08-11-2023 - Appellant Petition For Rehearing - Waszczuk V The Regents of The University of California 3DCA Case No C95488

CASE NO.
: C095488
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD
APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Plaintiff
Plaintiff & Appellant
v.
The Regents of the University of California
Defendant & Respondent

____________________________________________________________________
Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Appeal of the Judgment of the Superior Court of California County of Sacramento
Superior Court – The Honorable Christopher E. Krueger
Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING ON

3DCA UNPUBLISHED OPINION ISSUED ON JULY 28, 2023
Waszczuk v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., No. C095488
(Cal. Ct. App. July 28, 2023)
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Plaintiff

Per se
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax.: 209-729-5154
Email: [email protected]
-1-
Appellant Petition for Rehearing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS…………….……2
I. INTRODUCTION ……………...……………………………………….………..…..7
II. THIS APPELA NEVER SHOULD TAKEN PLACE-THE IRREPARABLE

DAMAGES DONE TO WASZCZUK LITIGATIONS BY THE WASZCZUK’S
FORMER ATTORNEY CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT
……………………………………………………………………………….…………9
III. THE COURT’S FACTUAL MISSTATEMENTS AND THE “WELCOME TO
ROMANIA” VIDEO IN THE JULY 28, 2023 OPINION BACKGROUND
PASTED OR REPEATED FROM THE REGENTS’
PLEADINGS………………………………,,,,,,,,……………………………………17
A. Opinion Page No. 4: In 2007, Waszczuk was suspended from work for three days

for creating a hostile work environment, using intimidating and disrespectful
language with coworkers, and making derogatory comments about coworkers’
race, religion, ethnic background, and other immutable characteristics.
……………………………………………………………..………………………….17
B. Opinion Page No.4- In 2011, Waszczuk violated policies concerning

workplace violence and hate incidents and was insubordinate.
C. Opinion Pag No.4-In 2012, he sent a workplace investigator a slideshow titled,

“Welcome to Romania,” which depicted people defecating in the streets and
having sex in front of a child. After an investigation, UC Regents gave Waszczuk
a notice of intent to terminate him. Waszczuk was terminated after a hearing
concerning the misconduct. ……………….………………………………………..18
D. In the Opinion, the Court stated, “Most of the headings in Waszczuk’s briefing
fail to show the nature of the question presented and the point to be made. To the
extent Waszczuk has failed to make his contentions in proper headings, those
contentions are forfeited. In many parts of Waszczuk’s briefs he makes
statements about the procedure or the facts without citing to the record on appeal
to support the statement.” (Page No.6-Disscusion)…………………………….….20
E. The Court did not read Waszczuk’s Appellant Reply Brief ……………………….
-3-
IV. THE OPINION FAILED TO ADDRESS WASZCZUK’S ARGUMENT
ALLEGING THAT THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, IN
STOCKTON, WAS THE PROPER VENUE AND JURISDICTION FOR THE
WRIT OF MANDAMUS CASE AND WASZCZUK’S WRONGFUL
TERMINATION COMPLAINT, FILED SIMULTANEOUSLY ON
DECEMBER 2 & 4, 2014………………………………………………………..…..22
A. Sacramento County Superior Court was not the proper place for Waszczuk to file
his writ of mandate and wrongful termination complaint against The Regents of
the University of California in December 2013……………………………...…….22
V. THE COURT FAILED TO HELP WASZCZUK RESOLVE THE PUZZLE OF
HIS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, WHICH WERE
REINSTATED AND STOLEN FROM HIM IN MAY 2014 ………..……………23
VI. WASZCZUK’S EMPLOYMENT HISTORY WITH THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL

CENTER…………………………………..…………………………………………26
VII. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………..……………...42

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………………..……….49
PROOF OF SERVICE- DECLARATION OF MAILING…………………………...….50
ATTACHMENT -OPPINION ……………………………………………………………..51
-4-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
In re Stein, No. S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) ……………………….………………..12,13,16

United States of America v. Robert Anderson, Case No. 3:14-cr-00639-EMC………………15
U.S. v. Root, 585 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2009………………………………………………….…16
Redke v. Silvertrust, 6 Cal.3d 94 (Cal. 1971), ……………………………………………….16
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), ……………………………………………….16
Arguelles-Olivares v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 171 (5th Cir. 2008) ……………………………..16
Alan S. v. Superior Court (Mary T.), 172 Cal.App.4th 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009),…………..42
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 83 S.Ct. 792]………..……42,43
STATUTES:
Business and Professions Code section 6140.5)…………………………………………...…13

26 U.S.C. § 7201 Section 7201………………………………………………………………16
Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b),……………………………………….22
PENAL CODE 626……………………………………………………………………….39
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA…………………………………..44,46
Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C.§ 824d(a), ………………………………………………..…44,46.
California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, ……………………………………………44,47
State of California Unfair Business Competition law, and Business and Professions Code §
17200……………………………………………………………………………………….45,47
OTHER AUTHORITIES:
Rule 8.268 of the California Rules of Court……………………………………………….…7
First Amendment of the US Constitution……………………….…… ……………………18
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)((1)(c ………………………………………………………20
Attorney General Civil Rights Handbook, 3rd edition (2001)…………………………………24
-5-
UC Davis RETURN TO WORK CLEARANCE,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,…..27,28,29,30,33,36,38,40
UC DAVIS CERTIFICATION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDER FOR EMPLOYEE’S
SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION…………………………………………….……..27,28,30
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),…………………………………………………… 27
California Family Rights Act (CFRA) ………………………………………………………27
Anthony Lewis’s 1964 novel, Gideon’s Trumpet ………………………………………………...43
IWC order 4-89 & IWC 1-89…………………………………………………………..…44,45
Mauricio Spinoza Novel In Pro Per ………………………………………………………...,46
-6-
To the Honorable Administrative Presiding Justice Laurie M. Earl and Honorable
Associate Justices of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate
District
I.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant and Petitioner Jaroslaw Waszczuk (hereafter “Waszczuk”) respectfully submits this
Petition for Rehearing of the Court’s decision of July 28, 2023 in the above-captioned case,
pursuant to Rule 8.268 of the California Rules of Court. As Waszczuk read the opinion with
respect to this court’s unpublished opinion issued in Waszczuk v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,
No. C095488 (Cal. Ct. App. July 28, 2023), it is objectively a fraud and travesty of justice,
just like the two previous unpublished opinions issued by this Court. One previous
unpublished opinion in this wrongful termination case (anti-SLAPP motion) was issued on

October 10, 2017 regarding Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct.
App. Oct. 10, 2017)(AOB p. 47),
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal. The other was in an
interconnected case before the 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 (The Regents), filed on December 2, 2013, Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District (3DCA) Case No. C079254 unpublished opinion Waszczuk v.
Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) (AOB
pp.15–18, 19, 45, 47; ARB p. 15). Both of Waszczuk’s cases involve serious criminal and
professional misconduct by attorneys, including the theft of retainer money and
unemployment insurance benefits from him, in 2014, by Waszczuk’s now former attorney,
Douglas Edward Stein, SBN #131248 (Stein), in conspiracy with The Regents’ attorney
from Porter Scott, Michael Pott SBN# 186156(Pott), and attorneys from the Office of the
Attorney General representing the CUIAB in a Writ of Mandamus case and in collusion
with Judge David I. Brown (Brown), from Sacramento County Superior Court, In re Stein,
-7-
No. S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) https://casetext.com/case/in-re-stein-2011. Stein and Pott’s
criminal conduct and Judge Brown’s judicial misconduct led to another crime being
committed by another attorney for The Regents, Lindsay Goulding, who on July 2, 2021
robbed Waszczuk’s 70-year-old wife of $22,284 from her savings in front of
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Thadd Blizzard (AOB p. 26).
The opinion issued and delivered on July 28, 2023 by three 3DCA justices, former Acting
Presiding Justice Hon. Ronald B. Robie, Hon. Louis Mauro, & Hon. Jonathan K. Renner, was
done in bad faith and spirit. This appeal, and the two previous appeals captioned above, never
should have been needed, due to the crimes involved and judicial misconduct; thus, these
opinions should be deemed null and void.
Waszczuk respectfully requests that this Court, on its own motion, recall the remittiturs and
nullify the unpublished opinions Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct.
App. Oct. 10, 2017) https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal and

Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27,
2018) https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-cal-unemployment-ins-appeals-bd. On remand,
any ruling issued in these two cases by Sacramento Superior Court Judges Shelleyanne
It is no secret that Waszczuk submitted multiple inquiries to the State of California’s
Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) Secretary to Trial Counsel Michelle Kem
(Kem) asking for intervention in Sacramento County Superior Court and 3DCA to
invalidate the corrupted court proceedings in his wrongful termination and
unemployment benefits insurance cases. This happened after The Regents’ attorney,
Goulding, in a desperate move, ambushed Waszczuk’s wife in Sacramento County Superior
Court Dept. 43 on July 2, 2021, stealing $22,284 from her savings in an attempt to
break into her bank and 401(K) plan accounts and frame her for criminal
prosecution, in hopes of convincing Waszczuk to drop his litigation against The
Regents. (12CT
-8-
Although a petition for rehearing is not generally a prerequisite for a petition for review, it is
required if the review is sought on the ground that the Court of Appeal’s opinion contained
errors or omissions of issues or facts (See rule 8.500(c)).
Waszczuk’s Petition for Rehearing calls the Court’s attention to significant and material
errors, such as a misstatement of fact, an error of law, an omission in the facts or law and
failure to consider Waszczuk’s arguments raised in the record on appeal in his Appellant
Opening Brief (AOB), filed on October 19, 2022, and Appellant Reply Brief (ARB) , filed on
March 22, 2022.
II
THIS APPEAL NEVER SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE
THE IRREPARABLE DAMAGES DONE TO WASZCZUK LITIGATIONS BY
THE WASZCZUK’S FORMER ATTORNEY CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT
The appeal in the almost 10-year-long litigation of this case never would have, and never

