You are on page 1of 89

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

2216 Katzakian Way


Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
Email: jjw1980@live.com

Appellant, In Pro Per

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,


THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

Jaroslaw Waszczuk Court of Appeal No. C079254


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

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


Appeal Board
Defendant and Respondent APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR NEW
EVIDENCE ON APPEAL .
The Regents of the University of California Rules of Court, rule 8.252, and
California Code of Civil Procedure section 909
Real Party of Interest and Respondent

-1 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………...…………………………………...…..7

II. THE NEW EVIDENCE-EXHIBITS ON APPEAL………………………...….8

A. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 1


5/27/2014 email from UCOP Principal Investigator to UCDMC HR Labor
Relation Department Manager Travis Lindsey - Documents marked DEF
RPD1 337 & DEF RPD1 2511………………………………..……………9

B. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 2


Email dated 09/26/2012 entitled “CEMRP2 Eligible Employees With
Unsatisfactory Rating” - Document marked as DEF RPD1 3019………….9

C. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 3


Email dated 09/27/2012 entitled “Person Unauthorized on Property
(Jaroslaw Waszczuk)” Documents marked DEF RPD1 3027 and DEF
RPD1 3032 a and UC Davis Police Poster with Waszczuk’s photo and
description on . …………………………………………………...………11

D. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 4


The Stipulation of Settlement filed in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-
EFB…...12

E. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 5


Email dated 01/02/2013 entitled “Jerry UI” (Unemployment Insurance) - Marked
DEF RPD1 3261 & DEF RPD 3262…………………….…………..……12

F. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 6


Email dated 04/02/2013 entitled “Waszczuk WPP Process” - Marked DEF RPD1
3309 and Porter Scott law firm attorneys Michael Pott’s and Katherine Mola’s
publication entitled “Six Tips for Preparing Employee Evaluation” ……..13

-2 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
G. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 7
January 22, 2014 UCDMC HR Notification of Director Boyd’s decision in
Dereck Cole’s Step II Appeal Case No. 03-PPS-011-12 with attached
January 21, 2014 Decision in the Step II Appeal…………………………14

H. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 8


March 1, 2018, California Supreme Court Order Re: STEIN ON DISCIPLINE -
Case Number S245982 & Request for Reimbursement of Theft or an Act
Equivalent to Theft Perpetrated by Attorney Douglas Stein, SBN #13124830.
……………………………………………………………………………..15

III. ARGUMENT…….………………………………………………………………………………16
A. California Statutes Allow for New Evidence to Be Added to the Record in the
Circumstances Presented Here…………………………………………….16
B. Including Waszczuk's New Evidences on Appeal Will Prevent a
Miscarriage of Justice…………………………………………………….17

IV. DECLARATION IN SUPPORT……………………………………………………….……..20

A. Introduction ……………………………………………………………….20
B. Violation of Waszczuk’s civil and Human Rights………………… ……..20

C. Conclusion …………………………………………………………..……24

PROOF OF SERVICE- DECLARATION OF MAILING……………………….….25


.

-3 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:

Vons Cos., Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434,444, fn. 3………………17

Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciotta (1982) 30 Cal.3d 800, 813 …………………..…….17

Ford v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 696, 706…………………….17

Bassett v. Johnson (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 807, 812……………………………….……..17

People v. Benford (1959) 53 Cal.2d l...............................................................................17

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


165…………………………………………………………………………………..……19

Hasso v. Hasso (2007), 148 Cal.App.4th 329, 333, fn. 3……………………………….24


Paratransit, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 561…………………………………………….….24

STATUTES:
Ca l. Co de of C ivi l P roc ed ure Sect io n 90 9…… ….. ... ………. 1,1 6,1 7
OTHER AUTHORITIES:
Re: STEIN ON DISCIPLINE -California Supreme Court Case Number S245982….8,9,15
Attorney Douglas Stein, SB #131248. State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110-
LMA … … … … … … … … … … . . … … … … … … … … … … … … .…. 9 ;1 5,1 6
University of California Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM No. 34)……….10

U C D a v i s UC Davis Employee Evaluation policy PPMS 23… … … … … … 1 1 , 1 8 , 1 9


UC Davis Whistleblower Protection Policy (WPP)……………………………….……..….13

UC Davis Policy and UC Davis Policies for Staff Members (Complaint Resolution Policy
(PPSM 70)………………………………………………………………………………..…..…13

2014 Decision in the Derek Cole’s Step II Evaluation Complaint pursuant to UC Davis
Policy PPSM 70…… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . … . . 1 4
-4 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
Cal. Rule of Court 8.252 (b); (c) ………………...………………….....................….1,16;
California Constitution art. VI, § 11……………………………………………...…….17

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT # 1
5/27/2014 email from UCOP Principal Investigator to UCDMC HR Labor
Relation Department Manager Travis Lindsey - Documents marked DEF
RPD1 337 & DEF RPD1 2511………………………………..……………9

EXHIBIT # 2
Email dated 09/26/2012 entitled “CEMRP2 Eligible Employees With
Unsatisfactory Rating” - Document marked as DEF RPD1 3019………….9

EXHIBIT # 3
Email dated 09/27/2012 entitled “Person Unauthorized on Property
(Jaroslaw Waszczuk)” Documents marked DEF RPD1 3027 and DEF
RPD1 3032 a and UC Davis Police Poster with Waszczuk’s photo and
description on . …………………………………………………...………11

EXHIBIT # 4
The Stipulation of Settlement filed in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-
EFB…...12

EXHIBIT # 5
Email dated 01/02/2013 entitled “Jerry UI” (Unemployment Insurance) - Marked
DEF RPD1 3261 & DEF RPD 3262…………………….…………..……12

EXHIBIT # 6
Email dated 04/02/2013 entitled “Waszczuk WPP Process” - Marked DEF RPD1
3309 and Porter Scott law firm attorneys Michael Pott’s and Katherine Mola’s
publication entitled “Six Tips for Preparing Employee Evaluation” ……..13

-5 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
EXHIBIT # 7
January 22, 2014 UCDMC HR Notification of Director Boyd’s decision in
Dereck Cole’s Step II Appeal Case No. 03-PPS-011-12 with attached
January 21, 2014 Decision in the Step II Appeal…………………………14

