded by Proposition 63,
California’s tax on millionaires that funds programs for people who are mentally ill.
Steinberg, a longtime advocate for mental health programs, wrote the 2004 measure, and
the institution was funded by a measure he championed while in the Legislature. It was a
remarkable achievement. However, I am not sure whether Mr. Steinberg knew before he
became a Director of Policy and Advocacy for the new UC Davis Behavioral Health
Center of Excellence how many thousands of UC Davis employees, including myself,
were forced to visit psychiatrists and psychologists to seek help due to unscrupulously

12
abusive and vindictive Nazis such as the corrupted UC Davis administration and
management. “

THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL 27 MW COGNERATION PLANT NAMED


CANTRAL PLANT AND NICKNAMED “VANDRHOEF’S $ 65,000 , 000 ILLGAL
SLOT MACHINE”

The UCDMC state of the art 27 cogeneration power plan powered by LM 5000 jet
engine was commissioned in 1998 unfinished and was lacking of safety for operating
personnel.
The plaque on the front door proudly displaying Vanderhoef name and his vision for the
next 1000 years of the UC Davis Reich with the words
• “Conceived, designed and constructed to support the medical center’s mission
by providing reliable utilities in the next millennium.”
The above misleading statement on the plaque condones Vanderhoef and others’
involvement in the $65,000,000 misappropriations of public funds, future money
laundering and multimillion-dollar state and federal tax fraud. The Vanderhoef ‘s and his
collaborators or crime investors devastated my and my family’s lives beyond
imagination and harmed many other UC Davis employees’ lives as well, in addition to
harm done to tax payers. I have listed some of Vanderhoef’s white crime victims and the
other participants in his crime in the 2015 court documents.

In 1998-2003 Vanderhoef most likely don’t know and did not care about the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission Requirements to operate cogeneration facility and to sell
commercially power (commodity) by not for profit organization . He had on his side
Governor Grey Davis , Attorney General Bill Lockyer , Pacific Gas and Electric ,
Sacramanto Municipal Utility District . As the FERC documents show the most
important participant in the Vanderhoef’s Al-Capone style fraud was the California
Independent System Operator (CAISO) with Governor Grey Davis in charge of CAISO
Board of Directors and the CALISO General Counsel Charles Robinson who became in
January 2007 the UC General Counsel after Vanderhoef’s $ 65,000, 0000 was covered
up by totally fraudulent agreement approved by FERC on March 1, 2007with resulted
millions of dollars harm for states and federal taxpayers.

On February 2001, California Governor Gray, with a closed staff, toured Vanderhoef’s
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant and blessed the Al Capone–style illegal sale of
power and commodities worth millions of dollars free of tax. Most like Governor Chief
Deputy Secretary and future judge of the Sacramento Superior Court Shellayanne Chang
toured the UC Davis Central Plant together with Governor Grey Davis. ( See enclosure ) .
The tour took place during the already pending fraud case with the US Federal Energy

13
Regulatory Commission (FERC) against major power producers. The FERC case
included references to the central plant including the UC Davis Medical Canter 27 MW
cogeneration facility as the participant in the fraud .

The FERC’s complaint against the UCDMC 27 MW central plant alleged fraud,
misrepresentation, other forms of market manipulation, wrongful conduct, electricity
market manipulation and the violation of any applicable tariffs, regulations, laws and
rules.( see: enclosed complaint with the State Board of Equalization for tax fraud)

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TERROR AND ATTEMPT TO TERMIANTE MY


EMPLOYMENT IN 2007 BY VANDERHOEF

It most likely that In 2005, Vanderhoef was blackmailed or manipulated by the UC


Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown and another UC Davis lawyer Stephen Chilcott
who most likely told him that he is facing grave legal consequences if the illegal power
and related to the multimillion tax fraud will surface.
Chilcott and Drown most likely made the recommendation to Vanderhoef in damage
control to terminate the UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Manager
Tony Moddessette who had MBA degree and replace him with his assistant high school
educated Charles Witcher who will participate in the witch hunt without asking questions
in exchange for fat paycheck and position he did not qualify for. Stephen Chilott surfaces
in the fraud cover up process as unknown to anybody attorney with little experiences and
$ 60, 000 salary in 2005 with title HR Investigator and was promoted. In February 2009
after Vanderhoef signed with me the Settlement -Agreement Chilcott title was already
HR Labor Relation Manager a with 138 K salary and year later as a UC Davis Health
System HR Executive Director with $ 2008 K salary . It is more than Judge with 20 years
on the bench in Scaramanto County Superior Court. Today Chilcott makes more than
State of California Chief Justice Justice Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye. Frauds and white
collar crimes pays well in the University of California. Look at UC President Janet
Napolitano and US President Barak Obama annual salary.

