2216 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-729-5154
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com

January 10 , 2023

Via fax

Michele Kem
Secretary to Trial Counsel State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102

MY JANUARY 6, 2023 RESPONSE TO KAREN M. BRAY’S JANUARY 5, 2023

INQUIRY - RE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
RESPONDENT'S BRIEF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES 8.60 AND 8.63,
3DCA CASE NO. C095488

Re: Appeal from the Judgment after an Order Granting a Summary Judgment
Motion, October 28, 2021. Hon. Christopher Krueger - Sacramento Superior
Court Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
The Regents of the University of California, the Court of Appeal Third
Appellate District (3DCA) Case No. C095488 - Waszczuk v. Regents of the
University of California et al.

Dear Ms. Kem:

In addition to my previous inquires with your office, I am sending for your and
the Commission on Judicial Performance’s information and consideration a copy of
attorney Karen Bray’s January 5, 2023 request regarding whether I would object to her
application for an extra 30 days, beyond the already granted 60-day extension of time, to
file a Respondent Brief in this appeal (Attachment #1).
I do not know what the UC Regents’ attorneys from the Porter Scott and Horvitz
& Levy law firms are up to with this extension of time to file in this case, which has been
-1-
Application For Extension of Time for Respondent's Brief
unlawfully dragged out in the courts for more than nine years without resolution, perhaps
with the expectation that I will eventually die. I have no other explanation for why the
case was not scheduled for trial according to the law after I submitted to the Court on
March 3, 2020 a Submission Form to set Trial Date for August 11 or 18, 2020, or
September 28, 2020. Instead of setting the case for trial, my wife became a target of the
Porter Scott attorneys’ terrorism, with the blessing and collaboration of Sacramento
County Superior Court judicial officers and court staff.
The Bray’s request for an extension of time was not a genuine request, but at this
point it does not make any difference to me if she files her respondent’s brief now or in
30 days.
As I pointed out in my January 6, 2023 response to Bray’s request (Attachment #2), I
am now waiting for the appointment of a new presiding justice in the Court of Appeal’s Third
Appellate District (3DCA), to address my grievances related to the terror aimed at my wife
from April through July 2018 by the UC Regents’ attorneys. As your office has been
previously informed, attorney Lindsay Goulding’s actions against my wife resulted in stealing
$22,284 from her.
Goulding’s crime was committed when my Motion to Recall the Remittitur and
Motion for a Judicial Notice from the 3DCA’s unpublished opinion in Waszczuk v. Regents of
University of California, C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10,2014) (an anti-SLAPP motion),
filed on June 18, 2021, were pending, with the aim of stopping the terror against my wife and
stopping the stealing of her money . The motions for recall remittitur and for judicial
notice were denied, on July 15, 2021, by the rubber stamp of former 3DCA Presiding Justice
Vance W. Raye. Justice Raye was under intensive investigation at the time by the State of
California’s Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) for his alleged serious misconduct.

It would be appropriate for the Commission on Judicial Performance to intervene with

the Sacramento County Superior Court’s Administrator to find out who in the Court conspired
with Porter Scott to terrorize my wife and steal her money. At present, I am hesitant to file an
official complaint against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Thadd Blizzard, from
-2-
Application For Extension of Time for Respondent's Brief
Department 43, because when I attended his courtroom with my wife and my former
coworker on July 2, 2021, the Dept. 43 clerk in rude way tried to force my wife into an
interrogation per Judge Thadd Blizzard’s altered and redacted Order dated May 7,
2021.
My wife, IRENA WASZCZUK, who has been the target of the Porter Scott
attorneys’ criminal activities since February 2015, arrived with me and my good friend
and former co-worker from the UC Davis Medical Center, WILLIAM BUCKANS,
who has been a witness to Goulding’s set attack aimed at my wife. Buckans has
always attended the court hearings in Sacramento Court with me, due to the previous
vile threats by Porter Scott’s attorneys in the Court against me and my wife. The
threats have been reported to the Court and the State Bar.
Upon arrival in Dept. 43, I noticed on the information board that Porter Scott
attorney Derek Hayes was listed in this attack aimed at my 70 years old wife..
However, Hayes was not present. Goulding appeared at the hearing and said she was
the one who was set and running whole interrogation . After the bailiff checked the
names the court clerk or judge’s assistant whose name I do not know became very
rude and pushy to get my wife interrogated. Then, I asked her what happened to my
June 30, 2021 Ex Parte Application for a continuance of this interrogation. She rudely
responded that she did not get the document and tried to begin my wife’s interrogation.
The Court received my Ex-Parte application on June 30, 2021 a same day it was filed
in the Court by Rapid Legal Services https://rapidlegal.com/ (ROA #262 Sacramento
Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
The Regents of the University of California)
Goulding was sitting there, but said nothing. Finally, I told the clerk that there
would be no interrogation of my wife in this courtroom, and I informed her that I had a
check in the amount of $22,284 to pay whatever should be paid. The court clerk did
not like this and tried to force my wife to be interrogated by Goulding anyway .She
-3-
Application For Extension of Time for Respondent's Brief
tried to cut me out, stating that I was not a party of this proceeding . I told her again
that there would be no interrogation of my wife, and I asked Goulding to whom I
should write the check. The clerk interfered and said that she does not know how to
proceed. She then went to the judge’s chambers to get the judge. After 10 minutes,
Judge Blizzard appeared on the bench completely disoriented and unprepared for the
hearing and not knowing what the interrogation was to be about. He started looking
with the clerk for a Polish translator for my wife, even though I had written a check for
$22,284.in my hand. Finally, I forced Goulding to look at the check, which I issued to
the UC Regents and showed her my wife’s most recent Bank of America statement,
which verified that there were more than enough funds to cover the $22,284 ..
Goulding did not expect such an outcome when trying to set up my wife for the Bench
Warrant to frame her for criminal prosecution and to break into her bank account and
her 401(K) life savings. Judge Blizzard had no idea about these events because,
apparently his clerk did not give him to read my June 30, 2021 Ex Parte Application
for a continuance of the hearing, which included a copy of the Motion to Recall
Remittitur, a copy for Judicial Notice (without exhibits), and other attachments
relevant to the ant-SLAPP motion legal fees. Goulding left the court the $22,284
bluntly stolen from wife’s account. I warned her not to harass my wife anymore.
Judge Blizzard issued a Court order to further intimidate my wife by ordering her to
return on August 6, 2021 if the case is not settled. The return hearing was set just two
days after the scheduled Court Hearing in Dept. 54 for Motion for Summary
Judgment before Judge Krueger
After this appearance in Dept. 43 on July 2, 2021 at 9:00 A.M., where my
wife paid a $22,284 ransom to Goulding, I noticed on the Court’s public access
website that, at 1:30, my June 30, 2021 ex parte application to continue the
hearing in Dept. 47 until September 3, 2021 was filed together with a court order