EXHIBIT # 8
March 1, 2018, California Supreme Court Order Re: STEIN ON DISCIPLINE -
Case Number S245982 & Request for Reimbursement of Theft or an Act
Equivalent to Theft Perpetrated by Attorney Douglas Stein, SBN #13124830.
……………………………………………………………………………..15

-6 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
Email: jjw1980@live.com

Appellant, In Pro Per

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,


THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

Jaroslaw Waszczuk Court of Appeal No. C079254


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

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


Appeal Board
Defendant and Respondent APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR NEW
EVIDENCE ON APPEAL .
The Regents of the University of California Rules of Court, rule 8.252, and
California Code of Civil Procedure section 909
Real Party of Interest and Respondent

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

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner and Appellant JAROSLAW WASZCZUK (hereafter Waszczuk, pronounced
“Vashchook”) filed a Notice of Appeal on May 7, 2015 from the court order of the Honorable
Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang of the State of California, County of Sacramento, issued and
signed on March 12, 2015. This order denied Waszczuk’s Petition for Writ of Mandate (CT
-7 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
200-2011), which was filed in the court on December 2, 2014 against the California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (hereafter CUIAB) as the Defendant and Respondent
and against the Regents of the University of California (hereafter UC Regents or RPii) as the
Respondents and Real Party in Interest (CT 00001-00011). This was filed simultaneously with
the Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
On August 6, 2018, Waszczuk submitted to the court a request to place his over three-year-old
appeal on the Court calendar and schedule the oral argument. Waszczuk’s request was denied
by the Court Order on August 21, 2018.
However, on October 1, 2018, Waszczuk received notification from the court that the court is
prepared to render a decision in the above case without hearing an oral argument.
On October 11, 2018 Waszczuk submitted the request for the oral argument to be scheduled.
Waszczuk attached to his requests a few newly discovered or omitted documents as additional
evidence confirming what Waszczuk wrote in his briefs about the despicable discrimination,
bias, and prejudice that Waszczuk has experienced from the Respondents RPii and CUIAB .
Waszczuk’ requests were rejected by the court clerk, and Waszczuk was instructed to file a
separate motion for new evidence. Also Waszczuk ws instructed to file a new request for the
oral argument with the due date of October 18, 2018.
For the above reasons, and reason provided in the legal argument below Waszczuk moves for
an order to add the new below-listed evidence to the record on appeal pursuant California Rules
of Court, rule 8.252, and the Code of Civil Procedure section 909

II. THE NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL


The new evidence on appeal are ( exhibits) are genuine evidence which were produced or
received after Waszczuk filed the appeal in May 2015. The most of the new
evidence/documents Waszczuk received with the Production of Documents from the
Defendants/RPii legal counsels in the Cross Referenced Case Waszczuk v. Regents of the
University of California et, al , Case No. C079524 , Sacramento County Superior Court,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California . The other new evidence is

-8 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
which Waszczuk received or were produced after the appeal was filed are is March 1, 2018,
California Supreme Court Order Re: STEIN ON DISCIPLINE
Case Number S245982 and the August 30, 2018, and submitted Application to the State Bar of
California Request for Reimbursement of Theft or an Act Equivalent to Theft Perpetrated by
Attorney Douglas Stein, SB #131248. State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110- LMA.
A. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 1
5/27/2014 email from UCOP Principal Investigator to UCDMC HR Labor Relation
Department Manager Travis Lindsey - Documents marked DEF RPD1 337 & DEF
RPD1 2511
The UC Office of the President (UCOP) Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, in her email to
Travis Lindsey, became concerned about suspension without pay during Waszczuk’s leave of
absence.
Lindsey and Rosenberg chat was about Waszczuk’s May 2012 10-day suspension from work
when Waszczuk was forced by RPii to be out of UCDMC premises for almost one year.
Judith Rosenberg stated in her email:

“Thanks. A bit confusing that you can be suspended while you are on leave!
Judith A. Rosenberg Esq.
Principal Investigator
University of California”
UC Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg became concerned how it is possible that employee
could be suspended if an employee was absent from work for almost full one year.
B. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 2
Email dated 09/26/2012 entitled “CEMRP2 Eligible Employees With Unsatisfactory
Rating” - Document marked as DEF RPD1 3019
The email correspondence dated 09/26/2012 between the UCDMC HR Compensation Manager,
her subordinates Bill Gregory and Yvette Guttierrez, and UC Davis Health System HR Director
Stephen Chilcott with CC HR Labor Relation Analyst Gina Harwood and HR Labor Relation
Manager Travis Lindsey stated:

• Bill-

-9 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
Can you please go into eHR as there appears to be an eval in the system with an
unsatisfactory rating for Jaroslaw Waszczuk employee ID 100007732. Once you
located it please cancel the eval totally out of the system (i.e. delete). Steve 1 has
indicated that he was on leave for the majority of the review period and should not
have been evaluated with an unsatisfactory rating.
• Yvette-
Can you please initiate a deferral on this employee as well, pushing the eval date
out a year to September 2013?
• Gina- ( Gina Harwood RPii witness -representative on the February 13, 2013
CUIAB hearing with ALJ Marilyn Tays )
Can you advise the dept that we have done this? Steve shared with me the pending
action on this employee and that we will probably want to correct the system
immediately.
• Thanks to you all, any questions let me know
Carol
Waszczuk was not only had been evaluated with an unsatisfactory rating when he was absent
from work for over one year but also on the same day of 09/26/2012, Waszczuk, after more
than a year of being forced by RPii to stay out of UCDMC premises, was slandered by the
Notice of Intent to terminate him for Serious Misconduct base on fabricated and unfounded
accusation and allegation from as old as March 8, 2011. How was it possible that Waszczuk
had been evaluated with an unsatisfactory rating for the evaluation period of 2011-2012, and
Waszczuk was suspended in May 2012 for evaluation period of 2010-2011 (ARB Page 23-27)
and terminated in December 2012? (AOB Page No. 5) (ARB Page No. 23-33)
CEMRP2, as mentioned in the email title, stands for the University of California Clinical
Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2 (“Plan”), which is governed by Personnel Policies
for Staff Members 34 (Incentive and Recognition Award Plans – Managers & Senior
Professionals and Professional & Support Staff).

https://policy.ucop.edu/_files/policies/CEMRP2-Plan.pdf
https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4010430/PPSM-34

