03-22-2023-Appellant' S Reply Brief - Waszczuk v. The Regents of The University of California 3DCA Case No. C095488

Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Colette M. Bruggman, Clerk Colette M. Bruggman, Clerk

Electronically RECEIVED on 3/22/2023 at 2:12:37 AM Electronically FILED on 3/22/2023 by J. Swartzendruber, Deputy Clerk
CASE NO.: C095488
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD
APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jaroslaw Janusz Plaintiff
Plaintiff & Appellant
v.
The Regents of the University of California
Defendant & Respondent
Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court of California County of

Sacramento Superior Court – The Honorable Christopher E. Krueger
Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
Jaroslaw Janusz Plaintiff

Per se
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax.: 209-729-5154
Email: jjw1980@live.com
TO BE FILED W THE COURT OF APPEAL
APP--008
CNIL
C-, f1f/4IIPWll:.-ltlllllllr.
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE DIBTRl'-T, DMSION
C0954881
ATTORNEY OR PARTYWTHOUTA'fflJRNIV ,--. llfl lwllralllw. Ml..,.,.; SuplllorOIIUII C'aeNINII:
-.Jurot1l11w W11.!IZczuk fn Pru Pc:r 34-2013-00155479

2216 Katzman Way IOI COUfff WECN. 'I
Lodi, CA 95242
Tl!Uil'HONEN0..2!)9.-687.�l 180 FAJUtO.(�:
E-WIILADllRESS � jjw L 90@live.com
Ano11NEYFOR11'1111PJ: Jaroslaw Waszczuk (selfrespresented) 111 Pro Per
APPELLANTJ?EllTIONER: Jarostaw Waszczuk
RESPONDENT/REAL PARTY N INTEREST: REGENTS OF THE UNJV. OF CA
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

(Check one): [Z] INITIAL CERTIFICATE □ SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICA'lc
Notice: Please read rules 8.208 and 8."88 before completing this fonn. You may use this fonn 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 o f changed or additional information that must
be dis closed.
1. This fonn Is bei,g submlttecl a, behalf of the folowing party (name): J AROSLAW WASZCZUK
2. a 0 Tlwre are 110 ln1areated en� a penrona lhat muat be llllad In thla ceftlflcate under riJe 8.208.
b. D lmnsllld anlilias or pel80nS RKJ,lil9d lo be liated l.lnder r"8 8.20811,a as fdlowa:
Full name of lnteraetad Nature of lntarast

entity or parson (&plifin):
(1)
(21
(3)
(4)
(5)
D Continuedon attachment 2.
The undat&ignad cattifias that Iha above-listed parsons or antiliea (r.:orporations, pal'lnet11h ip&, finns, ot any other
a&&OCiatian, but not lncludlng govammant antiti• or their agencies) have either (1) an ownarslip h-1ta111st of 10 percant or
more In the party if I is an enllly; or (2) a financial or other Interest In the outcome al the proceeding that the justices
shaiJd consider In determining wheth.- to disqualify themselves, as defined In rue &2DB(e)(2).
Dale: MARCH 21, 2023

JAROSALAW WASZCZUK. ►
(TYPI. OR�IIIT llloW&)
__...,.,.,...,,..
P .. e1 al•
Fam� IDr Ojltlllnll U.. CERTIFICATE O F INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS Clll."-afCauit. nlae UGI 1.411
Jtldoillll ....... .-CAmill
APILOIII IR&v• ....., 1. _,.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS
I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………..……...…5
II. WASZCZUK’ S REPLY TO THE INTRODUCTION IN THE
REGENTS’RB (PAGES 10–11)……………………………………………….6
III. WASZCZUK’ S REPLY TO THE REGENTS’ FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND PAGE RB PAGE NO . 11………………8
A. THE REGENTS’ FIRST ADVERSE ACTION AIMED AT
WASZCZUK, IN 2005–2009………………………………………...……8
B. THE REGENTS’ SECOND ADVERSE ACTION AIMED AT
WASZCZUK IN MARCH 2011–DECEMBER 2012 – AN UNLAWFUL 10
DAYS’ SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY AND UNLAWFUL
TERMINATION OF WASZCZUK’S EMPLOYMENT AT HIS
RETIREMENT AGE………………………………………………………11
C. THE UNLAWFUL TERMINATION OF WASZCZUK’S EMPLOYMENT

AND WASZCZUK’S WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION
COMPLAINT ………………………………………………..………………21
IV. WASZCZUK REPLY TO THE REGENTS LEGAL ARGUMENT (RB 29)...39

A. WASZCZUK’S REPLY TO THE REGENTS’ SUBCHAPTER I (RB P.
29), “WASZCZUK WAIVED ANY CHALLENGE TO THE TRIAL
COURT’S RULINGS, INCLUDING ITS DECISION TO GRANT
SUMMARY JUDGMENT.”……………………………………………..….39
B. WASZCZUK’S REPLY TO THE REGENTS SUBCHAPTER VI (RB PP.
57-58), “NONE OF WASZCZUK’S OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
GRIEVANCES CREATE A BASIS FOR REVERSING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT.” THE REGENTS STATED: ……………………………….41
C. THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT HEARING ON
SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 WITH SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER E.
KRUEGER…………………………………………………………………….43
D. ABUSE OF DISCRETION ……………………………………………..….…44

V. .. CONCLUSION……………………..…………………….……………………46
VI. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE …………………………….…….….…47
VII. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL ………………………………48
-2-
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF – 3DCA Case No. C095488
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Palmer v. Regents of the University of Calif, 107 Cal.App.4th 899 (Cal. Ct. App.
2003);…………………………………………………………………………………….11
Campbell v. Regents of University of California, No. A097560 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20,
2003)………………………………………………………………………………..……11
Gerawan Farming v. Lyons, 24 Cal.4th 468 (Cal. 2000)……………………………...….8
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)………………………………………………….11
Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 165)………13,41
Mendoza v. Regents of University of California, 78 Cal.App.3d 168
(Cal. Ct. App. 1978 14……………………………………………..…………………….13
Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., supra, at p.

215. 1…………………….…………………….13,24
Arnett v. Kennedy (1974) 416 U.S. 134, 170 [40 L.Ed.2d 15, 42, 94 S.Ct. 1633])
Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018), 4 Cal.5th 637,
…………………………………………………………………………………………….….35
Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)……………………...…..36,44
State v. All Persons, 152 Cal.App.4th 1386…………………………………………………………36
Provost v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 201 Cal.App.4th 1289 (Cal. Ct. App.
2011)…………………………………………………………………………………….39,40
Levy v. Superior Court (1995)” 10 Cal.4th 578, 586, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 896 P.2d 171…….39
Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp., 128 Cal.App.4th 187 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)………….…41
Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Constr. Co., (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 83;……..………………….45
-3-
Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC, (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96,……………………………..45
American Heritage Diet. (4th College ed. 2000 p. 1716)……………………………………45
STATUTES
Code of Civil Procedure section
425.16(f)……..………………….…………………………………….......………...….9,34,35
Code of Civil Procedure § 473c(h),……………………………………….……..………….24
Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (e))………………………………...……..………………….46
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT

California Rules of Court (CRC) 8.63(b)(9)…………………………………….……………6
Labor Code 1102.5………………………………………………….……………….………29
Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
((Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 583.310; )………………………….........………………………..37
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6……………………………………………………...………….45
OTHER AUTHORITIES
First Amendment to the US Constitution and California
Policy Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 70……………...……10,12.40,43,44,46
Whistleblower Protection Act (Government Code Sections 8547–8547………….……..20,26,
Procedure Manual Chapter 380-17…………………………...………………………………13
UC Davis Policy PPSM 23………………………….10,12,14,15,16,17,24,25,30,40,43,46
UC Davis Separation Policy PPSM 62……………………………………………...…13,14,15
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954………………………………….……...…21.
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, sections 7
and 15, of the California Constitution ………………………..……………………….………9
Family and Medical Leave………………………………………………………..………….13
RETURN TO WORK CERTIFICATION letter (see https://hr.ucdavis.edu/forms/leaves
………………………………………………………………………………………….28
-4-
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff JAROSLAW PLAINTIFF (pronounced “Vashchook,” hereafter

“Waszczuk”) is responding to the October 28, 2021 State of California, County of
Sacramento Court Judgment, FOLLOWING THE ORDER GRANTING THE
DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA (hereafter “The Regents”) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
issued and signed by the Honorable Judge Christopher E. Krueger of Sacramento County
Superior Court Department 54 (Law & Motions) Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal (CT Vol.
13, pp. 3744–3761).
On October 28, 2020, Judge Krueger signed a judgment was related to the
September 1, 2021 Court Minute Order (CT Vol. 13, pp. 3754–3761) issued right after
the Court Hearing in which he cut off the Plaintiff’s comments after approximately 10
minutes, depriving the Plaintiff of the chance to be heard and to present his rebuttal to the
September 1, 2021 Court Minute Order on the case that had been pending since
December 4, 2013 (see the Court Reporter Transcript (CRT) from the September 1, 2021
Court Hearing via ZOOM).
Waszczuk could not address the CRT in his Appellant Opening Brief (AOB), filed
on October 19, 2022, because the trial court’s appellate department deliberately failed to
provide the CRT to Waszczuk with the designated record on appeal. Waszczuk was
forced by the trial court and the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) to
obtain the CRT from this 10-minute hearing for the case.
The Appellant’s Reply Brief (ARB) is a rebuttal to the Respondent Brief (RB)
filed in an untimely way by The Regents’ attorneys on March 1, 2023, in violation of
California Rules of Court (CRC) 8.63(b)(9). It took more than 100 days for The Regents,
who are represented by two powerful law firms, to produce and file the RB on March 1,
2023. By contrast, it took only three days for The Regents’ attorneys to file an opposition
to Waszczuk’s motion for sanctions for the late RB, which Waszczuk filed on March 10,
2023 (see the docket in Case C095488, Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
-5-
California).
II.
WASZCZUK’ S REPLY TO THE INTRODUCTION IN THE REGENTS’ RB
(PAGES 10–11)
In addition to the untimely filed RB, The Regents’ attorney made a desperate ad
hominem attack aimed at Waszczuk without any support or citations in the appeal record.
Waszczuk is guessing that the Respondent attorney, Karen Bray, in her opening
statement, had in mind the 2008 arbitration process in which Waszczuk defeated the UC
Regents. Waszczuk wants to note that he has not spent almost 10 years suing The
Regents in this wrongful termination lawsuit because he prevailed in the arbitration
process against The Regents in November 2008 (see Supplemental Clerk Transcript on
Appeal (1 Supp. CT 5-6). This wrongful termination lawsuit is predominately about the
approximately $1 million damages caused by The Regents, which included but are not
limited to lost wages, benefits, housing, and so on. The damages Waszczuk has suffered
are due to The Regents’ violation and breach of the January 30, 2009 Settlement
Agreement (8 CT 2169 -2179), which they signed with Waszczuk after the November
2009 arbitration process and their wrongful unofficial termination of Waszczuk on
August 31, 2011 and officially on December 5, 2012 (see calculated damages in Special
Interrogatories (8 CT 2249-2266)).
Waszczuk learned from Bray’s opening statement’s introduction that he has been
deemed a racist, and that is why he was fired from his job by The Regents. Waszczuk’s
employment was officially terminated on December 5, 2012 with the promotion from
Associate Development Engineer to Senior Development Engineer (see Waszczuk’s
opposition to The Regents for Motion of Summary Judgment (MSJ/MSA) (AOB p. 42)
September 25; Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct, dated September 25,
2012 (Exhibit #23) (11 CT, p. 3228); and December 5, 2012 Letter of Termination,
MSJ/MSA Exhibit #27 (11 CT pp. 3267, 3268).
-6-
Unofficially, Waszczuk was terminated on his last day of a one-month work
stress-related leave, August 31, 2011. On that day, Waszczuk received from his
department manager, Charles Witcher, an e-mail containing an investigatory leave letter
that immediately placed him on investigatory leave (8 CT 2289, 2366), despite Waszczuk
having been on work stress-related leave since August 3, 2011 (11 CT 3019-3024) and
under the care of psychologist Dr. Franklin O. Bernhoft, from Lodi, CA. Between his
work stress-related sick leave and his employment termination, Waszczuk was not
allowed to return to work on September 1, 2011. No employer places employees on
investigatory or administrative leave when employees are sick, especially when they are
on work stress-related leave and under the care of a doctor and psychologist. It is unheard
of.
In contrast to Witcher’s statement in his August 31, 2011 investigatory leave

