Gov, Gray Davis exam- ines one of the of California, Davis, Medical Center's co- generation plant in Sacra- mento on Wednesday. With him, far left, is opera- tions manager Tony Modde- sette, Davis sald he hopes soon to an- nounce a plan toshelter Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison from bankruptcy. Associated Press photographCommission on Tudicial Performance 153 Golder Wate Abene, Suite 11100 Son Feaises, C8 94102-3660 a9) ssri0 eo Se Fagg 0 May 19, 2016 Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszezuk 2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242 Dear Me. Waszezuk ALits May meeting, the Commission on Judicial Performance determined not to take further action with respect to your complaint dated March 22, 2016, and further correspondence dated May 13, 2016 ‘tas concluded that the cantents ofthe complain provided an insufficient basis for commission proceedings. Therefore, no further action is justified based on the information you provided. We do appreciate your time and effort in bringing this matter tothe commission's attention, Anne M. Hunter Stal¥ Counsel Altas!L0S19Wasverik Confidential under California Constitution, Aniele VI, Section 18, and Commission Rule 102Jarosiaw “Jerry” Waszczuk 2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242 Phone: 209-339-1982 Cell: 209.663.2977 Fax: 209-247-1089 Eni: jw 980@tive coms ‘March 23, 2016 Honorable Erica R. Yew, Chairperson State of California ‘Commission on Judicial Performance 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400 ‘San Francisco, California 94102 ‘Subject: Complaint against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. Shelleyanne W. L. ‘Chang. The Sacramento County Superior Court— Writ of Mandamus, Case No, 34-2013- 80001699, Jaroslaw Waszezukv, California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of terest (RP1)—The Regents ofthe University of California (GC Regents), filed on December 2, 2013. Dear Chairperson Yew: Enclosed is my signed complaint form with Commission on Judicial Performance (hereafter Commission) against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon, Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, plus a 45-page addendum tothe complaint and 47 hard-copy exhibits on the enclosed flash drive for the reviewer's convenience on the computer. Also, in support of Judge Chang’salléged misconduct, am enclosing a complaint with the State Bar of Califomia against wentytwo attomeys with the exhibits onthe enclosed lash rive. Most ofthe State Bar of California attomeys subjected tothe complaint are former or present University of Califomia employees who ganged up on me to destroy me and my family members’ lives by the order ofthe Regents ofthe University of Califia. In addition to the State Ba of California complaint against these attorneys, enclosed isthe copy ‘of the complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (TRS) that alleged multimillion-dollar tx fraud committed by UC Regents and its administrators in 1999-2003 and 2012-2013, plus exhibits that are also included onthe enclosed flash drive I quite certain the UC Regents alleged fraud isthe linked to Judge Chang’s misconduct in the court and the UC Regents alleged fraud is (Complaint Against Hon. Shelleyanne Chang‘the reason why I was severely victimized by Judge Chang and Judge David I, Brown from the same court. Judge Brown isnot directly connected to the complaint with the IRS and UC Regents” ‘multimillion-dollar alleged tax fraud, which is why I did not include Judge Brown as a subject of the direct complaint. However, in the complaint I included the Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw Waszezuk v. UC Davis, UC Davis Health System, UC Davis Medical Center, The Regents of University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Charles Witcher, Dorin Danilie, Patrick Puiney, and ‘Cindy Oropeza involving Judge David Brown, However, the above case, which involved Judge Brown, will demonstrate forthe Commission what | experienced from these two judges in Sacramento Superior Cour. Before Judge Chang was appointed tothe bench in December 2012 by California Governor Gray Davis, she held two key positions inthe California Attomey General's office and Governor Gray Davis" office. ‘Se was appointed along with two other government officals tothe Sacramento Superie Cour just before Gray Davis was recalled from office. ‘The enclosed complaint to exhibit #4 shows Governor Gray Davis touring the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility on February 14, 2001, where I was employed from June 1999 to March 2007, fhe commission investigator reads my thee complains and looks athe aforementioned exhibit #4 and reads my fox I sent on February 14, 2001 t9 Govemoe Davis office four hour [Moris tour because I was Ieoncerned about the govemer's safety during the tour and checks Suge Chan's position in Grey Davis office in February 2014—then the commission investigator would srath is head as [i and he would probably ask himself what Governor Davisis doing wit his staff members, which most key included his Deputy Chit Legal Secretary Selleanne Chang, in the UC Davis Medical 27 MW cogeneration facility, which is the subject ofthe complaint withthe US, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for raniulating the western electricity markets in any fashion including, but at imited to, claims af economic or physical withholding, gaming, fraud or misepreentaton together wit the aher sellers, power producers, and ancillary services mentioned and listed previously, as wells exporting and selling electrical energy unlawfl via the Califia Independent System Operaioe(CAISO). ‘The UC Regents’ alleged multimillion dollar fraud was covered up in avery smart way by the settlement agreement approved by FERC in March 2007, which is the month that T was abruptly removed from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility. The UC Regent ‘multimillion-dollar alleged fraud covered up by the 2007 settlement approved by FERC involved CAISO General Counsel Charles Robinson, who became UC General Counsel in January 2007, and California Attomey General Bill Lockyer with, most likely, the legal involvement of Shelleyanne Chang as Governor Davis’ deputy chief legal secretary. Judge Chang found a safe haven in the Sacramento County Superior Court, as she was aware that her professional tenure with the governor's office would be threatened if Governor Davis could 2 ‘Complaint Against Hon. Shelleyanne Changnot survive the recall ballot. Ido not have any information about whether Judge Chang benefitted financially by helping the UC Regents in court to vietimize me in order to make me give up the pursuit of my legal action against UC Regents, which had a great chance of surfacing the UC. Regents’ multimltion-dollr fraud, {currently have two pending appeals inthe State of California Appeals Court's Third Appellate District. filed the appeal relating to Judge Chang's Order denying me Petition for Writ of Mandate one month before I filed the appeal from Judge David Brown's Order in the UC Regents’ SLAP Motion. | submitted my Appellant Notice Designating Record of Appeal on June 22, 2015. Then the ‘court clerk issued a notice of default without informing me that I was in default because I did not ‘pay for the court reporters transcript. Finally, I identified the problem in November 2015 after questioning the status of the record of appeal. ‘Atte present time, a Clerk Transcript and Court Reporter Transcript twas due on February 22, 2016, tobe transmitted o the Court of Appeal, and itis one month overdue, The Appellant Opening Brief forthe SLAPP motions duc on April 4, 2016. It leary shows tha the UC Regents’ lawyers and Judge Chang are trying o resolve the SLAP motion in the Court of Appeal before the Petition for Writ of Mandate record wil be transmitted tothe Court of Appeal (cos eulashSaniuary 20, 2016)NodE of Hllig’t Designation ahd Notice toReporters to Prepire Transerips). On Apri L, 2014, I complained to State Bar of California investigator Amanda Gormley about the strange out of order documents filing inthe cour in both of my cases, which i evident i the Court Register of Action (ROA) Lttetsto Amand Gorméley dated April 1:2015 (encloted ‘On May 7, 2015, and June 11, 2015, filed the Notices of Appeal inthe Court of Appeal Third “Appellate District in both cases relating to Judge Chang’s Order denying my Petition for Writ of Mandate and Judge Brown’s Court Order granting the UC Regents’ SLAP Motion. (On May 11, 2015, UC Regents’ attomeys from Porter Scot filed a Motion for Legal Fees and Costin the SLAPP Motion, ‘On May 19, 2015, UC Regents’ counsel from Porter Scot, David Burkett, asked me by e-mail ut of the blue what my setlement offer was. ‘On May 25, 2018, recovering from the nervous breskdown caused by udge Chang's and Judge Brown's misconduct Teen leer othe Deputy Atlomey General chante Noon presenting CCUIAB, in which seriously questioned Judge Changs assignment o my Petition for Wit of Mandate ‘On May 2820151 filed, mandated by the Court of Appeal the Appellants Mediation Statement, which had been denied by Judge Chang's Petition for he Writ of Mandate case ‘On June 18,2015, the Court of Appeal’s Acting Presiding Justice (P.J.) Kathleen Butz denied the case eligibility for mediation inthe Petition for Writ of Mandate Case, ‘Complaint Against Hon. Shelleyanne Chang{Qn July 40, 2015, | filed 69 pages, as mandated by the Court of Appeal, of the Appellant “Mediation Statement granted by the SLAPP Motion to UC Regents by Judge Brown in my ‘wrongful termination ease. The Court of Appeal Acting PJ. Butz denied the case eligibility for ‘mediation i the SLAP Motion inthe same fashion as Acting PJ. Butz had denied eligibility for ‘my Petition for Writ of Mandate. It took lot of time effort and produce and file 69 pages Mediation Statement not to mention money I had to pay for proof -readers due to that English is my second language. 1 don't know what criteria are set by the Court of Appeal to acceptor deny the case for sedition, It was my understanding tet mandatory mediation is dictated by unprecedented curbocks and budget criss inthe State of California's Judicial Branch of governmeat. Wet of Mandates for unemployment insurance benefits or SLAPP mations are not the multimillion- dolar case that equie several yeas in cout and jury trials I completely fail to understand why ‘Acting PJ. Butz denied eligibility to mediate the case, thereby futher devastating my financial resources after two years of unemployment. Acting P.J. Butz was appointed tothe Court of ‘Appeal by Governor Davis, lke Jadge Chan, and PJ. Butz was employed for quite a lng tine by UC Davis before she graduated from the UC Davis Law School. UC Davis, was my employer hich devastated and destroyed my lif atthe age of 60 because ofthe UC administration uncontrollable corruption. Iwill mise this issue in my Appellant Opening Brief in the SLAPP Motion duc on April 4, 2016 However, ifP.J. Butz, with all due respect to the Court off Appeal and law, is just another Judge Chang or Judge Brown, then its apparent that my chance establish my legal rights to justice and obtain equitable relief in a Court of Appeal would be as same as in the Superior Court Judge Chang’s and Davis Brown’s rling and their served justice is total fraud done upon the court, The atomeys representing UC Regents, CUIAB_ my former attomey of record and the ‘to judges, Shelleyanne Chang and David Brown, as officers of the court, perpetrated a continuous and pervasive pattern of interfering with my ability to obtain my right to justice inthe courts. Jn conclusion ofthis cover letter, which briefed my complaint against Judge Chang, [am respectfully requesting thatthe commission launch a full-scale investigation against Judge Chang. My addendum shows tha | am ot the only vietim of Judge Chang's judicial service where the University of Califomia or the California government was involved. The UC Davis Medical Center has hundreds of eases in Sacramento Superior Court and who knows how many plaintifis were victimized on the UC Regents’ behalf because judges like Judge Chang are serving the public. Such individuals have nothing todo with practicing the law but use their skill and attomey's likeness to shield corruption, abuse of power and the violation of other people's civil and human rights, M si JarcRlaw Waszcruk Complaint Against Hon. Shelleyanne ChangCC: The State of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye Federal Bureau of Investigation Enclosed: ‘+ The complaint form with the State of California’s Commission on Judicial Performance against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne (Chang with addendum and exhibits (hard copies and on the enclosed flash drive) ‘+ The copy of the Complaint with State Bar of California against 22 attomeys and exhibits and onthe enclosed flash drive '* The copy of the Complaint with Intemal Revenue Services against the Regents of the University of California exhibits on the enclosed lash drive ‘© Copies ofthe docurnens filed inthe Sacramento Superior Court in Court Case— ‘Writ of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Wasoczuk » 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 (qn the eicloséd slash drive) “Copies ofthe documents filed in the Sacramento Superior Court in Wrongful ‘Termination Case No. Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw Wascczuk v. UC Davis, UC Davis Health System, UC Davis Medical Center, The Regents of University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chileot, Brent ‘Seifert, Charles Witcher, Dorin Daniliuc, Patrick Puiney, Cindy Oropeza (on tie ‘enclosed flash dri) ‘+ Copy ofthis leter with self-stamped and addressed envelope for return of the endorsed copy ofthe caver latter, ye Chi Complaint Against Hon. ShelleyaTABLE OF CONTENTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERMORMANC COMPLAINTAGAINST SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, HON, SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG. INTRODUCTION. IL STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO JUDGE, HON, SHELLEY ANNE W. 1 CHANG.. ‘The Roceivership News Article “Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L, Chang: Dedication, Civility and Eloquence on the Bench”... 246 ‘Conclusion of this Chapter. 7 7 68 ‘The UC Davis Medical Center Versus UC Davis Campus a4 ML. THE COURT'S CAs of Mandannus Case No, 34-2013- The Sacramento County Superior Court W 80001699 Jaroslaw Waszc2uk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Paty of Interest (RPI), The Reagents ofthe University of California (UC Regents). Filed on December 2.2013 oneneeLA ‘The Sacramento Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-2013-00158479 Sarostawe Waszezuk v. The Regents ofthe California; Jarostaw ‘Wasze7uk v, UC Davis, UC Davis eath System. UC Davis Medical Center, The Regents of University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chileot, ——--—F"_=—™—™—L ‘on December 4, 2013, 417 “The Sacramento County Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No, 34-2010- (0079869 Janct Keyzer «. The Regents ofthe University of California, Larry N. Vanderhoef, Mark Yudott, Klea Benakis, areal “The State of Califommia Coust of Appeal, Thied Appellate District, Case No, C0S00S2 MelehsBirosen State (Cl. App Di 30218200, 22“The San Joaquin Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin Tod Branch Complaint Case No. LMOS1206A; LPD CASE, DA Case CR-2012-4029037-7he People ofthe State of California Plaintiff . Dorothy Bernheyl, Defendant Filed on August 6, 2012 AND CROSS-CONNECTED CASE: “The San Foaguin Superioe Court of California, County of San Foaguin Civil Case No. 39.2012-00283391.CU-PO-STK ; Chiari Colarass. throngh her Guardians ad Litem, ison Colarostl: Alison Colorossi; Robert Colarossi: Maia NaBhols, through her ‘Guardian ad Liv, Joanna Wiodawer: Joanna Wiodawer: and Trevor NoBhoe Dorothy Berahoft: Franklin Bernkopt 2242 Conclusion ofthis case oar CONLUSION OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE HON. SHELLEVANNE W. T. CHANG econo 45,EXHIBITS 1-47 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERMORMANCE COMPLAINTAGAINS SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE HON, SHELLEVANNE. W. 1. CHANG Exhibit Number: Description Page No. ‘The Receivership Nows article “Sacramento County Superior Court Indge Shelleyanne WL. Chiang: Dedication, Civility and Eloquence on the Bench Complaint and Application for reporting the tax evasion. fraud, and violation of the provision of Section $01(6X3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. ‘The 3rd. Appellate Distriet Court Decision in Case C030008, Waszezuk v. Destee Energy « 3 Waszezuk Fas 10 Governor Grey Davis Office dated fannary 14.2001 3 ‘Commpints agains the CULAB's judges. 9 9 December 2, 2013 Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Waszezuk v. CUIAB. Peremptory Challenge (CCP § 170.6) against Judge Chang filed in Janet Keyzer v. The Regent of the University of California ease 10 Jaadge Chang's assignment to Wasaczuk's Petition for Wait of Mandamus 10 Wasccauk’s Whistlblowing Retaliation Complaint dated March 7, 2013. un Waszemak’s March 11,2014 letter to COP Principal Investigator judith Rosonborg Re Dr. Shelton Durressau’s interview : : : wll Substitution of Attorney dated 1/14/2014. 1B ‘Copy of the Complaint with California State Bar against Attorney Douglas Stein, 13, March 2, 2015, The Judge Chang's Writ of Mandamus decision, 3 Paacember 4, 2012 Copy of Waszezuk’s wrongfl termination complaint ..se.rso.l Waszezuk, Appellant's Civil Appeal Mediation Statement fied in the Court of Appeal ‘Third Appellate District on July 10, 2015 (Case No, CO79S24 \ludge Brown), 4 Waszeauk’s the 29S-page drall ofthe proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC) 14 Copy of Detsndants Motion for Automatic Stay, or in the Alternative Motion for Discretionary Stay. C.C.P § 916(a)(Tudge Brown)... 1s Waszezuk Opposition to Defendants Motion for Automatic Stay. or inthe Alternative Motion for Discretionary Stay(Judge Brown). 15 ‘The Court Decision in Defendants Motion for Automatic Stay, or in the Alternative Motion for Discretionary Stay dated 10:28'2014 Judge Brown). 16 Waszeauk Notice of Objection to Defendants Replay to Waszczuk' Opponition to Defendant's Motion for Automatie Stay Judge Brown) ” ‘The July 7, 2015 Waszezuk Request for Intervention sen tothe United State Senator Honorable Dianne Feinstcin a7 Dowglas Stsin text message about knowing hudge Frown for 20 years 723. Motion to Augment Record on Appeal in the Court of Appeal SLAPP Motion ....17 24. Th... Janet Keyzer ». The Regents of the University of California vorypaint rool 28. Waszvauk’s May 31, 2015 leter to Carmen Angeles. legal specialist Irom the Sedgwick ‘Claims Management Services Inc, 18 26. UC Regents Abandonment of Appeal in Janet Keyzer’s weongiul termination case ...21 27 The Weleh-Brovn v. State case (Judge Chane’ disqualification). 21 28. CULAR's Notice of Demurrer filed April 1, 2014 Judge Ching), 2 29, Petitioner Disapproval of the Respondent Propose Order dated March 10, 201 in Writ of Mandate ease (udge Chang) 2 30. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston Settlement offer dated August 20, 2014...23 BILLIC Davis Police inquiry about Waszezuk sent to Todi Police in June 2012. 2 32, Waszeaih’s September 30, 2014 lester to UC Davis Medical Center Executive Director Mike Boyd in Re: unwarranted attack aimed at UCDMC employee dhring his mother funeral (U.S EEOC Case) mM 33. Court document about child pomography felon 25 ‘34, Return to Work Clearance dated August 31. 2011 26 [38 Waszezuk inquires tent on October 5, 2011 to UC Davis Polive Depariment Captain Joyee Souza, 2» 36.Photoof the December 1981 Arrest Warr issued by Polish Communist Secret Police 31 37. The April 21, 2012 Davisvanguard unicle aboot UC Davis new chiet of poli Qualifications 32 ‘38, December $, 2011 Charles Witcher letter removing Wasaceuk ftom stress-related sick ve without the permission ofhis physician Dr. Hashimoto or his psychologist D. “Boston 2 40, San Joaguin Superior Court files of the Case No. LMOS1206A; LPD_ CASE, DA Case (CR-2012-4029037-The People ofthe Stave of Calijornia Plaintifv. Dorothy Berahoft Defendant, filed om August 6, 2012 and Civil Case No. 39-2012 400283391 441 "The California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division ‘Complaint Investigation Report against Dorothy Bernbor. 35 42. Charges wgainst Dorothy Herbol liled by the California Department of Social Services oon February 2, 2012 3s 43, Search Warrant and Affidavit dated January 31, 2012 issued to search Bemnobol's Home in Lodi on January 31, 2012. 35 44. The June 24, 2012 State of California Department of Insurance decision in Waszeaik's ‘complaint against Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston 39 445. Civil lawsuit Filed in San Joaquin Superior Court on July 3.2012 against Waszezak's psychologist Dr Eranklin Bomholt and his wife Dorothy Beenhol 40 46. UC Davis Police distributed around UC Davis campuses posters similar to FBI Posters for most wanted criminals and terorists, with Waszczuk’s photo in Septernbor 2012. 40 47. May 30, 2013 Waszeruk's complaint with State Bar agains! the University of California ‘Atlome o 2SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Sacramento ‘720 Ninth Street, Appeals Unit Room 101 Sacramento, CA 95814-1380 (016) 874.3701—Website www succourtea.gev JAROSLAW (JERRY) WASZCZUK ‘PlaintifV/Appeliant ‘COURT OF APPEAL NO: EO7E25q vs. SUPERIOR COURT NO. 64201. 0OUTBOD CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURNACE APPEALS BOARD, | NOTICE OF FILING OF DESIGNATION EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT. | AND NONCE TO REPORTERS TO PREPARE DEPARTMENT; DOES 1-10 ‘TRANSCRIPTS: INCLUSIVE DefadantRespndent ‘Appeal from the Honorable Judge SHELLEYANNE CHANG PLEASE TAKE NOTICE tht you and each of you are hereby directed to commence prepartion ofthe REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT on Appeal in the above-catiled action. The Appel i o the THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL and the transcript iso coniain the following dts, designated by the APPELLANTIRESPONDENT: (COURT DATES ‘Qn7/s (CSR)NUMBER 10751 (COURT REPORTER'S NAME E Busath ‘TRANSCRIPTS ARE DUE:0222/16 ‘Blase read all designations as Compater-Readable format may have been requested, Pease notify the Appeals Unit in writing before the due date if no transcript will be filed. Request for an extension of time from the Third District Court of Appeal should be filed prior 10 ‘the du date. | declare under penalty of perjury that his notice was sent to the aforementioned reporters and the ‘Court Reporter Supervisor via interftice Email [Executed on; January 20, 2016 Kevin M. ‘Deputy Cleric (CC: Court Reporter's Supervisor Cased fer Paanaaeee TAROSLAW WASZCZUK (Pro-Per) ‘ASHANTE L, NORTON #203836 12216 KATZAKIAN WAY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL LODI, CA 95242 1300 1 STREET, STE 125 208-663-2977 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 916-324-5567 Tce of Fing of Designalontcice tw Reporters (CME 9.28 (Rev 9.12008) Page totCOMPLAINT ABOUT A CALIFORNIA JUDGE, COURT COMMISSIONER OR REFEREE, Confident ner California Constitution Avicle Vi Section 18, and Comasson Rade 102 Fo nforaton about he Cananion on fil Parone ad insects a ill at an mtg som, er ow wc onan ge “Today's dae MARCH 22,2016 ‘Yourmame: _ JAROSLAW "Jerry" WASZCZUK ‘Your lephone mumber: (20) 663-2977 -Cel|(Prmary) (209) 339-1982 Home ‘Your address: 2216 Katzakian Way ; Lodi, CA 95242 Vooratumneysmame: wy peo PER Your attorney's telephone muster: SAME AS ABOVE Name of ode: ‘oR SHELLEVANNE W. L. CHANG [Namie of court commissioner oF referee {i sour compli aolv a cou somaisions ree, you mt i eu your compli tte se text. Iya dane 3, pane stack cope af ur ceespondence oS Fon scour). Court: sipaor (act county batom) [=] County seco a [Name of ease and case number: Wnt of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jarosiaw Waszczuk v, CUIAB (RPi}—The Reagents ofthe University of California, fled on December 2, 2013. Please specify what ation or beiavior ofthe judge, court commisshner or referees the basis of your ‘complaint, Provide relevant dates and the names of others preseot (Use ational pages seen) ‘See the enclosed Addendum 10 the Complaint against Judge Chang and copies of the complaints with the State Bar of California against wenty atlomeys and the copy ofthe complaint with the Intemal Revenue Services ‘or aloged tax fraud. Returafo: Commission on Judielat Performance 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Sule 14400 San Franclco, Californla 94102 ‘Telephone: (415) §87-1200 Fa (415) $57-1266‘THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA |ON ON JUDICIAL PERFORMAN ADDENDUM TO THE COMPLAINT AGAINST SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHAN OMMI 1 INTRODUCTION Jaroslaw “erry” Wasze7uk (pronounced “Vashehook") is representing himself officially inpro per inthe Sacramento County Superior Court —Writ of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013- 180001699, Jaroslaw Waszezuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CULAB) ‘and Real Party of Interest (RP) —The Reagents of the University of California (UC Regents), filed on December 2, 2013 ‘The Writ of Mandarnus was denied by Hon. $ welleyanne W. LL Chang on March 12, 2015 In July 2013, by the recommendation from the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs, Waszczuk sent 2 complaint to the Commission on Judicial Performance in relation to his unemployment insurance benefit. However, the Commission returned Waszezuk’s complaint with the advice to contact CUIAB about the complaint against the CUIAB judges. Thereafter, Waszc7uk fled a complaint with the CUIAB Chief Counsel office, which took the ease but never resolved it. (Pg. No. 9-Exhibit Nos) ‘Also, Waszcauk is representing himself in his wrongful termination case atthe same ‘courts: Sacramento Suporior Court Case No, 34-2013-0015479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk ¥. The Regents of the University of California, filed on December 4, 2012, and The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, Case No. CO7524 filed on 06/11/2015, Both cases are very interconnected, with basically the same merit and history, but were filed for different purposes ‘two days apart in Devember 2013, Waszczuk is perfectly aware tht the Commission on Judicial Performance cannot change Judges" decisions, orders or judgment, and Waszezuk isnot expecting i to do so by filing this complaint Waszezuk has already filed appeals for both cases inthe State of California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate Distriet. The appeal in Waszezuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and Real Party of Interest, the Regents of the University of California was astigned as ease no, C079254 and was filed on May 7, 2015. ‘The Notice of Appeal in Wrongfil Termination from the SLAPP Motion, C.CP § 425.16, Waszeruk v. The Regents of the University of California etal. was filed on June 11, 2015, and is