1
Steve- UC Davis Health System HR Director Stephen Chilcott
- 10 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
Waszczuk’s employee performance reviews (evaluations) from 1999 to 2010, with the attached
to email letter dated September 4, 2011 and addressed to UC Davis Medical Center Human
Resources Investigator Danesha Nichols, plus UC Davis employee evaluation policy PPMS 23,
which mandates that employees must be evaluated every year, were submitted to CUIAB
Administrative Law Judge Marylin Tays on February 7, 2013 (AR Page 368-409).
Listed in the EXHIBIT # 2 HR Analyst Gina Harwood appeared as a RPii’s witness for the
CUIAB hearing on February 13, 2013 with Administrative Law Judge Marylin Tays. Harwood
deleted Waszczuk evaluation with unsatisfactory rating for evaluation period of 2011-2012
C. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 3
Email dated 09/27/2012 entitled “Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw
Waszczuk)” Documents marked DEF RPD1 3027 and DEF RPD1 3032 a and UC Davis
Police Poster with Waszczuk’s photo and description on .
The last act of the Defendants’ reign of terror prior to the termination of Waszczuk’s
employment on December 7, 2012 was the September 26, 2012 distribution of a UC Davis
police poster with Waszczuk’s photo and description on it. The poster was distributed around
UC Davis’s campuses without Waszczuk’s knowledge.
UCDMC HR Labor Relation Consultant GINA HARWOOD, who appeared as a RPii witness
on the CUIAB hearing with ALJ Marilyn Tays on February 13, 2013 and who was handling
Plant Operation & Maintenance Department (PO&M) labor-related matters, was shocked when
she received the UC Davis Police poster with Waszczuk’s photo and physical description on it.
Gina Harwood had known Waszczuk for a long time. In her response to HR Labor Relation
Manager Travis Lindsey, she wrote about that 09/27/2012 poster.
Hi There:
This is really out of the norm to post this in the department and I was not aware
that we were going to do this. Did we ask the police to do this? His letter stated
that he would remain on paid leave which implies the same expectations but I am
a little concerned that this is being posted in the department since we have not
done this before on any other violence cases.
• Just want to make sure that we sanctioned this before it was posted in the
department because I suspect we will be getting an email about it soon.
• Gina

- 11 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
Gina Harwood, SPHR

• Travis Lindsey responded to Gina Harwood’s outrage


Senior leadership asked Steve to have PD take this precaution and
• We've never terminated JW either.
Gina Harwood thanked Travis Lindsay with words:
• “OK, thanks for the info, was just concerned because we have not done this
before. Gina”

D. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 4


The Stipulation of Settlement filed in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB

The above captioned document dated of September 26, 2012 shows that the Waszczuk
employment termination was closely coordinated by the UC General Counsel Office. UC
Davis Medical Center Executives and notorious Porter Scott Law Corporation attorney’s .
Waszczuk received his Notice of Intent of Dismiss on the same day of September 26, 2012 as
the Settlement for the November 18, 2011 unsuccessful Pepper Spray provocation to oust
Chancellor Linda Katehi and replace her with Ralph Hexter was filed in the Federal Court.

E. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 5


Email dated 01/02/2013 entitled “Jerry UI” (Unemployment Insurance) - Marked DEF
RPD1 3261 & DEF RPD 3262
On January 2, 2013, UC Davis Main Campus Employee and Labor Relations Interim Manager
Stephen M. Green sent the following email to UCDMC Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey:
• Hi Travis.
Jerry Waszczuk's unemployment insurance claim has come in and we need to respond
today if we plan to contest it. The eligibility issue will be whether Jerry's employment was
terminated "for misconduct connected with his most recent work." There's a rebuttable
presumption that he was "discharged for reasons other than misconduct in
connection with his or her work..." We can respond to rebut this presumption, but I
wanted to check with you to ensure this is the course you want us to take.
Again, these notices come in with very little lead time (and sometimes after the filing
date...), so we only have today to make the decision whether to contest the claim. If you so
advice, please provide a description of the misconduct for which he was terminated, so we
can forward it to the EDD.
- 12 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
Thanks, and I hope you had a fabulous holiday. I actually got out to play golf a few times
with my daughter, which was just great. Hope you too found time to torture the little white
ball (or, as in my case, let it torture you...).
• Steve
UC DAVIS
EMPLOYEE AND LABOR RELATIONS
Stephen M. Green, JD., M.B.A.
These two ignorant HR managers did not show any remorse that they were destroying the 62-
year-old Waszczuk’s life. Travis Lindsay, who in his September 27 , 2012 reply to the outraged
Gina Harwood about the UC Davis police-distributed poster, wrote that “We've never
terminated JW either,” responded to Steven Green on 01/02/2013 by saying:

“From: Travis Lindsey


Subject: Re: Jerry UI
Steve,
Thanks for the heads-up. We do want to contest his claim. I will have someone e-mail the
Notice of Intent to Dismiss to you ASAP to help you prepare the response. I'm home sick
today.
I was hoping to play golf on New Year's Eve, but I've been sick since Sunday. Quite a
way to ring in 2013.
Sent from my iPhone”
F. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 6
Email dated 04/02/2013 entitled “Waszczuk WPP Process” - Marked DEF RPD1 3309
and Porter Scott law firm attorneys Michael Pott’s and Katherine Mola’s publication
entitled “Six Tips for Preparing Employee Evaluation”
The WPP Process stands for the UC Davis Whistleblower Protection Policy.
https://www.ucop.edu/risk-services/_files/whistleblower.pdf
https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1100563/WPP
In the email dated 04/02/2013, UCDMC HR LR Manager Travis Lindsey discussed with UC
Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo the scheduled Waszczuk meeting or hearing
with UCDMC Executive Director Mike Boyd on April 2, 2013 at 1:00 on the UC Davis Campus.
Director Boyd carried out Waszczuk’s employment termination together with Wendi Delmendo,
Travis Lindsey, and Stephen Chilcott and was assigned by Travis Lindsey, Stephen Chilcott, and
Wendi Delmendo as a Complaint Resolution Officer for Waszczuk’s Step II appeal in his