letter, The Regents’ attorney Bray, in her misleading statement in the RB (p. 14), stated:
Waszczuk was placed on paid leave on September 1, 2011 so that the

allegations by him and against him could be investigated by Human
Resources.
The unofficial termination of Waszczuk’s employment on August 31, 2011, which
coincided with his last day of work stress-related disability leave, was confirmed by
Administrative Manager Phillis Reginelli, from the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
Operations and Maintenance (PO&M) department. Reginelli disclosed this during her
interview on January 4, 2013 with the California Employment Development Department
(EDD) in relation to Waszczuk’s unemployment insurance benefits claim (11CT 3026-
3028), which he submitted to the EDD on December 16, 2012 (EDD Case No. 0410).
This claim was denied by the EDD on January 11, 2013, but then reinstated on May 14,
2014. After that, he unemployment insurance benefits were stolen (11 CT 330-3035).
The official day for Waszczuk’s employment termination was set for September
23, 2011 (10 CT 2878), but information about this was prematurely leaked by the PO&M
-7-
department’s assistant manager (10 CT 2879). Then, on September 22, 2011, Waszczuk’s
physician again placed him on stress-related leave until January 5, 2012.
III.
WASZCZUK’ S REPLY TO THE REGENTS’ FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND PAGE RB PAGE NO . 11
A. The Regents’ First Adverse Action Aimed at Waszczuk, in 2005–2009
1. In subchapter “A” (RB p. 11–13), “Power plant operator Jaroslaw Waszczuk is

suspended in 2007 for racist and threatening comments, and reassigned to a new
location on the University of California, Davis campus,” The Regents’ attorney
slandered Waszczuk based on fabricated declarations and pseudo investigation reports of
several individuals with whom Waszczuk never directly worked or interacted. The
Regents attorneys slandering and portraying Waszczuk as a racist with taken out of
context statements and without citations to the record the Waszczuk inquires and letter
written in to his own defense and his coworkers . Waszczuk’s written memos addressed
to University officials state and federal agencies are protected by the First Amendment to
the US Constitution and California anti-SLAPP statute Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16
law as well. In Gerawan Farming v. Lyons, 24 Cal.4th 468 (Cal. 2000) Court Stated
Article I of the Constitution of the State of California, entitled the

Declaration of Rights, states in subdivision (a) of section 2: "Every
person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all
subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not
restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press."
The Court may read and examine in the record what Waszczuk wrote when the Regens kept
as hostage on the forced leave for over one year from August 3, 2011 to December 5, 2012
and thereafter. The Regents failed to cite the record about Waszczuk’s protected by the 1st
Amendment in their MSJ/MSA filed on May 14, 2021 and RB filed on March 1, 2023.
-8-
• January 19, 2009 – Letter to UCDMC HR Director Stephen Chilcot – 2009-
Settlement -Agreement Negotiations with The Regents – See Page 3
BEHAVIORAL CONTRACT PPSM 23-Evaluation (1 CT 423-425)
• March 7, 2013 Cover letter to Waszczuk Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint
( 1 CT 114)
• July 24, 2011 Letter to UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown protesting
2009 Settlement – Agreement violation by UCDMC Management . Steven
Drown signed the Settlement -Agreement ( 12 CT 33463349)
• September 18, 2011 -Waszczuk’s letter to Waszczuk manager Charles Witcher’s
protesting the harassment after work stress related sick leave , telling Witcher and
HR Director Chilcott that they are acting like COWARDS AND TERRORIST
by violating the 2009 Settlement -Agreement and harassing Waszczuk ( 1 CT
477-481)
• October 6, 2011 Waszczuk inquires with UC Davis Police Captain Joyce Souza ,
asking UCDPD to Cheeck Waszczuk record due to UC Davis Medical Center
management and HR despicable harassment which goal was to force Waszczuk
quit his job . (3 CT 679-684)
• November 9, 2011 Letter to Waszczuk’s manager Charles Witcher titled
“GESTAPO ON MY ASS “ . Letter is self explanatory ( 3 CT 3333-3339)
• March 13, 2011 – Letter to Waszczuk’s Manager Charles Witcher -Re. Request
for salary increase (C 1 466-473)
• May 24, 2012 Letter to HR Consultant Noel Van DerViver Letter entitled “
REVENGE ISN’T WISE in which Waszczuk addressing unwarranted attacks
against Waszczuk’s cowoerkesr Waszczuk represented in the complaints under
UC Policy PPSM 70 against The Regants adverse action (3 CT 659-671)
• October 14, 2014 Letter to UC Senior Vice President Dan Dooley – Re.
Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint (1 CT 168-184)
• October 9, 2011 Letter to The Regents of the University of California titled I FEEL
-9-
LIKE A JEW HUNTED BY NAZIS DURING THE HOLOCAUST. (10 CT 2884-
2885) This is how Waszczuk felt being denying his basic rights and being threated
by the Regents in USA like a subhuman . Waszczuk parents were living from
September 1, 1939 to June 1941 under Soviets occupations and Stalins’ NKVD rules
and from June 1941 to end of the WW II under Nazis and Gestapo’s rules than again
after WW II under Stalin ‘s regime and NKVD rules thanks to Churchill and
Roosevelt deal with Stalin in Yalta . Stalin’s NKVD starved to death 6-10 millions
Ukrainians in 1930-1932 , mascaraed and murdered thousands of Polish POW in
Katyn massacre and send hundred of thousand Polish Patriot to Soviets Gulags in
1939-1941 and after WW II.
• September 30, 2014 Letter to UCDMC Director Mike Boyd – Re Waszczuk
former co-worker Frank Gonzales Letter of Expectation UC Policy PPSM 23,
PPSM 62. Waszczuk represented Gonzales with EEOC for Discrimination ( 1CT
186-189)
• July 7, 2015 and September 25, 2015 inquiries with US Senator Diane Feinstein
to intervene with the Regents to restore Waszczuk ‘s normal life and addressing
UCDMC management abusive behavior toward blue collar workers . ( 5 CT
1401-1415)
• January 4, 2015 (misdated ) Response (1 CT 209-2012 to US Senator Dianne
Feinstein letter dated October 31, 2014 *1 CT 207) Re : Violation of Human
Rights , Violation of Settlement Agreement by Regents
• January 4, 2015 -Letter to UC General Counsel Charles Robinson -Re:
Retaliation ( 1 CT 228-240 )
The Regents Attorney portraying Waszczuk as a ant-Semite and bringing actor Sasha
Cohen song into her RB “ THROWN THE JEW DOWN THE WELL “ If The
Regent’s attorney Karen Bray would understand Polish than she would understand that
Sasha Cohen singing anti-Polish satire in the Texas cowboys bar
https://youtu.be/GG86mhOGjB8. The song began with in Polish language . Waszczuk
- 10 -
explained it in ( 10 CT 2851-2852) The Regents attorneys just slandering Waszczuk not
citing record and not having better arguments than slander and libel .
In Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) U.S Supreme Court upheld First Amendment
Rights and Waszczuk has rights to speak and rights to write on his and other defense in
against the Regent harassment and retaliation and abuse of power . Waszczuk born a free
man and will die as free man .
2. In the following subchapter, “B” (RB p. 13-14), “Waszczuk accepts a

promotion, salary increase and payment for alleged lost wages,” The Regents’
attorney basically alleges that Waszczuk’s racist behavior in 2006–2007 was rewarded by
The Regents with a promotion, salary increase, and regular pay raises, not to mention
good employee evaluations for the time periods July 1, 2006–June 30, 2007; July 1,
2007– June 30, 2008; July 1, 2008–June 30, 2009; and July 1, 2009–June 30, 2010.
Waszczuk addressed his employee evaluations in his AOB, on pages 42–47.

Annual employee 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).
Waszczuk addressed his 2007 unlawful suspension and reassignment in his AOB
on pages 8–12, 31, 34, and 35. Waszczuk’s unlawful suspension and reassignment 16
years ago was resolved by the November 3 & 4, 2008 arbitration process, pursuant to UC
Davis Administrative Remedies, outlined in the UC Davis Policy Personnel Policies for
Staff Members (PPSM) 70. See also Palmer v. Regents of the University of Calif, 107
Cal.App.4th 899 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003); Campbell v. Regents of University of California,
No. A097560 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2003).
Waszczuk, in this case, is not litigating the arbitration decision from November 2008.
Waszczuk prevailed in the 2008 arbitration process. Waszczuk prevailed in 2008 arbitration .
B. The Regents’ Second Adverse Action Aimed at Waszczuk in March 2011–

December 2012 – An Unlawful 10 Days’ Suspension without Pay and Unlawful
Termination of Waszczuk’s Employment at His Retirement Age
- 11 -
Waszczuk partially addressed this issue in his AOB, on pages 12–15, from a different
angle than the 2011–2012 Regents’ adverse and unlawful actions aimed at him. These
resulted in approximately $1 million in lost wages and benefits and the unprecedented
devastation of his and his family’s normal existence in the United States of America. This
was a lot worse than what Waszczuk experienced in his native country, Poland, under its
communist regime.
Waszczuk’s reply to The Regents’ Factual and Procedural Background

subchapters C , D , E , F & G will provide the basis on the record showing enough proof
and evidence that the Trial Court’s (Hon. Christopher Krueger) September 1, 2021 Order
(13 CT 3754 -3761) and October 28, 2021 (13 CT 3764 -3753) Judgment, which granted
The Regents’ Motion for Summary Judgment, was partial and biased against Waszczuk
and unlawful. It must be reversed by the Court of Appeal.
1. In subchapter “C” (RB pp. 14-16), “In 2011, the University investigates
allegations of continuing racist and intimidating comments by Waszczuk,” The
Regents’ attorney makes reference to Waszczuk’s alleged offensive and intimidating
behavior toward his two supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc, on March 8,
2011, April 21, 2011 and May 5, 2011. In this matter, the Regents cited department
manager Witcher’s Declaration, which was submitted to the court with the MSJ filed on
May 14, 2021. In the Declaration, Witcher stated (8 CT 2289):
In or around May 2011, Waszczuk submitted complaints to me. In these

complaints, he alleged various forms of misconduct by Plant Operations
and Maintenance personnel, including mistreatment by his supervisors
Defendants Patrick Putney and Dorm Daniliuc. These complaints were
treated as whistleblower complaints pursuant to UC Davis Policy and
Procedure Manual (“PPM”) section 380-17.
For clarification, Putney was the HVAC shop manager and held the title of senior
development engineer; Daniliuc was the shop supervisor. If the allegations were true, then
Putney had managerial power to discipline Waszczuk, in accordance with UC Davis’s
Corrective Action Policy, PPSM 62 2 CT 496-4980, which would have been reflected
- 12 -
Waszczuk’s 2010–11 evaluation, due in June 2011 and mandated by UC Davis’s policy
PPSM 23, which provides that “each employee shall be appraised at least annually in writing
by the employee’s immediate supervisor, or more frequently in accordance with local
procedure” (2 CT 500-5002). Waszczuk addressed PPSM 62 in his AOB on page 39 and in
his PPSM 23, on pages 20, 34, 35, 42, 45, 46, and 47.
Furthermore, The Regents, in subchapter “C,” cited Human Resources (HR)

