Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk fled communist Poland and arrived in the United States as an asylum seeker who was granted political asylum.
Mr. Waszczuk, from 1999 to 2010, was continuously employed by UC Davis in the Department of Plant Operations and Maintenance. He consistently received glowing evaluations and outstanding performance marks.
His duties were that he “was solely responsible, on the day shift” for “operating Metasys©, a software product that used an alarm or warning system to detect, identify and locate malfunctioning, failed, and/or failing machinery and equipment, such as air conditioning units, beating units, refrigeration units, freezer units, elevators, generators, and a host of other machines necessary and vital to the health, safety, and welfare of patients, staff, and the public at large who have occasion to present at a teaching hospital, regional trauma center, and research facility such as UC DAVIS Medical Center.”
In March 2011, he notified his supervisor “in writing, of various acts and omissions of misconduct within the HVAC Plumbing Shop.”
As his attorney, Douglas Stein, writes, “Within days or weeks, co-workers, plaintiff once thought were his friends, turned against him. By August, 2011 plaintiff had to take 30-days leave to decrease the stress and anxiety he felt from his co-workers, who were and still are making false statements about the plaintiff. UC Davis did not intend for plaintiff to ever return to work. UC DAVIS kept plaintiff away from the workplace for 1.5 years, until they fired him, effective December 7, 2013.”
This is no isolated incident. The Vanguard has covered the case of Janet Keyzer who was dismissed from UC Davis after blowing the whistle on research that violated the security and privacy rights of San Quentin inmates that took place during a University research project. That case is set to go to trial on Monday, June 30.
There is also Amy Block Joy, who has since told her story in a book, who became a whistleblower in August of 2006, and was asked to be silent while the investigation was taking place. In the words in the forward, she wrote, “Whistleblower is my personal account of the discovery and reporting of crime.” She added, “I wrote this book to educate future whistleblowers, especially those in university settings. My advice: persist, be vigilant, and know that an individual can make a difference.” The Vanguard originally interviewed her in 2010.
Mr. Stein writes that for the past 10 years, UC Davis and the UC Davis Health System have “created, encouraged, and maintained a climate and culture in which managers, supervisors, human resource personnel, investigators, executive directors, police officers, and senior officials consistently, invariably, repeatedly, and unlawfully retaliate, harass, abuse, and discriminate against staff who report misconduct, regardless of the nature of the reported misconduct or to whom the staff member disclosed the misconduct.”
He adds, “UC DAVIS unabashedly and routinely fabricate investigation reports knowing the reports will be used as evidence, routinely identify witnesses as being interviewed when no such interview took place, routinely shred the investigation file and destroy evidence leaving only self-serving reports of investigation, regularly fabricate reasons tor adverse employment actions, rely on witnesses known to lack credibility while they destroy documentary evidence that impeaches the false witnesses, and routinely manipulate the content, crux, and conclusions of investigations to find whistleblowers guilty of fault, wrongdoing, and/or improper conduct that justifies adverse employment actions.”
He concludes, “This case demonstrates UC DAVIS, by and through its managers, supervisors, and more senior officials, knowingly violate the mandate of their own procedures and intentionally deprive employees of due process.”
Mr. Waszczuk was hired in 1999 but, by 2000, his attorney describes “a climate and culture” that existed in the medical center as “a hostile work environment” with incidents of bullying, sustained abuse, discrimination and retaliation for whistleblowing.”
Mr. Stein alleges that, as “a direct consequence” for Mr. Waszczuk helping a co-employee, he was suspended for three days from his position as a plant operator at the power plant. As a result, UC Davis would move his work location to the HVAC Plumbing Shop.
Mr. Waszczuk would file a grievance in 2007. “After 2-days of arbitration in 2009, the arbitrator issued a decision that rejected as unsubstantiated the employer’s decision to move plaintiffs place of work. (Waszczuk) expressed to his employer his desire to return to work at the Power Plant.”
However, instead of being returned to the power plant, UC Davis made an offer, which Mr. Waszczuk accepted, where UC Davis would pay him $8500 despite the fact that they argued that they did not owe him for lost wages. Mr. Waszczuk also received a raise to $70,000 per year.
Mr. Stein noted that if the HVAC systems and other machinery were allowed to operate with malfunctions or other problems, there was a risk of patient death or serious injury.
Mr. Stein believes that when Mr. Waszczuk arrived as an “exempt” employee, the two existing employees “became obviously upset, angry, and/or outraged” when Mr. Waszczuk arrived “as the third exempt employee.” He documents actual complaints filed by one of the other employees.
There was a memo dated September 20, 2010, signed by 11 Central Plant Operators that indicated “we reached a point where we can no longer monitor these systems…” The memo concluded, “We cannot troubleshoot and respond to phone calls and Metasys alarms. It is a miracle that nothing tragic has happened yet.”
Despite this strong wording, nothing was done to address the issue other than give the employees an hourly raise that “would not impact the claimed ‘inability’ of the plant operators to monitor the Metasys system.” Mr. Waszczuk “expressed that the employer left a serious safety concern unaddressed. (Mr. Waszczuk) rightly raised the lack of logic in the contents of the Petition and the absurd response from the employer.”
Mr. Waszczuk’s “communication also expressed the actual risk of harm identified by the plant operators, and the seemingly unlawful way the plant operators used the threat to secure a raise, especially when the raise would do nothing to fix the hazard.”
Mr. Stein alleges that the letter from Mr. Waszczuk “sparked retaliation. Defendants, and each of them, targeted plaintiff with acts of intimidation, stalking, and sabotage.”
The suit lays out a long list of complaints as the result of this action and eventually he attempts to disclose “the misconduct, safety problems, harassment, and abuse to Human Resources.” However, “Human Resources did not and has never responded to plaintiff with any help whatsoever.”
Instead, Human Resources referred him to the very people that were the problem in the first place.
“Between May 2011 and August 1, 2011, Plaintiff, on numerous occasions, in addition to the previously plead items of disclosure, brought the following to the attention of managers, officers, and executives higher up the chain as time passed seemingly without any response or action.”
His working conditions became so intolerable and stressful that in July 2011 his physician placed Mr. Waszczuk “on stress-related sick leave for one month, which ended on August 31, 2011.”
He was then on investigative leave from September 1, 2011, to September 23, 2011, even though Mr. Stein documents that the investigation was already completed by September 11.
He was placed on medical leave again from September 23 to January 5, 2012, “with the opinion that if the stress from plaintiffs’ supervisors was gone, plaintiff could return to work.”
However, Charles Witcher, his supervisor, argued that he refused to come to be interviewed on December 5, 2011 and “unilaterally took plaintiff off medical leave and placed him on administrative leave without pay effective December 22, 2011.”
Mr. Stein notes he did not “have an obligation to come to an interview while on medical leave.” He was placed on leave with pay until May 13, 2011 and it is noted that the letter was sent “knowing plaintiff was suffering from emotional distress.”
In February 2012, Mr. Waszczuk agreed to an informal resolution of the matter. However, that individual in HR was removed from their position and, by April 2012, a Notice of Intent to Suspend was issued for “continued inappropriate behavior in the workplace.”
On May 31, 2012, Mr. Witcher handed plaintiff an unexpected Notice of Investigatory Leave when plaintiff showed up to return to work. “This time Mr. Witcher referred to plaintiffs’ reaction to the suspension, that plaintiff sent emails.”
“From May 31, 2012 through December 7, 2012, the employer undertook minimal investigation. In that time, essentially two investigation reports were published and both did not have any investigation past June 2012, and at that the investigation involved only a few witnesses.”
On March 7, 2012, Mr. Waszczuk filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint. On September 12, 2013, he was notified that the time for them to issue a decision was extended to November 30, 2013. As of the filing of the complaint last week, UC Davis still has not issued a decision, despite being required to do so within 120 days unless they provide written notice of an extension.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
i think it would be worthwhile for uc davis to explain what their whistleblower system is and why it seems to be failing so often to protect people who blow the whistle on their fellow employees or supervisors.
DP
The basic information on “ethics” or their whistle blower program can be found at:
http://ethics.ucdavis.edu/
This is general explanatory information but does have links to reporting forms with explanations of processes.
What I don’t believe that we are likely to see is any kind of explanation for why there appear to be multiple failures of this system.
The UC Davis or UC whistle blowing program is nothing else but a dangerous trap for the complaining employees.
The UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer needs another Chief Compliance Officer to be in compliance with law and UC Policies. UC Davis Supervisors and managers which are stealing, and grossly misusing UC resources are free to retaliate as they wish against these who reported the violations. In 13 years of my employment with UC Davis Medical Center, I represented or helped several UC Davis Medical Center employees with their retaliation complaints against vicious and unscrupulous managers which were given green light by HR stuff to retaliate as they wish. The UC Davis administration is rotten and corrupted, and the best UC policy will not protect employees from retaliation.
Please read my last open letter dated June 18, 2013 addressed to UC Office of The President Investigator Ms. Judith Rosenberg which never finished investigation in my retaliation complaint, I filed on March 7, 2013.
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95240
Phone: 209-339-1982, Cell: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-247-1089
Mail: ucdmclaborchat@att.net
June 18, 2014
Judith Rosenberg
Principal Investigator
University of California, Office of the President
Department: Ethics, Compliance & Audit Services
1111 Franklin St., 5th Floor
Office: 5407
Oakland, CA 94607-5200
Re: UCDHS Management Retaliation against Administrative Assistant II Seema Mani –Part II
Open Letter.
Dear Ms. Rosenberg:
As I stated in my previous letter dated June 9, 2014, I will keep you informed about the UCDHS management’s retaliatory action against Ms. Seema Mani. Also, as in my previous letter, the crux of this letter is a statement derived from the HR Investigation Report written by UCDMC HR Consultant Veronica Busby dated October 31, 2013: “Telling a lie about having a conversation with someone is fairly innocuous compared to a lie regarding someone making threatening statements.” The victim of such a lie is UC Davis School of Medicine Office of Student and Resident Diversity Administrative Assistant II Ms. Seema Mani. Ms. Mani’s superior, Interim Manager Marbella Sala, told such an innocuous lie.
Shortly after I sent you my open letter dated June 9, 2014, I received information that the “innocuous liar” Ms. Marbella Sala—who retaliated against Ms. Seema Mani and, together with Mr. Latimore, defaced, defamed and harmed her with unlawful demotion and reassignment— in fact was formerly convicted as a thief in criminal court. I searched the record in in the Sacramento County Superior Court and found the case: No. 87M04333 Penal Code No. 484. Ms. Sala was sentenced for her crime on December 21, 1998. At the time, Ms. Sala was not a troublesome teenager—by my best estimate, she was a 30-year-old, grown woman, taking into consideration her length of employment with the University of California.
Ms. Sala’s conviction in criminal court was important, yet probably would never have surfaced if she had not lied to Ms. Mani and later to the HR investigator in order to create a false report and to demote and remove Ms. Mani from the Office of Student and Resident Diversity.
By using Ms. Sala’s lies and Mr. Latimore’s slanderous imaginary HR Investigator Ms. Veronica Busby convicted Ms. Mani of three issues, which led to Ms. Mani’s demotion and removal from office.
ISSUES & SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Issue # 1: Did Ms. Mani violate UC Davis Health System, Hospital Policy 1616: Violence in the Workplace by making the statements quoted above?
Findings on Issue #1: Substantiated,
It is the findings of this investigation, using the standard of preponderance of the evidence, that the allegation that Ms. Mani made the statements quoted above in violation of Hospital Policy 1616: Violence in the Workplace is substantiated.
Issue #2: Did Ms. Mani engage in behavior that was inconsistent with the UC Davis Principles of Community by making the statements quoted above?
Findings on Issue #2: Substantiated.
It is the findings of this investigation, using the standard of preponderance of the evidence, that the allegation that Ms. Mani engaged in behavior that was inconsistent with the UC Davis Principles of Community by making the statements quoted above is substantiated.
Issue #3: Did Ms. Mani engage in behavior that was inconsistent with the UCDHS Statement of Ethical Values and/or Standards of Ethical Conduct by making the statements quoted above?
Findings on Issue #3: Substantiated.
It is the findings of this investigation, using the standard of preponderance of the evidence, that the allegation that Ms. Mani engaged in behavior that was inconsistent with the UCDHS Statement of Ethical Values and/or Standards of Ethical Conduct by making the statements quoted above is substantiated.
The first question is whether Ms. Sala, who in her in past was convicted in criminal court as a thief and lied to Ms. Mani, is more credible than Ms. Mani, who does not have such a record.
The second question is whether HR Investigator Ms. Veronica Busby properly applied the standard of preponderance of evidence in her report or whether she conspired with Ms. Sala and Ms. Latimore to fabricate lies and accusations to demote and remove Ms. Mani from her office.
The third question is whether Mr. Latimore—who, together with Ms. Mani’s former supervisor Michelle Villegas-Frazier, was indirectly or directly responsible for monetary embezzlement—is more credible than Ms. Mani, who reported the crime.
The fourth question is whether HR Investigator Ms. Veronica Busby conspired with Mr. Latimore to fabricate lies and accusations to demote and remove Ms. Mani from her office because Ms. Mani had reported Dr. Latimore’s and Ms. Frazier’s crime.
The fifth question is whether Ms. Marbella Sala—with her previous criminal record, due to stealing—was a proper candidate to replace somebody who had committed embezzlement as manager of the Student and Resident Diversity Office and whether UC’s criminal background check requirement was met before Ms. Marbella Sala was promoted to interim manager in Dr. Latimore’s Student and Resident Diversity Office.
My questions about credibility are identical to those that I have submitted many times in regards to Dorin Daniluc’s and Patrick Putney’s lies and their notorious violations of UC policies and law, not to mention Daniluc’s tax evasion.
Ms. Seema Mani is currently awaiting a decision from the Step II hearing due to her demotion and removal from her office appeal caused by Dr. Latimore and Ms. Sala. I was informed by Ms. Mani that, during the Step II appeal hearing, assigned HR Hearing Officer Ms. Theresa Avery stated that she did not read the investigation report issued by HR Consultant Ms. Veronica Busby on October 2013. It makes me wonder how the HR hearing officer can make any determination or conduct hearing without reading all of the documents related to the complaint.
The Step II hearing is not the “trial de novo” for the Superior Court—decisions from state administrative agencies have no weight whatsoever and cannot be considered during the court trial.
Furthermore, Ms. Mani’s retaliation complaint led me to Ms. Alicia Nimonkar and Ms. Felicia Miller’s complaint, as well to Mr. William Prindible’s Complaint for Damages filed against UC Davis and his superior, UC Davis Internal Audit Director Mr. Jeremiah Maher, at the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento Superior Court on July 17, 2013, Case Number: 34-2013-00148127 (Enclosed is a self-explanatory e-mail letter dated July 12, 2012 that was addressed to UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and a copy of the complaint for William Prindible v. UC Regents, UC Davis, Jeremiah Maher).
Mr. Prindible’s lawsuit against UC Davis and Mr. Jeremiah Maher was moved from the California Superior Court to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, Case No. 2:13-cv-02256-KJM-EFB. My understanding is that Mr. Prindible was employed by the Internal Audit Services Department (IAS) for over 10 years and had conducted investigations and audits regarding money embezzlement on Dr. Darin Latimore and previous Student and Resident Diversity Office Manager Ms. Michelle Villagas-Frasier. It is also my understanding that, as a result of Mr. Prindble’s audit, Ms. Michelle Villagas-Frasier was removed from her manager position and reassigned to different office.
After the internal audit was concluded, Mr. Prindible became a subject of despicable malice and inhumane treatment, harassment and retaliation from his superiors, which ended in the termination of his employment with UC Davis. Because of Mr. Prindible’s bipolar disorder, I view the retaliation against him and the treatment he received from Mr. Jeremiah Maher as gross violations of his human rights.
In conclusion I would like to mention that, on September 19, 2011, just four days before the ill-planned termination of my employment on September 23, 2011, I asked Director Maher about which information had been disclosed prematurely by my replacement, Bill Rubidoux. I did not have any idea in September 2011 that the UC Davis and UC Davis Health System Administration upper circle to whom I had addressed problems regarding UC Davis Medical Center’s Plant Operation and Maintenance Department were most likely and they still are followers of the Principles of Community, which were enacted by folks like self-proclaimed emperor Jean Badel-Bokassa from the Central African Empire and Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga from the Republic of Congo, who became notorious for corruption, nepotism, and the embezzlement of between US$4–15 billion during his reign, as well as extravagances such as Concorde-flown shopping trips to Paris. Mobutu presided over the country for over three decades, a period of widespread human rights violations. As such, he has been described as the “archetypal African dictator.” ( Enclosed copy of the e-mail to Director Maher dated September 19, 2011)
I will keep you posted
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
CC: UC Regents, UC President Hon. Janet Napolitano, UC HR Director- Joseph Epperson, UC Vice President Sheryl Vacca, Vice President Dan Dooley, UC HR Vice Chancellor Dwaine Duckett, Associate Vice Chancellor David Acosta, UC Davis Vice Chancellor Julie Freischlag, Dr. Darin Latimore, HR Consultant Veronica Busby, HR Consultant Theresa Avery, UCDHS Director Leslie Moore, Travis Linsey, Cindy Oropeza, Wendy Delmendo, Seema Mani, Beverly Kelly—Teamsters 2010; UC Davis Vice Chancellor Rahim Reed; State of California Legislators, Attorney General Office, with attachment, and UC Davis UCDHS HR Staff
As an outsider, this is a little to detailed for me to follow completely or evaluate; but I see no reason to bring in African dictators at the end. Some people might perceive this as being racist or claim that bringing this in is racist. Sounds like you have enough of a fight on your hands without conflating it with other controversial remarks (like fighting fire with gasoline). In any event; saying things that are politically incorrect will be a losing battle with UCD admins; whether fair or not they can only reduce your chances of success.
Criminal is a criminal and it does not matter what his color of skin , national origin , sexual orientation , nationality is. It is so simple to understand and no need a further explanation .
UPDATE
JAROSLAW (“JERRY”) WASZCZUK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
The Court and Jury also will learn from Plaintiff’s wrongful termination complaint and will be shocked and surprised that the Defendant, to preserve this perfect, globally recognized image of the University of California, would not hesitate to give orders to their officers and agents to provoke and assassinate their own employee, the 61-year-old Plaintiff, using the university police force. It happened on May 31, 2012, because Plaintiff became the subject of the Defendant’s suspicious six-year-long paranoia that Plaintiff knew about the Defendant’s and the Defendant’s agents and officers’ misconduct, corruption, unlawful business practices and criminally minded activities in relation to the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant operation, where Plaintiff worked from 1999 to 2007, and that Plaintiff would disclose this information to federal authorities
B. The University of California Chief Counsel CHARLES ROBINSON , UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown and UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott.
In 2005-2012 and thereafter, UC Davis Chief Counsel STEVEN DROWN , UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director STEPHEN CHILCOTT and the University of California General Counsel CHARLES ROBINSON created an unbelievably hostile work environment in the department where WASZCZUK worked and orchestrated an enormous hoax and witch hunt beyond any imagination against WASZCZUK and many other University of California employees to deceive the UC Board of Regents for their own and their collaborators’ and co-conspirators’ financial and positions gains in the university structures. This led to WASZCZUK’s coworker, TODD GOERLICH , committing suicide in December 2010 and to an attempt to assassinate WASZCZUK on May 31, 2012 by especially assembled team of UC Davis employees nicknamed in documents UC DAVIS SQUAD.
