Letter To Karen Kidd-Witch Hunt Aimed at Polish Immigrant and U.S Supreme Court Justice Hon. Brett Kavanaugh

-
—Th
w WASZCZUK 0
ROST UNWANTED .
ssociate Development
agineer
D&M
CA
UCDAVIS
HEALTH SYSTEM m
651607285 "4
ARREST WARRRA NT UJIS U/S NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE REGENT1
1)
U-
c. l ' \ I II
do
•
..
BY TRE POLISH COMMUNIST SECRET POLICE

ISSUED
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA _
, \
t , --., S • I I •i '
ON DECEMBER 13, 1981 JANUARY 2009

DECYZJA NR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENE RAL RELEASE
£" i I Police Department ,. -
a. I fiwhtAø U
0 J)tCKOW$1ÜU
This SMtiemnt Amtmt nri General Rtesi (herftr Agnfl
Cl) •4_ into by and between JAROS&AW(JE R RY) WASCtJç (reaftr

J9 e ntei red
iI)Vta$lhkIr O. .'O1 - Mr Wszvk THE REQLTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORtA,
Uzaac, ze pozostawarde no wolnogd abywatela on bôIof the UNIVERSITY OFCALIFONIA. DAVIS HEALTI t YT[M
IIIn(AI1('I:N'ric!!NFonIt&TIoN RiIi.I.IITIN* (hereafter'University") (c(Iiect4v'Oly rt?fTeci to as the •
nazwisko i iiui . wzczjjc Jarost&w . . . .

11111 -
Il IS(.)N L'NA Iii I( )tU'/.I I ) ( )N P1()11IiUL iinina i'odzicôw ,...,And

..,.r ze j Wanda
From J1o28. 1000 k prcnt. Mr Wuk Kviti been &ortnuouIy
data i miejse urdzenia . 30.05,1951- r. Notarzyria . erflpIc!yed by Ihe Universit y in the Depar1merl o(Pant. Operaons and
Currently. Mr Waszczk s employed as CcGen Qpctor.
zawód (zjcie) i miejsee pracy mechnik_ Z...stianowa..
In-or around Mati 2007 - Mr. Wauk was suspended without pay for
tg_ I miejsce zaniieszkania . Dolne ul. Pioniersca. 9/14

zagrai1o1,y bczpieczeiistwu Paó.stwa I pørgqdkowi p4h1ic7nemu irzez to, ie ,
trwajcego kryzvsu spo.-po1it 0 , PRL czynriie uczetniczv na ternje
oes I e
.. . three days ard his work was changed by re~ssqnrnenl from
tte Contr1 Plant to tho iVAClPrumbing shop., bh work areas am within Ui
Dpartment of Plant Operations and Ma intenance ,
oI vv) ;•1th.. kronie.kiego. w podsyaniu..n.apicia.. spoiecznego .1 agituje do Mi WiiI ucti the pay and
niesi Zell stwa wobec deeyzjl orgn6w panstwowwth, stwarajc tym reassignment by hhng an Ernpyee Conipttint pursuant to Iht University.
santym Zi'O2ene rila pozucu. I btro Personnei Policies for Staff Men,be, PPSM) socton ?'O. Complaint Resolution
In or ~.irourid April 2007. aeçi, among other
9i.r, that the Unive*ty acted
g/
LU
a zdzic art. ? . ddatu z dnia
Pattwa i perz4dku pb1icznego w czagie obowiqzywania stanu wojemnego

r.o ochroe bezpezeña wjLi1O'' Just ose in t&'Jfl9 the
. Ernpoyee Comoain. (crn 1icrs hereafte r
Following a two-day 4ea6ng in November 2008 t conir1er Mr.

Vasuks Employee CornpIant, University Hearing Officer Connie Mohndy
potNJULwi* M oil: issued a wIit%en decisk)ri in December 2000. The Uniersdy Hearing Otlic.er
ad1I -7.-
Juroskiw 'aiii' k rr iiiI y on LIdsllinIN(rati vc leave roi iiip1oyneitt with th
1. internowat ob. . WZU1(A Jaro.aw ., . . . .
decided, that the University aotedwith pust c3usa in SuSper1iflQ Mr.
but acted wttrout just cause in re-assigning Mr Wa,9zczuK ircsm the Central PLnt
to HVAC/Pumbiny Shop The Hearing Officer dec;iJed (hat Mr. Ws2c2uK
VC Da vis hQUt(i ho pormdtod to return to work ot the Central PV?r. a nfs Mr. W2Cuk h
II tic I)avis Md Ceiiiur. lvii. Vv's,ciuk is not autliuriicti to tw I miiecI go w orodku o&obnio w O4ro4ku Prcy .wUhercach requeSted to retujfl 10 work at lbe (.cntcI Plant.
, * t ho' 'i u a u ;i n i ' ii I IIiIdical cnc
S
:manie
II. —I ______ -_ fl
I
n) ty e
-::
that Mt
.
k S 10 sa a;i9 fli Subseq U
I
— —
" N'
-.
. II
nI 1 .-
'
%
II. Mi'. Wft%ZCZIJk is KU11 Ircasing on 1Jnivt.riiy oF ('iIiIniit Davis pIopertit, q

• • t(41UP
suffer
i
C to
• If I
er_________
rcas3;-ro,Jt Ifl que •
iecis
'ntbr
The Univ
this ijt(
infloM waF
t
Was.zutik Is q1y, thie !oL wgts e;i1tcn Wit h Iis teag;iruea1
iii
1i.
f.
COI1I..ØC( ihc tJ( P )ivis I)oIice Dcpartmcnl i inineti ii'Iy al 9 I (-734255.5. KOMIN1) ' ,ti'.WC)DZKi M0
E ØT
' ' V
I.. •
c • •
driia ie.!
'1'
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk, Petitioner
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Email: jjw1980@live.com
October 10, 2019
Via Electronic Mail
Karen Kidd, Reporter

Northern California Record
Subject: Your January 7, 2019 Article in Northern California Record titled “Polish
immigrant fired from UC - Davis for misconduct not entitled to unemployment benefits,
appeals court affirms.”
Re: The Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Unpublished Opinion
in Case No. C079254, Trial Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of
Interest (RPI) –The Regents of the University of California (UC Regents);
California Supreme Court Case Nos. S253713 & S245879
Dear Ms. Kidd:
A few days ago as I was working on my wrongful termination lawsuit, which I

filed against the University of California Regents and which is pending in the
Sacramento County Superior Court since December 4, 2013, Case No. 34-2013-
00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, I
came across your article titled “Polish immigrant fired from UC - Davis for
misconduct not entitled to unemployment benefits, appeals court affirms.”
1
Polish immigrant fired from UC - Davis
https://norcalrecord.com/stories/511716336-polish-immigrant-fired-from-uc-
davis-for-misconduct-not-entitled-to-unemployment-benefits-appeals-court-
affirms
It is my understanding that the Northern California Record is owned by the U.S.
Chamber Institute for Legal Reform whose mission is to reduce excessive and
frivolous litigation while restoring fairness and balance to the nation’s civil
justice system.
The above captioned court case, which is the subject of the article in the Northern
California Record, is a classic example of excessive and frivolous litigation in
the California Superior Court and California Appellate Courts, including the
California Supreme Court on two occasions. The litigation for stolen
unemployment benefits has been permitted to continue by judges and justices for
the past six years without resolution. Because they stole my unemployment
benefits from me, which were restored by the California Employment
Development Department in May 2014, the litigation was unnecessary.
I am not quite sure why you and your prestigious legal blog, Northern California
Record, granted me the honor of an article about the December 27, 2018 3DCA
unpublished opinion that denied my unemployment insurance benefits. My
unemployment benefits, which were denied by the California Employment
Development Department (EDD) in January 2013 and were then restored in May
2014 by the same EDD, were possibly intercepted by my crooked attorney or
vanished for reasons unknown to me. I am still searching for a reason as to who
would steal my unemployment benefits. (Attachment #1)
I am assuming that you know a lot more about the Case No. 34-2013-80001699,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
2
(CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPI) – The Regents of the University of
California (UC Regents), as I and my attempts to recover my stolen
unemployment benefits have become the subject of your special writing and
investigative skills at the Northern California Record.
Your January 7, 2019 article about the unpublished opinion in the above-
mentioned case is not the end of the story. Following the December 12, 2018 oral
argument and December 27, 2018 unpublished opinion delivered to me by 3DCA
Justice Elena Duarte, Duarte awarded legal fees for this proceeding to the
Defendants, the CUIAB, represented by legal counsel Ashante Norton from the
California Attorney General’s Office and to the Real Party of Interest, the UC
Regents, represented by David Burkett from Porter Scott Law Firm. Norton never
showed up for oral arguments on December 27, 2018. A remittitur was issued by
3DCA on March 25, 2019, but no one wanted to claim the legal fees awarded by
the Court for this case. I wonder why? I was considering filing a Motion to Recall
Remittitur with 3DCA. However, I’m afraid that it would be a waste of my time,
and my Motion to Recall would be denied as usual by the 3DCA’s rubber stamp
by the presiding judge or his substitute
Consequently, I submitted a Petition for Rehearing to 3DCA on January 11,

2019, four days after you wrote your article about the Petition for Rehearing
being denied by 3DCA acting Justice Blease on January17, , 2019.
On January 23, 2019, I submitted a Petition for Review to the California Supreme
Court. (Attachment #2) On March 20, 2019, a Supreme Court of California en
banc session denied my petition for review filed on January 29, 2019
(Attachment #3). The Supreme Court Justices denied my unemployment
insurance benefits that the EDD had restored on May 14, 2014, but then the
3
benefits vanished, just like my short-term disability benefits of 2011. These
benefits resurfaced after eight years on March 20, 2019 in the State of California
Controller’s Office. I claimed them right away in March 2019. However, I am
still awaiting a response to my inquiry under the California Public Records Act
Provision that I sent to the State Controller’s Office concerning to whom and
when they sent my short-term disability benefits. The puzzle is not yet solved.
(Attachment #4)
The Supreme Court’s decision to deny my Petition for Review is very bizarre
considering that Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang, 3DCA justices, the
Supreme Court, and the State Bar were all informed that my unemployment
insurance benefits were restored by EDD in May 2014 and then the benefits
disappeared or were intercepted by my crooked attorney, Douglas Stein, who
stole my $20,000 retainer and misrepresenting me in my wrongful termination
case. The Supreme Court decision denying my Petition for Review stated that
Justice Hon. Joshua Groban was recused and did not participate. Justice Groban
was appointed to the Supreme Court in November 2018 by Governor Jerry
Brown and was sworn into office on January 3, 2019.
The Petition for Review filed in California Supreme Court on January 29, 2019
and the most recent filing and U.S. Tax Court Orders in my Whistleblower Case
No. 23105-18W, JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent will give some
insight into this whole matter and help you understand that my unemployment
benefits case was a tiny but important part of a broader matter related to the
enormous and sophisticated scheme of fraud and organized crime known as the
“California Energy Crisis.” This has nothing to do with any alleged Polish
Immigrant Misconduct, which never occurred.
4
If you take the time to read the attached “PETITIONER’S REPLY TO U.S. TAX
COURT ORDER SERVED ON JULY 9, 2019 SIGNED BY SPECIAL TRIAL
JUDGE HON. ROBERT N. ARMEN”; RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER—TAX
COURT RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE SECTION 6103(B)(L),
(2), AND (3), you will understand that I am only one person in Lodi, California,
who has gotten hit by the organized crime scheme associated with the University
of California Office of the President (UCOP) mafia led by UC President Janet
Napolitano, who announced her resignation as UC President one month after my
IRS whistleblower case was set for trial in San Francisco. (Attachment #5)
https://www.scribd.com/document/426636466/The-Case-is-Set-for-Trial-Docket-
No-23105-18W-Napolitano-resigned
I am quite convinced that if I had agreed on July 29, 2019 to withdraw my

opposition to the Respondent Motion for Protective Order (U.S. Tax Court
Whistleblower Case), then District Judge Burrell would not have signed the
Order on July 29, 2019 to overturn conviction of Lodi, California, resident
Hamid Hayat, who was wrongly accused of affiliation with the Al-Qaeda terror
group. Hayat never should have been locked up. His only fault was that he was a
member of the Pakistani community in Lodi where I have lived since 1989. If
you read the attached U.S. Tax Special Trial Judge Order dated July 9, 2019, then
you will learn how this judge tried to convince me to withdraw my opposition to
the Motion for Protective Order. My long Reply to the Order, of which part was
used in the Hamid Hayat case, stated:
It was not a coincidence that a new FBI Director, Robert Mueller,

appointed in September 2001, gave his okay to find a guy in Lodi and
5
make him a dangerous terrorist and to make the terror case in Lodi, CA.
Instead of opening a probe and conducting an investigation to find out
who was directly and personally responsible for the ruthless attack on the
California Power Grid that almost collapsed in September 2001, the FBI
Director, instead, ordered the creation of a terrorist sleeper cell in Lodi to
serve as a scapegoat and scarecrowand sent 19-year-old cherry picker
Hamid Hayat to Federal prison for 24 years and kept him hostage for 14
years.
Also, on July 29, 2019, I received the final decision from the State Bar of
California Client Security Fund that I will receive a reimbursement check in
amount of $14,500. (Attachment #6)
In addition to the above, I would like to mention that I came across another of
your more interesting articles in the Legal Newsline dated September 24, 2019,
titled “LAWYERS REPRESENTING KAVANAUGH ACCUSER SHOULD
FACE ETHICS INVESTIGATION, TRUMP ADVOCATE SAYS.”
I addressed the witch hunt aimed at Justice Kavanaugh in my September 18, 2018
letter addressed to Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary in the U.S. Senate. The findings presented in my letter are partially
related to the previously mentioned fraud known as the “California Energy
Crisis.” (Attachment #7)
In conclusion, I would like to quote my statement from the PETITIONER’S

REPLY TO U.S. TAX COURT ORDER SERVED ON JULY 9, 2019 SIGNED
BY SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE HON. ROBERT N. ARMEN; RE: PROTECTIVE
ORDER—TAX COURT RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SECTION 6103(B)(L), (2), AND (3):
6
There has been a 14-year-long desperate effort by the University of
California Office of the President (UCOP) mafia to frame and to deport
Petitioner [Jaroslaw Waszczuk] to his native country of Poland. In 1982,
the Polish government deported Petitioner to the United States because of
my participation in political activities in the anti-communist movement
called “Solidarity” to liberate Poland from Soviet domination and
communist rulers who had been enslaving the Polish people for 50 years.
The UCOP mob also orchestrated an ill-crafted and unsuccessful attempt
to provoke and kill me on May 31, 2012 along with portraying me as a
Most Wanted Terrorist on September 26, 2012. These acts of terror
involved Janet Napolitano’s friend from Arizona and former FBI Agent
and UCOP Director of Investigation John Lohse, who was recruited by
the UCOP mob in January 2004 and other criminally minded UCOP, UC
Davis, and UC Davis Medical Center thugs.
Regards,
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk

Polish Immigrant
CC:
U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
7
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
October 10, 2019
Via Priority U.S Mail
Hon. Shelleyanne W. L. Chang

Sacramento County Superior Court, Dept. 24
720 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Hon. Vance W. Raye, Presiding Justice

Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall
Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye

Chief Justice of California Supreme Court
Chair of Judicial Council Judicial Council of California
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA, 94105-3688
Subject: The January 7, 2019 Article in the Northern California Record about
the Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Unpublished Opinion in Case
No. C079254, Trial Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPI) –
The Regents of the University of California (UC Regents); California Supreme Court
Case Nos. S253713 & S245879
1
Hon. Judge Sheleyanne Chang , Hon. Cantil- Sakauye and Hon. Vance W. Raye
Dear Judge Chang,
Dear Justice Raye and Cantil-Sakauye,
For your review and consideration, enclosed is the copy of my 10/10/2019 letter to
Deputy of California Attorney General Ms. Ashante Norton and reporter Ms. Karen
Kidd who authored an article in the Northern California Record about the above
captioned cases. I am still scratching my head as to how it was possible that these
litigations were allowed to be continued in the Sacramento County Superior Court and
Appellate Courts after the California Employment Development Department (EDD)
restored my unemployment benefits in May 2014 and that the Defendants’ legal
counsels representing the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and Real
Party of Interest were perfectly aware of.
My unemployment benefits were most likely intercepted and stolen by my attorney,

Douglas Stein.
As I pointed out in my letter to Ashante Norton, the remittitur in this case was issued on
March 25, 2019 but no one wanted to claim the legal fees awarded by the Court for this
case, thus the case is not completely resolved and disposed.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff and Appellant in the above captioned case
2
Hon. Judge Sheleyanne Chang , Hon. Cantil- Sakauye and Hon. Vance W. Raye
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
October 10, 2019
Ashante L. Norton, SBN 203836, Deputy Attorney General,

Legal Counsel for California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
Office of the California Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
Subject: Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment

Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPI) – The Regents of the
University of California (UC Regents); the Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District
(3DCA), Case No. C079254; California Supreme Court Case Nos. S253713 & S245879
Re: Legal Fees and Cost in the Above Captioned Court Case;
March 12, 2015 Sacramento County Superior Court Judgment versa 3DCA
December 27, 2018 Unpublished Opinion and Remittitur Dated March 25, 2019
Dear Ms. Norton:
By this Meet and Confer correspondence, I would like to point out to you that the legal
fees and cost in Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPI) –
The Regents of the University of California (UC Regents) is still unresolved and needs
to be addressed by this court to resolve this matter. The Remittitur by the 3DCA was
issued in the above unemployment insurance benefits captioned case on March 25,
2019, however, no one is claiming legal fees and cost in the amount of $495 awarded to
1
Ashante Norton -Meet and Confer -Legal Fees and Cost .
the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal (CUIAB) Board according to the
Memorandum of Cost and signed Judgment by Sacramento County Superior Court
Judge Shelleyanne Chang on March 12, 2015. (Attachment#1) The March 12, 2015
Judgment in Favor of Respondent CUIAB stated:
THEREFORE, THE COURT ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND

DECREES:
1. The Petition for Writ of Mandate is denied.
2. Judgment is entered in favor of RESPONDENT
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS
BOARD.
3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 61035, Respondent
shall recover from Petitioner any fees that would have been paid
but for Government Code Section 6103 and cost of sum $495.00.
Contrary to trial Court Judgment, the Court of Appeal, 3DCA Associate Justice Elena
Duarte, who delivered the unpublished opinion in this case on December 27, 2019,
awarded the legal fees to Real Party in Interest – UC Regents with the following words
in the Disposition: (Attachment#2)
The judgment is affirmed. THE REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SHALL RECOVER COSTS
ON APPEAL. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.278(a)(l) & (2).
The Remittitur was issued by 3DCA on March 25, 2019 (Attachment#3) and basically
repeated that the Regents, not CUIAB, shall recover cost on Appeal, thus the Remittitur
itself is faulty and should be recalled by the 3DCA on its own motion.
Since the Remittitur was issued March 25, 2019, and no one is claiming legal fees and
cost thus, the case should be completely closed an disposed but is not .
2
The Rule 8.278.(b)(1) Costs on Appeal mandates that within 40 days after issuance
of the Remittitur, a party claiming costs awarded by a reviewing court must serve
and file in the Superior Court a verified Memorandum of Costs under Rule 3.1700.
However, by reading into Golden Hill Neighborhood Assn., Inc. v. City of San
Diego, Case No. D062203 (4th Dist., Div. 1, Nov. 25, 2013) (unpublished), a trial
court entered a new judgment following issuance of an earlier appellate remittitur.
The lower court then denied the Association’s prevailing party’s fee request on the
grounds that it failed to file its fee motion 40 days after issuance of the Remittitur
pursuant to California Rule of Court (CRC), Rule 3.1702(c)(1).
On review, the wrong CRC provision was used to determine timeliness of fee
motion filing in the appellate court. Given that the lower court entered a new
judgment after Remittitur issuance, the correct rule was CRC, Rule 3.1702(b)
which allowed for 60 days, a period within which the fee motion indeed was filed.
In this proceeding, the trial Court did not enter a new judgment, and CUIAB failed to
file a motion within the 40 or 60 days after issuance of the Remittitur.
I am not sure how and why Justice Elena Duarte omitted CUIAB in her unpublished
opinion if the appeals in the trial Court (Writ of Mandamus) and appeal in 3DCA were
from CUIAB’s (Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Tays, and Board Members Michael
Allen and Roy Ashburn ) decisions, not the Regents’. The Regents caused that my
unemployment insurance benefits was unlawfully denied but the benefits were restored
in May 2014 by the Employment Development Department (EDD). My benefits had
most likely been intercepted and stolen by my broke and drug abusing attorney, Douglas
Stein, or somehow magically vanished for reasons unknown to me after they were
restored by EDD. (Attachment#4)
3
To refresh your recollection, just prior to EDD restoring my unemployment insurance
benefits, on May 6, 2014, I briefed you (Attachment#1 with a letter about the
investigation against CUIAB’s corrupt staff, ALJ Marilyn Tays and two Board
Members, Mr. Michael Allen and Mr. Roy Ashburn, who deprived me of my
unemployment insurance benefits. Shortly after I sent you my letter, EDD on May 14,
2014 restored my benefits, which I never received due to a conspiracy, grand theft, or
other evil reason. However, I am sure that you, as CUIAB’s counsel, were perfectly
aware of the ongoing investigation against Tays, Allen, and Ashburn, and that the EDD
informed CUIAB and you or your supervisor, Ismail Castro, that my unemployment
benefits had been restored and the pending Writ of Mandamus Court Case should be
dismissed. As I recall, my unfortunate attorney, Douglas Stein, in May 2015 was
coached or advised you by e-mail on May 8, 2014 with the words:
From: Douglas Stein [mailto : desguire 1962 (hotmail. com]

Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 11:02 PM
To: 'Ashante Norton'; 'Ashante Norton'; 'Ashante Norton'
Cc: 'Jaroslaw Waszczuk'; 'Jaroslaw Waszczuk'; 'Jaroslaw
Waszczuk' Subject: RE: Frivolous Demurrer
MS Norton:
Forgive my seeming ignorance. I did not mean to sound threatening

with sanctions and a state bar referral. Let me back up. Both of us
are officers of the court. We took an oath to uphold the law. I
assume you take that awesome responsibility as serious as anyone
else, including the attorneys and judges from the turn of the
century who settled and founded Northern California. I have
always believed that as attorneys we must adhere to those rules
4
AND EVEN REPORT ATTORNEYS OR PEOPLE WE SEE
VIOLATING THE RULES. It's kind of like golfers who call
penalties n themselves or other players As State Bar Members we
are obligated, at the risk of serious consequences imposed by the
State Bar, to protect and preserve the courtrooms and the validity
of any matter filed with the clerk.
Now, if I am wrong about the civility, professionalism, ethics, and
respect that underlie the Code of Ethics rules that clearly, simply,
and historically demand and forbid any attorney from filing and/or
pursuing a motion or argument of law the attorney knows is without
merit or frivolous, We learned this in first year of law school.
So, I am giving you one more chance to take the demurrer off
calendar because, as of my first letter, either you knew the
demurrer was frivolous based on CCP Section 10 13 or, forgive
me, you are not smart enough or experienced enough to read and
apply the law in the most simple of events. You have no in-
between. Thank God your intelligence seems intact and
impressive.
So. I assume you either found a statute or rule of court that excepts
the Writ from the 5-day extension set forth in Section 1013 or you
know your demurrer is against the law. To meet and confer, you
really need to let me know which one so I can plan accordingly. It
would make a difference,
Our mutual obligation to meet and confer to clear clutter or
frivolous matters off the courts' docket demand that you provide me
with the exception to 1013, especially since I have looked but could
not find the law, I believe it does not exist.
Our job is also to protect the integrity of the system. If you were
faced with a pleading by opposing counsel that was frivolous, or
without any reasonable belief the pleading is supported by the law,
I would hope, expect, and support your actions immediately
reporting the violation of our own rules.
If you do not believe I am trying to protect you from having to
experience punishment by the Bar for filing and pursuing a
5
demurrer knowing the Writ was timely filed, please do yourself a
favor and immediately seek and get the sage advice given by the
elder attorneys. The Bar and the Courts usually are not very
understanding when an attorney files and pursues a motion she
knows is not consistent with established law, IT IS SERIOUS.
Now, knowing our duties, please reconsider your unsupported
position to pursue the demurrer, and instead, respect and follow
our rules as officers of the court. I look forward to confirmation
from a senior supervising attorney with the state, that the state
professionally and justly took the demurrer off calendar, or in the
alternative, somehow produces statute or rule of court that
magically appeared in the past hour or so.
Thank you
Douglas Stein
If I had not hired Douglas Stein as my attorney in November 2013 and I had not fired
him one year later in December 2014, then I most likely would never have found out
what a Writ of Mandamus is and what anti-SLAPP C.C.P 425.16 stands for, not to
mention losing the money Stein stole from me, coerced and coached by the evil Porter
Scott attorneys Michael Pott, Douglas Ropel, and David Burkett.
What encouraged me to ask you for resolution of the legal fees and cost in this
unfinished and unresolved case about my stolen unemployment insurance benefits was
the article I recently came across in the Internet Blog of the Northern California Record.
The January 7, 2019 article, authored by Karen Kidd and entitled “Polish immigrant
fired from UC - Davis for misconduct not entitled to unemployment benefits,
appeals court affirms,” basically repeated the untrue, slanderous, and libelous
statement from the December 27, 2018 unpublished opinion, which was delivered to me
6
by 3DCA Associate Justice Elena Duarte. See my October 10, 2019 response to Ms.
Kidd. (Attachment#6)
I would appreciate it if you let me know how you, as CUIAB legal counsel, would like
to resolve the matter of the Legal Fees and Cost awarded to Respondents in the Case
No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPI) – The Regents of the University
of California (UC Regents); the Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District (3DCA),
Case No. C079254; California Supreme Court Case Nos. S253713 & S245879
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff and Appellant
7
MAILING LIST
Re: Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment

Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPI) – The Regents of the
University of California (UC Regents); the Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District
(3DCA), Case No. C079254; California Supreme Court Case Nos. S253713 & S245879
Copies of this document, the Re: Meet and Confer Correspondence Re: Legal
Fees and Cost with attachments addressed to the CUIAB’ Legal counsel
Ashante Norton have been sent on 10/11/2019 by U. S Mail or e-mail or both (if
the e-mail) was available to the parties checked below
Ashante L. Norton, SBN 203836, Deputy Attorney General, U.S Priority Mail and
E-mail -
Bryn M. Barton-by E-mail: Bryn.Barton@doj.ca.gov
Legal Counsel for California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
Office of the California Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
Hon. Shelleyanne W. L. Chang- by U.S Priority Mail

Sacramento County Superior Court, Dept. 24
720 9th Street
Hon. Vance W. Raye, Presiding Justice -by U.S Priority Mail

Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall
Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye

Chief Justice of California Supreme Court
Chair of Judicial Council of California
San Francisco, CA, 94105-3688
8
Elena Gonzales- U.S Priority Mail -Fax
Executive Director / Chief ALJ
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
2400 Venture Oaks Way
Sacramento, California 95833
Greg Williams, Deputy Director- by U.S Priority Mail

Unemployment Insurance Branch
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
800 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814,
P.O. Box 826880
Sacramento 94280-0001
Michael W. Pott by e-mail- mpott@csac-eia.org; gdean@csac-eia.org

CSAC-ETA
75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 200
Folsom, CA 95630
Douglas L. Ropel- by e-mail- dropel@porterscott.com; lmichel@littler.com

Littler
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Daniel Bardzell by e-mail - dbardzellporterscott.com

David P.E. Burkett by e-mail - dburkett.porterscott.com
Porter Scott
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Charles F. Robinson, UCOP General Counsel by e-mail:

charles.robinson@ucop.edu
Cynthia A. Vroom, UCOP Senior Counsel by e-mail: 'cynthia.vroom@ucop.edu'
Margaret L Wu, UCOP Managing counsel by e-mail: 'margaret.wu@ucop.edu'
University of California
Office of the General Counsel UC Office of the President
1111 Franklin Street
Oakland. CA 94607-5200
9
10
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-247-1089
E-Mail: jjw1980@live.com
May 25, 2014
State of California
Employment Development Department
Riverside Call Center
P. 0. Box 641
San Bernardino, CA 92402-0641
Re: Request for Clarification: May 14, 2014 Letter from Employment Development
Department entitled "Notice of Unemployment Insurance Claim Filed"
Dear Sir or Madam:
A few days after I submitted a letter dated May 4,2014 to the State of California Deputy
Attorney General Ms. Ashante Norton in regard to my complaint against the Employment
Development Department (EDD) and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
(CUIAB) Administrative Judge and two board members, I received a letter from the EDD
Riverside Call Center office. The EDD letter, which was dated May 14, 2014 and postmarked
May 12, 2014 and which I received on May 14, 2014, was entitled "Notice of Unemployment
Insurance Claim Filed." The mentioned notice makes reference to my unemployment insurance
claim that I filed in December 2012.
Furthermore, the notice stated that the benefits payments were issued to the EDD debit card.
Considering the above-mentioned EDD's information, I assumed that somebody in the EDD
and CUIAB office reversed the unjustified decision, which denied my unemployment benefits.
Furthermore, it makes me believe that the decision denying my eligibility to receive the
unemployment benefits was a horrible mistake made by the EDD and CUIAB in 2013.
Furthermore, the information's in the EDD's notice made me believed that EDD's and
CUIAB's horrible decisions issued in 2013 for purpose to legitimize the University of
California's attempted provocation to kill or harm me on May 31, 2012 and unlawfully
terminate my employment that was preceded by malicious harassment and retaliation for
almost two years is no longer valid.
The next day, on May 15, 2014, I received from the EDD the Unemployment Insurance
Continued Claim Form for the two-week period from December 1, 2013 to December 14,
2013. The received claim form assured me further than my unemployment insurance benefits,
Request for clarification-EDD

State Bar -Exhibit # 127-Page #2
which were unlawfully denied to me by the EDD and CUIAB, will be restored, and I will
retroactively be paid within 10 days after I file and submit the EDD's claim form to the EDD's
NORCAL Authorization Center in Sacramento, CA. I submitted the claim form via US mail
and via the Internet on the same day that I received the form, May 15, 2014. Since then, I have
not heard anything from the EDD. I am hoping that the EDD will provide me with some
information about whether I will receive my unemployment insurance benefits or whether it is
an EDD, University of California, and CUIAB joint venture to play a dirty mind game against
me and to continue the malice almost one year after my appeal was unjustly denied by CUIAB
board members.
er ly, Ii
Jar law Waszczuk
CC: EDD Director —Patrick Henning; EDD Deputy Director —Sabrina Reed, State Of California Attorney
and other EDD Executive Officers and staff. General —Kamala Harris ;CUIAB Chief Counsel — Kim
Steinhardt, UC President —Hon. Janet Napolitano; UC Regents,
Enclosed: Letter to California Attorney General Deputy Ashante Norton dated May, 2014
Letter to EDD Deputy Director Sabrina Reed dated July 11, 2013 plus other related to
the December 2012 Unemployment Insurance Claim
2
Request for clarification-EDD State Bar -Exhibit # 127-Page #3
SAN BERNARDINO PAC .. Employment
P0 BOX 641
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402-0641 EDDD D
Slate of Caltiornia
en I
Mail Date: 0511412014

SSN: 449-59-6448
Claimant Phone #: (209) 339-1982
EDD TELEPHONE NUMBERS:

JAROSLAW J WASZCZUK English 1-800-300-5616
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY Spanish 1-800-326-8937
LODI CA 95242-4799 Cantonese 1-800-547-3506
Mandarin 1-866-303-0706
Vietnamese 1-800-547-2058
TTY (non-voice) 1-800-815-9387
website: www.edd.ca.ciov
NOTICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIM FILED
You filed a claim for Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits effective 12/16/2012. When you filed your claim you stated:
I. Your last employer was: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

EMPLOYEE & LABOR RELATIONS
DAVIS, CA 95616
2. The last day you worked for that employer was 12/07/2012.
3. The reason you are no longer working for the above employer is:
TERMINATED
4. You are not receiving a pension or other income that may be deductible from your UI benefits.
5. You are able and available to accept full-time work..
6. You have the legal right to work in the United States
Please review the above information carefully. No action is required by you if the information is correct. The EDD
considers this information correct unless you report other information within 10 (ten)days from the mailing date of this
notice. Any response after 10 days may result in delay of benefits. To report other information, you may call the EDD or
mail your response to the EDD address above. Remember to include your name and Social Security number in all
correspondence with the EDD.
Although federal and state laws prohibit the revealing of information about your employment and your UI claim to your
spouse, relatives, friends, non-interested parties, and private interest groups, federal legislation requires that such
information be made available to state and federal welfare, medical assistance, CalFresh (formerly food stamps),
housing, and child support enforcement agencies. Confidentiality Is the responsibility of agencies using the information.
You have the option of cancelling a regular California U claim (refer to your Notice of Unemployment Award for the
cancellation requirements). If you do decide you want to cancel your claim, do not certify for benefits because once
you are paid benefits, the law does not allow you to cancel your claim.
Benefit payments are issued to the EDD Debit CardSM. You should refer to your Guide to Benefits and Employment
Services handbook for information about the EDD Debit CardSM. If you were previously issued a card and need a
replacement, you must contact Bank of America EDD Debit Card Customer Service toll-free at 1-866-692-9374.
DE11O1cLMT Rev. 6(3-13) CU

State Bar -Exhibit #127-Page #6
Start Here -- EDI) Web-Cert Page 1 of 1
'-.. Employment EDD Web-Cert

Development
0,GOV EDD Department
-------
Welcome Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Claim History
This page has a summary of your claim history.
For more help view the Continued Claim Form tip sheet: English I Spanish I Chinese I Vietnamese
If a certification period (one or two weeks) has a status of:
• "Ready to File": You may certify for that period today. Please select the "Continue" button at the bottom of the page.
• "Submitted": Your information for that period has already been received. Please allow ten (10) days from the
submission date for processing
• "Use Paper Form": You must use your paper claim form for this period
If a particular certification period is not listed: Use your paper "Continued Claim" form to certify for that period.
Beginning Ending Weeks Status

12/01/2013 12/14/2013 2 Issued 05/17/2014
06/23/2013 07/06/2013 2 Issued 07/09/2013
06/09/2013 06/22/2013 2 Issued 06/26/2013
05/26/2013 06/08/2013 2 Issued 06/14/2013
05/12/2013 05/25/2013 2 Issued 06/04/2013
04/28/2013 05/11/2013 2 UsePaperFomi
04/14/2013 04/27/2013 1 2 1 Use Paper Form
You have submitted all current claim forms and do not have any claims to submit at this time

https://cccwpd.edd.ca.gov/CCCW/Default.aspx 5/21/2014
The following are examples of how to complete your answers to the questions on the front of this form.
- Section Aj.P2c/ófl A
Los siguientes son e jemplos an corno completar sus respuestas a las preguntas an el trante de este formulario.
MAROUEIA RESPUESTA CORRECTA
MARK THE CORRECT ANSWER EJEMPLO SILARESPUESTAES"S(' St U No
EXAMPLE IFTHEANSWERIS"YES" Yes U No U Si LA RESPUESTA ES NNO: SI 0 No U
IF THE ANSWER IS NO': Yes U No I
Write numbers like (b) $342 58
EXAMPLE: Report earnings of: (a)(a)$76.10 (b) $342.58 (c) $1060.55, like this: (a) $
:: :: .. : :1.n .
i u (c) $ 999 99
$76.10 $342,58 (c) $105055 8S1
EJEMPLO Repofla ingresos c/a
nnnniaW [p tahiA 7c
t t:
0z ---- ..-- - -
WORK-SEARCH RECORD! RECORD DE LOS LI/GAPES DONDE HA BUSCADO TRABAJO
Date Applied / Company Name I Company Address I Person Contacted /
Fecha en qua Nombre de Ia Tpplied Results; Please explain ]J
DirecciOn e (a Persona con quien Traba Jo Resultado: Por favor
Solicito Empleo Comp ía Companla se CornunicO O ue
Ar fl eE*sw hit fly 7lJM
tOpstui t4V/ü'j
I LZttiYtID 1I1J j;t o,r
Section C / $çj4g Notice to Educational Institution (FOR EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED TRAINING ONLY)
Aviso pars La Institucian Educacional (PARA CURSOS DE ENTRENAMIENTO APROBADO POP EL DEPARTAMENTO DEL DESARROLLO DEL EMPLEO (EDO))
I certify that this individual was enrolled in and

satisfactorily pursuing the retraining course of Signature/Title Date
instruction approved by the Employment
Development Department during the week(s)
shown on the front of this form Name of Training Institution
If you are on a semester/holiday recess, enter the date you are scheduled to return to school.
Si Ltd. esta en vacaciones/dias feriados del semestre escolar; escriba Is fecha en que regresarä a la escuela:
Section D!SecciOn 0 New Mailing Address / Nueva QirecciOn de Correo
ornplete below and mark Question 8 block on front / Complete abajo y marque Ia pregunta Ben ci trente, New phone - include area code INuevo nUmero
I de telAtono - incluvendo Area ta/a fonk,a
C I
Zip Code: / Zona Postal:
)E 4581 CTO Rev. 4 (6-04) State of California / Employment Development
-. Department .. lAir' n
____ OP l2 126381

.e:. (0) L:
;. () sirt ase ocoS (o) 39&frC (q) ot92t (&) :ep sosa'flu, opodew :Q7jgIJ3$'3
6;3 $ v - ' WI gg090 (o) 89 *C$ (Ci) rn 9L$ (e) jo s6uiwee pode 31dI01VX3
soJseowo:sOJeWpUeQIJo$3
89 3 PC $ () 68 L 9; c i.o
• ON 0 is ;ON. 93 V193fld93U viis • ON 0 SA :,ON, SI HBM5I'JV
o ON I IS :45.93 V193fldS3H V7 IS 07dfl3P3 ON • 56A .SA, SI HBMSNV 3HJL dl 31dVVX
V133HHO3 V.LSHfldSBH V72nOHVW H9MSNV I391:11:103 9HI NUVVI
ouejnwJoj ajso op ojuoi; p cia sjun5aid sj e sjsandsai sns .wjajdwoo owoo cia so(d we! a cios sajua'nô,s soj
wJoJsiqliOluOJJ et uo suosenb oq o sJosue inoA odWoo OMoq jo seidwBxe eje 6UIMooJ GL4j !UPPO6SIY UO!43O
CONTINUED
CLAIM 2449596448121216131207822812140512 A A I
449-59-6448 12-16-12
AS 1ST WEEK - 2ND WEEK
ANSWER ALL QUESTIdN. SWCTION A. ON BACK FOR EXAMPLES Begins 12-01-13 gins 12-08-13
OF HOW TO COMPLETE YOUR ANSWERS. Each question is explained Ends 12-07-13
Ends 12-14-13
in your booklet, A Guide to Benefits and Employment Services YES NO YES NO
COMPLETE AND MAIL THIS FORM ON 05-12-14
I. Were you too sick or injured to woti<' ........................................> 0 S 0
If yes, enterthe number of days (I through 7) you were unable to work (1-7) (1-7)
2.Was there any reason (other than sickness or injury) that you could not have
accepted full-time work each workday? ....................................... .> 0 I 0 if
3.Did you look for work? ......................................................> i q U 0
<— IF MARKED - r.YOU MUST COMPLETE SEC. B., WORK-SEARCH RECORD. ON REVERSE.
4.Did you refuse any work? ...................................................> 0 1 0
S. Did you begin attending any kind of school or training' .........................> 0 I 0 I
6. Did you work or earn any money, WHETHER YOU WERE PAID OR NOT? .......> 0 I 0 1
(If yes, you MUST COMPLE1 items a. and b. below.) -
a Enter earnings before deductions here
b Report employment or 'source of earnings information below $ $
DATE I
TOTAL I I REASON NO LONGER WORKiNG I
I LAST WORKED I HOURS won I EMPLOYER NAME AND MN LING ADDRESS - INCLUDE ZIP CODE (OR wnnr 'slia woniwon I
1STWEEKI
I
2ND WEEK
I
7.If you want federal income tax withheld for the week(s) shown above,
markthis block . ............................................................ > 0
8.If you had a change of mailing address or phone number,
mark this block and complete Sec. Don reverse . ............................ > 0
I understand the questions the law provides penalties If
.1111,11111111 I'lill. P 1111111111 Will III-111111111111111III IliIIIJill III I make false statements or tee benefits; my answers are
NORCAL AUTHORIZATION CENTER *FPTL* true and correct I deciere ijuiy that I am a U.S. citizen or
national; or ar alien in sat it status and permitted to work by
PC BOX 989058 U d5. I aided this formS for which lam Chiming benefits.
WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95798-9058
DE 4581 CTO Rev. 6 (5-04) CU/PA866
DETACH AND DISCARD
SOCAL AUTHORIZATION CENTER