Consultant Gina Harwood’s Declaration (8 CT 2366), stated that Waszczuk’s supervisors
Daniliuc and Putney submitted in July 2011 a complaint against Waszczuk with HR and that:
In June 2011, I discussed Waszczuk’s behavior with Witcher and

Putney. Putney stated that Waszczuk said “Fuck You” after Putney
tried to speak with Waszczuk about a mistake he made at work. During
these discussions, Putney informed me that Waszczuk made ethnically
discriminatory remarks in the workplace. In early July 2011, Putney and
Daniliuc filed formal complaints reporting Waszczuk’s outbursts as
incidents of workplace violence.
Putney was Waszczuk’s manager, who conducted his annual evaluations beginning in June
2007, and Witcher was the department manager who approved Waszczuk’s evaluations since
that same time and submitted the evaluations to HR. Harwood was the HR labor relations
consultant whose duty it was to enforce Policy PPSM23. As early as March 2011, Waszczuk
was singled out for termination without cause and due process, in violation of PPSM 62 and
PPSM 23, after he sent on March 14, 2011 a letter asking for a salary increase (2 CT 466-
475). The Regents, in 2011, grossly violated the law by denying Waszczuk due process. “The
University is administered by the Regents, whose policies and procedures have the force and
effect of statutory law,” Kim v. Regents of University of California, 80 Cal.App.4th 160 (Cal.
Ct. App. 2000), In Mendoza v. Regents of University of California, 78 Cal.App.3d 168 (Cal.
Ct. App. 1978), the Court cited Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., supra, at p. 215. 2
2
The Supreme Court pointed out : Because of the apparent failure to accord the
employee any procedural protections to “minimize the risk of error in the initial
- 13 -
Waszczuk addressed the courts regarding his 2010–2011 and 2011–2012 evaluation
periods and the violation of PPSM 23 by The Regents, since Waszczuk filed his wrongful
termination lawsuit in pro per on December 4, 2014 against The Regents and nine individual
UC Davis Medical Center employees: HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott; Chilcott’s
subordinates, HR Investigator Danesha Nichols; HR Equal Employment Opportunity and
Diversity Manager Cindy Oropeza; HR Labor Relations Supervisor Brent Seifert; UC Davis
Medical Center Facilities Executive Director Mike Boyd, and his subordinates, Plant
Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher; HVAC Shop Manager Patrick Putney;
HVAC Shop Supervisor Dorin Daniliuc; and UC Davis Medical Center Chief Executive
Officer Ann Madden Rice (Supp. CT 1, 15,16). Every one of these UC Davis Medical Center
employees knew what PPSM 23 and PPSM 62 stood for. Chilcott, Nichols, Seifert, and
Oropeza, as HR employees, were enforcers of UC policies related to evaluating and
disciplining employees.
Waszczuk based his December 4, 2013 wrongful termination complaint on six Causes
of Action, which included the Causes of Action (COA) Wrongful Suspension and Wrongful
Termination; Violation and Breach of the 2009 Settlement Agreement which Waszczuk
signed with the Regents of the University of California in good faith; and the violation of UC
Davis Policy PPSM 23, which is the employees’ annual performance review (evaluation)
policy (Supp. CT 1).
Waszczuk’s former attorney, Douglas Stein, who Waszczuk hired in May 2014 to
handle his wrongful termination case by paying him $20,000, stole Waszczuk’s retainer and
removal decision” (Arnett v. Kennedy (1974) 416 U.S. 134, 170 [40 L.Ed.2d 15, 42,
94 S.Ct. 1633]), the provisions of the Act were held violative of the due process
clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and article I, sections 7 and 15, of the California Constitution (Skelly v. State
Personnel Bd., supra, at p. 215).
- 14 -
decimated Waszczuk’s original wrongful termination complaint with the First Amended
Complaint (FAC) filed on June 16, 2014 and refiled as a Second Amended Complaint (SAC)
on September 30, 2014. He did this by removing two crucial COAS, wrongful suspension and
violation of the PPSM 23 employee evaluation policy, and adding two COAs that were
damaging to the lawsuit, wage and hour misclassification and rescission of contract (Supp.
CT 24 & 93). Stein was disbarred for his gross misconduct in January 2020 (see
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/131248, In re Stein, No. S245982 (Cal.
Mar. 1, 2018)).
Since December 2013, Waszczuk has addressed the PPSM 23 violation by The
Regents with the May 11, 2012 wrongful suspension, and the December 5, 2012 wrongful
termination in two different lawsuits before three courts in Writ of Mandamus, Case No. 34-
2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
(CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The Regents of the University of California (UC
Regents), Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District Case No. C079254 Waszczuk v. CUIAB,
California Supreme Court Case No. S253713 & S245879 Waszczuk v. CUIAB Waszczuk v.
Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., S245879. These also include Sacramento Superior
Court wrongful termination case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479, filed December 4, 2013, and Court of Appeal
Third Appellate District Case Nos. C079524 & C095488 Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California et.al . California Supreme Court Case No. S245508 Waszczuk v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., S245508 (Cal. Jan. 10, 2018).
The judges and justices in three courts for over nine years have not wanted to
acknowledge that The Regents violated their own, established by them policies and state
law and deprived Waszczuk of his right to recover damages due to lost wages and
benefits, following his wrongful suspension in May 2011, which was imposed on him
based on false accusations made more than one year after the alleged incident and not
proven or witnessed by anyone in March, April, or May 2011 (The Court of Appeal’s
Third Appellate District in the partial and biased against Waszczuk opinion Waszczuk v.
- 15 -
Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017), noticed that
Waszczuk’s attorneys original wrongful termination complaint should have included
mention of PPMS 23 by stating (AOB p. 46):
The first amended complaint set forth eight causes of action, including a
cause of action entitled “Breach of Written Contract.” The written
contract referred to the settlement agreement plaintiff reached with the
University to resolve his first grievance. The first amended complaint
did not, however, contain a cause of action for violation of PPSM 23.
2. In subchapter “D” (RB pp. 17–18), “The investigation substantiates the

complaints, and Waszczuk is suspended for 10 days” (11CT 3185; 8 CT 2290, 2315),
The Regents’ attorneys make reference to HR employee Danesha Nichols, who was
assigned in 2011 to witch-hunt Waszczuk and fabricate with others a cause for the
termination of his employment. As Waszczuk mentioned in his introduction of this Brief,
Waszczuk was unofficially terminated on August 31, 2011, as confirmed by
Administrative Manager Phillis Reginelli from the UC Davis Medical Center PO&M
department. Reginelli disclosed this during her interview on January 4, 2013 with the
California EDD in relation to Waszczuk's unemployment insurance benefits claim (11CT
3026-3028). The Regents made reference to Nichols’ fabricated February 9, 2012 report
(8 CT 2329, 2334–2362), based on which Waszczuk was wrongfully suspended on May
11, 2012 for a wrongful evaluation period evaluation period. This caused him to lose
$3000 from his monthly paycheck.
Due to his suspension, Waszczuk’s paycheck dated 6/6/2012 was only $182.92
(10 C 2936). Waszczuk was furious that, after a nine-month forced absence, The Regents
did not allow him to return to work.
If the Court were to read Nichols’ fabricated report slandering Waszczuk, dated
February 9, 2012, about the alleged incidents of misconduct on March 8, April 21, and May
5, 2011, (8C 2333-2362) he court will not find one word about PPSM 62, 23, or Waszczuk’s
- 16 -
missed evaluation for the time period July 1, 2010–June 30, 2011. Nichols was involved in
the 2006–2009 witch hunt aimed at Waszczuk. In subchapter “C,” The Regents’ attorney
stated that Waszczuk accused Nichols of harassing him, asserted that she was “crooked,” and
threatened to report her to the State Bar (8 CT 2331; see 8 CT 2327–2328). Waszczuk
relented to an investigative interview in December 2011 (8 CT 2328, 2335, 2361). Waszczuk
did not accuse Nichols of anything, but wrote to her in an e-mail what he thought of her and
the others attacking him. On July 17 and 24, 2011, Waszczuk sent complaint letters to UC
Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown and requested that he intervene to stop Nichols harassing
him, which was in violation of the 2009 Settlement Agreement. Drown was one of four UC
Davis employees who had signed the 2009 Settlement on the UC Regents’ behalf (12 CT
3341-3349). Furthermore, Waszczuk addressed Nichols’ behavior in his Response to Request
for Admission (10 CT 2868, 2870, 2871, 2872, 2874, 2875).
On October 5, 2011, Waszczuk submitted a complaint to the State Bar against Nichols
and her Superior, HR Director Stephen Chilcott, State Bar Case No. 11-31088.
Five years later, on March 23, 2016, Waszczuk submitted a new complaint to the State
Bar against 23 attorneys licensed by State Bar, after he found out why he was witch-hunted in
2005–2009 and 2011–2012 (10 CT2967). The complaint included Danesha Nichols, see State
Bar Case No. 12 CT 3372, 16-15525, https://www.scribd.com/document/519289966/03-23-
2016-California-State-Bar-Complaint-Against-Attorneys).
On October 6, 2011, Waszczuk sent a seven-page request to UC Davis Police Captain
Joyce Souza, of the Support Services Division Professional Standards Unit, to check his
record, due to the constant unfounded and fabricated accusations against him that were
coming from HR Investigator Nichols, PO&M Department Manager Witcher, and HR.
On October 9, 2011, Waszczuk submitted to members of the UC Davis Ethics and
Compliance Risk Committee, members of the California State Assembly from the
Committee on Higher Education, and from the Committee on Labor and Employment,
and the Regents of the University of California and open letter entitled “I FEEL LIKE A
HUNTED JEW DURING THE HOLOCAUST.”
On December 22, 2011, Waszczuk drove from Lodi, CA to the UC Davis Medical
- 17 -
Center to pick up his belonging from his office. His office been given in September 2011
after Waszczuk’s employment was unofficially terminated on August 31, 2011.
Waszczuk also met with Nichols to find out what she wanted from him. The meeting was
conducted in a civilized manner (10 CT 2891). Nichols should not talk to Waszczuk
when he was on work stress-related sick leave at that time (from September 22, 2011 to
January 5, 2014), caused by her and others; however, The Regents were desperate to
finish Waszczuk, so the meeting took place.
3. In subchapter “E” (RB pp. 16–17) titled : “Waszczuk sends inappropriate

emails to the investigator, The Regents made reference to the e-mail and attached slide
show “Welcome to Romania,” which Waszczuk sent to Nichols on April 27, 2012 after
she slandered him with her February 9, 2012 witch hunt report based on false, fabricated,
and despicable accusations about alleged behavior on March 8, April 21, and May 5,
2011 during a different employee evaluation period. Waszczuk addressed the email to
Nichols and included a copy of his e-mail response to The Regents’ Request for
Admission (10 CT 2896-2901). The e-mail was sent before Waszczuk’s May 11, 2012
unlawful suspension from work. If this e-mail was truly an issue, it surely would have
been added to the suspension as cause for termination, and Waszczuk would have
received a letter intent to dismiss, instead of a suspension. Waszczuk had already
effectively been terminated on August 31, 2011.
4. In subchapter “E” (RB, p. 17), “Following another investigation, the University

concludes that Waszczuk’s threatening and racist emails violated University policies,”
The Regents’ attorney wrote :
In the meantime, an investigation was initiated concerning whether

