07-20-2022 - 3DCA Case C095488 Waszczuk v. UC Regents - Second Notice of Ommission - Record On Appeal

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (209) 247-1089
[email protected]
July 20, 2022
Ms. Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann

Clerk/Executive Officer, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al. Case No. C095488
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No: No. 34-2013-34-00155479
Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

RE: APPELLANT’S SECOND NOTICE OF OMISSION IN THE
RECORD ON APPEAL – SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR
APPEAL UNIT DEPUTY CLERK KEVIN M.
Dear Ms. Wallin-Rohmann:
I am the Plaintiff and Appellant in the above-captioned case before the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District (3DCA). Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the APPELLANT’S
SECOND NOTICE OF OMISSION submitted on July 20, 2022 to the Sacramento County
Superior Court, Appeal Unit in response to the Court Appeals Unit Deputy Clerk Kevin M.’s
07/11/2022 Declaration, which I received on July 13, 2022 together with one (1) volume of the
still incomplete CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL.
The incomplete Record on Appeal of 13 volumes of the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal

was filed without a Court Reporter’s Transcript from the September 2021 Sacramento County
Superior Court Hearing presided over by Judge Christopher E. Krueger from the Law & Motions
Department 54. Today is July 20, 2022, and the Court Reporter Transcript that was due May 9,
2022 has not been provided to me or transmitted to 3DCA as part of the designated record on
appeal.
I noticed that the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, which I

received on July 13, 2022 together with a copy of the Sacramento County Superior Court
Appeals Unit Deputy Clerk Kevin M.’s damage control declaration, has not been filed nine
days after was to 3DCA by Sacramento County Superior Court Appeals Unit Deputy Clerk
Plaintiff’s Second Notice of Omission -Record on Appeal 1

Kevin M. according to Proof of Service (See the attached printout of the Case No. C095488
docket with date and time in left top corner.) (Attachment #1)
I would like to emphasize as I did in the attached copy of my Appellant’s SECOND

NOTICE OF OMISSION IN RECORD on Appeal that, besides the incomplete record on appeal
(Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal) vanishing for two and half (2 ½) months after it was certified on April
22, 2022, the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL must be treated by the
Court of Appeal as Volume No. 1 of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, or all 13 volumes
of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APEPAL and CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT
ON APPEAL must be returned to the Sacramento County Superior Court Appeals Unit and volumes
of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL must be rearranged with the CLERK’S
SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL as Volume No. 1 of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT
ON APPEAL, to avoid a miscarriage of justice and prejudice in the Plaintiff’s case, should the
Plaintiff have to file a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court (see the attached March
20, 2018 letter from 3DCA Clerk Anita Kenner).(Attachment # 2)
The CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL contains the most important

Court-filed document for this Appeal, which shall be submitted to 3DCA as a CLERK’S
TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL Volume No. 1 and which contains:

• 12/04/2013 COMPLAINT
• 06/16/2014 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
• 09/10/14 NOTICE OF FILING PARTY
• 09/24/14 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT BY STIPULATION & ORDER THERON
I challenged the defective Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed on September 30, 2014
as invalid, as it was as same as the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed on June 16 , 2014 without
a Motion for Leave to File by my (now former) drug-addicted attorney who was disbarred in
January 2020. Please see the attached filed in the October 25, 2017 APPELLANT’S PETITION
FOR REHEARING FOR ERROR IN LAW OR PROCEDURAL PROCESS (Pages 29–34) in
3DCA Case Waszczuk v . the Regents of the University of California Case No. C079524 (an Anti-
SLAPP Motion). (Attachments #3)
As I pointed in my Appellant’s Second Notice of Omission in Record on Appeal, the

June 06/16/2014 First Amended Complaint should never have been accepted by Sacramento
Superior Court Clerk Erica Medina without a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE. Ms. Medina’s
deceptive statement in her 9/10/2014 NOTICE TO FILING PARTY – RETURNED