In August 2005, I was assisting my coworker from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration


facility in a whistleblowing complaint related to the massive oil discharge into the
Sacramento River for seven years via city storm drains from the plant’s cooling tower’s
24 defective gear boxes. This environmental crime was finally stopped after my coworker
William Buckans, who was injured on the oil slippery surface underneath cooling tower
and filed a whistleblowing complaint.

The whistle blowing complaint was filed with the UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor
office. The complaint with state or federal environmental enforcement agency to
investigate the crime was not submitted but if so it could have led to the disclosure of the

14
illegal power sale and tax fraud of which I or my coworker William Buckans in 2005
had no knowledge that power sale was illegal

Apparently manipulated by the two attorneys Steven Drown and Stephen Chilcott and
fed with the news he did not like to hear Vanderhoef became so nervous that in panic he
assigned Chilcott two assistant vice chancellors from UC Davis to control damages by
any means and repel the possibility of the disclosure of the illegal power sale and related
to tax fraud .The damage control cost the department and plant managers their jobs, and
the school attempted to terminate my employment in January 2007 when I was still
recovering from the open heart surgery. I did not have a clue in January 2007 that
power was being illegally sold and I did not care to know. It was a little suspicious why
the plant stopped selling power in 2003 and nobody talk about why it happened.

After mu coworker submitted his August 2005 whistle blowing complaint the hostility in
Central Plant in 2005-2007 ordered by Stephen Chilcott and artificially created and aimed
at my two coworkers and myself as main target to provoke me and remove me from the
university landscape was beyond imagination, human decency, unavailable and
despicable that it is taking place in the University of California

Vanderhoef was not able to terminate my employment in March 2007 due to a lack of
collaboration from the plant manager and plant supervisor, who had given me annual
employment evaluations since 1999 that were excellent. Vanderhoef ordered the plant
manager to be fired, and I was abruptly and unlawfully moved from the central plant to a
different shop. Failure to terminate me caused postponement of fraud and investor or
investors which vested money to build the UC Davis Medical Central Plant were losing
millions of dollars since 2003.

I did not know in March 2007 that California Attorney General Bill Lockyer represented
California Parties in the FERC case against main power producers agreed to an
ultimatum from FERC which removed the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility from
the settlement and covered up Vanderhoef’s money laundering from illegal power sales
from 1999-2003 and related to tax fraud.

The FERC’s approval of the settlement on March 1, 2007 under the pressure of an
ultimatum and intimidation gave the green light to make the fraud disappear from the
public view and opened the door to continuance of making millions of dollar tax free
from the illegal generation and sale of power. However, Vanderhoef and his thugs
viewed my presence in the UCDMC as a threat to their mafia-type operation to make
money after the FERC settlement was approved, and I had be destroyed at any means.
The stake were millions of dollars and their fat paychecks and bonuses.

Vanderhoef became so paranoid that his criminal activities would surface that in 2007, he
personally ordered on August 27, 2007 the letter of expectation to be removed from my

15
coworker’s personal file reporting the massive oil discharge into the Sacramento River.
The letter of expectation was not even counted as a disciplinary action under UC Davis’s
policies. The criminals who were responsible for the environmental crime by refusing to
provide $120,000 to replace defective gear boxes were rewarded for their seven years of
ongoing crime with large bonuses and higher positions.

THE 2007-2009 BATTLE WITH THE VANDERHOEF’S THUGS TO GET MY


JOB BACK IN THE UCDMC CENTRAL PLANT

I fought back against Vanderhoef’s attempt to fire me and cover up his crime and did not
know why I was the subject of terror and inhumane treatment at a time when I was still
recovering from open-heart surgery.

