11-14-2022-California Commission On Judicial - Performanace - Request For Intervention

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
Email: jjw1980@live.com
November 10, 2022
Via Fax and US Priority Mail
Michele Kem
Secretary to Trial Counsel
State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102
NOVEMBER 1, 2022 COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

SECRETARY TO STAFF COUNSEL MARY HARVEY’s LETTER
Re: The Court of Appeal Third Appellate District (3DCA) Case No. C095488 -
Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al.
Appeal from the Judgment After an Order Granting a Summary
Judgment Motion October 28, 2021. Hon. Christopher Krueger -The
Sacrament Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California Case No. 34-2013-
00155479
Dear Ms. Kem:
On October 14, 2022, I alerted the Commission on Judicial Performance via fax of my
latest unusual experiences with the two Sacramento Courts (Superior court and 3DCA) staff
related to my pending appeal in a wrongful termination lawsuit against the University of
California (UC) administrators from the UC Office of the President (UCOP) or UC Regents
in general.
Case No. 34-2013-00155479 was filed nine years ago, on December 4, 2013, and
has not been resolved. The Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b), mandates
the dismissal of actions not brought to trial within five years after a complaint is filed;
1
Response to CJP letter dated 11/1/2022- Mary Harvey
however, it was not the intention or desire of the Sacramento Courts or UC administrators’
attorneys from Porter Scott to try the case because millions of dollars tax evasion and fraud
committed by UC white collar criminals and because of my other case, which is a Writ Of
Mandamus case regarding my stolen unemployment insurance benefits in 2014 -Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and the Regents
of the University of California as the Real Party in Interest (RPii), Case No. 34-2013-
80001699-CUWMGDS, 3DCA Case No. 079254, the Supreme Court of California Case
Nos. S253713 & S245879, was filed on December 2, 2013.
NOVEMBER 1, 2022 LETTER TO THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE SECRETARY TO STAFF COUNSEL MARY HARVEY
On November 4. 2022, I received a letter dated November 1, 2022 from the

Commission of Judicial Performance (“Commission”) Secretary to Staff Counsel Mary
Harvey. It stated (Attachment #1):
Dear Jaroslaw Waszczuk:
We have read your communication. It does not pertain to the work of the
Commission on Judicial Performance, which is responsible for handling
complaints against California state court judges for judicial misconduct.
Your complaint concerns court personnel. This commission has no

jurisdiction over court personnel.
Mary Harvey
Secretary to Staff Counsel
Six years earlier, on August 24, 2016, Ms. Harvey sent me a similar letter which stated:
(Attachment #2)
August 24, 2016
Mr. Jaroslaw Waszczuk 2216

Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
2
We have read your communication. Your complaint concerns the
conduct of the court clerks. The Commission has no jurisdiction over
the court personnel. You may wish to write to the presiding judge of
that court, who is authorized to receive complaints about court
personnel. The address is:
Honorable Kevin R. Culhane
Sacramento County Superior Court
720 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Very truly yours,
Mary Harvey
Secretary to Staff Counsel

The August 24, 2016 and November 1, 2022 letters from Ms. Harvey are almost
identical, with the exception of her signature. The 2016 letter was hand-signed in blue ink,
while the 2022 letter signature was generated by computer. I appreciate the Commission’s
staff noticing my complaints but would appreciate it even more if the Commission staff were
to take my complaints more seriously.
In 2016, in addition to complaints against court staff members, I submitted a
complaint to the Commission against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne
W. L. Chang, who presided over Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board (CUIAB) and the Regents of the University of California as the Real Party in
Interest (RPii), Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS from March 2014 through April
2015. This 3DCA Case, No. 079254, and Supreme Court of California Case Nos. S253713 &
S245879, were filed on December 2, 2013. The writ of mandate was filed in the wrong
County Superior Court, so Judge Chang should not have touched the stolen unemployment
insurance benefits case . The Case was filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, instead
of San Joaquin County Superior Court, by my former drug-addicted and financially
devastated attorney, Douglas Stein, who was disbarred in January 2020.
Judge Chang was the second judge after, David I. Brown, from Sacramento County
Superior Court, to participate in the cover-up of the theft of my unemployment insurance
3
benefits, which were wrongfully denied by the EDD in January 2013. The corrupt EDD
decision was affirmed by Judge Chang’s friend, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from
the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board , Marilyn Tays, in February 2013 but
was reinstated on May 14, 2014 after my multiple complaints in 2013–2014 against ALJ
Tays and three other CUIAB members, which were submitted to the EDD and CUIAB
executives, Then my unemployment insurance benefits were stolen from me after were
reinstated . Since then, the theft of my unemployment insurance benefits has been
consequently and in a coordinated action covered up by judges and staff from the Sacramento
County Superior Court; the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District and attorneys from the
California Attorney General’s Office; the California State Bar Staff, UC administrators; and
at least 15 crooked former and present attorneys from the Porter Scott Law firm and attorneys
from Horvitz and Levy.
These stolen benefits are a lot of money for me, especially after they were reinstated
more than eight years ago by the EDD in May 2014. Since 2013, I have been living on a
small $ 1600 Social Security pension since 2013 because UC white collar criminals
devastated my life because they thought or somebody wrongfully advise them that I will
blow whistle on them for selling illegally electricity from plant I worked in the UC Davis
Medical Center . I did not have any intention to deal with UC white collars crime
whatsoever. I just wanted to work and retire in 2017 at age of 66.
Section 1142(a) of the UI Code] says:
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 beside the daily
compound interest for more than 8 years from the stolen amount.
The separation issue outlined in the above Section 1142(a) of the UI Code was and
still is major issue with the material facts in connection to the my employment wrongful
termination . The UC Davis Medical Center Manager Phillis Reginelli interviewed by the
4
EDD in January 2013 testified that my employment was terminated on August 31, 2011 (I
was on stress-related sick leave on that day), but the notice of termination I received almost
1.5 years on December 7, 2012 after I was terminated showed a date of August 31, 2012. I
never was allowed to return to work after August 31, 2012. The Phillis Reginelli’s
disclosure about my termination was true . This was most likely a major factor, in addition to
my outstanding employee record for the 12 years of my employment with UC Davis Medical
Center, that led CUIAB investigator Chief Counsel Kim Steinhardt conclusion that my
unemployment benefits being reinstated by the EDD on May 14, 2014 after the case was
investigated by the CUIAB Chief Counsel Kim Steinhardt (Attachment # 2)
Obviously, my former employer the University of California office of the General

Counsel was the first or second who received the news in 2014 that my unemployment
insurance benefits was reinstated then the next was the California Attorney General Office
Deputy Ashante Norton who represented the CUIAB in Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and the Regents of the University of
California as the Real Party in Interest (RPii), Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS
3DCA Case No. 079254, and Supreme Court of California Case No. S253713 & S245879.
MY NOVEMBER 10, 2022 REQUEST FOR THE COMMISSION’S INTERVENTION

INTO MY APPEAL OF 3DCA CASE NO. C095488
With this letter, I am submitting to the Commission a complaint titled REQUEST FOR
INTERVENTION in which I am chronologically explaining what happened to my litigation
in my two cases shortly before and after the Commission’s Secretary to Staff Counsel Mary
Harvey advised me on August 24, 2016 to make a complaint with Sacramento County
Superior Court Presiding Judge Hon. Kevin R. Culhane. You can read in my Request for
Intervention concerning Judge Culhane and his former law partner, Thomas Riordan (pages 3
& 45, Attachment #2).
As I pointed out in the conclusion of my Request for Intervention, on pp. 52 & 53, the
presented chronological facts, backed up by 74 attached documents, shows indisputably that
5
in 2015–2016, and six years later, in 2021–2022, the unemployment insurance benefits stolen
from me in 2014 became a key factor for some judges and justices and collaborating staff to
endlessly and unlawfully drag out the litigation in my wrongful termination Case No. 34-
2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, which
was filed on December 4, 2013. They did this to protect white collar criminals from the
University of California and their collaborators from different entities, among other reasons.
I do not believe that the Courts’ staff (clerks, court reporters, research attorneys, etc.)
have any personal interest in manipulating Court Records on Appeal, prejudice, bias,
discrimination, and malicious interference in the appeal proceedings to derail my appeals and
end my litigation against the corrupt administrators from the UC. It must be a broader
problem in the Sacramento Courts, and that is why I am asking the Commission to investigate
this. It could be a friendship between a judge and attorney who is representing a client, as
happened in my case, where Judge David I. Brown has a 20-year friendship with my former
attorney, Douglas E. Stein (who was disbarred in January 2020). Former judges have
employment relationships with Sacramento County Superior Court judicial officers; Judges
Christopher E. Krueger, Shelleyanne W.L Chang; and Jennifer K. Rockwell; former 3DCA
Chief Justice Raye Vance; former Justice M Kathleen Butz; and Justice Elena J. Duarte.
There could also be family ties, as Judge Krueger’s wife, Kristine L. Burks, is employed in
3DCA as a senior research attorney (sources: The Robing Room and LinkedIn).
YOUR LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 (ATTACHED)

In your September 16, 2021 letter, you advised me as follows:
To give you some information about the process, each complaint about a
judge is voted upon by the commission. When a complaint states facts
which could be misconduct, if the facts are true and there is not another
explanation for what happened, the commission typically opens an
investigation. The commission's staff will interview witnesses, review
documents or files and conduct other investigation. If there is sufficient
evidence, supporting the complaint, the judge will be contacted and
6
asked to respond to the allegations. The commission then reviews the
available evidence, and the judge's response if the judge was contacted,
to make a determination whether misconduct has occurred. Misconduct
must be established by clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard
than is required in civil cases but lower than in criminal cases. If the
evidence does not support a finding of misconduct, the commission will
close the case. The commission may also close the case if the
misconduct was relatively minor and the judge has acknowledged the
problem and taken steps to prevent it from happening again. If the
evidence supports a finding of misconduct and the commission
determines that discipline may be appropriate, the commission may
proceed to impose discipline.
It may also be helpful to explain that the Commission on Judicial

Performance is not a court. It does not have the authority to reverse a
judge's decision, move your case to another department or court,
disqualify a judge or otherwise get involved in your case. The
commission's role is limited to reviewing allegations of judicial
misconduct. A judge's legal rulings and discretionary decision-making,
without more, are not a basis for review by the commission. Even if a
judge's decision is later determined by an appellate
court to be legally incorrect, that by itself is not a violation of the Code

of Ethics and is not misconduct. A judge's legal error might be a basis
for investigation by this commission if there is sufficient evidence of bad
faith, bias, abuse of authority, disregard for fundamental rights,
intentional disregard of the law or any purpose other than the faithful
discharge of judicial duty.
Lastly, our office is not able to provide legal advice. If you wish to
determine what legal avenues are available to you, you might consider
contacting an attorney or legal services provider to see if they can help
you.
I responded to your letter on October 8, 2021 (Attachment #3) and explained what triggered
my complaint; however, I put on hold any official complaint with the Commission against
judicial officers until after my appeal in 3DCA Case C095488 as fully briefed. The appeal
7
after the order granting a Summary Judgment Motion on October 28, 2021, by Judge
Christopher Krueger, in the Sacramento Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California Case No. 34-2013 00155479, has yet
to be briefed.
The case is not fully briefed, but you can read details about it in my Request for
Intervention, submitted with this letter, explaining why the appeal is not fully briefed. By
reading my Request for Intervention and Attachment No. 74, which is my Appellant
Opening Brief (AOB) filed on October 19, 2022, and after struggling to get the necessary
record on appeal that was deliberately and maliciously in a coordinated action between
Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department and 3DCA staff not produced and
transmitted to the 3DCA, I filed my AOB without having transmitted to 3DCA the Court
Reporter’s Transcript from the September 1, 2021 Court hearing with Judge Christopher
Krueger and the requested court record from the Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and the Regents of the University of
California as the Real Party in Interest (RPii), Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS,
3DCA Case No. 079254, which is basically about my stolen unemployment insurance
benefits.
As you will read, my Request for Intervention shows that my unemployment insurance
benefits Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS and the record on appeal became a key
issue in 3DCA Case No. C079254.
The Sacramento County Superior Court judges and 3DCA justices’ cover-up of the
theft of my unemployment insurance benefits, in collaboration with the UC Regents and
California Attorney General deputies representing the CUIAB, is unprecedented, or perhaps it
is not just my unemployment insurance benefits that were stolen and I am not the only victim
of a crime like this. Stealing unemployment insurance benefits is a serious criminal offense
under both state and federal criminal law.
This letter most likely would not be necessary if, in 2016, the Commission had taken
more seriously my complaint against Judge Chang and the California State Bar’s Executive
Director Elizabeth Rindskopf-Parker, who swept under the rug my complaint against 23
8
attorneys involved in a cover-up of UCOP executives’ white collar crimes. If the State Bar
had not removed in 2015 the investigator Amanda Gormley, who was handling the case
against my former attorney Stein, it would most likely have been known in 2016 how my
unemployment insurance benefits were stolen from me after their reinstatement by the EDD
on May 14, 2014.
THE JUNE 1, 2022 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL

