Anda di halaman 1dari 461

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

March 20, 2019

Rachel S. Grunberg, Senior Trial Counsel


State Bar of California
Office of Chief Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639

Subject: Reimbursement of Theft or an Act Equivalent to Theft Perpetrated by Attorney Douglas


Stein, SB #131248

RE: State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110- LMA [18-F-16299]


RE: California Supreme Court Case S245982, In re Douglas Edward Stein on Discipline
RE: State Bar Court Case Nos. 18-0-16529; 18-N-16452 In the Matter of Douglas Edward
Stein SB #131248

Dear Senior Trial Counsel Grunberg,

I am a victim in the above captioned cases, and I would appreciate if you could advise me what
are my chances to be reimbursed by attorney Douglas Stein or the State Bar Client Security
Fund, in light of the Notice of Disciplinary Charges you filed in State Bar Court on December
20, 2018 against Stein.

I noticed that the charges against Stein were filed on December 20, 2018, eight days after the
oral argument in the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) in Case No. C079254,
Supreme Court Case No. S253713 Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board (CUIAB) and The Regents of the University of California Petition for Review filed on
January 29, 2019 (Attachment # 1 -On Flash Drive ).

1
State Bar -Rachel S. Grunberg Notice of Disciplinary Charges
In 2013–2014, Stein represented me in the above complaint filed on December 2, 2013 as a
Sacramento County Superior Court Case (Writ of Mandamus) Case No.
34201380001699CUWMGDS Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California.

During the very bizarre oral argument on December 12, 2018, which I described in my cover
letter with the Petition for Review, I pointed to the 3DCA Justices who heard the case that during
the preparations to the oral argument, I found the May 14, 2014 document issued by the
California Employment Development Department (EDD) which restored my unemployment
insurance benefits that were wrongfully denied by EDD in 2013. I had a copy of this document
with me and wanted to hand it to the three panel justices and to Porter Scott Law Firm attorney
David Burkett who was supposedly representing the Regents of the University of California in
this case since July 15, 2015. (See my recent copy of the complaint with the State Bar of
California against two Porter Scott attorneys, Daniel Bardzell and David Burkett. (Attachment #
2 -On Flash Drive )

Attorney General Deputy Ashante Norton, who represents CUIAB in Court, did not show up for
the oral argument on December 12, 2018. I wonder why. Also during the December 12, 2018
oral argument in 3DCA, I elaborated that it was possible that in 2014 my attorney, Douglas
Stein, who was addicted to drugs (according to a 2017 State Bar Investigation Report) and was
completely financially broke, transferred my unemployment insurance benefits to his address and
cashed my benefits checks. I have no other explanation and I don’t understand why my restored
unemployment benefits vanished. Why did the Court of Appeal Justices affirm trial Court
judgment and deny my Petition for Rehearing after being informed that the unemployment
benefits were restored and yet disappeared? I never received any money from EDD. My
unemployment insurance benefits were restored after CUIAB’s Chief Counsel Kim Steinhardt
conducted an investigation at my request in 2013. The 3DCA justices were informed about
Steinhardt’s investigation into my Briefs on the Appeal.

The latest State Bar filing shows that Douglas Stein completely ignored the Supreme Court
Order dated March 1, 2018 and the Notice of Disciplinary Charges dated December 20, 2018,
which ordered a change in Stein’s status from active to inactive (18-N-16452) and made him
ineligible to practice law in the State of California – February 4, 2019 State Bar Court Order
signed by Judge Manjari Chawla (Consolidated Case Nos: 14-N16452-MC & 18-O-16529-MC).
(Attachment # 3-On Flash Drive )
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/18-N-16452.pdf;
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/18-O-16529.pdf
This Waszczuk v. CUIAB Case No. C079254 is most likely the key factor for Stein to ignore
Supreme Court Restitution Order and Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed in State Bar Court on
December 20, 2018.

2
State Bar -Rachel S. Grunberg Notice of Disciplinary Charges
The State Bar Trial Counsel should read my enclosed Request for Review of the State Bar of
California’s decision issued on January 18, 2019 by Deputy Trial Counsel Drew Aresca in my
complaints against Porter Scott attorneys Daniel Bardzell and David Burkett. You will find that
their actions in the Sacramento County Superior Court were very well coordinated with the dates
in your December 20, 2018 Notice of Disciplinary Charges that shows Douglas Stein failed to be
in compliance with the disciplinary probation in State Bar Case No. 15-0-10110 and the Supreme
Court Order dated March 1, 2018. Furthermore, I noticed that your office waited quite a long
time to initiate action against Stein for noncompliance and filed new disciplinary charges after
the oral argument in the 3DCA on December 12, 2018 in Case No. C079254 Waszczuk v. CUIAB
and seven days prior to 3DCA Justice Elena Duarte delivering the unbelievably discriminatory
and slanderous unpublished opinion on the appeal.

In 2018–2019, State Bar action to address Douglas Stein’s noncompliance was very similar to
the State Bar’s approach to the issue when State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Laura Huggins, with
investigator Laura Sharek, coordinated their charges against Stein with action in the District
Court of Appeals in Appellate Case No. C079524 Waszczuk v. The Regents of University of
California (Anti-SLAPP Motion appeal), which I addressed in my November 22, 2017 response
to their Stipulation: Facts, Conclusion of Law and Disposition and Order Approving, filed on
October 24, 2017 http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/15-O-10110-2.pdf (Attachment # 4 -
On Flash Drive ).

It is very odd that such an experienced attorney like Douglas Stein is ignoring a Supreme Court
Order and Disciplinary Charges and giving up his eligibility to practice law, which is supposed
to be his source of income. I would like to mention that in November 2014, Stein was completely
broke financially. He did not even have a bank account other than my $20,000 retainer account
in Wells Fargo Bank. In November 2014, I offered him an additional $20,000 to get help with
my two cases that he represented for me. He did not respond to my offer and shortly after the
Wells Fargo retainer account became insufficient with a negative balance in December 2014.

However, when I questioned Stein in December 2014 about what happened to my money, he told
me that I should not worry about it because he would get money in January 2015 and would pay
me back what he had spent for his needs. I fired him for not objecting to the Anti-SLAPP Motion
and for colluding with Porter Scott attorney Michael Pott who quit Porter Scott half an hour after
I filed my Opposition to the Anti-SLAPP Motion on January 23, 2015. It is appear from the
facts and my research that price tag for Douglas Stein to eliminate my two lawsuits in
cooperation with Porter Scott attorneys was approximately $300,000.

After reading the charges and lack of Stein’s response, I suspect that Stein is being advised by
someone experienced who knows how to handle the State Bar to ignore the Supreme Court’s
Orders and Notice of Disciplinary charges. This looks like a tactical move to give up his

3
State Bar -Rachel S. Grunberg Notice of Disciplinary Charges
eligibility to practice law and escape from eventual criminal prosecution for theft of money from
his client. The perfect advisor for Douglas Stein would be Porter Scott attorney Thomas
Riordan with his experiences . http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/02-O-11078.pdf.
(Attachment # 5 -On Flash Drive ).

If the State Bar Trial Counsel googles Douglas Stein’s current address and see his house
regardless if the house is his or is rental than might find that Stein is in a lot better financial
shape today than he was in 2014. Maybe he got paid a lot of money in January 2015.

Despite all this, I never received any money from the EDD. In 2014, I was represented
(misrepresented) by legal counsel Douglas Stein (State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110-
LMA; Stein on Discipline, which is the California Supreme Court Order dated March 1, 2018,
Supreme Court Case S245982) It is not difficult to conclude that if I was informed that my
unemployment benefits were restored in May 2014, then the EDD most likely information about
to the University of California, Davis as well as attorneys from UC Office of General Counsel
and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board represented by an attorney from the office of
California Attorneys General Ashante Norton and Ismail Castro. Someone stopped the EDD
from sending me EDD’s Debit Card or EDD’s Debit Card was sent to Stein’s home address
and the case was dragged on for another five years up to the Supreme Court twice. I don’t see
this as attorney misconduct, I view it as a criminal offense. I am hoping that State Bar
Investigators would help me find out what happened or perhaps I have to file complaint with
District Attorney office .
In March 2016, I filed a complaint against 23 attorneys, including four attorneys from UC Office
of General Counsel—Charles Robinson, Margaret Wu, Cynthia Vroom, and Karen Petrulakis,
who represented Real Party In Interest (RPii)—along with AG attorneys Ashante Norton and
Ismail Castro who represented CUIAB. The information about restoration of my unemployment
insurance benefits by EDD was sent to the State Bar of California on as the Exhibit # 127
(Attachment # 6 -On Flash Drive )attached to my March 23, 2016 complaint against 23
attorney who were involved one way or another in witch hunt against me . The full 03/23/2016
complain with exhibits is uploaded to enclosed Flash Drive .

I fired my attorney, Douglas Stein, in December 2014, and the RPii attorneys from UC Office
of General Counsel were substituted in 2015 by Porter Scott attorney David Burkett.

I am not sure whether I should request the State Bar of California to reopen the case against all
the attorneys involved in my Unemployment Insurance Benefits Case, or if this notification will
be sufficient for the State Bar to investigate the matter and discover what happened to my
unemployment insurance benefits that were restored in May 2014 then disappeared without
trace and any explanation in May 2014, along with State Bar Investigator Amanda Gormley and
my complaint against Stein in October 2015.

4
State Bar -Rachel S. Grunberg Notice of Disciplinary Charges
I would greatly appreciate it if the State Bar Client Security Fund could reimburse me at least
part of what Douglas Stein stole from me in 2014, which is a total of $14,694.33. Some of that
money would be good to have returned to me now so I can recover some of my losses caused by
Douglas Stein and his collaborators from the Attorney General’s office and the Porter Scott Law
Firm. This would suffice for now until the State Bar resolves the disciplinary issues against
Stein. If I were younger and still working, the situation would not be so urgent and most likely I
would take a different approach to the problem. I am a victim in this complaint, and I should not
beg for my stolen money. (Attachment # 7 -On Flash Drive )

Within a few days I will prepare and submit a request for documents in relation to latest charges
against Douglas Stein

I appreciate the Senior Trial Counsel’s feedback and prompt response in this matter.

Sincerely,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

CC: Supreme Court of California


State Bar Client Security Fund

Enclosed

5
State Bar -Rachel S. Grunberg Notice of Disciplinary Charges
DECLARATION OF MAILING

I, Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a Plaintiff and Appellant in this , declare under penalty of perjury
that I have this day March 20, 2019 mailed by electronic mail and by U.S Priority Mail ,
postage fully prepaid, a true and correct copy of Inquiry addressed to Senior Trial
Counsel RACHEL S. GRUNBERG , the Reimbursement of Theft or an Act Equivalent to
Theft Perpetrated by Attorney Douglas Stein, SB #131248
RE: State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110- LMA [18-F-16299]
RE: California Supreme Court Case S245982, In re Douglas Edward Stein on Discipline
RE: State Bar Court Case Nos. 18-0-16529; 18-N-16452 In the Matter of Douglas Edward
Stein SB #131248 to each of the parties listed below.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Sent by Truefiling


350 McAllister St,
San Francisco , CA 94102

The State Bar of California


COMPLAINT REVIEW UNIT
Office of General Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1617

DREW ARESCA, Deputy Trail Counsel Drew.Aresca@Calbar.Ca.Gov


OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL/INTAKE
The State Bar of California
845 S. Figueroa St.
Los Angeles, Ca 90017-2515

RACHEL S. GRUNBERG, Senior Trial Counsel Rachel.Grunberg@calbar.ca.gov


State Bar of California
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639

Executed in Lodi , California on March 20, 2019

____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk

6
State Bar -Rachel S. Grunberg Notice of Disciplinary Charges
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
Email: jjw1980@live.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,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

Petitioner and Appellant in Pro Per

PETITION FOR REVIEW C079254


IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,
Defendant and Respondent;
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

___________________________________________

APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW

_______________________________________

AFTER THE DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEAL


THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CASE NO. C079254
Sacramento County No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com

-1-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
II. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND WASZCZUK’S ALLEGED
MISCODUCT WHICH DISQUALIFIED HIM FROM RECEIVING
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS .................... 7
A. Misconduct as interpreted by the Unemployment Insurance Code, section
1256 5
B. The story behind RPii’s “witch hunt” against Waszczuk in 2006–2009 and
in 2011–2012 ……………………………

III. APPELLANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER THE CAUSES ....... 12


A. Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al.,
3DCA Case No. C079254 ............................................................ 12
B. State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110-LM and Supreme Court
Case S245982……………………………………………………..14

IV. 12/27/2018 UNPUBLISHED OPINION IN CASE NO. C079254 -


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

V. REASONS TO GRANT WASZCZUK PETITION FOR REVIEW


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

-2-
Petition for Review
D. Administrative Law Judge Marylin Tay’s biased decision dated
February 14, 2013, and the California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board decision dated May 31, 2013. …………………...23

E. The CUIAB and RPii filed frivolous demurrers in April 2014 in


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

K. Oral Arguments on December 12, 2018…………...…………….30


VI. CONCLUSION ………………………………………..…………30

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE………………………………….35
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC AND BY US
MAIL……………………………………………….…………………….36

EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT “ A” December 17, 2018 -3DCA Unpublished Opinion in Case
No. C079254 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board ………………………………………………………………1
EXHIBIT “B’ -3DCA January 17, 2019 Order denying Waszczuk Petition
for Rehearing ………………………………………………………...……1

-3-
Petition for Review
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 671,
678.)………………………………………………………………………...7

Art Madrid v. Perot System Corporation et al. Case No. C046683, cited as
3DCA Case: [130 Cal.App.4th 440, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 210].
.................................................................... ………….…...…………....9, 17
Paratransit Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551,
558 (Paratransit)
[S204221]………………………………………...…............................….17
Melissa G. v. Raymond M., B284031 (September 20, 2018) Cal. App. Dist.
2…………………...………………………………………………………27
California Custom Coach, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal. App. 3rd 333, 338
Williams Construction, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School Dist. (2007) 146 Cal.
App. 4th 757, 763)………………………………………………...………27

STATUTES
Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256 ........................................ …..7
Unemployment Insurance Code, section1142(a)……………………...…..21
Business and Professions Code, section 6140.5………………..…………14
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT
California Rules of Court Rule 8.500 (a) ......................... …………………1
California Rules of Court, rule 10.1000 ………………………………….12
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a) (2)……………………………..………27
California Rules of Court 8.204 (a) (1) (B),………………………………
California Rules of Court, rule 8.252………………..……………………29
California Rules rule 8.23………………………….…………………………….26
California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b)…………………………………………..26

-4-
Petition for Review
OTHER AUTHORITIES

2005 Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Interview with The


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

PETITION FOR REVIEW


-5-
Petition for Review
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE
AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I. INTRODUCTION

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

Simultaneously with the petition for a Writ of Mandamus, on December 4,


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

-6-
Petition for Review
case is Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California Case No.
C079524. https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C079524.PDF

Waszczuk apologizes to the Supreme Court Justices that this Petition for
Review in some parts sounds more like a complaint with the State of
California Commission on Judicial Performance against six 3DCA Justices
rather than a request for review of Waszczuk case .

However , Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, in a 2005 interview with


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

A. Misconduct as interpreted by the Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256


The Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256, disqualifies an employee from
receiving unemployment compensation benefits if he or she has been discharged for
misconduct. Misconduct as understood within section 1256 involves a willful or wanton
disregard for an employer's interests, or such carelessness or negligence as to manifest
equal culpability. It does not include, among other things, errors in judgment made in
good faith (Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 671, 678.)

Waszczuk urges the Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court's published decisions
because Waszczuk’s employment with the University of California UC Davis Medical
Center (RPii) from June 17, 1999 to September 31, 2011 was not marred by any
misconduct, good faith error, insubordination, or any wrong doing and because no harm
was done to the university or its activities by Waszczuk. Waszczuk his being hunted

-7-
Petition for Review
down (like a Jew during the Holocaust in his native country Poland during War II) by
the University and by the California Court judges and justices for the completely
different reason than the despicable unfounded accusations produced by the RPii’s
witch hunters . Waszczuk only found out why it was that he was being hunted down
like an animal in June 2015, three years after the termination of his employment, due to
Superior Court Judge Shelleyan Chang’s decision of March 2, 2015, in which she
disclosed that she had worked together with ALJ Marilyn Tays in Governor Davis
office. Furthermore, on August 6, 2012, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor, Dr.
Shelton Duruisseau, gave an interview to the Sacramento-based African-American
magazine, Sac Cultural Hub, regarding the whistle blowing on the Regents power sale
from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant at gouged or overcharged Megawatts
prices, together with Enron during the California Energy Crisis.

In this interview with Sac Cultural Hub, Dr. Shelton Duruisseau stated that:

“Internally, I convinced the university to build its own central plant because we
recognized our patients come into the hospital on ventilators, etc. They couldn’t be
disrupted, so by having our own central plant the health system doesn’t depend on
any central outfit to supply water, power, etc. SMUD [and] PG&E are backup
systems for us. We sold enough power to the state for the central plant to be paid for
in the first four years. Lots of energy companies like Enron, all around the country,
caused prices to go up. The plant provides stable power for the campus without
interruption and without blackouts. This plant was built out for 50 years capacity;
we are only using 9%, so we have lots of room built in for growth.”
http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-look-back
From the interview with Dr. Duruisseau, which Waszczuk came across in March 2014,
and from Judge Chang’s disclosure about her tenure with ALJ Tays in Gov. Davis
office, it was not difficult for Waszczuk to conclude that the UC Davis 27 MW
cogeneration power plant, named the Central Plant, where Waszczuk was employed
from June 1999 to April 2007, did not meet the requirements of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA). These mandated that any cogeneration facility, certified and recognized
legally as a “qualified cogeneration facility” must meet special requirements for the
ratio between electric energy production and thermal energy.

-8-
Petition for Review
Dr. Shelton Duruisseau, who was in charge of diversity and inclusion at the UC Davis
Health System (UCDHS), was also a Member of the California Medical Board, having
been appointed in 2004 to the Board by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397955146/Dr-Shelton-Duruisseau

A. The story behind RPii’s “witch hunt” against Waszczuk in 2006–2009 and
in 2011–2012
To cut a long story short, Waszczuk was hired by RPii in June 1999 as an operator in
the newly commissioned 27 MW cogeneration plant which triggered in May 2000, a
sophisticated and costly fraudulent scheme called “the California Energy Crisis”. The
UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) plant in which Waszczuk was employed was
solely built to illegally sell power tax-free at cost of California ratepayers and tax
payers. The California Energy Crisis was created in a sophisticated way by the authors
and coauthors of the 1996 Assembly Bill 1890 (“AB 1890” or “Electricity Restructuring
Act”) and the Act of September 23, 1996, 1996 Cal. Legis. Serv. 854 (A.B. 1890)
(West). This was signed into law by Governor Pete Wilson.
ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-
96/bill/asm/ab_18511900/ab_1890_bill_960924_chaptered.htm

To make the fraudulent scheme developed by the AB 1890 successful, the California
Government in created a joint venture in 1998 between the University of California,
California State University, Enron Corporation, California Independent System
Operator (CAISO), and California Power Exchange (CalPX), designed to launder
electricity via the UC and CSU campuses at gouged or overcharged prices by using
sophisticated equipment. Art Madrid v. Perot System Corporation et al. Case No.
C046683, cited as 3DCA Case: [130 Cal.App.4th 440, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 210].
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1352785.html
Prior to working for the University of California UC Davis Medical Center, Waszczuk
was employed by Enron’s competitor, the Dynegy Power Corp, from 1989 to February
1998 as an operator in their 50 MW cogeneration plant, which is similar to the UCDMC
plant.

-9-
Petition for Review
Former Attorney General Bill Lockyer described Waszczuk’s previous employer
Dynegy as a one the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who rode in from Texas and
ran roughshod over California consumers, taxpayers and businesses.”
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-lockyer-announces-460-million-
settlement-reliant-resolve-energy
Between 1989 and 1997 Dynegy Power Corporation defrauded PG&E, ratepayers and
California taxpayers of $240,000,000.

ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/LegacyCPUCDecisionsAndResolutions/Decisions/Decisions_D9
901001_to_D0006092/D9910016_19991007_A9904009.pdf

California Public Utilities Commission - OPINION ON 2000 ANNUAL


TRANSITION COST PROCEEDING Decision 03-02-047 February 27,
2003
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/WORD_PDF/FINAL_DECISION/2
4198.PDF

2. Disputed settlement costs of $194,860 in the Jaroslaw Waszcuk v.


PG&E case are Qualifying Facility (QF) related costs and appropriately
recorded in the TCBA.
In 2004, Bill Lockyer’s “California Parties” and California Energy Task Force got a
kick-back from Dynegy Power corporation amounting to $280,000,000 and in 2005 it
received $460,000,000 from Reliant Energy. Bill Lockyer cashed out approximately
$20,000,000 for his offices in California.

The Mayor of La Mesa Art Madrid and his legal team almost solved the puzzle
called “The California Energy Crisis.” However, their effort became “a mission
impossible” when his complaints against CAISO and Perot Corporation were
transferred to the Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District. In April 2007, Waszczuk was abruptly removed from the
UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant and was replaced by a 37-
year-old friend of Waszczuk’s supervisor, Steve McGrath. Three years later, this
man was found dead, hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park. The two

- 10 -
Petition for Review
Directors of UCDMC, Robert Taylor and Director Dr. Shelton Duruisseau, are
assumed to be behind the job replacement for Waszczuk by an unqualified person
and behind the 2011–2012 witch hunt as well.

A second suicide occurred when the wife of the same supervisor, Steve McGrath,
a 41-year-old RN Nurse from Jackson Hospital, took her own life.

Another sudden and mysterious death, apparently related to the witch hunt against
Waszczuk and the illegal sale of power, was the death of UC Davis Chancellor
Emeritus, Larry Vanderhoof, who died in the UC Davis Medical Center on
October 15, 2015, two days after Waszczuk filed his Opposition to the
Defendants’ Motion for Automatic Stay, or the Alternative Motion for a
Discretionary Stay. This was filed on October 13, 2015 (ROA #111). (See
Waszczuk’s 2016 letter addressed to Congressman John Garamendi)

https://www.scribd.com/document/390511699/SI-22-U-S-Senator-Garamendi-
UC-Davis-Chancellor-Larry-Vanderhoef
The brutal and merciless witch hunts against Waszczuk, for no apparent reason
whatsoever, cost the University of California or the owners of the UCDMC 27
MW cogeneration losses of approximately $100,000,000 in revenue, tax-free, due
to a lack of surplus power for sale since February 2009.In April 2007 Regents
abruptly removed Waszczuk from the cogeneration facility than in February
2009, Regents signed a written Settlement Agreement with Waszczuk and ceased
the export of power from the UCDMC plant . Waszczuk was not aware about
until June -July 2015.
The case is pending in the U.S Tax Court in relation to the above matter .
The 2009 Settlement Agreement with the Regents of University of California cost
Waszczuk at least $1,000,000 in loss in income, while his house and life were
decimated by UC gangsters and the California Justice System.
In relation to the California Energy Crisis puzzle, Waszczuk wrote in his August
2018 report, as submitted to the new FBI Special Agent in Charge of the
Sacramento FBI Office Mr. Sean Ragan

- 11 -
Petition for Review
• It is still unknown whether the 2000–2003 sophisticated scheme of fraud
and deception, which was labeled the “California Energy Crisis” and
which caused losses to the California economy of 40 billion dollars was
deliberately sabotaged by power-greedy corporations to make billions of
dollars by laundering megawatts, or whether the man-made “energy crisis”
was a coordinated act of terror synchronized with the September 11, 2001
terrorist attack on US soil. This was accompanied by intensified terrorist
attacks against the United States abroad during the period of the California
electricity deregulation and the California Energy Crisis.
• Whether a foreign terrorist network or a foreign power penetrated or
infiltrated the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the
California Power Exchange (CalPX), the University of California and the
Californian government during the process of the California electricity
market deregulation of 1996–1998, and whether this was done to
destabilize the Californian and US economy by manipulating the
electricity market in the Western states power grid, is the question that
should be asked and answered by the FBI. A 40-billion-dollar loss by the
Californian economy and California’s rate payers and tax payers is not
small change but an enormous amount of money which disappeared and
was never recovered.

III. APPELLANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER THE CAUSES

A. Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al., 3DCA


Case No. C079254
On December 1, 2017, Waszczuk filed in the California Supreme Court an
Appellant's Motion for Transfer the Causes, pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 10.1000 and the California Constitution Article VI Sec.12.
[Supreme Court Case No. S245879].

https://www.scribd.com/document/397957647/SUPRA-S245508-3DCA-
C079254-CUIAB-Motion-to-Move-Causes-pdf
Waszczuk did not see any reason to pursue his appeal further in the 3DCA
after that court issued an unbelievably discriminatory, prejudicial, biased,
accusatory, demeaning, and defamatory 14-page unpublished opinion on
October 10, 2017, in the cross-referenced case Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California Case No. C079524 (anti-SLAPP motion) and
after the 3DCA denied the Petition for Rehearing on November 9, 2017.
- 12 -
Petition for Review
Waszczuk made no mistakes in 2017 by filing the motion with the Supreme
Court to transfer the causes.

On January 10, 2018, Supreme Court Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye denied
Waszczuk’s Motion to Transfer Causes in Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board et al. Case No. C079254 and denied the Petition for Review in
the cross-referenced Waszczuk v. the Regents of the University of California et al. Case
No. C079524.
The issuance of a decision in both cases on the same day, January 10, 2018, makes
Waszczuk believe that not one of the Supreme Court justices ever saw or reviewed
Waszczuk’s Petition for Review in Case No. C079524 and Motion to Transfer Cause in
Case No. C079254. In March 2018, Waszczuk exchanged correspondence on this
matter with Supreme Court Clerk and Executive Officer Mr. Jorge E. Navarrete. In
response to Waszczuk’s inquiry dated March 21, 2018, Deputy Clerk Mr. Robert R.
Toy wrote:

Dear Mr. Waszczuk:

Thank you for submitting your letter. Please rest assured, that the petition, and
the contentions made therein, were considered by the entire court, and the
denial expresses the decision of the court on this matter.
Waszczuk didn’t believe that the Supreme Court of California chief justice was
encouraging attorneys to practice law with suspended licenses so as to misrepresent
their clients, steal their retainers, collude with judges and conspire with opposite party
counsels to have their clients thrown out of court, and take bribes from opposite party
counsels. Waszczuk wrote a Motion to Recall the Remittitur in Waszczuk v. Regents of
the University of California et al. Case No. C079524. Waszczuk waited until after
Waszczuk v. the California Unemployment Insurance et al. Case No. C079254 was
resolved to file his motion in the 3DCA.
After oral arguments on December 12, 2018, in Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board et al. Case No. C079254, Waszczuk received from the 3DCA a
despicably discriminatory and biased response in an unpublished opinion on December
27, 2018. His detailed Petition for Rehearing portraying the court’s discrimination and

- 13 -
Petition for Review
bias was denied on January 17, 2018. Waszczuk is afraid to file a Motion to Recall
Remittitur in Waszczuk v. the Regents of the University of California et al. Case No.
C079524, believing that the 3DCA justices will not hesitate to declare the motion
frivolous and sanction Waszczuk or declare Waszczuk a vexatious litigant in retaliation
on behalf of the Regents of the University of California. Waszczuk will ask the
California Commission on Judicial Performance for advice about what to do about the
Motion to Recall Remittitur or maybe the Supreme Court should help and on its own
motion Recall the Remittitur in Case No. C079524 and restore order and justice in the
3DCA.
Waszczuk in his briefs, and especially in the Petition for Rehearing and Petition
for Review in Case No. C079524, provided all the details about how the courts
were biased and had discriminated against him.

https://www.scribd.com/document/397958778/3DCA-C079524-10-25-
2017-SLAPP-Petition-for-Rehearing
https://www.scribd.com/document/397958925/Supra-S245508-11-20-2017-
Slapp-Petition-for-Review
B. State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110-LM and Supreme Court
Case S245982

• Douglas Edward Stein is suspended from the practice of law for a


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

- 14 -
Petition for Review
The 3DCA panel of Justices in the 10/10/2017 unpublished opinion praised
Waszczuk’s counsel, Douglas Stein, who it is alleged stole Waszczuk’s
$20,000, with the following words:

• To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making an ex


parte application to assure the integrity of the document he
inadvertently filed during the briefest of suspensions for a minor
transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He should
be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of the
plaintiff’s interests.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C079524.PDF

It is unbelievable that such words, praising and complimenting the thief Douglas
Stein, licensed by the State Bar of California, came from the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District, where California Supreme Court Justice, Hon. Tani
Cantil-Sakauye served as justice from 2005–2010, and where the 3DCA justices
affirmed the trial Court Judgment.

IV. 12/27/2018 UNPUBLISHED OPINION IN CASE NO. C079254 -


Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et
al. ISSUED ON DECEMBER 27, 2018

A. The 12/27/2018 C079254 Unpublished Opinion.


https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C079254.PDF

In the same manner, in Case No. C0749524, the author of the unpublished
12/12/27 Court Opinion accused Waszczuk of breaking Court Rules with regard
to the Waszczuk Briefs. The fact that 3DCA accusations in the two unpublished
court opinions with regards to the Waszczuk Briefs were unfounded and
ridicules. In facts , the Defendants Reply Brief was stricken in 2016 in Case
No Case No. C079524 and in 2016 the Defendant’s and Respondent’s brief
(CUIAB) were not filed at all. This is the best example and indication of the
discrimination and bias aimed at Waszczuk by the 3DCA Justices.

- 15 -
Petition for Review
In his Petition for a Rehearing, filed on January 11, 2019, and denied by the
order of 3DCA Hon. Cole Blease on January 17, Waszczuk provided detailed
information from the records to show how the 3DCA panel of Justices had
applied a “de novo” standard of review and resolved any evidentiary doubts or
ambiguities in the plaintiff’s favor. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25
Cal.4th 763, 768; https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1072325.html
Aguilar Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843).
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/25/107.html [Petition
for Rehearing, Page 10].
The Waszczuk Petition for a Rehearing is very detailed and portrays how
Waszczuk’s life is being destroyed by the California Justice system on behalf of
the Regents of the University of California and UC President, Janet Napolitano.

https://www.scribd.com/document/397961378/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-01-11-
2019-Petition-for-Rehearing
B. The Oral Argument and the 3DCA Review Panel for Case No.
C079254: Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board.

The case was heard on December 12, 2018 by 3DCA Justice Hon. Cole Blease,
Hon. M. Kathleen Butz, and Hon. Elena J. Duarte. Waszczuk argued for
himself. The CUIAB legal counsel did not show up for the Oral Argument and
David Burkett from the Porter Scott law firm had nothing to say beside
slandering Waszczuk. Waszczuk has fully covered the Oral Argument on[
pages 16–17 of his Petition for Rehearing ]An unpublished opinion was
delivered by 3DCA Justice Hon. Elena J. Duarte five days after the Oral
Argument, on December 17, 2018.

The Waszczuk 3DCA Appeal Case No. C079254 was reviewed by a different
panel than appeal in cross-referenced case No. C079524 Waszczuk v. Regents of
the University of California et, al . 3DCA Justices, the Hon. Elena J. Duarte,
Hon. Cole Blease, and the Hon. M. Kathleen Butz. Hon Cole Blease and Hon.

- 16 -
Petition for Review
M. Kathleen Butz are listed in the C079254 opinion as Concurring Justices.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C079254.PDF

Waszczuk was discriminated against in 2013 by an Employment Development


Department interviewing officer and subsequently by Administrative Law Judge,
Marilyn Tays; by two CUIAB Board Members, Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn;
by trial Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang (in her March 12, 2015 decision); and
now by 3DCA Justices, Hon. Elena J. Duarte, Hon. Cole Blease, and Hon. M.
Kathleen Butz.

Waszczuk addressed Hon. Cole Blease in his Petition for a Rehearing on Pages
28–30 in relation to his dissenting opinion in Paratransit Inc. v. Unemployment
Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 558 (Paratransit) [S204221].
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/paratransit-inc-v-unemployment-ins-appeals-
bd-34332
Hon. Cole Blease denied Waszczuk’s Petition for a Rehearing on January 17,
2019
In Paratransit Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd, it is worth noting that Hon.
Cole Blease was on the 3 DCA review panel with Hon. Rick Sims and Hon.
Harry E. Hull JR. in a case related to the manmade sophisticated fraud named
California Energy Crisis Art Madrid v. Perot System Corporation et al. Case No.
C046683, cited as 3DCA Case:[130 Cal.App.4th 440, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 ].
This could explain Hon. Cole Blease’s apparent 180 degree turn in his approach
to humanitarian causes regarding unemployment in Waszczuk’s appeal versus
that of Craig Medeiros in Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.
(2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 558 (Paratransit) [S204221].

3DCA Justice Hon M. Kathleen Butz is a former UC Davis employee, who


ordered in 2015 that both Waszczuk’s appeals, Case No. C079524 (anti -SLAPP
motion) and C079254 (Writ of Mandamus) are not eligible for mediation.

- 17 -
Petition for Review
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963082/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-
06182015-Mediation-Statement-Denied-Hon-Butz

Waszczuk is especially concerned about his detailed 69-page Mediation


Statement in Case C079524 (anti-SLAPP), in which Waszczuk on Douglas Stein
gross misconduct which cost Waszczuk $20,000 of his retainer, stolen by his
attorney, Douglas Stein, who colluded with the Porter Scott attorneys, not to
mention a $3000 cost for Clerk Transcripts and filing.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397962401/3dca-C079524-07-16-2015-
SLAPP-Appellant-Mediation-Statement

The Hon. M. Kathleen Butz, in this case, did further harm to Waszczuk on behalf
of RPii by participating in issuance of unjust and discriminatory unpublished
opinion dated December 17, 2018.
Waszczuk had especially focused in the Mediation Statement mentioned above,
on February 2009, Settlement Agreement. Waszczuk had signed with Regents in
good faith after Waszczuk had defeated Regents in the arbitration process and he
was hoping that filing the detailed Mediation Statement would resolve the anti-
SLAPP case without occupying the Court for the next two years. Also, in his
Mediation Statement, Waszczuk focused on the UC Davis Policies and
Procedures, and especially on the UC Davis Employee Performance Review
Policy, PPSM 23, pointing out that the progressive discipline policies were
grossly violated and disregarded by the Defendant’s and the Courts . [See :
Appellant Reply Brief ARB 8-16; 39–42].
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963986/3DCA-CUIAB-C79254-ARB-07-
22-2016-Appellant-Reply-Brief

Waszczuk was not provided with an evaluation for the last two years of his
employment with the university. The Hon. M. Kathleen Butz is a former UC
Davis employee and Waszczuk believes that she is familiar with UC Davis
policies and knows how important an annual evaluation is for every employee of
the University of California, regardless of whether it is a good or bad evaluation.

- 18 -
Petition for Review
As a former UC Davis employee, Hon. M. Kathleen Butz should have excluded
herself from the review panel instead of participating and discriminating against
Waszczuk. It is contended that her intention was to harm him on behalf of her
former employer.
3DCA Justice Hon. Elena J. Duarte is the Justice who delivered the final blow to
Waszczuk on January 17, 2019 in the form of an unpublished opinion that was
biased and outrageously discriminatory to Waszczuk. This was a disgrace to the
California Justice system as it not only violated Waszczuk’s right to equal access
to justice as a US and Californian taxpayer, but also violated 68 years of
Waszczuk’s human rights, and further destroyed Waszczuk and his family’s
normal existence.

It was no coincidence that Justice Duarte was chosen for this dirty job intended
to harm Waszczuk. She caught Waszczuk’s attention because she was employed
from 2000 to 2007 in the Los Angeles Office of the United States Attorney,
where she worked as an Assistant United States Attorney, first in the Major
Frauds Section and later in the Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section,
becoming Section Chief in 2005.

https://www.courts.ca.gov/12930.htm

In September 2017, President of the University, Janet Napolitano, hired Mr.


Alexander Bustamante as a new Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance
and Audit Officer, in the Office of the President, with an annual basic salary of
$350,000.

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-names-alexander-
bustamante-chief-compliance-and-audit-officer
Mr. Bustamante served as an assistant U.S. attorney with Hon. Elena Duarte for
the Central District of California in the same Los Angeles U.S Attorney office
from 2002–2007. It is not the first time that UC President Janet Napolitano has
employed her former colleagues to conduct witch hunts to eliminate the
- 19 -
Petition for Review
university’s adversaries. In 2016, Ms. Napolitano employed, for $1,000,000, two
former US attorneys, Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, to hunt down UC
Davis Chancellor Linda Kathi and her family to bring her down and to convert
Ms. Katehi from UC Davis Chancellor to Chancellor Emerita at cost of
$1,000,000 of public funds. Ms. Napolitano was deployed to the University of
California in August–September 2013 by President Barak Obama at the same
time that the Californian Governor deployed his Chief Deputy Jacob Appelsmith
to UC Davis as a new Chief Counsel. As a result, in July 2015, the arch enemy of
the UCOP corrupt establishment, the very popular Senator Leland Yee, author of
the Senate Bill SB 650 and an audit aimed at corruption in the UC System, was
convinced by Ms. Napolitano’s friend, Melinda Haag’s plea bargain, to go to
federal prison for five years.

https://www.scribd.com/document/397965046/07012015-USA-v-Leland-Yee-
Plea-Agreement-1-1-pdf
This coincidently happened at the same time that Waszczuk provided
information to the UC legal counsels from Porter Scott about the unlawful
operation of the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant. On
October 15, 2015, the UC Davis Chancellor, who in 2009 was ordered to sign
the Settlement-Agreement with Waszczuk was euthanized in the UC Davis
Medical Center. This was coincidently two days after Waszczuk provided
information to the Court about the enormous violation by the Regents concerning
tax fraud in relation to the illegal sale of power from the UCDMC 27-megawatt
cogeneration plant (ARB 51-52).

https://www.scribd.com/document/390511699/SI-22-U-S-Senator-Garamendi-
UC-Davis-Chancellor-Larry-Vanderhoef
Waszczuk will follow up with his own inquiry and will ask the FBI Special
Agent in Charge, Mr. Sean Ragan from the Sacramento FBI field office, whether
he knows Justice Duarte. Mr. Ragan was transferred from the Los Angeles FBI
to the Sacramento FBI office. In March–August 2016, UC Davis Chancellor
- 20 -
Petition for Review
Linda Katehi was the next candidate for UC President Janet Napolitano to be
persuaded to sign a plea bargain and to fo11ow Senator Leland to the federal
prison after an unsuccessful attempt to remove Chance11or Katehi from her post
by November 18, 201 1, fo11owing a pepper spray provocation.

V. REASONS TO GRANT WASZCZUK PETITION FOR REVIEW AND


REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION.

A. The Respondent, RPii, failed to provide in December 2012 a timely


response to the Employment Development Department (EDD) to the
unemployment insurance claim Waszczuk filed with the EDD on December
16, 2012.

The Rpii, UC Davis HR Unemployment Insurance (UI) Coordinator Holly Sohor, failed
to timely respond (AR-139) to the Waszczuk claim and lied to the EDD claim reviewer
about the reason for the response being late; thus, the RPii violated Section 1142(a) of
the UI Code which provides:
That an employer who willfully makes a false statement or representation,
or willfully fails to report a material fact in connection with a separation
issue may be assessed a penalty of up to 10 times the claimant's weekly
benefit amount.
Waszczuk fully described the UI Coordinator's lies about her late response to the EDD
in his [Petition for Rehearing on pages 18-21 ] Administrative Record (AR 139-141)

https://www.scribd.com/document/397969304/3DCA-EDD-1-2-2013-RPil- Late­
Response-to-EDD-UI-Claim-N otification-AR-139-141

B. The EDD failed to resolve the conflicting information about Waszczuk's


unlawful termination of employment by the RPii.

On January 8, 2013, the EDD interviewed UCDMC Plant Operation (PO&M)


Department Administrative Supervisor Phyllis Reginelli (AR 133- 136). Ms. Reginelli
testified during the interview that August 31, 2011, was the date of Waszczuk's
employment termination and that December 5, 2012, was his last day of work or more
precisely the last day of forced leave since August 31 , 2011.(LDW) (AR 133) not day
of termination .

- 21 -
Petition for Review
Ms. Reginelli’s January 8, 2013, interview testimony about Waszczuk’s termination of
employment on August 31, 2011, corresponds with the facts Waszczuk provided in AR
545-547 and the information Waszczuk provided in the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal
(CT 00188,000189,00190) [Petition for Rehearing, pages 22-23 .] (AR 133-136)

https://www.scribd.com/document/397969833/3DCA-EDD-01-01-04-Record-of-Claim-
Status-Interview-Misconduct-AR-133-136
EDD ignored Waszczuk’s information about his unlawful termination of employment
and failed to resolve conflicted Waszczuk information

C. The EDD failed to appear at the hearing with Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Marilyn Tays on February 13, 2013.

The Notice of the Hearing clearly instructed the EDD to appear in person, but the EDD
representative did not show and during and after the hearing ALJ acted as if nothing
had happened. ALJ Tays pleased the RPii by defaming Waszczuk in her decision and
affirmed her hateful behavior toward Waszczuk in her decision. The EDD officer could
have provided information about Waszczuk’s ill-planned employment termination on
September 23, 2011, information the EDD received by interviewing UCDMC PO&M
Department Administrative Secretary Phyllis Reginelli on January 8, 2013 (AR 133). In
addition to the EDD officer’s absence from the hearing, ALJ Marlin Tays quickly
neutralized Waszczuk’s witness and former coworker William Buckans and did not let
him testify. Waszczuk’s witness William Buckans was the person who on September
23, 2011, at 8:45 a.m., alerted Waszczuk and department management by e-mail about
Waszczuk’s RPii employment termination on September 23, 2011. The date of
Waszczuk’s unlawful termination of employment was confirmed by the RPii’s
administrative secretary Phillis Reginelli on January, 8, 2013, in an interview with the
EDD, See: [ Petition for Rehearing, page 25 .] (AR -35)

https://www.scribd.com/document/397970483/3DCA-CUIAB-01-31-2013-Notice-of-
Hearing-with-ALJ-M-Tays-AR-35

- 22 -
Petition for Review
D. Administrative Law Judge Marylin Tay’s biased decision dated February
14, 2013, and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
decision dated May 31, 2013.

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

In addition, Waszczuk in his Appellant Opening Brief (AOB) on page 14 and


Appellant Reply Brief (ARB) on pages 45-47 informed the Court of Appeal that
he submitted a complaint to CUIAB’s Chief Administrative Law Judge Ms. Elise
Rose and CUIAB Chief Counsel Mr. Kim Steinhardt against ALJ Marylin Tays
and two CUIAB members, Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn. CUIAB’s Chief
Counsel Kim Steinhardt apparently conducted an investigation, and the EDD in
May 2014 informed Waszczuk that Waszczuk’s unemployment insurance
benefits were restored.

https://www.scribd.com/document/398000531/3DCA-EDD-05-14-2014-EDD-
REINSTATED-WASZCZUK-UI-BENEFITS
However, Waszczuk never received any money from the EDD. In 2014, Waszczuk was
represented (misrepresented) by legal counsel Douglas Stein [State Bar of California
Case No. 15-O-10110-LMA; STEIN ON DISCIPLINE, which is the California
Supreme Court Order dated March 1, 2018, Supreme Court Case S245982][ Petition for
Rehearing, page 14 .]

E. The CUIAB and RPii filed frivolous demurrers in April 2014 in trial
court.
In April 2014, California Attorney General Deputy Ashante Norton, who represented
and still represents CUIAB in absentia, in a coordinated action with four attorneys from
the UC Office of the General Counsel representing the RPii, Cinthia Vroom, Charles
Robinson, Margaret Wu, and Karen Petrulakis, in collaboration with Waszczuk’s
attorney, Douglas Stein, filed a frivolous demurrer to delay the legal process and to end

- 23 -
Petition for Review
the Waszczuk Petition of Writ of Mandate (CT 16-23; 35-37). The allegation of the
CUIAB and RPii was that Waszczuk filed the Petition for Writ on December 2, 2013,
two days after the statute of limitations had run out and that Waszczuk had violated
Unemployment Insurance Code § 410. The demurrer was removed from the court
calendar by the CUIAB on (CT p. 00038) after Waszczuk exchanged correspondence
with Norton. Waszczuk counsel Stein did not want to file an objection to the CUIAB
and RPii demurrer, and Waszczuk should have fired him rather than hire him in May
2014 for the wrongful termination case, paying him a $20,000 retainer which he spent
on drugs and other private purchases. See: [Petition for Rehearing, pages 14, 20; AOB
page 16 . ]

On December 16, 2016, Waszczuk dismissed his counsel Douglas Stein from both the
wrongful termination case and the Petition for Writ of Mandate due to Stein’s gross
misconduct, misrepresentation, and collaboration with UC Regents’ attorneys to harm
Waszczuk. However, after Waszczuk dismissed Stein on December 16, 2016, Stein
refused to sign a Substitution of Attorney and wrote the Petitioner’s Opening Brief (CT-
00050-00075), which he delivered to Waszczuk’s home in Lodi on January 13, 2014
(last day to file Brief), together with the Substitution of Attorney (CT p. 91) and
Administrative Record file (CT pp. 00053-00088). January 14, 2014, was the last day to
file the Petitioner’s Opening Brief; thus, Waszczuk had no time to read what Stein had
written and filed the brief as is on January 14, 2015. On top of this, Waszczuk had to
deal with an anti-SLAPP motion filed by the University of California (UC) Regents
counsel on December 1, 2014, and Stein failed to object to the motion by the due date
of December 16, 2014

In December 2014 and January 2015 Waszczuk had no much clue what the Writ of
Mandamus and anti-SLAPP motion stand for. Never heard about.

Waszczuk in June 2014 had not realized that after the CUIAB and RPii demurrer failed
to remove Waszczuk from the Court. Stein, in collaboration with RPii counsel Michael
Pott, who was handling the RPii’s wrongful termination case, purposely set the hearing
date for the Petition for Writ of Mandate for February 27, 2015, two months after the
hearing for the anti-SLAPP motion scheduled for December 30, 2014. Stein had no

- 24 -
Petition for Review
desire to object to the UC Regents anti-SLAPP motion for the price of the approximate
$300,000 payoff end Waszczuk’s wrongful termination and writ of mandamus litigation
together in January 2015.

F. The trial Court Decision of March 2, 2015, and the CUIAB’s attorney
Ashante Norton’s violation of the California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b).
After the recorded Court hearing on February 27, 2015 the trial court judge Hon.
Shelleyanne Chang, issued her court decision, which was a copy and paste document
with statements taken from the February 14, 2013, ALJ Marilyn Tays decision, the
May 31, 2013, CUIAB decision issued by the redacted Respondent’s Statement in
Support of Decision filed in the Court on February 2, 2015, (CT pp. 00094-00104) and
the RPii’s slanderous and libelous Opposition to Writ of Mandamus filed on February 2,
2015 (CT pp. 00124-00141).

https://www.scribd.com/document/397971789/3DCA-Writ-2-27-2015-Hearing-Court-
Reporter-Transcript
On top of this, Hon. Chang Completely disregarded Waszczuk’s Petitioner Reply Brief
(PRB) even though the Court had been informed that it was impossible for Waszczuk to
write a Petitioner Opening Brief because Waszczuk could not get the file and
substitution for attorney from Douglas Stein until January 13, 2015 (CT p. 00173).
The Supreme Court should read Waszczuk’s Petitioner Reply Brief (PRB) which has
enough information needed to reverse the 3DCA unpublished opinion. (CT 00105-
00123)
However, Judge Chang on page 2 of her decision (CT-00170) confirmed that Waszczuk
had not worked from September 1, 2011, to December 5, 2012. It did not seem to bother
her how it was possible that Waszczuk was not working yet violated UC policies, even
being placed on stress-related sick leave for several months by his physician and
psychologist during over his one-year absence, [Petition for Rehearing pages 33-39],
Waszczuk’s detailed absence from work history in 2011-2012 . Waszczuk protested the
CUIAB and RPii’s outrageous, and libelous accusations, which portrayed Waszczuk as
an agitator who wanted to kill Jews in his place of employment. (CT 00128; 00240)
Waszczuk protested such despicable and beyond imagination accusations in his

- 25 -
Petition for Review
February10, 2015, letter Waszczuk sent to Hon. Shelleyanne Chang and Hon. David
Brown in Department 53, which was filed on February 11, 2015 (CT p. 00142).
After the Judge Chang issued decision the CUIAB ‘s Counsel Ashante Norton on
March 5, 2015, sent to Waszczuk a Proposed Order to approve or disprove. Waszczuk
submitted a 20-page long Disproval of the Proposed Order on March 10, 2015, to the
CUIAB counsel (CT pp. 00179- 00199). Waszczuk noted that the CUIAB counsel had
not submitted Waszczuk’s Disproval of the Respondent Order with her Proposed Order,
as is mandated by the California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b). The trial court ignored the
CUIAB counsel’s violation of the California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b) and
disregarded Waszczuk’s Petitioner’s Notice of Objection to Respondent’s Proposed
Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate and Judgment in Favor of Respondent filed
on March 13, 2015, making the RPii and CUIAB winners on 64-year-old Waszczuk and
his family’s suffering and expenses (CT pp. 00212-00261).

G. Record on Appeal

After Waszczuk’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Third Court of Appeal (3DCA)
on May 14, 2015, and after Waszczuk submitted an Appellant Notice Designating
Record on Appeal on June 22, 2015, it took seven months for the Superior Court clerk
from 3DCA to file a notice to prepare one volume of the 284-page clerk’s transcript and
one volume of the 12-page court reporter’s transcript. Waszczuk had to file two separate
motions in 3DCA to get the record on appeal transferred, an April 6, 2016 Motion for
Sanction Pursuant to California Rules rule 8.23 and an April 14, 2016 Motion to
Transmit the Administrative Record, California Rules of Court rule 8.123. Both motions
were denied by the 3DCA P. J Hon Vance Raye All details about the Record on Appeal
are in Waszczuk’s (AOB pp. 19-22)
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963839/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-AOB-07-22-
2016-Appellant-Opening-Brief

H. The CUIAB failure to submit a Respondent Brief on the Appeal due on


September 9, 2016.

In the December 27, 2012, unpublished opinion in Standard of Review on page 7


(EXHIBIT A), the Court bluntly blamed Waszczuk for violating California Rules of

- 26 -
Petition for Review
Court 8.204 (a) (1) (B), but did not specify which of Waszczuk’s briefs violated
California Rules of Court 8.204 (a) (1) (B). Waszczuk wrote two briefs.On the
contrary, the CUIAB failed to submit a Respondent Brief which was due on
September 21, 2016; thus, the Court should decide the appeal on the record of the
opening brief by the appellant (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220 (a) (2) Melissa G.
v. Raymond M., B284031 (September 20, 2018) Cal. App. Dist. 2; Bennett v.
California Custom Coach, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal. App. 3rd 333, 338. See also D.H.
Williams Construction, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School Dist. (2007) 146 Cal. App.
4th 757, 763).

However, the Court did not seem to notice that the CUIAB had not filed a Respondent’s
Brief and it was ok.
In the [Petition for Rehearing , on pages 10-15] Waszczuk provided a detailed response
to the 3DCA author’s nitpicking allegations about Waszczuk’s briefs, including similar
discriminatory allegations in the cross-referenced case Waszczuk v. the Regents of the
University of California Case No. C079524, an unpublished opinion filed on October
10, 2017.
The 3DCA accusations in the Court’s two unpublished opinions in regard to the
Waszczuk briefs make no mention that the Defendant’s and Respondent’s briefs were
stricken or not filed at all. This is the best example of the pattern of discrimination
aimed at Waszczuk by the 3DCA justices.
I. Waszczuk’s request to schedule oral arguments in Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al. 3DCA Case No. C079254.
On August 6, 2018, Waszczuk submitted to the 3DCA a Request to Schedule Oral
Argument in Case No. C079254 pending appeal, which had been pending in the 3DCA
since May 2015.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397972861/3DCA-C079254-08062018-
Request-to-Schedule-Oral-Argument

Along with the Request to Schedule Oral Argument, Waszczuk attached several
exhibits. One of the attached exhibits is the 94-page Plaintiff’s Disproval of the

- 27 -
Petition for Review
Defendants' Proposed Order and Judgment in the cross-referenced Waszczuk v the
Regents of the University of California Case No. C079524.
The plaintiff's Disapproval of the Defendants' Proposed Order addresses in detail the
terror that Waszczuk experienced and witnessed between 2011 and 2012 in his place of
employment, the UC Davis Medical Center. The order describes various incidents that
victimized both Waszczuk and his coworkers. Additionally, from December 2011 to
January 2012, Waszczuk's psychologist, Dr. Franklin Bernhoft, and Bernhoft's family in
Lodi became the targets of coordinated attacks.

The plaintiff's Disapproval of the Defendants' Proposed Order also addressed the
suicide, or more likely homicide, of UC Davis Medical Center employee Todd
Georlich, who replaced Waszczuk in 2007 and was three years later found dead,
hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park. Georlich’s death triggered a massive
witch hunt against Waszczuk, his coworkers, and anyone who was associated with
Waszczuk, including Waszczuk' s physician and psychologist. This witch hunt resulted
in Waszczuk's termination of employment in September 2011; his final day on the
University of California payroll was December 5, 2012. Due to this witch hunt,
Waszczuk's subsequent losses in income, benefits, and property have exceeded
$1,000,000, and Waszczuk’s family life was devastated.

On August 21, 2018, the 3DCA denied Waszczuk’s request for scheduling oral
arguments. However, on October 1, 2018, a 3DCA clerk sent Waszczuk a notification
that the court was prepared to render a decision in the above case without hearing oral
arguments. Two days later, on October 3, 2018, two RPii attorneys from the Porter
Scott law firm, David Burkett and Daniel Bardzell, filed a Motion to Compel; they did
so in the wrong court department in order to sabotage Waszczuk’ wrongful termination
lawsuit and to obtain a court order from a judge who was not presiding over the
Waszczuk wrongful termination case (ROA pp. 151–154). Waszczuk requested oral
arguments in 3DCA appeal Case No. C079254. On October 23, 2018, Waszczuk
received notification from the 3DCA that oral arguments were scheduled for December
12, 2018.

- 28 -
Petition for Review
J. Motion for New Evidence on Appeal

Prior to the oral arguments scheduled for December 12, 2018, Waszczuk, on December
4, 2018, filed a Motion for New Evidence on Appeal pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 8.252 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 909. Most of the new evidence
(documents) Waszczuk received due to the discovery process in the cross-referenced
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California 2013, Sacramento
Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479 were from the
February 13, 2013, hearing with ALJ Marlin Tays or for the February 27, 2015, court
hearing with trial court judge Shelleyanne Chang .

https://www.scribd.com/document/397997431/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-12-042018-
Motion-for-New-Evidence-on-Appeal
This new, clear and undisputable evidence, which Waszczuk wanted to introduced prior
to oral arguments, would show the Court that in 2011 and on September 25, 2012,
Waszczuk was eligible for the Clinical Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2
(“Plan”) CEMRP2 award like any other employee; instead, he was slandered, and
libeled with an RPii Notice to Dismiss and a UC Davis police like most wanted poster,
which included Waszczuk’s photo and description, and which was distributed on and
around UC Davis campuses on September 26, 2012, without Waszczuk’s knowledge.
Waszczuk was harassed, threatened, and terrorized, even during his work-related sick
leave for stress.

CEMRP2, as mentioned above, stands for the University of California Clinical


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

- 29 -
Petition for Review
K. Oral Arguments on December 12, 2018
On December 12, 2018, Waszczuk argued the case for himself in pro per. David Burkett
argued for the RPii and Regents of the University of California. The legal counsel from
the California Attorney General Office Ashante Norton represented the primary
respondent, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB). CUIAB’s
legal counsel Norton did not attend the 15-minute oral arguments at the 3DCA.
Apparently, Norton had nothing to say since she failed to submit a Respondent Brief in
September 2016. She also had nothing to say during the oral arguments in the trial court
Oral Argument in February 2015 (see the February 27, 2015, Reporter Transcript on
Appeal).

https://www.scribd.com/document/397971789/3DCA-Writ-2-27-2015-Hearing-Court-
Reporter-Transcript
Waszczuk fully describes the December 12, 2018, oral arguments in his [Petition for
Rehearing pages 16-18] . Waszczuk and his former coworker from UC Davis Medical
center notice that whole 3DCA Court was reserved only for Waszczuk on that day. It
was very strange .

VI. CONCLUSION

During the course of Waszczuk’s employment with the UC Davis Medical


Center, he provided representation to other non-represented union
employees in their complaints regarding adverse management actions
against them under the UC Davis Compliant Resolution PPSM 70. In his
briefs for the appeals of Case No. C079524 and C079254, he provided
specific information on how detrimentally different the RPii’s treatment of
his case is in comparison to their treatment of employees he represented in
suits of severe adverse management action. Page: 30
(ARB 8-16); this discrepancy is especially noted in the Appellant Reply
Brief (ARB) in the C079254 appeal case.

https://www.scribd.com/document/397963986/3DCA-CUIAB-C79254-
ARB-07-22-2016-Appellant-Reply-Brief

- 30 -
Petition for Review
In Waszczuk’s Petition for Rehearing, pages 40–47 address an e-mail dated
May 3, 2012 that Waszczuk wrote to UC Davis Medical Center HR
Manager Humberto Garcia on behalf of his coworker. See: Petitioner Reply
Brief (PRB) (CT 00109-00111) . This e-mail contained a warning statement
about hostility in the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
facility where Waszczuk’s former coworker, William Buckans, was bullied
and harassed for years by managers and coworkers ; Waszczuk was
employed at this facility from June 1999 to April 2007. Waszczuk was
abruptly removed from the plant in April 2007. In the e-mail to Humberto
Garcia and other managers, Waszczuk used the columbine massacre as an
example of what could happen at UC Davis Medical Center if the hostile
and violent working environment was not addressed. (CT 00109-00111)
https://www.scribd.com/document/398001801/3DCA-C079254-05-03-
2012-Waszczuk-e-mail-to-Humberto-Garcia-with-warning-statement-
about-Columbine-Massacre

Waszczuk alerted management by e-mail after he received an alarming e-mail


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

- 31 -
Petition for Review
CUIAB Board members as a justification for denying Waszczuk unemployment
insurance benefits . (CT 00026; 00095;00134;00171)
Waszczuk does not know for sure what would eventually happen in May 2012
if Waszczuk would not offer help to William Buckans and other employee
Kenny Diede by assisting them in the formal harassment complaints under UC
Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 and convince them to attend the
Stress Management Class.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398002099/3DCA-C079254-May-2012-
Waszczuk-s-representation-to-William-Buckans-and-Kenneth-Diede-UC-
Davis-Policy-PPSM-23
Waszczuk e-mail was not a threat or misconduct but preventive action from the
eventual disaster waiting to happen in place of employment where Waszczuk
replacement of 2007 three years latter was found death hanging from the tree in
the Rancho Cordova park , If Waszczuk would be not removed from the plant
in 2007 than most likely 41 years Todd Georlich would still alive today and his
9 years old daughter who was left behind in December 2010 would have and
she would know her father.
The Supreme Court will notice in the Clerk Transcript the e-mail
containing the Columbine massacre example was presented to the court by
ALJ, CUIAB Board Members, and other RPii attorneys as a threat made
against the school by Waszczuk as opposed to the true intention of this
communication.
On January 5, 2012, Waszczuk’s four month work-stress related sick leave
ended and Waszczuk was staying home , not knowing what is his
employment status with university until May 11, 2012.

Waszczuk was lured by UCDMC HR and Waszczuk’s department


manager to UCDMC premises on May 31, 2012 by the statement in
suspension letter Waszczuk received from RPii on May 11, 2012. The
suspension letter for 10 days without pay was given to Waszczuk during

- 32 -
Petition for Review
Waszczuk forced by RPii absence from work was given to him for sole
purpose to agitate Waszczuk and to make Waszczuk mad and angry, after
Waszczuk was on forced by RPii absence from work for almost one year.
(CT 00128)

https://www.scribd.com/document/398003074/3DCA-C079254-May-11-
2012-Ten-days-Suspension-without-pay-during-Waszczuk-forced-10-
months-absence-from-work
The RPii’s inviting Waszczuk onto the premises is questionable because
they portrayed the e-mail Waszczuk sent on May 3, 2012 as evidence of a
threat and misconduct made towards the school; however, here they have
not followed procedure to allow him back onto the premises. This
exemplifies a flaw in their claim of the e-mail being a threat of safety for
the campus; they willingly invited him back without verifying with his
medical practitioners that his state of mind was not a harm to himself or
others. Therefore, the e-mail could not have stipulated a threat as they have
claimed.

https://www.scribd.com/document/398002561/3DCA-C079254-Waszczuk-
s-August-31-2011-UC-DAVIS-HEALTH-SYSTEM-RETURN-TO-
WORK-CLEARANCE-after-sick-leave-mandated-by-UC-Davis-Policies

The two unpublished opinions issued by the 3DCA in Waszczuk v. The Regents
of the University of California Case C079524 (issued on October 10, 2017) and
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board C079254
(issued on December 17, 2018), along with the denial if the Petition for
Rehearing by the 3DCA will only perpetuate the unseemly behavior of
management at the university toward their employees. Furthermore, these
unpublished opinions may present grounds for discrimination in the currently
pending cases . For this reason, and the above mentioned details, Waszczuk

- 33 -
Petition for Review
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-833-7080
Email: jjw1980@live.com

March 20, 2019

The State Bar of California


Complaint Review Unit
Office of General Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1617

Subject: Request for Review

RE: INQUIRY NUMBER 18-31694


RESPONDENT: DANIEL J. BARDZELL – SB #313993

RE: INQUIRY NUMBER 18-31693


RESPONDENT: DAVID P. E. BURKETT – SB #241896

Dear State Bar of California Auditor:

The enclosed Addendum with Exhibits is my explanation of the Request for Review of the State
Bar of California’s decision issued on January 18, 2019 by Deputy Trial Counsel Drew Aresca in
my complaint in the above captioned inquiries.

I disagree with Mr. Aresca’s decisions. I am asking for a review and am providing more specific
information on what happened. The justice system is being manipulated by Porter Scott’s
attorney in an attempt to end my litigation.

For the State Bar reviewer’s convenience, I have copied and pasted the latest Meet and Confer
correspondence with Porter Scott attorney Daniel Bardzell along with some additional
correspondence sent to the Court Clerks. It would be easier for the State Bar Reviewer to follow
the events.

Based on the information in the Addendum and Exhibits, the State Bar of California Reviewer
should have some insight into determining whether Porter Scott attorneys David Burkett, David
Bardzell, and others should be investigated for misconduct or whether they are victims of a
conspiracy that forced them to violate the law and court rules, perjure themselves, and commit

-1-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
fraud upon the court by disobeying attorneys’ professional conduct and canons of ethics. I
believe that it would be more important for State Bar of California investigators to discover who
is forcing David Burkett, Daniel Bardzell, and others to act unethically, and why they have done
so without suffering any consequences from Superior Court judges or the Court of Appeals,
Third Appellate District (3DCA) justices.

This is a puzzle. My two court cases in the California Courts are a big puzzle that are attached to
at least $200,000,000 in dirty cash and to the President of the University of California Janet
Napolitano and her powerful friends. The real puzzle is learning what Napolitano is really doing
in the University of California. David Burkett, Daniel Bardzell, and myself are the little guys
who have found themselves on the opposite side of the key player—the evil of corruption.

INQUIRY NUMBER 18-31694


DAVID P. E. BURKETT – SB #241896 MISCONDUCT

In disagreement with the decision issued on January 18, 2019 by Deputy Trial Counsel Drew
Aresca, I will summarize David Burkett’s professional misconduct as follows:

On January 23, 2015, Porter Scott shareholder David Burkett as a lead attorney replaced Michael
Pott SB #186156 in the Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, filed on December 4, 2013,
Judge Hon. David I. Brown (hereafter Waszczuk v. UC Regents), 3DCA Case No. C079524,
Supreme Court Case No. S245508.

Michael Pott, also a Porter Scott shareholder, quit the Porter Scott law firm 30 minutes after I
filed on 01/23/2015 by myself more than 400 pages of Opposition to Defendants anti-SLAPP
Motion created ad hoc from the old demurrer by Michael Pott filed on December 1, 2014 by
Pott. Pott was colluding or conspiring with my attorney, Douglas Stein,
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/18-N-16452.pdf since November 2013.In 2005 Pott,
together with another Porter Scott attorney, George Acero SB #226709, coauthored the totally
fraudulent Anti-SLAPP . Motion known as the 3DCA case Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146
Cal.App.4th 1387 certified opinion for publication, filed on January 23, 2007, which should be
de-publicized by the Supreme Court in light of the Nam v. Regents of University of California.
Cal.App.5th 1176 (2016) 205 Cal. Rptr. 3d 687 and in light of Park v. Board of Trustees of the
California State University (May 4, 2017), No. S229728, Cal.5th (Park)
https://www.scribd.com/document/373254651/Danny-Gray-MeToo-Parts-Unknown-I-VIII.

On January 23, 2015, Porter Scott attorney Douglas Lee Ropel SB #300486, who had been Pott’s
assistant since December 2, 2014, supposedly became David Burkett’s associate. Ropel was
admitted to the State Bar on December 2, 2014 , the same day Pott filed anti-SLAPP motion .

-2-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
On February 27, 2015, David Burkett or someone else sent his associate Ropel to Sacramento
Superior Court for limited oral arguments in Writ of Mandamus Superior Court Case No. 34-
2013-80001699, 3DCA Case No. C079254, Waszczuk v. CUIAB. Ropel or any of Porter Scott’s
attorneys were not the attorney of record in the Writ of Mandamus case, and Porter Scott did not
represent UC Regents in this case at all, until Burkett substituted University of California Office
of General Counsel attorney Cynthia Vroom on July 31, 2015.