WASZCZUK suspected but probably would never find the reason why he was hunted down like an animal from the December 2006 to December 2012 by UC General Counsel CHARLES ROBINSON, UC Davis Chief Counsel STEVEN DROWN, and UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director STEHEN CHILCOTT and his gang from UC Davis Medical Center. Thereafter, the hunt against WASZCZUK was continued by CHARLES ROBINSON and his deputies KAREN PETRULAKIS, CYNTHIA WROOM, AND MARGARET WU, ANNA ORLOWSKI, and STEVEN DROWN with the involvement of State of California deputy attorneys general, ISMAEL CASTRO and ASHANTE NORTON representing the State Of California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. EXHIBIT #1. The PORTER/SCOTT law firm, which was hired by CHARLES ROBINSON to take care of WASZCZUK in this case, most likely than not advised CHARLES ROBINSON, STEVEN DROWN, and STEPHEN CHILCOTT who should be put down and who should live prior WASZCZUK filed lawsuit against his employer, but this has yet to be determined by the different authorities than the Court Motion hearing.
The reason for the Defendants’ despicable conspiracy against WASZCZUK did not cross WASZCZUK’s mind until June 2015 during his preparation to file his opposition to the Defendants Motion for Fees and Costs .
WASZCZUK did not have a clue that his 2008 victory in arbitration against the UC Regents—which ended with the 2009 settlement agreement that WASZCZUK signed with the Defendants—was signed by the Defendants in evil spirit and bad faith. The arbitration and settlement agreement were just short and unexpected delays for CHARLES ROBINSON, STEPHEN CHILCOTT and STEVEN DROWN, before they exercised and launched a second preemptive strike against WASZCZUK in April 2011 to end his employment with the University of California. In 2011, the UC Regents entered into negotiations with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) for a power sale contract from UC Davis Medical Center’s 27-MW cogeneration power plant—named Central Plant—where WASZCZUK was employed from June 1999 to March 2007. WASZCZUK was unlawfully and abruptly removed from the Central Plant and reassigned to the UC Davis Medical Center HVAC Shop in April 2007, against his will. From September 1, 2011, to December 7, 2012, Waszczuk was employed by the Defendants but was kept out of the UC Davis Medical premises and his shop because the UC Regents had negotiated a power contract with SMUD and CHILCOTT, DROWN and ROBINSON had been convincing the UC Regents or UC Administration for their personal gain since January 20007 that WASZCZUK was an imminent threat for the new power contract with SMUD because WASZCZUK had disclosed the $100 million fraud of his former employer, Destec/Dynegy Power Company, against Pacific Gas and Electric Company rate payers in relation to power sale and violation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA ) enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1978. They perfectly knew that Waszczuk did not care about power contract and no record show that WASZCZUK has any intention to deal with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in regards to UCDMC Central Plant operation and to lose his job. WASZCZUK had no clue whether the UCDMC Central Plant met the FERC requirement as Qualified Facility (QF) to generate and sell power and Waszczuk never had any intention to look into.
The Regents signed the aforementioned power contract with SMUD on May 29, 2012 (EXHIBIT #2), but CHILCOTT, DROWN and ROBINSON, along with their co-conspirators, could not find or fabricate an ad hoc cause for which to terminate WASZCZUK’s employment.
ROBINSON , DROWN and CHILCOTT determined that WASZCZUK to be provoked and assassinated on May 31, 2012, by luring WASZCZUK onto the premises and using UC Davis police. The provocation failed, and CHILCOTT sent WASZCZUK home with another bogus investigatory leave letter to craft another provocation which was set for September 2012 but was abandoned and order was sent from ROBINSON office for the termination of WASZCZUK employment, which was carried out in December 7, 2012, after over one year of psychological terror orchestrated by CHILCOTT, ROBINSON and DROWN, as well as their collaborators and co-conspirators.
A. The Victims of the Activities of CHARLES ROBINSON, STEVE DROWN, AND STEPHEN CHILCOTT at the University of California from January 2007 to the Present
WASZCZUK estimates that CHILCOTT, DROWN, ROBINSON, and their co-conspirators and collaborators have cost the University of California $50-100 million from January 2007 to the present.
Many University of California officers and agents, including but not limited to the individual Defendants listed in the first and second amended complaints, willfully or by order collaborated with DROWN, CHILCOTT, and ROBINSON to cover up their own and other university officers’ misconduct, abuse of power, fraudulent activities, and corruption. DROWN, CHILCOTT, and ROBINSON, using the positions of power with which they were entrusted, applied psychological terror to inflict fear, deliberately and maliciously creating uncontrolled hostility among employees. This atmosphere caused the destruction of the normal work environment, violations of the civil and human rights of WASZCZUK and other university employees, and damage to WASZCZUK’s and others’ lives and livelihoods, including the previously mentioned suicide of WASZCZUK’s coworker in December 2010. In 2007, the first victim of the CHILCOTT, DROWN, and ROBINSON gang (ROBINSON joined DROWN and CHILCOTT IN January 2007) was TONY MODDESSETTE, the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Manager. MODESSETTE, an MBA-educated Vietnam War veteran, was replaced by one of most notorious violators of law, UC policies, and employees’ human and civil rights, high school educated and unqualified for this position CHARLES WITCHER. The next victims were WASZCZUK and his coworkers RICK TUNELLO and WILLIAM BUCKANS in 2007, followed by the UCDMC’s 60-year-old Plant Manager, DAN JAMES, who CHILCOTT forced to collaborate against his crew and then to quit. JAMES was also Vietnam War Veteran. Also part of the CHILCOTT, DROWN, and ROBINSON gang assault were UC Davis Health System (UCDHS) HR Labor Relations Manager MICHAEL SHEESLEY, UCDHS HR Executive Director GLORIA ALVARADO who was CHILCOTT , and UC Office of the President HR Associate Vice President JUDITH BOYETTE. In 2009 UC Davis HR Labor Relation Assistant Director DAWN CAPP lost her job because she represented the university against WASZCZUK in a 2008 arbitration dispute in which the university was defeated. The arbitrator in the case and UC Davis vice Provost CONNIE MELENDY followed DAWN CAPP and disappeared from the UC Davis landscape. In December 2010 WASZCZUK’S coworker from the UCDMC Central Plant, TODD GOERLICH, committed suicide due an unbelievably hostile working environment, which CHILCOTT had deliberately created since 2006 as smoke screen to attack WASZCZUK and other employees, spreading rumors and convincing others (along with DROWN and ROBINSON) that WASZCZUK and others were imminent threats. The goal of these plans was to obtain millions of dollars in power sales contracts for the UCDMC 27 MW Central Plant. The CHILCOTT’s position changed from unknown to an HR Attorney, with his salary rising from $64,000 in 2005 to $273,000 in 2014. Through deception and the destruction of other employees’ lives, CHILCOTT became UCDHS HR Executive Director.
Another victim was WASZCZUK’s countryman and coworker in the HVAC shop, the 70-year-old RICHARD PAWLACZYK, who was attacked by supervisors who had been coerced by CHILCOTT’s gang from UCDMC Labor Relations using one of the most notorious and deceptive of CHILCOTT’s co-conspirators, HR Consultant GINA HARWOOD. The evil plan created by supervisors DARIN DANILIUC and PATRICK PUTNEY to attack RICHARD PAWLACZYK was intended to provoke and engage WASZCZUK in PAWLICZYK’s defense. WASZCZUK did not fell for the provocation even after HVAC Shop Manager PATRICK PUTNEY made the following statement in conversation with Department Assistant Manager DENNIS CURRY:
“I would dig the hole, and Charles Witcher would push Richard in and bury him.” EXHIBIT #8. The next two victims were WASZCZUK’s coworkers KENNY DIEDE and DERECK COLE, who, in addition to WILLLIAM BUCKANS who was bullied and harassed from 2005 until 2013.
DORIN DANILUC, PATRICK PUTNEY, and DENNIS CURRY were also victimized after being coerced or ordered to attack employees in the HVAC shop to create a deliberately hostile working environment. CHILCOTT’s gang intended to eradicate WASZCZK. After being used against WASZCZUK, both DANILIUC and PUTNEY landed on stress leave due to hostility. DANILIUC was suspended, and CURRY was dismissed for misconduct two weeks before his retirement, after 35 years of service to the University.
In July 2012 WASZCZUK coworker from UCDMC HVAC shop and WASZCZUK’s friend MARK MONTOYA became a target of intimidation and coercion against WASZCZUK by CHLICOTT”s HR and UCDHS Chief Compliance Office gang.
Also in 2011-2012 the ROBINSON, DROWN, AND CHILCOTT gang eliminated UC Davis Chief of Police ANNETTE SPICUZZA, Lt. JOHN PIKE, and Captain JOYCE SOUZA due to premeditated and evil crafted by CHARLES ROBINSON, STEPHEN CHILCOTT and STEPHEN CHILCOTT provocation of pepper spraying student protestors on the UC Davis Campus on November 18, 2011 to eradicate Chief SPICUZZA , Lt. PIKE and CAPTAIN SOUZA .
This despicable act of conspiracy against these three UC Police Officers who lost their jobes and their lives were tarnished was done with the involvement of UC Davis Chancellor LINDA KATEHI, Vice Chancellor RALPH HEXTER, and Lt. MATHEW CARMICHAEL who replaced Chief SPICUZZA after pepper spray provocation and many others to cover up the real reason for destroying the livelihoods of SPIZUZZA, PIKE, and SOUZA. Since October 2011 WASZCZUK was providing information to Captain SOUZA, Chief SPIZUZZA, and Lt. PIKE about CHILCOTT’S gang activities in the UC Davis Medical Center; on top of this, WASZCZUK turned in CHILCOTT and his one of collaborators (DANESHA NICHOLS) to the California State Bar.
UCDHS HR Labor Relation Manger HUMBERTO GARCIA and his assistant HR Consultant, JILL VANDEVIVER, were eliminated in June 2012 after an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate WASZCZUK on May 31, 2012. In February 2012, GARCIA had attempted to settle the dispute with WASZCZUK.
In 2013, CHILCOTT also eliminated ROBERTO PAEZ, who was involved indirectly in the WASZCZUK case. PAEZ was the HR Department Mediator, and he had worked for the University for over 15 years. In 2013 ROBINSON’s deputy, UC Office of General Counsel Attorney MIA BELK, was eliminated. On September 12, 2012, MIA BELK had sent to CHILCOTT (on the UC Regents’ behalf) the order to terminate WASZCZUK’s employment.
WASZCZUK suspecting that UC Senior Vice President DANIEL DOOLEY was the latest victim of the ROBINSON, DROWN, and CHILCOTT gang. In September 2013 Vice President DOOLEY signed the decision in WASZCZUK’S whistle-blowing retaliation complaint, and shortly after Mr. DOOLEY signed the decision, his resignation was announced. His annual salary at the time of his resignation were $370,000.00
WASZCZUK will provide to the Court in the Third Amended Complaint names and information about w ROBINSON’s, DROWN’s, CHILCOTT notorious, collaborators and co-conspirators and what they have done.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Respectfully submitted on October 13, 2015.
______________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk –In Pro Per .
UPDATE -REQUEST TO SCHEDULE HEARING – ANTI-SLAPP MOTION -FIRST AMENDMENT
SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.663-2977
Fax: 209.370.8281
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
Appellant, In Pro Per
IN THE COURT FOR APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
The Regents of the University of California, UC Davis, UC Davis Medical Center, UC Davis Health System, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Charles Witcher, ‘Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniliuc and does 1-50 Inclusive.
Defendants and Respondents
Court of Appeal No. C079524
Sacramento County Superior Court Case
No. 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
Defendants Special Motion to Strike C.C.P 425.16 (ANTI-SLAPP)
Filed December 2, 2014
Judge; Hon. David I. Brown
Notice of Appeal Filed on June 11, 2015
APPELLANT’s REQUEST THAT ORAL ARGUMENT BE SCHEDULED.
TO THE PRESIDING JUSTICE FOR DIVISION OF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL:
Pursuant to Rule 8.256 (c ) (1)) of the California Rules of Court, I, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, Plaintiff and Appellant (hereafter Waszczuk),request respond to the June 9, 2017 (enclosed) inquiry by the Court as to whether oral argument is sought by Appellant in the instant matter. Due to the procedural posture of this case, Waszczuk conditionally request oral argument.
The conditional request is a result of the new finding and discovery after Waszczuk filed this appeal in June 11, 2015 and the new facts and discovery basically changed the venue of the case and appeal. In June -July 2015, Waszczuk discover new facts and why Waszczuk was unscrupulously hunted down since January 2007 by Respondents and Defendants until his employment was terminated in December 2012 with the University of California after 13 years of service.
After the discovery of new facts which are partly outlined in Waszczuk’s Augmented Record on Appeal, Waszczuk intended to File Third Amended Complaint) in the Sacramento County Superior Court but Waszczuk intentionally was blocked by the Respondents Motion to Stay on September 25, 2015 before Waszczuk actually was able pursue his idea to file the Third Amended Complaint.
The new evidentiary material and corresponding arguments with Appellant’s Reply Brief need some clarification from Waszczuk especially some statements from the February 2009 Settlement -Agreement, the Regents of the University of California signed with Waszczuk. The grossly violated and breached by the Respondents the February 2009 Settlement -Agreement is the written contract enforceable only by the State of California Courts if breached or violated by either party.
For the above reasons Waszczuk reverently requests that oral argument is permitted and scheduled by the Court to afford Waszczuk an opportunity to present and discuss the matter. Waszczuk, also considerately requesting from the Court, not to grant Respondent’s any Motion to Strike before the scheduled oral argument date.
Waszczuk’ conditional request for oral argument is based on the appeal records and files in this matter.
DATED: June 19, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
By: ___________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff & Appellant In Pro Per
UPDATE
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Andrea K. Wal lin- Rola m an n . C le rIc(A anti n ist rat or
IN THE Electronically FILED on 6/22/2017 by D. Warnock. Deputy Clerk
Court of Appeal of the State of California
IN AND FOR THE
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
C079524
Sacramento County
No. 34201300155479CUWTGDS
BY THE COURT:
The above case is ordered on calendar for hearing on Monday, August 28, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. Counsel and any unrepresented party who have filed a brief in the matter may appear and present oral argument. Your attention is directed to the provisions of Rule 3 of the Local Rules of the Third Appellate District and the attached memorandum describing the calendar procedures of this court.
RAYE, P.J.
Jerry… welcome back, if but for the update… thanks…
Hi Howard . Thanks . How are you ? I am still Polish .
Adequate. Still putting one foot in front of the other, unless one is in my mouth.
[and, still not very polish-ed]
Hi Howard
I wondering how the 3DCA will rule in this case . This is the motion where the UC Regents and UC Davis executives are claiming to be protected by the First Amendment. On the other side the regents or UC administration denied Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter same rights under the First Amendment It could a interesting case . It is possible that this motion will end in the California Supreme Court
UPDATE https://www.scribd.com/document/363447524/Waszczuk-v-UC-Regents-Anti-Slapp-Petition-For-Rehearing
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT FREE FOR IMMIGRANTS IN THE SANCTUARY STATE OF CALIFORNIA
On October 10, 2017, the State of California Court of Appeal Third Appellate District (3DCA) issued an unpublished opinion affirming the Sacramento County Superior Court judgement dated April 12, 2015, in the special motion to strike filed on December 1, 2014, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP). Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, 3DCA Case C097524, concerns the wrongful termination of Jaroslaw Waszczuk.
The anti-SLAPP motion was filed December 1, 2014, by the five UC Davis Health System (UCDHS) employees named as defendants in the lawsuit: Danesha Nichols, JD, UCDHS Human Resources Investigator and Consultant; Brent Seifert, JD, UCDHS Human Resources Labor Relations Supervisor; Cindy Oropeza, UCDHS Human Resources Benefits and Equal Employment Opportunity Manager; Stephen Chilcott, JD, UCDHS Human Resources Executive Director and the superior of Nichols, Seifert, and Oropeza; and Mike Boyd, UCDHS Facilities Executive Director.
In their anti-SLAPP motion, the defendants claimed that their activities and duties while they were investigating my first four causes of action in the lawsuit and acting as hearing officers in the employee complaints concerning various UC Davis policies and procedures were protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
After this anti-SLAPP motion brought against me by these UC Davis employees was pending for three years, both the Superior Court and appellate courts grossly discriminated against me as plaintiff and appellant by deny me the same rights under the First Amendment of United States that they granted to the five defendants. As a former employee of UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), I was providing representation and assistance for other UCDMC employees; I participated as an official representative in hearings with compliance resolution officers (CROs). The last hearing in which I represented a UCDMC employee in a “Does not Meet Expectation” evaluation took place on December 5, 2013—exactly one year after termination of employment with the UCDMC. The presiding CRO at the hearing was UCDHS Executive Director Mike Boyd, who terminated my employment. The hearing was pleasant, and Director Boyd changed the degrading “Does not Meet Expectation” evaluation to “Meets Expectation.” My activities as representative were protected by the First Amendment; however, the judge from the Superior Court and the justice from the Court of Appeal did not appreciate my efforts. The 3DCA unpublished opinion was discriminatory, demeaning, and degrading—far more than the one my coworker’s evaluation he received from his manager in the UC Davis HVAC Shop. In their unpublished opinion, the 3DCA used my mistake of not citing the record against me as plaintiff and appellant. The 3DCA stated that:
Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his failure to cite to the record, and at the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941, 944.) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.) We add that plaintiff has an equal responsibility to follow the California Rules of Court applicable to appeals, no matter how sympathetic his claims may seem to himself or us.
In fact it is not plaintiff’s by defendant’s brief was completely stricken by the court.
The Court of Appeal record (Register of Action) shows that this appeal was initially declared by the Court as fully briefed on August 23, 2016 after Waszczuk filed his Appellant Reply Brief. It appears that two and half months later, after the case was fully briefed, the Court reviewed the case and issued the following order on November 9, 2016:
“On the court’s own motion, the respondent’s brief filed July 25, 2016, is stricken for failure to ‘[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.’ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)((1)(c).) A respondent’s brief with proper citations to the record must be filed on or before December 15, 2016.” RAYE, P.J.”
The Order was electronically filed on 11/9/2016 by Deputy Clerk Anita Kenner.
The second 3DCA opinion praised my former attorney as diligent and transparent. I dismissed my attorney in December 2014 for gross misconduct, misrepresentation, conspiring with the defendants, and colluding against me with the judge he’d known for more than 20 years. While the 3DCA was writing the unpublished opinion in this case, my dismissed attorney was being prosecuted by the State Bar of California; his license to practice was suspended for failure to pay child support and State Bar fees. Due to the court’s three-year delay in deciding the motion and my related unemployment since December 2012, his conspiracy with the defense attorneys and collusion with the superior court judge caused me immense suffering and financial disaster.
On October 25, 2017, in response to the 3DCA unpublished opinion, I filed a 50-page petition for rehearing. The petition and attached 3DCA opinion are enclosed.