My battle with Vanderhoef’s thugs stretched out to November 2008. I was using
administrative remedies under the UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 (to
get my job back in the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility where I had worked since
June 1999 with perfect annual employee evaluations. I was abruptly removed from the
facility, not knowing that the central plant is Vanderhoef and his cronies’ personal
multimillion-dollar slot machine in which I was working since June 1999.

On June 2, 2008, Vanderhoef submitted a letter of intent to resign from the UC Davis
Chancellor position.

In November 2008, after a long and exhausting battle to get my job back in the UCDMC
central plant, I defeated Vanderhoef in the arbitration process. It was presided over by
UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Connie Melendy, who was assigned to the
arbitration by Vanderhoef. It was pure luck that I prevailed in arbitration against
Vanderhoef because the arbitrator was assigned to issue a decision that would lead to the
termination of my employment shortly after the arbitration. The decision issued by
Connie Melendy left no doubt that this was the goal. I accidently found out that there is
no UC Davis policy that allows management to use employee reassignment as tool of
disciplining employees, which is how I survived the arbitration after the prior three
negative decisions issued by the corrupt UCDMC directors who were perpetrators in the
psychological terror against me and participant in covering up the Vanderhoef’s $ 65,
000,000 fraud and disregarded the environmental law by permitting discharge of machine
oil to the Sacramento RiveR via storm drain from defective equipment in Central Plant.

Vanderhoef assigned attorney to the arbitration process who held the UC Davis HR
assistant director position and who represented Vanderhoef in the arbitration process,
Dawn Capp, lost her high-paying job directly after I prevailed in the arbitration process.
The arbitrator Connie Melendy, the associate vice chancellor, also disappeared from UC
Davis shortly after Dawn Capp lost her job. The casualties and toll this incident was

16
taking became visible due to Vanderhoef’s vision of a world-class performing arts center
at UC Davis and his crimes against taxpayers and UC Davis employees, including but not
limited to the violation of my and others civil and human rights and the destruction of
people’s lives.

THE FEBRUARY 2009 SETTLEMENT- AGREEMENT WITH VANDERHOEF

Not having much choice after the arbitration, Vanderhoef ordered UC Campus Counsel
Steven Drown, his partner in crime since 1999, to execute a settlement agreement with
me to control the damage and to attempt to erase any mention of me from UC Davis’s
history.

The 2009 settlement agreement provided me a new exempt position as an associate


development engineer in exchange for staying permanently in the UCDMC HVAC shop,
where I was abruptly moved by Vanderhoef’s orders in March 2007 and not to return to
the 27 MW cogeneration facility. The settlement was similar to Vanderhoef’s settlement
with UC Davis Vice Chancellor Celeste Rose, who was asked to resign from her post in
2005. Vanderhoef offered Celeste Rose a compensation package behind closed doors to
prevent a lawsuit. The difference between our cases was that, financially, the
compensation for the terror I experienced from Vanderhoef’s thugs was nothing in
comparison to the settlement with Celeste Rose. I believe that the settlement Vanderhoef
signed with me was executed without Regents or UC President knowledge. However, I
believe that the 2009 settlement Vanderhoef signed to avoid costly litigation was
executed with full knowledge of UC General Counsel Charles Robinson who prior
January 1, 2007 held the General Counsel position in California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) . CAISO participated in the UCDMC 27 MW Central illegal power
sale in proximate amount of $ 65,000, 0000-$70,000,000 and related to state and federal
tax fraud and Charles participation in fraud and cover up fraud was awarded by UC
Regents $ 400,000 annual salary UC General Counsel position

THE RESIGNATION OF UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR LARRY VANDERHOEF


IN AUGUST 2009

Shortly after Vanderhoef signed the February 2009 Settlement -Agreement with me he
resigned from the UC Davis chancellor position and took one year of sabbatical
leave..His last day as chancellor was August 16, 2009. His successor was Linda Katehi,

17
who was appointed by the UC Board of Regents on May 7, 2009, effective August 17,
2009.

THE NEW UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR LINDA KATEHI AND VANERHOEF’S


WELCOME STATEMENT

Prior his last days as UC Davis Chancellor on May 1, 2009, Vanderhoef welcomed new
coming UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi with the following words:
I can’t imagine a more perfect next chancellor for the Davis campus than President
Yudof’s recommended choice—Linda Katehi, currently provost and vice
chancellor for Academic Affairs and professor of electrical and computer
engineering at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. By virtually any
measure, she is a superstar!

