12-18-2023 - Response To State Bar of California SDTC Shane Morrison 12-1-2023 Decision

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-729-5154
Email: jjw1980@live.com
December 18, 2023
Shane Morrison
Special Deputy Trial Counsel
The State Bar of California
Office of the Special Deputy Trial Counsel
7135 East Camelback Road, Suite 230
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Subject: Response to the State Bar of California Special Deputy Trial Counsel Shane
Morrison’s decision regarding my complaint dated September 25, 2023 against former
State Bar of California Interim Chief Trial Counsel (April 2015–September 2017)
Gregory Paul Dresser, SBN 136532, who is now director-chief counsel at the State of
California’s Commission on Judicial Performance (Commission), and Laura Ann
Huggins, SBN #136532, former State Bar of California deputy trial counsel, currently
employed by Erin Joyce Law, PC in Pasadena, California
RE: Case No. 23-O-23272- Respondent, Gregory P. Dresser
RE: Case No. 23-O-23273-Respondent, Laura Huggins.
I.
INTRODUCTION
A. In General
Dear Mr. Morrison:
On December 1, 2023, the Special Deputy Trial Counsel’s (SDTC) office issued a decision
denying my complaint against Gregory Dresser, Laura Huggins, and Robin Brune. The
-1-
Response to SDTC Decision Dated 12/1/2023 -Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser
and Laura Huggins .
envelope was postmarked December 4, 2023. I received the decision on December 8, 2023;
thus, a timely reply within 10 days would call for a response on or before December 18, 2023
(ATTACHMENT # 1 on flash drive and DVD).
With all due respect, I completely disagree with the December 1, 2023 decision that closed
my complaints, which were submitted on September 25, 2023 to the State Bar Chief Trial
Counsel’s Office (OCTC). I am respectfully asking that you reopen the investigation and
pursue it, based on the information I have already provided already to the OCTC and this
response to the SDTC decision.
I was quite surprised when I received your decision and noticed it came from the State Bar
of California’s office in Scottsdale. I knew, prior to receiving the decision, that former State
Bar of California OCTC Supervisor-Investigator Laura Sharek, who surfaced in OCTC Case
15-O-10110-LMA against Douglas Stein in May 2016, was living and working in
Scottsdale, AZ. I wanted to include her in my September 25, 2023 complaint, but she is not
an attorney licensed by the State Bar of California, so I was unsure whether I could submit a
complaint against her to the OCTC.
In addition to the location of the SDTC office and the decision being issued in Arizona,
this drew my utmost attention because of Janet Napolitano’s involvement not only in
Arizona government but also her past governance of the University of California system,
from September 2013–August 2020. Napolitano is the subject of my September 3, 2022
whistleblower claim, Application for Reward IRS Form 2011, which was lodged and
accepted for review on November 6, 2023 as a Master Claim No. 2024-001610 and
Claims No. 2024-001610 and 2024-001612 with the IRS Whistleblower Office (WBO) in
Ogden, UT (see https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-
ICE-FORM-211-APPLICATION-FOR-AWARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-
California-White-Collar-Crime) and my case in the D.C. Circuit, Jaroslaw Janusz
Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner, USCA No. 20-1407 (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/690662212/12-07-2023-DC-Circuit-Motion-for-
-2-
and Laura Huggins .
Reconsideration-From-Order-Dated-11-28-2023). Documents in this case are accessible
via PACER.
I mentioned State of Arizona in my WBO Application for Reward IRS Form 211 as
follow :
In May 2000, the cyber-attack on the California and Western States Power Grid
began and this sophisticated attack and scheme of the California Energy Crisis
causing $40 billion in losses for California ratepayers and taxpayers almost caused
the collapse of the power grid.
At the same time in May 2000, a group of foreigner terrorists arrived in San
Diego, and their lifestyle and who was supporting them for over one year until
they delivered the deadliest attack on American soil are not very well known.
However, Petitioner found by accident that “uninvited” guests from the
Middle East converted their Camaros and Firebirds to Hot Rods in San Diego
shop to cruise freely for one year around UC San Diego and in Arizona,
which is the home state of Janet Napolitano, until they delivered their
terrorist attack killing over 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001.
The former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who had the
highest security clearance during her tenure in President Obama’s administration,
most likely knows more than anybody else about the ownership of the three
cogeneration plants on UC campuses, the cyber-attack on California and Western
States Power Grid from May 2000 to September 2001 by the sophisticated
equipment and software produced by Perot System Corporation, and about these
Camaros and Firebirds converted to Hot Rods in a San Diego Shop by group of
foreigners from the Middle East .
Another Arizonian , John Lohse was the University of California (UC) Director of
Investigation for the UC Office of the President’s Office of Ethics, Compliance and Audit
Services from 2004–2017 and a former FBI Special Agent. Lohse is one of Napolitano’s
old friends from Arizona. He was the subject of my March 23, 2016 complaint to the
State Bar of California OCTC, Case No. 16-15525.
B. Your SDTC Appointment to Investigate my September 25, 2023 Complaint

with the OCTC
As I read the SDTC decision (Page 1), I noted that you were appointed pursuant to Rule 2201
of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California. This Rule allows for the appointment
of an independent SDTC in situations where the OCTC is recused from considering
-3-
and Laura Huggins .
disciplinary matters concerning various categories of individuals, including attorneys who
have a current or recent professional relationship to the State Bar and/or OCTC.
On Page 3 of the SDTC decision, it states:

When a matter is referred to an SDTC, that attorney has all the powers and duties
of OCTC and acts entirely in OCTC’s place with regard to an inquiry or complaint
and any resulting investigation or prosecution. (Rules of Proc., Rule 2201(c).)
However, the SDTC is not an employee of the State Bar and exercises
independent judgment in carrying out those duties. (Rules of Proc., Rule
2201(e).
It is my understanding that you were employed by the State Bar of California with the OCTC
in 2016 and 2017, alongside Dresser, Sharek, Huggins, Brune, and Supervision Senior Trial
Counsel Robert Henderson. I believe that your previous employment with the OCTC would
be helpful for resolving my complaint in a way that is satisfactory to all parties involved. I am
ready to work and fully cooperate in your investigation to resolve my complaint.
C. The Complaint Against State Bar of California Senior Trial Counsel Robin
Brune
For clarification, I did not file a complaint with the OCTC against Brune on September 25,
2023. That is, I did not submit to the OCTC an attorney misconduct complaint form. In the
introduction of my addendum to the complaint against Dresser and Huggins, on Page 1, I
mistakenly wrote: “Laura Ann Huggins, SBN #136532, former State Bar of California
Deputy Trial Counsel, currently employed by Erin Joyce Law, PC in Pasadena, California,
and her former superior State Bar of California Senior Trial Counsel Robin Brune,”
when I should have written, “with her former superior.” I apologize for and regret this
error.
According to Transparent California, California’s largest public pay and pension database,
in 2016, Ms. Brune worked for the OCTC full-time, and her base salary for that year was
$157,487.98. She was paid approximately $13,123.00 per month. In 2017, she earned only
$39,098.65 working for State Bar OCTC; thus, she was most likely working for OCTC for
only the first quarter of the year. This means that Brune had nothing to do with the
STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER
APPROVING, which was executed on October 10 & 11, 2017 and filed in the State Bar of
-4-
and Laura Huggins .
California’s Hearing Department in San Francisco on October 24, 2017 by Huggins as Case
Number 15-O-10110-LMA (see https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/15-O-10110-2.pdf).
This is also why Brune’s name was not included on the September 8, 2017 subpoena
directing me to appear for a State Bar Court Hearing on October 11–13 in San Francisco.
This subpoena should have been issued for October 2015, not for October 2017, after OCTC
Investigator Amanda Gormely interviewed me on July 13, 2015 and informed me on
September 25, 2015 that her investigation against Douglas Stein was complete and would be
submitted to a State Bar prosecutor.
Shortly after my interview with Gormley, State Bar Assistant General Counsel Rachel
Grunberg provided me with information on August 3, 2015 that the UC office of the General
Counsel’s Chief Deputy, Karen Petrulakis (SBN# 168732), had joined the State Bar’s
Litigation Section Executive Committee on October 14, 2012 (ATTACHMENT #2 on flash
drive and DVD). This happened two weeks after the UCOP assigned thugs, with the advice
of Porter Scott attorneys, to attempt to frame me for deportation by distributing around the
UC Davis campuses a police poster featuring my photo and description (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/668969935/9-26-2012-UC-Davis-Police-Poster-Jaroslaw-
Waszczuk).
In 2014, the university’s legal team in the case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and The Regents as Real Party of
Interest, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-80001699, included General
Counsel Robinson himself, Chief Deputy General Counsel Karen Petrulakis, Senior Counsel
Cynthia Wroom, and Managing Counsel Margaret Wu. A writ of mandamus in an
unemployment benefits case would usually not require a university to be represented by four
leading attorneys from the UCOP. Petrulakis was also the subject of my March 23, 2016 State
Bar OCTC complaint, Case No. 16-15525.
Also in 2016, Petrulakis, together with Napolitano’s lieutenants Seth Grossman (a former
DHS employee) and Bernie Jones, interfered in State Audit 2016-130, which was
investigating the embezzlement of $175 million by Napolitano and other criminal
activities by her and the UCOP’s white collar criminals. See my December 7, 2023
motion for reconsideration of the 11/28/2023 DC Circuit Court order
(https://www.scribd.com/document/690662212/12-07-2023-DC-Circuit-Motion-for-
-5-
and Laura Huggins .
Reconsideration-From-Order-Dated-11-28-2023, ATTACHMENT #3 on flash drive and
DVD).
I mentioned Petrulakis because it is still unknown who influenced, convinced, or coerced

Dresser, and how much it cost them, to take care of my complaint submitted to the OCTC in
2015 against Stein. The Stein case itself was not as important as what was attached to it.
Dresser arrived at the OCTC three months after I reported Stein’s misconduct to the OCTC.
In April 2015, I was very close to finding out why I had been targeted by the UCOP thugs
since 2005. OCTC Investigator Amanda Gormley was informed about all of this on
September 25, 2015 when she received my 300-page-long Third Proposed Complaint in my
wrongful termination case.
II.
ARGUMENT PART I TO REOPEN THE CASE AND CHANGE THE SDTC
DETERMINATION DATED DECEMBER 1, 2023
A. My Complaint against Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins is not
Procedurally Time Barred
As you correctly noticed in your SDTC decision on Page 3, the crux of my complaints
concern alleged conduct that could potentially be disciplinable if proven true (and not
procedurally time-barred). This is summarized in my written narrative, as follows:
With this complaint, I am alleging that, between September 2015 and

October 2017 Dresser, Huggins, and their collaborators’ professional
misconduct, and criminal misconduct, including and not limited to
bribery, racketeering and conspiracy with my former employer The
University of California (hereafter The Regents) or The Regents agents,
or attorneys and Sacramento Courts staff led to issuance by the 3DCA
totally fraudulent and rigged by rubber stamp justice unpublished
opinion Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct.
App. Oct. 10, 2017)...
As a very experienced attorney, investigator, and officer of the court, you perhaps
scratched your head wondering how it was possible that the appellate court praised and
glorified an attorney who stole $20,000 from his client and destroyed his lawsuit in
conspiracy with his adversaries’ lawyer. Stein was expecting a lot of money in January
2015 for his effort to help The Regents attorney Michael Pott erase my lawsuit with an
-6-
and Laura Huggins .
anti-SLAPP motion. Pott was a Porter Scott shareholder until he was fired on January 23,
2013.
Another Porter Scott attorney, David Burkett, following oral arguments in the 3DCA
building, attempted to assault me and threatened to go after my wife once the opinion in
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) was
delivered. I was furious and helpless. I was so upset that, on December 1, 2017, I filed a
motion with the California Supreme Court to transfer my other pending 3DCA case,
Waszczuk v. California Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB), Case No. C079254 from 3DCA to
the CA Supreme Court or another California Court of Appeal District. I was also forced to
deal with the unemployment insurance benefits that were once denied by the EDD (in January
2013) and then reinstated on May 14, 2014 before being stolen from me (ATTACHMENT #
4 ON Flash Drive and DVD, see Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.,
S245879 (Cal. Jan. 10, 2018).
B. California State Bar Rule 5.21

Page 3 of the SDTC decision states:
More importantly, as will be discussed in detail below, nearly every

single action and event that you have complained of occurred more than
five years ago and is therefore procedurally time-barred pursuant to the
time limit for complaints under Rule 5.21 of the Rules of Procedure of
the State Bar of California.
I disagree with the SDTC’s decision in this matter. California State Bar Rule 5.21 (A)
states that a disciplinary proceeding based solely upon a complainant’s allegation of
misconduct must begin within five years of the alleged violation. However, it also states
that the five-year rule does not apply if the source was “independent” and not based on a
complaint. In other words, if a damaged party complains, there is a statute of limitations.
-7-
and Laura Huggins .
If the State Bar chooses to act on its own, in the absence of a complaint from an
aggrieved party, then there is no time-barred limitation.
C. California State Bar Case against Attorney Carmen Trutanich, No. 16-0-
12803
The California State Bar’s OCTC once filed disciplinary charges against former Los Angeles
City Attorney Carmen Trutanich 31 years after Trutanich’s alleged misconduct occurred,
Case No. 16-0-12803. The charges against Trutanich were brought by the former OCTC
Interim Chief Trial Counsel Gregory P. Dresser, who is an accused party in my September
25, 2023 complaint to the OCTC.
The Trutanich case is similar to State Bar Case No. 02-0-11078

(https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/104827), against THOMAS L.
RIORDAN, SBN 104827, a Porter Scott attorney who provided representation to The
Regents in my wrongful termination case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University
of California, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479, filed on December 4, 2013. I addressed Riordan
in my September 25, 2023 complaint on pp. 5, 35, and 42.
D. Trutanich’s State Bar Case No. 16-0-12803, compared to Dresser’s Case No.
23-0-23272 and Huggins’ Case No. 23-0-23322
Trutanich’s case stemmed from alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a death penalty case
he handled was 31 years prior to charges being filed by the OCTC (Dresser) against him. It
was no surprise that State Bar Court Hearing Judge Yvette D. Roland dismissed the charges
pursuant to California State Bar Rule 5.21.
In ordering the dismissal, Judge Roland noted:
“[m]any potential defense witnesses are now deceased” and that “witnesses that
are still alive and available will naturally have difficulty accurately
remembering specific details regarding events that transpired over 30 years
ago.”
My complaint with the OCTC against Dresser and Huggins was officially submitted on
September 25, 2023. Dresser’s and Huggins’ serious misconduct is not 30 years old and did
not stem from a capital punishment case. Witnesses are still alive and available for the
-8-
and Laura Huggins .
appointed STDC to find out who deliberately and maliciously in October 2015 stopped the
prosecution of my former attorney Stein to harm my appeal until 3DCA delivered on October
10, 2017 a totally fraudulent opinion in an anti-SLAPP motion that never should have been
granted.
II.
ARGUMENT PART II -EVIDENCE -EXHIBITS
A. Attachments
Some documents have already been provided to the OCTC with my September 25, 2023
complaint; however, as I will be making frequent references to them in this response to the
December 1, 2023 SDTC determination, I am enclosing them again for the SDTC’s
convenience.
Let’s again analyze Dresser and Huggins’ alleged misconduct to find out whether my
complaint with the OCTC is legitimate and should be reopened and if their alleged
misconduct should be in investigated. I am quite positive that Dresser, as early as 2015,
became a Trojan Horse in my litigation against The Regents and that his subordinates, who
were handling Stein’s criminal misconduct case, had to comply with his orders to place
complaint against Stein in abeyance until 3DCA issued the unpublished opinion in Waszczuk
v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) which praised Stein
who destroyed my lawsuit and stole my money as hero and celebrity when at same day on
October 10, 2014 Stein’s attorney license already was suspended and he never again regain
the eligibility to practice the law . Where is the sense and logic and who was behind this
cover up of the crime in OCTC?
B. December 16, 2014 Notice of Dismissal Sent to my Former Attorney, Douglas Stein,
and to the State Bar of California with a Complaint against Stein
On December 16, 2014, I dismissed Douglas Stein for gross professional and criminal
misconduct while acting as my attorney of record in my two cases pending in Sacramento
County Superior Court. That same day, I reported Stein to the State Bar of California’s
OCTC (ATTACHMENT #4 on flash drive and DVD). Stein continued acting as though
nothing had happened and continued to appear for me, working under a suspended attorney’s
-9-
and Laura Huggins .
license. The judge in the case allowed this, despite knowing that Stein had been dismissed on
December 16, 2014.
C. December 31, 2014 Inquiry Sent to Wells Fargo Bank Regarding Account No.
6826908995, Opened for Stein on June 2, 2014
On December 26, 2014, I closed the account from which Stein had stolen my retainer and
which had a negative balance.
On December 31, 2014, I submitted an inquiry to Wells Fargo titled “Wells Fargo Account
Gold Business Service Package 6826908995- I request all account statements from June
6/2/2014 to 12/26/14,” and I requested compensation for the damages caused by Wells Fargo
by opening the fraudulent account for Stein using my money. I quite precisely outlined what
happened between June 2, 2014 and December 26, 2014 (ATTACHMENT #5 on flash
drive and DVD).
On January 6, 2015, I formally notified the Court (Judge David I. Brown) of what his old
friend Stein and Wells Fargo had done to me.
On January 7, 2015, Judge Brown by issued an order formally acknowledging that Stein had
been fired and was no longer representing me. However, Wells Fargo refused to provide me
with statements for the closed account.
I can only guess that, in 2014, the bank, which provided financial services to my former
employer UC Davis (see https://theaggie.org/2017/02/23/university-of-california-davis-city-
council-sever-wells-fargo-contracts/) collaborated with The Regents’ attorneys in this refusal
to provide me information. As I pointed out in my March 13, 2023 inquiry with the U.S.
Comptroller’s office, the damages caused to me and to my litigation against the University of
California (UC) by Wells Fargo Bank are not trivial matters. The UC was, or perhaps still is,
a Wells Fargo customer, and my litigation deals with more than the damages caused to me by
the university in lost wages and benefits totaling approximately $1 million and the
devastation of my life; it also involves millions of dollars in tax evasion and fraud committed
by UC executives in violation of the university’s tax-exempt status, per Internal Revenue
Code (IRC) 501(c)(3). I have no doubt that the UC Office of the President was using Wells
Fargo Bank accounts to launder millions of dollars of untaxed profit from the illegal
- 10 -
and Laura Huggins .
generation and sale of electric power from a co-generation plant at the UC Davis Medical
Center, where I was employed from 1999–2012.
D. January 14, 2015 Letter from State Bar OCTC Supervising Senior Trial
Counsel Robert A. Henderson
On January 14, 2015, I received a letter from OCTC Supervising Senior Trial Counsel
Robert A. Henderson (ATTACHMENT #6 on flash drive and DVD) informing me that
my complaint against Stein had been reviewed and forwarded to the Enforcement Unit
for further investigation and prosecution. Furthermore, it informed me that OCTC
Investigator Amanda Gormley had been assigned to my complaint under the direct
supervision of OCTC Senior Trial Counsel Robin Brune. The complaint was docketed as
Case No. 15-0-10110. The letter also specifically instructed me to respond with 15 days
of its receipt and to provide copies of any court documents in your possession.
documents to Gormley.
In your SDTC decision on the page 2 you are complaining the court documents that I
provided to OCTC lot of court documents stating :
Most of your complaints and most of the numerous supporting

documents you have provided are exclusively related to your various
underlying civil cases, as well as complaints you have filed with the
Commission on Judicial Performance. You have also made various
assertions concerning alleged criminal misconduct. Therefore, before I
address the substance of your complaints, I believe it is necessary to
clarify the purpose of the State Bar disciplinary process, as well as
outline the limits of my powers and authority as an SDTC.
My all complaints against attorneys I submitted to OCTC are stemmed from my litigations
pursued in the state and federal court and complaints with various state and federal agencies. I
did not create this mess in and I did not complain against the University of California to any
state or federal agency when I was employed there in 1999-2012. I found in 2015 why I was
witch hunted and terminated at age of 61 six years before my retirement with attempt to set
me up for deportation. In your determination to close my complaint you should not rely only
on what Laura Huggins wrote in her fraudulent and My all complaints against attorneys I
submitted to OCTC are stemmed from my litigations pursued in the state and federal court
and complaints with various state and federal agencies . I did not create this mess in and I did
- 11 -
and Laura Huggins .
not complain against the University of California to any state or federal agency when I was
employed there in 1999-2012. I found in 2015 why I was witch hunted and terminated at age
of 61 six years before my retirement with attempt to set me up for deportation. In your
determination to close my complaint you should not rely only on what Laura Huggins wrote
in her fraudulent and misleading and lot of misstatements October 10, 2017 STIPULATION
RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING,
which was filed in the State Bar of California Hearing Department, San Francisco on October
24, 2017, In Re: Douglas Stein, Case No. 15-O-10110 . The stake in my complaint is a little
higher that $ 20, 000 stolen from me in 2014 by my drugs addicted attorney Douglas Stein .
I am quite positive that, before my complaint was forwarded to the OCTC enforcement
unit and the January 14, 2014 letter was written, the OCTC had already requested or
subpoenaed and had in its possession copies of documents related to Wells Fargo Gold
Business Service Package Account 6826908995. The application and monthly
statements for this account were from June 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014; it
was opened fraudulently and under false pretenses on June 2, 2014. The account was
opened to steal the deposited money without the possibility of me detecting the theft until
the account was overdraft. I would appreciate it if the SDTC found out exactly when the
OCTC ordered and received the records for the account and then promptly disclosed the
information about it in its decision. By considering the preponderance of evidence, I am
quite sure that the investigation opened by the OCTC caused the Porter Scott law firm to
fire Michael Pott, Stein’s partner in crime. His dismissal, on January 21, 2015, was
confirmed for me by his replacement, David Burkett, in his May 11, 2015, motion for
fees and costs filed in Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California,
Case No. 34-2013- 00155479.Stein was expecting to get a lot of money in January 2015
for conspiring with Pott, as he disclosed to me on December 15, 2014. He told me that he
would repay me after I pressed him to tell me what had happened to the money I gave to
give him to represent me.
- 12 -
and Laura Huggins .
The January 14, 2015 OCTC letter also stated as follows:
“The State Bar has a Client Security Fund, which covers clients’ loss of money or
property resulting from lawyer dishonesty (but not because the lawyer acted
incompetently, committed malpractice, or failed to take certain actions).”
In January 2015, I was hoping to quickly recover the stolen money by Stein through the
Client Security Fund. Instead, it became another saga of struggle documented in hundreds
of pages of inquires with the State Bar in 2018 and 2019, before the decision was made to
pay me $14,500 in August 2019.
E. My January 28. 2015 response to OCTC Supervising Senior Trial Counsel

Robert A. Henderson’s letter dated January 14, 2015
On January 28, 2015, I submitted to Gormley my response with the requested

documents (ATTACHMENT #7 on flash drive and DVD).
In April 2015, Morrison Foerster LLP attorney GREGORY P. DRESSER was recruited by
the State Bar of California as an assistant chief trial counsel. I cannot ignore the fact that The
Regents are a Morrison Forester client and have represented them in many cases, including:
• Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Cal. Berry Cultivars, LLC, No. 16-CV-02477-VC, 2017
WL 9531948 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2017)” Driscoll’s, Inc. v. Cal. Berry Cultivars, LLC,
2:19-cv-00493-TLN-CKD, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022)
• The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. LTI Flexible Prods., 3:20-cv-08686-WHO (N.D.
Cal. Mar. 31, 2022)
In addition, Morrison Foerster attorneys interact directly with the attorneys and staff from the
UCOP’s Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services (see
https://www.mofo.com/resources/events/221109-ethics-compliance-audit-symposium). The
UCOP Audit Services office is responsible for the UC’s systemwide internal auditing
program (audits, investigations and advisory services, see https://www.ucop.edu/ethics-
compliance-audit-services/audit/index.html). It is a mystery how it came to be that a Morrison
Foerster lawyer, in the period of two years, moved from the prosecution of California
attorneys’ misconduct as the State Bar’s Chief Trial Counsel to the prosecution of
- 13 -
and Laura Huggins .
California judges and justices’ misconduct, and is now serving as its Director-Chief
Counsel for the Commission on Judicial Performance.
F. The July 13, 2015 Interview With OCTC Investigator Amanda Gormley and Her
September 25, 2015 E-Mail
On July 13, 2015, Gormley interviewed me by phone regarding Stein’s misconduct.

On September 25, 2015, I sent an e-mail to Gormley asking her about my complaint’s status
since the interview in July 2015. She responded as follows (ATTACHMENT #8 on flash
drive and DVD):
Mr. Waszczuk:
Your file with be submitted to the prosecutor by October 9.
Please communicate with me via regular mail or via fax.
You will receive a letter from our office when the case is submitted to the
prosecutor.
You will be contacted by the prosecutor if she needs additional information.
Ms. Gormley’s response did not indicate in what year on October 9 she meant.
Gormley’s July 13, 2015 interview and September 25, 2015 informational e-mail requires
some explanation. Why, for instance, didn’t the interview happen in March, April, May, or
June 2015, after she received my response and documents related to the matter in January
2015?
Any further action was put on hold after January 28, 2015, and Gormley was directed to wait
for the interview until the NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER was filed in
the Sacramento County Superior Court Writ of Mandate Case No. 34-2013-80001699,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real
Party of Interest (Rip)—The Regents of the University of California (The Regents) and the
- 14 -
and Laura Huggins .
wrongful termination (anti-SLAPP motion) Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479 was issued.
The NOTICE OFENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER in Case No. 34-2013-80001699 was
filed on April 1, 2015, and in Case No. 34-2013- 00155479 on April 17, 2015.
Thereafter, Gormley was instructed to wait until I filed a Notice of Appeal from the
judgments in both cases. I filed the Notice of Appeal in No. 34-2013-80001699 on May 7,
2015 and in Case No. 34-2013- 00155479 on June 11, 2015.
In the meantime, on May 19, 2015, The Regents’ attorney David Burkett attempted to
convince me to dismiss the case in exchange for legal fees in the anti-SLAPP motion. I
refused.
On June 14, 2015, I sent a letter to OCTC Robert A. Henderson, Supervising Senior Trial
Counsel, requesting an update on the investigation of my complaint against Stein and a face-
to-face interview with Gormley (ATTACHMENT #9 on flash drive and DVD).
On July 13, 2015, I was briefly interviewed by Gormley via phone.
On July 20, 2015, I filed a motion to stay legal fees and costs in the anti-SLAPP motion until
my appeal in the 3DCA case Waszczuk v. The Regents Case No. C079524 was resolved. The
motion to stay was granted by the Court (Judge David I. Brown) on August 12, 2015.
G. The Incorrect and False Statement on Pages 3 and 4 in Your December 1, 2023
SDTC Decision
On Pages 3 and 4 of the SDTC Decision, you stated:

In regards to Ms. Brune, it is difficult to discern what you are
alleging she did or failed to do. You make several statements to the
effect that she “vanished for two years in October 2015 together with
my State Bar complaint.” It is unclear what you mean by this, but it
appears you are attempting to argue that she was not diligent in handling
your matter.
There are several issues with these allegations that would prevent
me from seeking discipline against Mr. Dresser, Ms. Huggins, or Ms.
- 15 -
and Laura Huggins .
Brune. First, your assertion that they failed to “properly prosecute”
Mr. Stein is demonstrably false. Similarly, your assertion that Ms.
Brune “disappeared” with your complaint for two years is also
factually incorrect. Ms. Brune oversaw the investigation of Mr. Stein
during the entire period you claim she “disappeared.” Although you may
not be pleased with the speed with which that investigation was
conducted, it is not uncommon for complicated cases to take a
significant amount of time to investigate.
On the contrary, it is not my assertion that is demonstrably false and factually incorrect. It is
your decision closing my complaint that lacks a foundation and does not provide any facts
concerning my allegations against Dresser and Huggins. You were concerned about what I
meant by stating “vanished for two years in October 2015 together with my State Bar
complaint.” I mean that my complaint with the OCTC disappeared after September 25, 2015,
or was placed in a special folder marked “DON’T TOUCH IT UNTIL I TELL YOU.”
Using a different wording, my complaint against Stein after September 25, 2015 was
deliberately placed in in abeyance for two years. Stein’s criminal misconduct case would
have been quickly resolved if I had not filed appeals in 3DCA in my two cases. I sent a copy
of my Proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC) in my wrongful termination case to
Gormley on September 25, 2015. This added gravity to the situation because the TAC
contained information about tens of millions of dollars in tax evasion and fraud committed by
the UCOP, a violation of its tax-exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3) and other state and
federal laws related to the illegal power generation and sale. As I stated, my complaint
against Stein vanished for two years after September 25, 2015. The OCTC attorneys knew
that it would take approximately two years for the Court of Appeal to resolve the appeals in
my civil cases.
This is exactly what happened. Stein’s crime was condoned for two years by the OCTC,
and on May 9, 2017, the OCTC filed charges against Stein just one month before 3DCA
sent to me on June 9, 2017 a notification inquiry from the Court concerning whether oral
arguments were sought by me, the Appellant. I am not sure who was trolling who for two
- 16 -
and Laura Huggins .
years in this matter to synchronize the fraud and condone the crime, since my appeals
were filed in 3DCA in May and June 2015.
I was not silent or happy about the situation.
On August 21, 2016, I sent an inquiry titled “Request for Intervention” to Supreme Court
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to find out what had happened to my complaint against
Stein and the investigator assigned to it (ATTACHMENT #10 on flash drive and DVD).
On September 1, 2016, I exchanged correspondence on this matter with Elizabeth R. Parker,

Executive Director/CEO The State Bar of California (ATTACHMENT #11 on flash drive).
Shortly after Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, who was the former General Counsel for the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) and the former
principal deputy legal adviser at the U.S. Department of State met her friend UC President
Janet Napolitano in San Diego at The State Bar of California 89th Annual Meeting in San
Diego . On of the subjects of this conference was Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health
Vulnerability in the Legal Profession: Facing the Facts'
In 2016 my former drugs addicted attorney needed urgent help from the State Bar OCTC to
deal with addiction not to condone his criminal behavior which caused that in 2018 he
became homeless . Terrible . I have a lot of compassion for other people . In 2017 during the
interview with Huggins and Sharek I asked them if the State Bar could permit Stein to help
with proofreading and research in my cases instead of paying me back stolen money he did
not have and Sharek and Huggins knew that Stein has no money to pay me back . .
On September 15, 2016, I asked for help from California Senator Cathleen Galgiani
(ATTACHMENT #12 on flash drive).
III.
ARGUMENT PART III: EVIDENCE AUGUST 28, 2017–OCTOBER 10, 2017
A. August 28, 2017, after oral arguments in Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California 3DCA Case No. C079524 and Douglas Stein’s Attorney’s
License Status
On August 28, 2017, I argued for myself the 3DCA anti-SLAPP motion appeal. After the
- 17 -
and Laura Huggins .
oral arguments in Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, 3DCA
Case No. C079524, Porter Scott attorney Burkett, infuriated by statements made by Court of
Appeals Justice Vance W. Raye during the hearing and anticipating the Court’s decision,
snapped and unloaded his anger on me and my wife, making vile threats against us. I thought
that Burkett’s unwarranted attack in the 3DCA building would lead to fisticuffs. Burkett
became angered to the brink of beating up a 66-year-old old man in the halls of justice.
Fortunately for me, I was accompanied by a friend. I never attend the Court hearings in the
Sacramento Courts alone after this incident. I reported the incident to the courts . Three year
I mentioned Burkett’s unwarranted attack in my cover letter for my Petition for Review, for
3DCA Case No. C079254, Waszczuk v. CUIAB, which was filed in the California Supreme
Court on January 29, 2019 . Also I described in this letter the unforgettable December 12,
2018 Oral Argument in same Court of Appeal on December 12, 2018 which still occupies
my mind today . (ATTACHMENT #9 on flash drive and DVD).
Please take note that, on September 1, 2017, two days after the oral arguments in Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, 3DCA Case No. C079524, Douglas
Stein’s attorney’s license was suspended. Stein never regained eligibility to practice the law,
and two years and four months later, he was disbarred, on January 10, 2020. Unknown to me,
he was addicted to drugs and in deep financial trouble when I hired him in November 2013 to
handle my writ of mandamus case for unemployment insurance benefits, which were
reinstated on May 14, 2014 and later stolen from me (ATTACHMENT #14 on flash drive
and DVD). After Stein was reported to the State Bar in December 2014 for stealing the
money I had given to him in June 2014 to handle my wrongful termination case, the OCTC
should have taken care of the problem right away to protect other people. What Stein did
between June 2014 and December 2014 was premeditated theft. I am urging you, as the
appointed SDTC, to get to the bottom of who in the OCTC was making decisions to condone
Stein’s crimes and misconduct for almost three years, leading to harm against my litigation
pending in Sacramento County Superior Court and 3DCA and causing a financial disaster for
me and Porter Scott attorneys aimed attacks at my wife. For now, I am alleging that Laura
- 18 -
and Laura Huggins .
Huggins and Gregory Dresser were key perpetrators of the conspiracy to harm me and to
condone Stein’s crimes and misconduct.
B. September 8, 2017 State Bar of California OCTC Subpoena for Personal

Appearance In Re : Douglas Stein, Case No. 15-O-10110
On September 8, 2017, ten days after the oral argument in the 3DCA anti-SLAPP motion
appeal for the case Waszczuk v. The Regents, Case No.C079524, I received a subpoena for
personal appearance. I was directed to appear on October 11–13, 2017 at the State Bar of
California’s Hearing Department in San Francisco for Stein’s trial, Case No. 15-O-10110-LMA.
This date indicates that, most likely, the OCTC DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
GREGORY P. DRESSER, who had already secured the position of Director and Chief Counsel
for the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) knew the outcome of the 3DCA appeal in
the anti-SLAPP motion Waszczuk v. The Regent Case No.C079524, or had copy of the not-yet-
released 3DCA opinion and took into consideration what the 3DCA staff and justices were
doing with my appeals.
The front page of the Acknowledgement of Receipt of Subpoena contained the following
senders’ names (ATTACHMENT #15 on flash drive and DVD):
• STEVEN J. MOAWAD, SBN 190358, CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
• GREGORY DRESSER, SBN 136532, DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
• SUSAN CHAN, SBN 233229, ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
• ROBERT A. HENDERSON, SBN 173205, SUPERVISING ATTORNEY
• LAURA HUGGINS, SBN 294148, DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
As you can see, Senior OCTC Senior Trial Counsel Robin Brune is not listed here. That is
why I did not submit her name on the Attorney Misconduct Complaint form. I also did not
mention Henderson because I do not know in what capacity he was involved in Stein’s case,
apart from serving as a Supervising Senior Trial Counsel in January 2014. That is when he
appointed Brune to oversee or supervise Gormley’s investigation of Stein.
I did not submit a complaint against Sharek to the OCTC because she is not listed as a
licensed attorney with the State Bar of California; for now, I am leaving this up to you. You
worked for the OCTC in 2016–2014, so you know more than I do who was who there and
what was going on. As an appointed SDTC pursuant Rule 2201 of the Rules of Procedure of
- 19 -
and Laura Huggins .
the State Bar of California, you have been given power equal to the OCTC’s Chief Trial
Counsel and I am hoping that you will exercise it with no partiality or bias toward any party,
so that you may find out what happened that never should have happened. Corruption is an
evil and everyone pays a great price for it, especially taxpayers, if it is unleashed and out of
control.
C. October 2, 2017 Interview with OCTC Supervisor Investigator Laura Sharek and
Deputy Trial Counsel Laura Huggins In Re: Douglas Stein, Case No. 15-O-10110-
LMA
In your SDTC decision, on Page 4, you stated:
Similarly, your assertion that Ms. Brune “disappeared” with your complaint
for two years is also factually incorrect. Ms. Brune oversaw the investigation
of Mr. Stein during the entire period you claim she “disappeared.”
To avoid any misunderstanding, on January 14, 2015, Brune was appointed by OCTC
Supervising Senior Trial Counsel Henderson to supervise Gormley, who was assigned to
investigate Stein’s misconduct based on my complaint submitted to the OCTC on December
16, 2014. Gormley completed the investigation in September 2015 and the case was placed in
abeyance for two years, until May 9, 2017. For two years, I tried to find out what happened to
my case, Gormley, and Brune. I later learned that Gormley left the State Bar OCTC in
January 2016 and that Brune left in the first quarter of 2017, thus she supervised Gormley
from January 14, 2015 until she completed the investigation. Thereafter, there was nothing to
supervise because the investigated complaint was hidden for two years. Your statement
would be correct and credible if you added a disclosure in the SDTC about the dates when
Brune and Gormley’s involvement in the Stein case ended. Otherwise, the statement has no
meaning, is irrelevant, and is not credible.
On October 2, 20217, eight days before the 3DCA officially issued its opinion in the
anti-SLAPP matter Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017), I met Huggins and Sharek. Our meeting took place at the State Bar of
California Headquarters in San Francisco. It was cordial, but orchestrated solely for the
purpose of finalizing Stein’s criminal misconduct case, which was hidden and condoned
for two years to give a green light to The Regents and their attorneys’ friends in 3DCA to
- 20 -
and Laura Huggins .
release a fraudulent unpublished opinion in my anti-SLAPP motion appeal on October
10, 2017.
D. October 10, 2017 3DCA unpublished opinion in the anti-SLAPP motion Waszczuk
v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)
The October 10, 2017 3DCA issuance of the unpublished opinion on Waszczuk v. Regents of
Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017, ATTACHMENT #16 on flash
drive and DVD) was precisely synchronized with the September 8, 2017 State Bar of
California Subpoena for personal appearance which set a trial date In Re: Douglas Stein, Case
No. 15-O-10110-LMA for October 10–13, 2017 and the installation on October 12, 2017 of
OCTC Deputy Trial Counsel DRESSER in the CJP as a Director and Chief Counsel
(ATTACHMENT #17 on flash drive and DVD).
In addition to the above totally fraudulent opinion, which was delivered by rubber stamp
justice under Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye, Justice Ronald B. Robie, and Justice
George Nicholson, the opinion was full of nonsense including and not limited to praising
Stein’s theft of over $20,000 from me and, in general, his criminal and professional
misconduct, which was condoned and covered up for over two years by OCTC employees
Dresser, Huggins, and Sharek.
What was interesting in this unpublished opinion was that the anti-SLAPP motion did not
award The Regents’ attorneys legal costs or fees for the appeal. The file on appeal was quite
voluminous; I paid more than $3000 for the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal. This fraudulent
opinion and Dresser’s presence at the CJP later caused Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479, filed on December 4, 2013 in pro
per in Sacramento County Superior Court, instead of in San Joaquin Superior, to turn into
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Porter Scott law firm Attorneys and a group of corrupt judicial
officers and staff from Sacramento County Superior Court , The Court of Appeal Third
- 21 -
and Laura Huggins .
Appellate District and the Supreme Court of California and caused the devastation of my
life and normal existence in the United States of America.
E. October 10–11, 2017 STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND

DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING filed in the State Bar of California
Hearing Department, San Francisco on October 24, 2017, In Re: Douglas Stein,
Case No. 15-O-10110
Initially, I learned that In Re: Douglas Stein, case no. 15-O-10110, was resolved by
stipulation from the e-mail I received from Huggins on October 12, 2017, the same day
Dresser became the California CJP’s Director and Chief Counsel.
Huggins' e-mail stated:
From: Huggins, Laura [mailto:Laura.Huggins@calbar.ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 8:50 AM
To: Jaroslaw Waszczuk <JJW1980@LIVE.COM>
Subject: RE: State Bar Case #15-O-10110
Mr. Waszczuk,
Thank you for letting us know. We were able to resolve the matter with Mr. Stein
so you do not need to testify today. Please give me a call at your earliest
convenience so that we can discuss restitution. Mr. Stein has agreed to return the
advanced costs specified in the fee agreement ($14,500) in addition to the cost you
incurred when closing the Wells Fargo account. This sum will also include
interest.
Thank you again for all your help and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Laura A. Huggins | Deputy Trial Counsel
Office of Chief Trial Counsel
The State Bar of California | 180 Howard St. | San Francisco, CA 94105
415.538.2537 | Laura.Huggins@calbar.ca.gov
Huggins informed me about the stipulation, but did not provide me a copy of the stipulation
signed by Stein on October 10, 2017 and by her on October 11, 2017. I retrieved it after it
- 22 -
and Laura Huggins .
was filed in the State Bar of California Hearing Department, San Francisco on October 24,
2017 (ATTACHMENT #18 on flash drive and DVD).
The stipulation was approved by State Bar of California Court Judge Maria Lucy
Armendariz, who was once was employed alongside UC General Counsel Charles Robinson
at the same law firm, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe.
F. The STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND

DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING signed October 10–11, 2017
Shows that Huggins did not Investigate Stein’s Criminal and Professional
Misconduct at All
On November 22, 2017, I submitted my response to Huggins and Sharek regarding the
STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING, which was filed in the State Bar of California Hearing
Department, San Francisco on October 24, 2017, In Re: Douglas Stein, Case No. 15-O-
10110 (ATTACHMENT # 19 on flash drive and DVD).
In September 2017, Sharek and Huggins fabricated an ad hoc and deceptive

ATTACHMENT TO STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND
DISPOSITION that camouflaged Stein’s theft of my money. They camouflaged the
deliberate, premeditated, malicious theft by Stein from the fraudulently opened Wells
Fargo Bank account by using the wrong terminology to cover up the crime, and they
wrongly applied Business and Professions Code section 6106 and Rules of
Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
Paragraph 19 on Page 11 and Paragraph 20 on Page 12 of the Attachment states:

19. By converting advanced costs in the amount of $14,500 into attorney fees
without Waszczuk’s authorization, and then disbursing this amount to himself
between June 2, 2014 and December 3, 2014, respondent misappropriated through
gross negligence, for respondent’s own purposes, $14,500 in advanced costs that
- 23 -
and Laura Huggins .
belonged to Waszczuk, his client, and thereby committed an act involving moral
turpitude, in willful violation • Business and Professions Code section 6106.
20. By receiving the sum of $20,000 in advanced fees and costs on June 2,
2014, from respondent’s client, Waszczuk, for legal services to be performed, and
subsequently failing to render any accounting to the client, even after the
termination of respondent’s employment on December 16, 2014, respondent failed
to render an appropriate accounting to his client regarding those funds, in willful
violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(3).
I have no doubt that, in 2015, Wells Fargo Bank provided information to State Bar OCTC
investigator Gormley that Stein, on June 2, 2014, opened an account with my $19,500 for a
reason other than to serve as a retainer when representing me in my wrongful termination
case. By examining the October 10–11, 2017 Stipulation between Huggins and Stein, you
would not find a single word stating that Stein opened the account by providing false
information to Wells Fargo Bank. According to Wells Fargo’s information, Stein claimed that
I hired him as my trustee to manage money from a WRONGFUL TERMINATION
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT with the UC Regents that was neither signed, nor even
existed.
The actions described in the stipulation with Stein filed October 24, 2017 were more than
simple misconduct. This was a premeditated grand theft of my money using Gold Business
Service Package account 6826908995, which was opened under false pretenses in
collaboration with a Wells Fargo employee. The above-mentioned Sharek and Huggins
knew about this.
I respectfully urge you that you carefully examine the enclosed Application for Bank
Business Account and copies of the monthly bank statements from June 1, 2014– December
31, 2014 and to determine when, exactly, Wells Fargo provided these to Gormley or Sharek
(ATTACHMENT #20 on flash drive and DVD).
Huggins’ October 10–11, 2017 stipulation was based solely on the application Stein signed to
open the account on June 2, 2014 and the monthly bank statements, which show how the
- 24 -
and Laura Huggins .
money was stolen from the account. I had no access to it and, because it was opened
fraudulently as a trust account for a reason other than proving me with legal representation,
Stein was able to steal the money quite quickly.
G. March 14, 2023 Inquiry sent to CJP Secretary to Trial Counsel Michele Kem
addressing the Wells Fargo Bank Business Account opened for Stein on June 2,
2014
In the previous sections, I have shown you precisely how the OCTC synchronized its
investigation against Stein to condone his crimes from January 14, 2015 through the
installation of Gregory Dresser on October 12, 2017 as the CJP’s Director and Chief Counsel.
Dresser’s meddling in the judicial system caused six years more of my presence in the State
Courts, since The Regents and their Porter Scott attorney friends in 3DCA issued the
fraudulent unpublished opinion on October 10, 2017 in my anti-SLAPP motion appeal,
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017).
On Pages 5 & 6 of your SDTC decision, you stated:
The only allegation you have made that is not procedurally time-barred concerns
Mr. Dresser’s employment at the OP. Again, you have provided no specific factual
allegations. You simply state that Mr. Dresser’s “alleged criminal misconduct,
which includes and is not limited to tampering with and meddling in the judicial
process in my wrongful termination lawsuit of 2015-2018 and again in 2020-
2023...” While you have not provided any specific factual details, it appears
the alleged “tampering and meddling” relates to a letter Mr. Dresser sent you
on March 14, 2023 wherein he responded to several emails you had sent to
members of the CJP. In that letter, Mr. Dresser explained to you that the
CJP’s jurisdiction is limited to investigating and, when appropriate,
disciplining judges for acts of judicial misconduct and that, as such, the CJP
could not intervene in your civil matters. Although not procedurally time-
barred, this allegation suffers from the same substantive issues discussed above as
to all your other allegations against Mr. Dresser, Ms. Huggins, and Ms. Brune.
Your allegation that Mr. Dresser engaged in “tampering with and meddling in the
judicial process in [your] wrongful termination lawsuit” is vague, conclusory, and
wholly unsubstantiated. You have not provided any specific factual allegations or
- 25 -
and Laura Huggins .
evidentiary support that would justify pursuing disciplinary action against Mr.
Dresser in connection with the CJP allegations.
Everything has a reason, and this is why I sent the March 14, 2023 inquiry addressed to CJP
Secretary to Trial Counsel Michele Kem addressing the Wells Fargo account opened for Stein
on June 2, 2014 to several CJP members.
As you read my September 25, 2023 complaint with OCTC, you probably noticed that, in
July 2021, after Lindsay Goulding, who was representing The Regents, ambushed my wife
and stole $22,284 from her in Sacramento County Superior Court Department 43 in an
attempt to frame her for criminal prosecution, clean out her accounts, convince me to drop
my litigation against The Regents, I alerted the CJP about the crime because of the
involvement of the judge from Department 43, Thadd Blizzard, and his clerk. My inquiry was
not an official complaint against the judge.
On September 16, 2021, I received a response to my concerns from Michelle Kem