P0 BOX 19008
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92423-9008
'hII'IHI) Serving the People of California
J J WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI CA 95242-4799
P1545
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
January 23, 2019
Jorge E. Navarrete
Supreme Court Clerk/Administrator
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Appellant’s Petition for Review after the decision by the Court of Appeal, Third
Appellate District, C079254, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board
Dear Mr. Navarrete,
Enclosed is the Petition for Review in the above 3DCA case. Although the petition is
bookmarked, it may contain some minor mistakes. The 3DCA justices unfairly
decreased my allotted time to file the Petition by two days. The 3DCA fully explains
that I am representing myself and that I have had all my documents proofread prior to
submitting anything to the Court because I am immigrant. I am struggling to maintain
my life on $1500 in monthly Social Security income after being forced by the Regents
to take early Social Security at age 62 in 2012. A 3DCA means that the justices have
done it a second time. First time in the case number C079524 Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California in 2017 and again this year.
The California Rule of Court CRC 8.500(e)(1)states that, if the last day to file a
Petition for Review falls on a day that the Supreme Court clerk’s office is closed
(either a Saturday, a Sunday, or a court holiday), the deadline is not extended to the
next regular business day.
PETITION FOR REVIEW C079254

Please note that, on December 12, 2018, when I argued my case, I got the impression
that either the Sheriff’s Department or the City of Sacramento Police Department had
sharpshooters on roofs around the 3DCA court building. The court was reserved for
me only on that day. No one was there either before, during, or after oral arguments in
my case besides myself and my former coworker. It was quite intimidating and scary.
In addition, on August 28, 2017, Porter Scott Attorney David Burkett, who is
representing UC Regents, attempted to provoke me into a physical confrontation. I
informed the Court about this in my Petition for a Rehearing (Case C079524;
Supreme Court Case S245508), but nothing was done about it. My written statement
was as follows:
• On August 28, 2017 just after oral argument, the Defendants legal counsel
David Burkett from the Sacramento-based law firm Porter Scott approached
Waszczuk in the Court Hall outside the courtroom and attempted to instigate a
confrontation. He made threats toward Waszczuk wife and tried to exploit the
emotional and financial suffering we have both experienced since UC Regents
terminated Waszczuk employment in December 2012 at age 61 without any
possibility to find new employment. For the Court information
Waszczuk spouse Irena Waszczuk is working in Nordstrom in Sacramento as
seamstress -fitter for almost 30 years and has nothing to do with the University
of California and Waszczuk' lawsuit , Waszczuk spouse should retire on
September 21, 2017 at age of 66 but he can't due to devastation of Waszczuks
life and livelihood by UC Regents and their collaborators. Burkett knew that
Waszczuk was stressed due to financial hardship caused by his client's criminal
behavior; he thought that his attacks against my spouse would easily provoke a
confrontation. Sadly, this encounter was my second time experiencing such
shameful tactics in the court building. It is a second time Waszczuk
experienced such Defendants attorney behavior . It happened before in 2015,
prior to the court hearing with presiding Judge Shelleyane Chang in the
unemployment benefits Writ of Mandamus casein which UC Regents is party
as a Real Party In Interest( RPii.) UC legal counsel and UC administrators
must be very desperate if they resort to using such tactics. Trying to provoke
the opposing party into a physical confrontation in an area heavily trafficked
by sheriffs deputies and city police is either very foolish or very underhanded

I am 68 years old, and I may never see the unemployment benefits of which I was
defrauded because of the wrongful termination of my employment five years ago.
However, until I cannot write or speak, I will be asking for what I was unlawfully
deprived of by corrupted state judicial officers.
Enclosed, please find the original and eight copies of the Petition for Review, in
addition to the copy that I sent by Truefiling, the Proof of Service, and the Waiver of
Fees and Costs.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Petitioner and Appellant in Pro Per

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,
Defendant and Respondent;
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
___________________________________________
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW
_______________________________________
AFTER THE DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

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

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

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

AND REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT, UNPUBLISHED OPINION. ..................................... ..21
A. The Respondent, RPii, failed to provide in December 2012 a
timely response to the Employment Development Department
(EDD) to the unemployment insurance claim Waszczuk filed with
the EDD on December 16, 2012. ................................................ 21
B. The EDD failed to resolve the conflicting information about
Waszczuk’s unlawful termination of employment by the RPii….21
C. The EDD failed to appear at the hearing with Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) Marilyn Tays on February 13, 2013………...…….22.
-2-
Petition for Review
D. Administrative Law Judge Marylin Tay’s biased decision dated
February 14, 2013, and the California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board decision dated May 31, 2013. …………………...23
E. The CUIAB and RPii filed frivolous demurrers in April 2014 in

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

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

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

-5-
Petition for Review
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE
AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to rule 8.500 (a) of the California Rules of Court, appellant and
petitioner Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk (hereafter Waszczuk) petitions this Court
for a Review in the above-entitled matter after the Court issued a discriminatory
and insulting unpublished opinion on Waszczuk, dated December 27, 2018,
(EXHIBIT “A”) and denied Waszczuk’s Petition for a Rehearing on January
17, 2019. (EXHIBIT “B”)The Court of Appeal, through its unpublished
opinion, affirmed the March 2, 2015 trial Court decision authored by the trial
Court Judge, Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, a friend of Administrative Law
Judge, Marilyn Tays (CT 00154). ALJ Tays slandered Waszczuk in her
decision of 2/14/2013 in a manner she should be ashamed of. The trial Court
Judge, Hon. Chang, denied Waszczuk’s Petition for a Writ of Mandate on
March 2, 2015, in a similar way to ALJ Tays’ response to Waszczuk (CT
00154-00162; 00200-002011). The Writ of Mandamus was filed in the Court on
December 2, 2014, against the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board (hereafter CUIAB) as the primary Defendant and Respondent, and
against the Regents of the University of California (hereafter UC Regents or
RPii) as the secondary Defendants and Respondents and the Real Party in
Interest (RPii) (CT 00001–00011).
Simultaneously with the petition for a Writ of Mandamus, on December 4,

2013, Waszczuk filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against his employer in
the Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California. The related appellate
-6-
Petition for Review
case is Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California Case No.
C079524. https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C079524.PDF
Waszczuk apologizes to the Supreme Court Justices that this Petition for
Review in some parts sounds more like a complaint with the State of
California Commission on Judicial Performance against six 3DCA Justices
rather than a request for review of Waszczuk case .
However , Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, in a 2005 interview with

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

The Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256, disqualifies an employee from
receiving unemployment compensation benefits if he or she has been discharged for
misconduct. Misconduct as understood within section 1256 involves a willful or wanton
disregard for an employer's interests, or such carelessness or negligence as to manifest
equal culpability. It does not include, among other things, errors in judgment made in
good faith (Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 671, 678.)
Waszczuk urges the Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court's published decisions
because Waszczuk’s employment with the University of California UC Davis Medical
Center (RPii) from June 17, 1999 to September 31, 2011 was not marred by any
misconduct, good faith error, insubordination, or any wrong doing and because no harm
was done to the university or its activities by Waszczuk. Waszczuk his being hunted
-7-
Petition for Review
down (like a Jew during the Holocaust in his native country Poland during War II) by
the University and by the California Court judges and justices for the completely
different reason than the despicable unfounded accusations produced by the RPii’s
witch hunters . Waszczuk only found out why it was that he was being hunted down
like an animal in June 2015, three years after the termination of his employment, due to
Superior Court Judge Shelleyan Chang’s decision of March 2, 2015, in which she
disclosed that she had worked together with ALJ Marilyn Tays in Governor Davis
office. Furthermore, on August 6, 2012, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor, Dr.
Shelton Duruisseau, gave an interview to the Sacramento-based African-American
magazine, Sac Cultural Hub, regarding the whistle blowing on the Regents power sale
from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant at gouged or overcharged Megawatts
prices, together with Enron during the California Energy Crisis.
In this interview with Sac Cultural Hub, Dr. Shelton Duruisseau stated that:
“Internally, I convinced the university to build its own central plant because we
recognized our patients come into the hospital on ventilators, etc. They couldn’t be
disrupted, so by having our own central plant the health system doesn’t depend on
any central outfit to supply water, power, etc. SMUD [and] PG&E are backup
systems for us. We sold enough power to the state for the central plant to be paid for
in the first four years. Lots of energy companies like Enron, all around the country,
caused prices to go up. The plant provides stable power for the campus without
interruption and without blackouts. This plant was built out for 50 years capacity;
we are only using 9%, so we have lots of room built in for growth.”
http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-look-back
From the interview with Dr. Duruisseau, which Waszczuk came across in March 2014,
and from Judge Chang’s disclosure about her tenure with ALJ Tays in Gov. Davis
office, it was not difficult for Waszczuk to conclude that the UC Davis 27 MW
cogeneration power plant, named the Central Plant, where Waszczuk was employed
from June 1999 to April 2007, did not meet the requirements of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA). These mandated that any cogeneration facility, certified and recognized
legally as a “qualified cogeneration facility” must meet special requirements for the
ratio between electric energy production and thermal energy.
-8-
Petition for Review
Dr. Shelton Duruisseau, who was in charge of diversity and inclusion at the UC Davis
Health System (UCDHS), was also a Member of the California Medical Board, having
been appointed in 2004 to the Board by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397955146/Dr-Shelton-Duruisseau
A. The story behind RPii’s “witch hunt” against Waszczuk in 2006–2009 and
in 2011–2012
To cut a long story short, Waszczuk was hired by RPii in June 1999 as an operator in
the newly commissioned 27 MW cogeneration plant which triggered in May 2000, a
sophisticated and costly fraudulent scheme called “the California Energy Crisis”. The
UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) plant in which Waszczuk was employed was
solely built to illegally sell power tax-free at cost of California ratepayers and tax
payers. The California Energy Crisis was created in a sophisticated way by the authors
and coauthors of the 1996 Assembly Bill 1890 (“AB 1890” or “Electricity Restructuring
Act”) and the Act of September 23, 1996, 1996 Cal. Legis. Serv. 854 (A.B. 1890)
(West). This was signed into law by Governor Pete Wilson.
ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-
96/bill/asm/ab_18511900/ab_1890_bill_960924_chaptered.htm
To make the fraudulent scheme developed by the AB 1890 successful, the California
Government in created a joint venture in 1998 between the University of California,
California State University, Enron Corporation, California Independent System
Operator (CAISO), and California Power Exchange (CalPX), designed to launder
electricity via the UC and CSU campuses at gouged or overcharged prices by using
sophisticated equipment. Art Madrid v. Perot System Corporation et al. Case No.
C046683, cited as 3DCA Case: [130 Cal.App.4th 440, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 210].
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1352785.html
Prior to working for the University of California UC Davis Medical Center, Waszczuk
was employed by Enron’s competitor, the Dynegy Power Corp, from 1989 to February
1998 as an operator in their 50 MW cogeneration plant, which is similar to the UCDMC
plant.
-9-
Petition for Review
Former Attorney General Bill Lockyer described Waszczuk’s previous employer
Dynegy as a one the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who rode in from Texas and
ran roughshod over California consumers, taxpayers and businesses.”
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-lockyer-announces-460-million-
settlement-reliant-resolve-energy
Between 1989 and 1997 Dynegy Power Corporation defrauded PG&E, ratepayers and
California taxpayers of $240,000,000.
ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/LegacyCPUCDecisionsAndResolutions/Decisions/Decisions_D9
901001_to_D0006092/D9910016_19991007_A9904009.pdf
California Public Utilities Commission - OPINION ON 2000 ANNUAL

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

PG&E case are Qualifying Facility (QF) related costs and appropriately
recorded in the TCBA.
In 2004, Bill Lockyer’s “California Parties” and California Energy Task Force got a
kick-back from Dynegy Power corporation amounting to $280,000,000 and in 2005 it
received $460,000,000 from Reliant Energy. Bill Lockyer cashed out approximately
$20,000,000 for his offices in California.
The Mayor of La Mesa Art Madrid and his legal team almost solved the puzzle
called “The California Energy Crisis.” However, their effort became “a mission
impossible” when his complaints against CAISO and Perot Corporation were
transferred to the Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District. In April 2007, Waszczuk was abruptly removed from the
UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant and was replaced by a 37-
year-old friend of Waszczuk’s supervisor, Steve McGrath. Three years later, this
man was found dead, hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park. The two
- 10 -
Petition for Review
Directors of UCDMC, Robert Taylor and Director Dr. Shelton Duruisseau, are
assumed to be behind the job replacement for Waszczuk by an unqualified person
and behind the 2011–2012 witch hunt as well.
A second suicide occurred when the wife of the same supervisor, Steve McGrath,
a 41-year-old RN Nurse from Jackson Hospital, took her own life.
Another sudden and mysterious death, apparently related to the witch hunt against
Waszczuk and the illegal sale of power, was the death of UC Davis Chancellor
Emeritus, Larry Vanderhoof, who died in the UC Davis Medical Center on
October 15, 2015, two days after Waszczuk filed his Opposition to the
Defendants’ Motion for Automatic Stay, or the Alternative Motion for a
Discretionary Stay. This was filed on October 13, 2015 (ROA #111). (See
Waszczuk’s 2016 letter addressed to Congressman John Garamendi)
https://www.scribd.com/document/390511699/SI-22-U-S-Senator-Garamendi-
UC-Davis-Chancellor-Larry-Vanderhoef
The brutal and merciless witch hunts against Waszczuk, for no apparent reason
whatsoever, cost the University of California or the owners of the UCDMC 27
MW cogeneration losses of approximately $100,000,000 in revenue, tax-free, due
to a lack of surplus power for sale since February 2009.In April 2007 Regents
abruptly removed Waszczuk from the cogeneration facility than in February
2009, Regents signed a written Settlement Agreement with Waszczuk and ceased
the export of power from the UCDMC plant . Waszczuk was not aware about
until June -July 2015.
The case is pending in the U.S Tax Court in relation to the above matter .
The 2009 Settlement Agreement with the Regents of University of California cost
Waszczuk at least $1,000,000 in loss in income, while his house and life were
decimated by UC gangsters and the California Justice System.
In relation to the California Energy Crisis puzzle, Waszczuk wrote in his August
2018 report, as submitted to the new FBI Special Agent in Charge of the
Sacramento FBI Office Mr. Sean Ragan
- 11 -
Petition for Review
• It is still unknown whether the 2000–2003 sophisticated scheme of fraud
and deception, which was labeled the “California Energy Crisis” and
which caused losses to the California economy of 40 billion dollars was
deliberately sabotaged by power-greedy corporations to make billions of
dollars by laundering megawatts, or whether the man-made “energy crisis”
was a coordinated act of terror synchronized with the September 11, 2001
terrorist attack on US soil. This was accompanied by intensified terrorist
attacks against the United States abroad during the period of the California
electricity deregulation and the California Energy Crisis.
• Whether a foreign terrorist network or a foreign power penetrated or
infiltrated the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the
California Power Exchange (CalPX), the University of California and the
Californian government during the process of the California electricity
market deregulation of 1996–1998, and whether this was done to
destabilize the Californian and US economy by manipulating the
electricity market in the Western states power grid, is the question that
should be asked and answered by the FBI. A 40-billion-dollar loss by the
Californian economy and California’s rate payers and tax payers is not
small change but an enormous amount of money which disappeared and
was never recovered.
III. APPELLANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER THE CAUSES
A. Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al., 3DCA

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

minimum of one year of probation, and he will remain suspended
until the following conditions are satisfied:
• He makes restitution to Jaroslaw Waszczuk to the amount of $14,
694.33, plus 10 percent interest per year from June 2, 2014.
Alternatively, he must reimburse the Client Security Fund to the
extent of any payments by the Fund to Jaroslaw Waszczuk, in
accordance with Business and Professions Code, section 6140.5.
https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=223928
2&doc_no=S245982&request_token=NiIwLSIkTkw%2BW1BJSyNdWElIIFQ0UDxTJy
NOIzJTUCAgCg%3D%3D
- 14 -
Petition for Review
The 3DCA panel of Justices in the 10/10/2017 unpublished opinion praised
Waszczuk’s counsel, Douglas Stein, who it is alleged stole Waszczuk’s
$20,000, with the following words:
• To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making an ex

parte application to assure the integrity of the document he
inadvertently filed during the briefest of suspensions for a minor
transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He should
be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of the
plaintiff’s interests.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C079524.PDF
It is unbelievable that such words, praising and complimenting the thief Douglas
Stein, licensed by the State Bar of California, came from the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District, where California Supreme Court Justice, Hon. Tani
Cantil-Sakauye served as justice from 2005–2010, and where the 3DCA justices
affirmed the trial Court Judgment.
IV. 12/27/2018 UNPUBLISHED OPINION IN CASE NO. C079254 -

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

In the same manner, in Case No. C0749524, the author of the unpublished
12/12/27 Court Opinion accused Waszczuk of breaking Court Rules with regard
to the Waszczuk Briefs. The fact that 3DCA accusations in the two unpublished
court opinions with regards to the Waszczuk Briefs were unfounded and
ridicules. In facts , the Defendants Reply Brief was stricken in 2016 in Case
No Case No. C079524 and in 2016 the Defendant’s and Respondent’s brief
(CUIAB) were not filed at all. This is the best example and indication of the
discrimination and bias aimed at Waszczuk by the 3DCA Justices.
- 15 -
Petition for Review
In his Petition for a Rehearing, filed on January 11, 2019, and denied by the
order of 3DCA Hon. Cole Blease on January 17, Waszczuk provided detailed
information from the records to show how the 3DCA panel of Justices had
applied a “de novo” standard of review and resolved any evidentiary doubts or
ambiguities in the plaintiff’s favor. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25
Cal.4th 763, 768; https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1072325.html
Aguilar Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843).
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/25/107.html [Petition
for Rehearing, Page 10].
The Waszczuk Petition for a Rehearing is very detailed and portrays how
Waszczuk’s life is being destroyed by the California Justice system on behalf of
the Regents of the University of California and UC President, Janet Napolitano.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397961378/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-01-11-
2019-Petition-for-Rehearing
B. The Oral Argument and the 3DCA Review Panel for Case No.
C079254: Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board.
The case was heard on December 12, 2018 by 3DCA Justice Hon. Cole Blease,
Hon. M. Kathleen Butz, and Hon. Elena J. Duarte. Waszczuk argued for
himself. The CUIAB legal counsel did not show up for the Oral Argument and
David Burkett from the Porter Scott law firm had nothing to say beside
slandering Waszczuk. Waszczuk has fully covered the Oral Argument on[
pages 16–17 of his Petition for Rehearing ]An unpublished opinion was
delivered by 3DCA Justice Hon. Elena J. Duarte five days after the Oral
Argument, on December 17, 2018.
The Waszczuk 3DCA Appeal Case No. C079254 was reviewed by a different
panel than appeal in cross-referenced case No. C079524 Waszczuk v. Regents of
the University of California et, al . 3DCA Justices, the Hon. Elena J. Duarte,
Hon. Cole Blease, and the Hon. M. Kathleen Butz. Hon Cole Blease and Hon.
- 16 -
Petition for Review
M. Kathleen Butz are listed in the C079254 opinion as Concurring Justices.
Waszczuk was discriminated against in 2013 by an Employment Development