The court reporter’s transcript shows that Ropel had nothing to say and that Presiding Judge
Hon. Shelleyanne Chang (former Chief of Staff for Governor Gray Davis) should not allow him
to speak at all. Burkett or someone else from Porter Scott sent Ropel to the Court in lieu of one
of the UC Office of General Counsel’s four attorneys of record (Charles Robinson, Cynthia
Vroom, Margaret Wu, and Karen Petrulakis) in the case in order to not argue the case but instead
to provoke me into physical confrontation prior to the hearing and get me into trouble with the
police and get me arrested.

In February 2015 and a long time thereafter, I did not understand at all why Ropel attacked me
and my wife prior to the hearing in a different case about his legal fees in the Anti-SLAPP
Motion case. My wife has nothing to do with the University of California. In February 2015, the
legal fees were not awarded to anyone, and the Anti-SLAPP Motion was not yet finished. It was
a very bizarre attack. Today, I know that the hearing with Judge Chang never should have taken
place, and the case Waszczuk v. CUIAB never should have been continued in the Court after the
California Employment Development Department (EDD) on May 14, 2014 restored my
unemployment insurance benefits. Nevertheless, someone stopped the payments or my attorney,
Douglas Stein, who was completely financially broke in 2014, perhaps cashed my
unemployment benefits.

I am not sure how the State Bar of California could describe the misconduct of attorney from
UC Office of General Counsel four attorneys , Porter Scott attorneys representing Real Party
In Interest (RPii) ,California Attorney General two attorneys and my former attorney Douglas
Stein which in 2014-2019 with full knowledge were engaged themselves in deception and
deceit and deliberately dragged me into three courts with the restored by EDD in May 2014
my unemployment benefits which was wrongly denied in 2013.

Ashante Norton, Ismail Castro, Michael Pott, and four attorneys from the UC Office of General
Counsel were subjects of my complaint with the State Bar of California in 2016 (see Addendum
Exhibit #13). My March 23, 2016 complaint with the State Bar of California needs to be
reopened.

-3-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Two and half years later, on August 28, 2017, leading Porter Scott attorney David Burkett, in a
very provocative and bizarre manner against attacked me and my wife in the 3DCA building.
This was a strange copycat scenario of the February 27, 2015 attack on me and my wife by
Douglas Ropel in relation to the legal fees he was not awarded. The August 2017 attack occurred
just after the oral arguments in the Anti-SLAPP Motion appeal, 3DCA Case C079524. It
completely blew my mind that Burkett aimed his provocative attack in the 3DCA building at me,
and was complaining loudly that he was screwed and he would not get any legal fees. I did not
have a clue why Burkett aimed his attack at me. I reported the attacks by both Burkett and Ropel
in my Petition for Rehearing of my Appeal in Case C079524 (Anti-SLAPP ) (see Addendum
Exhibit #9).

On June 7, 2018, the Court supposedly (Hon. David Brown) but most likely not Hon. David
Brown awarded legal fees and costs to Porter Scott attorneys in Case No. 34-2013-00155479
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California (Anti-SLAPP).

• $8,190 to Michael W. Pott, for 31.5 hours of work at $260 per hour;
• $312 to David P. E. Burkett, for 1.2 hours of work at $260 per hour;
• $16,042 to Douglas L. Ropel, for 61.7 hours of work at $260 per hour;
• $4,320 to Douglas L. Ropel (as a law clerk), for 43.2 hours of work at $100 per hour; and
• $520 to Marilyn Gamper (paralegal), for 5.2 hours of work at $100 per hour.

The legal fees awarded to David Burkett clearly show that since January 23, 2015, he was
completely out of the picture, was not the leading attorney, and had nothing to do with my cases.
The legal fees awarded to Douglas Ropel are someone else’s fees, not his. That’s why Ropel and
Burkett had attacked me in 2015 and 2017 in a bizarre, provocative way. They were making
threats that they would go after my wife if I did not end litigation against UC Regents for
exchange of legal fees I supposedly owed to them.

In my Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 18, 2018 and scheduled for a Court Hearing in
Department 53, I strongly condemned Hon. David Brown for awarding these fees claimed by
David Burkett on behalf of two former Porter Scott attorneys, Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel,
and for his two orders from 2014 related to his friend, Douglas Stein (see Addendum Exhibit
#30).

Hon. David Brown, or someone in the Court with Brown’s signature on a rubber stamp, resolved
my Motion for Reconsideration by signing the Defendant’s Legal Fees Proposed Order 10 days
before the scheduled Court Hearing to hear my Motion to Consideration on July 19, 2018. It
denied to me (the Plaintiff) limited oral argument for the Motion after the Court issued a
tentative ruling on July 18, 2018
https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Document/ViewDocument.

-4-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
David Burkett had nothing to do with the cases with the exception that his signature was on some
of the documents. Burkett is listed as lead attorney who was supposed to represent the UC
Regents against me in my two cases in three different courts since January 23, 2015.
It is possible that Burkett in 2011–2012 participated in the operation with his friend and attorney
from California Social Services, Cori Dutra
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/240293, to harm my psychologist Franklin
Bernhoft’s family from Lodi, California (see Addendum Exhibit #32). Perhaps Burkett,
together with Michael Pott, advised UC Davis Medical Center HR attorneys how to eliminate me
from the UC Davis Medical Center landscape in 2011–2012 in a coordinated action with three
other Porter Scott attorneys: Katherine Mola
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/264625, Nancy Sheehan
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/109419, and Terrance Cassidy
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/99180. These three advised UC Davis staff
attorneys how to frame and eliminate UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, UC Davis Police Chief
Annette Spicuzza, and Lt. John Pike using student protests (re: November 18, 2011 pepper spray
attack). After the pepper spray hoax attack on November 18, 2011, Katherine Mola, Nancy
Sheehan, and Terrance Cassidy defended Katehi and others in Federal Court (see Addendum
Exhibit #4).

INQUIRY NUMBER 18-31694


RESPONDENT: DANIEL J. BARDZELL – SB #313993

Daniel Bardzell at Porter Scott is another David Burkett associate who, like the previously
mentioned Douglas Ropel, was thrown into the game by Burkett or someone from Porter Scott
and did not know what the game was about.

Bardzell unexpectedly surfaced out of New Jersey as a new player in my wrongful termination
Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California
by filing on October 3, 2018 in the wrong Court Department 54 instead of Department 53 the
Motion to Compel Further Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories – Set One, Form
Interrogatories – General – Set One, Form Interrogatories – Employment – Set One, Request for
Production of Documents, Request for Admission, Special Interrogatories – Set One, and
Monetary and Terminating Sanctions.

The Sacramento County Superior Court Department 53 Law and Motion with Hon. David Brown
has been handling my wrongful termination case since September 2014. If it was an innocent
mistake filing the motion in Department 54 instead of Department 53, then why didn’t David
Burkett or Daniel Bardzell tell me on October 9, 2018 that it was a misprint or a mistake and that
it was corrected by the clerk? Instead, the Porter Scott attorneys panicked after their misconduct

-5-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
and cheating was discovered, and they began filing and refiling the motion in Department 53. I
provide the information chronologically about Porter Scott’s damage control (see Addendum,
pages 35–56).

These questions remain:


On October 3, 2018, with whom did Porter Scott attorneys prearrange, unsuccessfully,
their fraud to obtain termination sanctions against me in Sacramento County Superior
Court Department 54?
Who forced Daniel Bardzell to file the motion on October 3, 2018 in Court Department
54 instead of Department 53?

I have partially explained Bardzell’s misconduct in relation to filling and refiling motions (see
Addendum, Conclusions, pages, 79–83).

A new twist in Bardzell’s and Burkett’s alleged misconduct is Bardzell’s Meet and Confer Letter
dated January 15, 2019 (see Addendum, pages 62–79). On January 15, 2019, I received by e-
mail the unsigned Meet and Confer letter from Porter Scott Law Firm, which was supposedly
authored by Daniel Bardzell. However, the letter was not sent by Wendy Strasser, the legal
assistant for David Burkett (and Daniel Bardzell and Courtney de Groof), but rather by the legal
assistant for Porter Scott attorney Thomas L. Riordan, whom I have never previously dealt with.

I can speculate that throwing Thomas L. Riordan into the game was Burkett’s attempt to divert
attention from himself and Bardzell, or it was a tip that Riordan is actually running the show and
that Burkett and Bardzell have nothing to do with my case, with the exception that only their
names appear on the documents when they should really be signed by Riordan. Taking into
consideration that Burkett as the leading attorney was awarded only 1.2 hours of legal fees in the
Anti-SLAPP Motion, it is possible that all the legal fees claimed by Burkett for Douglas Ropel
and Michael Pott are actually Riordan’s paycheck or someone else’s. Although I noticed Thomas
Riordan, I have no proof that he is behind Burkett’s and Bardzell’s misconduct.

However, looking at Thomas Riordan’s https://www.porterscott.com/person/thomas-l-riordan/


record in the State Bar http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/104827, he has quite a
history of professional misconduct, including multiple acts of violating court orders and findings
of contempt and harming the administration of justice
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/02-O-11078.pdf. Riordan worked for three years as a
research attorney with the 3DCA in Sacramento. This may be the reason why Burkett did not
receive any legal fees in the Anti-SLAPP Motion on appeal Case No. C079524 because the
3DCA Presiding Justice Hon. Vance W. Raye knew who from Porter Scott was handling the
Anti-SLAPP Motion.

-6-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Besides his employment with 3DCA, Riordan was employed by the Sacramento law firm of
Hansen, Boyd, Culhane, and Watson (Hansen). Kevin Culhane, a partner in this law firm, was
elected to the Sacramento Superior Court bench in 2008 and became the Presiding Judge of the
Sacramento Superior Court in October 2015. A September 29, 2017 Courthouse News Services
article entitled “Outgoing Presiding Judge Praised for Sacramento Court Turnaround”
https://www.courthousenews.com/outgoing-presiding-judge-praised-sacramento-court-
turnaround/ reads:
Sacramento Superior Court Judge David Brown praised Culhane’s “judicial
temperament” and called his resources “presidential.”
“He must have a contacts list that rivals Bill Clinton’s,” Brown told the crowd.

Along with Brown, other speakers included U.S. District Judge Morrison England of the
Eastern District of California and Vance Raye, presiding justice of California’s Third
Appellate District. Raye said Culhane’s judicial esteem is at a high point and called him a
“capable and accomplished jurist.” California Gov. Jerry Brown also congratulated
Culhane on the award in a letter.

As mentioned in the above article, Judge David Brown is the Sacramento County Superior Court
Department 53 Law and Motion presiding judge who has been handling my wrongful
termination case since September 2014. Judge Brown was or still is a friend of 20 years to
Douglas Edward Stein, who was dismissed in 2014 and prosecuted by the State Bar attorney
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/18-N-16452.pdf.

Hon. Vance Raye, presiding justice of 3DCA, delivered to me on October 10, 2017 the
slanderous and discriminatory unpublished opinion in 3DCA Case No. C079524 Waszczuk v. UC
Regents (Anti-SLAPP Motion) https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C079524.PDF. The
Anti-SLAPP Motion was granted to UC Regents on April 15, 2015 by Judge David Brown from
Sacramento County Superior Court Department 53, Trial Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California.

As mentioned in the Courthouse News Services article, U.S. District Judge Morrison England of
the Eastern District of California appeared in my March 7, 2018 story entitled “Danny Gray
MeToo—Parts Unknown I-VIII” https://www.scribd.com/document/373254651/Danny-Gray-
MeToo-Parts-Unknown-I-VIII. In addition, Judge England on December 29, 2017 took an oath
from McGregor “Greg” W. Scott who was sworn in as the new United States Attorney by United
States District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/mcgregor-w-
scott-sworn-united-states-attorney-eastern-district-california.

-7-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
ON November 27, 2018 newest Porter Scott’s attorneys, Lauren Bakke, Sarah Oh and
April Perkins were officially sworn into the State Bar of CA by Honorable Morrison C.
England, Jr. in Porter Scott’s office .

In 2005–2007, Greg Scott prosecuted alleged terrorist Hamid Hayat from Lodi, California who
was thrown into prison for 24 years. In 2016, Scott was hired together with another former U.S.
Attorney, Melinda Haag, for the price of $1,000,000 by UC President Janet Napolitano to witch
hunt UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi. In 2014–2016, Haag prosecuted UC system California
Senator Leland Yee who was thrown into federal prison for alleged corruption for five years.

On August 30, 2016, with the advice of the California Commission on Judicial Performance, I
sent a complaint to the Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Hon. Kevin Culhane
(Enclosed on the Flash Drive) https://www.scribd.com/document/402166562/20160830-Judge-
Culhane-Senator-Galgiani-Evil-of-Corruption. This was for the deliberate withholding of my
record on appeal in my cases by Sacramento County Superior Court staff, especially in Case No.
34-2013-80001699 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board,
which should not have been continued in any court after my unemployment insurance benefits
were restored on May 14, 2014 and subsequently vanished. I had to file two Motions to Compel
to get my record on appeal in 3DCA . Today we know why.

Apparently, Judge Culhane was the wrong person to send my inquiry to about my record on
appeal in Case No. 34-2013-80001699.

Presiding Judge Culhane was replaced by Hon. David F. De Alba effective January 1, 2018
https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/docs/pr-pj-election-092217.Pdf. Judge De Alba’s credentials:
2001–2021: Judge, Sacramento County Superior Court, California
1999–2001: Special Assistant to Attorney General Bill Lockyer, California Department of
Justice
1979–1999: Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice

In 2004, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer leading the “California Parties” and California
Energy Task Force got a kick-back from my former employer, Dynegy Power Corporation,
amounting to $280,000,000, and in 2005, it received $460,000,000 from Reliant Energy. Bill
Lockyer cashed out approximately $20,000,000 for his offices in California (see Addendum
Exhibit #6 Petition for Review).

If the State Bar Register of Action from the Sacramento Superior Court, Public Access
(https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/) Case No. 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS and the Appellate
Court Case Information. Since Porter Scott attorneys filed and refiled their Motion to Compel
and Application for Debtor Examination in violation of Court Rules, then it would not be
difficult to conclude that Porter Scott attorneys waited three years to attack me with a discovery
-8-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Motion to Compel in Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California for the reason that Case No. 34-2013-80001699 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board should have been dismissed in 2014 but was
not.

I met Porter Scott attorney Daniel Bardzell on February 8, 2019 in Sacramento Superior Court
due to my Debtor’s Examination appearance in relation to legal fees in the Anti-SLAPP Motion
Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California.
Bardzell was nervous and terrified to have this meeting with me alone in the Court Cafeteria. I
don’t know whether he was afraid that I would question him on why on October 3, 2018 he filed
the Motion to Compel in the wrong Court Department and who sent him to the wrong
department, or whether I would question him about Thomas Riordan. Bardzell came to the
meeting with already written questions and the goal of attacking my wife and my grown
children. I briefly describe the meeting with Daniel Bardzell (see Addendum, pages 33–34).
After the meeting with Bardzell, I got the impression that he is an FBI agent or an FBI paid
informer. I don’t know why the meeting with Bardzell was so strange and unusual. The meeting
was a little similar to a deposition, but it was not deposition. I am very familiar with the
deposition process.

My inquiry is also s my additional attempt to find out why I have been threatened like a
terrorist and terrorized since 2005 by UCOP, UC Davis, and UC Davis Medical Center
(UCDMC) administration, their lawyers, and judges and justices from the two
Sacramento Courts. My family is the third family from Lodi, California whose lives have
been shattered by the group of people from the University of California, State of
California, and Federal Government who are connected to each other in some way.

I noticed that Deputy Trial Counsel Drew Aresca’s decision was issued one day after the
Court of Appeals for the Third Appellate District’s (3DCA) three panel justices—Hon.
Blease, Butz, and Duarte—reviewed my Case No. C079254 Waszczuk v. CUIAB and
then on January 17, 2019 denied my detailed Petition for a Rehearing in which I exposed
their hate and discrimination toward me outlined in their December 27, 2018 unpublished
opinion. (Addendum Exhibit #5)

The December 27, 2018 unpublished opinion was issued after the bizarre December 12,
2018 oral argument in the 3DCA Court Room that I described in my cover letter to the
Petition for Review ( Addendum Exhibit #6) filed in the Supreme Court on January 29,
2019, as follows:

“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

-9-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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. “

In my Petition for Review filed on January 29, 2019 Case No. S253713, I pointed
out to the Supreme Court that my petition in part sounds like a complaint with the State
of California Commission on Judicial Performance against six justices from 3DCA who
ruled in my two appeals in my Case No. C079524 (anti-SLAPP motion). I am not
paranoid, and I am not afraid to die for the good cause of my defense and the defense of
my family if necessary.
The point is, why have I been terrorized since 2005 and my life completely
tarnished by governmental entities during my retirement years by the same country that a
few decades ago offered me protection from oppression and violation of my human rights
by the communist regime in my native country of Poland. My life has been doomed to a
legal hell by the corrupt UCOP, UC Davis, UCDMC Human Resources staff, Porter
Scott attorneys, and judges and justices from two Sacramento Courts.

At best of my knowledge, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Respectfully submitted on March 20, 2019.

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

-10-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
DECLARATION OF MAILING

I, Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a Plaintiff and Appellant in this , declare under penalty of perjury
that I have this day March 20, 2019 mailed by electronic mail and by U.S Priority Mail ,
postage fully prepaid, a true and correct copy of the REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA’S DECISION ISSUED ON JANUARY 18, 2019 BY
DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL DREW ARESCA WITH ADDENDUM AND EXHIBIT
ON THE FLASH DRIVE - RE: INQUIRY NUMBER 18-31694
RESPONDENT: DANIEL J. BARDZELL – SB #313993; RE: INQUIRY NUMBER 18-
31693 RESPONDENT: DAVID P. E. BURKETT – SB #241896 to each of the parties listed
below.

The State Bar of California


COMPLAINT REVIEW UNIT
Office of General Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1617

DREW ARESCA, Deputy Trail Counsel Drew.Aresca@Calbar.Ca.Gov


OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL/INTAKE
The State Bar of California
845 S. Figueroa St.
Los Angeles, Ca 90017-2515

RACHEL S. GRUNBERG, Senior Trial Counsel Rachel.Grunberg@calbar.ca.gov


State Bar of California
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639

Executed in Lodi , California on March 20, 2019

____________________________

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

-11-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
AUDIT AND REVIEW UNIT
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
845 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-2515

INQUIRY NUMBER 18-31694


RESPONDENT: DANIEL J. BARDZELL – SBN NO. 313993

INQUIRY NUMBER 18-31693


RESPONDENT: DAVID P. E. BURKETT – SBN NO. 241896

ADDENDUM

REQUEST TO REVIEW THE DECISION ISSUED ON JANUARY 18, 2019


BY THE STATE BAR DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL DREW ARESCA
IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED INQUIRIES

Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk


2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
Email: jjw1980@live.com

-1-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
To whom it may concern:

I. INTRODUCTION

A. General Information
My name is Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk (pronounced Yaroslav Vashchook). I am a
68-year-old Polish political refugee who has been living in Lodi, California near
Sacramento for almost three decades.
My two Requests for Review of the State Bar of California decisions dated
January 18, 2019 issued by State Bar Deputy Trail Counsel Drew Aresca are more like a
complaint against Porter Scott Law Firm itself rather than exclusively about David
Burkett and Daniel Bardzell. The Porter Scott Law Firm is the representative of the
Regents of the University of California that has operated in the last two decades as a
shadow of the UC Davis and UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources Department
helping to frame UC Davis/UCDMC employees who were blacklisted or marked for
termination by management. Thereafter if an employee sues the University in state or
federal court, the Porter Scott Law Firm is the guarantor that the plaintiff’s life will be
decimated by judges and justices in the courts.
Since December 16, 2014, I am representing myself officially in pro per in the
Sacramento County Superior Court and the California Appellate Court in a wrongful
termination case and for unemployment insurance benefits.
On December 16, 2014, I dismissed my attorney, Douglas Edward Stein – SB
#131248, for gross misconduct including stealing my $20,000 retainer and colluding
with Porter Scott’s attorney, Michael Pott – SB #186156, since I hired Stein in
November 2013, Stein on Discipline, Supreme Court Case No. S245982. (EXHIBIT #1
– On Flash Drive)

B. Writ of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.


California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of

-2-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Interest (RPii)—The Regents of the University of California (UC Regents), filed
on December 2, 2013, Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang

The Writ of Mandamus was denied by Hon. Shelleyanne W. L. Chang on March


12, 2015.
The Appellant’s Motion to Transfer the Cause pursuant to California Rules of
Court, Rule 10.1000(a), was denied on January 10, 2018. Supreme Court [Case No.
S245879] Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
(EXHIBIT #2 – On Flash Drive)

On August 6, 2018, I submitted request to 3DCA to place my appeal on the Court


calendar with the words: (EXHIBIT #3 – On Flash Drive)

The Motion for New Evidence on Appeal was denied by 3DCA on December 7,
2018. 3DCA [Case No. C079254] Waszczuk v. CUIAB et al. (EXHIBIT #4 – On Flash
Drive)

The Petition for Rehearing was denied by 3DCA on January 17, 2019. [Case No.
C079254] Waszczuk v. CUIAB et al. (EXHIBIT #5 – On Flash Drive)

The Petition for Review was filed on January 29, 2019 and is pending as a
California Supreme Court case [Case No. S253713] (EXHIBIT #6 – On Flash Drive)

In a January 23, 2019 cover letter addressed to the Supreme Court


Clerk/Administrator attached to the Petition for Review, I wrote:

“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:
-3-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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 case in 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”

In the filed January 29, 2019 Petition for Review on page 7, I elaborated as
follows:

“Waszczuk apologizes to the Supreme Court Justices that this


Petition for Review in some parts sounds more like a complaint with
the State of California Commission on Judicial Performance against
six 3DCA Justices rather than a request for review of Waszczuk’s
case .”
Furthermore, on pages 7 and 8 of the Petition, I pointed out to the Supreme Court:

“Waszczuk urges the Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court's


published decisions because Waszczuk’s employment with the University of
California UC Davis Medical Center (RPii) from June 17, 1999 to
September 31, 2011 was not marred by any misconduct, good faith error,
insubordination, or any wrong doing and because no harm was done to the
university or its activities by Waszczuk. Waszczuk his being hunted down
-4-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
(like a Jew during the Holocaust in his native country Poland during War II)
by the University and by the California Court judges and justices for the
completely different reason than the despicable unfounded accusations
produced by the RPii’s witch hunters . Waszczuk only found out why it was
that he was being hunted down like an animal in June 2015, three years after
the termination of his employment, due to Superior Court Judge Shelleyane
Chang’s decision of March 2, 2015, in which she disclosed that she had
worked together with ALJ Marilyn Tays in Governor Davis office.”

My motion and petitions filed in 3DCA, which were automatically denied by


rubber stamp justice, shows how friends of the Porter Scott Law Firm, UC Regents, and
Attorney General’s Office butchered my appeal and MY life. It has come to the point
that I am afraid to go to the Sacramento Court alone so as not to be provoked and
harmed in the Court. On top of this, someone fired a shot at my home at the living room
in the spot where his wife frequently sits and watches TV. It was probably a small caliber
firearm. I don’t not know if this incident was accidental or not. The incident was not
reported to Lodi Police because I would most likely have been kicked out by my
landlord and would not have been able to find other rental property in Lodi. (Photo of the
hole in the window and cracked window enclosed.) (EXHIBIT #7 – On Flash Drive)

The Attorneys representing Defendants in the above case are as follows.


Representing California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board:

-5-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
1. Ismael A. Castro – SBN 85452, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Santa
Clara Univ School of Law, Santa Clara, CA. Admitted to the Bar 5/31/1979.
2. Ashante L. Norton – SBN 203836, Deputy Attorney General, Law School: UC
Davis School of Law, King Hall, Davis, CA. Admitted to the Bar 12/5/1999.

The attorneys represented or representing the Regents of the University of California,


Real Party In Interest are:

1. Charles Furlonge Robinson – SBN 113197, Law School: Yale Law School, New
Haven, CT. Admitted to the State Bar of California 6/13/1984.
2. Karen Jensen Petrulakis – SBN 168732, Law School: Stanford Univ Law School,
Stanford, CA. Admitted to the State Bar of California 12/14/1993.
3. Margaret Louisa Wu – SBN 184167, Law School: UC Berkeley School of Law,
Berkeley, CA. Admitted to the State Bar of California 12/3/1996.
4. Cynthia Ann Vroom – SBN 139470, Law School: Stanford Univ Law School,
Stanford, CA. Admitted to the State Bar of California 3/6/1989.
5. Douglas Lee Ropel – SBN 300486, Law School: McGeorge School of Law, Univ
of the Pacific, Stockton, CA. Admitted to the State Bar of California 12/2/2014.
6. David Pontus Eugene Burkett – SBN 241896, Law School: McGeorge School of
Law, Univ of the Pacific, Stockton, CA. Admitted to the State Bar of California
2/21/2006.
7. Chambord V. Benton-Hayes – SBN 278970, Law School: UC Hastings College of
the Law, San Francisco, CA. Admitted to the State Bar of California 12/02/2011.

C. The Sacramento County Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-
2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California. Filed on December 4, 2013, Judge Hon. David I. Brown (hereafter
Waszczuk v. UC Regents), 3DCA Case No. C079524, Supreme Court Case No.
S245508

The Sacramento County Superior Court (Judge Brown) granted the anti-SLAPP
(strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion (C.C.P. 425.16) to the Defendants,
affirming the tentative decision after a Court hearing that took place on February 6, 2015.
The Court affirmed its own position against me by the Court Order dated April 14, 2015,
granting the Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike. The Court Order prepared by the
Defendants’ attorney was signed on the same day, April 14, 2015.

-6-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
On July 9, 2015, I filed in 3DCA a detailed 69-page-long Appellant Mediation
Statement hoping that the Court of Appeals Third Appellate District would consider his
Appellant Statement to resolve the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion occupied in the
Court for another two years. The eligibility for mediation was ignored and denied by the
Court of Appeals Order, signed by the former UC Davis employee 3DCA Justice
Kathleen Butz on July 16, 2015. (EXHIBIT #8 – On Flash Drive)

On November 11, 2017, 3DCA Presiding Justice Hon. Vance Raye denied my
Petition for Rehearing. (EXHIBIT #9 – On Flash Drive)

On January 10, 2018, the Supreme Court denied my Petition for Review
simultaneously with the Motion to Move Cause in Case No. C079254, Waszczuk v.
CUIAB. (EXHIBIT #10 – On Flash Drive)

The former and present attorneys that represented or still represent UC Regents in
the above case No. 34-2013-00155479 are:

1. Michael William Pott SBN 300486, Law School: Lewis & Clark College
Northwestern School of Law, Portland, OR. Admitted to the State Bar of
California 12/11/1996.
2. Douglas Lee Ropel – SBN 300486, Law School: McGeorge School of Law, Univ
of the Pacific, Stockton, CA. Admitted to the State Bar of California 12/2/2014.
3. David Pontus Eugene Burkett – SBN 241896, Law School: McGeorge School of
Law, Univ of the Pacific, Stockton, CA. Admitted to the State Bar of California
2/21/2006.
4. Chambord V. Benton-Hayes – SBN 278970, Law School: UC Hastings College of
the Law, San Francisco, CA. Admitted to the State Bar of California 12/02/2011.
5. Courtney De Groof – SBN 319334, Law School: McGeorge School of Law, Univ
of the Pacific, Stockton, CA. Admitted to the State Bar of California 12/14/2017.
6. Daniel John Bardzell – SBN 313993, Law School: Fordham Univ School of Law,
New York, NY. Admitted to the State Bar of California 1/11/2017.

-7-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
II. THE MISCONDUCT OF PORTER SCOTT ATTORNEY DAVID PONTUS
EUGENE BURKETT – SBN 241896

A. David Pontus Eugene Burkett – SBN 241896 (David Burkett) Misconduct

David Burkett is one of the shareholders of the Porter Scott Law Firm based in
Sacramento, CA.

On January 23, 2015, Burkett as lead attorney substituted Michael William Pott –
SBN #186156 (Michael Pott) in my wrongful termination case against UC Regents. Like
Burkett, Pott was or still is one of the shareholders of the Porter Scott Law Firm. He quit
his employment with Porter Scott or was fired from the firm half an hour after I filed on
January 23, 2015 over 400 pages of opposition to Pott’s anti-SLAPP motion (C.C.P.
425.16). (EXHIBIT #11 – On Flash Drive) Pott filed a poorly redacted old demurrer on
December 1, 2014 in conspiracy with my attorney, Douglas Stein, and colluded with
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge David I. Brown. The document never should
have been accepted by the Court. Please see details in my Petition for Rehearing, 3DCA
Case No. C079524 ( See: Exhibit #9, page 17–22).

B. February 27, 2015, Provocation in Sacramento County Superior Court


Building
On January 23, 2015, Porter Scott attorney Douglas Lee Ropel – SBN #300486
(Douglas Ropel), who had been Michael Pott’s assistant since December 2, 2014,
supposedly became David Burkett’s associate.

On February 27, 2015, Burkett sent Ropel to Sacramento Superior Court to argue
my Writ of Mandamus in Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-80001699, 3DCA Case No.
C079254, Waszczuk v. CUIAB. Ropel was not the attorney of record in the Writ of
Mandamus case, and he did not know anything about the case. The Court Reporter’s
transcript shows that he had nothing to say and that Presiding Judge Hon. Shelleyanne
Chang (former Chief of Staff for Governor Gray Davis) should not allow him to speak at
all. Burkett sent Ropel to the Court in lieu of one of the University of California Office of
General Counsel’s four attorneys of record in the case in order to not argue the case but
-8-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
instead to provoke me into physical confrontation prior to the hearing to get me into
trouble with the police and get him arrested. I reported the incident to Superior Court and
to 3DCA justices in pleadings and briefs. Nothing was done, and it got worse.

C. Superior Court Judge David I. Brown’s Friendship with Attorney, Douglas


Stein
Following the Court hearing on February 27, 2015, on April 10, 2015 after the
Court hearing in the anti-SLAPP motion, Superior Court Judge David I. Brown presiding
in Case No. 34-2013-00155479, 3DCA Case No. C079254, Waszczuk v. UC Regents,
sent Lodi Police to my residence in Lodi following my questioning of Judge Brown about
his 20-year relationship and collusion with my attorney, Douglas Stein. Douglas Ropel
was present at the Court hearing .

On December 16, 2014, I dismissed Stein for his conspiracy with Porter Scott
attorney Michael Pott and for other gross misconduct. Judge Brown allowed Stein to
continue to represent me after after Court ws informed by Pott on December 17, 2014
that I dismissed Stein on December 16, 2014. Furthermore, Judge Brown on December
17, 2014 approved Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed by Stein on September 30,
2014 against my will and instruction, and with a suspended attorney license.

D. My Complaints with the State Bar of California against Douglas Stein and
Other Attorneys’ Misconduct
The State Bar is in possession of all the Court Records in my two cases due to my
complaints with the State Bar of California against Douglas Stein that were submitted on
December 16, 2015, Case No. 15-O-10110. (EXHIBIT #12 – On Flash Drive) The case
was concluded by the State Supreme Court on March 1, 2018, but can’t t get any money
back from Douglas Stein or from the State Bar Client Security Fund. The other complaint
I filed was on March 23, 2016 against 23 attorneys. (EXHIBIT #13 – On Flash Drive)
The complaint was concluded without investigation by State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel
Peter Eng on May 2, 2016 and by Carissa Andersen on August 10, 2016. (EXHIBIT #14
– On Flash Drive) I did not include Douglas Ropel in his March 23, 2016 complaint.

-9-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Ropel quit his employment with the Porter Scott Law Firm around same time I submitted
my complaint against 23 attorneys . In my March 23, 2016 complaint, I focused on tax
fraud due to an unlawful power sale from UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
power plant where I was employed from June 1999 to April 2007. Superior Court Judges
Shelleyanne Chang and David I. Brown ruled in 2015 against me regardless of the facts
that my lawyer practiced law with suspended licenses and colluded and conspired with
Porter Scott’s attorney, and Porter Scott’s representation of UC Regents violated
discovery stay during the pending anti-SLAPP motion (see Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
filed on March 2, 2015). (EXHIBIT #15 – On Flash Drive)

In both cases, CUIAB’s attorney from California, Attorney General (AG) Ashante
Norton, along with David Burkett and Douglas Ropel in the anti-SLAPP motion, violated
California Court Rule 3.1312 (a). (EXHIBITS #16 & #17 – On Flash Drive) It did not
not matter Judge Chang and Judge Brown ruled against me anyway and my Motions for
Reconsideration did not do any good to me.

Furthermore, AG Norton representing CUIAB, Porter Scott Attorneys David


Burkett and Douglas Ropel, and Judge Chang were all perfectly aware that California
Unemployment Insurance Appel Board CUIAB’s Chief Counsel Kim Steinhardt in 2013-
2014 had investigated my complaint against CUIAB’s Administrative Judge Marilyn
Tays – SBN #158370 and two CUIAB Board Members, Michael Allen – SBN #86871
and Roy Ashburn, and that the Employment Development Department (EDD) restored
my Unemployment Insurance Benefits on May 14, 2014. (EXHIBIT #18 – On Flash
Drive) However, although my unemployment benefits were restored, I received no
money from EDD, the same as from a complaint with the State Bar against Douglas Stein
in which the State Bar and Supreme Court ordered Stein to pay money back to me.
Where is the enforcement of the order by the State Bar? ( See Exhibit #1)

E. David Burkett’s Provocation in the 3DCA Building on August 28, 2017

-10-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
On August 28, 2017, just after oral arguments in the 3DCA building in the anti-
SLAPP motion Case No. C079524, Porter Scott attorney David Burkett, who argued the
case, attacked me in the same manner Douglas Ropel did on February 27, 2015, in
desperation trying to provoke me into a physical confrontation. I am 68-year-old man
who had undergone open heart surgery and takes nine different medications daily just to
survive and is not willing to get into a fist fight with Porter Scott’s gangsters in a Court
building. I informed the Courts about this incident in his Petition for Rehearing. (Exhibit
#9) and other pleadings .

After this second time that Porter Scott attorneys David Burkett attempted to
provoke me in an attempt to get him into trouble with police, I did not understand what
was the point of these provocations. The judges and justices are ruling in favor of UC
Regents regardless of Porter Scott attorneys’ violations of rules, statutes, and canons of
conduct. At the time Douglas Ropel on February 27, 2015 attempted to provoke me prior
to the Court hearing, I believed that Ropel was trying to scare him and make him quit the
lawsuits because I had not yet discovered the UC Regents’ issue of tax fraud related to
unlawful power generation and the sale from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power
plant where I was employed from June1999 to April 2007.

I viewed David Burkett’s provocation in the Court building as pointless and


unfounded.

What caught my attention in the 3DCA unpublished opinion issued on December


10, 2017 was his excerpt in the opinion on page 2 from the letter I wrote in January 2015
to UC General Counsel Charles Robinson. (EXHIBIT #19 – On Flash Drive)

“Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, feels deeply aggrieved by the University of


California (the University), his lawyer, the defense lawyer, and the trial judge. A
brief excerpt from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the University reflects
his bitterness as well as his belief that there is much more at stake than his mere
wrongful termination lawsuit. He wrote: ‘The stake in this lawsuit must be a lot
bigger and more important than the life of a 63-year-old Polish refugee who

-11-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
escaped communist oppression and was promised protection from oppression in
his new country by the US government. Instead of protection from oppression, the
Polish refugee received treatment from the University of California that has been a
lot worse than the treatment he received in the Polish communist prison, where the
communist’s prison guard was more respectful to the political prisoners than UC
management to its own employees.’ His experience has left him emotionally
distraught.”

F. Aftermath of California Supreme Court Decisions in 3DCA Case Nos.


C079254 and C079524
On January 10, 2018, the Supreme Court denied my Petition for Review in anti-
SLAPP motion 3DCA Case No. C0524, Supreme Court Case No.S245508, Waszczuk v.
UC Regents, and Motion to Move cause of my 3DCA Case No. C079254, Waszczuk v.
CUIAB, to a different Appellate District Court or to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

On January 16, 2018, the 3DCA issued the Remittitur in the anti-SLAPP appeal,
Case No. C079524, Waszczuk v. Regents. (EXHIBIT #20 – On Flash Drive) (See also
Exhibit #2)

After the Remittitur was issued, I wrote a Motion to Recall the Remittitur.
However, I put filing the Motion on hold until my appeal in Case No. C079254,
Waszczuk v. CUIAB, was resolved. In addition to I am experiencing such blunt bias and
discrimination denying him equal access to justice in State Courts, afraid that the 3DCA
would declare him a vexatious litigant and he would not be able to continue his appeal in
Case No. C079254.

In March 2018, Waszczuk exchanged correspondence with 3DCA and Supreme


Court clerks in regard to the court’s discriminatory decision believing that I received
rubber stamp justice instead of real justice from the courts. (EXHIBIT #21 – On Flash
Drive)

III. THE LEGAL FEES AND COSTS AWARDED TO THE DEFENDANT IN THE
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT WRONGFUL
TERMINATION CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The
-12-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Regents of the University of California AND PORTER SCOTT ATTORNEY
DAVID BURKETT’S MISCONDUCT

A. David P. E. Burkett’s Supplemental Declaration in Support of the


Defendants’ Previously Filed Motion for Fees and Costs Pursuant to
C.C.P. § 425.16(C)

On April 26, 2018, David Burkett filed a Notice of Hearing on the previously filed
Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.16(E) and Supplemental Declaration
in Support of the Defendants’ previously filed Motion for Fees and Costs Pursuant to
C.C.P. § 425.16(C) (EXHIBIT #22 – On Flash Drive)

David Burkett’s Notice and Declaration was based on a previously filed three-
year-old motion dated May 11, 2015 and a Declaration of Porter Scott attorney Douglas
Ropel who quit his employment with the law firm in March 2016. (EXHIBIT #23 – On
Flash Drive) Ropel was the attorney who attempted to provoke me into a fist fight in the
Superior Court Building on February 27, 2015 prior to the Court hearing with Superior
Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang in the Writ of Mandamus Case No. 34-2013-80001699,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and
Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The Regents of the University of California (UC Regents)
filed on December 2, 2013.

On May 7, 2015, I filed a Notice of Appeal in 3DCA in a Writ of Mandamus, Case


No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board (CUIAB).

On May 19, 2015, David Burkett asked me by e-mail what he proposed to offer to
dismiss the cases against UC Regents. I addressed Burkett’s inquires in a letter dated
May 21, 2015 (EXHIBIT #24 – On Flash Drive) and in a letter to Sedgwick Claims
Management Service dated May 31, 2015. (EXHIBIT #25 – On Flash Drive)

On July 15, 2015, I filed Plaintiff’s opposition to Burkett’s and Ropel’s Legal
Fees and Costs followed by a July 20, 2015 Notice of Opposition to Burkett’s and

-13-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Ropel’s reply to my July 15 opposition. In my opposition urged the Court (Judge David I.
Brown) not to award any legal fees for the ant-SLAPP motion to anyone. The anti-
SLAPP motion was a redacted old demurer and was a total fraud upon the court based on
perjury of defendants in their declaration, and filed with a motion on December 14, 2014.
My Objection/Opposition to David Burkett’s Supplemental Declaration in
Support of the Defendants’ Previously Filed Motion for Fees and Costs
Pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.16(C) Filed in the Court on May 18, 2018
In his opposition to Burkett’s Supplemental Declaration, I explained what was
done to him by Porter Scott attorneys in a conspiracy with his attorney, Douglas Stein, in
the anti-SLAPP motion as follows: (EXHIBIT #27 – On Flash Drive)

“Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk, pronounced “Vashchook” (hereafter Waszczuk),


hereby submits for the record the following Opposition to the SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION OF DAVID P.E. BURKETT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS' PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16(c), which was filed on April 26, 2018 and is
scheduled for Court Hearing on May 24, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
In the Supplemental Declaration, the Defendants are seeking $36,014 in attorney
fees and costs. By this opposition, Waszczuk is respectfully requesting that the
Court deny any fees and costs to the Defendants’ attorney for the same reason as
the Court of Appeal denied any legal fees to the Defendants’ attorneys.
Alternatively, Waszczuk is requesting that the Court use its power of discretion to
stay the Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees until the Court of Appeals rules in
Waszczuk’s second pending case in the Court of Appeals, which has been pending
since May 2015 (Sacramento County Superior Court—Writ of Mandamus, Case
No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The Regents
of the University of California (UC Regents) Third Appellate District Case No.
C079254).
Case No. C079254 is very interconnected with the anti-SLAPP motion case,
basically being the same case pursued for a slightly different reason. The
Appellate Court should have resolved C079254 a long time before the anti-SLAPP
was resolved. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus appeal did not contain Court
record so much as a description of the anti-SLAPP motion and was briefed before

-14-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
the anti-SLAPP was resolved in a way that Waszczuk could describe with the
Polish proverb: “It was the blacksmith's guilt, but the gypsy was hanged.”
Recently, Waszczuk contacted a 3DCA Court Clerk to find out what was
happening with Waszczuk’s appeal for Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 3DCA
responded to Waszczuk’s inquiry, but the Court wouldn’t say when Waszczuk’s
appeal would be placed on the Court Calendar for Oral Argument after being held
in endless abeyance.

The Court Hearing Continuance

Alternatively, Waszczuk respectfully requests a continuance of the Court hearing


scheduled for May 24, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. to July or August 2018, i.e., until
Waszczuk finishes amending and filing his Third Amended Complaint (TAC),
which was blocked from being filed by the Defendants’ Automatic Stay Motion in
October 2015. Waszczuk has to completely change the venue in his wrongful
termination complaint due to a new discovery of why Waszczuk was witch-hunted
in two separate witch hunts of 2007-2009 and 2011-2012 and had his employment
terminated on December 7, 2012.
In 2015, Waszczuk initially thought that reason for the Defendants’ assault and
witch hunts aimed at him was the University of California Office of the
President’s white collar criminals’ enormous tax evasion in violation of section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the State of California
Revenue and Taxation Code. This tax evasion is related to the illegal power sale
and megawatts laundered from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogeneration plant in disregard of the 18 C.F.R. § 292.20 requirements, Federal
Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a), California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5,
State of California Unfair Business Competition law, Business and Professions
Code § 17200, California Commodity Law of 1990 (Corp. Code, § 29500 et seq.,
"CCL"), and 7 U.S. Code § 6b in conspiracy and collaboration with California
Independent Systems Operators, Pacific Gas & Electric, the State of California
Franchise Tax Board, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
In March 2016, Waszczuk submitted an Application for Award to the U.S.
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service, Whisteblower Office, ICE
Team in regard to the tax fraud by white collar criminals from the University of
California. The complaint is still pending.
The illegal power sale and tax evasion was not the only reason that Waszczuk’s
life was decimated and tarnished by UCOP and their thugs from UC Davis and the

-15-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
UC Davis Medical Center where Waszczuk was employed for 13 years, however.
Waszczuk discovered a much broader and bigger problem regarding brutal and
merciless action carried out by UC bandits and their friends from different entities,
including and not limited to “Super Regents” from two Sacramento Courts.
Waszczuk would appreciate it if the Court would grant the continuance of the
Court hearing for another two or three months. English is Waszczuk’s second
language, so his writing has to be sent to proofreaders to correct, which costs
money and is time consuming. Waszczuk lives on $1500 per month of Social
Security because his savings were drained by the two California Courts’ Judges
and Justices. Waszczuk is hoping that such accommodation to continue the
hearing would be no big problem for the Court to grant.
The Defendants’ Attorney from Porter Scott Law Firm
It appears that the Defendants’ attorney David Burkett is attempting to extort from
Waszczuk the legal fees and costs on the appeal that were not awarded to David
Burkett after he attempted on provoke Waszczuk into a physical confrontation in
the 3DCA building just after a scheduled Oral Argument that took place on
August 28, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
Waszczuk described Mr. Burkett’s behavior as follows in the Petition for
Rehearing from the unpublished Court decision in the anti-SLAPP motion Case
No. C079524 issued on October 10, 2017.
" After just 15 minutes of 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

-16-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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 case- in 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 sheriff's deputies and
city police is either very foolish or very underhanded."

As Waszczuk pointed out in the above quotation, this was the second time that a
Porter Scott attorney had attempted to get Waszczuk into a physical confrontation
in the Court Building. Waszczuk stated that the UC Regents are very desperate if
they resort to using such tactics. It is not the UC Regents who are desperate to end
Waszczuk’s litigation by provocations in the Court. It is the desperation of Porter
Scott attorneys, especially Michael Pott and David Burkett, who got themselves
into the mess in 2011-2012 by participating as advisors in the termination of
Waszczuk’s employment. Douglas Ropel did not work for Porter Scott in 2011,
but he got himself into monkey business together with Michael Pott to coerce or
blackmail Waszczuk’s attorney Douglas Stein in an attempt to derail Waszczuk’s
litigations against the Regents for the approximate price tag of $300,000. Stein
disclosed in panic in December 2014 that he would get money in January 2015
after he purposely did not object to the anti-SLAPP because he and Michael Pott
knew or assumed that Waszczuk did not know what the anti-SLAPP was for.
Michael Pott quit his job or got fired by Porter Scott after Waszczuk fired Douglas
Stein on December 16, 2014 for his misconduct. Michael Pott left Porter Scott 30
minutes after Waszczuk filed his opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion in January.
Douglas Ropel, who was trying to get Waszczuk into confrontation in the
Courthouse, left Porter Scott in February or March 2016, just before the anti-
SLAPP appeal case was ready to be briefed.
David Burkett is the last one of the three perpetrators who is still in Porter Scott
with the baggage that he does not want to carry with him to the Court of Law. It is
just a matter of time before David Burkett finds out where he stands in his Porter
Scott attorney and shareholder career. In 2014, Waszczuk paid an extra $5,000 to

-17-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Douglas Stein to hire a private investigator, but Waszczuk was then forced to be a
private investigator for himself.
The other reasons to deny any fees and costs to the Defendants’ attorney from
Porter Scott are outlined in Waszczuk’s July 15, 2015 Opposition to the
Defendants’ Motion for Fees and Costs that followed his July 20, 2015 Notice of
Objection to the Defendants Reply to Waszczuk’s Opposition requesting from the
Court that Motion for Fees and Cost be denied and fees not be awarded to the
Defendants.
Waszczuk’s Court Pleadings, State Bar of California and California
Supreme Decisions in Re: Douglas Stein Misconduct

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.
Waszczuk was defrauded of his retainer in the amount of $20,000 by Stein. In
other words, his retainer was stolen, and Stein spent the money on drugs and
attempted to sell Waszczuk’s two cases to the Defendants’ attorneys for $300,000
after his unsuccessful attempt in August 2011 to extort approximately $60,000
from the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston. 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 being informed of Waszczuk’s attorney’s gross misconduct and
misrepresentation, which included and was not limited to stealing Waszczuk’s
retainer and collusion with Porter Scott attorneys, which caused a despicable and
unacceptable miscarriage of justice. Waszczuk was also discriminated against by
the Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of Appeal Judges and
Justices. Douglas Stein was suspended for two years by California Supreme Court
Order, Supreme Court Case: S245982- STEIN ON DISCIPLINE

-18-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
The Supreme Court Order, State Bar Stipulation dated October 24, 2017 and
Waszczuk’s response and comments to the State Bar Stipulation are attached as:
(EXHIBIT # 1)

CONCLUSION

Good cause exists to grant the requested extension of time and continuance of
hearing to allow the 3CA Court to resolve Waszczuk’s other appeal in Case No.
C079254 and allow Waszczuk more time to finalize and file a Third Amended
Complaint that provides completely different insight into Waszczuk’s wrongful
termination lawsuit and the Defendants’ demands for legal fees to which they are
not entitled.
For their part, the Defendants should not be unduly prejudiced by the stay or
extension of time to continue the hearing. The Defendants are seeking $36,014 in
attorney fees and costs. The Regents of the University of California have a $30
billion budget. Staying the Defendants’ motion will thus have a minimal impact, if
any, upon the Defendants.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court stay
the Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees or alternatively grant the requested
extension of time and continuance of hearing to Waszczuk. “

B. Waszczuk’s Inquiry Sent to Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown on May
24, 2018

In addition to my opposition to Burkett’s Supplemental Declaration in Support


of the Defendants’ previously filed Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant to C.C.P. §
425.16(C), I submitted the following inquiry to Hon. David Brown: (EXHIBIT #28
– On Flash Drive)

Subject: Court Hearing on May 24, 2018, at 2: 00 p.m. for Case No. 34-2013-
00155479,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California (short title),
“Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Supplemental Declaration of David P.E. Burkett” in
Support of Defendants' Previously Filed Motion for Fees and Costs Pursuant to
C.C.P. § 425.16(c) Filed by Defendants’ Counsel on April 26, 2018

-19-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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. I am enclosing the latter in support of the former. 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.1; “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
period of 2011/2012 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 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

-20-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Porter Scott’s attorney. 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.
Respectfully submitted on May 23, 2018 by Express overnight mail.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Pro Per
Enclosure:

In his inquiry, I again urged the Court not to award any legal fees to Porter
Scott attorneys. In the Motion for New Evidence on Appeal denied by 3DCA on
December 7, 2018, 3DCA [Case No. C079254 ], Waszczuk v. CUIAB et al., I explained
that the anti-SLAPP motion filed by Porter Scott attorney Michael Pott in conspiracy
with my attorney, Douglas Stein, was a hoax to destroy my lawsuits for the price tag of
$300,000, which the financially devastated Stein was supposed to receive in January
2015. (Exhibit #4 and Exhibit #6 Petition for Review)

C. The Court Order Dated June 7, 2018 and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration Filed on June 18, 2018

By the Order dated June 7, 2018 (EXHIBIT #29 – On Flash Drive), the Court
(Judge Brown) declined my requested continuance for the hearing for legal fees and
costs to August 23, 2018. For some reason, the Court repeated its statement (below)
about the “bigger stake in the lawsuit” from the 3DCA’s unpublished opinion in the anti-
-21-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
SLAPP motion, Case No. C079524, issued on October 2017 and awarded $22,284 to
Porter Scott attorneys for their fraud and conspiracy with Stein or forced Stein
to collaborate with them .

“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 filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and the Court scheduled a
Court hearing for July 19, 2018. Department 53 (Judge Brown) (EXHIBIT #30 – On
Flash Drive) Waszczuk thanked Judge Brown saying:
“Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown created a legal
mess because of his longtime relationship with Douglas Stein, who with his
colleague from the Porter Scott law firm. Stein dragged Judge Brown into the
despicable miscarriage of justice that is the enormous, vicious, out-of-control
vendetta against Waszczuk. Judge Brown can’t seem to resist harming 67-year-old
Waszczuk, who has already been harmed and devastated by California Court
judges. These individuals have not served justice in the name of free speech and
the First Amendment. “
On Pages 274–295, Exhibit #1—Draft of 2015 Third Amended Complaint, First
Cause of Action, BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT—shows approximate
financial loses and damages caused by the reckless and ruthless disregard of the
2009 Settlement Agreement. The UCOP white-collar criminals’ breach of the
Settlement Agreement resulted in termination of Waszczuk’s employment;
financial loses of over $1,000,000; and unimaginable suffering and other
consequences for Waszczuk and his family.
The Code of Civil Procedure 1008 (a) states that application (Motion for
Reconsideration) has to be made to the same judge or court that made the original
order; the same judge or court must reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or
revoke the prior order. This is unfortunate. In the interest of justice and fairness,
Judge Brown should remove himself from hearing this motion, and a new judge
should be assigned.”

-22-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
There are many questions: Why did Judge Brown decline to move the Court
hearing to August 23, 2018 as I had requested? Why did the Superior Court on June 7,
2018 repeat the 3DCA’s statement about “much more at stake than Waszczuk’s
mere wrongful termination lawsuit?”

D. David Burketts’ Proposed Order and Judgment Following the Court


Order Dated June 7, 2018
I found strange the Court Order dated June 7, 2018, which awarded $22,284 to
former Porter Scott attorneys Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel for their fraud and
conspiracy with my attorney, Douglas Stein, but did not award any legal fees to
David Burkett, who was the leading Porter Scott ‘s attorney repreenting UC Regents
since January 23, 2015. I elaborated about in my opposition to Burkett’s demands
for legal fess and cost .

Following the June 7, 2018 Court order, on June 14, 2018, I received from
Burkett a letter and Proposed Judgment. (EXHIBIT #31 – On Flash Drive)

By mutual agreement, Waszczuk submitted his 93-page long PLAINTIFF’S


DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING
LEGAL FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P.
425.16 (C) on June 25, 2018. Burkett extended the time to submit my opposition or
disproval to the Proposed Order and Judgment until June 29, 2018 because Burkett
forgot to attach the Proposed Order to the e-mail dated June 14, 2018 e (EXHIBIT #32 –
On Flash Drive)

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312(a), the Plaintiff 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).

-23-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
On June 26, 2018, Burkett filed his Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment with
his cover letter but he basically did not provide any information to the Court about the
PLAINTIFF’S DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANTS nor he filed as is my
opposition (Court Register of Action-ROA No. 139 & 140 showing 8 and 3 pages,
respectively, were filed), thus Burkett violated California Rule of Court 3.1312(b) and
Proposed Order and Judgment shall not be signed by Superior Court Judge David Brown.
(EXHIBIT #33 – On Flash Drive)

This was a copycat scenario that Porter Scott attorney Douglas Ropel did or was
told to do by Burkett in March 2015. Judge Brown ignored Waszczuk’s Notice of
Objection and signed the Court Order and Judgment granting the anti-SLAPP motion
regardless that Porter Scott violated California Rule of Court 3.1312(b). (See Exhibit
#17)

On June 29, 2018, Judge Brown signed Burkett’s Proposed Order and Judgment
(ROA No. 143, 144) and Judgment (ROA No. 146) with a rubber stamp signature. Not
only did this happen after Burkett’s violation, but it took place 10 days before the
scheduled July 19, 2018 Court hearing for Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
June 7, 2018 Court Order, which granted former Porter Scott attorney legal fees and costs
in the amount of more than $22,000. (EXHIBIT #34 – On Flash Drive)

On top of this, after the Order for Legal Fees and Costs was rubber stamped by
Brown, Burkett’s assistant from the Porter Scott Law Firm, Courtney de Groof
https://www.porterscott.com/person/courtney-de-groof/ on July 2, 2018 filed two pages
of Defendants’ Opposition (EXHIBIT #35– On Flash Drive) (ROA No. 145) against
Waszczuk’s 256-page Motion for Reconsideration. What was the point of filing the
Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration if the order and judgment were already
signed?

-24-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
E. The July 16, 2019 Inquiry with the Sacramento County Superior Court
Clerk: Re: July 19, 2019 Court Hearing and the Plaintiff’s Disapproval of the
Defendants’ June 26, 2018 Proposed Order and Judgment
On July 16, 2018, I sent the inquiry to the Sacramento Superior Court Clerk in
Department 53 together with a copy of the 94-page-long Plaintiff’s Disproval of the
Defendants’ Proposed Order and Judgment that should be filed on December 26, 2018 by
David Burkett but was not. (EXHIBIT #36– On Flash Drive) It took place three days
before the Motion for Reconsideration was scheduled for a Court hearing with Judge
Brown on July 19, 2018 and after Judge Brown signed the Proposed Order and Judgment

By his inquiry, Waszczuk wanted clarification on what happened to his Plaintiff’s


Disapproval of the June 26, 2018 Defendants’ Proposed Order and Judgment. Waszczuk
eventually wanted to find who was behind the rubber stamped justice he received in the
Sacramento County Superior Court and the 3DCA.

F. The Court Order Dated July 19, 2018 – Waszczuk’s Motion for
Reconsideration
In his July 16, 2018 inquiry to Superior Court Clerk Dept. 53 (Hon. Judge Brown),
Waszczuk made the request:

“ In conclusion, I am respectfully requesting that the Court Clerk file Burkett’s


letter dated June 26, 2016 – PLAINTIFF’S DISAPPROVAL OF THE
PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND
COSTS TO DEFENDANTS’ ANTI­SLAPP 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 arguments for July 20, 2018 if I am
dissatisfied with a tentative court ruling.”

Apparently the Court (Judge David Brown) did not want to hear that Burkett’s
one-page letter dated June 26, 2018 submitted to the Court with the Proposed Order and
Judgment was not a summary of Waszczuk’s 94-page Disapproval of the Proposed Order

-25-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
and Judgment, but rather, Burkett filed the Proposed Judgment and Order in violation of
California Rule of Court 3.1312 (a). Burkett did not even have time to read my document.
This was easy to surmise because it was the only document and the document should
have been filed as a whole.

Furthermore, it was obvious that the Court did not want to hear in open Court that
the Proposed Order and Judgment was signed 10 days before the scheduled Court hearing
and that Porter Scott’s attorney filed the Defendants’ Opposition to my Plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration two days after the Order and Judgment was rubber stamped
by Judge Brown and filed on June 29, 2018.

The Court found a solution that pleased Porter Scott’s attorneys and their
powerful client, the UC Regents. Judge Brown simply denied my Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsidartion on July 19, 2018 and I learned that the oral argument had not been
permitted me on July 19, 2018. There must have been “much more at stake than
Waszczuk’s mere wrongful termination lawsuit.”

G. 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 me , Plaintiff oral argument for
my Plaitiff’s Motion for Consideration filed on June 18, 2018. (EXHIBIT # 37-On
Flash Drive) The notice of Unavailability of Counsel that Waszczuk received on July
21, 2018 by U.S. Mail states that David Burkett would not be available from July 20,
2018 to August 11, 2018. (EXHIBIT # 38-On Flash Drive) THE NOTICE OF
UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL was intended to be sent to the County of
Sacramento but was sent to Waszczuk .

This is how the Sacramento County Superior Court, friends of the UC Regents, and their
legal counsel David Burkett from the notorious Porter Scott law firm accommodated

-26-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Burkett’s need for a vacation without filing an Application for Court Hearing
continuance.

This explains why Burkett’s court friends, armed with Judge Brown’s rubber stamp,
rushed to stamp Burkett’s Proposed Order and Judgment before somebody filed an
objection to Waszczuk’s Motion for Reconsideration on Burkett’s behalf. It also explains
why Waszczuk’s 94-page Disproval of the Defendant’s Proposed Order and Judgment
was not submitted to the Court by Burkett or filed by Clerk on June 26, 2018.
Additionally, it explains why I was denied by Court Order dated June 7, 2018
continuance of the Court hearing to August 23, 2018. This discrimination and deprivation
of my rights to equal access to the justice system and his rights violations by the
judicial officers is very troubling and unacceptable. U.S. Code 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.

IV. PORTER SCOTT ATTORNEY DANIEL JOHN BARDZELL – SBN


#313993

A. Introduction

Porter Scott Law Firm attorney Daniel John Bardzell is the fourth attorney
assigned to assist David Burkett in defense of Waszczuk v. UC Regents and Waszczuk v.
CUIAB. Burkett was supposed to have been a lead defense attorney since January 23,
2015, https://www.porterscott.com/person/david-p-e-burkett/.

The legal fees of 1.2 hours in the amount of $312 awarded to David Burkett made
me believe that somebody else, not Burkett, was the leading Porter Scott’ attorney
against me since September 2014 in the shadow of Michael Pott, Douglas Ropel, and
David Burkett, Chambord V. Benton-Hayes and Courtney de Groof.

The first of Burkett’s assistants in the my lawsuits was Douglas Ropel – SBN
#300486 who was admitted to the State Bar on December 2, 2014, basically on the same
day , Michael Pott in conspiracy with my attorney Douglas Stein filed the old demurrer
-27-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
as a anti -SLAPP motion Ropel showed up showed up in Court knowing only knowing
already result of Judge Shelleyanne Chang’s and Judge David I. Brown’s rulings. Ropel
then quit Porter Scott in March 2016. However, in May 2018, Burkett claimed legal fees
on his and on Michael Pott’s – SBN #186156 behalf of 25 hours at $260/hr (reduced
from 31.5 hours) for $6,500; David Burkett’s 1.2 hours at $260/hr (no reduction) for
$312; Douglas L. Ropel’s 40 hours at $260/hr (as an attorney; reduced from 61.7
hours) for $10,400; Douglas L. Ropel’s 30 hours at $100/hr (as a law clerk; reduced
from 43.2 hours). (See: Exhibit #29 – On Flash Drive)

In light of Burkett being a lead attorney and was awarded only 1.2 hours in
three years in legal fees, I found very strange strange Burkett’s claim of more than
$20,000 in legal fees on behalf of two attorneys who supposedly worked on the case
in 2014 and 2015 for a short time and then they quit Porter Scott. I pointed out to
the Court that the Court awarded legal fees to the two former Porter Scott attorneys
without any declaration if these fees belonged to them or if they still alive . . The
Court also did not know whether the two attorneys, Douglas Ropel and Michael Pott,
were still employed at Porter Scott and if they wanted to do anything with these legal
fees that Burkett claimed on their behalf along with his own work load on the case
consisting of only 1.2 hours over a three-year period.

I became suspicious that somebody else more experienced from Porter Scott
then Douglas Ropel, Chambord V. Benton-Hayes – SBN #278970, Courtney de Groof
– SBN #319334, and Daniel John Bardzell – SBN #313993 was and still is working on
my cases from the very beginning and Burkett for some reason is avoiding my cases
as much as he can and his signature only is labeling some pleadings where nobody is
around to sign the document . Perhaps his name is only being used as a smoke screen for
Porter Scott attorney who does not want to reveal his name.

B. Daniel Bardzell – SBN #313993 Admitted to the State Bar of California


January 11, 2017

-28-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
https://www.porterscott.com/person/daniel-j-bardzell/

Dan worked as a civil rights investigator for both the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the New York State Division of Human Rights before
commencing his career as an employment litigation attorney in January 2015. His
practice now focuses on employment and civil rights matters. Dan is a New Jersey native
and lives in Sacramento.

Education

• Fordham University School of Law (J.D., 2013)


• Extern for Justice Franke Clarke (now elevated to the Supreme Court of Ireland)
http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/pagecurrent/6DCD7B9B
3E0B22D180257315005A419D?opendocument&l=en

• Notes and Articles Editor, Fordham International Law Journal


cnp.org/pubs/Bardzell.pdf

Daniel Bardzell- North-Korea NuclearProgram-LCNP

https://careersdocbox.com/US_Military/65780752-North-korea-s-nuclear-
weapons-program-and-potential-us-responses-daniel-j-bardzell-fordham-
university-school-of-law.html

• University of British Columbia (B.A., 2008)


Practice Areas

• Employment
• Public Entities
Admitted to Practice

• All California State courts


• All New York State courts
• All New Jersey State courts
• United States District Court, Eastern District of California
• United States District Court, Northern District of California
• United States District Court, District of New Jersey

-29-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
It appears from the Porter Scott web page
https://www.porterscott.com/person/daniel-j-bardzell/ that new Porter Scott Law Firm
member Daniel Bardzell was born in Ireland and moved to British Columbia, Canada
then to New Jersey, USA. Bardzell told me he is Polish during a meeting with him in
Sacramento Superior Court on February 8, 2019 in the Court cafeteria. I asked him about
his roots because his name is Polish and I am myself a Polish immigrant. My son, who
was born in Poland, is approximately Bardzell’s age. I forgot to ask him if he speaks
Polish. Is it possible that he was born in Poland like both my children and was hired by
Porter Scott for this purpose? He had lived in California and in New Jersey where there is
a large Polish diaspora and had worked as an attorney for the New York State Division of
Human Rights. He most likely was involved in cases with Polish people living in the
New York and New Jersey areas where the Polish diaspora is very large with tens of
thousands of Polish immigrants and Polish-Americans.

What is interesting about this story is that in 2015, the University of California,
Davis, where I was employed from June 1999 to December 2012, recruited Polish born
and educated professor Joanna Regulska. Ms. Regulska was previously employed by
Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey, the same state Bardzell lived in. A scholar of
globalism(terrible) , Ms. Regulska is highly recognized and decorated by the previous
government of the Republic of Poland(sucks)

https://globalaffairs.ucdavis.edu/about/welcome/regulska-biography.

https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/ucd/ucds-global-affairs-leader-is-not-
concerned-about-intelligence-risks/

I appeared in Superior Court on February 8, 2019 due to a scheduled Appearance


and Examination in Court Department 37 per Court Order dated December 7, 2018
signed by Judge Hon. Jennifer K. Rockwell. (EXHIBIT # 39 – On Flash Drive)

https://ballotpedia.org/Jennifer_K._Rockwell

-30-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
• Jennifer K. Rockwell is a judge of the Superior Court of Sacramento
County in California. She was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown (D) on July
31, 2014.[1]
• 2014-Present: Judge, Superior Court of Sacramento County
• 2008-2014: Chief counsel, California Department of Finance
• 1999-2008: Deputy attorney general, California Department of Justice, Office
of the Attorney General
• 1996-1999: Staff counsel, California State Treasurer's Office
• 1995-1996: Executive fellow, Center for California Studies at Sacramento State[1]
• Rockwell received a B.A. from the University of California - Davis, and
a J.D. from the University of Southern California.[1]
https://ballotpedia.org/Jennifer_K._Rockwell

Upon arrival in Court Department 37 on February 8, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., I was


redirected by Court Staff to Department 43 with Presiding Judge Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard.

https://ballotpedia.org/Thadd_A._Blizzard

“Thadd A. Blizzard is a judge for the Superior Court of Sacramento County in California.
He was appointed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) on March 27,
2009, to succeed Gail Ohanesian

Blizzard received a bachelor's degree from Claremont McKenna College and a J.D. from
the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law

• 2009-Present: Judge, Superior Court of Sacramento County


• 1987-2009: Attorney, Weintraub, Genshlea & Chediak
• 1986-1987: Attorney, Greenberg Cantor & Reiss
• 1983-1986: Attorney, Law Offices of Stuart Jackson
• 1980-1982: Attorney, Grant, Hermann & Schwartz
1978-1979: Judicial staff attorney, California First District Court of Appeal[2]”

C. Meeting Summary with Daniel Bardzell on February 8, 2018


The Court Clerk ordered the parties to meet and confer in the Court cafeteria and
if there were any problems, then the parties should go back to the Courtroom and talk to
the judge. During the meeting, Bardzell was very nervous and uncomfortable.