From the above statement welcoming Linda Katehi as the new UC Davis Chancellor,
Vanderhoef named Katehi as his successor who would carry his past fraud and crimes
and his dirty legacy into the future. His statement welcoming Kathy as the UC Davis
chancellor sounds as if Vanderhoef had significant input and feedback about who to hire
as his successor with a similar employment history as his. This most likely led him to
believe that Katehi would not hesitate to willfully participate in fraud and crime to fulfill
his fraudulent and corrupt vision similar to that in George Orwell’s novels 1984 and
Animal Farm, blended with the ideologies of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler.

Katehi, whose past was already questionable due to her prior employment at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) as a provost and vice chancellor for
academic affairs and involvement in a clout scandal in May 2009 was Vanderhoef’s
dream successor. The UIUC investigation resulted in the resignation of the president of
the University of Illinois, who oversaw the three campuses in the university’s system, and
that of the chancellor of UIUC. The scandal spread to include evidence of graft by
members of the board of trustees, resulting in the resignation of seven of the nine
members.
Vanderhoef’s statement about Katehi that “by virtually any measure, she is a superstar!”
was undoubtedly based on her achievements at UIUC as a provost and vice chancellor for
academic affairs and that she viewed her as the perfect candidate to deal with ongoing
turmoil and student protests on the UC Davis campus.

In August 2010, Vanderhoef returned to UC Davis as professor emeritus to teach biology.

THE UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR EMERITUS’ LARRY VANDERHOEF


PARTCIPATION IN THE INVESTIGATION AFTERMATH THE SEPTEMBER
2010 SAN BRUNO, CA PIPELINE EXPLOSION WHICH WAS MAINTEINED
BY THE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

18
In September 2010, Vanderhoef was involved in the San Bruno natural gas explosion
investigation.
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2010-10-15/cpuc-appoints-five-to-
investigate-san-bruno-explosion/143669.html

After his resignation from the UC Davis chancellor position in August 2009 and one year
of sabbatical leave, Vanderhoef resurfaced in September 2010 as the chair of the
California Public Utilities Commission’s (CAPUC) independent review panel
investigating the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion caused by gas leaks maintained by
PG&E.

What Vanderhoef as UC Davis Chancellor Emeritus. have to do with PG&E’s gas leak
and explosion that killed 8 people and devastated many families lives

The question is how Vanderhoef’s chair assignment affected the PG&E’s victims and
their families. CAPUC condoned and helped cover up Vanderhoef’s

Who handpicked UC Davis white-collar criminal Vanderhoef for this assignment, which
was apparently a coordinated effort of corrupted officials from CAPUC and PG&E?

Vanderhoef’s assignment as chair of the CAPUC’s independent review panel in


September indicates that CAPUC gave Vanderhoef the green light to resume operation of
the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant regardless of the fact that he was no longer UC
Davis’s chancellor

The PG&E was willfully participant in Vanderhoef’s illegal operation of the UCDMC 27
MW cogeneration facility. During the illegal power sales in 1999-2003, PG&E was the
natural gas supplier to the UCDMC cogeneration facility at the approximate cost of
$3,000,000 per month.

PG&E was closely connected with the State of California Public Utility Commission and
was perfectly aware of Vanderhoef’s fraudulent scheme and knew that the UCDMC 27
MW cogeneration facility was not in compliance with the federal law to be qualified as a
cogeneration facility to commercially sell power by the university, which is a non-profit
organization.

In February 2001, California Governor Grey Davis, who most likely as Lt Governor and
Regents in 1994-1995 participated in the Vanderhoef’s idea to build 27 MW
cogeneration facility in wrong place to sell illegally sale , toured the UCDMC 27 MW
plant and announced during the tour that he would rescue PG& E from bankruptcy due to
the deregulation of the California Energy Market..

19
In March 2007, PG&E was the California party, together with the state of California
attorney general, in the FERC fraud case against power producers, which included the
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility. PG&E was one of the participants in the FERC
settlement, which caused the illegal operations of the plant to vanish from public view,
along with $65,000,000 dollars. I still do not know how much money from fraud were
used by Vanderhoef to pay for his vision and how much it landed in the bank accounts
as form of bonuses and other pays of those who participated in the fraud.