Waszczuk’s emails to Nichols violated University policy prohibiting
hate incidents in the workplace. (8 CT 2290; 9 CT 2415, 2435; see 8 CT
2329.) Waszczuk was again placed on paid investigatory leave,
beginning May 31, 2012, i.e., the day he would have otherwise returned
to work after his suspension.
(8 CT 2290, 2317;
- 18 -
If Waszczuk had known why he was invited with the May 11, 2012 letter of
Suspension (12 CT 3365; 11 CT 3195; AOB 35–36) to drive to UC Davis Medical Center
to meet his department manager Charles Witcher, he would not have attended the
meeting.
Waszczuk thanks God and his strong nerves and self-control that he could return
home on that day in one piece. Waszczuk does not even like to think or write about what
might have happened if something had gone wrong.
Waszczuk described that day in his cover letter (1 CT 112) to the March 7, 2013,
Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint submitted to the UC Davis Vice Chancellor and
Provost’s offices under California Whistleblower Protection Act (Government Code Sections
8547–8547.15; (1 CT 109–150 ) saying:
In addition to the managing officers at the UC Davis Medical Center

who are included in the complaint, UC Davis Chief of Police, Matt
Carmichael, and his subordinate, Lieutenant James Barbour, are
included in the complaint for alleged act(s) of provocation and
conspiracy with other individuals listed in the complaint in an
attempt to murder me on May 31, 2012 or send me to the UC Davis
Medical Center Trauma Unit in a state of extreme harm.
It is very disturbing and also unthinkable that UC Davis leaders should use
the UC Davis Police Force to resolve labor relations disputes with employees
who are making complaints. The original Retaliation and Interference
Complaint included approximately 1500 pages of documents and photos that
I sent to your office yesterday by U.S. Certified mail.
The Regents included Waszczuk’s Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint in their MSJ/MSA

as exhibit V, but without the cover letter (8CT 2375-2400; 9 CT 2402-2412).
If the court read Waszczuk’s complaint in full, it would find that The Regents
assembled for that day a special team including police officers and the Supervisor of the
UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11 with Trauma Unit Manager Karen Kouertas
on standby to receive Waszczuk. Later, Waszczuk nicknamed this specially assigned
team the “UC DAVIS DEATH SQUAD.”
- 19 -
He attempted to find out how The Regents planned to harm him in 2012 with his
Request for Production Set Two, which was submitted to The Regents on October 31,
2019, but this effort was to no avail (7 CT 898-1918 ).
Waszczuk first learned in 2015 why he had been targeted and witch-hunted by The
Regents in 2005–2009 and again in 2011–2012. On May 31, 2012, The Regents secured a
Power Purchase Agreement between the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District
(SMUD) and the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27-MW cogeneration plant (11
CT 3200-3219). The Regents ceased the sale of surplus power in February 2009, after
signing with Waszczuk a Settlement Agreement, on January 30, 2009 (8CT 2169-2180).
From February 1, 2009 through May 31, 2012, The Regents, or rather the co-owners of
the plant, lost approximately $25 million. Waszczuk addressed the power purchase
agreement and power sale to SMUD in relation to his unlawful employment termination
first time in his October 13, 2015 Opposition to The Regents Motion for Automatic Stay,
which blocked Waszczuk’s proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC) (11 CT 3158-
3172, p. 3). Waszczuk requested information from The Regents about the ownership of
the UCDMC’s cogeneration plant via a Request for Production Set Two, submitted to
The Regents on October 31, 2019, but received no answer (7 CT1898-1918 pp. 1898–
1912).
Waszczuk is not the only victim of The Regents’ white collar crimes (see Waszczuk’s
July 29, 2019 Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order, dated July 9, 2019 in his whistleblower case
against The Regents, Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner Case No. 23105-18 W,
which is related to the surplus power sale from the UCDMC cogeneration plant in violation
of 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the State of California Revenue and
Taxation Code (6 CT 1736–1760)).
As Waszczuk has pointed out many times in pleadings and briefs, he would not
have blinked an eye if someone had told him in 2011 or 2012 that the UCDMC plant had
a new power purchase agreement with SMUD. Instead, he would have been happy to
hear that plant has such an agreement and was not idling at house load. He only wanted to
- 20 -
have a job, pay his mortgage, and retire in 2017. There must be a lot larger problem if,
after Waszczuk’s termination in December 2012, The Regents did not sell any surplus
power to SMUD losing approximately $200 million tax-free dollars since 2009. The $200
million was a good reason to plot to kill someone.
The 12/22/2017 UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant report shows that the plant was
idling at 9 MW and had at least 15 MW/h spare surplus power to sell (7 CT 1841). This is
enough to power 15,000 homes. There was a lot of tax-free money to lose. On December 22,
2014, The Regents successfully completed the California Independent System Operator
Congestion Revenue Rights registration process to sell surplus power (7 CT 1812), but
Waszczuk neither died on May 31, 2012 nor was deported to his native country of Poland,
and his lawsuit did not end in December 2014 as anticipated with the filing of an anti-SLAPP
motion by The Regents’ attorney, Michael Pott, in conspiracy with Waszczuk’s own attorney,
Douglas Stein, In re Stein, No. S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) and in collusion with
Sacramento County Superior Court David I. Brown, who granted the unlawful and
malicious anti-SLAPP motion on April 14, 2015 (3 CT 723-731). The Judgment was affirmed
by the Court of Appeal Third Appellate District on October 10, 2017 (3 CT 820- 833 pp.
825–826) Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017).
C. The Unlawful Termination of Waszczuk’s Employment and Waszczuk’s

Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint
1. In subchapter “F ” (RB pp. 18–19), “The University terminates Waszczuk,” The
Regents’ first sentences said:
On September 25, 2012, Witcher informed Waszczuk that he intended

to dismiss him based upon the findings in the most recent investigative
report. (8 CT 2291, 2320–2321; 9 CT 2511.)
The Regents were making reference to the September 20, 2012 witch hunt report,
which was fabricated ad hoc by two UCDMC HR employees, Brent Seifert and Cindy
Oropeza, under orders from the UC General Counsel’s (GC) office. This was the last witch
hunt report of six fabricated in 2011–2012 to terminate Waszczuk while he was not working,
- 21 -
due to work-stress related leave. The direct involvement in the GC office, supervised by
General Counsel Senior Legal Counsel Mia Belk, was serious (see: Waszczuk’s 2016
complaint against Belk with State Bar of California (11 CT 3249-3263)). The month of June
in Central California brings with it summer temperatures and having signed a Power
Purchase Agreement with SMUD (11 CT 3200-3223) means a lot of tax-free money at a
peak time when electrical energy is most expensive. Waszczuk, for quite a long time, did not
realize how close he had come to being killed in the ill-crafted provocation on May 31, 2012,
or framed for criminal prosecution and deported by the UCOP’s white collar criminals to his
native country Poland. If Waszczuk would not have wife two children and two grandchildren
living in California he would deport himself to Poland with out Janet Napolitano’s help .
On June 7, 2012, just seven days after the provocation to end Waszczuk’s
employment, the UCDMC’s Chief Operating Officer Vincent Johnson signed an unlawful
and undated Penal Code 626 form aimed at Waszczuk (11 CT 3250-3251).
On June 11, 2012, UCDMC HR Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsay discussed
with HR Director Stephen Chilcott how to discipline Waszczuk’s department manager
Witcher and Witcher's assistant, Dennis Curry. Witcher was the manager forced by HR to
sign all investigatory leave letters in 2011 and the May 11, 2012 ten-days suspension without
pay letter (11CT 3252).
After the May 31, 2012 provocation did not work, The Regents attempted to frame
Waszczuk with Lodi Police. On June 21, 2012, UC Davis Police Sergeant Jennifer Garcia
informed her superior of the following (11 CT 3224; 12 CT 3368):
"Jerry" is clear any warrants, has no guns registered and no current dealer
record of sales for guns and has a negative criminal history. Lodi PD informed
they have nothing on him.”
jenny
On June 22, 2012, a UCDMC HR Consultant informed Waszczuk that Mike Garcia
and his assistant HR attorney, Jill VanDeviver, were no longer employed by the university
- 22 -
(11 CT 3226; 12 CT 3368). Garcia, VanDeviver, Lindsay, and Witcher wanted to give
Waszczuk his job back, not knowing that, in the background of their good intentions,
someone had decided that the power sale to SMUD would be jeopardized if Waszczuk was
allowed to return to work on May 31, 2012. Waszczuk still does not know with certainty who
made this decision.
On September 12, 2012, eight days before Oropeza and Seifert finished their witch
hunt report as a cause for Waszczuk’s termination, Belk ordered the termination of
Waszczuk’s employment (11 CT 3262).
On September 26, 2012, Waszczuk received by overnight mail a Notice of Intent to

Dismiss for Serious Misconduct, dated September 25, 2012. It was routinely similar to other
documents that Waszczuk had received in the past from Witcher, but this was a letter prior to
termination (12 CT 3373).
That same day, UCDMC HR employees destroyed Waszczuk’s evaluation for the
2011–2012 evaluation cycle, which was in the computer/server system but had never
been provided to Waszczuk to sign electronically, despite being mandated by PPSM
policy 23; thus, Waszczuk was deprived of due process again, just as he was with the
2010–2011 evaluation, in violation of The Regents’ PPSM 23 (12 CT 3369-3370).
Waszczuk was also informed by a text message from his coworker that The
Regents had distributed around the UCDMC campus a police poster with Waszczuk’s
photo and titled “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY.” Waszczuk’s
coworker took a picture of the poster and sent the photo to Waszczuk. The poster was
similar to the “FBI Most Wanted” signage.
The UC Davis Police Poster stated: (12 CT 3371)
“Jaroslaw Waszczuk is currently on administrative leave from

employment with the UC Davis Med Center. Mr. Waszczuk is not
authorized to be on UC Davis property without a legal reason or a
medical emergency.
- 23 -
Mr. Waszczuk is described as an older white male with brown and
gray hair. He is approximately 5’8” and 190 lb.
If Mr. Waszczuk is seen trespassing on University of California
Davis properties, please contact the Davis Police Department
immediately at 916-734-1555.”
UC Davis Police did not inform Waszczuk that he was not authorized to be on UC
Davis premises, and Waszczuk did not know what the UC Davis Police would do if he
unexpectedly entered the UC Davis Medical Center or UC Davis Campus.
Waszczuk spent more than one year on leave, forced by The Regents, during
which he was prohibited from being on the UC Davis premises, but Waszczuk never
intended to go uninvited to the UC Davis Medical Center when on leave. The poster was
distributed for no purpose other than to humiliate and disparage Waszczuk and make him
look like a most wanted terrorist or criminal and frame him for deportation .
On November 13, 2012, Waszczuk sent a brief asking for a meeting with Skelly
Reviewer UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson (1 CT 78-100). Outlined
in the brief was what happened to Waszczuk in 2011–2012, and Waszczuk pointed out
the Skelly violation by The Regents of evaluation policy PPSM 23. On November 16,
Waszczuk met Tollefson. The meeting was witnessed by Waszczuk’s coworker, Kenny
Diede.
On December 5, 2012, Waszczuk received a Letter of Employment Termination
with a vague and meaningless half-page decision by Tollefson. This was clearly a
formality, as Waszczuk had already been effectively terminated on August 31, 2011.
This 61-year-old worker lost his home in 2012 due to The Regents’ malice and
inhumane treatment of him. They inflicted upon him irreparable harm and caused him
losses of approximately $1 million in wages and benefits (roughly calculated) (1 CT 36).
The Regents grossly violated Skelly:
In Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975), 15 Cal. 3d 194, the California