-31-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
I did not know what caused Bardzell’s nervousness, whether it was the unexpected
change of Courtroom from No. 37 with Hon. Jennifer K. Rockwell to Courtroom No. 43
with Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard or if it was another reason.

For the record, I memorized the meeting with Bardzell and recorded it in the
follow-up letter entitled “Appearance and Examination on February 8, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
in Department 43, Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard, Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California.” (EXHIBIT # 40 – On Flash
Drive)

RE: SUMMARY OF THE MEETING IN THE COURT CAFETERIA ON


FEBRUARY 8, 2019

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
-32-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
to the Clerk filed on July 18, 2018 and the Letter to Judge Brown filed on
November 16, 2018).
o 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

-33-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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

Attachment:

-34-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
After the meeting with Daniel Bardzell on February 8, 2019 I got impression that he is a
FBI undercover agent or a paid by FBI informer. However I don’t know for sure. It is
just impression for now

With out any doubt the motion would be granted by the Court Porter Scott’s attorneys
if I would not make noise about on October 9, 2018.

V. THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF PORTER SCOTT ATTORNEYS


DANIEL JOHN BARDZELL – SBN #313993 AND HIS SUPERIOR, DAVID
BURKETT, IN 2018–2019

A. Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Verified Responses to


Requests for Production of Documents (Short Title) Filed on October 3, 2018

On October 3, 2018, the Defendants’ Attorney, Daniel Bardzell, filed in the


Sacramento Superior Court Department 54, instead of Department 53, the Notice of
Motion and Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Requests for Production of
Documents and for Terminating Sanctions in the amount of $5,200, Case No. 34-2013-
00155479-CU-WT-GDS, Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of
California Court Public Case Access
https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/CaseDetails, Register of Action
(ROA) No. 151–153.

I memorized the Porter Scott attorney’s deceptive behavior in the October 11,
2018 inquiry to the Clerk of Court Department 54 as follows: (EXHIBIT #41 – On
Flash Drive)

“Dear Clerk,

On October 3, 2018, I received by U.S. Mail from the Porter Scott law firm a
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

-35-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
INTERROGATORIES GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES
EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND
FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTION. (ATTACHMENT # 1)
Nothing would be unusual about this Notice of Motion, but the court motion filed
by Porter Scott on October 3, 2018 shows that said motion is set to be heard on
October 31, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 54.

This case has been handled for the last three years by the Hon. David I. Brown
from Department 53, so the notification about a Court hearing in Department 54
caught my attention.
I am not sure what the criminal attorneys from Porter Scott were planning by
providing misleading information to me, but the motion is actually scheduled to be
heard in Department 53 on October 31, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., according to the
Sacramento Superior Court Public Case Access System. At this point, I am not
100% sure in which Department the motion will be heard, but I am assuming that
it will be heard in Department 53 with Presiding Judge Hon. David I Brown.

Previously, Porter Scott attorneys attempted to provoke me into physical


confrontations on two different occasions in the Courthouse. As such, I have to
take all precautions not to show up at a wrong Court hearing at 9:00 a.m.,
preventing me from attending the right Court hearing at 2:00 p.m. If the Clerk
would take some time and briefly view the attached ANSWER TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF (enclosed) or the Appellant Request to
Place the Case on the Court Calendar, Case No C079254 Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appel Board filed in the Court of Appeal on August 3,
2018 in the Third Appellate Court, then the Clerk or Judge will understand why I
am concerned about receiving misleading information from Porter Scott that they
have no intention to correct or clarify.
If in fact the Court hearing is scheduled in Department 53, then please provide this
letter with enclosed documents to Hon. David I. Brown.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon
my review of the record filed on this matter.

-36-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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

Stamped envelope with return address”

If filing the Motion in Department 54 instead of Department 53 was Bardzell’s


mistake, then the clerk would have simply corrected the mistake and redirected the
documents to Department 53, which is actually what the Clerk did. However, after
Bardzell and Burkett received the copy of my letter addressed to the Court Clerk on
October 11, 2018, Burkett with an evil motive filed on October 12, 2018 the AMENDED
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS and scheduled the Court Hearing
for a motion to be heard by the Court on November 13, 2018, ROA #156. (EXHIBIT #
42 – On Flash Drive) However, neither Bardzell nor Burkett cancelled the Court
Hearing for the same motion, which they scheduled for October 31, 2018 in Department
54. Such manipulation made me believe that November 13, 2018 was the proper date for
the Court Hearing, not the October 31, 2018 date.

That was not enough. On October 17, 2018, another Porter Scott attorney,
Courtney de Groof, filed the same MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS in Department 53 with the Court
Hearing scheduled for November 14, 2015, ROA #158–161. De Groof submitted with the
motion a short letter to the Court Clerk requesting to cancel the Court Hearing scheduled
for November 13, 2018. (EXHIBIT # 43 – On Flash Drive)

-37-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
“Dear Court Clerk:
On October 3, 2018, Defendant Regents of The University of California filed a
Motion, to Compel Verified Responses and for Monetary and Terminating
Sanctions. The notion was accompanied by a Notice for a hearing date on October.
31, '2018.Defendaiit then filed an Amended Notice on October 12,' 2018 for a
hearing on November 13, 2018 Defendant requests that the N6vember, 13, 2018'
hearing be taken off calendar.
Think you for your time and attention to this matter.
Very truly yours, PORTER SCOTT”

B. My Response to Special Interrogatories – Set One and October 21, 2018


Court Hearing

On October 15, 2018, I responded to the DEFENDANTS’ REGENTS OF THE


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF – SET
ONE, ROA #162. (EXHIBIT # 44 – On Flash Drive)

On October 31, 2018, I unexpectedly received notification from the Court of the
Minutes finalized for the Motion to Compel – Other – Civil Law and Motion heard on
October 31, 2018. The manipulation of the Court by Porter Scott attorneys Daniel
Bardzell, David Burkett, and Courtney de Groof did the trick, and Waszczuk did not
oppose the Motion being sure that the Court Hearing was moved to November 14, 2018.
However, for some reason, for the first time in four years, Judge David I. Brown made
the decision which did not meet Porter Scott attorneys’ expectations (EXHIBIT #45 –
On Flash Drive) The October 31, 2018 Court Order stated:

“Defendant's request for mandatory monetary sanctions is 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 Jarolsaw 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
-38-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
sanctions, which may be enforced by a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior
Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

The Court denies Defendant's alternate requests for issue, evidentiary, and/or
terminating sanctions at this time. The sanctions the court may impose are such as
are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the
objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose sanctions which are
designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose
punishment."
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.”

The Court’s statement about Porter Scott’s slanderous comment describing


Plaintiff Waszczuk as a “vexatious litigant “was quite a surprise. I would compare the
“vexatious litigant” status to to the UC President Janet Napolitano’s attempt to
place me on the “No Fly” list in 2015 by utilizing her friends .

Afterward, the Court issued a Tentative Ruling that I had not requested, a hearing
with Judge David I. Brown. No reason. It would not do any good . Judge Brown is not
charge of my cases . .

C. The November 14, 2018 Court Hearing


On November 2, 2018, Waszczuk urged Porter Scott attorneys via e-mail to cancel
the November 14, 2018 Court hearing for their Motion to Compel for Terminating
Sanctions after the Court already issued a decision on October 31, 2018. This was to no
avail.

-39-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Porter Scott’s deception and deceit was not as successful as they had anticipated.
On November 5, 2018, Daniel Bardzell sent the letter to the Clerk from Court
Department 53 (Hon. David I. Brown) and requested to vacate the October 31, 2018
Court Order and to rehear the motion on November 14, 2018. Besides the hearing, I was
informed I have until November 6 to oppose the motion. (EXHIBIT # 46 – On Flash
Drive)

“Re:Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al. Sacramento


Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479

Dear Clerk of the Court:

The purpose of this correspondence is to request that the Court's October 31, 2018
Order on Defendant Regents of the University of California's Motion to Compel
Verified Responses and for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions be vacated
pursuant to C.C.P. 473(b).
On October 3, 2018, Defendant Regents of the University of California filed a
Motion to Compel Verified Responses and for Monetary and Terminating
Sanctions with Department 54. The motion was accompanied by a Notice for a
hearing date on October 31, 2018.
Prior to the hearing on October 31, 2018, Defendant became aware that the notice
was defective because it should have been filed for a hearing in Department 53
and could not be heard by Department 54.
As a result, Defendant subsequently filed an Amended Notice on October 12, 2018
for a new hearing date of November 13, 2018 in Department 53 to provide
Plaintiff with proper notice. Later, via an October 16, 2018 correspondence,
Defendant requested the November 13, 2018 hearing be taken off calendar and
refiled its motion and supporting papers for a new hearing date of November 14,
2018.
Defendant was under the impression that the initial October 31, 2018 Department
54 hearing date had not been set because Department 54 does not hear such
motions. The Clerk's Office nonetheless apparently transferred the motion to
Department 53 (the correct department for such motions) to be heard on October

-40-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
31, 2018. Department 53 heard the motion on October 31, 2018 and issued an
Order on the same date granting the motion in part as unopposed.

Defendant understood the October 31, 2018 hearing date was not set and was not
aware of the Court's tentative or Order until after the date and hearing time.

On Friday, November 2, 2018, Plaintiff emailed counsel for Defendant and


indicated that an Order on this motion had been entered on October 31, 2018.
Counsel for Defendant responded to Plaintiff by email on the same date indicating:
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 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 noticed with time to file
an opposition.

Very truly yours,

PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESIONAL CORPORATION,

By
Daniel J. Bardzell

DPEB/DJB:wes

cc: Jaroslaw Waszczuk


2216 Katzakian Way”

-41-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
On November 12, 2018, I sent an inquiry by next-day U.S. Priority Mail to Court
Department 53 requesting cancelation of the Court Hearing scheduled for November 14,
2018 to hear the Motion to Compel, which was already heard by Judge Brown on
October 31, 2018. I also asked Judge Brown to reduce the amount of sanctions imposed
by the October 31, 2018 Court Order.

With the inquiry/complaint regarding how Porter Scott attorneys manipulated the
legal process in the Court, I sent to Court Department 53 my 195-page Plaintiff’s
Response to Defendants’ Request for Admission required by the Court Order dated
October 31, 2018. (EXHIBIT # 47 – On Flash Drive) My inquires, without the
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ for Admission, sent to Judge Brown were stamped as
received on November 15, 2018 and filed on November 16, 2018, ROA #179. Should be:
Received on November 13 and filed on November 13, 2018.

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.

-42-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Dear Judge Brown,

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.
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
-43-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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
-44-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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.

-45-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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
-46-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk serving verified responses without objections on
November 21, 2018.
Waszczuk did not like the $520.00 sanction because his life was tarnished 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 much 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
-47-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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.

EXAMPLES OF THE PORTER SCOTT’S ATTORNEYS’ DECEPTIONS

The Court Hearing for Motion for Reconsideration scheduled for


o 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

-48-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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

-49-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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 .

-50-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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
Plaintif in Pro Per

Proof of Service
Most likely, Judge Brown never read or received my November 12, 2018 inquires
or my 195-page Response for Admission enclosed with important documents and photos
about Waszczuk’s employment with the University of California and about the witch
hunts he endured in the periods 2006–2009 and 2011–2012, which almost resulted in
Waszczuk being killed on May 31, 2012 due to an ill-conceived provocation.

-51-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
On November 14, 2018, the Court (Judge Brown) again heard the Porter Scott
attorney’s the same Motion to Compel and Terminating Sanctions that was heard on
October 31, 2018. The issued on November 14, 2018 did not change anything and did not
fulfill the Porter Scott attorney’s desire to throw Waszczuk out of Court or November 14,
2018 was just part of the dirty game and another step to finish my litigations against
Janet Napolitano’s UCOP Mafia . ROA #174–176.

Since 2015, I suspected that someone was making decisions in my two cases
besides Judge Brown and Judge Chang and regardless that Porter Scott attorneys violated
or manipulated what I opposed or objected to, the orders were being signed by the Court
in the favor of Porter Scott and the University of California and thus blocking me from
the equal access to justice.

After the Court ruled again on November 14, 2018 on Porter Scott’s Motion to
Compel for Terminating Sanctions, I summarized David Burkett and Daniel Bardzell’s
bullying behavior and their misconduct as attorneys in the November 14, 2018 letter
entitled

“Your Bullying and Unprofessional Behavior and Gross Professional Misconduct.


The Motion to Compel filed on October 3, 2018, the Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’
Request for Admission – Set One, which was provided to Court Department 53 (Judge
Brown) by U.S. Priority Mail and to the State Bar of California, ROA #180, and the
November 14, 2018 Court Order and Letter are attached. (EXHIBIT # 48 – On Flash
Drive)

D. Porter Scott Attorneys’ Dissatisfaction with the November 14, 2018 Court
Order

Dissatisfied with the November 14, 2018 Court Order or just playing the dirty
game with me in the Court the Porter Scott attorneys on November 20, 2018 sent to

-52-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
threating a Meet and Confer letter which was whining about the Court Order and
accused me that I had not complied with Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220 as well as the
Court’s Tentative Ruling. Porter Scott attorneys threatened me as well that they
would file a Summary Judgment based on non-compliance and tried to coerce
me to file a Motion for Reconsideration against the November 14, 2018 Court
Order.

VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL

Jaroslaw Waszczuk 2216 Katzakian W ay Lodi , CA 95242

JJW 1980 @,LIVE.COM

Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al. Sacramento


Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479

Dear Mr. Waszczuk:

This meet and confer correspondence is in regards to the Court's ruling on


Defendant' s Motion to Compel and Deem Request for Admissions, Set One
Admitted.

The Court's November 13, 2018 Tentative Ruling, affirmed by Order dated Nove
mber 14, 2018 provided, in part: " Defendant's unopposed motion to deem matters
in the requests for admission admitted is granted, unless Plaintiff Jarolsaw
Waszczuk serves, 'before the hearing on the motion,' proposed responses that are
in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(C), ) "

Code Civ. Proc.,§ 2033.280 provides, in part:

"If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely
response, the following rules apply:

[... ]

The reques ting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any
documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed
admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commenc ing with
Section 2023.0 1 0).
-53-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to

whom the requests for admiss io n have been directed has served, before the
hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in
substantial compliance with Section 2033.220[.]"Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(b)-
(c).

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to comply with both the Court's
November 13, 2018 Tentative Ruling and the requirements of Code Civ. Proc.,

§ 2033.280(c). It follows that the admissions were properly deemed admitted

pursuant to the Court's November 14, 2018 Order.

Defendant is in receipt of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant' s Regents of the


University of California Request for Admissions, Set One. This Response included
a Declaration of Service which states that it was served on November 13, 20 I 8 on
the Clerk's Office as well as counsel for Defendant by electronic mail and U.S.
mail. Defendant's counsel has no record of any email service upon Defendant by
Plaintiff on November 13, 2018. Defendant also has not consented to service by
email.

Defendant ' s counsel was not made aware of the service of Plaintiffs response by
U.S. mail until after the hearing would have occurred and it is unclear whether
same was served prior to the time allocated for a potential hearing. Plaintiff
apparently did not request a hearing.

In any event, Defendant's interpretation of Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c) and


applicable case law is that Plaintiff must serve and file, before the hearing on the
motion to deem a request for admissions admitted, a proposed respo nse to the
requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.220. (See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779
(''Subdivision (c) of section 2033.280 requires the court to evaluate whether the '
proposed response to the requests for admission" substantially complies with
section 2033.220[.]" '))

It does not appear that Plaintiff filed any response. Moreover, the incoherent 194
page response served on Defendant plainly fails to substantially comply with Code
Civ. Proc., § 2033.220 as well as the Court's Tentative Ruling and subsequent

-54-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Order. Since the Court did not find that the response was substantially compliant,
and , indeed the response is plainly non-compliant , Defendant maintains that the
Court's November 14, 20 I 8 Order deeming the request for admissions admitted is
proper.

Defendant is considering filing a motion for summary judgment based on these


admissions. If you believe you complied with the Court's ruling on Defendant's
motion to deem matters in the requests for admission admitted , Defendant
suggests that you file a motion for reconsideration of the Court' s Order. For the
reasons set forth above, Defendant would oppose such a motion.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to comply with both the Court's
November 13, 2018 Tentative Ruling and the requirements of Code Civ. Proc.,

§ 2033.280(c). It follows that the admissions were properly deemed admitted

pursuant to the Court's November 14, 2018 Order.

Defendant is in receipt of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant' s Regents of the


University of California Request for Admissions, Set One. This Response included
a Declaration of Service which states that it was served on November 13, 20 I 8 on
the Clerk's Office as well as counsel for Defendant by electronic mail and U.S.
mail. Defendant's counsel has no record of any email service upon Defendant by
Plaintiff on November 13, 2018. Defendant also has not consented to service by
email.

Defendant ' s counsel was not made aware of the service of Plaintiffs response by
U.S. mail until after the hearing would have occurred and it is unclear whether
same was served prior to the time allocated for a potential hearing. Plaintiff
apparently did not request a hearing.

In any event, Defendant's interpretation of Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c) and


applicable case law is that Plaintiff must serve and file, before the hearing on the
motion to deem a request for admissions admitted, a proposed response to the
requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.220. (See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779
(''Subdivision (c) of section 2033.280 requires the court to evaluate whether the '
proposed response to the requests for admission" substantially complies with
section 2033.220[.]" '))

-55-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
It does not appear that Plaintiff filed any response. Moreover, the incoherent 194
page response served on Defendant plainly fails to substantially comply with Code
Civ. Proc., § 2033.220 as well as the Court's Tentative Ruling and subsequent
Order. Since the Court did not find that the response was substantially compliant,
and , indeed the response is plainly non-compliant , Defendant maintains that the
Court's November 14, 20 I 8 Order deeming the request for admissions admitted is
proper.

Defendant is considering filing a motion for summary judgment based on these


admissions. If you believe you complied with the Court's ruling on Defendant's
motion to deem matters in the requests for admission admitted, Defendant
suggests that you file a motion for reconsideration of the Court' s Order. For the
reasons set forth above, Defendant would oppose such a motion.

Very truly yours,


PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

By
Daniel J. Bardzel I

E. My Response to Daniel Bardzell’s November 20, 2018 Rant

On November 26, 2016, I responded to Bardzell’s November 20, 2018


Meet and Confer rant which purpose was to distract me from preparing myself
for the oral arguments for the cross-referenced case in the Court of Appeals Third
Appellate District, Case No. C079254 Waszczuk v. CUIAB. Oral arguments were
scheduled for December 12, 2018.

In my response, Waszczuk asked Porter Scott attorneys why they did not
request the hearing on November 13, 2018 after the Tentative Court ruling if they
were dissatisfied with it and I advised them to file a Motion for Reconsideration.

-56-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Something must not have clicked for them in Department 53, and that was most
likely the reason they filed the Motion in Department 54 on October 3, 2018.

Taking into consideration Waszczuk’s experiences with the Court Rulings


(Judge Brown) on the Motion for Reconsideration in March 2015 and July 2018,
Waszczuk did not consider filing at the moment another Motion for
Reconsideration in the Sacramento County Superior Court.

Daniel Bardzell’s November 20, 2018 Meet and Confer letter and
Waszczuk’s response are attached. (EXHIBIT # 49 – On Flash Drive)

November 26, 2018

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

-57-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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.

The court’s November 13 tentative ruling, affirmed by an order dated November


14, 2018, had nothing to do with the Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Request
for Admission that I sent to your office or to the court on November 13, 2018, and
the court did not include my correspondence in the November 14 ruling, and I am
perfectly happy with this (See the attached November 12, 2018 correspondence
addressed to Honorable David I. Brown, filed on November 16, 2018, ROA #17).

I was following the October 31, 2018 court order by sending the November 12
correspondence and the attached Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Request for
Admission. That’s it. You both shot yourself in the foot by not taking the
November 14, 2018 hearing off the court calendar as I asked you to. The court
gave me more time to provide to you with the Plaintiff’s Response for Admission
and answer your other requests. According to the November 14 court order, I have
until December 12 to provide the response to you. By the October 31 order, I had
until November 21 to comply. I know what you were hoping for by not canceling
the November 14 hearing.

I don’t know what you are trying to say by asserting that the plaintiff failed to
comply with both the court’s November 13 tentative ruling and the requirements
of Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c). Do you want me to send you another copy of
the Plaintiff’s Response for Admission because I sent it too early? Let me know
-58-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
what you want with your assertion. Why didn’t you request a hearing for after the
court issued its tentative ruling on December 13, if you were not satisfied with the
ruling.

If you want file a Motion for Reconsideration or Motion for Summary Judgment
before December 12, then for your information the Plaintiff’s Response to the
Defendant’s Request for Admission is the actual plaintiff’s response, not the
“proposed response,” and the plaintiff’s 194-page response, which you received on
November 14, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. by U.S. Priority Mail, fully complies with the
October 31 and November 14 court orders and Code Civ. Proc., §2033.220 &
§2033.280.

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

-59-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
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
F. My Response to Interrogatories

-60-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
On December 12, 2018 per the November 14, 2018 Court Order (Judge Brown), I
submitted by e-mail and U.S. Priority Mail (proof attached) to the Porter Scott Law Firm
with a copy to Court Department 53 by U.S. Priority Mail (proof attached) the Plaintiff’s
Response to Form Interrogatories Employment Law, Plaintiff’s Response to Form
Interrogatories – GENERAL, and Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Request for
Production of Documents – Set One. (EXHIBIT # 50 – On Flash Drive)

From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk


Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:48 AM
To: 'David Burkett' <dburkett@porterscott.com>; 'dbardzell@porterscott.com'
<dbardzell@porterscott.com>; 'ashante.norton@doj.ca.gov'
<ashante.norton@doj.ca.gov>; 'wstrasser@porterscott.com'
<wstrasser@porterscott.com>; 'cdegroof@porterscott.com'
<cdegroof@porterscott.com>; 'Steven.Drown@ucop.edu'
<Steven.Drown@ucop.edu>; 'bjseifert@ucdavis.edu' <bjseifert@ucdavis.edu>;
'bryn.barton@doj.ca.gov' <bryn.barton@doj.ca.gov>
Cc: 'charles.robinson@ucop.edu'

Subject: Plaintiff ‘s Response to Form Interrogatories EMPLOYMENT ;Plaintiff


‘s Response to Form Interrogatories -GENERAL : Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents – Set One The Court Order
dated November 14, 2018

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

December 12, 2018


David P.E. Burkett J.D.
Daniel Bardzell J.D.
PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200

-61-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Sacramento, CA 95825

Subject: Your Motion to Compel filed on October 3, 2018


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: Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Request for Production of


Documents – Set One Plaintiff ‘s Response to Form Interrogatories -
GENERAL Plaintiff ‘s Response to Form Interrogatories – EMPLOYMENT

Gentlemen:

Following the Court Order dated October 31, 2018, and November 14, 2018, I am
submitting to your office a hard copy of :

• Plaintiff ‘s Response – to Defendants’ Request for Production of


Documents – Set One
• Plaintiff ‘s Response to Form Interrogatories -GENERAL
• Plaintiff ‘s Response to Form Interrogatories – EMPLOYMENT

and the responsive to the above captioned Requests the numbered documents on
the FLASH DRIVE .

Sincerely,

____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Per

CC. Sacramento County Superior Court Clerk – Department 53. Hon. David I.
Brown
The State Bar of California
See you in Court today .

-62-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
G. Porter Scott Attorneys’ New Threats on January 15, 2019 and January 24,
2019

On January 15, 2019, I received by e-mail the unsigned Meet and Confer letter
from Porter Scott Law Firm, which was supposedly authored by Daniel Bardzell.
However, the letter was not sent by Wendy Strasser, the legal assistant for David Burkett,
Daniel Bardzell, and Courtney de Groof, but rather by the legal assistant for Porter Scott
attorney, Thomas L. Riordan, whom I have never previously dealt with.

From: Cindy Cannon <ccannon@porterscott.com>


Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 11:35 AM
To: JJW1980@LIVE.COM
Cc: Daniel J. Bardzell <dbardzell@porterscott.com>; Wendy Strasser
<wstrasser@porterscott.com>
Subject: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California

Mr. Waszczuk:

Attached please find correspondence in the above-referenced matter. As noted, this


correspondence is also being sent via U.S. Mail.

Cindy Cannon

Legal Assistant to Thomas L. Riordan

350 University Avenue | Suite 200 | Sacramento,


CA 95825
T| 916. 929.1481 F| 916. 927.3706

www.PorterScott.com

-63-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
The Legal Assistant To Thomas Ms. Cindy Cannon copied the e-mail to Daniel
Bardzell and Wendy Strasser. This fact made me believe that Riordan is the author of the
Meet and Confer letter. To learn what was going on and who was the real author of the
threating Meet and Confer letter, I wondered if Thomas Riordan was a relative of Mr.
Dennis Riordan, who was handling the appeal for Hamid Hayat from Lodi, California
where I have lived since 1989. Hamid Hayat, a cherry picker in Lodi, was accused of
terrorism in 2005, prosecuted, and thrown into Federal Prison for 24 years in 2007.

See the slide show video from photos I took in 2005 after Hamid was arrested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9sUJ0TkPPw

Also in my e-mail reply, I mentioned that the Porter Scott Law Firm got somebody
more experienced and with a better education than McGeorge Law School to handle Jerry
Waszczuk’s lawsuits. David Burkett, who was educated at McGeorge Law School,
jumped and sent me an e-mail stating :

“Jerry,

The letter is from Dan Bardzell, as stated on the front page and the signature
block. Please communicate with Dan and I. Tom Riordan has nothing to do with
your case.

Tom, please ignore this and anything further from Jaroslaw (Jerry) Waszczuk.

—David”

Burkett’s rapid reaction got me concerned about Porter Scott attorney Tom
Riordan, who is he, and why the Meet and Confer threat likely came from his
office. No wonder why ?

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/104827

-64-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
“Only five months prior to his appointment to the Turner appeal, respondent became an
associate with the now-defunct Sacramento law firm of Hansen, Boyd, Culhane, and
Watson (Hansen). While with Hansen, respondent(Riordan) worked for several different
partners, primarily researching and writing motions.” and approximately three years as a
research attorney with the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento where
approximately half his work involved criminal appeals.

https://www.scribd.com/document/390596236/SI-27-08302016-
Acces-to-Justice-Letter-to-Presiding-Judge-Kevin-Culhane

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/02-O-11078.pdf

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/70528

“January 15, 2019

Author’s e-mail: dbardzell@porterscott.com

VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL

Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
JJW1980@LIVE.COM

Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al. Sacramento


Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:

This letter serves as Defendant Regents of the University of California


(“Defendant’s”) attempt to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s deficient
responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories - General, Set One; Form
Interrogatories - Employment, Set One; and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

Although Plaintiff served partial responses to the above discovery requests, some
are incomplete.

-65-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Additionally, the Court’s Order on Defendant’s Motion to Compel provided: “No
later than December 12, 2018, Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk shall serve verified
responses, without objections, to Plaintiff's form and special interrogatories (sets
one) and requests for production (set one).” Plaintiff’s attempted email service on
December 12, 2018 was improper and not code compliant. Therefore, Defendant’s
position is that Plaintiff’s subsequent service by mail at a later date was late and in
violation of the Court’s discovery order.

Please provide full supplemental responses to these requests immediately to avoid


the need for Defendant to engage in further discovery motion practice. Plaintiff’s
responses are deficient for the following reasons:

Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and incomprehensible. Moreover, Plaintiff


improperly cited to a myriad of external documents without any specific page or
line reference. In some instances, Plaintiff entirely failed to provide a response. In
response to some interrogatories, Plaintiff responded “I don’t know.” Plaintiff
failed to describe what search he has done to provide a response.

Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and insufficient for the reasons described,
supra. Additionally, service by email is invalid and service by mail was untimely.
Plaintiff is therefore in violation of the Court’s related Order.

Please provide complete responses by January 21, 2019 or we will file a further
motion to compel and seek additional sanctions. Moreover, if you require
additional time, we would consider providing a short and reasonable extension so
long as you agree to provide Defendant with an equal extension of time to file a
motion to compel.

Very truly yours, PORTER SCOTT


A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
By
Daniel J. Bardzell:
I informed Daniel Bardzell and David Burkett that I would respond later to their Meet
and Confer threats because I had a funeral to attend for my extended family. The Porter
Scott attorneys did not care about this and on January 24, 2019, legal assistant Wendy
Strasser sent me another harassing and threating Meet and Confer letter signed by Daniel
Bardzell. The letter alleged as follows:

-66-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
JJW1980@LIVE.COM

Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the Universitv of California, et al.


Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:

This letter serves as Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert,
Cindy Oropeza and Danesha Nichols' ("Defendants") attempt to meet and confer
regarding Plaintiffs outstanding responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor
Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories, Set One which were served on you on October 9, 2018. Plaintiff
has provided no response whatsoever.

Please provide complete responses by January 31, 2019 or we will file a motion to
compel and seek sanctions.

Very truly yours, PORTER SCOTT


A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
By
Daniel J. Bardzell

H. My Response to Porter Scott Attorneys’ New Threats and New Motion to


Compel for Terminating Sanctions

I never heard about the Defendants’ Judgment Debtor Request for Production of
Documents – Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories – Set One, which supposedly
were served on October 9, 2018. If so and if I did not respond, then Porter Scott for sure
would have let the Court know in October, November, or December that I was not
responsive or at least they would have reminded me by e-mail. It is not unusual for
Porter Scott attorneys to send documents to the wrong address or their briefs are stricken
by the Court. But I was blamed by the Court in the opinion that my brief did not follow

-67-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Court Rules or the Defendants did not file a brief at all, so the Court ruled against me
anyway. (See Exhibits #5 & 6)

On January 25, 2019, I responded to both the January 1, 2015 and January
24, 2019 threating letters from Porter Scott attorneys as follows:

January 25, 2019

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

Dear Gentlemen:

RE: Response to your meet-and-confer correspondence dated January 15 , 2019 in


regards to Discovery .

You sent a meet-and-confer correspondence, dated January 15, 2019, regarding


my response to discovery more than one month after I completed all of the
requirements. I sent you a defendant’s interrogatories form on December 12,
2018—the day of oral arguments in the Court of Appeal Third Appellate District
(3DCA) case C079254, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board.

On January 15, 2019, two days before the 3DCA issued the order denying my
petition for rehearing case C079254, Porter Scott sent a whiny or fretful meet-and-
confer letter about the discovery, which was completed on December 12, 2018.
Legal Assistant Thomas L. Riordan sent the unsigned meet-and-confer letter to me
via email. The Porter Scott attorney Thomas L. Riordan is not listed as a defense
counsel in the ongoing litigation I brought against the UC Regents. On the same
day, I briefly responded to Thomas L. Riordan, believing he wrote the January 15,

-68-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
2019, meet-and-confer letter with Daniel Bardzell’s name on the letter.
Apparently, Mr. Riordan gave the unsigned letter to his legal assistant, Ms. Cindy
Cannon, to forward to me via email without Bardzell’s signature. I found Mr.
Riordan’s involvement very interesting.

You are attempting to harass me with the defendant’s interrogatories form to


distract me from the 3DCA case C079254. However, you did not have a problem
with the production of documents set one or the request for admission, which I
answered and completed in the same manner as I answered the defendant’s
interrogatories form. Your meet-and-confer letter came with unfounded
accusations and allegations and with the threat of filing another motion to compel
with sanctions.

After you sent your accusatory and threatening letter, I responded to you via
email. I stated that, if you needed additional information, you could ask me for the
information instead of disturbing the Court and the Honorable David I. Brown
with your deception and deceit.

On October 3, 2018, you deceived the Court, the Honorable David I. Brown, and
the Court Clerk by filing their motion to compel. You filed it in the wrong court to
sabotage my wrongful termination lawsuit. On October 9, 2018, you was caught
filing the motion in the wrong court department.

On October 24, 2018, refiled Defendants’ Application and Order for Appearance
and Examination on December 14, 2018, in violation of the 45-day Court Local
Rule 2.1. because you did not change the date of examination, which was
scheduled two days after the oral argument for case C079254 was set in the
3DCA.

Concerning your new motion to compel and sanction, you do not need to
wait to ask me for an extension to file the motion against me. File the motion
today if you want, but please do not send me threatening letters. File the motion,
and I, accordingly, will file the response to your motion in court.

Please do not be irresponsible; your outrageous disregard of the canon of ethics


and the court rules will get you nowhere. Please let me know if you have any
questions.

RE: Response to Your meet -and- confer correspondence dated January 24,
2019 in regards to THE Debtor Request for Production of Documents.

-69-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
I found yours 01/24/2015 (yesterday) meet-and-confer motion and sanction threat
letter quite surprising. I have never seen or heard about the Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories , and I don’t have a record of it. I checked all the e-mails I
received from you in October 2018. Normally, I respond to your e-mails
immediately after I receive something directly from you or from Ms. Wendy
Strasser. My e-mail, jjw1980@live.com, is linked with other e-mails, and if any
correspondence is sent to junk/spam box it is backed up in the other accounts.
However, I did not find any correspondence on this issue.

I can only advise that you file a motion in Court if you believe that you me the
documents entitled “Defendants’ Judgment Debtor Request for Production of
Documents, Set One” and “Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set One” that were
supposedly delivered to me on October 9, 2018.

Maybe you accidentally sent these documents to someone else (as you filed your
motion to compel in the wrong Court Department on Oct. 3, 2018). Or it is
possible this case is like the deceptive Defendants’ Application and Order for
Appearance and Examination you filed 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). (see the attached two pleading
documents which Porter Scott attorneys Michael Pott and Davis Burkett sent to
wrong parties .)

I assume that the Defendants’ Judgment Debtor Request for Production of


Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set One have
something to do with the Defendants’ Application and Order for Appearance and
Examination scheduled in Court on February 8, 2019. I must clarify this with
Superior Court Judge Hon. Jennifer K. Rockwell from Department 37 who signed
the Order for Appearance and Examination on February 8, 2019.

I am curious why you chose to so long to bring this matter to my attention,


especially a few days before the Appearance and Examination. After the 30-day
time limit expired, you should have notified me to produce a response to clarify
that the documents were received and being processed, as they were not.

-70-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Please send me the aforementioned documents that were supposed to have been
sent in October. I will look them over and respond to you with 30 days, or you
may file the motion to compel if you wish.

Sincerely,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Se

Enclosure: (E-mail)
CC: Honorable David I. Brown

The Porter Scott attorneys’ Meet and Confer letters, my responses to the letters,
and examples of Porter Scott attorneys sending documents to the wrong address are
attached. (EXHIBIT # 51 – On Flash Drive) ROA #190–194

On February 11, 2019, Porter Scott attorney Daniel Bardzell filed another
MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET
ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES GENERAL SET ONE, FORM
INTERROGATORIES EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTION with a
scheduled Court hearing for March 13, 2019. Daniel Bardzell filed the motion three days
after I met him in Court’s cafeteria on February 8, 2019 EXHIBIT #52 On Flash Drive
)

B. Porter Scott Attorney Daniel Bardzell’s Threating Meet and Confer Letter
Dated February 22, 2019

On Friday, February 22, 2019, I received from Daniel Bardzell another letter
threating me with another Motion to Compel and Sanctions. The letter stated:

-71-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL
Jaroslaw Waszczuk 2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242
JJW1980@LIVE.COM
Re: Waszczuk v. Resents of the University of California, et al.
Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
This letter serves as Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert,
Cindy Oropeza and Danesha Nichols' ("Defendants") further attempt to meet and
confer regarding Plaintiff's outstanding responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor
Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories, Set One which were served on you on October 9, 2018. Plaintiff
has provided no response whatsoever and responses are more than three months
overdue.
Our previous attempts to meet and confer on this issue have been unsuccessful. If
we do not receive complete responses by March 1, 2019, our next action will be to
file a motion to compel and seek sanctions.
Very truly yours,
PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
By
Daniel J. Bardzell

Bardzell’s Meet and Confer letter was accompanied by the DEFENDANTS


MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, BRENT SEIFERT, CINDY
OROPEZA, AND DANESHA NICHOLS’ JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES – SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW (“JERRY”)
WASZCZUK DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS –
SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW (“JERRY”) WASZCZUK, which supposedly
were sent to me by Daniel Bardzell on October 9, 2018 just after Bardzell deliberately
filed the Motion to Compel and Motion for Monetary Sanctions in the wrong Court
Department 54 instead of Department 53.
I responded to Porter Scott’s new team member Daniel Bardzell’s threats on
March 1, 2019 as follows:

Via e-mail and U,S Mail

-72-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Daniel Bardzell, J.D.
PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

Subject: The Court Order dated February 8, 2019 , Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard Department
43- Case no. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California

RE: RESPONSE TO YOUR MEET-AND-CONFER CORRESPONDENCE DATED


FEBRUARY 22 , 2019 - DEFENDANTS MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT,
BRENT SEIFERT, CINDY OROPEZA, AND DANESHA NICHOLS' JUDGMENT
DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW ("JERRY")
WASZCZUK AND DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS, SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK

Dear Mr. Bardzell:

I found your February 22, 2019 letter of Meet and Confer motion and sanction
threats even more surprising than your January 24, 2019 letter of Meet and Confer
motion and sanction threats.
Your February 22, 2019 threat stated:

“Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al. Sacramento


Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
This letter serves as Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert,
Cindy Oropeza and Danesha Nichols' ("Defendants") further attempt to meet and
confer regarding Plaintiffs outstanding responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor
Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories, Set One which were served on you on October 9, 2018. Plaintiff
has provided no response whatsoever and responses are more than three months
overdue.

-73-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Our previous attempts to meet and confer on this issue have been unsuccessful. lf
we do not receive complete responses by March 1, 2019, our next action will be to
file a motion to compel and seek sanctions.”

In my January 25, 2019 response to your threats of January 15, 2019 and January
24, 2019, I explained in detail why I, as a Plaintiff, did not provide a response to the
DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES – SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW (“JERRY”)
WASZCZUK DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS –
SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW (“JERRY”) WASZCZUK, which supposedly
were sent by Porter Scott on October 9, 2018. (My January 25, 2019 response is
attached.)
The Porter Scott letter signed by you on January 24, 2019 stated (attached):

“Dear Mr. Waszczuk:


This letter serves as Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert,
Cindy Oropeza and Danesha Nichols' ("Defendants") attempt to meet and confer
regarding Plaintiff's outstanding responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor
Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories, Set One which were served on you on October 9, 2018. Plaintiff
has provided no response whatsoever.
Please provide complete responses by January 31, 2019 or we will file a motion
to compel and seek sanctions.

The judge from Department 37, Hon. Jennifer K. Rockwell, signed the
Order for Appearance and Examination anyway 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) (order attached).
My understanding is that Judge Rockwell knows the law and Court Rules
and she should not have signed the Order on November 7, 2018 which violated
C.C.P. §§491.110, 708.110, 708.120, & Sacramento Superior Court Local Rule
2.1.
The Court Order for Appearance and Examination signed by Judge
Rockwell in violation of statute and Court Rules is just another example of the
special status of Porter Scott and Janet Napolitano’s UCOP Mafia in the
Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals for

-74-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
the Third Appellate District (3DCA) in relation to my two cross referenced cases:
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University
of California and Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest
(RPii)—The Regents of the University of California (UC Regents), which are
pending since December 2013.
What I am experiencing so far in three different California Courts is just a
different form of what I experienced at the UC Davis Medical Center after being
fired from my job on August 31, 2011. I was kept for over one year on the UC
payroll, bullied, and harassed by UCOP thugs from UC Davis and UC Davis
Medical Center, but I was not allowed to work. The reckless attacks by the UCOP
assigned gangsters and witch hunters failed to make me quit my job voluntarily. I
am not going to quit my lawsuits voluntarily either regardless of what judges and
justices from three different California courts have done to me in the last four
years.
I did not provide the response by January 31, 2019 because the DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES – SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW (“JERRY”)
WASZCZUK DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS – SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW (“JERRY”)
WASZCZUK were not sent to me on October 9, 2018 and I do not have any
record of it.
Porter Scott attorneys did not file a Motion to Compel as promised by the
January 31, 2019 letter nor did they formally resend the Interrogatories and
Production for Documents to me with the new date. Furthermore, Porter Scott
attorneys did not postpone the Examination of Plaintiff order by Judge Jennifer K.
Rockwell scheduled for February 8, 2019 at 9:00 A.M. in Department 37. I
understand that the Debtor Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents should be resolved before the Examination of Debtor takes place.
Instead of my Court Appearance for Examination in Court Department 37
with Hon. Jennifer K. Rockwell, you and I were redirected to Court Department
43 with Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard. Per a verbal order from the Court Clerk of
Department 43, we met in the Court cafeteria on the sixth floor and you conducted
the examination.
You brought with you to the meeting the DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES
– SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW (“JERRY”) WASZCZUK AND
DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS – SET
ONE TO PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW (“JERRY”) WASZCZUK.

-75-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
I answered all of your questions one by one to the best of my knowledge as
you read them to me or paraphrased from the INTERROGATORIES and
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS – SET ONE, as well as
additional questions and concerns you had.
During our meeting on February 8, 2019, I provided you with the following
documents as potential assets that should have covered the Judgment in the anti-
SLAPP motion.
1. 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).
2. 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).
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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

At the end of the examination, I asked you clearly if you had any
complaints about the examination that you wanted to talk to the judge about. You
stated that you did not have any complaints and that you did not want to see the
judge when we went to the Courtroom, and we informed the Court Clerk that the
examination was concluded. After I returned home, I sent to you right away the
additional documents you requested.

-76-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
On the same day, the Court Department 43 Order with Presiding Hon.
Thadd A. Blizzard stated that: (enclosed):

“Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present. Dan Bardzell,


counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Nature of Proceedings: Hearing on Order of Examination of Judgment
Debtor
The above entitled cause came before this court for hearing on Order of
Examination of Judgment Debtor this date with the above indicated parties
present.
Judgment Debtor, Jaroslaw Waszczuk was sworn and examined. The
examination was concluded, and the parties were released.
DATE: 02/08/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 43 “

As I stated in my February 10, 2019 letter, I and my witness, William


Buckans (UC Davis Medical Center employee), viewed our meeting in the
cafeteria as unpleasant, provocative, and hostile. William and I noticed that you
were very nervous and uncomfortable during the meeting. I am not sure why you
were so nervous and what would have happened if the examination had been
conducted in the Court Department 37 with Hon. Jennifer K. Rockwell instead of
Department 43 with Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard
Porter Scott’s attorney played exactly the same game in the Court with the
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION that
they played and are still playing with the MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS – SET
ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES – SET ONE, FORM
INTERROGATORIES GENERAL – SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES
EMPLOYMENT – SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND
FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTION in Department 53 with
Hon. David I. Brown.

If the Porter Scott attorneys want to file another Motion to Compel after the
Examination of Debtor was conducted and the Court Order was issued in this
matter then I have no control over it. I will not be surprised if the Motion is

-77-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
granted. Just try this time to file the motion in the right Court department . Thank
you Daniel . See you in Court

Very truly yours ,

________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Per

Enclosure
The Court’s February 8, 2019 Minute Order and my March 1, 2019 response to
Bardzell’s February 22, 2019 Meet and Confer letter are attached. (EXHIBIT #53 On
Flash Drive )
VI. CONCLUSION
A. My 03/11/2019 Ex Parte for an Order permitting to file late the Plaintiff’s
opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel and 03/13/2019 Court Orders

(EXHIBIT #54 – On Flash Drive)


Plaintiff, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK (hereinafter Plaintiff), hereby applies Ex Parte for
an Order permitting him to file late the Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ Motion to
Compel Further Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories – Set One, Form
Interrogatories – General – Set One, Form Interrogatories – Employment – Set One, and
for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions .
Plaintiff is also asking by his Ex Parte Application to continue the hearing on a later date
to allow time for Defendants to file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.
Plaintiff on March 6, 2019 asked Defendants’ attorney, Daniel Bardzell, to stipulate the
approval to relieve Plaintiff from his failure to file timely opposition to Defendants’
motion.
Bardzell refused to stipulate the late filing to relieve Plaintiff from failure to file timely
opposition. The March 6, 2019 e-mail correspondence with Bardzell and Plaintiff’s
Proposed Stipulation are attached, thus Plaintiff has no choice but to submit the Ex Parte

-78-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Application to the Court for the Court Order to relieve Plaintiff from default and continue
the Court hearing at the later date.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

DATED: March 7, 2019

____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk – Plaintiff in Pro Per

DECLARATION
I, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, hereby declare:

I am a self-representing litigant and the Plaintiff in the above captioned case.


Shortly after Defendants’ attorney, Daniel Bardzell, filed the motion on February 11,
2018 Plaintiff became sick and could not work on the Defendants’ motion to file timely
opposition to the motion due on March 4, 2019.
Plaintiff would have filed the opposition on time but in addition to the Plaintiff being
sick, he had to send the written opposition to the proofreader for editing due to the fact
that English is the Plaintiff’s second language.

Bardzell in bad faith refused to stipulate the approval to relieve Plaintiff from his failure
to file timely opposition to Defendants’ motion without changing the Court Hearing date.
For the above reasons, Plaintiff is asking the Court by Ex-Parte Application for relief and
Order due to good cause to grant Plaintiff relief.
Alternatively to the to relieve Plaintiff from his failure to file timely opposition to
Defendants’ motion., Plaintiff requesting by this Ex Parte that the Court dismiss the
Dendant’s motion entirely for the following reasons :

-79-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
1. Plaintiff has fully complied with all orders of the Court regarding discovery.

2. Defendants attorneys especially David Burkett had full three years to conduct and

resolve the discovery issue on four remaining Causes of Action in Second

Amended Complaint with Plaintiff since Court issued Order and Judgement on

April 14, 2015 granting Defendants anti-SLAPP motion and striking from the

Second Amended Complaint first four Causes of Action .

3. Defendants’ attorney Daniel J. Bardzell perjured himself in his Declaration stating

on page No .3 of the Declaration that the Defendant filed its initial Motion to

Compel and request for monetary and terminating sanctions on October 17, 2018..

Daniel Bardzell condoning the facts that he filed with evil intention the Motion to

Compel in Department 54 instead of Department 53 to harm Plaintiff by Fraud

upon the Court and Court ruled on Defendant Motion on October 31, 2018

The Court should investigate who directed Bardzell’ to the Court Department 54 on
October 3, 2018 and who supposed to grant the termination sanction against Plaintiff
This is not a small trivial matter . Bardzell willfully deceived the Court and Plaintiff and
engaged himself in misconduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of
justice and requirements of due process. Severe sanctions are the appropriate remedy to
remind Porter Scott’s attorneys that they are licensee of the State Bar of California .

With the closer examination of the Defendant’s Motion to Compel which was filed
four times in the Court since October 3, 2018, Plaintiff discovered that Defendants’
Request for Production of Documents – Set One, Request for Admission – Set One,
Special Interrogatories – Set One, Form Interrogatories – General – Set One, Form
Interrogatories – Employment – Set One and Motion to Compel and Monetary and
Terminating Sanctions are not about the four remaining four Causes of Action in

-80-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint’s but about the first four causes of action (ROA
#150–153) The first four Causes of Action were stricken from the Second Amended
Complaint by the Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion in February 2015, and all individual
defendants were dismissed from the Second Amended Complaint by the Court and by
Plaintiff.

On the Page No. 2 of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Statement of Facts
and Authorities , Procedural History, the Defendants’ new attorney, Daniel Bardzell, or
somebody for him, wrote:

The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a
brief summary: Plaintiff 'filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC")
on September 30, 2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of
action against all named Defendants: (1) intentional infliction of emotional
distress ("lIED"); (2) tortious interference with economic advantage; (3)
FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination,
retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); and (4)
whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Government Code §§ 8.547
et seq.

Looks like Defendants attorneys from Porter Scott trying to reverse the history and the
Court Order which granted them anti -SLAPP motion in 2015 and they have nothing to
discover or argue about breached by Defendants written Contract -or in other word the
2009 Settlement Agreement breached by Defendant as a Cause of Action with
Damages to Plaintiff amounted in approximate $ 1,000, 000 in lost wages and benefits .

This is a main reason and explanation why on October 3, 2018, Defendants’ attorneys
from Porter Scott bypassed with evil motive the Court Department 53 and Judge David
Brown who granted the Anti-SLAPP Motion to Defendants in 2015. This is a crime what
Porter Scott did and still doing in Court of Law and they allowed to manipulated justice
system .

-81-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
The question remains: With whom in Court Department 54 on October 4, 2018 did
Porter Scott attorneys prearranged unsuccessfully their fraud to obtain termination
sanctions?
By fulfilling his obligations in litigation and following the October 31, 2018 and
November 14, 2018 Court Orders, Plaintiff by his best knowledge and recollection,
provided responses to Defendants’ attorneys, produced thousands of documents on flash
drives, and sent by electronic mail and U.S. Priority links to the documents on Scribd.
Also, by following Court Orders, Plaintiff sent copies of his responses to the Court with
documents on a flash drive.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the
Defendants’ frivolous Motion to Compel and that the Court impose sanctions on
Defendants’ attorneys for their misconduct. Dismissal is warranted where perjury and
fraud upon the Court is systemic and designed to sabotage a case. Sanctions and other
relief would restore order and dignity to the judicial process.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed this on March 7, 2019.

_________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk – Plaintiff in Pro Per

B. The 03/13/2019 Court Orders – Motion to Compel and Ex -Parte Application .

The serious question in my 03/11/2019 Ex Parte Aplication scheduled for hearing on


03/13/201 and addressed the Court was:
• With whom in Court Department 54 on October 4, 2018 did Porter Scott attorneys
prearranged unsuccessfully their fraud to obtain termination sanctions?

Other issue in my Ex Parte was to sanction Porter Scott’s attorney’s for deceiving the
Court and filing and refiling the same motion fourth time within a few months period .

-82-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
On March 12, 2012 the Court (Hon . David Brown ) issued Tentative Decision in Porters
Scott’s attorney 02/11/2019 filed Motion to Compel basically denying their motion and
termination sanction but ordered Plaintiff to provide them additional information in
discovery. Since October 3, 2018 Porters Scott’s attorney goals were termination
sanction. However, after the 10/30/2018; 11/13/2018 Court ‘s Tentative Ruling
dissatisfied Porter Scott’s for some reason did not make request for limited oral
argument after issuance of Tentative Rulings nor Porter Scott’s attorney filed the
Motion for Reconsideration but attacked me with multi “ Meet and Confer “ rants
threating me with another Motion to Compel which they filed again on 02/11/2019 and
again on March 12, 2019 Porter Scott being denied Termination Sanction by Tentative
Court Ruling again did not make request for limited oral argument .

When I received and I read the Court Tentative Ruling on 03/12/2019 than I concluded
that I have no reason to have the Ex Parte hearing on 03/13/2019 . However , the Court
Clerk did not call me after the Court issued Tentative Ruling on 03/12/2019 for Motion to
compel that the Court Hearing is canceled than I show up in the Court on 03/13/2019
for my Ex Parte and Porter Scott’s attorney Daniel Bardzell’ show up for the hearing as
well . The Ex Parte hearing did not take place . Court Clerk open the door and handled to
me and to Bardzell the Court decision stated that Ex Parte hearing is denied .
(EXHIBIT #55 – On Flash Drive)

This is a third Court hearing I was denied to discourage me to continue the cases. The
Settlement -Agreement the UC Regents signed with me in January 2009 and trashed in
2011 is attached to at least $ 200,000, 000 of dirty cash .

If the hearing would be not denied than I would bring the issue of Porter Scott ‘s attorney
misconduct in the open Court for the record . The filing the Motion for Compel by
Bardzell in wrong Department on October 3, 2018 had a evil reason and it was not a
Porter’s Scott ‘s attorney s innocent mistake.

-83-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
In 2014 the same Judge Hon. David Brown granted two Ex Parte for my ex attorney
Douglas Stein who was practicing law with suspended attorney license , colluded with
Porter Scott’s attorney Michael Pott , stole my retainer etc. (See Exhibit # 1)
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/18-N-16452.pdf

At best of my knowledge I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Respectfully submitted on March 20, 2019

__________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk

CC: Drew Aresca , Deputy Trial Counsel

Enclosed : Exhibits on the Flash Drive .

-84-
Request for Review – State Bar of California Audit and Review Unit
STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR CLERK’S USE ONLY:
F LED
I

HEARING DEPARTMENT FEB0l:;us%/’

STATE BAR COURT CLERK'S OFFICE


SAN FRANCISCO
180 Howard St., 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
In the Matter of: Case No(s). 18-N—16452-MC
18-O-16529—MC
DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN, (consolidated)
Member No. 131248, ORDER ENTERING DEFAULT AND ORDER
ENROLLING INACTIVE (RULE 5.80 —
A Member of the State Bar. FAILURE TO FILE TIMELY RESPONSE)

ORDER ENTERING DEFAULT:


As respondent DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN (Respondent) failed to timely file a written response
after service of the State Bar’s motion for entry of default, Respondent’s default is entered in this proceeding,
effective upon the filing of this order. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.80(D).) All previously scheduled court
dates are vacated. The court takes judicial notice of Respondent’s official membership records.

Respondent is notified that:

Because you did not timely file a response to the notice of disciplinary charges filed in this
proceeding, the court has entered your default and deemed the facts alleged in the notice of
disciplinary charges admitted. Except as ordered by the court, you may participate in
these proceedings only if the court sets aside your default. If you fail to timely move to set
aside your default, this court will enter an order recommending your disbarment without
further hearing or proceeding. (See Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.80 et seq.)

ORDER ENROLLING INACTIVE:


As the conditions of Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (e)(1), are met,

Respondent is enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar of California under Business and Professions
Code section 6007, subdivision (e). The inactive enrollment is effective three (3) days after service of this

order. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.250.)

/flk,
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February ff , 2019 MANJ ARI CHAWLA


Judge of the State Bar Court

kwiktag 0 241 071 053

def_5.80_inact_enrl_fail_rspns (20181 1 13)


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]

I am a Court Specialist of the State Bar Court of California.


I am over the age of eighteen and
not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County
of San Francisco, on February 4, 2019, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

ORDER ENTERING DEFAULT AND ORDER ENROLLING INACTIVE(RULE 5.80 -

FAILURE TO FILE TIMELY RESPONSE)


in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:

E by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United
Service at
States Postal
, California, addressed as follows:

El by certified mail, No. 7196 9008 9111 1007 3450, with return receipt requested, through
the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:

DOUGLAS E. STEIN
4601 P ST
SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 - 4446

E] by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:

E] by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I
used.

C] By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly


labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge
of the attomey’s office, addressed as follows:

IE by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California
addressed as follows:

Rachel S. Grunberg, Enforcement, San Francisco

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San F ranciscoa,/églifomia, on
February 4, 2019. //
,-"' /4’
4, v"
»

/
)/I’ _____‘_
George\—¥Iue I '

Court Specialist
State Bar Court
y_A

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC MATTER


LED
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL F-
MELANIE J. LAWRENCE, No. 230102 I
INTERIM CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
SUSAN CHAN, No. 233229
ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL DEC 2 0 2018
SUSAN 1. KAGAN, No. 214209
SUPERVISING ATTORNEY STATE
RACHEL s. GRUNBERG, No. 197080 BA§A‘;,°FURT CLERK'S OFFICE
"““°‘3C0
SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL
’-‘$\O0O\lC\LII-PUJl\)

180 Howard Street


San Francisco, California 94105-163 9
Telephone: (415) 53 8-2443

STATE BAR COURT

|--Ip--
HEARING DEPARTMENT — SAN FRANCISCO

In the Matter of: ) Case Nos. 18-O-16529; 18-N-16452

DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN,


)
) NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
No. 131248, )

C>\OOO\)O'\Ux-I>UJI\-3
A Member of the State Bar. )

[\.)>-tr-—->—uu#>—->--r--A»——

NOTICE - FAILURE TO RESPOND!


IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICE
WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE, OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT
THE STATE BAR COURT TRIAL:
(1) YOUR DEFAULT WILL BE ENTERED;
(2) YOUR STATUS WILL BE CHANGED TO INACTIVE AND YOU
WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW;
N) r---

(3) YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN


[Q I\)
THESE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS YOU MAKE A TIMELY MOTION
AND THE DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE, AND;
(4) YOU SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE.
l\) U)

SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY MOVE TO SET ASIDE


l\) -5

OR VACATE YOUR DEFAULT, THIS COURT WILL ENTER AN


ORDER RECOMMENDING YOUR DISBARMENT WITHOUT
I\) LII

FURTHER HEARING OR PROCEEDING. SEE RULE 5.80 ET SEQ.,


l\) Ch
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.
l\) \l kwiktag° 241 070 897

I\) 00
The State Bar of California alleges:

JURISDICTION
1. Douglas Edward Stein ("respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in the State
of California on December 11, 1987, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is

\OOO\)O\UI-l>bJl\.)

currently a member of the State Bar of California.

COUNT ONE
Case No. 18-O-16529
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k)
[Failure to Comply with Conditions of Probation]

10 2. Respondent failed to comply with conditions attached to respondent’s disciplinary

11 probation in State Bar Case no. 15-O-10110 as follows, in willful violation of Business and

12 Professions Code, section 6068(k), by:

13 A. Failing to timely schedule his initial meeting with the Office of Probation within
14 30 days of the effective date of his discipline order;

15 Failing to timely submit his Quarterly Report due to the Office of Probation by
16 July 10, 2018;

17 Failing to timely update his official membership records address within 10 days of
18 a change of address;

19 Failing to pay restitution to his client and to fumish proof of payment in his

20 Quarterly Report due to the Office of Probation by July 10, 2018;

21 Failing to submit his Quarterly Report due to the Office of Probation by October
22 10, 201 8; and

23 Failing to pay restitution to his client and to furnish proof of payment with his

24 Quarterly Report due to the Office of Probation by October 10, 2018.

25

26

27

28
p_n
COUNT TWO
Case No. 1 8-N- 16452
California Rules of Court, Rule 9.20
[Failure to Obey Rule 9.20]

3. Respondent failed to timely notify his client (the Guardian Ad Litem for several
minor children), as required by California Rules of Court, rule 9.20(a)(1), and timely notify

’—‘©\OOO\lO\UI-l>UJl\)
opposing counsel and file a copy of the notice required by California Rules of Court, rule

9.20(a)(4), in McGuire-Meder vs. Roman Catholic Bishop ofSacramento (Sacramento Superior


Court Case No. 34-2015-00175576-CU-PO-GDS), in which respondent was counsel of record,

as required by Supreme Court order in Case no. S245 982, in willful Violation of California Rules
of Court, rule 9.20. (A true and correct copy of the rule 9.20 order is attached hereto as Exhibit 1
»—->—

and is incorporated by reference.)

NOTICE - INACTIVE ENROLLMENT!


YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR
COURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL
THREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TO
THE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS AN
INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVE
ENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINE
RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT.

NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT!


IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLIC
DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS
INCURRED BY THE STATE BAR IN THE INVESTIGATION, HEARING
AND REVIEW OF THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10.
Respectfully submitted,

~
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

DATED: December 20, 2018 By:


Rachel Grunberg
S‘.

Senior Trial Counsel


-3-
SUPREMEECOURT
F L I

(State No. 15-0-10] 10) MA’? 01 Z0 13


“"99 Navarrete Clark


s2459s2

"‘
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIADeputy
En Banc

In re DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN on Discipline

Thecourt 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 condifions 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 Jarcs] aw 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.

~
At the expiration of the period of probation,

~ ~
3.
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.
EXHIBIT

1
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 9.1 O(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, afier the effective date of this order.
Failure to do so may result in disbannent 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-
thjrd 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.

CANTIL.-SAKAUYE
ChiefJustice
1. ‘Jorge Navarmg, cm of ma Supreme Conn
at the Eftntg aftiahfonxin. do hereby sanity that the
preceding 13 a true copy afar: urdcr ofthis Conn as
shown by the records ofmy office.
Witness my hand and the seal Conn this
06¢?
dam MAR 0 1 2
7’
1
20

L
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
by
U.s. FIRSTCLASS MAIL / U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL / OVERNIGHT DELIVERY / FACSIMILE-ELECTRONIC
TRANSMISSION
CASE NUMBER(s): 18-0-16529; 18-N-16452

I, the undersigned. am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action, whose business address and place of employment is the State Bar of

~
Califomia, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco. California 94105, declare that:

-
on the date shown below, caused I to be served a true copy of the within document described as follows:

X By u.s.
-
First-Class Mail:
goco'r:dano§ with the practice of the State
inf
(ccp §§ 1013 and 1013(a))
Barof Califomia for collection
IE
By u.s. Certified Mail: (cc? §§ 1013 and 1013(a))
and processing of mail, deposited or placed for collection and mailing in the
City and County
-
o an ranclsco.
I

[:1 By Overnight Delivery: (CCP §§ 1013(c) and 1013(d))


- am readily familiar with the State Bar of California's practice for collection and processing of correspondence
I

for overnight delivery by the United Parcel Service ('UPS').

[1 By Fax Transmission: (CCP §§ 1013(e) and 1013(f))


Based on agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission. faxed the
documents to the persons at the fax numbers
I
listed herein below. No error was
reported by the fax machine that used. The original record of the fax
I
transmission is retained on file and available upon request.

C] By Electronic Service: (CCP § 1010.6)


Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, caused the
addresses documents to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic
I

listed herein below. did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission,
any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
I

unsuccessful.

E (forU.S.Firs(-ClassMaiI) in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing at San Francisco, addressed
to: (see below)

[XI (forcertifiedmil) in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing as certified mail, return
receipt requested.
Article No.: 9414 7266 9904 2112 6653 94 at San Francisco. addressed to: (see below)

[:1 (movemrgmnenmy; together with a copy of this declaration, in an envelope, or package designated by UPS,
Tracking No.:
addressed to: (see below)
H
V V

Pe.r=°".$9rvé¥i Bu.sin$ss-Resideyfiél Addre?§


’.
‘.
.. .

_
. .. Fax Nurviheri
. .. . k ..~ .. ~9.<.2_!3rte.=v'°??_I=.v:l<!=

Douglas Edward Stein


V

Douglas Edward Stein ; 4601 P Street Electronic Address


Sacramento, CA 95819-4446

[:1 via inter-office mail regularly processed and maintained by the State Bar of California addressed to:

NIA

I am readily familiar with the State Barof California's practice for collection and processing of correspondence
for mailing with the United States Postal Service. and
overnight delivery by the United Parcel Service ('UPS'). In the ordinary course of
the State Bar of California's practice, correspondence collected and processed
California would be deposited with the United States Postal Service by the State Bar of
that same day, and for overnight delivery, deposited with delivery fees
day. paid or provided for, with UPS that same

I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid postal cancellation date or postage meter date
after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit.
if
on the envelope or package is more than one day

declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California,
that the foregoing and Executed San
I

is true correct. at Francisco,


California, on the date shown below.

DATED: December 20,2018 sxcnm


Victoria Gotera
Declarant

State Bar of Califomia


DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-339-1982
Cell: 209-663-2977
Email: jjw1980@live.com

November 22, 2017

Laura Huggins, Deputy Trial Counsel


Laura L. Sharek, Investigator Supervisor
The State Bar of California
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel Enforcement
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639

SUBJECT: STIPULATION: FACTS, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DISPOSITION


AND ORDER APPROVING – Filed on October 24, 2017
Complaint against Attorney at Law Douglas E. Stein – Case Number: 15-
O-10110-LMA; Douglas E. Stein’s misrepresentation and misconduct in
the Sacramento Superior Court Case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479 – Wrongful
Termination – Hon. David Brown and Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Case 34-2013-80001699

Dear Ms. Huggins and Ms. Sharek,

This is my response to your STIPULATION RE: FACTS, CONLUSION OF LAW AND


DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING filed in the State Bar of California Hearing
Department, San Francisco on October 24, 2017.

I. INTRODUCTION

I had no time earlier to comment on or respond to the Stipulation Re: Facts, Conclusion
of Law and Disposition and Order Approving that you filed on October 24, 2017 in the
State Bar Court in the above captioned complaint against Douglas E. Stein.

I was preoccupied with my Petition for Rehearing in the Third Court of Appeal (3DCA)
against the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Defendants on December 1, 2014 in the
above wrongful termination case after 3DCA issued an Unpublished Opinion on October
10, 2017. I filed my Petition for Rehearing on October 25, 2017, the day after you filed

1
your Stipulation, which was approved by the State Bar Court Order and signed by Judge
Hon. Lucy Armendariz.

Also, I was preoccupied with the Petition for Review that I submitted on November 18,
2017 to the State of California Supreme Court after my Petition for Rehearing was denied
by the 3DCA Presiding Justice Hon. Vance W. Raye.

II. THE STIPULATION FILED IN THE STATE BAR COURT ON


OCTOBER 24, 2017

I am responding to your STIPULATION for the record and because your filed
STIPULATION in the State Bar Court of California contains unacceptable misstatements
that don’t correspond with the true facts. In addition to misstatements within the FACTS
in the STIPULATION on page no. 10, certain important facts are missing because, for
some reason, the State Bar-assigned Investigator and the Trial Counsels did not
acknowledge the details of the provided documents regarding December 16, 2014 and
information on my meeting with both of you in your San Francisco State Bar office on
October 2, 2017, eight days before 3DCA issued the Unpublished Opinion in the anti-
SLAPP motion.

The State Bar and Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown was informed as early as
December 2014 and January 2015 that Douglas Stein defrauded me of my retainer and
colluded with the opposing lawyer Michael Pott from the Porter Scott law firm in
addition to having an over 20-year friendship with Superior Court Judge Hon. David
Brown. 1 The State Bar was given clear, black-and-white evidence on December 14, 2014
and in January 2015 that Douglas Stein stole my retainer, and the State Bar failed to take
any action about this for almost three years. The State Investigator who was initially
assigned to the cases, Amanda Gormley, made a good effort to prosecute Douglas Stein
in October 2015, but somebody stopped her, and the case and she disappeared altogether
for another two years.