DOCUMENTS Case Number: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS said, in part: (Attachment #
4)
We are unable to process the attached papers for the reasons indicated below:
Document Rejected: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Leave of Court is required for all subsequent amended complaints after
the first amended.
This diverted my attention from the defective First Amended Complaint, which was filed without
a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE (see Clerk Erica Medina’s notice attached). I had known for
a long time that something was terribly wrong, but could not break through to see what is was.
The April–July 2021 desperation of Porter Scott attorney Lindsay Goulding to make me
drop litigation against the Regents of the University of California dragged my 70-year-old wife
from Lodi to Sacramento Superior Court’s Department 43 (under Judge Thadd Blizzard) in an
unsuccessful attempt to frame her Goulding extorted from her $22,284 . Goulding reckless
assault aimed at my wife caused disqualification of Judge Shama Hakim Mesiwala. After Judge
Goulding reckless action stealing money from my wife and 10- 15 minutes Court hearing on
September 15, 2021 with Judge Christopher E. Krueger made me look closer to understand why
it was all happening and why no one could stop this carnage against my wife and me. It would
not have happened if the 3DCA had not denied my Appellant's motion to recall the remittitur

issued on January 16, 2018 Motion was denied by Honorable Vance Raye, P.J., who one year
later was admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance and forced to resign.
The 9 years long pending litigations and this appeal should never have needed to take
place if my adversaries in 2011 would left me alone and let me work instead of unsuccessful
attempt to provoke and kill me on May 31, 2012 by especially assembled group of thugs which
I nicknamed “ UC Davis Death Squad “ or end my employment in UC Davis Medical Center
Trauma Unit No. 11
I appreciate your utmost attention and help with the problems with this incomplete
Record on Appeal outlined in my Appellant’s Second Notice of Omission submitted to the
Sacramento Superior Court’s Appeal Unit.
Sincerely,
________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk , Per Se
Plaintiff & Appellant

1
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, In Pro Per
2 2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
3 Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-729-5154
4 Email: [email protected]
5
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
7 720 NINTH STREET
8 APPEALS UNIT ROOM 102
9 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-1380
10
11
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK )
12 ) Sacramento County Superior Court
) Case No. 34-2013-00155479- Filed on
PLAINTIFF,

13 )
) December 4, 2013
14 VS. )
) Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
15
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) Case No. C095488
)
16 OF CALIFORNIA, ANN MADDEN RICE, )
MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, ) PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT
17 CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA ) JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’S SECOND
NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT ) NOTICE OF OMISSION RE: DESIGNATED
18 )
SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN ) RECORD ON APPEAL.
19 DANILIUC, AND DOES 1–50, inclusive ) Cal. Rules of Court- Rule 8.155 (b)(1)
) Notice of Appeal filed: 12/23/2021
20 )
DEFENDANTS. ) COURT CLERK
21 ) APPEALS UNIT, ROOM 102
22
23
I.
24
INTRODUCTION
25
Plaintiff and Appellant JAROSLAW WASZCZUK (pronounced “Vashchook,” hereafter
26
“Waszczuk,”) is representing himself in the above-captioned cases.
27
On June 28, 2022, Waszczuk received from the Sacramento Superior Court’s Appeals Unit
28
two boxes of incomplete records on appeal, which included only 13 volumes of the Clerk’s Transcript
- 1 -
SECOND NOTICE OF OMMISSION - DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

1 on Appeal (CT). These were sent to Waszczuk and to the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
2 two and a half (2 ½) months after the CT on Appeal was certified, on April 22, 2022, by the
3
Sacramento Superior Court Appeals Unit Deputy Clerk Kevin M.
4 The received package DID NOT INCLUDE the COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT (CRT)
5 from the September 1, 2021 Court Hearing held via Zoom (Motion for Summary Judgment), which
was presided over by Judge Christopher Krueger from Department 54. The Court of Appeal, Third
6
Appellate District (3DCA) received the 13 volumes of CT on the same day, June 28, 2022 and filed
7
incomplete Record on Appeal on the same day .
8
Thereafter, Waszczuk examined the received 13 volumes of the CT and noticed that some
9
documents listed in the Appellant’s Notice Designating Record on Appeal, which was filed on
10
January 31, 2022, were not included in the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, nor were they
11
listed anywhere or to be found in the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL’S CHRONOLOGICAL
12 INDEX or in the ALPHABETICAL INDEX.