Supreme Court ruled that: "as part of constitutionally guaranteed due
process, public employees are entitled to certain procedural safeguards
- 24 -
before discipline which is sufficiently severe to constitute a deprivation of
a liberty or property right is imposed on them. The constitutionally
protected liberty interests requiring Skelly protections arise whenever the
allegations against an employee are sufficiently onerous to seriously
impact the employee's ability to find future work in his/her chosen
career."
2. In subchapter “G ” (RB pp. 19–20), titled : “Waszczuk files a whistleblower
retaliation complaint, but the University concludes he was terminated for reasons
independent of any complaints he lodged,” Waszczuk partially addressed his
Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint in his reply to The Regents’ RB Subchapter “E.”
Waszczuk submitted his Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint the UC Davis Vice Chancellor
and Provost office under the California Whistleblower Protection Act (Government Code
Sections 8547–8547.15; 1 CT 109–150). Waszczuk’s complaints were transferred to the UC
Office of the President and assigned to Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, from the
UCOP Ethics & Compliance Audit Department (see https://www.ucop.edu/ethics-
compliance-audit-services/audit/index.html and
https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1100171/Whistleblower).
The investigation should have been concluded by Rosenberg after an extension of time on
January 31, 2014 (see Waszczuk’s March 11, 2014 inquiry sent to Rosenberg concerning
this matter (2 CT 336; 1 CT 336-344 344).
After more than 18 months, Locally Designated Official UC Senior Vice President
Dan Dooley, who was overseeing Rosenberg’s investigation sent to Waszczuk, on September
10, 2014, a half-page letter denying his complaint without providing Rosenberg’s
investigation report with the decision letter (3 CT 616). Rosenberg, during her investigation,
questioned UCDMC HR Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey about how it was possible
for Waszczuk to be suspended in May 2012 (11 CT 3185, 3195), when he had been on leave
since August 3, 2011 (see Rosenberg’s conversation with Lindsay; 11 CT 3196-3197).
Rosenberg found information about Waszczuk’s suspension when Waszczuk was on
leave by reading Waszczuk’s whistleblower retaliation complaints, which provided a
chronological account of what happened to Waszczuk between March 2007 and December
2012 (1 C1 110-150), and from documents she received from Waszczuk.
- 25 -
ROSENBERG :
Hi Travis
Just following up on a voice mail I left you.
I am working on the investigation report for the retaliation complaint.
I am trying to figure out what happened after Jerry was put on admin
leave on August 31, 2011. I think he never returned to work. So that was
paid leave, then he was suspended for 10 days without pay, then put back
on paid leave for investigation of the allegations about what occurred
after he was given the Letter of Intent to Suspend on April 13, 2012?
Does this sound right?
If you are not the right person to confirm or explain, can you let me
know who I should talk to?
Thanks. Judith
LINDSAY:
You are correct that Jerry never returned to work after August
2011. Prior to serving his 10-day suspension in May 2012 (see attached),
he was on paid investigatory leave. Jerry was placed back on paid
investigatory leave on 5/31/12 through the effective date of his
termination, 12/7/12 (see attached).
Sincerely, Travis
ROSENBERG
Thanks. A bit confusing that you can be suspended while you are on
leave!
Lindsay provided false information about Waszczuk’s leave. His statement made it sound
as if Waszczuk had been on investigatory leave since August 2011.
From August 3–31, 2011, Waszczuk was on work stress-related sick leave (11 CT 3019-
3024; 1CT 123; https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4010406/PPSM-2.210).
On the last day of his sick leave, August 31, 2011, The Regents placed Waszczuk on
investigatory leave.
From September 22, 2011 through January 5, 2012, Waszczuk was placed on work
stress-related sick leave by his physician (1CT 125).
- 26 -
On December 5, 2012, while on sick leave, Waszczuk’s department manager, Charles
Witcher, sent him a threating letter ordering Waszczuk to appear for an interview with an HR
investigator on December 12, 2011. Waszczuk did not attend the meeting.
From January 6, 2012 through May 11, 2012, Waszczuk was on unspecified leave. Waszczuk
was never formally released from sick leave by his physician, as is required by the strictly
enforced Regents policy requiring the provision of a RETURN TO WORK
CERTIFICATION For Family and Medical Leave (FML). This must be completed by the
employee’s physician before he or she returns to the premises after sick leave, and especially
after work stress-related leave. Waszczuk should never have been investigated, harassed, or
suspended on May 11, 2012 and ordered to report to work on May 31, 2012 without first
providing his physician’s signature agreeing to a RETURN TO WORK CERTIFICATION
letter (see https://hr.ucdavis.edu/forms/leaves;
https://ucdavis.app.box.com/s/aqr27dilsraqz02jgai32bx3312qjnxx).
The Power Purchase Agreement signed by The Regents with SMUD on May 31, 2012 and
the resulting tax-free cash were more important to The Regents and owners of the UCDMC’s
27-MW cogeneration plant than any policies or certifications from an employee’s physician.
On May 31, 2012, Waszczuk was placed by HR Consultant Gina Harwood on investigatory
leave until October 22, 2012, as indicated by a letter from her.
a. The Litigation against The Regents

1. In subchapter “H ” (RB pp. 16–17), “Waszczuk initiates this wrongful
termination action,” The Regents’ opening sentences stated:
In the interim, Waszczuk initiated this wrongful termination litigation,

filing a complaint in pro per on December 4, 2013 against The Regents
and individual University employees he alleged were involved in his
termination. (Supp. CT 4–21)
Waszczuk’s December 2013 wrongful termination complaint (CT 4-22) was simply and
liberally construed. Waszczuk did not hire an attorney for the wrongful termination case right
away, because he was waiting for the resolution of his whistleblower retaliation complaint,
- 27 -
which he had filed with the UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor’s office on March 7,
2013. The complaint was set to be resolved by the UCOP at the end of January 2014 (2 CT
336).
Waszczuk based his December 2013 wrongful termination complaint on six Causes of
Action, which included:
1. Wrongful suspension and wrongful termination in violation of public policy

2. Retaliation in violation of California Government Code Section 8547-8547.13 et;
seq.; Labor Code 1102.5
3. Intentional infliction of emotional distress
4. Failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation
5. Violation and breach of the 2009 settlement agreement
6. Violation of UC Policy PPSM 23 (employee evaluation)
The First Amended Complaint (FAC) and Second Amended Complaint (SAC) are
identical; both contain eight identical causes of action (COA):
1. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (against the employees he alleged were

involved in his termination)
2. Tortious interference with economic advantage (against the same employees)
3. Harassment, discrimination, and retaliation (and the failure to prevent each) in

violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (against the employees and
The Regents)
4. Retaliation in violation of the university employee whistleblower statute,

Government Code section 8547.10 (against the employees and The Regents)
5. Retaliation in violation of the health facility whistleblower statute, Health and

Safety Code section 1278.5 (against The Regents)
6. Breach of the 2009 settlement agreement (against The Regents)
- 28 -
7. Wage and hour misclassification (against The Regents)
8. Rescission of contract (i.e., the 2009 settlement agreement) (against The Regents)
(8 CT 2107–2168).
Waszczuk considered the violation and breach of the 2009 Settlement Agreement that he had
signed in good faith with the Regents of the University of California and UC Davis Policy
PPSM 23, which is the employees’ annual performance review (evaluation) policy, to be the
most important elements in the complaint. These were the bases on which he planned to
prevail in the lawsuit against the Defendants.
Waszczuk’s attorney at the time, Stein, decimated Waszczuk’s original December 4, 2013
complaint via FAC and SAC by removing from the original complaint the first COA,
wrongful suspension and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and the sixth
COA, violation and breach of the 2009 settlement agreement, and by adding to the FAC and
SAC the seventh COA, wage and hour misclassification (against The Regents) and eighth
COA, rescission of contract, the 2009 settlement agreement (against The Regents).
Waszczuk addressed in his AOB, on pp. 20–23, Stein’s misconduct in this matter.
Regardless of whether Dooley had the right to issue a decision or not, Waszczuk’s attorney
worked in conspiracy with The Regents’ attorney, Michael Pott, to decimate Waszczuk’s
original complaint and waited for Dooley to issue a decision before moving forward with
their efforts to erase Waszczuk’s presence from the court. Pott failed to submit an answer to
the FAC, with Stein’s blessing. The answer should have been filed regarding the FAC within
30 days of serving the FAC
This was the crux of the whole case: Pott did not file an answer to Stein’s defective FAC,
demurrer, or anti-SLAPP motion. The UCOP’s principal investigator, Judith Rosenberg,
issued her investigation report in Waszczuk’s whistleblower retaliation complaint on June 25,
2014, nine days after Stein filed the FAC.
- 29 -
2. In subchapter “I ” (RB pp. 21–22), titled :The University employee defendants are
dismissed following anti-SLAPP proceedings,” The Regents stated:
Five of the individual employee defendants filed a special motion to

strike the claims against them (the first through fourth causes of action)
as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, i.e., an anti-SLAPP
motion. (See 9 CT 2584.) The trial court granted the motion (9 CT
2583–2591), and Waszczuk dismissed the remaining individual
employee defendants with prejudice (3 CT 735–736).
Waszczuk appealed the trial court’s ruling on the anti- SLAPP motion,
but this court affirmed. (3 CT 820–833 [October 10, 2017 unpublished
opinion in Case No. C079524].)
In accordance with the anti-SLAPP statute, the trial court awarded