- 13 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
employment termination that Waszczuk submitted pursuant to the UC or UC Davis Policy and
Procedure PPSM 70 to the UCDMC HR Department on February 28, 2013.
https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4010417/PPSM-70
In his 04/02/2013 email, Travis Lindsey stated:
• I think we need to avoid giving Jerry the impression that we expect him to be
unsuccessful at step 2. Also, we have no guarantee that he will appeal to step 3. I expect
him to, but he didn't appeal his previous suspension past step 2. Could you say that the
University is holding his whistle blower complaint in abeyance pending the outcome of
his PPSM 70 complaint, and if that complaint ends up at step 3 the whistle blower
complaint will we reviewed by the arbitrator?
Travis
The above statement, which was sent six minutes prior to Waszczuk’s meeting with Director
Boyd, shows that Waszczuk wasted his time, effort, and gas driving from Lodi to Davis to meet
Director Boyd. Waszczuk’s employment and fate were determined in March 2011 by the people
listed above.
Furthermore, in the email, UCDMC the new hired HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey
stated:
• P.S. If we end up at step 3 Michael Pott from Porter Scott will be the University's
advocate. We expect Jerry to sue us at some point and thought it would be a good idea to
involve outside counsel prior to that point to put us in as good of a position as possible.
The above statement e-mail shows that mentioned Porter Scott attorney Michael Pott who co-
authored publication entitled “Six Tips for Preparing Employee Evaluation” with listed in
September 26, 2012 Stipulation of Settlement which was filed in the UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-
EFB attorney Katherine Mola’s was the advisor for UC Davis and UC Davis Medical Center
HR as early as in 2012 and most likely in 2011 together with Katherine Mola in regard to
Waszczuk’s employee termination and by utilizing students protests in UC davis campus to oust
the UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi in November 2011and replace her with Ralph Hexter ,
UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza with Lt. Matt Carmichael and Lt. John Pike with Lt .
James Barbour.

- 14 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
G. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 7
January 22, 2014 UCDMC HR Notification of Director Boyd’s decision in
Dereck Cole’s Step II Appeal Case No. 03-PPS-011-12 with attached January 21,
2014 Decision in the Step II Appeal.
Waszczuk specifically addressed the Dereck Cole case and Waszczuk two missing
evaluation for the working period of 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 in the two chapters of
the Appellant’s Reply Brief (ARB Page No. 8-16) and the new evidence on appeal are
just a confirmation and corroboration what Waszczuk presented in his ARB .
The Dereck Cole case is the best and undisputable example of how HR applied UC Davis
policies PPSM 23 and PPSM 62 to Dereck Cole’s case compared to Waszczuk’ case
regardless of whether the allegations were true or false.
In his 01/21/2014 decision Mike Boyd or HR attorney wrote:
• On August 20, 2013, Mr. Cole's representative (Mr. Jaroslaw Waszczuk) requested
that a Step 2 hearing be scheduled with a Complaint Resolution Officer (CR0).
On October 8, 2013, 1 was appointed as the CR0 regarding this matter. As the Complaint
Resolution Officer, I am required to:
Convene a Step II meeting with the complainant and his representative (if any) no later
than November 8, 2013 (30 calendar days from the date of this letter). During this
meeting, please accept any and all evidentiary materials or arguments as part of the
record.
Furthermore , Director Boyd wrote:

• Based on my review of all the documents provided and my interviews, my


recommendation are as follows:
• Mr. Cole's 2011-12 evaluation should be modified to state that he "Meets Expectations"
• Mr. Cole should receive the CEMRP2 incentive awards given to comparable PO&M
employees that received a Meets Expectations rating for FY 2011-12

H. NEW EVIDENCE -EXHIBIT # 8


March 1, 2018, California Supreme Court Order Re: STEIN ON DISCIPLINE -Case
Number S245982 & Request for Reimbursement of Theft or an Act Equivalent to Theft
Perpetrated by Attorney Douglas Stein, SBN #13124830
On March 1, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued Court Order suspending Waszczuk’s
former attorney Douglas Stein from practicing law for two years and ordered him to pay

- 15 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
Waszczuk back the stolen retainer plus interest. On August 30, 2018, Waszczuk submitted to the
State Bar of California Request for Reimbursement of Theft or an Act Equivalent to Theft
Perpetrated by Attorney Douglas Stein, SB #131248. State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-
10110- LMA.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/15-O-10110-2.pdf
Stein’s addiction to drugs and his grave financial situation led him to commit gross misconduct
and crime and he grossly damaged the Waszczuk legal action against the UC Regents by
colluding in 2013 and 2014 with attorneys from Porter Scott Law Corporation . Michael Pott
and Douglas Ropel who represented UC Regents against Waszczuk .

III. ARGUMENT

A. California Statutes Allow for New Evidence to Be Added to the Record in the
Circumstances Presented Here

California Rules of Court Rule 8.252 (b); (c) judicial notice; and findings and evidence on appeal
state:
(b) Findings on Appeal
A party may move that the reviewing court make findings under Code of Civil Procedure Section
909. The motion must include proposed findings.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §909.


• In all cases where trial by jury is not a matter of right or where trial by jury has been waived,
the reviewing court may make factual determinations contrary to or in addition to those made
by the trial court. The factual determinations may be based on the evidence adduced before
the trial court either with or without the taking of evidence by the reviewing court. The
reviewing court may for the purpose of making the factual determinations or for any other
purpose in the interests of justice, take additional evidence of or concerning facts occurring at
any time prior to the decision of the appeal, and may give or direct the entry of any judgment
or order and may make any further or other order as the case may require.

(c) Evidence on Appeal


(1) A party may move that the reviewing court take evidence.

- 16 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
(3) For documentary evidence, a party may offer the original, a certified copy, a photocopy,
or, in a case in which electronic filing is permitted, an electronic copy. The court may admit
the document in evidence without a hearing.

The legislature "may permit courts exercising appellate jurisdiction to take evidence and make
findings of fact when jury trial is waived or not a matter of right" (Cal. Const. art. VI, § 11).
Generally, the record on appeal may only be supplemented by matters that were before the trial
court, and a party cannot seek to raise on appeal matters outside the superior court record—for
example, new evidence developed during pendency of appeal (Vons Cos., Inc. v. Seabest
Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434,444, fn. 3). Normally, "when reviewing the correctness of a
trial court's judgment, an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the
record at the time the judgment was entered" (Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciotta (1982) 30
Cal.3d 800, 813).

However, for the purpose of making independent factual determinations "or for any other
purpose in the interest of justice," the appellate court has discretion to consider additional
evidence of facts occurring any time prior to the decision on appeal (Code Civ. Proc., § 909).