(ATTACHMENT #21 on flash drive and DVD). I replied to her on October 8, 2021
(ATTACHMENT #22 on flash drive and DVD). I did not know that CJP has a own Court
as same as the State Bar Court and the Trial Counsel. In October 2022, I learned from
Wells Fargo Bank representatives how Stein stole my money and the reason why the OCTC
condoned Stein’s crime for 2 years and 10 months.
In addition to the above, in 2022, The Regents’ attorneys from Porter Scott, Horovitz & Levy,
clerks from the Sacramento Superior Court Appellate Department, and 3DCA justices and
clerks caused me many problems with the record on appeal and my filings in attempts to
make me dismiss the appeal (Motion for Summary Judgment) in the 3DCA case Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, C095488.
In light of these problems, I sent several inquiries to Kem at the CJP demanding intervention
with the 3DCA’s chief justice to stop the ongoing carnage against my appeal. At some point,
based on information from Wells Fargo, I demanded help from the CJP to invalidate the two
totally fraudulent 3DCA opinions Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal.
Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) (an anti-SLAPP motion) and Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins.
Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) (stolen unemployment insurance
- 26 -
and Laura Huggins .
benefits), which happened because of Stein and his collaborator from Porter Scott’s crimes
condoned by the OCTC.
Also in October 2022 I came across the 3DCA opinion Chodosh v. Comm’n on Judicial
Performance, 81 Cal.App.5th 248 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022), which led me to the Sacramento
County Superior Court case Padilla vs. Commission on Judicial Performance an Agency of
the Judicial Brand, case no. 34-2018-00242031-CU-MC-GDS, filed on 10/5/2018, in which
one of the Defendants was CJP Director Dresser. The case was handled by Judge David I.
Brown, who denied Dresser's anti-SLAPP motion but had, in 2015, granted an anti-SLAPP
motion to The Regents in my wrongful termination case after I dismissed Stein due to his
crimes and professional misconduct.
After several inquiries with the CJP in 2022 and 2023 addressed to Kem and a lack of any
response, I determined that someone at the CJP had instructed her not to respond to any of my
inquires. I came to the conclusion that this is a similar situation as with my complaint in
2014–2017 against Stein with the OCTC and the disappearance of it and OCTC Investigator
Gormley in September 2015. On March 14, 2023, I decided to send my inquiry, along with
detailed information about the 2014 Wells Fargo account and Stein’s crimes related to this
account, to Kem and to copy other CJP members in the correspondence. (ATTACHMENT
#23 on flash drive and DVD).
On March 15, 2023, CJP Director Gregory reacted or overreacted to control the damages
with a reply to my March 14, 2023 letter. Dresser did not react because I sent this information
to other CJP members. He reacted because he is corrupt and was got caught off guard when
he reminded what had been done to me in 2015–2017 being employed by State Bar OCTC b
and thereafter the CJP (ATTACHMENT #24 on flash drive and DVD).
H. Did Brune Have a Conflict of Interest in Supervising the Investigation against

Stein?
I noticed from the website https://erinjoycelaw.com/robin-brune/ that Robin Brune became a
prosecutor as a Deputy State’s Attorney in Vermont, but once served as a Deputy District
Attorney in El Dorado County, California. It is my understanding from
https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=Robin+Brune&y=2017 that Brune left
- 27 -
and Laura Huggins .
the OCTC and State Bar in 2017, before Huggins signed the fraudulent stipulation on October
17, 2017 with Stein. Brune worked for California State Bar for 20 years; thus, she was first
employed by the State Bar in 1997. She was admitted to the State Bar of California on
December 5, 1990 (https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/149481) and found
employment as a Deputy District Attorney in El Dorado County, California, where she
apparently worked for seven years. Stein resided and practiced law in El Dorado County at
that same time. Stein was admitted to the State Bar of California on December 11, 1987. The
question for SDTC Shane Morrison is to investigate whether Brune and Stein knew or knew
of each other, or whether they were associated (via employment, a faith organization, a
Barrister’s club, etc.), or were in any other way related (via marriage, friendship, etc.).
Huggins, who signed the stipulation with Stein on October 11, 2017, left the State Bar of
California in 2020 and then moved for a short time to Detroit, Michigan She returned to
California and joined Brune at ERIN JOYCE LAW, PC (https://erinjoycelaw.com/).
For the above reasons, I am asking that you investigate Brune and Huggins’ relationship and
whether they conspired against me in 2015–2017 to drag out the prosecution of Stein’s
investigated and completed case for as long as possible to protect him and to interfere in the
judicial process until 3DCA issued its opinion in the anti-SLAPP motion on October 10,
2017. This anti-SLAPP motion, which was filed on December 1, 2014, was orchestrated in a
conspiracy between The Regents’ attorney Michael Pott and Stein to eradicate my wrongful
termination lawsuit against The Regents in December 2014–January 2016.
Details about why it is happened in December 2014 are in my September 3, 2022
Application for Reward IRS Form 2011 lodged as Master Claim No. 2024-001610 and
Claims No. 2024-001610 and 2024-001612 and approved for review by the IRS
Whistleblower Office on November 6, 2023 .
https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-ICE-FORM-211-
APPLICATION-FOR-AWARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-California-White-Collar-
Crime
IV
CONCLUSION
Considering the above presented new facts and circumstances, I am respectfully requesting
that the SDTC reopen my complaint against Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins, and
perhaps against Robin Brune and Laura Sharek. My main concern in my complaint is
- 28 -
and Laura Huggins .
Dresser. I am preparing an official complaint to the CJP against the Sacramento County
Superior Court judges involved in the heinous attack on my wife in 2021, which was carried
out by Porter Scott attorneys. I want Dresser out of the picture in my complaint with the CJP,
taking into consideration his activities with the State Bar of California’s OCTC in September
2015–September 2017 and thereafter with the CJP.
If you have any questions or concerns, or if you have any problems understanding my
arguments, please contact me by phone or e-mail.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
- 29 -
and Laura Huggins .
USCA Case #20-1407 Document #2030509 Filed: 12/07/2023 Page 1 of 331
USCA No. 20-1407 USTC No. 23105–18 W
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2866
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk

Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

Defendant-Appellee
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 28,

2023 COURT ORDER DENYING APPELANT’S MOTION RECALL THE
MANDATE, REINSTATE THE APPEAL, AND REOPEN THE CASE
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
1
Motion for Reconsideration from the Order Denying Motion to Recall the
Mandate and Reinstate the Appeal
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule (27)(e), Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced
“Vashchook,” hereafter “Waszczuk”) files this motion for reconsideration to move this Court
to reconsider the decision, set aside the issued order dated November 28, 2023 attached as
(EXHIBIT #1) recall the mandate dated September 19, 2022, reinstate the appeal, and reopen
the case.
The Appellee ‘s Attorney Mr. Richard Parker informed Waszczuk that is up to the Court
whether he will file an objection to the Waszczuk’s motion . (EXHIBIT # 2)
II.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY OF THE CASE JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
V. COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, USCA NO. 20-1407
Waszczuk provided to the Court a brief procedural and factual history of the case in his
appeal motion to recall the mandate, reinstate the appeal, and reopen the case filed on
September 19, 2023.
The opposition to Waszczuk’s motion to recall the mandate was filed by the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue Service (Commissioner) on September 20, 2023.
Waszczuk filed his reply to the Commissioner’s opposition on September 26, 2023.
III.
THE COURT ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2023
On November 28, 2023, the Court issued a Per Curiam Order denying Waszczuk’s motion to
recall the mandate, reinstate the appeal, and reopen the case. The Court ruled as follows:
2
BEFORE: Katsas, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to recall the mandate, the opposition thereto, and
the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion to recall the mandate be denied. The court’s inherent
authority to recall its mandate can be exercised only in extraordinary
circumstances,” Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 549-50 (1998), and
appellant has shown no such circumstances in this case.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk
IV.
ARGUMENT
A. The Court’s Determination of Extraordinary Circumstances in Denying

Waszczuk’s Motion to Recall the Mandate
Waszczuk cannot understand how the Court determined that there were no extraordinary
circumstances or special circumstances after the Waszczuk’s appeal was dismissed last year
under false pretenses without being reviewed by the Court. Waszczuk’s appeal was dismissed
due to a fraud upon the court orchestrated by two attorneys, Robert Manhas and Robert M.
Loeb, from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP of San Francisco, and their unlawful tampering
with the administration of justice. In reference to Manhas and Loeb, they were appeared in the
whistleblower divorce case Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Case No. 20-
1245 to be used for Waszczuk appeal dismissal without review of the record.
3
Waszczuk’s case about tens of millions of dollars in tax evasion and fraud are a leftover from
the May 2000–October 2001 $40 billion fraud dubbed by white collar criminals as the
“California energy crisis.”
Manhas and Loeb meddled and tampered with the judicial process in collaboration with the
Commissioner’s attorneys from the Department of Justice’s Tax Division in the Mobley Li and
Waszczuk cases, and at the same time Loeb represented the solar power producer Broadview
Solar, LLC in the D.C. Circuit case Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Case No. 21-1136. This led Waszczuk to new
discovery of documents portraying his former employer’s criminal activities in relation to
violations of tax-exempt status, tax evasion, and fraud, including the violation of Internal
Revenue Code (IRC) 501(c)(3).
On September 3, 2022, based on newly discovered materials, Waszczuk submitted to the
IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, UT a new, more than 300-page-long illustrated
Application for Original Information (Form 2011) with a detailed explanatory Addendum and
Exhibits to support this application for an award. The application fully portrayed Manhas and
Loeb’s activities in the D.C. Circuit Court in relation to Waszczuk’s case and the University of
California’s Office of the President executives’ tax evasion and fraud activities related to the
commercial solar power purchase and resale, which was in violation of the university’s tax-
exempt status. This D.C. Circuit Waszczuk’s appeal and the new 2022 Waszczuk’ s
whistleblower case are interconnected due to the same perpetrators in the fraud.
4
On September 5, 2022, Waszczuk provided to the Court a copy of his new, September 3, 2022
whistleblower claim, IRS Form 211, as Exhibit #5 in his filed Motion for a Stay of Mandate.
For the Court convenience attached is the cover letter to September 3, 2022 IRS Form 211
(EXHIBIT # 3)
On November 14, 2022, Waszczuk provided a copy of the new September 3, 2022 new Form
211 to the U.S. Department of Treasury IRS, along with the TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATION
COMPLAINT (REFERRAL)-FORM 13909 and a cover letter (EXHIBIT #4).
On November 6, 2023, Waszczuk received confirmation from the IRS Whistleblower Office
- ICE M/S 4110 at 1973 N. Rulon White Blvd in Ogden, UT, that that his September 3, 2022
Application for Reward Form 2011 had been received and lodged as Master Claim No. 2024-
001610 and Claims No. 2024-001610 and 2024-001612 (EXHIBIT #5).
When Waszczuk filed his appeal in the D.C. Circuit more than three years ago, he provided all
known evidence about his former employer, the University of California’s executives, and their
collaborators’ involvement in tens of millions of dollars’ worth of tax evasion and fraud.
However, Waszczuk’s extraordinary case was dismissed under false pretenses to make the
crimes disappear. That was not what Waszczuk expected from the D.C. Circuit Court when he
filed his appeal. He is respectfully asking with this motion for reconsideration for the Court
Order dated November 28, 2023 to be vacated, mandate has to be recall , for his appeal to be
reinstated.
B. The Commissioner’s September 19, 2023 Opposition to Waszczuk’s Motion to

Recall the Mandate
5
The Commissioner’s opposition mentioned in the Court order should not be considered by the
Court as an opposition at all. As Waszczuk pointed out in his September 26, 2023 reply, the
Commissioner made the opposition without reference to any legal authority or factual support
in the Court record and did not introduce an iota of evidence with the opposition. Thus, the
Court should not rely on the Commissioner’s opposition when denying Waszczuk’s motion.
“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must

support the assertion by...citing to particular parts of materials in the
record”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) (“The court need consider only the
cited materials”).
Caporicci v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 3d 1314 (M.D. Fla. 2016)
C. Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 549-50 (1998), as cited in the Court Order
versa Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner USCA No. 20-1407
Waszczuk can’t find any civil case in which U.S Supreme Court , DC Circuit or any other Court
of Appeals ruled on tax evasion and fraud whistleblower case motion to recall the mandate .
All cases Waszczuk came across are criminal cases raising IAAC Example: Blount v. U.S.,
860 F.3d 732 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
The 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case Calderon v. Thomson was a criminal case about a brutal,
gruesome, and horrifying rape and murder. It also touched on capital punishment. Waszczuk
does not understand how this case became applicable to his whistleblower appeal, which was
unjustly dismissed by the Court due to a fraud orchestrated by Manhas and Loeb, as mentioned
above. Waszczuk has not murdered or harmed anyone, yet he has been forced by the Court to
study and analyze cases portraying these heinous crimes. Waszczuk and his family are victims
whose lives have been devastated by the white collar criminals from his former employer, the
6
University of California, and their associates from other various government entities. The case
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner is about millions of dollars in tax evasion and fraud
committed by the University of California, a public entity that violated its privileged tax-
exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3) and the State of California’s Revenue and Taxation Code.
These violations by the Regents of the University of California (The Regents) of Federal
Energy Commission Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations 18 C.F.R. § 292.20; the
Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a); the California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, the
State of California’s Unfair Business Competition law, the Business and Professions Code §
17200, California Commodity Law of 1990 (Corp. Code, § 29500 et seq., “CCL”), and 7 U.S.
Code § 6 (b) in relation to the operation of the UC Davis Medical Center’s (UCDMC) 27-MW
cogeneration plant led to a violation of IRC 501(c)(3) and millions of dollars in tax evasion and
fraud committed by The Regents or the real owner(s) or co-owner(s) of the UCDMC
cogeneration plant commissioned in 1998, at relatively the same time that the case Calderon v.
Thomson was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
D. Former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
District, Honorable Alex Kozinski
What Waszczuk noticed in the Calderon v. Thomson case was the name of the former Chief
Justice of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District, the Honorable Alex
Kozinski.
Waszczuk addressed Kozinski in his September 19, 2018 open letter entitled “In Defense of
Judge Brett Kavanaugh and His Family” (EXHIBIT #6). The letter was addressed to U.S.
7
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator
Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman of the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism.
Early in his legal career, from 1991–1992, Kavanaugh served as a law clerk for Judge Kozinski
in Ninth Circuit.
Kavanaugh played a lead role in drafting the Starr Report, which urged President Bill
Clinton to investigate the suicide of Clinton aide Vince Foster. Swidler & Berlin v. United
States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the death
of an attorney’s client does not terminate attorney–client privilege, with respect to records
of confidential communications.
At the same time that Kavanaugh was arguing the above case before the Supreme Court,
the law firm Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP was representing the UCDMC’s 27-
MW cogeneration plant with FERC on behalf on The UC Regents. They deceived and lied
to FERC officials, claiming that the plant was a qualified cogeneration facility, to obtain
permission for the plant to participate in the deregulated power market in violation of every
possible state and federal law regulating cogeneration plants, in addition to the California
Unfair Business Competition Law, Business and Professions Code §17200, IRC Section
501(c)(3), and the State of California Revenue and Taxation Code. Please see FERC
Docket No. ER 99-4011-000. Waszczuk provided details about this in his initial WBO
Claim Form 211, which was submitted to the IRS WBO on March 23, 2016 as Claim
No. 2016-007481. This was swept under the rug by the IRS WBO for two years before
being denied in August 2018 without review.
8
On September 6, 2018, during Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Senator
Dianne Feinstein of California raised questions out of the blue about the 2000–01 California
Energy Crisis, Enron Corporation, and the FERC (details in the letter). Senator Feinstein’s
husband, Richard Blum, was appointed to the UC Board of Regents in 2002 by then-California
Governor Gray Davis, who was recalled from office and directly responsible, along with others
including but not limited to Enron, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and
The UC Regents, for instigating for personal gain in May 2000 a sophisticated $40 billion fraud
scheme known as the “California energy crisis.” In January 2007, Blum became Chair of the
Board of UC Regents and made Waszczuk’s life a living hell. Waszczuk’s misery did not end
even after Blum’s death in February 2022.
In 1996, white collar criminals from the UCOP, the California Legislature, and California
government engaged in a meticulously planned conspiracy with Enron executives to launder
megawatts worth hundreds of millions of tax-free dollars from the University of California and
California State University campuses, but their plan failed. Enron collapsed and the criminals
lost their tax-free money. The plan included the UCDMC’s cogeneration plant, where
Waszczuk was employed as an operator and was witness to the ongoing fraud. In reality, there
was no crisis or energy shortage; this was a cold-blooded conspiracy against California
taxpayers and ratepayers. The seemingly never-ending blackouts magically and miraculously
disappeared in California in October 2001, just after Robert Mueller III was appointed director
of the FBI by then-President George W. Bush and just after the Al-Qaeda terrorist group carried
out its attacks on September 11, 2001. Waszczuk recalls that, after the attacks, the cogeneration
9
plant’s manager was begging SMUD to buy surplus power because there was no demand for it
and the UCDMC campus needed less than 5 MW/h, despite the plant’s 27-MW capacity.
On March 9, 2001, the perpetrators of the tax evasion and fraud, in this case The Regents,
joined California State University in filing a lawsuit against Enron in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco. The lawsuit, which was assigned to Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, alleged a breach of
contract and a breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and requested both injunctive
relief to restore the original contract and the specific performance of that contract.
Judge Hamilton granted the universities’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on April 11,
2001. Her order specifically required Enron to perform all its contractual obligations. Enron
filed an appeal of the order on April 16, along with a Request for an Emergency Stay of that
order, pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision. On May 3, a three-judge panel of
the Ninth Circuit, consisting of Judges Sneed, Canby, and Kozinski, issued a nine-line order
staying the injunction issued by Judge Hamilton. The defeated UCOP mafia stated that Judge
Hamilton’s injunction represented only a temporary setback and that a different panel of Ninth
Circuit judges would decide Enron’s appeal of the injunction itself. (Please see the May 2001
UC Office of the General Counsel memo dated May 9, 2001, EXHIBIT # 7) Between May
2000 and October 2001, the UCMC’s cogeneration plant made $130 million in tax-free dollars
by illegally selling power, and the money vanished.
The UC Office of the General Counsel memo dated May 9, 2001 was included with
Waszczuk’s August 3, 2018 update of his whistleblower claim IRS Form 2011 Addendum
as Attachment # 5 to WBO Claim No. 2018-012118.
10
E. Waszczuk’s March 23, 2016 Application for Award Form 211 Claim No.
2016-007481 and August 3, 2018 Update of the March 23, 2016 Claim No
2018-012118
In the last chapter of this argument, Waszczuk would like to mention that his two above-
captioned whistleblower claims were not only about the sale of power from the UCDMC’s 27-
MW cogeneration plant in violation of IRC 501(3)(c). The claims, especially the one dated
March 23, 2016, were about fuel allowances. The plant was consuming, and is still consuming,
enough natural gas to power the 23-MW LM 2500 gas turbine at an approximate cost of $3
million per month. If it was a privately owned power plant, the plant would receive a 25% gas
discount allowance from its natural gas supplier, per California Public Utilities Code Section
218.5, assuming the plant was a qualified cogeneration facility (QF) under FERC regulations,
18 C.F.R. § 292.20, and the Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a).
Waszczuk’s former employer, Destec Energy Inc (1989–1998) where he was employed prior
to the UCDMC as an operator in a plant similar to the UCDMC’s, was receiving a 25% discount
for natural gas from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), based in San Francisco.
Destec was cheating PG&E, despite being a FERC QF. Destec’s violation of FERC regulations
amounted to a fraud worth $240 million against PG&E ratepayers and California taxpayers.
The Destec plant was permanently closed due to this fraud.
On May 12, 2003, the UCDMC submitted a Fuel Allowance Compliance Filing to the FERC,
Docket No. EL00-95-045 (EXHIBIT #8). This plant, contrary to Destec’s, condoned, and still
condones, the QF violation in a slightly different way than how Destec operated. Destec was
venting steam into the atmosphere to meet the FERC’s QF requirements. The UCDMC plant
11
installed a condenser to cheat the QF FERC requirements and circulated produced steam
instead of utilizing the stem generated by the heat recovery steam generator. From 1998–2003,
PG&E was the natural gas supplier for the UCDMC plant, despite knowing that plant was not
a qualified cogeneration facility and was unlawfully producing and selling power. Waszczuk
does not know who reimbursed, and is still reimbursing, the 25% gas allowance for the
UCDMC’s plant, which never should have been built and commissioned by the UCDMC,
where the demand for power and steam is minimal. Today, the plant is still violating QF FERC
requirements. Based on the May 23, 2003 letter submitted by UCDMC Associate Director of
Hospital & Clinics Chief Financial Officer William McGowan, Waszczuk assumes that the
FERC or U.S. Department of Energy is responsible for the fuel cost reimbursements related to
the cogeneration facility. If so, this is an enormous fraud beyond imagination which cost
taxpayers millions of dollars. Waszczuk believes this was one key reason why his March 23,
2016 claim was swept under the rug by the WBO for two years and denied in August 2018
without being reviewed and/or pursued by advise of the former UC Vice-President Judith
Boyette who was appointed to the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and
Government Entities (TEGE) at the relevant time.
On November 6, 2023, Waszczuk received information that the UCDMC’s 27-MW plant will
be decommissioned.
V.
CONCLUSION
12
In Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., 137 F.2d 764 (3d

Cir. 1943) Court's analysis advanced the evolution of the recall
doctrine by articulating a balancing test that many courts would
follow. The Court ignored the individual requirements of the
ancillary remedies and the independent action, and looked instead
to the purposes and policies common to them all. The Court stated:
Equitable relief against fraudulent judgments is not of
statutory creation. It is a judicially devised remedy
fashioned to relieve hardships which, from time to time,
arise from a hard and fast adherence to another court-
made rule, the general rule that judgments should not be
disturbed after the term of their entry has expired.
Created to avert the evils of archaic rigidity, this equitable
procedure has always been characterized by flexibility
which enables it to meet new situations which demand
equitable intervention, and to accord all the relief neces-
sary to correct the injustices involved in these situations.
The common law and equity courts corrected "particular injustices"
with particular devices—the ancillary remedies. In contrast to the
clumsy and indirect approach to granting relief, the Hazel-Atlas
analysis is simple—a balancing between two court-made doctrines.
In light of the provided facts and arguments outlined in the motion, and after viewing the
attached exhibits, the Court should grant Waszczuk’s respectful request for
reconsideration, a recall of the mandate, and reinstate the appeal that was wrongfully
dismissed with unprecedented bias and prejudice against him.
Respectfully submitted on December 7, 2023.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper Motion for Reconsideration
from the Order Denying Motion to Recall the Mandate and Reinstate the
Appeal was served electronically on December 7, 2023, to the following
recipients:
Richard L. Parker Richard.L.Parker@usdoj.gov
Antony T. Sheehan Anthony.T.Sheehan@usdoj.gov
U.S. Department of Justice

Tax Division, Appellate Section
P.O. Box 502
Washington, DC 20044
Dated: December 7, 2023
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Appellant Pro Se