THE MERIT OF THE CASE
Superior Court Judgment Affirmation by the Court of Appeal
In the first part of the Opinion, on pages 1 & 2, the Court, by affirming the judgment which struck the Waszczuk four causes of action against the Defendants, stated: 3
“Although Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a self-represented plaintiff, purports to appeal the trial court’s order granting five individual employees of the University of California’s special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) four causes of action arising from their involvement in his termination, he does not argue the merits of the motion but insists the judgment must be reversed because of systemic corruption including collusion between his then lawyer, defense counsel, and the trial judge. He misunderstands his burden on appeal, ignores the dispositive issues, provides no evidence of corruption or untoward collusion, and fails to demonstrate either relevance or prejudice from the shortcomings he cites. We need go no further than to answer the contentions he raises, and in finding no merit in those claims, we affirm.
Waszczuk sincerely apologizes to the Court for offending the Court by misunderstanding the burden on appeal and for unintentional ignorance of the dispositive issue, of which Waszczuk still is not sure to what the Court is referring. Furthermore, Waszczuk sincerely apologizes to the Court that he brought to the appeal the issue of corruption, including collusion between his then lawyer, the Defense counsel, and the trial judge. However, if the Court felt offended and affirmed the judgment because Waszczuk insisted that the judgment should be reversed due to systemic corruption, including collusion between his then lawyer, the Defense counsel, and the trial judge, then Waszczuk feels that it was unnecessary for the Court to write another 13 pages in legal opinion to further aggrieve a person who is already aggrieved by the justice that he was served in the Sacramento County Superior Court by two judicial officers, the Hon. Judge David Brown and the Hon. Shelleyanne W.L. Chang. The Hon. Judge Chang is handling a cross- connected case, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB), Case No. C079254; Superior Court Case No: 34-2013-34- 00155479 No. 34-2013-80001699-CU-WM-GDS, which Waszczuk was hoping would be resolved first by the Court of Appeal instant of slapping Waszczuk with fraudulent anti-SLAPP Unpublished Opinion
However, even though Waszczuk disagrees with the Court Opinion, which added more pain and suffering to his devastated life, Waszczuk was somehow encouraged by the Court Opinion to look harder at where he made unintentional mistakes and errors due to his lack of proper education and experience in handling complex litigations, especially the appeals in the Appellate Courts.
Waszczuk’s insufficient education and experiences in legal matters does not mean that Waszczuk cannot recognize what is wrong and what is right and who is wrong and who is right and who devastated Waszczuk’s and his family’s lives and livelihood at Waszczuk’s retirement age.
Based on facts and the clear and convincing evidence, Waszczuk has little doubt and strongly believes that corruption, including collusion between his dismissed attorney Douglas Stein, Defense counsel Michael Pott, and the trial judge the Hon. David I. Brown took place, and, for this reason, the Superior Court judgment should be reversed by the Court of Appeal.
First Cause of Action
On page 12 of the Opinion, the Court stated:
“Plaintiff’s first cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress fails because the tort requires a showing of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of human decency.”
Waszczuk is curious whether the Court of Appeal ever came across any wrongful termination case involving the University of California where, in any University of California campus, management reassigned a blue collar worker from one shop to another shop and made him look like a KKK leader or guard from a Nazi concentration camp in their letter of suspension and reassignment, (Vol.III, CT 870-875) then, three months later, gave the employee a normal performance review for the same evaluation period in which the employee’s alleged gross misconduct took place. (Vol. III, 876- 878)After giving the employee a normal evaluation and acknowledging that the employee did nothing wrong, the management continued to process the employee’s Appeal-Complaint under the UC Policy PPSM 70 for another year and half and lost to the employee in the arbitration process, after which the UC Regents signed a Settlement Agreement with the employee giving him an engineering title.
Third Cause Of Action [Harassment and Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, Retaliation: Government Code §
12940 (A)]
What the Defendants have done to Waszczuk and his family is beyond Government Code § 12940. The Defendants violated Waszczuk’s human rights and denied him and his family the right to work and live their normal lives. Even in the Court of Appeal, Hall, their attorney, did not hesitate to make threats toward Waszczuk’s 66-year-old spouse, who has nothing to do with the University of California.
https://www.scribd.com/document/363447648/Freedom-of-Speech
UPDATE
https://www.scribd.com/document/373185976/DOUGLAS-STEIN-ON-DISCIPLINE-SUPREME-COURT-CASE-NO-S245982
The court orders that Douglas Edward Stein, State Bar Number 131248, is suspended from the practice of law in California for two years, execution of that period of suspension is stayed, and he is placed on probation for three years subject to the following conditions: 1. Douglas Edward Stein is suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of the first year of probation, and he will remain suspended until the following conditions are satisfied: i. He makes restitution to Jaroslaw Waszczuk in the amount of $14, 694.33 plus 10 percent interest per year from June 2, 2014 (or reimburses the Client Security Fund, to the extent of any payment from the Fund to Jaroslaw Waszczuk, in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.5) and furnishes satisfactory proof to the State Bar’s Office of Probation in Los Angeles; and ii. If he remains suspended for two years or more as a result of not satisfying the preceding condition, he must also provide proof to the State Bar Court of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the general law before his suspension will be terminated. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, std. 1.2(c)(1).) 2. Douglas Edward Stein must also comply with the other conditions of probation recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its Order Approving Stipulation filed on October 24, 2017. 3. At the expiration of the period of probation, if Douglas Edward Stein has complied with all conditions of probation, the period of stayed suspension will be satisfied and that suspension will be terminated. Douglas Edward Stein must also take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination during the period of his suspension and provide satisfactory proof of such passage to the State Bar’s Office of Probation in Los Angeles within the same period. Failure to do so may result in suspension. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.10(b).) Douglas Edward Stein must also comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of this order. Failure to do so may result in disbarment or suspension. Costs are awarded to the State Bar in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6086.10 and are enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment. One-third of the costs must be paid with his membership fees for each of the years 2019, 2020, and 2021. If Douglas Edward Stein 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.
The Devil’s Advocate
UPDATE
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
2216 Katazakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 833-817-7080
Email: jjw1980@live.com
March 7, 2018
Via Fax/Email
Jana Gabby
Office Manager and Legal Analyst
Ofice of the Campus Counsel
Offices of the Chancellor & Provost
University of California
1 Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616-8558
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST
UC Davis Director of Academic Employment and Labor Relations Danny Gray’s (Daniel Gray) limited employment record with the University of California, Davis (UC Davis)Dear Ms. Gabby,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I am requesting that you provide me with copies of the following documents:
Confirmation that the UC Davis Director of Academic Employment and Labor Relations Danny Gray’s name is a true and legal name (especially his first name). Mr. Gray’s first name “Danny” is displayed at http://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/people/staff.html and on other UC Davis webpages. According to the provided information in Davis Enterprise and his own story “MeToo Arrives at the University of California” (https://dannygray0.wixsite.com/metoo), Mr. Gray is an attorney, but the California State Bar record shows that his legal name is Daniel G. Gray with SB #205739. Why Mr. Gray is using Danny instead of Daniel for his job is another legal subject and question.
Exact dates (day, month, year) of Mr. Gray’s employment with UC Davis. According to the disclosed information in Mr. Gray’s “MeToo” story, he was employed by the UC in 1999-2003 and again from 2014 to the present time.
Mr. Gray’s legal employment names and titles during his employment with UC Davis in 1999-2003 and 2014 to the present time.
Mr. Gray salary or income under each title with which he was employed at UC Davis during 1999-2003 and from 2014 to the present time.
I am asking your office for the above information because Mr. Gray was listed as a defendant in lawsuits against the University of California filed in state and federal courts which alleged sexual harassment.
The January 23, 2007 Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) certified opinion for publication Vergos v. McNeal, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 647, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal.App. Dist.3 01/23/2007) (Opinion enclosed as an attachment) states on page #5:
McNeal attested that plaintiff filed complaints pursuant to PPSM Section 70 on February 11 and March 4, 2002, accusing Tollefson of sexual harassment. These grievances were assigned to McNeal as department head. ELR Analyst Dan Grey was assigned to investigate the complaints and prepare a report for McNeal’s review. Grey reported that plaintiff’s claims were unsubstantiated by the evidence. McNeal had no reason to believe Grey harbored any unlawful prejudice against plaintiff, and McNeal herself did not harbor any unlawful prejudice against plaintiff. McNeal reviewed Grey’s report, found it to be adequate, and agreed with its conclusions. She accordingly found plaintiff’s complaints to be without merit and so notified him. McNeal attested, “To my knowledge, [plaintiff] did not appeal this decision to the next step in PPSM Section 70 process.”
Furthermore, I am requesting that you provide me with a copies of the following documents confirming:
Whether the UC Davis Employment Labor Relations Department (ELR) Analyst Dan Grey, mentioned in the 3DCA opinion, is a different or the same person as the Daniel or Danny Gray employed in the UC Davis ELR department in 2002 and assigned to investigate Randy Vergos’ sexual harassment complaint against Allen Tollefson, who is still employed today as a UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor.
If Dan Grey is a different person than Daniel or Danny Gray, then please provide me with a copy of the following documents confirming:
The period of time (month, day, year) that Dan Grey was employed with the UC Davis ELR department, his legal title with the department, and his salary history.
This information is very important to requesting the California Supreme Court to decertify the 3DCA Vergos v. McNeal opinion, which was basically made up by UC attorneys from the Porter Scott law firm to cover up Mr. Gray’s “MeToo” relationship with UC Davis Music Professor Kern Holoman and as an assault tool in the state courts against UC employees who dare to make complaints against the corrupted and powerful UC cronies. A former UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and former UC President Mark Yudof were stricken by Vergos v. McNeal from the Janet Keyzer v. UC Regents lawsuit against them for their malicious oppression aimed at Janet Keyzer Case No. 34-2010-0079869. President Yudof and Chancellor Vanderhoef got help from the Sacramento County Superior Court most often disqualified “Super Regent “ Judge Shelleyanne Chang .
The “MeToo” saga involved UC Davis former Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and Associate Vice Chancellor Dennis Shimek. Mr. Gray loved being a member of the UC Davis Symphony Orchestra; thereafter, somehow he landed in the very prestigious and very expensive UC Hastings College of Law (UCH) in San Francisco. The question is whether Mr. Gray financed his UC Hastings education himself or if it was paid for by UC Davis or Chancellor Vanderhoef, Music Professor and Symphony Orchestra Conductor Kern Holoman, and Associate Vice Chancellor Dennis Shimek. Danny Gray was quiet about his “MeToo” saga until Chancellor Vanderhoef died. Associate Vice Chancellor Dennis Shimek and Music Professor Kern Holoman provided him with the ELR Analyst job in UC Davis in 2001 and deployed him to UC LA ELR in 2003 to keep him away from the sexual harassment lawsuits pending in the state and federal courts against the university, Dennis Shimek, and other UC Davis employees, including Mr. Gray himself.
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter .
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
CC: UC Davis Chancellor Gary May
Enclosed for clarification of my PRA request:
3DCA Opinion Vergos v. McNeal, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 647, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal.App. Dist.3 01/23/2007
Copy of Open Letter entitled Chapter XIII “MeToo” by Maestro Christian Baldini, which was submitted to UC Chancellor Gary May on March 5, 2018 and Danny Gray MeToo -Parts Unknow Chapter I-VIII .
https://www.scribd.com/document/373040097/UC-Davis-Maestro-Christian-Baldini
https://www.scribd.com/document/373254651/Danny-Gray-MeToo-Parts-Unknown-I-VIII
UPDATE
July 9 , 2018
Hon. Janet Gaard
Presiding Judge,Yolo County Superior Court
1000 Main St.,
Woodland, CA, 95695
Re: For information only
2002 Yolo County Superior Court Case No. CV PT-2002-1600-1, Randy Vergos v. McNeal
2007 Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Case No. C051469 , Vergos v. McNeal
Dear Presiding Judge Gaard
For your information I am sending to your office my March 9, 2018 inquiry letter with attachment which is addressed to 3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer Ms. Andrea K. Wallin- Rohmann . The letter is about the Vergos v. McNeal, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 647, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal.App. Dist.3 01/23/2007 very controversial 3DCA opinion.
Kind regards
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Enclosure ;
https://www.scribd.com/document/373446505/March-9-2018-LETTER-TO-CLERK-THIRD-APPELLATE-DISTRICT
UPDATE
anti-SLAPP Legal Fees
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v . The Regents of the University of California
https://www.scribd.com/document/377681905/SLAPP-0524218-Legal-Fees
UPDATE – anti -SLAPP MOTION , Jaroslaw Waszczuk v . UC Regents (short title ) Sacramento County Superior Court Case No.: 34-2013-00155479-Wrongful Termination
https://www.scribd.com/document/380185528/05-24-2018-Anti-Slapp-Legal-Fees
DECEPTION , CONSPIRACY , WITCH HUNT , COLLUSION AND MISSCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPRIOR COURT MINUTE ORDER DATED MAY 24, 2018 – Anti -SLAPP Motion and UC Regents Legal Counsels from the Porter Scott Law Firm
Waszczuk pointed out many times to Sacramento County Superior Judge Hon. David Brown that Douglas Stein, by filing the Second Amended
Complaint, did not amend anything and Waszczuk has nothing to do with Second Amended Complaint what so ever .
Waszczuk was defrauded of his retainer in the amount of $20,000 by Stein. In other words, Stein spent Waszczuk’s retainer not what he was hired for . Attempted to sell Waszczuk’ two cases to the Defendants’ attorneys for $300,000 after his unsuccessful attempt in August 2014 to extort approximately $60,000 from the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston shows Douglas Stein desperation and struggle with his life and problems of which Porter Scott’s attorney took advantage in unscrupulous and merciless way.
It would be completely improper for the Court to award legal fees for the attorneys who took advantage of Stein’s drug addictions and his grave financial state and blackmailed or coerced him to “utilize” his over 20-year-long relationship with Superior Court Judge David Brown. As early as December 19, 2014, Waszczuk informed the Court by letter, followed by Waszczuk’s December 29, 2014 Ex-Parte Application, of how the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion was crafted, filed, and pursued and asked the Court to place the motion into abeyance or dismiss it. This was to no avail.
It would be very improper for the Court to award any legal fees to the Defendants after the Court was informed in details of Waszczuk’s attorney’s gross misconduct and misrepresentation, which included and was not limited misappropriation of Waszczuk’s retainer and collusion with Porter Scott attorneys, which caused and lead to a despicable unacceptable and destructive to Waszczuk livelihood miscarriage of justice by the Sacramento County Superior Courts Judges and 3DCA Justices.
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
University of California Crimes Against Humanities and Violation of International Laws and Conventions .
“The United States and California constitutions grant every person the rights to participate in government and civic affairs, speak freely on public issues and issues of public interest, and petition government officials for redress of grievances. The right to freedom of expression is also recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” It also states that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “for respect of the rights or reputation of others” or for the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals.”
PDATE – anti -SLAPP MOTION , Legal Fees
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v . UC Regents (short title ) Sacramento County Superior Court Case No.: 34-2013-00155479-Wrongful Termination
05/23/2018 Letter to Hon. David I. Brown
https://www.scribd.com/document/380185250/20180523-Hon-David-i-Brown
Dear Judge Brown,
In addition to the “Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Supplemental Declaration of David P.E. Burkett,” which was filed on May 18, 2018, I am enclosing a copy of the May 22, 2018, “Meet and Confer” letter addressed to the defendants’ counsel, David Burkett. The “Meet and Confer” letter addresses the extension of time for interrogatories. It refers to “Employment Law,” Set No. 1; “Interrogatories – General,” Set No. 1, “Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff,” Set No.!; “Request for Admission”, and the “Request for Production of Documents,” Set No. 1, which are due to be produced on May 25, 2018. The letter is self-explanatory and does not require further elaboration.
To the copy of the “Meet and Confer” letter I have attached the following:
• Porter Scott’s publication entitled “Six Tips for preparing Employee Evaluation,” authored by Porter Scott’s former attorney Michael Pott, who crafted and authored the 12/1/2014 anti-SLAPP motion.
• the 09/26/2012 e-mail correspondence/order sent by the defendants and the UC Davis Health System (UCDHS) Executive Director Stephen Chilcott directing the erasure/deletion of Waszczuk’s Employee Performance Review for the evaluation
Hon. David I. Brown 5/23/2018
period of 201 1/20 12 from the UCDHS computer system with the attached 09/26/2012 e-mail from UC Davis Police (UCPD) Lt. James Barbour to Stephen Chilcott and Robert Waste and a UC Davis Campuses UCPD poster distributed around 09/26/2012 entitled “PERSON UNAUTHORIZED ON THE PROPERTY,” which displays an outdated Waszczuk photo and physical description.
I hope that the attached documents will make the Court understand what happened in 2011-2012 and that the Court will at least postpone the hearing until August 23, 2018, for the reasons I explain in the “Objection to the Burkett’s Supplemental Declaration.”
I would especially direct the Court’s attention to defendant Stephen Chilcott’s 09/26/2012 e-mail sent as an order to his subordinates to destroy evidence of the existence of my Employee Performance Review for the evaluation period of 2011/2012, which I never received to review and approve or disapprove, as mandated by UC Davis Policy PPM 23. The document was created in September 2012 on the day I received a Notice of Intent to terminate my employment. This document was sent to me among a mass of other documents by Porter Scott attorney Douglas Ropel in 2015. Shortly thereafter Douglas Ropel resigned as Defendants attorney and quit Porter Scott. I hope that the enclosed documents will make Court better understand why I fired Douglas Stein in December 2014 and why Michael Pott quit Porter Scott shortly thereafter.
In conclusion, I am asking again to deny defendant’s any legal fees or costs, or at least to postpone the court hearing to August 23, 2018.
Regardless of the Court’s decision, I will be unable to attend the Court’s hearing on May 24, 2018, due to my budget constraints. I will not be able to attend a hearing until I receive my Social Security check on May 28, 2018, and can buy gas for my car in order to drive to the hearing. Also, I don’t want to have any discussion with the defendants’ attorney in the court house or listen to his threats aimed at my spouse, who has nothing to do with my job or lawsuit against University of California. My wife should have retired last September at age 66 but is still working at Nordstrom’s to support herself and me.
To the best of my knowledge, I declare under the penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Pro Per
Enclosure
Hon. David I. Brown 5/23/2018
1993 – Joanna’s Essay
https://www.scribd.com/document/380185106/1993-Joanna-s-Essay
Joanna Waszczuk
Essay
1993
One of my most vividly remembered experiences which has also affected me greatly is when my father went to prison.
I was nine years old, living in Poland which was undergoing political upheaval struggling for democracy I knew that my father was involved with some sort of underground and that he was being followed as well. One night, a man came to our home at two o’clock in the morning and just took my father away, only allowing him to put on his boots and jacket over his pajamas.
Two weeks after that night, my family learned that my father was taken by a secret government agent to a prison for political activism trying to overthrow communism.
After a few more weeks, my father was allowed to write letters, but they were censored to the point that half the words were cut out with a razor or completely blacked out.
See: link and attachment :
ANTI-SLAPP UPDATE -LEGAL FEES
Department 53 Superior Court of California 813 Sixth Street, 2nd FloorDavid I. Brown, JudgeE. Brown, ClerkM. Oreschack, Bailiff
Thursday, June 07, 2018, 2:00 PM
2013-00155479-CU-WT
Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of Ca.
Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Attorney Fees
Filed By: Burkett, David P.
Defendants’ Michael Boyd, et al.’s motion for fees and costs pursuant to CCP § 425.16
(c) is granted as set forth below.
Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted.