The consideration of new evidence for purposes of allowing the appellate court to make factual
determinations different from those reached by the trial court is only appropriate when the right
to trial by jury has been waived or is unavailable (see id., § 909; see also Ford v. Pacific Gas
and Elec. Co. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 696, 706 ["Code of Civil Procedure 909 applies only
when trial by jury is not a matter of right or has been waived."]). Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was not a jury trial; therefore, based on the new
evidence provided by Waszczuk in this motion, the Court shall apply Section 909 to both admit
new evidence for purposes of the appeal as well as make findings of fact that differ from the
trial court's findings.

B. Including Waszczuk's New Evidences on Appeal Will Prevent a Miscarriage


of Justice

- 17 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
• "Where the additional evidence is so conclusive that it compels the direction of a
judgment in favor of appellant, the additional evidence may be taken" [citations] (Bassett
v. Johnson (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 807, 812 [disapproved on other grounds by People v.
Benford (1959) 53 Cal.2d l]).

Waszczuk submitted an email dated September 26, 2012: "CEMRP2 Eligible Employees With
Unsatisfactory Rating." The document is marked as DEF RPD1 3019, Exhibit #3. This email
alone is so conclusive that even without Waszczuk's other new evidence on appeal, the Court
should have no problem determining that Waszczuk was terminated at age 61 without a cause ,
five years before his scheduled retirement. This information completely contradicts the RPii's
and CUIAB's despicable allegations of misconduct. No such misconduct by Waszczuk
occurred.

The September 26, 2012, email, "CEMRP2 Eligible Employees With Unsatisfactory Rating"
(DEF RPD1 3019, Exhibit #3), which was provided to Waszczuk by RPii attorneys from Porter
Scott Law Corporation, is undisputable evidence that for the 2011–2012 evaluation period (July
1, 2011, to June 30, 2012), Waszczuk, as a university employee, should have received at least a
"Meets Expectation" rating in his evaluation mandated by the UC Davis Policy PPSM 23.
Additionally, for the 2011–2012 evaluation, Waszczuk should have received a CEMRP2
Recognition Reward. Instead, on May 11, 2012, he received a ten-day suspension without pay
(ARB Page No. 25) and a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct. Both measures
were based on maliciously fabricated accusations by five listed individuals in ARB on Page No.
8 and No. 9. During the 2011–2012 evaluation period, Waszczuk worked only one month and
three days: July 1, 2011, to August 3, 2011. For the 2010–2011 evaluation period, RPii or
Respondent did not provide Waszczuk with any employee performance review. This is a clear
contradiction of the mandates outlined in UC Davis Policy PPSM 23. After August 3, 2011,
Waszczuk was not allowed to return to work. On December 7, 2012, he was unlawfully
terminated.

On September 26, 2012, Compensation Manager Carol Shimada basically explained by email
that she discovered a conspiracy against Waszczuk that was perpetrated by her superior, HR
- 18 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, and his collaborators. Shimada was ordered to destroy the
evidence by deleting Waszczuk’s authentic employee performance review with an
unsatisfactory rating for the 2011–2012 evaluation period. This was a clear violation of UC
Davis Policy PPSM 23 and California law. Case law has established that the university’s
policies, including the Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) and the Policy and
Procedure Manual (PPM), have the force and effect of state statutes (Kim v. Regents of
University of California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 165); ARB Page No. 9 & 48).

The September 26, 2012, email is indisputable new evidence on appeal that in January 2013,
the Respondents provided fabricated deceitful lies and slanderous allegations to the
Employment Development Department (EDD), the CUIAB, ALJ Marilyn Tays, and the Court.
As a result, Waszczuk was denied the unemployment benefits to which he was entitled.

The Appellant respectfully requests that the Court accept additional evidence and resolve the
issues regarding Waszczuk’s unemployment benefits, which have been pending for six years.

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

Executed on December 4, 2018, in Lodi, California.

___________________________
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
Plaintiff in Pro PeR

- 19 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
IV. DECLARATION IN SUPPORT

A. Introduction

I, Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Plaintiff and Appellant (hereafter Waszczuk), declare the


following in support of the Motion for the New Evidence on the Appeal:
December 7, 2018 is the sixth anniversary since Respondent and RPii the University of
California wrongfully terminated Waszczuk’s employment and caused the California
Unemployment Development Department (EDD) to deny Waszczuk’s unemployment
benefits by providing fabricated allegations and despicable accusations and lies about
Waszczuk to EDD, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB), and
the Courts.
December 12, 2018 is the scheduled day of the Oral Argument in the Court of Appeals,
Third Appellate District for the unemployment benefits for which Waszczuk applied in
December 2012. Waszczuk should have retired from the University at age 66 in 2017 or
even in 2020 if he wished to stay on the job longer and receive full benefits. Instead, he
has had to fight for survival for the last six years because he was wrongfully and
mercilessly terminated, not knowing the reason behind his termination, which was done
in a manner that made it impossible for him to obtain new employment at his age.

B. Violation of Waszczuk’s civil and human rights by the Polish communist


government and the State of California government and state agencies .
The day of the Oral Argument, December 12, 2018, is for Waszczuk the 37th anniversary
of when he was dragged from his home in his native Poland in the middle of the night by
the communist secret police and thrown into prison in a very cold cell in his pajamas,
terrifying his 9-year-old daughter and wife.
Waszczuk’s daughter Joanna, who graduated from UC Santa Cruz, memorialized the

- 20 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
December 12, 1981 night in her 1993 school essay with the words.
Joanna Waszczuk
Essay
1993
One of my most vividly remembered experiences which has also affected me
greatly is when my father went to prison.
I was nine years old, living in Poland which was undergoing political upheaval
struggling for democracy I knew that my father was involved with some sort of
underground and that he was being followed as well. One night, a man came to
our home at two o’clock in the morning and just took my father away, only
allowing him to put on his boots and jacket over his pajamas.
Two weeks after that night, my family learned that my father was taken by a secret
government agent to a prison for political activism trying to overthrow
communism.
After a few more weeks, my father was allowed to write letters, but they were
censored to the point that half the words were cut out with a razor or completely
blacked out.
After five months, as I later found out, of being guarded by attack dogs, guards
armed with machine guns, being brainwashed, having been fed rotten food and
having had no rights, my father was released on the condition that he either leave
the country quickly or go back to prison risking never being able to get a good job
again. So, within two weeks my parents, brother and I received passports, sold or
gave away everything and came to the United States.
Although I was angry with my father for bringing our family into this country and
severing tie with the only type of life I had known, coming here has also taught me
that with hard work, challenges can be overcome, and that being able to express
oneself is very important. I especially had the latter instilled in me, because for
the first six months in the United States, due to a language barrier, I could barely
express myself or not at I am now inspired by my father’s standing up for his
cause as I am by Freud, Darwin and Pasteur, because despite challenges,
hardships and the opposition of society, they all struggled for their causes and
beliefs for the benefit of humanity.