13
On July 5, 2022, Waszczuk submitted to the Sacramento Superior Court’s Appeals Unit an
14
Appellant’s Notice of Omission (filed on 7/6/2022, ROA #311) (EXHIBIT # 1).
15
II.
16
CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL AND THE CLERK
17 DECLARATION BY DEPUTY CLERK KEVIN M., DATED JULY 11, 2022
18
In response to Waszczuk’s Notice of Omission submitted to the Court on July 5, 2022,
19
Waszczuk received on July 13, 2022 one volume of the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL
20
TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL noting on the cover page the correct judge, Christopher E . Krueger,
21 and Counsel for Defendant/Respondent, Lindsay A. Goulding. This was contrary to the June 28,
22 2022 13 volumes of CT which listed the wrong judge, David I. Brown, and the wrong Defendant’s
23 Attorney, Douglas Ropel, on the cover pages.
24 In addition to the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, Waszczuk received
25 on July 13, 2022 13 new cover pages for the 13 volumes of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON
26 APPEAL, not including the correct names of the judge and defendant’s counsel.
27 Waszczuk also received a copy of the Sacramento County Superior Court, Appeal Unit
28 Deputy Court Clerk Kevin M.’s Declaration dated July 11, 2022, in which he, under penalty of
- 2 -

1 perjury and the laws of the State of California, stated that the foregoing was true and correct
2 (EXHIBIT # 2):
3 TO: CLERK OF THE COURT, THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

4
I, Kevin Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, do
5 declare as follows:
6
On July 6, 2022 Appellant filed a Notice of Omission correspondence with the
7 Sacramento Superior Court Appeals Unit. As to all items listed as part of Sacramento
8 Superior Court Case #34-2013-80001699 (items 126-147), This Superior Court Case is
NOT consolidated with the current above listed case on appeal. As such, those items will
9
not be given. The remaining missing documents as part of the current above listed case on
10 appeal have been supplied in the accompanying Supplemental Clerks Transcript on
Appeal. As to the Reporters Transcript, The CSR T. Tavalero was noticed to prepare a
11
Reporters Transcript based on the information supplied by the appellant on their
12 designation. A filing party is responsible for verifying the validity of the information on
said designation prior to submission. Ms. Tavalero supplied a declaration as having no

13
notes for said date supplied by appellant. Any inadequacies in the Reporters date were not
14 properly. As to the minor type-o 's on the cover pages of the Original Clerks Transcript;
15
Cover pages have been supplied to swap out for all 13 volumes. Nothing was omitted.
16 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that
17 the foregoing is true and correct.
18 DATED: July 11, 2022

19 Like the package Waszczuk received on June 28, 2022, which included 13 volumes of CT
20 on Appeal, the July 15, 2022 included Supplemental CT on Appeal and DID NOT CONTAIN the
21 Court Reporter Transcript on Appeal from the September 1, 2022 Court Hearing with Judge
22 Krueger.
23 The July 13, 2022 169-page Clerk’s Supplemental Transcript on Appeal included:
24 • 12/04/2013 COMPLAINT
25
• 06/16/2014 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
26
• 09/10/14 NOTICE OF FILING PARTY
27
28
- 3 -

1 • 09/24/14 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
2 COMPLAINT BY STIPULATION & ORDER THERON
3 The NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT AND CERTIFICATE OF THE

4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (EXHIBIT #3) shows
5 that the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL was assembled and certified
on July 6, 2022, the same day the Court received Waszczuk’s NOTICE OF OMISSION. According
6
to the PROOF OF SERVICE, this was sent to Lodi, CA and to 3DCA five days later, on July 11,
7
2022.
8
III.
9
THE CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL AND THE CLERK’S
10 TRANSCRIPT COVER PAGES WITH WRONG JUDGE NAME AND WRONG
RESPONDENT ATTORNEY
11
The Sacramento Superior Court Deputy Clerk from the Appeal Unit, at the end of his July 11,
12
2022 Declaration, stated:

13
14
As to the minor type-o 's on the cover pages of the Original Clerks Transcript;
Cover pages have been supplied to swap out for all 13 volumes. Nothing was
15 omitted.
16 These were not “minor type-o’s on the cover pages.” This was a serious and deliberate move to
17 mislabel 13 volumes of the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal with David I. Brown’s name instead of
Judge Christopher Krueger’s name, and listing the wrong respondent attorney, Douglas Ropel, who
18
has been employed for the last six years by Littler Mendelson PC and has nothing to do with this
19
appeal and Judge Christopher E. Krueger .
20
The question is:
21
Why did Sacramento County Superior Court Deputy Clerk Kevin M. DID NOT INCLUDE the
22
12/04/2013 COMPLAINT; 06/16/2014 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; 09/10/14 NOTICE OF
23
FILING PARTY 9/24/14 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
24
AMENDED COMPLAINT BY STIPULATION & ORDER THERON in the CLERK’S
25 TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL certified on April 22, 2022, but these documents were provided three
26 months later as a CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL?
27 The above-listed documents WERE NOT INCLUDED in the original CLERK’S
28 TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, which was certified on April 22, 2002. They should have been
- 4 -