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

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

Statement in Case C079524 (anti-SLAPP), in which Waszczuk on Douglas Stein
gross misconduct which cost Waszczuk $20,000 of his retainer, stolen by his
attorney, Douglas Stein, who colluded with the Porter Scott attorneys, not to
mention a $3000 cost for Clerk Transcripts and filing.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397962401/3dca-C079524-07-16-2015-
SLAPP-Appellant-Mediation-Statement
The Hon. M. Kathleen Butz, in this case, did further harm to Waszczuk on behalf
of RPii by participating in issuance of unjust and discriminatory unpublished
opinion dated December 17, 2018.
Waszczuk had especially focused in the Mediation Statement mentioned above,
on February 2009, Settlement Agreement. Waszczuk had signed with Regents in
good faith after Waszczuk had defeated Regents in the arbitration process and he
was hoping that filing the detailed Mediation Statement would resolve the anti-
SLAPP case without occupying the Court for the next two years. Also, in his
Mediation Statement, Waszczuk focused on the UC Davis Policies and
Procedures, and especially on the UC Davis Employee Performance Review
Policy, PPSM 23, pointing out that the progressive discipline policies were
grossly violated and disregarded by the Defendant’s and the Courts . [See :
Appellant Reply Brief ARB 8-16; 39–42].
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963986/3DCA-CUIAB-C79254-ARB-07-
22-2016-Appellant-Reply-Brief
Waszczuk was not provided with an evaluation for the last two years of his
employment with the university. The Hon. M. Kathleen Butz is a former UC
Davis employee and Waszczuk believes that she is familiar with UC Davis
policies and knows how important an annual evaluation is for every employee of
the University of California, regardless of whether it is a good or bad evaluation.
- 18 -
Petition for Review
As a former UC Davis employee, Hon. M. Kathleen Butz should have excluded
herself from the review panel instead of participating and discriminating against
Waszczuk. It is contended that her intention was to harm him on behalf of her
former employer.
3DCA Justice Hon. Elena J. Duarte is the Justice who delivered the final blow to
Waszczuk on January 17, 2019 in the form of an unpublished opinion that was
biased and outrageously discriminatory to Waszczuk. This was a disgrace to the
California Justice system as it not only violated Waszczuk’s right to equal access
to justice as a US and Californian taxpayer, but also violated 68 years of
Waszczuk’s human rights, and further destroyed Waszczuk and his family’s
normal existence.
It was no coincidence that Justice Duarte was chosen for this dirty job intended
to harm Waszczuk. She caught Waszczuk’s attention because she was employed
from 2000 to 2007 in the Los Angeles Office of the United States Attorney,
where she worked as an Assistant United States Attorney, first in the Major
Frauds Section and later in the Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section,
becoming Section Chief in 2005.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/12930.htm
In September 2017, President of the University, Janet Napolitano, hired Mr.

Alexander Bustamante as a new Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance
and Audit Officer, in the Office of the President, with an annual basic salary of
$350,000.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-names-alexander-
bustamante-chief-compliance-and-audit-officer
Mr. Bustamante served as an assistant U.S. attorney with Hon. Elena Duarte for
the Central District of California in the same Los Angeles U.S Attorney office
from 2002–2007. It is not the first time that UC President Janet Napolitano has
employed her former colleagues to conduct witch hunts to eliminate the
- 19 -
Petition for Review
university’s adversaries. In 2016, Ms. Napolitano employed, for $1,000,000, two
former US attorneys, Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, to hunt down UC
Davis Chancellor Linda Kathi and her family to bring her down and to convert
Ms. Katehi from UC Davis Chancellor to Chancellor Emerita at cost of
$1,000,000 of public funds. Ms. Napolitano was deployed to the University of
California in August–September 2013 by President Barak Obama at the same
time that the Californian Governor deployed his Chief Deputy Jacob Appelsmith
to UC Davis as a new Chief Counsel. As a result, in July 2015, the arch enemy of
the UCOP corrupt establishment, the very popular Senator Leland Yee, author of
the Senate Bill SB 650 and an audit aimed at corruption in the UC System, was
convinced by Ms. Napolitano’s friend, Melinda Haag’s plea bargain, to go to
federal prison for five years.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397965046/07012015-USA-v-Leland-Yee-
Plea-Agreement-1-1-pdf
This coincidently happened at the same time that Waszczuk provided
information to the UC legal counsels from Porter Scott about the unlawful
operation of the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant. On
October 15, 2015, the UC Davis Chancellor, who in 2009 was ordered to sign
the Settlement-Agreement with Waszczuk was euthanized in the UC Davis
Medical Center. This was coincidently two days after Waszczuk provided
information to the Court about the enormous violation by the Regents concerning
tax fraud in relation to the illegal sale of power from the UCDMC 27-megawatt
cogeneration plant (ARB 51-52).
https://www.scribd.com/document/390511699/SI-22-U-S-Senator-Garamendi-
UC-Davis-Chancellor-Larry-Vanderhoef
Waszczuk will follow up with his own inquiry and will ask the FBI Special
Agent in Charge, Mr. Sean Ragan from the Sacramento FBI field office, whether
he knows Justice Duarte. Mr. Ragan was transferred from the Los Angeles FBI
to the Sacramento FBI office. In March–August 2016, UC Davis Chancellor
- 20 -
Petition for Review
Linda Katehi was the next candidate for UC President Janet Napolitano to be
persuaded to sign a plea bargain and to fo11ow Senator Leland to the federal
prison after an unsuccessful attempt to remove Chance11or Katehi from her post
by November 18, 201 1, fo11owing a pepper spray provocation.
V. REASONS TO GRANT WASZCZUK PETITION FOR REVIEW AND

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

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

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

Department Administrative Supervisor Phyllis Reginelli (AR 133- 136). Ms. Reginelli
testified during the interview that August 31, 2011, was the date of Waszczuk's
employment termination and that December 5, 2012, was his last day of work or more
precisely the last day of forced leave since August 31 , 2011.(LDW) (AR 133) not day
of termination .
- 21 -
Petition for Review
Ms. Reginelli’s January 8, 2013, interview testimony about Waszczuk’s termination of
employment on August 31, 2011, corresponds with the facts Waszczuk provided in AR
545-547 and the information Waszczuk provided in the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal
(CT 00188,000189,00190) [Petition for Rehearing, pages 22-23 .] (AR 133-136)
https://www.scribd.com/document/397969833/3DCA-EDD-01-01-04-Record-of-Claim-
Status-Interview-Misconduct-AR-133-136
EDD ignored Waszczuk’s information about his unlawful termination of employment
and failed to resolve conflicted Waszczuk information
C. The EDD failed to appear at the hearing with Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Marilyn Tays on February 13, 2013.
The Notice of the Hearing clearly instructed the EDD to appear in person, but the EDD
representative did not show and during and after the hearing ALJ acted as if nothing
had happened. ALJ Tays pleased the RPii by defaming Waszczuk in her decision and
affirmed her hateful behavior toward Waszczuk in her decision. The EDD officer could
have provided information about Waszczuk’s ill-planned employment termination on
September 23, 2011, information the EDD received by interviewing UCDMC PO&M
Department Administrative Secretary Phyllis Reginelli on January 8, 2013 (AR 133). In
addition to the EDD officer’s absence from the hearing, ALJ Marlin Tays quickly
neutralized Waszczuk’s witness and former coworker William Buckans and did not let
him testify. Waszczuk’s witness William Buckans was the person who on September
23, 2011, at 8:45 a.m., alerted Waszczuk and department management by e-mail about
Waszczuk’s RPii employment termination on September 23, 2011. The date of
Waszczuk’s unlawful termination of employment was confirmed by the RPii’s
administrative secretary Phillis Reginelli on January, 8, 2013, in an interview with the
EDD, See: [ Petition for Rehearing, page 25 .] (AR -35)
https://www.scribd.com/document/397970483/3DCA-CUIAB-01-31-2013-Notice-of-
Hearing-with-ALJ-M-Tays-AR-35
- 22 -
Petition for Review
D. Administrative Law Judge Marylin Tay’s biased decision dated February
14, 2013, and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
decision dated May 31, 2013.
Waszczuk in his Petition for Rehearing on pages 23-28 fully described the February 13,
2013, hearing with ADJ Marilyn Tays and her slanderous Waszczuk decision on
February 14, 2013, followed by the May 31, 2013, paste and copy document of ADJ
Tays’s decision issued by two California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
(CUIAB) members, Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn (pages 12-14, AOB).
In addition, Waszczuk in his Appellant Opening Brief (AOB) on page 14 and

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

September 9, 2016.
In the December 27, 2012, unpublished opinion in Standard of Review on page 7

(EXHIBIT A), the Court bluntly blamed Waszczuk for violating California Rules of
- 26 -
Petition for Review
Court 8.204 (a) (1) (B), but did not specify which of Waszczuk’s briefs violated
California Rules of Court 8.204 (a) (1) (B). Waszczuk wrote two briefs.On the
contrary, the CUIAB failed to submit a Respondent Brief which was due on
September 21, 2016; thus, the Court should decide the appeal on the record of the
opening brief by the appellant (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220 (a) (2) Melissa G.
v. Raymond M., B284031 (September 20, 2018) Cal. App. Dist. 2; Bennett v.
California Custom Coach, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal. App. 3rd 333, 338. See also D.H.
Williams Construction, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School Dist. (2007) 146 Cal. App.
4th 757, 763).
However, the Court did not seem to notice that the CUIAB had not filed a Respondent’s
Brief and it was ok.
In the [Petition for Rehearing , on pages 10-15] Waszczuk provided a detailed response
to the 3DCA author’s nitpicking allegations about Waszczuk’s briefs, including similar
discriminatory allegations in the cross-referenced case Waszczuk v. the Regents of the
University of California Case No. C079524, an unpublished opinion filed on October
10, 2017.
The 3DCA accusations in the Court’s two unpublished opinions in regard to the
Waszczuk briefs make no mention that the Defendant’s and Respondent’s briefs were
stricken or not filed at all. This is the best example of the pattern of discrimination
aimed at Waszczuk by the 3DCA justices.
I. Waszczuk’s request to schedule oral arguments in Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al. 3DCA Case No. C079254.
On August 6, 2018, Waszczuk submitted to the 3DCA a Request to Schedule Oral
Argument in Case No. C079254 pending appeal, which had been pending in the 3DCA
since May 2015.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397972861/3DCA-C079254-08062018-
Request-to-Schedule-Oral-Argument
Along with the Request to Schedule Oral Argument, Waszczuk attached several
exhibits. One of the attached exhibits is the 94-page Plaintiff’s Disproval of the
- 27 -
Petition for Review
Defendants' Proposed Order and Judgment in the cross-referenced Waszczuk v the
Regents of the University of California Case No. C079524.
The plaintiff's Disapproval of the Defendants' Proposed Order addresses in detail the
terror that Waszczuk experienced and witnessed between 2011 and 2012 in his place of
employment, the UC Davis Medical Center. The order describes various incidents that
victimized both Waszczuk and his coworkers. Additionally, from December 2011 to
January 2012, Waszczuk's psychologist, Dr. Franklin Bernhoft, and Bernhoft's family in
Lodi became the targets of coordinated attacks.
The plaintiff's Disapproval of the Defendants' Proposed Order also addressed the
suicide, or more likely homicide, of UC Davis Medical Center employee Todd
Georlich, who replaced Waszczuk in 2007 and was three years later found dead,
hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park. Georlich’s death triggered a massive
witch hunt against Waszczuk, his coworkers, and anyone who was associated with
Waszczuk, including Waszczuk' s physician and psychologist. This witch hunt resulted
in Waszczuk's termination of employment in September 2011; his final day on the
University of California payroll was December 5, 2012. Due to this witch hunt,
Waszczuk's subsequent losses in income, benefits, and property have exceeded
$1,000,000, and Waszczuk’s family life was devastated.
On August 21, 2018, the 3DCA denied Waszczuk’s request for scheduling oral
arguments. However, on October 1, 2018, a 3DCA clerk sent Waszczuk a notification
that the court was prepared to render a decision in the above case without hearing oral
arguments. Two days later, on October 3, 2018, two RPii attorneys from the Porter
Scott law firm, David Burkett and Daniel Bardzell, filed a Motion to Compel; they did
so in the wrong court department in order to sabotage Waszczuk’ wrongful termination
lawsuit and to obtain a court order from a judge who was not presiding over the
Waszczuk wrongful termination case (ROA pp. 151–154). Waszczuk requested oral
arguments in 3DCA appeal Case No. C079254. On October 23, 2018, Waszczuk
received notification from the 3DCA that oral arguments were scheduled for December
12, 2018.
- 28 -
Petition for Review
J. Motion for New Evidence on Appeal
Prior to the oral arguments scheduled for December 12, 2018, Waszczuk, on December
4, 2018, filed a Motion for New Evidence on Appeal pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 8.252 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 909. Most of the new evidence
(documents) Waszczuk received due to the discovery process in the cross-referenced
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California 2013, Sacramento
Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479 were from the
February 13, 2013, hearing with ALJ Marlin Tays or for the February 27, 2015, court
hearing with trial court judge Shelleyanne Chang .
https://www.scribd.com/document/397997431/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-12-042018-
Motion-for-New-Evidence-on-Appeal
This new, clear and undisputable evidence, which Waszczuk wanted to introduced prior
to oral arguments, would show the Court that in 2011 and on September 25, 2012,
Waszczuk was eligible for the Clinical Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2
(“Plan”) CEMRP2 award like any other employee; instead, he was slandered, and
libeled with an RPii Notice to Dismiss and a UC Davis police like most wanted poster,
which included Waszczuk’s photo and description, and which was distributed on and
around UC Davis campuses on September 26, 2012, without Waszczuk’s knowledge.
Waszczuk was harassed, threatened, and terrorized, even during his work-related sick
leave for stress.
CEMRP2, as mentioned above, stands for the University of California Clinical

Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2 (“Plan”), which is governed by the
Personnel Policies for Staff Members 34 (Incentive and Recognition Award Plans –
Managers & Senior Professionals and Professional & Support Staff)
https://policy.ucop.edu/_files/policies/CEMRP2-
Plan.pdfhttps://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4010430/PPSM-34. Without any objection from the
respondents to Waszczuk’s motion, the Court denied the motion in the same manner as
the other motions Waszczuk had previously filed with the 3DCA, [Petition for
Rehearing pages 17-18 .]
- 29 -
Petition for Review
K. Oral Arguments on December 12, 2018
On December 12, 2018, Waszczuk argued the case for himself in pro per. David Burkett
argued for the RPii and Regents of the University of California. The legal counsel from
the California Attorney General Office Ashante Norton represented the primary
respondent, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB). CUIAB’s
legal counsel Norton did not attend the 15-minute oral arguments at the 3DCA.
Apparently, Norton had nothing to say since she failed to submit a Respondent Brief in
September 2016. She also had nothing to say during the oral arguments in the trial court
Oral Argument in February 2015 (see the February 27, 2015, Reporter Transcript on
Appeal).
https://www.scribd.com/document/397971789/3DCA-Writ-2-27-2015-Hearing-Court-
Reporter-Transcript
Waszczuk fully describes the December 12, 2018, oral arguments in his [Petition for
Rehearing pages 16-18] . Waszczuk and his former coworker from UC Davis Medical
center notice that whole 3DCA Court was reserved only for Waszczuk on that day. It
was very strange .
VI. CONCLUSION
During the course of Waszczuk’s employment with the UC Davis Medical

Center, he provided representation to other non-represented union
employees in their complaints regarding adverse management actions
against them under the UC Davis Compliant Resolution PPSM 70. In his
briefs for the appeals of Case No. C079524 and C079254, he provided
specific information on how detrimentally different the RPii’s treatment of
his case is in comparison to their treatment of employees he represented in
suits of severe adverse management action. Page: 30
(ARB 8-16); this discrepancy is especially noted in the Appellant Reply
Brief (ARB) in the C079254 appeal case.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963986/3DCA-CUIAB-C79254-
ARB-07-22-2016-Appellant-Reply-Brief
- 30 -
Petition for Review
In Waszczuk’s Petition for Rehearing, pages 40–47 address an e-mail dated
May 3, 2012 that Waszczuk wrote to UC Davis Medical Center HR
Manager Humberto Garcia on behalf of his coworker. See: Petitioner Reply
Brief (PRB) (CT 00109-00111) . This e-mail contained a warning statement
about hostility in the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
facility where Waszczuk’s former coworker, William Buckans, was bullied
and harassed for years by managers and coworkers ; Waszczuk was
employed at this facility from June 1999 to April 2007. Waszczuk was
abruptly removed from the plant in April 2007. In the e-mail to Humberto
Garcia and other managers, Waszczuk used the columbine massacre as an
example of what could happen at UC Davis Medical Center if the hostile
and violent working environment was not addressed. (CT 00109-00111)
https://www.scribd.com/document/398001801/3DCA-C079254-05-03-
2012-Waszczuk-e-mail-to-Humberto-Garcia-with-warning-statement-
about-Columbine-Massacre
Waszczuk alerted management by e-mail after he received an alarming e-mail

and phone call from William on May 2nd, 2012. Waszczuk cannot say today
what could have happened if he did not offer to assist William and the others
attacked by management; Waszczuk convinced William and the other coworker
to attend a Stress Management Class on May 30,2012 to defuse the volatile and
dangerous situation
https://www.scribd.com/document/398001457/0005-Stress-Managament-2-pdf
The hostility was purposely orchestrated and heated up by the UCDMC HR
assigned witch hunters for the May 31, 2012 provocation to end the Waszczuk
’employment in UCDMC Trauma Unit #11. (CT 00081) which was ended
anyway on August 31, 2011 (CT 00188)
The Supreme Court will notice from the Clerk Transcript that Waszczuk’s e-
mail containing the statement about the Columbine massacre was used by ALJ,
- 31 -
Petition for Review
CUIAB Board members as a justification for denying Waszczuk unemployment
insurance benefits . (CT 00026; 00095;00134;00171)
Waszczuk does not know for sure what would eventually happen in May 2012
if Waszczuk would not offer help to William Buckans and other employee
Kenny Diede by assisting them in the formal harassment complaints under UC
Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 and convince them to attend the
Stress Management Class.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398002099/3DCA-C079254-May-2012-
Waszczuk-s-representation-to-William-Buckans-and-Kenneth-Diede-UC-
Davis-Policy-PPSM-23
Waszczuk e-mail was not a threat or misconduct but preventive action from the
eventual disaster waiting to happen in place of employment where Waszczuk
replacement of 2007 three years latter was found death hanging from the tree in
the Rancho Cordova park , If Waszczuk would be not removed from the plant
in 2007 than most likely 41 years Todd Georlich would still alive today and his
9 years old daughter who was left behind in December 2010 would have and
she would know her father.
The Supreme Court will notice in the Clerk Transcript the e-mail
containing the Columbine massacre example was presented to the court by
ALJ, CUIAB Board Members, and other RPii attorneys as a threat made
against the school by Waszczuk as opposed to the true intention of this
communication.
On January 5, 2012, Waszczuk’s four month work-stress related sick leave
ended and Waszczuk was staying home , not knowing what is his
employment status with university until May 11, 2012.
Waszczuk was lured by UCDMC HR and Waszczuk’s department

manager to UCDMC premises on May 31, 2012 by the statement in
suspension letter Waszczuk received from RPii on May 11, 2012. The
suspension letter for 10 days without pay was given to Waszczuk during
- 32 -
Petition for Review
Waszczuk forced by RPii absence from work was given to him for sole
purpose to agitate Waszczuk and to make Waszczuk mad and angry, after
Waszczuk was on forced by RPii absence from work for almost one year.
(CT 00128)
https://www.scribd.com/document/398003074/3DCA-C079254-May-11-
2012-Ten-days-Suspension-without-pay-during-Waszczuk-forced-10-
months-absence-from-work
The RPii’s inviting Waszczuk onto the premises is questionable because
they portrayed the e-mail Waszczuk sent on May 3, 2012 as evidence of a
threat and misconduct made towards the school; however, here they have
not followed procedure to allow him back onto the premises. This
exemplifies a flaw in their claim of the e-mail being a threat of safety for
the campus; they willingly invited him back without verifying with his
medical practitioners that his state of mind was not a harm to himself or
others. Therefore, the e-mail could not have stipulated a threat as they have
claimed.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398002561/3DCA-C079254-Waszczuk-
s-August-31-2011-UC-DAVIS-HEALTH-SYSTEM-RETURN-TO-
WORK-CLEARANCE-after-sick-leave-mandated-by-UC-Davis-Policies
The two unpublished opinions issued by the 3DCA in Waszczuk v. The Regents
of the University of California Case C079524 (issued on October 10, 2017) and
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board C079254
(issued on December 17, 2018), along with the denial if the Petition for
Rehearing by the 3DCA will only perpetuate the unseemly behavior of
management at the university toward their employees. Furthermore, these
unpublished opinions may present grounds for discrimination in the currently
pending cases . For this reason, and the above mentioned details, Waszczuk
- 33 -
Petition for Review
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Washington, D.C. 20217
August 16, 2019
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, )