PERFORMANCE DECISION AND ORDER IMPOSING PUBLIC ADMONISHMENTS,
INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF PRESIDING JUSTICE VANCE W. RAYE FROM THE
COURT OF APPEAL’S THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (3DCA)
What happened and is still ongoing in my 3DCA appeal of Case No. C095488, filed
on December 23, 2021, is that the evil of corruption was neither removed nor has vanished
from 3DCA and Sacramento County Superior Court after the Commission investigated
Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye and after Raye was removed by the Commission from
3DCA on June 1, 2022.
Raye’s disciplinary removal from the Appeals Court is not a trivial matter. I see the
Commission’s actions against Raye as a positive step to eradicate the corruption that has
plagued the Sacramento Courts and the State of California’s third branch of government in
general.
By reading the Commission’s June 1, 2022 decision, I learned that, after Justice
Raye’s counsel Edith R. Matthai, and the Commission’s counsel (the “parties”) submitted a
proposed disposition of the matters set forth in the Commission’s staff inquiry letter, dated
November 30, 2020, and a preliminary investigation letter was written, one month later, on
December 31, 2020, the Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Brown resigned from
his post in Department 53.
Brown presided over my wrongful termination case from September 22, 2014
through December 31, 2020. After he resigned, my 70-year-old wife was attacked and
robbed of $22,284 in a coordinated action between Porter Scott attorneys representing the
UC Regents and the judge in Court Department 43, Thadd Blizzard. Blizzard worked with
the court clerks from Departments 43 and Department 53; along with Judge Hakim
9
Mesiwala, and most likely with the involvement of a newly appointed judge, George Acero,
a former Porter Scott attorney and former intern in the UC General Counsel’s office. The
heinous attack against my wife, to frame her for a bench warrant and attempt to rob her of
her life savings, makes me believe that a drug gang/cartel-associated criminals are operating
in Sacramento County Superior Court and preying on vulnerable litigants and their families.
During the now pending appeal Case C095488 , the perpetrators attempted to exclude
Judge Kreuger from the appeal of proceedings and blame the all evil of corruption on Judge
Brown and former Porter Scott attorney Douglas Ropel by manipulating the record on
appeal.
I also noticed that, just two months after the Commission removed Justice Raye from
3DCA, State of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, on July
27, 2022, announced her resignation. Justices Cantil-Sakauye and Raye have known each
other for more than two decades. I remember Justice Raye from the October 19, 1999 Oral
Argument in the 3DCA Case No. Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case C0005, when Raye
did not hesitate to tell the Littler Mendelson attorney Brian Dixon, “You are not here to
teach us law, we know the law. Get to the point and sit down.”
I would greatly appreciate it if the Commission’s Secretary to Trial Counsel would
provide me with information concerning whether former 3DCA Presiding Justice Raye was
placed on investigatory or administrative leave after March 1, 2021 until the Commission’s
investigation was concluded and until he was removed from the post on June 1, 2022. I am
asking for this information because I would like to know whether Raye, after March 1, 2021,
participated in any case reviews, oral arguments, or the issuance of published and
unpublished opinions in between March 1 and June 1, 2022.
By reading the Commission’s June 1, 2022 decision, which removed Justice Raye
from his post, it is hard to believe that Raye was lacking administrative skills, since he had
been employed at 3DCA since 1991. In examining Exhibit #1, attached to the decision, it
looks like 3DCA was lacking the funds to handle so many cases, and Justice Raye was
surrounded by people and saboteurs who wanted to see him go, most likely for political
reasons.
10
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I would like to ask the Secretary to Trial Counsel and the Commission
on Judicial Performance in general to open the March 22, 2016 Complaint against
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Chang, who was assigned on March 21, 2014 to the
Writ of Mandate Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
(CUIAB) and the Regents of the University of California as the Real Party in Interest (RPii),
Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS, 3DCA Case No. 079254. The complaint was
denied by the Commission on May 19, 2016.
A copy of the complaint and the Commission’s decision is attached to the “Request for
Intervention” as Attachment #3.
If I were to write my complaint against Judge Chang today, it would be quite different
from the one I previously submitted. Judge Chang was the second judicial officer after Judge
Brown from Department 53 to cover up the theft of my unemployment insurance benefits,
which were reinstated on May 14, 2014 by the EDD.
Judge Chang should never have presided over this case. The case was filed by my
former attorney in in the wrong court, Sacramento Superior Court, instead of San Joaquin
County Superior Court, in Stockton. Judge Chang’s friend and former coworker from the
California Attorney General’s office, Marylin Tays, on February 13, 2013 conducted an
administrative appeal hearing before the CUIAB in Stockton about the unemployment
insurance benefits wrongfully denied to me by the EDD. I live in Lodi, San Joaquin County,
ten miles from San Joaquin County Superior Court.
The reopening of the March 22, 2016 complaint against Judge Chang is a proposed
alternative in lieu of filing a new complaint with the additional information. If I had known in
2014 and 2015 what I know today, the Court hearing on February 27, 2015 before Judge
Chang would not have taken place. Just before that hearing with Judge Chang, the Porter
Scott attorney who represented the UC Regents made a vicious threat aimed at my wife,
stating that the UC Regents or UC administrators would go after her if I did not drop my
litigation against the UC Regents. The threats were repeated by another Porter Scott attorney
11
in August 2017 in the 3DCA building, and then in April 2021-July2021 she was ambushed
by the UC administrators’ thugs in conspiracy and collaboration with Sacramento County
Superior Court judicial officers and clerks to seize her bank account containing her life
savings.
Alternatively, I could file in 3DCA a Motion to Recall the Remittitur in the Case
C079254; however, it would be futile to file such a motion, based on my prior experience
with this case and taking into consideration what is going with my present appeal in Case No.
C095488. I also believe that it is unnecessary and futile to file a motion where the cover-up of
unemployment insurance benefits theft is being allowed by the judicial officers. It is more
feasible to investigate the theft by EDD Special Counsel McGregor Scott, appointed by the
EDD on July 21, 2021, to crack down on and prosecute unemployment insurance benefits
fraud. The District Attorney and FBI are another option that I could use in addition to making
a complaint against Judge Chang. I was trying to find out from the EDD’s legal and public
records departments who cashed my stolen unemployment insurance benefits, but the EDD is
silent and is not anxious to disclose who cashed my reinstated unemployment insurance
benefits by EDD on May 14, 2014.. Now, I am awaiting information from Wells Fargo Bank
whether my former attorney, Douglas Stein has anything to do with my stolen unemployment
insurance benefits and weather he is the one who took the money and eventually used the
Wells Fargo Special Account opened in June 2014 to hold my retainer to cash my
unemployment insurance and short-term disability benefits in 2014. The State Bar of
California investigators knows about this, In re Stein, No. S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018). I
should hear from Wells Fargo Bank within one week (see
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/131248).
In addition to the above, based on your September 16, 2021 letter concerning what the
Commission on Judicial Performance can and cannot do, the Compendium Judicial
Misconduct Involving Self-Represented Litigants and applicable state and federal law, my
complaints will follow this letter against the Sacramento County Superior Court Judges for
12
their misconduct and conspiracy against me and my wife at the hands of Judges Christopher
E. Krueger, Jennifer K. Rockwell, George Acero, and Thadd A. Blizzard and 3DCA Justice
Elena J. Duarte.
I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Respectfully Submitted on November 10, 2022
_____________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Enclosed :
1. Inquiry titled Request for Intervention with 74 attachments on Flash Drive and DVD sent
on 11/10/2022 by the U.S Priority Mail .
CC: State Bar of California Executives
13
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:07 #PM
126-Page # 2
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:07 #PM
126-Page # 3
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:07 #PM
126-Page # 4
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:07 #PM
126-Page # 5
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:07 #PM
126-Page # 6
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:07 #PM
126-Page # 7
3/23/2016
State Bar -Exhibit
10:09:07 #PM
126-Page # 8
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-729-5154
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
November 10, 2022
State of California
Commission On Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102
Hon. Ronald B. Robie

Acting Administrative Presiding Justice
Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall
Hon. Michael G. Bowman

Presiding Judge
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of Sacramento
720 9th Street
REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION
Re: Sacramento County Superior Court—Writ of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013-80001699,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real
Party of Interest (RPii)—The Regents of the University of California (UC Regents), filed on
December 2, 2013, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Case No. C0792543D,
Remittitur Issued on March 25, 2019
Re: Sacramento Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California filed on December 4, 2013
The Court of Appeal Third Appellate District -Waszczuk v. Regents Of The University Of
California et al., No. C095488
To Whom It May Concern:
-1-
11-10-2022-Commission on Judicial Performance – Request for Intervention
I. INTRODUCTION
I am the self-represented plaintiff and appellant in the above-captioned case before the Court
of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA). Through this inquiry, I respectfully request that the
Commission on Judicial Performance, hereafter “Commission,” intervene directly with 3DCA’s
Acting Administrative Presiding Justice, Hon. Ronald B. Robie, and the Presiding Judge of the
Sacramento County Superior Court, Hon. Michael G. Bowman, and provide to them directly (not via
Court Clerk delivery) a copy of this complaint.
Below, I have detailed the events surrounding this appeal, and my cases in general, which
have been pending for almost nine years. My litigations in State of California Courts is
unprecedented example of denying equal access to justice, the promotion of discrimination and bias,
an extreme beyond imagination prejudice toward self-represented litigants. It lead to ill orchestrated
and criminally minded attacks aimed at my wife. It makes me believe that I am eventually dealing
with drug-related gangs involving Sacramento Courts staff. Since 2016 I alerted the Commission
about these crimes on many occasions which involve the University of California administrators
attorneys from Porter Scott and judges and clerks from the Sacramento County Superior Court Dept.
43 in coordinated actions with Departments 53 and 54 and the Court of Appeal , Third Appellate
District justices and staff (Attachment #1).
For now, I am just asking the Commission to intervene and provide my complaint to directly
to Judge Robie, in 3CDA, and to Judge Bowman, of the Sacramento County Superior Court
On August 30, 2016, per the advice of Commission of Judicial Performance Secretary to
Staff Counsel Mary Harvey letter which stated : (Attachment # 2)
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
We have read your communication. Your complaint concerns the conduct of
the court clerks. The Commission has no jurisdiction over the court personnel.
You may wish to write to the presiding judge of that court, who is authorized
to receive complaints about court personnel. The address is:
Honorable Kevin R. Culhane
Sacramento County Superior Court 720 Ninth Street
Very truly yours,
Mary Harvey
-2-
Secretary to Scaff Counsel
I sent a complaint letter titled the “EVIL OF CORRUPTION” to the Sacramento County
Superior Court Presiding Judge Hon. KEVIN R. CULHANE .(See :Attachment # 2)
I never heard a word back from Judge CULHANE. Most likely, he never received my letter or,
because he is a former law partner of the Porter Scott attorney Thomas Riordan, who represents
the UC Regents, alongside other Porter Scott attorneys. Riordan has quite a record with the State
Bar in California; he was also employed as research attorney in 3DCA (see In re Riordan, 26
Cal.4th 1235 (Cal. 2002), https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/104827).
Riordan resurfaced on September 1, 2021 with a Motion for Summary Judgment during a 10-
minute Court Hearing before Judge Christopher Krueger from Department 54. He has a history with
manipulating Court Records on Appeal, prejudice, bias, discrimination, and malicious interference in
appeal proceedings. His actions of 2016 repeated themselves in 2022 in Waszczuk v. Regents of the
University of California et al., No. C095488; thus, I am asking the Commission on Judicial
Performance to provide this complaint directly to Justice Robie and Judge Bowman via a secure
channel without any third-party involvement. There is no other way to deliver this complaint to them.
II.
THE STOLEN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS- WASZCZUK V. CALIFORNIA
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, 3DCA CASE NO. C079254, THE
PATTERN OF DISCRIMINATION, BIAS, CONSPIRACY, ABUSE OF POWER AND
DISCRETION, MANIPULATION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL, AND INTERFERENCE
WITH APPEAL PROCESS.
A. RECORD ON APPEAL
On June 22, 2015, I filed an Appellant’s Notice Designating Record on Appeal (Notice) in a
timely manner, which was docketed in the Court of Appeal on June 25, 2015. In this, I clearly
marked the box requesting that the clerk transmit the record of the administrative proceeding to the
reviewing court, under Court Rule 8.23. By the notice, I requested that two binders of the
Administrative Record from the California Unemployment Insurance Board, including binders with
the Administrative Record from the Employment Development Department (EDD), Case No. 0410
BYB, dated 12/16/2012; California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB), Case No.
-3-
4729869, dated 01/15/2013; and the California Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB), Case No. AO-
30198805, dated 03/11/2013.
On October 28, 2015, I sent an inquiry to the Superior Court Clerk from the Appeal Unit to
determine the status of the Clerk Transcript and the Court Reporter Status documents’ preparation.
Since filing the Notice Designating Record on Appeal, I had not received any notification from the
clerk, so I became concerned that something was wrong. My inquiries were docketed in the Court of
Appeals on October 29, 2015. Afterward, the Court Clerk informed me that I had to pay $325 for a
court reporter’s transcript. I sent $325 to the Court, together with a letter that was docketed in the
Court of Appeal on November 18, 2015.
On January 20, 2016, the Superior Court clerk from the Appeal Unit filed the Notice of
Filing of Designation Record on Appeal and Notice to Reporters to Prepare Transcripts, with a due
date of February 22, 2016. It took seven months—from June 22, 2015, when I filed the Appellant
Notice Designating Record on Appeal—for the Superior Court clerk from Appeals to file the notice
to prepare one volume of the 284-page clerk transcript and one volume of the 12-page court
reporter’s transcript.
On March 22, 2016, I submitted a Complaint to the Commission on Judicial Performance
against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang (Attachment # 3). If I
was writing my complaint against Judge Chang today, it would be a lot different than it was in 2016.
On March 24, 2016, I sent a letter to the clerk of the Superior Court, Appellate Unit and
informed the Court clerk that both transcripts were more than 30 days late for transmittal to the
Appellate Court. Furthermore, the court record shows that no request for extended time was
submitted to the Court of Appeal prior the due date, as mandated by law and Court Rule 8.122 (d).
On April 6, 2016, I filed an Appellant’s Motion for Sanction to Compel Compliance,
pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.23. As the authority in this Motion, I cited People v.
Grimes, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 787, 172 Cal. App. 4th 121 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 03/16/2009), where the court
held:
The superior court clerk must “promptly mail” to the Court of Appeal notification of the filing
of a notice of appeal (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(c)(1); further rule references are to these
rules). “The failure of a court reporter or clerk to perform any duty imposed by statute or
-4-
these rules that delays the filing of the appellate record is an unlawful interference with the
reviewing court’s proceedings....” (Id., rule 8.23).
In the same case, the Court reminded the parties and clerks in lower courts of what could happen and
how grave consequences could result from the failure of a clerk to perform his/her duties:
In 1935, the mishandling of a timely notice of appeal resulted in defendant Rush Griffin’s
execution before his appeal could be heard. The ensuing furor led to the “automatic” appeal
procedure now employed in capital cases (See People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 550,
566–567).
On April 13, 2016, the Record on Appeal was transmitted from the Superior Court to the
Court of the Appeal and was filed. However, the filed Record on Appeal included the Administrative
Proceeding Record, which I requested in my Appellant Notice Designating Record on Appeal. The
Administrative Proceeding Record, which contains almost 1,000 pages, is the most important record
in this appeal.
The Administrative Proceeding Record did not require preparation and should have been
transmitted and filed in the Court of Appeal within 30 days from the date I filed my Appellant Notice
Designating Record on Appeal, on June 25, 2015.
On April 14, 2016, I was left without any choice but to file another motion with a request to
mandate the Superior Court Clerk from the Appeal Unit to fulfill his duty and transmit the requested
Administrative Proceeding Record (Attachment #4). My Motion was denied on the same day by
3DCA Chief Justice VANCE RAYE.
On April 15, 2016, the day after I filed my motion, the Administrative Record was
transmitted to the Court of Appeal. I never received any explanation for why I was being treated this
way in the Sacramento County Superior Court while paying for the service.
On July 8, 2016, I addressed my problems with the 3DCA administration in relation to my
two appeals pending in 3DCA in a letter addressed to Commission of Judicial Performance Chairman
HON. ERICA R. YEW (Attachment #5). The letter read, in part:
I am hopelessly trying to survive at my age and with my health condition due