2
In my Petition for Review that I submitted on November 18, 2017, I provided an
explanation of what had happened with my Complaint with the State Bar against Douglas
Stein and my Appeals in two cases in 3DCA. The Partnership between the Court of
Appeal Third Appellate District and the arm of the California Supreme Court State Bar of
California devastated my life completely. I am defenseless against uncontrolled
corruption in the Sacramento courts and the State Bar of California, but this does not
mean that I will be silent about it. I dealt with $100,000,000 worth of fraud, corruption,
and deception in the state court and state agencies almost 20 years ago when retired
Judge from the San Joaquin County Superior Court Hon. Duane Martin did not hesitate to
tell me that “Lawsuits are expensive for immigrants in this country.” State Labor
Commissioner Jose Milan permitted my employer from Texas who was doing business in
California to violate state overtime law, and 119 workers lost over $1,000,000. The
3DCA Unpublished Opinion in Case No. C030005 is related to overtime, and the
unpublished 3DCA opinion helped to restore proper Industrial Welfare Commission
Order (IWC), which applied to overtime pay for Power Plant Operators working on an
alternative work schedule in the State of California.

Waszczuk v. Destec Energy, Inc., issued in 1999, is related to the mentioned overtime
fraud permitted by the State Labor Commissioner Jose Milan. If you would like to see the
documents about it, I could provide them to you without a problem.

My wrongful termination cases in the Sacramento State Court are similar to a


continuance of the previous wrongful termination case against Destec Energy, Inc. almost
20 years ago because of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) involvement in my
wrongful termination case against Destec Energy, Inc. Almost twenty years ago, based on
my information, PG&E recovered $100,000,000 from Destec Energy Inc., a subsidiary of
the major power producer Dynegy, Inc., for its ratepayers and California’s taxpayers.

In similar misconduct to Douglas Stein, my attorney misrepresented me and did not


inform me that his law firm also represented PG&E and did not secure an agreement with
PG&E for the 25% promised to me between PG&E executives, myself, and my lawyer in
his office. When PG&E filed the lawsuit against Destec, it was too late to secure an
agreement, and I, my lawyer, and his law firm lost $25,000,000. Instead of getting at least
$1,000,000, I got a token from PG&E in the amount of $150,000 and a token in the same
amount from my lawyer by suing them both and settling with them out of court. It is
apparent that PG&E breached the Settlement Agreement by participating in the case
together with the Regents that was pending since August 2000 with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). The case was filed in August 2000 with FERC against
CAISO. The Case included the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW and the possibility that
3
the UC Berkeley and UC San Diego cogeneration plants were involved in the illegal
powers sale and tax fraud.

My other lawyer in the overtime case, Anton Zybach, exactly like Douglas Stein, robbed
his clients of the money they gave him, and he has not been permitted to practice law in
the State of California since 1998.

I am writing to you about these previous cases to let you know that corruption,
conspiracy, deception, and crooked lawyers are not new to me.

III. FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW IN THE ATTACHMENT TO


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

A. FACTS Page No. 10 § 4, § 5 & § 8

• §4. Between June 2, 2014 and December 3, 2014, respondent wrote checks to
himself totaling $15,375 for attorney fees. At the time respondent issued these
checks, he did so under the mistaken belief that the fee agreement provided for
advanced fees in the amount of $14,500.
• §5. Between June 2, 2014 and December 2, 2014, respondent issued fourteen
checks and initiated thirty-one debits directly from the trust account totaling
$4,991.82 for personal transactions.

It is my understanding from these two paragraphs that Douglas Stein from June 2, 2014
to December 2, 2014 withdrew from the trust account $4,991.82 and that, on December
2, 2014, Douglas Stein had $14,508.18 left in the trust account of the $19,500 he
deposited on June 2, 2014. However, on December 3, 2014, Stein must have withdrawn
$14,702.51 if the account reached a negative balance, as stated in paragraph No. 7:

• § 8. On December 3, 2014, the client’s trust account had a negative balance of


$194.33.

The above paragraphs do not make sense if § No. 6 states that the respondent deposited
$600 he got from his mother on October 21, 2014 and $200 on November 12, 2014
according to paragraph No. 7. Thus, it indicates that the trust account was empty in
October 2014.

B. FACTS Page No. 11 § 10

4
• §10 states: On December 16, 2014, Waszczuk terminated respondent as legal
counsel due to a disagreement regarding case strategy.

Waszczuk did not terminate Douglas Stein due to a disagreement regarding case strategy.
Waszczuk dismissed Stein for gross misrepresentation, failure to properly amend
complaint, not objecting to the anti-SLAPP motion, defrauding Waszczuk of his
retainer, and especially sending a text message to Waszczuk on December 15, 2014 about
his twenty years plus friendship with Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown.

C. FACTS Page No. 11 § 16

• §16 states that, between June 2, 2014 and December 16, 2014, the respondent
developed a friendship with Waszczuk. During this time, Waszczuk purchased
gifts for the respondent's daughter and offered to pay for the respondent's living
expenses. Waszczuk also encouraged and permitted the respondent to use
Waszczuk's credit cards for personal expenses.

I am not sure where this idea came from. There was no friendship from June 2,
2014 to December 16, 2014. My good relations with Douglas Stein ended after he got
paid $ 20,000 on June 2, 2014 and after he filed the First Amended Complaint on June
16, 2014 and visited my home at the beginning of July; thereafter, Stein turned evil. (See:
Initial Complaint submitted to the State Bar on January 28, 2015.)

I had a friendly relationship with Stein from December 2013 to July 2014, not
from June 2, 2014 to December 16, 2014. I hired Stein in November 2013 for the Writ of
Mandamus against the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board The case is still pending
in the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (Case No. C079254).

After he visited my home in July 2014, I did not see Stein until November 25,
2014, when I drove to his residence in El Dorado Hills and gave him $500.00 to amend
the Second Amended Complaint, which he filed with a suspended attorney license
against with collusion of Defendants Attorney Michael Pott and Judge of Superior Court
Hon. David Brown . He should return this $500 as well. It was not a gift. It was for
repairing the damage he did with the First and Second Amended Complaint. I believe that
it was in June 2014 that I bought the small iPad for his daughter and repaired her Mac
laptop computer. I did not offer to pay for Stein’s living expenses. This is a crazy made

5
up out blue statement for unknown to me reason. I permitted Stein to use my credit card
for court filing, gasoline to drive to the Sacramento Court to file documents, and the
office supplies needed to run the two lawsuits. I also bought him a new scanner, printer to
heve proper tools to handle the lawsuits from his home. Also I bought a new briefcase to
make him look like an attorney in the court.
Stein is friend of my former coworker from UC Davis Medical Center to whom I
provided representation in the complaint against department management for “ Does
not meet expectation performance review , letter of expectation and whistle blowing
complaint” under the UC Davis Policies and Procedures .

D. FACTS Page No. 11 § 15

• § 15 states: Between June 2, 2014 and December 16, 2014, respondent performed
legal services related to the Regents case, which amounted to approximately 100
billable hours.

On July 18, 2014, Douglas Stein sent a letter to Liberty Mutual Life Assurance
Company of Boston in regard to my being denied a supplemental disability claim in
2011. What caught my attention in the letter was Mr. Stein's statement that he spent 350
hours of work over 6 weeks on my wrongful termination first amended complaint.

I was surprised that Liberty responded to Mr. Stein's letter and offered to pay a
settlement of $4546.08. Douglas Stein, who had not been hired for this case, tried to
force me through intimidation and threats to sign this settlement. If it had been at least
$25,000.00, I would have considered the offer. Stein sent a letter without my
authorization to Liberty based on documents he received for my wrongful termination in
May 2014, which included a complaint with the State Insurance Commissioner’s office
against Liberty for denying my Short-Term Disability in the Fall of 2011. The complaint
was not resolved by State Insurance Commissioner. In addition to the complaint against
Liberty, furthermore, Stein received from me a letter dated October 13, 2013 to the
Liberty Chief Operating Officer, in which I demanded to be paid $500,000 for the harm
that Liberty did to me by conspiring with UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources
executives, depriving me of income by denying me the benefits to which I was entitled.

In May or June, I asked Stein if he wanted to handle it or add Liberty to the


lawsuit as a co-defendant. Douglas Stein refused to do this and did not want to hear about
it. The mentioned 350 hours that Stein supposedly worked on my wrongful termination
translates to $64,750, considering Douglas Stein’s hourly billing practices of $185/hour
according to retainer agreement.

6
The letter that Stein sent to Liberty without my knowledge and authorization
because he was devastated financially and, having a lot of legal knowledge about medical
and insurance claims, attempted to extort money from Liberty using my 2011 claim
against Liberty. He was apparently successful, since Liberty sent him a settlement for me
to sign with a $4546.08 pay off. Stein was furious at my refusal to sign the settlement. It
should be investigated by State Bar how much Liberty offered his effort to make the
problem vanish . If I had been offered at least $25,000 from this deal, I would have
considered signing. I even told Stein that if he got more money from Liberty for me, I
would add more money to the wrongful termination. He did not want to hear such a
proposition and furiously demanded that I sign the Settlement with Liberty for $1,928.70.

It is a possibility that Liberty agreed to pay Stein a lot more as legal fees, than damages
Liberty did to me as the victim. Another possibility was that University Attorney Michael
Pott asked Stein to take care of Liberty so as not to have Liberty as a potential co-
defendant or any witnesses from Liberty in my wrongful termination lawsuits against
University and nine individual defendants who were involved in m short term disability
claim Liberty Assurance Company of Boston.

After the deal with Liberty failed because I turned down the settlement for $ 1,900,
Douglas Stein turned to Michael Pott and offered to him to sell my case. In September,
Stein asked for help from David Greenwald, the owner of the internet newspaper “The
Davis Vanguard” where Stein publicized my wrongful termination in this venue in June
2014. In September 2014 at the same time Stein was dealing and wheeling with Michael
Pott to file the Second Amended complaint with suspended attorney license, Greenwald
got information from UC Davis under the Public Record Act about an unspecified lawsuit
from 2007 in which UC Davis paid $340,000 in legal fees and provided it to Stein. This
happened just before Stein filed the Second Amended Complaint in close collaboration
with UC attorney Michael Pott and with the help of the Superior Court Judge Hon.
David Brown.

All of the facts indicate that Douglas Stein cut a deal with Michael Pott. Most likely,
David Greenwald knows something about why Stein needed information about some
thousands of legal fees UC Davis for some lawsuit. Greenwald is always begging for
donations to run his internet-based Davis Vanguard. The best proof that Stein sold my
lawsuit to Michael Pott was that I gave Stein $500.00 on November 25, 2014 to amend
the complaint, and, instead of an amended complaint, I was attacked by an anti-SLAPP
motion on five days later December 1, 2014, which in fact was the redacted old demurrer.

The even better proof is that, in November, I offered $20,000 extra for Stein to get
somebody to help him run the wrongful termination case. Stein was completely broke in
November 2014, but he did not take the money $ 20,000 from me. On December 3, 2013
his trust account was negative in balance. . The anti-SLAPP was an emergency measure
crafted at hoc over Thanksgiving of 2014. The real deal between Douglas Stein and

7
Michael Pott was not the anti-SLAPP motion, but it was a Summary Judgment which
would be granted by Judge Brown to university and it would end my wrongful
termination lawsuit. Michael Pott would file the anti-SLAPP in July 2014 if it would be
beneficial for his client. It would be done of the First Amended Compliant which was no
different than Second Amended Complaint. My Petition for Rehearing filed in 3DCA on
October 25, 2017 described in detail how Pot and Stein and Judge Brown were planned to
end my lawsuit. (Enclose)

When I questioned Stein on the phone on what I believe was December 16, 2014 about
my retainer and empty trust account with Wells Fargo Bank, he told me that I should not
be worry and that he would have money in January 2015 to pay me back. Stein never got
any money in January 2015 because he was fired on December 16, 2014 and Michael
Pott quit or got fired by Porter Scott in January 2015 .
The Court Hearing to hear the Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike (that was unopposed
by Stein was scheduled to be heard) on December 30, 2014. State Bar investigators
should look at the Douglas Stein

Stein is important in this whole mess. He the lead to find out who from the University
of California approved the deal to pay Stein for his service to end my lawsuit in
December 2014. Most likely the UC General Counsel Charles Robinson was behind
operation. Robinson is one of many white collar criminals from CAISO responsible
directly for California Energy Crisis . He was transferred from CAISO to the UC Office
of the President in January 2007 and I was hit first time in January 2007 UC white collar
criminals in attempt to end my employment with UC Davis Medical Center. I have no
choice but to ask District Attorney and FBI in three different counties to question Stein
and Pott and others. $ 300, 000 and collusion with opposite party attorney and Judge of
Superior Court is a very serious stuff. It is a lot more serious than Waszczuk’ friendship
with broken financially Stein and more serious and more important than Waszczuk’ $
20,000 retainer stolen by Stein.

IV. FINANCIAL CONDITION

The calculations on Page No. 7 are wrong. They should be $15,694.33 plus the $500.00
that I gave to Stein on November 25, 2014 to amend the complaint. This totals
$16,194.33.

$14,694.33 + $4,500 = $19,194.33, not the $20,000 that I paid to Stein as retainer. The
stipulation must be corrected, and a new order must be issued.

V. CONCLUSION

By his misconduct and collusion with the defense attorney Michael Pott and Judge of
Superior Court Hon. David Brown, Douglas Stein caused me to lose $200,000 from my

8
retirement savings by setting me up for the frivolous anti-SLAPP motion, which was
dragged out for three years by lawyers and judges with help from the State Bar of
California. Taking $20,000 from a client and not telling that client about SLAPP and anti-
SLAPP is an unforgivable crime.

Additionally, I am curious if the Judge of the State Bar Hon. Lucy Armendariz is in any
way related to an Attorney from San Francisco, Ms. Geraldine Armendariz, SB# #97196

The final question is: How Douglas Stein would repay the stolen money if his attorney’s
license is suspended and his financial situation is not better than it was in 2014 .? When I
filed complaint with State Bar , I was informed by State Bar that I would be reimbursed
by State Bar from the State Bar Client Security Fund ? Please let me know when I get my
money back and who is going to pay. Every licensed attorney should be obligated by the
State Bar of California to carry malpractice liability insurance than problems to recover
the stolen money would be easier to solve .

Sincerely,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

CC: Judge of State Bar Court Hon . Lucy Armendariz


California Attorney General office

Enclosed:

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

9
(Do not write above this line.)

State Bar Court of California


Hearing Department
San Francisco
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Counsel For The State Bar Case Number(s): For Court use only
15-O-10110-LMA
Laura Huggins
Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
PUBLIC MATTER
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 538-2537

Bar # 294148

In Pro Per Respondent

Douglas Edward Stein STATE BAR COURT CLERK'S OFFICE


892 Maria Vista Way SAN FRANCISCO
Placerville, CA 95667
(916) 289-6072
Submitted to: Settlement Judge
Bar # 131248 LAW AND
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF
In the Matter of:
DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN
ACTUAL SUSPENSION
Bar # 131248
[:1 PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
A Member of the State Bar of California
(Respondent)

Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot |?e provided in the
space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., “Facts,”
“Dismissals,” “Conclusions of Law,” “Supporting Authority,” etc.

A. Parties’ Acknowledgments:

(1) Respondent~is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 11, 1987.

The paniesuégree be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even


to if conclusions of law or
(2)
disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.

(3) All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by
this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed
under “DismissaIs." The
stipulation consists of 15 pages, not including the order.

A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included
(4)
under “Facts.”

Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under “Conclusions
of
(5)
Law”.

kwiktag° 026 803 810 j.:..____.:.._____


(Effective July 1, 2015)
Actual Suspension
//1’
1 |||l|||||||||l||||||||||||||l
./
(Do not write above this line.)

(6) The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading
“Supporting Authority."

No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any
pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.

Payme_nt df:Discip|inary Costs-—Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 &
6140.7. (Check one option only):

C] Until‘c_osts are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless
relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Preced-ure.
X
.

Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior .0 February 1 for the following membership years: Three
billing cycles immediately following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (Hardship.
special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to
pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining
balance is due and payable immediately.
E} Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
E] Costs are entirely waived,

B. Aggravating Circumstances [Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional


Misconduct, standards 1.2(h).& 1.5]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are
required.

(1) D Prior record of discipline


(a) El State Bar Court case # of prior case

(b) [:1 Date prior discipline effective

(C) [:1 Rules of Professional Conduct! State Bar Act violations:

(d) E} Degree of prior discipline

(e) E] If Respondent has two or more incidents of pfibr discipline, use space provided below.
0.

D lntentionaIlBad Faith/Dishonesty: Respondent's misconduct was dishonest, intentional, or surrounded


by, or followed by bad faith.

Misrepresentation: Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by, or followed by, misrepresentation.

(4) Concealment: Respondent’s misconduct was surrounded by, or followed by, concealment.

(5)
CICIEICIE]
Overreaching: Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by, or followed by, overreaching.

(5) Uncharged Violations: Respondent’s conduct involves uncharged violations of the Business and
Professions Code, or the Rules of Professional Conduct.

(7) Trust Violation: Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was una_ble to account
to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or
property.

(Effective July 1, 2015)


Actual Suspension
(Do not write above this line.)

(3) E]
.

Harm: Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public, or the administration ofjustice.

(9) Indifference: Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the
consequences of his or her misconduct.
(10) CandorlLack of Cooperation: Respondentdisplayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of
his/her misconduct, or to the State Bar during'discip|inary investigations or proceedings.

(11) Multiple Acts: Respondent’s current misconduct e\'/idences multiple acts of wrongdoing. See Attachment
to Stipulation, at page 12.

Respondent's current misconduct demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.


DEIEEIIZIEI

(12) Patterri:

(13) Restitution: Respondent failed to make restitution. See Attachment to Stipulation, at page 12.

(14) Vulnerable Victim: The victim(s) of Respondent's misconduct was/were highly vulnerable.

(15) No aggravating circumstances are invoived.

Additional aggravating circumstances:

C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standards 1.2(i) & 1.6]. Facts supporting mitigating
circumstances are required.

(1) Cl No Prior Discipline: Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled
with present misconduct which is not likely to re'cur.

(2) No Harm: Respondent did not harm the client, the public, or the administration ofjustice.

(3) Candorlcooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation yvith the victims of
his/her misconduct or ‘to the State Bar during disciplinary investigations and proceedings.

Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps demonstrating spontaneous remorge and rfacognition
of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her masconduct.

CIEICIDEJDCI Restitution: Respondent paid $ on in restitution to without the threat or force of


disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

Delay: These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed. The delay is not attributable to
Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

(7) Good Faith: Respondent acted with a good faith belief that was honestly held and objectively reasonable.

(8) EmotionallPhysicaI Difficulties: At the ‘time of-the stipuiated act or acts of professional misconduct
Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical or mental disabilities which expert testimony
would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities were not the
product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and the difficulties
or disabilities no longer pose a risk that Respondent will commit misconduct.

(Effective July 1, 2015)


Actual Suspension
(Do not write above this line.)

(9) El Severe Financial Stress: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress
which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and
which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

(10) Family Problems: At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her
personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature. See Attachment to Stipulation, at
page 12. .

(11) E] Good Character: Respondent's extraordinarily gjbod character is attested to by a wide range of references
in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

(12) E] Rehabilitation: Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred
followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

(13) El No mitigating circumstances :are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances:

No Prior Record of Discipline - See Attachment to Stipulation, at page 12.


Pre-Trial Stipulation - See Attachment to Stipulation, at page 12.

D. Discipline:

(1) >14 Stayed Suspension:

(3) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and
fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the general law pursuant to standard
1.2(c)(1) Standards forAAttorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

n E] and until Respondent pays restitution asset forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to
this stipulation.

m E! and until Respondent does the following:

(b) [2 The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

K4 Probation:

Resporident must be placed on probation for a period of three (3) years, wh_ich v_vill commence upon the
Supreme Court order»in this matter. (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court)
effective date of the

® Actual Suspension: _

(a) E Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period
of one (1) year.

I
D and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and
fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the general law pursuant to standard
1.2(c)(1), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct

n E! and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to
this stipulation.

(Effective July 1, 2015)


Actual Suspension
(Do not write above this line.)

iii. D and until Respondentdoesthe following:

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

(1) X If Respondent is actually two years or more, he/she must remain actually suspended until
suspended for
he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and present learning and
ability in the general law, pursuant to standard 1.2(c)(1), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional
Misconduct.

(2) During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of
Professional Conduct.

<3) Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to'the Membership Records office of the
State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California (“Office of Probation"), all changes of
‘Bar
information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State
purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

Withinthirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must
contact the Office of Probation
(4)
and schedule a meeting with Respondent’s assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and
conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the
probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must
promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10.
July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury,
Respondent must state
whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all
conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there
him her State Bar Court and if so, the case number and
are any proceedings pending against or in the
current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report
must be
submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.

addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due
In
no earlier than
twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and
conditions of probation with the probation monitor te establisha manner and schedule of
compliance.
During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested,
in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must
cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any
conditions which are
inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these
or has
directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying
complied with the probation conditions.
the Officg of
(8) Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to
the Ethics School, and passage of the test given
Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of
at the end of that session.

Cl No Ethics School recommended. Reason:


and
Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter
must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office

of Probation.

(Effective July 1, 2015) Actual Suspension


(Do not write above this line.)

(10) The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

[:1 Substance Abuse Conditions [I Law Office Management Conditions

E] «

Medical Conditions X Financial Conditions

F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

(1) F14 Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination: Respondent must provide proof of passage of
the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (“MPRE”), administered by the National
Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or within
one year, whichever period is longer. Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without
further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) &

(E), Ru|es'of Procedure.

D No MPRE recommended. Reason:

(2) Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court: Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9_.20,
California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that ruIe‘w:thin
30
and 40 caiendar days, respectively, after-the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

(3) Conditional Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court: If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90
days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of ru!e 9.20, California Rules of Court, and
perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days,
respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]: Respondent will be credited for
the
(4)
period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of
commencement of interim suspension:

(5) Other Conditions:

(Effective July 1, 2015) Actual Suspension


(Do not write above this line.)

In the Matter Of‘. Case Number(s):


DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN 15-O-10110-LMA

Financial Conditions

a. Restitution

IX Respondent must pay amount, plus interest of 10% per annum) to the
restitution (including the principal
payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund ("CSF”) has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s)
for all

or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the
amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.

P ee Princ Amount Interest Accrues From


Jaroslaw Waszczuk $14 694.33 June 2014

[XI Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of
of the
Probation not later than 120 prior to the expiration of probation, notwithstanding section (b)
Financial Conditions.

b. Installment Restitution Payments

IZI Respondent must pay the above-referenced restitution on the payment schedule set forth below. Respondent
or
must provide satisfactory proof of payment to the Office of Probation with each quarterly probation report,
of the period of
as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation. No later than 30 days prior to the expiration
order complete
probation (or period of reproval), Respondent must make any necessary final payment(s)
in to

the payment of restitution, including interest, in full.

PayeeICSF (as applicable) Minimum Payment Amount Payment Frequency


Jaroslaw Waszczuk $50 Payment due on the
1st of each month

(Effective January 1, 2011)

Page 1 _

Financial
H
Condmons
(Do not wrike above this line.)

[Z] If Respondent pay any instaliment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court,
fails to
the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.

c. Client Funds Certificate

E11. IfRespondent possesses client funds at any time during the period covered by a required quarterly
report, Respondent must file with each required report a certificate from Respondent and/or a certified
public accountant or other financial professional approved by the Office of Probation, certifying that:

a. Respondent has maintained a bank account in a bank authorized to do business in the State of
Caiifornia, at a branch located within the State of California, and that such account is designated
as a “Trust Account" or “Clients’ Funds Account”;

b. Respondent has kept and maintained the following:

i. A written ledger for each client on whose behalf funds are held that sets forth:
1. the name of such client;
2. the date, amount and source of all funds received on behalf of such client;
3. the date, amount, payee and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of such
client; and,
4. the current balance for suchclient.
ii. a written journal for each client trust fund account that sets forth:
1. the name of such account;
2. the date, amount and client affected by each debit and credit; and,
3. the current balance in such account.
iii. all bank statements and cancelled checks for each client trust account; and.
iv. each monthly reconciliation (balancing) of (i), (ii), and (iii), above, and if there are any
differences between the monthly total balances reflected in (i), (ii), and (iii), above, the
reasons for the differences.

c. Respondent has maintained a written journal of securities or other propetties held for clients that
specifies:
each item of security and property held;

person on whose behalf the security or property is held;


A

In the
III. the date of receipt of the security or property;
iv. the date of distribution of the security or property; and,
v the person to whom the security or property was distributed.

IfRespondent does not possess any client funds, property or securities during the entire period
covered by a report, Respondent must so state under penalty of perjury in the report filed with the
Office of Probation for that reporting period. In this circumstance, Respondent need not file the
accountant’s certificate described above.

The requirements of this condition are in addition to those set forth in rule 4-100, Rules of
Professional Conduct.

(Effective January 1, 2011)


Financial Conditions

Page _2_
(Do not write above this line.)

d. Client Trust Accounting School

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

(Effective January 1, 2011)


Financial Conditions

Page a
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN


CASE NUMBER: j15-O-10110-LMA

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.


Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified
statutes and Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case No. 15-0-101 10-LMA (Complainant: J aroslav Waszczuk)


I

FACTS:

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


against his former employer alleging wrongful terrninaiicn and retaliation in a case titled Waszczuk v.
The Regents of the University of California, Sacramento County Superior Court case number 34-2013-’
00155479 (“Regents case”). .

2. On May 2014, Waszczuk hired respondent to represent him in the Regents case. On that
19,
same date, the parties signed an Attorney-Client Fee Agreement (“fee agreement”) in which Waszczuk
agreed to pay respondent advanced fees in the amount of $5,500, and advanced costs in the amount of
$14,500. Although Waszczuk was unaware that advanced fees and advanced costs were distinct from
one another, Waszczuk believed that the advanced costs would be used for the specific purpose of
paying filing fees and hiring a private investigator. The fee agreement required respondent to deposit
the entire sum ($20,000) into a client trust account.

3. On June 2, 2014, Waszczuk and respondent visited a Wells Fargo branch and opened a joint
account number XXX-XXX-8995, that was titled, “laroslaw Waszczuk Attomey-
client trust account,
Client.” Although respondent and Waszczuk were both identified as customers on the account, only
respondent could access the account as he was the account’s sole owner and authorized signer. On that
same date, respondent deposited a $19,500 check from Waszczuk that was dated May 19, 2014.
Waszczuk paid respondent $500 in cash to satisfy the remaining balance with the understanding that
respondent would actually use this sum for personal expenditures.

4. Between June 2014, and December 3, 20}‘4, respondent wrote checks to himself totaling
2,
$15,375 for attorney fees. At the time respondent issued these checks, he did so under the mistaken
belief that the fee agreement provided for advanced fees in the amount of $14,500.

5. Between June 2, 2014, and December 2014, respondent issued fourteen checks and
2,
initiated thirty-one debits directly from the trust account, totaling $4,991.82, for personal transactions.
6. On October 21, 2014, respondent deposited personal funds into the client trust éccount in the
form of a $600 check. The check was issued by Marilyn Stein, respondent’s mother, and was payable to
the order of respondent.

7. On Nzwémber 12, 2014, respondent deposited personal funds into the client trust account in
the form of a $200.03 cash deposit.

8. On December 3, 2014, the client trust account had a negative balance of $194.33.
9. On December 15, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank contacted Waszczuk to collect the negative
ba1 211106.

10. On December 16, 2014, Waszczuk terminated respondent as legal counsel due to a
disagreement regarding case strategy. Respondent provided Waszczuk with a signed Substitution of
Attorney form on January 9, 2015.

11. On December 26, 2014, Waszczuk paid the negative balance of $194.33 and requested
closure of the account.

12. None of the funds in the client trust account were used for costs attributable to Waszczuk.

13. Between June 2, 2014, and December 16, 2014, respondent took no steps to _monitor the
client trust account balance. Respondent also failed to maintain an account journal or cllent ledger, and
failed to track the withdrawals from the client trust account.

14. To date, respondent has not provided Waszczuk with an accounting of the $20,000.

Between June 2, 2014, and December 16, 2014, respondent performed


15. legal services related
to the Regents case, which amounted to approximately 100 billable hours.

16. 2014, and December 16, 2014, respondent and Waszczuk developed a
Between June 2,
friendship. During this time, Waszczuk purchased 'gifts_ for respo’ndent’s daughter and offered to pay for
respondent’s living expenses. Waszczuk also encouraged and permitted respondent to use Waszczuk’s
credit cards for personal expenses.

17. Respondent never obtained Waszczuk’s written authorization to designate all of the funds in
the client trust account as attorney fees.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
18. By converting advanced costs in the amount of $14,500 into attorney fees without
Waszczuk’s authorization, and then disbursing this amount to himself between June 2, 2014 and
December 3, 2014, respondent failed to maintain a balance of $14,500 in the client trust account on
4-
behalf of respondent’s client, Waszczuk, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule
100(A).

19. By converting advanced amount of $14,500 into attorney fees without


costs in the
Waszczuk’s authorization, and then disbursing this amount to himself between June 2, 2014 and
December 2014, respondent misappropriated thrdugh gross negligence, for respondent’s own
3,
purposes, $14,500 in advanced costs that belonged to Waszczuk, his client, and thereby
committed an
act involving moral turpitude, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section
6106.

11
20. By depositing his personal funds and thereafter issuing checks
and withdrawing cash
directly from the account between October 21, 2014 and December 3, 2014, for respondent’s
client trust
personal use, including payment of personal expenses, respondent commingled funds, in willful
violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A).

21. By receiving the sum of $20,000 in advanced fees and costs on June 2, 2014, from
respondent’s client, Waszczuk, for legal services to be performed, and subsequently failing to render any
accounting to the client, even after the termination of respondent’s employment on December 16, 2014,
respondent failed to render an appropriate accounting tohis client regarding those funds, in willfial
violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4—100(B)(3).

AGGRAVATING. CIRCUMSTANCES.
Multiple Acts of Wrongdoing (Std. 1.5(b)): Between June 2, 2014, and December 16, 2014,
respondent commingled on numerous occasions, misappropriated advanced costs, and failed to render an
accounting to the client.

Restitution (Std. 1.5(m)): To date, respondent has not taken any steps to make Waszczuk
whole.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Discipline: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in California on December
11, 1987. At the time of his misconduct, respondent practiced law for approximately 27 years without
prior discipline. (See Friedman v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 235, 245 [practicing for over 20 years
without prior discipline is a highly significant mitigating circumstance] .)

Pretrial Stipulation: Byventering into this stipulation, respondent has acknowledged misconduct
and is entitled to mitigation for recognition of wrongdoihg and saving the State Bar significant resources
and time. (Sz'lva- Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079 [where mitigation was given for
entering into a stipulation as to facts and culpability]; In the Matter of Spaith (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal.
State Bar Ct. Rptr. 511, 521 [where the attorney's stipulation to facts and culpability was held to be a
mitigating circumstance].)

Family Problems: Since 2008, respondent has maintained sole legal and physical custody of his
daughter, who suffers from a chronic medical condition. In 2014, respondent dedicated a significant
amount of time and financial resources to his daughter’s wellbeing. Over the years, and during periods
of heightened respondent struggled with chemical dependency. Shortly before his legal
stress,
representation of Waszczuk, respondent relapsed and subsequently completed an 18-day residential
treatment program in April 2014. Although substance abuse did not play a role in the present
misconduct, respondent’s inattention to his legal practice and the client trust account resulted, in part,
from his effort to maintain sobriety while addressing his daughter’s medical condition.

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.


The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct “set forth a means for determining
the appropriate disciplinary sanction in a particular case and to ensure consistency across cases dealing
with similar misconduct and surrounding circumstances.” (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for
Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, std. 1.1. All further references to standards are to this source.)

12
The standards help fulfill the primary purposes of discipline, which include: protection of the public, the
courts and the legal profession; maintenance of the-highest professional standards; and preservation of
public confidence in the legal profession. (See std. 1.1; In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205.)

Although not binding, the standards are entitled to “great weight” and should be followed “whenever
possible” in determining level of discipline. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81 92, quoting In re
,

Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, 220 and In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the
standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring
consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar attorney
misconduct. (In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) If a recommendation is at the high end or low
end of a standard, an explanation must be given as to how the recommendation was reached. (Std. 1.1.)
“Any disciplinary recommendation that deviates from the standards must include clear reasons for the
departure.” (Std. 1.1; Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)

In determining whether to impose a sanction greater or less than that specified in a given standard, in
addition to the factors set forth in the specific standard, consideration is to be given to the primary
purposes of discipline; the balancing of all aggravating and mitigating circumstances; the type of
misconduct at issue; whether the client, public, legal system or profession was harmed; and the
member’s willingness and ability to conform to ethical responsibilities in the future. (Stds. 1.7(b) and
(C)-)

In this matter, respondent admits to committing four acts of professional misconduct. Standard 1.7(a)
requires that where a respondent “commits two or more acts of misconduct and the standards specify
different sanctions for each act, the most severe sanction must be imposed.”

The most severe sanction applicable to respondent’s misconduct is found in standard 2.1(b), which
applies to respondent’s misappropriation in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
Standard 2.1(b) provides that actual suspension is the presumed sanction for misappropriation involving
gross negligence.‘

Here, respondent’s careless misconduct and the accompanying need for public protection weigh in favor
a one-year actual suspension. This disciplinary recommendation is at the mid-range of standard 2.1(b),
and is supported by the underlying facts. Specifically, respondent engaged in grossly negligent
misconduct when he abdicated his responsibility to monitor the client trust account and instead used the
trust account as a personal bank account. Relying on his close friendship with Waszczuk, respondent
allowed himself to become lax with Waszczuk’s funds. As a result, responde1it’s handling of the client
trust account constituted an extreme departure from the duties and responsibilities that he owed to
Waszczuk as a fiduciary. Although respondent and Waszczuk developed a friendship and Waszczuk
sometimes offered to assist respondent with personal expenses, these circumstances did not justify
respondent’s grossly negligent misappropriation of the advanced costs and general misuse of the client
trust account.

See In the Matter of Bleecker (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 113 [gross negligence

where the attorney’s misappropriation resulted from his poor management and misuse of the client trust

~
account].

13
In mitigation, respondent practiced law for 27 years without‘ discipline, experienced family difficulties at
the time of his misconduct, and showed recognition of wrongdoing by entering into the present
stipulation. These mitigating circumstances outweigh respondent’s factors in aggravation. However,
respondent’s mitigation is not sufficiently compelling to merit a deviation from the standards.

Case law also supports a one year actual suspension. In McKnight v. State Bar (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1025,
the Supreme Court imposed a one year actual suspension where the attorney willfully misappropriated
$8,665, but compelling mitigation predominated. There, the attorney handled a corporate dissolution
matter on behalf of his client and ultimately received a check in the amount of $17,331.85. Instead of
promptly notifying the client, the attorney unilaterally deposited half of the funds in the client trust
account and distributed the other half to himself in attorney fees. Around this time, the client offered to
loan the attqrney-m6'ney towards a house down payment, and the attorney accepted. The client filed a
State Bar complaintwhen she leamed of the dissolution proceeds and after the attorney failed to‘ timely
repay the loan: .With!respect to the dissolution proceeds,_the attorney denied wrongdoing on the grounds
that the c]i_‘ent'latEr authorized‘ him to keep these fun_ds; the client disputed this assertion. The Supreme
Court "upheld the ‘culpability finding, stating that the attomey “may not have acted with venal design,
[but] his failure to ‘verify and document’ the client’s ,;urported authorization ... had the same perfidious

effect: the client was . dcprived of rightful and timely access to her funds.” In mitigation, at the time
. .

of his misconduct, the attorney suffered from an untreated mood disorder, symptoms of which included
impaired judgment. Prior to his misconduct, the attorney practiced law for eight years without prior
'
'
"

discipline.
'

Similar to the attdmey in McKnight, even where all inferences are resolved in respondent’s favor,
respondent’s actions still rose to the level of a serious misappropriation. At no time did respondent seek
written authorization from Waszczuk to convert advanced costs into advanced fees. As a result,
respondent’s depletion of the entire client trust account was a grossly negligent act that constituted a
breach of the fiduciary duties that he owed to Waszczcuk.

In summary, respondent should be actually suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year
because this is a level of discipline that is consistent with the presumed sanction set forth in standard
2. 1 (b), it fulfills the purposes of discipline articulated in standard 1.1, and is supported by McKnight.

COSTSOF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.


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

EXCLUSION FROM MINIMUM CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (“MCLE”) CREDIT


Respondent may [l_Qj receive MCLE credit for completion of State Bar Ethics School, State Bar Clienf
Trust Accounting School, and/or any other educational courses to be ordered as a condition of probatlon.
(Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)
(Do not write above this line.)

In the Matter of: Case number(s):


DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN 15-0-10110-LMA

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

)
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the
recitations and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Disposition.


O I U ég 17
(
Edward Stein
Date
‘{
Print Name

%
Dat e Respondent's giounéel Signature Print Name

[O \
. Laura Huggins
Date
'

Deputy ‘Mal ounse|’s Signature Print Name

(Effective July 1, 2015)


Signature Page
_

Page _‘_5_
(Do not write above this line.)

In the Matter of: Case Number(s):


DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN 15-O-10110-LMA

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER


Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the
requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any, is GRANTED without prejudice, and:

The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the
Supreme Court.

I] The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as and the

7
set forth below,
DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

All Hearing dates are vacated.

The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed
within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved
stipulation. (See rule 5.58(E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date
of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of
Court.)

Dat
Oak 7”\ 70x1‘
LUCY ARMENDARIZ
Judge
V
of the State Bar Court

(Effective July 1, 2015)


Actual Suspension Order
Page \ XQ
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]

Iam a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen
and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and
County of San Francisco, on October 24, 2017, I deposited a true copy of the following
document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND


ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:

[XI by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal
Service at San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:

DOUGLAS E. STEIN
892 MARIA VISTA WAY
PLACERVILLE, CA 95667 - 4500

)1? by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California
addressed as follows:

Laura A. Huggins, Enforcement, San Francisco

Ihereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Ex cuted in San Francisco, California, on
October 24, 2017.

Vincerft Au
Case Administrator
State Bar Court
PUBLIC MATTER – DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

FILED APRIL 19, 2007

REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE BAR COURT

In the Matter of ) 02-O-11078


)
THOMAS L. RIORDAN, )
) OPINION ON REVIEW
A Member of the State Bar. )
)

I. INTRODUCTION
Respondent, Thomas L. Riordan, requests review of a decision recommending that he be
publicly reproved due to his handling of an automatic appeal from a capital sentence1 in which he
failed to perform legal services with competence, failed to comply with Supreme Court orders,
and failed to timely report judicial sanctions imposed by the Supreme Court. Respondent seeks a
reversal of the culpability findings. The State Bar also requests review, urging us to affirm the
culpability findings and recommend respondent’s actual suspension for sixty days.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in California on December 3, 1982, and
has no prior record of discipline. His misconduct began in October 2000 and continued through
February 2005. We have independently reviewed the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12;2
Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 305(a); In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 207) and find clear and
convincing evidence to support all findings of culpability. The parties further request various
modifications to factual findings and legal conclusions. To the extent we agree, the opinion so
reflects; otherwise, as more fully discussed below, we adopt the factual and culpability findings

1
See Penal Code section 1239, subdivision (b).
2
Effective January 1, 2007, rule 951.5 has been renumbered as rule 9.12.
of the hearing department, as modified, and increase the recommendation regarding discipline to
include a six-month stayed suspension.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Factual and Procedural Background
On September 12, 1991, the California Supreme Court (Court) appointed respondent as
lead counsel to represent defendant Richard Turner in his automatic appeal and any related
habeas corpus proceedings pending before that Court. Turner had been convicted of murder in
the first degree and was sentenced to the punishment of death on about October 19, 1988, in the
San Bernardino County Superior Court. Although respondent had no prior death penalty
appellate experience, he applied for the appointment after Kevin Culhane, a partner with
respondent’s law firm, urged him to undertake such an appeal.3 While preparing the Turner
appeal, respondent worked with California Appellate Project (CAP) staff attorneys.4 In addition
to offering guidance and reviewing respondent’s drafts, CAP provided respondent with material
on death penalty appeals such as sample appellate briefs and relevant case law. After respondent

3
Only five months prior to his appointment to the Turner appeal, respondent became an
associate with the now-defunct Sacramento law firm of Hansen, Boyd, Culhane, and Watson
(Hansen). While with Hansen, respondent worked for several different partners, primarily
researching and writing motions. Respondent left the firm in August 2002 after it was suggested
that he seek other employment opportunities due to his handling of the Turner appeal. Before the
Supreme Court appointed respondent to the Turner appeal, his work experience involved
approximately three years as a research attorney with the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s
Office where he completed a small percentage of criminal appellate work, one and one-half years
as an associate with a private law firm in San Francisco where he performed a small amount of
civil appellate work, and approximately three years as a research attorney with the Third District
Court of Appeal in Sacramento where approximately half his work involved criminal appeals.
4
CAP is a nonprofit law firm established by the State Bar in 1983 that assists private
attorneys appointed to represent indigent persons in death penalty appeals and in other criminal
appeals and writs before the California Supreme Court. CAP assigns staff attorneys to cases with
appointed counsel to provide guidance and assistance, as needed, in preparation of an appeal.
CAP typically does not become attorney of record and was never attorney of record in the Turner
appeal.

-2-
requested appointment of associate counsel to assist in the investigation and preparation of the
petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Court appointed Robert M. Sanger on June 26, 1992 as
associate counsel to represent defendant Turner in the same capacity as respondent. Almost eight
years after respondent was appointed to the Turner appeal, the record on appeal was certified on
July 6, 1999, and on that same date, the Court notified respondent and Sanger that the appellant’s
opening brief (AOB) was due on August 16, 1999.
The Court granted respondent’s repeated requests for extensions of time to file the AOB. 5
On August 25, 2000, the Court granted respondent’s seventh request for extension of time and
stated that “No further extensions of time are contemplated.” Despite this admonition,
respondent requested an eighth extension and on October 24, 2000, the Court granted an
extension to December 12, 2000, stating that “No further extensions of time will be granted.”
Nevertheless, instead of filing the AOB on December 12, respondent filed his ninth request for
an extension of time, which the Court denied on December 20, 2000.
Despite the Court’s denial, respondent did not file the AOB. Instead, on February 21,
2001, respondent filed a request to withdraw as counsel and to substitute Sanger as sole counsel
for Turner. On June 13, 2001, the Court denied respondent’s request without prejudice, and on
June 27, 2001, ordered that the AOB be filed by July 31, 2001. The Court further warned that if
the AOB was not timely filed, it would consider issuing an order directing respondent and Sanger
to show cause why they should not be held in contempt or other sanction imposed for their delay
in the appellate process occasioned by the eight extensions of time thus far granted. Neither
respondent nor Sanger filed the AOB by the due date, and on August 15, 2001, the Court issued
an order to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for the willful neglect of their

5
The Court granted respondent’s requests for extension of time to file the AOB on August
20, 1999, October 21, 1999, December 23, 1999, February 28, 2000, April 18, 2000, July 3,
2000, August 25, 2000, and October 24, 2000.

-3-
duty to file the AOB. (In re Thomas L. Riordan and Robert M. Sanger on Contempt, California
Supreme Court Case No. S009038.)
The hearing on the order to show cause was held on November 7, 2001. By order filed
November 14, 2001, the Court relieved respondent as counsel of record in the Turner appeal.6
On January 7, 2002, the Court filed and served on respondent an opinion finding him guilty of
contempt and ordering him to pay a fine of $1,000. (In re Riordan (2002) 26 Cal.4th 1235.) The
Court specifically found that respondent had not complied with the Court’s June 27, 2001 order,
that respondent was aware of and had the ability to comply with the order, and that his failure to
do so was both willful and an act occurring in the immediate view and presence of the Court
within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1211, thus constituting a direct contempt.7
In a separate order also filed on January 7, 2002, the Court ordered respondent to reimburse the
Court for the $42,378.36 in fees paid for preparation of the AOB. 8
The Court forwarded a copy of the judgment of contempt to the State Bar. On January
26, 2005, the State Bar filed a three-count Notice of Disciplinary Charges (NDC) alleging that
respondent failed to perform competently, failed to obey court orders, and failed to report judicial
sanctions. Although respondent was required to notify the State Bar of the $1,000 fine no later
than February 11, 2002, he failed to do so until three years later when he filed a response to the
NDC on February 17, 2005.

6
Sanger was designated sole counsel on appeal, and he filed the AOB on May 7, 2002.
The Turner appeal was decided in People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406.
7
In her decision, the hearing judge mischaracterized various statements made by the
justices at the OSC hearing as “findings.” However, the only substantive findings of the Court
are contained in its written opinion and order. (See In re Caldwell’s Estate (1932) 216 Cal. 694,
697.)
8
Respondent’s firm paid both the fine and fee reimbursement on February 6, 2002.

-4-
After a three-day trial on August 2, 3, and 9, 2005, the hearing judge found respondent
culpable on all charged counts and, upon considering the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, recommended respondent’s public reproval.
B. Count One: Failing to Act Competently (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-110(A))9
Respondent initially worked diligently on the Turner appeal but did not maintain that
effort, as evidenced by the fact that he spent a mere two and one-half weeks on the Turner appeal
in 2000 and performed no substantial work on it in 2001. The hearing judge found that having
spent eight years on the appeal, respondent knew or should have known the matter was not
simple. Rather than seek the Court’s permission to withdraw earlier, respondent procrastinated,
sought repeated extensions, and fostered the impression that he was working on the AOB.
Ultimately, respondent was unable to complete and file the AOB, and it took the intervention of
the Supreme Court to ensure that the Turner matter was fully briefed. Because respondent failed
to timely file the AOB, the hearing judge concluded that respondent willfully violated rule 3-
110(A).
The focus of our inquiry as to a charge of failing to act competently is whether respondent
intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to apply the diligence, learning and skill, and
mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably necessary to discharge the duties arising from
his employment. (Rule 3-110(A).) In order to fulfill Turner’s right to effective assistance of
counsel, due process principles required respondent, as appointed advocate, to submit, at a
minimum, “‘a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.’”
(In re Andrew B. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 825, 853.) Respondent contends that because his
request to withdraw was denied and his draft brief was deemed constitutionally inadequate by his

9
Unless noted otherwise, all further references to rule(s) are to the Rules of Professional
Conduct.

-5-
co-counsel,10 his failure to timely file the AOB in this case does not constitute a violation of rule
3-110(A). Respondent’s argument is unpersuasive. “That an appellate attorney has
demonstrated a willingness to undertake the difficult task of representing criminal defendants
sentenced to suffer the death penalty does not excuse his failure timely to [file a brief or]
investigate fully the potential grounds for . . . relief in any particular case.” (In re Sanders (1999)
21 Cal.4th 697, 712 [appellate counsel appointed to represent defendant’s direct appeal and
habeas corpus proceedings abandoned defendant because he never investigated or filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus].)
Although noncompliance with a time limitation does not establish per se a failure to act
competently (see In the Matter of Layton (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 366,
377), we have found a violation of rule 3-110(A) when an attorney’s noncompliance with a time
limitation is not the result of mere negligence. (See, e.g., In the Matter of Dahlz (Review Dept.
2001) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 269, 278, 279 [attorney’s failure to attend a status conference in
a client’s workers’ compensation case constituted reckless failure to perform legal services]; In
the Matter of Broderick (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 138, 155 [attorney’s
failure to file a complaint within the statute of limitations, when part of a series of repeated
failures, constituted a failure to perform legal services competently].) During the decade that
respondent was counsel of record on the Turner appeal, he successfully moved for appointment
of associate counsel, conferred with CAP staff counsel with respect to relevant issues,
sufficiently familiarized himself with the record on appeal to create an extensive draft AOB, and

10
Respondent testified that by the end of 2000, he became aware that both his assigned
CAP staff attorney, Scott Kauffman, and Sanger believed respondent’s draft AOB did not
develop critical issues. Kauffman testified that he did not believe respondent’s draft AOB was
sufficient to file and Sanger testified that he did not feel respondent’s draft AOB was adequate to
present to the Court. Sanger testified in the hearing below that he did utilize some of
respondent’s work product, and the evidence corroborates that significant portions of the AOB
drafted by respondent were incorporated into the brief ultimately filed by Sanger.

-6-
obtained eight extensions of time over almost two years to file the AOB after the record on
appeal was certified. In spite of these efforts on Turner’s behalf, respondent was unable to finish
his assigned task. Given the length of time respondent was involved in the appeal, it is simply
inexplicable that he could not or did not either obtain adequate assistance or take timely steps to
withdraw, particularly in a case involving the death penalty where diligent representation was of
paramount importance. Under these circumstances, respondent’s failure ultimately to file the
AOB evidences a reckless failure to perform legal services competently. Neither the Court’s
refusal to permit respondent’s withdrawal nor perceived inadequacies of his draft by others
excused respondent’s protracted delay and utter failure to file the AOB.
C. Count Two: Failure to Obey Court Orders (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6103)11
The hearing judge found that respondent failed to comply with the Court’s October 24,
2000 and June 27, 2001 orders requiring the AOB be filed no later than December 12, 2000 and
July 31, 2001, respectively, in willful violation of section 6103. We find clear and convincing
evidence to support this culpability determination, particularly since the Court filed an opinion,
ante, finding that respondent had not complied with its June 27, 2001 order, that respondent was
aware of and had the ability to comply with said order, and that respondent’s failure to do so was
willful, constituting a direct contempt.
Respondent argues that he should not be found culpable of willfully violating section
6103 because the State Bar failed to prove that he violated the Court’s orders in bad faith.
Contrary to respondent’s assertion, we do not find that bad faith is a necessary element of a
section 6103 violation.12 For disciplinary purposes, bad faith must be proved if the State Bar

11
Unless noted otherwise, all further references to section(s) are to the Business and
Professions Code.
12
According to section 6103, “A wilful disobedience or violation of an order of the court
requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of his profession, which he
ought in good faith to do or forbear . . . [constitutes cause] for disbarment or suspension.”

-7-
alleges that respondent’s noncompliance with the Court’s orders involves moral turpitude. (See
Maltaman v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 924, 950-953.) Such an allegation is not at issue in this
matter.
Respondent also claims he did not comply with the Court’s orders because he had a good
faith belief that his draft AOB was insufficient to adequately protect Turner’s interests and that
Sanger had assumed the task of filing the AOB. The hearing judge rejected this argument, as do
we. Respondent’s belief in the merit or lack of merit of his brief is simply irrelevant to the issue
of whether he made a good faith effort to comply with the Supreme Court’s orders. Respondent
had an affirmative duty to comply with the Court’s orders and he could not simply disregard
them and “sit back and await contempt proceedings before complying with or explaining why he
. . . cannot obey a court order.” (In the Matter of Boyne (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.
Rptr. 389, 404.) Moreover, in view of the Court’s statements in its orders that “no further
extensions of time are contemplated” and “no further extensions of time will be granted,” we find
that respondent’s claimed belief that he had the right to ignore this clear and unequivocal
language was implausible at best and disingenuous at worst. (Maltaman v. State Bar, supra, 43
Cal.3d at pp. 951-952.) Nevertheless, we address respondent’s asserted basis for good faith as a
possible factor in mitigation, post.
D. Count Three: Failure to Report Judicial Sanctions (§ 6068, subd. (o)(3))13
Respondent stipulated that he was served with the Court’s opinion finding him in
contempt and sanctioning him in the amount of $1,000. He also stipulated that he was to notify
the State Bar about the imposed sanction no later than February 11, 2002. Since respondent did

13
Under this section, “It is the duty of an attorney . . . .[¶] . . . [¶] . . . To report to the
[State Bar], in writing, within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge of . . . . [¶] . . . [¶]
. . . The imposition of judicial sanctions against the attorney, except for sanctions for failure to
make discovery or monetary sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).”

-8-
not so notify the State Bar until February 17, 2005, the hearing judge concluded that he willfully
violated section 6068, subdivision (o)(3).
On appeal, respondent admits that he did not report the judicial sanction by February 11,
2002, but justifies his failure to do so because he received a copy of the February 7, 2002, notice
of the sanction sent to the State Bar by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Respondent claims that
because he had actual knowledge that the Clerk notified the State Bar of the sanction, it would
have been superfluous for him to provide additional written notice. We disagree. The Clerk had
a statutory duty to notify the State Bar of the order of contempt and imposition of judicial
sanctions and therefore did not notify the State Bar on respondent’s behalf.14 However,
respondent had an independent duty to report judicial sanctions and the time for reporting such
sanctions ran from the moment he knew the sanctions were imposed, regardless of the finality of
the order or pendency of any appeal. (In the Matter of Respondent Y (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal.
State Bar Ct. Rptr. 862, 866-867.) Section 6068, subdivision (o)(3) offers no exception to
respondent’s independent reporting obligation, regardless of his actual knowledge that the Court
had complied with its own separate statutory duty to notify the State Bar. (See, e.g. In the Matter
of Blum (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 170, 176 [attorney’s awareness that the
Superior Court was notifying the State Bar of sanctions mitigated his violation of section 6068,
subdivision (o)(3) but did not absolve him of culpability].) Thus, we adopt the hearing judge’s
culpability finding on this count.

14
Section 6086.7, subdivision (a) provides that “A court shall notify the State Bar of any
of the following: [¶] . . . A final order of contempt imposed against an attorney that may involve
grounds warranting discipline [or] . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . The imposition of any judicial sanctions
against an attorney, except sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary sanctions of less
than one thousand dollars ($1,000).”

-9-
E. Factors in Aggravation and Mitigation
1. Aggravation
We agree with the hearing judge’s determination that respondent engaged in multiple acts
of wrongdoing, but we give this little weight. Respondent willfully failed to obey court orders
and failed to promptly report the imposition of judicial sanctions. These acts support a finding in
aggravation that respondent engaged in multiple acts of misconduct. (See In the Matter of
Malek-Yonan (Review Dept. 2003) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 627 [two violations of failure to
supervise resulting in trust fund violations, plus improper threat to bring criminal action
constituted multiple acts of wrongdoing in aggravation]; but see In the Matter of Blum, supra, 3
Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at p. 177 [one client matter involving misappropriation, failure to
promptly pay funds at client’s request and failure to inform client of right to seek independent
counsel, plus failure to report sanctions in another client matter, were not viewed by this court
“as strongly presenting aggravation on account of multiple acts of misconduct . . . .”]; Rules
Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, std. 1.2(b)(ii).)15
The State Bar contends that the hearing judge improperly failed to consider additional
evidence of uncharged misconduct and argues that respondent lied to the Court at the OSC
hearing when he told Justice Kennard that his practice had been exclusively civil since 1991
when he was appointed to the Turner appeal. It is unclear whether respondent’s statement to
Justice Kennard was solely limited to his practice with the Hansen firm which may have been
exclusively civil, the Turner appeal notwithstanding.16 Accordingly, on this record, we do not

15
All further references to standard(s) are to these provisions.
16
During the OSC hearing, Justice Kennard stated to respondent, “you indicated that the
root of the problem in this case [the Turner appeal] for your failure to come up with a brief
within certain time constraints was your problem in dealing with criminal issues.” Justice
Kennard then asked respondent, “Do I gather, then, that currently your practice is - you have a
very heavy civil practice; would that be correct to state?” Respondent stated, “You’re right. It’s
exclusively civil. And has been since I had this - the case in 1991.”

-10-
find clear and convincing evidence that respondent intended to mislead the Court or willfully
committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.
The State Bar next contends that the hearing judge omitted a finding that respondent’s
conduct in failing to timely file the AOB significantly harmed the administration of justice. We
agree. Respondent’s misconduct unnecessarily delayed the appellate process by more than two
years and thus harmed the administration of justice. (Std. 1.2(b)(iv); see also In the Matter of
Hunter (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 63, 75, 79 [attorney’s misconduct which
included, among other things, violation of court orders and findings of contempt, harmed the
administration of justice].)
2. Mitigation
We adopt the hearing judge’s finding that respondent practiced law for over 17 years with
no prior record of discipline. The State Bar contends that respondent should receive no
mitigative credit for his extensive period of discipline-free practice because his present
misconduct is serious. We are not persuaded by the State Bar’s argument. According to standard
1.2(e), “Circumstances which shall be considered mitigating are: [¶] (i) [the] absence of any prior
record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not
deemed serious . . . .” (Italics added.) Thus, in a disciplinary proceeding where an attorney
sufficiently proves the absence of a prior record of discipline over many years and where the
misconduct is not deemed serious, mitigative credit must be given. Although standard 1.2(e)
describes instances when consideration of certain mitigating circumstances is mandatory, it is by
no means an exclusive list of every factor that may be considered in mitigation. Indeed, the
Supreme Court and this court routinely have considered the absence of prior discipline in
mitigation even when the misconduct was serious. (Edwards v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 28,
31, 32, 36, 39 [mitigative credit given for almost twelve years of discipline-free practice despite
intentional misappropriation and commingling]; Boehme v. State Bar (1988) 47 Cal.3d 448, 452-

-11-
453, 454-455 [twenty-two years of practice without prior discipline was important mitigating
circumstance despite attorney’s intentional misappropriation and lack of candor to court]; In the
Matter of Davis (Review Dept. 2003) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 576, 588-589, 591 [mitigation
acknowledged for the absence of a prior record of discipline in twelve years of practice despite
willful misappropriation of over $29,000]; In the Matter of Trillo (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal.
State Bar Ct. Rptr. 59, 69 [credit given for no prior history of discipline in fourteen years of
practice where attorney converted client funds and deceived clients].) Therefore, we consider
respondent’s practice of law for more than 17 years with no prior record of discipline to be a
significant mitigating factor.
Like the hearing judge, we also find mitigating the fact that there has been no further
misconduct on the part of respondent.17 However, while the hearing judge determined that
respondent had been practicing for more than four years without misconduct, we conclude that
only three and one-half years elapsed from the date respondent failed to timely report judicial
sanctions in February 2002 to the date trial commenced in this matter in August 2005. Although
the hearing judge neither referenced standard 1.2(e)(viii) nor specifically found respondent to be
rehabilitated,18 this does not foreclose consideration of respondent’s successful post-misconduct
practice since the Supreme Court has found mitigation where there was no specific showing of
rehabilitation other than the practice of law for a period of time without further misconduct.
(Amante v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 247, 256 [three years of unblemished post-misconduct

17
On the third day of trial during respondent’s direct examination, his attorney asked him
“Do you have any prior record of discipline?” Respondent answered, “No.” Respondent’s
attorney then asked, “And do you have any subsequent discipline cases since this one has been
raised?” Respondent answered, “No.” Although it had the opportunity to do so, the State Bar
did not rebut respondent’s claim. Thus, we reject the State Bar’s assertion that there is no
evidence in the record that respondent did not commit further misconduct.
18
Standard 1.2(e) states that “Circumstances which shall be considered mitigating are: [¶]
. . . [¶] (viii) the passage of considerable time since the acts of professional misconduct occurred
followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation . . . .”

-12-
practice given mitigative credit]; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 300, 305, 308, 316-317
[passage of approximately six years of continued practice without suffering additional charges of
unethical conduct demonstrated attorney’s ability to adhere to standards of professional behavior
and was considered in mitigation].) Thus, we afford mitigation to respondent’s three and one-
half years of discipline-free, post-misconduct practice.
The hearing judge gave slightly diminished mitigation to respondent’s evidence of good
character, reasoning that respondent’s four character witnesses, all of whom were attorneys, did
not constitute a wide range of references in the legal and general communities required under
standard 1.2(e)(vi).19 Each witness reviewed the Stipulation of Undisputed Facts and the pretrial
statements each party filed,20 and uniformly attested at trial to respondent’s good character and
honesty. The hearing judge found that the declaration of one of the character witnesses, Ms.
Pavlovich, was “particularly noteworthy” and so do we. Ms. Pavlovich testified that she had
worked with respondent in the same law firm for twelve years, which included the time when he
was working on the Turner AOB. She declared that “he performed his assignments in an
exemplary manner” and that “she trusted him completely to timely deliver an excellent work
product.” She further attested that he was “one of the most honest, honorable, moral persons”
she had known and “of the highest moral character.” Because attorneys and judges have a
“strong interest in maintaining the honest administration of justice” (In the Matter of Brown
(Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 309, 319), “[t]estimony of members of the bar . . .

19
Standard 1.2(e) states that “Circumstances which shall be considered mitigating are: [¶]
. . . [¶] (vi) an extraordinary demonstration of good character of the member attested to by a wide
range of references in the legal and general communities and who are aware of the full extent of
the member’s misconduct . . . .”
20
We reject as unsupported by the record the State Bar’s contention that respondent’s
character witnesses were not aware of the full extent of his misconduct. We see no shortcoming
in using the parties’ pretrial statements, which addressed the charges against respondent, and
stipulation to apprise the character witnesses of petitioner’s alleged unethical acts.

-13-
is entitled to great consideration.” (Tardiff v. State Bar (1980) 27 Cal.3d 395, 403.) However, in
disciplinary proceedings, we have tempered the weight afforded evidence of good character
offered for the purpose of mitigation when a wide range of references is absent. (See, e.g., In the
Matter of Kueker (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 583, 590, 594-595 [character
testimony of an attorney, district sales manager, and a department store owner did not constitute
a wide range of references]; In the Matter of Kreitenberg (Review Dept. 2002) 4 Cal. State Bar
Ct. Rptr. 469, 476 [character testimony from three attorneys not a sufficiently wide range of
references].) Thus, like the hearing judge, we recognize respondent’s good character evidence
but, due to the absence of a wide range of references, diminish its weight in mitigation
accordingly.
We agree with the hearing judge that respondent’s cooperation with the State Bar by
entering into a factual stipulation covering background facts should be considered in mitigation.
Although the stipulated facts were not difficult to prove and did not admit culpability, they were,
nevertheless, extensive, relevant and assisted the State Bar’s prosecution of the case. The State
Bar further admitted in its pretrial statement that respondent had “cooperated in the State Bar’s
investigation and proceedings . . . .” Thus, we consider respondent’s factual stipulation a
mitigating circumstance under standard 1.2(e)(v). (See In the Matter of Kaplan (Review Dept.
1996) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 547, 567 [attorney afforded mitigation for entering belated
stipulations which mostly concerned easily provable facts].)
As mentioned earlier, the hearing judge properly rejected respondent’s good faith claim as
a defense to his culpability under section 6103. We also find his good faith claim in mitigation is
unavailing. “In order to establish good faith as a mitigating circumstance, an attorney must prove
that his or her beliefs were both honestly held and reasonable. [Citations.]” (In the Matter of
Rose (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 646, 653, italics added.) To conclude
otherwise would reward an attorney for his unreasonable beliefs and “for his ignorance of his
ethical responsibilities.” (In the Matter of McKiernan (Review Dept. 1995) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.

-14-
Rptr. 420, 427.) Even if respondent honestly believed that his draft AOB was insufficient to
adequately protect Turner’s interests and that Sanger had assumed the task of filing the AOB, it
was not reasonable for him to believe that he did not have to comply with the Court’s order to
timely file the AOB since respondent knew the Court had rejected his requests for additional
extensions of time and to be relieved as counsel. In addition, respondent made no effort to
confirm that Sanger would be able to timely file the AOB.
F. Level of Discipline
The hearing judge recommended that respondent be publicly reproved. The State Bar
requests that respondent be actually suspended, while respondent seeks dismissal of all charges.21
We have found respondent culpable of failing to perform competently, to obey court orders and
to timely report judicial sanctions. Respondent’s unethical conduct is aggravated because it
involves multiple acts of misconduct and significantly harmed the administration of justice.
Respondent’s mitigation consists of a seventeen-year career with no record of discipline, three
and one-half years of successful post-misconduct practice, good character, and cooperation with
the State Bar.
We observe that rather than the punishment of attorneys, the purpose of attorney
discipline is the protection of the public, the preservation of confidence in the legal profession,
and the maintenance of the highest professional standards for attorneys. (Chadwick v. State Bar
(1989) 49 Cal.3d 103, 111; std. 1.3.) In determining the appropriate level of discipline, we afford
“great weight” to the standards (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92). Nevertheless, The
Supreme Court is “‘not bound to follow the standards in talismanic fashion. As the final and
independent arbiter of attorney discipline, we are permitted to temper the letter of the law with
considerations peculiar to the offense and the offender.’ [Citations.]” (In the Matter of Van Sickle

21
In the alternative, respondent urges us to recommend his admonishment in the event we
find him culpable of unethical conduct.

-15-
(2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 994, quoting Howard v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 215,
221-222.) We also consider relevant decisional law. (See In the Matter of Frazier (Review
Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 676, 703.) Ultimately, in determining the appropriate level
of discipline, each case must be decided on its own facts after a balanced consideration of all
relevant factors. (Connor v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1047, 1059.)
Standard 2.6 applies to respondent’s misconduct and, depending on the gravity of the
offense or harm, provides for disbarment or suspension when an attorney violates section 6068 or
6103.22 A review of a variety of case law, as well as the unique facets of this case, discussed
post, leads us to conclude that respondent’s misconduct warrants discipline on the low end of the
range suggested by standard 2.6, particularly since there was no client harm in this matter.23
In Borre v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1047 (Borre), an attorney who had practiced law
for over 14 years without prior discipline received a two-year actual suspension after he
abandoned an incarcerated client’s criminal appeal. Despite obtaining two extensions of time to
file the opening brief, the attorney never filed it, and the court dismissed the appeal. (Id. at p.
1050.) After the client filed a complaint with the State Bar, the attorney proffered an exculpatory
letter which was determined to be fabricated. (Ibid.) In adopting a two-year actual suspension,
the Supreme Court noted that “Petitioner’s abandonment of his incarcerated client was itself a
serious matter warranting substantial discipline [Citation]” and that “His fabrication of the . . .
letter and subsequent lies . . . are particularly egregious.” (Id. at p. 1053.)