)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Docket No. 23105-18W.
)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )
)
Respondent )
)
)
)
)
Trial At: Room 2-1408, Federal Building

And U. S. Courthouse
San Francisco, CA 94102
NOTICE SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL
The parties are hereby notified that this case is set for trial at the Trial Session beginning at 10:00 AM on
Monday, January 6, 2020 . The calendar for that Session will be called at that date and time, and the parties are
expected to be present and to be prepared to try the case. Your failure to appear may result in dismissal of the case
and entry of decision against you.
The Court will set the time for each trial at the end of the calendar call. In setting trial times the Court
attempts to accommodate the parties, but the final determination of trial times rests in the Court's discretion.
Your attention is called to the requirements set out in the Standing Pretrial Order that is served with this
notice, including the following:
• Stipulation of Facts. If the case cannot be settled, the parties, before trial, must agree in writing to all
facts and all documents about which there should be no disagreement. The stipulation signed by all parties
should be submitted at the calendar call on January 6, 2020 .
• Exchange of Documents. No later than December 23, 2019 , each party must provide to the other all the
documents or materials that the party expects to offer into evidence at trial and that are not included in the
stipulation.
• Pretrial Memorandum and Witness Identification. No later than December 23, 2019 , each party must
serve on the other party and file a pretrial memorandum that, among other things, identifies the witnesses
that the party intends to call to testify at trial.
The parties should contact each other promptly and cooperate fully so that the necessary steps can be taken
to comply with these requirements. Your failure to cooperate may also result in dismissal of the case and entry
of decision against you.
Stephanie A. Servoss
Clerk of the Court
SERVED Aug 16 2019

US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT
RECEIVED y % eFILED
sUS
JUL 29 2019 * JUL 29 2019
8:02 PM
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK,

Petitioner,
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
v- Docket No. 23105-18W
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent
PETITIONER'S REPLY TO ORDER DATED 07/09/2019
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
SERVED Jul 29 2019

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

Docket No. 23105-18W
Petitioner Filed Electronically
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Respondent,
PETITIONER'S REPLY TO U.S. TAX COURT ORDER SERVED ON

JULY 9, 2019 SIGNED BY SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE HON. ROBERT N.
ARMEN
RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER -TAX COURT RULES OF PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE SECTION 6103(B)(L), (2), AND (3)
INTRODUCTION
Hereby and for the record, Petitioner Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced Yaroslav
Vashchook), hereafter Petitioner, is replying timely to the captioned July 9, 2019
Order.
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -2-
Petitioner appreciates the Court's advice found in the Order which lets the
Petitioner know what consequences to expect and face if he withdraws or does not
withdraw his June 3, 2019 Opposition to Respondent's May 15, 2019 Motion For
Protective Order Pursuant To Rule 103. What especially caught Petitioner's
attention in the Court Order is the following Court statement on page 2:
Section 6103(a) provides as a general rule that Section 6103 information

shall be confidential. Exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality are
extremely limited and narrow. Unauthorized disclosure of Section 6103
information is punishable as a felony. Sec. 7213.
After Petitioner received the Court Order, he seriously considered withdrawing his
opposition to Respondent's May 15, 2019 Motion For Protective Order and to work
out with Respondent Counsel Darrick D. Sun how to manage non-disclosure under
Section 6103(a) in light of Petitioner's litigations against the University of
California administration.
However, Petitioner noticed that since March 20, 2019, Respondent's counsels from
the IRS Chief Counsel's Division Office in San Diego are closely coordinating their
action in the U.S. Tax Court with the University of California attorneys' terror
campaign aimed at Petitioner and his 69-year-old wife in the Sacramento County
Superior Court in relation to this proceeding. The Respondent's coordinated actions
in U.S. Tax Court with Petitioner's adversaries in state court is a clear indication
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -3-
that Respondent's attorney Darrick D. Sun is in direct contact with attorneys from
the Porter Scott law firm located in Sacramento, CA or in direct contact with the
University of California General Counsel Charles Robinson, former California
Independent System Operator and the "Godfather" of the sophisticated scheme of
fraud by white collar criminals entitled "The California Energy Crisis" of2000-
2001, which cost California ratepayers and taxpayers $40 billion and a lot of
suffering for many people, including Petitioner. Most likely Responded attorney
Mr. Sun knows UC Davis executives , educated and employed by Rutgers
University School of Law, N.J. It is more to this story but Petitioner won't
elaborate about.
PETITIONER'S DECISION NOT TO WITHDRAW HIS OPPOSITION TO

RESPONDENT'S MAY 15, 2019 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
By this Reply, Petitioner respectfully informs the Court that he is unwilling to
withdraw his June 3, 2019 Opposition to the Respondent and will not certify, and
the Court should deny Respondent's aforementioned motion.
While former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is still in
charge of the University of California Office of the President (UCOP), and while
attorney McGregor Scott, re-appointed by Napolitano, is still in charge of the
Eastern District of California U.S. Attorney's office, the withdrawal of my

Docket No. 23105 -18 W -4-
opposition to the Motion For Protective Order is out of the question.
Petitioner's situation is very complicated and Petitioner's adversaries from the
University of California, led by former Governor of Arizona and U.S. Secretary of
Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, are using all available tricks and resources to
frame Petitioner for deportation to Poland or throw him into prison. The last two ill-
crafted desperate UCOP mob attempts to frame Petitioner in Sacramento Courts on
December 12, 2018 and February 8, 2019 have added to the gravity of Petitioner's
decision not to withdraw his opposition, regardless of the consequences and fate of
his whistleblower claim.
THE BACKGROUND OF PETITIONER'S REPLY
The Climate Surrounding Petitioner's Whistleblower Claim
Petitioner perfectly understands the Court's advice that without the disclosure of
Section 6103, information to a whistleblower by respondent pursuant to an order
granting a motion such as Respondent's May 15, 2019 Motion For Protective Order
Pursuant To Rule 103, Petitioner has little, if any, likelihood of success in this Court
for Petitioner's claim for reward under Section 7623(b).
Petitioner also perfectly understands the Court's advice in the July 9, 2019 Court
Order that a lengthy response to this Order is not required; indeed, a lengthy
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -5-
response would be inappropriate and may be regarded by the Court as tantamount to
Petitioner choosing option (2) of the above ORDERED paragraph.
Under different circumstances and situation, Petitioner would not oppose the
Respondent's Motion For Protective Order, but today, Petitioner has to make a
tough decision. He is compelled to explain to the Court that the reward Petitioner is
seeking in his whistleblower complaint is very important, but so too is Petitioner's
well-being, taking into consideration the merciless terror aimed at Petitioner coming
from the University of California President, led by Janet Napolitano since
September 2013 and terrorized by Napolitano judges and justices in Sacramento's
two Courts.
The climate surrounding Petitioner's whistleblower claim is not promising, and
Petitioner is not sure how it will go. Petitioner assumes that Hon. Robert N. Armen
noticed in the Petitioner's Opposition the copy of the University of California Davis
Police's September 2012 poster portraying Petitioner in a similar way as the FBI
portrays its "Most Wanted Terrorist." But who is the real terrorist? Petitioner
submitted this question in September 2018 to U.S. Senate Chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate Hon. Charles E. Grassley, with a letter
titled "In Defense of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and His Family."
https://www.scribd.com/document/398421315/In-Defense-of-Judge-Kavanaugh-
and-his-Family
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -6-
The Lodi Resident Hamid Hayat Prosecuted by Janet Napolitano's Friend,

U.S. Attorney McGregor William Scott
The most severe example in this chain of events involves Hamid Hayat, the
cherry picker from Lodi, CA. In October 2001, a month after the 9/11/2001
terrorist attack, Hayat was chosen by someone to be converted into a terrorist by
an FBI hired and paid informer with a criminal past. Why Lodi, California?
This question should be addressed to the former U.S. Attomey in the Northern
District of California and the FBI Director Robert Mueller and his former
subordinate, former FBI employee John Lohse and U.S. Attorney from the
Eastern District of California, McGregor William Scott, who prosecuted Hayat
and cashed a $500,000 check from Janet Napolitano in 2016.
Janet Napolitano's Friend John Lohse
John Lohse is Napolitano's old friend from Arizona. He served as a FBI
Special Agent, Associate Division Counsel, and Chief Division Counsel for the
FBI's San Francisco Division, Lohse was recruited by the University of
California Office of the President (UCOP) organized crime in January 2004 to
keep the FBI agents out of UC campuses. He has also served as a criminal
prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Phoenix, Arizona.

Docket No. 23105 -18 W -7-
Lohse resurfaced in my case in May 2012 , just a few days before ill crafted
unsuccessful provocation to end my employment in UC Davis Medical Center
Trauma Unit # 11 on May 31, 2012 .
Hamid Hayat's Incarceration and Judge Tashima's Dissent Opinion
Hayat received a 24-year prison sentence that destroyed him and his family.
It was perfectly described by Hon. A. Wallace Tashima in his dissent opinion in the
United States Court of Appeals Opinion filed on March 13, 2013 in Case No. D.C.
CR-05-00240-GEB, USA v. Hamid Hayat, Opinion No. 07-10457.
Judge Tashima perfectly understood that Hamid Hayat was sent to prison for
24 years for the same reason that Judge Tashima as a child, his family, and
thousands of other Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps during
World War II by the American government. Because Petitioner too, was forced
into an internment camp by the communist Polish government in 1981, I am sharing
my feelings for Judge Tashima's dissent opinion that viewed the brutal punishment
of Hamid Hayat and the destruction of his family as a Soviet Union-era prosecution
and "Show Trial."
Petitioner noticed that the opinion was filed almost four years after the case was
argued on appeal on June 10, 2009. The Ninth Circuit Judge Hon. A. Wallace
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -8 -
Tashima sharply disagreed with two other Circuit Judges the Janet Napolitano old
friend from Arizona Judge Mary M. Schroeder and Judge Judge Berzon from San
Francisco who denied freedom to Hayat. Judge Tashima expressed his feeling about
Hayat's prosecution and incarceration with words:
"This case is a stark demonstration of the unsettling and untoward

consequences of the government's use of anticipatory prosecution as a
weapon in the 'war on terrorism."'
Judge Tashima on appeal recognized the problem in Hamid Hayat's case and
basically stated in his dissent opinion that the case was a total hoax fabricated by
government agents. Judge Tashima recognized that Hayat became a sacrificial lamb
and that his 24-year prison term delivered by Judge Garland E. Burrell on
September 10, 2007 (Hayat's 25th birthday) had a different purpose other than to
serve justice.
Hamid Hayat in 2001-2007 was the most vulnerable subject of the FBI that
FBI could find in the western Hemisphere that was preyed on by U.S. Attorney
McGregor Scott. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Robert Mueller , Melinda
Haag , McGregor Scott made Hayat a "scare crow" and "sacrifice lamb" to divert
public attention from the resurfacing crimes and white collar criminals in the state
and federal courts in relation to the enormous and very sophisticated scheme of
fraud titled " California Energy Crisis . It was NO Al-Qaeda terrorist network
sleeper cells in our Lodi communities and neighborhoods. It was a completely
different
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -9-
reason to frame and prosecute a 19-year-old cherry picker from Lodi and present his
prosecution and the destruction of him and his family to the entire U.S. population
and the world. If any Al-Qaeda terrorist network sleeper cells could be found in
California that it would be the UC Office of the President in Oakland , CA , UC
Davis and UC San Diego campus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v-09sUJ0Tld)Pw ( Lodi 2005)
This is exactly how Stalin's prosecutors and judges took care of business
to terrorize the Soviet Union and Soviet Union's occupied countries
population.
This is exactly how Stalin's prosecutors and judges took care of business to
terrorize the Soviet Union and the population in the Soviet Union's occupied
countries.
The Sophisticated Scheme of Fraud of 2000-2001 Entitled "California
Energy Crisis" and FBI Director Robert Mueller
Petitioner in his August 2018 inquires sent to the FBI stated:
"It is still unknow whether 2000-2003 sophisticated scheme of

fraud and deception which was labeled "California Energy
Crisis" and which caused California econorny 40 billion dollars
losses was deliberate sabotage by greedy power corporations to
make billions of dollar by laundering rnegawatts or whether man
made" "energy crisis was coordinated act of terror synchronized
with September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on US soil with
intensified terrorists attacks against United States abroad during
the time of the California electricity deregulations and California
Energy Crisis .
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 10 -
Whether foreigner terrorist network or foreign power penetrated

or infiltrated the California Independent System Operator
(CAISO ) Califomia Power Exchange (CalPX), University of
California and California government during the process
California electricity market deregulation of 1996-1998 to
destabilize the California and US economy by manipulating the
electricity market in Western states power grid is the question
which should asked and answered by FBI . . A 40 billion dollars
loss by California econorny and California rate payers and tax
payers is not a srnall change but enormous amount of money
which were disappeared and were never recovered.
It is hard to find out whether the CAISO personnel which was
given to maintain 75 % of the California electric grid went
through the criminal background check in 1996-1998. If the FBI
carefully read my Application for Award with IRS than will find
out that the artificially created "California Energy Crisis "
becarne a 'Gold rnine " for California Attorney General staff "
for over two decades"
The fraud cost California ratepayers and taxpayers $40 billion and almost collapsed
the Western State Power Grid. If that had have happened, than nation would have
faced unimaginable apocalyptic consequences throughout the whole country.
Somehow, the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, the
newly appointed FBI Director Robert Mueller, in September 2001 did not notice
what happened in 2000 and 2001 to the millions of people living in San Francisco
experiencing rolling blackouts, yet he found a 19-year-old cherry picker, Hamid

Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 11 -
Hayat, to convert him into a terrorist in Lodi, California, where Petitioner has lived
since 1989.
Lodi Resident, Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft Ph.D. and His Wife

Dorothy Bernhoft
The second severe example is the 2011-2012 UCOP mafia terror that was the witch
hunt aimed at Petitioner psychologist in Lodi, Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D., and his
family, orchestrated by Janet Napolitano's friend from Arizona, John Lohse, in a
joint venture with University of California Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley and
his wife, Diane Dooley, the last Chief of Staff for California Governor Jerry Brown.
In that witch hunt, California government thugs from Social Services framed Dr.
Bernhoft and his 65-year-old wife, Dorothy Bernhoft, who narrowly escaped five
years in prison with a plea bargain.
The 65-year-old psychologist, Franklin O. Bernhoft, is a Vietnam War veteran with
the rank of Captain, like the former FBI Director and former Special Counsel
Robert Mueller. In February 2012, Dr. Bernhoft's residence in Lodi was raided by
government thugs and his property was confiscated because he dared to protest the
terror and inhumane treatment that Petitioner was subjected to at the UC Davis
Medical Center (UCDMC) in 2011. This was terror and inhumane treatment beyond
human decency, which included and was not limited to canceling Petitioner's
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 12 -
Medical Insurance Benefits and Short-Term Disability benefits in the amount of
$4,500. The benefits were denied to Petitioner in 2011 in attempt to force
Petitioner to quit his job. Those denied Short-Term Disability Insurance Benefits
resurfaced EIGHT YEARS LATER on March 20, 2019 as "UNCLAIMED
PROPERTY" in the State of California's Controller Office. On the same day,
March 20, 2019, the IRS Commissioner's attorney from San Diego IRS Chief
Counsel Division office sent an inquiry to Petitioner asking him to sign a stipulated
Motion for Protective Order.
The Petitioner
The Petitioner is a 69-year-old Polish immigrant who has been living in
Lodi, California, near Sacramento for almost three decades. Petitioner is one of
three different families from Lodi whose lives were destroyed by the group of
people being representing by or connected to the State of California or U.S. federal
government and to the President of the University of California Janet Napolitano,
the former Arizona Governor and former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.
Lodi is located in the San Joaquin Valley and is a relatively small city of
approximate 60,000 people. Lodi received a lot of attention from the national media
in 2005 when a 19-year-old cherry picker of Pakistani decent, Hamid Hayat, was
arrested upon his return from Pakistan in May 2005 and was then accused of being
affiliated with the Al-Qaeda terror group. Hayat was then

Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 13 -
prosecuted by Janet Napolitano's friend, U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District
of California, McGregor W. Scott, and was thrown into federal prison for 24
years. It was the first terror case in the United States after the deadly 9/11
terrorist attack on U.S. soil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v-09sUJ0TkPPw
(Lodi 2005)
It was not a coincidence that a new FBI Director, Robert Mueller, appointed in
September 2001, gave his okay to find the guy in Lodi and make him a
dangerous terrorist and to make the terror case in Lodi, CA. Instead of opening
a probe and conducting an investigation to find out who was directly and
personally responsible for the ruthless attack on the California Power Grid that
almost collapsed in 2001, the FBI Director, rather, ordered the creation of a
terrorist and terrorist sleeping cell located in Lodi to serve as a scarecrow and
sent 19-year-old Hamid Hayat to 24 years in Federal prison.
Robert Mueller and Janet Napolitano's friend, Melinda Haag, was perfectly
aware in May 2000-September 2001 who was responsible for the sophisticated
scheme of the $40 billion fraud of the California Energy Crisis. They both
worked during the relevant time in 2000-2001 for the U.S. Attorney's Office in
the Northern District of California.

Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 14 -
Petitioner is the third person from Lodi, CA who has been targeted since 2005
by the white collar criminals from the University of California backed up by the
California government and judges and justices from the Califomia Courts.
There has been a 14-year-long desperate effort by the UCOP mafia to frame and
deport Petitioner to his native country of Poland. In 1982, the Polish government
sent Petitioner to the United States because of Petitioner's participation in political
activities in the anti-communist movement called "Solidarity" to liberate Poland
from Soviet domination and communist rulers who had been enslaving the Polish
people for 50 years. The UCOP mob also orchestrated an ill-crafted but
unsuccessful attempt to provoke and kill Petitioner on May 31, 2012 along with
portraying him as a Most Wanted Terrorist on September 26, 2012. These acts of
terror involved Janet Napolitano's friend from Arizona and former FBI agent and
UCOP Director of Investigation John Lohse who was recruited by the UCOP mob
in January 2004.
Political Prisoner - California Senator Leland Yee
The other victim of this same ring of people from outside Lodi is former
Senator Leland Yee, who was framed and prosecuted in 2016 in the the same way
as Hamid Hayat from Lodi , CA . Senator Yee has been targeted since 2007 and
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 15 -
has escaped 20 years in prison with a five-year plea bargain offered to him 2015 by
the U.S. Prosecutor from Northern District of California Melinda Haag, the friend
of Janet Napolitano
On December 4, 2006, Leland Yee was elected California Senator, and on
the same day, UCOP assigned a witch hunter in order to erase Petitioner from the
UC Davis Medical Center landscape and from the UC payroll.
Senator Yee relentlessly targeted the misappropriation of public funds by
the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) and the UC Regents
in relation to executives' salaries, bonuses and shady UC Regents businesses
under the umbrella of the University of California
In February 2010, Leland Yee requested a State Audit aimed at the UC
administration's lavish money spending. If the 2010 State Audit would be properly
conducted and UC Davis Medical Center would be audited including 27 MW
cogeneration plant than most likely Petitioner would be not writing today his reply
to the U.S Tax court Order .
The decision was made in around May 2010 to neutralize Senator Leland Yee the
arch enemy of UCOP mob. Most likely than not Robert Mueller gave green light or
ordered FBI Special Agents in Charge in San Francisco and Sacramento to take
out Yee from the political arena . To prosecute Leland Yee , the former Robert
Mueller's assistant and friend of Janet Napolitano's , Melinda Haag was appointed
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 16 -
U.S Attomey for Northern District of Califomia in August 2010 by U.S Senator
Barbara Boxer's recommendation
Barbara Boxer was succeeded by Kamala Harris in 2017 , the former San
Francisco District Attorney where Leland Yee lived with his family until March
2016 .
Leland Yee was a very well-known legislator in the California State Legislature,
and the decision to frame him , take him out of picture and send him to prison
undoubtedly was made in Washington D.C
The $1,000,000 aimed at UC Davis Greek Born Chancellor Linda Katehi
UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi has also been targeted since 2011. She narrowly
escaped Yee's fate in March-August 2016. The $1 million witch hunt was
orchestrated by UC President Janet Napolitano and carried out by the two former
U.S. prosecutors, Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, who were framing and
prosecuting Hamid Hayat in 2005-2007 and Senator Leland Yee in 2009-2016
For the 2016 witch hunt, Napolitano employed two former federal prosecutors
specializing in white-collar crime; she also coerced five California legislators: State
Senator Joel Anderson and Assemblymen Luis Alejo, Lorena Gonzales, Mike Gato, and
Freddie Rodriguez. In addition, Napolitano and Haag enlisted two Sacramento Bee
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 17 -
reporters, Diana Lambert and Sam Stanton, to publish despicable smear articles about
Katehi. By joining the board of the for-profit education group and textbook publisher
DeVry, which allegedly violated university policies, Katehi ignited the flames of
distraction and disorientation, and several other state legislators swallowed the bait. The
attacks against the chancellor escalated to the point that student protestors occupied UC
Davis's Mark Hall and demanded her resignation. One state lawmaker, apparently
alluding to the prosecution of Senator Yee, told reporters that if he had done the same as
Chancellor Katehi, he would have ended up in federal prison.
After looking at Haag's and Scott's fame and outstanding performances in prosecuting
terrorists from Al Qaeda and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in 2016, I prayed for
Chancellor Katehi and her family, especially after discovering that she had associated
herself with the Saudi Arabian University of King Abdulaziz in Jeddah by serving as a
university board member. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.
I thought that Haag and Scott, who were paid $1 million by Napolitano, would make
Chancellor Katehi an enemy combatant and that Napolitano would send Chancellor
Katehi to Guantanamo Bay. A million dollars is a lot of money to spend in three months
to convert Katehi from UC Davis chancellor to UC Davis chancellor emerita. Napolitano
is a reckless, dangerous, and merciless individual, and her method of using public funds
to deal with her personal adversaries resembles the tactics of the Soviet Union's Stalin-
era NKVD secret police. I was baffled as to why two former U.S. prosecutors agreed to
participate in her witch hunt against Katehi. Even a million-dollar price tag on Katehi's
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 18 -
head and Napolitano's former position as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security should
not have motivated decent people to commit such underhanded crimes.
Death of UC Davis Medical Center Employee, Todd Goerlich
The ultimate price in these ongoing witch hunts since September 11, 2001 was paid
by Petitioner's replacement employee in April 2007 at the UCDMC, 41-year-old
employee Todd Goerlich, who was found dead hanging from a tree in Rancho
Cordova Park on December 22, 2010. That same year, Kamala Harris was "elected"
California Attorney General not to investigate his death, and Melinda Haag was
appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California to prosecute Leland
Yee.
Goerlich was Petitioner's replacement after Petitioner was subjected to a witch hunt
and was abruptly removed from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant in April
2007. In 2010, Goerlich became too curious why Petitioner was being witch hunted
and removed from the UCDMC cogeneration plant, which is the subject of this U.S.
Tax Court Case.
Death of UC Davis Former Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vanderhoef

Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 19 -
UC Davis former Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vanderhoef was euthanized on
October 15, 2015 at the UCDMC two days after Petitioner disclosed to the
Sacramento County Superior Court the fraud related to unlawful generation and
sale from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant. Vanderhoof was the key
perpetrator and witness in an ongoing white collar crime. Twelve days after
Vanderhoef died, U.S. Congressman John Garamendi glorified Vanderhoef on
the U.S. Congress floor.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Petitioner apologizes to the Court for this long reply to the Court
Order dated July 9, 2019. After Court, the Order advised Petitioner that
unauthorized disclosure of Section 6103 information is punishable as a felony.
Sec. 7213.
Also, Petitioner believes that this whistleblower case should be returned by the
Court to the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah for further investigation
because this case was not investigated or should be recommended by the Court to
the U.S. Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service, Criminal
Investigation Department.
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 20 -
If Petitioner withdrew his Opposition, then he would be become very vulnerable to
be framed or set up in a very simple way to get him into trouble with Section 7213
if the Respondent's attorneys collaborate with UCOP attorneys against Petitioner.
Petitioner is not accusing Respondent's attorneys of anything nor is Petitioner
paranoid or a conspiracy theorist. However, Petitioner is taking all precautions and
analyzing the situation and facts so he does not become another Hamid Hayat,
Senator Yee, Dr. Bernhoft's wife, or UCDMC employee, Todd Goerlich, who was
found dead hanging from the tree.
Petitioner would like to emphasize that Hamid Hayat, Senator Leland Yee, UC
Davis Greek born Chancellor Linda Katehi, Todd Goerlich, and Petitioner's
psychologist's wife, Dorothy Bernhoft, all had no criminal past and some of them
were mercilessly prosecuted in Criminal Courts and thrown into prison. Senator
Yee, Linda Katehi, and Dorothy Bernhoft are of a similar age as Petitioner. They all
are American citizens. Petitioner at least has the option to ask the Polish
Ambassador for help if needed.
This whistleblower case most likely would have had a different outcome if in April
2016, UC President Janet Napolitano did not cause the resignation of the U.S.
Attorney from the Eastern District of California, Benjamin B. Wagner, who was
replaced by Phillip Talbert. This happened just after Petitioner submitted his claim
to the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, UT and the separate inquiry filed with
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 21 -
the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office to bring criminal charges against perpetrators
involved in unlawful megawatts laundering by UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant
and related to criminal tax fraud. U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner in 2009-2014
was conducting an investigation of the grants provided to UC Davis by the
Department of Energy (DOE). He was familiar with DOE jurisdiction and DOE
Division Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has jurisdiction over
electricity production and distribution in the United States. Petitioner's inquiry with
the U.S. Attorney's Office was swept under the rug by Benjamin Wagner's
replacement, Phillip Talbert. Petitioner's reported fraud was bigger than the DOE
grants provided to UC Davis. At the same time, UC President and former U.S.
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano became the subject of a State
Audit request by California Assemblyman Phil Ting and Kevin McCarty (Audit
2016-130). The Audit disclosed that Napolitano had embezzled $175,000,000 of
University of California reserve funds.
It is still a puzzle whether Assemblymen Phil Ting and Kevin McCarty, by
ordering the State Audit, prevented Napolitano from using the $175,000,000 of
dirty cash to possibly orchestrate a new 9/11 terrorist attack or to assassinate
Donald Trump on the Presidential campaign trail in 2016.
Janet Napolitano's appointment as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security in

January 2009 and her appointment to UC President Post in September 2013
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 22 -
emboldened the UC white collar criminals to intensify their terror aimed at

their adversaries without any hesitation to kill people if needed .
In light of the presented facts outlined in Petitioner's opposition and in this Reply,
Petitioner is praying that the relief sought by Respondent in the Motion for
Protective Order shall be denied by the U.S. Tax Court to Respondent.
Dated July 29, 2019
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Petitioner Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (833) 817-7080
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 23 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper PETITIONER'S REPLY

TO 7/9/2019 U.S. TAX COURT ORDER SIGNED BY SPECIAL TRIAL
JUDGE HON. ROBERT N. ARMEN
was served on July 29, 2019 by Electronic Mail to:
Darrick D. Sun- Darrick.D.Sun@irscounsl.treas.gov

Gordon L. Gidlund - Gordon.L.Gidlund@irscounsel.treas.gov
Terri L. Ornato- Terri.L.Onorato@irscounsel.treas.gov
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES
Office of Chief Counsel
Large Business & International
701 B Street, Suite 901
San Diego, CA 92101
Dated June 3, 2019
By: J
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk,

Petitioner
206 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.663.2977
Fax: 833.817.833
E-mail : jjw1980live.com
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-833-7080
May 15, 2019
Leah T. Wilson, Executive Director

The State Bar of California
Office of the Executive Director
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1617
Subject: Follow-up on my April 9, 2019 Inquiry – Request to Expedite

the Reimbursement of Theft, or an Act Equivalent to Theft, Perpetrated
by Attorney Douglas Stein, SBN 131248
Re: State Bar of California, Case No.15-0-10110-LMA [18-F-16299]

Re: California Supreme Court Case S245982,
In re: Douglas Edward Stein on Discipline
INTRODUCTION
Dear Director Wilson:
This is a follow-up to my inquiry that I sent to your office on April 9, 2019 to be reimbursed
by the State Bar of California Client Security Fund (CSF) for the money that was basically
stolen by my former attorney, Douglas Stein. (ATTACHMENT #1)
I have already addressed in my earlier correspondences why Douglas Stein did what
he did. (ATTACHMENT #2) Therefore, I will my focus my attention now on why the State
Bar of California CSF is refusing to reimburse the stolen money which I absolutely cannot
recover from Douglas Stein due to his own financial disaster and his tarnished life in general.
The Declaration of Douglas E. Stein in Support of the State Bar Rule 9.20 Compliance
speaks for itself on how Stein’s attorney’s carrier was ended after he colluded or was most
likely forced to collude with the Porter Scott attorneys from November 2013 to December
2014. (ATTACHMENT #3) Stein’s homelessness and separation from his daughter should
-1-
Request to Expedite
the Reimbursement of Theft
be a factor for the State Bar of California to help him recover from his downfall and to
reimburse the losses I incurred by hiring Stein in November 2013, rather than punish him and
me because of the State Bar’s association with the almighty Janet Napolitano and her
University of California Office of the President (UCOP) mob. As I read in the State Bar of
California’s informational pamphlet entitled, “Special Events at the State Bar of California
Annual Meeting of September 29, 2016–October 2, 2016,” one of the presented subjects was
“Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health Vulnerability in the Legal Profession: Facing the
Facts” with Patrick Krill, Hon. Catherine Purcell, Dr. Robert A. Simon, and Richard Canton.
(ATTACHMENT #4) It is worth mentioning that UC President Janet Napolitano attended
the 2016 State Bar of California Annual Meeting along with California Chief Justice Hon.
Tani Cantil-Sakauye and State Bar of California and State Bar Executive Director Elizabeth
R. Parker.
Unfortunately for Stein and the UCOP “ advocates” from Porter Scott, my legal
action against the UC Regents for breach of written contract, which the UC Regents signed in
January 2009 with me and then trashed in April 2011, did not end in January 2015 as they
had anticipated. The legal action is still pending in Sacramento County Superior Court as
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California. For how long the case will be in Court, I can’t say because I don’t know.
AFTERMATH OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA PROSECUTION OF

ATTORNEY DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN
California Supreme Court Case S245982, In re Douglas Edward Stein on

Discipline
In 2015, State Bar Investigator Amanda Gormley informed me that after Douglas
Stein’s prosecution for his misconduct, the State Bar CSF would reimburse me the amount of
money I was entitled to due to the perpetrated theft by Stein. Ms. Gormley was perfectly
aware of Stein’s grave financial situation and his lack of any resources to pay the money
back.
On March 1, 2018, the California Supreme Court affirmed Stein’s suspension
imposed on him by the State Bar and ordered him to pay me back the amount of $14,694.33
-2-
Request to Expedite
plus 10% interest per year from June 2, 2014 (or reimbursement from the CSF, to the extent
of any payment from the CSF, in accordance with Business and Professions Code section
6140.5).
Application for Reimbursement dated August 30, 2018

After the California Supreme Court on March 1, 2018 issued the decision in Stein’s
case, I waited a few months to see if he would pay the stolen money, not being aware of his
totally disastrous financial and life situation caused by his 2013–2014 (most likely forced)
collusion with Porter Scott attorneys representing the UCOP that lead to his gross
professional misconduct in representation. Stein probably figured out what happened to his
friend Todd Goerlich, who was my replacement in 2007 at my job at the University of
California. Goerlich was found hung to death in the Rancho Cordova Park on December 22,
2010. Stein did not want to be another suspicious suicide statistic caused by the UCOP ‘s
Principles of Community. https://www.ucop.edu/local-human-resources/op-life/principles-
of-community.html
(ATTACHMENT #5)
The State Bar of California Client Security responses to my August 30, 2018 inquiry
to be reimbursed was something that I did not take lightly, and I looked for further clues as to
what, who, and why is behind the scenes of the misused or stolen money by Douglas Stein in
2014.
I saw and I currently see the desperation of the UCOP organized crime , their
“advocates “ from Porter Scott, and other collaborators to deliver to me the final blow in the
courts. This is after the October 3, 2018–March 20, 2019 actions by a Porter Scott attorney in
the Sacramento Superior Court with Motions to Compel; after the December 27, 2019
collaboration and coordination with the UCOP mob and the California State Bar; after the
December 27, 2018 Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District (3DCA) March 8, 2019
California Supreme Court decision in my Unemployment Insurance Benefits Case No.
34201380001699CUWMGDS Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board (CUIAB), 3DCA Case No. C079254, Supreme Court Case No. S253713; and
finally, after my denied disability benefits of 2011 in the amount of $4,546.08 resurfaced at
-3-
Request to Expedite
the California State Controller Office, discovered there by a private investigator on March 20,
2019. See my May 1, 2019 inquiry with the State Controller Office. (ATTACHMENT #6)
The April 19, 2019 Request for Records under California Public Records Act
Douglas Stein’s case was simple; he basically did not challenge the State Bar’s
decision and gave up practicing law. Therefore, there was no reason for the State Bar CSF to
say that it needed another three years to investigate Stein, who was already investigated for
five years resulting in a 2018 Supreme Court Decision in this matter.
By standing for myself in Court and in the State Bar for the last five years, I became
aware that my adversaries were doing everything possible to cut me off from any financial
resources to make my continued litigation against UC Regents impossible. What happened to
my 2011 disability insurance benefits and 2014 unemployment insurance benefits are the best
examples of what the UCOP mob and their hired “advocates” from Porter Scott, in
collaboration with the Courts, State Bar, and Attorney General’s office staff, are doing to get
rid of me.
It seems to me that CSF reimbursement is another example of State Bar personnel’s
close collaboration with the UCOP mob against me.
To learn what is really going on, I requested information from the State Bar under the
Public Record Act Provision (PRA) on April 19, 2019 about Karen Jensen Petrulakis SBN
168732, who was UC General Counsel Charles Robinson’s Chief Deputy, who has served
on the State Bar’s Litigation Section Executive Committee since October 2012.
ATTACHMENT #7)
UC General Counsel was employed in the past by the same law firm as State Bar
Court Judge Hon. Lucy Armendariz, who was elevated to Los Angeles County Superior
Court last year by Governor Jerry Brown. Charles Robinson was a key player and perpetrator
in the scheme of enormous fraud committed by white collar criminals known as the
“California Energy Crisis.”
Furthermore, Petrulakis was listed as a UC Regents attorney in my Unemployment
Insurance Benefits Case No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
-4-
Request to Expedite
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB), 3DCA Case No. C079254. In addition,
Petrulakis was one of the UC General Counsel’s attorneys who interfered with the State
Audit No. 2016-130. The 2016 State Audit disclosed $1,000,000 that UC President Janet
Napolitano gave in 2016 to two former U.S. attorneys, Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott.
We don’t know for sure yet why Napolitano handed $1,000,000 to Haag and Scott or what
they knew about Napolitano to extort such money in such short time period .
The other two people in my April 19, 2019 PRA request are two State Bar CFS
Commission members, Ms. Shanae S. Buffington SBN 263829 and Mr. Robert C. Bowman,
Jr. SBN 232388. Since 2012, Ms. Buffington has been an employee and attorney of the State
of California Employment Development Department, which denied my benefits in 2013. But
these benefits were restored in May 2014, and then promptly disappeared. The State Bar was
informed about this and likely knows who is behind this crime.
The other person I am needing information about is CSF Commission member Robert
C. Bowman, Jr. SBN 232388. In March 2013, I paid to Bowman $1,000 to review all my
documents and to file a lawsuit against the UC Regents for breach of contract and for
wrongfully ending my employment in December 2012. (ATTACHMENT #7-1) After
reviewing my file for $1,000, Bowman wanted to take the case but he wanted too much
money up front for representation. He probably figured from the documents I sent to the
Employment Development Department (EDD) in 2012 that I cashed my UC retirement after
I lost my employment, income, and my house at the age of 61 and that I was not eligible even
for Social Security at that age. It happened just after my unemployment benefits were denied
by EDD and by the CUIAB’s Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Elizabeth Tays, SBN
158370. Tays is a friend of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang.
Tays, together with another CUIAB member, Michael Allen, SBN 86871, were the subjects
of my complaint with the State Bar along with 21 other attorneys that I submitted to the State
Bar in March 2016. My complaint was quickly swept under the carpet, most likely by the
order of State Bar CEO Elizabeth Parker, Case No.: 16-15525, and State Bar of California
Reviewers, attorneys Peter Eng and Carissa Andersen closed the file
Therefore I am looking for information about Bowman and how he found his way to
the CSF Commission.
-5-
Request to Expedite
The third person I am looking for information for under the PRA provision is another
attorney from the Sacramento area, Chair of the CSF Commission, Mr. Etan E. Rosen
In the Matter of A. Edward Ezor, Case No(s): 13-0-10239; 13-0-10597