to devastation of my and my family's life as a result of the lawlessness and
uncontrolled corruption at the University of California, state agencies, and the
discrimination and bias beyond imagination against me in the California
courts—the very courts where I have two pending cases against ruthless white-
collar criminals from the University of California.
-5-
Enclosed is copy of my July 8, 2016 letter addressed to Deena C.
Fawcett, Clerk/Administrator of the Court of Appeals, 3rd Appellate
District, for your review and consideration.
On August 11, 2016, I submitted an inquiry to the 3DCA Clerk Anita Kenner regarding my
Appellant Opening Brief (AOB) stating
Dear Clerk,
I am concerned why my Appellant's Opening Brief in the above captioned case
which I submitted to the Court on July 22, 2016 was not filed yet?
Yesterday the Real Party of Interest attorney from Porter/Scott asked me for
stipulation to extend the time to file Respondent 's Brief. I declined the Real
Party of Interest request for the stipulation because it took almost one year to
transfer the Record on Appeal from Superior Court to the Court of
Appeal for unknown to me reason. The case should be decided already. I
view this fact as the despicable interference with judicial process and it is very
harmful to my case and my wellbeing and is harmful to the public in general.
Furthermore. I am not sure not why Defendant and Respondent the California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is not asking for extension of time but
the Real Party In Interest is making such inquiry.
I appreciate if the Court let me know why the Appellant's Opening Brief was
not filed yet.
On August 21, 2016, I submitted a letter to the California Supreme Court Chief Justice HON.
TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE entitled: (Attachment #6)
“REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION
THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND THE EVIL OF CORRUPTION IN THE SACRAMENTO
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, THE COURT OF APPEAL THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR.”
In my letter, I addressed the State Bar of California investigation against my former attorney,
Douglas Stein, who stole my retainer in 2014 and the record on appeal in my two 3DCA appeals,
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/131248, In re Stein, No. S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1,
-6-
2018). The stolen retainer was partially reimbursed on August 8, 2019 by the State Bar of California
Client Security Fund (Attachment # 7). Stein’s addiction to drugs and gambling, his unbelievably
difficult financial situation, and his 20-year friendship with Sacramento County Superior Court
DAVID I. BROWN from Department 53 were mercilessly and unscrupulously used by the Porter
Scott attorney who represented UC Regents in 2014–2019 to destroy my litigation in exchange for
covering up Stein’s misconduct, including the disappearance of my unemployment insurance benefits
which had been denied and then reinstated by the EDD on May 14, 2014.
On August 26, 2016, I received a letter from State Bar of California Executive Director
Elizabeth Rindskop-Parker regarding my complaints. I replied to Ms. Rindskop-Parker’s
concerns on September 1, 2016 (Attachment #8).
B. THE STOLEN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS - MOTION

FOR TRANSFER THE CAUSES
On December 1, 2017, I filed in 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] (Attachment #9).
I saw no reason to pursue my appeal further in 3DCA after the Court issued it 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 3DCA Presiding
Justice VANCE RAYE denied the Petition for Rehearing on November 9, 2017. The Motion for
Transfer the Causes in 3DCA Case No. C079254 [Supreme Court Case No. S245879] and
Petition for Review in 3DCA Case No. C079254 [Supreme Court Case No. S245508] were
denied on the same day by Supreme Court Chief Justice TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE’S rubber
stamp on January 10, 2018 (Attachment #10).
C. THE STOLEN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS-
DECEMBER 12,2018 ORAL ARGUMENT IN COURT OF APPEAL
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
-7-
One year later, on December 12, 2018, I arrived from Lodi, CA to the 3DCA Building in
Sacramento to argue unemployment insurance benefits which were reinstated by EDD on May 14,
2014 but thereafter stolen and vanished. For the oral arguments on that day, I brought with me as a
witness and for security purposes my former coworker from the UC Davis Medical Center and good
friend, WILLIAM BUCKANS.
I also brought for the oral arguments the six hard copies of the Employment Development
Department’s (EDD) May 14, 2014 NOTICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
(Attachment #11), which reinstated my UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS to show
for the panel of 3DCA Justices, ELENA J. DUARTE(still working) COLE BLEASE (now retired),
and M. KATHLEEN BUTZ (now retired), that this appeal and oral argument should not take place.
When I removed from by briefcase the May 14, 2014 EDD Notice of the reinstated unemployment
insurance benefits and offered to show them to the panel, 3DCA Justice DUARTE became
belligerent, unpleasant, and attempted together with the UC Regents’ attorney from Porter Scott,
David Burkett, to bully me.
The Respondents’ legal counsel, California Attorney General Deputy ASHANTE
NORTON, who represented the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB),
did not appear for the Oral Arguments at all. It apparently did not matter that CUIAB’s legal
counsel did not file a Respondent Brief or appear. The evil of corruption was served justice on
that day and, instead of receiving my stolen unemployment insurance, 3DCA Justice DUARTE
slandered me with an unpublished opinion two weeks later, on December 27, 2018, legitimizing
the THEFT OF MY BENEFITS (Attachment #11, Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins.
Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018).
C. THE STOLEN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS -PETITION FOR

REVIEW - CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASE NO.S25371
On January 23, 2019, I submitted Appellant's Petition for Review after the decision by the
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, C079254, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board (filed on 01/29/2019).
-8-
In my cover letter attached to the Petition for Review, I described the December 12, 2018 Oral
Argument in the 3DCA Building as follows (Attachment #12):
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 Waszczuk’s life and livelihood by UC Regents
and their collaborators. Burkett knew that Waszczuk was stressed due
to financial hardship caused by his client's criminal behavior; he
thought that his attacks against my spouse would easily provoke a
confrontation. Sadly, this encounter was my second time experiencing
such shameful tactics in the court building. It is a second time
Waszczuk experienced such Defendants attorney behavior. It happened
before in 2015, prior to the court hearing with presiding Judge
Shelleyane Chang in the unemployment benefits Writ of Mandamus
case in which UC Regents is party as a Real Party In Interest( RPii.)
UC legal counsel and UC administrators must be very desperate if they
resort to using such tactics. Trying to provoke the opposing party into a
physical confrontation in an area heavily trafficked by sheriffs deputies
and city police is either very foolish or very underhanded
-9-
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 the corrupted judicial officers.
In my Petition for Review (Attachment # 13), I further expressed my feelings about the justice I
received in 3DCA in two cases and about 3DCA Justice DUARTE’s behavior:
https://www.scribd.com/document/403985060/01-29-2019-Petition-for-Review-J-jaroslaw-
Waszczuk-v-CUIAB
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 .
Furthermore, I addressed a Petition for Review to Justices KATHLEEN BUTZ and ELENA
DUARTE as follows:
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. In September 2017, President of the University,
Janet Napolitano, hired Mr. Alexander Bustamante as a new Senior Vice
- 10 -
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
In addition to the December 27, 2018 unpublished opinion on Waszczuk v. Cal.

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) defaming me and
further legitimizing the theft of my unemployment insurance benefits, I found out that, in
October 2019, just after the unpublished opinion was issued, someone employed Karen Kidd, a
reporter from the Northern California Record to slander me on behalf of the UC Office of the
President, which was led at that time by Janet Napolitano, who announced her resignation in
September 2019. I responded to Kidd’s January 7, 2019 article in the Northern California Record
titled “Polish immigrant fired from UC - Davis for misconduct not entitled to unemployment
benefits, appeals court affirms” on October 10, 2019s (Attachment #14).
On March 20, 2019, I received rubber stamp justice from the California Supreme Court’s
Decision under Chief Justice TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, which further legitimized the theft of my
2014 unemployment insurance benefits and to allowed the thieves to remain free and at large
(Attachment #15).
THE MARCH 20, 2019 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT EN BANC DECISION: RE:
STOLEN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS - JAROSLAW WASZCZUK V.
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, THE REGENTS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. S253713
On March 20, 2019, I received the rubber stamped California Supreme Court Decision in
Chief Justice TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE’S name further legitimizing the theft of my
- 11 -
unemployment insurance benefits, which had been reinstated by the EDD May 14, 2014, and
allowing the thieves to remain free and at large (Attachment #16).
After my complaints reached the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate California
Supreme Court in 2015–2018, I was able to pinpoint more precisely the connections between the
UCOP’s corrupt executives and the corrupt staff of state agencies and courts that were running me in
circles and preventing my complaints from being seen by the presiding judge in the Sacramento
County Superior Court, and my motions and petitions from being seen by the Appellate Court
justices. Everything that was reaching the Court of Appeal Third Appellate District was being denied
by court clerks rubber-stamping them as the decisions of Presiding Justice Hon. VANCE RAYE. The
same happened in the Supreme Court. It was not difficult to figure out, but complaining about the
matter to the judges of either court was futile because the complaints went to the same clerks or
judges’ aides in the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District who were forced or coerced to
participate in cover up criminals activities of others. One of clerks who most likely was forced
obstruct access to court was 3DCA Clerk ANITA KENNER
Ms. Kenner handled my appellate cases Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case Nos. C036253
& C030005 in 1999, and it was a different court then. California Supreme Court Deputy Clerk Robert
Toy is another person who, in March 2019, tried badly to convince me that the Supreme Court had
reviewed my cases and denied them both on the same day, January 10, 2018, before denying my
stolen unemployment benefits on March 20, 2019.
III.
THE SHORT-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS DENIED TO ME IN
NOVEMBER 2011 BY LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, IN
COLLABORATION AND CONSPIRACY WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA’S
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
A. MARCH 21, 2019 -THE LETTER-SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FROM

PETTINATO & ASSOCIATES, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
AND INVESTIGATORS
- 12 -
On March 21, 2019, I was surprised to receive a letter-settlement agreement to sign from
PETTINATO & ASSOCIATES, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY CONSULTANTS AND
INVESTIGATORS, based in Sacramento, California (Attachment #16).
The letter arrived one day after my stolen unemployment insurance benefits were bluntly denied
by the California Supreme Court.
The first page of the letter stated:
Reference #: 9062403
Reported Owner: WASZCZUK JAROSLAW J
Reported Address: 524 SWALLOW LANE, LOD1. CA
Pettinato & Associates has uncovered assets owing to the above
referenced reported owner who at one time was associated with the
above reported address. We estimate the value of the assets to be
S4,546.00 and are currently available to claim through our firm. We are
contacting you as our research indicates that you may be the rightful
owner or heir.
Pettinato & Associates is licensed by the California Department of
Consumer Affairs and specializes in reuniting lost assets with its rightful
owner or heir. We are comprised of a knowledgeable staff with over 40
years experience in matters related to unclaimed property. Principals in
our firm include a state licensed attorney and CPA who serves as an
integral resource at resolving issues encountered during the recovery
process. Our experience and expertise ensures that your assets will be
recovered quickly and efficiently. We are committed to minimizing our
client's burden while navigating the bureaucratic recovery process.
We offer our services on a 10% contingency fee basis. There are no up
front fees. We only
become entitled to a fee if your assets are recovered. If there is no
recovery, you are not obligated to us in any manner, period. All expenses
we incur during the recovery process remain our sole responsibility.
To initiate the recovery process, sign the enclosed Agreement. Return
the original to us in the prepaid envelope provided or to start the
recovery process immediately you may fax the signed Agreement to us
at 916.485.3411 or e-mail us a scanned image at: info@passoc.com.
- 13 -
Once we receive the signed Agreement, we will forward a claim form
and customized instructions that explain the recovery process in detail.
Please contact us toll free at 800.540.0089 or visit our website
(www.passoc.com) for further information. Pettinato & Associates has
recovered millions of dollars for thousands of individuals throughout the
country and abroad. Thank you for your consideration and we look
forward to provide you additional assistance.
On page # 2 of the letter under PETTINATO & ASSOCIATES STANDARD
INVESTIGATOR AGREEMENT paragraph # 4 EXCLUSIVITY letter stated :
Claimant agrees to work exclusively with Investigator to recover assets

described herein during the term of this agreement and shall not pursue any
other means to recover the identified account(s).
Under the IDENTIFIED ACCOUNT INFORMATION letter disclosed :
Reported Owner: Reported Address: Reporting Institution: Property ID #:

WASZCZUK JAROSLAW J
524 SWALLOW LANE, LODI CA LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY 998812640
Property Type: 134 - Group Policy Benefits or Claim Payments
Cash/Dividends: $4,546.08
Shares: - 0 shares--
Est. Recovery $4,546.08
A t
What caught my attention was the use of my old home address. In 2012, I lost that home,
which I had bought in 2003, due to due to inhumane and merciless witch hunt of 2005–2012
orchestrated by the University of California Office of the President’s organized white collar
criminals. It resulted in the unlawful termination of my employment in December 2012, at age 61,
and losses of over $1 million in wages and benefits without the possibility of obtaining new
employment. The use of my former home address indicated that LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE
COMPANY OF BOSTON had sent the disclosed amount to the California State Controller’s Office
in 2012, and the Controller’s Office was unable to contact me. The other address on the letter
belonged to my son, George Waszczuk, who lives in Sacramento on Harmon Drive.
- 14 -
I quickly determined that it was not a coincidence that this letter was sent to me the day after
my STOLEN unemployment insurance benefits were denied by the rubber steam with the
California Supreme Chief Justice Tani Cantil -Sakauye on the stamp.
On March 24, 2019, I responded to the letter from PETTINATO & ASSOCIATES via e-
mail, pasting confirmation from the California State Controller’s office indicating that my claim had
been submitted:
From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk <JJW1980@LIVE.COM>

Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 12:06 PM
To: info@pettinato.com
Subject: FW: Confirmation That Your eClaim 16384911 Was Submitted
Dear Mr. Pettinato:
Thank you very much for your tip about the short-term disability money I was
looking for. I was ready to reopen the case with the State Insurance
Commissioner’s office after Liberty became unresponsive. I sent my last
inquiry to them in August 2018. I will send you 10% of the $4,546.08 I will
receive from the State Controller’s Office. I have decided to file the claim on
my own, instead of taking up your expensive time. To make a long story short,
this claim is attached to a wrongful termination lawsuit against the Regents of
the University of California, and I don’t want to drag you into the mess. I am
representing myself in several different matters against the UC. I have other
similar lost property, including my unemployment insurance benefits, which
disappeared in May 2014. If you would like to look into that, it would be
worth $20,000 plus interest from May 2014 and all penalties due to me,
because my employer provided false information to the Employment
Development Department about the termination of my employment.
[Section 1142(a) of the UI Code] says:
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.
A third claim is pending in the U.S. Tax court and is worth around $100–200
million. A big law firm from LA misrepresented me, and the lawyers who were
supposed to represent me panicked and took off after I updated my claim in
August 2018 (see attachment).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
- 15 -
Best Regards and, once again, thank you for the information about my lost
short-term disability claim. Bizarre stuff.
Jerry Waszczuk
From: Unclaimed Property <Donotreply.UnclaimedProperty@sco.ca.gov>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 4:47 PM
To: JJW1980@LIVE.COM
Subject: Confirmation That Your eClaim 16384911 Was Submitted
Your eClaim ID 16384911 has been successfully submitted and is being

processed for the following property:
Property ID Number: 998812640

Reported Owner: WASZCZUK JAROSLAW J
Type of Property: GROUP POLICY BENEFITS OR CLAIM
Cash Reported: $4,546.08
Reported By: LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
If we need further information, a representative from our office will contact

you. Otherwise, your payment should be issued within 14 days and mailed to
the current mailing address that you provided. You may check the status of
your claim by clicking on the following link:
https://ucpi.sco.ca.gov/UCP/ClaimStatusSearch.aspx.
Please note that it may take 7 to 10 days for your claim status to be updated on
our website.
If you have any questions, please contact our office at (800) 992-4647
(Nationwide) or (916) 323-2827 (Outside of US).
- 16 -
I never heard anything more from PETTINATO & ASSOCIATES, but a few weeks later, I
recovered my unclaimed property in the amount of $4,546.08 from the State of California’s
Office of the Controller.
B. THE STOLEN RETAINER MONEY -THE MARCH 29, 2019 INQUIRY

WITH THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
On March 29, 2019, I submitted to State Bar of California General Counsel Vanessa Holton and
Senior Trial Counsel Rachel S. Grunberg a follow-up letter regarding the retainer stolen in 2014
by my former attorney, Douglas Stein: (Attachment #17):
The letter was titled
Subject: Request for Review-Additional Information and Documents -The
Missing 2014 Unemployment Insurance Benefits and the 2011 Short Term
Disability Insurance Benefits UC President Janet Napolitano, her friends and
$175 million in dirty cash
RE: INQUIRY NUMBER 18-31694

RESPONDENT: DANIEL J. BARDZELL – SB #313993
RE: INQUIRY NUMBER 18-31693

RESPONDENT: DAVID P. E. BURKETT – SB #241896
Subject: Reimbursement of Theft or an Act Equivalent to Theft Perpetrated by

Attorney Douglas Stein, SB #131248
Re: State Bar of California Case No.15-O-10110- LMA [18-F-16299]
Re: California Supreme Court Case S245982, In re: Douglas Edward Stein on
Discipline
Re: State Bar Court Case Nos. 18-0-16529; 18-N-16452 In the Matter of Douglas
Edward Stein SBN 131248
The original inquiries were sent to State Bar of California General Counsel Vanessa Holton and
Senior Trial Counsel Rachel S. Grunberg on March 20, 2019, the same day the California Supreme
Court denied the claim for my stolen unemployment insurance benefits.
- 17 -
In my original March 20, 2019 inquiry, I addressed the oral arguments in 3DCA on
December 12, 2018 saying (Attachment #18):
During the very bizarre oral argument on December 12, 2018, which I described in my
cover letter with the Petition for Review, I pointed to the 3DCA Justices who heard the
case that during the preparations to the oral argument, I found the May 14, 2014
document issued by the California Employment Development Department (EDD)
which restored my unemployment insurance benefits that were wrongfully denied by
EDD in 2013. I had a copy of this document with me and wanted to hand it to the three
panel justices and to Porter Scott Law Firm attorney David Burkett who was supposedly
representing the Regents of the University of California in this case since July 15, 2015.
(See my recent copy of the complaint with the State Bar of California against two Porter
Scott attorneys, Daniel Bardzell and David Burkett. (Attachment # 2 -On Flash Drive)
Attorney General Deputy ASHANTE NORTON, who represents CUIAB in Court,

did not show up for the oral argument on December 12, 2018. I wonder why. Also
during the December 12, 2018 oral argument in 3DCA, I elaborated that it was
possible that in 2014 my attorney, Douglas Stein, who was addicted to drugs
(according to a 2017 State Bar Investigation Report) and was completely
financially broke, transferred my unemployment insurance benefits to his address
and cashed my benefits checks. I have no other explanation and I don't understand
why my restored unemployment benefits vanished. Why did the Court of Appeal
Justices affirm trial Court judgment and deny my Petition for Rehearing after
being informed that the unemployment benefits were restored and yet
disappeared? I never received any money from EDD. My unemployment insurance
benefits were restored after CUIAB's Chief Counsel Kim Steinhardt conducted an
investigation at my request in 2013. The 3DCA justices were informed about
Steinhardt's investigation into my Briefs on the Appeal.
The latest State Bar filing shows that Douglas Stein completely ignored the Supreme
Court Order dated March 1, 2018 and the Notice of Disciplinary Charges dated
December 20, 2018, which ordered a change in Stein's status from active to inactive
(18-N-16452) and made him ineligible to practice law in the State of California -
February 4, 2019 State Bar Court Order signed by Judge Manjari Chawla (Consolidated
Case Nos: 14-N16452-MC & 18-0-16529-MC). (Attachment # 3-On Flash Drive)
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/18-N-16452.pdf,
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/18-0-16529.pdf
- 18 -
This Waszczuk v. CUIAB Case No. C079254 is most likely the key factor for Stein to
ignore Supreme Court Restitution Order and Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed in
State Bar Court on December 20, 2018.
C. MAY 1 , 22, 2019 AND JUNE 5, 2019 PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST WITH
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONTROLLER OFFICE.
On May 1 and 22, 2019 and June 5, 2019, I sent an inquiry to the California State
Controller’s office requesting information about the specific date when Liberty Life Insurance
Company of Boston reported to the State Controller my unpaid short-term disability insurance
(SDI) benefits, which Liberty had reported as unclaimed funds. I never received a reply (see
Attachments #19, 20, 21).
D. THE UNLAWFULLY DENIED SHORT TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE
BENEFITS THE AUGUST 2014 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH
LIBERTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON (Liberty )
In 2011, my employer, the University of California, grossly and despicably breached the January
30, 2009 settlement agreement I signed with the UC Regents and subjected me to inhumane
harassment and multiple attempts to force me to quit my job, which had been guaranteed by a written
settlement agreement with regents .. In November 2011, I was unenrolled from the medical and
dental health insurance benefits and UCOP in conspiracy with Liberty Life Insurance Company of
Boston, denied the STDI benefits due to me when I was on stress-related sick leave which was
caused by the university’s agents’ and officers’ harassment.
In May 2014, I hired an attorney, Douglas Stein, to help with the wrongful termination
complaint I had filed in pro per on December 4, 2013 in Sacramento County Superior Court, Case
No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California. Stein
had already represented me in a Writ of Mandate proceeding filed in Sacramento County
Superior Court against the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) to
recover the unemployment insurance benefits wrongfully denied to me by the California
Employment Development Department (EDD) in January 2013, Case No. 34-2013-80001699,
- 19 -
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of
Interest (RPii)—The Reagents of the University of California Regents, filed on December 2, 2013.
My financially devastated and drug-addicted attorney quickly became a vulnerable tool used
against me by Porter Scott’s attorneys representing the UC Regents in my wrongful termination
complaint. The first thing Stein did was to file on June 16, 2014 a defective First Amendment
Complaint (FAC) that decimated my original wrongful termination complaint by removing my two
most important causes of action, the violation of the 2009 settlement agreement by adding to this
cause of action that the 2009 settlement agreement was void and must be rescinded. Stein
completely removed from the FAC the most important cause of action, the Violation of the
University of California Policy PPSM 23 (Employee Annual Performance Review Policy -
Evaluation).
In May 2014, with the file for wrongful termination , I gave to Stein among other documents,
the inquiry I sent on October 21, 2013 to David H. Long, Chairman of Liberty Life Assurance
Company of Boston (Liberty) in which I demanded compensation from Liberty due to its officers’
conspiracy in 2011 with the UCOP to deny to me short-term disability in November 2011
(Attachment #22).
Based on my information about the denied short-term disability benefits in November
2011, Stein, without my consent or knowledge, wrote on July 18, 2014 a letter to Liberty Claims
Manager Patricia Coombs demanding the pay for the unlawfully denied in November 2011 short
term disability insurance benefits (Attachment #23). Coombs was the one who denied my benefits
in November 2011.
One month later, on August 20, 2014 , Stein received a response from Liberty Litigation
Manager Paula J. McGee in form of the settlement agreement with a $4546.08 pay-off
(Attachment #24). Stein attempted to force me to sign the agreement, but I refused because I did
not know if it could affect my wrongful termination lawsuit against the UC Regents. The amount
offered in compensation for damages caused by my employers in conspiracy with Liberty did
not correspond with reality to what my employer and Liberty did in 2011. Stein was furious that
I refused to sign the agreement.
- 20 -
I would like to mention that, in November 2011, I filed a complaint against Liberty with the
California Insurance Commissioner (Attachment #24), and after six months of investigation, the
California Insurance Commissioner swept the complaint under the carpet (Attachment #25). Stein,
two years later, secured a settlement with two-pages long letter for $4546.08
My short term disability insurance benefits matter in 2011 came to a boiling point after
my physician, Dr. Harvey Hashimoto from Lodi, placed me on job stress-related sick leave from
August 3, 2011 to August 31, 2011 and September 23, 2011 to January 5, 2012. He came under
attack from the UCOP mob and became too scared to provide me ongoing medical care. My
psychologist, Dr. Franklin O. Bernhoft, from Lodi, intervened on my behalf on December 14,
2011 (Attachment #26) and caused the UCOP mob on January 31, 2012 to orchestrate a raid on
Bernhoft’s residence which was carried out by the California Department of Social Services and
Lodi Police. Dr. Bernhoft’s wife, Dorothy Bernhoft, was framed and barely escaped a prison
term via a plea agreement. You can read more details about this in my Sacramento County
Superior Court PLAINTIFF’S DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL ORDER AND
JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COST TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP
MOTION C.C.P 425.16 (C) (ROA # 148) Chapter X, titled UCOP MAFIA PREPARATION TO
SEPARATE WASZCZUK FROM HIS PHYSICIAN DR. HARVEY HASHIMOTO AND HIS
PSYCHOLOGIST DR. FRANKLIN O. BERNHOFT, and Chapter XI titled THE JANUARY
31, 2012 UCOP MAFIA PROVOCATION TO KILL OR HARM WASZCZUK’S
PSYCHOLOGIST DR. FRANKLIN O. BERNHOFT, which I filed on July 18,
2018.(Attachment #27).
I briefly addressed the raid on Dr. Bernhoft’s residence in my March 23, 2016 complaint
to the Commission on Judicial Performance against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge
Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, who participated in the cover up of the theft of my reinstated
unemployment insurance benefits.
The retaliatory and ill-crafted attack aimed at Dr. Bernhoft and his family to neutralize him
was possible because UCOP Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley’s wife, Diane Dooley, in 2011–
2012, was named secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency.
- 21 -
In 2016, I spoke with Dr. Bernhoft about the 2011 raid on his home and asked him
why he did not go home from his office when the raid on his residence was happening. He
explained to me that he is a Vietnam War veteran and that, if he had returned home to see
what social services and Lodi Police were doing to his 65-year-old wife, it could have ended
in bloodshed, possibly including his death at the hands of the police.
On pages 2 and 3, I provided an explanation of my above-mentioned proposed court order, as
follows:
Waszczuk presented to the Court his stand and his opposition to the Court
Order on legal fees in his Motion in Consideration filed on June 18, 2018.
However, Waszczuk would like to present to the Court his disproval statement
of Defendants’ Proposed Order and Judgment regarding the facts about the
University of California Office of the President (UCOP) mafia’s four different
but closely connected witch hunts and vendettas aimed at Waszczuk; three UC
Davis Police officers; UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi; and Waszczuk’s
former psychologist, Dr. Franklin Bernhoft. Dr. Bernhoft was targeted by the
UCOP mafia and set up to be eventually killed by the Lodi Police in the
despicable and ill-minded provocation orchestrated by former UC Senior Vice
President Daniel Morris Dooley and his wife Diana Dooley of Sacramento.
Mrs. Dooley has been recently appointed Executive Secretary in the Office of
Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. She has also served as Secretary of the
California Health and Human Services Agency since 2011. Waszczuk pointed
out to Mr. and Mrs. Dooley that they share a stake in this case according to the
Court of Appeal in the unpublished opinion issued on October 10, 2017. The
trial Court repeated the Court of Appeal’s statement in the June 7, 2018, order
that granted legal fees and costs for Defendants’ attorneys from Porter Scott
Law corporation. The attorneys conspired with Waszczuk’s former attorney
Douglas Stein. Waszczuk entirely disapproves of the Defendants’ Proposed
Order and Judgement and will ask federal law enforcement agencies for help in
this case.
Waszczuk condemned the UC Davis leadership for repeatedly violating
Waszczuk’s and other UC Davis employees’ civil and human rights.
Furthermore, Waszczuk asked Judge Brown to recuse himself from the
proceedings in these cases due his 20-year relationship with Stein. Judge
Brown’s relationship with Stein led to further devastation of Waszczuk’s
life and livelihood as well as the loss of at least $200,000 of his retirement
savings. Because of blatant corruption, bias, and discrimination in the
California courts, Waszczuk has been doomed to a legal hell. He is stuck
- 22 -
futilely attempting to restore the parts of his life that were destroyed by
UC mafia and gangsters.
The reasons outlined above are more than sufficient justification for
Waszczuk’s disapproval of Burkett’s Proposed Order and Judgement.
After the discovery of the Daniel Dooley’s and his wife Diane Dooley involvement to frame and
harm psychologist Dr. Bernhoft I made an attempt to contact former Bernhoft’s attorney Joel
Perisho who represented accused Dorothy Bernhoft in criminal case in San Joaquin County
Superior Court and to whom I provided some information in 2016 about my professional relation
with Dr. Bernhoft in 2011 .
Unfortunately, and sadly I found out that Mr. Joel Perisho died . “HE PASSED AWAY
PEACEFULLY BUT UNEXPECTEDLY AT HOME ON FEBRUARY 18, 2017
according to: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/recordnet/obituary.aspx?n=joel-thayer-
perisho&pid=184235670
The University of California UC SVP DANIEL DOOLEY quit his $400,000 job
November 2014 shortly after he issued a decision in my whistle blowing complaint I submitted to
the UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter office on March 7, 2013 .
E. MY SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 INQUIRY WITH LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE

COMPANY OF BOSTON LITIGATION MANAGER
On August 30, 2018, I submitted to the State Bar of California’s Client Security Fund an
Application for Reimbursement to reimburse to me the retainer stolen from me in 2014 by my former
attorney, Douglas Stein, per the March 1, 2018 California Supreme Court Order In re Stein, No.
S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) (Attachment #28). I was reimbursed by the Fund one year later, on
August 8, 2019, in the amount of $14,500 (Attachment #29).
Following my August 30, 2018 Application for Reimbursement, on September 4, 2018, I

sent an inquiry to Liberty’s Life Litigation Manager Re: Unfinished Business with the Liberty Life
Assurance Company of Boston University of California, Short-Term/Supplemental Disability August
- 23 -
1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, Claim #4154074 (Attachment #30). With this inquiry, I
wanted to find out what actually happened to the settlement Liberty offered to my former attorney,
Douglas Stein, in August 2014 regarding Liberty’s unjust November 2011 denial of my short-term
disability benefits. I also sent a copy of my letter to Lincoln Financial Group, which acquired Liberty
in May 2018.
On September 13, 2018, I received a response from Lincoln Financial Group representative
Paula McGee, the same person who cut a deal in August 2014 with Stein. Ms. McGee’s stated in her
response (Attachment #31):
RE: Short-Term/Supplement Disability Claim # 4154074

Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
This letter responds to your correspondence dated September 4, 2018.
As you know, your Short-Term/Supplement Disability Claim # 4154074
was denied seven years ago, in 2011. Given that this disability claim has
been closed since 2011, we will not take any further action on this claim.
Regarding your comment about reopening your case with the State of
California Insurance Commissioner, Liberty provided the California
Department of Insurance a comprehensive response pertaining to your
claim in 2012. By letter dated June 14, 2012 (copy enclosed), the
California Department of Insurance concluded that they... "are unable to
assist you further with this matter. The issues involved with your
complaint indicate that there is a difference of opinion between you and
the insurance company that this Department, as outlined in California
Insurance Code Section 12921,4(a) does not have the authority to
decide."
Your Short-Term/Supplement disability claim remains closed since
2011, and we will not respond to any further communication or
correspondence related to this matter.
Sincerely,
Paula McGee
Lincoln Financial Group
- 24 -
Please note, effective May 1, 2018, Liberty Life Assurance Company of
Boston was acquired by The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
a Lincoln Financial Group company
In McGee’s response, she completely omitted the deal she cut with Stein in August 2014. The
question remains when and who deposited the short-term disability money with the State of
California’s Office of the Controller; these monies were secured by Stein’s settlement agreement with
Liberty. As noted above, my short-term disability benefits in amount of $4,546.08 resurfaced in the
State Controller’s Office on March 21, 2019 as unclaimed property, after being denied in November
2011.
V.
THE STOLEN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS-MY AUGUST AND
SEPTEMBER 2021 INQUIRY WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
DEVELOPMENT (EDD)
A. MY AUGUST 15, 2021 INQUIRY SENT TO THE EDD
Due to the Porter Scott attorneys’ desperate and heinous attack aimed at my 70-year-old
wife in an attempt to frame her for a bench warrant and criminal prosecution in Sacramento
County Superior Court’s Department 43 (Judge Thadd Blizzard) and Porter Scott attorney
Lindsay Goulding stealing from her more than $20,000, I determined that both my cases,
Writ of Mandamus Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. (CUIAB) and
Real Party of Interest (RPii)— (UC Regents), filed on December 2, 2013, and Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-34-00155479, had
been filed and pursued in the wrong county’s superior court, that is, in the wrong venue. I
also came to the conclusion that my unemployment insurance benefits reinstated by the EDD
on May 14, 2014, which were thereafter stolen, became a key reason why the resolution of
my wrongful termination case in the 3DCA and the California Supreme Court had been
impossible to achieve in eight years and bring to trial.
- 25 -
On August 15, 2021, I sent to the EDD via its website an inquiry requesting the
unemployment record portraying my 2014 stolen unemployment insurance benefits. My
inquiry was lodged by the EDD as number 01248960 (Attachment #32).
B. MY SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 INQUIRY WITH EDD -PUBLIC RECORD ACT
REQUEST
I did not get a response from the EDD to my August 15, 2021 inquiry; thus, on September 23,
I sent a Public Records Act Request to the EDD to find out who exactly cashed my unemployment
insurance benefits in 2014 and how they were cashed (Attachment #33).
September 23, 2021
California Public Records Act Requests

EDD Legal Office
800 Capitol Mall, MIC 53
Sacramento, CA 95814-4703
Subject: Status of my records requested under the California Public Records Act,
submitted August 15, 2021, Case No. 01248960
To Whom It May Concern:
I would appreciate it if the EDD Public Record Act (PRA) office could provide to me the
information I requested on August 15, 2021 and fulfill its obligation pursuant to California
Government Code Section 6253(b) - Time for Providing Copies, which states:
A request for copies must be satisfied “promptly” (Section 6253(b)) and an agency must
indicate within 10 days of receiving a request whether it will provide copies of records in
response to that request. Government Code Section 6253(c). In unusual circumstances, an
agency can, by written notice to the requester, extend its time to provide copies for up to 14
additional days under Section 6253(c).
It has been more than one month since I sent via web my PRA request to the EDD, on
August 15, 2021 (ATTACHMENT #1).
The case is about my unemployment insurance benefits, which were denied by the
- 26 -
Employment Development Department (EDD) in 2013 and reinstated by the EDD on May
14, 2014, after Chief Counsel Kim Steinhardt of the California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board (CUIAB) conducted an investigation per my request to find out who deprived
me of these insurance unemployment benefits. (ATTACHMENT # 2)
My reinstated unemployment insurance benefits were either intercepted and stolen by
my drug-addicted (now former) attorney, Douglas Stein, or blocked in EDD by lawyers
from the University of California, acting in collaboration with the state Attorney General’s
lawyer, who represented CUIAB at that time.
In that same year, in September 2014, Douglas Stein became a vulnerable tool capable of
being used by the University of California’s attorneys, from the Porter Scott law firm; he
was forced to file a defective Second Amended Complaint (SAC) while working with a
suspended attorney’s license, acting against my will and instructions. A day or two after an
anti-SLAPP motion was filed, on December 1, 2014, Stein was forced or convinced by the
Defendants’ Porter Scott attorney to steal my retainer fee, in an amount exceeding $14,000;
this was six days after I offered him help with a $20,000.
Stein was disbarred in January 2020 for misconduct, both related and unrelated to his
representation—or rather misrepresentation—of me; please see In re Stein, S245982 (Cal.
Mar. 1, 2018) http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/15-O-10110-2.pdf.
I recovered the stolen retainer fee in August 2019 through the California State Bar’s Client
Security Fund (ATTACHMENT #3).
In November 2011, I was denied short-term disability by the Liberty Insurance
Company in collaboration with the University of California’s lawyers, but this resurfaced
seven years later as unclaimed property in the Office of the State of California Controller, on
March 20, 2019 (ATTACHMENT #4).
The above three cases are connected, and the May 2014 reinstated but stolen insurance
unemployment benefits monies are the last loss that I am attempting to recover. Therefore I
need information from the EDD Public Record Office. I need more information about what
happened to my unemployment benefits after May 14, 2014.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I will appreciate a prompt response
from your office.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
C. EDD’S RESPONSE TO MY AUGUST 15, 2021 AND SEPTEMBER 23, 2021

INQUIRIES
- 27 -
On October 10 , 2021, I received the following response from the EDD, dated September 6, 2021,
with an envelope postmarked October 8, 2021 (Attachment #34):
Date: September 6. 2021
To: Jaroslaw J. Waszcuk

2216 Katzakian
Lodi, CA 952424-4799
UI Records:
From: Subject:
Mr. Waszcuk,
Parent Claim Record Screen Information

Payment Screen from Parent Claim
UI Claim Notes Screen Information
DE 429 Recall Screens, Base Period Employers and Wages
Abbreviations and Codes
Notice of Determination, DE 1080CZ (2)
Sacramento Office of Appeals Decisions, Case Numbers 4729869, 4797872
Board Appeal Decisions, Case Numbers AO-328782, AO- 319805
Employment Development Department
Unemployment Insurance Support Division
California Unemployment Insurance Records
The available Employment Development Department Unemployment
Insurance Records are enclosed.
The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CU lAB) is an
independent administrative court system for workers and employers seeking to
challenge decisions made by the Employment Development Department
(EDD). It is a separate entity from the EDD to prevent conflict of interest.
EDD does have access to the Office of Appeals decisions as these are pertinent
to paying or denying claimant benefits. Any requests for CUIAB records must
be sent to the Office of Appeals that heard the appeal.
The Employment Development Department (EDD) classifies as confidential
all personal and identifying information collected in the administration of all
statutory programs (Unemployment and Disability Insurance). The California
Public Records Act (PRA) exempts from disclosure EDD's confidential
information. You don't need to make a PRA request for your own confidential
information, therefore the PRA request is denied.
References: California Unemployment Insurance Code 1094(a) and Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 20, Section 603.5(d)(2)
- 28 -
This is the address and phone numbers for the Sacramento Office of Appeals:
2400 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95833
916-263-6706 Phone 916-263-6765 Fax
Unemployment Insurance Support Division, MIC-40
Disclosure Unit P.O. Box 826880
P.O. Box 826880 Sacramento CA, 94280-0001 www.edd.ca.gov
The above September 6, 2021 EDD response did not mention a word about its May 14, 2014
notification which reinstated my unemployment insurance benefits, or explain how my reinstated
benefits vanished – or were stolen – and I never received a debit card or one penny from the
reinstated unemployment benefits and theft, which was covered up by the California State
Bar and three different California courts’ staff members.
Approximately two weeks, later on October 26, 2021, I received from EDD Staff Services
Analyst Thia Her the following e-mail in response to my Public Records Act request regarding my
stolen unemployment insurance benefits (Attachment #35):
From: Her, Thia@EDD <Thia.Her@edd.ca.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 12:45 PM
To: jjw1980@live.com
Subject: Public Records request
Hello Jaroslaw,
I left you a voicemail today 10/26/2021 at 12:38pm. We have received your letter dated
September 23, 2021 and have forward your letter to the correct branch to process. The
branch should be able to provide a response to you.
Thank you,
Thia Her
Staff Services Analyst
Directorate/Legal Office, MIC 53
Thia.Her@edd.ca.gov
State of California
PO Box 826880, Sacramento, CA 94280-0001
- 29 -
www.edd.ca.gov
I never heard from the EDD again, thus it is reasonable to speculate that someone blocked
information concerning to whom the EDD sent the debit card with the money from my reinstated
but STOLEN unemployment benefits on May 14, 2014.
VI.
THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2022 WELLS FARGO BANK MEDIATION INQUIRY
REGARDING THE WELLS FARGO BANK ACCOUNT OPENED ON JUNE 2, 2014
FOR MY FORMER ATTORNEY, DOUGLAS E. STEIN, WITH MY NAME ATTACHED
TO THE ACCOUNT.
A. THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2022 WELLS FARGO MEDIATION INQUIRY
In the middle of the ongoing appeal in my 3DCA wrongful termination case

Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. C095488, and my
preparation to file my Appellant’s Opening Brief, on September 11, 2022, I was
surprised to receive a letter from Wells Fargo Bank stating:
September 9, 2022
Tracking Number: 566946

Wells Fargo Case Number: 125523419
RE: Mediation option

Dear JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,
Our records indicate that you contacted Wells Fargo on July 12, 2017 and
expressed concerns that may have been related to an account or service that
you did not authorize or did not want. We value your feedback and appreciate
you reaching out to us. It is our goal to fully address your concerns. Please
disregard this packet if we have resolved your concerns, or you feel you
received this letter in error.
If you believe that your concerns have not been sufficiently resolved, the
mediation process is available to find a solution that's acceptable to both you
- 30 -
and Wells Fargo. This is a voluntary program and it is your option to
participate, at no cost to you.
We have included a Mediation Request Form for you to complete and
return if you choose this option. Please note you must print your name, sign,
and date the enclosed Mediation Request Form, as your signature provides
authorization to Wells Fargo to share your information with the third-party
mediation provider.
You can send the signed Mediation Request Form in one of the following
ways:
Mail: Using the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or mail to the address on the
form
Fax: 1-844-417-2186
If you have questions regarding mediation, please call us at 1-888-283-7095,
Monday through Friday from
9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time. For callers with hearing or speech
disabilities, we accept telecommunications relay service calls.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you through this process.
Sincerely,
Wells Fargo Mediation Program Office
The letter (Attachment #36) with an attached mediation form was actually about the account Wells
Fargo Bank opened for my former attorney, Douglas E. Stein, with my name attached. The account
was for the $19,500 retainer I gave to Stein to handle my wrongful termination case. Stein stole this
money, and I dismissed him on December 16, 2014 and turned him in to the State Bar of California
(Attachment #37, https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/131248, In re Stein, No.
S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018). On December 31, 2014, I sent an inquiry complaint to Wells Fargo
Bank about the account.
B. MY SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 RESPONSE TO THE WELLS FARGO MEDIATION