Both of my kids have four-year college degrees. They both received honorary awards
from two different Presidents of the United States of America for great achievement in

- 21 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
school. My daughter Joanna was awarded this by President Ronald Reagan and my son
George by President Bill Clinton.

The Court of Appeal, in the cross-referenced appeal Waszczuk v. the Regents of the
University of California, Case No. C079524, noted:
• Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, feels deeply aggrieved by the University of California
(the University), his lawyer, the defense lawyer, and the trial judge. A brief excerpt
from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the University reflects his bitterness
as well as his belief that there is much more at stake than his mere wrongful
termination lawsuit. 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.”

The oppression and violation of Waszczuk civil and Human Rights Waszczuk received
for his political activities from the totally dysfunctional, corrupted, and oppressive
communist government in Poland in 1980-1982 is nothing in comparison to the violation
of his civil and Human Rights in the United States of America from January 2007 to the
present time by the oppressive, unscrupulous, merciless, and totally corrupted University
of California, as governed by the UC Regents and the University of California Office of
the President and their corrupted friends and collaborators from the state agencies.
Regarding the unemployment benefits, the Polish communist government that threw
Waszczuk into a prison which was converted into an internment camp was more
generous 37 years ago then the government of California after Waszczuk was terminated
in December 2012. The communists at least paid to Waszczuk’s wife and two children
- 22 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
his full monthly salary when Waszczuk was locked up in the internment camp for several
months, until Waszczuk with his wife and kids were sent west with a one way ticket and
granted shelter from the communist oppression by the U.S. government. The violation of
Waszczuk’s civil and Human Rights by the California government goes beyond and
above the limits of human decency (ARB Page No. 12, 20, 21, 27, 39). The State of
California’s government is not supposed to act like the Polish communist government or
the brutal North Korean regime, imprisoning and killing its own residents to condone and
cover up criminal activities that are harmful and dangerous to society.

In the 11/12/2018 Waszczuk correspondence addressed to the Sacramento County


Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown Waszczuk with the attached 195 pages long
PLANTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ‘S REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE Waszczuk provided to
the Superior Court information about his experiences with the University of California
Office of the President organized crime which attempted to assassinate Waszczuk on
May 31, 2012. In the 11/12/2018 correspondence to Hon. David Brown Waszczuk
wrote :
• The Waszczuk case covers two decades and is very complex and deeply rooted in
the California Energy Crisis of 1999-2009. Waszczuk’s employment termination by
the University of California in 2012 involved two suicides, which are attached to
one of Waszczuk’s supervisors from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogeneration plant, where Waszczuk was employed as an operator from June 1999
to April 2007.
To make a long story short, in April 2007, Waszczuk was abruptly removed from
the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant and replaced by a 37-year-
old homosexual individual who three years later was found dead hanging from a tree
in Rancho Cordova Park. He was a friend of Waszczuk’s supervisor, Steve McGrath
and UCDMC Director Robert Taylor who was behind Waszczuk unqualified for the
job replacement .
The other suicide was the suicide of the same supervisor’s wife, a 41-year-old RN
Nurse from Jackson Hospital.

- 23 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
The other mysterious sudden death was the death of UC Davis Chancellor
Vanderhoof, who died in the UC Davis Medical Center on October 15, 2015, two
days after Waszczuk filed his Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion for Automatic
Stay or in the Alternative; Motion for a Discretionary Stay filed on October 13, 2015
(ROA #111).
https://www.scribd.com/document/389125382/Issa-Garamendi
https://www.scribd.com/document/393242234/JW-2018-WT-PLAINTIFF-S-
RESPONSE-TO-ADMISSION-COURT-ORDER-Final-4523-4752

C. Conclusion

In conclusion of the Declaration supporting Waszczuk’s Motion , Waszczuk


respectfully asks the Court of Appeals to grant his motion for new evidence and, without
further proceedings in the trial court, subsequently make a final determination of the
issues (Hasso v. Hasso (2007), 148 Cal.App.4th 329, 333, fn. 3; Code Civ. Proc., § 909;
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252(c)).
This case is clear: in 2012, RPii did not dismiss Waszczuk for actual misconduct
because Waszczuk did not work during the period that the alleged misconduct took place;
the allegations were maliciously fabricated lies concocted by RPii’s witch hunters.
California Unemployment Insurance Code §1256 creates a rebuttable presumption
that absent evidence from the employer, the employee was not discharged for misconduct
(Paratransit, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 561). The employer bears the overall burden of
proving misconduct. The CUIAB’s, the RPii’s, and their attorneys’ deceit and deliberate
attempts to harm Waszczuk have caused him a loss of approximately $1,000,000 in
wages and benefits as well as his retirement home. Since his unlawful termination,
Waszczuk and his family have suffered many hardships. His 67-year-old spouse is in
poor health yet still working since 1990 at the Sacramento Arden Mall’s Nordstrom store
in order to maintain a minimum standard of living.

- 24 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that to the best of
my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on December 4, 2018, in Lodi, California.

________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk – Plaintiff in Pro Per

- 25 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
DECLARATION OF MAILING

I, Jaroslaw Waszczuk , a Plaintiff and Appellant in this case, declare under penalty of
perjury that I have this day mailed , by first-class mail, postage fully prepaid, a true and
correct copy of the above captioned Motion for New Evidence on Appeal to some of the
parties listed and some by electronic transfer via True filing

DAVID P. E. BURKETT, ESQ. PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM ( Truefiling and e-mail)


350 University Avenue , Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

ASHANTE NORTON( Truefiling and e-mail)


1300 I Street
Sacramento , CA 95814

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT


350 McAllister St,
San Francisco, CA 94102

Hon. Shelleyanne Chang via U.S Mail


Sacramento County Superior Court
720 9th Street
Sacramento, CA95814

Hon. David I. Brown via U.S Mail


The Sacramento County Superior Court
Department 53
813 6th Street – 2nd Floor
Sacramento, 95814

Executed in Lodi, California, on December 4,, 2018

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK - Plaintiff/Appellant In Pro Per.