22
According to this standard, “Culpability of a member of a violation of any of the
following provisions of the Business and Professions Code shall result in disbarment or
suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due
regard to the purposes of imposing discipline . . . [¶] (a) Sections 6067 and 6068; [¶] (b) Sections
6103 through 6105 . . . .”
23
Since the gravamen of respondent’s misconduct involves issues of competent
performance, which in this instance underlie a violation of Supreme Court orders, we have
reviewed cases which involve either an attorney’s failure to perform in a single client matter or
failure to obey court orders.

-16-
In Harris v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1082 (Harris), the Supreme Court imposed a 90-
day actual suspension on an attorney who “did virtually nothing for over four years to perform
the duties for which she had been retained.” (Id. at p. 1088.) Although the attorney practiced
law for ten years without misconduct and contracted typhoid six months after being retained, this
did not outweigh the fact that she caused substantial prejudice to the client and showed no
remorse or even an understanding that her neglect was improper. (Ibid.)
In Layton v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 889 (Layton), the Supreme Court imposed a 30-
day actual suspension on an attorney who, over more than a five-year period, failed to conserve
the assets and obtain the distribution of an estate for which he was the attorney and executor. (Id.
at p. 897.) Due to his neglect, the probate court removed the attorney as estate executor. (Ibid.)
The attorney’s misconduct significantly harmed a beneficiary by denying her distribution from
the estate at a time when she was experiencing extreme financial need and also harmed the estate
by depriving it of interest and causing it to incur tax penalties. (Ibid.) The attorney was also
indifferent toward rectification or atonement. In mitigation, the attorney had practiced law for
over 30 years without discipline and had been under considerable emotional and physical strain
due to the need to care for his terminally-ill mother. (Ibid.)
In Van Sloten v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 921 (Van Sloten), the Supreme Court
imposed a six-month stayed suspension on an attorney who had practiced law for approximately
five and one-half years before committing misconduct that spanned one year and involved a
single act of failing to perform in a dissolution matter. The court found that the attorney’s failure
to perform was “without serious consequences to the client” but that his failure to appear before
the Review Department “demonstrate[d] a lack of concern for the disciplinary process and a
failure to appreciate the seriousness of the charges against him.” (Id. at p. 933.)
In In the Matter of Respondent Y, supra, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 862 (Respondent Y),
we found an attorney culpable of failing to obey a court order to pay sanctions that were imposed
as a result of his bad faith tactics and actions while defending an action in San Diego County

-17-
Superior Court. We also concluded that the attorney failed to timely report the sanctions to the
State Bar. In adopting the hearing judge’s recommendation of a private reproval, we observed
that “There is little evidence before us bearing on degree of discipline.” (Id. at p. 869.) We
acknowledged the attorney’s lack of prior discipline; however, we neither described the period of
discipline-free practice nor application of the disciplinary standards. (Ibid.)
In In the Matter of Nees (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 459 (Nees), the
Supreme Court adopted our recommendation of a six-month actual suspension for an attorney
who abandoned the habeas corpus petition of a client incarcerated on a long prison sentence. In
addition, the attorney failed to return the client’s files, to refund $7,000 in advanced fees, and to
cooperate with the State Bar. (Id. at p. 463.) The attorney’s mere four years of practice without
prior discipline was not mitigating. His misconduct was aggravated by the fact that it involved
multiple acts and significantly harmed the client. The attorney failed to acknowledge the
impropriety of his actions and failed to participate in the underlying disciplinary proceeding.
(Ibid.) We further observed that the attorney’s protracted retention of significant unearned fees
“approached a practical appropriation.” (Id. at p. 465.)
In this case, respondent’s inability to timely file the AOB on behalf of an incarcerated
client closely resembles the facts in Borre and Nees where actual suspension was appropriate, but
unlike those cases, respondent did not abandon his incarcerated client outright. Indeed,
respondent’s inaction did not cause client harm on this record. Furthermore, the misconduct in
Borre involved moral turpitude because the attorney lied under oath and fabricated a letter and
the incarcerated client’s guilt or innocence was at issue. The client’s criminal appeal was
dismissed as a result of the attorney’s misconduct. Beyond abandoning an incarcerated client’s
habeas corpus petition, the attorney in Nees also showed indifference by failing to participate in
the disciplinary proceedings and committed further ethical transgressions by not cooperating with
the State Bar or returning the client’s file and advanced fees that were unearned. Respondent’s
misconduct and aggravating factors are not as extensive as those in either of these cases.

-18-
Like the attorneys in Harris and Layton, respondent’s failure to file the AOB spanned
multiple years. Additionally, his neglect resulted in his court removal, as was the case in Layton.
Although the attorneys in Harris and Layton practiced law for several years without prior
misconduct, such mitigation was outweighed by lack of remorse and significant harm to clients.
Although respondent’s unethical conduct harmed the administration of justice, there is no
evidence of client harm. In balance, we find that respondent’s seventeen years of discipline-free
practice, successful post-misconduct practice, good character and cooperation outweigh the
aggravation in this case. Although some of the misconduct in Respondent Y is analogous to
respondent’s, it does not involve issues of competent performance. We find respondent’s
misconduct and aggravation to be more extensive than those found in Respondent Y. However,
like Van Sloten, respondent’s misconduct involves only a single client matter. Although
respondent’s performance issues also involve a failure to report court-imposed sanctions and
uncharged misconduct not found in Van Sloten, respondent has seventeen years of discipline-free
practice compared to only five and one-half in Van Sloten. Furthermore, respondent’s facts
include additional mitigation not present in Van Sloten, such as good character and cooperation.
Comparisons with the other cases, however, cannot overshadow the unique facets of the
case before us. We are most concerned that this case arises in the area of appointed
representation in a criminal automatic appeal, where so very much is at stake for the defendant
and for the fair and effective administration of justice. That context would normally lead us to
recommend actual suspension for the totality of the misconduct present here. On the other hand,
our independent review of the record shows that at least respondent’s initial actions arose out of
an attempt to assist, not hinder, the effective administration of justice. Respondent’s senior
partner sought to increase the number of counsel available in his firm to represent capital
defendants and, undoubtedly, respondent was eager to accommodate the partner as well as the
goal. Further, the history of the support structure available to respondent in this case, particularly
the succession of CAP attorneys available to respondent as resources and more centrally,

-19-
respondent’s associate counsel, appears to have diffused, rather than focused, respondent’s vision
of his responsibilities to his client and the Supreme Court.
Although this matter involves an incarcerated client, this is not a classic case of client
abandonment. Respondent acceded to his partner’s request that he take on a death penalty
appeal, which he had never before undertaken. It seems clear that respondent was in over his
head, resulting in his failure to timely extricate himself or to obtain appropriate relief from the
Supreme Court, but no moral turpitude was involved. Rather, because of respondent’s ineptitude
or lethargy, or both, he allowed the appeal to languish. The harm thus was to the administration
of justice, not to his client. Additionally, respondent’s misconduct appears to be limited to this
one – albeit prolonged – matter as there is no other evidence of misconduct, either in the
seventeen years prior to this incident or in the three and one-half years afterwards. His
misconduct is also at odds with the strong testimony of his character witnesses.
Of course, none of these facts excuses respondent’s failure to perform his professional
responsibilities properly. However, they form a unique confluence of circumstances that
demonstrate to us that the goals of imposing discipline, protection of the public, courts and legal
profession and the maintenance of high professional standards are best served here by a stayed
suspension, such as that imposed in Van Sloten.
III. RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that respondent, THOMAS L. RIORDAN, be suspended from the
practice of law in the State of California for a period of six months; that execution of the six-
month period of suspension be stayed; and that he be placed on probation for a period of one year
on the following conditions:

1. Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act, the Rules of
Professional Conduct, and all the conditions of this probation. Respondent must
maintain, with the State Bar's Membership Records Office and the State Bar’s Office of
Probation in Los Angeles, his current office address and telephone number or, if no office
is maintained, an address to be used for State Bar purposes. (Bus. & Prof. Code,
§ 6002.1, subd. (a).) Respondent must also maintain, with the State Bar's Membership

-20-
Records Office and the State Bar’s Office of Probation in Los Angeles, his current home
address and telephone number. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, 6002.1, subd. (a)(5).)
Respondent's home address and telephone number will not be made available to the
general public. (Bus. & Prof. Code, 6002.1, subd. (d).) Respondent must notify the
Membership Records Office and the Office of Probation of any change in any of this
information no later than 10 days after the change.
2. Respondent must report, in writing, to the State Bar's Office of Probation in Los Angeles
no later than January 10, April 10, July 10 and October 10 of each year or part thereof in
which respondent is on probation (reporting dates). However, if respondent's probation
begins less than 30 days before a reporting date, respondent may submit the first report no
later than the second reporting date after the beginning of his probation. In each report,
respondent must state that it covers the preceding calendar quarter or applicable portion
thereof and certify by affidavit or under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California as follows:
(a) in the first report, whether respondent has complied with all the provisions of the
State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all other conditions of
probation since the beginning of probation; and
(b) in each subsequent report, whether respondent has complied with all the
provisions of the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all other
conditions of probation during that period.
During the last 20 days of this probation, respondent must submit a final report covering
any period of probation remaining after and not covered by the last quarterly report
required under this probation condition. In this final report, respondent must certify to
the matters set forth in subparagraph (b) of this probation condition by affidavit or under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.
3. Within 30 calendar days from the effective date of the Supreme Court’s final disciplinary
order in this proceeding, respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a
meeting with his assigned probation deputy to discuss probation conditions. At the
direction of the Office of Probation, respondent must meet with the probation deputy
either in person or by telephone. During the period of probation, respondent must meet
promptly with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.
4. Subject to the proper or good faith assertion of any applicable privilege, respondent must
fully, promptly, and truthfully answer any inquiries of the State Bar's Office of Probation
that are directed to respondent, whether orally or in writing, relating to whether
respondent is complying or has complied with the conditions of this probation.
5. Within one year after the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter,
respondent must attend and satisfactorily complete the State Bar's Ethics School and
provide satisfactory proof of such completion to the State Bar's Office of Probation in Los
Angeles. This condition of probation is separate and apart from respondent's California
Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements; accordingly, respondent is
ordered not to claim any MCLE credit for attending and completing this course. (Accord,
Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201.)

-21-
6. Respondent's probation will commence on the effective date of the Supreme Court order
imposing discipline in this matter. And, at the end of the probationary term, if respondent
has complied with the conditions of probation, the Supreme Court order suspending
respondent from the practice of law for six months will be satisfied, and the suspension
will be terminated.
IV. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION
We further recommend that respondent be ordered to take and pass the Multistate
Professional Responsibility Examination administered by the National Conference of Bar
Examiners within one year after the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter and
to provide satisfactory proof of such passage to the State Bar's Office of Probation in Los
Angeles within the same period.
V. COSTS
We further recommend that the costs incurred by the State Bar in this matter be awarded
to the State Bar in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6086.10 and are
enforceable as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money
judgment.
WATAI, J.

We concur:
EPSTEIN, J.
STOVITZ, J.*

_______________________________________________

*
Retired Presiding Judge of the State Bar Court and Judge Pro Tem of the State Bar Court
appointed by the State Bar Board of Governors under rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the
State Bar, sitting by designation of the Presiding Judge.

-22-
Case No. 02-O-11078

In the Matter of Thomas L. Riordan

Hearing Judge

Hon. Joann M. Remke

Counsel for the Parties

For State Bar of California: Sherrie B. M cLetchie


Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
The State Bar of California
180 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA 94105

For Respondent: Jerome Fishkin


Fishkin & Slatter Llp
1111 Civic Dr Ste 215
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:42 #PM
127-Page # 1
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:42 #PM
127-Page # 2
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:42 #PM
127-Page # 3
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:42 #PM
127-Page # 4
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:42 #PM
127-Page # 5
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:42 #PM
127-Page # 6
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:42 #PM
127-Page # 7
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:42 #PM
127-Page # 8
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:42 #PM
127-Page # 9
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL/INTAKE
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
1149 SOUTH BAR HILL STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90015-2299

ADDENDDUM TO THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS LISTED BELOW:

CHARLES FURLONGE ROBINSON-SBN #113197; STEVEN ARNOLD DROWN- SBN


#119689; KAREN JENSEN PETRULAKIS- SBN #168732; MARGARET LOUISA WU- SBN
#184167 ;CYNTHIA ANN VROOM- SBN #139470; JOHN ALLEN LOHSE — SBN
#195278;STEPHEN EDWARD CHILCOTT —SBN#196905;
DANIEL MORRIS DOOLEY- SBN #70674; DANESHA NICOLE NICHOLS —SBN#2227784;
BRENT JOHN SEIFERT —SBN#249305; DAVID MARK LEVINE —SBN#251523;ANNA
ORLOWSKI,-SBN #155577;TRAVIS JAMES LINDSEY — SBN #220935; WENDI J.
DELMENDO- SBN #177389; MIA BELK —SBN# 216890;MARILYN ELIZABETH TAYS-
SBN #158370;MICHAEL ALLEN - SBN # 86871;DARREL STEINBERG -SBN # 86871;
MICHAEL WILLIAM POTT - SBN# 186156; ISMAEL A. CASTRO; SBN# 85452, ASHANTE
L. NORTON-SBN 203836; JACOB ADAM APPLESMITH # 135850;JILL NOEL
VANDEVIVER -SBN # 227901

I. INTRODUCTION

My name is Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk (pronounced Yaroslav Vashchook). I was employed by


the University of California for 13 years from June 1999 to December 2012. From June 1999 to
March 2007, I was employed as an operator of the 27 MW cogeneration power plant at UC
Davis Medical Center. In March 2007, I was severely victimized by some of the above-listed
individuals who are licensed by the State Bar of California.

The full history of the events and circumstances that led to this complaint against the above-listed
individuals is described in EXHIBIT # 1, which is the 295-page, proposed Third Amended
Complaint (TAC) in the wrongful termination lawsuit Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California filed in Sacramento County Superior Court on December 4, 2013, Case No.
Case No: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS. The Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District Case
No. C079524, Waszczuk v. Regent of the University of California et al.

I intended to file the proposed complaint in court, but it was blocked by Defendant's Counsel by
Motion for Automatic Stay in September 2015. (See Exhibits # 162, 164 & 165.)

Most of the individuals listed in the complaint contributed in one way or another to unlawful
termination of my employment by conspiring with others with full professional knowledge of their
wrongdoing. They are responsible for the complete devastation of my and my family's life, my
health, and my financial resources, in addition to violations of my employee rights, civil rights, and
human rights by making my life and my family's life a living hell on Planet Earth.

1
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
This complaint with the State Bar of California against these individuals never would have taken
place if I had known in December 2006 that the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
facility, where I had been employed since June 1999 as an operator, was the subject of a fraud
complaint filed in August 2000 with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

I suspected that I was being hunted like an animal for six years, from December 2006 to December
2012, by the corrupt, rotten, fraudulent Regents of the University of California and their co-
conspirators and collaborators for something different than I had assumed. However, it never
crossed my mind to check the Federal Regulatory Commission e-Library until the summer of 2015,
and then it was too late to prevent damages by the university perpetrators and white-collar criminals
that affected my family and me.

IL COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEY STEVEN ARNOLD DROWN


STATE BAR NUMBER # 119689

GENERAL INFORMATION

Employed by the University of California


Office of the President
1111 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 287-3380
Fax: (510) 987-9757
E-mail: steve.drown@ucop.edu

According to the University of California website, Steven Drown http://www.ucop.edu/general-


counseliattorneys-staff/bios/steven-a.-drown.html has been the Deputy General Counsel for
Educational Affairs, Campus Services, and Public Accountability and Governance since 2013, after
serving as Chief Campus Counsel at the Davis campus since 1996. Prior to his service at Davis,
commencing in 1989, Mr. Drown served as a University Counsel in the Office of General Counsel,
where his primary practice areas were land use and environmental law.
Before joining the University, Mr. Drown was an attorney with the law firm of Burke Williams &
Sorensen in Los Angeles. Mr. Drown is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley (A.B.
1981) and the University of Oregon School of Law (J.D. 1985).

STEVEN ARNOLD DOWN's PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

• To the best of my knowledge, Steven Drown, since 2006, violated the California State Bar
Rules of Professional Conduct and knowingly assisted or induced another to do so through
the acts of another person.
• Since 2006, Steven Drown, in conspiracy with others, committed unlawful acts

2
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
that reflect adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects.
• Since 2006, Steven Drown, in conspiracy with others, engaged in misconduct involving
dishonesty, the covering up of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation in his position as a UC
Davis Campus Counsel and as an attorney licensed by the State Bar of California.
• In the period of January 2007 to December 2012, Steven Drown, as the UC Davis Campus
Counsel and as an attorney licensed by the State Bar of California, in conspiracy with
other University of California attorneys, including but not limited to the University of
California General Counsel Charles Robinson, UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel
Anna Orlowski, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, and UC
Davis high ranking administrators and managers, orchestrated and carried out despicable
attacks, beyond human decency, against myself and other university employees to cover
up the enormous multimillion-dollar fraud that was committed by the university
administration related to the unlawful operation of 27 MW cogeneration power plant and
illegal power sale. (See: Exhibits No. 1, 2 & 3).
• Steven Drown, as UC Davis Campus Counsel and licensed Attorney at Law by the State
Bar Of California, by his blunt disregard and violation of the state and federal laws and the
University of California's policies and procedures, which are equal to state statutes, and by
conspiring with other attorneys employed by the university and with university
administrators, violated my and others' employees' civil and human rights by his despicable
disregard of the law and principles of civilized society.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Steven Drown's short employment history, presented above , shows that Steven Drown, before he
was promoted to the UC Davis Campus Counsel in 1996, specialized as an attorney in land use and
environmental law in a primary practice in the University of California Office of the General Counsel
(UCOGC) and with the University of California.

Steven Drown was an environmental law attorney in the UCOGC before he was transferred
to the UC Davis Campus. Based on his position in the UCOG as an attorney specializing in
environmental law, he had to have been involved or was involved in the 1994-1996 plan/project
by the Regents of the University of California (hereafter regents) to construct and build the
oversized 27 MW cogeneration power plant at the UC Davis Medical Center Campus in
Sacramento, which, in 1994-1996, needed less than 5 MWh of electric power at that time.

Steven Drown, as an attorney specializing in environmental law and advising the regents,
was perfectly aware that the construction of a three-times larger power plant than was necessary
for the UC Davis Medical Center was not violates environmental for the natural environment, the
air quality, or water conservation, not to mention the violation of the United States Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA), which mandated that any cogeneration facility must meet special requirements related
to the ratio between electric energy production and thermal energy production in order to be
certified and permitted for energy production.

3
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Steven Drown, as UC Davis Campus Counsel since 1996, was involved in the legal matters in
relation to the construction and commissioning in 1998 of the UC Davis Medical Center's 27 MW
cogeneration facility, which was an integral part of the University of California, Davis.

Steven Drown, as a UC Davis Campus Counsel since 1996, was also informed and had full
knowledge that on July 26, 1999, the UC regents, by conspiring with California Independent
System Operator, signed a Participating Generator Agreement (PGA) with California
Independent System Operator (ISO), and that, on August 6, 1999, California Independent System
Operator submitted to FERC a request to wave the 60-days waiting period for the UC Davis
Medical Center to begin functioning as a unlawful participant in the California power market's
illegal commercial power generation and the sale of this power for profit in violation of the
organization's nonprofit status, thereby defrauding the Internal Revenue Service of millions of
dollars.

Steven Drown, as UC Davis Campus Counsel since 1996, was informed and had full
knowledge that on August 2, 2000, the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, in a joint venture
with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Southern California Edison Company filed
charges with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against the against the major
energy sellers, producers, and ancillary services and included in the complaint the UC Davis
Medical Center's small 27 MW cogeneration plant located in Sacramento, California, which
undoubtedly committed multiple millions of dollars in state and federal tax fraud by illegally
generating and selling electrical energy, in conspiracy with the California Independent System
Operator (ISO) and California Power Exchange (Cal-PX), created in 1996 by the California
Legislature Assembly Bill of 1890.

The San Diego Gas & Electric Company's charges alleged that the major energy sellers,
producers, ancillary services, financial institutions, and the 27 MW cogeneration plant located in
UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, and owned by the UC Regents, manipulated the western
electricity markets in every way (including but not limited to claims of economic or physical
withholding, gaming, fraud or misrepresentation or alleged forms of market manipulation
discussed in the initial staff report or final staff report, or any other forms of wrongful conduct,
electricity market manipulation, violation of any applicable tariff, regulation, law, rule or order
relating to the western electricity markets, or entering into the APX transactions when the
western electricity markets were non-competitive).

Steven Drown, as UC Davis Campus Counsel, knew or was part of the preparation and tour
of the State of California Governor Gray Davis of the UC Davis Medical Center's 27 MW
cogeneration plant on February 14, 2001, and blessed the ongoing unlawful power sale fraud and
unlawful operation of the facility. During the tour, Governor Grey Davis stated that he hoped to
announce a plan to shelter Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison from
bankruptcy. (See : page 13 of the Complaint to IRS).

I have no knowledge of who came up with the idea or why they come up with the idea, on
February 14, 2014, to invite the State of California governor to the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogeneration facility, which had notorious and dangerous safety problems and was in not
4
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
in compliance with federal law to be commissioned and operational but was unlawfully generating
and selling power for profit in conspiracy with Cal-ISO and with the knowledge of the State of
California Attorney General.

Steven Drown, as a UC Davis Campus Counsel, was well informed about the progress of the
FERC case involving the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant in the fraud alleged in the complaint
with FERC by the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, in a joint venture with the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company.

It is not difficult to conclude that in or around December 2006, Steven Drown, as UC


Campus Counsel, was informed that the proposal of settlement-agreement would be submitted to
FERC in January 2007 by the major energy sellers, producers, and ancillary services that
committed the fraud against the FERC, and that, to cover up the regent's fraud related to the
unlawful generation and multimillion-dollar power sales by the UCDMC 27 MW power plant,
the regents and the UCDMC 27 MW would be entirely excluded from the proposed settlement
agreement.

It is not difficult to conclude that in or around December 2006, Steven Drown was
informed that California Independent System Operator General Counsel Charles Robinson would
be transferred in January 2007 to the University of California Office of the General Counsel after
he successfully managed with UC General Counsel Erick K. Behrens and most likely with State
of California Attorney General Bill Locker and Governor Gray Davis staff to cover up the
regents' fraud by excluding or erasing from submitted to FERC in January 2007 the proposed
settlement -agreement the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant which
sold unlawfully approximately $80,0000,000 worth electric power in conspiracy with Ca-ISO
and SMUD.

In August 2005, I was assisting my coworker, the cogeneration plant operator William
Buckans, to write the whistleblowing complaint to the UC Office of the President Assistant Vice
President Judy Boyette. The complaint was about the notorious machine oil discharge into the
Sacramento River via a city storm drain from the UC Davis Medical Center cogeneration plant's
defective cooling tower gear boxes. This was occurring for seven years with full knowledge of UC
Davis Medical Center including UC Davis Campus Counsel Steve Drown, administration,
management, and UC Davis environmental services. EXHIBIT # 2

The Office of the President resubmitted the Buckans Complaint to UC Davis and,
apparently, the information in the letter and the style of the letter addressed to the UC HR
Assistant Judith Boyette raised a red flag and led the UC Davis Campus Chief Counsel Steven
Drown to mention my name.

My Human Resources personal file was scrutinized, and Steven Drown discovered that in
September 1999, three months after the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) hired me, the Littler
Mendelson Law Corporation, which represented my previous employer Destec Energy in the
lawsuit, subpoenaed my personal record from the UCDMC HR Department. EXHIBIT # 3

5
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
The subpoena of my personal record was related to my wrongful termination lawsuit,
which was pending at that time against my former employer Destec Energy /NGC, which later
became Dynegy Corporation. The wrongful termination lawsuit was related to an enormous
$100,000,000 fraud committed by the Destec Energy /NGC against Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) ratepayers in the period of time from 1989 to 1997. The fraud would be
continued by Destec for another 12 years due to Destec Energy/NGC's 20-year long power sale
contract with PG&E. I reported the fraud to PG&E in 1997 during the dispute about fraud related
to wages (unpaid) committed by Destec against 119 its own employees. Destec Energy
(previously Power Operating Company in 1989) was permitted to commit the wages fraud
against the employees by the corrupted State of California Labor Commissioner Jose Milan in
1989. EXHIBIT #4

In March 2007 I was abruptly and unlawfully removed from the UC Davis 27 MW
cogeneration facility and received three days of suspension without pay, the threat of termination of
my employment, and accusations beyond the imagination, which made me look like a KKK leader or
Nazi War Criminal from the Nazi Death Camp. This was outlined in an assignment in December
2006 to hunt me down in a "witch hunter" report and Notice of Suspension and Reassignment.
"EXHIBIT # 5

The 2006-2007 witch hunt was an obvious and undoubted attempt to terminate my
employment by the order of UC Office of the President or General Counsel, which was carried
out by Steve Drown. However, the plant management, which did not cooperate, as expected, with
the "assigned witch" hunter, derailed the termination plan. In particular, plant manager Dan
James was hesitant to cooperate with the assigned witch hunter. Dan James had been a longtime
friend since the Vietnam War with the department head, Tony Moddesette, who brought him to
the plant in 2000. Tony Moddessette was hunted down as well in October 2006 and was replaced
by Charles Witcher, despite Witcher being unqualified for the position of department head,
having only a high school education. Tony Moddessette had an MBA degree and apparently
refused to participate in the witch-hunt against the employees or to be part of the crime; he was
then forced to resign.

On July 25, 2007, to my disbelief, just three months later, after I was defamed, defaced,
and portrayed as a bigot, racist, and violent employee who resembled a guard from a Nazi
concentration camp or a KKK member, and after the letter threating to terminate my employment,
suspend me, and reassign me to a different shop, the same Charles Witcher signed my Employee
Performance Review (Evaluation) for the 2006/2007 working period. My Employee Performance
Review grade was "Meets Expectation" with comments that were better than those I had received
in the previous annual evaluations. This should have ended the story, suspension should have been
null and void, and I should have been permitted to return to my normal duty in the Central Plant.
Evaluations are the most important documents when it comes to the professional relationship
between the employee and the employer. Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958, 18
Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 (Cal.App.Dist.4 03/30/1993) EXHIBIT # 6

However, the 2006/2007 evaluation was not the end of the story, and it was undoubtedly
due to the lack of qualifications of the new department head Charles Witcher that caused him to
forget what he had signed in March 2007. Otherwise, supervisors had refused to slander me on
6
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
evaluations, because I was a good employee and never even received a verbal or written warning or
letter of expectation in the 8 years of my employment with the university.

The plant manager Dan James was forced to resign shortly after my reassignment to the
HVAC Shop. He was approximately 60 years old and a Vietnam War veteran. Artificially or
purposely created hostility in the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance
Department by Steven Drown and his envoy Stephen Chilcott, in collaboration with UC Davis
Medical Center directors and managers, to cover up the enormous fraud cost Dan James and
many others lot of suffering and even their employment before I was terminated in December
2012.

In November 2008, I defeated the university perpetrators in arbitration and their


assigned arbitrator.

On November 3 & 4, 2008, one year and six months after I was abruptly removed from the
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant, the arbitration hearing took place.

The University assigned to the hearing two UC Davis Campus HR attorneys who were also
licensed by the California State Bar: UC Davis HR Assistant Director Dawn M. Capp J.D. and HR
Analyst VII Danesha Nichols J.D.

Exhausted by the long psychological terror, management terror, and open heart surgery I had
undergone, in good will, I attempted to settle the case prior to the arbitration hearing with HR
Assistant Director Dawn M. Capp J.D., but she had no permission from the Campus Counsel Steven
Drown to settle the case and the case was set for hearing.

As arbitration Hearing Officer, the university assigned Connie Melendy, Assistant Vice
Provost from the UC Davis Academic Personnel Offices of the Chancellor and Provost. The
coordinator on the UC Davis Medical Center site was Steven Drown's special envoy to UC Davis
Medical Center and newly promoted HR Labor Relation Manager and attorney at law Stephen
Chilcott J.D.

Most likely there would be another attempt to terminate my employment right after
arbitration. The university arbitrator decision in some parts was basically a copy and paste of the
March 2007 report of the "witch hunter" Bettye Adreos and Charles Witcher's letter suspending
me and resigning me to the HVAC Shop EXHIBIT # 7 by order of Steven Drown, Stephen
Chilcott, and their superiors from the Office of the UC Davis Chancellor and UC Office of the
President.

It was my pure luck that a few days after the arbitration hearing, I found the UC Davis
Principles of Reassignment and sent them to arbitrator Connie Melendy. After that, the UC
arbitrator had no choice but to rule against the University and order the University to let me return
to the 27 MW UCDMC cogeneration facility named Central Plant. EXHIBIT # 8

My e-mail dated November 9, 2008 and entitled Principles of Reassignment, which I


submitted to the arbitrator after the hearing, mostly extended my employment for the next few
7
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
years with the university. The mentioned e-mail and arbitrator decision clearly showed what the
university's goal and expectations were from the outcome of the arbitration, which never should
have taken place. If I returned to the central plant after the arbitration, I would be terminated most
likely within a month. My unexpected "victory" in the arbitration also stopped temporarily the
ongoing onslaught against my coworker William Buckans from the cogeneration power plant, who
reported in 2005 the massive unlawful machine oil discharge into the Sacramento River via a city
storm drain for seven years.

In February 2009, extremely exhausted from the ongoing psychological terror against me, I
signed the Settlement-Agreement with the Regents of the University of California and agreed
permanently to be employed in the HVAC shop instead of returning to the 27 MW cogeneration
power plant.

The hostile and violent environment at the UC Davis Medical Central Plant, which was
purposely created and orchestrated by Steven Drown , Stephen Chilcott and their coconspirator
was no encouragement for me to return to the Central Plant.

The hostility and violence in the Central Plant became so extreme after I was removed
from the Central Plant, the employee who was hired in April 2007 to replace me committed
suicide in December 2010 after being bullied and harassed by the same group of people that
Chilcott had turned against William Buckans, Rick Tunello, and myself in 2005-2007.

In accordance with the Settlement-Agreement, I was promoted from the non-exempt


cogeneration power plant operation position to the exempt Associate Development Engineer
position with an $8,000 annual salary increase and $13,500 compensation for lost wages due to the
unlawful reassignment from the UCDMC Central Plant to the HVAC shop. The February 2009
Settlement-Agreement was signed by UC Davis Campus Counsel on behalf on the Regents of the
University of California.

The Settlement-Agreement was solicited by Steven Drown, the envoy of Stephen


Chilcott, who was deployed to the UC Davis Medical Center to monitor the situation and carry
out the termination of my and my coworker's employment after the massive machine oil
discharge from the UCDMC Central Plant to the Sacramento river for seven years was reported
in 2005. During the solicitation of the Settlement-Agreement, Stephen Chilcott mentioned to me
my previous litigations with my previous employment, PG&E, and the damages I was awarded. I
did not pay attention to his statements and had no any idea why he mentioned it. As I recalled, it
sounded like he was congratulating me that I prevailed in the litigations and in the arbitration
against the university.

The Settlement-Agreement was signed by UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown on


behalf of the Regents of University of California. EXHIBIT # 9

Shortly after the Settlement-Agreement was signed, I was assigned to the arbitration process:
UC Davis Campus HR Assistant Director Dawn M. Capp J.D quit or was forced to quit and
disappeared from the university landscape. Dawn Capp is an active attorney at law and she probably
would provide some information to the State Bar for investigation purposes.
8
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
In April 2011, I came under vicious attack from the management, an attack that was
orchestrated and ordered by the HR Executive Director Steven Chilcott. It happened after I wrote,
on March 13, 2011, a letter to the department head Charles Witcher about a 12% secret pay raise
given to the Central Plant operators after four individuals, as part of a blackmail petition,
demanded a wage increase by attacking me in relation to the wages given to me in the 2009
Settlement-Agreement with the Regents of the University of California. EXHIBIT# 10 (see also
Exhibit # 1 pages 64-91).

On June 17, 2011, I protested the violation of the Settlement-Agreement by the


university by a letter dated June 17, 2011, which I sent by fax and e-mail to UC Davis Campus
Steven Drown, who signed the 2009 Settlement-Agreement on behalf of the Regents of the
University of California. (EXHIBIT # 11). I did not realize that in June 2011, a decision was
already made to terminate my employment because the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
problems had surfaced again, and my involvement could lead to disclosure of the multimillion
dollar fraud related to the unlawful generation and power sale, which had been buried by the
UCDMC plant exclusion from the 2007 FERC's Settlement-Agreement.

In a copycat scenario, Steven Drown and Stephen Chilcott assigned a "witch hunt" to
generate a false cause for termination of employment, regardless of the signed Settlement-
Agreement. This time, UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown was assigned to be "witch
hunters" Danesha Nichols and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo to fabricate
a cause for my termination. Danesha Nichols was a participant in the 2008 arbitration process and
most likely knew the stakes related to the covered-up fraud.

On September 1, 2011, I was not allowed to return to work after a one-month period of
stress-related sick leave. The termination cause was crafted by Danesha Nichols, and the
termination day was set for September 23, 2011, but this was prematurely disclosed, and my
physician postponed the termination due to my work-related sick leave until January 5, 2012.

On October 4, 2011, I filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against Stephen
Chilcott and Danesha Nichols. (See exhibit # 4).

On October 5, 2011, after being removed from the premises in September 2011 and not
knowing why I was being so viciously attacked by the UC Davis administration, and why I was
not allowed to work. I asked the UC Davis Police Department Captain Joyce Souza whether
somebody had filed a report against me with the UC Davis Police because of terrorizing the
accusation I had received from the UCDMC Human Resources Department and the Plant
Operation and Maintenance Department Management (Chilcott, Nichols, and Witcher).
EXHIBIT # 12

Afterward, I received a response from Captain Joyce Souza on October 6, 2011, providing
information to the UC Davis Police Department, Captain Joyce Souza, Chief Annette Spicuzza,
and Lt. John Pike about the corrupted management at the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
Operation and Maintenance Department, the hostility that existed there, the suicide of my

9
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
coworker Tod Goerlich, and a child pornography issue that existed there and was condoned by the
HR investigator, etc.

Any investigation by the UC Police of the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and
Maintenance Department could lead to disclosure of the unlawful operation of the 27 MW
cogeneration facility, the child pornography issue, the blackmail for a 12% pay raise for Central
Plant operators in December 2010, and the general corruption of the UC Davis Medical Center
management. UC Davis administration, including Chancellor Lind Katehi, UC Davis Chief
Counsel Steven Drown, UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo and others UC
administrators were perfectly aware that I was sending my correspondence to Captain Joyce
Souza, Chief Annette Spicuzza, and Lt. John Pike, because I CC:ed them in on the
correspondence.

On November 18, 2011, an ill-crafted pepper spray attack on protesting students was
orchestrated by UC General Counsel Charles Robinson and UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven
Drown in conspiracy with UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter,
and most likely, with the advice of the Porter Scott law firm's legal team, which notoriously
represented the UC Regents and UC Davis administration for at least twenty years in various
litigations, including representation in the November 18, 2011, pepper spray provocation
settlement agreement. (United States District Court Eastern District Of California Case No. Case
No. 2:12-cv-00450 JAM EFB). EXHIBIT #13

The Porter Scott attorney represents UC Regents and UC Davis administration in my two
court cases: the wrongful termination case and the case against California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board, where UC Regents are listed as Real Party in Interest. (Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB), Case No.: 34-2013-
80001699)

Besides the intention to hassle and remove protesters from the UC Davis Campus
premises, the November 18, 2011, pepper spray attack was nothing other than a well-planned
provocation and action to remove UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, Captain Joyce
Souza, and Lt. John Pike from the UC Davis Police Department.

In a different scenario, Lt. John Pike most likely would have been promoted to the rank
of Captain, and Chief Anette Spicuzza would have received a bonus and salary increase for such
an action, regardless of the media coverage and court action against the university
administration.

It should not have taken Cruz Reynoso, a Professor Emeritus in the School of Law at UC
Davis and Former Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court; Alan Brownstein, a
Professor in the School of Law at UC Davis; or Dan Dooley, the Senior Vice President of
External Relations at the UC Office of the President and Designated System-wide Administrator
for Whistleblower Complaints to figure out that something was wrong with the national media's
publicity of Lt John Pike's action by portraying him as a walking prima donna with the can of M-
9 pepper spray and spraying protesters without any hesitation. It looked on video as if Lt. Pike
was doing it with joy and pleasure.
10
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
However, UC Davis Police Department Lt. John Pike did not spray protesters with joy and
pleasure. According to the Kroll Report marked "Confidential—Do Not Distribute," on the
relevant Friday morning, November 18, Lieutenant Pike and Officer P contacted Campus
Counsel Sweeney and discussed their concerns with him. Sweeney told them he would get
back to them, and at around 1:00 p.m., a conference call was conducted in Chief Spicuzza's
office with Pike, Officer P. Sweeney, and UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown. Both
Officer P. and Pike "had several questions about the legality of conducting a planned
operation during the middle of the afternoon versus the early morning hours." Pike's
description of the subsequent discussion on the conference call was redacted, apparently due to
attorney-client privilege.

Furthermore, the same Kroll Report states that Chief Annette Spicuzza was the
representative of UCDPD on the Leadership Team and communicated her understanding of the
guidance from the Leadership Team to Lieutenant Pike and Officer P., including the fact that the
operation was not to be "like Berkeley" and was to be conducted on Friday afternoon. When her
Lieutenants questioned the legal basis for the operation, she joined them on a call with
Campus Counsel Steven Drown. When her Lieutenants called the 3 p.m. time a "bad idea," she
told them that this direction came directly from the Chancellor's office. At UCDPD
headquarters, during the 24 hours leading up to the police operation on November 18, the legal
basis for the operation, the timing of the operation, and the use of force options were questioned
by Lieutenant Pike, Officer P., and other officers.

It unknown why Lt. John Pike did not file a wrongful termination lawsuit after his
employment was terminated in August 2012. It is most likely that not he was threatened by UC
Davis Counsels Drown and Sweeney who advised him to attack students or by attorneys from
Porter/Scott, saying he would face criminal charges for spraying students if he filed a lawsuit
against the university.

On May 31, 2012, in an ill-crafted but unsuccessful provocation by UC Davis Campus


Counsel Steven Drown, the UC General Counsel, and the UC Davis Health System HR
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott almost had me killed by two corrupted UC Davis police
officers the new UC Davis Police Chief Matt Carmichael and his Lt James Barbour bribed by $
35, 000 wage increase or restoration he lost due his previous misconduct. The Matt Carmichael
was in November 2011 had been handpicked by Drown, UC Davis Vice Chancellor Hexter, to r
replace Chief Annette Spicuzza and Lt. John Pike after setting up Pike and Spicuzza for the
pepper spray action against protesters on November 18, 2011.

UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown is the same person who orchestrated, together
with his colleague UCDMC HR Director Steven Chilcott, the UC Regents, and UC General
Counsel (attorney), a witch hunt against me, my coworkers, and other personnel in 2007, as well
as later, in 2011, both prior to and after the pepper spray provocation. I have no doubt that UC
Chief Steven Drown, on behalf of Chancellor Katehi and UC Vice Chancellor Hexter, made the
verbal assurance or clear suggestion that Lt. Pike and Chief Spicuzza would be well protected
and should go along with the plan, as ordered by Chancellor Katehi.

11
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
For his effort to remove Chief Spicuzza and Lt. Pike, the UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven
Drown was awarded by the regents with a 21.9% pay raise, effective December 1, 2011. The UC
Davis Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter was awarded $113,916 of extra pay for the year 2011. The UC
Board of Regents were awarded raises, effective Dec. 1, 2012, during the protests and turmoil on the
UC campuses, with only Regent Eddie Island voting in opposition.

In September 2013, Steven Drown was transferred to the UC Office of the General
Counsel Charles Robinson in Oakland. He was replaced by Jacob Adams Appelsmith, who was
appointed Chief Campus Counsel at UC Davis in September 2013. Jacob Appelsmith was
transferred to UC Davis from the California Governor's office where he had served as a member
of the executive staff since 2011. Before working with Governor Jerry Brown, he worked at the
California Department of Justice at the Office of the Attorney General.
Also in September 2013, the University of California President Mark Yudof was replaced by the
former United States Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, shortly after she resigned as
Secretary of Homeland Security.

Many University of California officers and agents willfully or by given orders collaborated
and conspired with UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown, UCDMC HR Executive Director
Chilcott, and UC General Counsel Charles Robinson to cover-up their and other university
officers and agents' misconduct relating to abuse of power, fraudulent activities, and corruption.
Drown, Chilcott, and Robinson, by using the power and status bestowed on them, applied
psychological terror to inflict fear and to deliberately and with malice and evil spirit create an
environment of uncontrolled hostility among employees, thereby causing them harm, destroying
their normal working environment, violating my and other university employees' civil and human
rights, and destroying my and others' lives and livelihoods, including my coworker 'Todd
Goerlich who committed suicide in December 2010 due to hostility created by Chilcott and
Drown.

CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

In line with the above-presented facts, I respectfully request that the State Bar of California
pursue the investigation against the University of California attorney Steven Arnold Drown and
prosecute Steven Arnold Drown.

It is my understanding that the State Bar of California attorney license is provided to attorneys
to practice the law in the State of California but not to condone the criminal activities of others or
cover up fraud and violations of state and federal law.

Furthermore, the State Bar of California license is not to be used to craft provocations or to
physically harm or kill university employees, destroy their lives and livelihoods, or subject them to
witch hunts and psychological terror as a way of protecting those who have committed crimes and
violated laws, employees' civil rights, and human rights.

12
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Also, I am hoping that this complaint will remind Steven Drown that signed in February 2009 the
Settlement -Agreement with Jaroslaw Waszczuk on the Regents of the University of California
behalf and Regents did no

III. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST CHARLES FURLONGE ROBINSON,


SBN # 113197

General Counsel
University of California- Office of the General Counsel
Office of the President
1111 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Fax: (510) 987-9757
E-Mail: charles.robinson@ucop.edu

GENERAL INFORMATION

According to the University of California website (http://www.ucop.edu/general-


counsel/attorneys-staff/bios/charles-f-robinson.html) Charles F. Robinson began his tenure as
General Counsel and Vice President for the University of California in January 2007. As General
Counsel, he is the Chief Legal Officer of the University, providing advice to the Regents, the
President and other senior University officials; overseeing a legal staff of 80 attorneys at ten
campuses, five medical centers and one national laboratory; and retaining and managing outside
counsel.
Prior to joining the University, Robinson served as Vice President, General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary for the California Independent System Operator Corporation, California's
wholesale electric transmission operator, based in Folsom, CA. Prior to that, he served as
Assistant General Counsel for Packard Bell in Sacramento, Division Counsel for the Raychem
Corporation in Menlo Park, and as a Litigation Partner at Heller Ehrman White and McAuliffe in
San Francisco. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Harvard University and a Juris
Doctorate degree from Yale University.

Charles Robinson was admitted to the State Bar of California on 6/13/1984

together with The University of California General Counsel Charles Robinson together with his Chief
Deputy Karen Petrulakis , Managing Counsel Margaret Wu and Senior Counsel Cynthia Vroom was
the University of California Legal Counsel for Real Party of Interest in the Petition
for Writ of Mandamus Waszczuk v. CUIAB, Case No. 34-2013- filed in Sacramento County
Superior Court on December 2, 2013.

13
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
CHARLES F. ROBINSON's PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

• To the best of my knowledge, Charles F. Robinson has, since 2000, violated the
California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assisted or induced
another to do so, or done so through the acts of another.
• Since 2000, Charles F. Robinson, in conspiracy with others, committed unlawful acts
that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer in other
respects.
• Since 2000, Charles F. Robinson, in conspiracy the former University of California
General Counsel Erick K. Behrens and with others, engaged in misconduct involving
dishonesty, covering up fraud, deceit, and misrepresenting his position as a General
Counsel and Corporate Secretary for the California Independent System Operator
Corporation, UC Davis Campus Counsel and as an attorney licensed by the State Bar of
California.
• In period from January 2007 to December 2012, Charles Robinson, as the UC General
Counsel and as an attorney licensed by the State Bar of California, in conspiracy with the
Regents of the University of California and other University of California attorneys
including but not limited to UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, UC
Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, and other high-ranking UC
Davis administrators and managers orchestrated and carried out despicable, indecent
attacks against myself and other university employees to cover up the enormous,
multimillion-dollar fraud against the Internal Revenue Service and the State of California
Franchise Tax Board committed by the university administration related to the unlawful
operation of a 27 MW cogeneration power plant and illegal power sales.
• Charles Robinson, as UC General Counsel and an attorney at law licensed by the State Bar
of California, by his blunt disregard and violation of state and federal laws as well as
University of California policies and procedures, which are equal to state statutes, by
conspiring with other attorneys employed by the university and with university
administrators, violated my civil and human rights and those of other employees by his
despicable disregard for civilized society, law and principles.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

According to Charles Robinson's resume posted on http://www.pjm.com EXHIBIT #14, Charles


Robinson was hired by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) in April 2000 as a
Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary Chief Legal Officer, executive
management team member, and general manager of the legal, regulatory, and corporate secretary
departments.

The California Independent System Operator and California Power Exchange (Cal-PX) was
created in 1996 by California Legislature Assembly Bill 1890 and is a federally regulated
wholesale electric utility company operating most of California's high-voltage transmission grid.

14
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
The CAISO, which was supposed to be an "independent" non-profit corporation, is managed by a
board that includes representatives from among the generators and energy traders. CAISO is
controlled by the state government through the Governor's appointees. At its inception, CAISO was
to be an "independent technical and professional organization" created to manage the flow of
electricity and ensure reliability along the long distance, high-voltage power lines that make up the
bulk of California's transmission system. Today, CAISO is controlled by stakeholders. Under the
current CAISO governance scheme only one stakeholder, the State of California—a political
organization as opposed to an "independent technical and professional organization"—
controls the board. Approximately 75% of California's electricity is distributed through the
CAISO-managed "power grid."

In April 2000, Charles Robinson was brought to CAISO as General Counsel in the middle of the
California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, which
was caused by market manipulations and resulted in electricity shortages and rolling blackouts that
cost the State of California about 40 billion dollars in losses.

As the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) report concluded, such market
manipulation was only possible as a result of the complex market design produced by the process
of partial deregulation. Manipulation strategies were known to energy traders under names such
as "Fat Boy," "Death Star", "Forney Perpetual Loop," "Ricochet," "Ping Pong," "Black Widow,"
"Big Foot," "Red Congo," "Cong Catcher" and "Get Shorty." Some of these have been
extensively investigated and described in reports.

"Megawatt laundering" is a term, analogous to money laundering, coined to describe the process of
obscuring the true origins of specific quantities of electricity being sold on the energy market
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California electricity crisis).

On August 2, 2000, the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, in a joint venture with the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company filed a complaint with the
United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against Sellers of
Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated, the California Independent System
Operator (CAISO), and California Power Exchange (Cal-APX), FERC Docket No. EL00-95-000
and Docket No. EL00-98-000.

The San Diego Gas & Electric Company's complaint with FERC against the major energy sellers,
producers, and ancillary services included the UC Davis Medical Center's small 27 MW
cogeneration plant located in Sacramento, California.

Since August 1999, as an operator at the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27 MW


cogeneration facility, I was bringing plant load up to sell power, at the request of CAISO, on the
spot market at highest bid or to Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). As an operator at
the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant, I had the liberty to observe how the
Regents of the University of California were participating in the manipulation of the power market,
including the rolling blackouts and the general California Energy Crisis, in mini scale.

15
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
I don't know exactly how or why it happened that the relatively small UC Davis Medical Center
27 MW cogeneration power plant was included in the August 2000 FERC complaint by San
Diego Gas & Electric Company, in a joint venture with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
and Southern California Edison Company, along with major commercial power producers like
ACN Power Inc., Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, American Electric Power Service
Corp., APX Inc., Aquila Merchant Services, Inc., Avista Energy, Inc., BP Energy Company,
Calpine Energy Services, L.P., Commonwealth Energy Corporation N/K/A Commerce Energy,
Inc., Consumer Telcom, Inc. F/K/A Clean Earth Energy, Inc., Constellation New Energy, Inc.,
Duke Energy Shared Services, Inc. F/K/A Cinergy Services, Inc., El Paso Marketing, LP F/K/A
El Paso Merchant Energy, LP, Enron Energy Services, Inc., Enron Power Marketing, Inc., FPL
Energy Power Marketing, Inc., Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc., Midway Sunset
Cogeneration Company, Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc., NRG Power Marketing Inc.,
Preferred Energy Services, Inc. D/B/A Go green, Power Source Corp., the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District,
Sempra Energy Solutions LLC, Sierra Pacific Industries, Torch Operating Company, Tractebel
Energy Marketing, Inc. N/K/A Suez Energy Marketing NA, Inc., Trans Alta Energy Marketing (US)
Inc., and the Turlock Irrigation District.

I can only assume that the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant was
included in the complaint with FERC under the name of the Regents of the University of
California as a "bargaining chip." The San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company were badly hurt by the California
power market deregulation and were seeking help from the California state government to
survive. The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plan was also most likely
included as a "bargaining chip" because the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission wrongly
approved the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW as a qualified cogeneration facility (OF) based
on fraudulent self-certification submitted by the UC Regents in 1999.

The first page of the 1999 University of California Notice of Self-Certification submitted to
FERC states:

"The UC Regents (governing body for the University of California (UC) system) are 100
percent owners and operate the UCDMC facility. The UC system is not an electric utility or
electric utility holding company. To the applicant's knowledge, the UC system does not
own any electric facilities, other than QF facilities, that are used to generate electric power
for sale."

The underlined statement above clearly shows that by constructing the 27 MW cogeneration
facility at UC Davis Medical Center, which needed only 5 MW of power, the UC Regents got
themselves into a business of piracy to illegally generate and sell power, in order to make
millions of dollars in quick cash for themselves and their collaborators in the fraud scheme.

The 2007 San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Southern
California Edison Company settlement with the major energy sellers, producers, and ancillary
services was approved by FERC in March 2007 with total exclusion of the University of
16
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
California from the settlement to cover up the approximately $80,000,000 fraud committed by the
UC Regents in their unlawful generation and sale of power from the UC Davis Medical Center 27
MW cogeneration facility.

FERC is part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The University of California beside that is a
federal contractor in partnerships with Bechtel manage and operate two premier national security
science laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.

It appears that on August 2, 2000, State of California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the
California Electricity Oversight Board, and the California Public Utilities Commission,
collectively named as "The California Parties," joined the San Diego Gas & Electric Company,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company to protect the
University of California and the California Independent System Operator (CALISO) from
prosecution rather than recover the money from these two "nonprofit" organizations, which are
state sponsored, financed, and totally interconnected with the state government and state
agencies.

In August 2000, after the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, and Southern California Edison Company filed the complaint with FERC, CALISO
General Counsel Charles Robinson was perfectly aware that CALISO should not conspire with
the UC Regents and that he, as CAISO General Counsel Charles Robinson , should stop the
ongoing power-sales fraud by voiding or invalidating the Participating Generator Agreement
with UC Davis Medical Center's 27 MW cogeneration facility, which continued for the next
three years and did not stop it until 2003, the year when then-Governor of California Gray Davis
was recalled from office.

In August 2000, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(PG&E), and Southern California Edison Company, by bringing the UC Regents and the UCDMC
27 MW cogeneration power plant into their complaint with FERC, were perfectly aware that the
plant did not meet PURPA and FERC requirements to generate and sell power and that this
facility should be decertified by FERC. As public utilities companies, these entities were
constantly dealing with qualified cogeneration facilities (QFs) due to FERC and PURPA
mandating the purchase of power from QFs.

In particular, PG&E was aware and knew that the UC Davis Medical Center was not a QF
facility because PG&E was a fuel supplier (natural gas) to the plant for its LM 2500 gas
turbine.

Furthermore, in June 2000, just two months before San Diego Gas & Electric Company,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company filed the complaint
with FERC, PG&E paid me $100,000 as a settlement for reporting $100,000,000 in fraud against
PG&E ratepayers committed by my previous employer, Destec Energy/Dynegy which also
resulted in FERC's decertification of the 50 MW San Joaquin Cogeneration Facility in Lathrop,
CA (EXHIBIT #15)

17
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
On January 17, 2001, California's governor declared a state of emergency because the
California power market was being manipulated by major power producers, especially Enron
Corporation. The rolling blackouts in the richest state in the US reminded me of my native
country, Poland, which was dominated by communists and the Soviet Union from 1975 to 1980
and experienced energy shortages and rolling blackouts.

On February 14, 2001, Governor Gray Davis toured the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogeneration plant and blessed the ongoing power sale fraud and the unlawful operation of the
facility. During the tour, Governor Davis stated that he hoped to announce a plan to shelter Pacific
Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison from bankruptcy.

I was very concerned about the governor's safety prior to the aforementioned tour. My main concern
was the plant's 12.5 kV high-voltage switch gear room, which was protected from fire by a water
sprinkler instead of a carbon dioxide (CO2) fire protection system. Prior to the tour, I sent a fax to the
governor's office with advice not to enter the room during the plant tour. A copy of that fax, dated
February 14, 2001, is attached as EXHIBIT #16.
Why did Governor Gray Davis, in the middle of California Energy Crisis, tour the UC Davis
Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility, which, in conspiracy with CALISO, was
unlawfully generating and selling power, gauging prices and contributing to the rolling blackouts
in the state on a mini scale? During his tour blessing the UC Regents' fraud, Governor Gray
Davis stated that he hoped to announce a plan to shelter Pacific Gas and Electric Company and
Southern California Edison from bankruptcy; at the same time, State of California Attorney
General Bill Lockyer was going after other power producers for fraud. It does not sound right
(see: Exhibit #23).

In February 2001, the State of California Sacramento County Superior Court Judge
Shelleyanne W. L. Chang held the position of chief deputy of legal affairs and secretary for
Governor Gray Davis. Most likely, as chief deputy, Judge Chang was a member of
Governor Gray Davis's February 14, 2001, delegation visiting the UC Davis Medical Center
27 MW cogeneration facility, where I had worked since June 1999.
It is possible that Charles Robinson knows Judge Chang very well.
Judge Chang was appointed to the bench by Governor Gray Davis in 2002.
Judge Chang denied my unemployment benefits in March 2015 after I was unlawfully
terminated by University of California General Counsel Charles Robinson's order in 2012
(see enclosed copy of the complaint against Judge Chang submitted to the State of
California Commission on Judicial Performance).

The complaint filed with FERC in August 2000 by San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company against major power
producers and ancillary services (which included the UC Regents) was concluded by FERC's
agreement approval in March 2007. Also, In March 2007, I was abruptly removed from my
employment in the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility after a three-month
`witch hunt." I was the only person in the plant who understood the PURPA and FERC

18
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
regulations and requirements that applied to the generation and sale of power by cogeneration
facilities.

In January 2007, for his effort to cover up the UC Regents approximately $80,000,000 fraud, the
CALISO General Counsel Charles Robinson was awarded by the Regents of the University of
California the position of General Counsel and Senior Vice President of the university, with a
$400,000 annual salary.

I hold University of California General Counsel Charles Robinson personally responsible for
the notorious violation of my civil and human rights and those of other university employees.
The violation of my (and others') civil and human rights by psychological terror, harassment,
and abuse of power included an attempt to provoke and kill me on May 31, 2011, by Charles
Robinson's order, which was unsuccessfully carried out by a specially assembled team that I
have called the "UC Davis Death Squad."

Since 2003, the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant did not sell any electrical
energy, with 17 MW in average spare capacity during peak demand in 2007. In 1995, the
University of California's decision makers—who, in conspiracy with state agencies, approved the
unlawful construction of the 27 MW cogeneration plant for UC Davis Medical Center, which
needed only 5 MW—experienced millions of dollars' worth of tax-free losses due to the lack of a
new power sale contract with CAISO and Cal-PX to illegally sell power to SMUD or on the spot
market. I do not recall circumstances or reason what exactly caused the end of UC Davis Medical
Center's power sales in 2003.

On May 29, 2012, just two days before the ill-planned attempt to harm me, the Regents of the
University of California signed with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District Power another
power sale fraudulent agreement to sell power from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Central
Plant.
On June 21, 2012, three weeks after the unsuccessful and ill-crafted provocation to end my
employment in UCDMC Trauma Unit, UC Davis Police Department Sergeant Jennifer Garcia
informed UC Davis Medical Center Chief Compliance Officer Gina Guillaume-Holleman by email,
as follows:
"Jerry" is clear any warrants, has no guns registered and no current dealer of sales for
guns and has negative criminal history. Lodi PI) informed they have nothing on him.

When I read this e-mail the first time in November 2015, I had no doubt that university
administrators were looking at every available option to frame me and terminate my
employment.in 2012 I was officially employed by I was not working for almost one year and the
"investigatory leave" became my permanent position since December 5, 2011.
To keep an employee on the payroll and not to let him to come back to work for over six months
could be done only by the General Counsel's office, and most likely by the General Counsel
himself.
The two previous attempts to terminate my employment in September and December 2011 failed,
and the provocation on May 31, 2012, to end my employment in the UC Davis Medical Center
trauma unit failed as well, because my criminal history and ownership of registered guns
19
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
did not meet the university's expectation of being adequate to frame me. I have no doubt that if I had
been a gun owner or had even one outstanding warrant for a traffic ticket, Lodi Police would have
searched my home and I would have faced San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Hon. Brett
Morgan, who was assigned to the Lodi Branch of San Joaquin County Superior Court.

On July 18, 2012, Gina Guillaume—Holleman, the same UC Davis Medical Center Chief
Compliance Officer who was ordered to frame me with Lodi Police in June 2012, was ordered to
call my coworker and friend Mark Montoya to her office for an unexpected interview. Gina
Guillaume—Holleman, upon Montoya's arrival, showed him my photo and asked him whether I
was a threat to him. Without any hesitation, she attempted to solicit from Mark Montoya a
confirmation signature on the affidavit, which stated that I was a threat to him and a dangerous
individual. Mark Montoya refused to sign; he left Gina Guillaume-Hollmann's office and
informed me about their meeting.

On September 25, 2012, per the order of University of California General Counsel Charles Robinson, I
received a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct after one year and one month of absence
from work. The order to terminate my employment was sent to UC Davis Medical Center HR Executive
Director Stephen Chilcott from the UC Office of the General Counsel by Charles Robinson's deputy,
Mia Belk. Shortly after that, Mia Belk found a job for herself at Nissan Corporation in the state of
Tennessee (SBN #216890).

In addition to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct, UC Davis Police
distributed around UC Davis campuses posters, similar to FBI posters for the most-wanted
criminals and terrorists, with my photo and information that "Waszczuk is not authorized to
be on UC Davis property. Waszczuk is described as an older white male with brown and
gray hair. He is approximately 5'8" and 190 lb. If Mr. Waszczuk is seen trespassing on
University of California Davis properties, please contact the Davis Police Department
immediately at 916-734-1555" EXHIBIT #17.

I was not informed about the "PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY" poster by
perpetrators but my coworker who took a picture of the poster with his cellular phone and sent the
photo to worn me about the UC Davis death Squad.

UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael had retained psychologist Dr. White to support the
termination of my employment in September 2012. Apparently, a psychologist was needed to
comfort my coworkers and other staff who would see me being shot by Lt. Barbour.

On December 5, 2012, I received a Notice of Employment Termination. I was subjected for one
year to psychological terror, not knowing day by day what UC General Counsel Charles Robinson
and his thugs at UC Davis would do next to make my life hell on Earth.

CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

20
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
In light of the above-presented facts, I am respectfully requesting that the State Bar of California
pursue an investigation of the University of California attorney Charles Robinson for alleged gross
misconduct and possible crime.
It is my understanding that State Bar of California attorney's license is provided to attorneys to
practice the law in the State of California, not to condone the criminal activities of others and cover
up fraud and violations of state and federal law.

IV. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST STEPHEN EDWARD CHILCOTT — STATE BAR


OF CALIFORNIA NUMBER #196905

The University of California. Davis


UC Davis Health System-Human Resources Department Executive Director
2730 Stockton Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95817
Phone: 916-734-2714
Fax: 916-916-3080
Email: stephen.chilcott@ucdavis.edu

GENERAL INFORMATION

UC Davis and American University, Washington College of Law graduate Steven Edward
Chilcott J.D was admitted to the State Bar of California on November 11, 1998. Executive
Director, Human Resources Steven Chilcott was hired by the University of California in October
2004 as UC Davis HR Investigator after a short tenure as Associate Attorney for Lanahan &
Reilley LLP from March 2003—October 2004.

After Stephen Chilcott's deployment to the UC Davis Medical Center, for his dedication for the
assigned mission, Chilcott rose so quickly in power and position, which was drastically changed
from unknown to an HR Attorney, and his salary rose from $64,000 in 2005 to $207,000 in 2010
and to $273,000 in 2014.

In 2010, Stephen Chilcott outpaced Steven Drown's wages , who held the UC Davis Campus
Counsel position since 1996 and who deployed Chilcott to the UC Davis Medical Center.

Through deception, terror and destruction of other employees' lives, violation of their civil and
human rights, the cover up of university frauds and violation of state and federal law, Stephen
Chilcott became the UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director in 2010.

21
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
STEPHEN EDWARD CHILCOTT's PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

• To the best of my knowledge, Stephen Chilcott J.D violated the California State Bar
Rules of Professional Conduct and knowingly assisted or induced another to do so
through the acts of another person.
• Since 2006, Stephen Chilcott, in conspiracy with others, committed unlawful acts that
reflect adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects.
• Since 2006, Stephen Chilcott, in conspiracy with others, engaged in misconduct involving
dishonesty, the covering up of fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in his position as a UC
Davis Health System HR Executive Director and attorney licensed by the State Bar of
California.
• In the period of December 2006 to December 2012, Stephen Chilcott, as the UC Davis
Health System Hunan Resources employee and attorney licensed by the State Bar of
California, in conspiracy with other University of California attorneys — including but
not limited to the University of California General Counsel Charles Robinson, UC Davis
Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown
and University of high-ranking administrators and managers — orchestrated and carried
out despicable attacks, beyond human decency, against myself and other university
employees to cover up the enormous multimillion-dollar fraud that was committed by the
university administration related to the unlawful operation of the 27 MW cogeneration
power plant and illegal power sale (See: Exhibits No. 1 and attached complaint with
Internal Revenue Services and Complaint with State of California Commission on
Judicial Performance).
• Stephen Chilcott, as an employee of the UC Davis Health System HR Department and
licensed Attorney at Law by the State Bar Of California, by his blunt disregard and
violation of the state and federal laws and the University of California's policies and
procedures — which are equal to state statutes — and by conspiring with other attorneys
employed by the university and with university administrators, violated with despicable
malice my and other employees' civil and human rights by using his attorney license to
disregard the law and principles of the civilized society.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

At the end of 2005 or in 2006, Stephen Chilcott was deployed by the UC Davis Campus
Counsel Steven Drown to the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento to monitor the situation in
relation to a whistle blowing complaint related to unlawful oil discharge to the Sacramento River
via the city storm drain for seven years. This gross violation of law was reported to the UC
Office of the President by the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant operator
William Buckans. I was employed in this plant as an operator since June 1999. EXHIBIT #

This gross violation of the environmental law, if reported to state or federal authorities, could
easily lead to discovery by the federal authorities that the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW

22
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
cogeneration is being operated without compliance with the U.S. Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and U.S Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requirements
(FERC). The violation of the PURPA and FERC requirements could result in penalties and
decertification of the plant by the FERC and would probably force the university to retrofit the
plant with a smaller gas turbine to be in compliance with the law.

The Stephen Chilcott deployment by UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown to the UC Davis
Medical Center was during the negotiation between parties in the case pending with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission since August 2000, which was when the fraud committed by UC
regents was coming to an end"?

Since December 2006, Steven Chilcott, UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown and UC
General Counsel Charles Robinson were empowered by the Regents of the University of
California to do whatever it took to prevent the regents' enormous multimillion-dollar fraud
related to the unlawful operation of power sale by the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogeneration facility to surface and became public knowledge.

In 2006-2012 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 in conspiracy of the University of California Davis Medical Center
management and administration, created an unbelievably hostile work environment in the UC
Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M) and in the plant
where I was employed since June 1999.

The hostility in the plant among employees created by Stephen Chilcott, in collaboration with
management, was an ill-minded plan to engage me in the created conflict.

For this purpose, to fabricate false cause for my employment termination, Stephen Chilcott and
UCDMC management used several employees who were fraudulently hired as operators without
proper qualifications. They were provided questions and answers for the qualification test prior to
when they took the qualification test to be hired

The other factor to ensure the plan success was to convince the department head to sign the
notice of termination based on the fabricated cause for termination.

The UC Davis Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Manager Tony Moddessette, who
was college educated with an MBA degree, was not convinced to fire worker which had
outstanding working record and excellent employee performance reviews since 1999; thus, he
refused to participate. Tony Moddessette was department head since the 27 MW UCDMC
cogeneration facility was commissioned in 1998. Tonny Moddessette was the person who hosted
the State of California Governor Grey Davis plant tour on February 14, 2001 (see :exhibit # 16).

In October 2006, Tony Moddessete was forced to resign and was replaced by high school-
educated electrician Charles Witcher, who was provided an $110,000 salary and $20,000 bonus in
2007. Charles Witcher signed everything that was written for him by Stephen Chilcott and
23
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
other HR Labor Relation staff without understanding what he was signing. The best example of
his intelligence was a signature and approval of my very good employee performance review for
2006/2007, three months after he signed the slanderous and despicable letter by which I was
suspended and abruptly removed me from the 27 MW cogeneration facility I worked at since
1999.

In March 2007, the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant multimillion-dollar
fraud related to the unlawful generation and power sale was covered up and disappeared from the
public view due to exclusion of UC regents from the settlement approved by the Federal Energy
Regulatory.