1 provided to Waszczuk and 3DCA as Volume No. 1 of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL,
2 not as the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL. If Waszczuk would have to
3
file a Petition in the Supreme Court so that only Volume No.1 would be transmitted to the Supreme
Court. In 2018, Waszczuk did not know that only Volume 1 of CLERK TRANSCRIPT ON
4
APEPAL was subject to transmittal to the Supreme Court if a Petition for Review is filed on the
5
Decision of Appellate District Court. Waszczuk, in March 2018, asked 3DCA Clerk Anita Kenner
6
why only one volume of the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal was submitted to the Supreme Court
7 (SLAPP Motion Appeal 3DCA Case No. C079524).
8 Ms. Kenner responded to Waszczuk’s inquiry with a letter dated March 20, 2018 (EXHIBIT # 4)
9 stating:
10
It is standard procedure for this court to transmit only the first volume of a
11 record to the Supreme Court when a Petition for Review has been filed
12 In this appeal case, the 12/04/2013 COMPLAINT; 06/16/2014 FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT; 09/10/14 NOTICE OF FILING PARTY 9/24/14 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

13
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY STIPULATION & ORDER THERON
14
in the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL certified on April 22, 2022 never would be
15
transmitted to the California Supreme Court as a CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON
16
APPEAL.
17
The included in the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL.
18 June 06/16/2014 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (FAC) should never have been accepted by
19 Sacramento Superior Court Clerk Erica Medina without a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE. This is
20 not only a First and Second Amendment matter. The question of who coerced Ms. Medina to obstruct
21 justice and violate the Court’s Rules is a different subject. Ms. Medina is very experienced and well
educated Court Clerk. That is the reason and that why we have a CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON
22
APPEAL which contains misleading information, such as the wrong names for the judge and
23
respondent attorney and the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, instead of
24
the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL VOLUME NO. 1 and a three-month appeal process
25
delay.
26 . Who is behind of this scheme of obstruction of justice, which has forced the Sacramento
27 Superior Court Clerk from the Appeal Unit to take such awful and unlawful measures to harm the
28
- 5 -

1 litigant in his ongoing appeal, delaying the appeal process now delayed for at least action because of
2 someone’s evil to unlawfully and recklessly interfere in the judicial process.
3
IV.
4
THE SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT CASE #34-2013-80001699 -OMITTED
5 (ITEMS 126–147) IN THE CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
6
7 In the first part of the Declaration, Deputy Clerk Kevin M. addressed Waszczuk’s request to
8 produce the omitted records on appeal from the case cross-referenced to this appeal, Jaroslaw
9
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and the Regents of the University
of California as the Real Party in Interest (RPii), Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS,
10
3DCA Case No. 079254, the Supreme Court of California Case No. S253713 & S245879, filed
11
on December 2, 2013.
12
ATTACHMENT NO. 4B TO THE APPELLANT’S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD APPEAL

13
(Pages 9 & 11) filed on January 31, 2022 ( see Exhibit # 1)
14
To make a long story short, this particular cross-referenced unemployment insurance benefits
15 case to this ongoing appeal is about Waszczuk’s unemployment insurance benefits, which was stolen
16 in 2014 by Waszczuk’s former Attorney Douglas Stein (who was disbarred in January 2020);
17 California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ deputy, Ashante Norton; and the University of
18 California General Counsel Charles Robinson and his three top deputies, Karen J. Petrulakis, UCOP
19
Chief Deputy General Counsel, Cynthia A. Vroom, UCOP Senior Counsel, and Margaret L Wu,
UCOP Managing Counsel.
20
The unemployment insurance benefits that were denied to Waszczuk by the California
21
Employment Development Department (EDD) in 2013 because Waszczuk was slandered and
22
wrongly accused of misconduct with EDD by his employer, the Regents of the University of
23
California, the Defendant in this appeal. They sought to use the unemployment insurance benefits
24 case against Waszczuk in his wrongful termination case (this appeal) and deprive him of any
25 financial resources to force him to drop litigation against the UC Regents
26 Waszczuk learned that the EDD’s and CUIAB’s decision could be used against an employee
27 in litigation against an employer, as outlined in the State of California Attorney General’s 2001 Third
Edition Civil Rights Handbook, (page 30), which states:
28
- 6 -

