Source: https://id.scribd.com/document/403985060/01-29-2019-Petition-for-Review-J-jaroslaw-Waszczuk-v-CUIAB
Timestamp: 2020-01-26 02:29:58
Document Index: 328106894

Matched Legal Cases: ['§3', '§3', '§ 410', '§3', '§3', '§3']

01-29-2019-Petition for Review J-jaroslaw Waszczuk v. CUIAB | Supreme Court Of California | Judgment (Law)
Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk 2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242 Phone: 209-663-2977 Fax: 209-370-8281 Email: jjw1980live.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
simpanSimpan 01-29-2019-Petition for Review J-jaroslaw Waszczuk... Untuk Nanti
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
Email: jjw1980@live.com
Re: Appellant’s Petition for Review after the decision by the Court of Appeal, Third
Appellate District, C079254, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
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
• 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
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
Petitioner and Appellant in Pro Per
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,
AFTER THE DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
CASE NO. C079254
Sacramento County No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS
Phone: (209) 663-2977
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
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
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.
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
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
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
Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256 ........................................ …..7
Unemployment Insurance Code, section1142(a)……………………...…..21
Business and Professions Code, section 6140.5………………..…………14
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
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
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE
AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE
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
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.”
MISCODUCT WHICH DISQUALIFIED HIM FROM
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
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.
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
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
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/WORD_PDF/FINAL_DECISION/2
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
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
• 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
III. APPELLANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER THE CAUSES
A. Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al., 3DCA
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
M. Kathleen Butz are listed in the C079254 opinion as Concurring Justices.
Waszczuk was discriminated against in 2013 by an Employment Development
Department interviewing officer and subsequently by Administrative Law Judge,
Marilyn Tays; by two CUIAB Board Members, Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn;
by trial Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang (in her March 12, 2015 decision); and
now by 3DCA Justices, Hon. Elena J. Duarte, Hon. Cole Blease, and Hon. M.
Kathleen Butz.
Waszczuk addressed Hon. Cole Blease in his Petition for a Rehearing on Pages
28–30 in relation to his dissenting opinion in Paratransit Inc. v. Unemployment
Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 558 (Paratransit) [S204221].
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/paratransit-inc-v-unemployment-ins-appeals-
bd-34332
Hon. Cole Blease denied Waszczuk’s Petition for a Rehearing on January 17,
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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 .
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 .]
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
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 .
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
Dokumen Serupa dengan 01-29-2019-Petition for Review J-jaroslaw Waszczuk v. CUIAB
washburn_brad2617
Jason B. Nicholas v. Dominic J. Mantello, Superintendent, Coxsackie Correctional Facility, 104 F.3d 353, 2d Cir. (1996)
Ballew v. United States, 160 U.S. 187 (1895)
Ghanshyam Dass HC
Philippine Rabbit, Menchavez and Paradeza cases
82-84 civ pro
Digest Manning vs Nlrc
12. SARMIENTO V MENDIOLA.docx
Macke vs. Camps
Tac-an vs Court of Appeals - Full Text
LA FUERZA.docx
LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS(6) EDITED F.pptx
39 DE LEON vs pea.docx
appeal and revision.docx
Mahender Chauhan
ADMIN Set 2.docx
criminal revision - Prabhu 420APPR.docx
2017.12.06.Memo in Opp to Application for Reconsideration
42. Saunar vs. Ermita.docx
Prosecution (Memorial format).docx
To What Extent Do TNCs Bring About More Advantages Than Disadvantages When Operating in LDCs or Host Countries
BOYD, Richard - Pity's Pathologies Portrayed
CD_SAMPLE_MEETING_SCRIPT (1).doc