INQUIRY
Basically, in my September 19, 2022 response (Attachment # 38), I asked Wells Fargo Bank for
clarification about what it wants to mediate after so many years, since I submitted my complaint
on December 31, 2014. The situation with the 2014 account and inquiry for mediation is similar
to my short-term disability insurance benefits circumstances.
- 31 -
Further discussions with Wells Fargo about the account opened in June 2014 got to the
point where I asked the bank’s representative to provide me with all statements from June 2,
2014 through December 31, 2014, to verify whether Stein, who was disbarred in January 2020,
used the account to cash my short-term disability benefits and my unemployment insurance
benefits which was reinstated by EDD in May 2014 and was stolen thereafter.
After requesting the monthly statements for the account, the discussion about mediation
with Wells Fargo representatives ended, and on October 30, 2022 I received and undated letter
postmarked October 27, 2022 informing me that the 2014 account matter does not qualify for the
bank’s mediation program (Attachment #39).
The letter stated:
Tracking Number: 566946
Wells Fargo Case Number: 125523419

Re: Mediation Request Form received September 22, 2022 Dear JAROSLAW
WASZCZUK,
Wells Fargo is offering a mediation option for customers who expressed
concerns that may have been related to an account or service that they did not
authorize or did not want.
The information you submitted does not appear to deal with the issues meant to
be addressed in the Wells Fargo Mediation Program. As a result, we will not
be scheduling a mediation session as part of the Mediation Program. We have
further escalated your concerns, and you will hear from another Wells
Fargo representative soon.
If you have questions, please call us at 1-888-283-7095, Monday through
Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time. For callers with hearing or
speech disabilities, we also accept telecommunications relay service calls.
Sincerely,
Wells Fargo Mediation Program Office
VII.
THE STOLEN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS IN LIGHT OF FACTS THAT
SHOWS HOW THIS APPEAL IN 3DCA CASE NO. C095488 IS BEING UNLAWFULLY
- 32 -
MANIPULATED TO COVER UP THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
THEFT .
A. THE CASE
As I previously mentioned, my wrongful termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, was filed in Sacramento
County Superior Court almost nine years ago, on December 4, 2013. This occurred
simultaneously with 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.
In my AOB, on Page 41, I mention that, on March 3, 2020, I submitted to the Court a
Submission Form to set Trial Date on August 11 or 18 or September 28, 2020 (Attachment
#40). The Court did not bother to respond. (see AOB attachment No. 74)
The Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b), mandates the dismissal of actions
not brought to trial within five years after a complaint is filed; however, it was not the intention or
desire of the Court or UC Regents’ attorneys to try the case.
Instead of working with me to set a court trial date, the Porter Scott attorneys waited for Judge
Brown’s resignation and ambushed my 70-year-old wife, stealing from her more than $20,000 in
front of Judge Thadd Blizzard, of Department 43, and his Court Clerk. The rest of the story
Commission can read in the AOB Brief concerning why this happened and why this case is still
pending after almost nine years. Commission was briefed about last years .
B. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
On December 23, 2021, I filed a Notice of Appeal concerning the October 28, 2021 Motion of
Summary Judgment signed by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Christopher E. Krueger,
from Department 54 (Attachment 41).
C. APPELLANT’S CIVIL APPEAL MEDIATION STATEMENT
On January 11, 2022, I filed a Civil Appeal Mediation Statement in which, under the list of issues
raised on appeal, I wrote (Attachment #42):
- 33 -
I want to examine whether the Appellant was duped or deceived by his
Attorney, Douglas Stein; the Defendants' attorneys; and/or Sacramento County
Superior Court staff and judicial officers to pursue his wrongful termination
complaint, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, Ann
Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniliuc, Case
No. 34-2013-34-00155479, and cross-referenced Writ of Mandamus complaint
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and
the Regents of the University of California as the Real Party in Interest (RPii),
Case No. 34-2013-8000-1699-CUWMGDS, in Sacramento County Superior
Court, instead of San Joaquin County Superior Court.
I have been living in the City of Lodi, State of California's San Joaquin County, since
1989.
I became very suspicious in April 2021 that both of my cases, Writ of Mandamus Case No. 34-2013-
80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)— (UC Regents),
filed on December 2, 2013, and Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California,
Case No. 34-2013-34-00155479, were filed and pursued in the wrong county’s superior court, that
is, in the wrong venue. The Respondent (UC Regents) submitted their Respondent’s Mediation
Statement on January 11, 2022 (Attachment # 43). The Respondent’s Mediation Statement was
signed by Porter Scott attorney Thomas Jordan, a former 3DCA research attorney for three years
(Attachment #44, https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/104827, In re Riordan, 26
Cal.4th 1235 (Cal. 2002)). Thomas Riordan is not listed as a Defendant’s Attorney of Record on the
Appeal, or in the trial Court in this case. On January 27, 2022, the case was ordered not eligible for
mediation by 3DCA Justice Andrea Hoch (Attachment #45).
D. APPELLANT’S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL, FILED ON

JANUARY 31, 2022
On January 31, 2022, I filed a Notice Designating Record on Appeal that included a request to
produce and transmit to 3DCA the Court Reporter’s Transcript from the September 1, 2021 Court
hearing with Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Christopher E. Krueger, of Department 54
(Court hearing for Motion for Summary Judgment, (Attachment #46).
- 34 -
VIII.
THE MALICIOUS MANIPULATION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL IN AN ATTEMPT TO
DECEIVE PLAINTIFF AND THE APPELLATE COURT AND TO DELIBERATELY DELAY
AND DERAIL THE PROCESS OF APPEAL TO FURTHER COVER UP THE
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS THEFT IN 2014
A. A CLOSER LOOK AT THE INCOMPLETE AND WRONGLY LABELED

TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
1) After I received on June 28, 2022 the 13 volumes of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON
APPEAL (CT), I noticed that the CT had the wrong judge’s name and wrong attorney
(Attachment #47).
It said “CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO HON. DAVID BROWN DOUGLAS ROPEL #300486, 350
UNIVERSITY AVE., STE 200 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 Attorney
Defendant/Respondent,” instead of HON. CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER and
Defendant’s Attorneys LINDSAY GOULDING, who is the Defendants’ Attorney of Record
on Appeal, or THOMAS RIORDAN, who attended the Motion for Summary Judgment
Court Hearing with Judge Krueger via Zoom on September 1, 2021.
2) The CT was certified on April 22, 2022 by Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate
Department CLERK KEVIN MICHAUD with his initials KM (Attachment #48).
3) The DECLARATION OF MAILING, which should be dated and signed under penalty of perjury
by the Sacramento County Superior Court Clerk, most likely by KEVIN MICHOUD, was left
blank (undated and unsigned), rendering it basically invalid, and it contained the wrong name of
the Defendants’ attorney, Douglas Ropel, who does not work for Porter Scott and has not
represented the UC Regents since March 2016 (https://www.littler.com/lawyer-
search?lawyer_auto=ropel, Attachment #49).
4) The CRT from the September 1, 2021 Court Hearing with Judge Krueger, which was due to be
produced and transmitted to 3DCA by May 9, 2022, was not produced and transmitted to 3DCA
- 35 -
at all. The NOTICE to prepare CRT by the Court Reporter stated as follows (Attachment #50):
Appeal from the Honorable Judge DAVID BROWN instead of Judge CHRISTOPHER
KRUEGER
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you and each of you are hereby directed to
commence preparation of the REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT on Appeal in the
above-entitled action. The Appeal is to the THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL and the transcript is to contain the following dates, as designated by
the APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
COURT DATES (CSR) NUMBER COURT REPORTER'S NAME
09/01/21 8923 T. Tavalero
TRANSCRIPTS ARE DUE: 05/09/22

Please read all designations as Computer-Readable format may have been
requested.
Please notify the Appeals Unit in writing before the due date if no
transcript will be filed. Requests for an extension of time from the Third
District Court of Appeal should be filed prior to the due date.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this notice was sent to the aforementioned reporters and
the Court Reporter Supervisor via interoffice Email.
Executed on: April 8, 2022 BY: Kevin M.

Deputy Clerk
The above Notice to Prepare Court Reporter Transcript was supposedly sent by Clerk KEVIN
MICHAUD to Court Reporter TINA TAVALERO via interoffice mail with the misleading
statement that the Appeal was from Judge Brown, who resigned from Department 53 in December
2020, and the CRT was from the September 1, 2021 hearing with JUDGE CHRISTOPHER
KRUEGER from Department 54.
On June 27–28, 2022 I learned via an e-mail chat between Executive Analyst from the Court
Reporter’s Board of California, Paula Bruning, and Sacramento County Superior Court Reporters
Valerie Haley and Tina Tavalero that Ms. Halley had not received any appeal notice in Waszczuk v.
- 36 -
the Regents of the University of California for the 9/1/2022 Court Hearing with Judge Krueger, but
she produced the CRT for the Porter Scott attorneys representing the UC Regents.
I examined again the April 8, 2022 Notice of Filing of Designation and Notice to
Reporters to Prepare Transcripts, which was sent by Deputy Clerk Kevin Michaud, from
Appeals Unit Room 102, under penalty of perjury, and discovered that a Notice was sent to Ms.
Tavalero with a due date to produce transcripts on appeal.
I forwarded Ms. Bruning’s e-mail to Ms. Tavalero, and Ms. Tavalero responded that she had
nothing to do with the CRT from the September 1, 2022 Court Hearing with Judge Krueger.
She stated in her email response:
I was not the court reporter for this case. My name was put on the appeal notice by
mistake. It had another court reporter's CSR No. and my name. I checked all my
notes and I was not the reporter on this. I sent a declaration to the 3DCA stating that
I was listed by mistake and I have no notes for any of the proceedings. ( See: Tina
Tavalero Declaration in the case C095488 docket)
However, in her June 28, 2012 e-mail response, Ms. Tavalero did not state whether she
ever received the April 8, 2022 Notice of Filing of Designation and Notice to Reporters to
Prepare Transcripts, sent supposedly by Deputy Clerk Kevin Michaud, nor did she comment
on whether she had informed Michaud that she had nothing to do with the September 1, 2021
hearing, or whether she advised Michaud that the notice had the wrong Judge’s name on it.
How it is even possible for a Court Reporter to prepare a transcript on appeal per notice
from the Appellate Department with the wrong Judge on the notice? The above facts of
misconduct and negligence raise serious questions that should be investigated and answered by
Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department Clerk KEVIN MICHAUD. This is
not a trivial matter. This is an obstruction of justice and unlawful interference with the reviewing
court’s proceedings.
Who FORCED OR COERCED the preparer of the CLERK TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL to
deliberately and with malice and premeditation mislabel the CT with the wrong judge’s name?
More precisely, who forced the CT preparer to replace JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER’S
name with JUDGE DAVID BROWN from Department 53, and why? Judge David Brown resigned
in December 2020 and had nothing to do with the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed
- 37 -
on May 14, 2021, which was decided by JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER on September 1,
2021.
Who forced KEVIN MICHAUD to certify the deliberately mislabeled and incomplete CLERK
TRANSCRIPT on appeal?
Who ordered KEVIN MICHAUD to withhold sending the CLERK TRANSCRIPT on appeal to
3DCA for the next 68 days after its certification? The undated and unsigned DECLARATION OF
MAILING, which should have been signed by Michaud, indicates that he perhaps did not want to
deal with the orchestrated fraud, deception, and unlawful interference with the reviewing court’s
proceedings, and it needs to be investigated who is behind this crime to derail the appeal process.
The superior court clerk must "promptly mail" to the Court of Appeal notification of the
filing of a notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(c)(1).) "The failure of a court
reporter or clerk to perform any duty imposed by statute or these rules that delays the filing
of the appellate record is an unlawful interference with the reviewing court's proceedings. . .
." ( Id., rule 8.23.) People v. Grimes, 172 Cal.App.4th 121 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)
Each item in the rules has the force of law (Carlson v. Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68
Cal.App.4th 1268, 1272).
IX.
THE CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
A. APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF.

Due to an incomplete and deceptive record on appeal, on July 5, 2022, I submitted to 3DCA an
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF (Attachment #51). The Defendants’
new attorney from Horvitz & Levy LLP, Karen Bray, added her stipulation to the application with
condition, stating:
We will stipulate to a 60-day extension of time for your opening brief, so long
as any such stipulation also includes a reciprocal 60-day extension for our
respondent’s brief
The application for extension of time was granted that same day, July 5, 2022, by the Court with
Appellant’s Opening brief due October 10, 2022.
- 38 -
B. PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’S NOTICE OF
OMISSION RE: DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL.
On July 5, 2022, I also submitted to the Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department
a Notice or request to produce the omitted items in the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal and to prepare
the CRT from the September 1, 2021 hearing with Judge Christopher Krueger (Attachment #52).
C. VOLUME NO. 1 OF THE CLERK TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, NO. 1 AS THE

CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
In the response to my July 5, 2022 Notice of Commission, on July 13, 2022, I received only
one volume of the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL (Attachment #53,
https://www.scribd.com/document/597295235/3DCA-Clerk-s-Suplemental-Transcript-on-Appeal-
Waszczuk-v-UC-Regents-Et-Al-Case-No-C095488) and 13 pages of the new cover page with Judge
CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER’S name replacing the wrongfully labeled front page of the 13-volume
Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal, which had listed Judge DAVID BROWN’S name. I had received that
on June 28, 2022. There was no record or note from the 3DCA Clerk that the first page in the 13-
volume Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal was replaced with the correct first page showing Judge
KRUEGER’S name and the correct Defendants’ attorney name, Lindsey Goulding.
The CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL contains the most important
Court-filed document for this Appeal, which shall be submitted to 3DCA as a CLERK’S
TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL Volume No. 1 and which contains:
1) My (Plaintiff and Appellant’s) ORIGINAL WRONGFUL TERMINATION

COMPLAINT filed in Sacramento County Superior Court on December 4, 2014.
2) The Defective FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (FAC) filed by my former attorney,