should have, taken place, had Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein, SBN 131248, along
with his subordinates and collaborators, been prosecuted and disbarred as intended by State
Bar Investigator Amanda Gormley in October 2015.
Waszczuk’s main concern in this Petition is to reverse on appeal the unjust and biased
October 28, 2021 State of California, County of Sacramento Court Judgment following
the order granting the defendant, The Regents, a motion for summary judgment. This was
issued and signed by Judge Christopher E. Krueger, from Sacramento County Superior Court
Department 54 (Law & Motions); see the Clerk Transcript on Appeal (CT Vol. 13, pp. 3744–
3761) (AOB p. 7).
The October 28, 2021 granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment to The Regents was also
a result of Stein’s crimes of misconduct, conspiracy with The Regents’ attorneys, and
collusion with Sacramento County Superior Court David I. Brown;
Stein’s crimes led to the issuance of two fraudulent unpublished opinions by 3DCA, on
October 10, 2017 and December 27, 2017. The opinion in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of
Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) praised, showed admiration for, and
-9-
legitimized Stein’s crimes and misconduct and caused enormous financial losses for
Waszczuk. They led to this appeal after another six years of the Plaintiff’s presence in the
courts.
The opinion in Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct.
App. Dec. 27, 2018) legitimized the theft of the Plaintiff’s unemployment benefits, which
were reinstated by the California Employment Development Department on May 14, 2014
and then stolen from him.
Waszczuk still does not understand why Stein’s criminal misconduct, such as the stealing
of his $20,000 retainer money, became so important for so many to cover up his
committed crime
On December 31, 2014, Waszczuk submitted an inquiry to Wells Fargo Bank titled “Wells
Fargo Account Gold Business Service Package 6826908995,” in which he requested all

account statements from June 2, 2014 through December 26, 2014. He precisely outlined in
his 12/31/2014 inquiry what had happened between June 2, 2014 and December 26, 2014;
however, Wells Fargo refused to provide the statements, thus the Plaintiff had to rely on
the State Bar of California to recover the money stolen by Stein.
Judge David I. Brown sent Lodi Police to Waszczuk’s home in on April 10 2015 after
Waszczuk questioned him about his relationship with Stein during a Court hearing on an anti-
SLAPP motion proceeding.
State Bar Investigator Gormley was in possession of all the evidence related to Stein’s
crimes, which Waszczuk received unexpectedly and surprisingly eight years after the fact, in
September–December 2023, from Wells Fargo Bank (See: Waszczuk’s Motion for New
Evidence on Appeal filed in 3DCA on July 20, 2023,
https://www.scribd.com/document/660982022/7-20-2023-3DCA-C095488-Waszczuk-v-The-
Regents-Motion-for-New-Evidence-on-Appeal).
On September 25, 2015, Gormley informed Waszczuk via email that Stein would be
prosecuted in October 2015. Instead of following Gormley’s plan, her superiors removed her
and the prosecutor from the case, the complaint against Stein vanished along with them (see
- 10 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/621488012/01-28-2015-State-Bar-o-California-
Complaint-against-Douglas-E-Stein-Case-No-15-0-10110), and Stein’s prosecution was
endlessly delayed. On September 25, 2015, Waszczuk e-mailed Gormley asking about the
status of the complaint against Stein and attached to the e-mail a draft of his Third Amended
Complaint (TAC, https://www.scribd.com/document/391819456/TAC-PROPOSED-THIRD-
AMENDED-COMPLAINT-pdf).
Waszczuk intended to file the TAC to replace the defective SAC that Stein had filed on
September 30, 2014 in conspiracy with The Regents’ attorney, Michael Pott. Waszczuk
provided a draft the TAC to 3DCA along with his Appellant’s Motion to Recall the
Remittitur and Reinstate the Appeal or Alternatively Modify the Unpublished Opinion
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017 see
https://www.scribd.com/document/512401861/06-18-2021-Motion-to-Recall-the-Remittitur-
or-Modify-the-Opinion-anti-SLAPP-motion

which was filed on June 18, 2021, along with a Request/Motion to Take Judicial Notice in
Support of the Motion to Recall Remittitur and Reinstate the Appeal or, Alternatively,
Modify the Unpublished Opinion see
After September 25, 2015, Waszczuk received no official letter from the State Bar stating
that Stein’s case had been submitted to the prosecutor until two years later, on September
8, 2017, when he was subpoenaed by the Bar for a personal appearance at the trial
proceedings in San Francisco for Douglas Edward Stein. Per the subpoena, Plaintiff’s
testimony was needed in the disciplinary matter pending against Stein, which had been
set for October 11–13, 2017.
Waszczuk received the subpoena one month after the August 8, 2017 Oral Arguments in
3DCA for the anti-SLAPP motion Case No. C079524. On that day, following oral
arguments, Stein’s real crimes were condoned for another two years, and information that
was provided to Waszczuk by Wells Fargo Bank Representative Misty Lemay, in
October–December 2022, was not included in the STIPULATION RE: FACTS,
CONCLUSION OF LAW, AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING, which
was filed in the State Bar of California Hearing Department, San Francisco, on October
- 11 -
24, 2017 (see https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/131248,
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/15-O-10110-2.pdf, and In re Stein, No. S245982
(Cal. Mar. 1, 2018).
Instead of prosecuting Stein in October 2015, four State Bar employees meddled and
tampered with the judicial process in Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479, filed on December 4, 2013, and 3DCA Case No.
C079524. This resulted in the issuance by 3DCA of an unpublished fraudulent opinion on
October 10, 2017 in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct.
10, 2017), in which three 3DCA justices praised Stein’s crimes and fraud, stating (ARB pp.
25, 33–34):
When he filed the second amended complaint he was unaware that his status
with the State Bar had changed. The reason for his very brief suspension was
unrelated to his competency or ethics in the practice of law. Rather, as Stein

explained, he made an inadvertent error on the amount he paid in child support
for two or three months. His license to practice was reinstated within about two
weeks of his discovery of the suspension. On these facts, there is not the
slightest hint of impropriety. To the contrary, Stein was diligent and
transparent—making an ex parte application to assure the integrity of the
document he inadvertently filed during the briefest of suspensions for a minor
transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He should be
commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of plaintiff’s interests.
The STIPULATION signed by Stein and State Bar prosecutor Laura Huggins on October 10
& 11, 2017 languished for two weeks before being signed by State Bar Judge Maria Lucy
Armendariz and filed in the State Bar Court on October 24, 2017. This prevented Waszczuk
from using the STIPULATION as new evidence of Stein’s crimes in his Petition for
Rehearing on the unpublished opinion in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524
(Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017). The Petition for Rehearing was due to be filed on October 25,
2017 (see
- 12 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/597635412/10-25-2017-3DCA-SLAPP-Petition-for-
Rehearing-Waszczuk-v-Regents-of-Univ-of-Cal-No-C079524-Cal-Ct-App-Oct-10-2017).
After the Stipulation with Stein was signed on October 10 & 11 2017, which contained only
selected information to cover up Douglas Stein criminal misconduct and harm Waszczuk and
Waszczuk’s litigations in coordinated precisely Stein ‘s prosecution with Waszczuk’s two
pending appeals in 3DCA. The State Bar provided a copy of the stipulation to the California
Supreme Court for approval and to suspend Stein for two years. This also included an order
to repay Waszczuk the money stolen from him in the amount of $14,694.33 plus 10 percent
interest per year from June 2, 2014 (or to reimburse the Client Security Fund, to the extent of
any payment from the Fund to Waszczuk, in accordance with Business and Professions Code
section 6140.5) In re Stein, No. S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018, https://casetext.com/case/in-re-
stein-2011).

However, in the stipulation to cover up Stein’s real crimes, the State Bar officials deliberately
and with evil intention to harm Waszczuk’s pending litigation in his two appeals, 3DCA Case
No C079524, Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, and Case No.
C079254, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, did not provide
information to the California Supreme Court that Stein had stolen money from Waszczuk by
opening an account under false pretenses with Waszczuk check given to him by Waszczuk to
handle Waszczuk wrongful termination against The Regents . Instead of opening an ILOTA
account with the $20,000 Waszczuk had provided to him to handle his wrongful termination
case against The Regents, Stein acted under false pretenses on June 2, 2014 to open a non-
IOLTA trust account. Stein provided false information to Wells Fargo Bank stating that the
money Waszczuk had given him was from Waszczuk’s wrongful termination case
settlement with The Regents, with Stein as the law firm/attorney hired to serve as
Waszczuk’s trustee. Stein attached Waszczuk to the account making him responsible for all
state and federal taxes on it, even though it was supposed to be an ILOTA retainer account.
Thereafter, Stein stole Waszczuk’s money, collaborated and conspired with The Regents’
attorney Michael Pott, and on June 16, 2014 filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) that
- 13 -
decimated Waszczuk’s original wrongful termination complaint by removing its two most
important causes of action, the violation of the 2009 Settlement Agreement Waszczuk signed
with The Regents and the violation of the UC Davis Employee Performance Review Policy
(PPSM 23). In addition to Stein stealing Waszczuk’s money, he successfully conspired with
Pott to set up Waszczuk for an anti-SLAPP motion and refiled the FAC as a Second
Amended Complaint (SAC) on September 30, 2014. He did this with suspended attorney
license and at Pott’s instruction and in collusion with Sacramento Superior Court Judge
David Brown the faulty SAC was filed to strike Waszczuk lawsuit with anti-SLAPP motion .
The fraudulent State Bar October 10, 2017 stipulation provided to the California
Supreme Court for approval led only to Stein’s suspension, rather than his disbarment, and a
verdict of $14,694.33 plus 10 percent interest, instead of the full amount of $20,000 stolen
from Waszczuk. This devastated Waszczuk’s litigation against The Regents, and they are still
pending today after almost 10 years.