On April 14, 2015, this Court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion to strike the first through fourth causes of action in self-represented Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk’s second amended complaint and judgment was entered in their favor. The order also awarded Defendants’ fees and costs pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c) to be determined by a separate motion. Defendants’ motion for fees was ultimately stayed on August 12, 2015 by this Court given Plaintiff’s appeal. A remittitur affirming the judgment was issued on January 18, 2018, and Defendants’ re-noticed the motion for today’s date. The motion is based on the papers previously filed in connection with the 2015 hearing.
It bears noting what the Court of Appeal stated, preliminarily, in addressing Mr. Waszczuk’s appeal from the SLAPP motion underpinning this motion: “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. [Waszczuk v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6933 *1-2] … While plaintiff’s pain is clear, his legal analysis is not.” (Id. at *3) Much like the appellate court, the Court perceives that nothing this Court can say will disabuse plaintiff of his “fiercely held belief.” (Id. at *9). Nonetheless, as will be addressed, this motion is not about the merits of Mr. Waszczuk’s claims, but rather whether defendant is entitled to fees under the statutes providing for such fees.
CCP § 425.16(c)(1) provides that a “prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.” The mandatory fee provision allows the prevailing party to recover fees and costs incurred in connection with a special motion to strike, including those fees and costs incurred in connection with a fee motion. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1133.) [emphasis added]
The motion sought $32,738 in fees ($29,384 for the anti-SLAPP and $3,354 for the fee motion itself). In addition Defendants request $2,236 in fees for reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply.
“The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar’ method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” Plcm Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095. “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community, for similar work.” Id. In making this determination, the Court may consider “the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. (Id.) “[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.” (Horsford v Board of Trustees of California State University (2005)132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396; Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1367 [declarations of counsel are also “sufficient to meet the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the fees incurred, without the need to produce copies of counsel’s detailed billing statements.”] A party may redact billing
statements to delete items protected by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. (See Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing. Co.(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1382; Banning v. Newdow (2004) 119 Cal .App.4th 438,454.) Nonetheless, the Court will reduce the hours it determines were excessive or not supported. (Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 816 (party seeking attorney fees has the “burden of showing that the fees incurred were ‘allowable,’ were ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation,’ and were ‘reasonable in amount'”); Christian Research Institute v. Ahor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326-29 (affirming award for 71 hours of attorney time in case where attorneys sought fees for over 600 hours).) Fee award amounts are matters within the trial court’s discretion: the “trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)
Plaintiff raises numerous arguments in opposition, yet none of them warrant denial of the instant motion. First the Court must note that the opposition memorandum exceeds the 15 page limit set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113 and Plaintiff failed to obtain an order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1113(e) permitting an oversized memorandum. The Court has previously admonished Plaintiff for failing to comply with this rule.
At the outset, a large portion of Plaintiff’s brief is Plaintiff’s recitation of what he believes the facts show in this case, how he believes he has been mistreated by Defendants, and his belief that the anti-SLAPP motion was improperly granted. None of these issues have any relevance to the instant motion. Moreover, the Third District Court of Appeal has affirmed the judgment and it is now final. Plaintiff also recounts the issues he had with his former counsel, Mr. Stein, which are also not relevant to this motion. Plaintiff appears to contend that Defendants were aware of the issues he was having with his former attorney and that Defendants’ counsel was somehow collaborating with his former counsel to harm him (e.g., Defendants’ counsel supposedly were aware that Plaintiff’s former attorney filed the subject second amended complaint when his license was suspended). There is no support for this argument even if it were relevant to the limited inquiry at issue on this motion.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants cannot obtain any fees at all because they did not personally expend the fees and Defendants’ counsel has been paid by the Regents of the University of California. This is no bar to recovery. (Rosenaur v. Scherer (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 260, 284-285.) “We do not presume that the Legislature intended to create a disparity between defendants who advance their own attorney fees and those whose counsel look to an outside source for payment. In each case, the fees have accrued and can be recovered.” (Id., at 285.) “In conclusion, the plain language and purpose of section 425.16, as well as the decisional law, support the recovery of attorney fees that have accrued in representing the defendants here, notwithstanding counsel’s agreement not to look to defendants for payment.” (Id. at 287.)
Plaintiff next argues that Defendants are not entitled to recovery of fees for clerical work which he contends amounts to $4,852. Plaintiff, however, fails to specify which charges in the billing records represent clerical work. Conjecturally, it may be that Plaintiff is referring to the paralegal fees and law clerk fees set forth in the billing records. If so, these fees are recoverable. (Guinn v. Dotson (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 262, 268-269.) In any event, courts have no duty to search the record for evidence; it
is the party’s duty to point out portions of the record that support his position. See, e.g. Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1379; see also City of Lincoln v. Barringer(2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239; Salas v. Dep’t of Transportation (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 1058 [“We are not required to search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for [plaintiffs’] contentions.”]. .
Plaintiff next argues that fees for attorney Douglas Ropel from December 1, 2014 to January 23, 2015 should not be awarded because no record is shown that he represented Defendants (apparently because he was not listed on the captions of pleadings during that time). However, Defendants have provided declarations with billing records showing attorney Douglas Ropel performed legal work in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion.
Plaintiff next challenges the hourly rates charged for Defendants’ counsel. First he argues that attorney Douglas Ropel’s $260 hourly rate is inflated because at the time he was an associate attorney with little experience and is seeking the same rate as attorney Michael Pott who is a shareholder. Defendants’ declarations demonstrate that it charged the same rate ($260/hr) for all attorneys that worked on this case. (Burkett Decl. ¶ 4.) The fact that Defendants’ counsel may have charged the same rates for the attorneys with differing levels of experience does not render the rate unreasonable. Further this Court is well familiar with billing rates in this community and a $260 hourly rate is reasonable. Plaintiff’s citation to non-binding federal authority awarding $250/hr for partners and $150/hr for associates does not change this Court’s finding.
Plaintiff next argues that Defendants cannot be awarded fees in the amount of $7,630 which represent the fees incurred by Defendant responding to opposition papers filed by his former counsel Douglas Stein on December 23, 2014. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ counsel was informed on December 16, 2014 that Douglas Stein no longer represented Plaintiff. However, as pointed out by Defendants in reply, Douglas Stein represented to Defendants’ counsel and the Court at an ex parte hearing on December 17, 2014 that he represented Plaintiff in asking for relief related to timely filing an opposition. (ROA 29) It was not until the Court issued a tentative ruling on January 6, 2015 continuing the anti-SLAPP motion to February 6, 2015 indicating that Plaintiff had filed declarations on December 29, 2014 stating that he terminated Douglas Stein as of December 16, 2014 that it was clear that Mr. Stein no longer represented Plaintiff. (ROA 45) The Court therefore disregarded the opposition filed by Douglas Stein, continued the anti-SLAPP motion to allow Plaintiff to file a new opposition and ordered Plaintiff to file a substitution of attorney. (Id.) But up until that time, the opposition filed by Douglas Stein was the only opposition on file for Defendants’ motion and they had no choice but to reply to it. Moreover, a substitution of counsel was not actually filed until January 14, 2015. (ROA 50.) On the facts presented, the Court will not disallow these fees.
Plaintiff’s “notice of objection” to Defendants’ supplemental declaration does nothing more than repeat the issues discussed above related to his previous counsel and the alleged collusion with Defendants’ counsel in addition to alleging that Defendants’ counsel had attempted to provoke him into a physical confrontation. The Court would note Defendants’ supplemental declaration merely indicated that this Court had previously stayed the hearing on the fees motion pending the appeal of the anti- SLAPP ruling and that the Third District Court had affirmed the decision granting Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. There was no basis to file an “objection.” Plaintiff
also requested a continuance of the instant motion until August 23, 2018 because he needs extra time to finish his motion to recall the remittitur issued by the Third District Court of Appeal and because he is seeking to file a third amended complaint. The Court declines the request to continue the fees motion.
Defendants are clearly entitled to their fees as the prevailing parties on their anti- SLAPP motion. (CCP § 425.16(c).) The Court is well familiar with the history of this action and the voluminous complaint and filings associated with the anti-SLAPP motion. To that end, the second amended complaint contained 165 paragraphs, many which contained subparagraphs and which covered many years of time and which were directed at many different parties and non-parties. In addition, after the anti- SLAPP was filed, two oppositions were filed, each with many exhibits. Moreover, Plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration and motions to dismiss Defendants’ anti- SLAPP motion which Defendants were forced to respond to. (Ropel Decl. ¶¶ 8-10, 12, 15-17.) Defendants seek $32,738 which represents 94.4 hours of attorney time, 43.2 hours of law clerk time and 5.2 hours of paralegal time. The following attorneys/legal assistants worked on this matter in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion and charged the following rates:
-Michael W. Pott worked 31.5 hours at $260/hr for a total of $8,190
-David P.E. Burkett worked 1.2 hours at $260/hr for a total of $312
-Douglas L. Ropel worked 61.7 hours at $260/hr for a total of $16,042
-Douglas L. Ropel (as a law clerk) worked 43.20 hours at $100/hr for a total of $4,320
-Marilyn Gamper (paralegal) worked 5.2 hours at $100/hr for a total of $520.
The Court concludes that the hourly rates are reasonable. However, after a careful review of the declarations and billing records, the Court does find that a reduction is required in the number of hours. To that end, the billing records are replete with block billing and contain a level of vagueness that suggests a duplication of efforts. The Court will not conduct a line by line analysis of the billing records in this ruling but simply notes that they fail to demonstrate that all of the 142.8 hours are reasonable.
Given the Court’s review of this matter and its familiarity with anti-SLAPP motions in general, the Court will award the following hours: Michael W. Pott 25 hours at $260/hr (reduced from 31.5) for $6,500; David P.E. Burkett 1.2 hours at $260/hr (no reduction) for $312; Douglas L. Ropel 40 hours at $260/hr (as an attorney) (reduced from 61.7 hours) for $10,400; Douglas L. Ropel 30 hours at $100/hr (as a law clerk) (reduced from 43.2 hours) for $3,000; and Marilyn Gamper 5.2 hours at $100/hr (no reduction) for $512. The hours awarded for the work associated with the anti-SLAPP motion and the instant fee motion are 101.4 which is reduced from 142.8 for a total of $20,724.
Defendants are also entitled to $166.20 costs in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion.
In addition, the Court will award Defendants an additional 3 hours at $260/hr for work associated with the reply for a total of $780.
The total award of costs and fees is $22,284.
The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order for the Court’s signature pursuant to
C.R.C. 3.1312.
UPDATE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – DATED JUNE 18, 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/382197140/20180618-Motion-for-Reconsideration-anti-SLAPP
In July 2014, Stein began making angry demands of Waszczuk and insisting that Waszczuk should not defend and represent other harassed UCDMC employees. Stein claimed that doing so would significantly decrease Waszczuk’s chance of prevailing in his own lawsuit. Stein refused to disclose why Waszczuk’s efforts to defend others would negatively affect Waszczuk’s case. Since that time, Waszczuk learned about Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos). In January 2007, this case was invented by two clever attorneys from the notorious Porter Scott Law Corporation, Pott and George Acero. In November 2012, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson was assigned as Skelly Reviewer to review Waszczuk’s termination of employment. By assigning Tollefson as a Skelly , Waszczuk was basically told by his employer, “Don’t defend gays. They don’t deserve to live.” This was a little dash of Nazi Germany in UC Davis. It is not coincident that during the hearing for unemployment insurance benefits in February 2013 , Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Tays commented UCDMC employee Todd Georlich suicide with words “
I GUESS HE WON’T BE HERE” after witness told her why Todd Georlich committed suicide.
The UC Davis Law School should change the name of Martin Luther King Hall to Martin Borman King Hall. The situation is terrible and unbelievable.
Waszczuk still does not know how much Pott promised Stein in return for such disgusting efforts.
TO THE COURT, ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on JULY 19, 2018, at 2:00 P.M or as soon after that as the matter can be heard, Department 53 of the above-entitled court, located at 813 6th Street, 2nd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, will and does move this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1008(a) for reconsideration of the order dated June 7, 2018 in which the Court ORDER FOR GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COST TO DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 425.16 (C) SHOULD BE MODIFIED, AMENDED, OR REVOKED, on the following grounds:
New or different facts or circumstances have been discovered since December 16, 2014, more than three years ago, when Plaintiff dismissed his attorney Douglas E. Stein from two interconnected cases against Defendants because of Stein’s gross misconduct, collusion, and conspiracy with Defendants’ attorneys Michael W. Pott and Douglas L. Ropel.
New or different facts or circumstances have been discovered since January 23, 2015, more than three years ago, when Defendants’ attorney Michel W. Pott quit representing Defendants or was fired from the Porter Scott Law Corporation because of his misconduct, including collusion and conspiracy with Plaintiff’s attorney Douglas E. Stein.
New or different facts or circumstances have been discovered since May 11, 2015, more than three years ago, when Defendants’ attorney Douglas Ropel filed a Motion for Legal Fees and Cost and a Declaration in Motion of Support. Ropel quit representing Defendants’ more than two years ago, in April 2016, and left his job with Porter Scott Law Corporation.
Since May 2015, Plaintiff has appealed the case in the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (Case No. C0524 Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et, al.) and in the California Supreme Court (Case No. S245508, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California). Plaintiff represented himself in the appeals, did intensive research to pursue them, and discovered new facts relevant to this proceeding, which will be presented in this Motion for Reconsideration and a memorandum of points and authorities based on the order that should be modified, amended, or revoked.
The motion will be based on this notice of motion and the memorandum of points and authorities served and filed with it, on the declaration of Jaroslaw Waszczuk, and on the exhibits attached to it, the papers and records on file herein, and oral and documentary evidence to be presented at the hearing of the motion.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct
Dated: June 18, 2018 _______________________________________________
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, IN PRO PER
UPDATE -ANTI-SLAPP MOTION
LANTIFF’ DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COST TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P 425.16 (C)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. California Rule of Court 3.1312(a)
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312(a), Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced Vash-chook; hereafter Waszczuk) has five days to approve the respondent’s Order and Judgment via form or submission of proposed court order.The prevailing party must, upon expiration of the five-day period provided for approval, promptly transmit the proposed order to the court together with a summary of any responses of the other parties or a statement that no responses were received pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312(b).
https://www.scribd.com/document/382571227/Dan-and-Diana-Dooley-UCOP-Goverment-Mafia
THE JANUARY 31, 2012 UCOP MAFIA PROVOCATION TO KILL OR HARM WASZCZUK’S
PSYCHOLOGIST DR. FRANKLIN O. BERNHOFT
Perpetrators, Participants, and Collaborators
Daniel Morris Dooley: UCOP senior vice president; UCOP mafia chief until October 2014. Key decision maker, perpetrator, and coordinator in the attacks on Waszczuk in 2011–2014 and on UC Chancellor Linda Katehi on November 18, 2011. The pepper-spray provocation was carried out and executed by UC Davis mafia chief Steven Drown as well as his thugs and collaborators.
Diana Dooley: Daniel Dooley’s wife; key perpetrator. On Daniel Dooley’s and the UCOP mafia’s behalf, she ordered and set up the confrontation on January 31, 2011, to provoke and kill Lodi psychologist Dr. Franklin O. Bernhoft. The attack destroyed Bernhoft’s family and life.
Diana Dooley is a Democratic political advisor working in the State of California. She is the executive secretary, a role comparable to chief of staff, for Governor Jerry Brown. She was appointed to the position on May 31, 2018.
On May 31, 2012, Daniel Dooley, Richard Blum, and Charles Robinson ordered Chancellor Katehi or her deputy Fraga-Decker to sign an unlawful power sale agreement with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. The agreement was to resume the illegal sale of tax-free power from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant. These criminals were attempting to recover the losses that they incurred when the plant ceased the illegal power sale after the UC mafia signed the February 2009 Settlement Agreement with Waszczuk. They eventually trashed the agreement in April 2011.
Also on May 31, 2012, the UCOP mafia carried out a heinous and unsuccessful provocation in an attempt to end Waszczuk’s employment in the UC Davis Trauma Unit (#11).
From 1974 to 1975, Diana Dooley worked as an analyst at the State Personnel Board. Starting in 1975, she worked as legislative director and special assistant during Governor Jerry Brown’s (D) first term (1975–1983).
In 2011, Diana Dooley became secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency.
Will Lightbourne: Director of the California Department of Social Services; key perpetrator. On January 31, 2012, based on Diana Dooley’s orders, Lightbourne coordinated vengeance and provocation against psychologist Dr. Bernhoft. Lightbourne went to Dr. Bernhoft’s residence in Lodi to kill or harm Dr. Bernhoft and his wife, Dorothy Bernhoft.
In April 2011, California Health and Human Services Secretary Diana Dooley named Lightbourne director of the California Department of Social Services. Lightbourne served in this new post through an interagency agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the State of California.
Since 2000, Lightbourne has served as agency director of Santa Clara County Social Services.
Michael Weston: Deputy director of California Health and Human Services secretary since February 2012; key perpetrator. Weston collaborated to harm Dr. Bernhoft and his family.
In February 2011, Diana Dooley promoted Weston to the deputy director position. This promotion occurred after the unannounced January 31, 2012, Social Services raid of Bernhoft’s residence in Lodi, California. The goal of the raid was to provoke Dr. Bernhoft and lure him into a trap that was professionally set and carried out by the malicious perpetrators. After the unsuccessful attempt to lure Dr. Bernhoft to his residence and provoke him, Weston orchestrated mass media coverage of the alleged crimes of Dr. Bernhoft’s wife, Dorothy Bernhoft. Thereafter, Waszczuk disconnIected himself from Dr. Bernhoft’s services and distanced himself from Dr. Bernhoft personally as well.
From July 2000 to March 2006, prior to the Social Services raid, Weston was employed as a television news producer in a very popular local news station, KCRA3. Weston’s connections at the television station allowed him to orchestrate enormous media coverage of the Social Services raid on Dr. Bernhoft’s residence. The degree of coverage was similar to what was seen during the pepper-spray provocation aimed at Chancellor Katehi; the pepper-spray incident took place on the UC Davis campus on November 18, 2012.
Sharon Ogbodo, Tawny Grossman, and Alison Newkirk: Collaborators. Social Services employees. On January 31, 2012, on the order of Director Lightbourne or his deputy Weston, Ogbodo, Grossman, and Newkirk stayed in Bernhoft’s residence until Dr. Bernhoft arrived home between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. They were present to ensure that Bernhoft would clash with the Lodi Police. Ogbodo, Grossman, and Newkirk called before they left the Bernhoft residence at 4:00 p.m.
Mark M. Reese, Assistant Social Services Chief Counsel; Cori A. Dutra, Staff Attorney; and Jeffrey Hiratsuka, Deputy Director of Social Services, Services Licensing Department: Perpetrators and collaborators with JD degrees. On February 3, 2012, three days after the unsuccessful attempt to harm Dr. Bernhoft, these individuals filed mostly false charges against Dorothy Bernhoft.
Recently, Reese resigned from the State Bar of California. Dutra is a friend of Porter Scott Law Corporation attorney David P. E. Burkett—who represented the UCOP mafia in this litigation.
Kristine Reed, San Joaquin County District Attorney: In 2012, Reed filed criminal charges against Dorothy Bernhoft.
Brett H. Morgan, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge: Before Judge Morgan was appointed to the bench, he was chief deputy for the State of California Inspector General and chief of staff of the State of California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.