In 2007, PG&E’s attorneys were very familiar with my name (Waszczuk) due to my
disclosure to PG&E in 1997 of the over $100,000,000 in fraud committed by my former
employer, the competitor of Enron, the Dynegy corporation. In 1997, PG&E filed a
lawsuit against Dynegy based on my information and settled the Dynegy fraud for
$100,000,000 paying me token of $150,000 for my disclosure. Dynegy and Enron in
1999-2001 participated in massive energy price gouging and rolling blackouts, which
harmed California residents, taxpayers and the California economy in general, amounting
to approximately 40 billion dollars, of which only 8 billion were recovered due to
fraudulent settlements agreements such as the FERC-approved agreement in March 2007,
which covered up Vanderhoef’s crime and destroyed my and others’ lives.

Vanderhoef’s participation in San Bruno’s PG&E gas explosion investigation that killed
8 people must be addressed in light of his $65,000,000 misappropriation of public funds
to build the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility and PG&E participation in the
Vanderhoef ‘s fraud and the cover up the fraud.

THE BLACK MAIL PETITION IN CENTRAL PLANT AND VANDERHOEF


REACTION

In September 2010, unexpectedly for Steven Drown and Stephen Chilcott , four
UCDMC Central plant operators who were my former coworkers submitted a blackmail
petition to department management stating that they would refuse to perform their duties
if they did not receive a $4.00/hour pay raise . .
The argument they used was that I was making $15,000 more than them after being
removed by Vanderhoef , Chilcott and Drown from the plant in March 2007. This was a
false statement, but the blackmail petition rose red flags, and Vanderhoef and ahis
partners in crime immediately dispatched special envoy UC Davis HR attorney Danesha
Nichols to monitor the volatile situation. Danseha Nichols was involved in the 2008
arbitration process in which I prevailed against Vanderhoef than she knew who is who
and what to expect.

To quiet the rebellious operators and redirect their attention from the Vandrehoef ‘s crime
, a six-step 12% pay raise was granted by management to all plant personnel without any
opposition or questioning the blackmail petition.

20
In 2010, due to budget constraints and furloughs on the UC campuses, including UC
Davis, it was unthinkable for anyone to receive a 12% or six-step pay raise as a non-
exempt union or non-union employees or even for exempt University of California
employees working only one or two years for the university.

This shows Vanderhoef’s thusgs paranoia that their white-collar multimillion dollar
crime cover up would surface and the law would put Vanderhoef and them in the place
they belong.

The blackmail petition for the pay raise followed in December 2010 a locker burglary in
Central Plant and operator Todd Georlich’s suicide, which was triggered by an
unbelievably hostile environment created purposefully by management under orders from
Stephen Chilcott in 2005-2007 to remove me from the Central Plant . Therafter hostility
never stopped and Todd Georlich was the operator who replaced me in March 2007. At
40 years old, he paid the ultimate price for Vanderhoef’s and his thugs crimes .

The 2010 events at the UCDMC central plant and Todd Georlich’s suicide put me in
Vanderhoef’s gangsters’ spotlight again.

THE NEW 2011 WAVE OF PYSCHOLOGICAL TERROR IN ATTEMPT TO


TERMINATE MY EMPLOYMENT

In April 2011, Vanderhoef’s controlled mafia led by Steven Drown, UC General Counsel
Charles Robinson and UCDMC HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott launched an
intense assault against me. The attacks included stalking, provocation of physical
confrontation, attempts to file fraudulent worker’s compensation claims, placing me on
endless investigatory leave with no notice, attempts to terminate my employment in
September 2011 and December 2011, denial of my short-term disability, attempts to force
me to retire, slander with unfounded accusations, attempts to force me to undergo
psychiatric evaluation, changes to my title, sabotage of my duties, attacks on my
coworkers whom I represented in their complaints against Vanderhoef’s thugs, denial of
my medical benefits, attacks on my psychologist in Lodi, CA, and devastation of his
family’s life because his December 17, 2011, letter postponed the termination of my
employment and delayed the Vanderhoef mafia’s illegal power sales.