pending, sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintInregard tothe SLAPP Motion, inthe last year Waszczuk outraged by Judge ruling sent a lot of information's about this case by e-mail and fax to Mr. Shawn Parsley, Administrative Coordinator Appellate Court Services)Operations and Programs Division from the Judicial Council of California: 415-865-7629, Fax 415-865-4315, shawn parsley@ijud.ca pov Inthe statement of facts and explanations, Waszczuk will ry the best he can to condense the information and statements, but Waszezuk does not know same techniques as attorneys do and sometimes has to claborate much more than necessary about subjects or to express himself. Waszczuk apologizes ifreading his complaint agains Judge Hon. Shelleyanne Chang would cause the Commission on Judicial Performance some inconvenience and frustration, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO JUDGE. HO! ‘SHELLEVANNE W. L. CHAN According to the Sacramento Business Journal artic County Superior Court” (hntp//wwsbizjoumals.con/sacramento/stories/2002/12/30/daily6 him?page=all) dated December 30, 2002; Ballotpedia (htps//ballotpedia.org/Shelleyanne_W._L._Chang), and the Receivership News article “Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. Chang: Dedication, Civility and Eloquence on the Hench,” published by McFarland Beverly in Fall 2011, Issue 41 (http/iwww receivers orgirecnews ArtilePage php?id=1 78&keywords) EXHIBIT #1, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang (hereafter Judge Chang) was appointed by former California Governor Gray Davis in December 2002 a8 a Superior Court judge. Furthermore, the Ballotpedia article statos that, prior to her appointment to ‘the Superior Court, Judge Chang held positions as State of Californie deputy attorney general fom 1993 to 1999 and chief deputy of legal affairs and secretary for Governor Gray Davis from 1999 102002, The Receiver News article provides detailed information about Judge Chang's professional career, which I found very useful for my complaint. “Trio appointed to Sacramento Judge Chang, together with another County of Sacramento County Superior Court Juudge—Hion, David L. Brown (hereafter Judge Brown)—vietimized Waszezuk and devastated hhim, his family life and his health on behalf ofthe University of California's corrupted and ruthless administration, However, Judge Brown isnot a diret subject ofthis official complaint; after reading many of Judge Brown's decisions, Waszezuk believes that Judge Brown isa good Judicial officer but was manipulated into a dirty game against Waszezuk on behalf of the University of California, ‘The Receivership News Article “Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. ‘Chang: Dedication, Civility and Eloquence on the Bench” Believing that the Fall 2011 Receivership News article and interview with Judge Chang mentioned above provides credible information about Judge Chang, Waszczuk found is information very useful for his complaint against Judge Chang, as Follows: “The Fall 2011 Receivership News article portraits Judge Chang's caresr and her performance asa judicial officer and public servant in @ very positive way. However, the other 2 sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaintpublications state that Judge Chang isthe most often disqualified Sacramento County Superior Court judge by the ltigant’s preemptory challenge under CC.P. §17056. “The “Government Service” chapter of the Reosivership News article state that after ‘pursuing her interest in intemational law at McGeorge, Judge Chang became atrial attomey (and later senior trial attorney) in the Office of Chief Counsel, representing the Internal Revere Service in civil and criminal tax matters before fedoral and district courts, at well asthe U.S, Tax. Court, She was also appointed asa spacial assistant United States attorney representing the IRS before the federal bankruptcy court, “This part of Judge Chang’s professional career perfectly corresponds with Waszczuk’s Complaint and Application for reporting the tax evasion, fraud, and violation of the provision of Section $01(@)(3) ofthe Internal Revert Code of 1954 by the Regents of the University of California duc to unrelated business income, which i also part ofthe background ofthis ‘complaint against Judge Chang (EXHIBIT #2), Furthermore, the same chapter state that Judge Chang then joined the Office ofthe Attorney General of the State of California; among her accomplishments as advocate forthe stat, she obtained a $63,000,000 recovery against a major Wall Street investment banking firm, the largest civil settlement ever paid in the fim’s 100-year history, According to Ballotpedia and the Sacramento Business Journal, Judge Chang was deputy attorney general forthe State of California from 1993 to 1999, Judge Chang's $63,000,000 recovery against a major Wall Sreet investment banking firm was the great success of her careet with the State of California Attorney General Office. It appears that California governor Gray Davis noticed her achievement and rewarded Ms. Chang my promoting her in 1999 to chiet deputy of legal furs seretary in his office, Daring the same period of 1993 to 1999, Waszezuk was working asa cogeneration operator for Destee Energy, a private power producer in Lathrop, California, which was lator acquired by Dynegy Power Corporation—a competitor of the infamous Enron Corporation, Enron, together with Dynegy and other power producers, manipulated the power market and caused power shortages, rolling blackouts and skyrocketing energy prices for millions of California residents in 1999-2002. This period is know as the Califernia Energy Crisis or the Western U.S. Energy Criss Inthe same time period, Wasze7uk got int a dispute with his employer about wage faud for 119 workers’ overtime, due to violations of the State of California Welfare Commission Order #1 EXHIBIT #3. The disputed wage fraud and retaliation by his employer led to the enormous disclosure of approximately $240,000,000 in fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) ratepayers committed by Destec Energy/Dynegy and PG&E, based on my information in a lawsuit fled in September 2007 against Destec/Dymegy. $10,000,000 was recovered in the settlement approved by State of California Public Utility Commision, Waszezuk was not awarded with a promotion like Judge Chang for her $66,000,000 recovery against a Wall Street investment banking firm. Instead, Waszezuk was fired from his sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaintjob and had to file for bankruptcy. Waszezuk never expected that 10 years later in 2007, he ould be viciously and unscrupulous attacked, or that his employment would be terminated in December 2012 by the University of California's corrupted administration because the university ‘would commit similar or even worse frau than that committed by Waszezuk's provious ‘employer inthe attached exhibit #2 Furthermore, the same chapter ofthe article tates that Judge Chang left the Office of the ‘Attorney General to serve as senior deputy (and later chief deputy) legal affairs secretary to Governor Gray Davis, where she would supervise state officers, agencies and departments, and advise them on litigation, legislation, government ethies and other legal matters. During her tenure, among other things, Judge Chang reviewed parole and extradition decisions, and represented the governor inthe Proposition 187 mediation and Class III gaming compact negotiations with Native American tribes. She also reviewed the work products of other atiomeys inthe governor’ office, advised the governor and his staff on legal issues and pending litigation, provided direction to the attorney general's office on litigation involving the governor and reviewed and analyzed proposed legislation, according to the Sacramento Business Journal article dated December 30, 2002, which is attached as exhibit #1 ‘The above Receivership News and Sacramento Business Journal articles undoubtedly indicat that Judge Changs former deputy atomcy gencral and Governor Davis's senior and chief deputy—nad fall knowledge about the California Energy Crisis and the State of Californi’s litigation against the major energy sellers, producers, ancillary services, financial institutions and power producers that manipulated the Western electricity markets in all fashions {Gncluding, but not limited to, elaims of economic or physical withholding, gaming fraud or misreprescntation; alleged forms of market manipulation or any ethor forms of wrongful cont; electricity market manipulation; violations of any applicable tariffs, regulations, laws, rales or orders relating tothe Wester electricity markets, or enfering into transactions when the Western electricity markets were non-competitive). Furthermore, the above Receivership News and Sacramento Business Journal article indicates that Judge Chang—as former deputy attomey general and Governor Davis's senior and chief deputy——was undoubtedly informed and had ful knowledge tha, om August 2,2000, the San Diego Gas & Electric Company—in a joint venture with the Pacifie Gas and Electric Company; Southern California Edison Company; the People ofthe State of California Bx Rel Bill Lockyer, Attorney General; the California lectricity Oversight Board; andthe California Public Unilities Commission, collectively named as “The California Parties"—filed a complaint ‘with tho United States of America Fedoral Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services nto Markets Operated, The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and California Power Exchange (Cal-APX), FERC's Docket No, 00.95.00; Docket No, EL00-98-000. In adltion, the Receivership News and Sacramento Business Journal article undoubtedly indicates that Judge Chang, as former deputy altorney general and Governor Davis's senior and chief deputy, was informed and had full knowledge that the UC Davis Medical Center's 27 MW. cogeneration powerplant, where Waszeruk was employed from lune 1999 to March 2007, was included inthe San Diego Gas and Eloctic and California Parties’ complaint with the FERC as a sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintParty that manipulated the Wester electricity markets in al fashions (including. but not Limited 1o, claims of evonomic or physical withholding, gaming, fraud or misrepresentation; alleged forms of market manipulation or any other forms of wrongful conduct; electricity market ‘manipulation; violations of any applicable tarifs, regulations, laws, rules or orders relating to the Western electricity markets; or entering into transactions when the Western electricity markets Were non-competitive). ____Itis very likely that in January 2001, Judge Chang, as Govemor Davis's chief deputy, ‘toured Waszcauk's workplace—the UC Davis Medical Center's 27 MW cogeneration power plant—together with California Govemor Grey Davis (EXHIBIT #4). The “Appointment to the Bench” and “Recelverships and Receivers" chapters of the Receivership News article stated that Governor Davis appointed Judge Chang to the Superior Court beneh in 2003. Furthermore, the article states that Judge Chang's case load was initially dominated by felony and misdemeanor criminal araignments and jury trials. Thereafler, in her civil law and ‘motion department, Judge Chang heard and devided ona wide variety of pre-trial matters, including discovery motions, patitons to compel arbitration, domurrers, motions for summary Judgment and judgment on the pleadings, enti-SLAPP motions, writs of possession/attachment ‘and applications for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions I appeats from the interview that Judge Chang i interested and specializes in receivership ease, which in California resemble cases under the federal Bankruptey Code in many respects. She is very familiar with such eases after working, as special assistant United States attorney representing the IRS before the federal Bankruptcy courts, Howover, in the fall of2011, when Beverly McFarland interviewed Judge Chang and Judge Brown, Waszezuk’s employer~—the UC Davis Medical Center—was, despicably and ‘beyond human decency, violating Waszezuk and his coworkers’ civil and human rights. It attempted to ire Waszeruk from his job, which finally happened in December 2012, ‘What an unusual coincidence that two and half years later, in the spring of 2015, Judge (Chang and Judge Brown vietimized Waszeauk on behalf of the University of California's ‘corrupted administration, tothe point that Waszczuk underwent a severe nervous breakdown, from which he spent atleast one month recovering, Waszezak came across this interview with Judge Chang just a few days ago—one year too late The full of 2011 in UC Davis is remembered asthe fall of illegal medical experiments by Dr. Muizelaar, the highest paid employee at UC Davis, and Dr. Schrot, who performed experimental, unapproved, seriously dangerous, and deadly experiments on patients with an open source of | hactora that all nurses, except for one, denied knowing about to federal investigators. “Nurses ae not whistleblowers,” suid the Chief Patient Care Services Officer. The fall of 2011 at UC Davis is also remembered for UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi's ‘Pepper spray atack against protesting students on the UC Davis campus sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaint‘The fall 2011 is also the pending wrongfl termination case against UC Davis in the Sacramento County Superior the Court Case No, 34-2010-00079869, Janet Reyzerv. The Regents ofthe Universiy of California, the case in which Judge Chang was disqualified on On February 