Prior to being hired by Waszczuk, Stein had been employed for several years by the
Arnold Law Firm, where he specialized in personal injury litigation against insurance
companies. In May 2014, in light of Waszczuk's wrongful termination lawsuit against the
UC Regents, Waszczuk provided Stein with documents related to his short-term disability
(STD) insurance benefits, which had been denied to him in 2011 by Liberty Life
Assurance Company of Boston, in conspiracy with the University of California Office of
the President executives.
In August 2014, Stein cut a deal for himself with Liberty without Waszczuk's consent
by lying to Liberty’s representative, saying he had been hired to represent Waszczuk with
Liberty (see https://www.scribd.com/document/624408171/11-26-2022-Complaint-With-
California-Insurance-Commissioner-File-Number-HCB-8376574).
The latest State Bar filing shows that 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 as of the February 4, 2019 State
- 14 -
Bar Court Order signed by Judge Manjari Chawla (Consolidated Case Nos: 14-N16452-
MC & 18-0-16529-MC, see http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/18-N-16452.pdf
a n d http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/18-0-16529.pdf).
On March 21, 2019, Waszczuk’s STD benefits resurfaced as unclaimed property in the
California Controller’s Office. It is still unknown how much money Liberty paid to Stein
in 2014.
On May 1 and 22, 2019 and June 5, 2019, Waszczuk sent inquiries to the California
State Controller’s office requesting information about the specific date when Liberty
reported to the State Controller his unpaid STD benefits as unclaimed funds. Waszczuk
received a reply from the Controller’s Office on December 8, 2022 (3.5 years later).
In 2014, Douglas Stein was financially devastated and drug-addicted and quickly became

a vulnerable tool used against Waszczuk by Porter Scott’s attorneys representing the UC
Regents in his wrongful termination complaint. The first thing Stein did was, on June 16,
2014, to file a defective FAC that decimated the original wrongful termination complaint.
Judge David Brown, despite knowing what Stein did to Waszczuk, declined to recuse
himself from further proceedings and he wrongfully and with malice granted an anti-
SLAPP motion to The Regents on February 6, 2015 to cover Stein ‘s criminal
misconduct. This left Waszczuk with very little to litigate.
Stein is a criminal who stole the $20,000 Waszczuk gave him to handle a wrongful
termination case. His crime is similar to crime described into the UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA criminal case United States
of America v. Robert Anderson, Case No. 3:14-cr-00639-EMC. That particular federal
criminal case involved criminal misconduct by the firm Linehan Steever and Anderson
LLP (LSA), formerly known as Lanahan & Reilly LLP, of Santa Rosa, California, who spent
money held in a trust account for a client, identified in the indictment as “B.M.,” and used the
money to pay expenses that were not related to the client’s representation. The case was
prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney from the Northern District of California, Melinda Haag.
- 15 -
Another issue concerning Stein’s crimes relates to state and federal taxes. By opening the
trust account with Waszczuk’s money and making Waszczuk responsible and liable for all
taxes on the account, Stein evaded paying taxes from his ill-gotten gains, which totaled more
than $10,000 in a single year. Waszczuk is not sure what would have happened had he not
dismissed Stein in December 2014. Perhaps the IRS would have gone after him for the theft
Stein committed.
According to 26 U.S.C. § 7201 Section 7201, an attempt to evade or defeat taxes is handled
as follows:
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any
tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other
penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction
thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of
a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together

with the costs of prosecution.
See also:
U.S. v. Root, 585 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2009), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-root-5
Redke v. Silvertrust, 6 Cal.3d 94 (Cal. 1971), https://casetext.com/case/redke-v-silvertrust
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), https://casetext.com/case/cheek-v-united-
states
Arguelles-Olivares v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 171 (5th Cir. 2008)
Stein is still liable for taxes from his crime and the additional amount to compensate
Waszczuk for the difference between what the California Supreme Court ordered him to be
paid ($14,694.33 plus 10 percent) and the $20,000 Waszczuk gave to Stein in 2014 to handle
his wrongful termination (See In re Stein, No. S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018)
https://casetext.com/case/in-re-stein-2011).
Waszczuk will ask/petition State Bar and the California Supreme Court to reopen Stein’s
case and issue a different order due to the fraudulent October 10, 2017 State Bar
- 16 -
Stipulation with Stein and on account of misleading information provided to the
California Supreme Court by the State Bar employees. Waszczuk also will ask IRS and
California Franchise Tax Board why the Stein’s criminal misconduct is such important to
cover up and forget for many.
III.
THE COURT’S FACTUAL MISSTATEMENTS AND THE “WELCOME
TO ROMANIA” VIDEO IN THE JULY 28, 2023 OPINION
BACKGROUND PASTED OR REPEATED FROM THE REGENTS’
PLEADINGS
A. Opinion Page No. 4: In 2007, Waszczuk was suspended from work for three
days for creating a hostile work environment, using intimidating and
disrespectful language with coworkers, and making derogatory comments
about coworkers’ race, religion, ethnic background, and other immutable
characteristics.
Waszczuk’s 2007 suspension had nothing to do with his 2012 unlawful termination by
The Regents. Waszczuk was promoted on January 30, 2009 from a non-exempt

cogeneration plant operator position to the exempt, semi-supervisory position of assistant
development engineer. If the Court had taken the time and read Waszczuk’s Employee
Performance Review mandated by UC Davis PPSM 23 (AOB pp.45-48) for the
2006/2007 evaluation period, ( ARB pp.10,44)) it would have found that the suspension
was unlawful and full of lies alleging Waszczuk’s misconduct. This was a fabricated
attempt to fire Waszczuk from his job in 2007 because The Regents were ready to export
electricity from the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant to SMUD at the full scale
possible. Waszczuk did not care about this, but The Regents were worried and
orchestrated a witch hunt to let Waszczuk go.
B. Opinion Page No.4- In 2011, Waszczuk violated policies concerning
workplace violence and hate incidents and was insubordinate.
The same scheme and scenario of witch hunts as in 2006–2007 was repeated here. The
Regents lost millions of tax-free dollars once they ceased power sales to SMUD in February
2009, after they signed a settlement with Waszczuk on January 30, 2009.(12CT3539-3550)
(AOB pp3-4,14,16,37,43) ,(ARB 6,9-10,14,16-17,20,28-29,39,40,45) The Regents removed
- 17 -
Waszczuk from the UCDMC premises on August 21, 2011 and kept him hostage at his home
for 10 months before promoting him to the managerial position of senior development
engineer in May 2012. The Regents signed a power purchase agreement and thereafter
wanted to set up Waszczuk with the police for trouble and deportation to his native country,
Poland. This is odd, Waszczuk was fired on December 7, 2012 promoted to Senior
Development Engineer . (AOB p.43)
C. Opinion Pag No.4-In 2012, he sent a workplace investigator a slideshow titled,
“Welcome to Romania,” which depicted people defecating in the streets and
having sex in front of a child. After an investigation, UC Regents gave Waszczuk
a notice of intent to terminate him. Waszczuk was terminated after a hearing
concerning the misconduct.
After Waszczuk sent the “Welcome to Romania slide show”(AOB P.27), (ARB p.18) to The
Regent’s assigned witch hunter, he was unlawfully suspended without pay for ten days,
beginning on May 11, 2012, due to his alleged misconduct, which supposedly took place in
March and April 2011. This was also after he was promoted to senior development engineer.

Waszczuk was terminated because The Regents signed a power purchase agreement with
SMUD on May 29, 2012 to export power from UCDMC’s 27-MW plant to SMUD. (3 CT
772-789)
Waszczuk responded to The Regents’ assigned witch hunters who were fabricating reasons to
fire Waszczuk and sending him abusive e-mails. Waszczuk also wrote a lot of letters to the
HR department and his department management because he was representing himself and
three coworkers in 2012 after they were harassed. Waszczuk’s memos and inquiries are noted
in the Clerk’s Transcript, and Waszczuk listed some of these in his ARB. All of the writings
by Waszczuk in his and his coworkers’ defense are protected activities under UC Davis
Policy PPSM 70 and the First Amendment of the US Constitution (ARB pp. 4,8,11 ).
Waszczuk’s actions or decision to send the “Welcome to Romania” slide show are also
protected by the First Amendment. By sending the slide show, Waszczuk was expressing
his feelings about the Regents’ agent’s reports. The slide show depicted scenes from post-
communist and devastated Romania. Some scenes in the slide show had a lot in common
- 18 -
with the landscape of the UCDMC HVAC shop, (AOB p.45) where Waszczuk was
forcibly moved in March 2007. Later, the slide show was exploited and repeatedly used
to attack Waszczuk. Waszczuk was deported from Poland by its communist regime in
1982, and he knows what the communists and Soviets did to Soviet-dominated countries.
Today, Poland and Romania are doing very well. They are both members of the European
Union and NATO.
Waszczuk wonders what the Court Justices would say if County of Sacramento Superior
Court Presiding Judge MICHAEL G. BOWMAN had been fired from his job after
writing to the mayor of Sacramento, Darrell Steinberg, stating:
https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/docs/letter-to-mayor-steinberg-062923.Pdf
I write to you today about disheartening conditions surrounding the

Court’s facilities here in downtown Sacramento, and the growing
number of encounters between the unsheltered, members of the public

who are compelled to appear in our courtrooms, and our employees.
These daily incidents include, but are not limited to, physical and verbal
assault, public sex acts, open fires, nudity, urinating and defecating on
walkways. Court security removes unsheltered individuals, who have no
business with the court, from the Main Courthouse daily and our
facilities team must regularly remove feces and other waste from our
entryways and grounds.
The Sacramento Superior Court is not a former communist Romania with the brutal dictator
Nicolae Ceausescu in charge, or communist Poland, or even the HVAC shop at the UCDMC.
The Court is a House of Law. As Waszczuk knows, last year, Mayor Steinberg was applying
to become a 3DCA Administrative Presiding Justice and was vetted by Governor Gavin
Newsom.
In 2000, Waszczuk, together with California Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, was actively
advocating to bring back several UCDMC workers who were escorted out and suspended
because they were complaining about safety in their department. The management in the UC
- 19 -
system is ruthless. Waszczuk represented quite a few UCDMC employes in their complains
(AOB P.45) ;(ARB pp. 9-10). Perhaps this was another reason why Waszczuk was witch
hunted and fired just as he reached retirement age.
D. In the Opinion, the Court stated, “Most of the headings in Waszczuk’s

briefing fail to show the nature of the question presented and the point to be
made. To the extent Waszczuk has failed to make his contentions in proper
headings, those contentions are forfeited. In many parts of Waszczuk’s briefs
he makes statements about the procedure or the facts without citing to the
record on appeal to support the statement.” (Page No.6-Dissusion)
In the opinion for Waszczuk’s anti-SLAPP motion, Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-

regents-of-the-univ-of-cal, the Court, on page 15, wrote: “Plaintiff’s most glaring and
consistent violation of the rules is his failure to cite to the record.” Waszczuk
responded to this in his Petition for Rehearing:
The Court of Appeal record (Register of Action) shows that this appeal
was initially declared by the Court as fully briefed on August 23, 2016
after Waszczuk filed his Appellant Reply Brief. It appears that two and
half months later, after the case was fully briefed, the Court reviewed the
case and issued the following order on November 9, 2016:
• “On the court’s own motion, the respondent’s brief filed July
25, 2016, is stricken for failure to ‘[s]upport any reference to a
matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page
number of the record where the matter appears.’ (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.204(a)((1)(c).) A respondent’s brief with proper
citations to the record must be filed on or before December 15,
2016.” RAYE, P.J.”
- 20 -
The Order was electronically filed on 11/9/2016 by Deputy Clerk Anita
Kenner.
Waszczuk responded as follows:
If Waszczuk’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules was his
failure to cite the record, then Waszczuk would appreciate if he would be
given the same chance as the Defendants’ attorney to correct his briefs
and resubmit. For the above reason alone, Waszczuk’s Petition for
Rehearing should be granted because Waszczuk sees many Court
statements in the issued Opinion that do not correspond with the facts.
Waszczuk is only asking to be treated without favoritism being shown to other side, who are
professional lawyers and should not have such problems. They lack valid arguments, but they
know better how to slander Waszczuk in their briefs. They are getting away with this, and the
Courts are protecting them because they are The Regents’ attorneys from the notorious law