In October 2011, I sent a complaint to UC Davis Police Captain Joyce Souza, believing
that if somebody filed a false complaint against me that I was being hunted down like an
animal by a pack of hungry predators. The response was that there was nothing on me in
the police file. Thereafter, I began to send information to Souza, UC David Police
Department (UCDPD) Chief of Police Annette Spicuzza, and Lt. John Pike about the
volatile situation at the UCDMC.

21
THE UC DAVIS STUDENT PROTESTS AND NOVEMEBR 18, 2011 PEPPER
SPRAY ATTACK

Vanderhoef’s mafia—led by Drown, Robinson, Chilcott, and the future UC Davis chief
of police—was in full control of the situation and used the November 2011 student
protests and the orchestrated pepper spray attack to remove Lt. Pike and Chief Spicuzza
immediately after the attack and, later, Captain Souza—to whom I complained about
management misconduct in UCDMC and provided information about my situation, Todd
Goerlich’s suicide, child-pornography activities in the department , misuses of university
properties, and so on.

The new chancellor of UC Davis, Chancellor Katehi, was completely disoriented during
the student protests, and the situation was controlled by Vanderhoef’s thugs like Steven
Drown, Stephen Chilcott, and Lt. Matt Carmichael .
What actually happened was that Lt. Pike became a UC Davis mascot, walking like a
prima ballerina with a pepper spray can and spraying seated students over and over, as if
he was expecting to be promoted to the rank of captain for his actions.

THE MAY 31, 2012 ILLEGAL POWER PURCHASE AGREMEENT


AND THE FINAL SOLUTION

It was not a coincident that May 31, 2012 was the day I was targeted to be shot by the
UCDPD bribed cop, Lt. James Barbour, and delivered to UCDMC Trauma Nursing Unit
# 11 or the UCDMC morgue. On that day, the partners in Vanderhoef’s 1999-2003
$65,000,000 illegal power sales , the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, signed a new
power purchase agreement with Vanderhoef’s mafia to resume illegal power sales for the
following 18 months.
It t was pure luck and God’s will than I returned home on that “final solution” day, alive
and in one piece, from the trip to UC Davis Medical Center. I think that it was very bad
day for Vanderhoef and his henchmen and very bad karma for Vanderhoef.
A few months later, in November 2012, Vanderhoef was delivered to UC Davis Medical
Center due to ischemic stroke. In November 2012, Vanderhoef was fighting for his life
and I was fighting his henchmen and the UC mafia to get my job back after 18 months of
terror and an attempt on my life.
Vanderhoef’s hand-picked friend and henchmen—the sexual predator, UC Davis
Associate Vice Chancellor Allan Tollefson—by his December 3, 2012, signature
legitimized the unlawful order of white-collar criminal and UC General Counsel Charles
Robinson to terminate may employment, which finally occurred on December 7, 2012.

The new, unlawful, Al Capone-style illegal gambling power sale from UC Davis
Medical Center’s 27 MW cogeneration power plant, nicknamed the “65,000,000
Vanderhoef slot machine” ceased in December 2013, a few days after I filed a Writ of
Mandamus against the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board as the

22
Respondent and the Regents of the University of California as the Real Party of Interest,
in the Sacramento County Superior Court, on December 2, 2013. The case was docketed
under Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CU-WM-GDS, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and Real Party in Interest UC Davis Health
System.

In December 2013, the Honorable Shelleyanne Chang, was assigned to the Writ of
Mandate/CEQA in the Sacramento County Superior Court Department 24, effective
January 1, 2014. My Petition of the Writ of Mandamus was assigned automatically to
Hon. Chang in March 2014, after a summons was served to CUIAB and the Regents.
As I previously mentioned, before the Hon. Chang was appointed to the bench she
worked as California Governor Grey Davis’s Deputy Chief Legal Secretary and she most
likely toured UCDMC Central Plant together with Grey Davis on February 14, 2001.
The illegal power sales were stopped in December 2013, most likely by order of new UC
President Janet Napolitano, the former United States Homeland Security Chief who is
still condoning Vanderhoef and his collaborators’ crime, despite the fact that Ms.
Napolitano was informed about activities of the rotten and corrupt university
administrators and management on many occasions by certified US Mail, fax, and e-mail.