Douglas Stein, on June 16,2014 which decimated my original December 4, 2014 wrongful
termination complaint (See Attachment 6, Appellant’s Opening Brief (AOB) pp. 18–26).
Stein was disbarred for misconduct in January 2020 (see
- 39 -
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/131248; In re Stein, No. S245982, (Cal.
Mar. 1, 2018)).
3) NOTICE OF FILING PARTY: On September 10, 2014, Court Clerk Erica Medina
rejected Stein’s defective FAC submitted without Leave of Court as an SAC in conspiracy
with Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott from Porter Scott.
4) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FAC as SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT (SAC) BY STIPULATION & ORDER THERON. This application was approved
by Judge DAVID BROWN, from Department 53, on September 22, 2014. Stein and Brown were
friends for 20 years (Attachment #54).
I challenged the defective SAC filed on September 30, 2014 as invalid, as it was the same as the
First Amended Complaint (FAC), which was filed on June 16, 2014. Please see the attached filed
in the October 25, 2017 APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING FOR ERROR IN LAW
OR PROCEDURAL PROCESS (Pages 29–34) in the 3DCA Case Waszczuk v . the Regents of the
University of California Case No. C079524 (an Anti-SLAPP Motion, Attachment #55). The
Petition for Rehearing was denied by 3DCA Chief Justice VANCE RAYE on November 9, 2017.
The above four items were listed in the January 31, 2022 Appellant’s Notice Designating Record on
Appeal as item No. 8-1 and should be prepared by the Court Clerk and included in the Original
Clerk Transcript on Appeal as VOLUME NO. 1, not as the CLERK’s SUPPLEMENTAL
TRANSCRIPT (CST) ON APPEAL.
D. THE CERTIFICATION AND DECLARATION OF MAILING OF CLERK’s

SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT (CST) ON APPEAL SIGNED BY KEVIN
MICHAUD.
Upon closer examination of the CST received on July 13, 2022, I noticed that the CST was
certified on July 6, 2022 by Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department Court Clerk
KEVIN MICHAUD, the day after I submitted my Court Department the Notice of Omission
(Attachment #56).
- 40 -
The Declaration of Mailing signed by MICHAUD was originally dated July 7, 2022, but this was
altered in pen and changed to July 11, 2022 (Attachment # 57). The CST was filed by the 3DCA
Clerk on July 22, 2022, 16 days after the CST was certified, on July 6, 2022. The Sacramento
County Superior Court Building is located 1 mile from the 3DCA Court building. The process on
appeal was, again, deliberately delayed for at least another 14 days by the Court staff.
The certification and Declaration of Mailing basically shows that Clerk MICHAUD had the
CST prepared a long time before he received my Notice of Omission and deliberately, and with
malice to prejudice and deceive the Appellant and court, did not add these four items to the original
Clerk Transcript on Appeal as Volume of the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal.
X.
CLERK KEVIN MICHAUD’S DECLARATION DATED JULY 11, 2022, RE: RECORD ON
APPEAL
A. DECLARATION
With the CST, I also received on July 13, 2022 Clerk MICHAUD’S Declaration dated July 11, 2022
which stated (Attachment #58):
TO: CLERK OF THE COURT, THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

I, Kevin Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento,
do declare as follows:
On July 6, 2022 Appellant filed a Notice of Omission correspondence with
the Sacramento Superior Court Appeals Unit. As to all items listed as part of
Sacramento Superior Court Case #34-2013-80001699(items 126-147), This
Superior Court Case is NOT consolidated with the current above listed case
on appeal. As such, those items will not be given. The remaining missing
documents as part of the current above listed case on appeal have been
supplied in the accompanying Supplemental Clerks Transcript on Appeal As
to the Reporters Transcript, The CSR T. Tavalero was noticed to prepare a
Reporters Transcript based on the information supplied by the appellant on
their designation. A filing party is responsible for verifying the validity of the
information on said designation prior to submission. Ms. Tavalero supplied a
declaration as having no notes for said date supplied by appellant. Any
inadequacies in the Reporters date were not properly. As to the minor type-
o's on the cover pages of the Original Clerks Transcript; Cover pages have
been supplied to swap out for all 13 volumes. Nothing was omitted.
- 41 -
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California,
that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED : July 11, 2022
The Declarant, Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department Clerk KEVIN
MICHAUD, in damage control Declaration on his own behalf or someone else’s behalf, is playing
ignorant and trying to blame me, saying that it is was my fault that the CRT from the September 1,
2021 Court Hearing with Judge KRUEGER was not prepared and transmitted to the 3DCA by May 9,
2022.
I do not remember how I determined that Court Reporter Tina Tavalero transcribed the September 1,
2021 court hearing, but her name in this matter is irrelevant. It was the Clerk’s responsibility to find
out who the Court Reporter at the hearing was, instead of issuing the Notice of Filling of
Designation/Notice to Reporters with the wrong judge’s name and wrong party attorney’s name and
then keeping the Notice to himself to obstruct justice by deliberately delaying the appeal and
unlawfully interfering with the reviewing court’s proceedings. Hypothetically, even it had been my
fault on January 31, 2022, then the CRT should have been sent to 3DCA together with the CST on
Appeal on July 11, 2022. This did not happen. The CRT has still not been transmitted to 3DCA.
Furthermore, the APPELLANT’S NOTICE DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL in 5. b.
Proceedings States:
I request that the following proceedings in the superior court be included in the
reports transcript. (You must identify each proceeding you want included by its
date, the department in which it took place, a description of the proceedings
(for example, the examination of jurors, motions before trial, the taking of
testimony, or the giving of jury instructions), the name of the court reporter
who recorded the proceedings (IF KNOWN), and whether a certified
transcript of the designated proceeding was previously prepared.)
Hypothetically, if I had not added Tavalero’s name to the APPELLANT’S NOTICE DESIGNATED
RECORD ON APPEAL because I did not know who transcribed the hearing, Clerk MICHAUD
should have ordered Court Reporter Valerie Holy to prepare a CRT for Appeal from the September 1,
2021 Court hearing with Judge KRUEGER, or it would be the same story as it is now.
B. THE STOLEN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS -SACRAMENTO

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE #34-2013-80001699 (ITEMS 126–147)
- 42 -
In the first part of the Declaration, Deputy Clerk MICHAUD addressed my request to
produce the omitted records on appeal from the case cross-referenced to this appeal, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and the Regents of the University of
California as the Real Party in Interest (RPii), Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS, 3DCA
Case No. 079254, the Supreme Court of California Case No. S253713 & S245879, filed on
December 2, 2013, ATTACHMENT NO. 4B TO THE APPELLANT’S NOTICE DESIGNATING
RECORD APPEAL (Pages 9 & 11), filed on January 31, 2022
It shows how the court record from the Sacramento Superior Court Case #34-2013-80001699
irritates perpetrators who participated and still participate in the cover up of the unemployment
insurance benefits theft which took place in 2014 and theft was subject of litigations in three
California ‘s different court .
case is cross-referenced to this ongoing appeal and is about my unemployment insurance
benefits, which were stolen in 2014 see also Attachment #74 -Appellant’s Opening Brief pages 15–
18.
C. THE CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL AND THE
CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT COVER PAGES WITH THE WRONG JUDGE’S
NAME AND WRONG RESPONDENT ATTORNEY
The Sacramento Superior Court Deputy Clerk from the Appeal Unit, at the end of his
July 11, 2022 Declaration, stated:
As to the minor type-o 's on the cover pages of the Original Clerks
Transcript; Cover pages have been supplied to swap out for all 13 volumes.
Nothing was omitted.
These were not “minor type-o’s on the cover pages.” This was a serious and deliberate
move to mislabel 13 volumes of the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal with DAVID I. BROWN’S
name, instead of JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER’S name, and listing the wrong
respondent attorney, Douglas Ropel, who has been employed for the last six years by Littler
Mendelson PC, instead of Porter Scott’s attorney, Lindsay A. Goulding.
These “ were not “minor type-o’s on the cover pages.”. This was an deliberate
attempt to remove JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER’S from the appeal proceeding and
- 43 -
blame entirely for the committed crimes the JUDGE DAVID I BROWN who quit or was
forced to quit his job in Sacramento Superior Court in December 2020 and the former Portyer
Scott’s attorney Douglas Ropel who quit Porter Scott in March 2016 and since then is working
for Littler Mendelson
Regardless, the 13 volumes of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL were certified on

April 22, 2022 and vanished. They were not delivered to me, in Lodi, CA, or to 3DCA for
another two and half months. The question still remains, why did MICHAUD include the
December 4, 2013 COMPLAINT; the June 16, 2014 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; the
September 10, 2014 NOTICE OF FILING PARTY; and the September 24, 2014 EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY
STIPULATION & ORDER THERON in the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL certified
on April 22, 2022, but then provided it three months later as a CST ON APPEAL? Most likely,
MICHAUD was advised that I would not notice his malice, deception, and manipulation of the
Record on Appeal. The case also shows that 3DCA staff are going along with MICHAUD’s
obstruction of justice and his unlawful interference with the reviewing court's proceedings.
The above-listed documents were not included in the original CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT
ON APPEAL, which was certified on April 22, 2002. They should have been provided to me and
3DCA as Volume No. 1 of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, not as the CLERK’S
SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL. In that case, I would have had to file a Petition
in the Supreme Court, so that only Volume No.1 would have been transmitted to the Supreme
Court. In 2018, I did not know that only Volume No. 1 was subject to transmittal to the Supreme
Court if a Petition for Review is filed on the Decision of Appellate District Court. I, in March
2018, asked 3DCA CLERK ANITA KENNER why only one volume of the Clerk’s Transcript
on Appeal was submitted to the Supreme Court (SLAPP Motion Appeal 3DCA Case No.
C079524).
Ms. Kenner responded to my inquiry with a letter dated March 20, 2018, stating (Attachment
#59):
- 44 -
It is standard procedure for this court to transmit only the first volume of
a record to the Supreme Court when a Petition for Review has been filed
In this appeal case, the December 4, 2013 COMPLAINT; June 16, 2014 FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT; September 10, 2014 NOTICE OF FILING PARTY; and the
September 24, 2014 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT BY STIPULATION & ORDER THERON in the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON
APPEAL certified on April 22, 2022 would not be transmitted to the California Supreme Court
because of the manipulation of the record to exclude from the appeal Judge CHRISTOPHER E.
KRUEGER
XI.
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO AUGMENT AND CORRECT THE RECORD ON
APPEAL AND APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF DUE OCTOBER 10, 2022
A. JULY 20, 2022 PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’S

SECOND NOTICE OF OMISSION RE: DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL-
CAL. RULES OF COURT- RULE 8.155 (B)(1)
On July 20, 2022, I submitted to the Sacramento County Superior Court a Second Notice of
Omission: Re: Designated Record on Appeal (Attachment # 60), which was filed on July 26,
2022 (ROA # 313).
In my Second Notice of Omission, I requested, among other things, that:
1) The Sacramento County Superior Court Appeal Unit, without further delay, issue a new
Notice of Filing of Designation/Notice to Reporters for Court Reporter Valerie Haley, who had
already transcribed the September 1, 2021 Court Hearing presided over by Judge Christopher E.
Krueger (not Judge David I. Brown) and the Defendants’ attorney from the Porter Scott law firm,
Thomas L. Riordan (not Douglas Ropel or Lindsay Goulding). The new Notice of Filling of
Designation/Notice to Reporters should resolve the problem with the Court Reporter.
2) I pointed out that Volume 8 is completely missing, or has been omitted, in the Chronological
and Alphabetical Index for the 13-volume Clerk Transcript on Appeal and must be corrected
(Attachment #61).
- 45 -
In response to my Second Notice of Commission, the Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate
Department Clerk KEVIN MICHAUD, in a created by him and others CIRCUS OF DECEPTION
AND DELAY, submitted to 3DCA another meaningless declaration that stated: (Attachment #62):
TO: CLERK OF THE COURT, THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
I, Kevin Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, do

declare as follows:
On July 21, 2022 Appellant submitted a second notice of omission in regards
to the Court Reporter Transcript. As the previous declaration stated, the CSR
was noticed based on the information submitted by the Appellant on page 4
of the filer's designation (copy included for reference). Said CSR prepare a
declaration of having no notes. It is the responsibility of any filing party to
verify the proper information is listed on their filing document prior to filing.
The Appeals Unit of the Sacramento Superior Court does not correct any
filing document.. Nothing was omitted.
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California,
that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED :July 26,2022 Kevin M
Following MICHAUD’s Declaration, 3DCA tried to run me in circles. The 3DCA responded to my
Second Notice of Commission with the Court Order dated August 11, 2022 and stamped by 3DCA
Acting Administrative Presiding Justice, Hon. RONALD B. ROBIE, stating (Attachment #63):
BY THE COURT:
Appellant's Second Notice of Omission in the Record on Appeal" is

treated as a motion to correct the record, and in light of the subsequent
filing of the supplemental record on appeal, the motion is denied. If there
are further corrections sought, appellant may file a motion in this court
addressing the specific corrections he seeks to have this court direct the
trial court to correct.
ROBIE, Acting P.J.
B. MOTION TO AUGMENT RECORD
- 46 -
On September 23, 2022, I filed a Motion to Augment Record on Appeal, which was
basically a redundant repetition of my two Notices of Omission, which were submitted to
Sacramento County Superior Court with no known results (Attachment #64). I am well aware
that I am being played by the corrupt staff from two Courts. This game has been going on for
almost nine years, but I am doing my best to beat the odds as a self-represented litigant for whom
English is a second language.
On September 28, 2022, the 3DCA Clerk filed my Motion to Augment Record on Appeal after
five days’ delay.
C. COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT (CRT)
On September 27, 2022, four days after I submitted to 3DCA my motion to augment record on
appeal, I received from Court Reporter Valerie Haley an electronic version of the COURT
REPORTER TRANSCRIPT (CRT) from the September 1, 2021 Court Hearing with Judge
CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER from Department 53 (Attachment #65). The CRT was provided to me
via YesLaw, which shows that the CRT from the September 1, 2021 Court hearing was uploaded to
YesLaw by Haley on March 21, 2022, but never provided to me or transmitted to 3DCA by Clerk
MICHAUD.
I was expecting that the CRT, which was sent to me on September 27, 2022 would be certified
and transmitted to 3DCA and that I could use it for my APPELLANT OPENING BRIEF (AOB),
which was due to be filed on October 10, 2022.
For the above reason, on October 3, 2022, I submitted to 3DCA an Application for 30 days’
extension to file my AOB with a new due date of November 10, 2022 (Attachment #66).
D. THE APPELLANT OPENING BRIEF (AOB) DUE OCTOBER 10, 2022
While waiting for 3DCA to grant or deny my extra 30 days’ extension of time, a request I
submitted on October 3, 2022, a request to 3DCA to rule on my motion to augment the record on
appeal submitted on September 23, 2022. I was working on my AOB due October 10, 2022. I was
expecting nothing good or any good news from 3DCA staff, which as the nine years’ record shows in
two cases, has discriminated against me, blocked me from gaining equal access to justice, and shown
- 47 -
prejudice against me. This appeal was no exception, and the Case No. C095488 docket alone shows
in black and white how closely 3DCA staff collaborates against me with the staff in the Sacramento
County Superior Court Appellate Department and beyond (Attachment #67).
This is a wrongful termination case and summary judgment appeal in which the Defendants’
attorney did not provide one single piece of credible evidence to be granted a motion for summary
judgment by Judge KRUEGER, from Department 54. Judge KRUEGER presided over this 8-year-
old case for less than one month and cut me off on the September 1, 2021 in an oral argument hearing
after 5–10 minutes. He ended the case that way because he perhaps was completely unprepared for
the hearing, or perhaps because he did not want to hear on the Zoom call about the unlawful May 31,
2012 Power Sale Purchase Agreement between the UC Regents and Sacramento Municipal Utility
District (SMUD) from the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration facility, where I was an operator working
for UCDMC (CT Vol. 3 pp. 768-789, Attachment #68). Judge KRUEGER is a former Attorney
General employee, and he was fully briefed by the Porter Scott attorneys in October 2018 on what
this wrongful termination case is about and about the power sale to SMUD.
On October 10, 2022, I was struggling to finish my AOB and to send it 3DCA, waiting until
the last minute with hope that 3DCA would provide me the 30 days’ extension of time because of the
3DCA clerk’s conflicting and unclear statement in the case docket, which did not state whether my
motion for an extension of time was filed, granted or not granted, or rejected. I did not take any
chances and submitted my AOB to 3DCA very early in the morning on October 11, 2022, at 4:36
A.M. The AOB was written based on an incomplete record on appeal and not knowing whether the
extension of time to file the AOB had been granted or not.
E. OCTOBER 7, 2022 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO THE SEPTEMBER 23,