firms Porter Scott or Horvitz and Levy.
E. The Court did not read Waszczuk’s Appellant Reply Brief
Opinion indicated that the Court completely ignored and left out picture Waszczuk’s
Appellant’s Brief . The Court should read ARB which contains lot of information about this
10 years long case . Waszczuk addressed in his ARB the The Regents attorneys slander
who notoriously bluntly accusing Waszczuk of antisemitism . Waszczuk had two Jewish
attorneys . Anton Zybach from Stockton and Douglas Stein from Eldorado Hills . Both were
Jews of Austrian decent . They knew each other . Both were disbarred for the criminal
misconduct . Both betrayed Waszczuk . Stein stole $ 20, 000 from Waszczuk and destroyed
his lawsuit . Waszczuk had reason to be angry with this guy but the Court won’t find in any
Waszczuk letter or pleading that Waszczuk ever mention that Stein is a Jewish . This is sick
accusing Waszczuk of racism because The Regents attorney have no better arguments .
IV.
THE OPINION FAILED TO ADDRESS WASZCZUK’S ARGUMENT
ALLEGING THAT THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, IN
- 21 -
STOCKTON, WAS THE PROPER VENUE AND JURISDICTION FOR THE
WRIT OF MANDAMUS CASE AND WASZCZUK’S WRONGFUL
TERMINATION COMPLAINT, FILED SIMULTANEOUSLY ON
DECEMBER 2 & 4, 2014
B. Sacramento County Superior Court was not the proper place for Waszczuk
to file his writ of mandate and wrongful termination complaint against The
Regents of the University of California in December 2013
Waszczuk addressed the jurisdiction and venue for the complaints he filed in Sacramento
County Superior Court in his Appellant Opening Brief (AOB) on pages 18–19.
The California Code of Civil Procedure Section 397 states the following (AOB p. 19):
• The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the
following cases:
• When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper
court.
• When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be

had therein.
• When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would
be promoted by the change.
• When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to
act.
The almost ten years of litigation shows that Waszczuk cannot receive an impartial
trial in Sacramento County Superior Court. The unprecedented bias and
discrimination against Waszczuk by Sacramento County Superior Court Judges and
3DCA’s justices shows that a court trial for Waszczuk’s wrongful termination is out
of the question.
The Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b), (Insert case) mandates the
dismissal of actions not brought to trial within five years after a complaint is filed. However,
it was not the Court or The Regents’ intention to try Waszczuk’s wrongful termination
complaint filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, instead of San Joaquin Superior
Court, in Stockton.
- 22 -
Waszczuk, on March 3, 2020, submitted to the Court a Submission Form to set Trial
Date on August 11 or 18, 2020, or September 28, 2020 . The Sacramento County
Superior Court did not deny or accept Waszczuk’s submission, or bother to respond.
Instead of working with Waszczuk to set a court trial date, the Porter Scott attorneys
waited for Judge Brown’s resignation and ambushed the Plaintiff’s 70-year-old wife and
stole from her more than $20,000 in front of Judge Thadd Blizzard and his Court Clerk
(AOB p. 41, see Order CT Vol. 10, p. 2756). The Porter Scott attorney’s criminal
activities in the Court of Law caused the premature Disqualification of Judge Shama
Hakim Mesiwala from Department 53 on that same day (AOB p. 41–42, see Order CT
Vol. 10, p. 2757). This is the most important reason why Waszczuk’s two complaints
filed in December 2013 should never have been filed or pursued in the County of
Sacramento. For the above reason alone, the Motion for Summary Judgement (MSJ)
should never have been granted to The Regents. The 3DCA opinion of July 28, 2023

should not have affirmed Judge Kroeger’s order and judgment granting a MSJ to The
Regents. The Petition for Rehearing should be granted to Waszczuk by the Court; thus,
Waszczuk is requesting a rehearing.
V.
THE COURT FAILED TO HELP WASZCZUK RESOLVE THE PUZZLE
OF HIS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, WHICH WERE
REINSTATED AND STOLEN FROM HIM IN MAY 2014 .
Waszczuk, in his AOB (pp. 15–18, ARB 7,16) raised the issue of his unemployment
benefits, which were wrongfully denied to him by the Employment Development
Department (EDD), reinstated by the EDD on May 14, 2014 with the back pay for the
denied period, and then stolen from him later in May 2014.
The opinion issued and delivered on July 28, 2023 by three 3DCA justices, former Acting
Presiding Justice Hon. Ronald B. Robie, Hon. Louis Mauro, and Hon. Jonathan K.
Renner, totally ignored the issue of these benefits. Wazczuk’s stolen unemployment
benefits are another reason why the Writ of Mandamus Case No. 34-2013-80001699,
- 23 -
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB)
and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The Regents of the University of California (The
Regents), filed on December 2, 2013, should never have been filed and pursued in the
County of Sacramento Superior Court.
The opinion only merely mentioned the writ of mandamus case in the footnotes on Page
5, saying:
This court decided two prior appeals relating to Waszczuk’s employment

with UC Regents. In Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Bd. (Dec. 27, 2018, C079254) [nonpub. opn.], this court affirmed the
Unemployment Insurance Board’s determination that Waszczuk was not
entitled to unemployment benefits because he was terminated for
misconduct. In Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California (Oct.
10, 2017, C079524) [nonpub. opn.], this court affirmed the granting of

the anti-SLAPP motion in favor of some of the individual defendants in
this case.
The denial of the unemployment insurance benefits is not a trivial matter for the
terminated unemployed worker who suing his former employer with a wrongful
termination complaint.
The State of California’s Attorney General Civil Rights Handbook, 3rd edition (2001)
states on page 30:
Under California law, if you should subsequently lose your

unemployment insurance case, your employer may then be able to use
that decision against you in any subsequent discrimination case which
you might file with some other governmental agency or in court. In other
words, a loss in the unemployment insurance case may prevent you from
prevailing in another forum under a different set of laws.
If the EDD decided on January 14, 2013 based on The Regents’ unfounded accusations
and lies that Waszczuk was ineligible to receive benefits under California unemployment
- 24 -
insurance code section 1256, due to his alleged misconduct, but then reinstated these
benefits, then the choice to do so was not because Waszczuk was fired from his job at age
of 60, when he was ready to retire from the university in 2017. Three days later, after
Waszczuk’s unemployment benefits were reinstated by the EDD, Waszczuk was happy
with the outcome and paid his attorney, Douglas Stein, $20,000 to represent him in a case
filed in pro per on December 4, 2013 in County of Sacramento Superior Court, the
wrongful termination matter of Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of
California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniliuc, Case No. 34-
2013-34-00155479.
Stein, instead of properly amending Waszczuk’s pro per motion, decimated Waszczuk’s
complaint with a First Amendment Complaint and failed to dismiss 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 after Waszczuk’s unemployment insurance benefits case was resolved, thus
setting him up for an anti-SLAPP motion. Stein also stole the $20,000 Waszczuk gave him to
represent him against The Regents in his wrongful termination complaint.
Waszczuk understands from this puzzle of May 14 about the reinstated unemployment
insurance benefits that, if the EDD had sent notice of reinstatement in May 2014, then a copy
was received by The Regents, the California Unemployment Insurance Benefits (CUIAB),
and an attorney from the California Attorney General’s office, Ashante Norton. What
Waszczuk does not understand is why he was forced to litigate in three California courts to
receive his unemployment insurance benefits, which were reinstated and then stolen.
Furthermore, Waszczuk fails to why the understand judges and justices in three California
courts are so hostile toward him for trying to recover what belongs to him. The theft of
unemployment benefits and retainer money are both serious criminal offenses.
Insert Links
- 25 -
It was 3DCA Justice Ronald B. Robie who, six years ago, participated in and coauthored the
opinions in the anti-SLAPP motion Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal.
Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) and Waszczuk v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., No. C095488 (Cal. Ct.
App. July 28, 2023). Robie was perfectly aware of what Waszczuk’s former attorney, Stein,
together with The Regents’ attorneys from the UC Office of the General Counsel, California
Attorney General’s Office; Porter Scott; and Sacramento County Superior Court Judges,
especially former Judge David I. Brown, from Department 53; Judge Shelleyanne Chang,
from Department 23; Judge Christopher Krueger, from Department 54; and Judge Thadd
Blizard, from Department 43, have done to Waszczuk’s life and existence by forcing
Waszczuk’s presence in the courts for almost 10 years. Waszczuk’s stolen unemployment
insurance benefits and retainer money must have lot of strings attached to them if they have
become so important for the State Bar of California, the Commission on Judicial
Performance, and judges and justices from three California Courts to make them disappear,

vanished and forgotten.
In light of the above-presented facts and arguments in this chapter, Waszczuk’s Petition
for Rehearing must be granted and a new opinion should state that Waszczuk should be
permitted to amend the defective Second Amended Complaint, with which Waszczuk had
nothing tow former attorney, Douglas Stein .
VI.
WASZCZUK’S EMPLOYMENT HISTORY WITH THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL
CENTER
To avoid any misunderstanding, Waszczuk will provide to the Court with a short history of
his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), from June 27, 1999 through
December 7, 2012 (13 years, 5 months) and a narrative. Waszczuk wants to point to the Court
in his 13 years long employment history that Waszczuk did work from August 3 , 2011 to
December 7, 2012 and thereafter . From August 3, to August 31 , 2011 Waszczuk was placed
on work stress related sick-leave by his physicians and his psychologist and again from
September 22 , 2011 to January 5, 2012 . After January 5, 2012 Waszczuk was on unspecified
leave. The Regents never sent Waszczuk a package with a RETURN TO WORK
- 26 -
CLEARANCE or requested that Waszczuk provide the RETURN TO WORK CLEARANCE
signed by his physician and psychologist to assess Waszczuk’s mental state and whether he
was able to perform his job. Waszczuk or any employee can not to be kept on any other
leave after sick-leave without providing RETURN TO WORK CLEARANCE to the
employer . https://ucdavis.app.box.com/s/uggaiszukvvl7pcuk9esva7kvq55706n
https://hr.ucdavis.edu/forms
The Regents never should demand from Waszczuk to be available or be suspended from work
or initiated any adverse action against him after January 5, 2012 with out providing him
RETURN TO WORK CLEARANCE package and request from him to fill it and give to
physician and psychologist to sign and return it to his supervisor or manager office . The
whole adverse action against Waszczuk after January 5, 2012 was totally unlawful and done
with malice. .