Douglas Stein’s misconduct case is not complicated, as is the Case in the Matter of A.
Edward Ezor, Case No(s): 13-0-10239; 13-0-10597, Supreme Court Case No. S227682.
(ATTACHMENT #8) Attorney Ezor misappropriated $194,683.00. In June 2017, the CSF
Commission in Ezor’s case directed reimbursement of $1,000,000 to the victim.
I have asked CFS for $1,000–$2,000 for now so I could have money for medicine and
doctors, to buy new shoes, and to repair my old car. CSF’s response was that the
investigation will take three years. What investigation? I asked CSF if it was going to
investigate the Supreme Court Decision dated March 1, 2018. That is why I am asking the
State Bar Executive Director for intervention to expedite the reimbursement. I provided
specific information to the State Bar on what my current health condition is and how many
medicines I have to take every day just to keep going.
THE CHAIR OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CLIENT SECURITY FUND

COMMISSION, MR. ETAN E. ROSEN
Mr. Etan E. Rosen
“Etan Rosen was born and raised in Haifa, Israel. He was a Staff Sergeant
in the Airborne Division of the Israeli Army. In 1980 after his military
service, he came to Texas to attend classes. Mr. Rosen received a B.B.A. in
Finance and an M.B.A. in Finance and Marketing from the University of
Texas at Austin. After graduating in 1985, he worked as a Loan Analyst at
Liberty National Bank in Oklahoma City and afterward, as an Assistant
Controller for Lexus Pharmaceuticals in Austin, Texas.
Mr. Rosen graduated from the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento
and received his license to practice law in 1994. He joined Beyer and
Pongratz as the first law clerk just before taking the Bar Exam and has
served as an Associate and a Partner. Mr. Rosen has served as the
-6-
Request to Expedite
Managing Partner of the firm for the last seven years. His areas of expertise
include Mediation, Trust Litigation, Will Disputes, Business Law,
Business/Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Employment
Litigation, Discrimination, and Administrative Law. In 2000, Mr. Rosen
tried a wrongful termination lawsuit in El Dorado County winning a seven
million dollar judgment for his client. Mr. Rosen has tried numerous jury
and bench trials and is an experienced litigator.
Mr. Rosen is currently the Chairman and Commissioner of the California
State Bar Client Security Fund Commission. He has been married for 32
years and has 2 daughters. He is fluent in Hebrew. In his spare time, he
enjoys international travel and reading.”
https://bprlaw.net/etan-rosen/
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California Case # 2:14-cv-02187-WBS-DB -

Lamont Williams, Plaintiff v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District a.k.a. SMUD; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
The above captioned wrongful termination case against SMUD was filed on behalf of
Plaintiff Lamont Williams in Federal Court on September 22, 2014 by attorney Etan R.
Rosen SBN 258608 from Beyer, Pongratz & Rosen, A Professional Law Corporation located
in Sacramento, California. (ATTACHMENT #9)
Coincidently with lawsuit against SMUD on the same day , September 22, 2014, my
attorney, Douglas Stein, with a suspended attorney licensee, stipulated with Porter Scott law
firm attorney Michael Pott SBN 186156 to file a faulty Second Amended Complaint(SAC)
in the Sacramento County Superior Court wrongful termination suit against UC Regents,
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California. The Stipulation or Ex-Parte Application was signed on the same day,
September 22, 2014, it was signed by the Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon.
David Brown. (ATTACHMENT #010) Stein knew Judge Brown for more than 20 years.
That was why he was useful for the UCOP mob “ advocates” from the Porter Scott’s
law firm .
On November 21, 2014, an Answer with Jury Demand by Sacramento Municipal
Utility District was filed in the Lamont Williams case by Porter Scott attorney David
-7-
Request to Expedite
Burkett SBN 241896 who represented the Defendant, the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District.
On the same day, November 21, 2014, I tried to dismiss my attorney, Douglas Stein.
Stein refused to sign the Substitution of Attorney and sent me on that day the following text
message.
“ext_O (3).txt
WARNING ADVISORY
The attorney-client privilege prevents me from disclosing the content or
substance of any and all communications with you. You, as the client, hold
the privilege. If you disclose purported or claimed aspects of
communications or actual communications between us, it is my opinion
that you will have waived the privilege, at least to the extent of the subject
matter of your disclosure. Of course I will make sure the privilege is
waived if, and before, I would disclose something necessitated by your
waiver. I plan to talk with the Ethics hotline Monday about the present
issue concerning my belief I cannot sub you in pro per.”
Nine days later on December 1, 2014, Porter Scott’s attorney Michael Pott
filed an anti-SLAPP motion, then I dismissed Stein on December 16, 2014. Pott
followed Stein and quit or got fired by Porter Scott on January 23, 2015. Pott was
replaced on the same day by David Burkett as a lead attorney in my wrongful
termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California
TWO YEARS LATER: FEBRUARY 2016 – NOVEMBER 2016
Political Prisoner, California Senator Leland Yee
Senator Leland Yee’s sentencing was scheduled for February 24, 2016. University of
California President Janet Napolitano and her friend Melinda Haag, who had resigned from
the U.S. Attorney’s office in September 2015, did not want any surprises when Senator
-8-
Request to Expedite
Leland Yee was sentenced on that date and had to prepare, at age 67, to serve five years in
the Fort Worth Federal Correctional Institution.
Senator Leland Yee was a very well-known and popular Democratic state legislator in
California. Out of blue, he was molested for three years by the FBI and thrown down the well
like a piece a garbage by the UC white-collar criminals and their allies from California ‘s
California legislature and government.
February 17, 2016 United States Acting U.S. Attorney Brian J. Stretch sentencing Senator
Leland Yee Memorandum Case No. 3:14-CR-00196-CRB
In the conclusion of the February 17, 2016 memorandum sentencing Senator Yee, Acting
U.S. Attorney Brian J. Stretch, a colleague of Melinda Haag in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for
the Northern District of California, wrote:
For all the reasons above, the government respectfully recommends that the
Court impose the following sentence on Count Two of the Second
Superseding Indictment: 96 months in the custody of the Attorney General,
a three-year term of supervised release, a fine of $25,000, and a $100
special assessment.
DATED: February 17, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN J. STRETCH
Acting United States Attorney
The sentencing memorandum shows that the FBI agents did not know the background and
the real reason for the sting operation aimed at Senator Leland Yee. However , they did an
excellent job before the jury and U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to send away Leland Yee
.
The federal jury and Judge Breyer most likely did not know how dangerous Leland Yee
was to the UCOP mob which enjoying the protection of former U.S. Secretary of Homeland
Security Janet Napolitano departed by President Barak Obama in 2013 to take care of
unfinished business rooted into sophisticated scheme of enormous billions dollars fraud and
crime titled by white collar criminals “California Energy Crisis”
-9-
Request to Expedite
Shortly after Senator Yee was sentenced , Napolitano and Haag enlisted two Sacramento
Bee reporters, Diana Lambert and Sam Stanton, to publish articles smearing UC Davis Greek
born Chancellor Linda Katehi. Katehi’s joining the board of the for-profit education group
and textbook publisher DeVry, which allegedly violated university policies, served to ignite
the flames of distraction and disorientation. Several California legislators swallowed the bait.
The smear attacks against the chancellor escalated to the point that students protesting against
the UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and they occupied the UC Davis Mark Hall
demanding her resignation. One state lawmaker, apparently alluding to the prosecution of
Senator Leland Yee, told reporters that if he had done what Chancellor Katehi had done, he
would have ended up in federal prison.
The goal of Napolitano was to deflect the attention from her own special assignment in
UCOP and in State of California. Also $ 1,000,000 for Malinda Haag and McGregor Scott
and hidden and ready to be used by Napolitano $175, 000,000 were very high stakes in
whole operation to deflect the attention from their conspiracy.
Napolitano and Haag also hoped to divert public opinion from the criminal trial coming up
in August 2016 of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, having to do with a September
2010 natural gas line explosion in San Bruno, California. The line had been maintained by
PG&E, and when it exploded it killed eight people, injured 50 people, and demolished 37
houses in the surrounding area. The criminal charges against PG&E had been filed by
Melinda Haag just four days after Senator Leland Yee had been arrested by the FBI on March
26, 2014.
Senator Yee’s district included San Bruno.
The ploy by Napolitano and Haag to divert attention from Yee and from their own white-
collar crime’s activities worked perfectly. At the end of April, Napolitano formally placed
UC Davis Chancellor Katehi on administrative leave in consequence of the phony
investigation conducted by Haag and another former U.S. Attorney, McGregor Scott. In
2005-2007, Scott had prosecuted two Pakistanis, Umer and Hamid Hayt of Lodi, California.
The father and son had both been accused of terrorism, and the son, Hamid Hayat, was
sentenced to 24 years in federal prison due to prosecution by Scott . In 2016 Melinda Haag
- 10 -
Request to Expedite
and McGregor Scott were employed by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. (ATTACHMENT
#11)
Five California legislators—four Assemblymen, Luis Alejo, Lorena Gonzales, Mike Gato,
and Freddie Rodriguez; and one State Senator, Joel Anderson—fell for Napolitano’s hoax
and demanded that Katehi resign. (ATTACHMENT #12)
2016 COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRES
Application for Award submitted to IRS - Suspected Tax Evasion and Fraud, Violation of
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 by the Regents of the University of
California Due to Unrelated Business Income
Following the Senator Leland Yee’s sentencing on March 23, 2016, I submitted 45 pages
complaint with 35 exhibits to the U.S. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Services.
The complaint is still pending in U.S Tax Court Docket No. 23105-18
(ATTACHMENT # 13)
March 22, 2016, Complaint with the State Bar of California
On March 22, 2016 for the record I submitted to the State Bar of California, 211
pages complaint plus 177 exhibit against licensed attorneys from the University of
California and state agencies, which were direct or indirect participants in the witch
hunt against me and involved in cover up of Regents and UC administrators white
collar crimes related to illegal power sale and tax fraud. The complaint was swept
under the carpet by the State Bar of California executives (ATTACHMENT # 14)
Complaint included : Karen Jensen Petrulakis SBN 168732 ;Charles Furlonge Robinson,
SBN 113197; Steven Arnold Drown, SBN 119689; Margaret Louisa Wu, SBN 184167;
Cynthia Ann Vroom, SBN 139470; John Allen Lohse, SBN 195278; Stephen Edward
Chilcott, SBN 196905; Daniel Morris Dooley, SBN 70674; Danesha Nicole Nichols, SBN
- 11 -
Request to Expedite
2227784; Brent John Seifert, SBN 249305; David Mark Levine, SBN 251523; Anna
Orlowski, SBN 155577; Travis James Lindsey, SBN 220935; Wendi J. Delmendo, SBN
177389; Mia Belk, SBN 216890; Marilyn Elizabeth Tays, SBN 158370; Michael Allen,
SBN 86871; Darrell Steinberg, SBN 86871; Michael William Pott, SBN 186156; Ismael
A. Castro, SBN 85452, Ashante L. Norton, SBN 203836; Jacob Adam Applesmith,
135850; Jill Noel Vandeviver, SBN 227901
March 23, 2016, Complaint with State of California Commission on Judicial

Performance against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang
On March 21, 2014, the former Chief Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary for Governor
Davis Judge Chang was assigned to the complaint filed by me in December as the Petition for
the Writ of Mandamus. (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 Reagents of the University of
California (UC Regents), filed on December 2, 2013) (ATTACHMENT # 15)
April 11, 2016, Inquiry with U.S Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner- Eastern District of
California
Following the complaint with IRS, the State Bar of California and State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance in April 2016, I submitted an inquiry to the outgoing
U.S. Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner to bring criminal charges against the Regents of the
University of California due to the multimillion dollars federal tax fraud relating to unlawful
generation and power sale in 1999-2003 and 2012-2013 by the UC Davis Medical Center 27
MW cogeneration power plant and for destruction of mine and my family's life and gross
violations of my civil and human rights (ATTACHMENT # 16)
July 26, 2016, Complaint with the State Board of Equalization -Investigations
Division
- 12 -
Request to Expedite
The complaint I submitted to the State Board of Equalization against UC Regents was or is
analogous to the complaint, which I submitted to U.S. Department of Treasury - Internal
Revenue Services in March 2016. The encouragement to file the complaint with the State
Board of Equalization - Investigation Division in addition to the complaint with IRS was the
California Assembly Bill 576.
The California Assembly Bill 576 facilitated a pilot program entitled, ‘The Tax Recovery and
Criminal Enforcement (TRaCE) Task Force,’ which combats illegal business activities that
rob California State of public funds and its citizens of public services. The Task Force is
comprised of investigators and special agents from multiple agencies working together to
investigate, prosecute and recover revenue lost to the underground economy. This made me
believe that the approximate $ 100,000, 000 revenue generated by illegal power sale, in
violation of the in violation of the State of California Revenue And Taxation COD, violation
of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and total disregard of the
California Business and Professions Code section 17200 provides that "unfair competition
shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice”, by the owners of
the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility would accordingly be a great issue of concern to
the California State. (ATTACHMENT # 17)
DEBORAH L. BARNES APPOINTMENT TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AS A FEDERAL MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The April 20, 2016 Judge Morrison C. England’s Jr. Announcement
“Congratulations Deborah Barnes, Sacramento's Newest Magistrate Judge

Congrats to Deb Barnes for her selection as the newest Sacramento U.S.
Magistrate Judge, replacing Judge Drozd after his confirmation to the
district court bench. Always glad to see an alum from the Federal
Defender's Office being named a judge. Here's Chief Judge England's
welcoming announcement email:
- 13 -
Request to Expedite
On behalf of the Judges of the Eastern District of California, I am pleased
to announce that Deborah L. Barnes has been selected to fill a magistrate
judge position located in Sacramento. Ms. Barnes will fill the position
Judge Drozd vacated when he was elevated to district judge this past
November.
Ms. Barnes possesses an extensive legal background. Since 2003 (and from
1993-2000) she has worked as a Deputy Attorney General for the State of
California - Office of the Attorney General. Her background also includes
work with the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of
the Federal Defender, the law firm of Weintraub, Genshlea, Hardy, Erich &
Brown and the Sacramento District Attorney's Office. She completed her
undergraduate education at UC Berkeley and her law studies at McGeorge
School of Law.
Ms. Barnes must still undergo a standard background investigation by the
FBI and the IRS. This process has traditionally taken approximately three
months to complete. The court cannot make a formal announcement of her
appointment until after the reports are submitted and she receives favorable
evaluations. In the meantime, we may publicly disclose that Ms. Barnes has
been selected by the court and that her appointment process is moving
forward.
We believe Ms. Barnes will be an outstanding addition to our court family
and we look forward to having her serve as a magistrate judge on our
bench.”
On August 1, 2016, an unknown attorney from the California Attorney General’s

office, Deborah L. Barnes, was appointed to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
California as a Federal Magistrate Judge.
2016–present: Federal Magistrate Judge, Eastern District of California

2003–2016: Office of the Attorney General of California
Judge Barnes’ assignment to the Lamont Williams v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD) Case No: Case # 2:14-cv-02187-WBS-DB
Three days later after the appointment to the bench , on August 3, 2016, Judge Barnes was
assigned to Lamont Williams v. SMUD in which the parties were represented respectively by Etan
- 14 -
Request to Expedite
R. Rosen SBN 258608 and Ralph C. Lee, SBN 258608) from Beyer, Pongratz & Rosen and by
David Burkett SBN 241896 from Porter Scott Law Corp.
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District was a participant in the scheme of fraud titled
“California Energy Crisis” and SMUD participated in the UC Regent’s fraud as a buyer of the
unlawfully generated and laundered megawatts (electric power) worth tens of millions of dollars
from the UC Davis 27 MW Cogeneration Power Plant from 1999 to 2009.
The power was generated and sold in violation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978 (PURPA) Business and Professions Code § 17200 and Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and State of California Revenue and Taxation Code by laundering
generated power and not paying taxes on the unlawful profit.
Obviously, Porter Scott clients, UCOP, Regents and Executives from UC Davis and UC
Davis Medical Center , did not want to have two cases pending in Federal court and State court
one of which was charged with SMUD, and the UCOP and UC Regents’ white collar crime
activities which were covered up by the California Attorney General’s office and California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) , CAISO The Lamont Williams v. SMUD would easily lead
to the SMUD’s participation in the enormous fraud as my case did.
In Public Utility Dist. No. 1 v. FERC (471 F.3d 1053, 1069; 9th Cir. 2006, cert. granted,
128 S.
Ct. 30; Sept. 25, 2007; No. 06-1457), the Ninth Circuit stated that
“California is part of a single integrated electricity market in the West. Its