- 26 -
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL -C079254
Case No.: C079254
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE TO ON APPEAL

EXHIBIT # 1
Case No.: C079254
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE TO ON APPEAL

EXHIBIT # 2
Case No.: C079254
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE TO ON APPEAL

EXHIBIT # 3
Case No.: C079254
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE TO ON APPEAL

EXHIBIT # 4
Case No.: C079254
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE TO ON APPEAL

EXHIBIT # 5
Case No.: C079254
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE TO ON APPEAL

EXHIBIT # 6
Case No.: C079254
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE TO ON APPEAL

EXHIBIT # 7
Case No.: C079254
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE TO ON APPEAL

EXHIBIT # 8
ADDENDDUM TO THE APPLICATION FOR REIBURSEMENT

Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk


2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-339-1982
Cell: 209-663-2977
Email: jjw1980@live.com

August 30, 2018

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA


Client Security Fund
845 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2515

Subject: Request for Reimbursement of Theft or an Act Equivalent to Theft Perpetrated by


Attorney Douglas Stein, SB #131248. State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110-
LMA

I. INTRODUCTION

To Whom It May Concern,

On December 16, 2014, I dismissed Douglas Stein, SB #131248, from my two court cases
(ATTACHMENT #1).

Based on STIPULATION: FACTS, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DISPOSITION


AND ORDER APPROVING, which was filed in the State Bar on October 24, 2017
(ATTACHMENT #2), and STEIN ON DISCIPLINE, which is the California Supreme
Court Order dated March 1, 2018, Supreme Court Case S245982 (ATTACHMENT #3),
I am respectfully requesting reimbursement from the Client Security Fund in the amount
of $16,194.33.

I would like to emphasize the fact that State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Laura Huggins
was perfectly aware that due to Stein’s financial situation, enforcing the State Bar
stipulation or the March 1, 2018 affirmed by the California Supreme Court Order is very
unlikely.
Because of Stein’s drug addiction and his suspended attorney license, recovering my
stolen money directly from him is probably impossible.
My complaint against Stein is Case No. 15-O-10110-LMA.

1
Request for Reimbursement -State Bar Security Fund
II. THE STIPULATION FILED IN THE STATE BAR COURT ON
OCTOBER 24, 2017

The 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 State Bar Investigator Laura Sharek and
Deputy Trial Counsel Laura Higgins in the 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. (ATTACHMENT # 4)

III. FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW IN THE ATTACHMENT TO


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

2
Request for Reimbursement -State Bar Security Fund
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

• §10 states: On December 16, 2014, Waszczuk terminated respondent as legal


counsel due to a disagreement regarding case strategy.

I did not terminate Douglas Stein due to a disagreement regarding case strategy. I
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

3
Request for Reimbursement -State Bar Security Fund
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 professional and friendly 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.) (ATTACHMENT # 5) on Flash Drive with exhibits )

I had a friendly normal professional 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 Stein visited my home in Lodi in July 2014, than thereafter 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 my will and instruction and 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 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 provide him 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 Dereck Cole 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 . (see attachment # 5)
With Dereck Cole recommendation I hired Douglas Stein in November 2013 a as a my
attorney to handle the writ of mandate against the California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board ( CIUAB)

4
Request for Reimbursement -State Bar Security Fund
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 $4,991.82Douglas 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.

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 $4,991.82 pay off. Stein was furious at my refusal to sign the settlement. It
should be investigated by State Bar how much Liberty offered to Stein for his effort to
make the problem vanish . If I had been offered at least $25,000 from this deal, I would
have considered signing and I would hire private investigator. I even told Stein that if he
got more money from Liberty for me, I would add more money to the wrongful
termination lawsuit. He did not want to hear such a proposition and furiously demanded
that I sign the Settlement with Liberty for $4,991.82

5
Request for Reimbursement -State Bar Security Fund
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 my short term disability
claim with Liberty Assurance Company of Boston to make sure that I will not get any
money from Liberty due to me.

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 cases or vice versa .
In September, Stein asked for help from David Greenwald, the owner of the internet
newspaper “The Davis Vanguard” from Davis , CA 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. (See enclosed on the Flash Drive
Petition for Rehearing filed on 10/25/2017 in the Court of Appeal , Third Appellate
District (3DCA) Page No. 29-34)

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. .
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 law firm or quit January 2015 . Another porter
Scott’s attorney who was dealing and wheeling with Stein in 2014 was Douglas Ropel.
He quit Porter Scott or got fired in March 2016.

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.

6
Request for Reimbursement -State Bar Security Fund
$14,694.33 + $4,500 = $19,194.33, not the $20,000 that I paid to Stein as retainer.

V. OTHER ENTITIES AND PERSONS PRIMARILY OR SECONDARILY


LIABLE FOR THE FRAUD AND THEFT

A. Wells Fargo Bank

Wells Fargo Bank is equally responsible and liable for the losses that I incurred in
relation to Stein’s misrepresentation and dishonesty.

On December 31, 2018, two weeks after I discovered that Stein stole my retainer, I
inquired with Wells Fargo. I asked why I was attached to the retainer account. However,
Wells Fargo representatives refused to provide me with monthly statements or allow me
to access or view the account. I also sought reimbursement of the stolen funds because
Wells Fargo aided Stein in his theft and fraud (ATTACHMENT #6).

During repeated correspondence concerning this and other disputes, I reminded Wells
Fargo about loses caused by its fraudulent practices and negligence.

For example, in my January 2, 2017, inquiry addressed to WFB Research Remediation


Analyst Sonya Hall (ATTACHMENT #7), I wrote:

• I also experienced a serious problem with Wells Fargo's Account Gold Business Service
Package 6826908995, to which my name was attached but the primary user of which was
my attorney. In this 2014/2015 case, Wells Fargo claimed that I was responsible for over-
drafting
$194.33 in December 2014. Wells Fargo charged me $194.33 to close the account, but
failed to provide me monthly statements on this account, and I lost $20,000. (See the
attached copies of the 12/31/2014 correspondence that I sent to the Wells Fargo
Resolution Department in Des Moines, Iowa.) On January 15, 2015, after I had submitted
the complaint, Wells Fargo credited
$194.33 to my checking account. There was no explanation except the following note on
the bank activity statement: "Customer Satisfaction Credit."
This is how Wells Fargo resolved the problem of the $20,000 that I had lost. The case is
still pending in the California State Bar. It is one of two pending cases in the California
Superior Court and the Court of Appeal in Sacramento that have resulted in the
involvement of the University of California Regents in tens of millions of dollars of tax
fraud. You may read about it in the correspondence that I sent to Wells Fargo, PO Box
699 in Portland, on November 7, 2016.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I have no desire to deal with Well Fargo again. I
believe that its deceptive business practices violate provisions 17200-17206 of the state
of California's Business and Professions Code and California's general business
regulations. Wells Fargo has made no effort to resolve the present problem in good faith.