24,2014 Con som of this Chapter California Governor Gray Davis appointed Judge Chang as judge to Sacramento Supcrior Court in December, 2002, the middle of the California electricity criss, the California budget cris and one year before the State of California Governor Gray Davis was recalled from his office and replaced by Amold Schwarzenegger Jaroslaw Waszezuk has no doubt that Judge Chang—in her tenure as former deputy attorney general and California Governor Gray Davis's senior and chief deputy, and with her ‘outstanding legal expertise in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax aw—had full knowledge that thatthe UC Davis Medical Center's 27 megawatt (MW) cogeneration power plant, as part of the University of California system (a non-profit organization) was unlawfully o illegally selling power vi the California Independent System Operator and generated millions of dollars in illegal, tax-free profits, thus violating section $01(@)3) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the State of California tax aw. Jaroslaw Waszeruk has no doubt that Judge Chang had full knowledge that on August 2, 2000, the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, in joint venture withthe Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Souther California Edison Company, the People of the State of California, exrel, Bill Lockyer, attomey general; the California Electricity Oversight Board; andthe California Public Utilities Commission, collectively named as “The California Parties” filed a ‘complaint withthe United States of America Fedoral Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated, The California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO), andthe California Power Exchange (Cal-APX) (FERC’s Docket No. F1,00-95-000; Docket No. EI00-98-000) ‘The San Diego Gas & Flectric Company's complaint agains the major energy sellers, producers, and ancillary services included the UC Davis Medical Center's small 27 MW cogencration plant located in Sacramento, California, which undoubtedly committed multiple millions of dollars in state and federal tax fraud by illegally generating and selling electrical ‘energy, in conspiracy with Cal-ISO and Cal-APX, created in 1996 by California Legislature Assembly Bill 1890. Als, the San Diego Gas & Electric Company's complaint alleged that UC Davis Medical Center's 27 MW cogeneration plant, along, with other sellers, power producers, and ancillary services, chargod, collected, or wore paid unjust, unreasonable, or otherwise unlawful rates terms, or conditions for energy, ancillary services transmission, or congestion in the western electricity markets. (See exhibit #2) Exhibit #2 isthe Waszeruk’s Application for Award for reporting tothe IRS the suspected tax evasion and fraud, a violation of Section $01(\3) of the Intemal Revenue Code of 1954, by the Regents ofthe University of California due to unrelated business income. By attaching exhibit # 6, Waszczuk hopes to help the Commission of Judicial Performance to better understand Waszezik’s complaint against Judge Chang and the reason for Judge Chang's scale of misconduct. In Waszezuk’s view, Judge Chang's misconduct had to do ‘with her involvement in the cover-up ofthe major fraud that was committed by the University of sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintCalifornia administration as pat of a conspiracy with state government officials. ‘Waszezuk also has no doubs that Judge Chang, besides being knowledgeable about and involved in the abovementioned FERC ease, had to advise the State of California Attorney Gonoral’s Office regarding the above cases and communicate withthe Cal-ISO General Counsel office, and she mos likely knew Cal-ISO General Counsel Charles Robinson, who was ‘the charges against Cal-ISO that were pending with the FERC. CaL-I8O General Counsel Robinson was transferred in January 2007 from Cal-ISO to the University of California Office of the President as the university's new general counsel and senior vice president. Robinson, as Cal-ISO general counsel, together with the State of California Attorney General’ Office andthe University of California General Counsel office colleagues, managed to cover up the major university fraud by excluding the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility, where Waszezak worked since June 1999, from the proposed January 2007 settlement agreement submitted to FERC by the involved partes. Ifthe University of California fraud in relation to unlawful power generation sale would ‘most likely have been publicly disclosed. Also, the university would have had to pay an enormous amount of money bask to Sacramento Municipal Utility Distrit ratepayers, pay ‘money back to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E ) ratepayers for discounted-price natural gas provided by PG&E for the operation ofthe LM 2500 gas turbine, and pay back taxes tothe IRS and the State of California for making illegal profits through the generation and unlawful sale of electrical energy as a non-profit organization from a 27MW power plant. This, plant should not have been built in the first place at the UC Davis Medical Center, where the demand for power in 1998-2000 was less than 5 MW. If the fraud would have becn disclosed in 2007. Then, the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MI cogeneration powerplant would mos likely have been retrofitted witha smaller gas turbine engine and would have been operated legally providing the needed utilities for the UC Davis Medical Center. If the fraud would have been disclosed, and Waszezuk would not have heen removed from the 27 MW UC Davis Medical cogeneration facility in March 2007 following an attempt to terminate Waszezuk's employment by order of General Counsel Robinson, UC Davis Chief Counsel Steve Drown, and UC Davis Medical Center Human Resource Executive Director Steven Chileot. During March 2007, FERC approved the settlement agreement, and the university's major fraud was swept under the carpet and vanished for many years. Tit would not have happened, the fraud would have boon disclosed in 2007. In that case, Waszezuk and many other university employees would sill be employed by the university and ‘would have rotired from the university ‘Wasvezuk became a primary target in 2007 and was singled out for termination by the university administration because the university administration knew about Waszezuk’s previous litigation, which invelved a more than $10,000,000 ffaud against PG&E ratepayers committed by Waszezuk’s previous employer, Destee Energy/Dyneey. “The university administration knew that only Waszezuk, as an employee ofthe UC Davis Medieal Center 27 MW cogeneration facility knew that the plant was nota qualified facility (QP) to generate and sell power by the U.S Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) enacted by the United States (U.S) Congress in 1978 and the FERC sel-certifeation standard sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaint\Waszezuk during his employment withthe University of California never thought about FERC and PURPA and never had any intentions to report the university ‘Waszezuk thought that during the power market deregulation, the law had been changed and the plant as in compliance with PURPA and FERC, Waszezuk was more concemed about his and his coworkers” safety because the plant was commissioned unfinished in some parts and caused serious safety problems forthe operating personne! isnot difficult to conchide that Judge Chang did not perform very well and didnot do a 100d job for Governor Davis and the people of California as senior and chief deputy supervising and advising state officers, agencies, and departments, reviewing the work of other attorneys in the governor's office, advising the governor and his stafT on legal issues and pending litigation, providing direction tothe atorney generals office on litigation involving the governor, and reviewing and analyzing proposed legislation, Governor Gray Davis was recalled from his office Also, it isnot difficult to conclude that Judge Chang’s appointment tothe superior court 1s judge was nota promotion or special recognition by Governor Davis but rather a means of petting rid ofher, as according to some publications, she was the most disqualified judge by litigants under C.C.P 170.6, The interview conducted by Receivership News with Judge Chang, was too good to be true UL, ‘THE COURT'S CASES ‘The Sacramento County Superior Court Writ of Mandamus Case No. 34-2013-80001699 Jaroslaw Waszecuk v, California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Barty of Interest (RPI, The Reagents ofthe University of California (UC Regents). Filed on December 2, 2013 I Waszezuk had expected that ater the termination of his employment in December 2012 the University of California would challenge his claim for unemployment benefits, he never would have filed the claim, ‘Since February 2009, Waszezuk was employed by a settlement agreement (oritten contract) Waszeruk signed withthe Regents ofthe University of California, Waszezuk's employer never alleged or complained in any document or verbally that Waszezuk had violated or breached the signed settlement agreement. Thus, Waszcaik did not expect tobe challenged in his claim for unemployment benefits, which he never received. ‘Also, if Waszezuk before fled a claim for unemployment benefits with the Employment Development Department had the chance to read the Civil Rights book published by the State of California Attomey General's Office. He would have found ut that on page 30, the book states: “Under California la, ifyeu should subsequently lose your unemployment insurance case, your employer may then be abe to use that decision against you 8 sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaint{in any subsequent discrimination case which you might file with some other {governmental agency or in court. In other words «loss in the unemployment insurance ease may prevent you from prevailing in another foram under @ different set of laws. Ifyou cannot afford a lawyer and are faced with an employer appeal regarding your unemployment insurance compensation benefits, contact {your nearest legal aid office for assistance.” \Waszeruk expected that in his unemployment insurance case, the Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Chang, the former deputy of the California Attorney General, would protect Waszczuk’s civil rights instead of grossly violating hs rights Furthermore, Waszczuk thought that if his employer, the University of California, kept \Waszczuk as not working as an employee on the payroll for over one year, Waszeruk would not bbe denied $1,500.00 knowing that in December 2012, Waszezuk, at age of 61, was not even eligible forthe earlier Sovial Security Administration benefits. With Waszczuk’s poor health and notice of termination, Waszezuk will be notable to find new employment very easily in the tough job market. Before Waszezuk’s attorney Douglas Sten filed the Writ of Mandamus on Devember 2, 2013, \Waszezuk on June 26, 2013, filed a complaint against the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) Administrative Lave Judge (AL) Marlyn Tays and two CULAB board members, Michacl Allen and Roy Ashburn, tothe State of California Department of Consumer Alfairs, Qn July 5, 2013, the complain was retuned to Waszezuk with a recommendation to re-file the ‘complaint withthe Commission on Judicial Performance (hereafter Commission) due tothe State of California Department of Consumer Affairs’ lack of regulatory authority or jurisdiction over another government agency. {Qn July 10,2013, based on the recommendation from the State of California Department of Consumer Aifairs, Waszezuk sent his complaint to the Commission ina form unchanged from that which Waszczuk had submitted to the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs for review and consideration by the Commission, n July 17,2013, the Commission returned Waszcrik’s complaint with the advice to contact CUIAB about the complaint against the CUIAB judges. Thereafter, Waszezuk filed a complaint with the CUIAB Chief Counsel office, which took the case but never resolved it EXHIBIT # On December 2,2013, Waszezuk’s attomey of record, Stein, filed a Petition for Writ of fandamus in the Sacramento Superior Court it was docked under Case No. 34-2013-80001699- CU-WM-GDS, Jaroslaw Wascecuk v, California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and Real Party Interest UC Dawts Health System. EXHIBIT #6 On December 20, 2013, Judge Chang was assigned to the Writ of Mandate'CEQA in the Sacramento County Superior Court Department 24 effective January 1, 2014 sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintOn February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff's attorney, Mary-Alice Coleman, inthe wrongful Termination ease pending in Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2010-00079869, Janet Keycer The Regents ofthe Universi of Calforma, filed a Plaintiff's Peremptory Challenge (CCP § 170.6) against Judge Chang, EXHIBIT #7 ‘The Plaintiff's attomey, Coleman, inthe Keyzer's case did not specify why exactly she filed the Peremptory Challenge against Judge Chang, The court Register of Action (ROA) did not show any Writ of Mandate fled in Keyzer's case by PlaitfY in January or February 2014. Wasze7uk could only speculate that Keyzer’s legal counsel in the lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California and, more specifically, against Keyzer’s direct employer the UC Davis did not want Judge Chang's presence to influence the legal process prir to