Judge Morgan harshly punished Dorothy Bernhoft by sentencing her to four years’ probation with many conditions—including not being alone with her own grandchildren. She had to serve 416 hours of community service at an approved nonprofit organization and pay many thousands of dollars in restitution. She also had to complete a child abuse course and seek mental health counseling.
UPDATE
LETETR TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLERK -DEPARTMENT 53. HON. DAVID. I BROWN
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-833-7080
Email: jjw1980@live.com
July 16, 2018
Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court
Department 53 – Hon. David I. Brown
813 6th Street – 2nd Floor
Sacramento, 95814
RE: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED JUNE 29, 2018.
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California; Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Charles Witcher, Dorin Daniliuc, Patrick Putney, Cindy Oropeza.
Filed on December 4, 2013.
Dear Clerk,
On July 13, 2018, I received by U.S. Mail the two separate NOTICES OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER dated July 9, 2018, for the above captioned case with attached notices for the June 29, 2018, JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16 (c) (EXHIBIT #1) and ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P & 425.16 (c) (EXHIBIT #2).
The copies of the Order and Judgment were rubber-stamped with the name of Superior Court Judge Hon. David I. Brown who has been handling this anti-SLAPP motion for almost four years, since September 22, 2014.
Nothing would be unusual or wrong with the Notices of Entry of Judgment or Judgment and Order if the documents had been signed, entered, filed, and sent after the Motion for Reconsideration was heard by the Court during the July 19, 2018, scheduled hearing. If the Defendants’ counsel, David Burkett, had participated in the trial court proceeding of this anti-SLAPP motion and familiarized himself with the court file, then he would know that Judge Brown would not sign the Proposed Order and Judgment before Burkett filed his Opposition to the Plaintiff Motion for Reconsideration or before the Motion was heard by the Court.
The Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was written and filed in the Court on July 2, 2018, (EXHIBIT #3) by another party on Burkett’s behalf—the name of the person who actually wrote and filed the Opposition was not provided. Perhaps Burkett, who is a major shareholder of the Porter Scott Law Corporation, did not have time to write his own Opposition or did not want to participate further in Defendant’s fraudulent Motion for Fees and Costs, which was filed in the Court more than three years ago on May 11, 2015, by his associate Douglas Ropel, another of the Defendants’ attorneys from the Porter Scott Law Corporation. Ropel and yet another Porter Scott Law Corporation attorney, Michael Pott, colluded with my former attorney, Douglas Stein, who was dismissed for gross misconduct and, in December 2014, was coerced or blackmailed by Pott and Ropel to sell my two pending cases for approximately $300,000.
Burkett’s June 26, 2018, letter to the Clerk is unclear on the subject of whether Burkett also submitted PLAINTIFF DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P 425.16 (c) or whether he is merely elaborating on the Plaintiff Disapproval of the Proposed Order.
I received Burkett’s letter with a copy of Plaintiff Disapproval of the Proposed Order and Judgment by U.S. Mail on June 26, 2018—the same day that he hand-delivered the letter to the Clerk. This leads me to believe that Burkett submitted the Disapproval of the Proposed Order to the Court. (EXHIBIT # 4)
However, taking into consideration the events of February and April of 2015 and what Burkett’s associate Ropel did in a copycat scenario with the Proposed Order and Judgment, I could assume that my 94-page Disapproval of the Defendants’ Proposed Order was never delivered to the Court. The Court and I are being manipulated by Defendants’ attorneys; as usual, these attorneys show no hesitation or regret.
Sacramento County Superior Court REGISTER OF ACTION (ROA) – in Case No. 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California
Sacramento County Superior Court ROA entries are accessible via the internet; likewise, filed court documents are available for viewing and printing via the internet on the Public Cases Access System (EXHIBIT #5).
· ROA #138 – 06/18/2018, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration filed, 256 pages.
· ROA #139 – 06/26/2018, Defendants’ Proposed Order filed, 8 pages.
· ROA #140 – 06/26/2018, Defendants’ Proposed Judgment filed, 3 Pages.
· ROA #141 – SKIPPED.
· ROA #142 – SKIPPED.
· ROA #143 – 06/29/2018, Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Fees and Costs filed, 3 pages.
· ROA #144 – 06/29/2018, Judgment filed, 2 pages.
· ROA #145 – 07/02/2018, Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration filed, 5 pages.
· ROA #146 – 06/29/2018, Judgment entered, not accessible to view or print.
· ROA #147 – 07/10/2018, Notice of Entry of Judgment filed, 11 pages.
The skipped ROAs, #141 and #142, are not available from the Sacramento County Superior Court Public Cases Access System. These omissions may indicate that Burkett’s correspondence to the Court Clerk and my 94-page Disapproval of the Proposal Order and Judgment Granting Legal Fees and Costs to Defendants in Anti-SLAPP Motion C.C.P. § 425.16 (c) were delivered to the Court through alternative means and were not filed by the Court Clerk together with the Proposed Order and Judgment. Therefore, California Rule of Court 3.1312 (b) is ultimately violated, and the Proposed Order shall not be approved by the Court without filing Plaintiff Disapproval of the Proposed Order and Judgment or before Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed June 18, 2018, is heard by the Court; this hearing is scheduled for July 19, 2018. If the ROAs were skipped for other reasons, please notify me of what those reasons are.
The California Rule of Court 3.1312 (a) is clear in this matter:
The prevailing party must, upon expiration of the five-day period provided for approval, promptly transmit the proposed order to the court together with a summary of any responses of the other parties or a statement that no responses were received pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312 (b).
In conclusion, I am respectfully requesting that the Court Clerk file Burkett’s letter dated June 26, 2016—PLAINTIFF DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P 425.16 (c)—and this correspondence as well.
Furthermore, I am respectfully requesting that the Clerk of Department 53 inform Judge Brown that my Motion for Consideration hearing is scheduled for July 19, 2018, and that I will schedule oral argument for July 20, 2019 if I will be dissatisfied with a tentative court ruling.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my review of the record filed on this matter.
Respectfully submitted by Priority U.S. Mail on July 16, 2019, with self-stamped return enveloped and endorsed copy.
____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Enclosed:
Exhibits
Proof of Service
UPDATE: THE MOTION IS DENIED.
ORAL ARGUMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED.
Department 53 Superior Court of California
813 Sixth Street, 2nd Floor
David I. Brown, Judge
E. Brown, Clerk
M. Oreschack, Bailiff
Thursday, July 19, 2018, 2:00 PM
Item 1 2013-00155479-CU-WT
Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of Ca.
Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Reconsideration
Filed By: Waszczuk, Jaroslaw
Self-represented Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Defendants’ fees and costs pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c) is denied.
On June 7, 2018, the Court granted Defendants Michael Boyd, et al.’s motion for fees and costs in the amount of $22,284. A formal order was entered on June 29, 2018.
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the order granting the fees’ motion.
“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (CCP § 1008.)
Plaintiff argues that new or different facts were discovered since December 16, 2014, January 23, 2015, and May 11, 2015. Essentially Plaintiff (as he has before) argues that Defendants are not entitled to fees based on a conspiracy between his former attorney Douglas Stein and Defendants’ attorneys. None of these are new or different facts. The Court’s ruling granting Defendants’ motion for fees specifically noted Plaintiff’s contentions regarding his former attorney and how he believed Defendants’ counsel was collaborating with his former attorney to harm him. The Court noted the issue and indicated that it had no relevance to the fee motion. In reality, Plaintiff is simply trying to reargue the fees motion. His motion is replete with arguments that he has previously raised to this Court and his declaration even states that he “pointed so many times to the court that Waszczuk has nothing to do with the second amended complaint but is being forced to deal with because of his dismissed attorney Douglas Stein conspiracy inclusion [sic] with defendants two attorneys Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel.” (Plf’s Decl. ¶ 4.) At base, Plaintiff is essentially arguing that the Court’s ruling on the fee motion was wrong. This is not a basis for reconsideration. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)
Here, Plaintiff presented no “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” A court “acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law.’” (Id.) The Court has no jurisdiction to grant the instant motion.
THE MOTION IS DENIED.
ORAL ARGUMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.
“THE MOTION IS DENIED.”
Ah, justice and sanity prevail. Hopefully this is the end of these self-serving posts.
I don’t think justice has prevailed in this case, personally.
Jerry, ignore the hater.
Jim
Who cares what he writes .
Hobbs .
Not yet . This is only one motion
More wasting of the courts time. This is not David v. Goliath. This is a case of a malcontent who is harassing his former employer.
Hobbs . Why do you care ?
Hey Jerry, don’t bother yourself about him. Haters gonna hate.
Actually John, when I first looked at the case, I had an attorney evaluate it and felt it was a legitimate claim. Unfortunately Jerry is not represented by counsel which will make it very difficult for him to litigate.
” Unfortunately Jerry is not represented by counsel which will make it very difficult for him to litigate.”
His lack of qualified representation is by his own choice and/or actions. He’s lost at virtually every turn, due in no small part to ignorance of protocol and procedure. I see little chance of these factors or the outcome changing.
David
How many Plaintiffs , UC employees do you know who were represented by legal counsels (supposedly very skilled legal counsels ) prevailed in the anti-SLAPP motion against UC .
The last one was July 29, 2016 Opinion certified for publication in Nam v. Regents of University of California Cal.App.5th 1176 (2016) 205 Cal. Rptr. 3d 687.(Nam)
The Opinion in Nam was delivered by DCA Presiding Justice Hon. Vance Rye with words on the Page No: 1 of the opinion:
“The California anti-SLAPP statute was intended to counter the “disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (a).) It has been suggested that “[t]he cure has become the disease—SLAPP motions are now just the latest form of abusive litigation.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 96 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.) (Navellier).) And the disease would become fatal for most harassment, discrimination, and retaliation actions against public employers if we were to accept the Regents of the University of California’s (University) misguided reading of the anti-SLAPP law and reverse the trial court’s denial of its motion to strike. We agree with plaintiff Un Hui Nam that defendant did not sustain its burden to demonstrate that the gravamen of her claims for sexual harassment and retaliation arose from defendant’s protected First Amendment activity. The trial court’s order therefore is affirmed.”
I think the Nam is first one since 1992 . Keyzer lost and she did not finish appeal with two good law firms . She was lucky that she prevailed in wrongful termination . Keyzer did not have any chance to prevail in anti-SLAPP not because she was wrong . Is not difficult to litigate . Is hard to beat corruption . Nam’s case is about pedaling back by Sakauye from the anti-gay 2007 Vergos v. McNeal opinion . Vergos was sold by her attorney Armanderiz . She even did not file Petition for Rehearing with her skill . Vergos was a lot worse corruption case than . Vergos opinion did so mach damage to plaintiffs around California .
I care because when you abuse the process you make it tougher for those with legitimate grievances to be heard, fairly.
Hobbs . You don’t know the case or how the legal system works in California and you are making a damn comments . Why ?
“damn comments” seems hyperbolically vitriolic.
Jerry, I am very familiar with the employment law in California. I have also followed your posts and others’ comments here, on court sites and social media. My observations are based upon that and the court’s continuing declarations.
Hobbs
. This motion is not about the California employment law . This is motion is about the First Amendment . Do you know anything about anti-SLAPP law ? In general the California employment law does not apply to University of California and public employment . California Industrial Welfare Commission Orders applies to the private industry . Do you know anything about . I prevailed representing myself in case on the appeal in 3DCA in 2000 against Dynegy Corporation in labor . Dynegy defrauded 119 workers of 3 million unpaid overtime and PG&E ratepayers and California taxpayers in amount of $ 240,000,000 . Don’t try to make yourself smart about California labor law if you don’t have a clue what you are talking about . You are just being Hobbs. That it
Trump is popular in Poland. Maybe that had something to do with the court’s decision.
He is popular as same as here 50/50 . Trump would be a perfect match with Hobbs in commenting California labor law
UPDATE
FILED IN THE CALIFORNIA OF APEPAL ON AUGUST 6, 2018
IN THE COURT FOR APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jaroslaw Waszczuk Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
Defendant and Respondent
The Regents of the University of California
Real Party of Interest and Respondent
Court of Appeal No. C079254
Sacramento County Superior Court No. 34-2013- 34-2013-80001699
Notice of Appeal Filed on May 7, 2015 Appeal to the Honorable Judge Shelleyanne
Chang’s Order Denying Petitioner the Petition for Writ of Mandamus
APPELLANT’s REQUEST THAT THE COURT PLACE THE CASE ON THE COURT CALENDAR AND SCHDEULE THE ORAL ARGUMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, Clerk Andrea K. Wallin-Rohrnann, Clerk
Electronically RECEIVED on 8/6t2018 at 10:40:55 PM Electronically FILED on 8/6/2018 by T. Eyster. Deputy Clerk
Jaroslaw Waszczuk 2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.663-2977
Fax: 209.370.8281
E-mail: jjw1980live.com
Appellant, In Pro Per
IN THE COURT FOR APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Court of Appeal No. C079254
Sacramento County Superior Court
No. 34-2013- 34-2013-80001699
Notice of Appeal Filed on May 7, 2015
Appeal to the Honorable Judge Shelleyanne
C hang’s Order Denying Petitioner the Petition for Writ of Mandamus
APPELLANT’s REQUEST THAT THE COURT PLACE THE CASE ON THE COURT CALENDAR AND SCHDEULE THE ORAL ARGUMENT AS SOON POSSIBLE
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff and Appellant
V.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
Defendant and Respondent
The Regents of the University of California
Real Party of Interest and Respondent
TO THE PRESIDING JUSTICE FOR DIVISION OF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT
OF APPEAL:
I. THE REQUEST
FULL DOCUMENT 240 PAGES
https://www.scribd.com/document/385846765/3DCA-REQUEST-TO-PLACE-CASE-ON-CALENDAR-CUIAB
I hope you are paying David to publish this self-serving nonsense.
“who denied Waszczuk ‘s unemployment benefits, was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving;”
Relevance? None. just slinging mud and blaming the other guy, your entire case, actually.
” The arrest ‘launched nationwide speculation that the veteran lawmaker is gay and therefore a hypocrite for voting against gay-rights bills.'” Again, just for spite, having no relevance to your alleged cause for action.
“…UC Davis Chief of Police Joseph A. Farrow knows all details about…arrest and who was the passenger in… state -owned Chevy. Joseph A. Farrow…former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and current Gov. Jerry Brown … UC President Janet Napolitano … Matt Carmichael, … Lt. Jennifer Garcia…actively participated in despicable witch hunt against Waszczuk in 2011-2012. …Speaker Perez…Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn…. Assemblyman Richard Pan …Senator Galgiani…attorney Douglas Stein..”
Everybody but Jerry is corrupt or lying. Occam’s Razor must be blunted.
To Mr. Hobbs
I read you comment which was removed . Moderator should let you comment on my case . .
I wrote a response to your comment to make you understand what is my case about . I did not have time to edit than is not edited .
Did you read whole document? Is no causes of action in this case? The appeal from the writ of mandamus is for unemployment insurance benefits and it’s a simple appeal which should be resolved by the Court of Appeals one way or another two years ago. However , the appeal was never placed on the Court calendar because of corruption. Appeal is not cheap. It cost money and I paid for the appeal to be heard by the Court. Why you crying about? It is not your money. David is posting all the time information about cases from Yolo and Sacramento Courts . Why you being so irritated by my case . ? I did not post my case . David with my lawyer posted the case about Polish immigrant than I am updating the case because I am representing myself .
You must hold the grudge against me because you admitted one time that your father was American communist than we had a discussion about . Ashburn was assigned to my unemployment case and Joseph Farrow knows for sure who was a passenger in drunk Ashburn’s state owned SUV . Farrow was a State CHP commissioner at the time of incident which involved state senator. My two cases are attached to two suicides, child pornography, and tens of millions of tax evasion. Tax evasion is being handle for me by big law firm from Los Angeles.
If the state law enforcement agencies and state courts are infested with rotten by corruption individuals than people have nowhere to go to redress their grievances.
After the departure from UCOP two senior vice presidents Dan Dooley and Sherryl , Vacca , UCOP General Counsel Chief deputy Karen Petrulakis and UCDPD Chief Matt Carmichael the UC President Janet Napolitano departed to Minnesota the UC Davis Medical Center Operating Officer(CO) Ann Madden Rice .
https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/13120
“Plaintiff believes that his employer, defense counsel, the trial judge, and even his own lawyer, are corrupt and colluded to destroy his life. …”
“There is nothing we can decide in this appeal or write in this opinion that will disabuse plaintiff of this fiercely held belief… ”
“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.”
https://www.scribd.com/document/363447530/Waszczuk-v-UC-Regents-ANTI-SLAPP
John
Thank you for noticing .
UPDATE
From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk <JJW1980@LIVE.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 4:12 AM
To: ECFHelp@cadc.uscourts.gov
Subject: FW: DEEP STATE- SENATORS KAMALA HARRIS AND DIANNE FEINSTEIN -THE VINDICTIVE AND MERCILESS WITCH HUNT AIMED AT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT OVER YET .
Please, show this e-mail to Honorable Brett Kavanaugh then Judge Kavanaugh will understand why California Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned him about California Energy Crisis which took place two decades ago and why Senator Kamala Harris was so unhinged and so vicious during nomination hearing on 9/6/2018.
Regards
Jerry Waszczuk , Lodi , CA
https://www.scribd.com/document/388666457/2018-IRS-Criminal-Investigation-Feinstein-Harris-Brown
UPDATE
https://www.scribd.com/document/388727695/2018-0830-Reibursement-State-Bar
August 30, 2018
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
Client Security Fund 845 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2515
Subject: Request for Reimbursement of Theft or an Act Equivalent to Theft Perpetrated by Attorney Douglas Stein, SB #131248. State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110- LMA
In my 2016 complaint with the State Bar, I concentrated my attention on the violation of my civil and human rights. I also discussed the coverup of the tax evasion committed by the UC Regents in relation to unlawful power sales from the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27 MW cogeneration facility, where I was employed from June 1999 to April 2007. Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel were perfectly aware of their client tax evasion may not have been completely aware of the tax evasion, but their main goal was to prevent disclosure of the circumstances related to UC Davis Medical Center employee Todd Georlich December 2010 suicide thus they colluded or blackmailed and attempted to bribe Stein with tag price of approximate $ 300, 000 in order to illegally disrupt my cases and end my litigations in January 2015. In 2016, I did not realize that Pott and Ropel’s main reason for turning Stein against me was an underhanded effort to conceal UCDMC employee Todd Georlich’s suicide—or most likely homicide—which took place on December 22, 2010 (ATTACHMENT #11). I held Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel more responsible for the Douglas Stein’s crime than Stain himself . Pott and Ropel were perfectly aware of Stein’s problems and took advantage of Stein’s personal grave financial problems and his drugs dependency and bluntly utilized Stein’s vulnerability to cover up the Georlich suicide circumstances. Stein most likely knew Georlich personally. By discovering the new evidences I am considering to ask State Bar to reopen the March 2016 complaint against 23 attorney and add Douglas Ropel to the complaint.
Death of the UC Davis Medical Center employee who hang himself , was forced to hang himself or was hung after he died is a more serious problem than Stein’s gross professional misconduct.