1 Under California law, if you should subsequently lose your unemployment
insurance case, your employer may then be able to use that decision against you in
2 any subsequent discrimination case which you might file with some other
3
governmental agency or in court. In other words, a loss in the unemployment
insurance case may prevent you from prevailing in another forum under a different
4 set of laws.
5 However, after the case was investigated at Waszczuk’s request in 2013/2014 by the California
6 Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s (CUIAB) Chief Counsel, Mr. Kim Steinhardt, the EDD
reinstated Waszczuk’s unemployment insurance benefits on May 14, 2014; thereafter, his benefits
7
were stolen and vanished. This was one of the important reasons why Waszczuk included the Court
8
record from Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS in his ATTACHMENT NO. 4B TO THE
9
APPELLANT’S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD APPEAL (Pages 9 & 11), filed on January 31,
10
2022.
11 It is not Waszczuk’s intention to argue whether Sacramento County Superior Court Appeal
12 Unit Deputy Clerk Kevin M. has the right and power to deny Waszczuk’s record on appeal from Case
No. 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS. However, if he had informed Waszczuk in April 2022 after

13
14 certifying the 13 volumes of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL that he denied including the
record from Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS in the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON
15
APPEAL, than Waszczuk would file motion to augment record on appeal However, the April 22,
16
2022 certified CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL vanished like Waszczuk’s unemployment
17
insurance benefits in 2014, and Kevin M. informed Waszczuk of this almost three months after the
18
CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL was certified; thus, he was acting with premeditated
19 prejudice and precluded Waszczuk from filing a motion to augment the record on appeal and
20 unlawfully delayed the appeal process.
21 In the criminal case People v. Grimes, 172 Cal.App.4th 121 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009), the court
22 held:
23 The superior court clerk must "promptly mail" to the Court of Appeal notification
24 of the filing of a notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(c)(1).) "The
failure of a court reporter or clerk to perform any duty imposed by statute or these
25 rules that delays the filing of the appellate record is an unlawful interference
with the reviewing court's proceedings. . . ." ( Id., rule 8.23.)
26
27 Furthermore, the same Court, in the same case, cited People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal.4th 550, 566-
28 567 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 816, 967 P.2d 29] and stated:
- 7 -

1 In 1935, the mishandling of a timely notice of appeal resulted in defendant Rush Griffin's
execution before his appeal could be heard. The ensuing furor led to the "automatic" appeal
2 procedure now employed in capital cases
3
If an appeal had merit, the delay could mean a person suffered an unwarranted
4 period of incarceration, or unwarranted collateral consequences.
5
Waszczuk most likely would be not executed which e delays the filing of the appellate
6
record which is an unlawful interference with the reviewing court’s proceedings. However,
7 Waszczuk is 71 years old and, after open heart surgery and a reliance on nine different medications,
8 he could die and never finalize his wrongful termination case, never recovering his unemployment
9 insurance benefits and approximately $1 million in lost wages and benefits caused by the white
10 collar criminals from the University of California’s Office of the President.
11 If the Sacramento County Superior Court Deputy Clerk Kevin M., after this Second Notice
12 of Omission, still refuses to provide the additional volumes of the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL
TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, which includes Court records from Case No. 34-2013-80001699-

13
14
CUWMGDS, in his ATTACHMENT NO. 4B TO THE APPELLANT’S NOTICE DESIGNATING
RECORD APPEAL (Pages 9 & 11), filed on January 31, 2022, Waszczuk will file the a motion to
15
augment the record on appeal and ask for help from the California Commission on Judicial
16
Performance.
17
V.
18 THE OTHER MISSING DOCUMENTS NOT PROVIDED WITH THE JULY 11, 2022 SUPPLEMENTAL
CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL-WASZCZUK’S JUNE 18, 2020 COPY OF MOTION TO RECALL
19 REMITTITUR AND COPY OF THE REQUEST/MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE WITH WASZCZUK’S
DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF 3DCA CASE C079524 (SLAPP MOTION)
20
21 In the second part of the Declaration, Sacramento County Superior Court Clerk Kevin M.
stated “The remaining missing documents as part of the current above listed case on appeal
22
have been supplied in the accompanying Supplemental Clerks Transcript on Appeal.”
23
The above statement by Deputy Clerk Kevin M., dated July 22, 2022, is not a true statement, despite
24
being signed by him under penalty of perjury.
25
Waszczuk, in his FIRST NOTICE OF OMISSION, filed on July 6, 2022, requested that the
26 Sacramento Superior Court’s Appeal Unit produce the omitted record on appeal listed in
27 ATTACHMENT NO. 4B TO THE APPELLANT’S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD APPEAL
28 (Pages 7 & 8), which was filed on January 31, 2022. Item 102 was provided with the Supplemental
- 8 -