In March 2007, with the apparent but unsuccessful goal to terminate my employment by Stephen
Chilcott, Steven Drown and Charles Robinson, I was slandered and abruptly removed from the 27
MW cogeneration facility with only the threat of termination of my employment instead of
termination after a three-month witch hunt EXHIBIT # 18.

The March 2007 The March 2007 action to terminate my employment was not a coincidence
with the March 2007 FERC-approved settlement of the cover-up fraud by the UC regent .It was
urgent to make sure that I would not find out and that the fraud would not surface again. It took
seven long years for the UC regents, in conspiracy with California Independent System Operator
General Counsel Charles Robinson and State of California Attorney General lawyers, to achieve
this goal.

In February 2009, I was promoted from the cogeneration plant operator nonexempt position to the
exempt associate development engineer position by the previously mentioned settlement agreement
with the Regents of the University of California.

The 2009 settlement agreement with the regents was solicited by Stephen Chilcott and signed
on behalf of the regents by UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown. It would not have
occurred or been permitted without prior approval of the settlement by UC General Counsel
Charles Robinson, who masterminded the regent's evasion of fraud liability escape by the
mentioned settlement agreement approved by the FERC in March 2007.

If everything had worked out, I would have most likely retired from the university by age 66
instead of being unlawfully terminated at age of 60 in December 2012 without health insurance
and any possibility to find new employment at my age and health condition, which deteriorated
due to abuse, harassment and psychological terror applied and aimed at me by the orders of
Charles Robinson and Steven Drown, carried out by Stephen Chilcott and assigned by him thugs.

In September 2010, unexpected by Steven Chilcott, Steven Drown, Charles Robinson, their
dedicated collaborators and co-conspirators, the four individuals and my former co-workers from the
plant I worked at and who were used by Chilcott to slander me in 2006-2007, my two other
coworkers demanded a 12% pay raise in the in two separated blackmail petitions in the witch hunt
aimed at me.

24
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
I received the copy of the first petition shortly after it was written and petition mad reference to
position and my wages given to me by February 2009 settlement agreement with the Regents of the
University of California.

Stephen Chilcott, who was and still is the UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director in
charge of 17 HR departments in the UC Davis Health System, including the compensation and
payroll department, approved the pay raise. It occurred during the time when the UC campuses
were in turmoil and the university was experiencing an enormous budget crisis and furloughs in the
campuses.

Such a pay raise, which cost the UCDMC approximately $200,000 extra per year for 13 operators
during the budget crisis, was impossible without approval of the university president or regents
themselves, which imposed a furlough and placed a stricter restriction for a wage increase for non-
represented union employees.

In December 2010, all UCDMC cogeneration operators received a 12% wage increase, which was
a six-step increase in the pay scale. It was impossible to provide a 12% raise for the first four
operators who demanded the pay raise in the two separate blackmail petitions.

The 12% pay raise on December 2010 was provided to operators at the same time as one of the
plant operators, Todd Goerlich, committed suicide due to hostility in the Central Plant, which got out
of hand after I was removed from the plant in March 2007 (EXHIBIT # 19).
Stephen Chilcott, Steven Drown and Charles Robinson apparently worried in September 2009
that the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant fraud would surface again and that the
damage control by accepting quickly the 12% pay raise should take care the problem of the black-
mail petition. It probably would have if, on December 2010, Todd Goerlich had not committed
suicide and if one of the plant employee's personal lockers was not burglarized

In March 2011, I actually learned that the actual 12% pay raise was provided to the UCDMC
power plant operators named "Central Plant" under the false pretenses. Also, I learned from my
coworker, a newly hired HVAC technician named Dereck Cole, that Todd Georlich, who
committed suicide on December 2010, was his best friend, and Dereck was hired by Todd's
recommendation to the HVAC shop.

Dereck also disclosed to me that Todd frequently complained to him and his girlfriend that they
were bullied and harassed by the same folks who targeted me in the 2006-2007 witch hunt to
remove me from the plant."

I felt very disturbed by Dereck's disclosure about his best friend's suicide and ongoing hostility
in the Central Plant, and I viewed the 12% pay raise given to the Central Plant operator as being
very discriminatory to other employees in the Plant Operation and Maintenance Department,
including myself. I was making from $15,000—$20,000 less than Central Plant Operators after I
agreed to permanently stay in the HVAC shop in 2009 with the title of Associate Development
Engineer.

On March 14, 2011, I sent a letter to the UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager
Charles Witcher and asked him for a one-step pay raise.
25
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Also, in my letter to Charles Witcher, I mentioned my working condition in the HVAC shop and
Todd Georlich's suicide on December 2010 (EXHIBIT #20).

If I could reverse the time clock, I would have most likely not written this letter to Charles
Witcher, and I could have eventually retired from the university at a normal age with a much
better health condition.

Today, the hell on earth created for me by Stephen Chilcott, Steven Drown and Charles
Robinson and other licensed by the State Bar of California thugs assigned by them is basically
unlivable.
In explanation, I would like to mention the cases where the university employees reported violations
of law, UC policies and regulations, management misconduct, fraud mismanagement, waste of
university resources, safety violations etc. Only Human Resources Department Director and attorneys
are making decisions on how to handle such complaints."

These cases are being strictly handled by the Campus Office Counsel and the University of California
General Counsel HR Office . Supervisors and managers are strictly the tools in the hands of attorneys
like Chilcott, Drown or the university General Counsel Office staff who being train and instructed
how to attack complaining employees and make their lives miserable.

After the March 14, 2014 letter I sent to Charles Witcher, Steven Chilcott, Steven Drown and
Charles Robinson orchestrated the witch hunt against me and some of my coworkers to terminate my
employment in an unbelievably large scale.

The 2006-2007 witch hunt lasted three months, and I was removed from the UC Davis Medical
Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant.

The scale and manpower of the March 2011 "witch hunt" orchestrated by Chilcott, Drown and
Robinson, in collaboration with many like them, was enormous and lasted 18 months until I was
terminated in December 2012 after two unsuccessful attempts to terminate me in September 2011
and December 2011 and the unsuccessful provocation to end my employment in the
UCDM Trauma Unit on May 31, 2012 by order of the General Counsel Charles Robinson sent by
his deputy Mia Belk in September 2012 to Stephen Chilcott.

In May 2011, I came under such vicious attack from my two UCDMC shop supervisors, and I did
not know why it was occurring.

With the Associate Development Engineer title provided to me by the 2009 settlement agreement I
signed with the regents, I was theoretically assistant to the HVAC shop manager Patrick Putney, who
held the Senior Development Engineer title. I never requested or demanded to be or act as his
assistant"?

On August 3, 2011 I had to be placed on work stress related sick leave due to enormous stress
inflicted by my psychopath supervisor, Patrick Putney, and Dennis Curry who were apparently

26
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
given the green light by Chilcott, the Department Manager Charles Witcher to make my life as
miserable as possible.

Besides sabotaging my job by denying me access to work orders, time cards and the Metasys
computer network system, by which the critical alarms in the hospital were monitored by me, the
other shop employees witnessed Putney stalking me from his office with his lights off and
suddenly opening doors and screaming what I was doing on the computer. It did not give me any
choice but to evacuate myself from the shop and ask my doctor for stress leave.

I never experienced such behavior from any of my supervisors or coworkers in my entire life, and I
hope to never again see another psychopath supervisor like him in my work environment.

In May 2011, I thought that my manager to whom I served breakfast every become mentally ill.
Besides stalking me, I observed that his hands were almost constantly shaking, especially when he
became excited or mad for no reason."

After I became the Associate Development Engineer in February 2009 at HVAC, my manager,
Patric Putney, provided me with his password for the work order system. Since then by the
Patr5ick Putney order I was closing the completed by the HVAC technicians work orders without
knowing or verifying whether the work orders were actually completed

At the end of the year, I received Patrick Putney's and Dorin Daniluc backlog, which was never
finished, and I had to close it unfinished.

In December 2010, I advised shop supervisor Dorin Daniliuc by e-mail not to send me
unfinished orders for closing EXHIBIT #21.

In May 2011, when I came under vicious attack from Patrick Putney, I asked Department Work
Order Manager to provide me with my own password for the work order system to review and
close the completed work orders. Insed of password became a subject of management horrifying
terror.

In May 2011, I was unaware that somebody had blown the whistle on the university about the
unfinished work orders, which is a serious safety problem for the patients and staff in the UC
Medical Centers.

In January 2016, by writing a complaint to the Internal Revenue Services, I came across a
newspaper article posted in the Davis Enterprise on May 28, 2011. The article was entitled
"CAMPUS MAINTENANCE BACKLOG IS IN THE BILLIONS." The original article was
written by Mihir Zaveri at Mazaver from the San Francisco Chronicle http
://www.davisenterprise.conillocal-news/ucd/earnpus-rnaintenance-backlo g-is-in-the-billions/
EXHIBIT #22.

After I wrote the letter to the department head Charles Witcher, the attacks against me were
invited by accusing me of missing and not dispatching the hospital critical refrigerator alarm.

27
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
The horror began when I confronted my manager and department head about finding that the
refrigerator was under repair with an open work order system"?

The HVAC shop supervisors did not have time to take care of the hospital equipment because
one supervisor was catching pigeons on the hospital roofs and selling ducks, chickens, goats,
sheep and other animals on the shop premises. Another supervisor was running his own HVAC
business and church on the company time and with department head knowledge, and did not
have time to take care of his duty (see the enclosed photos on the flash drive). However, it was
not a concern for the department head, UCDIVIC directors or Human Resources department or
UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer.

In the mentioned "CAMPUS MAINTENANCE BACKLOG IS IN THE BILLIONS," several of


the disclosures or statements presented below are very interesting and important in relation to my
complaints.

• "For yea rs, a da rk sta irwell in sid e a UC Berk el ey sc ie nc e bu ild ing p o se d a


pote ntia lly dea dl y thr ea t a s lea k ing wa t er po ole d n ex t to t he 1 2 , 0 0 0 -volt
tra nsfor mer s a nd swit ch gea rs. "
The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant's 12,000-volt High Voltage
Switch Gear Room and Control Room with computers are equipped with a water sprinkler
system and fire extinguisher instead of a dry CO2 fire protection system (see exhibit No. ).

• "Lacking money to repair the leak, maintenance workers attempted to configure


a temporary solution. They rigged the sheet metal to divert the leak so that it
wouldn't drip on the electrical equipment and blow out the power that runs
laboratories where scientists are conducting some of the world's most advanced
biological research.
Yet that solution posed a new danger: that someone could be electrocuted if he
or she stepped into the growing puddle."

The University of California spent $80,000,000 to build the 27 MWh cogeneration power plant
in the UC Davis Medical Center in 1998 but did not have a few thousand dollars more to install
the dry CO2 fire protection system. If the water sprinkler pipe corroded or the roof leaked, the
water would enter the 12,000-volt equipment in the High Voltage Room, and then it would cause
an enormous explosion. With the presence of fire and a large quantity of natural gas and diesel, it
could destroy the whole plant and kill the operating personnel and nearby properties.
EXHIBIT # 23.

The University of California built a $80,000,000 plant in the UC Davis Plant where the demand
for power was less than 5 MWh instead of building this plant with a bigger jet turbine LM6000
(60 MW) and bigger Heat Recovery Steam Generator to meet the UC Davis Campus demand for
power in 1998, which was around 100 MWh, and the demand for steam was around 180,000
lb/hr. It would most likely save the university $1,000,000,000 or (one billion) for the energy cost
within 20 years, not to mention the unnecessary fraud related to the unlawful operation and
power sale by the UCDMC 27 cogeneration power plant. $1,000,000,000 could be used for

28
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
repairs and modification of the aging equipment and buildings. $1,000,000,000 would more then
needed for the Davis $400 million in deferred maintenance pointed in the article.

• "Last month, power to an animal hospital at UCD went out when an electrical panel
malfunctioned, Tollefson said, and the campus did not have a backup generator for the
building.
"We had to scramble on many, many fronts to keep from a pretty major loss," said
David Wilson, the director of the hospital.
The maintenance staff raced to get a new power generator, leaving the hospital, which
provides emergency care for animals and other services, without power for four hours.
The problem ended up costing much more than replacing the electrical panel would
have cost initially, Tollefson said."

Allen Tollefson, assistant vice chancellor for facilities management at UC Davis, expressed in the
article his concerns about problems that I was reporting to others since 2000. Allen Tollefson was
assigned as Skelly officer in my termination appeal and placed himself on the side of the oppressors
against me by approving, in violation of the settlement agreement I signed with UC regents, the
unlawful termination of my employment on December 3, 2012.

The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant , which was commissioned
in 1998 and only required 4-5 MWh in 1998, was equipped with five Caterpillars Emergency
Diesel Generators (EDG) 2 MW each and required a maximum of two. This means that the
regents spent a few million dollars for three extra useless Emergency Generators, which could be
used in the UC Davis Campus. This was Irresponsible waste of millions of dollars. It was most
likely an idea to run the EDGs and illegally sell an extra 6 MW of power. However, the test of
the EDGs was not promising to sell power because the residents from the surrender cogeneration
plant area complained of an excessive diesel fume smell and the diesel fumes were entering the
plant control room and causing sickness (EXHIBIT # 24).

In 2011, after Davis Enterprise published the article entitled, "CAMPUS MAINTENANCE
BACKLOG IS IN THE BILLIONS," the U C Davis Medical Center, Associate Professor of
Surgery Chief, Trauma & Emergency Surgery Services, Lynette A. Scherer, MD, in the e-mail dated
August 09, 2011 and addressed to HVAC shop manager and Plant Operation and Maintenance
Department Manager Charles Witcher, wrote:

"Hi gentlemen-

I wasn't exactly sure who to send this email to - so I hope you are the right
ones. We just had our office AC fixed by Dereck. This has been a problem
for us for a long time - and he seems to have fixed it. He was quite helpful.
Thanks."

29
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
On May 31, 2012, UCDMC Professor Michael DeGeorgio, from the Department of Internal
Medicine, wrote in his e-mail to Charles Witcher:

"Hello, it's Witcher,

Thank you for sending Dereck Cole to RES III to check on the effectiveness of
the AC/Heating unit. He found multiple problems, which he corrected. This is the
first time in 10 plus _yews that the AC actually works in my of fice. Please
acknowledge him for a job well done.

Sincerely,

Mike DeGregorio"

On July 7, 2012, in the e-mail entitled, "Dereck being awesome in Research III," the scientist
from the UCDMC Mac Lab wrote to the HVAC shop manager Patrick Putney and Department
Head Charles Witcher:

"Mr. Putney and Witcher,

I am a scientist in Research III (Building 95). I have worked in this building


since 2008. In that time, I had given up hope of ever being comfortable or
maybe even safe in here. In the short time that Dereck has been working here,
he has solved many of the issues that have been plaguing us for years. I can,
finally not FREEEZE to death every day or eat under dripping ceiling tiles
where floods have happened over and over. He is such a welcome sight and a
great guy. Everyone here is so thankful to have him around.

Please tell Dereck thank you from everybody on the second floor of Research
III. He is an awesome worker, and we really appreciate him. Please, please
keep him here!

Rebekah Tsai, MSSRAM, Mack Lab"

"After writing the thank you letters, Associate Professor of Surgery Chief, Trauma & Emergency
Surgery Services, Lynette A. Scherer, Professor Michael DeGeorgio from the Department of Internal
Medicine and scientist Rebekah Tsai from the MSSRAM Lab did not know who Charles Witcher,
Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniluc or HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and other UCDMC
administrators were and what they would do with their letter of appreciation for Dereck ending their
suffering."

The authors of the thank you letters realized that the unrepaired equipment caused discomfort and
serious safety problems for years for the UC Davis Medical Center patients and staff, and
30
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
they were shocked that a new technician showed up in their offices one day and fixed all the
problems that were unrepairable for years by other technicians.

However, the authors of the thank you letters and the relatively new UCDMC HVAC Technician
Dereck Cole did not know what Charles Witcher, Patrick Putney and the HR Executive Director
Stephen Chilcott would do with these letters.

By repairing the equipment that was not repaired for years, Dereck Cole did not know that the
unrepaired equipment was a generator of a significant amount of money in the form of bonuses and
an increase in wages for all the directors and managers in the University of California campuses.
Furthermore, the thank you letters, which showed that the equipment that was not repaired for
many years could be quickly repaired by a skilled technician, also exposed the lack of Putney and
Witcher's managerial skill and knowledge.

After the last thank you letter written for Dereck Cole by scientist Rebekah Tsai, who wrote that
she was freezing to death for years, Charles Witcher turned Dereck over to the HR Labor
Relation to end Dereck's enthusiasm and pride for his outstanding service to professors,
scientists and doctors in the UC Davis Medical Center.

In a copycat scenario, two HR attorneys licensed by the State Bar of California, Stephen Chilcott,
with his newly hired thug Travis Lindsey from Labor Relation, orchestrated the "witch hunt" to fire
Dereck Cole from the job in a very similar scenario as mine.

On August 9, 2012 Dereck received Letter of Expectation which was closely to the notice of
employment termination followed by the "Does not meet expectation " the employee
performance review for the 2011/2012, and than provocation for physical confrontation with
Putney .

I took the Dereck Cole case to help him deal with Charles Witcher Plant Operation and
Maitenanance Department Charles Witcher's and Stephen Chilcott's HR gang. case to help
him being myself under university's gangsters like Chilcott siege at that time. The Dereck case
ended in January 2014, and Dereck was spared from being fired from the job.

The facts and documents indicated that Dereck Cole was spared from being fired because he was
used as a "bargain chip" by university attorneys in my Writ of Mandate and wrongful
termination case to get my counsel Douglas Stein on their side because of Dereck's situation.
Unfortunately, on November 2013, I hired Douglas Stein as my counsel for the Writ of
Mandamus case by Dereck Cole's recommendation because Dereck Cole had a longtime
friendship with Douglas Stein
Besides my case, the Dereck Cole case is a classic example of a deep-rooted corruption among
university administrators and corrupted attorneys like Stephen Chilcott, Steven Drown, Charles
Robinson and others empowered by the fat university checks and State Bar of California licenses to
harm others and protect the status quo of the university's white collar criminals.

On October 5, 2011, I filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against Stephen
Chilcott and his HR "witch hunter" Danesha Nichols J.D with the title of HR Investigation
31
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Coordinator after many appeals to stop the harassment, psychological terror and threats
(EXHIBIT # 25).

Also, on October 5, 2011, sick and tired of the terror induced by Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichol
and my department head Charles Witcher, I asked UC Davis Police Captain Joyce Souza whether
somebody filed a complaint against me with the UC Police Department."
. Captain Joyce Souza responded the next day that no complaint was filed against me with the
police (EXHIBIT # 26.

Thereafter, I was looking for help anywhere I could. I sent information about my situation and
the UC Davis Medical Center's corrupted PO&M and HR Department chiefs Chilcott and
Witcher to Captain Souza, Lt. John Pike, UC Davis Chief of Police Anette Spicuzza and the UC
office of the President.

In 2011, after I sent the letter to the UC Davis Police, Stephen Chilcott, Steven Drown and Charles
Robinson orchestrated the terror which continued until my employment was terminated on
December 7, 2012 .

Consequently, Chilcott, who was in charge of 17 different UC Davis Health System HR


Departments, including the Benefits and Compensation Department, destroyed me financially, tried
to force me to quit in complete disregard of the 2009 signed settlement agreement in conspiracy
with the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, denied my Short Term Disability Insurance
Benefit in December 2011, removed me from stress-related sick leave without doctor permission,
changed my title and demoted me to Programmer without my knowledge; also, my health and
dental insurance was canceled.

UC Davis Police Lt. John Pike and UC Davis Police Chief, to whom I was sending information
that should be subject to the police investigation (like child pornography issues), were removed
from the UC Davis Police Department force in the ill-crafted November 18, 2011 provocation set
up by UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown and Michael Sweeney at the order of UC
General Counsel Charles Robinson, UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and Vice Chancellor
Ralph Hexter.

In May 2012, mean "Stephen Chilcott and others like him ordered to suspend me without pay for
10 days to use the suspension to lure me onto the premises on May 31, 2012 for the purpose to
end my employment by an ill-crafted but unsuccessful provocation in the UC Davis Medical
Trauma Unit # 11. Supervisor Karen Kouretas waited for an outcome of the provocation and
assault by UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour and was bribed with a $35,000 wage increase to
carry out the attack with a deadly weapon

On May 31, 2012, the UC regents and Sacramento Municipal Utility District finalized another
fraudulent contract to sell power from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 cogeneration facility,
which did not meet the PURPA and FERC requirements to be a Qualified Facility (QF) and to
generate and sell power EXHIBIT # 27.

32
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
The millions of dollars from unlawful power generation were at stake, and university guardians
of corruption were ordered to do whatever it took not to let me return to work because of the
about the signed and new unlawful power sale contract with SMUD. The crux of this whole case
is that I did not care in 1999, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011 or 2012 that the UC Davis Medical Center
27 MW cogeneration facility was generating power for sale , and it was never my intention to
determine if it was legal or illegal generation because I thought that during the power market
deregulation in 1996-2000, the law was changed in regard to power generation by cogeneration
power plants like the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant.

The UC administration and guardians of corruption in the University of California system, such
as Stephen Chilcott, Steven Drown and Charles Robinson, who were empowered by the State
Bar of California licenses and J.D degrees from the prestigious law schools, had a different view
and goal when they found out that I reported the $100,000, 000 fraud related to violation of the
PURPA law and FERC regulations, which were committed by my previous employer Destec
Energy/Dynegy in 1989-1997. In December 2006, I was black marked to be eliminated from
the UC system by any means. It took them six long years to do this, and I fell.

The May 2012 attempt to kill me did not work, and then Chilcott, with others, sent an inquiry
to Lodi Police on June 2012 with a clear intention to set the Lodi Police on me, get me trouble
with the District Attorney office and to file criminal charges against me EXHIBIT #28.

It did not work either, and in September 13, 2012 General Counsel Charles Robinson gave green
light for Chilcott for carry out the termination of my employment.

On September 25, 2012, I received a Notice with Intent to Dismiss for serious misconduct,
which instructed me not to be present at work for one year and two months. Beside the Notice
to Dismiss THE UC Davis Police issued poster with my photo on. The Regents of the
University of California declared me as a "Most Unwanted" and "Persona non Grata," and
the poster was distributed and displayed around the UC Davis campuses and sent to many
offices without my knowledge EXHIBIT # 29.

On December 7, 2012 I received the notice of my employment termination after 13 years


of service and at the age of 60 EXHIBIT # 30.

On May 30, 2013, I again filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against Stephen
Chilcott and Danesha Nichols and five additional University of California attorneys. In 2013, I
did not know all the facts and that I was targeted by Stephen Chilcott, Steven Drown and
Charles Robinson in a conspiracy with others since December 2006 because of the enormous
fraud committed by the Regents of the University of California in relation to power generation
and sale by the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant EXHIBIT #31

33
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
In May 2013, I also did not know that just shortly after I received the Notice with Intent to
Dismiss in October 2012, the University of California Deputy General Counsel Karen Jensen
Petrulakis was deployed by Charles Robinson to the State Bar of California to serve on the State
Bar's Litigation Section Executive Committee.

On December 4, 2013, I filed with the Sacramento County Superior Court the wrongful
termination lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California, and three university
attorneys licensed by the State Bar of California were included in the lawsuit, including Stephen
Chilcott as an individual Defendant EXHIBIT # 32.

On December 1, 2014, the university counsel from the Porter Scott law firm, Michael Pott, in a
conspiracy with my counsel, Douglas Stein, filed the Special Motion to Strike my first four
Causes of Action and five individual defendants, including Stephen Chilcott
In the filed declaration to support the Special Motion to Strike Stephen Chilcott, under penalty
of perjury, declared: EXHIBIT # 33

"I did not harbor any unlawful motives or biases towards Waszczuk during the course
of my involvement in the processing of the complaints, investigations, or Plaintiffs
grievance, nor did I retaliate against him for filing whistleblower complaints."

Stephen Chilcott Declaration is total perjury under the law of the state of California under
PENAL CODE SECTION 118"(A), which states, "Every person who, having taken an
oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent
tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State
of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any
material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies,
declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the
testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of
California, under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter
which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury." Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial
Corporation, 93 P.3d 386, 33 Cal.4th 601, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 793 (Cal. 07/19/2004); Supra 5115654;
People v. Laws, 120 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 178 Cal. Rptr. 102 (Cal.App.Dist.1 06/26/1981)

PENAL CODE SECTION 134 PROVIDES, "Every person guilty of preparing any false or
antedated book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to
produce it, or allow it to be produced for any fraudulent or deceitful purpose, as genuine
or true, upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, is guilty of
felony." People v. Jensen, 94 Cal. App. 3d 451, 156 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal.App.Dist.1 06/27/1979)

For this alone perjury, Chilcott, as a licensed attorney at law by the State Bar of California,
should face grave consequences. Chilcott's statement speaks for itself in light of the presented
facts. Chilcott thought that the truth would never surface and that the plot to kill me or badly
34
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
harm me on May 31, 2012 would eventually work and I would vanish from the planet with a
bullet in my head from the Lt. James Barbour pistol.

Chilcott and his assigned witch hunters forgot in their declaration and despicable reports that
Waszczuk was employed by the university since the February 2009 settlement agreement
(written contract), which Chilcott and his thugs trashed and forgot about.

CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

In the above presented facts, I respectfully request that the State Bar of California pursue the
investigation against and prosecute the University of California attorney Stephen Chilcott.

This individual with the title of UC Davis Health System HR Executive is the second worse after UC
Davis General Counsel Charles Robinson violator of the University of California employees civil and
human rights in UC Davis Health System and dedicated to cover-up any university administration
fraud and unlawful schemes.
It is my understanding that the State Bar of California attorney license is provided to the attorneys
to practice law in the State of California and not to condone the criminal activities of others and
cover up the fraud and violations of state and federal law.

Furthermore, the State Bar of California license is not meant to craft provocations, physically
harm or kill university employees, destroy their lives and livelihoods, subject them to witch hunts
and psychological terror and protect those who committed the crimes and violated the employees'
civil and human rights.

V. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST DANESHA NICOLE NICHOLS — SBN #2227784

UC Davis Human Resources — Supervisor


University of California, Davis
UC Davis — Employee and Labor Relations
HR Admin. Bldg.
1 Shields Ave.
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: (530) 752-9253
Fax: (530) 752-1289
Email: dnnichols@ucdavis.edu

GENERAL INFORMATION

Danesha Nichols, JD, graduated from the University of Pacific McGeorge School of Law around
2002 and was admitted to the State Bar of California on December 3, 2002. She was hired by UC
Davis in September 2004 as Human Resources Principal Labor Relation Consultant with a

35
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
$53,000 annual salary, which was relatively low, and she held this position in the UC Davis campus
HR department. In 2008 Danesha Nichols was handling SBN # 2015 169, an arbitration, together
with her colleague UC Davis HR Assistant Dawn M. Capp, JD. Danesha Nichols is representing the
university in relation to my complaint against the university administrators who organized a
despicable hunt me down action against me in 2006-2008.
Just after the university was defeated in the arbitration, Dawn Capp, who was the leading HR
attorney in the arbitration, disappeared from the university landscape. Danesha Nichols survived
the defeat and held her HR Principal Labor Relation Consultant position at the UC Davis campus
until October 2010.

In October 2010 Danesha Nichols was given a position as a Investigator Coordinator in the UC
Davis Medical Center HR department, reporting to the UC Davis Health Executive Director
Stephen Chilcott, JD, SBN# 196905, who was leading and coordinating the witch hunt against me
in 2006-2008 with enormous authority and power given to him by the UC Regents and the UC
Office of General Counsel to eliminate me from the UC payroll.

The HR Investigator Coordinator position in the University of California System is a short-term


position and may be defined in simple words as a "leader of a coordinated hunt attack with other
hunters from various departments against a complaining employee until that employee is
demoted, silenced or fired"—something similar to the leader of pack of wolves or dingoes
attacking their prey.

The attack of the witch hunters led by the Investigator Coordinator is being overseen by UC
campuses' Chief Compliance officer, locally designated officers who could be HR Directors,
Vice Chancellors or Vice Presidents.
The Chief of Compliance officer is a university title that has nothing to do with compliance with
anything but rather is a smoke screen position meant to give a false impression to employees who
are complaining about corruption, management misconduct, waste of university resources,
harassment or retaliation that the employee will be protected from retaliation.

Government Code Section 8547.10 (b) &(c) states that: b) Any person who intentionally,
engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a University
of California employee, including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for
employment for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to a fine not to exceed ten
thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment in the county jail for up to a period of one
year. Any university employee, including an officer or faculty member, who intentionally
engages in that conduct shall also be subject to discipline by the university.
(c) In addition to all other penalties provided by law, any person who intentionally engages in
acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a university employee,
including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for having made a
protected disclosure shall be liable in an action for damages brought against him or her by the
injured party. Punitive damages may be awarded by the court where the acts of the offending
party are proven to be malicious.
36
STATEBAROFCALIFORNIA
COMPLAINTAGAINSTATTORNEYS
This statute looks and sounds great. However, if anybody takes into consideration the 18 month
time limit that university "witch hunters"—who call themselves investigation coordinators, chief
compliance officers, locally designated officers, principal investigators, managers, or
supervisors, etc.—have to conduct and finish their witch hunt, employees who complain and who
are then hunted down like animals have no chance to survive the psychological terror,
provocations, physical confrontation, discrimination, bullying, attacks by coworkers, coercion, or
preferential treatment on the part of vicious and unscrupulous managers and supervisors etc.

The best example of this is my own retaliation complaints and the case of other UC Davis
Medical Center employees who I have represented and helped to defend themselves against
members of the university management who are vindictive beyond imagination and are assigned
witch hunters such as Danesha Nichols or Stephen Chilcott.

I also present other cases in this complaint and in the 295-pages exhibit No.1.

Furthermore, the July 31, 2008 Supreme Court of California decision in the case Les G.
MIKLOSY et al. v The REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al, No. S139133,
emboldened the University of California witch hunters to the point that witch-hunting on the
university campuses became a kind of sport or safari, in which they had university campuses
directors, managers, and assigned witch hunters with titles such as chief of compliance officer
and investigation coordinator, such as Danesha Nichols and others like her, hunt down
employees.

DANESHA N NICHOL'S PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

• To the best of my knowledge, Danesha N. Nichols J.D., has, since 2008, violated the
California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assisted or induced
another to do so, or has done so through the acts of another.
• Since 2008, Danesha Nichols, in conspiracy with others, committed unlawful acts that
reflect adversely on her honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer in other
respects.
• Since 2008, Danesha Nichols, in conspiracy with Stephen Chilcott, Steven Drown,
University of California General Counsel Charles Robinson, and others engaged in
misconduct involving dishonesty, the cover up of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation of her
position as a UC Davis HR attorney with the title of Principal Consultant and Investigation
Coordinator and as an attorney licensed by the State Bar of California.
• In the period from July 2011 to May 2012, Danesha Nichols, as the UC Davis Medical
Center HR Investigation Coordinator, with full knowledge of her wrongdoing and as a
skilled attorney licensed by the State Bar of California, in conspiracy with the Regents of
the University of California and other University of California attorneys, including but
not limited to UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, UC Davis Health
System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, and other high-ranking UC Davis
administrators and managers, orchestrated and carried out despicable, indecent attacks
against myself and other university employees to cover up the enormous, multimillion-
dollar fraud against the Internal Revenue Service and the State of California Franchise
37
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Tax Board, which was committed by the university administration relative to the
unlawful operation of a 27 MW cogeneration power plant and illegal power sales.
• Danesha Nichols, as UC Davis HR employee and an attorney at law licensed by the State
Bar of California, by her blunt disregard and violation of state and federal laws and of
University of California policies and procedures, which are equal to state statutes, by
conspiring with other attorneys employed by the university and with university
administrators, violated my civil and human rights and those of other employees by her
despicable disregard for civilized society, laws, and principles.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 2008, Danesha Nichols was involved in the arbitration process in relation to my complaint
against the vicious witch hunt carried out against me, which was ordered in 2006 by the
university administration and was coordinated and carried out by Stephen Chilcott and Steven
Drown in conspiracy with UC Davis Medical Center directors and managers.
I covered the 2006-2007 witch hunt in my complaint against Stephen Chilcott, Steven Drown,
and Charles Robinson and in exhibit #1.

In October 2010, Danesha Nichols was deployed from the UC Davis Campus to the UC Davis
Medical Center (UCDMC) in, I believe, an emergency manner to monitor the situation relative to the
blackmail petition for a pay rise that was submitted to the UCDMC management by four individuals
from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility. . The mentioned petition was
related to my earned wages in 2009 and indirectly to the February 2009 settlement-agreement I
signed with the regents

Danesha Nichols was already familiar with my 2006-2009 case, and she was ready for me if I
reacted to the blackmail petition. The blackmail petition was more than just a petition. It was the
subject of the unlawful generation and power sale by the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power
plant.

I covered this part in the previous complaints against Steven Drown, Charles Robinson, and
Stephen Chilcott and in exhibit #1

In July 2011, I came under direct attack from Danesha Nichols, not knowing why she was
attacking me. I had never met her before, and she was very belligerent, calling my office and
giving me orders to meet with her, knowing that she was not my supervisor and had to go
through the proper channels with my managers in order to schedule a meeting.

I am enclosing, as EXHIBIT # 34, 79 pages of correspondence, which perfectly describe the


coordinated terror and intimidation attacks aimed at me between the period of May 1, 2011 and
July 31, 2011.

38
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
If the State Bar of California investigator will read the 79 pages of correspondence, it will
become clear why I described Danesha Nichol's assignment as the Investigation Coordinator as a
witch hunt and why I described her as the leader of a pack of wolves or dingoes who attack and
kill their pray.
The 79 pages of correspondence included the July 22, 2011 complaint letter sent to UC Campus
Counsel Steven Drown on the subject of Danesha Nichols and as a reminder to Steven Drown
that he signed, in February 2009, the Settlement-Agreement on behalf of the Regents of the
University of California. Steven Drown responded on July 26, 2011. Neither Steven Drown,
Danesha Nichols, Steven Chilcott, UCDMC managers and directors, nor UC Davis Chief
"Compliance" Officer Wendy Delemendo—who guided Danesha Nichols and checked her
compliance with the guidance to attack me and fire me from the job—wanted to hear about
Waszczuk's settlement-agreement with the UC Regents.

If the State Bar of California investigator will take into consideration that my job was to monitor
critical alarms in the UCDMC when I was subjected to the psychological terror at work at the
hands of Danesha Nichols and others perpetrators, it shows that the vicious plan to fire me from
the job was more important to them than critical alarms and even UCDMC Hospital patients'
lives that may be affected by these alarms. Since my open-heart surgery in 2006, I have been
surviving on nine medications every day; being terrorized did not help me to do my duty to keep
the Hospital's patients safe.
On August 3, 2011, due to the terror and stress I was experiencing, my physician placed me for one
month on stress-related sick-leave, and that was my last day I ever worked. I was not permitted to
come back to work after my work-related sick-leave, and I was placed on endless investigatory
leave by Stephen Chilcott's orders.

On August 31, 2011, the "pack of wolves," led by Danesha Nichols, Wendi Delmendo, Stephen
Chilcott, and other directors and managers, started their hunting game again in preparation to
terminate my employment, which was scheduled for September 23, 2011 and was based on
Danesha Nichols orders. I learned later from the UC Davis Public Record Act office that Danesha
Nichols' witch hunt cause for my termination was destroyed and is not available.
On September 4, 2011, sick and tired of Danesha Nichols' attacks just after my stress-related
sick-leave, I sent an e-mail to Nichols with attached all my performance reviews (evaluations)
attached, which I had received in the course of my employment at the UC Davis Medical Center
from June 1999 to my last evaluation period in 2009/2010. I thought that maybe my evaluations
might make her think twice before launching into another belligerent attack ordered by her
superiors.
I did not ever receive my evaluation for the 2010/2011 evaluation period. The evaluation was
due in June 2011, July being the latest time for employees to be evaluated according to UC
policy / EXHIBIT #35.

39
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
The September 2011 atmosphere has been well described in the various 71-page
correspondence with Danesha Nichols and others, which is attached as EXHIBIT # 36.

In this bulk of correspondence is a letter dated September 6, 2011, which I sent by e-mail,
together with several photos from the hospital showing me after I had undergone open-heart
surgery. I thought it would prevent Danesha Nichols and others from terrorizing me further.
However, it did not work.

Photos are included on the attached flash drive.


The attempt to terminate me on September 23, 2011 was prematurely disclosed and my
physician placed me again on stress-related sick-leave.

On December 22, 2011, I met Danesha Nichols but later regretted the meeting with her. I did not
know or suspect why the ongoing witch hunt was taking place and why they had employed such
enormous manpower to destroy one employee. On that day, I drove to UC Davis Medical Center to
pick up my private things from my office after I had been removed by Stephen Chilcott's or the
Chancellor's orders following my stress-related sick-leave. Despite my doctor not giving his
permission, on December 5, 2012, my health insurance was canceled, my title was changed to
Program I, which I did not know the meaning of, and my disability claim was denied. I thought that I
would be terminated within days.

For the record, I met Danesha Nichols and talked to her. The various 19-page correspondence for the
month of December 2011 is attached as EXHIBIT # 37, which pertains to my deteriorating financial
condition and health.

After the meeting with Danesha Nichols, I was not permitted to come back to work and I was
placed back on investigatory leave, which became the permanent solution to keeping me out of the
premises until my employment was terminated in December 2012.

I did not know in December 2011 that the regents had negotiated a new fraudulent power sale
contract with Sacramento Municipal Utility District for the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power
plant, where I had been employed as an operator between June 1999 and March 2007.

I was not welcome due to the illegal power generation and sale fraud , and I was persona not grata
even though I was not concerned during the course of my employment with the university about
the regents' power generation and their contracts with CAISO and SMUD .

I am not sure whether Danesha Nichols and the other witch hunters who were hunting me down
knew that the orchestrated hysteria against me was about the cover up of the fraud. I am hoping that
the Federal Bureau of Investigation will get to the bottom of the regents' fraud scheme.

On April 13, 2012, I received a Letter of Intent to Suspend for 10 days without basis after the
conducted investigation, which I assume was Danesha Nichol's witch hunt investigation, carried out
since July 2011. I was furious, but at the same time, I was surprised that I had received a suspension
rather than a termination letter after eight months of absence from work due to three months of
stress-related sick-leave and five months of phony investigatory leave.
40
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Through a Public Record Act request, I received four investigation reports that Danesha Nichols
had fabricated in the period of December 2011 to February 2012. EXHIBIT # 38 Danesha,
through superior writing skill, made me looks worse in her reports than a twice-convicted child
pornography felon, who was illegally accessing the UCDMC HVAC shop computer to surf the
Web despite being on probation and being prohibited from touching any computer by a court
order EXHIBIT # 39. Case: 2: 6 —cr- 00418-LKK, The United States of America v. Sean
Christopher Robideaux, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Indictment
Violation(S) 18 U.S.0 § 2252 () (4)(B) — Possession of Visual Depiction of Minors in Sexually
Explicit Conduct). The child porn activities in the HVAC shop were reported in July 2011 by my
coworker. Danesha Nichols, as the investigation coordinator and a skilled attorney of law, instead
of reporting this sick individual to the authorities and obtaining a restarting order, covered up the
activities in her report, and my coworker, who reported the activities, was attacked and
intimidated by Danesha Nichols and was forced to quit two years later.

The Danesha Nichols investigation reports were the only basis for my suspension and the attempt
to harm me psychologically and financially, which also almost got me killed on May 31, 2012.
The Reports were part of a planned preparation and ill-minded provocation by the UCDMC HR
psychologists and UC Davis new Chief of Police Matt Carmichael. The provocation was most
likely ordered by the General Counsel Charles Robinson or Chancellor Linda Katehi with
recommendation and feedback from Stephen Chilcott and HR psychologists. The ill-minded plan
was quite simple. Suspending an employee without pay after 8 month of absence and serving him
another investigatory leave with a new fabricated accusation could make the employee so fed up,
he would quit the job, or he would become very angry and hostile by letting him know that he
would be prohibited from coming back to work and that a new witch hunt was under way.

On May 31, 2012, I was lured onto the premises by written order in the Letter of Suspension, and UC
Police Department Lt James Barbour was bribed with a $35,000 raise to wait for me to make sure
that I would be delivered to the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. A Trauma Unit
supervisor was waiting to receive me if I was still breathing, or if not, I would most likely be sent to
the UC Davis Medical Center Morgue.

The provocation did not work. On May 31, 2012, a new witch hunt notice entitled
"Investigatory Leave " was handed to me and I was not permitted to return to work. I calmly
walked away from the provocation, and the Manager of the HR Workers Compensation
Department Hugh Parker, who was assigned to coordinate the provocation with all forces in
standby, sent to the assembled team, which I called the UC Davis Death Squad, a disappointing
e-mail. I was not angry when I was served the new witch hunt notification, and I was redirected
to the Human Resources building for questioning by the assigned witch hunter Brent Seifert
J.D. EXHIBIT # 40

At the beginning of the month of May 2012, the UC Davis Chief Compliance officer, in
collaboration with the UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, attempted to
assign Danesha Nichols to continue her witch hunt against me. Danesha Nichols refused.

41
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
She put a lot of effort into fabricating four different witch hunt reports to get me fired and she
was not recognized for her effort, as Stephen Chilcott was in 2007, after I was removed from the
UCDMC Central Plant. The UC Davis Health System Executive Director, instead of promoting
Danesha Nichols to fill the vacant HR Labor Relation Manager position, hired a white Caucasian
who did not have previous HR experience as Danesha Nichols new boss. Danesha Nichols
already had 10 years' experience in the HR environment and the qualifications for a management
position, not to mention the fact that she is a woman and an African-American and should be
considered for promotion.
On April 27, 2012, in great disappointment over Danesha Nichols' witch hunt reports
Investigatory Reports , which almost got me killed and caused an unwarranted attack against
me with the Letter of Intent to Suspend, I sent a short email to Danesha Nichols expressing my
feelings about her reports. EXHIBIT # 41 I attached to the e-mail a video clip/slide show
entitled "Welcome to Romania." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tozuM2DDA-k It showed
the post-communist, devastated Romania, and some scenes in the slide show had a lot in
common with the landscape of the HVAC shop, which was supervised by two shop supervisors
called Dorin Daniliuc and Patrick Putney (photos showing HVAC shop environment are
enclosed on the flash drive).

Maybe on my part the video clip was not a best choice to do comparison but I was under so
enormous stress and under siege that I thought video clip will get Danesha Nichols attention
what she has done to me . It did get her attention and not only her's attention . Later, the
"Welcome to Romania" slide show was exploited and repeatedly used to attack me and as a
cause and pretext to terminate my employment. Later, I viewed the video, which was partially
explicit, as an unnecessary attachment, and I offered my sincerest apology to Danesha Nichols
if she felt offended. She stated in the interview for the new witch hunt report that was
fabricated against me that she had been assigned witch hunter by Brent Seifert J.D and that she
was not offended.

I found it despicable that the mentioned video, which was sent without intention to offend
anybody and was sent only to Danesha Nichols for the sake of comparison, became more
important than the unlawful child pornography activities of a twice-convicted felon who was
working in the HVAC shop and who had been protected by Danesha Nichols in her report.

Danesha Nichols forgot to mention in her fabricated reports, which were full of lies, that since
February 2009, I was employed according to the settlement-agreement signed by the Regents of the
University of California. Danesha Nichols, by her behavior and misconduct, disregarded and grossly
and despicably violated the settlement and my civil rights outlined in that settlement.

Danesha Nichols is included as an individual Defendant in my wrongful termination lawsuit


against the Regents of the University of California, which I filed in the Sacramento County
Superior Court on December 4, 2013.

On December 1, 2014, in the filed Court Declaration in Support of the Special Motion to Strike
Danesha Nichols under penalty of perjury, Danesha Nichols stated, "I did not harbor any

42
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
unlawful motives or biases towards Waszczuk during the course of my investigation,
nor did I retaliate against him for filing whistleblower complaints."

Danesha Nichol's Declaration is total perjury under the law of the state of California under Penal
Code section 118(a), which states, "Every person who, having taken an oath that he or
she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or
person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be
administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which
he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies
under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations,
depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California,
under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she
knows to be false, is guilty of perjury." Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corporation,
93 P.3d 386, 33 Cal.4th 601, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 793 (Cal. 07/19/2004); Supra 5115654; People v.
Laws, 120 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 178 Cal. Rptr. 102 (Cal.App.Dist.1 06/26/1981)

PENAL CODE SECTION 134 PROVIDES, "Every person guilty of preparing any false or
antedated book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to
produce it, or allow it to be produced for any fraudulent or deceitful purpose, as genuine or
true, upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, is guilty of felony."
People v. Jensen, 94 Cal. App. 3d 451, 156 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal.App.Dist.1 06/27/1979)

I provided more than necessary evidence that Danesha Nichols was constantly retaliating against me
and harboring unlawful motives to cover up university administrators' crimes and fraud. Danesha
Nichols' investigation reports are total fraud and were fabricated to inflict harm on me and to violate
my civil and human rights.

CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

Danesha Nichols is a classic example of a university witch hunter who intentionally engaged in
conspiracy against me, with many others like her, and who committed malicious acts of reprisal,
retaliation, threats, and coercions, and who also directed, recommended, processed, and
approved personnel action, including but not limited to promotion, transfer, assignment,
performance evaluation, suspension, and other disciplinary action, including my termination of
employment and the use of official authorities to influence other employees for the purpose of
intimidating, threatening, coercing, or commanding others for the purpose of interfering with the
right to disclose the University of California officials' serious violation of law and University
Policies by the UC Davis Medical Center Management as they are outlined in Government
Code Section 8547. 10

In line with the above-presented facts, I respectfully request that the State Bar of California
pursue the investigation against the University of California attorney Danesha Nichols for
professional misconduct and take appropriate action against Nichols for her further deliberate
violation of others' civil and human rights.
43
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
I don't know what Danesha Nichols' motivations were or are to violate Rules of Professional
Conduct and Canons of Ethics set by the State bar of California for licensed attorneys at law. I also
do not know whether Nichols' professional misconduct was or is dictated by fear of losing her
employment if she would not participate or collaborate in witch hunt activities at the University of
California or whether she is hoping to be rewarded for bluntly carrying out any order given to her
by her superiors.

An attorney who knows that another attorney has committed a violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct in a way that raises substantial questions as to that lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney in other respects, must inform the appropriate professional
authority. Danesha Nichols failed to act against and actually collaborated with Stephen Chilcott,
Steven Drown, Brent Seifert, and others in order to inflict harm against my life and to make me
miserable for no reason.

VI. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST BRENT JOHN SEIFERT — STATE BAR #249305

UC Davis Health System — Assistant Dean — Former HR Labor Relations Supervisor


Current Status — UC Davis School of Medicine — Academic Personnel Manager
4150 V Street
Sacramento, CA 95817
Phone: 916-734-4602
Fax: 916-734-7055
Email: brent.seifert@ucdavis.edu

GENERAL INFORMATION

Brent John Seifert J.D graduated from the John F. Kennedy University School of Law in Orinda
California and was admitted to the State Bar of California in June 2007. Brent Seifert was hired
by the University of California at the end of 2009 as a Human Resources Consultant at UC
Davis. According to the Declaration of Brent Seifert in Support of Defendants' Special Motion to
Strike Plaintiffs First, Second, Third, And Fourth Causes Of Action And To Recover Attorney
Fees From Plaintiff Per C.C.P. § 425.16 in my wrongful termination lawsuit Case 342013-
00155479, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court on December 4, 2013, Brent Seifert was
employed by the University of California at Davis. He currently serves as the Assistant Dean of
Academic Personnel for the University's School of Medicine and has been in this position since
March 4, 2013. Prior to accepting the Assistance 2 Dean position, he served as an Employee and
Labor Relations Supervisor for the University of California at Davis Health System ("UCDHS")
from April 2011 to March 2013. In that capacity, he was responsible for the administrative
oversight of the Employee and Labor Relations department, advising hospital and

44
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
School of Medicine leadership on policy interpretation and employment decisions, conducting
workplace investigations, and facilitating management training course. EXHIBIT # 42

It is interesting that Brent Seifert, as a white male, was given the Employee and Labor Relations
Supervisor position at UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor Relation Department where Danesha
Nichols J.D. also worked; Nichols is an African American and was transferred in October 2010
from UC Davis Campus with a lot more experience in Labor Relations, more working
experience, and more years of service at the university than Brent Seifert. The University of
California as a whole and UC Davis state that they are promoting underrepresented groups and
minorities, but this is one big lie. I have mentioned this subject in other discrimination cases in
which I helped one worker, Frank Gonzales, from the UC Davis Medical Center, to deal with the
terror of the witch hunters from the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance
Department and HR Department, the two most corrupted departments at the UC Davis Medical
Center. The letter dated November 18, 2014 and addressed to Cindy G. Oropeza, Manager
Benefits, EEO, Resident/Fellow Program HR Administrator, Title IX Officer - Sexual
Harassment, Mediation Services, ASAP, Early Resolution/Inclusion, can be seen in EXHIBIT #
43. I turned the mentioned case to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after the
mentioned Frank Gonzales came under vicious attack, beyond human decency, from the UC
Davis Medical Center thugs who called themselves managers and supervisors during Frank
Gonzales' mother's funeral. EXHIBIT # 44 This is another reason to file this complaint against
people like Chilcott, Drown, Seifert, Robinson, and others: violation of HUMAN RIGHT S
should have no place in this great country.
In addition to the above, I would like to mention that in my May 30, 2013 complaint submitted to
the State Bar of California, Brent Seifert was listed in the complaint among his superiors Stephen
Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Mike Levine, Travis Lindsey, and John Lohse. The previous
complaint was collective and more general because I did not have all the information I have
today nor the real reason behind the massive and unbelievably vicious witch hunt orchestrated by
UC attorneys, which was ongoing since December 2006.

BRENT JOHN SEIFERT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

• To the best of my knowledge, Brent John Siefert J.D. has, since May 2011, violated the
California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assisted or induced another
to do so, or done so through the acts of another.
• Since May 2011, Brent John Seifert, in conspiracy with others, committed unlawful acts
that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer in other
respects.
• Since May 2011, Brent Seifert, in conspiracy with Stephen Chilcott, Steven Drown,
Anna Orlowski, Travis Lindsey, Danesha Nichols, Jill Noel Vandeviver, Mike Levine,
University of California General Counsel Charles Robinson, UC Davis Medical Center
directors managers and supervisors and others, engaged himself in misconduct involving
dishonesty, covering up of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation of his position as a UC
Davis HR consultant an attorney licensed by the State Bar of California with the title of
HR Labor Relations Supervisors.

45
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
• In the period from May 2011 to September 30, 2012, Brent Seifert, as the UC Davis
Medical Center HR Labor Relations Supervisor, with full knowledge of his wrongdoing and
as a skilled attorney licensed by the State Bar of California, in conspiracy with the Regents
of the University of California and other University of California attorneys, including but
not limited to UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, UC Davis Health
System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, and other high-ranking UC Davis
administrators and managers, orchestrated and carried out despicable, indecent attacks
against myself and other university employees to cover up the enormous, multimillion-
dollar fraud against the Internal Revenue Service and the State of California Franchise Tax
Board, which was committed by the university administration related to the unlawful
operation of a 27 MW cogeneration power plant and illegal power sales.
• As UC Davis HR Labor Relations Supervisor and an attorney at law licensed by the State
Bar of California, by his blunt disregard and violation of state and federal laws and of
University of California policies and procedures, which are equal to state statutes, by
conspiring with other attorneys employed by the university and with university
administrators, violated my civil and human rights and those of other employees by his
despicable disregard for civilized society, law, and principles.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In April 2011, Brent Seifert became a Labor Relations supervisor at the UC Davis Medical
Center/UC Davis Health System (UCDMC/UCDHS) in the HR Department.

In April 2011 and thereafter, I became the subject of unbelievably vicious attacks and terror
from my three supervisors who were given the green light by the HR management led by HR
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott J.D. It happened after that, in March, I brought to my
Department head's attention my workers suicide in December 2010, the working conditions in
my shop, and the blackmail pay-raise request that had been given secretly to the UCDMC 27
MW cogeneration plant operators in December 2010. (I covered this subject in my complaint
against Stephen Chilcott and Danesha Nichols).

The attack included sabotaging my duty, stalking me from the dark room, and attempts to
provoke me for physical confrontation etc.

Brent Seifert was less visible in the witch hunt against me than Danesha Nichols or Stephen
Chilcott. The Manager of HR Labor Relations Humberto Garcia, who was Brent Seifert's direct
superior, was, in 2011, completely quiet and invisible in the assault aimed at me until February
2012 when he attempted to negotiate with me a resolution of the ongoing battle against me. He was
not an attorney at law.

46
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Every year the month of June in UC Davis is the month of the mandatory evaluation of all
employees, which is strictly enforced by the requirement of upper management and by the order
of the HR Labor Relations superior. All employees are then provided with a copy of the
employee performance review. The HR Labor Relations supervisor and manager's responsibility
and duty was to monitor the evaluation process and enforce it as required by UC Davis Policy
PPSM 23.
This was Brent Seifert and his crew's responsibility to make sure that all employees get their
performance review.

My manager, instead of providing me with my evaluation for the 2010/2011 evaluation period,
sabotaged my job with the full blessing and knowledge of HR Labor Relations and had, for fun,
a poster entitled Enemy at the Gate hung on my office door. When I did not receive my
employee performance review in June and July 2011, I had the feeling that something had
happened or was going to happen and that, most likely, I would become a persona non grata. A
university employee without an annual evaluation does not count as an employee and is not
eligible for a pay raise or any awards etc.

Based on all the facts, it appears that since October 2010, Danesha Nichols was running the
show, and it is likely that an attorney from the notorious Porter/Scott firm was involved with
advice behind the scenes on how to handle the situation of my coworker's suicide, the blackmail
attempt for a 12% pay raise, and latter, how to handle Jerry Wasczuk.

On July 25, 2011, I sent a short email letter to Brent Seifert with my concern about the behavior
of Danesha Nichols J.D and the HR consultant and Seifert subordinate Gina Harwood. Also, I
attached an e-mail copy of the letter I sent to UC Davis Campus Counsel about the violation by
the university of the settlement-agreement I had signed with UC Regents in February 2009.
EXHIBIT # 45 I did not receive any response from Brent Seifert and I never talked to him in
2011.

In May 2012, Danesha Nichols J.D. refused Stephen Chilcott's and UC Davis Chief
Compliance officer Wendi Delmendo's participation in the fabrication of the new false cause
for my termination and witch hunt against me and my two coworkers which was underway. I
was represented in their complaints against the same vicious management, and Brent Seifert
replaced Danesha Nichols J.D and became the leading witch hunter in a joint venture with
Cindy G. Oropeza, HR Manager Benefits, EEO, Resident/Fellow Program HR Administrator,
Title IX Officer - Sexual Harassment, Mediation Services, ASAP, Early Resolution/Inclusion.
EXHIBIT # 46

I don't know why Danesha Nichols refused to participate. She may have known what Stephen
Chilcott, Wendi Delmendo, Anna Orlowski, Charles Robinson, Steven Drown, Teresa Porter,
just new her new boss HR Labor Relation Manger Travis Lindsey , and the new, corrupted UC
Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael were preparing the UCDMC Trauma Unit for me on
May 30, 2012, and she may not have wanted to be part of it. The child pornography issue she
was ordered to cover up and sweep under the rug by Stephen Chilcott maybe it was another
reason she had enough.

47
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
It is also possible that Danesha Nichols got upset when she found out that she was not being
considered to fill the HR Labor Relations Manager position after Humberto Garcia left or was
forced to leave and Stephen Chilcott hired an outside attorney Travis Lindsey for the position.

As I mention in the complaint against Danesha Nichols, the newly assigned witch hunters and the
new but very active HR Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey exploited the video entitled
"Welcome to Romania," which I sent to Danesha Nichols on April 27, 2012, as a cause to end my
employment after my nine-month absence from work, which had been caused by the witch hunters'
phony investigatory leaves and my stress-related sick-leave.

The exploitation of the "Welcome to Romania" video was so despicable and the stories made about
the video by the perpetrators attacking me were so extreme that the twice-convicted child
pornography felon, who was illegally accessing UCDMC HVAC computers, was considered, in
light of this video, an innocent dove. The child pornography felon issue was completely ignored in
Danesha Nichols' witch hunt report issued in February 2012. The witch hunters even implied that,
by this video, I was sexually harassing Danesha Nichols due to the background music.

On May 24, 2012, I sent the e-mail to Brent Seifert with an additional explanation of the purpose
of the video and offered an apology to Danesha Nichols. In the e-mail to Seifert, I included the
lyrics of the song, which was played in the background of the video. EXHIBIT # 47 (video on
the attached flash drive).

On May 31, 2012, I was lured onto the premises by the order of a letter explaining my 10-days
suspension without pay dated May 11, 2012. The suspension was issued based on Danesha
Nichols' four fabricated "witch hunt" reports and false accusations against me from March and
April 2011. March and April 2011 was the employee evaluation period for the year 2010/2011
and not for 2011/2012. If any disciplinary action should be taken against me, it should happen
before June 2011 and should impact my evaluation for 2010/2011. The "Welcome to Romania"
video was the 2011/2012 employee evaluation period, which ended on June 30, 2012, and on
July 1, 2012, the new evaluation period began. If anything could have happened, punishment for
the "Welcome to Romania" video should hypothetically have been delivered before June 30,
2012 with a warning letter or, in the worst-case scenario, an employee performance review of
"Does not meet expectation."

Brent Seifert, as HR Labor Relations supervisor, knew the UC Davis employee performance
review (evaluation) policy and, as a licensed attorney at law with a J.D degree, knew that UC
policies are equal to State of California statutes. In other words, Brent Seifert, with others,
violated the law by not providing me with evaluations for the 2010/2011 and for 2011/2012
period regardless of whether the evaluation was good or did not meet expectations. I should get
one nonetheless.

However, the most important problem for the university's white-collar criminals in May 2012 was
not my evaluation or the "Welcome to Romania" video but the new fraudulent power-sale contract
with Sacramento Municipal Utility, which was scheduled to be signed on May 31, 2012.
EXHIBIT # 48- I received the copy of the contract in 2015. The UC Davis Medical Center 27
MW cogeneration facility lost unlawful power sale privileges in 2003 and thereby lost
48
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
approximately more than 100 million dollars, which could be generated by unlawful power sales
free of tax.

Because of the new opportunity to illegally sell power, my presence on the university payroll was
made very unwelcome, and it was urgent for the university's white-collar criminals to erase me from
the university payroll and the UC Davis Medical Center landscape.

The May 31, 2012 Letter of Suspension instructed me as follows:

You are expected to report to work at 8 a.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2012 to
Facilities Support Services Building, 4800 2"' Avenue, Suite 1500, Sacramento, CA,
to Charles Witcher. No new information has been received to cause a change in the
action.

On an immediate and sustained basis, I expect you to:

Follow and abide by all UC Policies and Procedures

Show respect and remain professional at all times in the workplace

Follow the direct orders given to you by a superior

Attend classes as requested by management, specifically in regard to


communication and respectful treatment

Failure to meet my expectations may result in further corrective action up to and


including dismissal.

You have the right to request review of this action under Personnel Policies
for Staff Members 70 - Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review
of this action, you must do so in writing, using the appropriate complaint
form. A written request must be received in the Employee & Employee &
Labor Relations office no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the date
of this letter.
The letter was signed routinely by Charles Witcher, the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
Operation and Maintenance Department Manager. Since December 2006, he has signed
everything that was written for him by the HR Labor Relations staff without questioning the
merit of the documents he was signing.

On May 13, 2012, I submitted my appeal of the suspension under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70
EXHIBIT # 49.

On May 23, 2012, to meet the letter of suspension requirement, I and my two coworkers—who, in a
vicious attack from the management in May 2012, were served with outrageous letters of
expectations— enrolled in a stress-management class scheduled for May 30, 2012 through the UC
Learning Center network.

49
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Class on stress management set for May 302 2012
May 23, 2012

A class on managing stress and anger and maintaining good working relationships
with co-workers will be held on Wednesday, May 30, from 1-2:30 p.m. In Ticon III,
room 2400.
Sponsored by Training and Development "Stress Management" will include a
video and case vignettes for enrollees to discuss. Participants will learn how to
identify their anger triggers, including thoughts. The class will describe effective
responses to anger, including coping thoughts and relaxation techniques.

Although stress and anger affect everyone, anger can be problematic if people use it
to gain control and express it unprofessionally.

Employees may enroll in the class through the UC Learning Center.

After logging in to the UC Learning Center, enter the course number, 07405, or
the course name, into the search box and click "Go." Click on the "Register"
button to enroll.

Upon arrival in class and after signing the roster, I was confronted by the two class hosts, HR
Social Worker Marjorie Tragadon and HR Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, and,
after a short conversation, I was asked to leave the class. Surprised by such a resolution of the
letter of suspension guidance, I left the class without argument. Marjorie Tragadon and Hugh
Parker were not my supervisors, and their action was very odd.

On May 30, 2012, I did not know that Hugh Parker was the coordinator of the provocation and
that it was set for May 31, 2012 to end my employment with the UC Davis Medical Center
Trauma unit waiting for me. Also, I did not know that Marjorje Tragodon was a member of the
especially assembled team, which I later nicknamed the UC Davis Death Squad, and was set to
support all the necessary tasks related to the provocation.

The permission for me to stay in the class could derail the ill-crafted provocation plan set for the
next day.

The e-mail dated May 30, 2012 sent by Brent Seifert to HR Director Stephen Chilcott included the
following words:
FYI - Charles understands that Jerry will report to his office tomorrow at 8:00 am. AS
SOON AS JERRY ARRIVES, CHARLES WILL BE ISSUING THE INVESTIGATORY
LEAVE LETTER AND DIRECTIN HIM TO MEET WITH ME

50
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
On June 1, 2012, the "UC Davis Death Squad" leader Hugh Parker, who was disappointed that the
meticulously ill-planned provocation had failed, sent an e-mail to the UC Davis Death Squad
members to bribe, with a $35,000 wage increase, UCPD Lt. James Barbour, Brent Seifert, UC Davis
Trauma Unit # 11 Supervisor Karen Kouertas, HR Psychologist Carol Kirshnit Ph.D, HR Social
Worker Marjorie Tragadon, UC Davis Medical Center Counsel David Levine, and a few others, with
the less-than-noble words:

MR. WASZCZUK RETURNED TO WORK YESTERDAY FROM HIS SUSPENSION


AND WAS PLACED BACK ON INVESTIGATORY LEAVE THE SAME DAY. AT
ISSUE ARE WRITINGS SENT BY MR WASZCZUK WHILE ON LEAVE. MR
WASZCZUK DID NOT DISPLAY ANY ANGER WHEN TOLD HE WAS BEING
PLACED ON INVESTIGATORY LEAVE.

HUGH R. PARKER, MANAGER

WORKERS' COMPENSATION, ERGONOMICS, DISABILITY MANAGEMENT

On that day, as instructed by the letter of suspension, I arrived on time at Charles Witcher's office,
expecting that he would tell me or ask me if I would be willing to work at a different place than the
HVAC shop because I had heard that carpenters were construing a new office in Building 68. My
duty did not require me to work at the HVAC shop. I could do my job from any place in the UC
Davis Medical Center because it was 98% a computer job.

I shook hands with Charles Witcher and had a nice short conversation as if nothing had ever
happened, and I was ready to go back to work after almost one year of witch hunting and forced
absence from work. Then, after a few minutes, Charles Witcher handed me a letter and directed me
to go to the HR building and talk to Brent Seifert. I did not read the letter. I folded it and stuck it into
my back pocket and left the meeting with Charles Witcher, which actually took place in the
Conference Room of Building No. 68 in the presence of his secretary.

Within a few minutes, I arrived at the conference room in the HR building, which was nearby and
met, for the first time, HR Labor Relations Supervisor Brent Seifert.

I shook hands with Brent Seifert, and he give me a strange look, as if he wanted to ask me how I
had got into the HR Building. I asked him what we were going to talk about because he didn't
have any documents with him or even a pen. He then started improvising the meeting with some
accusations about my comments about Romania. I then responded that it seemed to me that he had
as much knowledge about communist Romania as my son who grew up in the United States and
was a similar age as Brent Seifert. The meeting was going nowhere and I asked Brent Seifert what
would happen next. He then asked me, surprisingly: "Didn't you read the letter Charles Witcher
gave you?" I said no and pulled out the letter from my back pocket and found out that I had been
placed on investigatory leave again. I said ok, left the meeting, and drove home.

51
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
I found out about the ill-crafted provocation to deliver me to the Trauma Unit in November 2012
when I received mostly blacked-out documents under a Public Record Act request.

On June 1, 2012, I expressed my feelings about the university thugs' intentions on May 31,
2012 in my letter entitled "INVESTIGATORY MEETING ON MAY 31, 2011- I FEEL
AGAIN LIKE A HUNTED JEW DURING THE HOLOCAUST," which I addressed to
Brent Seifert and cc-ed to others. EXHIBIT # 50

I knew that May 31, 2012 was a provocation, but I did not know the scale of the provocation. Of
course, in 2012, I did not know nor did I suspect that a multi-million dollar fraud had been
committed by the university administration in relation to the unlawful generation of power and its
sale by the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility.

Also, I did not know in 2012 that the university had obtained a new fraudulent power sale
agreement with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District on May 31, 2012 and that my presence at
work could jeopardize the scheme and the very profitable power sale fraud.

The provocation did not work and my termination was delayed for almost six months. The new
provocation was apparently planned in September 2012, and even the new, corrupted-to-the-bones
UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael retained a psychologist for my termination of
employment, but the provocation was canceled.

The document I received in 2012 under the Public Record Act was mostly heavy redacted and
blacked out, indicating that the UC Davis Medical Center administration was hesitant to
terminate me and that the UC Office of the President asked to make a decision to terminate my
employment.