206 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.687.1180
Fax: 209.425.0512
15
0123ÿ2567ÿ89 ÿÿÿÿÿÿDocument
USCA Case #20-1407 7ÿ#2030509
8 9 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ7ÿ12/07/2023
Filed: 9 99ÿÿÿÿÿÿ5 7ÿ22!ÿof"ÿ!331
Page #!
0123ÿ2567ÿ89 ÿÿÿÿÿÿDocument
USCA Case #20-1407 7ÿ#2030509
8 9 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ7ÿ12/07/2023
Filed: 9 99ÿÿÿÿÿÿ5 7ÿ23ÿof!ÿ"331
Page #"
mnopÿorstÿuvwxyzw{ÿÿÿÿÿDocument
ÿ|}~tÿ#2030509
uyvywzÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿFiled:
tÿw12/07/2023
wvwvvÿÿÿÿÿÿrPage
tÿz24
ÿ}ÿof331
ÿÿ
USCA Case #20-1407
ÿ
""#$ÿ&'()'*+',ÿ-'.ÿÿ
/01+2ÿ34ÿ56"7"ÿ
890,:;ÿ"<5=$>?=##><ÿ
@'A;ÿ"<5=?"5=6#67ÿ
BC'+D;ÿEEF#5><GD+H:IJ0Cÿ
ÿ
K:L(:CM:NÿO2ÿ"<""ÿ
ÿ
P+'ÿ@BQBRÿÿ
ÿ
SIKIÿQ:L'N(C:,(ÿ0Tÿ(9:ÿUN:'VWN.ÿÿ
X,(:N,'DÿY:H:,W:ÿK:NH+J:ÿÿ
-9+V(D:MD0F:NÿZTT+J:2ÿX3BÿU:'Cÿ
#5?Oÿ[IÿYWD0,ÿ-9+(:ÿ\DH1Iÿ
]^Kÿ7##<ÿ
Z_1:,2ÿSUÿ>77<7ÿ
ÿ
Y:;ÿ]+DD+0,Vÿ0Tÿ10DD'NVÿ+,ÿ('Aÿ:H'V+0,ÿ',1ÿTN'W1ÿL:NL:(N'(:1ÿM.ÿ(9:ÿS,+H:NV+(.ÿ0Tÿ3'D+T0N,+'`Vÿ
ZTT+J:ÿ0Tÿ(9:ÿ8N:V+1:,(ÿaS3Z8bÿ',1ÿT0NC:Nÿ',1ÿLN:V:,(ÿC:CM:NVÿ0Tÿ(9:ÿS,+H:NV+(.ÿ0Tÿ
3'D+T0N,+'ÿ\0'N1ÿ0TÿY:_:,(V2ÿM:(F::,ÿ"<#6ÿ',1ÿ"<""2ÿW,1:Nÿ(9:ÿWCMN:DD'ÿ0Tÿ(9:ÿS,+H:NV+(.ÿ
0Tÿ3'D+T0N,+'cVÿ('A=:A:CL(ÿV('(WV2ÿ+,ÿH+0D'(+0,ÿ0TÿX,(:N,'DÿY:H:,W:ÿ301:ÿ6<#aJbaObÿÿ
U0ÿ-90CÿX(ÿC'.ÿ30,J:N,;ÿÿ
ÿ
defghijkfdheÿ
B,JD0V:1ÿF+(9ÿ(9+VÿJ0H:NÿD:((:Nÿ+Vÿ',ÿ4LLD+J'(+0,ÿT0NÿZN+_+,'DÿX,T0NC'(+0,ÿa@0NCÿ"<##bÿF+(9ÿ
'ÿ1:('+D:1ÿ:ALD','(0N.ÿ411:,1WCÿ',1ÿBA9+M+(Vÿ(0ÿVWLL0N(ÿ(9+Vÿ'LLD+J'(+0,ÿT0Nÿ'F'N1IÿU9+Vÿ
J0H:NÿD:((:Nÿ+Vÿ'ÿH:N.ÿV90N(ÿH:NV+0,ÿ0Tÿ(9:ÿ'(('J9:1ÿ411:,1WCÿ(0ÿ(9+Vÿ4LLD+J'(+0,IÿU9:ÿ
L:NL:(N'(0NVÿJ0CC:,(:1ÿ0,ÿ+,ÿ(9+VÿN:L0N(ÿ'N:ÿ(9:ÿT0NC:Nÿ',1ÿLN:V:,(ÿ:A:JW(+H:Vÿ0Tÿ(9:ÿ
S,+H:NV+(.ÿ0Tÿ3'D+T0N,+'`VÿZTT+J:ÿ0Tÿ(9:ÿ8N:V+1:,(ÿaS3Z8bÿ',1ÿT0NC:Nÿ',1ÿLN:V:,(ÿC:CM:NVÿ
0Tÿ(9:ÿS,+H:NV+(.ÿ0Tÿ3'D+T0N,+'ÿ\0'N1ÿ0TÿY:_:,(VÿaS3ÿY:_:,(VbIÿÿ
U9:ÿS3Z8ÿ',1ÿS3ÿY:_:,(Vÿ9:'1lW'N(:NVÿ'N:ÿD0J'(:1ÿ+,ÿZ'*D',12ÿ3'D+T0N,+'Iÿÿ
S,+H:NV+(.ÿ0Tÿ3'D+T0N,+'ÿ
ZTT+J:ÿ0Tÿ(9:ÿ8N:V+1:,(ÿ
####ÿ@N',*D+,ÿK(N::(ÿ
Z'*D',12ÿ34ÿ57$<?ÿ
9((LV;^^FFFIWJ0LI:1W^J0,('J(V^ÿ
ÿ
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿDocument
ÿ ¡¢ÿ#2030509
£¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¥¦
§¨©ÿ12/07/2023
£ª«ªÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬Page
ÿ¤25
ÿ®ÿ̄°
of ¯
ÿÿ
USCA Case #20-1407 Filed: 331
ÿ
"##$%&''((()*+,$)-.*'/,+0#1,2%340$%'12.-5)"#4/ÿ
ÿ
789ÿ:;<=7ÿ7><?97@=AÿB:ÿ789ÿC;DD;BE=ÿB:ÿFBDD><=ÿ;Eÿ7>Gÿ9H>=;BEÿ
>EFÿ:<>IFÿFI9ÿ7BÿH;BD>7;BEÿB:ÿ;<JÿKLM@JA@NAÿO9<O97<>79FÿPQÿIJBOÿ
B<?>E;R9FÿS8;79ÿJBDD><ÿJ<;C;E>D=ÿ>EFÿ789;<ÿJBDD>PB<>7B<=ÿÿ
T"-ÿUVWXYÿYZW[\Yÿ12ÿ#"1%ÿ]$$/1+0#1,2ÿ^,_ÿ](0_.ÿ^,_ÿ̀_1a120/ÿb2^,_40#1,2ÿcbdeÿf,_4ÿghhiÿ0_-ÿ
#"-ÿ#"_--ÿ$,(-_ÿ$*_+"0%-ÿ0a_--4-2#%ÿcjj]iÿ^_,4ÿ#"-ÿ#"_--ÿ%,/0_ÿ$,(-_ÿ$/02#%kÿ/1%#-.ÿl-/,(kÿ("1+"ÿ
0_-ÿ%*$$,%-./mÿ,(2-.ÿ02.ÿ,$-_0#-.ÿlmÿ$_1n0#-ÿ%,/0_ÿ$,(-_ÿ$_,.*+-_%ÿ(",ÿ"0n-ÿ%,/.ÿ%,/0_ÿ$,(-_ÿ
#,ÿ#"-ÿopÿd-a-2#%ÿ0#ÿ(",/-%0/-ÿ$_1+-%ÿ%12+-ÿgqhrÿn10ÿ#"-ÿp0/1^,_210ÿb2.-$-2.-2#ÿem%#-4ÿ̀$-_0#,_ÿ
cp]beìÿ.1%#_1l*#1,2ÿ%m%#-4kÿ,_ÿn10ÿp0/1^,_2103l0%-.ÿ$*l/1+ÿ*#1/1#1-%ÿ+,4$021-%ÿjstukÿl0%-.ÿ12ÿ
e02ÿf_02+1%+,vÿewtukÿl0%-.ÿ12ÿe02ÿw1-a,vÿ02.',_ÿe,*#"-_2ÿp0/1^,_210ÿu.1%,2kÿl0%-.ÿ12ÿx,%ÿ
]2a-/-%)ÿÿ
yÿT"-ÿMN2CSÿ%,/0_ÿ$,(-_ÿ$/02#ÿ,(2-.ÿ,_ÿ+,3,(2-.ÿlmÿe,/0_ÿe#0_ÿp0/1^,_210ÿ
{{{bbkÿxxpÿco21n-_%1#mÿ,^ÿp0/1^,_210kÿw0n1%ÿe,*#"ÿp04$*%ÿj_,|-+#iÿ(0%ÿ
+,2%#_*+#-.ÿ12ÿgqh}ÿ,2ÿ0ÿrg30+_-ÿ$/,#ÿ0#ÿx-n--ÿd,0.kÿ12ÿe,/02,ÿp,*2#mkÿ,(2-.ÿlmÿopÿ
w0n1%)ÿfudpÿw,+~-#ÿfhr3h)ÿ"##$%&''((()*+.0n1%)-.*'2-(%'%,/0_3^0_4302.3
_*2212aÿ
ÿ
yÿT"-ÿL2CSÿ%,/0_ÿ$,(-_ÿ$/02#ÿ,(2-.ÿ,_ÿ+,3,(2-.ÿlmÿp/-2-_0kÿxxpkÿqqÿ)ÿ012ÿ
e#_--#kÿe*1#-ÿqwkÿ,1%-kÿbwÿqgkÿfudpÿw,+~-#ÿfhr3hqhh)ÿf1n-ÿj,12#%ÿe,/0_ÿ
j0_~ÿxxpÿ1%ÿ0ÿa_,*2.34,*2#-.ÿ$",#,n,/#01+ÿ%,/0_ÿ-2-_amÿ^0+1/1#mÿ/,+0#-.ÿ,2ÿ0ÿq3
0+_-ÿ$0_+-/ÿ,^ÿ/02.ÿ(1#"ÿ0ÿ%,/0_ÿ0__0mÿ#"0#ÿ+,n-_%ÿ}qÿ0+_-%)ÿÿ
ÿ
yÿT"-ÿ3L2CSÿs1^^-2ÿe,/0_ÿj0_~ÿxxpÿ%,/0_ÿ$,(-_ÿ$/02#ÿ,(2-.ÿ,_ÿ+,3,(2-.ÿlmÿ
p/-2-_0kÿxxpkÿqqÿ)ÿ012ÿe#_--#kÿe*1#-ÿqwkÿ,1%-kÿbwÿqgkÿfudpÿw,+~-#ÿ
fh3)ÿT"-ÿs1^^-2ÿe,/0_ÿj0_~ÿcj_,|-+#iÿ1%ÿ/,+0#-.ÿ12ÿp02#*0ÿp_--~kÿf_-%2,ÿ
p,*2#mkÿp])ÿT"-ÿj_,|-+#ÿ+,2%1%#%ÿ,^ÿ0ÿ$",#,n,/#01+ÿa-2-_0#1,2ÿ^0+1/1#mÿ(1#"ÿ0ÿ
40514*4ÿa-2-_0#12aÿ+0$0+1#mÿ,^ÿgqÿ]p)ÿ
ÿ
T"-ÿ#"_--ÿ0l,n-3/1%#-.ÿ%,/0_ÿ$,(-_ÿ$/02#%ÿ$_,.*+-ÿÿ"ÿ12ÿ#,#0/kÿ("1+"ÿ+,*/.ÿ$_,n1.-ÿ
-/-+#_1+1#mÿ#,ÿ0$$_,5140#-/mÿqkqqqqkqqqÿ0n-_0a-ÿ",4-%)ÿb^ÿbÿ04ÿ+,__-+#ÿ#"0#ÿ#"-ÿ$-_$-#_0#,_%ÿ12ÿ
#"-ÿ^_0*.ÿ*2.-_ÿ#"-ÿopÿd-a-2#%ÿ204-kÿ%12+-ÿgqhrkÿ"0n-ÿ$*_+"0%-.ÿ$,(-_ÿ^_,4ÿ#"-%-ÿ$/02#%ÿ0#ÿ
(",/-%0/-ÿ$_1+-%ÿ02.ÿ_-%,/.ÿ1#ÿn10ÿp]be`ÿ,2ÿ#"-ÿ,$-2ÿ40_~-#ÿ^,_ÿ0ÿ#053^_--ÿ$_,^1#kÿ#"-2ÿ#"1%ÿ1%ÿ02ÿ
12%#02+-ÿ,^ÿ#05ÿ-n0%1,2kÿ.*-ÿ#,ÿn1,/0#1,2%ÿ,^ÿ#"-ÿ*21n-_%1#m%ÿ#053-5-4$#ÿ%#0#*%ÿ$_,n1%1,2ÿ12ÿe-+#1,2ÿ
}qhc+iciÿ,^ÿ#"-ÿb2#-_20/ÿd-n-2*-ÿp,.-ÿ,^ÿh})ÿÿ
ÿÿ x,,~12aÿ0#ÿ#"-ÿp]be`ÿgqgqÿ]22*0/ÿd-$,_#ÿ,2ÿ0_~-#ÿb%%*-%ÿ02.ÿj-_^,_402+-kÿ$*l/1%"-.ÿ
,2ÿ]*a*%#ÿhgkÿgqghkÿ"##$&''((()+01%,)+,4'w,+*4-2#%'j_-%-2#0#1,23gqgq3]22*0/3d-$,_#3,23
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
ÿ¡¢£¤¥¦ÿ#2030509
§¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ©ª
«¬ÿ12/07/2023
§®¯®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ°Page
±ÿ26
ÿ¡²ÿof³´³331
ÿÿ
USCA Case #20-1407 Filed:
ÿ
"#$%&'()**+&*(#,-(.&$/0$1#,2&(3+4(56(676589-/:ÿ<'ÿ<*ÿ2=&#$ÿ'>#'ÿ'>&ÿ?>0=&*#=&ÿ&=&2'$<2<'@ÿ20*'*ÿ<,ÿ
A3)BCD*ÿ1#$%&'*ÿE&'?&&,ÿ675Fÿ#,-ÿ6767ÿ?&$&ÿE&'?&&,ÿGH5ÿ#,-ÿGI6J"K>8ÿÿ
)ÿ#1ÿ#ÿ$&*<-&,'ÿ0/ÿL0-<:ÿA#=</0$,<#8ÿ"@ÿ10,'>=@ÿE<==ÿ/0$ÿ&=&2'$<2<'@ÿ0M&$ÿ'>&ÿ9#*'ÿ'&,ÿ@&#$*ÿ
>#*ÿE&&,ÿ#,ÿ#M&$#4&ÿ0/ÿG577:ÿ1&#,<,4ÿ'>#'ÿ)ÿ9#@ÿ#,ÿ#M&$#4&ÿ0/ÿ5NO65ÿ2&,'*J%K>ÿ#,-ÿ+*&ÿ#M&$#4&ÿ
0/ÿI77OF77ÿ%KJ>ÿ9&$ÿ10,'>8ÿP><*ÿ'$#,*=#'&*ÿ'0ÿ#ÿ$&'#<=ÿ&=&2'$<2<'@ÿ20*'ÿ<,ÿ'>&ÿA<'@ÿ0/ÿL0-<ÿ0/ÿ
#99$0Q<1#'&=@ÿG5R7J"K>ÿ9&$ÿ10,'>8ÿ)'ÿ?0+=-ÿE&ÿ,0'ÿ-<//<2+='ÿ'0ÿ/<4+$&ÿ0+'ÿ?>#'ÿ$&'#<=ÿ&=&2'$<2<'@ÿ
20*'*ÿ?0+=-ÿE&ÿ/0$ÿH7:777ÿ>01&*:ÿ0$ÿ'>&ÿ#10+,'ÿ0/ÿ&=&2'$<2<'@ÿ9$0-+2&-ÿE@ÿ'>&ÿ'>$&&ÿ*0=#$ÿ90?&$ÿ
9=#,'*ÿ?<'>ÿ#ÿ201E<,&-ÿ2#9#2<'@ÿ0/ÿSHÿ"Kÿ/0$ÿ*<Qÿ@&#$*:ÿ#,-ÿ'>+*ÿ'>&ÿ+,=#?/+=ÿ'#Q(/$&&ÿ9$0/<'ÿ
?0+=-ÿ#10+,'ÿ'0ÿ'&,*ÿ0/ÿ1<==<0,*ÿ0/ÿ-0==#$*8ÿÿ
T@90'>&'<2#==@:ÿ</ÿ'>&ÿ*+*9&2'&-ÿ9&$9&'$#'0$*ÿ<,ÿ'>&ÿ*2>&1&ÿ0/ÿ/$#+-ÿUVWXYZÿ[3ÿ\]ÿ^_XÙÿ
aXUÿbcÿ_XÙWÿVde_ÿZdfÿgÿ[3cÿ\]^Zdfÿhÿ3cÿZdfWÿgÿijk[ccÿ\]^lXmn_ÿhÿopoÿfVdUWÿqrrÿlXmn_Wsÿ
gÿbktubkuccÿ\]ÿhÿvocÿwxn_ÿdÿmVnÿndh2aUVVÿyUXaxnÿvocÿZXYYdUWÿyVUÿbÿ\]kÿn_VmÿxnÿwX`YZÿ
dlX`mnÿnXÿdyyUXhxldnVYfÿvÿ[ipcjÿlxYYxXmÿ̀mndhVZÿZXYYdUWpÿz_VÿdlX`mnÿeX`YZÿ{VÿdÿYXnÿ
|UVdnVUpÿÿ
}#*&-ÿ0,ÿ'>&ÿ#E0M&ÿ#ÿ*<19=&ÿ>@90'>&'<2#=ÿ2#=2+=#'<0,*:ÿ)ÿ*>0+=-ÿE&ÿ&=<4<E=&ÿ/0$ÿ#ÿ
?><*'=&E=0?&$ÿ$&?#$-:ÿ*<,2&ÿ1@ÿ2=#<1ÿ&Q2&&-*ÿ'>&ÿG677:777ÿ0$ÿG6ÿ1<==<0,ÿ'>$&*>0=-ÿ$&~+<$&1&,'ÿ
+,-&$ÿ'>&ÿ9$0M<*<0,*ÿ0/ÿB&2'<0,ÿF6HEN}sÿ0/ÿ'>&ÿ),'&$,#=ÿ&M&,+&ÿA0-&ÿ#*ÿ#1&,-&-ÿE@ÿ'>&ÿ
}<9#$'<*#,ÿ}+-4&'ÿ32'ÿ0/ÿ675R:ÿ.+E8ÿL8ÿ55N(56H:ÿ<M8ÿ):ÿP<'=&ÿ)):ÿÿI557R2:ÿ&E8ÿS:ÿ675R:ÿ5H6ÿ
B'#'8ÿ5NR8ÿP>&ÿ)AÿF6HEÿ*'#'&*ÿÿ
ÿ ÿP>&ÿ=#?ÿ#99=<&*ÿ'0ÿ2#*&*ÿ<,ÿ?><2>ÿ'>&ÿ#10+,'ÿ<,ÿ-<*9+'&ÿ&Q2&&-*ÿG6ÿ1<==<0,8ÿ)/ÿ'>&ÿ
'#Q9#@&$ÿ<*ÿ#,ÿ<,-<M<-+#=:ÿ'>&ÿ<,-<M<-+#=D*ÿ4$0**ÿ<,201&ÿ1+*'ÿ&Q2&&-ÿG677:777ÿ/0$ÿ#,@ÿ
'#Q#E=&ÿ@&#$ÿ#'ÿ<**+&ÿ<,ÿ#ÿ2=#<18ÿ
ÿ &~+<$&*ÿ'>&ÿK><*'=&E=0?&$ÿC//<2&ÿ'0ÿ#,#=@&ÿ'>&*&ÿG6ÿ1<==<0,ÿ2#*&*:ÿ#,-ÿ#+'>0$<&*ÿ
'>&ÿ)Bÿ'0ÿ$&~+&*'ÿ#**<*'#,2&ÿ/$01ÿ'>&ÿ?><*'=&E=0?&$ÿ#,-ÿ'>&<$ÿ20+,*&=8ÿ
ÿ ),-<M<-+#=*ÿ#$&ÿ&=<4<E=&ÿ/0$ÿ#?#$-*ÿE#*&-ÿ0,ÿ#--<'<0,*ÿ'0ÿ'#Q:ÿ9&,#='<&*:ÿ<,'&$&*':ÿ#,-ÿ
0'>&$ÿ#10+,'*ÿ20==&2'&-ÿ#*ÿ#ÿ$&*+='ÿ0/ÿ#,@ÿ#-1<,<*'$#'<M&ÿ0$ÿ+-<2<#=ÿ#2'<0,ÿ$&*+='<,4ÿ
/$01ÿ'>&ÿ<,/0$1#'<0,ÿ9$0M<-&-8ÿ
ÿ 3?#$-*ÿ#$&ÿ*+E&2'ÿ'0ÿ#99&#=ÿ'0ÿ'>&ÿ8B8ÿP#QÿA0+$'8ÿ
P>&ÿ%&@ÿ9&$9&'$#'0$*ÿ<,ÿ'><*ÿ/$#+-ÿ0,ÿE&>#=/ÿ0/ÿ'>&ÿAÿ&4&,'*ÿ#$&ÿ,<M&$*<'@ÿ0/ÿA#=</0$,<#ÿ
&,&$#=ÿA0+,*&=ÿA>#$=&*ÿ0E<,*0,:ÿ?>0ÿ<*ÿ#=*0ÿ'>&ÿ/0$1&$ÿ&,&$#=ÿA0+,*&=ÿ#,-ÿ<2&ÿ
.$&*<-&,'ÿ0/ÿA3)BCÿ39$<=ÿ6777O#,+#$@ÿ677:ÿ#,-ÿ#,&'ÿ#90=<'#,0:ÿ'>&ÿ/0$1&$ÿ.$&*<-&,'ÿ
0/ÿ'>&ÿ,<M&$*<'@ÿ0/ÿA#=</0$,<#8ÿÿ
mÿ\dUe_ÿijkÿicbu:ÿ<,ÿM<0=#'<0,ÿ0/ÿ)AÿN752H:ÿ#90=<'#,0ÿ#,-ÿ0E<,*0,ÿ$&4<*'&$&-ÿ'>&ÿAÿ
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
µ¶·¸ÿ·º»¼ÿ½¾¿ÀÁÂ¿ÃÿÿÿÿÿDocument
ÿÄÅÆÇÈ¼ÉÊÿ#2030509
½ÁËÌ¾Á¿ÂÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÍÎ
Ï¼ÐÑÿ¿12/07/2023
ËÒ¿ÓÒ¾¿¾¾ÿÿÿÿÿÿÔºPage
Õ¼ÿÂÖ27
ÿÅ×ÿofØÖØ331
ÿÿ
ÿ
"#$#%&'ÿ)*&+ÿ&+#ÿ,-.*/01%*-ÿ234.*5ÿ6&*.*&*#'ÿ,077*''*0%ÿ-'ÿ-%ÿ898:;<=:ÿ>8<?=:8ÿ
@<A?=B8<ÿC8>@DEÿ8>@ÿFÿGHIJÿ&0ÿ43Kÿ-%Lÿ1#'#..ÿ#.#5&1*5*&Kÿ/01ÿ&#%'ÿ0/ÿ7*..*0%'ÿ0/ÿL0..-1'ÿ-%Lÿ
.-3%L#1ÿ&+#ÿ70%#KÿM*-ÿM-1*03'ÿ3%*M#1'*&Kÿ-5503%&'Nÿ*%ÿM*0.-&*0%ÿ0/ÿ&+#ÿ6%*M#1'*&Kÿ0/ÿ,-.*/01%*-O'ÿ
&-PQ#P#7R&ÿ'&-&3'ÿ3%L#1ÿS",ÿTUVW5XWYXZÿ
S%ÿ-LL*&*0%ÿ&0ÿ&+#ÿ-40M#Nÿ*%ÿ[#5#74#1ÿ\\Nÿ\UV]Nÿ,^S_`ÿW"04*%'0%O'ÿ/017#1ÿ#7R.0K#1Xÿ*''3#Lÿ-ÿ
%0&*/*5-&*0%ÿ&+-&ÿ'&-&#LNÿab+#ÿ"#$#%&'ÿ0/ÿ&+#ÿ6%*M#1'*&Kÿ0/ÿ,-.*/01%*-ÿ'355#''/3..Kÿ507R.#&#Lÿ&+#ÿ
,0%$#'&*0%ÿ"#M#%3#ÿ"*$+&'ÿ1#$*'&1-&*0%ÿR105#''Zcÿÿ
AdÿefgÿHEÿhihhNÿ&+#ÿ,-.*/01%*-ÿ234.*5ÿ6&*.*&*#'ÿ,077*''*0%ÿ5+-%$#Lÿ&+#ÿL-&#ÿ0/ÿ&+#ÿ6,ÿ"#$#%&'Oÿ
1#$*'&1-&*0%'ÿ-'ÿ-%ÿ8>@ÿ/107ÿefjklÿhmEÿhiG3ÿ&0ÿefgÿHEÿhihhNÿ-/&#1ÿSÿL*'50M#1#Lÿ&+#ÿ1#$*'&1-&*0%ÿ
0%ÿ^R1*.ÿ\nNÿ\U\\Zÿÿ
b+#ÿ#P-5&ÿ-703%&ÿ0/ÿR0)#1ÿR315+-'#Lÿ-%Lÿ1#'0.Lÿ*%ÿ1#.-&*0%ÿ&0ÿ&+#ÿS"_ÿo+*'&.#4.0)#1ÿ̀//*5#ÿ
5-%ÿ4#ÿ/03%Lÿ4Kÿ1#p3#'&*%$ÿL-&-ÿ/107ÿ&+#ÿ6,`2qÿÿ
rsdsjftÿ=duvjwfxyvdÿ
z3'*%#''ÿ{-7#qÿb+#ÿ"#$#%&'ÿ0/ÿ&+#ÿ6%*M#1'*&Kÿ0/ÿ,-.*/01%*-ÿ
"#$*'&#1#Lÿ{-7#qÿb}~ÿ"~~{b_ÿ̀ÿb}~ÿ6{S~"_Sbÿ̀ÿ
,^S`"{S^ÿz3'*%#''ÿ^LL1#''qÿVVVVÿ"^{S{ÿ_b"~~bNÿ
ÿb}ÿ``"ÿ
`^^{[Nÿ,^ÿn]Uÿ
z3'*%#''ÿ2+0%#qÿWTVUXÿ\QY]ÿ
[-&#ÿ"#$*'&#1#LqÿefgÿHEÿhihhÿ
,0%&-5&,07R.-*%&'ÿ
:;=ÿ:9<ÿ
,~^{ÿ2ò~"ÿ2"`"^ÿ[S"~,b`"ÿ
VVVVÿ"^{S{ÿ_b"~~bÿ
b}ÿ``"ÿ
`^^{[Nÿ,^ÿn]Uÿ
WTVUXÿ\QYYUÿ
5K%&+*-Z5.-1350RZ#L3ÿ
¡¢£¤¤£¥¦§¨£©ª¨«¨£¬§©®¯¨©¤°±²«§ÿ
b+#ÿS"_ÿo+*'&.#4.0)#1ÿ̀//*5#ÿ)*..ÿ%0&ÿ/*%Lÿ-%0&+#1ÿ&-PQ#P#7R&ÿ+*$+#1ÿ#L35-&*0%ÿ*%'&*&3&*0%ÿ
-70%$ÿ&+#ÿ,26,ÿ~_2ÿR10M*L#1'ÿW'##ÿ+&&R'q-RR'Z5R35Z5-Z$0M-R#P/³R´TVVqVqUqq{`XZÿ
6,`2ÿ,+*#/ÿ*%-%5*-.ÿ̀//*5#1ÿ{-&+-%ÿz10'&107ÿ-%Lÿ+*'ÿ'&-//ÿ'+03.Lÿ%0)ÿ+0)ÿ7-%Kÿ7*..*0%'ÿ0/ÿ
&-PQ/1##ÿL0..-1'ÿ)#1#ÿ.-3%L#1#LÿM*-ÿ&+#ÿ6,`2O'ÿM-1*03'ÿ-5503%&'ÿ/107ÿ&+#ÿ3%.-)/3.ÿR0)#1ÿ
R315+-'#ÿ-%Lÿ1#'-.#ÿM*-ÿ,^S_`ÿ/107ÿ\UVÿ&0ÿ&+#ÿR1#'#%&Nÿ-%Lÿ)+0ÿ$0&ÿ&+#ÿ70%#KZÿÿ
~P#53&*M#ÿ*5#ÿ21#'*L#%&ÿQÿ,+*#/ÿ*%-%5*-.ÿ̀//*5#1ÿ{-&+-%ÿz10'&107ÿÿ
ÿ2+0%#qÿWTVUXÿnQnU\nÿ~7-*.qÿ{-&+-%ÿz10'&107ÿQÿ{-&+-%Zz10'&107350RZ#L3ÿÿ
ÿ
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ#2030509
¡¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ£¤
¥¦§ÿ12/07/2023
¡¨©¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿªPage
«ÿ¡28
ÿ¬ÿof®331
ÿÿ
ÿ
"#$ÿ%$&'()ÿ"*+,$"ÿ'-ÿ"*.ÿ$/*%0'(ÿ*()ÿ-+*1)ÿ)1$ÿ"'ÿ2*1()$+0(,ÿ
3453ÿ60220'(ÿ78ÿ1&ÿ9+$%0)$("ÿ:*($"ÿ(*9'20"*('ÿ1%0(,ÿ/*+0'1%ÿ
*&&'1("%ÿ'-ÿ"#$ÿ1(0/$+%0"8ÿ'-ÿ&*20-'+(0*ÿÿ
;<=ÿ?@ABCDÿEFGH@EÿIJÿK<ILÿMNNOIPQKIRJÿSRTÿMUQTVÿSRTÿWTIXIJQOÿYJSRTZQKIRJÿ[Y\]ÿ^RTZÿ_`àÿILÿK<=ÿ
bJKQc=VÿdèfÿZIOOIRJÿ[NRLLIgOhÿZRT=aÿK<QKÿijÿkT=LIV=JKÿlQNROIKQJRÿQJVÿ<=TÿOI=bK=JQJKLÿ]=K<ÿ
mTRLLZQJÿQJVÿn=TJI=ÿoRJ=Lÿj<I=SÿT=P=Ip=VÿIJÿ_q`fÿQJVÿ_q`rÿSTRZÿbJsJRUJÿLRbTP=LÿQJVÿ
OQbJV=T=VÿbLIJXÿK<=ÿiJIp=TLIKhÿRSÿjQOISRTJIQtLÿpQTIRbLÿQPPRbJKLuÿÿ
YJÿ_q`rvÿjQOISRTJIQÿMLL=ZgOhZ=Zg=TLÿk<IOÿ;IJXÿQJVÿw=pIJÿxPjQTKhÿT=yb=LK=VÿQÿLKQK=ÿQbVIKÿ
QIZ=VÿQKÿK<=ÿijWktLÿQVZIJILKTQKIp=ÿRN=TQKIRJLÿQJVÿgbVX=KÿQVZIJILKTQKIp=ÿSbJPKIRJLuÿ;<ILÿUQLÿ
jQOISRTJIQÿ]KQK=ÿMbVIKÿ_q`rz`{qÿQJVÿUQLÿPRJPObV=VÿghÿK<=ÿ]KQK=ÿMbVIKRTÿ\=NRTKÿRJÿMNTIOÿ_fvÿ
_qèÿ[L==ÿ<KKNL|}}UUUuQbVIKRTuPQuXRp}NVSL}T=NRTKL}_q`rz`{quNVSauÿ
ÿjQOISRTJIQÿ]KQK=ÿMbVIKÿ_q`rz`{qÿJRKÿRJOhÿVILPORL=VÿK<QKÿlQNROIKQJRÿQJVÿ<=TÿQLLRPIQK=LÿOQbJV=T=Vÿ
dèfÿZIOOIRJvÿIKÿQOLRÿVILPORL=VÿK<QKÿlQNROIKQJRvÿmTRLLZQJvÿQJVÿoRJ=LÿgTbKQOOhÿIJK=TS=T=VÿUIK<ÿK<=ÿ
QbVIKÿIJÿQJÿQKK=ZNKÿKRÿNT=p=JKÿK<=ÿVILPORLbT=ÿRSÿZIOOIRJLÿRSÿbJKQc=VÿQJVÿOQbJV=T=VÿVROOQTLÿpIQÿ
pQTIRbLÿijÿVILPT=KIRJQThÿQPPRbJKLuÿÿ
ÿ
'Cÿ(B~@@Gÿ4ÿ45vÿb=LKRJÿ=JJIXQJÿkÿNT=L=JK=VÿQÿLZRs=ÿLPT==JvÿVQZQX=ÿPRJKTROÿ
NL=bVRÿIJp=LKIXQKIRJÿKIKO=VÿYJV=N=JV=JKÿ^QPKzÎJVIJXÿKRÿPRp=TÿbNÿdèfÿZIOOIRJÿIJÿZRJ=hÿ
OQbJV=TIJXÿghÿlQNROIKQJRÿQJVÿ<=TÿijWkÿZRguÿ
;<=ÿdèfÿZIOOIRJÿUQLÿJRKÿZ=JKIRJ=VÿIJÿb=LKRJÿ=JJIXQJÿktLÿT=NRTKÿ[L==ÿ
<KKNL|}}UUUu<b=LKRJuPRZ}bPzT=X=JKLz<IT=z<b=LKRJz<=JJIXQJzIJp=LKIXQKIRJ}auÿ
;<=ÿ]KQK=ÿMbVIKRTLÿ<QVÿK<=ÿNRU=TÿKRÿSIJVÿU<=T=ÿK<=ÿdèfÿZIOOIRJÿPQZ=ÿSTRZÿQJVÿ<RUÿIKÿUQLÿ
OQbJV=T=VÿbLIJXÿK<=ÿijWktLÿpQTIRbLÿQPPRbJKLuÿ;<=ÿ]KQK=ÿMbVIKRTtLÿIJp=LKIXQKRTLÿVIVÿK<=ÿg=LKÿK<=hÿ
PRbOVÿU<=JÿV=QOIJXÿUIK<ÿK<=ÿijWktLÿPTIZ=LuÿijWkÿ<QLÿQÿORJXÿ<ILKRThÿRSÿpIROQKIJXÿK<=ÿijtLÿJRJz
NTRSIKvÿKQcz=c=ZNKÿLKQKbLuÿ;<=ÿMNTIOÿ_fvÿ_qèÿT=NRTKÿUQLÿUIK<RbKÿPRJL=yb=JP=LÿSRTÿPTIZ=Lÿ
PRZZIKK=VuÿYÿK<IJsÿK<QKÿK<=ÿSRTZ=Tÿj<I=SÿRSÿkbgOIPÿMSSQITLÿQJVÿbQOIKhÿMLLbTQJP=ÿIJÿK<=ÿ]KQK=ÿ
MbVIKRTtLÿRSSIP=vÿxQTXQTIKQÿ=TJQJV=vÿsJRULÿQÿORKÿZRT=ÿK<QJÿUQLÿVILPORL=VÿIJÿ]KQK=ÿMbVIKÿ\=NRTKÿ
_q`rz`{quÿÿ
nhÿQJhÿZ=QLbT=vÿdèfÿZIOOIRJÿILÿQJÿ=JRTZRbLÿQZRbJKÿRSÿZRJ=hÿKRÿ<IV=ÿIJÿK<=ÿbJIp=TLIKhtLÿ
QPPRbJKLuÿ;<=ÿQbVIKRTtLÿIJp=LKIXQKIRJÿK=QZÿSRbJVÿK<=ÿZRJ=hvÿgbKÿ<QVÿJRÿQbK<RTIKhÿKRÿSIJVÿRbKÿSTRZÿ
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
¤¥¦§ÿ¦©ª«ÿ¬®¯°±®²ÿÿÿÿÿDocument
ÿ³´µ¶·«¸¹ÿ#2030509
¬°º»°®±ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¼½
¾«¿Àÿ®12/07/2023
ºÁ®ÂÁ®ÿÿÿÿÿÿÃ©Page
Ä«ÿÂ®29
ÿ́ÅÿofÆÇÆ331
ÿÿ
ÿ
"#$%$ÿ'(ÿ")*ÿ(%)+*,$%%$-ÿ.%ÿ"'%$-ÿ'+ÿ/0123/0145ÿ67*(ÿ182ÿ9$)%*ÿ),($%ÿ:);.<'()+.ÿ)%%'=$-ÿ)(ÿ(#$ÿ
>?@Aÿ#$)-B7)%($%*ÿ'+ÿ@)C<)+-ÿ)*ÿ(#$ÿ>?ÿA%$*'-$+(8ÿÿ
D#$ÿ>?ÿE$F$+(*ÿG$(ÿ.+ÿ:.=$GH$%ÿ145ÿ/01Iÿ)(ÿ>?ÿJ)+ÿK%)+L'*L.M*ÿN'**'.+ÿO)9ÿ?.+,$%$+L$ÿ
?$+($%ÿP*$$ÿ#((;*QRR%$F$+(*87+'=$%*'(9.,L)<',.%+')8$-7RG'+7($*R/01IRH.)%-S/0118148;-,T8ÿD#$ÿ
UVUWVXYÿZXVYV[\ÿ]VXVQÿE$F$+(*ÿ^+F7')+.5ÿ_$ÿ̀)ÿA$a)5ÿb7H$%5ÿc'$,,$%5ÿ̀)+*'+F5ÿ̀$G7*5ÿ
defg[eÿhgÿXViV[\ÿYj[kVÿlmmnopÿN)C)%$L#')+5ÿN)+L')5ÿN.+F$5ÿ@%('qÿ@)C<$95ÿA)%C5ÿrg\\jfpÿrsXVfÿ
hgÿteXUVXÿugvjteX[jgÿwYYVUWvxÿYZVgyVXo5ÿJ#$%G)+5ÿD)7*L#$%5ÿ)+-ÿD.%<)C*.+zÿ{gZevj\g[eÿh|uÿ
rXVYj}V[\o~ÿg[}ÿgj[ÿ{V]YeUÿh\V[2d\ÿeVX[eXoÿwvYeÿj[ÿg\\V[}g[kVÿ]VXVÿE$F$+(*
-$*'F+)($ÿ^+-$%*.+5ÿb%)=$*5ÿ)+-ÿN.%'G.(.zÿK)L7<(9ÿE$;%$*$+()('=$*ÿN)9ÿ)+-ÿ #'($zÿJ$L%$()%9ÿ
)+-ÿ?#'$,ÿ.,ÿJ(),,ÿJ#)"zÿV[VXgvÿue[YVvÿeWj[Ye[ÿhteXUVXÿuwÿV[VXgvÿue[YVvozÿ
A%.=.*(ÿO%."+zÿVk\jVÿjkVÿrXVYj}V[\ÿg[}ÿujVtÿj[g[kjgvÿttjkVXÿXeY\XeUzÿ$L7('=$ÿ
'L$ÿA%$*'-$+(ÿ)+-ÿ?#'$,ÿ@;$%)('+Fÿ@,,'L$%ÿ:)=)zÿ$L7('=$ÿ'L$ÿA%$*'-$+(ÿJ(.H.zÿ'L$ÿA%$*'-$+(ÿ
O%."+zÿ?#)+L$<<.%*ÿO<.LC5ÿO<7G$+(#)<5ÿ?#%'*(5ÿ)"F..-5ÿc#.*<)5ÿ̀$<)+-5ÿN)95ÿ '<L.5ÿ)+-ÿ
)+Fzÿ)+-ÿE$L.%-'+FÿÿNL?)%(#98ÿD#$ÿG$$('+FÿL.+=$+$-ÿ)(ÿQ00ÿ)8G85ÿ"'(#ÿugjXÿ
jVttVXÿ;%$*'-'+F8ÿ
D#$ÿ*#.%(ÿ;7H<'*#$-ÿ*7GG)%9ÿ,%.Gÿ(#$ÿL<.*$-ÿ*$**'.+ÿG$$('+F5ÿ$+('(<$-ÿE$;.%(ÿ.+ÿA$%*.++$<ÿ
^L('.+*ÿE$<)('+Fÿ(.ÿ(#$ÿJ()($ÿ^7-'(ÿE$;.%(ÿD)C$+ÿ'+ÿ?<.*$-ÿJ$**'.+5ÿ'*ÿ)H.7(ÿ)-G.+'*#'+Fÿ
:);.<'()+.ÿ,.%ÿ'+($%,$%'+Fÿ"'(#ÿ(#$ÿ*()($ÿ)7-'(ÿ)+-ÿ#$%ÿ);.<.F9ÿ,.%ÿ(#$ÿ*)G$8ÿ."$=$%5ÿ(#$ÿL<.*$-ÿ
*$**'.+ÿG$$('+Fÿ*7GG)%9ÿ-.$*ÿ+.(ÿG$+('.+ÿ.+$ÿ".%-ÿ)H.7(ÿ"#9ÿ:);.<'()+.ÿ'+($%,$%$-ÿ'+ÿ(#$ÿ*()($ÿ
)7-'(ÿ)(ÿ)<<8ÿ
N.*(ÿ.,ÿ(#.*$ÿ;%$*$+(ÿ)(ÿ(#$ÿG$$('+FÿC+$"ÿ#."ÿG7L#ÿ")*ÿ)(ÿ*()C$ÿ,.%ÿ(#$G*$<=$*5ÿ*.ÿ(#$9ÿ-'-ÿ+.(ÿ
(.ÿF.ÿH$9.+-ÿ)-G.+'*#'+Fÿ:);.<'()+.8ÿ?)<',.%+')ÿ^((.%+$9ÿb$+$%)<ÿO$L$%%)5ÿ"#.ÿ%$,7*$-ÿ(.ÿ.;$+ÿ
)ÿ;%.H$ÿ)F)'+*(ÿ:);.<'()+.5ÿC+$"ÿ"#.ÿ(%)+*,$%%$-ÿ(#$ÿ1I2ÿG'<<'.+5ÿ"#$%$ÿ'(ÿL)G$ÿ,%.G5ÿ)+-ÿ#."ÿ
'(ÿ")*ÿ(%)+*,$%%$-ÿ'+(.ÿ(#$ÿ-'*L%$('.+)%9ÿ>?ÿ)LL.7+(*ÿ,.%ÿ-'*(%'H7('.+8ÿÿ
¡+ÿ/01I5ÿ¡ÿ-'-ÿ+.(ÿ;)9ÿG7L#ÿ)(($+('.+ÿ(.ÿ(#$ÿ1I2ÿG'<<'.+ÿ<)7+-$%$-ÿH9ÿ(#$ÿ>?@AÿG.H5ÿ)*'-$ÿ,%.Gÿ
"%'('+Fÿ)ÿ<$(($%ÿ)H.7(ÿ'(ÿ(.ÿ>Jÿ?.+F%$**G)+ÿ_)%%$<ÿ¡**)5ÿ,%.GÿJ)+ÿ_'$F.5ÿ$+('(<$-ÿD#$ÿ<$,(.=$%*ÿ
,%.Gÿ(#$ÿ?)<',.%+')M*ÿ$+$%F9ÿG)%C$(ÿ-$%$F7<)('.+5ÿ(#$ÿ$+$%F9ÿL%'*'*ÿ.,ÿ13/0015ÿ)+-ÿ(#$ÿJ()($ÿ.,ÿ
?)<',.%+')ÿ%$L)<<ÿ$<$L('.+ÿ.,ÿb.=$%+.%ÿb%)9ÿ_)='*ÿ'+ÿ/00¢8ÿ^7F7*(ÿ/000ÿ?.G;<)'+(ÿ"'(#ÿKE?5ÿ
J)+ÿ_'$F.ÿb)*ÿ£ÿ<$L(%'Lÿ?.G;)+9ÿ=8ÿJ$<<$%*ÿ.,ÿ+$%F9ÿ)+-ÿ^+L'<<)%9ÿJ$%='L$*ÿ'+(.ÿN)%C$(*ÿ
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
©ª«¬ÿ«®¯°ÿ±²³´µ¶³·ÿÿÿÿÿDocument
ÿ̧¹º»¼°½¾ÿ#2030509
±µ¿À²µ³¶ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÁÂ
Ã°ÄÅÿ³12/07/2023
¿Æ³ÇÆ²³²²ÿÿÿÿÿÿÈ®Page
É°ÿÇµ30
ÿ¹ÊÿofËÌË331
ÿÿ
ÿ
"#$%&'$(ÿ*+ÿ',$ÿ-&./01%2/&ÿ32($#$2($2'ÿ4+5'$6ÿ"#$%&'1%ÿ-1%#1%&'/12ÿ&2(ÿ',$ÿ-&./01%2/&ÿ718$%ÿ
9:;,&2<$=>ÿ
32ÿ?@@ABÿ355&ÿ,$.#$(ÿ-&./01%2/&ÿC1D$%21%ÿC%&+ÿE&D/5ÿ8/',ÿFG=Hÿ6/../12ÿ&0'$%ÿ,$ÿ8&5ÿ
%$;&..$(ÿ01%ÿ;&I5/2<Bÿ'1<$',$%ÿ8/',ÿ',$ÿJ-"7ÿ8,/'$ÿ;1..&%ÿ;%/6/2&.5Bÿ92%12Bÿ&2(ÿ-K34"Bÿ
&ÿFL@ÿ*/../12ÿ.155ÿ'1ÿ-&./01%2/&M5ÿ$;1216+ÿ&2(ÿ'&:#&+$%5=ÿÿ
32ÿ%$<&%(5ÿ'1ÿN&#1./'&21M5ÿ.&I2($%$(ÿFGHOÿ6/../12Bÿ3ÿ8%1'$ÿ/2ÿ6+ÿ/2PI/%+ÿ'1ÿ-12<%$556&2ÿ
355&Qÿÿ
RSTÿUVTWXYZ[ÿ\T]^Y[W_ÿ̀SaÿbYbÿcdÿe\TWYbT[XÿSYbTÿXSTÿfg3hÿ]YiiYZ[ÿ^[bÿ
`S^XÿbYbÿWSTÿ[TTbÿYXÿjZ\kÿRSTÿ^]ZV[XÿZjÿ]Z[TaÿSYbbT[ÿlaÿm^[TXÿ
nôZiYX^[ZÿY[bYp^XTWÿXS^Xÿcdÿe\TWYbT[Xÿm^[TXÿnôZiYX^[Zÿ^[bÿcdÿqTrT[XWÿ
S^bÿWZ]TXSY[rÿY[ÿXSTY\ÿ]Y[bÿ^[bÿnôZiYX^[ZÿbYbÿ[ZXÿ̀^[XÿXZÿbYWpiZWTÿXSTÿ
\T^WZ[ÿZ\ÿ^b]YXÿ̀SaÿWSTÿWX^WSTbÿXSTÿfg3hÿ]YiiYZ[ÿbZii^\Wsÿÿ
ÿ
,''#5Qtt888=5;%/*(=;16t(1;I6$2'tLHuHvOAwHtJx-y?@GH@u@Oy32PI/%+y8/',yJy4y
-12<%$556&2y0%16y4&2yE/$<1y-KyE&%%$.y355&ÿ
z18$D$%Bÿ/2ÿ{I2$ÿ?@Gwÿ3ÿ%$&./|$(ÿ',&'ÿN&#1./'&21ÿ,&(ÿ($#.1+$(ÿ01%6$%ÿJ-ÿ}/;$ÿ7%$5/($2'ÿ
{I(/',ÿ~1+$''$ÿ'1ÿ',$ÿ34ÿK(D/51%+ÿ-166/''$$ÿ12ÿx&:ÿ9:$6#'ÿ&2(ÿC1D$%26$2'ÿ92'/'/$5ÿ
x9C9Bÿ21'ÿ12.+ÿ'1ÿ($.$'$ÿ6+ÿ8,/5'.$*.18$%ÿ;.&/6ÿ5I*6/''$(ÿ&<&/25'ÿ',$ÿJ-"7ÿ&2(ÿJ-ÿ
$<$2'5ÿ'1ÿ',$ÿ34ÿ~"ÿ12ÿ&%;,ÿ?ABÿ?@GuBÿ-.&/6ÿN1=ÿ?@Guy@@HLvGBÿ*I'ÿ&.51ÿ'1ÿ#%$D$2'ÿ
(/5;.15I%$ÿ'1ÿ',$ÿ~"ÿ10ÿ',$ÿI2'&:$(ÿFGHOÿ6/../12ÿ.&I2($%$(ÿ*+ÿN&#1./'&21ÿD/&ÿJ-ÿ&;;1I2'5ÿ
5$$ÿ,''#5Qtt888=,&2512*%/(<$''=;16t"I%yK''1%2$+5tI(/',y8y*1+$''$=ÿÿ
[ÿmViaÿÿgBÿ/2ÿ&ÿ?Ly#&<$ÿ$#.+ÿ'1ÿ',$ÿJ=4=ÿx&:ÿ-1I%'ÿ"%($%ÿ5$%D$(ÿ12ÿ{I.+ÿwBÿ?@Gwÿ&2(ÿ
5/<2$(ÿ*+ÿ4#$;/&.ÿx%/&.ÿ{I(<$ÿz12=ÿ1*$%'ÿN=ÿK%6$2Bÿ$Qÿ7%1'$;'/D$ÿ"%($%x&:ÿ-1I%'ÿI.$5ÿ10ÿ
7%&;'/;$ÿ&2(ÿ7%1;$(I%$ÿ4$;'/12ÿuG@A~Bÿ?Bÿ&2(ÿAÿcssÿR^ÿdZV\XÿZpTXÿnZsÿgÿ
ÿÿÿÿ¡¡¢¢£ÿ¤ÿ¥¦£ÿ§£££ÿ4$%D/;$BÿJ=4=ÿx&:ÿ-1I%'ÿ-&5$ÿ
N1=ÿ?AG@OyGvÿÿ,''#5Qtt888=5;%/*(=;16t(1;I6$2'tLHuHHOwA@tJx-y?@Gw@H?wy{I(<$yK%6$2y
"%($%y7$'/'/12$%y"*$;'/12y'1y1'/12y01%y7%1'$;'/D$y"%($%Bÿ3ÿ*%1I<,'ÿ&<&/2ÿ'1ÿ',$ÿ5I%0&;$ÿ',$ÿ
FGHOÿ6/../12ÿ.&I2($%$(ÿ*+ÿJ-ÿ7%$5/($2'ÿN&#1./'&21ÿ/2ÿ?@GO¨?@Guÿ(/5;.15$(ÿ*+ÿ4'&'$ÿKI(/'ÿ?@Guy
GA@ÿ/2ÿK#%/.ÿ?@GHÿ&2(ÿ',$2ÿ;1D$%$(ÿI#ÿ/2ÿN1D$6*$%ÿ*+ÿ',$ÿ(&6&<$ÿ;12'%1.t#5$I(1ÿ/2D$5'/<&'/12ÿ
%$#1%'ÿ#%1(I;$(ÿ*+ÿzI$5'12ÿz$22/<&2ÿ7ÿ/2ÿ&ÿ1/2'ÿD$2'I%$ÿ8/',ÿ01%6$%ÿ-&./01%2/&ÿ4I#%$6$ÿ
-1I%'ÿ{I5'/;$ÿ-&%.15ÿ1%$21=ÿx,$%$&0'$%Bÿ',$ÿFGHOÿ6/../12ÿD&2/5,$(ÿ0%16ÿ#I*./;ÿD/$8=ÿÿ
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ¡ÿÿÿÿÿDocument
ÿ¢£¤¥¦§ÿ̈#2030509
©ª ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ«¬
®ÿ̄12/07/2023
©°±°ÿÿÿÿÿÿ²Page
³ÿ±31
ÿ£ÿ́ofµ¶µ331
ÿÿ
ÿ
"#ÿ%&ÿ'()*+#)(ÿ,+ÿ-./0(ÿ1'%(#2ÿ"ÿ(345+'4,(/ÿ4)ÿ6+33+7)ÿ45+.,ÿ,8(ÿ9:;<ÿ%=33=+#ÿ>4*+3=,4#+ÿ
'(?(=@(/ÿ6'+%ÿ)+%(78('(ÿ,+ÿ.)(ÿ6+'ÿ,8(ÿ/=66('(#,ÿ?+),)ÿ,+ÿ%4=#,4=#ÿ,8(ÿ.#=@(')=,&A)ÿ#((/)Bÿ
CDEÿFGÿGEFHHÿIÿJKLLHMÿNOMEOMPÿQGGMRSHTRMUÿVOFHÿWFUXÿIUYÿZM[FUÿ\]ÎPET_ÿ
STÿ̀PYMPFUXÿEOMÿaEIEMÿQKYFE_ÿJPM[MUEMYÿbIJ`HFEIU`ÿcP`RÿKGFUXÿEOMÿ
defg_hhh_hhhÿ̀cÿYFPETÿ]IGOÿE`ÿJ`GGFSHTÿ̀P]OMGEPIEMÿIÿUMNÿijeeÿEMPP`PFGEÿ
IEEI]kÿ̀PÿE`ÿIGGIGGFUIEMÿlÙIHYÿWPKRJÿ̀UÿEOMÿVPMGFYMUEFIHÿ]IRJIFXUÿEPIFHÿ
FUÿmhenopÿÿ
ÿ
"#ÿqr:s2ÿ"ÿ)8+.3/ÿ84@(ÿ*4=/ÿ%+'(ÿ4,,(#,=+#ÿ,+ÿ,8(ÿ%+#(&ÿ>4*+3=,4#+ÿ84/ÿ=#ÿ8('ÿ84#/)tÿ8+7(@('2ÿ"ÿ
74)ÿ.#/('ÿ?+#),4#,ÿ)=(0(ÿ4#/ÿ4,,4?u)ÿ6'+%ÿ8('ÿ4))=0#(/ÿ,8.0)ÿ,+ÿ(3=%=#4,(ÿ%(ÿ4#/ÿ%&ÿ*'()(#?(ÿ=#ÿ
,8(ÿ),4,(ÿ?+.',)2ÿvwxwÿy4zÿ{+.',2ÿ4#/ÿ=#ÿ0(#('43ÿ6'+%ÿ,8(ÿvxwÿ|()=/()ÿ,8(ÿ%+#(&ÿ34.#/('(/ÿ5&ÿ
>4*+3=,4#+2ÿ"ÿ4//'())(/ÿ=#ÿ%&ÿ'(*3&ÿ,+ÿ-./0(ÿ1'%(#A)ÿ}'/('ÿ,8(ÿ@=?,=%)ÿ+6ÿ,8(ÿv{}~ÿ%+5A)ÿ
?'=%=#43ÿ4?,=@=,=()ÿ7=,8ÿ,8(ÿ?+#?3.)=+#Bÿÿ
IUMEÿbIJ`HFEIU`GÿIJJ`FUERMUEÿIGÿoaoÿaM]PMEIPTÿ̀cÿ`RMHIUYÿaM]KPFETÿ
FUÿIUKIPTÿmhhiÿIUYÿOMPÿIJJ`FUERMUEÿE`ÿ^ÿVPMGFYMUEÿV`GEÿFUÿaMJEMRSMPÿ
mheÿMRS`HYMUMYÿEOMÿ^ÿNOFEMÿ]`HHIPÿ]PFRFUIHGÿE`ÿFUEMUGFcTÿEOMFPÿEMPP`Pÿ
IFRMYÿIEÿEOMFPÿIY[MPGIPFMGÿNFEO`KEÿIUTÿOMGFEIEF̀UÿE`ÿkFHHÿJM`JHMÿFcÿUMMYMYoÿ
ÿ
ÿ
"ÿ),=33ÿ/+ÿ#+,ÿ(#,='(3&ÿu#+7ÿ78('(ÿ>4*+3=,4#+ÿ0+,ÿ,8(ÿ9:;<ÿ%=33=+#ÿ+6ÿ/=',&ÿ%+#(&ÿ,+ÿ34.#/('ÿ
7=,8ÿ,8(ÿ8(3*ÿ+6ÿ8('ÿ3=(.,(#4#,)ÿ'+))%4#ÿ4#/ÿ-+#()2ÿ78+ÿ5'.,433&ÿ=#,('6('(/ÿ7=,8ÿ,8(ÿ),4,(ÿ
4./=,ÿ=#ÿ4#ÿ4,,(%*,ÿ,+ÿ*'(@(#,ÿ,8(ÿ/=)?3+).'(ÿ+6ÿ%=33=+#)ÿ+6ÿ.#,4z(/ÿ4#/ÿ34.#/('(/ÿ%+#(&ÿ@=4ÿ
,8(ÿ.#=@(')=,&A)ÿ4??+.#,)wÿ+7(@('2ÿ433ÿ+6ÿ,8(ÿ(@(#,)ÿ4#/ÿ64?,)ÿ"ÿ*'()(#,(/ÿ=#ÿ%&ÿ4//(#/.%ÿ,+ÿ
,8(ÿ1**3=?4,=+#ÿ6+'ÿ174'/ÿ6+'ÿ}'=0=#43ÿ"#6+'%4,=+#ÿ"xÿ+'%ÿq::ÿ3(4/ÿ%(ÿ,+ÿ5(3=(@(ÿ,84,ÿ
v{ÿ(#('43ÿ{+.#)(3ÿ{84'3()ÿ+5=#)+#A)ÿ::&(4'ÿ*'()(#?(ÿqr::qrqqÿ4,ÿ~-ÿ4)ÿ4ÿ(%5('ÿ
+6ÿ,8(ÿ(0.34,+'&ÿ4#/ÿ{+%*(,=,=@(ÿ4'u(,ÿ{+%%=,,((ÿ4#/ÿ4)ÿ{84='ÿ+6ÿ,8(ÿ~-ÿ|+4'/ÿ+6ÿ
+@('#4#?(ÿ{+%%=,,((ÿ84)ÿ)+%(,8=#0ÿ,+ÿ/+ÿ7=,8ÿ,8(ÿ%+#(&ÿ34.#/('(/ÿ5&ÿ>4*+3=,4#+wÿ~-ÿ
=)ÿ,8(ÿ34'0(),ÿ'(0=+#43ÿ,'4#)%=))=+#ÿ+'04#=4,=+#ÿy}ÿ=#ÿ,8(ÿvxÿ4#/ÿ?++'/=#4,()ÿ,8(ÿ
%+@(%(#,ÿ+6ÿ78+3()43(ÿ(3(?,'=?=,&ÿ=#ÿ433ÿ+'ÿ*4',)ÿ+6ÿlMHINIPM_ÿDHHFU`FG_ÿDUYFIUI_ÿZMUEK]kT_ÿ
\IPTHIUY_ÿ\F]OFXIU_ÿbMNÿMPGMT_ÿb`PEOÿÎP`HFUI_ÿOF̀_ÿVMUUGTH[IUFI_ÿWMUUMGGMM_ÿ
FPXFUFI_ÿMGEÿFPXFUFI_ÿIUYÿEOMÿlFGEPF]Eÿ̀cÿ^`HKRSFIwÿÿ
ÿ~-ÿ84)ÿ#+,8=#0ÿ,+ÿ/+ÿ7=,8ÿ,8(ÿv#=@(')=,&ÿ+6ÿ{43=6+'#=42ÿv{ÿ(z(?.,=@()2ÿ+'ÿ'(*'()(#,)ÿ{43=6+'#=4ÿ
4,ÿ433wÿ~-ÿ=)ÿ45+.,ÿ(3(?,'=?=,&ÿ*'+/.?,=+#ÿ4#/ÿ/=),'=5.,=+#ÿ+#ÿ4#ÿ(#+'%+.)ÿ)?43(wÿy4u=#0ÿ=#,+ÿ
?+#)=/('4,=+#ÿ,84,ÿ,8(ÿ(/('43ÿ#('0&ÿ(0.34,+'&ÿ{+%%=))=+#ÿ{ÿ4#/ÿ,8(ÿ"xÿ84@(ÿ5+,8ÿ
4./=,(/ÿ,8(ÿv{ÿ4#/ÿ.(),=+#(/ÿ=,)ÿ+7#(')8=*ÿ+6ÿ,8(ÿ*+7('ÿ?+0(#('4,=+#ÿ64?=3=,&ÿ+#ÿ,8(ÿv{ÿx4#ÿ
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
¡¢ÿ¡¤¥¦ÿ§¨©ª«¬©ÿÿÿÿÿDocument
ÿ®¯°±²¦³ÿ́#2030509
§«µ¶¨«©¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ·¹̧
¦º»ÿ©12/07/2023
µ¼©½¼¨©¨¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¾¤Page
¿¦ÿ½À32
ÿ̄ÁÿofÀÂÀ331
ÿÿ
ÿ
"#$%&ÿ()*+,-.ÿ/ÿ)*ÿ0&1ÿ$2(3,4#0%ÿ15$ÿ+&--#6#3#17ÿ15)1ÿ15$ÿ89:;ÿ$2$(,1#<$-ÿ)04ÿ89ÿ=$%$01-ÿ5)<$ÿ
)ÿ%&&4ÿ-#>$4ÿ+&?$@ÿ+3)01ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ;ABC=D:ÿ)@$)Eÿ:15$@?#-$.ÿ15$7ÿ?&,34ÿ0&1ÿ+$@*#1ÿ=&6#0-&0ÿ1&ÿ6$ÿ
)ÿ;ABÿ6&)@4ÿ*$*6$@ÿ?#15&,1ÿ)07ÿ6$0$F#1ÿ1&ÿ15$*-$3<$-ÿ<#)ÿ(&@@,+1#&0ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ89:;ÿ
G$)4H,)@1$@-Eÿÿ
/ÿ$-+$(#)337ÿ1,@0$4ÿ*7ÿ)11$01#&0ÿ1&ÿ=&6#0-&0I-ÿJJC7$)@ÿ+@$-$0($ÿ)1ÿ;ABÿ)F1$@ÿK$+1$*6$@ÿJL.ÿMNMJ.ÿ
4,$ÿ1&ÿ#01$@F$@$0($ÿ#0ÿ*7ÿ"E9Eÿ9#@(,#1ÿ)++$)3ÿOPQRSTPUÿOPWXSYÿZPSY[YX\ÿ]^ÿ_àÿbRccdSSdRWeQ.ÿ
8K9fÿg&EÿMNCJhNi.ÿ67ÿ1?&ÿ)11&@0$7-.ÿ=&6$@1ÿB)05)-ÿ)04ÿ=&6$@1ÿBEÿj&$6.ÿF@&*ÿ:@@#(k.ÿ
G$@@#0%1&0ÿlÿK,1(3#FF$ÿjj;ÿ&FÿK)0ÿm@)0(#-(&.ÿ)04ÿ15$#@ÿ,03)?F,3ÿ1)*+$@#0%ÿ?#15ÿ15$ÿ
)4*#0#-1@)1#&0ÿ&Fÿn,-1#($.ÿ?5#(5ÿ(),-$4ÿ*7ÿ)++$)3ÿ1&ÿ6$ÿ,0n,-137ÿ4#-*#--$4Eÿ/0ÿ@$F$@$0($ÿ1&ÿ15$ÿ
1?&ÿ)11&@0$7-.ÿB)05)-ÿ)04ÿj&$6ÿ#01$@F$@$4ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ4#<&@($ÿ?5#-13$63&?$@ÿ()-$ÿoPWpqÿoRrTeqÿsdÿ]^ÿ
bRcctQÿRuÿ_WveQWPTÿ̀e]eWXewÿMMÿmEh15ÿJNJhÿx"E9Eÿ9#@EÿMNMMyEÿ/ÿ$2+@$--$4ÿ*7ÿF$$3#0%-ÿ)6&,1ÿ15$ÿ
"E9Eÿ9#@(,#1ÿNz{NJ{MNMMÿ"$(#-#&0ÿ#0ÿ*7ÿ*&1#&0ÿF&@ÿ@$(&0-#4$@)1#&0.ÿ&0ÿ;)%$-ÿLÿlÿz.ÿ)-ÿF&33&?-ÿ
x|}~ÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
j&$6ÿ)04ÿB)05)-I-ÿ*#--#&0ÿ&Fÿ,-#0%ÿj#I-ÿ4#<&@($ÿ?5#-13$63&?$@ÿ()-$ÿÿ)04ÿ
@&)4<#$?ÿK&3)@.ÿjj9ÿ()-$-ÿ1&ÿ@$*&<$ÿ)->(>,kI-ÿ)++$)3ÿF@&*ÿ15$ÿ"E9Eÿ
9#@(,#1ÿ9&,@1ÿ?#15ÿ15$ÿ5$3+ÿ&Fÿ":AÿD)2ÿ"#<#-#&0ÿ)11&@0$7-ÿ#-ÿ6)-#()337ÿ15$ÿ-)*$ÿ
)-ÿ15$ÿ*#--#&0ÿ&Fÿ15$ÿF&@*$@ÿ80#<$@-#17ÿ&Fÿ9)3#F&@0#)ÿ2$(,1#<$ÿ#($ÿ;@$-#4$01ÿ
A,4#15ÿ&7$11$ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ/=Kÿf4<#-&@7ÿ9&**#11$$ÿ&0ÿD)2ÿ2$*+1ÿ)04ÿ&<$@0*$01ÿ
01#1#$-ÿxDyÿ+@$-$01$4ÿ67ÿ)->(>,kÿ#0ÿ5#-ÿF#3$4ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ8EÿKÿD)2ÿ9&,@1ÿ&0ÿ
A,0$ÿMÿ.MNMNÿ15$ÿB&1#&0ÿD&ÿ)()1$ÿ:@ÿ=$<#-$ÿD5$ÿ8EÿKÿD)2ÿ9&,@1ÿ
B$*&@)04,*ÿ:+#0#&0ÿf04ÿ:@4$@ÿf04ÿ"$(#-#&0ÿ/0ÿ)->(>,kÿEÿ
9&**#--#&0$@ÿ=EÿDE9EÿB$*&EÿMNMNCiLÿx8EKEDE9EÿA,0$ÿh.ÿMNMNyÿD5$ÿB&1#&0ÿ
?)-ÿ4&(k$4ÿ?#15ÿ15$ÿ)->(>,kI-ÿ)++$)3ÿ@$(&@4ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ"Eÿ9ÿ9#@(,#1ÿ9&,@1ÿ)04ÿ
+@&<#4$4ÿ)-ÿ15$ÿf++$04#2ÿg&Eÿÿ?#15ÿF#3$4ÿ&0ÿ#0ÿ"E9ÿ9#@(,#1ÿ@ÿ
511+-{{???E-(@#64E(&*{4&(,*$01{hzihN{MNMNNzMCB&1#&0C1&C)()1$C
&@C=$<#-$Cm#3$4C8CKCD)2C9&,@1ÿ
&7$11$ÿ?)-ÿ4#-+)1(5$4ÿ#0ÿA,0$ÿMNJzÿ1&ÿDÿ67ÿ89ÿ;@$-#4$01ÿA)0$1ÿ
g)+&3#1)0&.ÿn,-1ÿ)F1$@ÿ)->(>,kÿ5#@$4ÿ)0ÿ$2+$@#$0($4ÿ)11&@0$7ÿF@&*ÿ15$ÿ
+@$-1#%#&,-ÿj&-ÿf0%$3$-C6)-$4ÿ3)?ÿF#@*ÿ),*.ÿG$43,04.ÿf@#-1$#ÿlÿ&34*)0ÿ
j)?ÿ9&@+&@)1#&0ÿ1&ÿ5)043$ÿ5#-ÿB)@(5ÿM.ÿMNJzÿ*,31#*#33#&0ÿ1)2ÿ$<)-#&0ÿ)04ÿ
F@),4ÿ(3)#*ÿ()-$ÿ(&0($@0#0%ÿ?5#-13$63&?$@ÿ(3)#*ÿm&@*ÿMJJÿ)04ÿ)ÿ(@#*$ÿ
(&**#11$4ÿ67ÿ80#<$@-#17ÿ&Fÿ9)3#F&@0#)ÿ$2$(,1#<$-ÿ#0ÿ(&33)6&@)1#&0ÿ?#15ÿ9f/K:Eÿÿ
511+-{{???E-(@#64E(&*{4&(,*$01{hiziiLMM{8D9CMNJzNLJC89C;@$-#4$01C
A)0$1Cg)+&3#1)0&CB$$1-C;@$-#4$01C:6)*)C#($C;@$-#4$01C#4$0C/"gÿ
D5$ÿ5#-1&@7ÿ&Fÿ(&@@,+1#&0ÿ&@(5$-1@)1$4ÿ67ÿg)+&3#1)0&ÿ)04ÿ&7$11$ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ
:ÿ)04ÿDÿ@$+$)1$4ÿ#1-$3Fÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ"$+)@1*$01ÿ&FÿA,-1#($.ÿD)2ÿ
"#<#-#&0ÿ)04ÿ"E9ÿ9#@(,#1ÿ9&,@1Eÿÿ
ÿ
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿDocument
ÿÿ#2030509
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ12/07/2023
ÿÿÿÿÿÿPage
ÿ33
ÿÿof 331
ÿÿ
ÿ
#ÿ%&'(&)&ÿ*+,ÿ*-ÿ./(0&ÿ1/2&ÿ03*0ÿ4567ÿ78--(11(8+&2ÿ9*2:ÿ7;ÿ732(10(&<ÿ=38ÿ088:ÿ8>>(?&ÿ8+ÿ
@*+/*2AÿB<ÿCDCE<ÿ3*1ÿ*ÿ'80ÿ8>ÿ(+>82-*0(8+ÿ*%8/0ÿF7ÿG&+&2*'ÿ78/+1&'ÿ68%(+18+H1ÿI2&1&+?&ÿ*+,ÿ
*?0()(0(&1ÿ=(03ÿJ@9ÿ>28-ÿCDEEÿ0328/K3ÿCDCD;ÿ
L/2(+Kÿ78--(11(8+&2ÿ732(10(&M1ÿ1&2)(?&ÿ*1ÿ*ÿ10*0&ÿ2&K/'*082<ÿ3&ÿ=*1ÿ&'&?0&,ÿI2&1(,&+0ÿ8>ÿ03&ÿ
N2K*+(O*0(8+ÿ8>ÿJ@9ÿP0*0&1<ÿ#+?;ÿQNJP#R<ÿ*ÿK28/Iÿ8>ÿ/0('(0Aÿ2&K/'*0821ÿ2&I2&1&+0(+Kÿ03&ÿESÿ10*0&1ÿ
*+,ÿ03&ÿL(102(?0ÿ8>ÿ78'/-%(*ÿ03*0ÿI*20(?(I*0&ÿ(+ÿ03&ÿJ@9ÿ02*+1-(11(8+ÿ*+,ÿ-*2:&0ÿ82K*+(O*0(8+;ÿT&ÿ
1&2)&,ÿ>82ÿ-82&ÿ03*+ÿ*ÿ,&?*,&ÿ8+ÿ03&ÿNJP#ÿK8)&2+(+Kÿ%8*2,;ÿ732(10(&ÿ*'18ÿ1&2)&,ÿ*1ÿI2&1(,&+0ÿ8>ÿ
03&ÿ9(,UV0'*+0(?ÿ78+>&2&+?&ÿ8>ÿ6&K/'*082AÿF0('(0(&1ÿ78--(11(8+&21ÿQ9V76F7R<ÿ*ÿ2&K(8+*'ÿ
?3*I0&2ÿ8>ÿ03&ÿW*0(8+*'ÿV118?(*0(8+ÿ8>ÿ6&K/'*082AÿF0('(0Aÿ78--(11(8+&21ÿQWV6F7RÿQ1&&ÿ
300I1XYY===;>&2?;K8)Y*%8/0Y?8--(11(8+U-&-%&21Y?8--(11(8+&2U?32(10(&R;ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
[\][^_à\]ÿ
ÿ
V''ÿ8>ÿ03(1ÿ(1ÿ3*II&+(+Kÿ08,*Aÿ%&?*/1&<ÿ8+&ÿ-8+03ÿ%&>82&ÿ7V#PNÿ*+,ÿ03&ÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿJ8=&2ÿ
5b?3*+K&ÿQ7*'JcRÿ?8--&+?&,ÿ8I&2*0(8+1<ÿ(+ÿ9*2?3ÿEdde<ÿ03&ÿF7ÿ*+,ÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿP0*0&ÿ
F+()&21(0AÿQ7PFRÿ1A10&-1ÿ&+0&2&,ÿ(+08ÿ*ÿ,(2&?0ÿ*??&11ÿ1&2)(?&1ÿ?8+02*?0ÿ=(03ÿ5+28+ÿ782I82*0(8+ÿ
5+&2KAÿP&2)(?&1ÿ08ÿI28)(,&ÿ&'&?02(?(0Aÿ*+,ÿ2&'*0&,ÿ-&0&2(+K<ÿ%(''(+K<ÿ*+,ÿ?8--/+(?*0(8+1ÿ>82ÿ*''ÿ8>ÿ
03&(2ÿ?*-I/1&1;ÿf3&ÿ,(2&?0ÿ*??&11ÿ=*1ÿ*ÿI*20ÿ8>ÿ7*'(>82+(*H1ÿ3gghÿijklmnolompÿqkrmnslmsnotuÿvlmwÿ
vxÿ3yg4wÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿJ/%'(?ÿF0('(0Aÿ78,&ÿSz{;EÿQJF7ÿSz{;ER;ÿÿ
5+28+ÿ=*1ÿ2&./(2&,ÿ08ÿ*?0ÿ*1ÿ03&ÿ/+()&21(0(&1Hÿ1?3&,/'(+Kÿ?882,(+*082ÿ>82ÿ&+&2KAÿ1/II'(&1ÿ=(03ÿ
7V#PN;ÿf3&ÿF7ÿ1A10&-ÿ(+ÿEdde<ÿ=(03ÿ+(+&ÿ?*-I/1&1<ÿ*+,ÿ03&ÿ7PFÿ1A10&-<ÿ=(03ÿCSÿ?*-I/1&1<ÿ
=&2&ÿ*+,ÿ10(''ÿ*2&ÿ8+&ÿ8>ÿ03&ÿ'*2K&10ÿ/+()&21(0Aÿ1A10&-1ÿ(+ÿ03&ÿF;P;<ÿ*+,ÿ03&Aÿ*2&ÿ03&ÿ'*2K&10ÿ
/+()&21(0(&1ÿ(+ÿ7*'(>82+(*;ÿP/?3ÿ*ÿ?8+02*?0ÿ=(03ÿ5+28+ÿ3*,ÿ08ÿ%&ÿ*II28)&,ÿ%Aÿ03&ÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿ
K8)&2+-&+0<ÿ*+,ÿ03&ÿ02*+1*?0(8+1ÿ=&2&ÿI'*++&,ÿ'8+Kÿ%&>82&ÿ03&Aÿ=&2&ÿ(-I'&-&+0&,;ÿ
ÿ#+ÿEddz<ÿ=3(0&ÿ?8''*2ÿ?2(-(+*'1ÿ>28-ÿF7NJ<ÿ03&ÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿ|&K(1'*0/2&<ÿ*+,ÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿ
G8)&2+-&+0ÿ-&0(?/'8/1'AÿI'*++&,ÿ08ÿ/1&ÿ5+28+ÿ08ÿ'*/+,&2ÿ-&K*=*001ÿ*+,ÿ3/+,2&,1ÿ8>ÿ-(''(8+1ÿ8>ÿ
,8''*21ÿ/1(+KÿF7ÿ*+,ÿ7PFÿ?*-I/1&1<ÿ%/0ÿ03&(2ÿI'*+ÿ>*('&,;ÿ5+28+ÿ?8''*I1&,ÿ*+,ÿ03&ÿ=3(0&ÿ?8''*2ÿ
?2(-(+*'1ÿ'810ÿ3/+,2&,1ÿ8>ÿ-(''(8+1ÿ8>ÿ,8''*21ÿ(+ÿ0*bU>2&&ÿ-8+&AÿQ1&&ÿ&bI'*+*0(8+ÿ(+ÿ03&ÿV,,&+,/-ÿ
*+,ÿ5b3(%(01R;ÿÿ
ÿ
2ÿ34ÿ2ÿ
56789ÿ889ÿ6ÿ 8ÿ6ÿ69ÿ9ÿ69ÿ9ÿ696ÿÿ69ÿ!!"ÿ
ÿ
STUVÿUXYZÿ[\]^_`]aÿÿÿÿÿDocument
ÿbcdefZghÿ#2030509
[_ij\_]`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿkl
mZnoÿ]12/07/2023
ip]qp\]\\ÿÿÿÿÿÿrXPage
sZÿqq34
ÿctÿofuvu331
ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
#$%&$'()*++,ÿ%*-./(($0ÿ12ÿ3$&($.-$4ÿ56ÿ7877ÿÿ-,ÿ9:;:<ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
=>41%+>?ÿ@>%A'A*Bÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ:2'+1%$0ÿCÿÿ
D&&+/'>(/12ÿ)14ÿD?>40ÿ)14ÿE4/F/2>+ÿG2)14.>(/12ÿHG#3ÿ914.ÿ7IIÿÿJÿ
KLM$ÿÿ575ÿ&>F$%ÿ+12Fÿ$N&+>2>(14,ÿÿ?/(Mÿ/++*%(4>(/12%ÿD00$20*.ÿ(1ÿ(M$ÿD&&+/'>(/12ÿ)14ÿ
D?>40ÿ)14ÿÿÿÿE4/F/2>+ÿG2)14.>(/12ÿHG#3ÿ914.ÿ7IIJÿÿHÿO>40ÿ'1&,ÿ>20ÿ9+>%Mÿ;4/P$ÿ>20ÿ
;Q;ÿÿ
LM$ÿRIÿ:NM/-/(%ÿ/2ÿ%*&&14(ÿ1)ÿ(M$ÿD&&+/'>(/12ÿ)14ÿD?>40ÿ)14ÿE4/F/2>+ÿG2)14.>(/12ÿ
HG#3ÿ914.ÿ7IIÿÿJÿ>20ÿD00$20*.ÿÿ
ÿ
2ÿ33ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-817-7080
September 19, 2018
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C., 20510
The Honorable Lindsey 0. Graham Chairman

Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C., 20510
Re: In Defense of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and His Family – Open letter.
I. INTRODUCTION
Dear Chairman Grassley and Chairman Graham:
My name is Jaroslaw (Jerry) Waszczuk, pronounced Yaroslav Vashchook or simply

Jerry.
I am a Polish immigrant who has been living in the sanctuary state of California for
almost three decades. I am 67 years old and was an employee of the University of
California for 13 years. Senator Feinstein husband Richard Blum has served the
university as a member of the University of California Board of Regents since 2002.
I have had 11 years of experience with the University of California Office of the
President (UCOP), white-collar criminals and ruthless and unscrupulous witch hunters
who destroyed my and my family’s live, as well as other UC employees who dared to
criticize the UC regime.
1
It is not surprising to me that they found Christine Blasey Ford at Palo Alto University
and used her as a last-minute blockade to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh as
the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. Since the nomination hearings did not achieve the
results the left-wing extremists anticipated, they portrayed Judge Kavanaugh as a sexual
predator who allegedly brutalized Ms. Ford more than 35 years ago.
Taking into consideration the ongoing investigation and prosecution of Paul Manafort
and others by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this is an ill-crafted, unfounded, and
despicable accusation aimed at Judge Brett Kavanaugh and indirectly at President Donald
Trump. The 35 lawsuits filed against the president by California Attorney General Xavier
Becerra shows the witch hunt that California’s political extremists are engaging in as a
means of delegitimizing President Trump and his administration.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article188901094.html
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbk33q/xavier-becerra-california-ag-lawsuits-against-trump
The attempt to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is propaganda by the mass media
and social media which shows that the witch hunt to remove the president from office is
far from over.
II. SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR SUPREME

COURT NOMINEE BRETT KAVANAUGH
In my letter dated September 12, 2018 to Don Fort, chief of the U.S. Department of the
Treasury Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Department, I addressed the
September 6, 2018 confirmation hearing (letter attached).
On September 6, 2018, during Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation

hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California raised out of the blue questions about
the 2000–03 California Energy Crisis, Enron Corporation, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission as follows:
TRANSCRIPT
01:40:12 THE LIMITED SET OF DOCUMENTS WE'VE

RECEIVED INDICATES YOU WERE HEAVILY INVOLVED
IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE'S RESPONSE TO
2
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS AFTER THE ENRON

SCANDAL. IS THAT ACCURATE?
01:40:34 RIGHT, SO YOU KNOW ENRON WAS ONE OF THE

GREATEST CORPORATE SCANDALS IN AMERICAN
HISTORY. AND I CAN TELL YOU AS A SENATOR FROM
CALIFORNIA, NOT ONLY DID MANY OF MY
CONSTITUENTS LOSE EVERYTHING FINANCIALLY
WHEN ENRON COLLAPSED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF
ITS ACCOUNTING FRAUD, BUT THE FRAUD AND
MARKET MANIPULATION CONTRIBUTED TO AN
ENERGY CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA. WHITE HOUSE E-
MAILS SHOW YOU WERE ASKED TO REVIEW A SET OF
DRAFT TALKING POINTS FOR PRESS SECRETARY ARI
FLEISCHER THAT ADDRESS THE ROLE OF ENRON'S
MARKET MANIPULATION IN THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
CRISIS. ESSENTIALLY, THE TALKING POINT SAID, IF
THERE WAS ANY MISCONDUCT BY ENRON, IT WAS UP
TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
TO INVESTIGATE AND PUNISH THE COMPANY. I'M NOT
GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU REMEMBER THE SPECIFIC
DOCUMENT, BUT WAS THAT YOUR VIEW THAT FERC
(Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) WAS THE
REGULATORY BODY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP THIS
SORT OF MISCONDUCT?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?449706-1/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-
confirmation-hearing-day-3-part-1
It was just prior to the hearings that I had submitted copies of my Application for Award
to the Whistleblower Office of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Senator Chuck
Grassley is chair and the two Senators from California, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala
Harris, are members
When I listened to Senator Feinstein’s concerns about the California energy crisis during
her confirmation hearing, I got the impression that she was fishing for information from
Judge Kavanaugh to find out what he knows about the California energy crisis and if
3
knew how the 40 billion dollar loss for California ratepayers and taxpayers was invented
and by whom.
I looked closer at Senator Feinstein’s statement after she brought to light Palo Alto
University Professor of Psychology Christine Blasey Ford’s “MeToo” story, in which
Judge Kavanaugh supposedly sexually brutalized and attempted to rape Ms. Ford. The
attempt to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by bringing out Ms. Ford’s story was a
well-planned and premeditated attack against the nominee and was only used when other
attempts to stop the confirmation failed.
III. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND HER “METOO” STORY PROVIDED

TO SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN.
The crux of Ms. Ford’s “MeToo” story is to find out who is the real author of the
fabricated accusations and how she was convinced to sacrifice her professional career in
the dirty political game orchestrated by extremists from the Democratic Party to
delegitimize President Donald Trump and his nominees.
As I read Ms. Ford’s “MeToo” story and witnessed the hysterical outcry in the mass
media and social media, I looked at who she is, where she lives, and if she is a registered
or licensed psychologist with the California Board of Psychology. I also looked at her
employment history and her superior at Palo Alto University where she is or was
employed.
A. My findings about Christine Blasey Ford
According to Zillow, Christine Blasey Ford lives at 3872 Duncan Pl., Palo Alto,
California. This is a four-bedroom, three-bath home of approximately 2200 sf which was
built in 1953 and is worth over $3,000,000. I don’t know whether Ms. Ford is the owner
of the house or if she rents it.
The California Board of Psychology has no record of Christine Blasey Ford. Most likely,
Palo Alto University’s policies don’t require licenses for faculty members.
According to the Palo Alto University (PAU) Faculty Employees Directory

(https://www.paloaltou.edu/faculty-directory), Professor Christine Blasey Ford is a PhD,
but her employee email and her office phone number is not listed like other employees’.
It is unusual. At this point I am not sure if Ms. Ford is employed by PAU or if she is
solely employed by Stanford University, where she is listed under
4
https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/christine-blasey. No phone or email is listed under Ms.

Ford’s profile at Stanford University.
The Santa Clara County Superior Court has records of lawsuits with the names Christine
Blasey and Christine Blasey Ford.
IV. PRESIDENT OF PALO ALTO UNIVERSITY DR. MAUREEN O’CONNOR

AND MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL DOUGLAS WALGREN,
J.D
A. Dr. Maureen O’Connor J.D

According to the PAU website (https://www.paloaltou.edu/about/leadership), prior to
becoming president at PAU in August 2016, Dr. Maureen O’Connor completed a dual
degree program in psychology, law, and policy at the University of Arizona, earning both
her PhD and JD. She is a member of the bar in Arizona and Washington, D.C., and she
clerked for the Honorable Patricia Wald, then chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
This information leads to the conclusion that it was no coincidence that Dr. O’Connor,
who clerked for the Honorable Patricia Wald, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals, where future Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh is employed,
found herself in the middle of the 2016 presidential election as president of Palo Alto
University.
It is no coincidence that Dr. Maureen O’Connor found herself in Palo Alto, California
where Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s former classmate Christine Blasey Ford was employed
or is still employed. The question is whether Ms. Ford knew or had a friendship with Dr.
O’Connor before or after Dr. O’Connor arrived in PAU and became PAU’s president.
These are other questions which should be answered:
• Whether Dr. Maureen O’Connor, a graduate of the University of Arizona, where

she earned her PhD and JD, and a member of the bar in Arizona and Washington,
D.C., knows or personally knew the former Arizona attorney general, governor of
Arizona, U.S. secretary of homeland security and the present University of
California President Janet Napolitano.
• Whether Dr. Maureen O’Connor knows or knew personally the former University
of California Director of Investigation John Lohse.
5
John A. Lohse is the former Director of Investigation in the Office of the Senior Vice
President and Chief Compliance and Audit Officer. He is responsible for coordinating,
tracking, managing and conducting investigations at the University of California Office
of the President (UCOP) and system-wide. He came to UC in January 2004 after a career
with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), where he served as a special agent,
associate division counsel and chief division counsel for the FBI's San Francisco
Division. He has also served as a criminal prosecutor with the Maricopa County
Attorney's Office in Phoenix, Arizona. John Lohse is a member of the bar in California
and in Arizona.
John Lohse, together with many other University of California attorneys and executives,
is responsible for covering up millions of dollars in tax evasion by UC regents in
conspiracy with California Independent System Operator (CAISO) executives in
collaboration with the attorney general’s office and other state agencies. John Lohse,
together with other UC executives, including Dianne Feinstein and UC Regent Richard
Blum, is also responsible for the coverup of the mysterious suicide in December 2010 of
UC Davis Medical Center employee Todd Georlich, who apparently died before he was
hanged. Senator Kamala Harris and her AG deputy Ashante Norton know details about
this.
• Whether PAU President Dr. Maureen O’Connor and Judge Kavanaugh’s “MeToo”
accuser Christine Blasey Ford know or knew the former chief deputy for UCOP’s
general counsel Karen Petrulakis, who served or is still serving as executive law
chapter chair for Stanford Law School and as a member of Stanford Law School’s
Board of Visitors. She also served on the state bar’s Litigation Section Executive
Committee.
B. Douglas Walgren
The other person who eventually should be considered as a potential participant in the
plot against Judge Kavanaugh and should be questioned is Douglas Walgren, former U.S.
congressman, who is currently the advisory member counsel for PAU President Dr.
Maureen O’Connor and an attorney in Washington, D.C. Mr. Walgren is not eligible to
practice law in California (suspended license). He probably or most likely knows
Christine Blasey Ford and her legal counsel Ms. Deborah Katz, licensed in the District of
Columbia.
V. JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH AND 2000-2003 CALIFORNIA ENERGY
6
A. Swidler & Berlin v. United States
In his early career, Judge Kavanaugh played a lead role in drafting the Starr Report,
which urged President Bill Clinton to investigate the suicide of Clinton aide Vince Foster.
Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) was a case in which the Supreme
Court of the United States held that the death of an attorney’s client does not terminate
attorney-client privilege in respect to records of confidential communication.
At the same time as Judge Kavanaugh argued the above case before the Supreme Court,
the same law firm (Swidler & Berlin) represented CAISO and their partner in crime and
advised their clients to enhance competitiveness and efficiency of the deregulated power
market by illegally generating and laundering electricity and to violate every possible
state and federal law regulating cogeneration plants in addition to the California Unfair
Business Competition Law, Business and Professions Code §17200, Section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and the State of California Revenue and Taxation
Code. This was the biggest University of California fraud scheme of the 20th century,
and it was carried over into two decades of the 21st century and covered up by the
California attorney general, including the former attorney general Kamala Harris, today a
U.S. senator from California.
CAISO’s attorneys from Swidler & Berlin also represented the UCOP mafia interests
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from 1999 to 2003, making sure that
this enormous fraud will never surface. It surfaced in 2015.
VI. CHIEF JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE NINTH DISTRICT HONORABLE ALEX KOZINSKI
In his early legal career, Judge Kavanaugh served from 1991-1992 as law clerk for the
U.S. Federal Court in California Ninth Circuits Court of Appeals Judge Honorable Alex
Kozinski.
On March 9, 2001, the University, pursuant to authorization, joined the California State
University in filing a lawsuit against Enron in U. S. District Court in San Francisco. The
lawsuit,, which was assigned to Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, alleges breach of contract and
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and requests both injunctive relief to
restore the original contract and specific performance of that contract.
Judge Hamilton granted the universities' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on April
11. Her order required Enron to perform specifically all of its contractual obligations
7
tinder the 1998 Direct Access Services Agreement, including directing SCE and PG&E
to convert the universities' accounts back to direct access service. In addition to attorneys
for the universities, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, key player and one of inventors of the
scheme of fraud named “California Crisis” or well planted terrorist operation to collapse
the Western Power Electric appeared and argued on behalf of UCOP mafia as a friend of
the court in support of the Universities' position.
Enron filed an appeal of Judge Hamilton's order on April 16 along with a Request for an
Emergency Stay of that order pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on
Enron's appeal. On May 3, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit consisting of Judges
Sneed, Canby and Kozinski issued a nine line order staying the injunction issued by
Judge Hamilton. The defeated UCOP mafia stated that Judge Hamilton's injunction
may represent only a temporary setback and the different panel of Ninth Circuit judges
will decide Enron's appeal of the injunction itself
After George W. Bush became president in 2001, Judge Kavanaugh was hired as an
associate by the White House counsel and worked on the Enron scandal.
In 2015 millions of dollars in tax evasion was discovered in relation to illegally
producing and laundering megawatts from UC campuses by UCOP organized white-
collar crime in a joint venture with CAISO, the California attorney general’s office and
others. After President Donald Trump was elected it took only one year for the deep state
to remove from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the powerful and well-known jurist
Alex Kozinski. When President Obama was in the White House, nobody complained
about Judge Kozinski. It would be interesting to find out why and who was behind the
attack on Judge Kozinski which was very similar to attack aimed at Judge Kavanaugh.
Looking at Senator Feinstein’s despicable actions to stop Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination,
it is not difficult to conclude that most likely Judge Kozinski was considered by President
Trump as a future nominee to the Supreme Court, and his fate was quickly decided by the
same perpetrators .
In a similar scenario which eliminated Judge Kozinski , , Judge Kavanaugh was accused
and trashed. It is apparent that this attack on Judge Kavanaugh was developed and
crafted a year or more ago after PAU President Dr. Maureen O’Connor arrived in Palo
Alto. The ill-crafted plan to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court
was kept secret by perpetrators as a last resort if the confirmation hearing did not go as
anticipated.
VII. CONCLUSION
8
Don Fort, Chief

Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service,
Criminal Investigation Department
1111Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20224
Enclosed
Copy of the 8/12/2018 inquiry to Don Fort , IRS Criminal Investigation ( by Fax and by
Tweeter with link to letter)
Copy of the June 5, 2017 letter to U.S Congressman Hon. Darrel Issa. (via twitter link to
letter )
Copy of the 8/31/2016 letter to Congressman Hon. John Garamendi (via twitter link to )
letter )
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ……..……………………………...…….iii-iv
MOTION -INTRODUCTION -.........................……………………...……1
STAEMENTS OF FACTS ……..………….……..………………………..6
A. The State of Emergency and California Governor Gray Davis’s Tour

of the UCDMC 27 MW Cogeneration Power Plant……..………….6
B. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Administrative
Law Judge Marilyn Tays (ALJ Tays) and Sacramento County
Superior Court Judge Hon. Shelleyanne W. L. Chang (Judge Chang)
………………………………………………………..……………..8
THE APPELLANT’S DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL……...….12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES……………….…15

A. Waszczuk has good cause to believe that the appellate review by the
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, would be not impartial in
this case…………………………………………………………….15
B. The US and the California Constitution guarantee a fair and
impartial hearing in a Court of Appeal…………...………………..20
CONCLUSION ……………………...…………………..……….……….20
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT ………………………………..…..……24
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL ………...….26
EXHIBITS A- H…………...………………..……………………………28
A. Governor Gray Davis ‘s photo which shows his touring of the

UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant on Febrbruary 14, 2001 and
Copy of the Waszczuk’s Fax (cover page) dated 2/14/2001 to Gov.
Davis’s office …………………...…………………….…………….3
B. 11/22/2017 Waszczuk’s letter to State Bar of California Investigator

Laura Sharek and Trial Deputy Counsel Laura Huggins and State
i
Bar Stipulation in Re: Case No . 15- O-10110-LMA – Waszczuk ‘s
former attorney Douglas Stein’s misconduct. ……………………..4
C. 3/2/2015 Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang’s

Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandamus; Administrative
Mandamus………………………………………………………..…8
D. May 31, 2012 Power Purchase Agreement between UC Regents and

Sacramento Municipal Utility District -SMUD …………..……….12
E. Petition for Rehearing dated filed in 3DCA on 10/25/2017 in anti-

SLAPP motion appeal Case No. C079524…………………...……15
F. Waszczuk’s March 11, 2014 letter to UCOP Principal Investigator

Judith Rosenberg…………………………………………………..18
G. Photo of the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant and plaque

from the entry to the plant show names of participants in the illegal
power sale and tax fraud including and not limited to UC Davis
Chancellor Larry Vanferhoef and Associate or Assistant Vice
Chancellor Vice Chancellor Dr. Dr. Shelton Duraisseau………….18
H. 8/24/2016 letter Waszczuk received from the State of California

Commission on Judicial Performance and Waszczuk’s 8/30/2016
complaint/inquiry submitted to the Sacramento County Superior
Court Presiding Judge Hon. Kevin R. Culhane about corruption in
the Sacramento courts……………………………………………...22
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
People v. Grimes, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 787, 172 Cal. App. 4th 121 (Cal. App.
Dist. 3 03/16/2009)………………………………………......................…14
People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 550, 566-567…………………….....14
Alonso v. California, 50 Cal. App. 3d 242, 123 Cal. Rptr. 536

(Cal.App.Dist.2 07/30/1975)…………………………………..……….19
Miller v. French (2000) 530 U.S. 327)…………………..………………..20
Jones v. Omnitrans (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 273)………………………...20
Paratransit, Inc v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, No.

C063863 (Cal. App. Dist.3 05/31/2012)…………………...…………..21
Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160,

165)……………………..…………………………………………………21
STATUTES
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170 § 170.6…………….……2
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 Section 501(C)(3)………….…….…18
California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5…………………......….18,20
State of California Unfair Business Competition law; Business and
Professions Code § 17200………….. ………………………...………18,20
CONSTITUTION
California Constitution SEC. 12. (a).......................................................1,2
Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution…………….…………….20
California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7…………………...…………20
iii
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT
California Rules of Court ,Rule 10.100………………..……………. ….1,2
California Rules of Court Court, Rule 8.23……………………..………..14
California Rules of Cour,t Rule 8.122 (d)…………………………...……14
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.304(c)(1)………………………………14
OTHER AUTHORITIES
San Diego Gas & Electric Company v . Sellers of Energy and Ancillary
Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System
Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange et, al (Docket
No. EL00-95-000; EL00-98-000)…………………..……………….……6,7
The Justice Hon. Vance Raye’s biography on the 3DCA website
http://www.courts.ca.gov/2648.htm............................................................16
African-American magazine Sac Cultural Hub-
(http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-look-back)interview.............17
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)…...……………17
18C.F.R.§ 292.203(b)and 292.205………………………..………………17
18 C.F.R. § 292.20……………………………...…………………………17
Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a)………………………………..…16
UC Davis Policy PPSM 23…………………………………..……………21
iv
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
Appellant, In Pro Per
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk Court of Appeal No. C079254

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

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

Chang’s Order Denying Petitioner the Petition
for Writ of Mandamus
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE AND

TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Rule 10.100, Transfer of Causes 1 and California Constitution
Article VI Judicial Section 12 2, Plaintiff and Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk
1
Rule 10.1000. Transfer of causes
-1-
Appellant’s Motion to Transfer Causes
(pronounced Vashchook; hereafter “Waszczuk”) respectfully requests by this
motion that the Supreme Court transfer the pending case Waszczuk v. California
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) Case No. C079254 from the Court of Appeal
Third Appellate District (3DCA) to the Supreme Court or other California Court
of Appeal District.
The California appellate justices are exempted from disqualification
provisions of the Code. Civ. Proc. section 170 § 170.6 thus is no other
choice for Waszczuk but to submit this motion and ask the Supreme Court
to move the cause away from the Sacramento courts which caused already
to Waszczuk and Waszczuk’s family non-recoverable damages , harm and
pain.
It is still beyond and above Waszczuk imagination that after
Governor Gray Davis with other State of California dignitaries toured on
February 14, 2001 the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
1
The Supreme Court may transfer a cause:
To itself from a Court of Appeal;
From itself to a Court of Appeal;
Between Courts of Appeal; or
Between divisions of a Court of Appeal.
2
California Constitution SEC. 12. (a) The Supreme Court may, before
decision, transfer to itself a cause in a court of appeal. It may, before
decision, transfer a cause from itself to a court of appeal or from one court
of appeal or division to another. The court to which a cause is transferred
has jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court may review the decision of a court of appeal in any
cause.
The Judicial Council shall provide, by rules of court, for the time and
procedure for transfer and for review, including, among other things,
provisions for the time and procedure for transfer with instructions, for
review of all or part of a decision, and for remand as improvidently granted.
-2-
plant where Waszczuk was employed , Waszczuk sent the fax with
concerns for Davis’s safety, (EXHIBIT - A) the Governor’s former deputy
Administrative Law Judge from CUIAB Marilyn Tays almost exactly 12
years later on February 13, 2013 denied Waszczuk’ unemployment benefits
in the manner and behavior which is unforgettable and inexcusable.
The Waszczuk v. CUIAB appeal has been pending in 3DCA since
May 7, 2015. On March 12, 2015, Sacramento County Superior Court
Judge Honorable Shelleyanne W. L. Chang denied the Waszczuk Writ of
Mandamus filed December 2, 2013, against CUIAB and Real Party In
Interest (RPii), the Regents of the University of California (Regents)
The Waszczuk appeal against CUIAB has been pending since May 2015
simultaneously with the appeal in Case No. C079524, Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California et, al., which was filed one month
later on June 11, 2015. The appeal in Case No. C079524 was from the
Sacramento County Superior Court judgment dated April 17, 2015, in the
Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP) pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure 425.16 filed by the Regents of the University of California on
December 1, 2014.
Case No. C079524 was finalized on November 9, 2017, by denying
Waszczuk’s Petition for Rehearing. Waszczuk petitioned the 3DCA
decision in Case No. C079524 to the Supreme Court. The Petition for
Review was filed on November 20, 2017, and was docked as Waszczuk v.
Regents of the University et al., Case No. S245508.
Waszczuk is asking the Supreme Court to transfer the Waszczuk v.
CUIAB case to another appellate district court because Waszczuk
vehemently doubts that the case could be reviewed fairly and impartially by
3DCA justices after 3DCA Presiding Justice Honorable Vance Raye signed
-3-
an Unpublished Opinion that—aside from being discriminatory, offensive
and demeaning—shows malice toward Waszczuk and unbelievable
miscarriage of justice. The Unpublished Opinion shamelessly commends
Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein—who was dismissed for gross
misconduct after misrepresenting Waszczuk in both cases and colluding
with University of California legal counsel Michael Pott and Judge of
Superior Court Hon. David Brown; after such heinous offenses, Stein
proceeded to steal the entire retainer paid to him by Waszczuk. Stein’s
crimes and unethical behavior would not have been possible without
cooperation and collusion from other parties—especially university legal
counsel who acted with the full permission of UC General Counsel Charles
Robinson.
The 3DCA Unpublished Opinion in Case No. C079524 praising
Stein as transparent and diligent was issued by 3DCA and signed by
Presiding Justice Vance Raye while the State Bar of California was
prosecuting Stein for gross misconduct; Stein’s license to practice law was
ultimately suspended (see: EXHIBIT -B) [The Stipulation, Re: Facts,
Conclusion of Law and Disposition and Order Approving filed in the State
Bar of California Hearing Department, San Francisco on October 24, 2017,
and Waszczuk’s November 22, 2017, response to Stipulation submitted to
State Bar Investigator Laura Sharek and Deputy Trial Counsel Laura
Huggins]. The 17-page State Bar Stipulation was prepared and signed by
Stein on the very same day (October 10, 2017) that the 3DCA issued the
derogatory and discriminatory Unpublished Opinion in the anti-SLAPP
motion for Case No. C079524. Despite Waszczuk’s October 10, 2017,
request to State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Laura Huggins for a continuance
in Trial in Bar Court for the following month due to illness, Judge of the
-4-
State Bar Court Hon. Lucy Armendariz signed the Stipulation and Actual
Suspension Order on October 24, 2017, the day before Waszczuk filed his
Petition for Rehearing with 3DCA in the anti-SLAPP motion.
Apparently 3DCA knew all the facts yet did not hesitate to deny
Waszczuk’s very detailed and truthful Petition for Rehearing that described
Stein’s collusion with Superior Court Judges and university legal counsel
from Porter Scott law firm Michael Pott. This was a blatant attempt to sell
Waszczuk’s wrongful termination case for approximately $300,000.
Based on such past misconduct, Waszczuk has no hope or
confidence that his Writ of Mandamus appeal case would be reviewed by
the 3DCA justices without bias and discrimination. The justices have
already proven their prejudice toward Waszczuk. Both cases are
interconnected, relying on the same merit and including many of the same
evidential documents; only the purposes of the complaints vary.
Both cases are deeply rooted in the era surrounding the California
energy crisis of 1999-2003 as well as tax fraud committed by the
administrators of the University of California in relation to the illegal
power sale and power laundering worth tens of millions of dollars from the
UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27 MW cogeneration plant where
Waszczuk was employed from June 1999 to April 2007.
The Writ of Mandamus should have been resolved long ago;
however, the corrupt Sacramento courts aim to destroy Waszczuk’s life
further by forcing spurious legal fees attached to the Regents’ fraudulent
anti-SLAPP motion, which UC Regents Counsel Douglas Ropel demanded
in May 2015 in the amount of $32,000. Douglas Ropel was the second UC
Regents Counsel who quit the Waszczuk case and the Porter Scott law firm.
-5-
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The State of Emergency and California Governor Gray Davis’s

Tour of the UCDMC 27 MW Cogeneration Power Plant
On January 17, 2001, California’s governor declared a state of

emergency because California Independent System Operator Corporation
(CAISO), California Power Exchange (CalPX), CPUC, and Governor Gray
Davis lost control over out-of-state power producers including Enron
Corporation and Waszczuk’s former employer Dynegy Inc. The rolling
blackouts in the richest US state reminded Waszczuk of his native country,
Poland, during 1970 to 1981. The time and era were dominated by
communists and the Soviet Union. Energy shortages and rolling blackouts
were a normal part of a life controlled by the communist dictators.
On February 14, 2001, Governor Gray Davis toured the UCDMC’s
cogeneration plant and blessed the ongoing power sale fraud and unlawful
operation of the facility. During the tour, Governor Davis stated that he
hoped to announce a plan to shelter Pacific Gas and Electric Company and
Southern California Edison from bankruptcy. Davis could not have found a
better place than the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility to make such
announcements. The tour happened just a few months after the San Diego
Gas & Electric Company, in a joint venture with Pacific Gas and Electric
Company and Southern California Edison, filed a complaint with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against Sellers of Energy
and Ancillary Service into Markets Operated, CAISO, and CalPX. [San
Diego Gas & Electric Company v . Sellers of Energy and Ancillary
Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System
-6-
Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange et, al (Docket
No. EL00-95-000; EL00-98-000)]
The complaint included the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant and
alleged ancillary manipulation of the western electricity markets in all
fashions—including but not limited to claims of economic and physical
withholding; gaming; fraud; and misrepresentation in exporting and selling
electrical energy via Automated Power Exchange Inc. (APX), CAISO, and
CalPX.
Prior to the aforementioned tour, Waszczuk was very concerned
about the governor’s safety. Commissioned in 1998, the plant was still
unfinished and not yet up to safety standards. Waszczuk’s main concern
was the plant’s 12.5 kV high-voltage switch gear room, which was
protected from fire by a water sprinkler instead of a carbon dioxide (CO2)
system. Before the tour, Waszczuk sent a 27-page fax to the governor’s
office with advice not to enter the room. The cover page of the fax (dated
February 14, 2001) attached as the Exhibit -A. Waszczuk’s concerns about
the governor’s safety were related to the fire protection system in the
Central Plant High Voltage Room as well as other safety issues with
UCDMC HR Consultant Hugh Parker and Cal/OSHA District Manager
William Estakhri; these are summarized in the following inquiry (dated
January 15, 2001) that was sent to Estakhri.
• “The last issue I would like to mention is the unnoticed hazard
related to the fire protection system in the central plant. I am not
sure if your team noticed this, but the High-Voltage Switch Gear
Room in the central plant is equipped with smoke detectors, which
are connected to the water sprinkler system. This system would be
-7-
activated if fire occurs in the 12.5 kV High-Voltage Switch Gear
Room.
I would not like to elaborate too much about this concern. However,
in my thirty years’ experience, I have before never seen or heard of
a fire safety system using water to extinguish a fire on electrical
equipment. I do not even want to imagine what would happen if
these water sprinklers went off and sprayed water over the hot
breakers, switch gears, generators, synchronizers, and so on. I can
only assume that it would be a disaster for the central plant and the
hospital. The 12.5 kV High-Voltage Switch Gear Room in the
central plant controls the small electrical grid of UCDMC Campus.
If this part of central plant were to get wet and stop working, then
everything would go down without the possibility of supplying
emergency power, steam and chilled water to the campus. Such
possibilities makes me very nervous, as somebody could he
electrocuted and patients in the hospital could die because of the
decision to install a water sprinkler system instead of a CO2 system
to protect the high-voltage electrical and electronic equipment in the
control room, which controls operation of the entire central plant.”
B. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Tays (ALJ Tays) and
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. Shelleyanne W.
L. Chang (Judge Chang)
In the tentative ruling dated February 27, 2015, the Court denying
Waszczuk‘s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and unemployment benefits
Judege Chang disclosed that : (EXHIBIT -C).
-8-
Preliminarily, Judge Chang discloses that she and
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tays worked together in the
Office of Legal Affairs of Governor Gray Davis in
approximately 2001 or 2002 for about 6 months. ALJ Tays was
on temporary loan from another state department to the
Governor's Legal Affairs Office ; Judge Chang was the Chief
Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary during that time frame. The
Court knows of no reason that it cannot be fair and impartial in
this matter.”
Waszczuk has yet to determine why Judge Chang disclosed the

above information about her employment together with ALJ Tays in
Governor Gray Davis’s office—though he suspects the decision was a
result of Waszczuk’s complaints against ALJ Tays and two other corrupt
CUIAB members, Michael Allen and Roy Auburn, with different CUIAB
Chief Administrative Law Judges. From 2013 through 2014, the complaints
were investigated by CUIAB Chief Counsel Kim Steinhardt but were never
concluded. On December 4, 2013, two days after Waszczuk filed a Petition
for Writ of Mandamus in the Sacramento County Superior Court,
Waszczuk received information from the CUIAB Chief Counsel’s office
that Chief Counsel needed more time to review the Waszczuk complaint;
this was the last time that Waszczuk was updated on the ongoing issue.
Judge Chang’s statement did not specify exactly which time period she
worked with ALJ Tays in Davis’s office. However, Judge Chang’s
information about her tenure prompted Waszczuk to check his files from
2001 and 2002; Waszczuk concluded that most likely on February 14,
2001, Judge Chang toured the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility where
Waszczuk was employed at that time as an operator. Judge Chang’s
-9-
disclosure also led Waszczuk to the FERC e-library where he discovered
why he was attacked by white-collar criminals from the UC Office of the
President (UCOP) and their thugs from the UC Davis Campus and
UCDMC. This harassment has been occurring for six years, and his life has
been devastated and destroyed by them with unlimited help from their
friends in Sacramento’s two courts.
On February 13, 2013, almost exactly 12 years after Governor Gray
Davis with other State of California dignitaries toured the UCDMC 27 MW
cogeneration plant and Waszczuk sent the fax with concerns for Davis’s
safety, the Governor’s former deputy ALJ Tays denied Waszczuk’s
unemployment benefits. Her manner and behavior during the hearing were
unforgettable and inexcusable.
On February 13, 2013, at 3:15 p.m., Waszczuk attended the
scheduled hearing with ALJ Tays; he brought along two former coworkers,
Kenneth Diede and William Buckans, as witnesses.
Waszczuk and his witnesses arrived at the Stockton, California,
EDD’s office a half hour before the hearing. The waiting room was
attached to the hearing room and was separated by a wall with big glass
windows. Waszczuk and his witnesses noticed that the person in the
hearing room—ALJ Tays—was pacing nervously. Waszczuk briefly left
the waiting room to return to his car for some documents and notes he’d
forgotten. One of Waszczuk’s witnesses reported that, while Waszczuk was
gone, ALJ Tays grew more nervous and agitated and eventually stormed
into the waiting room. She proceeded to very loudly ask Waszczuk’s
witnesses why Waszczuk had left and where he had gone.
The February 13, 2013, hearing with ALJ Tays continued to grow
more disturbing.
- 10 -
Waszczuk had also appeared in an unemployment case before
another CUIAB administrative law judge. That being said, Waszczuk had
never before seen a judge act so unprofessionally and with such visible and
unprecedented bias, prejudice, and negative attitude toward him and his
witnesses. ALJ Tays’s unusual and unbelievable favoritism toward
Waszczuk’s employer was shamefully blatant.
From the beginning of the hearing, ALJ Tays acted so belligerently
and hostilely toward Waszczuk and his two witnesses that Waszczuk
struggled to argue against her; his two witnesses reported feeling very
uncomfortable in her presence and with her behavior. ALJ Tays’s
disrespectful attitude toward Waszczuk and his witnesses could best be
described using the statement she made after Waszczuk or his witness
remarked on Waszczuk’s coworker’s suicide; ALJ Tays responded, “All
right, I guess he is not here.” When Waszczuk heard this, he lost all
confidence in ALJ Tays’s professionalism.
For a long time after the hearing, Waszczuk could not figure out why
ALJ Tays chose to be belligerent, offensive, and hostile toward Waszczuk
and his witnesses. Later, Waszczuk determined that ALJ Tays’s main target
was Waszczuk’s witness William Buckans. Her main goal was to neutralize
Buckans and not let him testify. Buckans was and is still being employed as
an operator in the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant; he knew that on
June 12, 2012, the UC Regents had resumed the illegal power sale from the
UCDMC 27 MW facility through an unlawful power purchase agreement
with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). Waszczuk did not
personally know this fact until later because UCOP white-collar criminals
removed Waszczuk from the UCDMC premises on September 1, 2011, and
never let Waszczuk return to work. They terminated his employment on
- 11 -
December 7, 2012, by fabricating false cause for termination and
terrorizing Waszczuk every few weeks with Investigatory Leave letters,
suspensions, and other means of blatant harassment. Buckans did not
initially tell Waszczuk that the Regents resumed power sales because
apparently it was not Waszczuk’s or any operator’s concern if the plant was
selling or not selling power. Waszczuk was hired to operate the plant not to
deal with the Regents’ white-collar crime. After Judge Chang disclosed
information about her position in Governor Davis’s office, Waszczuk
checked the FERC library and asked Buckans if the plant resumed selling
power after Waszczuk was removed from the premises. Buckans faxed
Waszczuk a copy of the Power Purchase Agreement with SMUD. This
document was found in the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant control
room and was signed on May 31, 2012. (EXHIBIT- D ) The Power
Purchase Agreement could be located in the Augmented Record on Appeal
in Case C079524 (CAT Vol. I Page 156-177)
The UCDMC again ceased illegal power sale in December 2013, just
a few days after Waszczuk filed his wrongful termination lawsuit against
UC Regents and his Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Sacramento County.
Former Governor Gray Davis Chief Deputy Legal Secretary Honorable
Shelleyanne Chang was assigned to Waszczuk’s Writ of Mandamus in
order to protect white-collar criminals from the University of California.
THE APPELLANT’S DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL
The history of designated record on appeal in this case combined with the
Petition for Review (Case No. S245508)—filed in the Supreme Court on
November 20, 2017, and detailing the history of anti-SLAPP motion appeal
manipulation in the 3DCA—are further reasons for Waszczuk to ask the Supreme
- 12 -
Court to transfer this case to the Supreme Court or an alternate Court of Appeal
District.
On June 22, 2015, Waszczuk filed the Appellant’s Notice Designating
Record on Appeal (Notice) in a timely manner, which was docked in the Court of
Appeal on June 25, 2015.
In the Appellant’s Notice Designating Record on Appeal, Waszczuk
clearly marked the box requesting that the clerk transmit the record of the
administrative proceeding to the reviewing court, under the Court Rule 8.23. By
the notice, Waszczuk requested two binders of the Administrative Record from
the California Unemployment Insurance Board (CUIAB), including binders with
the Administrative Record from the Employment Development Department
(EDD), Case No. 0410 BYB, dated December 16, 2012; CUIAB, Case No.
4729869, dated January 15, 2013; and the California Insurance Appeal Board
(CIAB), Case No. A0-30198805, dated March 11, 2013.
On October 28, 2015, Waszczuk sent an inquiry to the Superior Court
clerk from the Appeal Unit to determine the status of the Clerk Transcript and the
court reporter status and preparation. Since filing the Notice Designating Record
on Appeal, Waszczuk had not received any notification from the clerk, and
Waszczuk became concerned that something was wrong. Waszczuk’s inquiries
were docketed in the Court of Appeals on October 29, 2015. Afterward, the Court
clerk informed Waszczuk that Waszczuk had to pay $325 for the court reporter
transcript. Waszczuk sent the Court $325—accompanied by a letter that was
docked in the Court of Appeal on November 18, 2015.
On January 20, 2016, the Superior Court clerk from the Appeal Unit filed
the Notice of Filing of Designation and Notice to Reporters to Prepare
Transcripts, with a due date of February 22, 2016.
After seven months—starting from June 22, 2015, when Waszczuk filed
the Appellant Notice Designating Record on appeal—the Superior Court clerk
- 13 -
from Appeals finally filed the notice to prepare one volume of the 284-page clerk
transcript and one volume of the 12-page court reporter transcript.
On March 24, 2016, Waszczuk sent a letter to the clerk of the Superior
Court, Appellate Unit, and informed the Court clerk that both transcripts were
over 30 days late to be transmitted to the Appellate Court. Furthermore, the court
record shows that no request for a time extension had been submitted to the Court
of Appeal prior the due date to transmit the transcripts to the Court of Appeal, as
is mandated by law and Court Rule 8.122 (d).
On April 6, 2016, Waszczuk filed the Appellant’s Motion for Sanction to
Compel Compliance Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.23.
As the authority in his Motion, Waszczuk cited People v. Grimes, 90 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 787, 172 Cal. App. 4th 121 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 03/16/2009), in which the
court held that the Superior Court clerk must “promptly mail” to the Court of
Appeal notification of the filing of a notice of appeal (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.304(c)(1); further rule references are as follows: “The failure of a court reporter
or clerk to perform any duty imposed by statute or these rules that delays the
filing of the appellate record is an unlawful interference with the reviewing
court’s proceedings” (Id., rule 8.23).
In the same case, the Court reminded the parties and clerks in lower courts
of the grave consequences that could result from the failure of a clerk to perform
his or her duties. In 1935, the mishandling of a timely notice of appeal resulted in
defendant Rush Griffin’s execution before his appeal could be heard. The ensuing
furor led to the “automatic” appeal procedure now employed in capital cases (See
People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 550, 566-567).
On April 13, 2016, the Record on Appeal was transmitted from the
Superior Court to the Court of the Appeal and filed.
However, the filed Record on Appeal did not include the Administrative
Proceeding Record, which Waszczuk requested in his Appellant Notice
Designating Record on Appeal.
- 14 -
The Administrative Proceeding Record, which contains almost 1,000
pages, is the most important record in this appeal.
The Administrative Proceeding Record did not require preparation and
should have been transmitted and filed in the Court of Appeal within 30 days
from the date Waszczuk filed his Appellant Notice Designating Record on
Appeal, which occurred on June 25, 2015.
On April 14, 2016, Waszczuk was left without any choice but to file
another motion with a request to mandate the Superior Court clerk from the
Appeal Unit to fulfill his duty and transmit the requested Administrative
Proceeding Record.
On April 15, 2016, the day after Waszczuk filed his motion, the
Administrative Record was transmitted to the Court of Appeal. Waszczuk never
received any explanation for why he was being treated with ignorance, prejudice,
and bias; he believes that he is being denied access to justice in the Sacramento
County Superior Court even while paying all appropriate fees for properly filed
documents.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. Waszczuk has good cause to believe that the appellate

review by the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District,
would be not impartial in this case.
After Waszczuk received the October 10, 2017, 3DCA Unpublished