1 Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal to Waszczuk or to 3DCA, thus Waszczuk is requesting that this
2 court record be produced and provided to him and to 3DCA.
3
Item 102 is Lodged in Dept. 53 as an unfiled copy of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Recall
4
Remittitur and a copy of the Request /Motion for Judicial Notice with Plaintiff’s Declarations in
5 Support in 3DCA Case C079524 (SLAPP Motion). (Please include only one attached to the Motion
6 EXHIBIT # 44) in the Clerk’s Transcript, which is a draft of the Plaintiff’s Third Amended
7 Complaint (TAC)).
8 The above-listed Documents with Cover Letter were submitted to Dept. 53, Hon. Shama
Mesiwala by Priority U.S Mail on ………………………………..………………. 6/18/2021.
9
10 Looking at the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX, the

11 above listed documents should be appear on page 7 of the CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX between
12 05/27/21 DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT
CREDITORS APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF IRENA

13
14
WASZCZUK, Volume 9, and 06/29/21 PLAINTIFFS PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, Volume 9, or
it should be listed in Volume 8 of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, but Volume 8 is
15
completely missing or has been omitted in the Chronological and Alphabetical Index and must
16
be corrected. It appears that the copy of Waszczuk’s June 18, 2020 Motion to Recall Remittitur and
17
copy of the Request/Motion for Judicial Notice with Waszczuk’s Declarations in Support of 3DCA
18
Case C079524 (SLAPP Motion) with included EXHIBIT # 44, which was a draft of the 2015
19 Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (TAC), vanished like the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON
20 APPEAL in April 2022 and was never provided to Judge Shama Hakim Mesivala or filed. Waszczuk
21 did not know what was going on and disqualified Judge Mesivala because of a lack of any reaction or
22 response from Department 53 to his inquiries to stop the Porter Scott attorney’s assault aimed at his
wife. At the same time, in June 2021, Porter Scott attorney Lindsay Goulding, out of desperation to
23
make Waszczuk drop the litigation against the UC Regents, dragged Waszczuk’s 70-year-old wife
24
into Department 43 in an unsuccessful attempt to frame her and extorted from her $22,284. This
25
happened while appearing before Sacramento County Judge Thadd Blizzard and the Court Clerk.
26
The omitted from the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL Item 102 must be produced
27 by the Sacramento Superior Court Appeal Unit and provided to Waszczuk and 3DCA as a Record on
28 Appeal for the ongoing appeal.
- 9 -

1 VI.
2 THE COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL- FROM THE SEPTEMBER 1,

2021 SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT HEARING PRESIDED OVER BY THE
3 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER- DEPARTMENT 54
4
By this Second Notice of Omission, Waszczuk is requesting that the Sacramento County Superior
5 Court Appeal Unit, without further delay, issue a new Notice of Filing of Designation/Notice to
6 Reporters for Court Reporter Valerie Haley, who has already transcribed the September 1, 2021
7 Court Hearing presided over by Judge Christopher E. Krueger (not Judge David I. Brown), the
8 Defendant’s Attorney from the Porter Scott law firm Thomas L. Riordan (not Douglas Ropel or
Lindsay Goulding). The new Notice of Filling of Designation/Notice to Reporters should resolve
9
the problem with the Court Reporter.
10
The Sacramento Superior Court Deputy Clerk Kevin M. from the Appeals Unit stated in his
11
d7/11/2022 Declaration in regard to the Court Reporter Transcript on Appeal:
12
As to the Reporters Transcript, The CSR T. Tavalero was noticed to prepare a