For this purpose, the assigned witch hunters Brent Seifert and HR Equal Employment
Opportunity and Diversity Manager Cindi Oropeza, by Stephen Chilcott's orders, crafted a false
termination report as a cause for termination. The report was finished on September 20, 2012
EXHIBIT # 51.

On September 25, 2012, I received the report with a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for serious
misconduct, and on December 7, 2012, my employment was terminated after over six years of a
despicable witch hunt that violated my employee, civil, and human rights.

Brent Seifert is included as an individual Defendant in my wrongful termination lawsuit against the
Regents of the University of California, which I filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court on
December 4, 2013.

Brent Seifert and Cindi Oropeza, in the same way, forgot to mention that in their fabricated reports,
which were full of lies, that since February 2009, I was employed by the settlement-agreement
signed with the Regents of the University of California. Brent, by his behavior and misconduct,
disregarded and grossly and despicably violated the settlement and my civil rights outlined in the
settlement.
52
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
On December 1, 2014, he stated, in the filed Court Declaration in Support of the Special Motion to
Strike Defendant Brent Seifert under penalty of perjury: EXHIBIT # 52

"I HAVE NEVER HARBORED ANY UNLAWFUL MOTIVES OR BIASES TOWARDS


WASZCZUK, NOR HAVE I EVER RETALIATED AGAINST HIM FOR FILING
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS"

Brent Seifert's Declaration is total perjury under the law of the state of California under PENAL
CODE SECTION 118"(A), which states, "Every person who, having taken an oath that
he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal,
officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of
California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material
matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares,
deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony,
declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California,
under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she
knows to be false, is guilty of perjury." Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corporation, 93
P.3d 386, 33 Cal.4th 601, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 793 (Cal. 07/19/2004); Supra 5115654; People v. Laws,
120 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 178 Cal. Rptr. 102 (Cal.App.Dist.1 06/26/1981)

PENAL CODE SECTION 134 PROVIDES, "Every person guilty of preparing any false or
antedated book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to
produce it, or allow it to be produced for any fraudulent or deceitful purpose, as genuine or
true, upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, is guilty of felony."
People v. Jensen, 94 Cal. App. 3d 451, 156 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal.App.Dist.1 06/27/1979)

I have provided more than necessary evidence that Brent Seifert, with evil and malicious motive, was
retaliating against me and harboring unlawful motives to cover up university administrators' crimes
and fraud. Brent Seifert's investigation reports are a total fraud and full of lies fabricated to inflict
harm on me and to violate my employee's civil and human rights.

CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

Brent Seifert is an another classic example of a university-assigned witch hunter who


intentionally engaged in conspiracy against me with many others like himself, including
malicious acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, and coercions, and who directed, recommended,
processed, and approved personnel action, including but not limited to promotion, transfer,
assignment, performance evaluation, suspension, and other disciplinary action, including my
53
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
termination of employment, used official authorities to influence other employees for the purpose
of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or commanding others for the purpose of
interfering with the right to disclose the University of California officials' and UC Davis Medical
Center Management's serious violations of the law and of University Policies as they are outlined
in Government Code Section 8547. 10.

In line with the above-presented facts, I respectfully request that the State Bar of California pursue
the investigation against the University of California attorney Brent Seifert for professional
misconduct and take appropriate action against Seifert to prevent him from further deliberately
violating others' civil and human rights.

I don't know what Brent Seifert's motivations were or are to violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct and the Canons of Ethics set by the State bar of California for licensed attorneys at law.
Whether Brent Seifert professional misconduct was and was dictated by fear of losing
employment if he did not participate or collaborate in the witch hunt activities at the University
of California or if he hoped to be awarded for bluntly carrying out any order given to him by his
superiors.

An attorney who knows that another attorney has committed a violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, which raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney in other respects, shall inform the appropriate
professional authority. He failed to act and collaborated with other UC attorneys, including
Stephen Chilcott, Steven Drown, Danesha Nichols, Anna Orlowski, Travis Lindsey, David
Levine, and UC Davis Medical Center supervisors, directors, and managers, in order to inflict
harm on me and to devastate my life beyond human decency.

VII. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST JILL NOEL VANDEVIVER, J.D. — SBN #227901

The Walt Disney Company


P.O. Box 3232
Anaheim, CA 92803

Phone: (714) 781-6399


Fax: (714) 781-1492
Email: Not Available

Former HR Labor Relation Consultant in the UC Davis Health System/UC Medical Center from
20072012.

GENERAL INFORMATION

54
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Jill Noel VanDeviver, J.D., graduated from the California Western School of Law in San Diego,
California, and she was admitted to the State Bar of California on December 1, 2003. She was
hired by the UC Davis Health System in 2006 as Human Resources Principal Labor Relation
Consultant with an $81,000 salary and she held this position in the UC Davis campus HR
Department until June 20, 2012. In January 2012, she was assigned to handle the labor relation
matters in the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department
where I have been employed since June 1999.

Jill VanDeviver replaced Gina Harwood in handling complaints against HR made by me and my
two coworkers to whom I was providing representation under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70
(University administrative remedies).
As I don't view Jill VanDeviver in the same way as her superiors, Stephen Chilcott. J.D., Brent
Seifert, J.D., Travis Lindsey, J.D., and her colleague Danesha Nichols, J.D. Jill VanDeviver is
partially and formally responsible for approving the violation of my employee's rights as well as my
civil and human rights in collaboration with her superiors, either intentionally or in fear of losing her
employment.
It should be determined by the State Bar of California at what level Jill VanDeviver is responsible
for the violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Canon of Ethics set by the State Bar of
California.

JILL NOEL VANDEVIVER's PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

• To the best of my knowledge, in the period of time from January 2012 to June 2012, Jill
Noel VanDeviver, J.D. violated the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct,
knowingly assisted or induced another to do so, or has done so through the acts of
another.
• Since January 2012, in collaboration with others, Jill Noel VanDeviver, J.D., has
committed unlawful acts that reflect adversely on her honesty, trustworthiness, and
fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
• Since January 2012, in collaboration with Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Travis Lindsey
, Danesha Nichols, and the UCDMC administrators and management, Jill Noel
VanDeviver, J.D., has engaged in misconduct involving dishonesty, the cover-up of fraud,
deceit, and misrepresentation of her position as a UC Davis HR attorney with the title of
HR Principal Consultant.
• In the period from January 2012 to June 2012, as the UC Davis Medical Center HR
Principal Consultant, Jill Noel VanDeviver with full knowledge of her wrongdoing, as a
skilled attorney licensed by the State Bar of California, and in collaboration with other
University of California attorneys, including but not limited to UC Davis Health System
Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen
Chilcott, and other high-ranking UC Davis administrators and managers, Jill Noel
VanDeviver, J.D., condoned and approved despicable, indecent attacks against myself and
other university employees to help them cover up the enormous, multimillion-dollar
55
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
fraud against the Internal Revenue Service and the State of California Franchise Tax
Board, which was committed by the university administration relative to the unlawful
operation of a 27-MW cogeneration power plant and illegal power sales.
• As a UC Davis HR employee and an attorney-at-law licensed by the State Bar of
California, by her blunt disregard and violation of state and federal laws and of
University of California policies and procedures, which are equal to state statutes, by
collaborating with other attorneys and administrators employed by the university, Jill
Noel VanDeviver, J.D., helped them to violate my civil and human rights and those of
other employees by her disregard of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules and
principles established in civilized society by laws and policies.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In April 2012 I was served with a despicable and unwarranted Letter Intent to Suspend for 10
days without pay after being absent from work for almost 8 months due to a forced and
unwarranted and phony investigatory leave and sick leave caused by work-related stress. This
was orchestrated by the university administration to hunt me down and terminate my
employment in order to cover up a secret regarding millions of dollars' worth of generation and
power sale fraud that had been going on since December 2006, with short breaks in 2009 and
2010, and resumed again and intensified in April 2012.

Jill Noel VanDeviver, J.D., the HR Principal Consultant, was a skilled attorney-at-law employed
in the HR Labor Relation Department and had insight into all documents, including my personal
file. Without any doubt I could say that she was familiar with the outstanding work record outlined
in my all employee performance reviews (evaluations) for the time periods from 1999/2000-
2009/2010. (The annual employee evaluation period began on July 1 every year and ended on June
30 the next year.)

Jill Noel VanDeviver, J.D., being assigned to my case as the HR Principal Consultant, was
familiar with her colleague, Danesha Nichols's, four slanderous and fabricated reports (subject
covered in complaint against Danesha Nichols), which were issued by her between December 2011
and February 2012.

Jill Noel VanDeviver J.D., being assigned to my case and having reviewed my evaluations and
Danesha Nichols's false cause for my future termination of employment, was perfectly aware that
Danesha Nichols's fabricated reports were not correspondent with any of my 10 employee
performance reviews for 10 years of employment with university (attached as exhibit #35 -
complaint against Danesha Nichols), nor did these performance reviews wan- ant with the
despicable Letter of Intent to Suspend written by HR Labor Relation staff on April 13, 2012, and
signed routinely by Charles Witcher by the power given to him by the HR Labor Relation
Manager, Humberto Garcia, or the HR Executive Director, Stephen Chilcott.

56
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Jill Noel VanDeviver, J.D., as the HR Principal Consultant and skilled attorney-at-law, with a full
understanding that the Letter of Intent to Suspend written by the HR Labor Relation staff and signed
by Charles Witcher on April 13, 2012, was issued for the wrong evaluation period regardless of
university administration's evil and malicious motive to harm me.

Jill Noel VanDeviver, J.D., as the HR Principal Consultant assigned to my case, was perfectly
aware and informed that since February 2009 I had been employed by a signed settlement
agreement, which provided me with indefinite employment in the UC Davis Medical Center's
HVAC Shop as an Associate Development Engineer.

Jill Noel VanDeviver, J.D., as the HR Labor Relation Principal Consultant assigned to my case,
was perfectly aware and had liberty to observe that the university administration, her superiors, as
well as the directors, managers, and supervisors of the UC Davis Medical Center had an evil and
malicious motive to harm me and destroy my life and livelihood, and that they disregarded the
signed February 2009 settlement agreement.

Jill Noel VanDeviver, J.D., as the HR Labor Relation Principal Consultant and skilled attorney-at-
law, did not disprove the malicious and evil-spirited Letter of Intent Suspend dated April 13, 2012,
or the Letter of Suspension dated May 11, 2012. Instead, she sent the following email, which was
dated May 17, 2012, and addressed to her two superiors, Travis Lindsey J.D and Brent Seifert J.D
EXHIBIT# 53

Re: Fw: Subpart B Investigation FINAL (00051604).PDF Subpart A Investigation FINAL.


(00051599).PDF
Jill Vandeviver to: Jill Vandeviver 05/17/2012 04:11 PM
Cc: Travis Lindsey, Brent Seifert

OK, so I have gone back and forth being confused on the dates. So, Jerry
had received the INTENT to suspend prior to sending this to Danesha. We
did put expectations in that intent to suspend. He then sent e-mail to
Danesha and was subsequently issued the actual suspension letter. Plus we
have gathered some additional email directives to Jerry regarding
professional and non-offensive communication. Cindy has been asked to
review everything - as this is a discrimination issue, She is going to
present her findings to Steve Monday. BUT, BASED ON WHAT I HAVE
SEEN, I DO THINK THAT TERMINATION WOULD BE WARRANTED -
AND WOULD HELP ME OUT TREMENDOUSLY! ;) (I KNOW, I KNOW,
IT WOULD NOT BE CLOSE TO BEING OVER BUT AT LEAST HE

57
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
WOULDN' T BE C OMIN G BAC K TO THE WORKPLACE WHIC H
WOULD HELP SOLVE OTHER PROBLEMS))

Thanks,
J. Noel VanDeviver, J.D., M.P.A.
Principal Employee & Labor Relations Consultant
Human Resources
UC Davis Health Systems
916-734-8884
916-213-9559 (cell)
916-734-8646 (fax)
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.eduihr/hrdeptsilabor_relationsiindex.html

I found the last underlined statement in Jill Noel VanDeviver's email strange and disturbing. I am
still thinking how the planned termination of my employment after I was battered and terrorized
nonstop by university thugs for many months would help her "tremendously" with her career in
the UC Davis Medical Center, or how my not coming back to the workplace "would help solve
other problems." Very strange, and what exactly she meant by this statement would be good
subject for the State Bar of California Investigator to ask Jill VanDeviver about.

Furthermore, from this short email it appears that she was well informed about the preparation for the
May 31, 2012 provocation stating that I would not be coming back to work after the suspension that
had ended on May 30, 2012.

On May 18, 2012, I sent the following letter to Charles Witcher, who signed the Letter of Suspension
dated May 11, 2012, and asked him for clarification on one statement in the Letter of Suspension:
EXHIBIT # 54

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

In your suspension letter dated May 11, 2012 you stated:

"You are expected to report to work at 8 a.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2012
2nd
to Facilities Support Services Building, 4800 Avenue, Suite 1500,
Sacramento, CA, to Charles Witcher"

Would you please clarify for me why after suspension I have to report to work
at 8: 00 A.M in Charles Witcher's office instead of reporting to the HVAC Shop
at 6:45 A.M as always I did for the last four years?

Furthermore, in the letter I questioned Witcher about the February 2009 settlement -agreement I signed
with the Regents of the University of California which he grossly violated by bluntly signing all
58
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
investigatory leave letters and suspension letter written for him by HR Labor Relation
consultants or supervisor Brent Seifert.

It was suspicious to me that I had to report to work at 8:00 A.M. if I always worked at from 6:45
A.M. I cc'd my letter to the HR Director, Stephen Chilcott, but nobody responded.

The month of May of 2012 was the month of terror and war-like hysteria that prepared to
provoke me and harm me upon my return to work on May 31, 2012.
My two coworkers, to whom I provided representation for their complaints, were attacked with
letters of expectation with one week of each other, and I was served with suspension.

On May 24, 2012, I protested the unwarranted and vicious attack against my two coworkers, William
Buckans and Kenny Diede, by the 10-page letter addressed to Jill Noel VanDeviver and entitled
"REVENGE ISN'T WISE-THE RETALIATORY 'LETTERS OF EXPECTATION'
ISSUED BY PATRICK PUTNEY AND MIKE LEWIS ON MAY 18 AND MAY 23,
2012 AND DELIVERED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED DAYS TO KENENTH
DIEDE AND WILLIAM BUCKANS. OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE PO&M
MANAGAMENT'S VIDICTIVE AND EVIL BEHAVIOR TOWARD
SUBORDINATES."EXHIBIT # 55

On June 22, 2012, I received the letter from the HR Labor Relation Principal Consultant, Gina
Harwood, informing me that the HR Labor Relation Manager, Humberto Garcia, and the HR
Principal Consultant, Jill Noel VanDeviver, are no longer employees of the UC Davis Health
System or HR Labor Relations. EXHIBIT # 56

It was quite surprising. In January 2012, the HR Labor Relation Manager, Humberto Garcia
removed Gina Harwood from handling labor relation matters in the UC Davis Medical Center's
Plant Operation and Maintenance Department.

It appears from this letter that the unbelievably deceptive and lying Gina Harwood in returned to her
post full glory to serve the newly hired HR Labor Relation Manager, Travis Lindsey, who with
viciousness and hatred toward labor outpaced his boss, who was corrupt and rotten to the bone, by
being given power over the UC Davis Health System by the HR Executive Director, Stephen
Chilcott.

CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

It is looks like Jill Noel VanDeviver did not survive the environment of corruption and power
abuse and became a victim of the new HR Labor Relation Manager, Travis Lindsey. However, it
does not excuse Jill Noel VanDeviver, as an attorney-at-law and an officer of the course, from
her wrongful collaboration with civil civil and human rights violators from the UC Davis
Medical Center to inflict harm and suffering on other employees who did not do anything wrong.

59
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
VIII. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST TRAVIS JAMES LINDSEY, J.D.
SBN # 220935
UC Davis Health System
HR Labor Relations Manager
University of California, Davis
2730 Stockton Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95817
Phone: 916-734-2362
Fax: 916-916-8646
Email: travis.lindsey@ucdavis.edu

GENERAL INFORMATION

Travis James Lindsey, J.D., graduated in 2002 from the same McGeorge School of Law,
University of the Pacific, Sacramento, California, as `Danesha Nichols, J.D. He was admitted to
the State Bar of California on November 27, 2002, and `Danesha Nichols was admitted to the
State Bar six days later on December 3, 2002
It is most likely that they knew each other before they met again in April 2012 in the UC Davis
Medical Center HR Department, where Danesha Nichols had worked since October 2010 as HR
Investigation Coordinator and where Travis Lindsey was hired as the new HR Labor Relations
Manager. Both Danesha Nichol's and Travis Lindsey's direct superior was UC Davis Health System
HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott.

TRAVIS LINDSEY's PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

• To the best of my knowledge, since April 2012, Travis Lindsey, J.D., has violated the
California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assisted or induced
another to do so, or has done so through the acts of another.
• Since April 2012, in collaboration with others, Travis Lindsey, J.D., has committed
unlawful acts that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a
lawyer in other respects.
• Since April 2012, Travis Lindsey, J.D., in collaboration with Stephen Chilcott, Brent
Seifert, J.D., Danesha Nichols, J.D., Jill Noel VanDeviver, J.D., and the UCDMC
administrators and management, Jill Noel VanDeviver, J.D HR Labor Relations Consultant
, Gina Garwood, UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department
Manager Charles Witcher, and UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC high ranking officers
including, but not limited to, UCDMC CEO Ann Maden Rice, UC Davis Chief of Police
Matt Carmichael, and his deputy Lt. James Barbour), has engaged in

60
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
misconduct involving dishonesty, the cover-up of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation of his
position as a UC Davis HR attorney with the title of HR Labor Relations Manager
• Travis Lindsey ,J.D. In the period from April 2012 to December 2012, as the UC Davis
Medical Center HR Labor Relations Manager, with full knowledge of his wrongdoing as
a skilled attorney licensed by the State Bar of California, and in collaboration with other
University of California attorneys, including but not limited to UC Davis Health System
Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen
Chilcott, and other high-ranking UC Davis administrators and managers, Travis Lindsey,
J.D., condoned and approved despicable, indecent attacks against myself and other
university employees in order to help them cover up the enormous, multimillion-dollar
fraud against the Internal Revenue Service and the State of California Franchise Tax
Board, which was committed by the university administration relative to the unlawful
operation of a 27-MW cogeneration power plant and illegal power sales.
• As a UC Davis HR employee and an attorney-at-law licensed by the State Bar of
California, by his blunt disregard and violation of state and federal laws and of University
of California policies and procedures, which are equal to state statutes, by collaborating
with other attorneys and administrators employed by the university, Travis Lindsey, J.D.
violated my civil and human rights and those of other employees by his disregard of the
Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules and principles established in civilized society
by laws and policies.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I found in November 2012 that it was Travis Lindsey, J.D., who replaced in April 2012 Humberto
Garcia as new UCDMC HR Labor Relations Manager. I had not been present on the premises
since August 3, 2011, and my inquiry to HR Labor Relations Principal Consultant Gina Harwood
to find out who the new HR Labor Relations Manager was went unanswered. I found it through
reading documents that I received in November 2012 from the UC Davis Campus Public Record
Act office.

Travis James Lindsey, J.D., replaced Humberto Garcia as new UCDMC HR Labor Relations
Manager in April 2012, when I was served with a despicable and unwarranted Letter of Intent to
Suspend for 10 days without pay after being absent from work for almost 8 months due to a
forced and unwarranted and phony investigatory leave and sick leave caused by work-related
stress.
I last met Humberto Garcia in February 2012, when I was asked to meet with him and discuss
the possibility of an informal resolution of the conflict. The meeting with Humberto Garcia took
place in his office in the UCDMC HR Building Tycon II. I gave to Humberto Garcia my offer to
resolve the dispute and instead of the answer I was expecting, I learned on June 22, 2012, that
Humberto Garcia, and assisting him HR Principal Consultant Jill Noel VanDeviver, J.D., who
had been assigned to my case in January 2012, were no longer university employees.

61
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
I am not sure who convinced or ordered Humberto Garcia to talk to me in an attempt resolve the
dispute, but I believe that is it was his longtime colleague and friend, Cindi Oropeza, who was
UCDMC HR Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Manager.

In May 2012, Cindi Oropeza with HR Labor Relations Supervisor Brent Seifert, J.D., were
ordered to fabricated final cause of action to terminate my employment. It happened after
previously assigned witch-hunter with the title HR Investigation Coordinator, Danesha Nichols,
J.D., refused to lead the new witch hunt against me and to be a member of the specially
assembled provocation team, which I later nicknamed the UC Davis Death Squad. The
assembled team prepared and carried out the provocation set for May 31, 2012, to end my
employment in UCDMC Trauma Unit # 11 by waiting for me to be delivered to Trauma Unit
supervisor Karen Kouretas, who received me.

By reading the documents I received under the Public Record Act and via a Production of
Documents request, I found Travis James Lindsey, J.D., orchestrated together with others to
carry out attacks aimed at me and my coworkers since May 1, 2012, that were so despicable,
malicious and inhumane that sometimes I think that I am not living in the United States of
America, where violations of human right are prohibited and perpetrators of such crimes are
prosecuted.
His behavior has not ended with my employment termination in December 2012.

The attack against Frank Gonzales described in the complaint against Brent Seifert, J.D., (see
exhibits # 43 & # 44) that was orchestrated by HR Labor Relations and carried out by the UC
Davis Medical Center thugs employed as supervisors and managers exceeded in its viciousness
any other attacks against employees orchestrated by HR Labor Relations involving Travis
Lindsey, J.D., in command. Attacking an employee during his mother's funeral is beyond any
normal human being's imagination. This is just as rotten and brutal as a university administration
can be when full of human rights violators like Travis Lindsey, J.D.

In May 2012, Travis Lindsey, J.D., as new HR Labor Relations Manager, together with his
superior, HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, J.D., his subordinate, Brent Seifert, J.D., HR
Carol Kirshnit, Ph.D., UCDMC directors, and UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance
department managers and supervisors orchestrated hostility in my department and ordered
vicious out-of-blue accusations and allegations that attacked my two coworkers to whom I was
providing representation in their complaints. It was purposely done to drag me into another
conflict and prime for the ill-planned provocation on May 31, 2012. (See complaint against Jill
Noel VanDeviver, J.D., exhibit # 55.)

On June 15, 2012, just two weeks after the unsuccessful provocation to end my employment in the
UCDMC Trauma Unit, Travis Lindsey, J.D., in his e-mail dated June 15, 2012, that was sent to
UCDMC Facilities Director Mike Boyd and his subordinate HR Consultant Gina Harwood
elaborated on serving my termination. The notice would be served after consultation with UC Davis
Police Lt. James Barbour, who was bribed with a $35,000 wage increase to finish the unsuccessful
provocation on May 31, 2012
62
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
On September 12 or 13, 2012, UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director Stephen
Chilcott, J.D., received an order from University of California Office of the General Counsel's
attorney Mia Belk, J.D., with approval to terminate my employment. He shared the ___ news on the
same day with Travis Lindsey, J.D., and UCDMC HR Labor Relations Supervisor Brent Seifert,
J.D., in an e-mail entitled "Review of the Wazsczuk investigations — CONFIDENTIAL
COMMUNICATIONS"
Travis Lindsey, J.D., responded, but his response was blacked out by UC Davis Campus Public
Record Act office, then Stephen Chilcott ordered him to share Mia Belk's news with UC Davis
Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmeno, UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna
Orlowski and UC Davis Health System Chief Compliance Officer Teresa Porter by the following
words:

Thanks. Please share Mia's analysis with Wendi, Anna, and Teresa. Let them
know we are proceeding with termination, as planned.

Please makes suggested revisions and finalize document and Letter of Intent to
Terminate to issue as soon as possible.

Discuss with Mike Boyd Re plan and get his input on a potential Skelly
officer. Perhaps -Jerry Bushberg as the Skelly officer or if Mike is agreeable,
a manager from Davis campus in similar area as POEM, like Dave Philips.

Check with Cindy and Matilda about EEO sensitivity training; if it hasn't
been done recently, I'd like one done in October. I'd rather they do that then Jerry
P. since he has limited time.

Thanks,
Steve

On the September 13, 2012, the false cause investigation report was not even finished by two
assigned witch-hunters, Brent Seifert, J.D., and UC Davis Medical Center Equal Employment
Opportunity Manager Cindy Oropeza, who called themselves "investigators."
Stephen Chilcott, for some reason, did not instruct Travis Lindsey to share the Mia Belk news with
Cindi Oropeza, who was co-author with Brent Seifert of the "Investigation Report" issued and
signed by Oropeza and Seifert on September 20, 2012. The report was the basis for the Notice of
Intent to Dismiss issued on September 25, 2012. EXHIBIT #57

On September 13, 2012, UCDPD Lt. James Barbour disclosed in an e-mail chat that UC Davis
Chief of Police Matt Carmichael had retained psychologist Dr. White to help with the
63
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
termination of my employment. When I requested documents under PRA provision in relation to
this psychologist, a UC Davis Campus PRA Analyst on August 26, 2013, informed me that UC
Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael denied information that he retained psychologist Dr.
White for my termination. Somebody lied. EXHIBIT #58

On September 14, 2012, eleven days before issuance of the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, Travis
Lindsey, J.D., chatted about the new provocation with the members of the "UC Davis Death
Squad," including and not limited to Lt. James Barbour, Trauma Unit Supervisor Karen Kouertas,
UC Davis Health System Counsel David Levine, and other less noble members of the squad.
EXHIBIT # 59

On September 25, 2012, the Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued based on Oropeza' and
Seifert's fabricated lies and accusations. The report and sent by overnight US mail to my
residence (see exhibit # 17 -Complaint against Charles Robinson).

On September 26, 2012, unknown to me he UC Davis Health System Director of Government and
Community Relations Robert Waste Ph.D sent to HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and UC
Davis Police Lt. James Barbour the following e-mail: EXHIBIT # 60

From: Robert Waste/APS/HS/UCD

To: stephen.chilcott@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu

Cc: James Barbour/EXT/HS/UCD@UCDavis,


Anna.OrlowskiAucdmc.ucdavis.edu, ann.riceAucdmc.ucdavis.edu,
bonnie.hyatt@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu, claire.pomeroy@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu,
nicholas.eversoleAucdmc.ucdavis.edu, teresa.porter@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu,
travis.lindsey@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu, Vincent
JohnsonIUCDMCAdminIHS/UCD@UCDavis, Ann
Rice/UCDMCAdmin/HS/UCD@UCDavis, Robert
Waste/APS/HS/UCD@UCDavis

Date: 09/26/2012 08:50 AM

Subject: *Confidential: Re: Confidential: Jerry Waszczuk

Steve and Jim,

You may have already done this but, if not, I recommend• (1) that a photo or
physical description of the individual in question be provided this morning to
the front desk of the following offices: Med Center CEO, Med School Dean and
Vice Chancellor, Med Center COO, Plant Operations and Maintenance,

64
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Government and Community Relations, and HR; and (2) that a brief 1-2
sentence reminder of the process and best contact numbers for a rapid
response by campus police also be provided to those offices at the same time.

Thanks,
Bob

Robert Waste, PhD-Assistant Director, Government & Community Relations


UC Davis Health System
4800 2nd Avenue, Suite 2100
Sacramento, CA 95817"

The e-mail was cc' d to UCDMC CEO Ann Madden Rice, UC Davis Health System Chief
Counsel Anna Orlowski, Assistant Vice Chancellor Claire Pomeroy—who was responsible
for illegal medical experiments that caused several patients' deaths and who was forced to
resign in 2012, UC Davis Health System Chief Operating Officer Teresa Porter,
spokesperson for the UC Davis Health System Bonnie Hyatt, UC Davis Assistant Vice
Chancellor Nicholas Eversole, UC Davis Medical Center Chief Operating Officer Vincent
Johnson, and HR Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey, who notoriously with Stephen
Chilcott and HR Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker was feeding the UC Davis
Police Department with lies and setting up against me with Lt. James Barbour, who was
corrupted by a $35,000 wage increase, and not-less-corrupted and unqualified for his
position UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael. Annette Spicuzza was replaced by
Carmichael after the November 18, 2011, pepper spray provocation orchestrated by UC
Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown, UC General Counsel Charles Robinson , UC Davis
Chancellor Linda Katehi and others.

*Confidential: Re: Re: Confidential: Jerry Waszczuk 1


From :James Barbour to Robert Waste 09/26/2012 05:12 PM
CC: stephen.chilcott, Anna.Orlowski, annsice, bonnieffyatt,
claire.pomeroy, nicholas.eversole, teresafforter, travis.lindsey,
Vincent Johnson, Ann Rice, Robert Waste

Greetings,

I have been in contact with Travis Lindsey today regarding this


issue. The police department has made flyers as we usually do for
individuals such as Jerry, and have distributed to the locations
65
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
you listed. We also have a 626 PC stay away order signed by
Vincent Johnson at the police department ready if fern, should
show up.

My officers and sergeants have all been briefed on Jerry and


will be conducting extra, patrols around his former work unit.

Please contact me directly at 530-979-6543 (work cell) jf


necessamy.
Jim

James W. Barbour Sr.


Lieutenant of Police

I did not get the above-pasted Robert Waste and Lt. James Barbour e-mails by my Public Record Act
Request that I submitted to the UC Davis PRA Office on September 27, 2012, and September 30,
2012, (EXHIBIT # 61) in regards to the September 25, 2012, Notice of Intent to Dismiss and the UC
Davis Police persona non grata poster with my outdated photo on it and a description of a person who
is Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk with an outstanding 12 years' service to the university and a perfect
working record as outlined in annual evaluations from 1999-2010. (See exhibit # 35 Complaint
against `Danesha Nichols, J.D.)

The UC Davis Police poster with my photo on it was distributed around UC Davis campuses, but was
sent to me together with the September 25, 2012, Notice Intent to Dismiss, or ever later.

On September 27, 2012, UCDMC HR Labor Relations Principal Consultant Gina Harwood, who
replaced Jill Noel VanDeviver in June 2012 to handle my termination matter and the cases of my
coworkers whom I represented in the complaints, became very concerned and outraged about the UC
Davis Police poster with my photo on it that was distributed around UC Davis campuses.

In her September 27, 2012, e-mail addressed to her superior, Travis Lindsey, J.D., and entitled
Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw Waszczuk), she wrote: EXHIBIT # 62

"From Gina Harwood/MR/HS/6CD


To Travis Lindsey/FIR/HS/UCDOUCDavis
Date 09/27/2012 08:56 AM
Subject FW: PERSON UNAUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY (JAROSLAW
WASZCZUK)

66
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Hi There:

THIS IS REALLY OUT OF THE NORM TO POST THIS IN THE


DEPARTMENT AND I WAS NOT AWARE THAT WE WERE GOING TO
DO THIS. DID WE ASK THE POLICE TO DO THIS? His letter stated
that he would remain on paid leave which implies the same
expectations but I am a little concerned that this is being posted in the
department since we have not done this before on any other violence
cases.

Just want to make sure that we sanctioned this before it was posted in the
department because I suspect we will be getting an email about it soon.

Gina

Gina Harwood, SPHR


Principal Employee and Labor Relations Consultant
UC Davis Health System
Human Resources"
****************************************************************************
"From: Travis Lindsey/HR/HS/UCD
To: Gina Harwood/HR/HS/UCD@UCDavis
Date: 09/27/2012 09:06 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw Waszczuk)

SENIOR LEADERSHIP ASKED STEVE TO HAVE PD TAKE THIS


PRECAUTION.

Travis J. Lindsey, J.D.


Manager, Employee & Labor Relations
Human Resources"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

On 9/27/12 9:18 AM,


From:gina.harwood@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu
To:"Travis Lindsey"<travislindseyAucdmc.ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Fw: Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw Waszczuk)
wrote:

OK, THANKS FOR THE INFO, WAS JUST CONCERNED BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT
DONE THIS BEFORE.

Gina
67
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
1• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

09/27/2012 09:37 AM
From: Travis Lindsey/HR/HS/UCD
To: Gina Harwood/HR/HS/UCD@UCDavis
Subject: Re: Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw Waszczuk)

WE'VE NEVER TERMINATED JW EITHER.

*************************************************************************
The above e-mail conversation's last two Travis Lindsey statements clearly show that Travis Lindsey
gave to Gina Harwood a clear message to shut up and to make her understand that it was not his or
Gina Harwood's decision to distribute the UC Police poster with Jerry Waszczuk's photo and
description on it around the campuses, and it was not his or Gina Harwood's decision to terminate
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, and that bragging about it could cause problems for themselves.

The e-mail conversation between Travis Lindsey and Gina Harwood also clearly shows that
everything was orchestrated by the university regents and administration to hunt me down and
terminate my employment in order to cover up a secret regarding millions of dollars' worth of
power generation and power sale fraud that had been going on since December 2006, with short
breaks in 2009 and 2010, and resumed again and intensified in April 2012.

Gina Harwood held the HR Labor Relations Principal Consultant position for many years and
handled labor-relations matters for the UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance Department for
many years, with a short break from January 2012 to June 2012. She knew that I was a good
employee from the beginning to the end.

She knew my employee record was clean and she read all of my employee performance reviews
before they were signed by the department head and placed in my HR personnel file. She knew and
she read the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement I had signed with the Regents of the University
of California.

Gina Harwood knew that I was placed on investigatory leave for one year in violation of UC
policies and procedures, but she also knew that I never showed up on the campus unannounced or
uninvited while I was on investigatory or administrative leave.

Gina Harwood panicked when she saw the UCDP Poster with my name and my photo on Police
poster. She was the one who with co—conspirators from the HR Department and framed me by
sending my coerced coworker Mark Montoya to interview with Investigator Gina Gaullaume-
68
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Holleman from the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) Chief Compliance Office on July 18,
2012. (See complaint against Mia Belk )

What Gina Harwood and many others involved in vicious and inhumane attacks against me did
not know was that the reason behind it was to cover up enormous millions of dollars of fraud
committed by the Regents of the University of California in relation to the unlawful operation of
the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility, named Central Plant, and illegal
power sales. I worked in the Central Plant from June 1999 to March 2012, then I was abruptly
removed from the Central Plant and unlawfully reassigned to the UCDMC HVAC Shop.

Also, on September 27, 2012, my superior, UCDMC Plant Operation and


Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher, who routinely was signing all
investigatory leave letters, my suspension letters written for him by Gina Harwood
and other HR Labor Relations staff, my evaluations, got concerned about the UC
Davis Police poster with my photo and description on it and on the same day,
September 27, 2012, wrote in his e-mail to Gina Harwood and Travis Lindsey: (see
exhibit # 6)

"Good Morning
The Bulletin attached below was delivered to FSSB Suite 1500 yesterday
afternoon about 3:00 pm by a unformed officer. Were these Bulletins
delivered to other locations were PO&M has staff located?

The Letter of Intent to Dismiss, our last communication with Jerry, did
not have any statements requiring Mr. Waszczuk to stay away from the
Sacramento Campus as a requirement of his "paid administrative
leave". Is any additional communication with Jerry required to ensure
his understanding of this requirement?

Thanks,
Charles

Charles Witcher, Manager


Plant Operations & Maintenance

69
STATEBAROFCALIFORNIA
COMPLAINTAGAINSTATTORNEYS
UC Davis Health System "

Charles Witcher is a coward and was signing everything that was given to him by HR Labor
Relations. He did not think twice for the money he was making with his lack of qualifications for the
position he held—a high school diploma instead of the MBA required for his title.
However, even for him, the Police poster with my photo and description on it shook him good. I had
never seen a poster like this in the 12 years of my employment and Witcher most likely did not see
such action in the 20-plus years of his employment with UV Davis Medical Center as a worker,
supervisor and manager.

What Gina Harwood and Charles Witcher and many others, included Travis Lindsey, who was
involved in vicious and inhumane attacks against me since December 2006, did not know was that
the reason behind it was to cover up enormous millions of dollars of fraud committed by the
Regents of the University of California in relation to the unlawful operation of the UC Davis
Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility, named Central Plant, and illegal power sales from
this plant. I worked in Central Plant from June 1999 to March 2012, then I was abruptly removed
from Central Plant and unlawfully reassigned to the UCDMC HVAC Shop by regent's order and
Witcher's signature.

On September 27 or 28, 2012 my coworker took a photo of the UC Davis Police poster with his
iPhone camera and sent it to me.

I was furious and disbelieved that it had actually happened and that I had worked for such a brutal,
unscrupulous entity that violated my civil and human rights, not to mention violating the February
2009 Settlement-Agreement that I had signed with UC Regents in good faith and will.

On September 29, 2012, I cut my photo out from the UC Davis Police poster and
I pasted my scanned UC Davis Health System ID with photo on it and the title of
Associate Development Engineer given to me by the February 2009 Settlement-
Agreement with the regents, and I printed on the ID "UC Davis Most Unwanted."
In addition to my ID, I wrote on the poster in large capital, bolded letters in red
color:
UC DAVIS MOST UNWANTED

WITH SPECIAL DEDICATION

TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA "UPPER CIRCLE" & PRESIDENT MARK


YUDOF UC DAVIS "UPPER CIRCLE, VICE CHANCELLOR RALPH HEXTER
UC DAVIS CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER WENDY DELMENDO
UCDMC PO&M AND INHUMANE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MANAGERS AND
STAFF

70
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER "UPPER CIRCLE" CEO'S ANN RICE AND CLAIRE
POMEROY
Director Mike Boyd & Mgr. Charles Witcher;
Director Stephen Chilcott, Mgr. Cindi Oropeza, Danesha Nichols, J.D., Gina Harwood &
Brent Seifert, J.D., Director Teresa Porter and Gina Guillaume-Holleman from the
UCDMC Compliance Office

I also signed and dated on September 29, 2012, the redacted UC Davis Police poster with blue
marker and I sent it together with an open letter to UC Davis' corrupted Chief Of Police, Matt
Carmichael, on October 1, 2012, by e-mail, and I sent it to all responsible for this despicable
action that resulted in a violation of my employee, civil and human rights. EXHIBIT # 63 I
also sent it to many other employees as information about what this University of California
regime is capable of after just beating and gassing protesters on the campuses, illegal medical
experiments causing patients' deaths and unbelieve terror aimed at complaining employees.

On the same day, October 1, 2012, UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter
(second in command after Chancellor Linda Katehi at the UC Davis Campus) reacted to my e-
mail and questioned by e-mail the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer, Wendi Delmendo,
about the poster and my letter to the UC Davis Police Chief.

"From: Ralph J Hexter


Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 6:30 AM
To: Wendi Delmendo
Subject: FW: OPEN LETTER TO UC DAVIS POLICE CHIEF MATT
CARMICHAEL IN RE: UC DAVIS POLICE
WARRANT AGAINST WASZCZUK

WENDI, LET'S DISCUSS ALL OF THESE ATTACHMENTS AT OUR MEETING TODAY

Ralph Hexter
Provost & Executive Vice Chancellor
Distinguished Professor of Classics & Comparative Literature
University of California, Davis"

The corrupted and rotten-to-the-bones UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo,
who closely collaborated with Stephen Chilcott, Steven Drown, and others since July 2011 to fire
me from the job, got concerned about that second-in-command e-mail and sent an official e-mail
to Stephen Chillcott to get some statements for Ralph Hexter about who is responsible for actions
against me and why.

From Wendi Delmendo <widelmendoAucdavis.edu>


To Stephen Chilcott <stephen.chilcottOucclmc.ucdavis.edu>
Date 10/01/2012 08:23 AM
Subject. FW: OPEN LETTER TO UC DAVIS POLICE CHIEF MATT
CARMICHAEL IN RE: UC DAVIS POLICE WARRANT AGAINST WASZCZUK
71
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Hi Steve,

As you can see the Provost would like to discuss Mr. Waszczuk's most recent
message with me today. Can you let me know when the violence group at
UCDMC last assessed this matter and the conclusions of that assessment?
Also, can you give me some background on the decision to post the, flyers with
Mr. Waszczuk's photo? Who makes these decisions? What are the criteria that
are used? Where are the flyers located? Any other information that you can
provide that you think would he helpful would be appreciated. I'll he meeting
with the Provost at 3 pm today.

Thank you, Wendi

Stephen Chilcott responded as follows:

From Stephen Chilcott to Wendi Delmendo 10/01/2012


09:11 AM CC. Travis Lindsey

Hi Wendi,

The UCDHS Violence in the Workplace Committee discussed this


matter about 10 days ago. I'll ask Travis Lindsey to comment on the
outcome of that discussion and to get any other information that you
may need.

In terms of action items, increased police patrols in around HR and


PO&M were implemented as well as the distribution of a document with
Mr. Waszczuk's image was circulated to HR, PO&M, and leadership
offices as a precaution by UCDPD based upon Mr. Waszczuk's
communications, both the quantity and nature of the same. The same
was done in the past for Mr. Waszczuk at a prior stage in the process
where the safety of employees was of heightened concern. This was
requested by our leadership as a precaution for the safety of our
employees.

St ev e
72
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
STEPHEN CHILCOTT, J.D.
Executive Director, Human Resources
UC Davis Health System

Stephen Chilcott, in his response, is blaming leadership and stating that it was done before for
Mr. Waszczuk, of which I was not aware that UC Davis Police had issued previously a poster
with my photo on it.
I did not see it when asked to come to work on May 31, 2012.
Travis Lindsey blamed leadership for my termination and Stephen Chilcott blamed leadership for
police action against me, but they wrote and gave orders to disoriented UCDMC PO&M Department
Manager Charles Witcher to sign every letter placing me on investigatory leave for over one year,
notices of suspension and termination of my employment.
They both were blaming leadership, but they had assigned (together with the Chief Compliance
Officer) their subordinates to conduct false investigations and to fabricate false cause for termination
of my employment in disregard of my outstanding employee record, in violation of my civil and
human rights, and out of despicable ignorance and in violation of the February 2009 Settlement
Agreement I signed with Regents of the University of California

The UC Davis Police poster clearly indicates that the University Of California leadership, or
corrupted regime, clearly instructed UC Davis Police, Stephen Chilcott and others not to provide
me any information about the distributed Police persona non grata poster prohibiting my
presence on the premises with the apparent hope that I would show up unannounced and police
would shoot me or charge me with trespassing or fabricate alleged crimes, and it would end my
employment with the university in this way. This is a conspiracy to harm or kill an employee
because he knows too much.

On December 7, 2012, my employment was terminated even after my November 18, 2012,
meeting and my brief submitted prior the meeting with assigned Skelly Officer, UC Davis
Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Telleffoson, who was handpicked by Stephen Chilcott, J.D., and
guided what decisions need to be made by Travis Lindsey. EXHIBIT # 64

Regardless of Allen Tollefson's motivation and the order he got from the university regime, he
grossly violated the Skelly Law, and deprived me of the opportunity to find any employment.
"In Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 194, the California
Supreme Court ruled that: 'as part of constitutionally guaranteed due
process, public employees are entitled to certain procedural safeguards
before discipline, which is sufficiently severe to constitute a deprivation of a
liberty or property right is imposed on them. The constitutionally protected
liberty interests requiring Skelly protections arise whenever the allegations
against an employee are sufficiently onerous to seriously impact the
employee's ability to find future work in his/her chosen career.'"
73
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

Travis Lindsey, J.D., is a classic example of cowardice who intentionally engaged in a


conspiracy against me with many others like him and who committed malicious acts of reprisal,
retaliation, threats, and coercions, and who also directed, recommended, processed, and
approved personnel action, including but not limited to promotion, transfer, assignment,
performance evaluation, suspension, and other disciplinary action, including my termination of
employment, and the use of official authorities to influence other employees for the purpose of
intimidating, threatening, coercing, or commanding others for the purpose of interfering with the
right to disclose the University of California officials' serious violation of the law and university
policies by the UC Davis Medical Center Management as outlined in Government Code
Section 8547. 10.

In line with the above-presented facts, I respectfully request that the State Bar of California
pursue an investigation against University of California attorney Travis Lindsey for professional
misconduct and that it take appropriate action against Nichols for her further deliberate violation of
others' civil and human rights.

An attorney who knows that another attorney has committed a violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct in a way that raises substantial questions as to that lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney in other respects, must inform the appropriate professional
authority. Travis Lindsey, J.D., failed to act against and actually collaborated with Stephen
Chilcott, Steven Drown, Brent Seifert, Anna Orlowski, Wendi Delmendo and others in order to
inflict harm against my life and to make my life living Hell

Travis Lindsey disregard my outstanding employee record, and in blunt violation of the February
2009 Settlement -Agreement, and with despicable cowardice and a vendetta against me as an
employee he had never met or talked to, is someone who should be considered most urgently by
the State Bar California for an investigation against this individual, who apparently has mistaken
his attorney license for a hunting license and his J.D. degree with a G.E.D. degree in practicing
law.

IX. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ANNA ORLOWSKI J.D., SBN #155577

Chief Health System Counsel


Hospital Legal Affairs Department
UC Davis Medical Center
Sherman Building, Suite 3900
2315 Stockton Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95817
Phone: 916-734-2104
Fax: 916-734-0222
74
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
E-Mail: ANNA.ORLOWSKI@UCDAVIS.EDU

GENERAL INFORMATION

According to http://www.ucop.edu/general-counsel/attorneys-staff/bios/anna-orlowski.html, Anna


Orlowski, J.D., has served as Health System counsel for the University of California Davis Health
System since 1998. Prior to joining the UC Davis Health System, Anna Orlowski was a
litigation attorney in Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon; her primary areas of practice were
business litigation and medical malpractice defense.

Ms. Orlowski earned her undergraduate degree from UCLA (B.A., 1988) and her law degree
from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law (J.D., 1991). Ms. Orlowski is
licensed to practice law in the states of California, Oregon, and Washington.

Furthermore, as a hospital counsel for the UC Davis Health System, Anna Orlowski, J.D.,
provides legal consultation related to telemedicine, managed care contracting, business
contracts, and Medicare/Medi-Cal issues. Anna Orlowski, J.D., and has worked in the areas of
professional and general liability as well as complex business litigation for nine years. As
technological advances increase the quality and accessibility of health care, it becomes
increasingly necessary for medical facilities to maintain an understanding of the legal
implications of these new developments. Anna Orlowski, J.D., has been a valuable resource in
developing the UC Davis Center for Health and Technology.
https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/cht/pdf/Anna%20Orlowski%20bio.pdf

Anna Orlowski's biography indicates that she graduated from the same University of Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law as included in this complaint to the State Bar of California, UC Davis
HR Labor Relation Supervisor Danesha Nichols, J.D., UC Davis Health System HR Labor
Relations Manager Travis Lindsey, J.D., former University of California Senior Vice President
Daniel Morris Dooley, J.D., the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Elizabeth Tays, J.D., and the State of California Sacramento
County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang. Judge Chang is the subject of a separate
complaint with the State of California Commission on Judicial Performance, which is attached to
this complaint.

Anna Orlowski, J.D., graduated from University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law relatively
during the same time period as Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Elizabeth Tays, J.D., and Superior
Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, and they all were admitted to the State Bar of California at
almost the same time.

75
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Anna Orlowski, J.D., likely knows Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Elizabeth Tays J.D and
Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang. Although it is not so important that they know or
knew each other, it is important that that they used their power and authority for the wrong
purposes, including and not limited to participating in and covering up the fraud and criminal
activities of others and violating my and others' civil and human rights.

PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT OF ANNA ORLOWSKI's, J.D.,

• To the best of my knowledge, since December 2006, Anna Orlowski, J.D., has violated
the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assisted or induced
another to do so, or has done so through the acts of another.
• Since December 2006, in collaboration with UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown,
J.D., UC General Counsel Charles Robinson, J.D., UC Davis Health System HR
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, J.D., UC Davis Health System HR Labor Relations
Manager Travis Lindsey, J.D., and UC Davis campus and UC Davis Health System
administration leaders, directors and managers has committed unlawful acts that reflect
adversely on her honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
• Since December 2006, Anna Orlowski, J.D., has engaged in misconduct involving
dishonesty, the cover-up of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation of her position as UC
Davis Health System counsel,
• Ann Orlowski J.D in malicious collaboration with UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven
Drown, J.D.; UC General Counsel Charles Robinson, J.D.; the UC Davis Health System
(UCDHS); UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) HR Executive Director Stephen
Chilcott, J.D.; UC Davis Campus and UC Davis Health System administration leaders
including and not limited to UCDMC CEO Ann Madden Rice, UC Davis Health System
Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, and Assistant Vice-Chancellor Claire Pomeroy, who was
responsible for an illegal medical experiment that caused several patients' deaths and was
forced to resign in 2012; UC Davis Health System Chief Operating Officer Teresa
Porter, spokesperson for the UC Davis Health System Bonnie Hyatt, UC Davis Assistant
Vice Chancellor Nicholas Eversole, UC Davis Medical Center Chief Operating Officer
Vincent Johnson, and UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael caused me unthinkable
pain and suffering .
• From December 2006 to December 2012, Anna Orlowski, J.D., as the chief counsel of the
UC Davis Health System and with full knowledge of wrongdoing, condoned and approved
despicable, indecent attacks against me and other university employees to cover up its
enormous, multimillion-dollar fraud against the Internal Revenue Service and the State of
California Franchise Tax Board, which it committed by unlawfully operating a 27-MW
cogeneration power plant and illegal power sales. She did so as a skilled attorney licensed
by the State Bar of California in collaboration with other University of
76
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
California attorneys, including but not limited to UC General Counsel Charles Robinson,
J.D., UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown, UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel
David Levine, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, and other
high-ranking UC Davis administrators and managers listed previously.
• As an attorney employed by the University of California and an attorney-at-law licensed by
the State Bar of California, Anna Orlowski, J.D., violated my and other employees' civil and
human rights in outrageous disregard of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules and
principles established in civilized society by laws and policies, by her blunt disregard for
and violation of state and federal laws and of University of California policies and
procedures, which are equal to state statutes, by collaborating with other attorneys and
administrators employed by the university.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

As Anna Orlowski's short biography described, she became a legal counsel for the UC Davis
Health System (UCDHS) in 1998. Anna Orlowski was already an experienced attorney at law
from working for private law corporations prior to the UCDHS.

The UC Davis Medical Center's (UCDMC) 27 MW cogeneration power plant was commissioned
in 1998. In 1999, in the middle of the California energy crisis, the UCDMC 27 MW
cogeneration power plant was engaged in unlawful commercial power generation and sales free
of tax via California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to the spot market or the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD).

In August 2000 and thereafter, Anna Orlowski, as UCDHS counsel, was perfectly aware of and
was informed that the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant, together with the major power
producers, became a subject of complaint with the United States Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission for committing fraud.

The San Diego Gas & Electric Company's complaint against the major energy sellers, producers,
and ancillary services included the UC Davis Medical Center's small 27 MW cogeneration plant
located in Sacramento, California, which undoubtedly committed multiple millions of dollars in
state and federal tax fraud by illegally generating and selling electrical energy, in conspiracy with
the California Independent System Operator (ISO) and California Power Exchange (Cal-PX),
created in 1996 by California Legislature Assembly Bill 1890. Also, the San Diego Gas & Electric
Company's complaint alleged that UC Davis Medical Center's 27 MW cogeneration plant—along
with other sellers, power producers, and ancillary services—charged, collected, or were paid
unjust, unreasonable, or otherwise unlawful rates, terms, or conditions for energy, ancillary
services, transmission, or congestion in the Western electricity markets.

Furthermore, the San Diego Gas & Electric Company's complaint alleged that the major energy
sellers, producers, ancillary services, financial institutions, and the 27 MW cogeneration plant
located in UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, and owned by the UC Regents manipulated

77
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
the Western electricity markets in all fashions (including, but not limited to, claims of economic
or physical withholding, gaming, fraud, or misrepresentation or alleged forms of market
manipulation discussed in the initial staff report or final staff report, or any other forms of
wrongful conduct, electricity market manipulation, violation of any applicable tariff, regulation,
law, rule, or order relating to the Western electricity markets; or entered into the APX
transactions when the Western electricity markets were non-competitive).

I cover the fraud subject above committed by the regents in the attached complaint with the
Internal Revenue Service against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Chang and other
attorneys.

The abovementioned time period was not the only period when the Regents of the University of
California were committing sales fraud at the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant.

In February 2001, the University of California agreed to pay$ 22,500,000 to U.S Federal
Government submitted false billing to Medicare, Medicaid, and other federally funded health
programs. EXHIBIT #65
Anna Orlowski's primary areas of law practice are business litigation and medical malpractice
defense. The UC Davis Medical Health System and UC Davis Medical Center have a very long
list of malpractice lawsuits and other lawsuits in the Sacramento County Superior Court, where
Shelleyanne W. L. Chang has been a judge since 2002. EXHIBIT #66

In 2003, as UCDHS counsel, Anna Orlowski was perfectly aware of and was informed that the
UCDMC's 27 MW cogeneration power plant had lost its power sale agreement and since then had
lost millions of dollars in revenue that could generated by illegal power generation and sales.

In December 2006, as UCDHS counsel, she was perfectly aware of and was informed, or most
likely, in collaboration with UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown, advised and instructed
UCDHS administration to initiate and orchestrate despicable actions to remove me from the
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant's Central Plant or terminate my employment,
knowing that I was the only working employee in the UCDMC Central Plant who could detect or
find out about the fraud committed in relation to the unlawful power generation and sales.

As a UCDHS Chief Counsel, Anna Orlowski was perfectly aware and was informed that
CAISO General Counsel Charles Robinson's effort to help cover up the UC Regents'
approximately $80,000,000 in power sales fraud, Charles Robinson was awarded by the regents
of the University of California the position of general counsel and senior vice president of the
university, with a $400,000 annual salary and was transferred from CAISO to the University of
California in January 2007

In March 2007, as UCDHS counsel, Anna Orlowski was perfectly aware of and was informed
that the complaint filed with the FERC in August 2000 by San Diego Gas & Electric Company,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company against major

78
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
power producers and ancillary services (which excluded the UC Regents from the settlement to cover
up the regents' fraud) was concluded by FERC's approval of an agreement in March 2007.

In March 2007, as UCDHS counsel, Anna Orlowski was perfectly aware of and was informed
that, in a despicable witch hunt against me and my coworker William Buckans, which grossly
and unthinkably violated my employee, civil, and human rights, I was abruptly removed from
my employment in the UC Davis Medical Center's 27 MW cogeneration facility and unlawfully
reassigned to the UCDMC HVAC shop.. Anna Orlowski knew that I had just received open-
heart surgery, and she, along with others like her, subjected me to psychological terror and stress
beyond human decency with full knowledge that she was breaking and violating the law,
university policies, and established norms of civilized society. EXHIBIT #67

From March 2007 to February 2009, as UCDHS counsel, Anna Orlowski was perfectly aware
of and was informed about my struggle to regains my position in the Central Plant, which had
been taken from by her conspiracy with others against me . Anna Orlowski received e-mails and
fax correspondence from me and knew what I was going through because she and others like
orchestrated malicious and despicable witch hunt against , which were carried out by UCDMC
directors, managers, and HR staff, with Stephen Chilcott who coordinated the attacks against me.
EXHIBIT #68

In February 2009, as UCDHS counsel, Anna Orlowski was perfectly aware of, was informed
about, and most likely approved the February 2009 Settlement Agreement, which I signed with
the Regents of the University of California in good faith and goodwill. The settlement agreement
or written contract—which was negotiated to end the ongoing conflict after I prevailed in the
arbitration against the regents—provided me with a promotion to a position as an associate
development engineer in the UCDMC HVAC shop.

In April 2011, in a copycat scenario of 2006-2007, I again became the target of inhumane
psychological terror for more than a year and a half, as a specially assembled group I called the UC
Davis Death Squad attempted to kill me or end my employment in the UCDMC Trauma Unit #11 on
May 31, 2012.

This happened because the new fraudulent and unlawful power sale agreement for UCDMC's
27 MW power plant worth millions of dollars with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD) was negotiated by UCDMC or UC Regents in 2011. The fraudulent power contract
with SMUD worth millions of dollars, with the final approval signature from SMUD, was
obtained on May 31, 2012—the exact day when the UC Davis Death Squad carried out an
unsuccessful provocation to remove me permanently from the UCDMC landscape and
university payroll.

79
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
On July 25, 2011, I sent a nine-page letter by e-mail and fax entitled Settlement-Agreement
Violation to UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown, who signed the February 2009
settlement agreement on the UC Regents' behalf. EXHIBIT #3
Through the letter, I informed UC Davis campus counsel that the settlement was being grossly
violated and that I was being terrorized by UCDMC management, including being stalked.

On July 27, 2011, UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown responded vaguely, and the terror was
continued like nothing happened until December 2012.

On the same day, July 27, 2011 I forwarded UC Davis Counsel Steven Drown's response to
UCDHS Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, leading administrators, directors, and the University of
California president. The terror aimed at me did not stop then. Thereafter, I sent all
correspondence to UC Office of the President, UC Davis, and UC Davis administrators,
including UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski.

CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

In my complaint against UC Davis Health System HR Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey,
J.D.„ Lindsey informed and explained to his concerned subordinate, HR Labor Relations Principal
Consultant Gina Harwood, that neither he nor others from HR were responsible for the ongoing
terror aimed at me and at terminating my employment.

In his e-mail to Gina Harwood Travis Lindsey pointed finger at UCDHS/UCDMC leadership, In
September 2012, UCDHS Chief Counsel Orlowski was a member of the UC Davis Health System
leadership and she was also legal counsel for UCDHS leaders and advised them that terror and
harassment are a good way to deal with workers who make complaints.

UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, J.D., is another classic example of
cowardice who intentionally engaged in conspiracy against me and other employees

Anna Orlowski J.D advised others to commit malicious acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, and
coercion, and also directed, recommended, processed, and approved personnel actions, including but
not limited to promotions, transfers, assignments, performance evaluations, suspensions, and other
disciplinary actions, including the termination of my employment.

Anna Orlowski also used official authority to influence other employees in order to intimidate,
threaten, coerce, or command others. This was done to interfere with the right to disclose the serious
violations of law and university policies by the UC Davis Medical Center's management, as outlined
in Government Code Section 8547. 10.

In line with the facts presented in the complaint , I respectfully request that the State Bar of
California investigate University of California attorney Anna Orlowski for professional
misconduct and take appropriate action against Anna Orlowski for her further deliberate
violation of others' civil and human rights.
80
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
X. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST DAVID MARK LEVINE, J.D-SBN 251523

UC Davis Associate Health System Counsel


Hospital Legal Affairs Department
UC Davis Medical Center
Sherman Building, Suite 3900
2315 Stockton Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95817
Phone: 916-734-2288
Fax: 916-734-0222
E-mail: david.levine@ucdavis.edu

GENERAL INFORMATION

According to http://www.ueop.edu/general-counsel/attorneys-staff/bios/david-levine.html, David


Levine has served as a Health System Counsel at UC Davis Health System since 2005. Prior to
joining the Health System, Mr. Levine was a partner in the law firm Benesch, Friedlander,
Coplan & Aronoff LLP in Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Levine's primary areas of practice involve fraud
and abuse compliance counseling, federal healthcare program reimbursement and general
healthcare law. He is a graduate of Boston University School of Law (J.D. 1986) and the
University of Michigan (B. A. 1982).

DAVID LEVIN,s J.D. PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

• To the best of my knowledge, since May 2012, David Levine, J.D. violated the California
State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assisted or induced another to do so, or
has done so through the acts of another.
• In May 2012 David Levine, J.D., per order of the Chief Counsel of the UC Davis Health
System (UCDHS) Anna Orlowski or UC Davis Health System Leadership and in
collaboration or conspiracy with UCDHS HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, J.D.,
HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey, J.D., HR Labor Relation Brent Seifert, J.D.,
HR psychologist Carol Kirshnit, Ph.D., UC Davis HR Workers Compensation Manager
Hugh Parker, UC Davis Police Chief Matt Carmichael, UC Davis Police Lt. James
Barbour, UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # Supervisor Karen Kouretas actively
participated in preparation of the ill-minded provocation to kill me or end my
employment in UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11 on May 31, 2012. I would
have been harmed or permanently disabled if provocation had succeeded.

81
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
• By acting as legal advisor for the assembled group which carried the unsuccessful
provocation on May 31, 2011, David Levine, J.D., as a UC Davis Health System legal
counsel, has committed unlawful acts that reflect adversely on his honesty,
trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
• Levine's collaboration and conspiracy with others to harm me did not stop on May 31,
2012. He continued his participation in activities of the especially assembled group,
which I have nicknamed the UC Davis Death Squad, to harm me or end my life.
• David Levine, J.D.'s engagement in such misconduct involves conspiracy, cover-up of
fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation of his position as a UC Davis Health System
Counsel.
• David Levine, J.D. as a Counsel of the UC Davis Health System with full knowledge of
his wrongdoing, as a skilled attorney licensed by the State Bar of California, and in
collaboration with other University of California attorneys, including but not limited to
UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and other high-ranking UC
Davis administrators and managers listed, previously condoned and approved despicable,
indecent attacks against myself and other university employees to help cover up the
enormous, multimillion-dollar fraud against the Internal Revenue Service and the State of
California Franchise Tax Board, committed by the university administration in relation to
the unlawful operation of a 27-MW cogeneration power plant and illegal power sales.
• David Levine, J.D. as a University of California employee and an attorney-at-law licensed
by the State Bar of California, by his blunt disregard and violation of state and federal laws
and of University of California policies and procedures, which are equal to state statutes, by
collaborating with other attorneys and administrators employed by the university, David
Levine, J.D., violated my and other employees' civil and human rights in outrageous
disregard of the rules of professional conduct and the rules and principles established in
civilized society by laws and policies.

CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

David Levine, J.D. in 2012 was UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, J.D.'s
subordinate. Orlowski was and still is a member of UC Davis Health System's narrow group of
executive leaders.

To dismiss a low-level employee like myself does not require six years and the decisions of the UC
Office of President, UC General Counsel, Chancellor and CEO of UC Davis Medical Center and
countless staffers.

It is my understanding that David Levine was sent to the battlefield against me to cover up legal
angles on May 31, 2012 if the meticulously planned provocation would succeed, after I was lured
on the premises after almost one year of absence from work.
82
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
If provocation were successful and I was shot by UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour, who was
assigned for this operation, than it my understanding that David Levine present on the scene of
crime would be acting as legal spokesmen of the assembled UC Davis Death Squad.

In line with these facts, I respectfully request that the State Bar of California pursue the
investigation against the University of California attorney David Levine, J.D., for professional
misconduct and take appropriate action against David Levine for his deliberate violations of my
civil and human rights, with his full knowledge of the law.

XI. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST WENDI J. DELMENDO, SBN #177389


(INACTIVE )

UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer


University of California
2713 Henri Ct
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: (530) 756-1011
Fax: (530) 756-1911
E-mail: wjdelmendo@ucdavis.edu

GENERAL INFORMATION

UC Davis and University of Washington School of Law (Seattle, WA) graduate Wendi Delmendo
was admitted to the State Bar of California on June 30, 1995. According to
https://www.linkedin.com/in/wendi-delmendo-0846388, Delmendo was hired by the University of
California, Davis, in May 2006 as a director of research and compliance. She held this position
until October 2008, then in November 2008 she was promoted compliance director and in
December 2010 to the position of UC Davis campus chief compliance officer.

Prior UC Davis, Delmendo was employed as an attorney with Perkins Coie LLP (1992-1994; 2
years) and Sherman & Howard (1994-1995, 1 year).
Since June 2006, Delmendo's State Bar of California attorney license has been in INACTIVE
STATUS.
I am not certain if Delmendo's position with the university requires her to be a member of the
State Bar of California or if it is just a move to escape liability for violation of the professional
conduct set by State Bar of California for licensed attorneys who practice law in this state.

Also, I do not know if the State Bar of California is reviewing complaints against attorneys with
inactive membership status.

83
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Delmendo's position as UC Davis chief compliance officer requires her to be a skilled attorney.
She is a skilled attorney who has been practicing law with INACTIVE State Bar of California
membership status for many years.

As chief compliance officer at UC Davis, Delmendo is a locally designated official (LDO)


responsible for reviewing whistleblower- and whistleblowing-retaliation complaints.

The UC Whistleblowing Policy is based on the "California Whistleblower Protection Act,"


GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 8547-8547.15.

It well established by California Appellate Courts that the University of California policies are
equal to state statutes (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160,
165.).

Furthermore, UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Delmendo has also assumed the role of lead
discrimination officer for the campus. Delmendo will ensure that an appropriate response is made to
all reports of perceived acts of illegal discrimination, bias and harassment involving faculty,
students and staff. Delmendo has also created a one-stop website regarding policies and processes
covering discrimination, bias, harassment and other diversity issues.
The duties of her position require her to know the law and to provide legal advice for the hearing
officers and investigators whom work in her office.

It is not only Delmendo who is practicing law without any attorney position in the university. It also
applies to UC Campuses Human Resources Labor Relation staff handling contracts, conducting
hearings under internal complaint resolution policies and procedures or representing the university
with the State of California Public Employee Relation Board
Many HR labor relation staff are licensed attorneys, such as Travis Lindsey, JD; Stephen
Chilcott, JD; Danesha Nichols, JD; Brent Seifert, JD; and many others whom I do not know.
Many HR labor relations consultants are not attorneys and they are practicing the law, not even
knowing that.

My first contact with UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Delmendo occurred in July 2011. Our
interactions continued until January 2015, due my representation of, and assistance to, my
coworkers with their complaints under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 and Whistleblowing
retaliation complaints that were handled by Delmendo and her staff ( EXHIBIT # 69).

I would like to conclude that, according to my experiences with Delmendo and a whistleblowing
retaliations complaint, that she is most corrupted attorney at law with an inactive attorney's
license who is practicing the law whom I faced or I came across during my employment with
university from 1999 to 2012. Her conduct is just unbelievable.