the approached court tal.” kis possible that Keyzer’s legal counsel decision was made or dictated to disqualify Judge Chang because, in September 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown's senior advisor, Jacob ‘Adams Applesmith, was transfered tothe UC Davis Campus as the new UC Davis Campus Chief Counsel replacing Steven Drown. Jacob Applesmith transferred tothe UC Davis Campus during atime when Waszczuk was pursuing his complaints against UC Davis administration and UC attorneys with various state agencies, including California State Bar, and shortly before Waszezuk filed his Petition for Writ of Mandate, to whieh Judge Chang was assigned as well aso his wrongfl termination lawsuit in December 2013. “Prior Judge Chang was appointed tothe bench in 2002 she worked with Jacob Applesmith for five years, from 1994 to 1999, inthe California Department of Justice, where Applesmith has served inthe slate attorney general's office as special assistant attorney general and chief of'the Bureau of Gambling Control and the senior assistant atomey general forthe Department of Justice in terms of employment, regulation and administration”? It possible that Jacob Applesmith was Judge Chang's superior during her tenure in the attorney's general office It possible that Jacob Apptesmith was a Judge Chang's superior during her tenure in the attorney's general On March 21,201. Waszc7uk’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus was assigned to Judge Chang, fom Department 24. EXHIBIT # 8 Nothing would be unusual about reassigning Waszszuk's Petition for Writ of Mandate ease to Judge Chang except that just one month prior to the reassignment, Judge Chang was the subject ‘of a Plaintif's Peremptory Challenge in Keyzer’s wrongful termination case against the same Defendant as in Waszezuk’s wrongful termination ease and the Real Party of Interest inthis Wsit of Mandate case, 10 sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintBesides Judge Chang, three other judges from the Sacramento Superior Court are assigned 10 handle Writs of Mandate and CEQE cates: the Hon, Timothy M, Frawley from Department 29, the Hon. Michael P. Kenny ffom Department 31, and the Hon. Allen H, Summer from Department 42 Furthermore, Judge Chang was assigned to Waszczuk" Petition for Weit of Mandamus 10 days after Wasacruk sent a ltter dated March 11, 2013, to the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, who was handling since June 2013 ‘Waszezuk’s whistleblowing retaliation complaint filed withthe UC Davis Viee Chancellor Office on March 7, 2013. EXHIBIT # 09 Inhis March 11, 2014, letter to Rosenberg, Wasvezuk informed Rosenberg, about the Sacramento Alfican-American Magazine Sub Cultural Hub interview with UC Davis Assistant View Chancellor Dr. Shelton Duruisseau, who worked and retired from the UC Davis Medical Center, where a 27 MW cogeneration facility was located. In the letter to Rosenberg, Waszezuk wrote: EXHIBIT # 10 ‘Shortly after Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Duruisseau retired, he threw a retirement party in his Ekdorado Hill residence. The two guests of honor at the party were Mayor of Sacramento Mr. Kevin Johnson and Mr. Shelton Duruissenu’s colleague, UC Davis Medical Center Director Robert ‘Taylor. Besides the lavish retirement party, Dr. Duruisseau gavean interview to Sacramento African-American magazine Sub Cultural Hub. The Interview was conducted by Donna Michelle Ramos on August 6, 2012, and was entitled “A Look Back?” “White reading the “A Look Back’ interview with Dr. Duruiseeau, a few statements caught my attention, The first statement that caught my attention ‘was: Internally, I convinced the university to build its own central plant because we recognized our patients come into the hospital on ventilators, ete. They couldn't be disrupted, so by having our own central plant the health system doesn't depend on any central outfit to supply water, power, ete. SMUD, PG&E are backup systems for us. We sold enough power to the State for the central plant to be paid for in the first four years. Lots of energy ‘companies like Enron all around the country caused prices o go up. The Plant provides stable power for the campus without interruption and without blackouts. This plant was built out for 50 years capacity, we are only using 9%, s0 we have lots of room built in for growth.” “Lam very skeptical about Dr. Duraisseau’s statement that the Central Plant sold enough energy in its first four years of operation to cover the cost of, building the Central Plant. As T recall, the contruet to sell power to the lectrial grid was in limbo, and at that point the Central Plant di u sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaint‘much money from power sale. At nighttime we were giving away 2 MW of [Power for free to SMUD to keep Central Plant's 25 MW gas engine ‘operational. The statement that the plant was built for 50 years of capacity and that we are using 9% of t translate into the fact that UC Invested $70 tllion or more, yet a large part of this investment is frozen for many years tocon something that can’t be utilized fully. Apparently, the decision makers whose ‘names appear on the plaque located in the entry’to the Central Plant did not have any clue what UC Davis Medical needed with regard to demand for ‘lectric and thermal energy. The names mentioned on the plaque are UC Davis Chancellor Larry N. Vanderhoef (retired), UC Davis Medical Center Director Hospital and Clinic Frank J. Lodge, Associate Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph. D., Manager of Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Tony Moddessette MBA, Project Manager and Principal Engineer Mike Lewis, Construction Manager David DeRusso, and Principal Engineer from Brown and Caldwell James L. Bartlet. . This is obviously an enormous waste of millions of dollars to bull “Apparently, in 1998 Dr. Duraisseau and Project Manager Mr. Mike Lewis hhad no clue what a cogeneration facility stands for and what criteria such a facility must meet to bein compliance with federal law (FERC). “By rending the 2012 ‘A Look Bach’ interview and seeing Dr. Duruisseau’s zname on the plaque in the Central Plant, itis not difficult to conclude that the Central Plant for him and others was like a sacred and untouchable place ‘built for future generations to remember “great” UC Davis leader the Central Plant lacked safety for employees and caused mascive ‘contamination of the natural enviros i river) for seven years. twas the first time Waszezak had ever mentioned the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW ‘cogeneration power plant in relation tothe FERC or PURPA regulations, but Waszezuk never connect his thoughts to faud similar tothe $100,000,000 fraud commited by his former employer, Destec Energy/Dynegy, against PGRE ratepayers In Mareh 2014, Waszeauk did not know who Judge Chang was or that Judge Chang worked in the State of California Governor's Office together with CUIAB Administrative Judge Tays. In March 2014, Waszezuk did not know that Judge Chang worked asa deputy chief in California Governor Davis's office. 2 sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintIn Mareh 2014, Waszezuk had no clue that in January 2007, the Cal-ISO General Counsel Robinson was transferred and became the University of California General Counsel In March 2014, Waszezuk did not know thatthe 27 MW cogeneration plant located in UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, and owned by the Regents ofthe University of California, here Waszeruk worked for eight years, manipulated the western electricity markets in all fashions including, but not limited to, claims of economic or physical withholding: gaming, fraud, misrepresentation, or alleged forms of market manipulation discussed inthe intial staff report or final stafTreport or any other forms of wrongful conduct, electricity market ‘manipulation, or the violation of any applicable tarif, regulation, law, rule, or order relating to the western electricity markets On April 1, 2014, nine days after Judge Chang’s assignment to Waszezuk’s Petition for Writ of “Mandate, the Respondent (CUIAB) and the University of California filed a Demurrer against the Writ of Mandate by alleging thatthe Writ of Mandate was filed in an untimely manner, n June 9, 2014, the Respondent removed the Demurrer from the Court Calendar followed by ‘the Real Party in Interest, the University of California, which removed the Demurer on June 13, 2014 Since January 13,2018, Waszezuk formally represented himself after Waszezuk dismissed his attorney, Sten, from his Writ of Mandamus Case No. 34-2013-80001699 and the Wrongful ‘Termination Case No, 34-2013-00185479. EXHIBIT # 11 Stein refused to sign a 2015, against my will Substitution of Attorney and continued represent ion until January 13, ‘The case against Stein, to whom Wasze7uk paid more than $25,000 to represent him but who instead grossly misrepresented his Waszezak ,has been pending in the Califomia State Bar since January 2015 and remains unresolved (Case Number: 15-0-1010). EXHIBIT #12 On March 2, 2015, in the Writ of Mandamus decision, Judge Chang disclosed that she and AL Tays worked together in the Office of Legal Affairs of Governor Davis in approximately 2001 or 2002 for about six months. ALJ Tays was on temporary loan from another state department to the California Governor's Legal Affvrs Office; Judge Chang was the chief deputy legl affairs secretary during that timeframe. EXHIBIT #13, 1.was too late for Waszezuk to do anything, and Waszezuk in March 2015 did not know all of the facts or meaning of Judge Chang's postion asa chief deputy for the Governor Gray Legal Alfars Office at the relevant time. He would not connect Judge Chang's job with the University of California's committed fraud in relation to the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant. Judge Chang's decision further devastated Waszoruk’s life and impacted significantly his wellbeing end financial resources, On March 3B sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintOn May 7,2018, Waszezuk filed an appeal from Judge Chang, On March 2, 2015, a Writ of “Mandamus decision was made in the State of California Court of Appeal Third Appellate District, (Case No, C079254). The State of California Court of Appeal did not select the cate for ‘mediation and the case is still pending ‘The normally acting and Administrative Law Judge, Appeal Board Officer, or Judge ofthe Superior Court who is conducting hundreds of hearings related to labor and employment issues should not let this happen, Seeing a 62-year-old worker who worked for an employer for 13, ‘years, such a judge would ask the employer to provide the employee's personnel record, evaluations and work history—or atleast ask the employer's witnesses what kind of employee Petitioner had been, asthe employer kept him for 13 years. tis crime what Administrative Law Judge Tay, the 0 CULAB board members, and the Hon. Chang did to Waszezuk, ‘especially Superior Court Judge Hon, Chang. who represents the court of law and justice system. ‘Administrative Judge Marylyn Tays Judge Chang and their friends from the University of California and Judge David Brown from Department 53 have caused Waszeczuk to experience a nervous breakdown caused by enormous stress and ansety, tothe point that after the hearing on April 10, 2015, in Department 53, two police officers showed up at the door ef my Lodi residence and inquired about Waszezuk well-being. Prior to this hearing, the lawyer forthe Real Party in Interest (the University of California), Douglas Ropel, threatened that his client would go aller my wife for the legal fees thatthe University had not yet been awarded. It took Waszezuk almost a month to recover from the nervous breakdown caused by the almighty University of California, Aside from vietimizing Waszezuk and causing Waszezuk nervous breakdown, Judge Chang by her outragcous ruling and bias against Waszczuk caused Waszcruk the loss of over $20,000.00 inunomployment benefits, $2,000.00 in attomey feos I paid up front to Douglas Stein, and '$350,00 in administrative record fees, plus the cost ofthe appeal, I expressed my feelings about Judge The Sacramento Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No, 34-2013-00185479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California; Jaroslaw Waszewk UC Davis, UC Davis Health System, UC Davis Medical Center, The Regents of University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Bord, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Charles Witcher, ‘Dorin Daniliuc, Patrick Pune, Cin 7. Filed on December 4, 2013 On December 4, 2013 ,simutancously with Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Waszezuk in pro per filed in Sacramento County Superior Court the wrongful termination lawsuit against his employer, Case No, Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw Wascecuk v. UC Daws, UC Davis Health System, UC Davie Medical Center, The Regents of University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcot, Brent Seifert, Charles Witcher, Dorin Daniliue, Patrick Puiney, Cindy Oropez EXHIBIT #14 ‘The presentation ofthis case is not the complaint about the Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. David 1 Brown (hereafter Judge Brown) from the Law and Motion Department 53. 