Opinion in Case No. C079524 (anti-SLAPP) and responded with his very
detailed Petition for Rehearing on October 25, 2017, (EXHIBIT E)—
which was denied on November 9, 2017, by 3DCA Presiding Justice
Honorable Vance Raye’s rubber-stamp signature—Waszczuk has lost all
expectation that his Writ of Mandamus appeal would be heard fairly or
result in a different fate than his anti-SLAPP motion appeal did in the
3DCA.
- 15 -
Waszczuk already provided information that two former deputies
who worked in former Governor Gray Davis’s office prior to his recall—
ALJ Marilyn Tays and Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang—were
assigned to deny unemployment benefits to 62-year-old UC Davis Medical
Center (UCDMC) worker Jerry Waszczuk—who served the university for
13 years with a near perfect employment record.
The stake in Waszczuk’s two cases is not Waszczuk’s $20,000
unemployment benefits or damages that the university should pay for
Waszczuk’s wrongful termination.
The issue in this case is whether 3DCA Presiding Justice Hon. Vance
Raye—who is or was member of UC Davis Medical School Leadership
Council—is personally acquainted with two executive from the UCDMC
who are defendants in Waszczuk’s lawsuit. If 3DCA Presiding Justice Hon.
Vance Raye wants to end his legal career by blatantly protecting white-
collar criminals from the University of California, then that is his
prerogative. The Justice Hon. Vance Raye’s biography on the 3DCA
website http://www.courts.ca.gov/2648.htm ,shows that Justice Raye is
very busy man being member of the California Judges Association, the
Council of Chief Judges, and has been involved in many law related
activities including service as chair of the National Governors Association
Staff Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety (1988);
the California Council on Criminal Justice Gang Violence Task Force
(1988); the Task Force on Victim Restitution (1989); chair of the Judicial
Council Committee on Family Law (1992-1993); Executive Committee of
the California Judicial Council Commission on the Future of the Courts and
chair of the Commission’s Family Relations Committee (1993); Member,
American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standards Committee; Member,
- 16 -
California Judicial Council Appellate Courts Advisory Committee and
chair of the Committee’s Legislative Subcommittee; chair of the California
Commission on Judicial Performance; and member of the Elkins Family
Court Reform Task Force. He currently serves as President and Master of
the Bench, Milton Schwartz/ David Levi Inn of Court, and co-chair of the
State Child Welfare Council, in addition to service on numerous civic
associations including the UC Davis Medical School Leadership Council,
Board of Directors of the Center for Health Care Decisions, and the 100
Black Men of Sacramento.
Justice Raye,
If Justice Raye is or was a member of 100 Black Men of Sacramento and
member of UC Davis Medical School Leadership Council , then most likely
Justice Raye knows or knew former UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor
for Equal-Opportunity and Inclusion in the UC Davis Medical Center, Dr.
Shelton Duraisseau, who was and perhaps still is an activist in the Black
community in Sacramento and a friend of former Mayor of Sacramento
Kevin Johnson.
Dr. Shelton Duraisseau retired from the UC Davis Medical Center in 2012.
Just after he retired, Dr. Duraisseau gave an interview to the Sacramento
African-American magazine Sac Cultural Hub
(http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-look-back). The interview was
conducted by Donna Michelle Ramos on August 6, 2012 and was entitled
“A Look Back".
As a psychologist by education, Dr. Shelton Duraisseau was not familiar
with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the
requirements set in 18 C.F.R. §§ 292.203(b) and 292.205 for the operation,
efficiency and use of energy output to be certified as a qualified facility
- 17 -
(QF) (pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 292.20 requirements; Federal Power Act 16
U.S.C. § 824d(a); California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5; State of
California Unfair Business Competition law; Business and Professions
Code § 17200; Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954;
and State of California Revenue and Taxation Code, the laws which
regulates power plant operations and power distribution and sale in the
United States). What was unintentionally disclosed during the interview
was that the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant was
illegally selling and laundering power during the California energy crisis of
1999-2003 and, together with Enron, was gouging prices and defrauding
California ratepayers and taxpayers (see Waszczuk’s March 11, 2014 letter
to UCOP Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg ( EXHIBIT-F ) (Case
C079524 Petition for Rehearing Page No. 45, Vol III, CT 793-801). Dr.
Shelton Duraisseau’s interview with Sac Cultural Hub took place two
months after the UC Regents resumed illegal power sale on June 1, 2012
and nine years after illegal power sale was ceased due to Governor Davis’s
recall from office in 2003. The Dr. Shelton Duraisseau’s name is proudly
displayed on the plaque in the entry of the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration
plant . (EXHIBIT -G)
Besides being an Associate Vice Chancellor for the UC Davis Medical

Center, Dr. Duraisseau was appointed to the Medical Board of California,
Division of Medical Quality by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004.
He was also a member of the California Health Professions Education
Foundation Board of Trustees.
On February 12, 2002, during the Hearing before the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the United States Senate One
- 18 -
Hundred and Seventh Congress Second Session, California Senator Barbara
Boxer stated:
• The University of California says it lost nearly $145 million on its
investments in Enron stock, while two of the state's public employee

pension funds also lost nearly $90 million.
The respected California Public Employees Retirement fund, which had
been known as an advocate for stronger corporate governance, was
embarrassed by revelations that it had invested in one of the dubious
partnerships that Enron used to hide its debt from investors. Calpine scales
back.
The University of California lost another $200,000,000 because of building
the 27 MW cogeneration plant in the UC Davis Medical Center to sell
illegally electric power instead to build the Plant in the UC Davis Main
Campus in Davis. Mini Enron white collar crime.
Waszczuk has been a legal resident of the United States of America
since 1982 and a legal resident of California since 1989. Contrary to the
situation in Alonso v. California, 50 Cal. App. 3d 242, 123 Cal. Rptr. 536
(Cal.App.Dist.2 07/30/1975), Waszczuk’s immigration status to receive
unemployment benefits is indisputable; Waszczuk provided all necessary
documents to the State of California Employment Development
Department in order to qualify for his unemployment insurance benefits.
Waszczuk never should have been victimized by two corrupt judicial
officers who were formerly employed together in the office of recalled
California Governor Gray Davis.
The victimization of 66-year-old Waszczuk and the destruction of
his life is being further exacerbated by discrimination against Waszczuk
carried out by justices from the 3DCA.
- 19 -
The highly problematic discriminatory decision in the anti-SLAPP motion
(C079524) is also undeniable evidence of partiality and most likely of 3DCA
Presiding Justice Hon. Vance Raye’s collusion with two defendants in Case No.
C079524 who were participants in white-collar crime related to illegal power sale
from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility and tax fraud due to violation of
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the requirements
set in 18 C.F.R. §§ 292.203(b) and 292.205 for operation, efficiency and use of
energy output to be certified as a qualified facility (QF) (pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §
292.20 requirements; Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a); California Public
Utilities Code Section 218.5; State of California Unfair Business Competition
law; Business and Professions Code § 17200; Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954; and State of California Revenue and Taxation Code.( See
Petition for Review in Case No. S245508.)
B. The US and the California Constitution guarantee a fair
and impartial hearing in a Court of Appeal.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution provides that no state

“shall . . . deny any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law.” Similarly, the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, provides that “a
person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law.” Due process “principally serves to protect the personal rights of litigants to
a full and fair hearing” (Miller v. French (2000) 530 U.S. 327). The constitutional
“right to due process is a personal one” (Jones v. Omnitrans (2004) 125
Cal.App.4th 273). The right to due process is not merely afforded to a person in a
trial court but also pervades to all levels of the courts; therefore, causes in this
appeal must be transferred to the Supreme Court or another appellate district to be
impartially reviewed. The decision should be based on facts and Waszczuk’s
employment record—especially on Waszczuk’s employee performance reviews
for the 13 years of his employment with the University of California (evaluation)
- 20 -
and in the spirit of Paratransit, Inc v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals
Board, No. C063863 (Cal. App. Dist.3 05/31/2012).
The annual evaluations are mandated by UC Davis Policy PPSM 23,
which has the force and effect of state statute (see Kim v. Regents of University of
California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 165).
CONCLUSION
In his Petition for Review filed on November 20, 2017, Waszczuk pointed
out and provided information to the court record of the Supreme Courts that both
Sacramento Courts—trial court and 3DCA—placed Waszczuk into and then
proceeded to manipulate a legal roller coaster. The speed of the legal proceedings
was manipulated by court staff, judges, and justices. Bias and discrimination
should not be permitted in Waszczuk’s cases just because the defendants are high
ranking executives of the University of California.
Sacramento County Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-
2010-0079869, Janet Keyzer v. The Regents of the University of California,
3DCA Case No. C067346 & C077974, included two high ranking University of
California executives—UC Davis Chancellor Larry N. Vanderhoef and UC
President Mark Yudoff. On February 24, 2014, former Gov. Gray Davis Chief
Deputy Legal Secretary Hon. Shellayanne Chang was disqualified by the
Plaintiff’s legal counsel by Peremptory Challenge Code of Civil Proc. § 170.6.
She resurfaced one month later and was assigned to the Waszczuk Petition for
Waszczuk’s Writ of Mandamus. This followed the unprofessional actions of her
friend from CUIAB ALJ Marilyn Tays.
The 3DCA Unpublished Opinion issued on October 10, 2017, in Case
C079524 has made a factual showing of discrimination and bias in violation of
Canon 3(B)(7)(a) of the Code of Judicial Ethics and Government Code section
68070.5—these prohibit communications between appellate and trial judges.
- 21 -
Faced with such corrupt judges serving in the Sacramento Courts, Waszczuk has
no desire to waste further time there being illegally denied and discriminated
against. The partiality, prejudice, discrimination, and bias toward Waszczuk are
likely driven by the Courts’ close proximity to the UCDMC administrators and
are so obvious that Waszczuk feels trapped and hopeless.
On August 30, 2016, with recommendation from the Commission of
Judicial Performance, Waszczuk submitted the complaint to the Sacramento
County Superior Court Presiding Judge Hon. Kevin R. Culhane (EXHIBIT- H).
In his complaint, Waszczuk wrote:
If the presiding judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court

read my request for intervention letter submitted to California
Chief Justice Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye and the last two
motions I submitted to the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
District, then the presiding judge would see how ruthlessly and
despicably the corrupt staff from both courts collaborated to
prevent me from finishing the appeal. Apparently, they know
from information given to them by the university’s mafia that due
to my financial status and health condition, any delay or
derailment of the process would affect my health due to
enormous stress and other serious health problems and that
eventually I would find myself homeless due to being
unemployed for four years and the subsequent financial disaster. I
am not there yet, but the corrupt court personnel collaborating
with the university’s organized crime cost me a significant
amount of money and stress. They did so by blocking the court
record from being submitted to the Court of Appeal for almost
one year and denying my motion to transfer records for sanction
by using a rubber stamp with a Court of Appeal Presiding
Justice’s name on it.
- 22 -
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-339-1982
Cell: 209-663-2977
November 22, 2017
Laura Huggins, Deputy Trial Counsel

Laura L. Sharek, Investigator Supervisor
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel Enforcement
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639
SUBJECT: STIPULATION: FACTS, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

AND ORDER APPROVING – Filed on October 24, 2017
Complaint against Attorney at Law Douglas E. Stein – Case Number: 15-
O-10110-LMA; Douglas E. Stein’s misrepresentation and misconduct in
the Sacramento Superior Court Case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479 – Wrongful
Termination – Hon. David Brown and Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Case 34-2013-80001699
Dear Ms. Huggins and Ms. Sharek,
This is my response to your STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND

DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING filed in the State Bar of California Hearing
Department, San Francisco on October 24, 2017.
I. INTRODUCTION
I had no time earlier to comment on or respond to the Stipulation Re: Facts, Conclusion
of Law and Disposition and Order Approving that you filed on October 24, 2017 in the
State Bar Court in the above captioned complaint against Douglas E. Stein.
I was preoccupied with my Petition for Rehearing in the Third Court of Appeal (3DCA)
against the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Defendants on December 1, 2014 in the
above wrongful termination case after 3DCA issued an Unpublished Opinion on October
10, 2017. I filed my Petition for Rehearing on October 25, 2017, the day after you filed
1
your Stipulation, which was approved by the State Bar Court Order and signed by Judge
Hon. Lucy Armendariz.
Also, I was preoccupied with the Petition for Review that I submitted on November 18,
2017 to the State of California Supreme Court after my Petition for Rehearing was denied
by the 3DCA Presiding Justice Hon. Vance W. Raye.
II. THE STIPULATION FILED IN THE STATE BAR COURT ON

OCTOBER 24, 2017
I am responding to your STIPULATION for the record and because your filed
STIPULATION in the State Bar Court of California contains unacceptable misstatements
that don’t correspond with the true facts. In addition to misstatements within the FACTS
in the STIPULATION on page no. 10, certain important facts are missing because, for
some reason, the State Bar-assigned Investigator and the Trial Counsels did not
acknowledge the details of the provided documents regarding December 16, 2014 and
information on my meeting with both of you in your San Francisco State Bar office on
October 2, 2017, eight days before 3DCA issued the Unpublished Opinion in the anti-
SLAPP motion.
The State Bar and Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown was informed as early as
December 2014 and January 2015 that Douglas Stein defrauded me of my retainer and
colluded with the opposing lawyer Michael Pott from the Porter Scott law firm in
addition to having an over 20-year friendship with Superior Court Judge Hon. David
Brown. 1 The State Bar was given clear, black-and-white evidence on December 14, 2014
and in January 2015 that Douglas Stein stole my retainer, and the State Bar failed to take
any action about this for almost three years. The State Investigator who was initially
assigned to the cases, Amanda Gormley, made a good effort to prosecute Douglas Stein
in October 2015, but somebody stopped her, and the case and she disappeared altogether
for another two years.
2
In my Petition for Review that I submitted on November 18, 2017, I provided an
explanation of what had happened with my Complaint with the State Bar against Douglas
Stein and my Appeals in two cases in 3DCA. The Partnership between the Court of
Appeal Third Appellate District and the arm of the California Supreme Court State Bar of
California devastated my life completely. I am defenseless against uncontrolled
corruption in the Sacramento courts and the State Bar of California, but this does not
mean that I will be silent about it. I dealt with $100,000,000 worth of fraud, corruption,
and deception in the state court and state agencies almost 20 years ago when retired
Judge from the San Joaquin County Superior Court Hon. Duane Martin did not hesitate to
tell me that “Lawsuits are expensive for immigrants in this country.” State Labor
Commissioner Jose Milan permitted my employer from Texas who was doing business in
California to violate state overtime law, and 119 workers lost over $1,000,000. The
3DCA Unpublished Opinion in Case No. C030005 is related to overtime, and the
unpublished 3DCA opinion helped to restore proper Industrial Welfare Commission
Order (IWC), which applied to overtime pay for Power Plant Operators working on an
alternative work schedule in the State of California.
Waszczuk v. Destec Energy, Inc., issued in 1999, is related to the mentioned overtime
fraud permitted by the State Labor Commissioner Jose Milan. If you would like to see the
documents about it, I could provide them to you without a problem.
My wrongful termination cases in the Sacramento State Court are similar to a

continuance of the previous wrongful termination case against Destec Energy, Inc. almost
20 years ago because of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) involvement in my
wrongful termination case against Destec Energy, Inc. Almost twenty years ago, based on
my information, PG&E recovered $100,000,000 from Destec Energy Inc., a subsidiary of
the major power producer Dynegy, Inc., for its ratepayers and California’s taxpayers.
In similar misconduct to Douglas Stein, my attorney misrepresented me and did not

inform me that his law firm also represented PG&E and did not secure an agreement with
PG&E for the 25% promised to me between PG&E executives, myself, and my lawyer in
his office. When PG&E filed the lawsuit against Destec, it was too late to secure an
agreement, and I, my lawyer, and his law firm lost $25,000,000. Instead of getting at least
$1,000,000, I got a token from PG&E in the amount of $150,000 and a token in the same
amount from my lawyer by suing them both and settling with them out of court. It is
apparent that PG&E breached the Settlement Agreement by participating in the case
together with the Regents that was pending since August 2000 with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). The case was filed in August 2000 with FERC against
CAISO. The Case included the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW and the possibility that
3
the UC Berkeley and UC San Diego cogeneration plants were involved in the illegal
powers sale and tax fraud.
My other lawyer in the overtime case, Anton Zybach, exactly like Douglas Stein, robbed
his clients of the money they gave him, and he has not been permitted to practice law in
the State of California since 1998.
I am writing to you about these previous cases to let you know that corruption,
conspiracy, deception, and crooked lawyers are not new to me.
III. FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW IN THE ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION FILED ON OCTOBER 24, 2017 IN THE STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA
A. FACTS Page No. 10 § 4, § 5 & § 8
• §4. Between June 2, 2014 and December 3, 2014, respondent wrote checks to
himself totaling $15,375 for attorney fees. At the time respondent issued these
checks, he did so under the mistaken belief that the fee agreement provided for
advanced fees in the amount of $14,500.
• §5. Between June 2, 2014 and December 2, 2014, respondent issued fourteen
checks and initiated thirty-one debits directly from the trust account totaling
$4,991.82 for personal transactions.
It is my understanding from these two paragraphs that Douglas Stein from June 2, 2014
to December 2, 2014 withdrew from the trust account $4,991.82 and that, on December
2, 2014, Douglas Stein had $14,508.18 left in the trust account of the $19,500 he
deposited on June 2, 2014. However, on December 3, 2014, Stein must have withdrawn
$14,702.51 if the account reached a negative balance, as stated in paragraph No. 7:
• § 8. On December 3, 2014, the client’s trust account had a negative balance of

$194.33.
The above paragraphs do not make sense if § No. 6 states that the respondent deposited
$600 he got from his mother on October 21, 2014 and $200 on November 12, 2014
according to paragraph No. 7. Thus, it indicates that the trust account was empty in
October 2014.
B. FACTS Page No. 11 § 10
4
• §10 states: On December 16, 2014, Waszczuk terminated respondent as legal
counsel due to a disagreement regarding case strategy.
Waszczuk did not terminate Douglas Stein due to a disagreement regarding case strategy.
Waszczuk dismissed Stein for gross misrepresentation, failure to properly amend
complaint, not objecting to the anti-SLAPP motion, defrauding Waszczuk of his
retainer, and especially sending a text message to Waszczuk on December 15, 2014 about
his twenty years plus friendship with Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown.
C. FACTS Page No. 11 § 16
• §16 states that, between June 2, 2014 and December 16, 2014, the respondent
developed a friendship with Waszczuk. During this time, Waszczuk purchased
gifts for the respondent's daughter and offered to pay for the respondent's living
expenses. Waszczuk also encouraged and permitted the respondent to use
Waszczuk's credit cards for personal expenses.
I am not sure where this idea came from. There was no friendship from June 2,
2014 to December 16, 2014. My good relations with Douglas Stein ended after he got
paid $ 20,000 on June 2, 2014 and after he filed the First Amended Complaint on June
16, 2014 and visited my home at the beginning of July; thereafter, Stein turned evil. (See:
Initial Complaint submitted to the State Bar on January 28, 2015.)
I had a friendly relationship with Stein from December 2013 to July 2014, not
from June 2, 2014 to December 16, 2014. I hired Stein in November 2013 for the Writ of
Mandamus against the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board The case is still pending
in the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (Case No. C079254).
After he visited my home in July 2014, I did not see Stein until November 25,
2014, when I drove to his residence in El Dorado Hills and gave him $500.00 to amend
the Second Amended Complaint, which he filed with a suspended attorney license
against with collusion of Defendants Attorney Michael Pott and Judge of Superior Court
Hon. David Brown . He should return this $500 as well. It was not a gift. It was for
repairing the damage he did with the First and Second Amended Complaint. I believe that
it was in June 2014 that I bought the small iPad for his daughter and repaired her Mac
laptop computer. I did not offer to pay for Stein’s living expenses. This is a crazy made
5
up out blue statement for unknown to me reason. I permitted Stein to use my credit card
for court filing, gasoline to drive to the Sacramento Court to file documents, and the
office supplies needed to run the two lawsuits. I also bought him a new scanner, printer to
heve proper tools to handle the lawsuits from his home. Also I bought a new briefcase to
make him look like an attorney in the court.
Stein is friend of my former coworker from UC Davis Medical Center to whom I
provided representation in the complaint against department management for “ Does
not meet expectation performance review , letter of expectation and whistle blowing
complaint” under the UC Davis Policies and Procedures .
D. FACTS Page No. 11 § 15
• § 15 states: Between June 2, 2014 and December 16, 2014, respondent performed
legal services related to the Regents case, which amounted to approximately 100
billable hours.
On July 18, 2014, Douglas Stein sent a letter to Liberty Mutual Life Assurance
Company of Boston in regard to my being denied a supplemental disability claim in
2011. What caught my attention in the letter was Mr. Stein's statement that he spent 350
hours of work over 6 weeks on my wrongful termination first amended complaint.
I was surprised that Liberty responded to Mr. Stein's letter and offered to pay a
settlement of $1,900.00. Douglas Stein, who had not been hired for this case, tried to
force me through intimidation and threats to sign this settlement. If it had been at least
$25,000.00, I would have considered the offer. Stein sent a letter without my
authorization to Liberty based on documents he received for my wrongful termination in
May 2014, which included a complaint with the State Insurance Commissioner’s office
against Liberty for denying my Short-Term Disability in the Fall of 2011. The complaint
was not resolved by State Insurance Commissioner. In addition to the complaint against
Liberty, furthermore, Stein received from me a letter dated October 13, 2013 to the
Liberty Chief Operating Officer, in which I demanded to be paid $500,000 for the harm
that Liberty did to me by conspiring with UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources
executives, depriving me of income by denying me the benefits to which I was entitled.
In May or June, I asked Stein if he wanted to handle it or add Liberty to the

lawsuit as a co-defendant. Douglas Stein refused to do this and did not want to hear about
it. The mentioned 350 hours that Stein supposedly worked on my wrongful termination
translates to $64,750, considering Douglas Stein’s hourly billing practices of $185/hour
according to retainer agreement.
6
The letter that Stein sent to Liberty without my knowledge and authorization
because he was devastated financially and, having a lot of legal knowledge about medical
and insurance claims, attempted to extort money from Liberty using my 2011 claim
against Liberty. He was apparently successful, since Liberty sent him a settlement for me
to sign with a $1,920.00 pay off. Stein was furious at my refusal to sign the settlement. It
should be investigated by State Bar how much Liberty offered his effort to make the
problem vanish . If I had been offered at least $25,000 from this deal, I would have
considered signing. I even told Stein that if he got more money from Liberty for me, I
would add more money to the wrongful termination. He did not want to hear such a
proposition and furiously demanded that I sign the Settlement with Liberty for $1,928.70.
It is a possibility that Liberty agreed to pay Stein a lot more as legal fees, than damages
Liberty did to me as the victim. Another possibility was that University Attorney Michael
Pott asked Stein to take care of Liberty so as not to have Liberty as a potential co-
defendant or any witnesses from Liberty in my wrongful termination lawsuits against
University and nine individual defendants who were involved in m short term disability
claim Liberty Assurance Company of Boston.
After the deal with Liberty failed because I turned down the settlement for $ 1,900,
Douglas Stein turned to Michael Pott and offered to him to sell my case. In September,
Stein asked for help from David Greenwald, the owner of the internet newspaper “The
Davis Vanguard” where Stein publicized my wrongful termination in this venue in June
2014. In September 2014 at the same time Stein was dealing and wheeling with Michael
Pott to file the Second Amended complaint with suspended attorney license, Greenwald
got information from UC Davis under the Public Record Act about an unspecified lawsuit
from 2007 in which UC Davis paid $340,000 in legal fees and provided it to Stein. This
happened just before Stein filed the Second Amended Complaint in close collaboration
with UC attorney Michael Pott and with the help of the Superior Court Judge Hon.
David Brown.
All of the facts indicate that Douglas Stein cut a deal with Michael Pott. Most likely,
David Greenwald knows something about why Stein needed information about some
thousands of legal fees UC Davis for some lawsuit. Greenwald is always begging for
donations to run his internet-based Davis Vanguard. The best proof that Stein sold my
lawsuit to Michael Pott was that I gave Stein $500.00 on November 25, 2014 to amend
the complaint, and, instead of an amended complaint, I was attacked by an anti-SLAPP
motion on five days later December 1, 2014, which in fact was the redacted old demurrer.
The even better proof is that, in November, I offered $20,000 extra for Stein to get
somebody to help him run the wrongful termination case. Stein was completely broke in
November 2014, but he did not take the money $ 20,000 from me. On December 3, 2013
his trust account was negative in balance. . The anti-SLAPP was an emergency measure
crafted at hoc over Thanksgiving of 2014. The real deal between Douglas Stein and
7
Michael Pott was not the anti-SLAPP motion, but it was a Summary Judgment which
would be granted by Judge Brown to university and it would end my wrongful
termination lawsuit. Michael Pott would file the anti-SLAPP in July 2014 if it would be
beneficial for his client. It would be done of the First Amended Compliant which was no
different than Second Amended Complaint. My Petition for Rehearing filed in 3DCA on
October 25, 2017 described in detail how Pot and Stein and Judge Brown were planned to
end my lawsuit. (Enclose)
When I questioned Stein on the phone on what I believe was December 16, 2014 about
my retainer and empty trust account with Wells Fargo Bank, he told me that I should not
be worry and that he would have money in January 2015 to pay me back. Stein never got
any money in January 2015 because he was fired on December 16, 2014 and Michael
Pott quit or got fired by Porter Scott in January 2015 .
The Court Hearing to hear the Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike (that was unopposed
by Stein was scheduled to be heard) on December 30, 2014. State Bar investigators
should look at the Douglas Stein
Stein is important in this whole mess. He the lead to find out who from the University
of California approved the deal to pay Stein for his service to end my lawsuit in
December 2014. Most likely the UC General Counsel Charles Robinson was behind
operation. Robinson is one of many white collar criminals from CAISO responsible
directly for California Energy Crisis . He was transferred from CAISO to the UC Office
of the President in January 2007 and I was hit first time in January 2007 UC white collar
criminals in attempt to end my employment with UC Davis Medical Center. I have no
choice but to ask District Attorney and FBI in three different counties to question Stein
and Pott and others. $ 300, 000 and collusion with opposite party attorney and Judge of
Superior Court is a very serious stuff. It is a lot more serious than Waszczuk’ friendship
with broken financially Stein and more serious and more important than Waszczuk’ $
20,000 retainer stolen by Stein.
IV. FINANCIAL CONDITION
The calculations on Page No. 7 are wrong. They should be $15,694.33 plus the $500.00
that I gave to Stein on November 25, 2014 to amend the complaint. This totals
$16,194.33.
$14,694.33 + $4,500 = $19,194.33, not the $20,000 that I paid to Stein as retainer. The
stipulation must be corrected, and a new order must be issued.
V. CONCLUSION
By his misconduct and collusion with the defense attorney Michael Pott and Judge of
Superior Court Hon. David Brown, Douglas Stein caused me to lose $200,000 from my
8
retirement savings by setting me up for the frivolous anti-SLAPP motion, which was
dragged out for three years by lawyers and judges with help from the State Bar of
California. Taking $20,000 from a client and not telling that client about SLAPP and anti-
SLAPP is an unforgivable crime.
Additionally, I am curious if the Judge of the State Bar Hon. Lucy Armendariz is in any
way related to an Attorney from San Francisco, Ms. Geraldine Armendariz, SB# #97196
The final question is: How Douglas Stein would repay the stolen money if his attorney’s
license is suspended and his financial situation is not better than it was in 2014 .? When I
filed complaint with State Bar , I was informed by State Bar that I would be reimbursed
by State Bar from the State Bar Client Security Fund ? Please let me know when I get my
money back and who is going to pay. Every licensed attorney should be obligated by the
State Bar of California to carry malpractice liability insurance than problems to recover
the stolen money would be easier to solve .
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
CC: Judge of State Bar Court Hon . Lucy Armendariz

California Attorney General office
Enclosed:
Petition for Rehearing filed in 3DCA on 10/25/2017 Case No. C079524 (Petition
Denied)
Petition fie Review (Supreme Court Case No. S245508) Filed on Nov. 18, 2017
January 28, 2015 -Complaint against Douglas Stein (Amanda Gormley )
July 18,2014 -Douglas Stein letter to Liberty Assurance Company plus Liberty offer to
settle short term disability claim and 10/19/2013 letter to Liberty CEO David Long .
9
EXHIBIT A

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
January 23, 2019
Jorge E. Navarrete
Supreme Court Clerk/Administrator
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Appellant’s Petition for Review after the decision by the Court of Appeal, Third
Appellate District, C079254, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board
Dear Mr. Navarrete,
Enclosed is the Petition for Review in the above 3DCA case. Although the petition is
bookmarked, it may contain some minor mistakes. The 3DCA justices unfairly
decreased my allotted time to file the Petition by two days. The 3DCA fully explains
that I am representing myself and that I have had all my documents proofread prior to
submitting anything to the Court because I am immigrant. I am struggling to maintain
my life on $1500 in monthly Social Security income after being forced by the Regents
to take early Social Security at age 62 in 2012. A 3DCA means that the justices have
done it a second time. First time in the case number C079524 Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California in 2017 and again this year.
The California Rule of Court CRC 8.500(e)(1)states that, if the last day to file a
Petition for Review falls on a day that the Supreme Court clerk’s office is closed
(either a Saturday, a Sunday, or a court holiday), the deadline is not extended to the
next regular business day.
PETITION FOR REVIEW C079254
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Please note that, on December 12, 2018, when I argued my case, I got the impression
that either the Sheriff’s Department or the City of Sacramento Police Department had
sharpshooters on roofs around the 3DCA court building. The court was reserved for
me only on that day. No one was there either before, during, or after oral arguments in
my case besides myself and my former coworker. It was quite intimidating and scary.
In addition, on August 28, 2017, Porter Scott Attorney David Burkett, who is
representing UC Regents, attempted to provoke me into a physical confrontation. I
informed the Court about this in my Petition for a Rehearing (Case C079524;
Supreme Court Case S245508), but nothing was done about it. My written statement
was as follows:
• On August 28, 2017 just after oral argument, the Defendants legal counsel
David Burkett from the Sacramento-based law firm Porter Scott approached
Waszczuk in the Court Hall outside the courtroom and attempted to instigate a
confrontation. He made threats toward Waszczuk wife and tried to exploit the
emotional and financial suffering we have both experienced since UC Regents
terminated Waszczuk employment in December 2012 at age 61 without any
possibility to find new employment. For the Court information
Waszczuk spouse Irena Waszczuk is working in Nordstrom in Sacramento as
seamstress -fitter for almost 30 years and has nothing to do with the University
of California and Waszczuk' lawsuit , Waszczuk spouse should retire on
September 21, 2017 at age of 66 but he can't due to devastation of Waszczuks
life and livelihood by UC Regents and their collaborators. Burkett knew that
Waszczuk was stressed due to financial hardship caused by his client's criminal
behavior; he thought that his attacks against my spouse would easily provoke a
confrontation. Sadly, this encounter was my second time experiencing such
shameful tactics in the court building. It is a second time Waszczuk
experienced such Defendants attorney behavior . It happened before in 2015,
prior to the court hearing with presiding Judge Shelleyane Chang in the
unemployment benefits Writ of Mandamus casein which UC Regents is party
as a Real Party In Interest( RPii.) UC legal counsel and UC administrators
must be very desperate if they resort to using such tactics. Trying to provoke
the opposing party into a physical confrontation in an area heavily trafficked
by sheriffs deputies and city police is either very foolish or very underhanded
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
I am 68 years old, and I may never see the unemployment benefits of which I was
defrauded because of the wrongful termination of my employment five years ago.
However, until I cannot write or speak, I will be asking for what I was unlawfully
deprived of by corrupted state judicial officers.
Enclosed, please find the original and eight copies of the Petition for Review, in
addition to the copy that I sent by Truefiling, the Proof of Service, and the Waiver of
Fees and Costs.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Petitioner and Appellant in Pro Per
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,
Defendant and Respondent;
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
___________________________________________
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW
_______________________________________
AFTER THE DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CASE NO. C079254
Sacramento County No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
-1-
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
II. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND WASZCZUK’S ALLEGED
MISCODUCT WHICH DISQUALIFIED HIM FROM RECEIVING
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS .................... 7
A. Misconduct as interpreted by the Unemployment Insurance Code, section
1256 5
B. The story behind RPii’s “witch hunt” against Waszczuk in 2006–2009 and
in 2011–2012 ……………………………
III. APPELLANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER THE CAUSES ....... 12

A. Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al.,
3DCA Case No. C079254 ............................................................ 12
B. State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110-LM and Supreme Court
Case S245982……………………………………………………..14
IV. 12/27/2018 UNPUBLISHED OPINION IN CASE NO. C079254 -

Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al.
ISSUED ON DECEMBER 27, 2018 ………………………………15
A. The 12/27/2018 C079254 Unpublished Opinion. ………………...15
B. The Oral Argument and the 3DCA Review Panel for Case No. C079254:
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board…………………………………………………………….……..…16
V. REASONS TO GRANT WASZCZUK PETITION FOR REVIEW

AND REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT, UNPUBLISHED OPINION. ..................................... ..21
A. The Respondent, RPii, failed to provide in December 2012 a
timely response to the Employment Development Department
(EDD) to the unemployment insurance claim Waszczuk filed with
the EDD on December 16, 2012. ................................................ 21
B. The EDD failed to resolve the conflicting information about
Waszczuk’s unlawful termination of employment by the RPii….21
C. The EDD failed to appear at the hearing with Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) Marilyn Tays on February 13, 2013………...…….22.
-2-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
D. Administrative Law Judge Marylin Tay’s biased decision dated

February 14, 2013, and the California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board decision dated May 31, 2013. …………………...23
E. The CUIAB and RPii filed frivolous demurrers in April 2014 in

trial court. …………………………………………...………….23
F. The trial Court Decision of March 2, 2015, and the CUIAB’s
attorney Ashante Norton’s violation of the California Rule of
Court §3.13129 (b). ………………………………………..……25
G. Record on Appeal ……………………………………………….26
H. The CUIAB failure to submit a Respondent Brief on the Appeal
due on September 9, 2016………………………..………...……26
I. Waszczuk’s request to schedule oral arguments in Waszczuk v.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al. 3DCA
Case No. C079254………………………………………….…………27
J. Motion for New Evidence on Appeal……………………………29
K. Oral Arguments on December 12, 2018…………...…………….30

VI. CONCLUSION ………………………………………..…………30
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE………………………………….35
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC AND BY US
MAIL……………………………………………….…………………….36
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT “ A” December 17, 2018 -3DCA Unpublished Opinion in Case
No. C079254 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board ………………………………………………………………1
EXHIBIT “B’ -3DCA January 17, 2019 Order denying Waszczuk Petition
for Rehearing ………………………………………………………...……1
-3-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 671,
678.)………………………………………………………………………...7
Art Madrid v. Perot System Corporation et al. Case No. C046683, cited as
3DCA Case: [130 Cal.App.4th 440, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 210].
.................................................................... ………….…...…………....9, 17
Paratransit Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551,
558 (Paratransit)
[S204221]………………………………………...…............................….17
Melissa G. v. Raymond M., B284031 (September 20, 2018) Cal. App. Dist.
2…………………...………………………………………………………27
California Custom Coach, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal. App. 3rd 333, 338
Williams Construction, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School Dist. (2007) 146 Cal.
App. 4th 757, 763)………………………………………………...………27
STATUTES
Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256 ........................................ …..7
Unemployment Insurance Code, section1142(a)……………………...…..21
Business and Professions Code, section 6140.5………………..…………14
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT
California Rules of Court Rule 8.500 (a) ......................... …………………1
California Rules of Court, rule 10.1000 ………………………………….12
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a) (2)……………………………..………27
California Rules of Court 8.204 (a) (1) (B),………………………………
California Rules of Court, rule 8.252………………..……………………29
California Rules rule 8.23………………………….…………………………….26
California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b)…………………………………………..26
-4-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
OTHER AUTHORITIES
2005 Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Interview with The

Sacramento Bee, …………………………………………………...………1
California Assembly Bill 1890 -“Electricity Restructuring Act”………..…9
California Public Utilities Commission - OPINION ON 2000 ANNUAL
TRANSITION COST PROCEEDING Decision 03-02-047 February 27,
2003…………………………………………… ………………………..10
California Constitution Article VI Sec.12………………...…………...….12
State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110-LMA; STEIN ON
DISCIPLINE,; Supreme Court Case S245982]…………………...………23
UC Davis Personnel Policies for Staff Members 34 PPSM 34 ; University
of California Clinical Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2 ……...29
PETITION FOR REVIEW

-5-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE

AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to rule 8.500 (a) of the California Rules of Court, appellant and
petitioner Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk (hereafter Waszczuk) petitions this Court
for a Review in the above-entitled matter after the Court issued a discriminatory
and insulting unpublished opinion on Waszczuk, dated December 27, 2018,
(EXHIBIT “A”) and denied Waszczuk’s Petition for a Rehearing on January
17, 2019. (EXHIBIT “B”)The Court of Appeal, through its unpublished
opinion, affirmed the March 2, 2015 trial Court decision authored by the trial
Court Judge, Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, a friend of Administrative Law
Judge, Marilyn Tays (CT 00154). ALJ Tays slandered Waszczuk in her
decision of 2/14/2013 in a manner she should be ashamed of. The trial Court
Judge, Hon. Chang, denied Waszczuk’s Petition for a Writ of Mandate on
March 2, 2015, in a similar way to ALJ Tays’ response to Waszczuk (CT
00154-00162; 00200-002011). The Writ of Mandamus was filed in the Court on
December 2, 2014, against the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board (hereafter CUIAB) as the primary Defendant and Respondent, and
against the Regents of the University of California (hereafter UC Regents or
RPii) as the secondary Defendants and Respondents and the Real Party in
Interest (RPii) (CT 00001–00011).
Simultaneously with the petition for a Writ of Mandamus, on December 4,

2013, Waszczuk filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against his employer in
the Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California. The related appellate
-6-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
case is Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California Case No.

C079524. https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C079524.PDF
Waszczuk apologizes to the Supreme Court Justices that this Petition for
Review in some parts sounds more like a complaint with the State of
California Commission on Judicial Performance against six 3DCA Justices
rather than a request for review of Waszczuk case .
However , Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, in a 2005 interview with

The Sacramento Bee, said:
“My philosophy is to really listen closely to what people have
to say and try to balance it with everything they’ve told me
and give them a fair shot to tell me what they’re thinking...If I
let them ramble a bit, point them in a direction, I learn
why that person is there much better than in a question-
and-answer format.”
II. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND WASZCZUK’S ALLEGED
MISCODUCT WHICH DISQUALIFIED HIM FROM
RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
A. Misconduct as interpreted by the Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256

The Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256, disqualifies an employee from
receiving unemployment compensation benefits if he or she has been discharged for
misconduct. Misconduct as understood within section 1256 involves a willful or wanton
disregard for an employer's interests, or such carelessness or negligence as to manifest
equal culpability. It does not include, among other things, errors in judgment made in
good faith (Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 671, 678.)
Waszczuk urges the Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court's published decisions
because Waszczuk’s employment with the University of California UC Davis Medical
Center (RPii) from June 17, 1999 to September 31, 2011 was not marred by any
misconduct, good faith error, insubordination, or any wrong doing and because no harm
was done to the university or its activities by Waszczuk. Waszczuk his being hunted
-7-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
down (like a Jew during the Holocaust in his native country Poland during War II) by
the University and by the California Court judges and justices for the completely
different reason than the despicable unfounded accusations produced by the RPii’s
witch hunters . Waszczuk only found out why it was that he was being hunted down
like an animal in June 2015, three years after the termination of his employment, due to
Superior Court Judge Shelleyan Chang’s decision of March 2, 2015, in which she
disclosed that she had worked together with ALJ Marilyn Tays in Governor Davis
office. Furthermore, on August 6, 2012, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor, Dr.
Shelton Duruisseau, gave an interview to the Sacramento-based African-American
magazine, Sac Cultural Hub, regarding the whistle blowing on the Regents power sale
from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant at gouged or overcharged Megawatts
prices, together with Enron during the California Energy Crisis.
In this interview with Sac Cultural Hub, Dr. Shelton Duruisseau stated that:
“Internally, I convinced the university to build its own central plant because we
recognized our patients come into the hospital on ventilators, etc. They couldn’t be
disrupted, so by having our own central plant the health system doesn’t depend on
any central outfit to supply water, power, etc. SMUD [and] PG&E are backup
systems for us. We sold enough power to the state for the central plant to be paid for
in the first four years. Lots of energy companies like Enron, all around the country,
caused prices to go up. The plant provides stable power for the campus without
interruption and without blackouts. This plant was built out for 50 years capacity;
we are only using 9%, so we have lots of room built in for growth.”
http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-look-back
From the interview with Dr. Duruisseau, which Waszczuk came across in March 2014,
and from Judge Chang’s disclosure about her tenure with ALJ Tays in Gov. Davis
office, it was not difficult for Waszczuk to conclude that the UC Davis 27 MW
cogeneration power plant, named the Central Plant, where Waszczuk was employed
from June 1999 to April 2007, did not meet the requirements of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA). These mandated that any cogeneration facility, certified and recognized
legally as a “qualified cogeneration facility” must meet special requirements for the
ratio between electric energy production and thermal energy.
-8-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Dr. Shelton Duruisseau, who was in charge of diversity and inclusion at the UC Davis
Health System (UCDHS), was also a Member of the California Medical Board, having
been appointed in 2004 to the Board by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397955146/Dr-Shelton-Duruisseau
A. The story behind RPii’s “witch hunt” against Waszczuk in 2006–2009 and
in 2011–2012
To cut a long story short, Waszczuk was hired by RPii in June 1999 as an operator in
the newly commissioned 27 MW cogeneration plant which triggered in May 2000, a
sophisticated and costly fraudulent scheme called “the California Energy Crisis”. The
UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) plant in which Waszczuk was employed was
solely built to illegally sell power tax-free at cost of California ratepayers and tax
payers. The California Energy Crisis was created in a sophisticated way by the authors
and coauthors of the 1996 Assembly Bill 1890 (“AB 1890” or “Electricity Restructuring
Act”) and the Act of September 23, 1996, 1996 Cal. Legis. Serv. 854 (A.B. 1890)
(West). This was signed into law by Governor Pete Wilson.
ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-
96/bill/asm/ab_18511900/ab_1890_bill_960924_chaptered.htm
To make the fraudulent scheme developed by the AB 1890 successful, the California
Government in created a joint venture in 1998 between the University of California,
California State University, Enron Corporation, California Independent System
Operator (CAISO), and California Power Exchange (CalPX), designed to launder
electricity via the UC and CSU campuses at gouged or overcharged prices by using
sophisticated equipment. Art Madrid v. Perot System Corporation et al. Case No.
C046683, cited as 3DCA Case: [130 Cal.App.4th 440, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 210].
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1352785.html
Prior to working for the University of California UC Davis Medical Center, Waszczuk
was employed by Enron’s competitor, the Dynegy Power Corp, from 1989 to February
1998 as an operator in their 50 MW cogeneration plant, which is similar to the UCDMC
plant.
-9-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Former Attorney General Bill Lockyer described Waszczuk’s previous employer

Dynegy as a one the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who rode in from Texas and
ran roughshod over California consumers, taxpayers and businesses.”
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-lockyer-announces-460-million-
settlement-reliant-resolve-energy
Between 1989 and 1997 Dynegy Power Corporation defrauded PG&E, ratepayers and
California taxpayers of $240,000,000.
ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/LegacyCPUCDecisionsAndResolutions/Decisions/Decisions_D9
901001_to_D0006092/D9910016_19991007_A9904009.pdf
California Public Utilities Commission - OPINION ON 2000 ANNUAL

TRANSITION COST PROCEEDING Decision 03-02-047 February 27,
2003
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/WORD_PDF/FINAL_DECISION/2
4198.PDF
2. Disputed settlement costs of $194,860 in the Jaroslaw Waszcuk v.