The entire UC system is corrupted because it is so large and Delmendo is the perfect example of this
corrupted system,

84
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
The University of California Whistle Blowing Policy, which is based on the California
Whistleblower Protection Act (Government Code Section 8547-8547.15), in combination with
employment with just for cause and the UC Campuses' unconstitutional manifesto entitled
"Principles Of Community," is an unofficial "witch-hunt" policy.
The Principles of Community Manifesto is maintained at UC Davis by Associate Executive Vice
Chancellor Rahim Reed http://occr.ucdavis.edu/Rahim bio.html. Reed is a very well educated person
and his only job, for an annual salary of $173,000, is to maintain and ensure that this UC Davis
unconstitutional tool is in motion, visible, and inflicts fear in anybody who dares criticize the UC
Davis Administration or point to a misuse of university resources, or a violation of the law.

The Government Code Section 8547.10 gives 18 months to resolve whistleblowing-retaliation


complaints before an employee is permitted to take legal action in court.

The crux of above three combined policies could be described as follow

If an employee at UC Davis makes a complaint with HR about unfair treatment because his
supervisor does not like his face or how he talks, or because he has seen a misuse of university
resources and reported it, then HR sends the information to UC Davis campus chief compliance
officer besides HR's phony investigation. An employee cannot be fired or demoted by his or her
supervisor, as in a private corporation, because the university does not employ at will. In such a
situation, the Principle of Community is in play and management with HR is orchestrating the
game by violating it. Then accusations are flying that the employee is vulgar or has made
inappropriate racial remarks or told jokes to cause a stir among fellow coworkers; his life is made
miserable and there are attempts to make him quit.

In the meantime, UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Delmendo has gotten involved and lured
the employee to complete a whistleblowing-retaliation complaint, regardless of whether or not
the employee's complaint has anything to do with whistleblowing. It is not important. What is
important is to make the complaining employee file a complaint and molest him with phony
investigations by an assigned investigator with an order to supervisors to make the employee's
life miserable

This how the inactive attorney Wendi Delmendo practices law and conveys the legal advice to
assigned investigators that discrimination and harassment is permissible to make the employee quit
or cause him to wrap everything in lies and fabricated accusations and allegations against
complaining coworkers.

Not to be empty-worded or make unfounded accusations, please read my January 8, 2015, letter
written to Delmendo on UC Davis Medical Center employee Frank Gonzales' Case (EXHIBIT # 1
UC Davis Medical Center). Delmendo attempted to lure Gonzales into her whistleblowing complaint
trap (see also exhibit #43 in complaint against Brent Seifert, JD).

85
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Another example besides myself of Delmendo's legal skill is UC Davis Medical Center employee
Dereck Cole's case, which is described in in the chapter "Complaint against Stephen Chilcott, JD
(see exhibit #22).

Beside Dereck Cole and Frank Gonzales, I represented another employee, Kenny Diede, who
reported child pornography possessed by a twice-convicted felon who illegally accessed company
computers. Instead, Delmendo instructed investigator Danesha Nichols not to inform authorities
that she advised Danesha Nichols to cover up the crime. See complaint against Danesha Nichols
(see exhibit # 39).

WENDI DELMENDO's PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

• To the best of my knowledge, Delmendo violated the California State Bar Rules of
Professional Conduct and knowingly assisted or induced another to do so through the acts of
another person.
• Since July 2011, Delmendo, in conspiracy with others, committed unlawful acts that
adversely reflect on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects.
• Since July 2011, Delmendo, in conspiracy with others, engaged in misconduct involving
dishonesty, the covering up of fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in her position as a UC
Davis chief compliance officer and attorney licensed by the State Bar of California with
inactive State Bar of California membership
• Since July 2011, Delmendo, as the UC Davis employee and attorney licensed by the State
Bar of California with inactive status, in conspiracy with other University of California
attorneys — including, but not limited to, the University of California General Counsel
Charles Robinson, UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, UC Davis
Campus Counsel Steven Drown and high-ranking university administrators and managers
— orchestrated despicable attacks beyond human decency against myself and other
university employees to cover up the enormous multimillion-dollar fraud that was
committed by the university administration related to the unlawful operation of the
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant and illegal power sale and other UC Davis
Medical Center administrators and management activities which violated state and federal
laws (see Exhibits No. 1 and the attached complaint with Internal Revenue Services and
Complaint with State of California Commission on Judicial Performance).
• Delmendo, as the UC Davis chief compliance officer and attorney at law licensed by the
State Bar of California, by her blunt disregard and violation of the state and federal laws
and the University of California's policies and procedures — which are equal to state
statutes — and by conspiring with other attorneys employed by the university and with
university administrators, violated with despicable malice my and other employees' civil
86
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
and human rights by unlawfully practicing law with inactive State Bar of California
membership and advising others to disregard the law and principles of the civilized
society.

In Russell v. Dopp, 36 Cal.App.4th 765, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 (Cal.App. Dist.4


07/12/1995), the court held: "First, attorneys must be licensed so that the public is
protected from being advised and represented by persons who are not qualified to practice
law. (Gerhard v. Stephens (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 864, 917-918, 69 Cal. Rptr. 612, 442 P.2d 692.)
Second, the litigation of cases by unlicensed attorneys threatens the integrity of the judicial
process itself. (Alexander v. Robertson (9th Cir. 1989) 882 F.2d 421, 423-425.)"

"Practicing law, or holding oneself out as practicing or entitled to practice law, while under
suspension or transfer to inactive status by virtue of submission of one's resignation with
charges pending, is both unlawful (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6126) and a contempt (Bus. &
Prof. Code, § 6127)." (In re Johnson (1992) 1 Cal. 4th 689, 696, fn. 2, 822 P.2d 1317.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

July 2011 was my first interaction with UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Delmendo. It
happened after I sent two complaint letters on July 17 and July 24 about the February 2009
settlement agreement violation by the university to the UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven
Drown, JD. UC Davis Chief Campus Counsel Drown signed the February 2009 settlement
agreement on behalf of the regents.

On July 26, 2011, UC Campus Counsel Drown, instead of providing the expected proper response
about the 2009 settlement-agreement violation by the university, sent a letter from the UC Davis
Chief Compliance Office advising me to file a whistleblowing retaliation complaint.

I did not file any whistleblowing or retaliation complaint about anybody. My intention was to put an
end to the sabotage of my job and my terrorization, including being stalked by my manager.
Delmendo already assigned a "witch hunter" (i.e., HR investigator) to hunt me down instead of taking
action to stop my vicious harassment, then she advised me to file a whistleblowing retaliation
complaint. On July 31, 2011, I responded to Delmendo's advice with a 10-page letter with an
explanation about the reasons why I do not want to file a whistleblowing complaint and reminded her
about the February 2009 settlement agreement (see EXHIBIT # 70).

In July 2011, I did not know or realize that the March 13, 2011, letter I wrote to UCDMC Plant
Operation and Maintenance Department ( PO&M) Manager Charles Witcher would set the
university administration on high alert and unleash all available university resources and power
to remove me as quickly as possible from the university landscape and payroll (see EXHIBIT #
71).

87
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Through the letter I asked PO&M Manager Witcher for a one-step wage increase. I submitted my
request after I found out that the six-step pay raise was secretly provided to UCDMC 27 MW
cogeneration operators in December 2010. The pay raise was based on the blackmail petition and
authors of the petition were attacking my wages and my position in their blackmail demand for a six-
step pay raise.

When I did not receive my annual evaluation due to me in June or July 2011 and which was
mandatory to provide to me by the evaluation policy which was strictly enforced, then I knew
that I was singled out for termination of my employment and that no evaluation was needed. It
most likely that, in as early as April 2011, UC Regents and UC Davis Medical Center cut the
deal with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) to unlawfully sell power from
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant, which had spare capacity during the daytime of 12
MW and nighttime of 17 MW. It is converts to millions of dollars in illegal revenue. The
UCDMC 27 MW plant stopped illegally selling power in 2003, due to pending complaints
against the plant filed with U.S Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Apparently after I wrote my March 13, 2011, letter to Witcher, the power sale deal was put on
hold and came under fire.

Delmendo, with the UCDMC HR executive director Stephen Chilcott and assigned UC Davis HR
Investigator `Danesha Nichols, interrogated me to find out if I knew anything about previous
unlawful UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant power sale agreements with CAISO t.
Chilcott and Drown knew that I reported my previous employer for $ 100,000,000 for fraud
against Pacific Gas and Electric ratepayers and that PG&E paid me $100,000 dollars in the
settlement (see exhibit # 15).

The problem was that I was very hesitant to talk to Nichols after having had a very unpleasant
discussion with a previous "witch hunter" who, like Nichols, was African American and was
provided with a bunch of lies about me being racist and a bigot. On top of this, in July 2011, I did not
know anything about the UCDMC plant's unlawful power sale or pending complaint with FERC
against UCDMC plant or that CALISO General Counsel Charles Robinson became a university
general counsel in January 2007.

On September 12, 2011, Nichols provided a confidential report for my termination to UCDMC
HR Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker (also African American), who was also
assigned to coordinate ill-crafted provocation on May 31, 2012, by the assembled group I
nicknamed the UC Davis Death Squad. The goal was to end my employment in the UC Davis
Trauma # 11 on that day, but my termination did not happen because I did not provide any
information to Nichols.

On September 16, 2011

88
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
From: Stephen Chilcott/HR/HS/UCD
To: Wendi Delmendo <wjdelmendo@ucdavis.edu
Date: 09/16/2011 04:49 PM
Subject: Re: Waszczuk

Thanks, I was thinking it might be helpful to see it; having Bruce in the room
might enable Jerry to consent to an interview and avoid the department
having to order him to comply with an interview, which we're really trying to
avoid. Jerry actually has a lot of information on the department that would
be useful and relevant for the investigation, and I think he would be better
able to convey information in an interview format based on my interactions
with him over the years, but he seems opposed to participating in an
interview at all'

Steve
STEPHEN CHILCOTT, J_ D.
Executive Director, Human Resources
UC Davis Health System
I did not have a lot information on the department and Chilcott was attempting extract
information in relation to UCDMC 27 MW power plant (named the "Central Plant") power
generation and sale in 1999-2003 from me, which I thought was legal because of the California
power market deregulation in 1996-1998.

However, Chilcott was the person who coordinated the witch hunt against me and caused my
removal from the UCDMC Central Plant in March 2007 who knew, or assumed that I knew, the
US Public Utilities Regulatory Power Act (PURPA) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
requirements to operate and sell power by the cogeneration facilities.

I am not sure whether Delmendo knew anything about the UCDMC Central Plant power sale
fraud, but I am assuming that, as UC Davis chief compliance officer and skilled attorney at law,
she was well informed of what was going on. Together with Drown, Chilcott and Nichols, they
were doing everything possible to divert my attention from the UCDMC Central Plant power
generation

It worth mentioning again that, in May 2011, my shop manager Patrick Putney was ordered to stalk
me and denied me futures in the computer network Matasys by which I was monitoring critical
alarms throughout the entire UC Davis Medical Center, including the hospital. It was important to
respond to the alarms in a timely manner and dispatch personnel in order to preserve
89
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
patients' lives. It did not matter to Chilcott, Delmendo, Drown and others. They wanted me out and
not to see the Matasys, which also had access to the UCDMC Central Plant's power generation and
all of its data.

Since July 2011, Nichols made many attempts to get me to consent to an interview and confess
what I know.

On September 16, 2011, UCDMC PO&M Manager Witcher sent me an e-mail written for him by
Chilcott or Nichols, which tried again to convince me to conduct an interview with Nichols. I
responded to this e-mail on September 18, 2011 (see EXHIBIT # 72).

Since July 2011, Nichols—by the orders of Chilcott—demanded an interview from me. I did not
refuse to be interviewed about management's terrorizing and sabotaging my job, but I was refusing
to have a meeting about "witch hunting " in the copycat scenario of 2006-2007, which resulted my
unlawful reassignment to the different shop .

In normal situations, since July 2011 I should be subjected to disciplinary action for refusing to
participate in the investigation (which constitutes insubordination). I should be progressively
disciplined under UC Davis Policy PPSM 62 with a letter of expectation, written to warn me of
suspension and, eventually, termination. I should receive a "does not meet expectation" evaluation
for the 2010-2011 evaluation period, with the period ending June 30, 2011, based on the
accusations that Nichols made against me that I verbally assaulted my manager and supervisor in
March and April 2011.

Such was not the goal for UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Delmendo, UC Davis Chief
Counsel Drown or UCDMC HR Executive Director Chilcott. The goal was to find out what I
knew about the UCDMC Central Plant's unlawful operation, including the generation and sale of
power via CAISO.

On September 21, 2011, UCDMC PO&M Manager Witcher sent me a letter by e-mail that Chilcott
or Nichols wrote for him, which was different than letter dated September 16, 2011 (see EXHIBIT #
73).
What caught my attention in this 2011 e-mail were the following statements:

You have repeatedly refused to participate in the investigation and


interview process, despite repeated requests, encouragement and
directives to meet and participate in an interview as part of this
investigation.

In light of these circumstances, you are hereby given this direct order to
attend a meeting scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Friday, September 23, 2011, at
2730 Stockton Blvd., Sacramento, CA, 95817, Human Resources, Ticon
III Building.
90
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
On this Friday, you are to report to the receptionist on the third floor of
Human Resources at the Ticon III Building (see address above) shortly
before 9:00 a.m. and you will be escorted to a conference room for the
interview meeting.

Fridays are customary days for management to discipline employees; the words that I
will "be escorted to conference room" were not encouraging, regardless of the outcome
of the meeting. "Escorting" translates to the understanding that the UC Police would be
involved in my interview with Nichols or there would be no Nichols present in the
interview at all
In September 2011, I did not have a copy of the e-mail that Nichols sent with a confidential
report on me to HR Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker. On May 31, 2012, Parker was
coordinating the ill-crafted and unsuccessful provocation carried out by a specially assembled
team that I nicknamed the "UC Davis Death Squad " to end my employment that day in UC
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. The supervisor of this unit, Karen Kouertas, was
waiting to receive me, dead or badly harmed by UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour, who was
bribed with $35, 000 to carry out the termination of employment order if the provocation
succeeded.

Is most likely that September 23, 2011 was the similar attempt to provoke me by same way as on
May 31, 2012 and harm me by Police or cause me stroke or heart attack
Leading UCDMC HR psychologist Carol Kirshnit, PhD, determined from my writing that I was
angry and stressed out to the maximum due to being placed on phony investigatory leave. It was
further presumed that I was under a psychologist's care and, since I was on nine different
medications that I needed to survive, that I would be an easy subject to provoke and harm.

The provocation to terminate my employee did not work because, on September 22, 2011, my
physician placed me on work-stress-related sick leave until January 5, 2012.

I am not only employee who was a subject of provocation for physical confrontation by
management. It appears to be a customary step for UCDMC management to attack employees in
this way and end their employment. The best examples are my two coworkers, Dereck Cole and
Frank Gonzales, who were subjects of UCDMC management's way of dealing with labor
relations disputes.

Delmendo actively conspired, collaborated and participated in the process to terminate my


employment by orchestrating the phony investigation to make me look like a violent racist, bigot, and
Nazi concentration camp guard, regardless of my outstanding employee record and perfect (or near
perfect) evaluations since 1999 and spotless criminal record.

The September 23, 2011, attempt to escort an investigator for my interrogation did not work
because my "very confidential termination of my employment" set for that day was prematurely
leaked by the HVAC shop employee who was already given an office and my position. This
HVAC employee, Bill Rabadoux, was the one who was bringing his son to the shop, a twice-
convicted child pornography felon on probation, and let him surf the Internet on

91
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
the shop computers. By Federal Court order, this individual was prohibited from touching any
computer or device with Internet access (see exhibit # 39).

The HVAC employee, Diede, who reported this sick individual to the manager was subjected to
vicious harassment and retaliation from management in 2011-2013 and quit his job.
Another employee, Gonzales, came under vicious attack from the same UCDMC department
management during his mother's funeral (see exhibit # 44).

UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Delmendo—with her law degree and inactive State Bar of
California membership (license)—instead of reporting child pornography felon to authorities, she—
in collaboration with UC Davis Health System (UCDHS) HR Executive Director with a law
degree—ordered Nichols, an HR attorney, to cover up the crime in her pseudo-investigation reports
and Danesha Nichols J. D. did .

My office, which was given to the father of the child porn felon on probation, was the perfect
cozy spot where the Internet could be surfed without the presence of other employees especially
at night .

On December 5, 2011, I was removed unconditionally from the stress-related sick leave that I
had been on since September. HR Director Chilcott's order in the form of a letter written for
Witcher without my doctor's permission or consent placed me on INVESTIGATORY LEAVE
once again.

According to the December 5, 2011, letter signed by Witcher, I was ordered with a threat of
terminating my employment again, as on September 21, 2011, to report to the HR building on
December 12, 2011, for an interview with Nichols.

I did not respond to Witcher's letter and entirely ignored his demand and order for an interview and
I did not go for interview on December 12, 2012. Nothing happened after I did not show up for the
interview on December 12, 2011.

This fact shows how desperate the university administration was to find what I knew and if I would
confess regarding the unlawful power generation by the UCDM Central Plant. If in 2011 I would
have checked the FERC e-Library, then I would have known what was going on with the UCDMC
Central Plant's unlawful generation and power sale. I did not care about the UCDMC power sale in
2011, I worked in different shop and was happy with what I had.

On December 22, 2012, by own my will I drove to the UC Davis Medical Center to remove my
belongings from my office and I talked with Nichols to fulfill her curiosity about what I knew. The
meeting was cordial, but I regretted that I met her on that day. A UC police car was parked by the
HR building during the meeting. Nichols did not hear a word from me about the Central Plant or
power generation.

Under UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Delmendo's strict guidance and censorship, Nichols
issued in, February 2012, a slanderous, racially charged pseudo report as a basis for my 10-day
suspension in May 2012.
92
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
The May 11, 2012, letter of suspension issued by HR and signed by Witcher was bait to lure me
onto UCDMC premises on May 31, 2012
The ill-minded and well-planned provocation in May, which was coordinated by the UCDMC
HR workers compensation manager to end my employment in the UC Davis Trauma Nursing
Unit # 11, did not work

"THE DAVIS 11 TRAUMA NURSING UNIT (TNU) IS A 36-BED ACUTE CARE


SPECIALTY AND TELEMETRY UNIT THAT PRIMARILY PROVIDES INPATIENT
CARE AND TREATMENT FOR PATIENTS WHO HAVE SUSTAINED BLUNT OR
PENETRATING INJURY, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO MAY REQUIRE SURGICAL
INTERVENTION. THIS INCLUDES CARE OF THE PATIENT WITH SUSPECTED
OR CONFIRMED INTRA-ABDOMINAL INJURIES, COMPLEX WOUND
MANAGEMENT, ORTHOPEDIC FRACTURES, HEAD/NECK/FACE INJURIES,
BRAIN TRAUMA, CHEST TRAUMA AND PULMONARY INJURY. "

If the May 31, 2012, provocation would have succeeded and I had been shot by Lt. James
Barbour or his subordinates, then the university administration—which had committed
multimillion-dollar fraud—would be not worried that such fraud would surface again and
became public news.
The unsuccessful provocation was coordinated by the UCDMC HR Workers Compensation
Manager Parker.

The university administrator's desperation to sell the power from the UC Davis cogeneration facility
was quite high if the university administrator decided to use police force and the trauma unit to
silence me.

May 31, 2012 (the day of the provocation), was the one-year anniversary when the 2012-2013
power sale agreement was signed by UC regents with Sacramento Municipal Utility District to
unlawfully sell, free of tax, 8 MWh of power to SMUD (see exhibit # 48). The power sale
agreement was renewed in 2013 for another year, but the power sale ended for some reason on
December 11, 2013. The power sale ended nine days after I filed the Writ of Mandamus for my
unemployment benefits that the university had denied me and seven days after I filed, in
Sacramento County Superior Court, the wrongful termination lawsuit against the regents and
nine individual defendants who conspired together to deprive me of my employee and civil
rights, which had grossly violated the signed February 2009 settlement agreement and my human
rights.

The last victimized UCDMC employee who I know and met with UC Davis Chief Compliance
Officer Delmendo and her partner in crime, UCDHS HR Executive Director Chilcott, is Seema
Mani, who reported university credit card embezzlement committed by her supervisor.

The four employees involved in this case lost their jobs, including Mani and a university auditor
who confirmed the embezzlement crime with an audit. The managers who committed the crime is
still working (see EXHIBIT # 74).
93
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

According to the above-presented facts, I respectfully request that the State Bar of California pursue
the investigation of University of California attorney Wendi Delmendo for practicing law with an
inactive State Bar of California membership or license.
Estate of Condon, 55 Cal.App.4th 1456, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 789 (Cal.App. Dist.1 06/25/1997)

The Business and Professions Code provides that "no person shall
practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the
State Bar." (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6125.) It provides further that "[any]
person advertising or holding himself or herself out as practicing or
entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active
member of the State Bar, is guilty of a misdemeanor." (Bus. & Prof.
Code, § 6126.)

Delmendo, in collaboration with UC Davis Medical Center HR staff—including and limited to


HR Executive Director Chilcott—ruthlessly violates employees' civil rights and by legally
advising pseudo investigators in whistleblowing-retaliation complaints deliberately inflicted
harm and destroyed employees' lives and livelihoods instead of properly investigating fraud
committed by university employees, misuses of university resources, discrimination and
retaliation against employees for reporting management's illegal and unlawful activities.

I am not sure if Delmendo was told about the multimillion-dollar fraud committed by the Regents
in relation to the unlawful power sale by UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration. Delmendo was perfectly
aware that I had been employed by the university since February by the 2009 settlement
agreement and she, with full legal knowledge, allowed the gross violation of the signed
settlement agreement by the pseudo investigator, Nichols, whom she assigned for pseudo
investigation to fabricate false accusations and allegations against me.

It is my understanding that the State Bar of California's attorney license is provided to attorneys to
practice law in the State of California and not to condone the criminal activities of others and cover
up the fraud and violations of state and federal law.

Furthermore, the State Bar of California license is not meant to craft provocations, physically
harm or kill university employees, destroy their lives and livelihoods, subject them to witch
hunts and psychological terror and protect those who committed the crimes and violated the
employees' civil and human rights.

AS A IRONY, PARADOX OR BAD JOKE on February 6, 2014 the University of


California, Davis announced that Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo will also assume the
role of lead discrimination officer for the campus effective immediately.
94
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
The announcement follows the issuance of a final report from Carlos Moreno (another bad joke)
former associate justice of the California Supreme Court, about accounts of discrimination
and bias involving faculty at another UC campus. EXHIBIT #80 Following the report's release,
UC President Janet Napolitano asked the chancellors at each campus to designate a lead
discrimination officer.

"UC Davis is committed to our ongoing efforts to promote diversity, inclusion and mutual respect
within our campus community," Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi said. "Appointing and empowering a
lead discrimination officer is a key component of our systemwide efforts to reject and prevent
discrimination, bias and harassment."

In this new role, Delmendo will ensure an appropriate response is made to all reports of perceived
acts of illegal discrimination, bias and harassment involving faculty, students and staff. She will
work with staff from the Harassment and Discrimination Assistance and Prevention Program as
well as administrators in Academic Affairs, Student Judicial Affairs and Human Resources to
develop a comprehensive program that will include advising complainants about complaint
processes, accepting complaints, carrying out investigations, recommending informal resolutions,
and, when necessary, referring cases to the relevant departments for discipline.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-names-lead-discrimination-officer

XII. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MIA LENEE BELK


CALIFORNIA SBN # 216890
American Water
Vice President, Chief Labor and Employment Counsel
1025 Laurel Oak
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Phone: 856-346-5921
Email: mia.belk@amwaten.com
(Former Counsel of the University of California in the Office of the General Counsel)

GENERAL INFORMATION

Mia Lenee Belk graduated from Temple University School of Law , Philadelphia, PA. She was
admitted to the State Bar of California on December 4, 2001. Mia Belk was employed in the
University of California, Office of the General Counsel in the Labor and Employment Section from
December 2009 to February 2013.

I am not sure when and why Mia Belk became directly involved in my employment termination
case during her employment with the University of California Office of the General Counsel.

95
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
My best guess with the record I have available is that she became involved in my termination after
unsuccessful, ill-crafted provocation on May 31, 2012, which was orchestrated by university
administration to silence me by ending my employment, permanently disabling me or

UC Regentss from 1999-2003 in relation to unlawful generation and power sale by UC Davis
Medical Center (UCDMC) from a 27 MW cogeneration power plant named "Central Plant." The
stake was also the new unlawful power sale agreement between UC Regents and the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District (SMUD), which was signed exactly on the day of heinous provocation,
May 31, 2012, and was canceled on December 11, 2013, seven days after I filed a wrongful
termination lawsuit against the University of California and nine individual university
employees.

THE MI A BELK's PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

• Due to limited records in regards to Mia Belk's involvement in my unlawful termination


of employment by the University of California, I am leaving it to State Bar of California
investigators to find out whether or not Mia Belk during her employment with the
University of California violated Rules of Professional Conduct and willfully
participated, like other attorneys listed in the complaint, to cover up the crimes
committed by University of California administrators and management
• To the best of my knowledge, in September 2012 Mia Belk, as university-employed
counsel, sent her decision or report (which I don't have) to UC Davis Health System HR
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, J.D., and based on her decision or report
Stephen Chilcott pursued unlawful termination of my employment, which was governed by
the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement I signed with the Regents of the University of
California and which could only be enforced by the California Courts if violated by either
party in the settlement-agreement.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

It appears from the record that I have that after I walked out unharmed from the May 31, 2012,
ill-crafted provocation, the goal of which was to silence me forever, the involved university
perpetrators who orchestrated the heinous provocation and knew the purpose and goal of the
provocation assumed that they had exhausted all available remedies to terminate my employment
and passed the decision to be made to the University of California Office of the President
(UCOP) and UC Office of the General Counsel (UCOGC).

96
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Just after the May 31, 2012, attempt to end my employment in the UCDMC Trauma Nursing Unit
# 11 (TNU), while waiting for TNU supervisor Karen Kouretas to receive me, a few events
described below occurred.

UC Davis Health System HR Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert and HR Equal
Employment, Discrimination Manager Cindy Oropeza were encouraged to fabricate a new
racially charged report by using my three coerced-by-management coworkers (Romanian
nationals Dorin Daniliuc, George Ursu and Dan Radulescu) working in the UCDMC HVAC
shop. They were used previously in Danesha Nichols', J.D., pseudo investigation reports (see
exhibit # 38 & 51). These three individuals were used notoriously by management to attack
other coworkers and provide false information assigned by UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer
Wendi Delmendo and UCDHS HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, who were pseudo-
investigators or in other words "witch hunters" (see exhibit # 22).
Most likely Brent Seifert and Cindy Oropeza had not much choice but to collaborate knowing what
happened in June 2012 to HR Labor Relation Manager Humberto Garcia and his assistant Jill Noel
VanDeviver, J.D.

On June 6, 2012, just seven days after the unsuccessful provocation to silence me forever,
UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department Assistant Manager Dennis
Curry snapped and attacked my coworker Kenny Diede and sent to me what sounded like a
threatening e-mail with the words: "EXHIBIT # 75"
Jerry
I recommend that you find a place in the cavity of a chest of yours and go to see
the Wizard of Oz for a heart. Every action you take every email you send and
every lie you tell is a selfish, self serving attempt to build your ego. Everyone
knows you are engaged in a pathetic transparent grasp for attention. I am
convinced you are the lowest vile human being I have ever had the misfortune to
meet, may God have mercy on your soul" Dennis K. Curry (see the
05/25/2013 Kenny Diede's Letter to Bruce Huge in exhibit # 22)

Dennis Curry, participant in the 2005 cover-up investigation related to the illegal oil discharge
into the Sacramento river, was promoted by Director Robert Taylor to UCDMC PO&M
Department Assistant Manager (Defendant Charles Witcher's Assistant). Dennis Curry was
basically dismissed in June 2012, three weeks before he retired after 35 years of service, for
taking money from contractors. His scheduled retirement day was June 28, 2012. Dennis Curry
was my superior from 2007 to 2012.
UCDMC HR Labor Relation Manger Travis Lindsey, J.D., in his June 11, 2012, e-mail to HR
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott wrote: (see exhibit # 75)

In regard to Dennis, I recommend that we give him a letter of expectation


reprimanding him for conduct unbecoming a manager, and informing him
97
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
that he will be on leave for the remainder of his time with UCDHS. I think
an Intent to Terminate might appear overly self-serving because there isn't
enough time between now and June 28th to complete the process. On the
other hand, he has already received an LOE, so we would be procedurally
justified in moving for termination. Let me know which direction you would
like me to take.

On a related note, Charles Witcher admitted to Noel and Brent that he was in
the room with Dennis while Dennis was drafting the e-mail. Dennis
apparently read a couple of the lines to Charles. He attempted to deflect
responsibility by stating that he wasn't paying close attention to what Dennis
was doing. I AM GOING TO TALK TO MIKE BOYD ABOUT
DISCIPLINING CHARLES FOR HIS FAILURE TO ACT, ETC.

Travis

Travis J. Lindsey, J.D.

Manager, Employee & Labor Relations

The new HR Labor Relation Manager, Travis Lindsey, J.D., apparently had a great
misunderstanding of the university's philosophy of disciplining managers who helped to cover up
frauds or were involved in frauds or completely did not know what was going on and were
disoriented as to who is who in UC Davis Medical Center. He mentioned in the e-mail having
given a Letter of Expectation (LOE) to Dennis Cuny but didn't do any harm to Cuny before his
retirement. A Letter of Expectation does not count as disciplinary action under UC policy and was
not procedurally justified in moving for termination The e-mail shows the ignorance of Travis
Lindsey, who was unfamiliar with UC policies and procedures as HR Labor Relation Manager.

On June 7, 2012, just seven days after the May 31, 2012, unsuccessful attempt to provoke and end my
employment in the UC Davis Medical Nursing Trauma Unit # 11, UC Davis Police Sergeant Jennifer Garcia
sent the following e-mail to all UC Davis Police officers. EXHIBIT # 76

Employee Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk "Jerry" dob/.5/30/51 is on


administrative leave from the UCD Health System. However, he has
continually emailed several people and has not been cooperative with

98
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
HR/Labor Relations with their investigations of his allegations. There
is some concern that he is coming onto the Sacramento campus when he
should not

Chief Operating Officer Vincent Johnson has signed an undated 626 order it
is on the bulletin board in the set's office. IF WASZCZUK IS CONTACTED
ON THE PROPERTY HE NEEDS TO BE SERVED WITH THE 626. It's
mostly filled out. Just add the date and any current info you receive. Take a
fresh case number MSR.

Please forward any information on "Jerry's to Lt, Barbour. Thanks

Jenn

Jennifer Garcia
Sergeant #1021
Medical Center Patrol Division
UC Davis Police Department

The UC Davis Police Sergeant Jennifer Garcia's e-mail clearly indicates that university-
corrupted administration became irritated and dissatisfied with the outcome of May 31, 2012,
attempt to end my employment in UCDMC Trauma Nursing Unit # 11. The UC Davis Death
Squad coordinator Hugh Parker's breaking news with words in his e-mail dated June 1, 2012 did
not sound good.
Mr. Waszczuk returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was
placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent
by Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. MR. WASZCZUK DID NOT DISPLAY ANY
ANGER WHEN TOLD HE WAS BEING PLACE ON INVESTIGATORY
LEAVE.

Hugh Parker's e-mail to the UC Davis Death Squad's members including and not limited to
UCDPD Lt. James Barbour, UCDMC Nursing Trauma Unit # 11 Supervisor Karen Kouretas ,
UCDMC Counsel Davis Levine , UCDMC HR lead psychologist Carol Kirshnit, PhD, HR Labor
Relation Manager Travis Lindsey, J.D., and a few other less notable , sounded like he felt
cheated by Mr. Waszczuk, who did not get angry and did not attack Charles Witcher who handed
him another "witch hunt" letter placing me again on endless investigatory leave after I already
spent six to seven months on investigatory leave being "witch hunted" and terrorized by
university thugs with J.D. degrees, director and manager titles.
99
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
The unlawful power sale agreement with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District signed by
UC Regentss on the day of the unsuccessful provocation to knock me down (see exhibit
#48) was not petty cash for UC Davis Medical Center's corrupted administrative upper circle.
The unlawful power sale agreement for the UCDMC 27 MW Central Plant with SMUD
translated into a raise for UC Davis Medical Center Chief Executive Officer Ann Madden
Rice of nearly $259,000, bringing her compensation to $960,000 a year. UC Davis Vice
Chancellor Claire Pomeroy, who was in charge of the UC Davis Medical Center School of
Medicine, was given a raise of nearly $27,000, bringing her compensation to $664,275. Funding
for Rice's and Pomeroy's salaries did not come from the state's or the university's general funds.

In December 2010, an exclusive 12% pay raise for UC Davis Medical Center cogeneration plant
operators resulted in four cogeneration plant operators' blackmail petition submitted to UC
Davis Medical Center management, which stated that operators can no longer operate the plant
if they did not get a pay increase.

UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott's salary increased from $208,000
to $274,000

The UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher, who
is responsible for maintenance and operation of the cogeneration plant by his title and position,
received $64,000.00 in salary increase from his promotion to this position from 2007 to 2014.
(Charles Witcher has a high school education only and has no qualification for this position.)
Millions of dollars in bonuses for UCDMC cronies and management were a stake, plus
equipment went unrepaired for years, which was endangering hospital staff and patients and was
a major unresolved issue. (See complaint against Stephen Chilcott J.D.) To have Waszczuk
on premises, who knew PURPA's and FERC regulations, which regulate operation of the power
generation and sale from cogenerations facilities in the United Sates and who could easily detect
the power sale fraud, was not welcomed.

UCDPD Sergeant Jenifer Garcia's e-mail shows that the after May 31, 2012, unsatisfying
provocation outcome, the UCDMC-corrupted administration utilized California Penal Code
626 and two corrupted UCDPD cops with hopes and dreams that I would show on the
premises while I was on investigatory leave, that I would be arrested with most likely false
accusations made that I assaulted verbally a peace officer and resisted arrest. The UC Davis
Police Chief Matt Carmichael was brought to power without proper qualification for this
position after the November 18, 2011, plot and provocation to remove UCPD Chief Annette
Spicuzza and Lt. James Barbour, who was set up by UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown,
J.D., to spray students with pepper spray and was later receiving death threats. The other
corrupted UCPD cop, James Barbour, was awarded a $35,000 wage increase to carry out an
attack against me on May 31, 2012, to deliver me to UCDMC Trauma Nursing Unit # 11.
The corrupted UCDMC Chief Operating Officer signed an undated Penal Code 626
Order to get me if show up while I was on investigatory leave. I did not show up.
THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 626.2 STATES:

100
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
626.2. Every student or employee who, after a hearing, has been
suspended or dismissed from a community college, a state
university, the university, or a public or private school for disrupting
the orderly operation of the campus or facility of the institution, and
as a condition of the suspension or dismissal has been denied access
to the campus or facility, or both, of the institution for the period of
the suspension or in the case of dismissal for a period not to exceed
one year; who has been served by registered or certified mail, at the
last address given by that person, with a written notice of the
suspension or dismissal and condition; and who willfully and
knowingly enters upon the campus or facility of the institution to
which he or she has been denied access, without the express written
permission of the chief administrative officer of the campus or
facility, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
THE UNDATED PENAL CODE 626 ORDER, which was signed by UCDMC Chief
Operating Officer Vincent Johnson, was signed with malicious and evil intention to harm me
by UCDPD Police and was entirely unlawful.
Since December 5, 2011, I had been placed on investigatory leave under the abuse by
UCDMC administration of the UC Davis Policy PPSM 63 Investigatory Leave Policy with
exception to the unlawful 10 days suspension without pay from May 11, 2012, to May 31, 2012.
The May 2012 suspension was the "UCDMC administration gun," which should trigger my
anger upon arrival to work and serve me with another "witch hunt" investigatory leave letter
not allowing me to come back to work after eight months of absence caused by the university
thugs' terror aimed at me.
Regardless of the abuse of the investigatory leave policy by the UCDMC administration, the
investigatory leave has nothing to do with the suspension or dismissal outlined in the Penal
Code 626.2 and it is more evidence that the signed Penal Code 626 (PC 626) order was intended
for completely different reasons than law requires. I haven't any doubt that UCDMC Chief
Operating Officer Vincent Johnson signed the PC 626 order with prior consultation with
UCDMC Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski, J.D., or Counsel David Levine, or HR Executive
Director Stephen Chilcott, J.D. (see exhibit # 76)
The California Penal Code Section 626.4 (a) (b)
626.4. (a) The chief administrative officer of a campus or other
facility of a community college, a state university, the university,
or a school, or an officer or employee designated by the chief
101
STATEBAROFCALIFORNIA
COMPLAINTAGAINSTATTORNEYS
administrative officer to maintain order on such campus or facility,
may notify a person that consent to remain on the campus or other
facility under the control of the chief administrative officer has
been withdrawn whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that
such person has willfully disrupted the orderly operation of such
campus or facility.
(b) Whenever consent is withdrawn by any authorized officer or
employee, other than the chief administrative officer, such officer
or employee shall as soon as is reasonably possible submit a
written report to the chief administrative officer. The report shall
contain all of the following:
(1) The description of the person from whom consent was withdrawn,
including, if available, the person's name, address, and phone
number.
(2) A statement of the facts giving rise to the withdrawal of
consent.
I don't have the document which was submitted to the UCDMC Chief Operating Officer the
after May 31, 2012, provocation that made him sign the undated Penal Code 626 order to attack
me with UCDPD Police force.

Furthermore the Penal Code, Section 626.4 (c) states:


The person from whom consent has been withdrawn may submit
a written request for a hearing on the withdrawal within the
two-week period. The written request shall state the address to which
notice of hearing is to be sent. The chief administrative officer
shall grant such a hearing not later than seven days from the date of
receipt of the request and shall immediately mail a written notice
of the time, place, and date of such hearing to such person.
I was declared by the university administration "persona non grata" on August 31, 2011, with
multiple attempts to provoke me and terminate my employment, but I never was informed by
anybody that Penal Code 624 was in play to attack me by UCDPD Police force until I received
documents under the Request for Production of Documents in my wrongful termination lawsuit.
About the May 31, 2012, provocation I got information from the document I received in
November 2012 under a Public Record Act request one month prior my employment termination
on December 7, 2012.
THE PENAL CODE, SECTION 624.4 (G) STATES:
(g) This section shall not affect the rights of representatives of
employee organizations to enter, or remain upon, school grounds
while actually engaged in activities related to representation, as
provided for in Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of
102
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code.
In June 2012 I was not a representative of an employee organization, but I represented my two
coworkers in their complaints, because they came under despicable attack by the same UCDMC
management that terrorized me for years. One of my coworkers was William Buckans from the
UC Davis Central Plant, who under UC Davis whistleblowing policy in 2005 reported massive
unlawful machine oil discharge from the UCDMC Central Plant for seven years into the
Sacramento River via a city storm drain and since then was continually harassed and bullied with
a clear UCDMC management goal to have him terminated. The other worker was a plumber from
the UCDMC HVAC shop, who in July 2011 reported to the management that a twice-convicted
child pornography felon who was brought by his father to the UCDMC plumbing shop. The felon
was permitted by shop management to surf the Internet on the shop computer, despite being
prohibited by a US Federal Court Order from touching any computers during his probation
period. Since July 2011, Kenny Died was harassed and attacked by UCDMC management and
was forced to quit in 2013. (See exhibits # 39& # 55)

The Penal Code, Section 626.81 (a) states:

626.81. (a) A person who is required to register as a sex offender


pursuant to Section 290, who comes into any school building or upon
any school ground without lawful business thereon and written
permission indicating the date or dates and times for which
permission has been granted from the chief administrative official of that
school, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

UCDMC administration, instead of protecting UCDMC employees and the public from the
criminal activities of such an individual, who was not even an employee of the UC Davis
Medical Center, UC Davis Chief Compliance officer Wendi Delmendo, in conspiracy with HR
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, J.D., ordered HR investigator Danesha Nichols, J.D., to
cover—up and sweep under the carpet the criminal activities of this individual. Furthermore,
HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, in conspiracy with UCDMC Plant Operation and
Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher, in September 2011 gave my position and office to the
employee who was bringing this twice-convicted felon to the shop as award for his slanderous
statement aimed at me for Danesha Nichols' witch hunt report, which was crafted as cause for
my termination. My position and office was provided to me by the February 2009 Settlement-
Agreement that I signed with the Regents of the University of California. My office was
secluded and separated from other employees' activities and easily used by this individual at
night (his father had key to the shop and the office) and any computer (laptop) brought from
outside could be hooked up to the Internet in this office, and this sick individual could easily
"entertain" himself with child porn.

103
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
I brought this subject up many times in my e-mails to university administration and police, but
this individual who brought a felon to the shop and was awarded my job and office is still
working there.

The Penal Code, Section 626.10 (a) states:

626.10. (a) (1) Any person, except a duly appointed peace officer as
defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of

Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal


government who is carrying out official duties while in this state, a person
summoned by any officer to assist in making arrests or preserving the
peace while the person is actually engaged in assisting any officer, or a
member of the military forces of this state or the United States who is
engaged in the performance of his or her duties, who brings or possesses
any dirk, dagger, ice pick, knife having a blade longer than 2 1/2 inches,
folding knife with a blade that locks into place, razor with an unguarded
blade, taser, or stun gun, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 244.5,
any instrument that expels a metallic projectile, such as a BB or a pellet,
through the force of air pressure, CO2 pressure, or spring action, or any
spot marker gun, upon the grounds of, or within, any public or private
school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12,
inclusive, is guilty of a public offense, punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

The UCDMC Chief Compliance Officer, Teresa Porter, and crooked UCDPD cops backing up
and condoning reported unlawful UCDMC HVAC shop manager Patrick Putney's activities
concluded their investigation with UCDMC HR Labor Relation Department Manager Travis
Lindsey, J.D., in an e-mail to UCDMC HR Director Stephen Chilcott, J.D., as follows:
EXHIBIT 14 77 Investigation of paint ball incident by Compliance

Travis Lindsey to: Stephen Chilcott 06127/2012 09: 55 AM

Compliance has determined that Jerry's allegations are unsubstantiated.


Teresa is reviewing Gina's report. Patrick denied the incident and stated that

104
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
the splatter was there before he transferred into the department, there were no
witnesses who could corroborate Jerry's allegations.

Travis J. Lindsey, J.D.

Manager, Employee & Labor Relations


Human Resources, UC Davis Health System

The May31, 2012 provocation did not work to end my employment in UCDMC Trauma
Nursing Unit # 11, the Penal Code 626undated order signed by the UCDIVIC Chief
Operating Officer Vincent Johnson with evil intention to harm me by the UCDMC Police
crooked cops did not work as well. Thereafter, UCDPD crooked cops, instead of
investigating child porn activities on university premises, or management's violent and
abusive behavior and corruption, sent inquiry to police in Lodi, where I have resided since
1989 and attempted to get me in trouble with Lodi Police and criminal law. (See exhibit
#77 and enclosed copy of complaint against Sacramento County Superior Court
Judge Shelleyanne Chang.)

Around June 20, 2012, I alerted a Sacramento TV station KCRA 3 reporter about my grave
situation and I pointed out to him that I had been held captive by UCDMC for seven months on
phony investigatory leave, babysitting my dog and not allowed to go back to my job guaranteed
me by the signed February 2009 Settlement-Agreement with the Regents of the University of
California.
I would like to mention that I did not have the information that I do today about power sale fraud by
UCDMC 27 MW Central Plant.

On June 22, 2012, the TV KCRA 3 reporter Jack Friday sent an e-mail to UC Davis Health
System Public Affairs and Marketing Executive, Internal and Creative Services Manager Carole
Gan with the words: EXHIBIT # 78

Dear Carole Gan,

I am with KCRA Call 3. We try to assist oth ers with th eir problems.

After talking to M r. Waszczuk, I called Charlie Casey wh o is out of


h is office. M r. Waszczuk claims th e wh ole UCDMC is corrupt. He is
stating h e is being paid $6,000 a month to stay home. He mentioned
that h e contacted th e police becau se th e police is supposed to take
care of such matters.

1 05
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
I n addition he claims som ething about UCDM C D UM PI NG OI L I N
T HE CI T Y'S ST OR M DR AI NS. I could be wrong about what is
being claimed.

I am asking that you look into this and forward this information to
the correct ag ency or agencies.

Thanks

Jack Friday

Call 3, KCRA where the news comes first.

n June 2012, I did not have the information that I have today and being terrorized for over one
year, I had a very difficult time coping with the situation of not knowing when my last day of
employment would be. The TV KCR 3 reporter did not help me, but I believe that Jack Friday's e-
mail postponed my employment termination, which was set for June 22, 2012. Looking at the
record or some other circumstances unknown to me put on hold the decision to erase me from
university landscape and payroll.

July 18, 2012, to frame me , investigator Gina Gaullaume-Holleman from the UC Davis Medical
Center (UCDMC) Chief Compliance Office interviewed one of my coworkers from the HVAC
shop.
.Mark Montoya, a plumber from the Plumbing/HVAC shop, was called to be interviewed by Gina
Guillaume-Holleman. Mark Montoya was a little surprised or maybe not when Gina Gaullivaum-
Hollmann showed him Plaintiff's photo and asked Mark Montoya whether I was and is a threat to
him, and without any hesitation she solicited from Mark Montoya a confirmation signature on the
affidavit, which stated that I am a threat to him and a dangerous individual. According to
Mark Montoya, he refused and left Gina Gaullivaume—Hollmann's Office. Montoya was picked
for this interview by HR personnel because he was friend with had friends in HR Department. He
was riding his Harley motorcycle together with HR Labor Relation Manager Humberto Garcia,
HR Workers Compensation Department Mike Taylor and HR Labor Relation Principal Consultant
Gina Harwood and with HR Workers Compensation Manger Hugh Parker, who was also
coordinator of the May 31, 2012, provocation to deliver me to UCDMC Trauma Nursing Unit #
11. Mark Montoya told me that he did not sign the sworn affidavit, but I am not sure 100%
because on September 26, 2012, a UCDPD poster with my photo and description on it was
circulated around UC Davis campuses to prohibit me to entering UCDMC premises without
informing me about it. Mark Montoya was easy person to coerce and he was only one from my
shop who was picked for this interview. My suspicious that Mark signed the affidavit is based on
HR Gina Harwood's September 27, 2012 e-mail she sent to HR Labor Relation Manager Travis
Lindsey about the distributed " Persona Non Grata " poster UC Davis Campuses . Gina Harwood
did not expect such outcome after she sent Mark Montoya for

106
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
this interview. She panicked when she saw the UCDPD poster with my photo on and she
expressed herself as follow,

"From Gina Harwood/MR/HS/6CD


To Travis Lindsey/FIR/HS/UCDOUCDavis
Date 09/27/2012 08:56 AM
Subject Fw: Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw Waszczuk)

Hi There:

THIS IS REALLY OUT OF THE NORM TO POST THIS IN THE


DEPARTMENT AND I WAS NOT AWARE THAT WE WERE GOING TO
DO THIS. DID WE ASK THE POLICE TO DO THIS? His letter stated
that he would remain on paid leave which implies the same
expectations but I am a little concerned that this is being posted in the
department since we have not done this before on any other violence
cases.

Just want to make sure that we sanctioned this before it was posted in the
department because I suspect we will be getting an email about it soon.

Gina

Gina Harwood, SPHR


Principal Employee and Labor Relations Consultant
UC Davis Health System
Human Resources"

Travis Lindsey did know who is Mark Montoya and Motoya's relation with HR personnel
including former HR Labor Relation Manager Humberto Garcia , Travis Lindsey replaced
Humberto Garcia at the end of April 2012.

Gina Gaullaume-Holleman's interview with Mark Montoya, the Penal Code 626 order, and the
inquiry sent to Lodi Police by UCDPD Sergeant Jennifer Garcia shows some kind desperation to find
a solution to frame me and silence me as quick as possible

107
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
On July 25, 2012, UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, J.D., sent an
e-mail to UCDMC HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey, J.D., discussing assignment of the
outside counsel for Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M) matters.

Summary of PO&M Matter for Legal Defense

Stephen Chilcott to: Travis Lindsey 07/25/2012 04:38 PM

Hi,

Please provide me with a summary of the PO&M matter as a rationale for


early assignment of defense counsel that we can provide Anna._

Steve

STEPHEN CHILCOTT, Executive Director, Human Resources

ETC Davis Health System


I believe that Chilcott's reason of inquiry for early assignment of defense counsel was the
unlawful power generation and sale by the 27 MW Central Plant, which is an integral part of the
UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department. It happened
after I sent to UC Davis Health System Chief Compliance Officer Teresa Porter information
about the $100,000,000 fraud similar to the Central Plant operation fraud committed by my
previous employer against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) from 1989-1997. Stephen
Chilcott, J.D., was familiar with my previous employer's fraud and my lawsuit against Destec
Energy, Inc. (see exhibit # 15)

However, most likely UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski advised Stephen
Chilcott that the operation and power sale from the UCDMC Central Plant is in UC General
Counsel Charles Robinson's jurisdiction. Thereafter, my employment termination was passed for
decision to UC Office of the General Counsel Deputy Mia Belk, with most likely false
information and with a slanderous and racially charged report fabricated by HR witch hunter
assigned to the task, HR Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert, J.D., and HR Equal
Opportunity Employment and Diversity Manager Cindy Oropeza

On September 12, 2012, UC General Counsel Charles Robinson's Deputy Counsel Mia Belk
approved the termination of my employment, which finally occurred on December 7, 2012.
The UC General Counsel Office approval of my employment termination corresponds with
HR Labor Relation Manger Travis Lindsey's, J.D., e-mailed statement that "WE'VE
NEVER TERMINATED JW EITHER" sent in response to his subordinate, Gina Harwood,
upon questioning him about who made the decision and why to distribute the
"Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw Waszczuk) poster around UC Davis
campuses on September 26, 2012, with my photo and description on it.
I don't have Mia Belk's report on basis of which she approved termination of my employment.
108
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
On January 4, 2013, Travis Lindsey sent to UCGC deputy Mia Belk my Step I appeal that I
filed under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70. EXHIBIT# 79

In February 2013, Mia Belk left the University of California for reasons unknown to me.

CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

In line with the above-presented facts, I respectfully request that the State Bar of California
pursue an investigation against Mia Belk, former University of California attorney licensed by the
State Bar of California.
If she made the decision to terminate my employment when she knew that I was employed by
university by the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement signed with the Regents of the University
of California when she knew that my employee record was outstanding, then she violated grossly
my employee and civil rights by participation and her collaboration with UC General Counsel
Charles Robinson in the malicious unlawful termination of my employment. However, it for
State Bar of California to find out what kind instruction she received from UC General Counsel
and she wrote in her fabricated report she sent to UC Davis Health System HR Executive
Director Stephen Chilcott on September 12, 2011.

XIII. COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDITH ANN ROSENBERG J.D, SBN 87657

Principal Investigator
University of California, Office of the President
Department of Ethics, Compliance & Audit Services
1111 Franklin Street., 5th Floor
Office 5407
Oakland, CA 94607-5200
Phone: (510) 987-0650
Fax: (510) 287-3334
E-mail: judithr@atttglobal.net
Judith.Rosenberg@ucop.edu

GENERAL INFORMATION

UC Berkeley graduate Judith Rosenberg J.D was admitted to the State Bar of California on
November 29, 1979. According to https://www.linkedin.com/in/judith-rosenberg-0021934,
Rosenberg was hired by the University of California in October 2011 as principal investigator in the
University of California Office of the President (UCOP), Department of Ethics, Compliance
109
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
and Audit Services. As principal investigator, Judith Rosenberg is responsible for investigating
complaints of whistleblower retaliation, discrimination, harassment and retaliation for all
University of California campuses.

Besides her employment with the University of California, Judith Rosenberg JD (hereafter
Rosenberg) has had her own private law practice named the Law Office of Judith A. Rosenberg
since January 2000.

Prior to her employment with the university, she was staff attorney in the United States Court
of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, from September 1979 to 1980 (1 year); an attorney in the Office of
the San Francisco Public Defender from 1980 to 1984 (4 years); partner with Jones, Clifford,
Johnson & Johnson, LLP from January 1985 to December 1998 (14 years); and senior
consultant/legal counsel with Terra Nova Consulting Group from June 1999 to December
2001 (2 years, 7 months).

Rosenberg specializes in employment practices, consulting, conducting workplace investigations,


analyzing and developing training and handbooks, and employment policies and procedures. She
also serves as an expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants.

She served as the court-appointed consent decree monitor for a federal case involving sexual
harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation, and has monitored settlement agreements
involving the rights of disabled students and disabled inmates in the California prison system.

SPECIALTIES: WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, EXPERT WITNESS


EVALUATIONS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS, COUNSELING ON
COMPLIANCE WITH EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES, AND MONITORING CONSENT
DECREES

Rosenberg was hired by the UCOP in Oakland, CA, in October 2011. This was a time of turmoil,
with student protests in the university campuses, furloughs, and illegal medical experiments in
the UC Davis Medical Cancer on cancer patients, which caused several patients' deaths. It was
also a time of credit card embezzlement and other serious violation law UC Davis Medical
Center administration.

For myself, October 2011 was a particularly horrifying time, with a great possibility that I would
be unemployed at age 60 after the university administration's "witch hunt" in September 2011,
which removed me from the premises. Afterwards, I was placed on a phony and endless
investigatory leave, which ended with my employment being terminated more than one year
later, on December 7, 2012.

For the University of California, 2011 ended with the widely publicized pepper spray attack
against protesters on November 18, 2011, which was ordered by the university administration.

In November 2011, I did not realize or know that, besides the goal of UC Davis Chancellor
Linda Ketehi's regime to remove the protesters from the UC Davis Campus, she with her
110
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
collaborators also meticulously planned an operation to replace UC Davis Chief of Police Annette
Spicuzza and Lt. John Pike with the corrupted UCDPD Lt. Matthew Carmichael and Lt. James
Barbour.

Mathew Carmichael was previously assigned to the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), whose
notoriously administration and management violated state and federal laws, and whose management
attacked employees even for minor complaints.

UCDPD Lt. James Barbour replaced Lt. Carmichael at the UC Davis Medical Center after Lt.
Carmichael became interim UCDPD chief on November 21, 2011. In 2012, UCDPD Lt. James
Barbour was bribed with a $35,000 wage increase or restoration of what he lost for his
misconduct. James Barbour was bribed with the $35,000 wage increase in 2012 to silence me
forever and erase me from the university landscape and payroll.

For this purpose, a malicious and heinous but unsuccessful provocation was planned for May 31,
2012, with the goal of ending my employment in UCDMC Trauma Nursing Unit #11. On May
31, 2012, Trauma Unit Supervisor Karen Kouretas participated in the plot by waiting for me to be
delivered to her unit dead or with an unrecoverable blunt injury inflicted by Lt. James Barbour's
weapon. Judith Rosenberg J.D was assigned to investigate my whistleblowing retaliation
complaint in June 2013.

JUDITH ROSENBERG'S PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

• To the best of my knowledge, Rosenberg violated the California State Bar Rules of
Professional Conduct and knowingly assisted or induced another to do so through the acts
of another person.
• Since June 2013, Rosenberg, in conspiracy with others, committed unlawful acts that
adversely reflect on her honesty, trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
• Since June 2013, Rosenberg, in conspiracy with others, engaged in misconduct involving
dishonesty, the covering up of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation in her position as a
principal investigator in the University of California Office of the President (UCOP),
Department of Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services, and as an attorney licensed by the
State Bar of California.
• Rosenberg, as a very skilled and experienced attorney at law licensed by the State Bar of
California, by her blunt disregard of state and federal laws and the University of
California's policies and procedures — which are equal to state statutes — and by
conspiring with other attorneys employed by the university and with university
administrators, violated with despicable malice my civil and human rights with her
practicing of law and advising others to disregard the law and principles of civilized
society.

111
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
STATEMENT OF FACTS

On March 2013, I filed a retaliation and interference complaint with the UC Davis Provost and
Executive Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter, even though my employment with the University of
California was governed by a settlement agreement I signed in good faith and goodwill with the UC
Regents since February 2009 to avoid litigation. I had no intention to sue the university in 2008 or in
2013 after my termination, as I preferred an out-of-court resolution. EXHIBIT #81

Believing that the UC Regents would fulfill their obligations from the 2009 settlement
agreement, I thought that litigation would be unnecessary for both sides, since I had litigation
experience with my previous employer, which committed similar fraud to that of the UC Regents
regarding unlawful power generation and sales.

I filed the above complaint after the unlawful termination of my employment with the university on
December 7, 2012, which the university carried out for a different reason than I thought in 2012-
2015.
I filed the retaliation and interference complaint with the UC Davis Provost and Executive Vice
Chancellor's Office after I already summited the appeal on January 4, 2013, to the UCDMC HR
Office under UC Davis Resolution Policy PPSM 70 EXHIBIT # 82, regarding the employment
termination decision issued by the university on December 5, 2012, with an effective termination
date of December 7, 2012. ( See exhibit #79)

Before I filled the retaliation and interference complaint and submitted the appeal under UC Davis
Policy PPSM 70, I reviewed several wrongful termination cases in the State of California Appellate
Court involving the Regents of the University of California.

Three of the reviewed cases caught my attention, and I decided to file a request to review the
unlawful employment termination decision under PPSM 70. I had to be certain that I would be
not precluded from filing the wrongful termination lawsuit or else I would be defeated like the
two plaintiffs in Janet Campbell v. Regents of the University of California 5113275; CLApp.1/1
A097560; San Francisco Super. CT. No. 312736 and Patricia M Palmer v. Regents of the
University of California 2nd App. Div. 7 B154868; Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC
187036.

If the State of California Appellate Court justices and California's legislators knew what University
of California employees who report fraud by university administration, misuse of university
resources, and other administration crimes and wrongdoings have to go through, such as the
university-orchestrated witch hunts and hell beyond imagination, then the supreme justices never
would side with the corrupted and rotten university administration and management, and would not
have ruled Janet Campbell v. Regents of the University of California and Patricia M. Palmer v.
Regents of the University of California in favor of the regents.

1 12
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
In my cover letter attached to my retaliation and interference complaint dated March 7, 2013, I
wrote:

"March 7, 2013

The Honorable Ralph J. Hexter


Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
Mrak Hall, Fifth Floor
University of California, Davis
1 Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616

Re: retaliation and interference complaint

Dear Vice Chancellor Hexter,

Enclosed is a copy of my retaliation and interference complaint against


certain individuals who are managing UC Davis Medical Center in
Sacramento, California, where I was employed for over thirteen years and
where my employment was abruptly and without valid and legitimate
reason terminated on December 7, 2012.

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


are included in the complaint, UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael
and his subordinate, Lieutenant James Barbour, are included in the
complaint for alleged act(s) of provocation and conspiracy with other
individuals listed in the complaint in an attempt to murder me on May
31, 2012 or send me to the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit in a
state of extreme harm.

It is very disturbing and also unthinkable that UC Davis leaders should


use the UC Davis Police Force to resolve labor relations disputes with
employees who are making complaints. The original retaliation and
interference complaint included approximately 1,500 pages of documents
and photos that I sent to your office yesterday by U.S. certified mail.
113
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
I would like to inform you that I am representing myself in this matter
until such time as I decide to hire an attorney at law.

If you have any questions or concerns, the University of California Legal


Counsel or other investigators may contact me at their convenience in the
event that you decide to review the complaint and investigate the
allegations."

The complaint was sent to the provost and executive vice chancellor, and a copy was sent to UC
President Mark Yudoff with 1,500 pages of documents.

On October 1, 2012, UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Ralph Hex-ter became concerned
about my September open letter I sent to new UCDPD Chief Matt Carmichael regarding the issued
poster with my photo on it, which made me look like a criminal or terrorist wanted by the FBI or
the police. (See Exhibit #63)

On the same day, October 1, 2013, Hexter questioned UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer
Wendi Delmendo about my letter to the UC Davis chief of police and the attachments to the
letters, including the mentioned police poster with my photo on it.

On June 14, 2013, two months after I filed my retaliation and interference complaint dated
March 7, 2013, with the UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Office, UC Davis Chief
Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo informed me that she assigned Principal Investigator
Judith Rosenberg from the UC Office of the President in Oakland as an investigator to handle my
retaliation and interference complaint. EXHIBIT #83

It was unusual for my retaliation and interference complaint to be assigned to the UCOP
investigator in Oakland and for the UC Davis Campus Chief Compliance officer to assign itself as
the Locally Designated Officer (LDO) that would be overseeing the investigation conducted by the
UCOP investigator.

On December 1, 2014, in the filed Court Declaration in Support of the Special Motion to Strike,
Wendi Delmendo stated: EXHIBIT #84
"On July 31, 2011, 1 received an email from Waszczuk in which he referred to
the July 26th email I had sent him. Waszczuk stated that he did not want to pursue
filing under the Whistleblower Protection Policy."
Why would anybody file a complaint under the university's Whistleblower Protection Policy
when the policy is used as a tool to craft false accusations against complainers, slander
complainers, and give the green light to management to hunt down complaining employees like
animals and makes their life a living hell. I represented several employees under the UC
Whistleblower Protection Policy, and I know the results of such investigations. In her
114
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
declaration, Delmendo did not describe why I did not want to file such a complaint when I was an
employee. My eight-page letter dated May 31, 2011, which was mentioned by Delmendo's
declaration, and my June 30, 2013, letter to Delmendo in Dereck Cole's whistleblower retaliation
complaint are included in exhibit #84 and are self-explanatory in this matter.
On June 16, 2013, I sent a letter to Rosenberg regarding her assignment to investigate
my whistleblower protection complaint. Rosenberg responded on June 19 that she would
be on vacation until July 2013. EXHIBIT #85
In addition to Rosenberg's assignment, I sent several complaints to various state agencies against
some licensed members of the assembled group of UC Davis employees who participated in the
heinous and malicious provocation on May 31, 2012, to end my employment in UC Davis Nursing
Trauma Unit #11. EXHIBIT #86

On September 17, 2013, Rosenberg contacted me by email to schedule the meeting for my
retaliation and interference complaint she was assigned to on June 14, 2013 by UC Davis Campus
Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo. After exchanging e-mail correspondence, the meeting
was set for October 2, 2013, seven months after the complaint was submitted on March 7, 2013.
EXHIBIT #87

On September 30, 2013, I sent the 27-page chronology to Rosenberg by U.S. overnight mail
and fax for my scheduled meeting with her for October 2, 2013, to make the meeting easier.
EXHIBIT #88

On September 30, 2013, the former United States Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
from 2009 to 2013, under President Barack Obama, became the 20th president of the University of
California.
I am not certain whether this was the reason for UC's administration to put the investigation on hold
for seven months while waiting for new UC president to take office. The unlawful power generation
and sales worth millions of dollars by the university—a non-profit organization—are also tax fraud
and federal offenses.

On October 1, 2013, Rosenberg sent me the following inquiry by e-mail.

From: Judith.RosenbergAucop.edu
To: jjw1980Alive.com
CC: whbuckansAyahoo.com; williarn.buckansAucdmc.ucdavis.edu;
Joseph.Epperson@ucop.edu; ucdmclaborchat@comcast.net;
Sheryl.VaccaAucop.edu
Subject: RE: Scheduling
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 21:42:46 +0000

Hello Jerry.
1 15
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
I am reviewing the information you provided in connection with
your retaliation complaint.

You did not include a copy of the letter of suspension or the notice of intent
to terminate with the backup documentation. I have a copy of the brief you
wrote for the Skelly hearing.

Gould you fax those documents to me as soon as possible? I will need to


review them before we meet and do not want to have to reschedule our
meeting.

If you are not able to get them to me today, we should talk at the end of
the day to decide on a new date for our meeting. I will make time next
week if we cannot meet tomorrow.

Thank you.

Please feel free to call me at the number below if you have any questions. I
am not sure I have a phone number for you.

Judith

When I received the above e-mail from the UCOP investigator—seven months after
my retaliation complaint was filed and after submitting 1,500 pages of documents for
investigation and I read the UCOP principal investigator asking me the day before
the meeting for a copy of the letter of suspension and letter of intent to terminate my
employment made me not want go to the meeting. However, I calmly responded to
Rosenberg's inquiry and e-mailed and faxed to her office the requested documents.
EXHIBIT #89

I still do not know whether Rosenberg by sending to me the above mentioned inquiries
intended to investigate anything or if her inquiries were just an attempt to postpone the
meeting, or if she just wanted to outrage me, give up on her investigation, and reject the
complaint.

On October 2, 2013, I drove from Lodi, CA, to UCOP Headquarters with my former
coworker William Buckans as a witness. Rosenberg attended the meeting with the UCOP HR
labor relations director for diversity.

116
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS
On the same day, October 3,2013, I sent a letter to Rosenberg summarizing the October
2, 2013, meeting with her. I expressed my feelings about meeting with her by the
following words. EXHIBIT #90

Dear Ms. Rosenberg,

I would like to thank you and Mr. Joseph Epperson for the brief meeting.
I am quite disappointed that the meeting was very short and was not
scheduled for a longer period of time. You have been assigned to this case
since June 2013, and I thought that in our meeting you would get to the
bottom of the notorious problems in the UC Davis Medical Center with
regard to strenuous relations between the labor and management.

It is hard to believe that for an unknown reason, the meeting took four
months to take place, and when it fmally did happen, you reserved so
little time to go over the case, which is quite complex, and has required
an investigator to understand.

On October 10, 2013, I sent another letter to Judith Rosenberg entitled "My Concerns About
the Ongoing Investigation and Investigator." EXHIBIT #91. I became very concerned that,
ever since March 7, 2013, nothing was done with my complaint beside the very short meeting
with Rosenberg on October 2, 2013. I summarized this in the letter about Rosenberg's
assignment from June 14, 2013.

On October 22, 2013, I sent additional documents for the investigation to Rosenberg, in a
short letter containing the following statement: EXHIBIT #92

"I urge you not to follow the steps conducted by Wendi