From June 17, 1999 through March 23, 2007, Waszczuk was employed by The Regents at
the UCDMC, in Sacramento, California, as an operator of a newly commissioned 27-MW
cogeneration power plant.
On January 1, 2006, Waszczuk had open heart surgery and was absent from work for three
months. When Waszczuk was ready to return to the plant, the plant manager attempted to
block his return under false pretenses, stating that Waszczuk did not provide to him or the
main office the requested CERTIFICATION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDER FOR
EMPLOYEE’S SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION (see
https://ucdavis.app.box.com/s/uggaiszukvvl7pcuk9esva7kvq55706n,
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and California Family Rights Act (CFRA) Family
and Medical Leave Act (FEMLA) documents for his short-term disability and Return To
Work Certification seehttps://ucdavis.app.box.com/s/cql9vaf8s2y6e6ees8g231qrzyzsv1lu).
When Waszczuk provided proof that he had submitted all documents to the plant manager
and the main office, Waszczuk was told that the documents had been lost and that he needed
to provide new documents signed by a physician. The Return to Work Certification policy
was strictly enforced by The Regents’ policies and procedures. If an employee failed to
- 27 -
provide a requested Return to Work Certification, the employee would not be allowed to
return and would be fired.
On December 4, 2006, The Regents appointed a team of “witch hunters” to fabricate a
reason to erase Waszczuk from the UCDMC’s premises and the UC payroll. On the same
day, The Regents’ staunch adversary, California Assemblyman Leland Yee, was elected
California Senator. Waszczuk was still recovering from his surgery and did not know why the
“witch hunters” had been let loose.
On March 23, 2007, after four months of psychological terror, Waszczuk was not fired, but
instead received a letter of suspension and reassignment based on unbelievable accusations
and allegations of racism and antisemitism, in addition to other slander and threats of
termination of his employment. Waszczuk was abruptly removed from the UCDMC power
plant, placed on administrative leave, and unlawfully reassigned against his will to the
heating, ventilation and air condition (HVAC) shop in the same UCDMC Plant Operation and

Maintenance (PO&M) department, reporting to the same manager, Charles Witcher.
Waszczuk was instantly replaced by a younger worker and friend of the plant supervisor, 37-
year-old Todd Goerlich.
Waszczuk’s unlawful suspension and reassignment was followed by the annual employee
evaluation for the period July 1, 2006–June 30, 2007, mandated by the UC Davis Evaluation
Policy, Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM 23,
https://ucdavispolicy.ellucid.com/documents/view/169,
https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4010397/PPSM-23).
Three months later, after Waszczuk was defamed, defaced, and portrayed as a bigot, racist,
and violent employee and made to look like a guard from a Nazi concentration camp or KKK
member, and after receiving a letter threating to terminate his employment, suspend him, and
reassign him to a different shop, Witcher signed on July 25, 2007 Waszczuk’s Employee
Performance Review (Evaluation) for the 2006/2007 working period.
To Waszczuk’s disbelief, the review sounded like nothing had ever happened during the
2006/2007 evaluation period. The grade was “Meets Expectations,” with comments that were
better than what Waszczuk had received in his previous annual evaluations, and Waszczuk
- 28 -
received a regular pay raise. This should have ended the story, Waszczuk’s suspension should
have been null and void, and he should have been permitted to return to his normal duties in
the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant. It did not happen.
Waszczuk appealed his unlawful suspension and reassignment under UC Davis Policy PPSM
70.
On January 30, 2009, Waszczuk was promoted from his non-exempt cogeneration power
plant operator position to an exempt position as an associate development engineer, with a
$7,000 annual base salary increase from $63,000 to $70,000. This increase was due to the
February 2009 Settlement Agreement with the Regents of the University of California, after
Waszczuk defeated the UC Regents in the arbitration process by using UC Davis’s
administrative remedies, as outlined in UC Davis Policy PPSM 70.
The Regents, per the January 30, 2009 Settlement Agreement signed with Waszczuk,
agreed to employ Waszczuk indefinitely as an Associate Development Engineer in the UC

Davis Medical Center’s HVAC Shop with an annual salary of $70,000.00.
On December 22, 2010,Todd Goerlich, who replaced Waszczuk in April 2007, was found
dead, hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park. For some reason, shortly before his tragic
death, he became curious concerning why The Regents had removed Waszczuk from the
plant in 2007 and how much money The Regents had paid Waszczuk under the January 30,
2009 Settlement Agreement. Goerlich was Waszczuk’s former attorney Stein’s friend.
In April 2011, in a scenario reminiscent of the events of December 2006–March 2007,
Waszczuk became the subject of unthinkable psychological terror that included, but was
not limited to, stalking Waszczuk, maliciously sabotaging Waszczuk’s job by changing
the duties assigned to him, and setting him up for failure.
In the months of April, May, June, and July 2011, the Regents, with full disregard for the
February 2009 Settlement Agreement and with full premeditation and disregard of UC Davis
Policies PPSM 23, PPSM 62, and 1616, singled out Waszczuk for a termination of employment
by ordering that he should not be provided with an Annual Performance Review (Evaluation)
outlining his job performance for 2010/2011, as mandated by UC Davis Policy PPSM 23. They
- 29 -
also deprived Waszczuk of any possibility of using administrative remedies to resolve the
dispute under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70.
On July 17 and July 24, 2011, Waszczuk sent inquiries to UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven
Drown and requested intervention to stop The Regents’ witch hunters from assaulting him and
violating the 2009 settlement agreement. Drown was one of four UC Davis executives who had
signed the 2009 Settlement on The Regents’ behalf. Waszczuk's efforts were to no avail.
On August 3, 2011, Waszczuk was placed by Dr. Harvey Hashimoto on work stress-related
sick leave until August 31, 2011. Dr. Hashimoto signed the UC DAVIS-HEALTR•SYSTEM
MEDICAL CERTIFICATION Health Care Provider’s Statement for EMPLOYEE’S OWN
SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION on August 8, 2011 and referred Waszczuk to psychologist
Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D., in Lodi, to seek help with the stress-related trauma Waszczuk
experienced in his workplace.
On August 31, 2011, Waszczuk submitted to his shop manager the UC DAVIS HEALTH

SYSTEM RETURN TO WORK CLEARANCE signed by Drs. Hashimoto and Bernhoft.
Waszczuk was released to return to work effective September 1, 2011.
The Regents’ assigned witch hunters did not wait for Waszczuk’s work-related sick leave
to expire at midnight on August 31, 2011.
On the same day, August 31, 2011 at 3:50 p.m., PO&M Manager Witcher sent
Waszczuk a letter via e-mail stating:
You are being placed on paid investigatory leave effective immediately

in order that an investigation by Human Resources may be conducted to
review allegations that you routinely made discriminatory comments and
the issue you raised about experiencing harassment in the workplace. I
am informed that Danesha Nichols (Tel: 734-3146) will be the HR
Investigator reviewing this matter.
Waszczuk was upset by this response to his RETURN TO WORK CLEARANCE and would
have asked his physician and psychologist to provide him with more sick leave, but he had
very few accumulated sick leave hours left, after having used almost all them in August 2011.
- 30 -
Danesha Nichols was the HR attorney who participated in the 2006–2009 witch hunt to fire
Waszczuk from his job. She was transferred in October 2010 from the UC Davis’s Main
Campus to fabricate with others a cause to finish Waszczuk.
August 31, 2011 was the unofficial termination of Waszczuk’s employment, which coincided
with his last day of work stress-related disability leave. This was confirmed by
Administrative Manager Phillis Reginelli, from the UC Davis Medical Center PO&M
department. Reginelli disclosed this during her interview on January 4, 2013 with the
California Employment Development Department (EDD) in relation to Waszczuk’s
unemployment insurance benefits claim (AOB p.7; 11CT 3026-3028).
September 23, 2011 was set by The Regents as Waszczuk’s official employment termination
day (10 CT 2878), but this confidential information was prematurely leaked by the PO&M
Assistant Manager and, on September 22, 2011, Waszczuk’s job was given permanently to
another person.

Waszczuk’s physician and psychologist again placed him on work stress-related sick leave
until January 5, 2012. Waszczuk was, by then, using his vacation hours to cover his sick
leave.
On September 27, 2011, Waszczuk filed a Short-term Disability Claim with Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company of Boston. The disability claim itself is another chapter that
is connected to this case.
On October 4, 2011, Waszczuk filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against the
UCDMC’s two human resources department attorneys, the executive director of the UCDMC
human resources department Stephen Edward Chillcott, SBN # 196905 and Danesha Nicole
Nichols, Investigation Coordinator in the human resources department and subordinate of Mr.
Chillcott, who engaged in unethical behavior, conspiracy against Waszczuk, and gross
misconduct. This was State Bar Case No. 11-31088.
On October 6, 2011, in an e-mail, Waszczuk asked UC Davis Police Cpt. Joyce Souza (cc
Lt. John Pike) from the Professional Standards Unit to search the police records and see if
any records with his name were there.
- 31 -
Due to constant unfounded accusations by Nichols, Witcher, and others, Waszczuk thought
that perhaps someone had filed a false complaint with the UC Davis Police Department and
accused him of violence, discrimination, and other crimes Waszczuk did not commit.
On that same day, Souza responded to Waszczuk’s inquiry as follows:
Dear Mr. Waszczuk,
I have performed a check of our records system and there is nothing noting
your name.
Please let me know if you need any further assistance.
Captain Joyce A. Souza
UC Davis Police Department
Waszczuk thanked Captain Souza for the information about the police records and cc’d his
response to UCDP Chief Annette Spicuzza; Lt. John Pike; UC Davis Chancellor Linda
Katehi; UC Davis Medical Center CEO Ann Madden Rice; UC HR Vice President Dwain
Duckett; UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo; UC Davis Medical Center

Directors Michael Boyd, Robert Taylor, Shelton Duruisseau, and Stephen Chilcott; and
Investigator Danesha Nichols, who was fabricating, together with others, despicable
accusations against Waszczuk.
Following Waszczuk’s e-mail, UC Davis Chancellor Katehi ordered from Nichols a report on
Waszczuk to find out what was going on.
On October 9, 2011, Waszczuk sent a Protest Open Letter to the Members of UC Davis
Ethics and Compliance Risk Committee, California State Assembly Members, and The
Regents of the University of California entitled: “I FEEL LIKE A HUNTED JEW
DURING THE HOLOCAUST,” briefly explaining what he, a 60-year-old Polish refugee,
had been experiencing in his place of employment.
On November 14, 2011, Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, in conspiracy with the
UCOP attorneys, denied Waszczuk’s Short Term Disability Insurance (STD) benefits.
However, in November 2011, these resurfaced in the California State Controller’s Office on
March 20, 2019 as unclaimed property in the amount of $4,546.08 (AOB p. 25; CT Vol. 6 pp.
1674-1680, see Waszczuk’s Exhibit #6, with his opposition to Defendant’s MSJ).
- 32 -
On November 18, 2011, the UCOP, The Regents, and their collaborators from the UC Davis
Campus and Porter Scot law firm orchestrated a pepper spray provocation to remove UC
Davis Chancellor Katehi from her post, along with UC Davis Chief of Police Annette
Spicuzza, Lt . John Pike, and Captain Souza. Chancellor Katehi merely survived the ill
crafted provocation, but the others did not. Katehi did not survive a second witch hunt, of
March–August 2016, orchestrated by UC President Janet Napolitano.
During a November 28, 2011 follow-up visit with his long-time physician Dr. Harvey
Hashimoto, who had placed Waszczuk on work stress-related sick leave until January 5,
2012, Hashimoto unexpectedly told Waszczuk that he could no longer provide him with
medical care.
On December 5, 2011, Waszczuk’s department Head Charles Witcher, to Waszczuk’s disbelief,
sent another threatening letter during his sick leave. Witcher ordered Waszczuk to attend an
investigatory interview with assigned witch hunter Danesha Nichols on December 12, 2011.