PG&E case are Qualifying Facility (QF) related costs and appropriately
recorded in the TCBA.
In 2004, Bill Lockyer’s “California Parties” and California Energy Task Force got a
kick-back from Dynegy Power corporation amounting to $280,000,000 and in 2005 it
received $460,000,000 from Reliant Energy. Bill Lockyer cashed out approximately
$20,000,000 for his offices in California.
The Mayor of La Mesa Art Madrid and his legal team almost solved the puzzle
called “The California Energy Crisis.” However, their effort became “a mission
impossible” when his complaints against CAISO and Perot Corporation were
transferred to the Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District. In April 2007, Waszczuk was abruptly removed from the
UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant and was replaced by a 37-
year-old friend of Waszczuk’s supervisor, Steve McGrath. Three years later, this
man was found dead, hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park. The two
- 10 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Directors of UCDMC, Robert Taylor and Director Dr. Shelton Duruisseau, are
assumed to be behind the job replacement for Waszczuk by an unqualified person
and behind the 2011–2012 witch hunt as well.
A second suicide occurred when the wife of the same supervisor, Steve McGrath,
a 41-year-old RN Nurse from Jackson Hospital, took her own life.
Another sudden and mysterious death, apparently related to the witch hunt against
Waszczuk and the illegal sale of power, was the death of UC Davis Chancellor
Emeritus, Larry Vanderhoof, who died in the UC Davis Medical Center on
October 15, 2015, two days after Waszczuk filed his Opposition to the
Defendants’ Motion for Automatic Stay, or the Alternative Motion for a
Discretionary Stay. This was filed on October 13, 2015 (ROA #111). (See
Waszczuk’s 2016 letter addressed to Congressman John Garamendi)
https://www.scribd.com/document/390511699/SI-22-U-S-Senator-Garamendi-
UC-Davis-Chancellor-Larry-Vanderhoef
The brutal and merciless witch hunts against Waszczuk, for no apparent reason
whatsoever, cost the University of California or the owners of the UCDMC 27
MW cogeneration losses of approximately $100,000,000 in revenue, tax-free, due
to a lack of surplus power for sale since February 2009.In April 2007 Regents
abruptly removed Waszczuk from the cogeneration facility than in February
2009, Regents signed a written Settlement Agreement with Waszczuk and ceased
the export of power from the UCDMC plant . Waszczuk was not aware about
until June -July 2015.
The case is pending in the U.S Tax Court in relation to the above matter .
The 2009 Settlement Agreement with the Regents of University of California cost
Waszczuk at least $1,000,000 in loss in income, while his house and life were
decimated by UC gangsters and the California Justice System.
In relation to the California Energy Crisis puzzle, Waszczuk wrote in his August
2018 report, as submitted to the new FBI Special Agent in Charge of the
Sacramento FBI Office Mr. Sean Ragan
- 11 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
• It is still unknown whether the 2000–2003 sophisticated scheme of fraud

and deception, which was labeled the “California Energy Crisis” and
which caused losses to the California economy of 40 billion dollars was
deliberately sabotaged by power-greedy corporations to make billions of
dollars by laundering megawatts, or whether the man-made “energy crisis”
was a coordinated act of terror synchronized with the September 11, 2001
terrorist attack on US soil. This was accompanied by intensified terrorist
attacks against the United States abroad during the period of the California
electricity deregulation and the California Energy Crisis.
• Whether a foreign terrorist network or a foreign power penetrated or
infiltrated the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the
California Power Exchange (CalPX), the University of California and the
Californian government during the process of the California electricity
market deregulation of 1996–1998, and whether this was done to
destabilize the Californian and US economy by manipulating the
electricity market in the Western states power grid, is the question that
should be asked and answered by the FBI. A 40-billion-dollar loss by the
Californian economy and California’s rate payers and tax payers is not
small change but an enormous amount of money which disappeared and
was never recovered.
III. APPELLANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER THE CAUSES
A. Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al., 3DCA

Case No. C079254
On December 1, 2017, Waszczuk filed in the California Supreme Court an
Appellant's Motion for Transfer the Causes, pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 10.1000 and the California Constitution Article VI Sec.12.
[Supreme Court Case No. S245879].
https://www.scribd.com/document/397957647/SUPRA-S245508-3DCA-
C079254-CUIAB-Motion-to-Move-Causes-pdf
Waszczuk did not see any reason to pursue his appeal further in the 3DCA
after that court issued an unbelievably discriminatory, prejudicial, biased,
accusatory, demeaning, and defamatory 14-page unpublished opinion on
October 10, 2017, in the cross-referenced case Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California Case No. C079524 (anti-SLAPP motion) and
after the 3DCA denied the Petition for Rehearing on November 9, 2017.
- 12 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Waszczuk made no mistakes in 2017 by filing the motion with the Supreme
Court to transfer the causes.
On January 10, 2018, Supreme Court Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye denied
Waszczuk’s Motion to Transfer Causes in Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board et al. Case No. C079254 and denied the Petition for Review in
the cross-referenced Waszczuk v. the Regents of the University of California et al. Case
No. C079524.
The issuance of a decision in both cases on the same day, January 10, 2018, makes
Waszczuk believe that not one of the Supreme Court justices ever saw or reviewed
Waszczuk’s Petition for Review in Case No. C079524 and Motion to Transfer Cause in
Case No. C079254. In March 2018, Waszczuk exchanged correspondence on this
matter with Supreme Court Clerk and Executive Officer Mr. Jorge E. Navarrete. In
response to Waszczuk’s inquiry dated March 21, 2018, Deputy Clerk Mr. Robert R.
Toy wrote:
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
Thank you for submitting your letter. Please rest assured, that the petition, and
the contentions made therein, were considered by the entire court, and the
denial expresses the decision of the court on this matter.
Waszczuk didn’t believe that the Supreme Court of California chief justice was
encouraging attorneys to practice law with suspended licenses so as to misrepresent
their clients, steal their retainers, collude with judges and conspire with opposite party
counsels to have their clients thrown out of court, and take bribes from opposite party
counsels. Waszczuk wrote a Motion to Recall the Remittitur in Waszczuk v. Regents of
the University of California et al. Case No. C079524. Waszczuk waited until after
Waszczuk v. the California Unemployment Insurance et al. Case No. C079254 was
resolved to file his motion in the 3DCA.
After oral arguments on December 12, 2018, in Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board et al. Case No. C079254, Waszczuk received from the 3DCA a
despicably discriminatory and biased response in an unpublished opinion on December
27, 2018. His detailed Petition for Rehearing portraying the court’s discrimination and
- 13 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
bias was denied on January 17, 2018. Waszczuk is afraid to file a Motion to Recall
Remittitur in Waszczuk v. the Regents of the University of California et al. Case No.
C079524, believing that the 3DCA justices will not hesitate to declare the motion
frivolous and sanction Waszczuk or declare Waszczuk a vexatious litigant in retaliation
on behalf of the Regents of the University of California. Waszczuk will ask the
California Commission on Judicial Performance for advice about what to do about the
Motion to Recall Remittitur or maybe the Supreme Court should help and on its own
motion Recall the Remittitur in Case No. C079524 and restore order and justice in the
3DCA.
Waszczuk in his briefs, and especially in the Petition for Rehearing and Petition
for Review in Case No. C079524, provided all the details about how the courts
were biased and had discriminated against him.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397958778/3DCA-C079524-10-25-
2017-SLAPP-Petition-for-Rehearing
https://www.scribd.com/document/397958925/Supra-S245508-11-20-2017-
Slapp-Petition-for-Review
B. State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110-LM and Supreme Court
Case S245982
• Douglas Edward Stein is suspended from the practice of law for a

minimum of one year of probation, and he will remain suspended
until the following conditions are satisfied:
• He makes restitution to Jaroslaw Waszczuk to the amount of $14,
694.33, plus 10 percent interest per year from June 2, 2014.
Alternatively, he must reimburse the Client Security Fund to the
extent of any payments by the Fund to Jaroslaw Waszczuk, in
accordance with Business and Professions Code, section 6140.5.
https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=223928
2&doc_no=S245982&request_token=NiIwLSIkTkw%2BW1BJSyNdWElIIFQ0UDxTJy
NOIzJTUCAgCg%3D%3D
- 14 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
The 3DCA panel of Justices in the 10/10/2017 unpublished opinion praised

Waszczuk’s counsel, Douglas Stein, who it is alleged stole Waszczuk’s
$20,000, with the following words:
• 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 the
plaintiff’s interests.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C079524.PDF
It is unbelievable that such words, praising and complimenting the thief Douglas
Stein, licensed by the State Bar of California, came from the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District, where California Supreme Court Justice, Hon. Tani
Cantil-Sakauye served as justice from 2005–2010, and where the 3DCA justices
affirmed the trial Court Judgment.
IV. 12/27/2018 UNPUBLISHED OPINION IN CASE NO. C079254 -

Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et
al. ISSUED ON DECEMBER 27, 2018
A. The 12/27/2018 C079254 Unpublished Opinion.

In the same manner, in Case No. C0749524, the author of the unpublished
12/12/27 Court Opinion accused Waszczuk of breaking Court Rules with regard
to the Waszczuk Briefs. The fact that 3DCA accusations in the two unpublished
court opinions with regards to the Waszczuk Briefs were unfounded and
ridicules. In facts , the Defendants Reply Brief was stricken in 2016 in Case
No Case No. C079524 and in 2016 the Defendant’s and Respondent’s brief
(CUIAB) were not filed at all. This is the best example and indication of the
discrimination and bias aimed at Waszczuk by the 3DCA Justices.
- 15 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
In his Petition for a Rehearing, filed on January 11, 2019, and denied by the
order of 3DCA Hon. Cole Blease on January 17, Waszczuk provided detailed
information from the records to show how the 3DCA panel of Justices had
applied a “de novo” standard of review and resolved any evidentiary doubts or
ambiguities in the plaintiff’s favor. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25
Cal.4th 763, 768; https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1072325.html
Aguilar Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843).
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/25/107.html [Petition
for Rehearing, Page 10].
The Waszczuk Petition for a Rehearing is very detailed and portrays how
Waszczuk’s life is being destroyed by the California Justice system on behalf of
the Regents of the University of California and UC President, Janet Napolitano.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397961378/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-01-11-
2019-Petition-for-Rehearing
B. The Oral Argument and the 3DCA Review Panel for Case No.
C079254: Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board.
The case was heard on December 12, 2018 by 3DCA Justice Hon. Cole Blease,
Hon. M. Kathleen Butz, and Hon. Elena J. Duarte. Waszczuk argued for
himself. The CUIAB legal counsel did not show up for the Oral Argument and
David Burkett from the Porter Scott law firm had nothing to say beside
slandering Waszczuk. Waszczuk has fully covered the Oral Argument on[
pages 16–17 of his Petition for Rehearing ]An unpublished opinion was
delivered by 3DCA Justice Hon. Elena J. Duarte five days after the Oral
Argument, on December 17, 2018.
The Waszczuk 3DCA Appeal Case No. C079254 was reviewed by a different
panel than appeal in cross-referenced case No. C079524 Waszczuk v. Regents of
the University of California et, al . 3DCA Justices, the Hon. Elena J. Duarte,
Hon. Cole Blease, and the Hon. M. Kathleen Butz. Hon Cole Blease and Hon.
- 16 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
M. Kathleen Butz are listed in the C079254 opinion as Concurring Justices.

Waszczuk was discriminated against in 2013 by an Employment Development

Department interviewing officer and subsequently by Administrative Law Judge,
Marilyn Tays; by two CUIAB Board Members, Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn;
by trial Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang (in her March 12, 2015 decision); and
now by 3DCA Justices, Hon. Elena J. Duarte, Hon. Cole Blease, and Hon. M.
Kathleen Butz.
Waszczuk addressed Hon. Cole Blease in his Petition for a Rehearing on Pages
28–30 in relation to his dissenting opinion in Paratransit Inc. v. Unemployment
Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 558 (Paratransit) [S204221].
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/paratransit-inc-v-unemployment-ins-appeals-
bd-34332
Hon. Cole Blease denied Waszczuk’s Petition for a Rehearing on January 17,
2019
In Paratransit Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd, it is worth noting that Hon.
Cole Blease was on the 3 DCA review panel with Hon. Rick Sims and Hon.
Harry E. Hull JR. in a case related to the manmade sophisticated fraud named
California Energy Crisis Art Madrid v. Perot System Corporation et al. Case No.
C046683, cited as 3DCA Case:[130 Cal.App.4th 440, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 ].
This could explain Hon. Cole Blease’s apparent 180 degree turn in his approach
to humanitarian causes regarding unemployment in Waszczuk’s appeal versus
that of Craig Medeiros in Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.
(2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 558 (Paratransit) [S204221].
3DCA Justice Hon M. Kathleen Butz is a former UC Davis employee, who

ordered in 2015 that both Waszczuk’s appeals, Case No. C079524 (anti -SLAPP
motion) and C079254 (Writ of Mandamus) are not eligible for mediation.
- 17 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963082/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-
06182015-Mediation-Statement-Denied-Hon-Butz
Waszczuk is especially concerned about his detailed 69-page Mediation

Statement in Case C079524 (anti-SLAPP), in which Waszczuk on Douglas Stein
gross misconduct which cost Waszczuk $20,000 of his retainer, stolen by his
attorney, Douglas Stein, who colluded with the Porter Scott attorneys, not to
mention a $3000 cost for Clerk Transcripts and filing.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397962401/3dca-C079524-07-16-2015-
SLAPP-Appellant-Mediation-Statement
The Hon. M. Kathleen Butz, in this case, did further harm to Waszczuk on behalf
of RPii by participating in issuance of unjust and discriminatory unpublished
opinion dated December 17, 2018.
Waszczuk had especially focused in the Mediation Statement mentioned above,
on February 2009, Settlement Agreement. Waszczuk had signed with Regents in
good faith after Waszczuk had defeated Regents in the arbitration process and he
was hoping that filing the detailed Mediation Statement would resolve the anti-
SLAPP case without occupying the Court for the next two years. Also, in his
Mediation Statement, Waszczuk focused on the UC Davis Policies and
Procedures, and especially on the UC Davis Employee Performance Review
Policy, PPSM 23, pointing out that the progressive discipline policies were
grossly violated and disregarded by the Defendant’s and the Courts . [See :
Appellant Reply Brief ARB 8-16; 39–42].
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963986/3DCA-CUIAB-C79254-ARB-07-
22-2016-Appellant-Reply-Brief
Waszczuk was not provided with an evaluation for the last two years of his
employment with the university. The Hon. M. Kathleen Butz is a former UC
Davis employee and Waszczuk believes that she is familiar with UC Davis
policies and knows how important an annual evaluation is for every employee of
the University of California, regardless of whether it is a good or bad evaluation.
- 18 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
As a former UC Davis employee, Hon. M. Kathleen Butz should have excluded

herself from the review panel instead of participating and discriminating against
Waszczuk. It is contended that her intention was to harm him on behalf of her
former employer.
3DCA Justice Hon. Elena J. Duarte is the Justice who delivered the final blow to
Waszczuk on January 17, 2019 in the form of an unpublished opinion that was
biased and outrageously discriminatory to Waszczuk. This was a disgrace to the
California Justice system as it not only violated Waszczuk’s right to equal access
to justice as a US and Californian taxpayer, but also violated 68 years of
Waszczuk’s human rights, and further destroyed Waszczuk and his family’s
normal existence.
It was no coincidence that Justice Duarte was chosen for this dirty job intended
to harm Waszczuk. She caught Waszczuk’s attention because she was employed
from 2000 to 2007 in the Los Angeles Office of the United States Attorney,
where she worked as an Assistant United States Attorney, first in the Major
Frauds Section and later in the Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section,
becoming Section Chief in 2005.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/12930.htm
In September 2017, President of the University, Janet Napolitano, hired Mr.

Alexander Bustamante as a new Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance
and Audit Officer, in the Office of the President, with an annual basic salary of
$350,000.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-names-alexander-
bustamante-chief-compliance-and-audit-officer
Mr. Bustamante served as an assistant U.S. attorney with Hon. Elena Duarte for
the Central District of California in the same Los Angeles U.S Attorney office
from 2002–2007. It is not the first time that UC President Janet Napolitano has
employed her former colleagues to conduct witch hunts to eliminate the
- 19 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
university’s adversaries. In 2016, Ms. Napolitano employed, for $1,000,000, two

former US attorneys, Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, to hunt down UC
Davis Chancellor Linda Kathi and her family to bring her down and to convert
Ms. Katehi from UC Davis Chancellor to Chancellor Emerita at cost of
$1,000,000 of public funds. Ms. Napolitano was deployed to the University of
California in August–September 2013 by President Barak Obama at the same
time that the Californian Governor deployed his Chief Deputy Jacob Appelsmith
to UC Davis as a new Chief Counsel. As a result, in July 2015, the arch enemy of
the UCOP corrupt establishment, the very popular Senator Leland Yee, author of
the Senate Bill SB 650 and an audit aimed at corruption in the UC System, was
convinced by Ms. Napolitano’s friend, Melinda Haag’s plea bargain, to go to
federal prison for five years.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397965046/07012015-USA-v-Leland-Yee-
Plea-Agreement-1-1-pdf
This coincidently happened at the same time that Waszczuk provided
information to the UC legal counsels from Porter Scott about the unlawful
operation of the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant. On
October 15, 2015, the UC Davis Chancellor, who in 2009 was ordered to sign
the Settlement-Agreement with Waszczuk was euthanized in the UC Davis
Medical Center. This was coincidently two days after Waszczuk provided
information to the Court about the enormous violation by the Regents concerning
tax fraud in relation to the illegal sale of power from the UCDMC 27-megawatt
cogeneration plant (ARB 51-52).
https://www.scribd.com/document/390511699/SI-22-U-S-Senator-Garamendi-
UC-Davis-Chancellor-Larry-Vanderhoef
Waszczuk will follow up with his own inquiry and will ask the FBI Special
Agent in Charge, Mr. Sean Ragan from the Sacramento FBI field office, whether
he knows Justice Duarte. Mr. Ragan was transferred from the Los Angeles FBI
to the Sacramento FBI office. In March–August 2016, UC Davis Chancellor
- 20 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Linda Katehi was the next candidate for UC President Janet Napolitano to be
persuaded to sign a plea bargain and to fo11ow Senator Leland to the federal
prison after an unsuccessful attempt to remove Chance11or Katehi from her post
by November 18, 201 1, fo11owing a pepper spray provocation.
V. REASONS TO GRANT WASZCZUK PETITION FOR REVIEW AND

REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
A. The Respondent, RPii, failed to provide in December 2012 a timely

response to the Employment Development Department (EDD) to the
unemployment insurance claim Waszczuk filed with the EDD on December
16, 2012.
The Rpii, UC Davis HR Unemployment Insurance (UI) Coordinator Holly Sohor, failed
to timely respond (AR-139) to the Waszczuk claim and lied to the EDD claim reviewer
about the reason for the response being late; thus, the RPii violated Section 1142(a) of
the UI Code which provides:
That an employer who willfully makes a false statement or representation,
or willfully fails to report a material fact in connection with a separation
issue may be assessed a penalty of up to 10 times the claimant's weekly
benefit amount.
Waszczuk fully described the UI Coordinator's lies about her late response to the EDD
in his [Petition for Rehearing on pages 18-21 ] Administrative Record (AR 139-141)
https://www.scribd.com/document/397969304/3DCA-EDD-1-2-2013-RPil- Late
Response-to-EDD-UI-Claim-N otification-AR-139-141
B. The EDD failed to resolve the conflicting information about Waszczuk's

unlawful termination of employment by the RPii.
On January 8, 2013, the EDD interviewed UCDMC Plant Operation (PO&M)

Department Administrative Supervisor Phyllis Reginelli (AR 133- 136). Ms. Reginelli
testified during the interview that August 31, 2011, was the date of Waszczuk's
employment termination and that December 5, 2012, was his last day of work or more
precisely the last day of forced leave since August 31 , 2011.(LDW) (AR 133) not day
of termination .
- 21 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Ms. Reginelli’s January 8, 2013, interview testimony about Waszczuk’s termination of

employment on August 31, 2011, corresponds with the facts Waszczuk provided in AR
545-547 and the information Waszczuk provided in the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal
(CT 00188,000189,00190) [Petition for Rehearing, pages 22-23 .] (AR 133-136)
https://www.scribd.com/document/397969833/3DCA-EDD-01-01-04-Record-of-Claim-
Status-Interview-Misconduct-AR-133-136
EDD ignored Waszczuk’s information about his unlawful termination of employment
and failed to resolve conflicted Waszczuk information
C. The EDD failed to appear at the hearing with Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Marilyn Tays on February 13, 2013.
The Notice of the Hearing clearly instructed the EDD to appear in person, but the EDD
representative did not show and during and after the hearing ALJ acted as if nothing
had happened. ALJ Tays pleased the RPii by defaming Waszczuk in her decision and
affirmed her hateful behavior toward Waszczuk in her decision. The EDD officer could
have provided information about Waszczuk’s ill-planned employment termination on
September 23, 2011, information the EDD received by interviewing UCDMC PO&M
Department Administrative Secretary Phyllis Reginelli on January 8, 2013 (AR 133). In
addition to the EDD officer’s absence from the hearing, ALJ Marlin Tays quickly
neutralized Waszczuk’s witness and former coworker William Buckans and did not let
him testify. Waszczuk’s witness William Buckans was the person who on September
23, 2011, at 8:45 a.m., alerted Waszczuk and department management by e-mail about
Waszczuk’s RPii employment termination on September 23, 2011. The date of
Waszczuk’s unlawful termination of employment was confirmed by the RPii’s
administrative secretary Phillis Reginelli on January, 8, 2013, in an interview with the
EDD, See: [ Petition for Rehearing, page 25 .] (AR -35)
https://www.scribd.com/document/397970483/3DCA-CUIAB-01-31-2013-Notice-of-
Hearing-with-ALJ-M-Tays-AR-35
- 22 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
D. Administrative Law Judge Marylin Tay’s biased decision dated February

14, 2013, and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
decision dated May 31, 2013.
Waszczuk in his Petition for Rehearing on pages 23-28 fully described the February 13,
2013, hearing with ADJ Marilyn Tays and her slanderous Waszczuk decision on
February 14, 2013, followed by the May 31, 2013, paste and copy document of ADJ
Tays’s decision issued by two California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
(CUIAB) members, Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn (pages 12-14, AOB).
In addition, Waszczuk in his Appellant Opening Brief (AOB) on page 14 and

Appellant Reply Brief (ARB) on pages 45-47 informed the Court of Appeal that
he submitted a complaint to CUIAB’s Chief Administrative Law Judge Ms. Elise
Rose and CUIAB Chief Counsel Mr. Kim Steinhardt against ALJ Marylin Tays
and two CUIAB members, Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn. CUIAB’s Chief
Counsel Kim Steinhardt apparently conducted an investigation, and the EDD in
May 2014 informed Waszczuk that Waszczuk’s unemployment insurance
benefits were restored.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398000531/3DCA-EDD-05-14-2014-EDD-
REINSTATED-WASZCZUK-UI-BENEFITS
However, Waszczuk never received any money from the EDD. In 2014, Waszczuk was
represented (misrepresented) by legal counsel Douglas Stein [State Bar of California
Case No. 15-O-10110-LMA; STEIN ON DISCIPLINE, which is the California
Supreme Court Order dated March 1, 2018, Supreme Court Case S245982][ Petition for
Rehearing, page 14 .]
E. The CUIAB and RPii filed frivolous demurrers in April 2014 in trial
court.
In April 2014, California Attorney General Deputy Ashante Norton, who represented
and still represents CUIAB in absentia, in a coordinated action with four attorneys from
the UC Office of the General Counsel representing the RPii, Cinthia Vroom, Charles
Robinson, Margaret Wu, and Karen Petrulakis, in collaboration with Waszczuk’s
attorney, Douglas Stein, filed a frivolous demurrer to delay the legal process and to end
- 23 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
the Waszczuk Petition of Writ of Mandate (CT 16-23; 35-37). The allegation of the
CUIAB and RPii was that Waszczuk filed the Petition for Writ on December 2, 2013,
two days after the statute of limitations had run out and that Waszczuk had violated
Unemployment Insurance Code § 410. The demurrer was removed from the court
calendar by the CUIAB on (CT p. 00038) after Waszczuk exchanged correspondence
with Norton. Waszczuk counsel Stein did not want to file an objection to the CUIAB
and RPii demurrer, and Waszczuk should have fired him rather than hire him in May
2014 for the wrongful termination case, paying him a $20,000 retainer which he spent
on drugs and other private purchases. See: [Petition for Rehearing, pages 14, 20; AOB
page 16 . ]
On December 16, 2016, Waszczuk dismissed his counsel Douglas Stein from both the
wrongful termination case and the Petition for Writ of Mandate due to Stein’s gross
misconduct, misrepresentation, and collaboration with UC Regents’ attorneys to harm
Waszczuk. However, after Waszczuk dismissed Stein on December 16, 2016, Stein
refused to sign a Substitution of Attorney and wrote the Petitioner’s Opening Brief (CT-
00050-00075), which he delivered to Waszczuk’s home in Lodi on January 13, 2014
(last day to file Brief), together with the Substitution of Attorney (CT p. 91) and
Administrative Record file (CT pp. 00053-00088). January 14, 2014, was the last day to
file the Petitioner’s Opening Brief; thus, Waszczuk had no time to read what Stein had
written and filed the brief as is on January 14, 2015. On top of this, Waszczuk had to
deal with an anti-SLAPP motion filed by the University of California (UC) Regents
counsel on December 1, 2014, and Stein failed to object to the motion by the due date
of December 16, 2014
In December 2014 and January 2015 Waszczuk had no much clue what the Writ of
Mandamus and anti-SLAPP motion stand for. Never heard about.
Waszczuk in June 2014 had not realized that after the CUIAB and RPii demurrer failed
to remove Waszczuk from the Court. Stein, in collaboration with RPii counsel Michael
Pott, who was handling the RPii’s wrongful termination case, purposely set the hearing
date for the Petition for Writ of Mandate for February 27, 2015, two months after the
hearing for the anti-SLAPP motion scheduled for December 30, 2014. Stein had no
- 24 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
desire to object to the UC Regents anti-SLAPP motion for the price of the approximate
$300,000 payoff end Waszczuk’s wrongful termination and writ of mandamus litigation
together in January 2015.
F. The trial Court Decision of March 2, 2015, and the CUIAB’s attorney
Ashante Norton’s violation of the California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b).
After the recorded Court hearing on February 27, 2015 the trial court judge Hon.
Shelleyanne Chang, issued her court decision, which was a copy and paste document
with statements taken from the February 14, 2013, ALJ Marilyn Tays decision, the
May 31, 2013, CUIAB decision issued by the redacted Respondent’s Statement in
Support of Decision filed in the Court on February 2, 2015, (CT pp. 00094-00104) and
the RPii’s slanderous and libelous Opposition to Writ of Mandamus filed on February 2,
2015 (CT pp. 00124-00141).
https://www.scribd.com/document/397971789/3DCA-Writ-2-27-2015-Hearing-Court-
Reporter-Transcript
On top of this, Hon. Chang Completely disregarded Waszczuk’s Petitioner Reply Brief
(PRB) even though the Court had been informed that it was impossible for Waszczuk to
write a Petitioner Opening Brief because Waszczuk could not get the file and
substitution for attorney from Douglas Stein until January 13, 2015 (CT p. 00173).
The Supreme Court should read Waszczuk’s Petitioner Reply Brief (PRB) which has
enough information needed to reverse the 3DCA unpublished opinion. (CT 00105-
00123)
However, Judge Chang on page 2 of her decision (CT-00170) confirmed that Waszczuk
had not worked from September 1, 2011, to December 5, 2012. It did not seem to bother
her how it was possible that Waszczuk was not working yet violated UC policies, even
being placed on stress-related sick leave for several months by his physician and
psychologist during over his one-year absence, [Petition for Rehearing pages 33-39],
Waszczuk’s detailed absence from work history in 2011-2012 . Waszczuk protested the
CUIAB and RPii’s outrageous, and libelous accusations, which portrayed Waszczuk as
an agitator who wanted to kill Jews in his place of employment. (CT 00128; 00240)
Waszczuk protested such despicable and beyond imagination accusations in his
- 25 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
February10, 2015, letter Waszczuk sent to Hon. Shelleyanne Chang and Hon. David
Brown in Department 53, which was filed on February 11, 2015 (CT p. 00142).
After the Judge Chang issued decision the CUIAB ‘s Counsel Ashante Norton on
March 5, 2015, sent to Waszczuk a Proposed Order to approve or disprove. Waszczuk
submitted a 20-page long Disproval of the Proposed Order on March 10, 2015, to the
CUIAB counsel (CT pp. 00179- 00199). Waszczuk noted that the CUIAB counsel had
not submitted Waszczuk’s Disproval of the Respondent Order with her Proposed Order,
as is mandated by the California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b). The trial court ignored the
CUIAB counsel’s violation of the California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b) and
disregarded Waszczuk’s Petitioner’s Notice of Objection to Respondent’s Proposed
Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate and Judgment in Favor of Respondent filed
on March 13, 2015, making the RPii and CUIAB winners on 64-year-old Waszczuk and
his family’s suffering and expenses (CT pp. 00212-00261).
G. Record on Appeal
After Waszczuk’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Third Court of Appeal (3DCA)
on May 14, 2015, and after Waszczuk submitted an Appellant Notice Designating
Record on Appeal on June 22, 2015, it took seven months for the Superior Court clerk
from 3DCA to file a notice to prepare one volume of the 284-page clerk’s transcript and
one volume of the 12-page court reporter’s transcript. Waszczuk had to file two separate
motions in 3DCA to get the record on appeal transferred, an April 6, 2016 Motion for
Sanction Pursuant to California Rules rule 8.23 and an April 14, 2016 Motion to
Transmit the Administrative Record, California Rules of Court rule 8.123. Both motions
were denied by the 3DCA P. J Hon Vance Raye All details about the Record on Appeal
are in Waszczuk’s (AOB pp. 19-22)
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963839/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-AOB-07-22-
2016-Appellant-Opening-Brief
H. The CUIAB failure to submit a Respondent Brief on the Appeal due on

September 9, 2016.
In the December 27, 2012, unpublished opinion in Standard of Review on page 7
(EXHIBIT A), the Court bluntly blamed Waszczuk for violating California Rules of
- 26 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Court 8.204 (a) (1) (B), but did not specify which of Waszczuk’s briefs violated
California Rules of Court 8.204 (a) (1) (B). Waszczuk wrote two briefs.On the
contrary, the CUIAB failed to submit a Respondent Brief which was due on
September 21, 2016; thus, the Court should decide the appeal on the record of the
opening brief by the appellant (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220 (a) (2) Melissa G.
v. Raymond M., B284031 (September 20, 2018) Cal. App. Dist. 2; Bennett v.
California Custom Coach, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal. App. 3rd 333, 338. See also D.H.
Williams Construction, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School Dist. (2007) 146 Cal. App.
4th 757, 763).
However, the Court did not seem to notice that the CUIAB had not filed a Respondent’s
Brief and it was ok.
In the [Petition for Rehearing , on pages 10-15] Waszczuk provided a detailed response
to the 3DCA author’s nitpicking allegations about Waszczuk’s briefs, including similar
discriminatory allegations in the cross-referenced case Waszczuk v. the Regents of the
University of California Case No. C079524, an unpublished opinion filed on October
10, 2017.
The 3DCA accusations in the Court’s two unpublished opinions in regard to the
Waszczuk briefs make no mention that the Defendant’s and Respondent’s briefs were
stricken or not filed at all. This is the best example of the pattern of discrimination
aimed at Waszczuk by the 3DCA justices.
I. Waszczuk’s request to schedule oral arguments in Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al. 3DCA Case No. C079254.
On August 6, 2018, Waszczuk submitted to the 3DCA a Request to Schedule Oral
Argument in Case No. C079254 pending appeal, which had been pending in the 3DCA
since May 2015.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397972861/3DCA-C079254-08062018-
Request-to-Schedule-Oral-Argument
Along with the Request to Schedule Oral Argument, Waszczuk attached several
exhibits. One of the attached exhibits is the 94-page Plaintiff’s Disproval of the
- 27 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Defendants' Proposed Order and Judgment in the cross-referenced Waszczuk v the

Regents of the University of California Case No. C079524.
The plaintiff's Disapproval of the Defendants' Proposed Order addresses in detail the
terror that Waszczuk experienced and witnessed between 2011 and 2012 in his place of
employment, the UC Davis Medical Center. The order describes various incidents that
victimized both Waszczuk and his coworkers. Additionally, from December 2011 to
January 2012, Waszczuk's psychologist, Dr. Franklin Bernhoft, and Bernhoft's family in
Lodi became the targets of coordinated attacks.
The plaintiff's Disapproval of the Defendants' Proposed Order also addressed the
suicide, or more likely homicide, of UC Davis Medical Center employee Todd
Georlich, who replaced Waszczuk in 2007 and was three years later found dead,
hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park. Georlich’s death triggered a massive
witch hunt against Waszczuk, his coworkers, and anyone who was associated with
Waszczuk, including Waszczuk' s physician and psychologist. This witch hunt resulted
in Waszczuk's termination of employment in September 2011; his final day on the
University of California payroll was December 5, 2012. Due to this witch hunt,
Waszczuk's subsequent losses in income, benefits, and property have exceeded
$1,000,000, and Waszczuk’s family life was devastated.
On August 21, 2018, the 3DCA denied Waszczuk’s request for scheduling oral
arguments. However, on October 1, 2018, a 3DCA clerk sent Waszczuk a notification
that the court was prepared to render a decision in the above case without hearing oral
arguments. Two days later, on October 3, 2018, two RPii attorneys from the Porter
Scott law firm, David Burkett and Daniel Bardzell, filed a Motion to Compel; they did
so in the wrong court department in order to sabotage Waszczuk’ wrongful termination
lawsuit and to obtain a court order from a judge who was not presiding over the
Waszczuk wrongful termination case (ROA pp. 151–154). Waszczuk requested oral
arguments in 3DCA appeal Case No. C079254. On October 23, 2018, Waszczuk
received notification from the 3DCA that oral arguments were scheduled for December
12, 2018.
- 28 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
J. Motion for New Evidence on Appeal
Prior to the oral arguments scheduled for December 12, 2018, Waszczuk, on December
4, 2018, filed a Motion for New Evidence on Appeal pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 8.252 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 909. Most of the new evidence
(documents) Waszczuk received due to the discovery process in the cross-referenced
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California 2013, Sacramento
Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479 were from the
February 13, 2013, hearing with ALJ Marlin Tays or for the February 27, 2015, court
hearing with trial court judge Shelleyanne Chang .
https://www.scribd.com/document/397997431/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-12-042018-
Motion-for-New-Evidence-on-Appeal
This new, clear and undisputable evidence, which Waszczuk wanted to introduced prior
to oral arguments, would show the Court that in 2011 and on September 25, 2012,
Waszczuk was eligible for the Clinical Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2
(“Plan”) CEMRP2 award like any other employee; instead, he was slandered, and
libeled with an RPii Notice to Dismiss and a UC Davis police like most wanted poster,
which included Waszczuk’s photo and description, and which was distributed on and
around UC Davis campuses on September 26, 2012, without Waszczuk’s knowledge.
Waszczuk was harassed, threatened, and terrorized, even during his work-related sick
leave for stress.
CEMRP2, as mentioned above, stands for the University of California Clinical

Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2 (“Plan”), which is governed by the
Personnel Policies for Staff Members 34 (Incentive and Recognition Award Plans –
Managers & Senior Professionals and Professional & Support Staff)
https://policy.ucop.edu/_files/policies/CEMRP2-
Plan.pdfhttps://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4010430/PPSM-34. Without any objection from the
respondents to Waszczuk’s motion, the Court denied the motion in the same manner as
the other motions Waszczuk had previously filed with the 3DCA, [Petition for
Rehearing pages 17-18 .]
- 29 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
K. Oral Arguments on December 12, 2018

On December 12, 2018, Waszczuk argued the case for himself in pro per. David Burkett
argued for the RPii and Regents of the University of California. The legal counsel from
the California Attorney General Office Ashante Norton represented the primary
respondent, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB). CUIAB’s
legal counsel Norton did not attend the 15-minute oral arguments at the 3DCA.
Apparently, Norton had nothing to say since she failed to submit a Respondent Brief in
September 2016. She also had nothing to say during the oral arguments in the trial court
Oral Argument in February 2015 (see the February 27, 2015, Reporter Transcript on
Appeal).
https://www.scribd.com/document/397971789/3DCA-Writ-2-27-2015-Hearing-Court-
Reporter-Transcript
Waszczuk fully describes the December 12, 2018, oral arguments in his [Petition for
Rehearing pages 16-18] . Waszczuk and his former coworker from UC Davis Medical
center notice that whole 3DCA Court was reserved only for Waszczuk on that day. It
was very strange .
VI. CONCLUSION
During the course of Waszczuk’s employment with the UC Davis Medical

Center, he provided representation to other non-represented union
employees in their complaints regarding adverse management actions
against them under the UC Davis Compliant Resolution PPSM 70. In his
briefs for the appeals of Case No. C079524 and C079254, he provided
specific information on how detrimentally different the RPii’s treatment of
his case is in comparison to their treatment of employees he represented in
suits of severe adverse management action. Page: 30
(ARB 8-16); this discrepancy is especially noted in the Appellant Reply
Brief (ARB) in the C079254 appeal case.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963986/3DCA-CUIAB-C79254-
ARB-07-22-2016-Appellant-Reply-Brief
- 30 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
In Waszczuk’s Petition for Rehearing, pages 40–47 address an e-mail dated

May 3, 2012 that Waszczuk wrote to UC Davis Medical Center HR
Manager Humberto Garcia on behalf of his coworker. See: Petitioner Reply
Brief (PRB) (CT 00109-00111) . This e-mail contained a warning statement
about hostility in the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
facility where Waszczuk’s former coworker, William Buckans, was bullied
and harassed for years by managers and coworkers ; Waszczuk was
employed at this facility from June 1999 to April 2007. Waszczuk was
abruptly removed from the plant in April 2007. In the e-mail to Humberto
Garcia and other managers, Waszczuk used the columbine massacre as an
example of what could happen at UC Davis Medical Center if the hostile
and violent working environment was not addressed. (CT 00109-00111)
https://www.scribd.com/document/398001801/3DCA-C079254-05-03-
2012-Waszczuk-e-mail-to-Humberto-Garcia-with-warning-statement-
about-Columbine-Massacre
Waszczuk alerted management by e-mail after he received an alarming e-mail

and phone call from William on May 2nd, 2012. Waszczuk cannot say today
what could have happened if he did not offer to assist William and the others
attacked by management; Waszczuk convinced William and the other coworker
to attend a Stress Management Class on May 30,2012 to defuse the volatile and
dangerous situation
https://www.scribd.com/document/398001457/0005-Stress-Managament-2-pdf
The hostility was purposely orchestrated and heated up by the UCDMC HR
assigned witch hunters for the May 31, 2012 provocation to end the Waszczuk
’employment in UCDMC Trauma Unit #11. (CT 00081) which was ended
anyway on August 31, 2011 (CT 00188)
The Supreme Court will notice from the Clerk Transcript that Waszczuk’s e-
mail containing the statement about the Columbine massacre was used by ALJ,
- 31 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
CUIAB Board members as a justification for denying Waszczuk unemployment

insurance benefits . (CT 00026; 00095;00134;00171)
Waszczuk does not know for sure what would eventually happen in May 2012
if Waszczuk would not offer help to William Buckans and other employee
Kenny Diede by assisting them in the formal harassment complaints under UC
Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 and convince them to attend the
Stress Management Class.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398002099/3DCA-C079254-May-2012-
Waszczuk-s-representation-to-William-Buckans-and-Kenneth-Diede-UC-
Davis-Policy-PPSM-23
Waszczuk e-mail was not a threat or misconduct but preventive action from the
eventual disaster waiting to happen in place of employment where Waszczuk
replacement of 2007 three years latter was found death hanging from the tree in
the Rancho Cordova park , If Waszczuk would be not removed from the plant
in 2007 than most likely 41 years Todd Georlich would still alive today and his
9 years old daughter who was left behind in December 2010 would have and
she would know her father.
The Supreme Court will notice in the Clerk Transcript the e-mail
containing the Columbine massacre example was presented to the court by
ALJ, CUIAB Board Members, and other RPii attorneys as a threat made
against the school by Waszczuk as opposed to the true intention of this
communication.
On January 5, 2012, Waszczuk’s four month work-stress related sick leave
ended and Waszczuk was staying home , not knowing what is his
employment status with university until May 11, 2012.
Waszczuk was lured by UCDMC HR and Waszczuk’s department

manager to UCDMC premises on May 31, 2012 by the statement in
suspension letter Waszczuk received from RPii on May 11, 2012. The
suspension letter for 10 days without pay was given to Waszczuk during
- 32 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Waszczuk forced by RPii absence from work was given to him for sole
purpose to agitate Waszczuk and to make Waszczuk mad and angry, after
Waszczuk was on forced by RPii absence from work for almost one year.
(CT 00128)
https://www.scribd.com/document/398003074/3DCA-C079254-May-11-
2012-Ten-days-Suspension-without-pay-during-Waszczuk-forced-10-
months-absence-from-work
The RPii’s inviting Waszczuk onto the premises is questionable because
they portrayed the e-mail Waszczuk sent on May 3, 2012 as evidence of a
threat and misconduct made towards the school; however, here they have
not followed procedure to allow him back onto the premises. This
exemplifies a flaw in their claim of the e-mail being a threat of safety for
the campus; they willingly invited him back without verifying with his
medical practitioners that his state of mind was not a harm to himself or
others. Therefore, the e-mail could not have stipulated a threat as they have
claimed.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398002561/3DCA-C079254-Waszczuk-
s-August-31-2011-UC-DAVIS-HEALTH-SYSTEM-RETURN-TO-
WORK-CLEARANCE-after-sick-leave-mandated-by-UC-Davis-Policies
The two unpublished opinions issued by the 3DCA in Waszczuk v. The Regents
of the University of California Case C079524 (issued on October 10, 2017) and
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board C079254
(issued on December 17, 2018), along with the denial if the Petition for
Rehearing by the 3DCA will only perpetuate the unseemly behavior of
management at the university toward their employees. Furthermore, these
unpublished opinions may present grounds for discrimination in the currently
pending cases . For this reason, and the above mentioned details, Waszczuk
- 33 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Filed 10/10/17 Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, C079524
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No.