energy problems therefore created a “dysfunctional marketplace both in
California and the remainder of the West.” . . . For example, in the Pacific
Northwest, prices have historically averaged approximately $24/MWh.
During this period, short term prices spiked to unprecedented levels,
peaking at $3,300/MWh in early December of 2000.”
During the peak of the California energy crisis (May 2000 to October 2001), the UCDMC 27
MW cogeneration power plant sold approximately 140,000 MWh via the California Power
Exchange (CalPX) and CAISO—these tax-free sales were carried out at massively inflated
- 15 -
Request to Expedite
prices. With additional assistance from the special natural-gas discount purchase allowance,
the unlawful profits generated during this period exceeded
$100,000,000. At one point during my time working for the UCDMC facility (around
December 2000), Waszczuk listened in shock as a manager disclosed with pride that the tiny
plant had made more than $20,000,000 in one month.
1999: Sold 8,875 MWh to Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD).
2000: Sold approximately 70,000 MWh (date missing, approximately October– December;
sale via CalPX and CAISO).
2001: Sold 75,767 MWh (via CalPX and CAISO).
2002: Data missing, no sale (CalPX filed for bankruptcy).
2003: Sold 17,793 MWh to SMUD (by power purchase agreement signed by UC Regents on
February 13, 2003).
2004: Sold 13,810 MWh (SMUD).
2005: Sold 27,580 MWh (SMUD).
2006: Sold 3,783 MWh (SMUD; new power purchase agreement with SMUD effective June
1, 2006).
2007: Sold 2,917 MWh (SMUD).
2008: Sold 7,884 MWh (SMUD).
2009: Sold 342 MWh (SMUD).
The unlawful power sale to SMUD by the owners of the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant
was ceased in January 2009 after UC Regents signed with me Settlement -Agreement on January
31, 2009 which was trashed by UCOP mob in May 2011. Year later on May 31, 2012 I almost
got killed in unsuccessful provocation by the assembled “UC Davis Death Squad “
It seems to me that attorney Rosen missed a great opportunity in 2016. However, I am
more interested in when and how he became Chair of the State of California CSF Commission
because I need my stolen money back. For the above presented facts ,Mr. Rosen appointment to
the State Bar Client Security Fund as Chair is my concern.
On August 3, 2016, the same day as Hon. Barnes was appointed to the case, SMUD’s
attorney, David Burkett, sent to the Court a Notice of Settlement and on the same day,
August 3, 2016, the case was settled then disappeared from the public view on August 11,
2016. Very bizarre .
- 16 -
Request to Expedite
The Hamid Hayat’s terror Case No 2:05-cr-00240-GEB-DB-1USA v. Hayat et al
filed on 06/16/ and referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 08/03/2016
On the same day, August 3, 2016 beside the Lamont Williams v. SMUD case Judge
Barnes was appointed to appointed to the 2005 terrorism case from Lodi, California, where I
have been residing since 1989. The case The United States of America v. Hamid Hayat, Case
No. 2:05-cr-00240-GEB-DB, was filed on June 16, 2005. Hamid Hayat was a 19-year-old
cherry picker from Lodi of Pakistani descent who was accused of associating with terrorist
organization Al-Qaeda, was jailed upon his return from Pakistan in May 2005, and
prosecuted by Janet Napolitano friend, U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of California,
McGregor Scott. Hayat was sentenced to 24 years in Federal prison in 2007. At the same time
in 2005-2007 I was witch hunted by UCOP mob and in the unsuccessful attempt to erase me
from UC Davis Medical Center landscape I was brutally removed from the UCDMC 27
MW cogeneration facility just few month after I had open heart surgery and I was recovering
from disability ..
Judge Barnes , Janet Napolitano, $ 1,000,000 McGregor Scott and UC Davis Greek born
Chancellor Linda Katehi
Nine days after AG Attorney Deborah Barnes was appointed to the bench , On
August 9, 2016, Janet Napolitano and her two friends, the former U.S. prosecutors Melinda
Haag and McGregor Scott witch hunted and converted UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi to
UC Davis Chancellor Emerita for the $1,000,000 price paid by Napolitano to Haag and Scott
and obviously for the reappointment of Scott to a U.S. attorney position in the Eastern
District of California.
Reappointment of McGregor Scott to the United States Attorney Position
McGregor Scott was sworn again in on December 29, 2017 as a new U.S. attorney by
U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr . Scott returned to the position he held from
2003 to 2009 when he was appointed U.S. attorney by President George W. Bush. . Judge
England was involved in the federal Case No. 2:05-cv-01157-MCE-KJM in which the
- 17 -
Request to Expedite
Defendants were McGregor Scott and Porter Scott attorney Michael Pott, who in 2014
coerced or blackmailed my attorney, Douglas Stein, to utilize his long-time friendship with
Sacramento County Superior Judge Hon. David I. Brown from Department 53 against me in
an attempt to end my litigations against UC Regents.
However, Napolitano and her allies, Haag and Scott, with their outstanding skills to
orchestrate a “Show Trial” to throw innocent people into prison for years and to terrorize
others were not able to do the same to UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi as they had done to
19-year-old Hamid Hayat and to the arch enemy of the UCOP mob, Senator Leland Yee.
Katehi was a perfect target for Napolitano, Haag, and Scott to divert attention from their dirty
political activities and from the $175,000,000 of laundered cash Napolitano was ready to use.
Born in Greece, Katehi is a a naturalized U.S. citizen as same as Leland Yee and
$ 1,000,000 in play to make Linda Katehi a Al -Qaeda sleeping cell was not a joke with her
association to the Saudi Arabian University of King Abdulaziz in Jeddah by serving as a
university board member. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. I
thought that Haag and Scott, who were paid $1 million by Napolitano, would make
Chancellor Katehi an enemy combatant and Chancellor Katehi would be send to the
Guantanamo Bay. Perhaps the whole deal with Katehi was a hoax with her full participation
in Napolitano’s , Haag’s and Scott’s dirty political game .
The puzzle to solve is: Who was on the list to receive $175,000,000 millions of
dollars and why? Perhaps the 2016 prosecution of Senator Yee, the Katehi target, and the
assignment of Judge Barnes to the Hamid Hayat terrorism case was part of the plan to divert
public and media attention from the $175,000,000, which perhaps would be used in some
nasty plan Napolitano had in her mind .
MY SUMMARY OF 2016 EVENTS
In 2016, I did not know that after the incarceration of Senator Yee, a State Audit
requested by Assemblyman Phil Ting was approved by the Joint Legislative Audit
Committee in August 2016, which lead to the disclosure of Janet Napolitano’s serious crimes,
namely, the $1,000,000 she gave to two former prosecutors who specialized in throwing
- 18 -
Request to Expedite
innocent people into prison for political reasons, and the $175,000,000 hidden cash, which
should be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, Honest Services Conspiracy. For the
$1,000,000 Napolitano gave to Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, the giver and receivers
should be prosecuted under State and Federal laws.
Not to guess or be a conspiracy theorist, because I am not, I think that Assemblyman
Phil Ting, by requesting a State Audit like the Audit Senator Leland Yee requested in 2010,
prevented something terrible from happening. Assemblyman Ting was most likely outraged,
like I was myself, seeing his colleague from the California Senate Leland Yee being framed
and thrown into Federal prison at the age of 67.
As I mentioned earlier a few legislators in 2016 were doomed by Janet Napolitano
believing that UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi caused the incarceration of Senator Yee
and applauded Napolitano, Haag, and Scott for their orchestrated witch hunt, not knowing in
2016 what the $1,000,000 racketeering money and $175,000,000 hidden cash would be used
for. At the end of September 2016, Napolitano armed with $175,000,000 cash traveled to San
Diego to meet her colleague, Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker of the CIA, NSA employee, and
principal deputy legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State and then Executive Director of
the State Bar of California. After the San Diego State Bar of California Annual Meeting, UC
President Janet Napolitano traveled to her home state of Arizona to see her dear friend Judge
Mary M. Schroeder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit who on March 13,
2013 denied freedom to Hamid Hayat who had been incarcerated for eight years in spite of
and fierce opposition from Judge Wallace Tashima. In Case No. 07-10457 D.C. No. CR-05-
00240-GEB, Judge Tashima, in his dissent opinion, strongly condemned Hayat’s unjust
prosecution and incarceration. Hayat was prosecuted in 2005–2007 by Napolitano’s friend,
McGregor Scott. Before Napolitano arrived in California in September 2013, Hamid Hayat
was moved to Federal prison in Arizona.
I summarized the year 2016 in my inquiry dated September 15, 2016 and submitted to
California Senator Cathleen Galgiani in the following statement:
The systematic destruction of my life by the University of California mafia

is no different than the devastation and destruction of the former California
Senator Leland Yee’s existence and life by the same entity’s lead by the
- 19 -
Request to Expedite
former US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. The
coordinated assault against Senator Leland Yee and myself began May
2011 for the same reason of which Senator Yee and myself was not aware.
I found out the reason after Senator Leland Yee was sentenced to five years
in federal prison. The Leland Yee’s was sentenced after the death of the
former UC Davis Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vanderhoef who died on
October 15, 2015. Vanderhoef took lot of information and names to his
grave.( (See enclosed letter to US Congressman Hon. John Garamendi ) In
October 2015 my complaint with the California State Bar against attorney
Douglas Stein disappeared together with complaint’s investigator Amanda
Gormley.
In my May 11, 2016, letter to United States Attorney Phillip A. Talbert
entitled “Assignment of the Former U.S Attorney for Northern District of
California Melinda Haag By The University Of California President Janet
Napolitano to Investigate UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi in Relation
To My April 11, 2016, Request To Bring Criminal Charges Against the
Regents of the University Of California Due to Multimillion Dollar Federal
Tax Fraud And Violation Of My Civil And Human Rights I wrote:
With this letter I am following up on my inquiry dated April 11, 2016,
with regard to the alleged multimillion dollars’ tax fraud committed in
1999–2003 and 2012–2013 by the Regents of the University of California
through an unlawful sale of power from the UC Davis Medical Center 27
MW’s cogeneration facility.
I understand that the U.S. Attorney for the northern California office
covers a large area and is very busy enforcing the law and prosecuting
criminals, and I also understand that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in
Sacramento is in a transition period due to the resignation of the Hon.
Benjamin Wagner
After I learned that Ms. Haag had been hired by UC to
investigate UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, I became seriously
concerned about Ms. Haag’s professional conduct due her conflict of
interest while representing the UC Regents in a dispute that arose from
the university’s adverse actions against UC Davis Chancellor Linda
Katehi, a former U.S. Attorney for northern California, where the UC
Regents’ headquarters are located and where UC Davis is located as well.
Furthermore, the UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi is or was also in

charge of the UC Davis Medical Center from 2009 to 2016, where the UC
Regents’ alleged multimillion dollar fraud took place.
- 20 -
Request to Expedite
On May 5, 2016, I sent an e-mail to Ms. Haag informing her about my
complaints with the federal authorities, regardless of what Ms. Haag had
been informed about before I sent my e-mail to her.
I don’t believe that the Regents hired Ms. Haag for $1200/hour to find
out if UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi had violated university policies
and procedures. This could have been determined fairly and more
independently by an agreed-upon third-party arbitrator or mediator, not the
university attorney hired for whom it was a conflict of interest to represent
the university.
Furthermore I wrote in same letter:
„It is also worth mentioning that Ms. Melinda Hag is the former U.S.
prosecutor who prosecuted and brought down California Senator
Leyland Lee.
I am mentioning former Senator Leyland Yee’s achievements in this
complaint because Leyland Yee authored Senate Bill SB 650, which was
signed into law in July 2010 with an effective date of January 1, 2011.
This bill was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to
protect UC faculty and staff who report illegal or improper actions from
retaliation in the workplace.
SB 650, which was authored by Senator Leland Yee, provides UC
employees with the same legal protections as other state employees,
including those at California State University and California’s
community colleges. The new law ensured that UC employees could
exercise their right to seek damages in court on a retaliation complaint to
which the university did not respond fairly.
Leyland Yee’s SB 650 was a step forward, and without it the UC Davis
employee Janet Keyzer would not have prevailed in her termination
lawsuit, which was filed in 2010 and finalized in 2015. It cost the
university about $5,000,000, most of which were legal fees for attorneys
on both sides.”
(In the Janet Keyzer’s whistleblowing wrongful termination case the three
individual defendants , the UC President Mark Yudof , UC Davis
Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and the UC Davis professor Klea Bertakis
were facing jail time up to one year under the provision of the amended by
- 21 -
Request to Expedite
the SB 650 Government Code 8547.10 (b) and (c). for their malicious
oppression and retaliation against Janet Keyzer and her husband.)
In my August 31,2016 letter addressed to US Congressman Hon. John
Garmendi I wrote:
The 2010 Vanderhoef’s participation in investigation related to
the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) maintained natural gas pipeline,
explosion where 8 people got killed, it t would be a last place where I
would expect to see Vanderhoef taking into consideration PG&E’s
participation in the Vanderhoef $ 65,000,000 worth illegal power
sale and tax fraud in 1999-2003
I concluded my letter to US Attorney Phillip Talbert with words :
“It is sad that Leyland Yee, a great legislator and public servant who had
the courage to stand up against the corrupted but very powerful
University of California administration, fell shortly after SB 650 took
effect in 2011.’
The 67-year-old Yee had no choice but to plead guilty to racketeering
charges in connection with the allegations that he had accepted bribes in
exchange for his political influence. Five years in prison versa twenty
years were convincing factor to plead guilty .
However, if I look at the crimes Leyland Yee allegedly committed with
help of the FBI agents and for which he was harshly punished, I would
say that his crimes are not comparable with those committed by the
corrupted and rotten University of California administration, and no one
there was sentenced to prison. The UC administrators could drive
employees to end their lives, commit Medicare and Medicaid fraud up to
$25,000,000, commit multimillion power sale and tax fraud, conduct
illegal medical experiments that resulted in several patients’ deaths at the
UC Davis Medical Center, fund illegal research on prisoners (Keyzer’s
case) or discharge machine oil via storm drains into the Sacramento
River from the UC Davis Medical Center Cogeneration Power Plant for
seven years, but I have not heard that anybody responsible for these
crimes faced the District Attorney’s office or criminal prosecution like
Leyland Yee faced for his crime.
I will write a petition to President Barack Obama and I will ask him to
pardon Senator Leyland Lee for humanitarian reasons or to shorten
Senator Leyland Lee’s prison sentence”.
UC President Janet Napolitano’s action in March 2016 against the UC
Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi was a totally well-crafted hoax to divert
- 22 -
Request to Expedite
attention from Senator Yee’s prosecution and his sentencing at the same
time.
It seems to have worked because five upset legislators joined UC President
Janet Napolitano and demanded, by submitting a supportive letter to Janet
Napolitano, that UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi should be fired. One
legislator stated in his interview with a newspaper that he would land in
federal prison if he did what Chancellor Linda Katehi has done, apparently
making a reference to Senator Yee and two other California legislators,
Senator Ronald Calderon and Senator Rod Wright, who were investigated
and prosecuted at the same time as Senator Leland Yee.
After I read the March 26, 2013 unsealed 137-page Affidavit of Special
FBI agent Emmanuel v. Pascua in Support of the Complaint against
Senator Leland Yee; the July 15, 2015, 51-page Leland Yee’s Plea
Bargain the February 17, 2016, the United States sentencing Senator
Leland Yee memorandum and the November 13, 2013 Notice of Motion
and Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Government Should Not Be
Held In Contempt for or Violation of Magistrate Judge’s Order Sealing FBI
Affidavit; and the Request For Sanctions in the California Senator Ronald
Calderon’s case I came to the conclusion that:
The former United States of America Secretary of Homeland Security Janet
Napolitano and her friend, the former United States of America Attorney
from the Northern District of California Melinda Haag and gangsters from
the University of California are entirely responsible for the destruction of
California Senator Leland Yee’s existence in order to divert attention away
from and thereby protect the University of California’s white collar
criminals who are responsible for more serious crimes.
The California Senator Yee was molested for three years by FBI until he
was attached to some Chinese gang from the San Francisco Bay Area to
make him criminal and to make him disappear from California’s political
arena. It took the FBI almost three full years to take the 65-year-old
Californian Senator Yee down.
The FBI converted $70,000 of Leland Yee’s debts from the San Francisco
Mayoral campaign into bribery, racketeering, money laundering, firearms,
and dealings with a terrorist organization in the Philippines, resulting in a
five-year prison term. It is unbelievable what the FBI is capable of. Even
former Speaker of the House Hon. Nancy Pelosi did not believe that it
could be true after Senator Yee was arrested and the Affidavit of Special
Agent Emmanuel V. Pascua in support of the complaint against Senator
- 23 -
Request to Expedite
Leland was unsealed two days after it was sealed and was then published to
discredit, humiliate, and prejudice the senator.
My two court cases and the California State Bar complaint against Douglas
Stein are part of a broader issue, and the corrupted California State Bar
personnel have no desire to see the complaint case against Douglas Stein
resolved due to the apparent discovery by State Bar Investigator Amanda
Gormley in September 2015 that Douglas Stein, together with University of
California counsel Michael Pott , attempted to bribe the Sacramento
County Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown. I described their criminal
conduct in my 30-page complaint letter to Sacramento County Superior
Court Presiding Judge Hon. Kevin Culhane, which I believe I sent to your
office by fax in August 2016. I have no other explanation as to why my
complaint and the California State Bar Investigator disappeared in October
2015
I am working on the Clemency Petition for the State of California Former

Senator Leland Yee who is incarcerated in Fort Worth, TX, Federal
Correctional Institution, Inmate Register Number: 19629-111. I am hoping
that President Barak Obama, before leaving office, will pardon Leland Yee
and will send him back to his family.
What was done to Leland Yee is like something from George Orwell’s
1984 or Animal Farm or like something from North Korean society with
Kim Jung-Un in charge.
The complaint against Douglas Stein is a small part of the picture related to
Leland Yee’s prosecution, but it is an important part.
I am quite sure of this, and I believe that California Attorney General
Kamala , half of the California government , Assembly Speaker John Perez
and former Senate President pro Tempore Darrel Steinberg are perfectly
aware of what really happened to Leland Yee and why.
CONCLUSION
In the above presented facts related and unrelated to my previous inquiry in which I
asked to Expedite the Reimbursement of Theft, or an Act Equivalent to Theft, Perpetrated by
Attorney Douglas Stein, SBN 131248, I would greatly appreciate the State Bar of California
Executive Intervention with the Client Security Fund Commission to provide me some relief
and refund to me at least some of my financial loss. For now, $1,000 or $2,000 would help
me a lot due to my low Social Security income, my health condition, and my age. To earn
any other income anywhere is impossible.
- 24 -
Request to Expedite
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
CC:
California Governor Hon. Gavin Newsom
State Auditor office .
California Legislature
U.S Attorney General
- 25 -
Request to Expedite
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-817-7080
September 19, 2018
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman

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

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

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

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

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

RECEIVED INDICATES YOU WERE HEAVILY INVOLVED
IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE'S RESPONSE TO
2
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS AFTER THE ENRON
SCANDAL. IS THAT ACCURATE?
01:40:34 RIGHT, SO YOU KNOW ENRON WAS ONE OF THE

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

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

(https://www.paloaltou.edu/faculty-directory), Professor Christine Blasey Ford is a PhD,
but her employee email and her office phone number is not listed like other employees’.
It is unusual. At this point I am not sure if Ms. Ford is employed by PAU or if she is
solely employed by Stanford University, where she is listed under
4
https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/christine-blasey. No phone or email is listed under Ms.
Ford’s profile at Stanford University.
The Santa Clara County Superior Court has records of lawsuits with the names Christine
Blasey and Christine Blasey Ford.
IV. PRESIDENT OF PALO ALTO UNIVERSITY DR. MAUREEN O’CONNOR

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

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

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

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

Letter To Karen Kidd-Witch Hunt Aimed at Polish Immigrant and U.S Supreme Court Justice Hon. Brett Kavanaugh

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

Letter To Karen Kidd-Witch Hunt Aimed at Polish Immigrant and U.S Supreme Court Justice Hon. Brett Kavanaugh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-

BY TRE POLISH COMMUNIST SECRET POLICE

ON DECEMBER 13, 1981 JANUARY 2009

Cl) •4_ into by and between JAROS&AW(JE R RY) WASCtJç (reaftr

nazwisko i iiui . wzczjjc Jarost&w . . . .

Il IS(.)N L'NA Iii I( )tU'/.I I ) ( )N P1()11IiUL iinina i'odzicôw ,...,And

tg_ I miejsce zaniieszkania . Dolne ul. Pioniersca. 9/14

Pattwa i perz4dku pb1icznego w czagie obowiqzywania stanu wojemnego

Following a two-day 4ea6ng in November 2008 t conir1er Mr.

, * t ho' 'i u a u ;i n i ' ii I IIiIdical cnc

k S 10 sa a;i9 fli Subseq U

II. Mi'. Wft%ZCZIJk is KU11 Ircasing on 1Jnivt.riiy oF ('iIiIniit Davis pIopertit, q

October 10, 2019

Via Electronic Mail

Karen Kidd, Reporter

Dear Ms. Kidd:

A few days ago as I was working on my wrongful termination lawsuit, which I

Consequently, I submitted a Petition for Rehearing to 3DCA on January 11,

I am quite convinced that if I had agreed on July 29, 2019 to withdraw my

It was not a coincidence that a new FBI Director, Robert Mueller,

In conclusion, I would like to quote my statement from the PETITIONER’S

Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk

October 10, 2019

Via Priority U.S Mail

Hon. Shelleyanne W. L. Chang

Hon. Vance W. Raye, Presiding Justice

Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye

Dear Justice Raye and Cantil-Sakauye,

My unemployment benefits were most likely intercepted and stolen by my attorney,

Plaintiff and Appellant in the above captioned case

October 10, 2019

Ashante L. Norton, SBN 203836, Deputy Attorney General,

Subject: Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment

Dear Ms. Norton:

THEREFORE, THE COURT ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND

The judgment is affirmed. THE REGENTS OF THE

From: Douglas Stein [mailto : desguire 1962 (hotmail. com]

Forgive my seeming ignorance. I did not mean to sound threatening

Re: Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment

Hon. Shelleyanne W. L. Chang- by U.S Priority Mail

Hon. Vance W. Raye, Presiding Justice -by U.S Priority Mail

Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye

Greg Williams, Deputy Director- by U.S Priority Mail

Michael W. Pott by e-mail- mpott@csac-eia.org; gdean@csac-eia.org

Douglas L. Ropel- by e-mail- dropel@porterscott.com; lmichel@littler.com

Daniel Bardzell by e-mail - dbardzellporterscott.com

Charles F. Robinson, UCOP General Counsel by e-mail:

May 25, 2014

Dear Sir or Madam:

Request for clarification-EDD

Jar law Waszczuk

Mail Date: 0511412014

EDD TELEPHONE NUMBERS:

NOTICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIM FILED

I. Your last employer was: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

5. You are able and available to accept full-time work..

6. You have the legal right to work in the United States

DE11O1cLMT Rev. 6(3-13) CU

'-.. Employment EDD Web-Cert

This page has a summary of your claim history.

Beginning Ending Weeks Status

State Bar -Exhibit # 127-Page #7

Write numbers like (b) $342 58