prevailing party attorney fees and costs to the employee defendants who
filed the anti-SLAPP motion. (3 CT 849–852.)
The Regents December 1, 2014 anti -SLAPP motion was a total fraud, malice and abuse of
the Court system by almighty UC Regents .
Furthermore Waszczuk maintained and still maintain that he is not responsible for the FAC
which became a SAC decimated his original complaint’s COAs. The defective FAC was
filed as an SAC on September 30, 2014 by his attorney at the time, Stein, in collusion with
The Regents’ attorney Pott and his friend, Judge David I. Brown, from Sacramento Superior
Court Department 53.
Judge Brown allowed the filing of the defective FAC as an SAC by approving Stein and Pott’s ex
parte stipulation in a September 22, 2014. (Supp. CT 90).
Stein filed the FAC as an SAC on September 30, 2014 while working despite his suspended
attorney’s license which resulted of filing fraudulent anti -SLAPP motion on December 1,
2014 by the The Regents attorney from Porter Scott Michael Pott .
On December 17, 2014, Brown allowed Stein to represent Waszczuk, despite having learned
that Waszczuk fired Stein on December 16, 2014 for stealing Waszczuk’s $20,000 retainer
and not amending the SAC properly, not filing an opposition to The Regents’ ani-SLAPP
- 30 -
motion, and sending Waszczuk a text message on December 15, 2014 about his friendship
with Brown.
text_0 (3).txt
"I set an ex parte for the first available day and time, wed at 10 am...the judge,
whom I have known for over 20 years, will have options to allow the
continuance of the SLAPP motion, and UC will not oppose, so the motion will be
continued."
Waszczuk gave $20,000 to Stein on June 2, 2014 to represent him in a wrongful termination
case, and in November he gave him $500 cash to correct the SAC. Waszczuk did not know at
that time that that the retainer account Stein opened with Waszczuk’s money was empty by
November 3, 2014.
On December 23, 2014, Stein, after being dismissed, filed an improvised ad hoc Opposition
to the Defendant's anti-SLAPP Motion. Waszczuk is still wondering what Brown, as Stein’s
friend, would have done with this motion if Waszczuk allowed Stein to continue his
friendship with Pott. Would Brown have denied the anti-SLAPP motion because Waszczuk
allowed Stein to remain on the case? Stein told Waszczuk that he was expecting to receive a
lot of money in January 2015 and that he would repay the money stolen from him then.
After Waszczuk dismissed Stein, he did not know which documents he should file to correct
the problems Stein had created by filing defective amended complaints and exposing
Waszczuk to The Regents’ attack with the anti-SLAPP Motion, which Waszczuk did not fully
understand.
On December 29, 2014, Waszczuk filed a document in the Court entitled “Plaintiffs Ex
Parte Application for Postponement” with 16 exhibits attached to the Ex Parte Application
(CT 00485-00499). The filed Ex Parte Application was an attempt to object to the
Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motion. It was impossible for Waszczuk to learn the California
Court Rules within a few days and to figure out what document he should file with the Court
to get the grave situation created by Stein under control.
- 31 -
On page 14 of Waszczuk’s Ex Parte Application (CT 00498), Waszczuk asked the Court to
dismiss the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motion; to postpone the ongoing proceedings for at
least two months, until Waszczuk could find and hire a new attorney; and to allow Waszczuk
to amend and correct the Plaintiff’s defective SAC. He also asked that the Court not allow
Stein to file any more documents on his behalf.
Prior to the hearing scheduled for January 7, 2015, Waszczuk provided to the court the bulk
of his documents with a cover letter addressed to Judge Brown. This included a complaint to
the State Bar of California against Douglas Stein; a complaint to Wells Fargo Bank about the
money stolen by Stein; and a copy of the January 4, 2015 letter addressed to UC General
Counsel Charles Robinson, which was noticed later by the 3DCA Justices in their
unpublished opinion granting The Regents’ anti-SLAPP Motion, Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) saying:
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.” 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.
The Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, did not say during the mentioned court hearing that he
would go outside the courtroom and shoot himself. Waszczuk asked Judge Brown at that
court hearing whether he had to go outside and shoot himself to make Judge Brown look for
the truth. Brown, in response, sent the police to Waszczuk’s residence in Lodi. When
- 32 -
Waszczuk returned from the court hearing in Sacramento, there were police officers waiting
for him at his home’s front door. Polish immigrant Jerry Waszczuk is more aggrieved today
than he was in 2015 during the mentioned hearing.
The Court Order dated January 7, 2015 invalidated or nullified all of Stein’s and the UC
counsel’s filings after December 16, 2014. However, Judge Brown denied Waszczuk the
opportunity to correct the defective SAC and refile it, stating that the Ex Parte Application
was denied largely on procedural grounds
After the January 7, 2015 Court Order, Waszczuk had no choice but to write and file the
Objection to the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motion, stemming from the SAC which never
should have been filed and approved by the Court as an SAC. Waszczuk had little knowledge
about how to approach said Motion.
On January 23, 2015, Waszczuk filed a Plaintiff Opposition to the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP
Motion and 42 exhibits, totaling 443 pages. In his Opposition, Waszczuk provided
overwhelming evidence to the Court that the Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike the anti-
SLAPP Motion had nothing to do with the Defendants’ free speech and C.C.P. § 425.16, but
rather with their attempt to escape criminally minded activities in the workplace.
One hour after Waszczuk filed his Opposition to the anti-SLAPP Motion, the Defendants’
counsel Pott sent an e-mail to Waszczuk stating that he was no longer working for the Porter
Scott Law Firm
On February 9, 2015, Judge Brown granted the antiSLAPP Motion to the Defendants,
affirming the tentative decision after a court hearing, which was held on February 6, 2015
Three years later, on October 10, 2017, the Court of Appeal Third Appellate District’s three-
justice panel comprised of Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye, Justice Ronald B. Robie, and
Justice George Nicholson delivered to Waszczuk an unpublished opinion in the anti-SLAPP
motion, Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017).
Instead of condemning both Stein, the Porter Scott attorney, and Judge Brown’s misconduct
in covering up his friend Stein’s crime and turning them over to the proper authorities for
- 33 -
investigation, the 3DCA justices praised Stein in their fraudulent opinion as if he was some
kind of icon and hero:
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 commended, not chastised, for
his fervent representation of plaintiff’s interests.
Waszczuk maintained and still maintaining that the the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the
Regents Attorney Michael Pott from Porter Scott on December 1, 2014 in conspiracy with
Waszczuk ‘s crooked attorney Douglas Stain was malicious , total fraud and unlawful .
The California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C. P § 425.16), also known as the
California anti-SLAPP law severely victimized Waszczuk. The last time Waszczuk
elaborated on this law in his pleadings was with his statement in the December 4, 2019
opposition to The Regents’ further motion to compel, due to the $1300 sanction that Judge
Brown imposed on him with his 11/19/2019 order (7CT 1871-1873). In this opposition,
Waszczuk stated (7 CT 1878):
This anti’-SLAPP motion filed on December 1, 2014, against Plaintiff Waszczuk is

most likely the most expensive and most time-consuming anti-SLAPP for the
Regents of the University California and for their notorious advocates from Porter
Scott Law corporation based in Sacramento, CA since the California Legislature:
enacted its anti-SLAPP law, California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, in 1992.
The Regents of the University-of California Or real owners of the UC Davis Medical
Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant were stripped from approximately or at
least $35,000,000 tax-free, cash since their advocates from Porter Scott’s filed the
anti SLAPP motion on December 1, 2014. $35,000,000. tax free cash is lot of money
to pay for an anti-SLAPP motion.
In July 2021, The Regents’ attorneys ambushed the Plaintiff's wife and stole more than
$20,000 from her in front of Judge Thadd Blizzard and his court clerk (see Order CT Vol. 10,
p.2756). California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f) states:
- 34 -
An anti-SLAPP motion is to be filed within 60 days of service of the complaint, or
upon a later time deemed proper, at the court’s discretion (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd.
(f)).
But what if the plaintiff files an amended complaint? In Newport Harbor Ventures,
LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018), 4 Cal.5th 637, the California Supreme
Court held that the 60-day timeline runs from the date a complaint is filed with the cause(s) of
action challenged in the anti-SLAPP motion.
The practical import of the court’s holding is that a defendant may not
file an anti-SLAPP motion in response to an amended complaint on
COAs included in the original complaint if the motion is filed more
than 60 days after the original complaint was filed. The court
reasoned that the anti-SLAPP statute “provides a means for the prompt
and relatively inexpensive resolution of lawsuits that threaten free
speech,” but it is also designed in a manner to prevent the abuse that
delayed anti-SLAPP motions might entail. To strike a balance between
the purpose of the statute and its possible abuse, the court concluded that
“a defendant must move to strike a cause of action within 60 days of
service of the earliest complaint that contains that cause of action” (Id. at
639–40).
In Waszczuk’s case, as he has pointed out so many times over the past 10 years, the
anti-SLAPP motion in this case was filed on December 1, 2014 by The Regents’ attorney,
Michael Pott, 60 days after the FAC was filed, on September 30, 2014, as an SAC with eight
identical COAs from Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas Stein; thus, the anti-SLAPP motion was
filed late by The Regents attorneys and with blessing by Sacramento County Superior Court
Judge Brown. This resulted in the 3DCA fraudulent unpublished opinion, which was issued on
10/10/2017 as Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017).
Waszczuk, in his Petition of Rehearing, which was denied by 3DCA on 11/09/2017, provided
detailed information how interactions among Stein, Pott, and Judge Brown deceived and
harmed Waszczuk’s litigation and Waszczuk himself. Waszczuk’s Petition for Review was
again denied by 3DCA on January 10, 2018 as Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., S245508
(Cal. Jan. 10, 2018) by rubber stamp justice under California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani
- 35 -
Cantil-Sakauye. The Regents’ attorney Pott, and his co-producer George Acero, were
responsible for another fraudulent 3DCA published opinion, Vergos v. McNeal, 146
Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). This was used to successfully ambush and deceive
Waszczuk with an ant-SLAPP motion in 2014. `
2. In subchapter “J” (RB pp. 22–23), titled: “When Waszczuk fails to provide
responses to requests for admission, the court deems the facts in the requests
admitted”:
Over the course of the litigation, The Regents had difficulty securing
proper discovery responses from Waszczuk, and the trial court granted
numerous motions to compel. (E.g., 4 CT 1005– 1008; 5 CT 1267–1270,
1459–1462, 1483, 1494–1495; 6 CT 1614–
1615, 1697–1698, 1765–1767; 7 CT 1942–1943.)
With respect to requests for admission it served on Waszczuk, The

Regents filed a motion to deem the facts therein admitted after Waszczuk
failed to provide any response for months notwithstanding reminders.3
(3 CT 838–841; 4 CT 1005–
1006, 1059, 1061, 1106–1109, 1112–1113; 8 CT 2182, 2186–2189.)