34201300155479CUWTGDS)
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Although Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a self-represented plaintiff, purports to appeal the

trial court’s order granting five individual employees of the University of California’s
special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) four causes of action arising from
their involvement in his termination, he does not argue the merits of the motion but
insists the judgment must be reversed because of systemic corruption including collusion
between his then lawyer, defense counsel, and the trial judge. He misunderstands his
burden on appeal, ignores the dispositive issues, provides no evidence of corruption or
untoward collusion, and fails to demonstrate either relevance or prejudice from the
1
shortcomings he cites. We need go no further than to answer the contentions he raises,
and in finding no merit in those claims, we affirm.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
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.
While plaintiff’s pain is clear, his legal analysis is not. We have carefully
scrutinized his briefs and the record in a diligent attempt to decipher his legal theories.
Much remains a mystery. We must reiterate what the trial court admonished plaintiff.
“At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any
other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants
and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941,
944.) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct
rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also
Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.” We add that plaintiff has an equal
responsibility to follow the California Rules of Court applicable to appeals, no matter
2
how sympathetic his claims may seem to himself or us. It is a responsibility he has
ignored to his peril.
Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his failure to cite to
the record.1 He makes grandiose accusations against the University for illegally
generating and selling electric power and for tax evasion, but those allegations are not
supported by citations to the record and are not relevant to the special motion to strike.
Plaintiff fails to appreciate the limited scope of our review, which stands in stark contrast
to the wide-ranging allegations plaintiff lodges which are untethered to the second
amended complaint or the special motion to strike. We are compelled to ignore any
factual allegations that are not supported by citations to the record.
Plaintiff loses this appeal, but it is not the end of his lawsuit for wrongful
termination. The trial court reminded plaintiff at the hearing on the special motion to
strike that the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) were not protected if
they discriminated or retaliated against him and, therefore, “[i]ndependent of the five
individuals who are before the Court on this motion, [plaintiff] still retains his right to sue
the Regents because they are still in the lawsuit and he’s still the plaintiff.” In this
context, we recite the brief facts relevant to the issues plaintiff raises on appeal.
1 An “appellant must support all statements of fact in his briefs with citations to the
record [citation] and must confine his statement ‘to matters in the record on appeal.’
[Citation.]” (Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 29.) “[I]t is counsel's duty to
point out portions of the record that support the position taken on appeal.” (Del Real v.
City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) The Court of Appeal must not search
the record on behalf of an appellant or serve as “backup appellate counsel.” (Mansell v.
Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546.)
3
FACTS
Plaintiff worked in the University of California Davis Medical Center’s Plant
Operations and Maintenance Department for 13 years. He received many years of
favorable performance reviews. In 2007, however, he was given a disciplinary transfer
from the central plant to the HVAC/plumbing shop. He filed a grievance and ultimately
entered into a settlement agreement with the University whereby he agreed to the transfer
in exchange for a promotion to an exempt position with a more prestigious job title.
In 2011 the University again initiated an investigation of plaintiff based on
complaints that he had violated University policies by engaging in acts of ethnic
discrimination constituting hate incidents in the workplace. He was terminated in 2012.
He appealed the termination and ultimately filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint.
In this court, he fixates on his belief the University’s suspension, investigation, and
termination were nothing more than a “witch hunt” designed to remove him, preferably
by getting him to quit, and thereby enable the University to resume its alleged tax-free
illegal power sales. He asserts, again without citation to the record, the University
attempted to assassinate him.
Plaintiff filed his first complaint, in pro. per., in December 2013. The complaint
included six causes of action: wrongful termination; retaliation; the intentional infliction
of emotional distress; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; breach
of the settlement agreement; and violation of the University’s Personnel Polices for Staff
Members (PPSM) 23. Plaintiff thereafter hired a lawyer, Douglas Stein, who filed a first
amended complaint on his behalf in June 2014. 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.
4
In a meet and confer letter dated August 19, 2014, Michael Pott, representing the
Regents and the employees sued in their individual capacity, described a number of
deficiencies in the first amended complaint “that warrant the filing of a demurrer unless
they can be resolved by amendment.” Stein spent 10 hours reviewing the first amended
complaint and researching the law in light of the alleged deficiencies set forth in Pott’s
letter. By letter dated August 26, 2014, Stein agreed to amend the complaint in response
to those deficiencies he found legitimate and he explained why he rejected many others.
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight causes of action.
He signed the second amended complaint on September 8, 2014. Unbeknownst to him at
the time, his license to practice law was suspended on September 24, 2014, due to child
support issues that he resolved by October 7, 2014, but due to logistical aspects of the
process, the State Bar of California did not restore his license to an active status until
October 23, 2014. In the meantime, he filed the second amended complaint on
September 30, 2014.
On December 1, 2014, five defendants, Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert (the individual defendants) filed a special
motion to strike the first four causes of action in the second amended complaint as a
strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) suit (hereafter referred to as the
anti-SLAPP motion). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Stein, then unaware that plaintiff had
fired him, filed an opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion on plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff
did fire Stein, proceeded in pro. per., and requested an extension of time to file his own
opposition. Plaintiff filed his opposition late and exceeded the page limit. Nevertheless,
the trial court considered the entirety of plaintiff’s opposition and granted his request to
disregard the opposition filed by Stein.
On December 17, 2014, Stein filed an ex parte application for relief from the
potential defective filing of the second amended complaint. Stein explained to the court
that his license had been temporarily suspended because he had mistakenly paid the
5
wrong amount of child support for two or three months, a mistake that was quickly
rectified once he learned of it. The trial court granted Stein’s application and ruled that
the second amended complaint filed on September 30, 2014, “is deemed validly filed.”
In ruling on the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court
followed the requisite two-step process. First, the court examined the individual
defendants’ showing whether their acts were taken in furtherance of their constitutional
rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. The court found the
individual defendants made a prima facie showing. The individual defendants’ speech,
the court ruled, was “made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and
deciding the workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University
policies.” Second, the court found that plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a
likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of the four causes of action as well as
defeating the individual defendants’ affirmative defenses. The court, therefore, granted
the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
Plaintiff appeals.
DISCUSSION
I
The Allegations
Plaintiff believes that his employer, defense counsel, the trial judge, and even his
own lawyer, are corrupt and colluded to destroy his life. These allegations, not the merits
of the anti-SLAPP motion, are at the heart of plaintiff’s appeal. He writes: “There is no
need for Waszczuk to base this appeal on the merit of the case which is important and
Clerk Transcript is speaking for itself, if the whole legal process in this case was
corrupted by the Defendants’ attorney, Michael Pott, and Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas
Stein misconduct, and their actions against Waszczuk were approved by the Court on
September 22, 2014, and December 17, 2014.”
6
There is nothing we can decide in this appeal or write in this opinion that will
disabuse plaintiff of this fiercely held belief. He fails to understand that these very
serious allegations are not before us on appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion. We will
explain for his benefit what the record discloses to us—the utter absence of any evidence
to support even a colorable claim of misconduct by any of the lawyers or judicial officers
in this case. We will also briefly describe the procedural context in which the allegations
are made and the futility of pursuing his corruption theory against these individual
defendants. Despite the ferocity of plaintiff’s feelings to the contrary, the fact that the
second amended complaint did not contain what he hoped it would does not translate into
reversible error and the fact that his lawyer and defense counsel engaged in an interactive
process to avoid an unnecessary demurrer does not translate into corruption.
Let us begin with plaintiff’s focus on the second amended complaint. As best we
can decipher, his objection is twofold: (1) He is troubled that Stein did not pursue his
theories that the University breached the settlement agreement and failed to follow
internal policies by not providing him annual performance reviews for two years, and (2)
he accuses the trial court of improperly validating the filing when Stein’s license had
been temporarily suspended.
Both objections are irrelevant to the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion,
which sought to strike only four of the eight causes of action stated in the second
amended complaint. Whether or not Stein would have expanded the second amended
complaint to include additional causes of action has no bearing on whether the four
causes of action were properly stricken. In any event, we are baffled by plaintiff’s
insistence that Stein refused to include a cause of action for breach of the settlement
agreement is belied by the language of the sixth cause of action for breach of a written
contract which appears to embody that very claim.
Plaintiff fails to cite any authority to support his claim that the trial court
improperly validated the filing of the second amended complaint. The claim lacks both
7
legal authority and evidentiary support in the record. Rather, Stein was forthright in his
disclosure to the court. When he filed the second amended complaint he was unaware
that his status with the State Bar had changed. The reason for his very brief suspension
was unrelated to his competency or ethics in the practice of law. Rather, as Stein
explained, he made an inadvertent error on the amount he paid in child support for two or
three months. His license to practice was reinstated within about two weeks of his
discovery of the suspension. On these facts, there is not the slightest hint of impropriety.
To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making an ex parte application to
assure the integrity of the document he inadvertently filed during the briefest of
suspensions for a minor transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He
should be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of plaintiff’s interests.
Yet plaintiff asserts that defense counsel colluded with Stein to file a second
amended complaint designed to rob him of meritorious claims. He also contends that
Stein bowed to defense counsel’s untoward pressure to amend the complaint and
subjected his pleadings to the anti-SLAPP motion. He adds the naked allegation that the
trial court acted improperly as well because the trial judge had known defense counsel for
a number of years. Plaintiff’s allegations are without evidentiary support.
The record discloses a cordial, thorough, and appropriate exchange between two
lawyers engaged in a meet and confer process designed to avoid an unnecessary
demurrer. The thoughtful letters exchanged by counsel described the legal issues
presented by the first amended complaint and the authorities upon which they relied to
support their positions. Stein relented on a few minor issues, but held steadfast as to the
viability of his theories. Plaintiff’s sheer speculation about the lawyers’ motives is totally
unsubstantiated; indeed, the record belies his accusations.
In summary, we conclude plaintiff’s accusations of misconduct, corruption, and
collusion between the lawyers and the trial court are unsubstantiated and unfounded. But
even more importantly, they are irrelevant to the sole issue properly before us on
8
appeal—whether the trial court erred by granting the five individual defendants’ anti-
SLAPP motion to strike four of the causes of action alleged against them. We turn,
therefore, to the only relevant issue presented.
II
The Merits
The anti-SLAPP statute provides: “A cause of action against a person arising
from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech
under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a
public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that
the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the
claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) We review an order granting an anti-
SLAPP motion de novo. (Daniel v. Wayans (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 379.)
As explained above, the trial court engages in a two-step process in determining
whether to grant an anti-SLAPP motion. (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State
University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061.) In this case, the trial court found the individual
defendants made a prima facie showing to satisfy the first prong and plaintiff did not
challenge this finding in his opening brief. Belatedly in reply, he contends that the
defendants did not “show any record or evidence that the Defendants Nichols, Chilcott,
Boyd, Seifert, and Oropeza, who brought the anti-SLAPP motion to strike Waszczuk’s
first four causes of action, were made in connection with the processing, investigation,
hearing, and deciding of the workplace complaints filed by Waszczuk.”
In short, the court acknowledged that University policies and procedures have the
force and effect of a state statute (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000)
80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165); statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized
by law as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (Vergos v. McNeal
(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)); the constitutional right to petition includes
the act of seeking administrative action (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity
9
(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1115); and investigations and investigatory reports prepared in
connection with an issue under consideration or review by an official body, such as a
public entity’s internal investigations, are protected activities under the anti-SLAPP
statute (Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1383). Because the
speech of the individual defendants who were subject to the anti-SLAPP motion was
“made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding the
workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University policies,” the
court concluded the individual defendants satisfied their burden and shifted it to the
plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Plaintiff insists that Vergos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, cited by the trial court,
does not support the granting of the anti-SLAPP motion. We disagree. In Vergos, an
employee of the University named the manager who denied his administrative grievance
as a defendant in his sexual harassment lawsuit in her individual capacity. (Id. at
p. 1390.) The manager filed a special motion to strike contending that her statements and
communicative conduct in handling the employee’s grievances were protected by Code
of Civil Procedure section 425.16 because “they (1) were connected with an issue under
review by an official proceeding authorized by law, and (2) furthered the right to petition
of the plaintiff and similarly situated employees.” (Vergos, at p. 1394.) We agreed and
affirmed the judgment.
We pointed out that the manager’s only conduct targeted in the complaint involved
her hearing, processing, and deciding the employee’s grievances. (Vergos, supra,
146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.) Similarly, here the trial court’s finding parroted our
conclusion in Vergos. And the court reviewed the allegations against each of the five
individual defendants and reported their involvement as follows:
“The allegations of the SAC [second amended complaint] against Nichols attack
her protected participation in the official investigations. The SAC specifically alleges
Nichols’ communications regarding the investigation and her investigative conclusions.
10
Nichols was appointed to investigate Plaintiff’s whistleblower complaints, and was also
appointed to conduct an investigation into complaints of workplace violence filed by
Putney and Daniliuc. All were protected petitioning activities.
“The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of emails
from Nichols relating to the investigations, and Chilcott’s sending of an email relating to
the investigation of Plaintiff. The emails are protected speech in connection with an
investigation process.
“The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their investigation
into the emails plaintiff sent to Nichols in April 2012. Oropeza and Seifert conducted
their investigation pursuant to the University’s grievance protocol and reached
conclusions documented in a report.
“Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer (“CRO”) at Step II of the
University’s PPSM 70 process, hearing and deciding Plaintiff’s appeal of his
termination.”
In sum, each of the individual defendants, like the manager in Vergos, were
involved in the investigation, hearing, processing, and/or deciding plaintiff’s and his co-
workers’ grievances. We conclude, as in Vergos, their conduct was within the protective
ambit of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Thus we must review the trial court’s
resolution of the second step in the analysis—whether plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood
of success on the merits.
Without citation to specific pages in the record or argument about the likelihood of
success of each element of the four causes of action or even a response to the trial court’s
thorough analysis, plaintiff invites us to review his 443-page opposition to the anti-
SLAPP motion and insists, again without analysis, that the evidence is “overwhelming.”
He falls miserably short of his duty on appeal to cite to the record, to present cogent
argument, and to support his argument with applicable legal authority. In this vacuum,
we turn to the trial court’s statement of decision wherein the court provides a brief and
11
apt rationale for finding plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a likelihood of
prevailing.
Plaintiff’s first cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress
fails because the tort requires a showing of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of
human decency. The court found “[w]hat plaintiff has alleged, and what his evidence in
opposition appears to support, are complaints concerning personnel management by
defendants. Pleading of personnel management activity is ‘insufficient to support a claim
of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged.’
(Janken v. [GM Hughes Electronic (1996)] 46 Cal.App.4th [55,] 80.)” We agree with the
trial court that none of the allegations against these individual defendants involved in the
investigation and resolution of the grievances constitutes the type of outrageous conduct
beyond the bounds of human decency necessary to prevail on a claim of the intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff is unable to surmount the basic principle of law that an employee or
former employee cannot sue a current or former supervisor or employee for interfering
with his or her prospective economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate
the plaintiff’s employment. (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24; Shepperd v.
Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347.) On this basis, the trial court properly
concluded plaintiff failed to provide any countervailing authority or analysis as to why
the facts before the court show the likelihood of prevailing on his interference with
prospective economic advantage cause of action.
Plaintiff’s discrimination claim meets another definitive legal obstacle. Individual
defendants cannot be sued for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), nor can they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and
12
harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664;2 Janken v. GM Hughes
Electronic, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.) Plaintiff has not shown any likelihood of
surmounting this obstacle.
Finally, the trial court found that plaintiff did not establish that the individual
defendants’ conduct was in retaliation for his whistleblowing. The court explained: “The
mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations and reached
conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree with does not establish their investigatory
findings are an act of retaliation. Nor can Boyd’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s grievance at
the Step II level of PPSM 70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is
no allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that could be
deemed to be a retaliatory action.” In the absence of any evidence or analysis provided
by plaintiff, we have no basis for reaching a finding at odds with the trial court. Plaintiff
has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on a whistleblower retaliation cause of action.
(Gov. Code, § 8547.10.)
III
Plaintiff maintains he should have been allowed to amend his complaint for the
third time. As support he cites cases involving demurrers, not special motions to strike a
SLAPP. His authorities, therefore, are inapposite. The anti-SLAPP statute makes no
provision for amending the complaint once the court finds the targeted conduct is
protected speech. (Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073.)
2 After Reno v. Baird, supra, 18 Cal.4th 640 was decided “the California Legislature
amended FEHA's harassment provision expressly holding individual employees liable for
their harassment.” (Scott v. Solano County Health & Soc. Orders Servs. Dep't (E.D. Cal.
2006) 459 F.Supp.2d 959, 966, citing Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j).) There is no
harassment claim targeted by the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
13
DISPOSITION
The judgment striking the four causes of action against defendants Nichols,
Oropeza, Seifert, Boyd, and Chilcott is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs
on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , J.
ROBIE , J.
14
(Do not write above this line.)
State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department
San Francisco
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Counsel For The State Bar Case Number(s): For Court use only
15-O-10110-LMA
Laura Huggins
Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
PUBLIC MATTER
(415) 538-2537
Bar # 294148
In Pro Per Respondent
Douglas Edward Stein STATE BAR COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

892 Maria Vista Way SAN FRANCISCO
Placerville, CA 95667
(916) 289-6072
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
Bar # 131248 LAW AND
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF
In the Matter of:
DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Bar # 131248
[:1 PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
A Member of the State Bar of California
(Respondent)
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot |?e provided in the
space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., “Facts,”
“Dismissals,” “Conclusions of Law,” “Supporting Authority,” etc.
A. Parties’ Acknowledgments:
(1) Respondent~is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 11, 1987.
The paniesuégree be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even

to if conclusions of law or
(2)
disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
(3) All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by
this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed
under “DismissaIs." The
stipulation consists of 15 pages, not including the order.
A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included
(4)
under “Facts.”
Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under “Conclusions
of
(5)
Law”.
kwiktag° 026 803 810 j.:..____.:.._____

(Effective July 1, 2015)
Actual Suspension
//1’
1 |||l|||||||||l||||||||||||||l
./
(6) The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading
“Supporting Authority."
No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any
pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
Payme_nt df:Discip|inary Costs-—Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 &
6140.7. (Check one option only):
C] Until‘c_osts are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless
relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Preced-ure.
X
.
Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior .0 February 1 for the following membership years: Three
billing cycles immediately following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (Hardship.
special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to
pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining
balance is due and payable immediately.
E} Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
E] Costs are entirely waived,
B. Aggravating Circumstances [Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional

Misconduct, standards 1.2(h).& 1.5]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are
required.
(1) D Prior record of discipline

(a) El State Bar Court case # of prior case
(b) [:1 Date prior discipline effective
(C) [:1 Rules of Professional Conduct! State Bar Act violations:
(d) E} Degree of prior discipline
(e) E] If Respondent has two or more incidents of pfibr discipline, use space provided below.
0.
D lntentionaIlBad Faith/Dishonesty: Respondent's misconduct was dishonest, intentional, or surrounded

by, or followed by bad faith.
Misrepresentation: Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by, or followed by, misrepresentation.
(4) Concealment: Respondent’s misconduct was surrounded by, or followed by, concealment.
(5)
CICIEICIE]
Overreaching: Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by, or followed by, overreaching.
(5) Uncharged Violations: Respondent’s conduct involves uncharged violations of the Business and
Professions Code, or the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(7) Trust Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was una_ble to account
to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or
property.

Actual Suspension
(3) E] Harm: Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public, or the administration ofjustice.
.
(9) Indifference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the
consequences of his or her misconduct.
(10) CandorlLack of Cooperation: Respondentdisplayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of
his/her misconduct, or to the State Bar during'discip|inary investigations or proceedings.
(11) Multiple Acts: Respondent’s current misconduct e\'/idences multiple acts of wrongdoing. See Attachment
to Stipulation, at page 12.
Respondent's current misconduct demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

DEIEEIIZIEI
(12) Patterri:
(13) Restitution: Respondent failed to make restitution. See Attachment to Stipulation, at page 12.
(14) Vulnerable Victim: The victim(s) of Respondent's misconduct was/were highly vulnerable.
(15) No aggravating circumstances are invoived.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standards 1.2(i) & 1.6]. Facts supporting mitigating
circumstances are required.
(1) Cl No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled
with present misconduct which is not likely to re'cur.
(2) No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client, the public, or the administration ofjustice.
(3) Candorlcooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation yvith the victims of
his/her misconduct or ‘to the State Bar during disciplinary investigations and proceedings.
Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps demonstrating spontaneous remorge and rfacognition
of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her masconduct.
CIEICIDEJDCI Restitution: Respondent paid $ on in restitution to without the threat or force of

civil or criminal proceedings.
disciplinary,
Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable to
Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.
(7) Good Faith: Respondent acted with a good faith belief that was honestly held and objectively reasonable.
(8) EmotionallPhysicaI Difficulties: At the ‘time of-the stipuiated act or acts of professional misconduct
Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical or mental disabilities which expert testimony
would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities were not the
product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and the difficulties
or disabilities no longer pose a risk that Respondent will commit misconduct.

Actual Suspension
(9) El Severe Financial Stress: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress
which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and
which were directly responsible for the misconduct.
(10) Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her
personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature. See Attachment to Stipulation, at
page 12. .
(11) E] Good Character: Respondent's extraordinarily gjbod character is attested to by a wide range of references
in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.
(12) E] Rehabilitation: Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred
followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.
(13) El No mitigating circumstances :are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances:
No Prior Record of Discipline - See Attachment to Stipulation, at page 12.

Pre-Trial Stipulation - See Attachment to Stipulation, at page 12.
D. Discipline:
(1) >14 Stayed Suspension:
(3) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and
fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the general law pursuant to standard
1.2(c)(1) Standards forAAttorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
n E] and until Respondent pays restitution asset forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to
this stipulation.
m E! and until Respondent does the following:
(b) [2 The above-referenced suspension is stayed.
K4 Probation:
Resporident must be placed on probation for a period of three (3) years, wh_ich v_vill commence upon the
Supreme Court order»in this matter. (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court)
effective date of the
® Actual Suspension: _
(a) E Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period
of one (1) year.
I
D and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and
fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the general law pursuant to standard
1.2(c)(1), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct
n E! and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to
this stipulation.

Actual Suspension
iii. D and until Respondentdoesthe following:
E. Additional Conditions of Probation:
(1) X If Respondent is actually two years or more, he/she must remain actually suspended until
suspended for
he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and present learning and
ability in the general law, pursuant to standard 1.2(c)(1), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional
Misconduct.
(2) During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of
Professional Conduct.
<3) Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to'the Membership Records office of the
State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California (“Office of Probation"), all changes of
‘Bar
information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State
purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.
Withinthirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must
contact the Office of Probation
(4)
and schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and
conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the
probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must
promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.
Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10.
July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury,
Respondent must state
whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all
conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there
him her State Bar Court and if so, the case number and
are any proceedings pending against or in the
current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report
must be
submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due
In
no earlier than
twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.
Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and
conditions of probation with the probation monitor te establisha manner and schedule of
compliance.
During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested,
in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must
cooperate fully with the probation monitor.
Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any
conditions which are
inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these
or has
directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying
complied with the probation conditions.
the Officg of
(8) Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to
the Ethics School, and passage of the test given
Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of
at the end of that session.
Cl No Ethics School recommended. Reason:

and
Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter
must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office
of Probation.
(Effective July 1, 2015) Actual Suspension

(10) The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:
[:1 Substance Abuse Conditions [I Law Office Management Conditions
E] «
Medical Conditions X Financial Conditions
F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:
(1) F14 Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent must provide proof of passage of
the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (“MPRE”), administered by the National
Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or within
one year, whichever period is longer. Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without
further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) &
‘
(E), Ru|es'of Procedure.
D No MPRE recommended. Reason:
(2) Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court: Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9_.20,
California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that ruIe‘w:thin
30
and 40 caiendar days, respectively, after-the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.
(3) Conditional Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court: If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90
days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of ru!e 9.20, California Rules of Court, and
perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days,
respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.
Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]: Respondent will be credited for
the
(4)
period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of
commencement of interim suspension:
(5) Other Conditions:
(Effective July 1, 2015) Actual Suspension

In the Matter Of‘. Case Number(s):

DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN 15-O-10110-LMA
Financial Conditions
a. Restitution
IX Respondent must pay amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the
restitution (including the principal
payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund ("CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s)
for all
or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the
amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
P ee Princ Amount Interest Accrues From

Jaroslaw Waszczuk $14 694.33 June 2014
[XI Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of
of the
Probation not later than 120 prior to the expiration of probation, notwithstanding section (b)
Financial Conditions.
b. Installment Restitution Payments
IZI Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent
or
must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report,
of the period of
as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration
order complete
probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s)
in to
the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.
PayeeICSF (as applicable) Minimum Payment Amount Payment Frequency

Jaroslaw Waszczuk $50 Payment due on the
1st of each month
(Effective January 1, 2011)
Page 1 _
Financial
H
Condmons
(Do not wrike above this line.)
[Z] If Respondent pay any instaliment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court,
fails to
the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
c. Client Funds Certificate
E11. IfRespondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly
report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified
public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:
a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of
Caiifornia, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated
as a “Trust Account" or “Clients’ Funds Account”;
b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:
i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such
client; and,
4. the current balance for suchclient.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and.
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any
differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the
reasons for the differences.
c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other propetties held for clients that
specifies:
each item of security and property held;
‘
person on whose behalf the security or property is held;

A
In the
III. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v the person to whom the security or property was distributed.
IfRespondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period
covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the
Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the
accountant’s certificate described above.
The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of
Professional Conduct.

Page _2_
d. Client Trust Accounting School
IX} Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must supply to the Office of
Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School Client Trust Accounting School.
within the same period of time, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.

Page a
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN

CASE NUMBER: j15-O-10110-LMA
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified
statutes and Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 15-0-101 10-LMA (Complainant: J aroslav Waszczuk)

I
FACTS:
1. On December 4, 2013, Jaroslaw Waszczuk (“Waszczuk”) filed, in proper, a civil complaint

against his former employer alleging wrongful terrninaiicn and retaliation in a case titled Waszczuk v.
The Regents of the University of California, Sacramento County Superior Court case number 34-2013-’
00155479 (“Regents case”). .
2. On May 2014, Waszczuk hired respondent to represent him in the Regents case. On that
19,
same date, the parties signed an Attorney-Client Fee Agreement (“fee agreement”) in which Waszczuk
agreed to pay respondent advanced fees in the amount of $5,500, and advanced costs in the amount of
$14,500. Although Waszczuk was unaware that advanced fees and advanced costs were distinct from
one another, Waszczuk believed that the advanced costs would be used for the specific purpose of
paying filing fees and hiring a private investigator. The fee agreement required respondent to deposit
the entire sum ($20,000) into a client trust account.
3. On June 2, 2014, Waszczuk and respondent visited a Wells Fargo branch and opened a joint
account number XXX-XXX-8995, that was titled, “laroslaw Waszczuk Attomey-
client trust account,
Client.” Although respondent and Waszczuk were both identified as customers on the account, only
respondent could access the account as he was the account’s sole owner and authorized signer. On that
same date, respondent deposited a $19,500 check from Waszczuk that was dated May 19, 2014.
Waszczuk paid respondent $500 in cash to satisfy the remaining balance with the understanding that
respondent would actually use this sum for personal expenditures.
4. Between June 2014, and December 3, 20}‘4, respondent wrote checks to himself totaling
2,
$15,375 for attorney fees. At the time respondent issued these checks, he did so under the mistaken
belief that the fee agreement provided for advanced fees in the amount of $14,500.
5. Between June 2, 2014, and December 2014, respondent issued fourteen checks and
2,
initiated thirty-one debits directly from the trust account, totaling $4,991.82, for personal transactions.
6. On October 21, 2014, respondent deposited personal funds into the client trust éccount in the
form of a $600 check. The check was issued by Marilyn Stein, respondent’s mother, and was payable to
the order of respondent.
7. On Nzwémber 12, 2014, respondent deposited personal funds into the client trust account in
the form of a $200.03 cash deposit.
8. On December 3, 2014, the client trust account had a negative balance of $194.33.
9. On December 15, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank contacted Waszczuk to collect the negative
ba1 211106.
10. On December 16, 2014, Waszczuk terminated respondent as legal counsel due to a
disagreement regarding case strategy. Respondent provided Waszczuk with a signed Substitution of
Attorney form on January 9, 2015.
11. On December 26, 2014, Waszczuk paid the negative balance of $194.33 and requested
closure of the account.
12. None of the funds in the client trust account were used for costs attributable to Waszczuk.
13. Between June 2, 2014, and December 16, 2014, respondent took no steps to _monitor the
client trust account balance. Respondent also failed to maintain an account journal or cllent ledger, and
failed to track the withdrawals from the client trust account.
14. To date, respondent has not provided Waszczuk with an accounting of the $20,000.
Between June 2, 2014, and December 16, 2014, respondent performed

15. legal services related
to the Regents case, which amounted to approximately 100 billable hours.
16. 2014, and December 16, 2014, respondent and Waszczuk developed a
Between June 2,
friendship. During this time, Waszczuk purchased 'gifts_ for respo’ndent’s daughter and offered to pay for
respondent’s living expenses. Waszczuk also encouraged and permitted respondent to use Waszczuk’s
credit cards for personal expenses.
17. Respondent never obtained Waszczuk’s written authorization to designate all of the funds in
the client trust account as attorney fees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
18. By converting advanced costs in the amount of $14,500 into attorney fees without
Waszczuk’s authorization, and then disbursing this amount to himself between June 2, 2014 and
December 3, 2014, respondent failed to maintain a balance of $14,500 in the client trust account on
4-
behalf of respondent’s client, Waszczuk, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule
100(A).
19. By converting advanced amount of $14,500 into attorney fees without

costs in the
Waszczuk’s authorization, and then disbursing this amount to himself between June 2, 2014 and
December 2014, respondent misappropriated thrdugh gross negligence, for respondent’s own
3,
purposes, $14,500 in advanced costs that belonged to Waszczuk, his client, and thereby
committed an
act involving moral turpitude, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section
6106.
11
20. By depositing his personal funds and thereafter issuing checks
and withdrawing cash
directly from the account between October 21, 2014 and December 3, 2014, for respondent’s
client trust
personal use, including payment of personal expenses, respondent commingled funds, in willful
violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).
21. By receiving the sum of $20,000 in advanced fees and costs on June 2, 2014, from
respondent’s client, Waszczuk, for legal services to be performed, and subsequently failing to render any
accounting to the client, even after the termination of respondent’s employment on December 16, 2014,
respondent failed to render an appropriate accounting tohis client regarding those funds, in willfial
violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4—100(B)(3).
AGGRAVATING. CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple Acts of Wrongdoing (Std. 1.5(b)): Between June 2, 2014, and December 16, 2014,
respondent commingled on numerous occasions, misappropriated advanced costs, and failed to render an
accounting to the client.
Restitution (Std. 1.5(m)): To date, respondent has not taken any steps to make Waszczuk
whole.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Discipline: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in California on December
11, 1987. At the time of his misconduct, respondent practiced law for approximately 27 years without
prior discipline. (See Friedman v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 235, 245 [practicing for over 20 years
without prior discipline is a highly significant mitigating circumstance] .)
Pretrial Stipulation: Byventering into this stipulation, respondent has acknowledged misconduct
and is entitled to mitigation for recognition of wrongdoihg and saving the State Bar significant resources
and time. (Sz'lva- Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079 [where mitigation was given for
entering into a stipulation as to facts and culpability]; In the Matter of Spaith (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal.
State Bar Ct. Rptr. 511, 521 [where the attorney's stipulation to facts and culpability was held to be a
mitigating circumstance].)
Family Problems: Since 2008, respondent has maintained sole legal and physical custody of his
daughter, who suffers from a chronic medical condition. In 2014, respondent dedicated a significant
amount of time and financial resources to his daughter’s wellbeing. Over the years, and during periods
of heightened respondent struggled with chemical dependency. Shortly before his legal
stress,
representation of Waszczuk, respondent relapsed and subsequently completed an 18-day residential
treatment program in April 2014. Although substance abuse did not play a role in the present
misconduct, respondent’s inattention to his legal practice and the client trust account resulted, in part,
from his effort to maintain sobriety while addressing his daughter’s medical condition.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct “set forth a means for determining
the appropriate disciplinary sanction in a particular case and to ensure consistency across cases dealing
with similar misconduct and surrounding circumstances.” (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for
Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, std. 1.1. All further references to standards are to this source.)
12
The standards help fulfill the primary purposes of discipline, which include: protection of the public, the
courts and the legal profession; maintenance of the-highest professional standards; and preservation of
public confidence in the legal profession. (See std. 1.1; In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205.)
Although not binding, the standards are entitled to “great weight” and should be followed “whenever
possible” in determining level of discipline. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81 92, quoting In re
,
Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, 220 and In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the
standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring
consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar attorney
misconduct. (In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) If a recommendation is at the high end or low
end of a standard, an explanation must be given as to how the recommendation was reached. (Std. 1.1.)
“Any disciplinary recommendation that deviates from the standards must include clear reasons for the
departure.” (Std. 1.1; Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)
In determining whether to impose a sanction greater or less than that specified in a given standard, in
addition to the factors set forth in the specific standard, consideration is to be given to the primary
purposes of discipline; the balancing of all aggravating and mitigating circumstances; the type of
misconduct at issue; whether the client, public, legal system or profession was harmed; and the
member’s willingness and ability to conform to ethical responsibilities in the future. (Stds. 1.7(b) and
(C)-)
In this matter, respondent admits to committing four acts of professional misconduct. Standard 1.7(a)
requires that where a respondent “commits two or more acts of misconduct and the standards specify
different sanctions for each act, the most severe sanction must be imposed.”
The most severe sanction applicable to respondent’s misconduct is found in standard 2.1(b), which
applies to respondent’s misappropriation in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
Standard 2.1(b) provides that actual suspension is the presumed sanction for misappropriation involving
gross negligence.‘
Here, respondent’s careless misconduct and the accompanying need for public protection weigh in favor
a one-year actual suspension. This disciplinary recommendation is at the mid-range of standard 2.1(b),
and is supported by the underlying facts. Specifically, respondent engaged in grossly negligent
misconduct when he abdicated his responsibility to monitor the client trust account and instead used the
trust account as a personal bank account. Relying on his close friendship with Waszczuk, respondent
allowed himself to become lax with Waszczuk’s funds. As a result, responde1it’s handling of the client
trust account constituted an extreme departure from the duties and responsibilities that he owed to
Waszczuk as a fiduciary. Although respondent and Waszczuk developed a friendship and Waszczuk
sometimes offered to assist respondent with personal expenses, these circumstances did not justify
respondent’s grossly negligent misappropriation of the advanced costs and general misuse of the client
trust account.
‘
See In the Matter of Bleecker (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 113 [gross negligence
where the attorney’s misappropriation resulted from his poor management and misuse of the client trust
~
account].
13
In mitigation, respondent practiced law for 27 years without‘ discipline, experienced family difficulties at
the time of his misconduct, and showed recognition of wrongdoing by entering into the present
stipulation. These mitigating circumstances outweigh respondent’s factors in aggravation. However,
respondent’s mitigation is not sufficiently compelling to merit a deviation from the standards.
Case law also supports a one year actual suspension. In McKnight v. State Bar (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1025,
the Supreme Court imposed a one year actual suspension where the attorney willfully misappropriated
$8,665, but compelling mitigation predominated. There, the attorney handled a corporate dissolution
matter on behalf of his client and ultimately received a check in the amount of $17,331.85. Instead of
promptly notifying the client, the attorney unilaterally deposited half of the funds in the client trust
account and distributed the other half to himself in attorney fees. Around this time, the client offered to
loan the attqrney-m6'ney towards a house down payment, and the attorney accepted. The client filed a
State Bar complaintwhen she leamed of the dissolution proceeds and after the attorney failed to‘ timely
repay the loan: .With!respect to the dissolution proceeds,_the attorney denied wrongdoing on the grounds
that the c]i_‘ent'latEr authorized‘ him to keep these fun_ds; the client disputed this assertion. The Supreme
Court "upheld the ‘culpability finding, stating that the attomey “may not have acted with venal design,
[but] his failure to ‘verify and document’ the client’s ,;urported authorization ... had the same perfidious
’
effect: the client was . dcprived of rightful and timely access to her funds.” In mitigation, at the time
. .
of his misconduct, the attorney suffered from an untreated mood disorder, symptoms of which included
impaired judgment. Prior to his misconduct, the attorney practiced law for eight years without prior
'
'
"
discipline.
'
Similar to the attdmey in McKnight, even where all inferences are resolved in respondent’s favor,
respondent’s actions still rose to the level of a serious misappropriation. At no time did respondent seek
written authorization from Waszczuk to convert advanced costs into advanced fees. As a result,
respondent’s depletion of the entire client trust account was a grossly negligent act that constituted a
breach of the fiduciary duties that he owed to Waszczcuk.
In summary, respondent should be actually suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year
because this is a level of discipline that is consistent with the presumed sanction set forth in standard
2. 1 (b), it fulfills the purposes of discipline articulated in standard 1.1, and is supported by McKnight.
COSTSOF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent ac_:k‘h‘Qwledges that the Office of Chief "Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of
October 5, 2017', the discipline costs in this matter fife $7,793. Respondent further. acknowledges that
should this stipulation be rejected or should relief frornfth-3 stipulation be- granted, the. costs in this matter
may increase due to the cost of further proceedings
EXCLUSION FROM MINIMUM CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (“MCLE”) CREDIT

Respondent may [l_Qj receive MCLE credit for completion of State Bar Ethics School, State Bar Clienf
Trust Accounting School, and/or any other educational courses to be ordered as a condition of probatlon.
(Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
In the Matter of: Case number(s):

DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN 15-0-10110-LMA
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
)
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the
recitations and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition.
‘
O I U ég 17
(
Edward Stein
Date
‘{
Print Name
%
Dat e Respondent's giounéel Signature Print Name
[O \
. Laura Huggins
Date
'
Deputy ‘Mal ounse|’s Signature Print Name

Signature Page
_
Page _‘_5_
In the Matter of: Case Number(s):

DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN 15-O-10110-LMA
ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the
requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any, is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the
Supreme Court.
‘
I] The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as and the
7
set forth below,
DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed
within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved
stipulation. (See rule 5.58(E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date
of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of
Court.)
Dat
Oak 7”\ 70x1‘
LUCY ARMENDARIZ
Judge
V
of the State Bar Court

Actual Suspension Order
Page \ XQ
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen
and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and
County of San Francisco, on October 24, 2017, I deposited a true copy of the following
document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND

ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
[XI by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal
Service at San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
DOUGLAS E. STEIN
892 MARIA VISTA WAY
PLACERVILLE, CA 95667 - 4500
)1? by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California
addressed as follows:
Laura A. Huggins, Enforcement, San Francisco
Ihereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Ex cuted in San Francisco, California, on
October 24, 2017.
Vincerft Au
Case Administrator
State Bar Court
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-339-1982
Cell: 209-663-2977
November 22, 2017
Laura Huggins, Deputy Trial Counsel

Laura L. Sharek, Investigator Supervisor
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel Enforcement
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639
SUBJECT: STIPULATION: FACTS, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

AND ORDER APPROVING – Filed on October 24, 2017
Complaint against Attorney at Law Douglas E. Stein – Case Number: 15-
O-10110-LMA; Douglas E. Stein’s misrepresentation and misconduct in
the Sacramento Superior Court Case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479 – Wrongful
Termination – Hon. David Brown and Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Case 34-2013-80001699
Dear Ms. Huggins and Ms. Sharek,
This is my response to your STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND

DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING filed in the State Bar of California Hearing
Department, San Francisco on October 24, 2017.
I. INTRODUCTION
I had no time earlier to comment on or respond to the Stipulation Re: Facts, Conclusion
of Law and Disposition and Order Approving that you filed on October 24, 2017 in the
State Bar Court in the above captioned complaint against Douglas E. Stein.
I was preoccupied with my Petition for Rehearing in the Third Court of Appeal (3DCA)
against the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Defendants on December 1, 2014 in the
above wrongful termination case after 3DCA issued an Unpublished Opinion on October
10, 2017. I filed my Petition for Rehearing on October 25, 2017, the day after you filed
1
your Stipulation, which was approved by the State Bar Court Order and signed by Judge
Hon. Lucy Armendariz.
Also, I was preoccupied with the Petition for Review that I submitted on November 18,
2017 to the State of California Supreme Court after my Petition for Rehearing was denied
by the 3DCA Presiding Justice Hon. Vance W. Raye.
II. THE STIPULATION FILED IN THE STATE BAR COURT ON

OCTOBER 24, 2017
STIPULATION in the State Bar Court of California contains unacceptable misstatements
that don’t correspond with the true facts. In addition to misstatements within the FACTS
in the STIPULATION on page no. 10, certain important facts are missing because, for
some reason, the State Bar-assigned Investigator and the Trial Counsels did not
acknowledge the details of the provided documents regarding December 16, 2014 and
information on my meeting with both of you in your San Francisco State Bar office on
October 2, 2017, eight days before 3DCA issued the Unpublished Opinion in the anti-
SLAPP motion.
The State Bar and Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown was informed as early as
December 2014 and January 2015 that Douglas Stein defrauded me of my retainer and
colluded with the opposing lawyer Michael Pott from the Porter Scott law firm in
addition to having an over 20-year friendship with Superior Court Judge Hon. David
Brown. 1 The State Bar was given clear, black-and-white evidence on December 14, 2014
and in January 2015 that Douglas Stein stole my retainer, and the State Bar failed to take
any action about this for almost three years. The State Investigator who was initially
assigned to the cases, Amanda Gormley, made a good effort to prosecute Douglas Stein
in October 2015, but somebody stopped her, and the case and she disappeared altogether
for another two years.
2
In my Petition for Review that I submitted on November 18, 2017, I provided an
explanation of what had happened with my Complaint with the State Bar against Douglas
Stein and my Appeals in two cases in 3DCA. The Partnership between the Court of
Appeal Third Appellate District and the arm of the California Supreme Court State Bar of
California devastated my life completely. I am defenseless against uncontrolled
corruption in the Sacramento courts and the State Bar of California, but this does not
mean that I will be silent about it. I dealt with $100,000,000 worth of fraud, corruption,
and deception in the state court and state agencies almost 20 years ago when retired
Judge from the San Joaquin County Superior Court Hon. Duane Martin did not hesitate to
tell me that “Lawsuits are expensive for immigrants in this country.” State Labor
Commissioner Jose Milan permitted my employer from Texas who was doing business in
California to violate state overtime law, and 119 workers lost over $1,000,000. The
3DCA Unpublished Opinion in Case No. C030005 is related to overtime, and the
unpublished 3DCA opinion helped to restore proper Industrial Welfare Commission
Order (IWC), which applied to overtime pay for Power Plant Operators working on an
alternative work schedule in the State of California.
Waszczuk v. Destec Energy, Inc., issued in 1999, is related to the mentioned overtime
fraud permitted by the State Labor Commissioner Jose Milan. If you would like to see the
documents about it, I could provide them to you without a problem.
My wrongful termination cases in the Sacramento State Court are similar to a

continuance of the previous wrongful termination case against Destec Energy, Inc. almost
20 years ago because of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) involvement in my
wrongful termination case against Destec Energy, Inc. Almost twenty years ago, based on
my information, PG&E recovered $100,000,000 from Destec Energy Inc., a subsidiary of
the major power producer Dynegy, Inc., for its ratepayers and California’s taxpayers.
In similar misconduct to Douglas Stein, my attorney misrepresented me and did not

inform me that his law firm also represented PG&E and did not secure an agreement with
PG&E for the 25% promised to me between PG&E executives, myself, and my lawyer in
his office. When PG&E filed the lawsuit against Destec, it was too late to secure an
agreement, and I, my lawyer, and his law firm lost $25,000,000. Instead of getting at least
$1,000,000, I got a token from PG&E in the amount of $150,000 and a token in the same
amount from my lawyer by suing them both and settling with them out of court. It is
apparent that PG&E breached the Settlement Agreement by participating in the case
together with the Regents that was pending since August 2000 with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). The case was filed in August 2000 with FERC against
CAISO. The Case included the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW and the possibility that
3
the UC Berkeley and UC San Diego cogeneration plants were involved in the illegal
powers sale and tax fraud.
My other lawyer in the overtime case, Anton Zybach, exactly like Douglas Stein, robbed
his clients of the money they gave him, and he has not been permitted to practice law in
the State of California since 1998.
I am writing to you about these previous cases to let you know that corruption,
conspiracy, deception, and crooked lawyers are not new to me.
III. FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW IN THE ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION FILED ON OCTOBER 24, 2017 IN THE STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA
A. FACTS Page No. 10 § 4, § 5 & § 8
• §4. Between June 2, 2014 and December 3, 2014, respondent wrote checks to
himself totaling $15,375 for attorney fees. At the time respondent issued these
checks, he did so under the mistaken belief that the fee agreement provided for
advanced fees in the amount of $14,500.
• §5. Between June 2, 2014 and December 2, 2014, respondent issued fourteen
checks and initiated thirty-one debits directly from the trust account totaling
$4,991.82 for personal transactions.
It is my understanding from these two paragraphs that Douglas Stein from June 2, 2014
to December 2, 2014 withdrew from the trust account $4,991.82 and that, on December
2, 2014, Douglas Stein had $14,508.18 left in the trust account of the $19,500 he
deposited on June 2, 2014. However, on December 3, 2014, Stein must have withdrawn
$14,702.51 if the account reached a negative balance, as stated in paragraph No. 7:
• § 8. On December 3, 2014, the client’s trust account had a negative balance of