This was odd, not only due to Waszczuk’s ongoing sick leave, but also because Witcher
did not request that Waszczuk provide a UC DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM RETURN TO
WORK CLEARANCE form signed by his physician and psychologist. This shows that The
Regents were desperate to fire Waszczuk as quickly as they could.
Waszczuk ignored Witcher’s letter and did not go to the UC Davis Campus on December 12,
2011.
Waszczuk was without an income; the situation could not get any worse, and Witcher’s
threating letter was nothing but ill-minded harassment and an attempt to intimidate Waszczuk
to make him quit his job and waive his legal rights outlined in the February 2009 Settlement
Agreement. If Waszczuk had known in December 2012 that Sacramento Municipal Utility
District (SMUD) had agreed to buy surplus power from the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration
power plant, he would have told Witcher to go forth and sell the power. He did not care. He
wanted to retire in six years. The surplus power sale to SMUD ceased after The Regents
signed a Settlement Agreement on January 30, 2009. The Regents lost millions of dollars in
- 33 -
tax-free money by not selling power to SMUD because Waszczuk’s employment was
terminated as planned in 2007. This was a costly misunderstanding.
On December 14, 2011, Waszczuk’s psychologist Bernhoft sent an informational letter to
Liberty Assurance Company of Boston stating that Waszczuk’s mental health had deteriorated
significantly due to the situation with his employment and Liberty’s denial of his STD
benefits.
On January 5, 2012, Waszczuk’s sick leave ended. He did not ask his physician or
psychologist to extend it because he had no sick leave or vacation hours remaining to cover
additional leave. When Liberty denied Waszczuk’s STD, he was left without an income.
After Waszczuk’s leave ended, The Regents never sent him a package with a RETURN TO
WORK CLEARANCE or requested that Waszczuk provide the RETURN TO WORK
CLEARANCE signed by his physician and psychologist to assess Waszczuk’s mental state
and whether he was able to perform his job.

On or about January 10, 2012, Waszczuk noticed on his pay stub for the period ending
12/24/2011 that his title had been changed without his knowledge, and for an unknown
reason, from Associate Development Engineer to Programmer I.
On January 18 , 2012, Waszczuk noticed that his pay stub dated January 18, 2012 showed
he had been unenrolled by The Regents from the medical, dental, and vision insurance
coverage plans.
Also on that date, out of the blue, Waszczuk received a letter dated January 12, 2012 from
the MLS National Medical Evaluation Services scheduling him for a psychiatric evaluation
on February 1, 2012 in Sacramento on behalf of Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston,
despite Liberty, in conspiracy with The Regents’ attorneys, having denied his STD benefits in
November 2011. This occurred without Waszczuk's physician or psychologist’s input and
after his work stress-related sick leave ended on January 5, 2012 without an extension.
On January 31, 2012, the California Health and Human Services Agency and Lodi police
raided Waszczuk’s psychologist Bernhoft’s residence in Lodi. This took place one day before
Waszczuk was scheduled for a psychiatric evaluation aimed at locking him up in a state
mental facility. Waszczuk did not attend the psychiatric evaluation.
- 34 -
One week later, on February 8, 2012, UC Davis Medical Center HR Benefits & Equal
Employment Opportunity Manager Cindy G. Oropeza contacted Waszczuk by phone and
asked him whether he was interested in informally resolving the conflict that had been
ongoing and unresolved between Waszczuk and the Defendants since April 2011. Waszczuk
told Oropeza that he was always open to constructive discussions to informally resolve the
problem.
Later that day, Waszczuk confirmed receipt of an invitation for an informal dispute
resolution meeting via e-mail correspondence with Oropeza. Waszczuk also confirmed his
phone discussion with Oropeza and emphasized again that he was always open to discussions
to find the best resolution for both sides of the conflict.
Furthermore, Waszczuk stated in his e-mail with Oropeza that his priority was to get his job
back, as granted and guaranteed by the January 30, 2009 Settlement Agreement that he had
signed with The Regents.

On February 14, 2012, Waszczuk held a meeting with HR Labor Relations Manager Mike
Garcia in Garcia’s office at the UCDMC HR Building. Garcia basically asked how much
Waszczuk would ask, dollar-wise, to voluntarily resign. During the discussion, Waszczuk
proposed that he would resign if The Regents paid his annual wages in a lump sum through the
time when he would be eligible for full Social Security benefits, at age 66. Waszczuk, in
February 2012, was just three months shy of his 61st birthday (May 30, 2012). The meeting
lasted approximately 30 minutes. Garcia made no promises or offers to Waszczuk during the
meeting. The proposed amount, approximately $500,000, was one The Regents could recover
within two months by selling summer 2012 surplus power to SMUD from the UCDMC’s 27-
MW cogeneration plant under the Purchase Agreement signed they had with SMUD on May
30, 2012.
On April 13, 2012, instead of a response from the Defendant regarding the informal resolution
initiated by them in February 2012, Waszczuk received from The Regents a Letter of Intent to
Suspend signed by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance
- 35 -
Department Head Charles Witcher—the same man who, on March 23, 2007, signed a very
similar letter with the intent of suspending Waszczuk using similar lies and unfounded
accusations that defaced and defamed Waszczuk.
The Letter of Intent to Suspend informed Waszczuk that The Regents intended to suspend
him for a period of ten (10) working days, commencing on April 25, 2012, for alleged
violations of university policies that allegedly took place on March 8, 2011 and April 21,
2011. The alleged violations were more than one year old and fell into the 2010/2011 annual
employee performance review, per UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 (Evaluation Policy).
Furthermore, The Regents never should have sent the Letter of Intent to Suspend without
sending Waszczuk first a UC DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM RETURN TO WORK
CLEARANCE form with a request to have it signed by Waszczuk’s physician, psychologist,
or other medical professional, to ensure Waszczuk was still employable after a forced eight-
month absence, including five months of work stress-related sick leave. Also, since January

30, 2009, Waszczuk had been employed under the terms of a Settlement Agreement, so The
Regents should have first alleged that Waszczuk had violated and breached the agreement.
The Regents should have pursued a Rescission of the signed Settlement Agreement instead
of moving to suspend Waszczuk, if such actions were truly warranted.
On May 11, 2012, Witcher was ordered to serve Waszczuk a 10-day suspension without pay
from May 16, 2012 through May 30, 2012. The letter was based on unspecified and
fabricated accusations and allegations that were never witnessed by anyone. As before, the
Letter of Suspension was sent to Waszczuk without requesting from Waszczuk a UC DAVIS
HEALTH SYSTEM RETURN TO WORK CLEARANCE form signed by his physician and
psychologist.
Today, Waszczuk knows that the idea of suspending him for 10 days under the authority of
Witcher and the UCDMC’s HR Labor Relations Dept. (HRLR) was designed to help him
return to work without offending Waszczuk’s two supervisors from the HVAC Shop who had
allegedly complained about Waszczuk’s violation of UC policies in March, April, or May
2011. They both were suspended, as Waszczuk was, in May 2012. Witcher and the new and
- 36 -
outgoing HRLR managers, Travis Lindsay and Mike Garcia, respectively, and their
assistants, decided to suspend Waszczuk, remove him from the HVAC Shop with a new job
description and job title, Senior Development Engineer, instead of Associate Development
Engineer, which was a promotion with more money and not in violation of the January 30,
2009 Settlement Agreement signed between The Regents and Waszczuk. Garcia, Lindsay,
and others assigned by The Regents in 2011 to hunt down Waszczuk had no clue why they
had been ordered to move ageist Waszczuk. The assigned perpetrators and Waszczuk himself
did not know the whole orchestrated hoax to fire Waszczuk was about a power purchase
agreement to sell surplus power worth millions of dollars from the UCDMC’s 27-MW
cogeneration plant, from which the sale of surplus power ceased in February 2009 after The
Regents’ first unsuccessful witch hunt of 2005–2009 aimed at Waszczuk to fire him from his
job. Waszczuk learned in July 2015 what the witch hunts were about by checking the power
plant’s file in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s public library

(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search).
Witcher, Garcia, Lindsay, and his assistant HRLR attorney Jill Noel Vandeviver welcoming
Waszczuk back to work did not go as they anticipated. They did not know that the power
purchase agreement with SMUD was about to be signed on May 30, 2011 and that
Waszczuk’s presence as an employee at the UCDMC was out of the question. Someone
tipped off the UCOP about what was planned for Waszczuk, and The Regents ordered the
setting of a trap on May 31, 2011, upon Waszczuk’s return to work after his suspension. They
would provoke Waszczuk and end his employment in the UCDMC Trauma Unit or UCDMC
Morgue on that day using a specially assigned team that Waszczuk later nicknamed in his
court pleading the “UC Davis Death Squad.”
On May 31, 2012, instead of allowing Waszczuk to return to work after 10 months of forced
absence, Waszczuk was served a letter placing him, again, on investigatory leave. This was
designed to trigger Waszczuk’s anger and aggression toward Witcher and the UC Davis
Police. Waszczuk walked away from the provocation and returned to his home. UCDMC
Trauma Unit # 11 Supervisor Karen Kouretas had been waiting, ready to receive Waszczuk
on that day.
- 37 -
The UCDMC Trauma unit 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.”
On June 1, 2012, one day after falling ill and facing the maliciously crafted provocation by
the assembled UC Davis Death Squad, the coordinator of the provocation, HR Worker’s
Compensation Manager Hugh Parker sent an e-mail to the other members of the group
stating:
Mr. Waszczuk (Waszczuk) had 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 (Waszczuk) while on
leave. Mr. Waszczuk (Waszczuk) did not display any anger when
told he was being placed on investigatory leave.