On February 9, 2015, the Court Order that granted the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP
Motion also lifted the Discovery Stay. It took the Defendants’ attorneys more than 33
months — almost three years — to conduct any discovery, and the case was not brought
to trial within five years after the action commenced ((Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 583.310; )
(13 CT 3624; see 29/2015) order (12 CT 3444)). Three years later, The Regents’
attorneys employed in October 2018 Judge Christopher Krueger, from Dept. 54, and
Judge Jennifer Rockwell, from Dept. 37, to finish Waszczuk via termination sanctions
and a bench warrant. Judges Rockwell and Krueger are friends who knew each other
before they were appointed to the bench, when they worked for California Attorney
General Bill Lockyer in the same office on State v. All Persons, 152 Cal.App.4th 1386
(Cal. Ct.App. 2007). Judge Krueger’s wife is employed in 3DCA as a senior research
attorney (12CT 3361-3362).
- 36 -
If the Court looks at the Case ROAs or CT Vols. 4 and 5, it will be clear that there were
endless motions for termination sanctions filed for 1.5 years, from October 3, 2018 through
December 27, 2019. The Regents’ attorneys were so desperate to finish Waszczuk that they
employed Nancy Sheehan in October 2019, despite her being gravely ill with metastatic
breast cancer; she died on November 23, 2019, exactly one month after another evil-spirited
motion was filed by The Regents (see
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sacbee/name/nancy-sheehan-obituary?id=2059585 and
Waszczuk’s Motion to Recall Remittitur in the ant-SLAPP motion Waszczuk v. Regents of
Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) (12 CT 3518)).
In this particular motion (4 CT 1005– 1008; 5CT1274-1296), of October 3, 2018, The
Regents’ attorney and Porter Scott law firm shareholder David Burkett attempted to terminate
Waszczuk’s lawsuit by filing a motion to compel in Department 54 (Judge Krueger) by
bypassing Judge David I. Brown, of Department 53, where Waszczuk’s case had been
pending since September 30, 2014 (4CT 1106-1129; 13 CT 3616). This was an attempt to set
up and to frame the Plaintiff for a Bench Warrant with Judge Rockwell, who on November 7,
2018 signed an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination of Plaintiff, in
violation of the 45-day requirement (Civil Code of Procedure §§ 491.110, 708.110, 708.120,
& Sacramento Superior Court Local Rule 2.1; ROA#172 ;5 CT 1260; 5CT 1301-1311; 5CT
1312). In regard to The Regents’ Request for Admission Set One (13 CT 3646-3647),
Waszczuk was sanctioned by the Court in the amount of $520 because the Defendants’
attorneys filed and refiled the same motion in two different Court Departments, to preclude
him from attending all Court hearings or from objecting properly to the motions being
relitigated following the COAs dismissed by the anti-SLAPP motion from Waszczuk’s SAC.
The Court admonished The Regents for their misconduct and ruled:
The notice of motion provides the incorrect time and location for the
hearing. This matter has been assigned to Department 53 for law and
motion purposes, and Department 53 hears law and motion matters at 2
- 37 -
p.m. Moving counsel is directed to immediately provide notice to
Waszczuk of the correct time and location of the hearing.
Defendant's unopposed motion to deem matters in the requests for

admission admitted is granted, unless Waszczuk Jaroslaw Waszczuk
serves, "before the hearing on the motion," proposed responses that are
in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c))
Waszczuk served the 195-page-long Response to the Defendants’ Request for Admission
(Set One) “before the November 14, 2018 at 2:00 P.M. Court hearing on the motion,” in
substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.280(c), via U.S. Priority Mail and e-mail. The
U.S. Priority Mail tracking number was 9505513819678317233541. Data associated with
this tracking number indicate that the Defendants’ attorney picked up Waszczuk’s
Response at 9:19 a.m. (10 CT 2806-3000). Waszczuk’s response, USPS proof of
delivery, and a cover letter are attached to Waszczuk’s Exhibit No. 1 (10 CT 2806) in his
Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
4. In subchapter “L ” (RB pp. 24–26), “Waszczuk does not file a responsive

separate statement or otherwise explain how facts underlying any cause of action
are disputed,” The Regents in their opening sentences stated:
Waszczuk did not file any response to the separate statement of

undisputed facts or any objections to the exhibits submitted by The
Regents in support of its motion.
If, during the court hearing on July 26, 2021 to determine the disposition of the Plaintiff’s
Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Objection to Regents MSJ/MSA, the
Court (Judge Kreuger) had been less prejudicial toward the Polish immigrant devastated by
his employer, it could have asked the Plaintiff if he needed more than 15 days to file his
Objection to the MSJ/MSA, instead of providing him only 10 days. Then, the Plaintiff would
have filed the Separate Responsive Statement with his Objection to the Regents’ MSJ/MSA.
However, the Plaintiff believes that it would not have made any difference if he had made a
separate statement or not. The result would have been the same. The Plaintiff is being
- 38 -
threatened in Sacramento Court like something less than human, and his wife has become a
soft target and blackmail tool for Porter Scott attorneys since February 2015.
The trial of a lawsuit is not a game where the spoils of victory go to the clever and technical.
IV.
WASZCZUK REPLY TO THE REGENTS LEGAL ARGUMENT (RB 29)
A. Waszczuk’s reply to The Regents’ subchapter I (RB p. 29), “WASZCZUK
WAIVED ANY CHALLENGE TO THE TRIAL COURT’S RULINGS,
INCLUDING ITS DECISION TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT.”
Waszczuk is quite surprised with RB author Attorney Karen Bray’s subchapter title, which
alleges that Waszczuk waived any challenge to the trial court. This case has been going on for
almost 10 years, and Bray is the 14th attorney to handle this case for The Regents. Since July
2014, Waszczuk has challenged his former attorney Stein, and then the trial Court, to repair
his wrongful termination complaint, filed on December 4, 2013, which was decimated and
damaged by Stein’s FAC (Supp. CT 24) filed on June 16, 2014 (Supp. CT 4-22) and refiled
on September 30, 2014 as an SAC (Supp. CT 93), in conspiracy and collusion with Michael
Pott and Judge Brown from Department 53, and thereafter by the 3DCA justices in their
unpublished opinion in the anti-SLAPP motion Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No.
C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017).
The Regents’ attorneys and the trial court, since September 2014, have forced Waszczuk to
litigate in his wrongful termination what he does not to want litigate and implied that the FAC
and SAC produced by his former attorney Stein and Michael Pott are actually Waszczuk’s
complaints. Waszczuk has pointed out many times to the court that his December 4, 2013
complaint had two COAs, which were erased on June 16, 2014 by Stein’s FAC.
No. 1- Wrongful Suspension and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 5.

Violation and Breach of the 2009 Settlement-Agreement and No. 6 - Violation of UC
Policy PPSM 23 (Employee Evaluation). Waszczuk, recalling Provost v. Regents of the
Univ. of California, 201 Cal.App.4th 1289 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011), stated that Cal. Code
Civ. Proc. § 664.6 declares a settlement may be enforced by motion if the “writing [is]
signed by the parties citing (Levy v. Superior Court (1995)” 10 Cal.4th 578, 586, 41
- 39 -
Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 896 P.2d 171. The January 30, 2009 Settlement Agreement between
Waszczuk and The Regents was signed by the parties. The four Regents’ representatives
and Waszczuk signed the Settlement Agreement (Supp. CT 156-166), which is
enforceable by California law and courts under paragraph No. 20 (Supp. CT 162). In
Provost v. Regents of the Univ. of California, The Regents were enforcing a settlement
agreement by signed parties.
As early as December 29, 20014, after Waszczuk fired Stein, Waszczuk issued a document
titled “Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Postponement SAC” (1 CT 27) and asked Judge
Brown dismiss The Regents’ fraudulent and malicious anti-SLAPP motion and to allow him
to correct and amend the defective SAC (1 CT 27 40).
On October 13, 2015, Waszczuk filed an opposition to the Defendants’ Motion for Automatic
Stay (3CT 738), which The Regents used to block Waszczuk’s Third Amended Complaint to
repair damages done by Stein’s conspiracy with The Regents’ attorney Pott, who colluded
with Judge Brown.
In his opposition to The Regents’ motion, on pages 7 and 8 (3CT 744-745) Waszczuk
stated:
As WASZCZUK would remind Defendants' counsel again and again,

and for the record and clarification to the Court, WASZCZUK did not
file the SAC on September 30, 2014; this was done by WASZCZUK's
corrupted counsel, DOUGLAS STEIN, in an evil-spirited stipulation
with Defendants' counsel, MICHAEL POTT. The SAC was stipulated
and filed against WASZCZUK' s will and advice with defective and
harmful pleading and improperly pleaded causes of action.
09/01/ 2021 Court Order (12 CT 3553-3559), which granted to the Defendants a Motion for
Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (MSJ/MSA). Waszczuk
requested that his Motion for Reconsideration be treated as a Motion for New Trial, due to
new facts and evidence, as required to amend the SAC filed seven years prior, on September
30, 2014, and which was completely outdated. The Plaintiff has twice attempted to amend
his defective SAC, the first time in December 2014 and again in October 2015.
- 40 -
Waszczuk’s attempts to amend the SAC were blocked by The Regents’ attorneys, thus he
asked the Court for permission to file a Motion of Leave to File to amend his Defective SAC
and he asked for his Motion for Reconsideration to be treated by the Court as a Motion for
New Trial and vice versa, as Waszczuk understands the Appellate Court’s opinion in Sole
Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp., 128 Cal.App.4th 187 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005), which affirms
Court Orders treating a Motion for Reconsideration as a Motion for New Trial. The Trial
Court denied Waszczuk’s motion for reconsideration, as usual, on 10/13/2021 (13 CT 3715).
B. Waszczuk’s reply to The Regents subchapter VI (RB pp. 57-58), “NONE OF

WASZCZUK’S OTHER MISCELLANEOUS GRIEVANCES CREATE A
BASIS FOR REVERSING SUMMARY JUDGMENT.” The Regents stated:
THE REGENTS’ ATTORNEY
“Waszczuk’s opening brief raises several miscellaneous points unrelated to the summary
judgment ruling. We respond to some of the more prominent points here, in an effort to
clarify certain issues for the court.”
Really? Let’s see.

Second, Waszczuk expresses dissatisfaction with how his counsel drafted his complaints,
arguing that the second amended complaint was “destructive” to his claims. (AOB 23; see
AOB 20– 21, 39.)
WASZCZUK’S REPLY
Waszczuk provided detailed information about By the Record in LEGAL ARGUMENTS

subchapter “A.”

The remittitur in that appeal was issued more than two years before The Regents moved
for summary judgment, and Waszczuk never sought leave to file a third amended
- 41 -
complaint during that time. (3 CT 818 [remittitur issued January 16, 2018]; 9 CT 2501
[summary judgment motion filed May 14, 2021].)
WASZCZUK’S REPLY
Waszczuk provided detailed information about why he could not amend his complaint in the
in LEGAL ARGUMENTS subchapter “A.”

Finally, Waszczuk asserts that The Regents violated Personnel Policies for Staff
Members (PPSM 23) by failing to provide job performance reviews in 2011 and 2012.
(AOB 14, 34, 43, 45.) But there was no basis for such reviews because Waszczuk was
placed on paid investigative leave in September 2011 and never returned to work before
his termination in December 2012. (Ante, pp. 14–19; see 11 CT 3234.)
In any event, none of these points suggest the existence of any material disputed fact
requiring reversal of the summary judgment ruling in favor of The Regents.
WASZCZUK’S REPLY
The Regents’ attorney grossly deceived the Court by lying about Regents’ violation of PPSM
23 and about when Waszczuk was working and when he was on leave.
In the course of this litigation in three different California Courts, Waszczuk, from
December 2013 to the present time, has advised the Court perhaps 50 or more times that
he worked for the full evaluation period in 2010–2011, which ran from July 1, 2010
through June 30, 2011. The Regents did not provide Waszczuk an evaluation for this
period, thus they violated PPSM 23 and deprived Waszczuk of due process. PPSM 23 is
an official University of California Policy and had, and has, the force and effect of state
statute (see Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 165).
Furthermore, The Regents, in violation of PPSM 23 and the law, maliciously suspended
Waszczuk on May 11, 2012 due to fabricated allegations and accusations of misconduct
that allegedly took place in March, April, and May 2011. These fell into the evaluation
- 42 -
period for 2010–2011, not 2011–2012, and Waszczuk never should have been suspended
for the wrong evaluation period regardless whether accusations were true or false .
Waszczuk addressed the PPSM 23 violation in this ARB Brief with detailed
information in his reply to the Regents’ Factual and Procedural Background subchapters
A, B, C, and D.
On September 26, 2012, Waszczuk received via overnight mail a Notice of Intent to
Dismiss for Serious Misconduct, dated September 25, 2012. It was routinely similar to
other documents that Waszczuk had received in the past from his department manager,
Charles Witcher, but this was a letter prior to termination (12 CT 3373).
Waszczuk’s employee evaluation for the 2011–2012 cycle was destroyed on the same
day Waszczuk received the Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
UCDMC HR employees destroyed Waszczuk’s evaluation for the 2011–2012 evaluation

cycle, which was in the computer/server system but had never been provided to
Waszczuk to sign electronically, despite being mandated by PPSM policy 23; thus,
Waszczuk was deprived of due process again, just as he was with the 2010–2011
evaluation, in violation of The Regents’ PPSM 23 (12 CT 3369-3370).
D. The Motion for Summary Judgement Hearing on September 1, 2021 with