2022 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD ON APPEAL.
On October 10, 2022, instead of receiving the extension of time to file the AOB, I received a
3DCA e-mail notification that my AOB was due. I looked at the case docket and noticed that, on
October 7, 2022, the Defendants’ attorney filed an opposition to the my (Plaintiff’s) September 23,
2022 motion to augment the record on appeal. The Defendants’ attorney submitted this opposition via
- 48 -
TrueFiling on October 7, 2022 at 12:53 P.M., and the opposition was filed on the same day by 3DCA
Deputy Clerk T. Eyster (Attachment #69). However, the Defendants’ opposition was not served
to me for five days, arriving on October 11, 2022. On the same day, I asked the Defendants’
attorney from Horvitz-Levy, Karen Bray, via e-mail why she had not served their opposition to my
motion for five days after their opposition was filed. On that same day, I received a response from
Ms. Bray, stating:
Mr. Waszczuk,
Attached is a copy of the opposition to motion to augment that we filed on
Friday. We attempted to serve it upon you through TrueFiling using your
registered email address, but just noticed that there was a server error message,
which we have copied below. Our understanding is that other filings have been
served upon you at this email address, so we aren’t sure why service failed in
this instance.
In her response, Ms. Bray stated that she “just noticed” there was a server error. I responded to
her that there was nothing wrong with my e-mail. I have never had a problem submitting my
documents via TrueFiling. If there was something wrong with my e-mail, the TrueFiling Server
operator would have notify me instantly that I was blocked. By working for the UCDMC as an
associate development engineer, I have backed up servers for entire hospitals, and I do not
believe that TrueFiling’s server for the entire California Court System is less critical to protect
from viruses or spam attacks than the UCDMC hospital server, or that its and system is less
sophisticated than the UCDMC computer system was 10 years ago. Instead, I think that my
documents were not being processed by the clerks and filed for many days after being submitted
via TrueFiling. I notified the TrueFiling Service on October 11, 2022 of the problem and
received a response that there should not be any further problems. Supposedly, some spam had
been attached to my registered e-mail, which kept me from being served for five days. However,
I should also have received text messages on my phone, 209-687-1180, as usual, which
documents that something was filed, but no such messages were sent.
Furthermore, I noticed in the case’s Register of Action (ROA) on October 11, 2022, the
Defendants filed a Supplemental Proof of Service five days after the opposition was filed. I never
received from the Defendants’ attorney a copy of this supplemental proof of service. I am not going
- 49 -
to speculate what the Defendants’ attorneys from Porter Scott and Horvitz & Levy were up to
together with the 3DCA Clerks that kept them from providing me information (proof of service) that
the opposition to my motion had been filed and granting me an extension of time before my AOB
was due on October 10, 2022.
F. OCTOBER 13, 2022 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO THE DEFENDANTS’

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE RECORD ON APPEAL
AUGMENTATION AND CORRECTION.
Being, again, manipulated and prejudiced against by the Defendants’ attorneys from Porter Scott
and Horvitz & Levy and the 3DCA Clerks, on October 13, 2022, I submitted to 3DCA via TrueFiling
the Reply to the Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for the Record on Appeal
Augmentation and Correction (Attachment #70).
The reply was more of a complaint than a reply to opposition due to being subject to gross
prejudice by the Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department, which deliberately
delayed the processing of my appeal in a blunt approval of wrongdoing by the 3DCA staff.
On the same day, October 13, 2022, I submitted my reply to the Defendants’ opposition to my
motion, the 3DCA granted me an extension of time to file my AOB, which I had already submitted
to 3DCA on October 11, 2022 via TrueFiling. What nonsense. The extension was granted without
granting or denying my motion to augment and correct record on appeal (another bit of nonsense).
I examined the granted Application for Extension of Time and found that the order was stamped
with 3DCA’s acting judge Robie’s name, but the order was not dated. It is unknown whether the
extension was granted before October 10, 2022 or three days after I submitted my AOB (Attachment
#71).
G. THE APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
I submitted my AOB to 3DCA via TrueFiling on October 11, 2022. After that, I sent a letter,
on October 14, 2022, to Judge Robie asking him to order the 3DCA Clerk to file my AOB without
any further delay (Attachment #72) and to fax a copy to the Commission. The AOB was filed on the
- 50 -
same day, October 14, 2022
Four days later, on October 18, 2022, I received a 3DCA Court Order stamped by Judge
Robie (Attachment #73) stating:
BY THE COURT:
On the court's own motion, the October 14, 2022, filing of appellant's opening
brief on demand is ordered stricken. The clerk of this court is directed to return
the opening brief to the appellant with a letter explaining how the brief fails to
meet the requirements of the California Rules of Court.
On the court's own motion, the October 14, 2022, filing of appellant's reply to
the respondents' opposition on demand is ordered stricken. The California
Rules of Court do not contemplate the filing of a reply to an opposition to a
motion.
The next day, on the early morning of October 19, 2022, I submitted a corrected AOB via TrueFiling
with a cover letter addressed to 3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, in which
I stated :
Dear Ms. Wallin-Rohmann:
Per the October 18, 2022 Court Order and Court Supervising Deputy Clerk
Todd Eyster’s explanatory memo, I am resubmitting with this letter the
corrected Appellant Opening Brief (AOB), which was stricken by the Court
due to non-compliance with the following California Rules of Court:
Rule 8.74(a) (2): I repaginated all pages of the AOB with Arabic numerals.
Rule 8.74(a) (8): I removed the green cover page from the AOB.
Rule 8.204(c) (1): I corrected the AOB certificate of word count which
included a typographical mistake.
Due to the required corrections, especially repagination of the all pages with
Arabic numerals, I also changed the pages numbers accordingly in the AOB’s
Table of Contents and Table of Authorities.
I appreciate the Court Order and Clerk’s clear explanation of what needed to
be corrected in the AOB to make the document compliant with the California
Rules of Court. I apologize to the Court for my mistakes.
Also, I (Plaintiff) would greatly appreciate it if the Court Clerk would file the
AOB without delay. The AOB is bookmarked by Acrobat DC Pro and all
matters in the AOB are supported by the citation of the volume and page
- 51 -
number of the record (Clerk Transcript) where the matter appears (California
Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)((1)(c)).
Please let me know if the Court has any further concerns. Thank you.
Sincerely,
______________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Pro Se
Plaintiff & Appellant
After I submitted the corrected AOB and cover letter via TrueFiling, I expected that the Brief would
be filed without any delay. It did not happen.
On the morning October 24, 2022, I was notified by the 3DCA Clerk via e-mail and an ROA
entry that my corrected AOB submitted on October 19, 2022 had been filed. The 3DCA Clerk in the
ROA entry noticed my letter, which explained what I corrected in my brief: (Attachment # 74)
“Clerk 10/24/2022 Appellant, submitted with his opening brief, that confirms he made the
corrections to his brief directed by the court.”
I also noticed that 3DCA, by filing my AOB Brief, did not make an entry in the case ROA
showing when the Respondent Brief is due now after my AOB was filed.
XII.
CONCLUSION
I would not bother the Commission of Judicial Performance with this inquiry if my
access to the justices of the California Appellate Courts had not been notoriously blocked,
denied, and manipulated for long nine years by Court staff and the judges, or by justices who
were pretending to serve justice but instead were covering up the crimes committed by UCOP’s
white collar criminals and their at 15 attorneys handling these matters from 2013–2022.
The facts presented here, backed up by 74 attached documents, show indisputably that, from
2015–2016 and six years later, from 2021–2022, the unemployment insurance benefits stolen from
- 52 -
me in 2014 became a key factor for some judges, justices, and collaborating staff to endlessly and
unlawfully slow the litigation in my wrongful termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, filed December 4, 2013, to protect the
white collar criminals from the University of California and their collaborators from different
entities.
https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-ICE-FORM-211-
APPLICATION-FOR-AWARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-California-White-Collar-
Crime
I am still awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeal’s Third Appellate District on my Motion
to Augment and Correct Record on Appeal filed on September 28, 2022. Hopefully, this request
will help to provide my motion to Acting 3DCA Acting P.J., the Hon. Ronald B. Robie, for his
signature.
Dated November 10, 2022
____________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Enclosed 74 Attachments on the Flash Drive and DVD
- 53 -
me in 2014 became a key factor for somejudges,justices, and collaborating staffto endlessly and
unlawfully slow the litigation in my wrongful termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaros/aw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, filed December 4, 2013, to protect the
white collar criminals from the University of California and their collaborators from different
entities.
https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-ICE-FORM-211-
APPLICATION-FOR-A W ARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-California-White-Collar-
Crime
I am still awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeal's Third Appellate District on my Motion
to Augment and Correct Record on Appeal filed on September 28, 2022. Hopefully, this request
will help to provide my motion to Acting 3DCA Acting P.J., the Hon. Ronald B. Robie, for his
signature.
Dated November I 0, 2022
· Jaro� aw Wasz zuk
Enclosed 74 Attachments on the Flash Drive and DVD
- 53 -
11-10-2022-Commission on Judicial Performance-Request/or Intervention

11-14-2022-California Commission On Judicial - Performanace - Request For Intervention

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

11-14-2022-California Commission On Judicial - Performanace - Request For Intervention

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2216 Katzakian Way

November 10, 2022

Via Fax and US Priority Mail

NOVEMBER 1, 2022 COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

Dear Ms. Kem:

On November 4. 2022, I received a letter dated November 1, 2022 from the

Dear Jaroslaw Waszczuk:

Your complaint concerns court personnel. This commission has no

Secretary to Staff Counsel

Mr. Jaroslaw Waszczuk 2216

Secretary to Staff Counsel

Section 1142(a) of the UI Code] says:

An employer who willfully makes a false statement or

Obviously, my former employer the University of California office of the General

MY NOVEMBER 10, 2022 REQUEST FOR THE COMMISSION’S INTERVENTION

YOUR LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 (ATTACHED)

It may also be helpful to explain that the Commission on Judicial

court to be legally incorrect, that by itself is not a violation of the Code

THE JUNE 1, 2022 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL

I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Respectfully Submitted on November 10, 2022

CC: State Bar of California Executives

November 10, 2022

Hon. Ronald B. Robie

Hon. Michael G. Bowman

REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION

Re: Sacramento County Superior Court—Writ of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013-80001699,

To Whom It May Concern:

I am hopelessly trying to survive at my age and with my health condition due

B. THE STOLEN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS - MOTION

On December 1, 2017, I filed in California Supreme Court an Appellant's Motion for

C. THE STOLEN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS -PETITION FOR

• Waszczuk spouse Irena Waszczuk is working in Nordstrom in

Waszczuk apologizes to the Supreme Court Justices that this

As a former UC Davis employee, Hon. M. Kathleen Butz should have

In addition to the December 27, 2018 unpublished opinion on Waszczuk v. Cal.

A. MARCH 21, 2019 -THE LETTER-SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FROM

Claimant agrees to work exclusively with Investigator to recover assets

Under the IDENTIFIED ACCOUNT INFORMATION letter disclosed :

Reported Owner: Reported Address: Reporting Institution: Property ID #:

From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk <JJW1980@LIVE.COM>

Dear Mr. Pettinato:

Your eClaim ID 16384911 has been successfully submitted and is being

Property ID Number: 998812640

If we need further information, a representative from our office will contact

B. THE STOLEN RETAINER MONEY -THE MARCH 29, 2019 INQUIRY

RE: INQUIRY NUMBER 18-31694

RE: INQUIRY NUMBER 18-31693

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

Attorney General Deputy ASHANTE NORTON, who represents CUIAB in Court,

E. MY SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 INQUIRY WITH LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE

Following my August 30, 2018 Application for Reimbursement, on September 4, 2018, I

RE: Short-Term/Supplement Disability Claim # 4154074

A. MY AUGUST 15, 2021 INQUIRY SENT TO THE EDD

September 23, 2021

California Public Records Act Requests

To Whom It May Concern:

C. EDD’S RESPONSE TO MY AUGUST 15, 2021 AND SEPTEMBER 23, 2021

Date: September 6. 2021

To: Jaroslaw J. Waszcuk

Parent Claim Record Screen Information

From: Her, Thia@EDD <Thia.Her@edd.ca.gov>

A. THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2022 WELLS FARGO MEDIATION INQUIRY