$194.33.
The above paragraphs do not make sense if § No. 6 states that the respondent deposited
$600 he got from his mother on October 21, 2014 and $200 on November 12, 2014
according to paragraph No. 7. Thus, it indicates that the trust account was empty in
October 2014.
B. FACTS Page No. 11 § 10
4
• §10 states: On December 16, 2014, Waszczuk terminated respondent as legal
counsel due to a disagreement regarding case strategy.
Waszczuk did not terminate Douglas Stein due to a disagreement regarding case strategy.
Waszczuk dismissed Stein for gross misrepresentation, failure to properly amend
complaint, not objecting to the anti-SLAPP motion, defrauding Waszczuk of his
retainer, and especially sending a text message to Waszczuk on December 15, 2014 about
his twenty years plus friendship with Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown.
C. FACTS Page No. 11 § 16
• §16 states that, between June 2, 2014 and December 16, 2014, the respondent
developed a friendship with Waszczuk. During this time, Waszczuk purchased
gifts for the respondent's daughter and offered to pay for the respondent's living
expenses. Waszczuk also encouraged and permitted the respondent to use
Waszczuk's credit cards for personal expenses.
I am not sure where this idea came from. There was no friendship from June 2,
2014 to December 16, 2014. My good relations with Douglas Stein ended after he got
paid $ 20,000 on June 2, 2014 and after he filed the First Amended Complaint on June
16, 2014 and visited my home at the beginning of July; thereafter, Stein turned evil. (See:
Initial Complaint submitted to the State Bar on January 28, 2015.)
I had a friendly relationship with Stein from December 2013 to July 2014, not
from June 2, 2014 to December 16, 2014. I hired Stein in November 2013 for the Writ of
Mandamus against the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board The case is still pending
in the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (Case No. C079254).
After he visited my home in July 2014, I did not see Stein until November 25,
2014, when I drove to his residence in El Dorado Hills and gave him $500.00 to amend
the Second Amended Complaint, which he filed with a suspended attorney license
against with collusion of Defendants Attorney Michael Pott and Judge of Superior Court
Hon. David Brown . He should return this $500 as well. It was not a gift. It was for
repairing the damage he did with the First and Second Amended Complaint. I believe that
it was in June 2014 that I bought the small iPad for his daughter and repaired her Mac
laptop computer. I did not offer to pay for Stein’s living expenses. This is a crazy made
5
up out blue statement for unknown to me reason. I permitted Stein to use my credit card
for court filing, gasoline to drive to the Sacramento Court to file documents, and the
office supplies needed to run the two lawsuits. I also bought him a new scanner, printer to
heve proper tools to handle the lawsuits from his home. Also I bought a new briefcase to
make him look like an attorney in the court.
Stein is friend of my former coworker from UC Davis Medical Center to whom I
provided representation in the complaint against department management for “ Does
not meet expectation performance review , letter of expectation and whistle blowing
complaint” under the UC Davis Policies and Procedures .
D. FACTS Page No. 11 § 15
• § 15 states: Between June 2, 2014 and December 16, 2014, respondent performed
legal services related to the Regents case, which amounted to approximately 100
billable hours.
On July 18, 2014, Douglas Stein sent a letter to Liberty Mutual Life Assurance
Company of Boston in regard to my being denied a supplemental disability claim in
2011. What caught my attention in the letter was Mr. Stein's statement that he spent 350
hours of work over 6 weeks on my wrongful termination first amended complaint.
I was surprised that Liberty responded to Mr. Stein's letter and offered to pay a
settlement of $1,900.00. Douglas Stein, who had not been hired for this case, tried to
force me through intimidation and threats to sign this settlement. If it had been at least
$25,000.00, I would have considered the offer. Stein sent a letter without my
authorization to Liberty based on documents he received for my wrongful termination in
May 2014, which included a complaint with the State Insurance Commissioner’s office
against Liberty for denying my Short-Term Disability in the Fall of 2011. The complaint
was not resolved by State Insurance Commissioner. In addition to the complaint against
Liberty, furthermore, Stein received from me a letter dated October 13, 2013 to the
Liberty Chief Operating Officer, in which I demanded to be paid $500,000 for the harm
that Liberty did to me by conspiring with UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources
executives, depriving me of income by denying me the benefits to which I was entitled.
In May or June, I asked Stein if he wanted to handle it or add Liberty to the

lawsuit as a co-defendant. Douglas Stein refused to do this and did not want to hear about
it. The mentioned 350 hours that Stein supposedly worked on my wrongful termination
translates to $64,750, considering Douglas Stein’s hourly billing practices of $185/hour
according to retainer agreement.
6
The letter that Stein sent to Liberty without my knowledge and authorization
because he was devastated financially and, having a lot of legal knowledge about medical
and insurance claims, attempted to extort money from Liberty using my 2011 claim
against Liberty. He was apparently successful, since Liberty sent him a settlement for me
to sign with a $1,920.00 pay off. Stein was furious at my refusal to sign the settlement. It
should be investigated by State Bar how much Liberty offered his effort to make the
problem vanish . If I had been offered at least $25,000 from this deal, I would have
considered signing. I even told Stein that if he got more money from Liberty for me, I
would add more money to the wrongful termination. He did not want to hear such a
proposition and furiously demanded that I sign the Settlement with Liberty for $1,928.70.
It is a possibility that Liberty agreed to pay Stein a lot more as legal fees, than damages
Liberty did to me as the victim. Another possibility was that University Attorney Michael
Pott asked Stein to take care of Liberty so as not to have Liberty as a potential co-
defendant or any witnesses from Liberty in my wrongful termination lawsuits against
University and nine individual defendants who were involved in m short term disability
claim Liberty Assurance Company of Boston.
After the deal with Liberty failed because I turned down the settlement for $ 1,900,
Douglas Stein turned to Michael Pott and offered to him to sell my case. In September,
Stein asked for help from David Greenwald, the owner of the internet newspaper “The
Davis Vanguard” where Stein publicized my wrongful termination in this venue in June
2014. In September 2014 at the same time Stein was dealing and wheeling with Michael
Pott to file the Second Amended complaint with suspended attorney license, Greenwald
got information from UC Davis under the Public Record Act about an unspecified lawsuit
from 2007 in which UC Davis paid $340,000 in legal fees and provided it to Stein. This
happened just before Stein filed the Second Amended Complaint in close collaboration
with UC attorney Michael Pott and with the help of the Superior Court Judge Hon.
David Brown.
All of the facts indicate that Douglas Stein cut a deal with Michael Pott. Most likely,
David Greenwald knows something about why Stein needed information about some
thousands of legal fees UC Davis for some lawsuit. Greenwald is always begging for
donations to run his internet-based Davis Vanguard. The best proof that Stein sold my
lawsuit to Michael Pott was that I gave Stein $500.00 on November 25, 2014 to amend
the complaint, and, instead of an amended complaint, I was attacked by an anti-SLAPP
motion on five days later December 1, 2014, which in fact was the redacted old demurrer.
The even better proof is that, in November, I offered $20,000 extra for Stein to get
somebody to help him run the wrongful termination case. Stein was completely broke in
November 2014, but he did not take the money $ 20,000 from me. On December 3, 2013
his trust account was negative in balance. . The anti-SLAPP was an emergency measure
crafted at hoc over Thanksgiving of 2014. The real deal between Douglas Stein and
7
Michael Pott was not the anti-SLAPP motion, but it was a Summary Judgment which
would be granted by Judge Brown to university and it would end my wrongful
termination lawsuit. Michael Pott would file the anti-SLAPP in July 2014 if it would be
beneficial for his client. It would be done of the First Amended Compliant which was no
different than Second Amended Complaint. My Petition for Rehearing filed in 3DCA on
October 25, 2017 described in detail how Pot and Stein and Judge Brown were planned to
end my lawsuit. (Enclose)
When I questioned Stein on the phone on what I believe was December 16, 2014 about
my retainer and empty trust account with Wells Fargo Bank, he told me that I should not
be worry and that he would have money in January 2015 to pay me back. Stein never got
any money in January 2015 because he was fired on December 16, 2014 and Michael
Pott quit or got fired by Porter Scott in January 2015 .
The Court Hearing to hear the Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike (that was unopposed
by Stein was scheduled to be heard) on December 30, 2014. State Bar investigators
should look at the Douglas Stein
Stein is important in this whole mess. He the lead to find out who from the University
of California approved the deal to pay Stein for his service to end my lawsuit in
December 2014. Most likely the UC General Counsel Charles Robinson was behind
operation. Robinson is one of many white collar criminals from CAISO responsible
directly for California Energy Crisis . He was transferred from CAISO to the UC Office
of the President in January 2007 and I was hit first time in January 2007 UC white collar
criminals in attempt to end my employment with UC Davis Medical Center. I have no
choice but to ask District Attorney and FBI in three different counties to question Stein
and Pott and others. $ 300, 000 and collusion with opposite party attorney and Judge of
Superior Court is a very serious stuff. It is a lot more serious than Waszczuk’ friendship
with broken financially Stein and more serious and more important than Waszczuk’ $
20,000 retainer stolen by Stein.
IV. FINANCIAL CONDITION
The calculations on Page No. 7 are wrong. They should be $15,694.33 plus the $500.00
that I gave to Stein on November 25, 2014 to amend the complaint. This totals
$16,194.33.
$14,694.33 + $4,500 = $19,194.33, not the $20,000 that I paid to Stein as retainer. The
stipulation must be corrected, and a new order must be issued.
V. CONCLUSION
By his misconduct and collusion with the defense attorney Michael Pott and Judge of
Superior Court Hon. David Brown, Douglas Stein caused me to lose $200,000 from my
8
g,
§iztir of (California
fijuhirial Iierfnrmanrc
"
"
(EUItIIIIfE-Einlt rm -
‘
453 ®nlhrn (15319 Abenue, finite 1441le

$2111 Efranriscn, (1:3 8411328551]
(415) 557-1200
Fax (415) 557-1266
Website: http://cjp.ca.gov
September 16, 2021

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Dear J aroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk:
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your recent complaint against California

judges. We appreciate your time and effort in bringing this matter to the commission’s
attention. We are presently reviewing this information and, if further information is
needed, you will be contacted. You will be advised in writing, at a later date, of the
commission’s action in this matter.
To give you some information about the process, each complaint about a judge is
voted upon by the commission. When a complaint states facts which could be
misconduct, if the facts are true and there is not another explanation for what happened,
the commission typically opens an investigation. The commission’s staff will interview
witnesses, review documents or files and conduct other investigation. If there is
sufficient evidence supporting the complaint, the judge will be contacted and asked to
respond to the allegations. The commission then reviews the available evidence, and the
judge’s response if the judge was contacted, to make a determination whether misconduct
has occurred. Misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, a
higher standard than is required in civil cases but lower than in criminal cases. If the
evidence does not support a finding of misconduct, the commission will close the case.
The commission may also close the case if the misconduct was relatively minor and the
judge has acknowledged the problem and taken steps to prevent it from happening again.
If the evidence supports a finding of misconduct and the commission determines that
discipline may be appropriate, the commission may proceed to impose discipline.
It may also be helpful to explain that the Commission on Judicial Performance is

not a court. It does not have the authorityto reverse a judge’s decision, move your case
to another department or court, disqualify a judge or otherwise get involved in your case.
The commission’s role is limited to reviewing allegations of judicial misconduct. A
judge’s legal rulings and discretionary deciswn—making, without more, are not a basis for
review by the commission. Even ifajudge’s decision is later determined by an appellate
September 16, 2021
Page Two
court to be legally incorrect, that by itself is not a violation of the Code of Ethics and is
not misconduct. A judge’s legal error might be a basis for investigation by this
commission if there is sufficient evidence of bad faith, bias, abuse of authority,disregard
for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of the law or any purpose other than the
faithful discharge of judicial duty.
Lastly, our office is not able to provide legal advice. If you wish to determine
what legal avenues are available to you, you might consider contacting an attorney or
legal services provider to see if they can help you.
Very truly yours,
Michelle Kern
Secretary to Trial Counsel
Confidential under California Constitution,

Article VI, Section 18, and Commission Rule 102
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-729-5154
March 14, 2023
Michele Kem
Secretary to Trial Counsel
State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE ’TO MY LITIGATION FROM 2014–2023 AGAINST

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UC REGENTS),
THE CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD
(CUIAB), AND TO MY LIFE AND WELLBEING AT RETIREMENT AGE,
CAUSED BY WELLS FARGO BANK’S UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND
MISCONDUCT
MY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS WERE STOLEN IN 2014

AND NEVER RECOVERED
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
WRONGFUL TERMINATION
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, Court of Appeal Third Appellate District Case No. C079524 & C095488 Waszczuk v.
The Regents of the University of California et.al . California Supreme Court Case No.
S245508
MONEY STOLEN FROM THE WELLS FARGO GOLD BUSINESS SERVICE

PACKAGE ACCOUNT 6826908995, OPENED ON JUNE 2, 2014 FOR MY FORMER
ATTORNEY, DOUGLAS STEIN (SBN 131248)
1
3-13- 2023 CJP -Request for Intervention & Investigation

State Bar of California Case No.15-0-10110- LMA; California Supreme Court Case In re
Stein, No. S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018)
Re: Request for Intervention and Investigation
I.
INTRODUCTION
Dear Ms. Kem:

My wrongful termination, which began in March 2011, took place on August 31, 2011
with termination effective date of December 5, 2012 has quite a long history in the three
California Courts, in addition to involvement from state and federal law enforcement
agencies and two different federal courts. The Wells Fargo Gold Business Service Package
account 6826908995, opened on June 2, 2014 at the Wells Fargo Empire Ranch branch, in
Folsom, CA for my attorney Douglas Stein as an Attorney–Client Trust Account using my
$19,500, is the subject of this inquiry and the crux of why I am still in court and why my
wrongful termination is being relitigated again in the Court of the Appeal, Third Appellate
District (3DCA) as Waszczuk v. the Regents of the University of California, case no.
C095488. This appeal was filed on December 21, 2021.
The documents I recently received from Wells Fargo Bank and the California
Controller’s Office left no doubt for me that the Well Fargo Bank account opened for my
former attorney Douglas Stein on June 2 2014 is the one of the key reasons why thi case has
been pending for almost 10 years in three different California Courts .
I did not fully address this account with the CJP before because I was waiting for a
Respondent’s Brief (RB) to be filed in 3DCA by the Defendants’ attorney, Karen Bray, who
had been dragging her feet to file. Bray finally filed the RB late on March 1, 2023, though its
due date was February 16, 2023.
II.
THE WELLS FARGO ACCOUNT OPENED ON JUNE 2, 2014

I hired Stein on November 27, 2013 as my counsel of record for my writ of
mandamus against the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board in the above-
captioned case, No. 34-2013-80001699, which should be filed by Stein in the San
Joaquin County Superior Court in Sacramento County Superior Court. I aimed to recover
the unemployment insurance benefits that had been denied to me in January 2013 by the
California Employment Development (EDD).
I paid Stein a flat $2,000.00 retainer fee for a writ of mandate copy of the cashed
check and our attorney–client agreement. Copies of these are attached (Attachment #1).
On May 14, 2014, the EDD reinstated my unemployment insurance benefits
(Attachment #2), and three days later, on May 17, I hired Stein to handle my wrongful
termination lawsuit against the UC Regents, in case no. 34-2013-00155479, paying him
under our retainer agreement another $20,000 and a 30% contingency fee (Attachment
#3). I paid Stein $5000 more than the signed retainer agreement required to hire private
investigator .
On June 2, 2014, Stein called to tell me that he could not open the retainer account
without my presence. As I recall that day, I drove to Folsom and arrived at the Empire
Ranch branch with a check for $19,500 and $500 cash. Everything was already arranged.
I gave $500 cash to Stein and the $19,500 check, along with my driver’s license, to the
Wells Fargo specialist. Stein signed the account documents, and that was it.
The Wells Fargo Bank specialist did not explain to me why my name was required
to open the retainer account for Stein or tell me that I would be held responsible for the
account, including any associated taxes, despite having no access or insight into the
account.
I did not know in 2014, or for many years thereafter, why Wells Fargo did not simply
open the account for Stein with the $20,000 I gave him, according to the retainer agreement I
signed with him in May 2014. In the June 2, 2014 application (Attachment #4), under
“Related Customer Information,” I am identified as “Customer #1.” I am described as
3

“Client-Sole” with assigned Enterprise Customer Number 7028718186. Stein is listed as
Customer #2 and described as “Attorney/Law Firm Trustee.”
DOUGLAS STEIN’S GROSS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND

MISREPRESENTATION
A. August 2014 Settlement Agreement between my Former Attorney and Liberty Life
Assurance Company of Boston Litigation Manager Paula J. McGee
Prior to my hiring Stein, he had been employed for several years by the Arnold Law Firm, where
he specialized in personal injury litigation against insurance companies. In May 2014, in light of
my wrongful termination lawsuit against the UC Regents, I provided Stein with documents
related to my Short Term Disability (STD) insurance benefits, which had been denied to me in
2011 by Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, in conspiracy with the University of
California Office of the President executives.
In August 2014, Stein, cut a deal for himself with Liberty without my consent by lying to
Liberty’s representative, saying I hired him to represent me with Liberty (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/624408171/11-26-2022-Complaint-With-California-
Insurance-Commissioner-File-Number-HCB-8376574).
On March 21, 2019, my STD benefits resurfaced as unclaimed property in California

Controller’s Office (Attachment #21). It is still unknown at this time how much money Liberty
paid to Stein in 2014.
B. The Second Amended Complaint by Douglas Stein on September 30, 2014 in

Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California Case No. 34-2013-
00155479
Shortly after I paid Stein $20,000 to represent me in my wrongful termination lawsuit against the
UC Regents, Stein conspired with my adversaries’ attorney, and colluded with Sacramento
County Superior David I. Brown to end my lawsuit.

Judge Brown had been Stein’s friend for many years and signed the stipulation allowing Stein to
file the defective un-amended FAC as SAC with the goal of allowing UC Regents Pott to file an
anti-SLAPP motion (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation - SLAPP suit - Cal. Civ. Proc.
Code § 425.16(b)(1)) to destroy my lawsuit and impose on me significant rapid legal costs and
fees (Attachment # 6)
https://www.scribd.com/document/629743258/09-302014-Second-Amended-Complaint-
Waszczuk-v-UC-Regents).
The Wells Fargo statement for retainer account for September 2014 shows an ending balance of
$3,106. 89. If I had been informed by Wells Fargo that more than $16,000 was missing from the
account, I most likely would have dismissed Stein as my attorney and I would be not be writing
this inquiry today .
C. The Anti -SLAPP Motion filed on December 1, 2014 by UC Regent Attorney Michael
Pott in conspiracy and collusion with Douglas Stein and Sacramento County Superior
Court Judge Davis I. Brown from Department 53
In November 2014, I suspected that something was terribly wrong, but I neither had access to the
account nor suspected that the $20,000 I provided to Stein in June 2014 was gone.
Not knowing that the account had had a negative balance since November 3, 2014, just before
Thanksgiving 2014, I drove to Stein’s residence to meet and confront him about what was going
on. I gave him an additional $500.00 for further legal services, not knowing that Stein had
drained the retainer account. I also offered him an additional $20,000 for help with lawsuit. Stein
took the $500 cash. I was quite surprised that Stein did not take the additionally offered $20,000,
but now I understand why. It is my understanding that, if I had written another $20,000 check, I
would have had to go with Stein to bank to deposit it, because the account was listed as an
attorney–client trust account and had been opened under false pretenses. If Stein had taken the
money, it most likely would have been his last day as my attorney.
During this visit, I also told Stein to continue any incoming court hearings until after January 15,
2015, due to my planned trip to Poland.
5

I ultimately canceled my trip to Poland and waited to see what Stein would do, but he did nothing. He
had no money to fund work on my lawsuit, as the account was empty.
D. December 16, 2014 Letter of Dismissal of Attorney Douglas Stein and Stein’s further
Collusion with Others in the Case
On December 15, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank called me on my both home and cell phone numbers
looking for Stein, trying to collect a debt from him. Finally, one of the callers told me that
account 6826908995, opened on June 2, 2014, had a negative balance.
I reached Stein by phone and questioned him about what had happened to my money. He told me that
he was expecting a lot of money in January 2015 and would repay me. In a panic, on December 15,
2014 at 10:00, he sent me a text message a text stating: (Attachment #7).
text_O (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..
On December 16, 2014, I dismissed Stein from both cases and submitted that same day an initial
complaint against him with the State Bar of California (Attachment #8). However, Stein continued
acting like nothing had happened and continued appearing for me, acting on a suspended attorney’s
license. The judge in the case allowed this, despite knowing that Stein had been dismissed on
December 16, 2014.
On December 26, 2014, I closed the account from which Stein stole my retainer money and which
had a negative balance .
On December 31, 2014 I submitted inquiry to Wells Fargo titled “Wells Fargo Account Gold
Business Service Package 6826908995- I requested all account statements from June 6/2/2014 to
12/26/14,” I quite precisely outlined what happened between June 2, 2014 and December 26, 2014
(Attachment #9).However, Wells Fargo refused to provide to the statements for the closed
6

account.
I can only guess that, in 2014, Wells Fargo, which provided financial services to my former
employer, UC Davis, see https://theaggie.org/2017/02/23/university-of-california-davis-city-council-
sever-wells-fargo-contracts/ collaborated with the UC Regents’ attorneys and refused to provide me
any information about the fraudulent attorney–client trust account due to my wrongful termination
pending litigation against the UC Davis Management and UC Regents
III.
WELLS FARGO MEDIATION FORM DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2022 .
Around September 15. 2022 unexpectedly and surprisingly to me I received a Wells Fargo
Mediation Program Administrator a letter dated September 9, 2022 .and mediation form to fill was
the one who, on September 9, 2022 (Attachment 10). The instruction to the form stated that :
Our records indicate that you expressed concerns about an account or service
you did not authorize or did not want, or had questions about the Mediation
Program. We want to ensure you understand the mediation program and have
access to the Mediation Request Form.
After I returned the form(Attachment 11), I received an undated response that stated:
Wells Fargo is offering a mediation option for customers who expressed

concerns that may have been related to an account or service that they did not
authorize or did not want.
The information you submitted does not appear to deal with the issues meant to
be addressed in the Wells Fargo Mediation Program. As a result, we will not
be scheduling a mediation session as part of the Mediation Program. We have
further escalated your concerns, and you will hear from another Wells
Fargo representative soon.
Since then, the matter has been handled by the Wells Fargo Enterprise Complaints
Management Office.
In my multiple pieces of correspondence regarding the mediation with the Wells Fargo enterprise
complaints management office, from September–December 2022, I was repeatedly advised by
Wells Fargo representatives that the account opened on June 2, 2014 was not an “ILOTA account.”
First, I did not know what IOLTA stands for and why this is relevant and significant in the greater
picture, when my former attorney was stealing money from the account and Wells Fargo failed to
7

inform be about it. This caused me irreparable damage to my litigation efforts against my adversaries.
IOLTA stands for "Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts." Rule 1.15 of the
Rules of Professional Conduct requires attorneys who handle client funds or
funds entrusted by others, including settlement checks, fees advanced for
services not yet performed, or money to pay court fees, to hold those funds in
one or more interest-bearing bank accounts labeled as a “Trust Account,” or
words of similar import.
https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Client-Trust-Accounting-
IOLTA/IOLTA-FAQ
IV.
WELLS FARGO BANK GOLD BUSINESS SERVICE PACKAGE 6826908995
ACCOUNT OPENED ON JUNE 2, 2014 FOR MY FORMER ATTORNEY AS AN
ATTORNEY–CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT FOR NON-EXISTING SETTLEMENT -
AGREEMENT IN WRONGFUL TERMINATION CASE
After I received on December 27, 2022 another letter from the Wells Fargo enterprise complaints
management office, I closely examined all correspondence I received from Wells Fargo between
September 9, 2022 and December 27,2022, to determine why Wells Fargo was constantly bringing
IOLTA into the conversation to avoid liability and responsibility for the damages caused to my
litigation, which has amounted to tens of thousands of dollars.
On October 12, 2022 Well Fargo representative Misty Lemay wrote to me (Attachment #12):
Attorney–Client Trust Account

In your inquiry you stated why you are responsible for the Gold Business
Services Package account ending 8995. You stated that we did not provide you
access to the account and after you received the closing account statement on
December 26, 2014, your understanding was that the individual who controlled
the account was the party responsible for the account.
Research indicates the Gold Business Services Package account ending in
8995 was opened on June 2, 2014. The account ending in 8995 was being used
as an Attorney-Client Trust (non-IOLTA) account. The Law Offices of
Douglas E Stein was the controlling party of the account, and you were listed
as the attorney client on the business application. We have included a copy of
the business application for your records.

The account was set up as a trustee account where you had no access to the
account and all transactions were processed through the law firm. However, as
a trustee, the transactions were made on your behalf and the funds, tax
responsibility and account obligations belonged to you not the trustee. The
account was closed when the when a deposit was made for $194.33 bringing
the negative balance to zero, on December 26, 2014.
On October 26, 2022, in follow-up correspondence, Lemay said (Attachment #13):
Our decision remains the same.

In your response to our prior case 06202209239145858 you expressed
concerns regarding the enclosed business application from checking account
ending in 8995. The account was opened as an Attorney-Client Trust (non-
IOLTA). You detailed that after you hired Douglas Stein to oversee your
wrongful term business application inaction case against the Regents of the
university of California, in the Sacramento Superior Court wrongful
termination case you went with, Stein, your former attorney at their request to
open the checking account ending in 8995. The account was opened at El
Dorado Hills branch on June 2, 2014.
In your response you stated the account did not follow the role of a normal Interest on Lawyers
Trust Account (IOLTA) checking account or non (IOLTA) account. We reviewed the account
and application. The account was set up correctly under the Attorney-Client Trust (non-IOLTA).
The requirements of an Attorney-Client Trust require clients name and Taxpayer Identification
Number (TIN) are used on the application and account as you were the tax-responsible party, the
check for $19,500.00 used to open the account was FROM YOUR TERMINATION CASE
SETTLEMENT and the law firm/attorney was hired as your trustee
Surprisingly and unexpectedly I learned from the Misty Lemay’s October 26, 2022
correspondence sent to me via the Wells Fargo e-mail system at 8:54 a.m. and secured by Zix,
that in June 2014 I hired Stein as my Trustee and that the $19,500 check I provided to Douglas
Stein on June 2, 2014 was from TERMINATION CASE SETTLEMENT, and Stein’s law
firm was hired as my TRUSTEE FOR THE SETTLEMENT MONEY.
Lemay’s letter implied that I complained that the account did follow rules of an IOLTA
account. Prior to September 2022, I had never heard of an ILOTA account, and I do not
remember that the State Bar, which investigated Stein, ever advised me about this. In
the second part of the letter, Lemay disclosed that the account was set up by Wells
9

Fargo as a non-IOLTA one, and my name and Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)
were used on the application and account because I was the tax-responsible party. She
stated that the check for $19,500.00 used to open the ACCOUNT WAS FROM MY
TERMINATION CASE SETTLEMENT and that I had hired Stein as my TRUSTEE
FOR THE SETTLEMENT MONEY FROM THE WRONGFUL TERMINATION
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA.
It seems that Lamay solved the case for me by finding that Wells Fargo Bank, on June
2, 2014, opened account 6826908995 for Stein to steal my money. It was no any settlements
with the University of California in 2014 and thereafter with me .Perhaps Stein secured for
himself settlement . The $ 19,500 came from my 401 k account I transferred to IRA account
after my employment was terminated by the University of California.
I can only guess that Stein knew Wells Fargo officer Amanda Ryan Winter, from the Wells
Fargo Empire Ranch branch, in Folsom, CA, and prearranged for the account by lying to her
and misleading her that he was my trustee for the settlement money to use the account to use it to
steal the money from future settlement perhaps he secured for himself with the Liberty Life
Assurance Company of Boston and with the Regents of the University of California for help with
Judge David I Brown to erase my wrongful termination lawsuit .
If the Wells Fargo representative had asked me on June 2, 214 where the money was
coming from, perhaps the account would not have been opened at all. I am quite sure that
Amanda Ryan Winter, who processed the account, knew that the $19,500 was not from a
wrongful termination settlement. If that had been the case, the check would have been issued
by the UC Regents to me or Stein. There is no logic in opening such an account with Wells
Fargo by an attorney who had no trust account or any other account there on his own.
V.
FOLLOW THE MONEY AND LEARN THE TRUTH - WELLS FARGO BANK , N.A
WELLS FARGO ACCOUNT GOLD BUSINESS SERVICE PACKAGE ACCOUNT NO .
6826908995 - MONTHLY STATEMENTS FROM JUNE 2, 2014 THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 2014
On November 8, 2022, Lemay sent me copies of statements related to the Gold Business Service
Package Account No. 6826908995 for the period of June 2, 2014 through December 31, 2014). I
should receive these statements from Wells Fargo in January 2015. This led me to further discover
how and why the almost 10-year-long judicial process related to my litigation against the Regents of
10

the University of California, conducted in three different State of California courts, became totally
corrupted.
A. The Well Fargo statement for June 2014 (Attachment #14):

Balance on June 2, 2014 $19,500
Withdrawals/Debits $5,034.11
Balance, on June 30, 2014 $14,465.89
B. The Well Fargo statement for July 2014 (Attachment #15):

Balance on July 1, 2014 $14,465.89
Balance on July 31, 2014 $11,705.89
C. The Well Fargo statement for August 2014 (Attachment #16):

Balance on August 1, 2014 $11,705.89
Balance on August 31, 2014 $7,670.89
D. The Well Fargo statement for September 2014 (Attachment #17):

Balance on September 1, 2014 $7,670.89
Balance on September 30, 2014 $3,106.89
E. The Well Fargo statement for October 2014 (Attachment #18):

Balance on October 1, 2014 $3,106. 89
Deposits/Credits $600.00
Balance on October 31, 2014 $87.46
F. The Well Fargo statement for November 2014 (Attachment #19):
11

Balance on November 1, 2014 $87.46
Withdrawals/Debits $446.82
Balance on November 30, 2014 $-159.33
G. The Well Fargo statement for December 2014 (Attachment #20):

Balance on December 1, 2014 $-159.33
Withdrawals/Debits $110.00
Balance on November 30, 2014 $0.00
The statements for account 6826908995 show that Stein was given by Wells Fargo a green light to
steal my money as he desired from the account, which was opened by deception and lies to extort
money .
The account’s balance on October 31, 2014 was only $87.46. Three days later, on November 3,
2014, the account had a negative balance of $-12.54; Stein had emptied the account and left no
funds to maintain my wrongful termination lawsuit, for which he was paid a $20,000 by retainer on
June 2, 2014.
On November 11, 2014, Stein deposited $200.00 into the account, bringing it to a positive
balance of $16.69, but on November 17, 2014, the account was again negative, with a $-75.33
balance. The account remained negative until Wells Fargo called me on December 14 or 15, 2014 to
inform me that the account was empty, had a negative balance, and that I was responsible for it.
The question is, why did it take so long, a month and a half, for Wells Fargo to call and
inform me that the account was empty and carrying a negative balance? The information that my
attorney had stolen my money, or essentially abandoned me or resigned from representing me, was
crucial for my ongoing litigation and would have prevented further damage to my case.
It is not difficult to conclude from the monthly statements alone that Stein had no desire to challenge
my adversaries and represent me as he was hired to. If Wells Fargo had informed me November 4 or
November 18, 2014 that the account was empty, I would not be writing this letter today, nor
12

requesting compensation from Wells Fargo for damages caused by the bank’s unfair and fraudulent
business practices and for collaboration with Stein not to disclose the crime until December 15, 2014.
V.
IRREPARABLE DAMAGES CAUSED BY WELLS FARGO’S DECEPTION AND
FRAUD IN RELATION TO ACCOUNT NO. 6826908995
As stated in my previous correspondence and inquires with Wells Fargo, the incident with this
account, opened under false pretenses more than eight years ago, led to a falling dominos-type effect
and events that have caused me and my family irreparable damage of approximately $250,000 since
June 2014. I have lost my normal life and existence and fallen into poverty and developed health
problems.
All of this could have been prevented if Wells Fargo, in November 2014, had paid the damages
caused by Stein and taken full responsibility for the fraud. If Wells Fargo had repaid me what was
stolen from the account by Stein, I would have hired a new attorney and my disastrous litigation
would not have occurred.
VI.
JANUARY 28, 2015 COMPLAINT AGAINST DOUGLAS E. STEIN, STATE BAR
OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. 15-O-10110- LMA, AND CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT CASE S245982, IN RE: DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN ON DISCIPLINE
Wells Fargo is not solely responsible for the irreparable damage to my litigation against the
UC Regents and the tens of thousands in financial losses I have suffered related to two cases,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479, and
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).
I do not want to repeat what I wrote in my March 3, 2023 inquiry; however, in the context of
this inquiry, it is necessary to add what the State Bar of California did to the complaint against Stein I
submitted to the State Bar on December 16, 2014, together with a letter dismissing Stein from
representing me in both court cases noted above.
On January 14, 2015, the State Bar of California informed me by letter that Investigator Amanda
13

Gormley had been assigned to investigate my complaint, under the direct supervision of Senior Trial
Counsel Robin Brune. They would be investigating and prosecuting Stein, if warranted. Furthermore,
the letter instructed me to provide additional information about Stein’s alleged misconduct. On
January 28, 2015, I provided to the State Bar all knew at that time in a 20-page-long letter about
Stein’s misconduct (Attachment #21)
https://www.scribd.com/document/621488012/01-28-2015-State-Bar-o-California-Complaint-
against-Douglas-E-Stein-Case-No-15-0-10110).
Gormley interviewed me on July 13, 2015. On September 25, 2015, I sent e-mail to her
asking about the status of my complaint against Stein. That same day, Gormley replied to my e-mail
as follows (Attachment #22):
Mr. Waszczuk:
Your file with be submitted to the prosecutor by October 9.

Please communicate with me via regular mail or via fax.
You will receive a letter from our office when the case is submitted to the
prosecutor.
You will be contacted by the prosecutor if she needs additional
information.
Also on September 25, 2015, I sent to Gormley a draft of my Third Amended Complaint
(TAC). I intended to file this TAC to replace the defective SAC filed on September 30, 2014 by Stein
in conspiracy with Porter Scott attorney Pott and blessed by Judge Brown’s two Court orders of
September 22, 2014 (Attachment #23) and December 17, 2014. (Attachment #24)
After September 25, 2015, I never received an official letter from the State Bar stating
that Stein’s case had been submitted to the prosecutor. Gormley and Brune, who directly
supervised Gormley’s investigation against Stein, and Supervising Senior Trial Counsel Robert
A. Henderson, vanished and disappeared together with my complaints against Stein, just as my
unemployment insurance benefits, which were reinstated by the EDD on May 14, 2014 and then
stolen from me by the UC General Counsel and his deputies, judges, justices, and deputes of the
California Attorney General.
Eight months later on May 24, 2016 I asked State Bar by e-mail what happened to my
complaint against Douglas Stein than next day I received reply from the State Bar Laura J. Sharek
14

Investigator Supervisor Laura Sharek (Attachment #25) who informed me that my complaint
which was already was turn over to prosecutor in 2015 was put on hold (Attachment #25).
On June 7, 2016 I responded to Laura Sharek e-mail with letter (Attachment #26).
Prior my inquiry about my complaint against Douglas Stein , the State Bar on May 2, 2016 turn
down without investigation my other complaint with Bar against licensed by State Bar
individuals who one way or another participated in the 2011-2012 witch hunt against me to erase
me from the UC Davis Medical Center and UC Payroll and to deport me to my native country
Poland . (Attachment #27).
One year later, in September 2017, I learned that Gormley was removed from the
case in 2015 and that a new investigator supervisor from the State Bar’s Chief Trial Counsel
office, Laura Sharek, and Deputy Trial Counsel Laura Huggins, precisely coordinated and
synchronized their investigation and prosecution of Stein with 3DCA staff in the proceedings of
my two pending appeals, Waszczuk v. the Regents of the University California et al, Case No.
C079524 (anti-SLAPP motion) and Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board (CUIAB) Writ of Mandamus (dealing with my unemployment benefits stolen in 2014 by
judges and justices).
Most likely, Gormley got too deep into her findings by investigating Stein, but in October 2015, she
vanished along with my complaint. Her successors, Sharek and Huggins resolved the case by
premeditated STIPULATION perfectly timed with the appeal process in the 3DCA Case C079524
(anti -SLAPP Motion )
The stipulation was signed by Stein on October 10, 2017, the same day 3DCA issued its unpublished
opinion in the anti-SLAPP motion Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017) (Attachment # 28). Laura Huggins signed the STIPULATION on October 11, 2017.
(Attachment # 29)The unpublished opinion was delivered by a three-justice panel from 3DCA
comprised of Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye, Justice Ronald B. Robie, and Justice George
Nicholson.
Instead of condemning both Stein and Porter Scott attorneys and Judge Brown’s misconduct, for
covering up his friend’s Stein crime and turn them to proper authorities for investigation , the 3DCA
justices praised Stein in their fraudulent opinion like some kind icon and hero .
15

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.
The STIPULATION signed by Stein and Huggins on October 10 & 11, 2017 languished for two
weeks before being signed by State Bar Judge Maria Lucy Armendariz and filed in the State Bar
Court on October 24, 2017 This prevented me from using the STIPULATION as new evidence of
Stein’s crimes in my Petition for Rehearing from the unpublished opinion Waszczuk v. Regents of
Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017). Petition for Rehearing was due to file on
October 25, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/597635412/10-25-2017-3DCA-SLAPP-Petition-for-
Rehearing-Waszczuk-v-Regents-of-Univ-of-Cal-No-C079524-Cal-Ct-App-Oct-10-2017
On November 22, 2017 I submitted my response to the STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION
OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING filed in the State Bar of California
Hearing Department, San Francisco on October 24, 2017. With words : (Attachment # 30)
STIPULATION in the State Bar Court of California contains unacceptable
misstatements that don’t correspond with the true facts. In addition to
misstatements within the FACTS in the STIPULATION on page no. 10,
certain important facts are missing because, for some reason, the State Bar-
assigned Investigator and the Trial Counsels did not acknowledge the details of
the provided documents regarding December 16, 2014 and information on my
meeting with both of you in your San Francisco State Bar office on October 2,
2017, eight days before 3DCA issued the Unpublished Opinion in the anti-
SLAPP motion.
The State Bar and Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown was informed as
early as December 2014 and January 2015 that Douglas Stein defrauded me of
my retainer and colluded with the opposing lawyer Michael Pott from the
Porter Scott law firm in addition to having an over 20-year friendship with
Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown. The State Bar was given clear,
black-and-white evidence on December 14, 2014 and in January 2015 that
Douglas Stein stole my retainer, and the State Bar failed to take any action
about this for almost three years. The State Investigator who was initially
assigned to the cases, Amanda Gormley, made a good effort to prosecute
Douglas Stein in October 2015, but somebody stopped her, and the case and
she disappeared altogether for another two years.
16

One year later, on October 11, 2018, Armendariz was appointed by California Governor Jerry
Brown as a Judge in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Judge Armendariz was appointed by former Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to the
California Judicial Council and currently serves as a commissioner on the California
Commission on Access to Justice and on the Committee to Review the Operations and Structure
of the Commission on Judicial Performance.
If the CJP read the attached STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONCLUSION OF LAW
AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING filed in the State Bar of California Hearing
Department, San Francisco on October 24, 2017, it would not be difficult for the CJP to notice
that, in 2015–2017, the State Bar investigators had all the information that I received, and most
likely a lot more information, from Wells Fargo Bank in 2022 than Wells Fargo provided to me .
I have no doubt that the State Bar had information from other sources, including but not limited
to the EDD, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB), the state
Attorney General’s office, and from Douglas Stein himself concerning what happened to my
unemployment insurance benefits, which were reinstated on May 14, 2014 but vanished
thereafter.
I have no doubt that, in 2015, Wells Fargo Bank provided information to State Bar
investigator Amanda Gormley that Stein, on June 2, 2014, opened an account with my $19,500 for a
reason other than to serve as a retainer to represent me in my wrongful termination case. The CJP, by
reading the October 24, 2017 State Bar Stipulation with Stein, would not find one word stating that
Stein opened the account by providing false information to the Wells Fargo Bank. According to
Wells Fargo Bank information Stein claimed that I hired him as my trustee to manage money from
WRONGFUL TERMINATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT with the UC Regents which
never was signed or existed .
The stipulation with Stein filed in State Bar Court on October 24, 2017, and information
that I received from Wells Fargo Bank in 2022, clearly shows that the State Bar’s Chief Trial
Counsel office’s Investigator Supervisor Laura Sharek, Deputy Trial Counsel Laura Huggins,
and State Bar Court Judge Maria Lucy Armendariz openly interfered and meddled in the
17

judicial process on appeal in 3DCA case C079524, deliberately delaying the investigation and
prosecution until from October 2015 to October 24, 2017, until after 3DCA’s panel of three
justices delivered a totally fraudulent and unbelievably harmful to me unpublished opinion in
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017).
This scheme of corruption, cover ups, and most likely racketeering, with the involvement
of the UCOP executives, State Bar executives, the State Bar Court, judges and staff from the
Sacramento County Superior Court’s four departments, justices and staff from 3DCA, and the
full knowledge of former California Supreme Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye continued through
March 20, 2019 and was finalized by the transfer of $272,097.51 and $4546.08 to the SCO by
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and the March 20, 2019 California Supreme Court
rubber stamp justice, which denied my Petition for Review in Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment
Ins. Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018), thus legitimizing further the theft
of my unemployment insurance benefits which had been reinstated by the EDD on May 14,
2014.
Nearly 90 years ago, writing to Theodore Roosevelt, Judge Learned Hand

lamented that "we [judges] have got ourselves into the mess we are now in . . .
by failing to remember how strictly our duties should be interpretive."
—California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Department of Corrections, 72
Cal.App.4th 1331 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)
The opinion in this 1999 appeal was delivered by former 3DCA justice Coleman Blease, who two
decades later, together with 3DCA Justices Kathleen Butz and Elena J. Duarte, delivered slanderous
opinions in the case Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App.
Dec. 27, 2018), denying to me the unemployment insurance benefits which were reinstated by the
EDD on May 14, 2014, then stolen from me.
The misconduct described in the State Bar stipulation with Stein filed in the State Bar Court
on October 24, 2017 was more than simple misconduct. It was a premeditated grand theft of my
money by using the opened under false pretenses Gold Business Service Package account
6826908995 in collaboration with a Wells Fargo employee. The above-mentioned Sharek, Huggins,
and Armendariz knew about this.
18

See: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA criminal
case United States Of America v. Robert Anderson, Case No. 3:14-cr-00639-EMC (Attachment #31)
This particular federal criminal case involving crooked attorneys from the firm Linehan
Steever and Anderson LLP (LSA), formerly known as Lanahan & Reilly LLP, in Santa Rosa,
California, who spent money held in a trust account for a client, identified in the indictment as
“B.M.,” and used the money to pay expenses that were not related to client representation. The case
was prosecuted by U.S. Attorney from the Northern District of California Melinda Haag.
In 2016, UC President Janet Napolitano employed two former U.S. attorneys, Haag and
McGregor Scott, to hunt down UC Davis Chancellor Linda Kathi and her family to bring her
down and to convert Ms. Katehi from UC Davis Chancellor to Chancellor Emerita at cost of $1
million in public funds (see: https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-
ICE-FORM-211-APPLICATION-FOR-AWARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-California-White-
Collar-Crime).
It is also worth mentioning that, unknown to anyone, an attorney from Lanahan Steever and
Anderson LLP, Stephen Chilcott (today the Executive Director of Human Resources at UC Davis and
UC Davis Health), was hired by the University of California Office of the President in 2005 and sent
to the UC Davis Medical Center under orders from the UCOP to orchestrate a witch hunt in
collaboration with two former Porter Scott’ attorneys, George Acero and Michael Pott (the producers
of Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007), to expel me from the UCDMC and
UC payroll. It took them and the UCOP seven years to do so.
VII.
INQUIRY WITH THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE GROUP
Along with this letter, I am enclosing my March 13, 2023 inquiry to the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency Customer Assistance Group regarding my dispute with Wells Fargo
Bank over the fraudulent Gold Business Service Package account opened on June 2, 2014 as an
Attorney–Client Trust Account (Attachment #32, full inquiry with attachments on the flash
drive).
19

VIII.
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DUE TO
UNTIMELY FILED RESPONDENT BRIEF – 3DCA CASE C095488
Also with this inquiry, I am enclosing a copy of my March 10, 2023 Appellant’s Motion
to Impose Sanctions against Defendants the Regents of the University of California and
Defendants’ Attorneys Karen M. Bray, H. Thomas Watson, and Lindsay A. Goulding, due to an
Untimely Filed Respondent Brief (RB) and Admonish the Defendants’ Attorneys of Record per
Points and Authorities and Declaration in Support, California Rules of Court, Rule 8.276
(Attachment #32, full motion with attachments on the flash drive).
As I pointed out in my motion, the UC Regents had the full right to elect not to file an RB;
however, in this appeal and case, the regents’ attorneys elected to use dilatory tactics to drag out the
case in trial court and in this appeal for as long as possible, exhausting all of my resources, which are
limited to my $1800 Social Security pension, to pursue my desire for justice, or waiting for my death
after almost 10 years of bizarre litigation in California’s three Courts. Karen Bray, without any
remorse or shame in her dilatory tactics, used own mother’s death to deceive me and the court to
obtain an extension of time to file beyond the statutory extension allowed for an appellant’s opening
brief (AOB) (Rule 8.212(b)), which was due for filing on January 16, 2023.
In this matter, I am respectfully requesting that the CJP intervene with 3DCA to convince
the court clerk to serve me a stamped and filed copy of the RB. Two weeks have passed and
clerk has not served me via TrueFiling the late RB supposedly filed on March 1, 2023. I must file
my Appellant RB by March 20, 2023 and I do not even know whether the brief Bray supposedly
submitted is the same one I received from her on March 1, 2023 via e-mail and hard copy four
days later. I should have been notified by the 3DCA clerk on March 1, 2023 that RB had been
filed. This is how things happened last year with other documents submitted to 3DCA and this
year with the Defendants’ application for an extension of time to file the RB. Bray’s application
for an extension of time was filed on January 9, 2023, and I was served the filed copy by the
clerk on January 23, 2023. I would appreciate it if the CJP would intervene with the 3DCA clerk
to file my Motion for Sanctions, which I submitted on March 10, 2023. It is sickening what I
20

have been experiencing in Sacramento’s two courts from the appointed judges and justices for
almost 10 years.
IX.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I would like to say that what has happened and is happening to me in the California
Courts should never have occurred. I do not know where this appeal is going in 3DCA, which
appeases thieves in their opinions and condones the theft of retainer monies and unemployment
insurance benefits from self-represented litigants.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Enclosure
CC:
California State Bar Executives

California State Auditor Office
Senator Dr. Susan Talamantes Eggman
21

12-18-2023 - Response To State Bar of California SDTC Shane Morrison 12-1-2023 Decision

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

12-18-2023 - Response To State Bar of California SDTC Shane Morrison 12-1-2023 Decision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2216 Katzakian Way

December 18, 2023

RE: Case No. 23-O-23272- Respondent, Gregory P. Dresser

RE: Case No. 23-O-23273-Respondent, Laura Huggins.

B. Your SDTC Appointment to Investigate my September 25, 2023 Complaint

On Page 3 of the SDTC decision, it states:

I mentioned Petrulakis because it is still unknown who influenced, convinced, or coerced

With this complaint, I am alleging that, between September 2015 and

B. California State Bar Rule 5.21

More importantly, as will be discussed in detail below, nearly every

The Trutanich case is similar to State Bar Case No. 02-0-11078

Most of your complaints and most of the numerous supporting

E. My January 28. 2015 response to OCTC Supervising Senior Trial Counsel

On January 28, 2015, I submitted to Gormley my response with the requested

On July 13, 2015, Gormley interviewed me by phone regarding Stein’s misconduct.

On July 13, 2015, I was briefly interviewed by Gormley via phone.

On Pages 3 and 4 of the SDTC Decision, you stated:

I was not silent or happy about the situation.

On September 1, 2016, I exchanged correspondence on this matter with Elizabeth R. Parker,

B. September 8, 2017 State Bar of California OCTC Subpoena for Personal

E. October 10–11, 2017 STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND

F. The STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND

In September 2017, Sharek and Huggins fabricated an ad hoc and deceptive

Paragraph 19 on Page 11 and Paragraph 20 on Page 12 of the Attachment states:

On Pages 5 & 6 of your SDTC decision, you stated:

On September 16, 2021, I received a response to my concerns from Michelle Kem

H. Did Brune Have a Conflict of Interest in Supervising the Investigation against

USCA No. 20-1407 USTC No. 23105–18 W

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk

Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 28,

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Per Se

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule (27)(e), Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced

whether he will file an objection to the Waszczuk’s motion . (EXHIBIT # 2)

September 19, 2023.

of Internal Revenue Service (Commissioner) on September 20, 2023.

BEFORE: Katsas, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges

A. The Court’s Determination of Extraordinary Circumstances in Denying

“California energy crisis.”

discovery of documents portraying his former employer’s criminal activities in relation to

Revenue Code (IRC) 501(c)(3).

On September 3, 2022, based on newly discovered materials, Waszczuk submitted to the

IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, UT a new, more than 300-page-long illustrated

COMPLAINT (REFERRAL)-FORM 13909 and a cover letter (EXHIBIT #4).

001610 and Claims No. 2024-001610 and 2024-001612 (EXHIBIT #5).

B. The Commissioner’s September 19, 2023 Opposition to Waszczuk’s Motion to

“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must

860 F.3d 732 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

Energy Commission Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations 18 C.F.R. § 292.20; the

Thomson was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman of the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism.

being denied in August 2018 without review.

On September 6, 2018, during Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Senator

even after Blum’s death in February 2022.

government engaged in a meticulously planned conspiracy with Enron executives to launder

by illegally selling power, and the money vanished.

as Attachment # 5 to WBO Claim No. 2018-012118.

18 C.F.R. § 292.20, and the Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a).

The Destec plant was permanently closed due to this fraud.

Government Entities (TEGE) at the relevant time.

In Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., 137 F.2d 764 (3d