THE DEATH OF UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR EMERITUS LARRY


VANDERHOEF

UC Chancellor Emeritus Larry N. Vanderhoef died on Oct. 15, 2015, at UC Davis


Medical Center, due to complications of successive ischemic strokes. He was 74.
He died at UC Davis Medical Center, the place which was his legacy and the place where
his henchmen chose to execute me on May 31, 2012.
In October 2015, when Vanderhoef was dying in the UC Davis Medical Center, the UC
Regents’ lawyers from Porter Scott law firm, together with Sacramento Superior Court
Judge Honorable David Brown, were struggling to keep secret his unlawful activities
related to illegal power sales from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility, nicknamed
“Vanderhoef’s $65,000,000 slot machine.”

If Vanderhoef had taken into consideration the illegal medical experiments conducted by
UC Davis Medical Center’s 21st century Dr. Mengeles like Dr, Claire Pomeroy , Dr.
Rudolph Schrot , Dr, Paul Muizellar , Dr . Klea Bertakis and their commandant Ann
Madden Rice —which caused many patient deaths and hundreds of lawsuits for medical
malpractices against UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento County Superior Court—
before he was admitted to UC Davis Medical Center to be treated for ischemic strokes,
maybe he would have chosen a different medical facility for his treatment and maybe he
would be alive today. UC Davis’s Mengeles almost killed me in 2005 when I was
admitted to the UCDMC emergency room. I have it documented. My coworker
experienced treatment at UCDMC after which could only sleep in a sitting position for

23
six months after the simple medical procedure. Somebody should take a look at
Vanderhoef’s medical record, especially as he was attached to the white collar crime and
knew many names. It is was not coincident that after the Vanderhoef ‘s death on October
15, 2015 the UC Regents in November settled the Keyzer case abandoned the appeal
which was filed on December 5, 2014 at same time as Regents filed SLAPP motion in
my wrongful termination case .
Janet Keyzer’s case was related to the 2007 illegal $5.5 million research project
involving human subjects in San Quentin State Prison. The project was entitled
“Community Oriented Pain-Management Exchange Program” (COPE). Vanderhoef
Yudof and Dr, Klea Bertakis escaped punishment for their involvement and approval of
the crime due Special Motion to Strike under Code of Civil Procedure § 426.16(e)(2)
(Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)) instead of be investigated and
punished for the crime. If Vanderhoef would still alive and the Keyzer’s case would
happened today than it would a completely different case.

If I would add to the above how the Vanderhoef destroyed a former UC Davis doctoral
genetics student Howard Zochlinski’s life than the picture of Vanderhoef ’ portrayed by
the memorial ceremony in UC Davis Modavi’s Center Jackson Hall on December 5,
2015 does not correspondent with the facts . (see enclosure)

In a video-recording of a beautiful memorial ceremony on November 5, 2015, speakers


referenced the Mondavi Center as one of Vanderhoef’s greatest achievements during his
15 years as chancellor, so it was especially fitting when his daughter, Susanne
Vanderhoef, sang a Bach aria to honor her father, and conductor emeritus D. Kern
Holoman took up his baton to lead the UCD Symphony Orchestra in a prelude and
postlude.
Watching the video and reading newspaper articles about the ceremony, I noticed that
none of the UC Regents attended the memorial of Larry Vanderhoef, chancellor of UC
Davis for 15 years. Neither former UC President Mark Yudof nor present UC President
Janet Napolitano attended the memorial, and no words from them about Chancellor
Vanderhoef’s achievements or condolences to his family were read by the memorial
service speakers during the ceremony. I found it strange and unusual.

I found it even stranger that U.S Congressman Hon. John Garamendi honored UC
Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef on the floor of the U.S. Congress, on October 27, 2015,
with the following words:

• Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Larry Neil Vanderhoef, a long-serving


Chancellor at the University of California, Davis. On October 15, Larry passed
away at age 74. I was fortunate to call him my friend, and he will truly be missed.
I am deeply honored to have known Chancellor Larry Neil Vanderhoef and to pay
tribute to a great visionary who dedicated his life to public service and to the
people of Davis. There is little doubt that Chancellor Vanderhoef’s presence was

24
felt throughout the entire community. He left a remarkable legacy, which will not
soon be forgotten. It is my sincere hope that the students and faculty at UC Davis
will embody the Chancellor’s spirit and continue to carry his legacy with them
throughout their lives. It is leaders like Chancellor Vanderhoef who inspire change
and make the most impact on those around them.