Waszczuk was not expecting to be placed on investigatory leave again, which he hated, and
Waszczuk had been looking forward to returning to work after such a long period of absence,
regardless of the fact that he had been subjected by The Regents to more than one year of
psychological terror, harassment, retaliation, a significant loss of income, and multiple threats
of employment termination. Waszczuk could have expected anything, but never expected that
that highly regarded University of California would assemble a “death squad” to resolve a
dispute with an employee by using the police force to end the employee’s career with the
university at the trauma unit.
On June 7, 2012, just seven days after the unsuccessful attempt to provoke and end
Waszczuk's employment in the UC Davis Trauma Unit, UC Davis Police Sergeant Jennifer
Garcia sent the following e-mail to all UC Davis Police officers:
Chief Operating Officer Vincent Johnson has signed an undated 626 order it is on the bulletin
board in the sgt’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.
- 38 -
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 UNDATED PENAL CODE 626 ORDER, which was signed by UCDMC Chief
Operating Officer Vincent Johnson, was signed with the malicious and evil intention of
harming Waszczuk by UCDPD personnel and was entirely unlawful.
On June 21, 2012, Sergeant Garcia informed UCDMC Chief Compliance Officer Gina
Guillaume-Holleman via mail 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 PD informed they have
nothing on him.

On June 22, 2012, one of the most deceptive and dishonest UCDMC HR Consultants, Gina
Harwood, announced in a triumphal letter that the UCDMC HR Labor Relations Manager
Humberto Garcia and attorney and HR Consultant Jill Noel Vandeviver, who wanted to
restore Waszczuk’s employment with the University, were not longer employed by the
UCDMC.
On July 18, 2012, Waszczuk’s coworker and friend, Mark Montoya, was unexpectedly called
to Guillaume-Holleman’s office, shown Waszczuk’s photo, and asked whether Waszczuk was
a threat to him. Thereafter, Guillaume-Holleman made an attempt to solicit Montoya to sign an
affidavit stating that Waszczuk was a dangerous individual. Outraged by her demand, Montoya
left the interview and went to the HVAC Shop, where he told others what had happened.
Another of Waszczuk’s coworkers and friends, Kenny Diede, called Waszczuk and disclosed
to him the information about Montoya’s interview. A few days later, Montoya personally
confirmed the information about Guillaume-Holleman’s evil spirited demand.
On September 12, 2012, The Regents ordered the termination of Waszczuk’s employment by
an email letter from attorney Mia Belk, of the UC Office of the General Counsel, to UCDMC
- 39 -
HRLR Manager Lindsay, who had attempted in May to restore Waszczuk’s employment.
On September 26, 2012, Waszczuk received via overnight mail a Notice of Intent to Dismiss
for Serious Misconduct, dated September 25, 2012. It was routinely similar to other
documents that Waszczuk had received in the past from Witcher.
The notice stated:
“Re: Notice Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct
“The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I intend to dismiss you
from your position as a Sr. Development Engineer in Plant Operations and
Maintenance.
The letter also informed Waszczuk that his title had changed and he had been promoted from
Associate Development Engineer to Senior Development Engineer. This corresponded with
other documents that UCDMC PO&M Department management and HR Labor Relations

Manager made related to their decision in May 2012 to allow Waszczuk to return to work.
The last act of The Regents’ terror aimed at Waszczuk prior to the termination of his
employment on December 7, 2012 was the September 26, 2012 distribution of a UC Davis
police poster with Waszczuk’s photo and description similar to the FBI posters for “Most
Wanted Terrorists and Criminals.”
The UC Davis Police Poster stated:
Jaroslaw Waszczuk is currently on administrative leave from

employment with the UC Davis Med Center. Mr. Waszczuk is not
authorized to be on UC Davis property without a legal reason or a
medical emergency.
Mr. Waszczuk is described as an older white male with brown and
gray hair. He is approximately 5’8” and 190 lb.
If Mr. Waszczuk is seen trespassing on University of California
Davis properties, please contact the Davis Police Department
immediately at 916-734-1555.
https://www.scribd.com/document/622340707/09-26-2012-Most-Unwanted-Poster-and-
Pepper-Spray-Settlement-Agreement
- 40 -
The Notice of Intent to Dismiss did not inform Waszczuk that UC Davis Police distributed
the poster around the UC Davis campuses. Waszczuk’s coworker took a picture using his
mobile phone’s camera and sent it to Waszczuk.
UCDMC HR Labor Relations Consultant Gina Harwood, who was handling PO&M labor-
related matters, was shocked when she received the UC Davis Police poster with the
Waszczuk’s photo and physical description on it. In her response to HR Labor Relations
Manager Lindsey, she wrote about the poster:
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
Lindsay responded to Harwood as follows:
Senior leadership asked steve to have pd take this

precaution and we’ve never terminated JW either.
The facts and documents show that no one at UC Davis or the UCDMC wanted to take
responsibility the harassment and termination of Waszczuk’s employment; thus, they
fabricated false reports, portrayed Waszczuk as a racist, bigot, and anti-Semite; and sent their
slander to an attorney in the UC Office of the General Counsel to make a decision for the
Defendants; Director Mike Boyd; HR Director Defendant Stephen Chilcott; and his
subordinates, Defendants Brent Seifert, Danesha Nichols, and Cindy Oropeza.
- 41 -
On December 5, 2012, Witcher sent an email to Waszczuk with the attached Letter of
Termination, which contained the same content as the September 25, 2012 Notice Intent to
Dismiss for Serious Misconduct. It showed that Waszczuk’s job title was not Associate
Development Engineer, but rather Sr. Development Engineer. In addition, the draft of the
Letter of Termination was sent by Witcher to Lindsay (an attorney) for approval; the
approved letter was sent by Witcher to Waszczuk. In 2012, the base pay for an Associate
Development Engineer was $71,400, while for a Sr. Development Engineer it was $91,099
per year. This is an almost $20,000 difference, or approximately $1600/month more.
Waszczuk has provided evidence that, in May 2012, management was preparing a new job
description for him and that HR Lindsay, who approved the Letter of Termination, told his
subordinate Harwood that the UCDMC had nothing to do with Waszczuk’s termination of
employment.
VII.

CONCLUSION
Waszczuk’s self-representation in pro propria persona (pro per) legal struggle in the
two Sacramento Courts, the County of Sacramento County Superior Court and the
Court of Appeal of State California Third Appellate District (3DCA), the against
Regents of the University of California, is situated similarly to litigation of the proper
litigant, Allan S., in the case Alan S. v. Superior Court (Mary T.), 172 Cal.App.4th 238
(Cal. Ct. App. 2009), https://casetext.com/case/alan-s-v-superior-court.
Waszczuk is the same as Allan S., representing himself playing the role of a pro per
litigant whose case, with shades of Gideon’s Trumpet, doomed from the beginning in his
litigation in two cases filed simultaneously, on December 2 & 4, 2013, in the 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),
filed on December 2, 2013, and Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Case
No. C079254 and Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, filed on December 4, 2013,
- 42 -
The Court of Appeal Third Appellate District -Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of
California et al., Nos. C079524 & C095488.
In an opinion issued on April 15, 2019 in the Allan S. case, the Court made reference to
Anthony Lewis’s 1964 novel, Gideon’s Trumpet, which was based on the plight of a pro
per litigant, as fully explained in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), 372 U.S. 335 [ 9 L.Ed.2d
799, 83 S.Ct. 792].
In contrast to Allan S.’s struggle, Waszczuk was doomed twice, not because, like Allen
S. he could not afford an attorney, as Waszczuk initially hired experienced attorneys to
handle his litigation. It was only later that he became a pro per litigant because of his
attorneys’ criminal misconduct.
Prior to working at the University of California’s UC Davis Medical Center
(UCDMC), Waszczuk was employed from October 1989 through February 1998 by
Destec Energy Inc., based in Houston, which became in 1998 Dynegy Inc. (AOB-).

Waszczuk was employed by Destec as a power plant technician at a 50-MW cogeneration
power plant located in Lathop, San Joaquin County, California. Destec Energy Inc.,
between 1989 and 1996, with the permission of State Labor Commissioner Jose Milan,
defrauded 119 California employees of overtime worth approximately $3,000,000, due to
violations of the California Labor Law and, more specifically, Industrial Welfare
Commission Order IWC 1-89. Furthermore, the Independent Auditors’ Report performed
on the Plaintiff’s employer’s behalf by Deloitte & Touche LLP disclosed that Destec’s
401(K) plan was lacking the contributions due to the employees’ accounts in the amount
of $4,000,000,000 plus interest for the years 1991–1995.
On September 16, 1996, a California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement
(DLSE) Hearing Officer awarded the Plaintiff $27,129.21, which in 1996 was a
significant amount of money. This was in reference to State Case N0. 14 –10854-001,
Waszczuk v. Destec Energy, Inc. The Labor Commissioner from the Stockton Office
overturned the earlier decision of his superior, the State Labor Commissioner Jose Milan,
to permit Plaintiff’s employer to govern working conditions and pay under IWC order 4-
89, instead of IWC 1-89.
- 43 -
In response, Destec retaliated against Waszczuk with a suspension from work and appealed
the Labor Commissioner’s decision to San Joaquin County Superior Court, Case No. CV
000737, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc. Waszczuk was represented in that case by
attorney Anton Zybach rom Stockton
(https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/115349). Zybach, exactly like Douglas
Stein (SBN # 131248), 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. This is in contrast to justices
from 3DCA, who praised Stein’s criminal behavior in the unpublished opinion Waszczuk v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017), knowing that Stein is a
thief. The judge from San Joaquin County Superior Court, F. Clark Sueyres, was not so
generous to Zybach and sentenced him to one year of house arrest at his parents’ home in
Oregon, allowing him to leave only to go to work 50 hours per week, to the grocery store and
laundromat for one hour each week, and to prearranged doctor’s appointments. Zybach had to