4 sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintJudge Brown isnot connected, ike Judge Chang, to former California Governor Gray Davis’ office, nor to the California Attorney Generals Office and nor to millions of dollars” fraud by the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration powerplant. \Wasze7uk, in his Appellant's Civil Appeal Mediation Statement filed in the Court of Appeal ‘Third Appellate District on July 10, 2015 (Case No. C079S24 Jaroslaw Waszezuk v. The Regents of the University of California etal), wrote: EXHIBIT # 15 “Waseezuk suspects that, in addition to Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott from Scott/Porter Law, his colleague, Douglas Ropel, and four attorneys. from the University of California General Counsel (Charles Robinson, Cynthia Vroom, Margaret Wu, and Karen Jensen Petrulakis) were involved in the outrageous scheme together with Douglas Stein to deceive Waszezuk, Honorable Judge David Brown and the Court of Lav. TThe case has been pending since January 2015 against Douglas Stein in the California State Bar, where the University of California Chief Deputy’ General Counsel California Karen Jensen Petrulakis serves on the Litigation Section Executive Committee, and the same time is listed as counsel in the Waszeauk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board case, representing the Real Party In Interest (the University of California). ‘Waszezuk does not like to elaborate further about Honorable David I. Brown, because Waszezuk does not know all the facts and is not in the Position to make allegations that could be unfounded, inappropriate, and offensive to the Honorable David Brown and the Court of Law. Waszczik views Honorable Judge Brown as a very nice person and a very professional judi “Judge Brown handled several cases prior the Waszezuk ease; Waszezuk was officer based on Waszezuk’s last appearance in court and on how very impressed. However, after Wasze7uk heard his own case, Waszeuk left the court very upset and disturbed by Hon, Judge Brown’s ruling, which ‘caused Waszezuk’s nervous breakdown for one month until before he was able stowly to pursue the case.” When in summer of 2015 Waszezuk by closely examining all documents related to his termination of employment by the university in December, 2012, Waszc7uk realized that his employer had been hunting him down like an animal for six years for reasons which never cxossed Waszcruk's mind Waszczuk chosked the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission e-Library and found out that his employer, the University of California, as nonprofit organization, was involved in fraud in rclation to unlavsful goncration and power sales in a conspiracy with California Independent System Operator and Sacramento Municipal Uiilty District by UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant. After the discovery on the FERC e-Library, Waszeauk decided to amend his complaint ina way which would not interfere with the engoing appeal in 1s sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaintthe Court of Appeal. The university's counsel from PorterScot law firm even offered to Waszezuk stipulation with Leave to Amend the Complaint. Waszczuk sent the 295-page draft ofthe proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC) EXHIBIT #16 to university's attomeys, On September 28, 2015, wo days afler Waszezik sent the proposed draft of TAC to the university's counsel instead ofthe stipulation, university counsel filed Motion for Automatic Stay, or in the Altemative Motion for Discretionary Stay. C.C.P § 916(a) EXHIBIT # 17 On October 13, 2018, Wasze7uk filed opposition to the university Motion for Automatic Stay, Which described in detail reasons why Waszezuk needs to file TAC EXHIBIT #18 On October 25,2015, Wasvezuk requested the Court hearing affer Judge Brown granted the Motion for Automatic Stay to Defendants On October 26,2015, during the Court hearing, Waszczuk moved to disqualify Judge Brown, but Waszezuk was interrupted by Judge Brown, who asked Waszczuk why he was moving to disqualified him and Judge stated that Waszezuk should file Proemptory Challenge under C.C.. $1706. a least five days before the court hearing \Waszczuk’s intent to disqualify Judge Brown was based on Showalter v. University of the Pacific, case No. C047073 (Cal. App. Dist.3 04/29/2005), In Showalter, the motion came before Judge Shelleyanne Chang, who issued a written tentative ruling in favor of the defendant on all grounds, At a hearing on the ruling, however, the plaintiff orally moved to disqualify Judge Chang under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, because she was a McGeorge graduate (as she had disclosed when issuing 1e ruling). After she was disqualified, her tentative ruling was vacated and the case was reassigned to Judge Loren McMaster.” In the approximately 15-minute argument, Waszezuk explained why he wanted to disqualified Judge Brown and why Waszeauk docs not agree with the Courts tentative ruling. On October 28,2015, the Court affirmed (Judge Brown) the tentative decision without one Word inthe devision about Waszezuk’s arguments during the Court hearing on October 26,2015, ‘with exception only to Wasze7uk’s intent to disqualify Judge Brown EXHIBIT #19 Qn September 22, 2014, the stipulation was affirmed by the Court Order. (Gage Brown) 16 sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintOn December 17,2014, the Court approved the SAC by a Court Order that stated that “the Second Amended Complaint filed on September 30, 2014 is deemed valid."(Judge Brown) ‘The stipulated SAC by DOUGLAS STEIN and MICHAEL POTT and approved by the Court egregiously harmed W ASZCZUK's legal position, and deprived WASZCZUK of pursuing his available opportunities where WASZCZUK absolutely could have prevailed (Iudge Brown) On December 17, 2014, the Court was informed in an ex parte hearing by Defendant's counsel that WASZCZUK dismissed DOUGLAS STEIN on December 16, 2014, and the Court was also informed by Stein's ex parte application thatthe SAC had been filed by STEIN, who had a suspended attomey license; thus, the Second Amended Complaint filing by stipulation shall be voided, and should be properly amended and refiled, (Judge Brown) WASZCZUK, disoriented, was dragged into an uneven battle with the Defendants? attorneys. The whole legal process was corrupted, and WASZCZUK was severely victimized by the Defendants andthe Court. Judge Brown) Ina similar manner, the Court (Judge Brown) ruled on the defendant's motion for legal fees and ‘ost filed on August 12, 2015. The court granted the stay, bu there was no word inthe court's ‘August 12,2015, minute order about Waszcruk’s opposition to the defendants legal fees and the cost motion Waszezuk filed on July 15, 2015, or Waszezuk’s request to stay forthe fees and cost, and Waszezuk’s notice of objection that he filed on July 20, 2015. EXHIBIT #20 \Waszczuk would like to mention to the commission that in his opposition tothe defendant's legal fees and costs, on page #2, Waszezuk pointed out to the court as follows: “Waszezuk has been already severely victimized by the Defendants, ther lawyers and the abuse of discretion and bias against Waszovuk in the Court tothe extent that Waszezuk asked on July 7, 2018 the United late Senator Honorable Dianne Feinsicin for direct intervention withthe University of California Regents and UC President Janet Napolitano.” EXHIBIT #21 Waszczuk likes to mention that Waszczuk dismissed his Consul of record, Douglas Sten, on December 16, 2014, afler Stein failed to properly amend the complaint, did not object the Defendants SAPP Motion, and sent to Waszczuk a text message that he had known Judge Brown for 20 years than he will get extension to file objection EXHIBIT #22 \Waszczuk also likes to mention thatthe university counsel from Portr/Scott law firm, Michael Pott, who was a major sharcholder of PorterScot, quit and lft Prter/Scott one hous after ‘Waszezuk filed his opposition to the university SLAPP mation on January 23, 2015 Apparcnily the Porter/Scott attorney Michael Pott, Waszeruk’s attorney Douglas Stein, and with Judge Brown's help, were to finish Waszeruk's wrongful termination lawsuit by a SLAPP ‘motion in December, 2014, Not one of them was expecting that Waszezuk would dismiss Stein ” sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaintafter Stein sent Waszeauk the phone text message informing Waszezuk that Stein knew Judge Brown for 20 years, ‘The whole legal process in the S1LAPP motion became entirely corrupted and Judge Brown let it happened for reasons unknown to Waszezuk, ‘The whole situation not oly affected Waszczuk's health, surviving day by day as he is on nine different medications but the financial harm caused to Wasze7uk’s family is enormous. Waszczuk has not worked for the last three years and is living on earlier Social Security benefit, swith health insurance provided by Waszezuk’s wife, who has worked for Nordstrom for 26 years. Waszezuk doesn’t yet have the Court Reporter Transcript ftom the October 26, 2015, Court hearing s0 a8 to provide it to the Commission a8 an exhiit, but Waszezuk on January 6, 2016, filed the Motion to Augment Record on Appeal in the Court of Appeal and i waiting for the Court of Appeal decision. EXHIBIT #23, Janet Keyzer v, The Regents ofthe University of California, Larry N. Vanderhoef, Mark Vudoff Klea Bertakis. Janet Keyzer ». The Regents of the University of California (hereinafter “Keyzes’s Case") was initially filed in Alameda County on September 18, 2009 and, in May 2010, the case was transfered to Sacramento County Superior Court, EXHIBIT 24 Duc to his egal experiences with his SLAPP Motion in Sacramento County Superior Court and imhis wrongful termination ease, Waszezuk was surprised that Keyzer's experienced counsel included UC Davis Chanecllor Larry N. Vanderhoef and University of California President Mark ‘Yudof, both of whom ad quasi-judicial power, as defendants in Keyzer's Complaint In his wrongful termination complaint, Waszcruk included nine individual defendants, many of ‘whom directly participated in direct attacks, which were despicable and beyond human decency, against Waszcruk and Waszc7uk's coworkers, violating their civil and human rights However, if Waszeruk had had knowledge ofthe SLAPP law in December 2013 or Waszczuk's attorney Douglas Stein had advised Waszcruk about the SLAPP law thon, Waszezak would never have included any of these individual defendants in his complaint, regardless of what they had done to Waszemik, based on the Waszezuk’s experiences with Superior Court Judge Brown in this matter. Waszorik never expected that the criminals who were plotting to kil him could be protected by Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 and by judges from the Sacramento County Superior Court Alto, Waszeruk had not known before that in cases lke his or Keyzer's, decisions regarding retaliation, termination of employment, and litigation do nat come from the UC Davis or UC Davis Medical Center department managers but from the office ofthe university's Chief 18 sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintCampus Counset and the University of California Office of General Counsel in coordination from Sedgwick Claims Management Services, In., which approves litigation and, ifnecessary, ‘ays fori ifthe university doesnot prevail in the lawsuit. EXHIBIT 25, ‘The merit of Keyzer's and Waszeruk’s complaints is different, but the retaliation and termination of Waszezuk's and Keyzer’s employment by a clique of criminally minded and vicious individuals from the University of California administration, which terminated Keyzcr’s and Waszezuk's employment before their retirement, are basically the same. The scenario of| retaliation was the same in both cases, In May 2007, Keyzerrefsed to participate inthe unlawfil esearch project on prisoners conducted by UC Davis in San Quentin State Prison, In October 2007, UC Davis proposed that Keyzer accept a demotion toa lower research ‘lassification. Keyzer refused On December-21, 2007, Keyzer was notified that her employment with UC Davis was terminated, retroactive 1 November 30, 2007. Inher lawsuit and SLAPP motion, Keyzer faced Judge Chang and received the same decisions Waszczuk received from Judge Chang and Judge Browm regarding his Writ of Mandamus and his SLAPP Motion, respectively. Waszczuk’s employment situation was different from Keyzer's, Waszczuk was nota registered ‘ure but a cogeneration power plant operator, and, at Waszc7uk's age and jus after his open heart surgery in 2007, it would be almost impossibie for him to find a new job Als, in January 2007, Waszezuk did not know why he was being viciously attacked and hunted down like an animal by the new department manager whom Waszezuk had never met. Waszezuk ‘didnot blow the whistle in 2007 and did not refuse to do his assigned job, His evaluations to cight years of his employment were excellent, but, in March 2007, against his will, Waszezuk was abruptly removed from UC Davis Medical’s 27 MW cogeneration power plant, moved to the HVAC/Plumbing shop and given three days suspension without pay based on out-of the-blue accusations that were beyond Waszezuk’s imagination, If Waszezuk had refused to move to the HYVAC/Plumbing shop, he would have been be terminated in March 2007 as Keyzer was in, December 2007 for refusing to be demoted to lower position In March 2000, Waszezuk accidently attended a traning course, “Labor Principles in Public Employment,” which was for UC Davis Medical Center supervisors and managers. This course was hosted by UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources Executive Director Gloria Alvarado, Ms. Alvarado's course lecture had nothing to do with labor principles in public employment but ‘asa class that coached supervisors on how to inflict fear: how to intimidate and silence employees who dare to complain, One of the course's subjects was how to convince a subordinate that he is too observant and should demote himself. Waszcruk responded to Ms. Alvarado'sself- demotion instruction and, aftr telling Ms. Alvarado that he was nota supervisor ‘but a central plant operator, was told thatthe class was nat for him. 19 sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintWaszezuk fought back and, after two years, Wasze7uk prevailed in arbitration against vicious and corrupt administration, Waszezuk was promoted to Astociate Development Engineer and recsiveda pay raise from the same flawed management responsible for removing him from the 27 MW cogeneration power plant where he worked cight years , However, the Settlement ‘Agreement with UC Regents that Wasze7uk had signed with goodwill and in good faith in February 2009 lasted only two years—Waszemuk was hit with more forces in April 2011 and, on December 7, 2012, Waszecuk was fred In 2010, the same UC Davis Chief Campus Counsel, Steven Drown, UC General Counsel Charles Robinson, and UC Davis Health System Human Resources Executive Director Steve Chilleott decided to retaliate and terminate a UC Davis 60 years old auditor who by doing his confirmed by his audit credit card embezzlement committed by management The auditor and three other employees who had reported the fraud los their jobs. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00148127 William Prindible v. The Regents of the University of California. Keeyzer prevailed in her long legal battle over her wrongful termination, Waszczuk sill doesnot know why Judge Chang was assigned to his case right afler being disqualified from Keyzer's Case in 2014, but Keyzer's Case shows that Judge Chang is not a good judge where the University of California, the State of California, or another California public entity interconnected with California government is involved in the tigation, In February 2009, the same UC General Counsel Charles Robinson, UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown and UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director Steven Chileott, who abruptly removed Waszcauk from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility in March 2007 and slandered Waszezuk to an unthinkable level, solicited from Waszezak to sign a settlement agreement withthe regents ofthe University of California forthe only reason of | ‘washing this settlement in 2011 and terminating Waszezuk in 2012, In 2010, the same UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown, UC General Counsel Charles Robinson and UC Davis Health System TIR Executive Director Steve Chiteot decided 10 retaliate and terminate a 60-year-old UC Davis auditor who confirmed creditcard embezzlement by the management. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2013 (00148127 William Prndble v. The Regent ofthe University of California ‘The auditor and three other employees who reported the fraud lost their job (On November 18, 2011, the same UC General Counsel Charles Robinson, UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drouin and UC Davis Health System Executive Director Steve Chilcott, in conspiracy with UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katchi, Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter and UC Davis Police Lt. Matt Carmichael, orchestrated a provocative pepper spray attack against protesting tudents on the UC Davis campus. The reason for the November 2011 provocative ‘pepper spray atack was to ire from the job UC Davis Chief of Police Annette Spicizza and Lt. John Pike as well as Captain Joyce Souza, to whom Wasze7uk, since October 2011, was 20 sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaintprovided information about corruption among UC Davis Medical Center administration (see attached exhibit #2 page #34), Following the November 18, 2011, orchestrated, provocative pepper spray attack, the same UC General Counsel Charles Robinson, UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown and UC Davis HR Executive Director again attempted to terminate Waszczuk in December 2011. Robinson, Drown and Chileot'sill-crafted plan to terminate Waszszuk was postponed for another year until December 2012 by a letter from Waszczuk’s psychologist from Lodi, Dr. Franklin Bemhof, dated December 14, 2012, which was unexpected and very unwelcomed by the university upper circle \Waszeauk presented to the commission Dr. Franklin Bernboft’s December 14, 2012, letter in light of two court eases from the San Joaquin Superior Court the San Joaquin Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin Lodi Branch - Complaint Case No. LMOS1206A; LPD CASE, DA Case CR-2012-4029037-The People of the State of California, Plaintiff, v. Dorothy Bernhoft, Defendant, filed on August 6, 2012, andthe San Joaquin Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin Civil Case No, 9-2012-00283391-CU-PO-STK; Chiari Colarossi through her Guardian ad Litem, Alison Colarossi: Alison Colarossi: Robert Colarossi: Maia Nabholz through her Guardian ad Litem, Joanna Wlodawer; Joanna Wlodawer; and Trevor Nabholev. Dorothy Bernhoft: Franklin Bernhoft Janet Keyzer prevailed in her wrongfil termination long legal battle. Waszczuk still don't know ‘why Judge Chang was disqualified in Keyzer's eas in 2014 and right away was assigned 10 \Waszczuk’s case but the Keyzat's case is another example that Judge Chang is one of the perfect judges for the defendants interconnected with State of California government or ther bout not for plaints secking justice agains these entities. At the conclusion of his ease, Waszc7uk learned an interesting fact. Very shortly after Judge Brown granted UC Regents’ Motion for Automatic Stay and blocked Waszezuk from filing his 295-page Third Amended Complaint in October 2013 , UC Regents sted the ease with Keyzer and fled its Abandonment of Appeal. EXHIBIT 26 The Sacramento County Superior Court Welch-Brown , State Case No, O24S03194 ‘The State of California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, ‘Case No, COS0052 Welch-firown » State, (Cat App Dis 3 (2/1S2007 ‘The Welch-Brown v. State case EXHIBIT #27 is another example where Judge Chang was disqualified by the plaitff duis to her misconduct anda case that involved the state agency as the defendant, Five years prior to Welch-Brown’s case, Judge Chang was employed as a Chief deputy in Governor Gray Davis's office 21 sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintInthe Weleh-Brown v. State case, on May 30,2002, Welch-Brown, in propria persona, filed a complaint alleging that various state officers and employees (defendants) had either assaulted her, breached her contract of state employment or abused administrative processes concerning hor tats employment. In February 2003, Ismacl Perez became her attorney of record. On March 25, 2004, Perez filed a motion to be relieved as attomey of record, averring that there had been 2 ‘complete breakdown in communication \Welch-Brown filed a written opposition to her attorney Perez's motion to withdraw. She asserted that there was no breakdown in communication “of any sort.” She atributed the mation to her ‘refusal to sign an hourly fee agreement tendered by Perez to replace an existing contingent fee agreement, She argued this was not an appropriate reason to grant withdrawal without her consent, citing Cassel v. Gregori (1937) 28 Cal App.2d Supp. 769, 771 ‘The matter eame on for hearing on April 12,2004. The trial court conducted an in-camera proceeding to allow Welch-Brown and Peres to presen sensitive information outside the presence of the opposing counsel, After hearing from bath of them, the court ordered that the in-camera portion ‘of the proceedings be realed and granted Perez's motion tobe relieved ae counsc. 11s appears tat in this case involving the State of California asa defendant and in which Judge Chang was disqualified by the plaintiff Welch-Brown, Welch-Brown’s counsel, Mr. Ismael A. Castro, abandoned Weleh-Brown in the middle ofthe ease. Thereafe, Ismacl A. Castro found ajeb inthe State of California Attorney General Office as a deputy, where Judge Chang held the positon of State of California deputy attorney general from 1993 to 1999, 12014, Ismacl A. Castro's name appeared as supervising deputy attorney general in the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's demurer fied on Apri 1, 2014, in \Waszczuk’s petition for writ of mandamus case to which Judge Chang was assigned after she was disqualified by the plantfTin the Janet Keyzer v. the Regents ofthe University of California ease, which was already presented tothe commission in this complaint 1n 2014, Judge Chang had no problem recognizing who Ismael A. Castro was and what \Waszc7uk’s petition for writ of mandanmus was really about due to her previous job as a chief deputy in California Governor Gray Davis's office Ismael Castro asa supervising attorney general deputy attorney had fll acces 10 access tothe file involved unlawful generation and power sale by UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant and rolated to tax fraud, EXHIBIT #28 Waszezuk frst expressed his fecling about Judge Chang's bias and misconduct in his March 10, 2015, petitioner disapproval of the respondent proposal order and judgment denying petition for ‘writ of mandate filed with the court on December 2,2013, which was submitted by Waszezuk to CUTAB egal counsel Deputy Attorney General Ashante L. Norton, Inhis petitioner disapproval letterto Ashanate Norton, Waszezuk sated: “Pet speculate about anything, and especially where a Judge of Superior Court is involved, and ‘ask State of California Commission on Judicial Performance to look into Hon. Chang's connections in relation to this outrageously biased and diseriminatory r Petitioner.” EXHIBIT #29 oner will not n sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaint‘The San Joaquin Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin Lodi Branch = Complaing Case No, LMOS1206A; LPD CASE, DA Case CR-2012-4029037-The People of the State of California Plaintiff v. Dorothy Bernhoft, Defendant. Filed on August 6, 2012 “The crosseonnected case: ‘The San Joaquin Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin Civil Case No, 39. 72012.00283391.CU-PO.STK ; Chiari Colarossi through her Guardian ad Litem, Alison ‘Colarossi Alison Colarossi; Robert Colarossi: Maia Nabhols, through her Guardian ad Litem, Joanna Wlodawer; Joanna Wlodawer; and Trevor Nabhol; ». Dorothy Bernhoft, ‘Franklin Bernhoft {Lam bringing the two above eaptioned eases to the attention of the State of California Commission on Judicial Performance (hereafter the commission) forthe fllowing reasons. 1, ‘The Defendant Franklin Bernhoft, Ph.D., the Civil Case No. 39-2012-00283391- CU-PO-STK, was Waszezuk’s retained psychologist from August 2011 to January 2012. 2. Dr. Franklin Bernhoft, as a psychologist, was not only helping Waszezuk in 2011- 2012 to cope with enormous stress and anxiety caused by Waszezuk’s employer, the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), but Dr. Bernhoft was also involved in Waszezuk’s Short Term Disability (STD) claim dispute with the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, The STD was administrated by the University of California (UC). During the therapy sessions with Dr. Bernhoft in the period of time from August 2011 to December 2011, Waszczuk provided a lot of information to Dr. Franklin, Bernhoft about Waszeruk’s place of employment, the UC Davis Medical Center. The information included corruption among UCDMC management and administrative abuse of power, vicious management retaliations against employees, and ns of employees’ evil and human rights. Waszezuk provided Dr. Bernhoft with copies of multiple correspondences/complaints, which included correspondences/complaints submitted by Waszczuk to the UC Davis, Chancellor and the UC President's office, Dr, Bernhoft provided some of this, information to the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which was handling Waszezuk's Short Term Disability and was helping the UC administration to fi Waszezuk, In August 2014, almost two years after his termination, Liberty offered Waszczuk $1,900 in a settlement, and Waszezuk attorney Douglas Stein was trying to force Waszczuk to sign this worthless and damaging settlement to Waszezuk case, EXHIBIT #30 2B sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaint3. Dr. Franklin Bernhoft and his family reside in in Lodi, California, in San Joaquin County where Waszezuk has lived with his family since 1989. 