In March 2016, I did have much information about Georlich beside that he was friend of my coworker Dereck Cole , and that he was my replacement in April 2007 . However, handling my two appeals in the 3DCA led me to many shocking discoveries, and I ultimately concluded that Georlich’s suicide was more than it seemed. This tragic incident or crime and the subsequent coverup indirectly caused me financial hardship that has amounted to over $1,000,000 in lost wages and benefits as well as the loss of my home during a time when I should have been enjoying a well-earned retirement. I have suffered the destruction of my and family’s normal existence and livelihood. In my August 3, 2018 request to have my appeal in Case No. C079254, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, placed on the court calendar, I discussed the Todd Georlich suicide and other events. (ATTACHMENT # 12) [Full document on Flash Drive ) The appeal in Case No. C079254 was filed on May 7, 2015, but is still unresolved by the 3DCA (the full document with exhibits is enclosed on the flash drive). On August 21, 2018, the 3DCA denied my request to have my case scheduled and heard. I have no clue how this 3DCA drama over a simple writ of mandate appeal for unemployment benefits is going to end.
UPDATE
https://www.scribd.com/document/388729343/2018-Unfinished-Business-with-the-Liberty
September 4, 2018
Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston Litigation Manager
3550 Buschwood Park Drive, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33618
Subject: Unfinished Business with the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston University of California, Short-Term/Supplemental Disability
August 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, Claim #4154074
I. INTRODUCTION
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to your office in an attempt to finally resolve the compensation due to me in relation to my 2011 short-term disability claim that was made during my employment with the University of California.
II. DOUGLAS STEIN’S JULY 18, 2014, INQUIRY WITH THE LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON
A. The Douglas Stein Inquiry
In November 2013, I hired Douglas Stein as legal counsel for my writ of mandate for unemployment insurance benefits. In June 2014, I hired him for my wrongful termination case.
More than four years ago, in July 2014, Stein—without my knowledge or approval—sent an inquiry on my behalf to the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston. In his July 18, 2014, letter addressed to Disability Claims Case Manager Patricia Coombs (ATTACHMENT #1), Stein wrote,
However, I did not retain Stein as he stated. He was not retained to recover the short-term disability benefits from Liberty. I never authorized him—either verbally or in writing—to represent me in any dispute with Liberty.
In May or June 2014, I provided Stein with evidentiary documents for my wrongful termination case; these included documents for my October 2011 short-term disability claim with Liberty.
The documents that I provided to Stein included the Request for Compensation sent to Liberty CEO David Long on October 13, 2013 (ATTACHMENT #2). I asked Stein whether he wanted to represent me with Liberty in my request for the compensation due to me because Liberty representatives collaborated with the University of California.
However, Stein declined to represent me and did not want to even discuss the subject. One month later, I was quite shocked to discover that he contacted Liberty and falsely claimed to represent me in this matter.
I subsequently determined that Stein had quickly blown through most of the $20,000 retainer that I had provided. He misused the funds to cover his personal expenses—which had nothing to do with me or my cases—and he was desperate for cash. Stein stated in motioned above July 18, 2014 inquiry that he supposedly worked 350 hours on my wrongful termination case, translating to $64,750 based on Stein’s hourly billing practices of $185 per hour; these practices were outlined in the retainer agreement.
However, in October 2017, Paragraph 7 of the State Bar of California’s stipulation stated that Stein deposited $600 from his mother on October 21, 2014, and $200 on November 12, 2014. This indicates that his trust account was empty in October 2014. In July 2014, Stein was desperate to defraud money from Liberty and me.
UPDATE
IN DEFENSE OF JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH AND HIS FAMILY -OPEN LETTER
https://www.scribd.com/document/389002932/In-Defense-of-Judge-Kavanaugh
UPDATE
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California: Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Charles Witcher, Dorin Daniliuc, Patrick Putney, Cindy Oropeza.
https://www.scribd.com/document/392221933/218-WT-Case-No-34-2013-00155479-Waszczuk-v-UC-Regents-Sanctions
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-833-7080
Email: jjw1980@live.com
November 2, 2018
David P.E. Burkett Esq.
PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Re: The Court Order dated October 31, 2018 and the Court Hearings scheduled for November 13&14, 2018 .Defendant Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Request for Production of Documents – Set One , Special Interrogatories – Set One , Form Interrogatories General – Set One, Form Interrogatories Employment – Set One
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California: Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Charles Witcher, Dorin Daniliuc, Patrick Putney, Cindy Oropeza.
Filed on December 4, 2013.
Dear Mr. Burkett,
On October 31, 2018, the Court denied your request for sanction for Special Interrogatories. However, it is my understanding that the Court awarded to you $520.00 for the “Request for Admissions” that I did not provide to you before October 31, 2018.
In the Order dated October 31, 2018, the Court stated:
Defendant’s unopposed motion to deem matters in the requests for admission admitted is granted, unless Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk serves, “before the hearing on the motion,” proposed responses that are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
Defendant’s request for mandatory monetary sanctions in connection with the motion to deem matters admitted is granted. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) However, the requested amount of $5,200 for this straightforward discovery motion is plainly excessive.
Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk shall pay to Defendant a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $520 ($260/hr x 2 hrs). The monetary sanction is to be paid on or before December 1, 2018. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may be enforced by a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
The question is, why did the Court hear your motion on October 31, 2018, which you filed in the wrong Court department in October, 2018? I noticed that you filed the motion in Department 54 instead of Department 53 on October 10, 2018. Then, on October 12, your assistant Danny Bardzell filed the Defendant’s Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Verified Responses and scheduled the hearing for November 13, 2018 in Department 53 at 2:00 p.m.
On October 17, 2018, moreover, your assistant Bardzell filed the same bulk of documents again in Department 53 and scheduled the Court Hearing for November 14, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. Next, on October 23, 2018, you filed the Defendant requests that the November 13, 2018 hearing be taken off the calendar. So far, I see on the Court Public Access System that both the November 13 & 14, 2018 Court Hearings are still on the Court Calendar.
Would you please clarify for me what these two November 13 & 14 scheduled Court Hearings are for?
I did not oppose your motion that was heard by the Court on October 31, 2018 because you rescheduled the hearing for November 13 & 14, 2018, but apparently the October 31, 2018 Court Hearing was not taken off the Court Calendar.
Please inform me what the November 14, 2018 Court Hearing is about. I would appreciate your utmost attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Per
CC. Sacramento County Superior Court Clerk – Department 53. Hon. David I. Brown
Enclosure
UPDATE
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California: Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Charles Witcher, Dorin Daniliuc, Patrick Putney, Cindy Oropeza.
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-833-7080
Email: jjw1980@live.com
November 12, 2018
Hon. David I. Brown
The Sacramento County Superior Court
Department 53
813 6th Street – 2nd Floor
Sacramento, 95814
Re: The Court Order dated October 31, 2018 and the Court Hearings scheduled for November 13 & 14, 2018. Defendant Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Request for Production of Documents – Set One, Special Interrogatories – Set One, Form Interrogatories General – Set One, Form Interrogatories Employment – Set One
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California: Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Charles Witcher, Dorin Daniliuc, Patrick Putney, Cindy Oropeza.
Filed on December 4, 2013.
Dear Judge Brown,
I. INTRODUCTION
Following the Court Order dated October 31, 2018, which states that:
No later than November 21, 2018, Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s form and special interrogatories (sets one) and requests for production (set one).
Waszczuk submits to the Court with this letter a copy of Plaintiff’s Response –
Answers to Defendants’ Request for Admission, Set One for Court review and consideration.
II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS – SET ONE , SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES – SET ONE, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION – SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES GENERAL – SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES EMPLOYMENT – SET ONE
Besides the fact that the Defendants’ attorneys from Porter Scott David Burkett and now Daniel Bardzell deliberately and with malicious intent filed their Motion to Compel in the wrong Court Department, they portrayed Waszczuk in a slanderous manner as a “vexatious” litigant in an attempt to terminate Waszczuk’s lawsuit. The Court noticed Burkett’s and Bardzell’s accusation and effort to terminate Waszczuk’s lawsuit with the statement in the Court Order issued on October 31, 2018:
“Here, given that this is the first order with respect to the subject discovery, the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions would be punitive. Further, while Defendant references Plaintiffs “vexatious” conduct in this action, that conduct has nothing to do with the instant motion and in any event, is not a basis for discovery sanctions. Such ad hominem comments serve no useful purpose in educating the court as to the party’s position, and distract more than they advocate. In short, they are more cathartic than tactical.”
Waszczuk is not a “vexatious” litigant, and Burkett’s and Bardzell’s motion statements , for the most part, are the copy and paste of the accusation from the 2015 court documents field in the pended anti-SLAPP motion by former Porter Scott attorney Douglas Ropel, who quit Porter Scott in March 2016.
The Waszczuk case covers two decades and is very complex and deeply rooted in the California Energy Crisis of 1999-2009. Waszczuk’s employment termination by the University of California in 2012 involved two suicides, which are attached to one of Waszczuk’s supervisors from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant, where Waszczuk was employed as an operator from June 1999 to April 2007.
To make a long story short, in April 2007, Waszczuk was abruptly removed from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant and replaced by a 37-year-old homosexual individual who three years later was found dead hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park. He was a friend of Waszczuk’s supervisor, Steve McGrath and UCDMC Director Robert Taylor who was behind Waszczuk unqulified for the job replacement .
The other suicide was the suicide of the same supervisor’s wife, a 41-year-old RN Nurse from Jackson Hospital.
The other mysterious sudden death was the death of UC Davis Chancellor Vanderhoof, who died in the UC Davis Medical Center on October 15, 2015, two days after Waszczuk filed his Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion for Automatic Stay or in the Alternative; Motion for a Discretionary Stay filed on October 13, 2015 (ROA #111).
In his October 13, 2015 Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion for Automatic Stay or in the Alternative; Motion for a Discretionary Stay, Waszczuk for the first time brought to the Court’s attention the enormous fraud committed by the white collar criminals from UC Davis and the UC Davis Medical Center. UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef had to die in 2015. He was the LGBT chief of the underground millions of dollars’ worth of megawatts laundering operation from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant, which ceased in February 2009. In October 2015, Waszczuk’s Third Amended Complaint was blocked by Porter Scott attorneys.
More details about the Court can be found in Waszczuk’s enclosed Response to the Defendants’ Request for Admission, Set One and the PLAINTIFF’S 90-page-long DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P. 425.16 (c), which the Defendants’ attorney deliberately failed to provide to the Court on June 26, 2018 with the Proposed Order for Legal Fees and Cost. Waszczuk submitted the Document to the Court on July 16, 2018, and the document was filed on July 18, 2018 (ROA #148).
Porter Scott attorney Burkett did not provide to the Court Waszczuk’s Disproval of the Proposed Order because he probably knew Todd Georlich, who was found dead hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park in December 2010. He also most likely knew Waszczuk’s supervisor Steve McGrath, whose wife committed suicide in 2004. David Burkett probably participated in the December 2011 to January 2012 assault aimed at the family of Waszczuk’s psychologist, Dr. Franklin O. Bernhoft from Lodi, CA, with his friend and attorney CORI A. DUTRA, State Bar No, 240293 from California Social Services. The assault on Bernhoft’s family more likely that not was orchestrated by the University of California Senior Vice President Dan Dooley and his wife Diana Dooley, who in 2011 was the Director of California’s Social Services Department and today is Governor Brown’s Chief of Staff Legal Secretary. She was appointed to this position by Governor Brown in May 2018.
III. THE COURT ORDER DATED OCTOBER 31, 2018
The issuance of the Court Order dated October 31, 2018 was a surprise to Waszczuk because the order was preceded by the deceptions and manipulations of the Defendants’ attorneys from the Porter Scott law firm, David Burkett and Daniel Bardzell, who misled the Court and Waszczuk with evil intentions and attempting to terminate Waszczuk’s lawsuit by filing their motion in Court Department 54 instead of the Department 53.
The Defendants’ Motion to Compel, which was decided by the Court on October 31, 2018, has quite a history.
The Defendants’ attorneys from Porter Scott, David Burkett and Daniel Bardzell, filed their motion on October 3, 2016 in Department 54 instead of Department 53. On October 10, 2016, seven days after the motion was filed, Waszczuk noticed that the hearing for the motion was scheduled on October 31, 2018 in Department 54 and politely notified David Burkett and Daniel Bardzell.
Two days after Waszczuk’s notification, attorney Daniel Bardzell filed an Amended Notice on October 12, 2018 for a new hearing with a date of November 13, 2018 in Department 53. However, Bardzell or Burkett deliberately did not submit the request to the Court to cancel the Court hearing scheduled for October 31, 2018 to preclude Waszczuk from filing a timely opposition to their motion.
On October 16, 2018, the Defendants requested that the November 13, 2018 hearing be taken off the calendar and refiled its motion and supporting papers for the new hearing date of November 14, 2018, still without taking care of the Court Hearing scheduled for October 31, 2018.
On October 31, 2018, Waszczuk received an email notification from the Court Case Public Access System that the Court issued an Order for Burkett’s and Bardzell’s motion and imposed a $520.00 sanction on Waszczuk, with Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk serving verified responses without objections on November 21, 2018.
Waszczuk did not like the $520.00 sanction because his life was decimated by the Defendants in 2012, but overall Waszczuk did not have a problem with the court order (the first court order in four years that Waszczuk would not complain about).
Waszczuk believes that Porter Scott’s attorneys Burkett and Bardzell received email notifications from the Court Case Public Access System about the Court Decision on October 31, 2018. They learned on November 2, 2018 that the Court Hearings for November 13 & 14 should be taken off the Calendar, but they did not react.
On November 2, 2018, Waszczuk sent a short email to attorney David Burkett and asked him to take care of the scheduled Court hearings for November 13 & 14, which were not taken off the Calendar after the Court heard their motion on October 31, 2018.
Instead of taking the Court hearing scheduled for November 13 & 14, 2018 off the Calendar, the Defendants’ attorneys submitted a letter to the Court Clerk on November 5, 2018 with the following statement:
We believe the Court’s October 31 Order was erroneous because we had requested that hearing date be taken off calendar. We are going to request that the Court vacate its Order and hear the motion as currently set for November 14, 2018. That means that your opposition to that motion would still be due on November 6, 2018.
Plaintiff was properly noticed with the November 14, 2018 hearing date and the motion remains on the calendar for that date. In light of the foregoing circumstances, Defendant attorneys request that the Court vacate its October 31, 2018 Order and reset the hearing on this motion for the currently-scheduled November 14, 2018 hearing so as to ensure Plaintiff has been properly notified with time to file an opposition.
The Defendants’ attorney Daniel Bardzell’s letter was filed by the Court Clerk on November 7, 2018 (ROA #171).
The statement: “We believe the Court’s October 31 Order was erroneous because we had requested that hearing date be taken off calendar” is a lie. There is no Court record that Daniel Bardzell or David Burkett submitted a request to the Court Clerk to take the October 31, 2018 Court hearing off the Calendar. This means that they are blaming the Court Clerk and the Court for their dirty game, which is basically fraud upon the Court. David Burkett and Daniel Bardzell should both be sanctioned or held in contempt of the Court for impeding the ability of the Court to perform its function and intentionally causing Waszczuk confusion and monetary losses, when Waszczuk is struggling to get by every month with his $1,500 Social Security check.
This is not the first time that Porter Scott’s attorneys have disregarded the Court Rules and gotten away with their crimes.
IV. EXAMPLES OF THE PORTER SCOTT’S ATTORNEYS’ DECEPTIONS
The Court Hearing for Motion for Reconsideration scheduled for
July 19, 2018 in Department 53. Hon. David I. Brown
Waszczuk is still scratching his head about how it was possible that the Court denied a Court hearing for his Motion for Reconsideration and Court Order Modification, which was scheduled for Court Hearing on July 19, 2018 in Department 53.
On June 18, 2018, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1008, Waszczuk submitted in a timely manner his Motion for Reconsideration and Modification of the Court Order dated June 7, 2018: Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.
On June 25, 2018, Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312(a), Waszczuk provided to Defendants’ Counsel David Burkett the PLAINTIFF’S DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P 425.16 (c).
The prevailing party must, upon expiration of the five-day period provided for approval, promptly transmit the proposed order to the court together with a summary of any responses of the other parties or a statement that no responses were received pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312(b).
Defendants’ attorney David Burkett bluntly violated the California Rule of Court 3.1312(b) and didn’t transmit to the Court PLAINTIFF’S 90-page-long DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P 425.16 (c).
2018 is copycat scenario of the March 2015 PLAINTIFF’S DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANTS ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P. 425.16 (ROA # 73).
On July 13, 2018, Waszczuk received by U.S. Mail two separate NOTICES OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER dated July 9, 2018 for the above captioned case with attached notices for the June 29, 2018 JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P § 425.16 (c) and ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P & 425.16 (c).
The copies of the Order and Judgment were rubber-stamped with the name of Superior Court Judge Hon. David I. Brown, who has been handling this anti-SLAPP motion for almost four years, since September 22, 2014.
The Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was written and filed in the Court on July 2, 2018, three days after the Order and Judgment were rubber-stamped with the name of Superior Court Judge Hon. David I. Brown. The Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was filed by another party on Burkett’s behalf. The name of the person who actually wrote and filed the Opposition was not provided.
Nothing would be unusual or wrong with the Notices of Entry of Judgment or Judgment and Order if the documents had been signed, entered, filed, and sent after the Motion for Reconsideration was heard by the Court during the July 19, 2018 scheduled hearing. Judge Brown would not sign the Proposed Order and Judgment before Burkett filed his Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration or before the Motion was heard by the Court.
The Court Order dated July 19, 2018 and David Burkett’s Notice of Unavailability of Counsel dated July 18, 2018
On July 19, 2018, the Court issued an order that denied Waszczuk’s oral argument for his Motion for Consideration filed on June 18, 2018.
On July 21, Waszczuk received from Porter Scott’s attorney David Burkett the notice of Unavailability of Counsel, which stated that David Burkett would not be available from July 20, 2018 to August 11, 2018. The notice was dated July 18, 2018 (attached).
David Burkett was unavailable after July 2, 2018, and the Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was written and filed in the Court on July 2, 2018, three days after the Order and Judgment were rubber-stamped with the name of Superior Court Judge Hon. David I. Brown. The Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was filed by another party on Burkett’s behalf, and the name of the person who wrote and filed the Opposition was not provided. It is a great mystery to Waszczuk how the Porter Scott attorneys could manipulate the legal process and deceive the Court without any hesitation or regret and consequences for them .
In light of the provided facts, Waszczuk would appreciate if the Court Hearing scheduled for November 13 & 14 would be taken off the Court Calendar. Also, Waszczuk would appreciate it if the Court would modify the issued order and reduce the amount of the sanction imposed on Waszczuk due to Waszczuk’s grave financial situation caused by the Defendants and extend the time for Waszczuk to serve the Defendants’ Verified Responses to Request for one month until December 21, 2018.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my review of the record filed on this matter.
Respectfully submitted by Priority U.S. Mail on November 13 , 2018, with the Copy of the Waszczuk Response -Answers to the Defendants Request for Admission Set, One and self-stamped return envelope for endorsed copy.
____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Per
Enclosure:
Exhibits
Proof of Service
UPDATE
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California: Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Charles Witcher, Dorin Daniliuc, Patrick Putney, Cindy Oropeza.
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-833-7080
Email: jjw1980@live.com
November 14, 2018
David P.E. Burkett J.D.
Daniel Bardzell J.D.
PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Subject: Your Bullying and Unprofessional Behavior and Gross Professional Misconduct
Your Motion to Compel filed on October 3, 2018
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Request for Admission – Set One
The Court Order dated October 31, 2018 and November 14, 2018
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California
Gentlemen:
Following the Court Order dated October 31, 2018, yesterday on November 13, 2018, I sent your office a hard copy of my Plaintiff ‘s Response – Answers to the Defendants’ Request for Admission – Set One.
In addition to the hard copy of the Plaintiff’s Response to the Defendants’ Request for Admission, for your convenience, I am forwarding to you an electronic copy of the 195-page documents that contains a link to the SCRIBD of the over 4,000 pages of documents of my answers to the Defendants’ Request for Admission, which I wrote to the best of my ability and knowledge. The electronic version of the document would be more convenient in accessing the uploaded documents on the SCRIBD.
Beside the above, I would like to address your bullying and unprofessional behavior and misconduct. Your premeditated and blunt attempt to terminate my wrongful termination complaint by filing the Motion to Compel with Sacramento Superior Court Department 54 instead of the Law and Motion Department 53 with Presiding Judge David I. Brown, who has been handling the case since September 2014, went beyond your professional misconduct into deception of the court and the opposite party. I provided examples of your serious misconduct in my November 13, 2018 letter to Honorable David I. Brown.
You are both officers of the court. You both took an oath to uphold the law. I assume you take that responsibility as seriously as anyone else, including the attorneys and judges. You are both licensed by the State Bar of California, so you must adhere to State Bar rules and even report other attorneys or people who violate them. As State Bar members, you are obligated, at the risk of serious consequences imposed by the State Bar, to protect and preserve the courtrooms and the validity of any matter filed with the clerk.
The Code of Ethics rules clearly, simply, and historically forbid any attorney from filing and/or pursuing a motion or argument of law that the attorney knows is without merit or deceptive and deceiving to the party and to Court . . You learned this in the first year of your law school, or your law school diplomas are fake and your State Bar licenses are from the e-Bay.
Your job as a officers of the court is also to protect the integrity of the legal system, not participate in corrupting it. Hypothetically, if you were faced with a pleading that I had purposely filed in the wrong Court department, you would raise hell. I would hope, expect, and support your actions if you immediately reported the violation of your own rules to the State Bar.
The Bar and the Courts usually are not very understanding when an attorney files and pursues a motion s/he knows is not consistent with established law and rules.
After your attempt to terminate my complaint in the wrong Court department was noticed and you were informed about what you did, and after the Court issued the Order on October 31, 2018, you did not give up. You were still playing your dirty game in the Court of Law, even after I asked you to take the Court hearing scheduled for November 14, 2018 off the Calendar.
It seems to me that you are not smart or experienced enough to read and apply the law in the most simple of events, so you have to cheat and deceive the Court, the Judge, and the Plaintiff. Your gross and unacceptable professional misconduct makes your intelligence seem as low as that of my former attorney Douglas Stein, whose State Bar license was suspended for two years by Supreme Court Order on March 1, 2018. This time, your bullying behavior and malice in an attempt to deceive the opposite party was noticed by the Court and did not impress the Court Clerk or Judge Hon. David Brown at all.
Sincerely,
____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Per
CC. Sacramento County Superior Court Clerk – Department 53. Hon. David I. Brown
The State Bar of California
The best lawyers are those who don’t waste their clients’ time and money fighting about issues that don’t matter. Nancy prides herself on getting excellent results for her clients while keeping civility and professionalism at the forefront. “You can be nice and fearsome at the same time.”
Nancy J. Sheehan – Porter Scott Attorney , Shareholder .
UPDATE Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California: Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Charles Witcher, Dorin Daniliuc, Patrick Putney, Cindy Oropeza. Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
https://www.scribd.com/document/394201183/11-26-2018-Response-to-Bardzell-s-Burkett-s-Meet-and-Confer-Letter
November 26, 2018
David P.E. Burkett, J.D.
Daniel Bardzell, J.D.
PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Subject: The court order dated October 31, 2018 and November 14, 2018
Case no. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California
RE: Response to your meet-and-confer correspondence dated November 20, 2018, in regard to the October 31 and November 14, 2018, court rulings on the defendant’s motion to compel.
Dear Gentlemen:
November 23 and 24, 2018 were the fourth anniversary of the conspiracy and collusion between two former Porter Scott members, Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel, and my unfortunate attorney, Douglas Stein. On the Thanksgiving long weekend of 2014, Michael Pott, Douglas Ropel, and Douglas Stein, in an act of desperation, converted an ad hoc old demurer into an anti-SLAPP motion. They filed the faulty document on December 1, 2014, to end my two lawsuits against the UCOP, UC Davis, and UCDM white collar criminals who attempted to assassinate me on May 31, 2012.
It seems to me that four years later, you have repeated the Pott, Ropel, and Stein’s mistake, and that you have deceived the court, judges, court clerks, and myself by filing, on October 3, 2018, your deceptive Motion to Compel in the wrong court department (ROA #151–154). Thus motion was followed on October 11, 2018, by the deceptive Defendants’ Application and Order for Appearance and Examination on December 14, 2018, which was rejected several times by the court until it was filed on November 7, 2018, in violation of the 45-day requirement (Civil Code of Procedure §§491.110, 708.110, 708.120, & Sacramento Superior Court Local Rule 2.1).
Your meet-and-confer correspondence, dated November 20, 2018, is a desperate act of damage control to cover what you inflicted on yourself and the UCOP, UC Davis, and UC Davis Medical Center LGBT mafia by filing the Motion to Compel and the Defendants’ Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Basically, you have nothing left to prevail in the Motion for the Summary Judgment or in the Court trial. After I submitted to the Court the Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories and the Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Request for Admission and after you deceived two Court Judges and the Court, your infamous client best choice is to end the case by settling it and not let the attorneys from the Porter Scott Professional Corporation inflict more harm and damage to my former employer, the University of California.
Porter Scott’s attorneys’ two decades of misleading and deceptive representation provided to the Regents of the University of California and to UCOP, UC Davis and UC Davis Medical Center makes them ruthless thugs and bandits who have caused nothing but suffering and death to UC employees and hundreds of millions of dollars of losses for UCOP, UC Davis and UC Davis Medical Center LGBT mafia – white-collar criminals in 2007-2018.
I believe that the UCOP options like the May 31, 2012, provocation with Lt. James Barbour’s magic bullet and UCDM Trauma Unit #11 to end my employment; the December 22, 2010, rope around Todd Georlich’s neck which killed him in Rancho Cordova Park and the sudden death of UC Davis Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vannderhoef in UC Davis Medical Center two days after I filed my opposition to the UCOP mafia’s motion for automatic stay on October 13, 2015, are not the options for your clients to finish 67-year-old Polish immigrant Jerry Waszczuk living in the Sanctuary State since 1989. I believe that Lt. Barbour is a good person and good police officer, and he knows and understands what he was dragged into by the UCOP , UC Davis and UCDMC LGBT mafia in 2011 and 2012. I am sure that he warned other UCDPD officers and his subordinates not to engage themselves in the mafia’s dirty criminal activities and political games to harm UC Davis employees after he witnessed what happened to his colleagues after the November 18, 2011 pepper spray provocation .
Janet Napolitano’s deployment or departure to UCOP by President Obama in 2013; Governor Jerry Brown’s key adviser Jacob Appelsmith’s appointment as UC Davis chief counsel; John Perez’s 2014 appointment as a UC Board of Regents member; the 2016 imprisonment of the UCOP mafia’s arch enemy, California Senator Leland Yee; and Napolitano’s 2016 witch hunt aimed at Chancellor Linda Katehi and her family did not help to condone and to cover up UCOP, UC Davis and UC Davis Medical Center crimes. I believe that the presence of Napolitano, Applesmith, Perez and Steinberg in the UC System most likely helped obstruct two of my lawsuits against UCOP, UC Davis and UCDMC white-collar criminals and their thugs in the Sacramento courts, my 2016 complaint with the State Bar of California against 23 white-collar criminal thugs with JD degrees, and my 2016 whistle blower tax fraud claim that I filed against UCOP, UC Davis and UCDMC white-collar criminals in 2016 with the IRS whistle blower office in Ogden, Utah. In regard to my sending you the Response for Admission by electronic mail on November 13, I intended at first to use e-mail but changed my mind and sent it to you and to the court by U.S. Priority Mail instead because the Superior Court has no electronic mail services for submitting documents. However, I forgot to change the wording in the Proof of Service. Mea culpa.
Very truly yours
____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Per
UPDATE
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
https://www.scribd.com/document/399458339/01-29-2019-Supreme-Court-Case-No-S253713-Waszczuk-v-CUIAB-Petition-for-Review-Unemployment-Benefits
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
Email: jjw19801ive.com
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
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
PETITION FOR REVIEW C079254
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,
J~ il~
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Petitioner and Appellant in Pro Per
3
PETITION FOR REVIEW C079254
UPDATE
Subject: Appearance and Examination on February 8, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. at Department 43. Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard, Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California.
RE: SUMMARY OF OUR MEETING IN THE COURT CAFETERIA ON FEBRUARY 8, 2019
https://www.scribd.com/document/399459750/02-08-2019-Appearance-and-Examination-Anti-SLAPP-Waszczuk-v-UC-Regents
Dear Mr. Bardzell,
For the record, I would like to briefly summarize our meeting that took place on February 8, 2019 in the Sacramento County Superior Court Cafeteria on the sixth floor at 9:30 a.m.
I and my witness, William Buckans (UC Davis Medical Center employee), viewed the meeting as unpleasant, provocative, and hostile. William and I noticed that you were very nervous and uncomfortable during the meeting. At some point when you started bringing my wife and children into the terror I have been experiencing for the last 12 years from the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) mob, William, who was sitting at the next table, turned his chair toward you and looked at you. You did not know that William was my former coworker from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant where I worked from June 1999 to April 2007. You were also informed previously that two Porter Scott attorneys attempted to provoke me into physical confrontation outside the court room in February 2015 and in August 2017.
From your redundant and provocative questions about my wife, children, landlord, and the insurance on my rental house, it was not difficult to conclude that Janet Napolitano is looking to inflict a different type of harm to me and my family than to enforce the unlawful judgment (see the Letter to the Clerk filed on July 18, 2018 and the Letter to Judge Brown filed on November 16, 2018).
Your questions about insurance on the rental house clearly indicate that UCOP mob led by Janet Napolitano is planning a raid on my home with involvement from the Lodi Police or San Joaquin Sheriff’s Department to terrorize me and my family by ransacking my house to cause psychological trauma. As you probably read in court documents, I have been terrorized and hunted like a Jew during the holocaust by the UCOP mob since January 2007, and I don’t see it ending soon while I’m still alive.
During our meeting on February 8, 2019, I provided you with the following documents as potential assets:
A copy of the January 31, 2009 Settlement Agreement by UC Regents and myself plus the calculated damages of approximately $1,000,000 caused by UC Regents due to breach and violation of this Settlement Agreement (attached).
The March 1, 2018 copy of the California Supreme Court decision, which ordered that I be paid back my stolen retainer money in the amount of $14,694.33 plus 10% interest that I paid to my former attorney, Douglas Stein, for representation. Stein on Discipline Case No. S245982 (attached).
The unfinished case with Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which is in conspiracy with UC Regents that denied my short disability benefits in 2011. Minimum value $4,546 (attached).
The unfinished unemployment insurance benefits case pending in the California Supreme Court, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 3DCA Case No. C079254, Supreme Court Case No. – Value $25,000 if prevail.
Whistleblower case pending in the U.S. Tax Court, Waszczuk v. United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services, Docket No. 023105. The IRS whistleblower case is about an enormous amount of unlawful power sales by regents in conspiracy with Enron and the California Independent System Operator and related to multimillion dollars in tax fraud. Fraud was disclosed in August 2012 by UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Duruisseau in this interview with Sac Cultural Hub (attached). http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-look-back
“THE BLACKSMITH WAS GUILTY, BUT THE GYPSY WAS HANGED.” – Polish proverb
In addition, after the meeting I forwarded to you my current bank statement from Rabobank and an e-mail from Citibank with information about the account I have no access to. I believe that the amount of $14,694.33 plus interest for five years should cover the judgment obtained by the Court by David Burkett in violation of California Court Rules 3.1312 b, which states:
“That the prevailing party must, upon expiration of the five-day period provided for approval, promptly transmit the proposed order to the court together with a summary of any responses of the other parties or a statement that no responses were received pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312(b).”
Defendants’ attorney David Burkett bluntly violated the California Rule of Court 3.1312(b) and did not transmit to the Court the PLAINTIFF’S 90-page DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P. 425.16 (c).
2018 David Burkett’s violation of Rule 3.1312(b) is a copycat scenario of the March 2015 PLAINTIFF’S DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P. 425.16 (ROA #73).
Very truly yours,
____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Per
CC: Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. Thadd Blizzard, sent by U.S. Priority Mail on February 11, 2019.
California Senator Cathleen Galgiani
State Bar of California
Lodi Police Department (Fax)
San Joaquin County Sheriff Department (Fax )
California Governor Office Hon. Gavin Newsom (FAX)
Consulate General of Polish Republic of Poland
Jerry, it’s time to call it quits on your shakedown of the UC regents. [edited] David does you and the community a disservice every time he publishes this tripe.
Why do you care? Let him file his petitions and get his due process. (Also it’s one article that he’s posting updates to from several years ago, I don’t see what the problem is).
Why don’t you care about the waste of time and resources, insult to the dignity of the court and legitimate claimants? [edited]
John
You are God Mother Napolitano’s Heckler . What resources you are talking about ? I have no resources but I have aplenty of time . I am on Social Security
Dignity of the Court . Funny
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience.
Best to you John .
UPDATE:
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (833) 817-7080
Email: jjw1980@live.com
May 1, 2019
CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER
Unclaimed Property Division
10600 White Rock Road, Suite 141,
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Subject: Request for Information
Re: Property ID Number: 998812640
Type of Property: GROUP POLICY BENEFITS OR CLAIM
Cash Reported: $4,546.08
Reported By: LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
To Whom It My Concern:
I would greatly appreciate if the California State Controller office providing me with the specific date when Liberty Life Insurance Company of Boston reported to the State Controller office my unpaid Short-Term Disability Insurance (SDI) benefits and which Liberty’s office reported the unclaimed benefits.
In August 2018, I sent an inquiry to Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston to pay me my unlawfully denied claim of 2011. I received a negative response and was ready to ask the State Insurance Commissioner’s office to reopen the short-term disability claim that was filed in 2011.
On March 21, 2018, I was informed by a private investigator (letter attached) that my SDI benefits, CLAIM #4154074, were actually found after eight years in the California State Controller’s Office as unclaimed property. The amount of benefits to reclaim is $4,545.08. These are my benefits that were denied in 2011 by Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston in a conspiracy with University of California Davis, UC Davis Medical Center, and the UC Office of the President’s (UCOP) corrupt administration’s Human Resources attorneys. In response to being denied my benefits, I asked the private investigator to also help me find my unemployment insurance benefits, which have been missing since May 2014 in the same way as my SDI benefits.
I have no idea how my SDI benefits of 2011 found their way to the California State Controller’s Office after eight years, and why it was never paid to me in 2011 or 2012 when I was disabled and needed the money most.
I will appreciate your prompt response to this matter and your help in solving the puzzle.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
See: Attachment
I’m glad you found the money. The administration of these plans is shady all around in my opinion. My missus worked for the state Department of Personnel Administration, paid for disability insurance through Met Life, was forced to retire due to health issues and then shunned by the insurance company. I learned very quickly that their game is to deny every claim and then wear you down through the long appeal process. We ultimately lost our home of 25 years because we had relied on this policy to see us through the six months between her retirement and the start of social security benefits. If I were dictator, insurance companies would be nationalized and all of their claims people sent to re-education camps.
Lodi Resident, Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft Ph.D. and His Wife Dorothy Bernhoft
The second severe example is the 2011–2012 UCOP mafia terror that was the witch hunt aimed at Petitioner psychologist in Lodi, Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D., and his family, orchestrated by Janet Napolitano’s friend from Arizona, John Lohse, in a joint venture with University of California Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley and his wife, Diane Dooley, the last Chief of Staff for California Governor Jerry Brown. In that witch hunt, California government thugs from Social Services framed Dr. Bernhoft and his 65-year-old wife, Dorothy Bernhoft, who narrowly escaped five years in prison with a plea bargain.
The 65-year-old psychologist, Franklin O. Bernhoft, is a Vietnam War veteran with the rank of Captain, like the former FBI Director and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In February 2012, Dr. Bernhoft’s residence in Lodi was raided by government thugs and his property was confiscated because he dared to protest the terror and inhumane treatment that Petitioner was subjected to at the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) in 2011. This was terror and inhumane treatment beyond human decency, which included and was not limited to canceling Petitioner’s Medical Insurance Benefits and Short-Term Disability benefits in the amount of $4,500. The benefits were denied to Petitioner in 2011in an attempt to force Petitioner to quit his job. Those denied Short-Term Disability Insurance Benefits resurfaced EIGHT YEARS LATER on March 20, 2019 as “UNCLAIMED PROPERTY” in the State of California’s Controller Office. On the same day, March 20, 2019, the IRS Commissioner’s attorney from San Diego IRS Chief Counsel Division office sent an inquiry to Petitioner asking him to sign a stipulated Motion for Protective Order.
https://www.scribd.com/document/420576922/Hamid-Hayat-Napolitano-and-U-S-Attorney-McGregor-Scott-in-My-U-S-Tax-Court-Case
UPDATE -STOLEN MONEY BY MY ATTORNEY DOUGLAS STEIN IN DECEMBER 2014
It took five years to recover a partial loss .
BEFORE THE CLIENT SECURITY FUND COMMISSION
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
Application of JAROSLAW J. WASZCZUK 18-F-16299
Since no timely objection to the June 21, 2019 Tentative Decision of the Commission in this matter was received from either Applicant(s) or Respondent, the Tentative Decision directing reimbursement in the amount of $14,500.00 by check made payable to Jaroslaw Waszczuk is deemed the Final Decision of the Commission.
https://www.scribd.com/document/420703633/Stolen-Money-by-My-Attorney-Douglas-Stein-in-December-2014
THE CLIENT SECURITY FUND COMMISSION issued the decision on July 29, 2019
On the same July 29, 2019 I filed in the U.S Tax Court my “PETITIONER’S REPLY TO U.S. TAX COURT ORDER SERVED ON JULY 9, 2019 SIGNED BY SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE HON. ROBERT N. ARMENRE: PROTECTIVE ORDER -TAX COURT RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE SECTION 6103(B)(L), (2), AND (3)
By my reply I informed the U.S Tax Court that I am unwilling to withdraw my June 3, 2019 Opposition to the Respondent Motion and I will not certify, and the Court should deny Respondent’s aforementioned motion. Furthermore I informed the Court that while former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is still in charge of the University of California Office of the President (UCOP), and while attorney McGregor Scott, re-appointed by Napolitano, is still in charge of the Eastern District of California U.S. Attorney’s office, the withdrawal of my opposition to the Motion For Protective Order is out of the question.
https://www.scribd.com/document/420705122/07-29-2019-U-S-Tax-Court-Petitioner-Reply-to-Court-Order-Dated-07-09-2019
On the same day July 29, 2019 federal judge Graland Burrell Jr. from District Court Eastern District of California signed the Court Order vacating his 14-year-old conviction of Lodi resident Hamid Hayat . The sma Judge on on September 10, 2007, sentenced Hamid Hyad to 24 years in federal prison. It was his 25th birthday. In the words of Federal Judge Garland Burrell Jr., Hayat had re-entered the U.S. “ready and willing to wage violent jihad.”