wear a locating device on his ankle whenever he left home and he was ordered not to drink
excessive amounts of alcohol. Zybach and Stein knew each other, as both were graduates of
the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge Law School, (see
https://www.recordnet.com/story/news/1999/02/05/attorney-sentenced-in-
theft/50810309007/).
Waszczuk’s overtime case led to the disclosure of $240,000,000 of Destec’s fraud against
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the California taxpayers due to violations
by Destec of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the
requirements set in 18 C.F.R. for efficiency and the use of energy output. The plant was
also falsely certified as a Qualified Facility (QF), pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 292.20
requirements, under Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C.§ 824d(a), California Public Utilities
Code Section 218.5, State of California Unfair Business Competition law, and Business
and Professions Code § 17200. See San Francisco County Superior Court case PG&E v.
Destec Energy, Case No. 986126.
On January 30, 1998, Destec, in retaliation, terminated Waszczuk’s employment. This
was followed by the San Joaquin County Superior Court’s tentative decision dated April
- 44 -
4, 1998 in the case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc, Case No. CV 000737,
which reversed the Labor Commissioner’s decision to award Waszczuk $27,129.21.
Thereafter, Waszczuk had no job, no attorney, no money, and no overtime pay back-
awarded by the Labor Commissioner. In 1998, Waszczuk did not know that he could file
a motion for reconsideration based on the tentative decision. However, on July 9, 1998,
Waszczuk filed in pro per a Notice of Appeal regarding the trial court’s decision in the
3DCA case Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., No. C030005.
On October 19, 1999, Waszczuk argued the above-captioned cases for himself in
3DCA. On December 3, 1999, 3DCA issued an unpublished opinion in favor of
Waszczuk. Ten days after the oral arguments, Destec, which had changed its name to
Dynegy in 1998, settled the wrongful termination lawsuit with Waszczuk. On December
3, 1999, 3DCA issued an unpublished opinion in favor of Waszczuk (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/468225391/12-03-1999-IWC-1-89-3DCA-

Unpublished-Opinion-Waszczuk-v-Destec-Energy-Inc-Case-No-C030005).
Destec was represented in both cases by the powerful labor and employment law firm Littler
Mendelson, based in San Francisco. One of the 3DCA justices who decided the case was
former 3DCA Justice and 3DCA Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye. When the case was
decided in October 2019, Waszczuk had already been employed since June 1999 by The
Regents at the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant. Although the December 3, 1999 3DCA
opinion in Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case No. C030005, was unpublished, it forced the
DLSE to restore the applicability of the IWC Order 1 to govern working conditions and
overtime pay for non-exempt employees working on an alternative work schedule in all
privately owned power plants in the State of California. Further, all of Destec’s 119
employees recovered unpaid overtime through the settlement agreement signed between
Destec and the DLSE.
On April 26, 2004, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced the recovery of
$281,000,000 from Waszczuk’s former employer, Destec/Dynegy (for price-gauging energy
during the Energy Crisis of 2000–2001), stating that Dynegy was one of the “Four Horsemen
- 45 -
of the Apocalypse who rode in from Texas and ran roughshod over California consumers,
taxpayers, and businesses.”
Waszczuk’s self-representation in pro per and his struggle against powerful corporations and
Littler Mandelson’s attorneys in the 3DCA case Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case No.
C030005, did not attract as much attention as Gideon did in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372
U.S. 335 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 83 S.Ct. 792]. The novel In Pro Per
https://www.scribd.com/document/662933819/IN-PRO-PER-A-Novel-by-Maurizio-Spinoza,
by Waszczuk’s coworker from UCDMC under the pen name Maurzio Spinosa portrayed
Waszczuk as “Stanley Bondarczuk.” It did not became another Gideon’s Trumpet; however,
the in pro per representation in Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case No. C030005, and his
litigation against PG&E (https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/Agenda_decision/23942-04.htm)
got the University of California Office of President (UCOP) and The Regents’ attention.
Since August 2005, they have employed an army of personnel and lawyers to erase Waszczuk

from the UCDMC premises UC payroll with an attempt to assassinate him and frame him
with UC Davis and City of Lodi Police for deportation to his native country, Poland (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/663081739/03-23-2016-Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-s-Complaint-
with-State-Bar-of-California-Attorneys-Misconduct).
Waszczuk, in the course of his employment as an operator at the UCDMC’s 27-MW
cogeneration power plant and Associate Development Engineer (from June 27, 1999–
December 5, 2012) was unaware of, did not know, and never thought about prior to July
2015 that he and his family had become targets to be destroyed by the UCOP & The
Regents’ assigned witch hunters and thugs. This all happened because The Regents, in
1998, commissioned the UCDMC’s cogeneration power plant in violation of the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the requirements set in 18 C.F.R.
for efficiency and the use of energy output. The plant was also falsely certified as a QF,
pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 292.20 requirements, Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C.§ 824d(a). In
short, The Regents committed the same crime as Waszczuk’s previous employer of
1989–1998, Dynegy/Destec, by violating California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5,
- 46 -
the State of California Unfair Business Competition law, and Business and Professions
Code § 17200.
In addition, by illegally producing and selling electric power, The Regents violated the
university’s tax-exempt status under Internal Revenue Code 501 (c)(3). The Regents are
liable for millions of dollars in tax evasion and fraud.
Waszczuk, against his will and wishes, became an in pro per litigant again in December 2014
because his (now) former attorney, Douglas Stein, worked to cover up the theft of the money
that Waszczuk provided him in June 2014 to represent him in a wrongful termination suit.
Stein conspired against Waszczuk with The Regents’ attorney, Michael Pott, to set up
Waszczuk for an anti-SLAPP motion in collusion with Sacramento County Superior Court
Judge David I. Brown, in hopes of ending Waszczuk’s litigation against The Regents and
cover up the theft of Waszczuk’s unemployment insurance benefits, which had been
reinstated by the California Employment Department (EDD) on May 14, 2015.

In this wrongful termination case, No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California, filed on December 4, 2013, and the
interconnected 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, Waszczuk, who was acting in pro per since December 16, 2014, experienced
unusual and extreme bias, prejudice, and hostility toward him in Sacramento County
Superior Court and 3DCA. Waszczuk, during the above proceedings over almost ten
years, faced four (4) attorneys from the University of California’s General Counsel office
representing The Regents, three (3) attorneys for the State of California’s Attorney
General’s Office representing the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
(CUIAB), fourteen (14) attorneys from the Porter Scott Law firm, and two (2) attorneys
from Horvitz & Levi LLP. The best arguments in their pleadings, which were repeated in
the Court’s ruling, were ethnically motivated hominem and slanderous and libelous
attacks against Waszczuk and Waszczuk’s wife in an attempt to break into her bank and
401(K) accounts by the criminally minded attorneys from Porter Scott.
- 47 -
In actuality, Waszczuk’s self-representation in litigation against his employer prior to
UCDMC, Destec Energy Inc., was difficult for him, as he was a pro per litigant, but Littler’s
attorney always conducted themselves quite normally and in a civilized way, unlike
=Waszczuk The Regents attorneys who attempted to frame Waszczuk for a bench warrant or
who threated and robbed his wife before a Superior Court judge, as Porter Scott attorney
Lindsey Goulding did in 2021. This Court has been fully informed about these events of the
past, and Waszczuk has no need to elaborate on them any further.
In light of the above-presented arguments and information, Waszczuk’s Petition for
Rehearing should be granted and the unpublished opinion on Waszczuk v. Regents of the
Univ. of Cal., No. C095488 (Cal. Ct. App. July 28, 2023), must be modified. Further,
Waszczuk should be allowed, on remand, to amend the defective complaint filed unlawfully
by his former attorney, Douglas Stein, in conspiracy with The Regents’ attorney Michael Pott
and in collusion with Superior Court Judge David Brown on September 30, 2014.

Dated August 11, 2023
___________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk , Plaintiff in Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi , CA 95242
Phone : 209-667-1180
E-Mail: [email protected]
- 48 -
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
3DCA Case .: C095488 Trial Court Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.360(b)(1), I certify that
This Appellant Petition for Rehearing contains 13641 words, based on the word-count
feature of my word-processor program.
DATED: August 11, 2023
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff and Appellant In Pro Per
- 49 -
PROOF OF SERVICE BY TRUEFILING AND US MAIL
Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California
3DCA Case .: C095488 Trial Court Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
I, IRENA WASZCZUK the undersigned, declare that 1 am over 18 years of age and not a
party to the within cause; my address is 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA. On August ,11 2023 I
served a true copy of the attached each of the following:
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING
By placing the same copy in an envelope or envelopes addressed respectively as follows:
Department 54 -- Via U.S Mail
Superior Court of California
813 Sixth Street, 2nd Floor
Christopher E. Krueger, Judge
California Supreme Court 350
McAllister St,
San Francisco, CA 94102

Lindsay A. Goulding -Via TrueFiling - [email protected]
PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
H. Thomas Watson- Via TrueFiling - [email protected]

Karen M. Bray - Via TrueFiling - - [email protected]
Horvitz & Levy LLP
3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 11, 2023, at Lodi ,CA
____________________________________________________
IRENA WASZCZUK
- 50 -
ATTACHMENT – OPINION
- 51 -

08-11-2023 - Appellant Petition For Rehearing - Waszczuk V The Regents of The University of California 3DCA Case No C95488

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

08-11-2023 - Appellant Petition For Rehearing - Waszczuk V The Regents of The University of California 3DCA Case No C95488

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

08-11-2023 - Appellant Petition For Rehearing - Waszczuk V The Regents of The University of California 3DCA Case No C95488

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NO.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Plaintiff

Plaintiff & Appellant

Defendant & Respondent

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479

APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING ON

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS…………….……2

II. THIS APPELA NEVER SHOULD TAKEN PLACE-THE IRREPARABLE

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

B. Opinion Page No.4- In 2011, Waszczuk violated policies concerning

C. Opinion Pag No.4-In 2012, he sent a workplace investigator a slideshow titled,

VI. WASZCZUK’S EMPLOYMENT HISTORY WITH THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

PROOF OF SERVICE- DECLARATION OF MAILING…………………………...….50

ATTACHMENT -OPPINION ……………………………………………………………..51

In re Stein, No. S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) ……………………….………………..12,13,16

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b),……………………………………….22

PENAL CODE 626……………………………………………………………………….39

Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA…………………………………..44,46

Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C.§ 824d(a), ………………………………………………..…44,46.

California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, ……………………………………………44,47

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

I write to you today about disheartening conditions surrounding the

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

D. In the Opinion, the Court stated, “Most of the headings in Waszczuk’s

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

This court decided two prior appeals relating to Waszczuk’s employment

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Under California law, if you should subsequently lose your

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

You are being placed on paid investigatory leave effective immediately

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.