4. On December 20,2011, the Dr. Franklin residence in Lodi, CA, was visited by the State of California Department of Social Services, and the Health and Human Services ‘Agency to check on the children’s day care Dr. Bemhofts wile, Dorothy Bemboft, was licensed to nun 'S. The San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Hon. Brett H. Morgan’s prior ppointment to the court was in 1999, when he worked as Deputy Attorney General in the State of California's Orfice ofthe Attorney General together with Judge Chang ‘who maliciously victimized Waszezuk on behalf ofhis employer, the University of California ( CUIAB Case No. 4729869.) The Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34- 2013-80001699. Due tothe Hon. Bret H. Morgan and the San Joaquin County Superior Court, Waszczuk noticed that Judge Morgan had avery similar professional ‘work history with California's Government as the job history of Judge Chang before they both were appointed as judges to the State of California Superior Courts. Judge Morgan isthe only judge in San Joaquin Superior Court wth California government ‘ork history similar to Judge Chang's work history, and similar appointment to the court in relation to Waszerak’s former employer, the University of California, UC Davis Medical Center {6 Based on the close examinations of documents related to Waszezuk’s relation to Dr. Bernhot in the course of Waszezak employment with the University of California, the criminat and civit complaints documents fied in the San Joaquin Superior Court agains Dorothy and Franklin Bernhof, the Fanuary 2012 State of California Department of Social Services charges against Dorothy Bernhoft the Lodi Police Search Warrant dated January 21, 2012 related to accusations and allegations against Dorothy Bert, and the media end press publications related tothe California Department of Social Services charges. Waszezuk suspects thatthe primary target of the California Department of Social Services was Dr. Franklin Bembo, six days after he submitted his December 14,2011 leter to the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston and by this letter delayed his employment termination and millions of dollars ‘worth of a new, unlawfil power sale contract between the regents of the University of California and the Sacramento Municipal Uility District. However, the main reason that Waszezuk is presenting Bernboft's court cases from San Joaquin Superior Court, Lodi Branch, to the commission is the June 21, 2012, e-mail sent by UC Davis Police Department Sergeant Jenifer Garcia to UC Davis Health System Chief Compliance Office employee Gina Guillaume-Holleman and UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour. EXHIBIT #31 UC Davis Police Department Lt. James Barbour was bribed by a $35,000 wage increase to deliver Waszezuk to UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11 in an unsuocestful provocation to end Waszezuk’s employment with the university this way. Waszozuk received this e-mail by his request for production of documents in his wrongful termination case, 4 sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintIts also customary forthe corrupted and vicious University of California administration, which interoonnested withthe state government and state agencies, to go after or retaliate ageinst family members or friends of complaining employees a8 a scare tactic to disoourage employees from pursuing complaints against the university management and administration. This happened in the case of Janet Kyzer when the university administration retaliated against her husband and fired him from his job. It happened in my ease when wniversity legal counsel Douglas Ropel ‘threatened that his client, the University of California, would go after Waszczuk's wife forthe logal fees thatthe university had not yet been awarded. This occurred on February 27, 2015, during the discussion with Douglas Ropel just before entering the Court hearing with Judge Chang, Waszczuk’s wife works not forthe university but for Nordstrom corporation, where she has been employed for 26 years. Apparently it does not matter if million of dollars in fraud are atstake, The university administration is so vicious and unscrupulous in violation ofits own employees civil and human rights that t did not hesitate to attack Waszezuk’s coworker and friend when he ‘was arranging a funeral for his mother, The charges against the university in this ease are sill pending inthe U.S, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission since Devember 2014 ENHIBIT #32 Lodi Paychologist Dr, Franklin Bernhoft and his wife, Dorothy Bemnhof, were not employees of the University of California or Waszezuk’s fiends, bt Waszezuk is not exeluding any possibilities of what the University of California administrators can do anybody whois on thir blacklist after learning how the university could systematically destroy somcone’s life without any consequences for the university's perpetrators, \Wasze7uk is terified thinking about what the university administration has already done to him and what would have happened to him in 2012 if Wasacruk would have had a positive criminal history or would have had registered guns with a current dealer record of sales. Waszczuk has no doubt that he would have faced Judge Morgan, who has a similar government background as Judge Chang and who, coincidently or not, was appointed to the San Joaquin Superior Court, Lodi Branch, where Waszozuk has lived since 1989, and coincidently oF not, Judge Morgan was assigned to the criminal ease of Waszczuk's psychologist, Dr. Franklin Bernhof's, wife, Dorothy ‘Statements of Facts and Events that Occurred Before and Affer Dr. Franklin Bernhoft's ‘December 14, 2011 Letter to Karen M, McKenzie Group Benefits-Liberty Mutual 2011, Waszezuk did not suspect that since January 2007 the University of Califomia was doing everything possible to remove Wasze7uk fom university landscaping, hunt him down, and violate his civil and human rights because UC Regents and UC administration committed multi- nillion dolar fraud by unlawfully generating and selling electric power from UC Davis Medical Center's 27 MW cogeneration facility. 25 sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintThe UC Regents fraud was covered up in January 2007 by a settlement inthe United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the previously mentioned case Docket No, EL00-95- 000; Docket No, EL00-98-000, which involved the State of California, wth Attorney General, Bill Lockyer representing “The California Parties” in the case, Sec the attached exhibit no. 2 Which isthe Waszezuk complain with the Internal Revenue Service's In July and August 2011, UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, together with Director Michael Boyd and HR Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, ‘made an attempt to remove Waszezuk from the premises through a false and fraudulent Workers! Compensation Claim. Waszczuk refused to flea false claim, but the University filed one on his ‘behalf. (See exhibit no, 25) Also in July 2011, one of the HVAC shop plumbers, Kenny Diede, walked into Waszezuk’s office and complained to Waszczuk that that his coworker, ill Rabidaux’s son was illegally accessing shop computers Bill Rabidaux’s son (nota university employee) was a twice convicted child pornography felon on probation, prohibited from having « computer at home by court erder and not allowed access to any computer with Intemet. He should not have been allowed to enter the HVAC shop premises tall. Waszezuk passed the information tothe shop ‘manager. Thereafter, Kenny Dicde had to look for a new job duc to harassment and intolerable ‘working conditions, asthe department management created hel for him and Waszeauk. instead of reporting the felon to authorities and obtaining a restraining order against him. EXHIBIT #33 On August 3, 2011, Waszczuk's physician Dr. Harvey Hashimoto issued a medical permit and placed Waszezak on work stress related sick leave until September 1, 2011 du to despicable and lunshinkable management hostility aimed at Waszezuk, On the same day, August 3, 2011, Dr. Hashimoto filed and signed a UC DAVIS-HEALTH, SYSTEM MEDICAL CERTIFICATION Also in August 2011, Waszezuk retained psychologist Franklin Bernhoft, Ph.D. to cope with the enormous sess and ansiety caused by UC Davis Medical Center Management On August 31,2011, Waszerik’s physician Dr. Hashimoto and psychologist Dr. Bernhoft figned Waszevuk's Retum to Work Clearance, which was required by the university, EXHIBIT. #34 Waszezuk did not roturn to work because on the same day Waszcruk received an e-mail signed by the department manager placing Waszezuk on phony investigatory eave with threat of Wasze7uk’s employment termination. Wasze7uk thought that it was retaliation for reporting the ‘svice-convicted child pomography felon who was accessing the shop computer. On September 21,2011, at 9:45 PM, Department Head Charles Witcher sent Waszezuk a letter by e-mail marked “CONFIDENTIAL” and ordered Waszeauk to attend an interview in the UC Davis Medical Center HIR Tycon II Building on Friday, September 23, 2011 6 sage Shelleyanne Chang-ComplaintCharles Witcher’s letter sounded like an ill-crafted attempt to make somebody angry, It included the sentence, “On this Friday, you are to reportto the receptionist on the third floor of Fluman Resources ar the Ticon IIT Building (see address abore) shortly before 9:00 a.m. and you will be escorted to-a conference room forthe interview meeting.” This di not leave Waszemuk any dvi that it asa termination letter, Fridays were a customary day for management to discipline employees. The statement about ‘ing escorted tothe conference room told Waszezuk that he would also be escorted out, like @ criminal, afer the interview, Waszezuk was already under enormous stres, taking two anti- depressants every day and under Dr. Berho’s care. Under such circumstances, Wasze7uk did not have any desire to be escorted, interrogated, or land ina hospital emergency room. On September 22, 2011, Waszezuk sent the information about the situation to physician Dr, Hashimoto via the physician's network, and Waszczuk asked Dr. Hashimoto to place Waszezuk ‘on work-related sick leave. Wasze7uk’s physician was aware of what was going on in his place of employment. Later that day, Waszczuk sent the following e-mail message tothe department head in response to his letter, “ould like to inform you that I will not attend the meeting with Danesha Nichols ‘tomorrow. Lam waiting for a response from my physician in relation to this matter.” On that same day, September 22,2011, Wasrcruk received a phone call and a lengthy e-mail fom UCDHS Vocational Rehabilitation HR Analyst Dennis J. Dark that contained the following statement understand that you were previously provided information about Workers Compensation and che necessary forms to file a claim, but you declined to do 0, Ifyou have changed your mind, please let me know. Ican assist you in ‘making sure a specialist in Workers’ Compensation works with you or answers any questions you may have about it Dennis Dark also explained his roe in HR and advised Warzezuk that Wasrezuk could get help ‘through his vocational rchabilitation and accommodation services. \Wasze7uk responded to Mr. Dennis Datk's offer as follows don't who you are, and your ttle has no meaning for me, bu thank you for ‘your ealland your e-mail At this point, am most concerned about the vacation hours T accumulated and which were used improperly to cover my sick leave hours in August, 2001. I exchanged correspondence about this ‘matter with Mrs, Reginelli today. The horrifying situation the PO&M ‘management got me into with some individuals from the HR Department has ‘made me very nervous and stressed out to the extent that my priority isto get ‘this vacation problem behind me and make sure that my wife will per paid if 27 sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaint‘Something happens to me. The threats Ihave received from PO&M Manager Witcher inthe lat three weeks (the most recent being last night at 9:45 pm ‘Forced meto send an e-mail to my physician early today with a request for ‘additional work-related sick feave. {did not get a response yet. Tam working ‘on the GOODBYE letter for Mr. Witcher. I do not need any job accommodation, I need to go back to my normal duties, but somebody is doing everything possible o kill me and prevent me from returning to work: Who is behind Mr. Witcher's actions, I don’t know, but I have a general idea. Iis blowing my mind that a super medical facility is transforming itself ious killing machine Ifyou would lke to contact my physician, I would not have a problem with that, His names Harvey Hashimoto (209-339-1982). I know for sure that Mr. Witcher won't see me tomorrow in Mrs. Danesha Nichols" office. Tam also under the care ofa psychologist named Franklin 0. Bernhoft (209- 366-1516) 1am not sure which e-mail you have read. I will attach my last lever to Mr. Witcher, Waszezuk did not want be rude to Mr. Dennis Dark, but found his e-mail very inappropriate, disturbing, and harassing. He was outraged that HR was offering workers’ compensation and thor accommodations instead of addressing the real problem, letting him go back to work, and giving him back the postion provided by the February 2009 settlement agreement with UC Regents. On the same day, physician leave until January 5, 2012, srvey Hashimoto placed Waszezuk on work-related sick On September 23, 2011, he father ofthe previously mentioned twice-convicted child ‘pornography felon prematurely disclosed and announced the termination of Waszczuk's employment and awarded Waszezuk’s office and job to his son. This father had a special relationship with the department assistant manager and Waszczuk believed that the assistant ‘manager leaked the information about Waszezuk’s employment termination before the termination fetter was sent to Waszeruk on this day. On September 27, 2011, Wasze2uk filed claim for Short Term Disability (STD) with Liberty ‘Assurance Company of Hoston (Liberty) because he had used all his accumulated sick leave hours and was left basically without income. The university administrated STD but Liberty was an STD carrier. The STD premium was paid by UC employecs, collected through the UC payroll system, and understood as an extension of university sick leave when employees used all aovumlated sick leave hours du to illness. However, Liberty bluntly denied Waszezuk’s claim by order from the University of California administration to leave Waszeruk without any income 28 sage Shelleyanne Chang-Complaint