-4-
Application For Extension of Time for Respondent's Brief
stating that Judge Sharma H. Mesiwala had been disqualified, pursuant to CCP
Section 170.6.
I am quite confident that I and my wife are not the only victims of criminals
activities who are infiltrated the California courts .
CONCLUSION
To conclude this letter, I am asking the Commission on Judicial Performance to
investigate who, on July 15 , 2021, denied my Motion to Recall Remittitur and Motion
for Judicial Notice (Case No. C079524) on Justice Vance Raye’s behalf using his
rubber stamp. Justice Raye, at that time, was under investigation by the Commission
on Judicial Performance for misconduct and then admonished and forced to retire
(Attachment No. 3).
I noticed from the 3DCA Docket in Chodosh v. Commission on Judicial
Performance et al., Number C091221, that, contrary to my appeal in Case No.
C079524, the Appellant’s motion and request for judicial notice filed on April 28,
2021 was returned that same day to the Appellant for non-conformance, as indicated
by the following note in the Docket:

Appellant's motion and request for judicial notice has been

rejected. The court information is incorrect and the pagination
needs to be corrected. The pagination needs to be corrected. Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.74(a)(2). The electronic page counter for
the electronic document must match the page number for each
page of the document. The page numbering of a document filed
electronically must begin with the first page or cover page as page
1 and thereafter be paginated consecutively using only arabic
numerals (e.g., 1, 2, 3). Correct and re-submit by 4/29/2021.
The appellant resubmitted a corrected request for judicial notice on the
same day, April 28, 2021.

-5-
Application For Extension of Time for Respondent's Brief
Three weeks later, on May 20, 2021, the Appellant’s motion was denied by a three-
justice panel from 3DCA, with the clerk adding the following notification to the case
docket:

Appellant's motion for judicial notice is denied. The material attached to

the motion will be disregarded. BLEASE, Acting P.J.; RENNER, J.;
KRAUSE, J
Contrary to Chodosh v. Commission on Judicial Performance et al.
Number C091221, my motion for judicial notice, in Case No. C079524, was denied
on July 15, 2021 not by the panel of three justices but with the rubber stamp of 3DCA
Presiding Justice Raye, despite him being under investigation by the Commission on
Judicial Performance at the time, facing serious allegations of many years ongoing
misconduct.
Furthermore, I noticed in the docket for Chodosh v. Commission on Judicial
Performance et al. Number C091221, Justice Raye participated in the Chodosh
appeal against the Commission on Judicial Performance’s , since an investigation had
been going on since at least November 2020 (see https://cjp.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/40/2022/06/Raye_DO_Pub_Admon_6-1-22.pdf?emrc=f5c572).
I fail to understand why Justice Raye, given the investigation of his alleged
serious misconduct, did not recuse himself from participating in any appeals pending
in 3DCA until the investigation was concluded; I am especially perplexed by why he
did not recuse himself from the Chodosh v. Commission on Judicial Performance et
al. appeal or was not advised by the Commission to recuse himself. It seems to me that
the attorney representing the Commission on Judicial Performance and the attorney
representing Justice Raye in the investigation did not provide information to the
attorney representing the appellant in the case, letting them know that Justice Raye
was being investigated, or to ask him whether it is okay with him that Raye was
overseeing his client’s appeal.
-6-
Application For Extension of Time for Respondent's Brief
 Individual justices determine whether they will recuse themselves
from participating in deciding a matter on appeal. (Kaufman v.
Court of Appeal (1982) 31 Cal.3d 933, 937-940.) Recusal or
disqualification of an appellate justice is governed by canon
3E of the California Code of Judicial Ethics. (Housing
Authority of Monterey County v. Jones (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th
1029, 1040, fn. 6.) Canon 3E(4) provides: "An appellate justice
shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding if for any
reason: (a) the justice believes his or her recusal would further the
interest of justice; or (b) the justice substantially doubts his or her
capacity to be impartial; or (c) the circumstances are such that a
reasonable person aware of the facts would doubt the justices
ability to be impartial.

In this matter, I cannot see how the Commission on Judicial Performance allowed
Justice Raye to remain involved and to participate in the appeal proceeding against
itself.

Sincerely,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

cc: Office of California Governor Gavin Newsom

State Bar of California Executives
California Attorney General’s Office
California Senator, Dr. Susan Talamantes Eggman
California Judicial Council

-7-
Application For Extension of Time for Respondent's Brief