7
Request for Reimbursement -State Bar Security Fund
It is continuing to collect money from me which Wells Fargo is not entitle to collect from
me.

For more information, see the Wells Fargo letter dated June 20, 2017, and my response
dated July 10, 2017 (ATTACHMENT #8). In these documents, I broadly addressed the
retainer stolen by Stein.

In response to my July 10, 2017, rebuttal, Wells Fargo Bank “resolved” the $20,000
dispute—caused by its own fraudulent business practices—by sending me a check. This
check, Check No. 0000803341, was in amount of $85 (ATTACHMENT #9). Wells
Fargo’s check and explanatory letter were dated December 20, 2017. As a further insult,
the check was sent to my son, George Waszczuk. He lived in Sacramento and also
apparently had a Wells Fargo account. I did not respond to Wells Fargo’s $85 insult, and
I did not cash the check.

B. Porter Scott Professional Law Corporation Attorneys Michael Pott, SB


#186156, and Douglas Ropel, SB #300486

I already partially addressed university legal counsels Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel as
well as their collusion with Stein, which was an attempt to derail my two pending
complaints in Sacramento County Superior Court and the 3DCA.

Pott and Ropel cut the deal with Stein during September through December of 2014. The
two attorneys possibly blackmailed Stein, or he just agreed to collaborate in exchange for
$300,000. Regardless, Stein exploited his friendship with Superior Court Judge Hon.
David Brown in order to sabotage my cases.

In March 2016, I filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against 23 individuals
licensed by the State Bar. Most of them were employees of the University of California.
(ATTCHMENT # 10) [the 230 pages long complaint with attachments is enclosed
on the flash drive]. The complaint included attorney Michel Pott from Porter Scott.

In my 2016 complaint with the State Bar, I concentrated my attention on the violation of
my civil and human rights. I also discussed the coverup of the tax evasion committed by
the UC Regents in relation to unlawful power sales from the UC Davis Medical Center
(UCDMC) 27 MW cogeneration facility, where I was employed from June 1999 to April
2007. Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel were perfectly aware of their client tax evasion
may not have been completely aware of the tax evasion, but their main goal was to
prevent disclosure of the circumstances related to UC Davis Medical Center employee
Todd Georlich December 2010 suicide thus they colluded or blackmailed and attempted
to bribe Stein with tag price of approximate $ 300, 000 in order to illegally disrupt my
cases and end my litigations in January 2015. In 2016, I did not realize that Pott and
Ropel’s main reason for turning Stein against me was an underhanded effort to conceal

8
Request for Reimbursement -State Bar Security Fund
UCDMC employee Todd Georlich’s suicide—or most likely homicide—which took
place on December 22, 2010 (ATTACHMENT #11). I held Michael Pott and Douglas
Ropel more responsible for the Douglas Stein’s crime than Stain himself . Pott and Ropel
were perfectly aware of Stein’s problems and took advantage of Stein’s personal grave
financial problems and his drugs dependency and bluntly utilized Stein’s vulnerability to
cover up the Georlich suicide circumstances. Stein most likely knew Georlich personally.
By discovering the new evidences I am considering to ask State Bar to reopen the
March 2016 complaint against 23 attorney and add Douglas Ropel to the complaint.
Death of the UC Davis Medical Center employee who hang himself , was forced to hang
himself or was hung after he died is a more serious problem than Stein’s gross
professional misconduct.

In March 2016, I did have much information about Georlich beside that he was friend of
my coworker Dereck Cole , and that he was my replacement in April 2007 . However,
handling my two appeals in the 3DCA led me to many shocking discoveries, and I
ultimately concluded that Georlich’s suicide was more than it seemed. This tragic
incident or crime and the subsequent coverup indirectly caused me financial hardship
that has amounted to over $1,000,000 in lost wages and benefits as well as the loss of my
home during a time when I should have been enjoying a well-earned retirement. I have
suffered the destruction of my and family’s normal existence and livelihood. In my
August 3, 2018 request to have my appeal in Case No. C079254, Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, placed on the court calendar, I discussed the
Todd Georlich suicide and other events. (ATTACHMENT # 12) [Full document on
Flash Drive ) The appeal in Case No. C079254 was filed on May 7, 2015, but is still
unresolved by the 3DCA (the full document with exhibits is enclosed on the flash drive).
On August 21, 2018, the 3DCA denied my request to have my case scheduled and heard.
I have no clue how this 3DCA drama over a simple writ of mandate appeal for
unemployment benefits is going to end.

VI. CONCLUSION

Stein’s gross misconduct and collusion with defense attorneys Pott and Ropel combined
with Wells Fargo’s fraudulent practices bled $200,000 from my retirement savings by
setting me up for a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion. This motion has been dragged out for
three years by lawyers and judges with help from the State Bar of California. Stealing
$20,000 from a client; not explaining the difference between SLAPP and anti-SLAPP;
colluding with the opposite party’s lawyers; and leveraging personal relationships with
judges are unforgivable crimes. Stein with help of Wells Fargo Bank and Porter Scott
two attorney Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel unquestionably committed all of these
crimes.

However, how will Stein repay this stolen money if his attorney license is suspended and
his financial situation is not better than it was in 2014? Please let me know whether I can

9
Request for Reimbursement -State Bar Security Fund
expect my money back and who is going to pay. If Stein had malpractice liability
insurance, then recovering the stolen money would have been easier; I would not have
had to file a complaint with the State Bar.

I would appreciate cooperation and assistance from the State Bar Client Security Fund in
this matter. Please help me recover my losses from the responsible criminally minded
parties.

Sincerely,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

Enclosed :

• 12 Attachments (Hard copies and on Flash Drive)

• Petition for Rehearing filed in 3DCA on 10/25/2017 Case No. C079524 (Petition
Denied)

• Self addressed and stamped return envelope for copy endorsement

10
Request for Reimbursement -State Bar Security Fund