In the same time period of 2005-2007 when Hamid Hayat was arrested . prosecuted and sentenced to 24 years in prison I was subjected to brutal”witch hunt” carried on by UCOP mafia thugs from UC Davis and UC Davis Medical Center . The witch hunt resulted in the January 31, 2009 Settlement -Agreement with UCOP mafia which was ultimately breached and trashed in 2011 by UCOP criminals .
https://www.scribd.com/document/420651793/Hamid-Hayat-070302019-Court-Order-for-Release
UPDATE
I am still working to recover my Unemployment Insurance Benefits which was stolen or intercepted by evil forces in 2014,
By representing myself in Courts and in the State Bar for the last five years, I became aware that UCOP mob are doing everything possible to cut me off from any financial resources to make my continued litigation against UC bandits impossible. What happened to my 2011 disability insurance benefits and 2014 unemployment insurance benefits are the best examples of what the UCOP mob and their hired thugs from Porter Scott, in collaboration with the Courts, and Attorney General’s office staff, are doing to knock me down or out .
UPDATE
https://www.scribd.com/document/451600854/2020-03-13-U-S-Tax-Court-Request-for-Update
PETITIONER JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’S REQUEST FOR UPDATE
Re: Respondent’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Filed On November 7, 2019 And Petitioner’s Opposition To Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Filed On December 13, 2019
To: Trial Judge Honorable Joseph Robert Goeke
United States Tax Court, Room 331
400 Second Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20217
Honorable Judge Goeke,
Petitioner respectfully requests information from the Court regarding whether the Respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on November 7, 2019, has been placed on the Court Calendar (Docket) to render a decision in the above captioned case, either with or without hearing oral arguments.
More than four month have passed since Respondent’s attorney Derrick Sun filed the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and three months have passed since Petitioner filed his opposition to the Respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on December 13, 2019.
Petitioner is concerned about the fate of his original Petition, submitted to the U.S. Tax Court on November 18, 2018, in light of the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment filed in bad faith by Respondent’s Counsel on November 7, 2019.
Prior to filing the motion, Respondent’s Counsel knew, from meet and confer correspondence with the Petitioner (EXHIBIT # 1), that Petitioner was preparing to file a Motion Continuance of the trial date. Without reason, Respondent quickly filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in which Respondent summarized nothing.
The Court granted Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to continue trail date
on December 3, 2019.
Petitioner needs to know the status of the Respondent’s motion because, in addition to representing himself in this U.S. Tax Court proceeding, Petitioner is also representing himself in a case before the State of California Sacramento County Superior Court.
In addition to the wrongful termination case in the state court and the petition with the U.S. Tax court, Petitioner is also pursuing reparation claims in criminal court in his native country of Poland. The post-communist Republic of Poland Parliament has recognized that Petitioner and thousands of other Polish citizens are entitled to compensation for unlawful incarceration and deportations by the Polish communist government from 1981–1989. Petitioner is also serving as a witness in other criminal case against former communist secret police leaders who actively participated in the December 1981unlaful incarceration of Polish citizens who dared to raise their voices against totalitarian communists’ rulers. Two translated copies of notifications from the Polish Criminal Court in these matters are provided in (EXHIBIT # 2).
To avoid calendar conflicts with other ongoing court cases, Petitioner respectfully requests information from the U.S. Tax Court regarding an approximate or established date for hearing and decision on Respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Respectfully submitted with Proof of Service on March 13, 2020.
________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Petitioner Pro Se
UPDATE
https://www.scribd.com/document/456897879/04-13-2020-U-S-Tax-Court-Petitioner-Opposition-Motion-for-Leave-to-File
U.S TAX COURT -Docket No. 23105-18 W
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
FILED ELECTRONICALLY ON 04/13/2020
PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDMENT TO ANSWER RULE 41 OF THE TAX COURT’S RULES AND REQUEST TO DISMISS RESPONDENT’S MOTION WITH PREJUDICE
THE MERIT OF THE CASE
The merit of this case is the tax fraud amounting to of millions of dollars committed by the owners of the 27 MW cogeneration power plant located at the University of California Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) in Sacramento, California resulting from the illegal production and sale of electrical power from 1998 to the present.
UPDATE
This whistleblower case addresses the crime, tax evasion and tens of millions of dollars of fraud committed by the owners of the 27 Megawatts (MW) cogeneration power plant. The 27 Megawatts cogeneration power plant undertook the unlawful production and sale of electrical energy at the University of California’s (UC Davis) UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, California, between January 1, 1998, (approximately) and now.
https://www.scribd.com/document/495490868/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-v-IRS-Commissioner-UNITED-STATES-COURT-OF-APPEALS-FOR-THE-DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA-CIRCUIT
UPDATE
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniliuc
Re: Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit for Defendant’s
Motion For Summary Judgment or, in The Alternative, Summary Adjudication
Dear Ms. Goulding,
Yesterday, I asked you in which Court Department you filed your Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit because you did not mark on the front page of your pleadings which Court Department or which Judge would would handle your application. You are obliged to inform the opposite party what you are filing and when and where you are filing it. What you have done is very unprofessional.
https://www.scribd.com/document/505146196/202210427-Meet-and-Confer-Ex-Parte-l-Goulding-Porter-Scott
UPDATE
Subject: Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Case no. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick Putney, and Dorin Daniliuc
Dear Ms. Aina:
I am requesting that you clarify with the Court why, on April 22, 2021, at approximately 2:00 P.M., I was served, at my residence in Lodi, CA, the following Court documents:
CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things and Trial or Hearing and Declaration Issued to IRINA WASZCZUK Olatomiwa T. Aina on April 22, 2021. (ATTACHMENT 1)
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION with Court Hearing Date May 7, 2021 at 9:00 A.M. in Department 43. (ATTACHMENT 2)
DECLARATION OF OLATOMIWA T. AINA IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF IRINA WASZCZUK. (ATTACHMENT 3)
The above documents were filed in court and served to me on April 22, 2021 with the name IRINA WASZCZUK. The person IRINA does not live at 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA 95242.
I assume that the documents were meant to be served to my wife of 49 years IRENA WASCZUK. IRENA is a Polish first name. IRINA is a Russian and Ukrainian first name. If this is about money, then her bank account and 401 K are under the name IRENA WASZCZUK. I am sure you understand the consequences of trying to get money from her bank account with the name IRINA instead of IRENA.
For the above reason alone, I am advising you to properly fill out and resubmit the documents to the Court. Also, for your information, my legal Polish name is JANUSZ JAROSŁAW, and my wife’s legal Polish name is IRENA WASZCZUK. We are both Polish refugees and citizens of the Republic of Poland who have been living in exile in the USA since November 1982 (ATTACHMENT 4). In 1982, we escaped communist oppression only to be ruthlessly and endlessly oppressed and harassed by the National -Socialists at the University of California and their servants from the law firm Porter Scott Attorneys.
https://www.scribd.com/document/494446114/Solidarity-Anti-Communist-Movement-Poland-1980-1982
https://www.scribd.com/document/505164449/20210427-Meet-and-Confer-Order-to-Appear-for-Examination-O-Aina-Porter-Scott
UPDATE
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)
anti -SLAPP motion Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16
Motion to Recall the Remittitur or Modify the Opinion
The 3DCA 10/10/2017 unpublished opinion is erroneous itself and needs to be remanded to the trial court with instructions to vacate or void the April 14, 2015 court order and judgment which granted the defendants’ anti- SLAPP motion. After the remittitur was issued on January 16, 2018, the anti-SLAPP motion defendants and the Regents of the University of California have been maliciously relitigating the four stricken COAs of the anti-SLAPP motion in an attempt to terminate the Waszczuk lawsuit against the UC Regents and to extort money from Waszczuk and his wife. Waszczuk does not see any other way to stop the defendants and their attorneys’ despicable harassment, misconduct, malice, and abuse of the system than to file this motion to recall remittitur and return the four stricken COAs to the defendants because they have been begging for almost two years to have them back.
https://www.scribd.com/document/512401861/06-18-2021-Motion-to-Recall-the-Remittitur-or-Modify-the-Opinion-anti-SLAPP-motion
UPDATEWaszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)anti -SLAPP motion Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 Plaintiff and Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk Declaration in Support of the Motion to Recall the Remittitur or Modify the Opinion
THE DEFENDANTS FORMER ATTORNEY AND SHAREHOLDER OF THE PORTER SCOTT LAW FIRM DAVID PONTUS EUGENE BURKETT J.D SBN # 241896
13.. David Burkett, the Defendants’ former attorney, employee and shareholder of the Porter Scott law firm for 13 years, left Porter Scott in October 2019. He was immediately replaced in this case by another Porter Scott attorney, Nancy Sheehan. Gravely ill Nancy Sheehan died one month later on November 23, 2019
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=nancy-joan-sheehan&pid=194994093
14. David Burkett had not wanted to be associated with Waszczuk’s case, but he was somehow forced into a four-year involvement with the fraudulent and frivolous anti-SLAPP motion left for him by Michael Pott. Burkett left Porter Scott law firm and this case with $320 legal fees awarded to him by a court order dated June 7, 2018.
15. The Defendants’ Attorney David Burkett did everything possible to make Waszczuk end all litigation against the Regents of the University of California and five individual defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindi Oropeza or reverse the trial Court Order dated February 9, 2015 (Hon. David I. Brown).
16. On February 27, 2015, David Burkett sent his associate, Douglas Ropel, to a hearing before Judge Shelleyanne Chang in Jaroslaw Jerry Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB)(ROA #28) Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CU-WM-GDS with the UC Regents as a Real Party of Interest. Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) Neither Ropel nor Burkett was counsel of record for this case in February 2015.
Burkett sent Ropel to the court for the sole purpose of confronting and attacking Waszczuk prior the hearing. Ropel made vile, despicable threats to go after Waszczuk’s wife if he would not agree to drop the litigation against the Defendants in exchange for legal fees in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion. In February 2015, legal fees were not awarded to any party. ( See: Waszczuk Petition for Rehearing in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) Page No. 14. )
Defendants’ former attorneys from Porter Scott, Michael Pott, David Burkett, Douglas and most likely Thomas L. Riordan and Attorney Ashante Norton from the California Attorney General’s office know all details of what happened to Waszczuk’s unemployment benefits that were reinstated by the EDD in May of 2014. Waszczuk will further address this issue subsequent to this Motion to Recall Remittitur for the Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Rd., C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) case. Stealing the unemployment insurance benefits from somebody is a serious crime. ( See Exhibit # 22 in Motion to Recall Remittitur) This serious crime which was covered up needs to be uncovered. The bottom line is that the Waszczuk’s unemployment insurance benefit was stolen in May 2015.
12. After Judge David I. Brown issued a final order granting the Special Motion to Strike the four COAs from Waszczuk’s defective SAC on 4/14//2015 (ROA # 80), Defendants’ Attorneys Burkett and Ropel filed a motion for grossly inflated legal fees and costs on May 11,2015 for the anti-SLAPP motion. Porter Scott shareholder and leading attorney David Burkett in the case declared (ROA 85) that he had only worked on the anti-SLAPP motion for 1.2 hours, at a rate of $260 per hour, thus totaling $312 of the $32,738 of fees that the defendants’ attorney was claiming. The legal fees show that Burkett did not participate because he knew more than he wanted to know about this fraudulent motion.
13. On May 19, 2015, just one month after the defendants obtained the favorable decision to strike the COAs from the Waszczuk SAC and eight days after they filed the Motion for Fees and Cost, unexpectedly, their attorney, Burkett, asked the Waszczuk by e-mail what his settlement offer was. Waszczuk outlined the settlement offer in his eight-page reply, dated May 21, 2015 (see Motion to Recall Remittitur, Exhibit No. 28). The Waszczuk recalls that Burkett repeated his question about the settlement in exchange for anti-SLAPP motion legal fees in July or August 2015.
14. On June 11, 2015, due to a lack of response from Burkett about the Appellant’s settlement offer, the Waszczuk filed a timely Notice of Appeal from the April 14, 2015 order by Judge Brown that granted the defendants a special motion to strike the four COAs from the Appellant’s SAC.
15. On July 25, 2016, Defendants’ Attorney David Burkett deliberately filed a defective Respondent Brief (RB ). Burkett’s RB did not cite any court record but was a desperate attempt to receive a negative decision from the Court of Appeal reversing the trial Court Order and Judgement granting the anti-SLAPP motion to the Defendants by striking the first four causes of action. Defendant’s Attorney Burkett, by his faulty RB filed on 07/25/2016, was begging the Court of Appeal to reverse the trial Court Order dated April 14, 2015. For some reason somebody in the Porter Scott law firm and somebody in the Court of Appeal made a different decision, and on November 9, 2016 the Court, by its own motion, ordered that the RB filed July 25, 2016 be stricken for “failure to support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)((1)(c).) The Court ordered Respondent to refile the RB on or before December 15, 2016, instead of rewarding Burkett and reversing the trial court’s April 14, 2015 Order and Judgment which granted Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
17. On August 8, 2017, after oral argument, Defendants’
Attorney David Burkett, infuriated by statements made by the Court of Appeal Justice Panel during the oral argument hearing and anticipating the decision of the Court of Appeal, snapped and unloaded his anger on Waszczuk and Waszczuk’s wife with vile threats. Waszczuk thought that Burkett’s unwarranted attack in the 3DCA building would lead to fisticuffs. Instead of being happy to win the appeal, Burkett instead became angered to the brink of beating up 66-year-old Waszczuk right there in the halls of justice. Fortunately for Waszczuk, he was accompanied by a friend. Unbelievable.
18. Waszczuk’s Application/Motion to Recall Remittitur shows the
pattern of Defendants’ Attorney David Burkett’s obsession with the four stricken COAs from Waszczuk’s defective SAC which needs to be amended. David Burkett and his successors’ relitigating of the four stricken COAs using the fraudulent, oppressive anti-SLAPP motion after the remittitur was issued on January 16, 2018 is an unprecedented abuse of the court system. Waszczuk estimated that five consecutive, voluminous motions for monetary and
terminating sanctions filed in 2018–2019 by Burkett and his successors in cost five times more than the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Defendants on December 1, 2014.
19. In addition to the prohibited-by-law prelitigation of matters which have already been litigated, the filed motions to compel monetary and terminating sanctions show how grossly inflated the $32,738 the claimed legal fees and costs were for the anti-SLAPP motion by Burkett and the associated Douglas Ropel. For the similar and even more time-consuming motions to compel monetary and terminating sanction, Defendant’s attorneys were demanding to be paid $5,000 for each filed motion. This is quite a different number than $32,738 for one motion.
https://www.scribd.com/document/512403125/06-18-2021-Declaration-in-Support-Motion-to-Recall-Remittitur-or-Modify-Opinion-anti-SLAPP-motion
UPDATE
June 18, 2021 – Plaintiff’s and Appellant Request/Motion for Judicial Notice
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)
Waszczuk moves this Court to take judicial notice of the 46 exhibits attached to Waszczuk’s Motion to Recall the Remittitur in support of his Motion to Recall Remittitur and in connection to Defendants’ filed Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication filed on May 14, 2021. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is the last known act perpetrated by the Defendants’ Attorneys in an attempt to terminate Waszczuk’s lawsuit by relitigating Waszczuk’s dismissed, defective Second Amended Complaint (SAC) causes of actions filed on 12/1/2014, the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. Since the remittitur was issued on January 16, 2018, the Defendants have notoriously and without any hesitation abused Judges and the Court system by their behavior litigating what was already litigated and decided by three different Courts.
https://www.scribd.com/document/512403581/06-18-2021-Motion-for-Judicial-Notice-anti-SLAPP-Motion
UPDATE
On June 28, 2021, I have scheduled a video conference with a Criminal Court in Poland for compensation for my repression and incarceration in an internment camp by communists between 1981 and 1982. Between 1980 and 1981, I was one of the leaders of the anti-communist labor movement “Solidarity.” The communist repression was acknowledged by the post-communist era government of the Republic of Poland as crimes against humanity (see link ) https://www.scribd.com/document/512503111/Compensation-for-1981-1982-Kidnaping-and-imprisonment-in-Communist-Poland.
UPDATE
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Defendants’ summary judgment motion is procedurally a total fraud, deceitful and ineffective. Defendants have listed 17 “undisputed” facts they claim are material and repeats them for each cause of action. On 36 of 70 pages (Pages 7–43), the Defendants are vexatiously relitigating the 3rd and 4th COAs of the Plaintiff’s SAC: 3.
https://www.scribd.com/document/519925059/08-10-2021-Waszczuk-v-University-of-California-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment
UPDATE
THIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION CASE IS ALMOST 10 YEARS OLD AND STILL PENDING . So far The Regants were represented in this case by 16 attorneys from Porter Scott law firm and Horvitz and Levy LLP
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
CONCLUSION
https://www.scribd.com/document/633227633/03-22-2023-Appellant-s-Reply-Brief-Waszczuk-v-The-Regents-of-the-University-of-California-3DCA-Case-C095488
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
In this, there are no winners. Waszczuk, due to The Regents’ reckless, unlawful, and merciless witch hunts, which resulted in the termination of his employment on December 5 , 2012 at his retirement age, has suffered enormous losses exceeding $1 million in wages and benefits and the devastation of his life. By contrast, The Regents, since the second witch hunt action aimed at Waszczuk, from March 2011–December 2012, have lost approximately $200 million in tax-free revenue by not selling to SMUD surplus power from the UC Davis Medical Center’s cogeneration plant, after being advised by some unknown person that Waszczuk would blow the whistle on their shady power-generation business, a topic about which Waszczuk did not care at all or have a clue concerning in 2011–2012 when the witch hunt began.
As set forth above and in light of the presented reply to the concurrently filed RB by The Regents, Waszczuk is requesting that the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District reverse the trial court Judgment dated October 28, 2021, which granted The Regents’ MSJ/MSA and direct Waszczuk’s lawsuit back to Department 53 with a new judge in charge of the Department after Hon. Mesiwala was elevated to the Associate Justice in 3DCA
Dated March 21 , 2023
________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk , Plaintiff in Pro Per
https://www.scribd.com/document/629178519/10-19-2022-3DCA-Appellant-Opening-Brief-Waszczuk-v-UC-Regents-C095488.
https://www.scribd.com/document/629165406/03-01-2023-Respondent-s-Brief-Waszczuk-v-UC-Regents.
UPDATE -WELLS FARGO BANK UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND FRAUD
https://www.scribd.com/document/633260513/03-13-2023-Letter-to-the-Comptroller-Office-Wells-Fargo-Fraud
It is highly likely that UC Davis was using Wells Fargo accounts to launder dirty money from its tax evasion and fraud due to the illegal power sale , and supported money laundering by then-UC President Janet Napolitano in the amount of $175 million via various UC accounts in 2015–2016. This was discovered by California State Audit 2016-130, which was requested by California Assemblymembers Phil Ting and Kevin McCarty and concluded by a State Auditor’s Report on April 25, 2017 (see https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2016-130.pdf). I addressed the Janet Napolitano’s shady activities and business during her tenure as UC President in my September 3, 2022 IRS Form 211 addendum .
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