I found it strange that Chancellor Vanderhoef’s achievements were recognized on the


floor of the U.S. Congress in Washington, DC but no words were said about Chancellor
Vanderhoef’s 25 years of leadership and achievements at UC Davis on the California
Senate and Assembly floors located 25 miles from UC Davis and three miles from the
UC Davis Medical Center. (see enclosure )

CONCLUSION

As a lawful resident of the State of California and the United States of America, which
granted me political asylum due to my political activities against the communist regime
in my native Poland in 1980-198, I am asking the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento
County Superior Court the following:

To stop the discrimination against me carried out by Court personnel and to allow me
equal access to justice as would be granted to any other litigant according to law and the
California Court Rules .
I am not asking for any favors or for special treatment from the Court because I am self-
represented litigant.
However, I am asking the Court not to provide preferential treatment for my adversaries
and their lawyers because the University of California, is interconnected with state
agencies and state government.

I already pointed out what I experienced in the Sacramento County Superior Court from
the two judges and court personnel who unlawfully collaborated against me with the
personnel in the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and the attorneys from the
Porter Scott law firm representing the University of California. I view these as criminal
activities that could cause someone to die or spend his life in prison if a the accused party
were to represent himself in a criminal case on the appeal.

I believe that the Presiding Judge will agree with me that it did not require much time
almost one year for the Clerk of the Superior Court to transfer the designated record on
appeal to the Appellate Court.

I believe that the Presiding Judge will agree with me that it should not have been
necessary for me to write letters in order for to the Superior Court clerk to transfer the
record on appeal or to file in the Appellate Court several motions to force the clerks to

25
transfer the record on appeal to the Appellate Court. The motions were addressed to the
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal but were routinely denied by the clerk’s stamp or
signature of the Presiding Justice, who most likely never saw the motions and signed
meaningless orders given to him by clerk. This how I see this evil, corrupt scheme to
harm me and derail the appeal after I spent almost one year struggling to get my record
on appeal and my appellate briefs to the Court of Appeal Justices.

I would also appreciate it if the Presiding Judge would take a look at the Honorable
Shelleyanne Chang, who was assigned to my Petition for Writ of Mandamus in March
2014 right after Hon. Chang was the subject of a Plaintiff’s Peremptory Challenge in
Keyzer’s wrongful termination case against the same Regents of the University of
California as named in my wrongful termination case and the Real Party of Interest in the
Petition for Writ of Mandate case. (See enclosed complaint against Hon. Chang.)

My wrongful termination case is not yet concluded and I am waiting for the SLAPP
motion resolution by the Court of Appeals to file my 295-page Third Amended
Complaint (TAC) with only two causes of action. My intention to file the TAC in
September 2015 was blocked by order of the Honorable David Brown.
I am concerned that my dismissed attorney Douglas Stein—who was friends with
Honorable David Brown for 20 years—may have attempted, together with UC Regents
Counsel Michael Pott, to bribe Honorable David Brown in the period from September 1,
2014 to December 16, 2014.
I fired Douglas Stein on December 16, 2014 UC Regents counsel Michel Pott, who was a
major shareholder in Porter Scott, quit or got fired one hour after I filed my opposition to
the UC Regents (over 400 pages) on January 23, 2015. Michael Pott is a famous attorney
who established Supreme Court precedence for the UC management to avoid being sued
in Vergos v. McNeal, 53 (Cal.Rptr.3d 647, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal.App. Dist.3
01/23/2007 )
CCP § 425.16. Michael Pott is not working for any law firm and not doing the job he
loved. Michael Pott as a very experienced attorney should never agree to go to court with
Douglas Stein on December 17, 2014 up front of Honorable David Brown knowing that I
fired Stein on December 16, 2014. In my December 17, 2014 e-mail I wrote to Michael
Pott that I will SLAPP him back for his SLAPP motion he filed in collaboration with
Douglas Stein and Hon. David Brown on December 1, 2014 to destroy my wrongful
termination lawsuit and my life in attempt to cover up Vandderhoef’s and his henchmen
crimes.

26