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Christopher E. Krueger
The Trial Court filed the Court Reporter Transcript (CRT) in 3DCA from the
09/01/2021 Motion for Summary Judgment Court Hearing before Judge Krueger on
11/14/2022, per the 3DCA Court Order, almost one month after Waszczuk filed his AOB,
on 10/19/2022. The CRT was produced by the Court Reporter on 3/21/2022, thus
Waszczuk could not address it in his AOB. The 09/01/2021 Court hearing only lasted 10
minutes and was cut short after Waszczuk tried to raise the issue of the Settlement
Agreement he had signed with The Regents on January 30, 2009. The CRT had no
numbered pages, thus the Court must read it is full (it is short).
In this matter, Waszczuk is not even claiming an abuse of discretion. On October
- 43 -
3, 2018, The Regents’ attorney employed Judge Krueger to end Waszczuk’s lawsuit via a
motion for terminating sanctions. Judge Krueger did not know anything about Waszczuk’s
case. He took it over on 08/04/2021, after Waszczuk disqualified Judge Hakim Mesiwala,
from Department 53, on 07/02/2021 via Preemptory Challenge C.C.P 170.6. The
Disqualification of Judge Mesiwala was caused by The Regents’ attorney, Lindsay
Goulding, who ambushed Waszczuk’s wife and unlawfully extorted from her over
$20,000 in relation to an anti-SLAPP motion proceeding. If Waszczuk had known that
Acero had been appointed to the bench in Sacramento County Superior Court in June
2021, he would not have moved to disqualify Judge Mesiwala. It is quite bizarre that
Goulding, on 07/26/2021, filed a Notice of Change in Handling Attorney and dismissed
from the case attorneys Pott and Burkett. Pott resigned or was fired from his law firm on
January 23, 2015, as was Burkett in October 2019. What were they doing being involved
in Waszczuk’s case since then? Pott, together with Acero, produced in 2005–2007 the
anti-SLAPP motion known as Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal. Ct. App.
2007), aimed at striking Waszczuk in 2007 in The Regents’ attempt to fire him.
E. Abuse of Discretion
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h) does not permit a court to
grant a summary judgment where necessary facts exist but cannot be presented to the
court. The purpose of subdivision (h) is clearly to prevent prejudice against the nonmoving
party.
Regardless of the fact that Waszczuk’s lawsuit was decimated by his attorney in
conspiracy with The Regents’ attorney Pott via an unlawfully filed anti-SLAPP motion in
2014, the violation of the University’s evaluation policy PPSM 23, and denying
Waszczuk due process of law in his employment termination, regardless of the
despicably fabricated accusations and allegations as cause for his employment
termination, is a triable matter. Waszczuk’s wrongful suspension without pay in May
2012, which was based on fabricated and unproven accusations concerning a wrong
evaluation process, is a triable matter. The violation and breach of the January 30, 2009
- 44 -
Settlement Agreement signed between Waszczuk and The Regents is triable matter and
could proceed via a Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 motion, or a breach of
settlement action. The violation of the settlement agreement that Waszczuk signed in
good faith with The Regents after he defeated them in arbitration is a triable matter. The
violation and breach of the settlement by the Regents has cost Waszczuk more than $1
million in wages and benefits and the devastation of Waszczuk’s normal existence in the
United States of America.
A Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied at the discretion of the Court
only if the proof of a material fact offered in support of the summary judgment is an
affidavit or a declaration made by an individual who was the sole witness to that fact; or
if a material fact is an individual’s state of mind, or lack thereof, and that fact is sought to
be established solely by the individual’s affirmation thereof” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c,
subd. (e))
In this case, The Regents provided several declarations by individuals who had never
worked directly with Waszczuk, or directly supervised or conducted evaluations mandated by
The Regents’ policy PPSM 23. The Regents, in the course of their litigation, did not provide
one transcript from a deposition of Waszczuk’s co-workers or supervisor, despite having all
the resources needed to do so. The Regents fabricated the witch hunt reports aimed at
Waszczuk, including a time when Waszczuk was not present for more one year on the UC
Davis Medical Center premises, from August 3, 2011 through December 7, 2012.
California law recognizes that, “[t]he burden should not shift without stringent review of the
direct, circumstantial and inferential evidence” (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Constr. Co., (1999)
69 Cal.App.4th 64, 83; accord Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC, (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96,
101 fn.2 [“We note that ‘stringent’ is defined as ‘imposing rigorous standards of
performance; severe.’ (American Heritage Diet. (4th College ed. 2000) p. 1716). In other
words, a court's review must consider all aspects of the record with the strictest degree of
scrutiny.)”
- 45 -
The trial court, by granting a summary judgment to The Regents, shows only bias
and prejudice against Waszczuk, and it is beyond and above the abuse of discretion.
V.
CONCLUSION
In this, there are no winners. Waszczuk, due to The Regents’ reckless, unlawful,
and merciless witch hunts, which resulted in the termination of his employment on
December 5 , 2012 at his retirement age, has suffered enormous losses exceeding $1
million in wages and benefits and the devastation of his life. By contrast, The Regents,
since the second witch hunt action aimed at Waszczuk, from March 2011–December
2012, have lost approximately $100 million in tax-free revenue by not selling to SMUD
surplus power from the UC Davis Medical Center’s cogeneration plant, after being
advised by some unknown person that Waszczuk would blow the whistle on their shady
power-generation business, a topic about which Waszczuk did not care at all or have a
clue concerning in 2011–2012 when the witch hunt began.
As set forth above and in light of the presented reply to the concurrently filed RB by
The Regents, Waszczuk is requesting that the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
District reverse the trial court Judgment dated October 28, 2021, which granted The
Regents’ MSJ/MSA and direct Waszczuk’s lawsuit back to Department 53 with a
new judge in charge of the Department after Hon. Mesiwala was elevated to the
Associate Justice in 3DCA
Dated March 21 , 2023

________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk , Plaintiff in Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi , CA 95242
Phone : 209-667-1180
E-Mail: jjw1980@live.com
- 46 -
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
3DCA Case .: C095488 Trial Court Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.360(b)(1), I certify that
this Appellant’s Opening Brief contains 13903 words, based on the word-count
feature of my word-processor program.
DATED: March 21, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff and Appellant In Pro Per
- 47 -
PROOF OF SERVICE BY US MAIL
Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California

3DCA Case .: C095488 Trial Court Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
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 March 21, 2023 I
served a true copy of the attached each of the following:
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
By placing the same copy in an envelope or envelopes addressed respectively as follows:
Department 54 -- Via U.S Priority Mail
Superior Court of California
813 Sixth Street, 2nd Floor
Christopher E. Krueger, Judge
California Supreme Court 350
McAllister St,
San Francisco, CA 94102
Lindsay A. Goulding -Via TrueFiling - E-mail - lgoulding@porterscott.com

PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
H. Thomas Watson- Via TrueFiling - E-mail- htwatson@horvitzlevy.com
Karen M. Bray - Via TrueFiling - E-mail- kbray@horvitzlevy.com
Horvitz & Levy LLP
3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 21, 2023, at Lodi ,CA
____________________________________________________
IRENA WASZCZUK
- 48 -

03-22-2023-Appellant' S Reply Brief - Waszczuk v. The Regents of The University of California 3DCA Case No. C095488

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

03-22-2023-Appellant' S Reply Brief - Waszczuk v. The Regents of The University of California 3DCA Case No. C095488

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District

Colette M. Bruggman, Clerk Colette M. Bruggman, Clerk

CASE NO.: C095488

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD

Jaroslaw Janusz Plaintiff

Plaintiff & Appellant

Defendant & Respondent

Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court of California County of

Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF

Jaroslaw Janusz Plaintiff

-.Jurot1l11w W11.!IZczuk fn Pru Pc:r 34-2013-00155479

APPELLANTJ?EllTIONER: Jarostaw Waszczuk

RESPONDENT/REAL PARTY N INTEREST: REGENTS OF THE UNJV. OF CA

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

Full name of lnteraetad Nature of lntarast

Dale: MARCH 21, 2023

C. THE UNLAWFUL TERMINATION OF WASZCZUK’S EMPLOYMENT

IV. WASZCZUK REPLY TO THE REGENTS LEGAL ARGUMENT (RB 29)...39

D. ABUSE OF DISCRETION ……………………………………………..….…44

VII. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL ………………………………48

Mendoza v. Regents of University of California, 78 Cal.App.3d 168

(Cal. Ct. App. 1978 14……………………………………………..…………………….13

Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., supra, at p.

Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)……………………...…..36,44

State v. All Persons, 152 Cal.App.4th 1386…………………………………………………………36

Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Constr. Co., (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 83;……..………………….45

American Heritage Diet. (4th College ed. 2000 p. 1716)……………………………………45

CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954………………………………….……...…21.

Plaintiff JAROSLAW PLAINTIFF (pronounced “Vashchook,” hereafter

In contrast to Witcher’s statement in his August 31, 2011 investigatory leave

Waszczuk was placed on paid leave on September 1, 2011 so that the

A. The Regents’ First Adverse Action Aimed at Waszczuk, in 2005–2009

1. In subchapter “A” (RB p. 11–13), “Power plant operator Jaroslaw Waszczuk is

Article I of the Constitution of the State of California, entitled the

2. In the following subchapter, “B” (RB p. 13-14), “Waszczuk accepts a

Waszczuk addressed his employee evaluations in his AOB, on pages 42–47.

B. The Regents’ Second Adverse Action Aimed at Waszczuk in March 2011–

Waszczuk’s reply to The Regents’ Factual and Procedural Background

In or around May 2011, Waszczuk submitted complaints to me. In these

Furthermore, The Regents, in subchapter “C,” cited Human Resources (HR)

In June 2011, I discussed Waszczuk’s behavior with Witcher and

2. In subchapter “D” (RB pp. 17–18), “The investigation substantiates the

3. In subchapter “E” (RB pp. 16–17) titled : “Waszczuk sends inappropriate

4. In subchapter “E” (RB, p. 17), “Following another investigation, the University

In the meantime, an investigation was initiated concerning whether

In addition to the managing officers at the UC Davis Medical Center

The Regents included Waszczuk’s Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint in their MSJ/MSA

C. The Unlawful Termination of Waszczuk’s Employment and Waszczuk’s

On September 25, 2012, Witcher informed Waszczuk that he intended

On September 26, 2012, Waszczuk received by overnight mail a Notice of Intent to

The UC Davis Police Poster stated: (12 CT 3371)

“Jaroslaw Waszczuk is currently on administrative leave from

The Regents grossly violated Skelly:

In Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975), 15 Cal. 3d 194, the California

a. The Litigation against The Regents

In the interim, Waszczuk initiated this wrongful termination litigation,

1. Wrongful suspension and wrongful termination in violation of public policy

1. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (against the employees he alleged were

2. Tortious interference with economic advantage (against the same employees)

3. Harassment, discrimination, and retaliation (and the failure to prevent each) in

4. Retaliation in violation of the university employee whistleblower statute,