13
Reporters Transcript based on the information supplied by the appellant on their
14 designation. A filing party is responsible for verifying the validity of the
information on said designation prior to submission. Ms. Tavalero supplied a
15 declaration as having no notes for said date supplied by appellant.
16 First, the Court Reporter, Tina Tavalero, in her supplied Declaration to 3DCA, did not state
17 that she received the Notice of Filling of Designation/Notice to Reporters Court Appeal Unit from
18 Clerk Kevin M. Contrary to his statement, Court Reporter Tavalero stated:

My name and CSR number was put on this appeal by mistake, therefore I have no notes
19
regarding this matter.
20
21 Ms. Tavalero did not say that she received the Notice of Filling of Designation/Notice to
Reporters. I am quite sure that, if any Sacramento County Superior Court Reporter would have
22
received a Notice of Filling of Designation/Notice to Reporters from the September 1, 2021 on any
23
Court Hearing with Judge David I. Brown on the Note, since every Court Reporter and Clerk Court
24
was informed that Judge Brown had resigned from Department 53 in December 2020, the Court
25
Reporter would have returned the Note to the Court’s Appeal Unit for correction.
26 Clerk Kevin M stated that “A filing party is responsible for verifying the validity of the
27 information on said designation prior to submission.” This is a very lame excuse for not providing
28 the Court Reporter Transcript from the September 1, 2021 Court Hearing with Judge Krueger.
- 10 -

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
COURT OF APPEAL
Third Appellate District
State of California
914 Capitol Mall ANDREA K. WALLIN-ROHMANN
Sacramento, CA 95814-4814 Clerk/Executive Officer
916.654.0209
www.courts.ca.gov COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN
Assistant Clerk/ExecutiveOfficer
March 20, 2018
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

C079524 Sacramento County No. 34201300155479CUWTGDS
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
This letter is in response to your letter received on March 19, 2018, in case number
C079524 only. I apologize for missing some questions in your first letter received on
March 9, 2018, and rejected on March 16, 2018. I'll attempt to give you more answers
now, although the Clerk's Office is not allowed to give legal advice.

Documents filed in this court are public and may be reviewed by anyone, unless they are
confidential by law or sealed. This court does not keep records about public requests to
view the files. Therefore, I cannot tell you who requested to view the record in case
number C030005 in February of 2012, nor can anyone else.
I cannot tell you when a decision will be made in case number C079254. This case is with
the court and has not yet been scheduled for oral argument. I will inform the court that you
inquired as to the status of the case.
It is standard procedure for this court to transmit only the first volume of a record to the
Supreme Court when a Petition for Review has been filed.
Your letter received on March 9, 2018, was rejected because the letter was considered an
inquiry on a motion to recall the remittitur in case number C079524. Nevertheless, my
letter dated March 16, 2018, was in response to your inquiry.
Please send a letter to the court requesting what files you would like to be retrieved from
the State Records Center. You must send $20.00 for each file, and if a file is located in
more than one box, you must send $20.00 for each box retrieved.
Very truly yours,
ANDREA K. WALLIN-ROHMANN
Clerk/Executive Officer
By: Anita Kenner

Deputy Clerk
cc: See Mailing List

MAILING LIST

C079524
Sacramento County No. 34201300155479CUWTGDS
Copies of this document have been sent by mail to the parties checked below unless they
were noticed electronically. If a party does not appear on the TrueFiling Servicing
Notification and is not checked below, service was not required.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
David P.E. Burkett

Porter Scott
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento County Superior Court

720 Ninth Street

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (209) 247-1089
[email protected]
July 15, 2022
Ms. Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann

Clerk/Executive Officer, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall
Subject: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al. Case No. C095488
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No: No. 34-2013-34-00155479

RE: COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
Dear Ms. Wallin-Rohmann:
I am the Plaintiff and Appellant in the above-captioned case before

the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA).
Enclosed is the 07/15/2022 copy of my response to Court Reporters Board ,
Executive Analyst Ms. Paula Bruning’s 07/08/2022 correspondence regarding the
Court Reporter Transcript (CRT) from the 9/1/2021 Court hearing with the
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Christopher E. Krueger . For some
reason Superior Court , Appellate Unit won’t provide the Court Reporter
Transcript from this Court hearing . The CRT was due May 9, 2022.
Can you do something about without necessity to file motion to augment the record on
appeal ?
Sincerely,
________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk , Per Se
Plaintiff & Appellant
Court Reporter Transcript 1

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-729-5154
Email: [email protected]
July 15, 2022
Paula Bruning, Executive Analyst

COURT REPORTERS BOARD
OF CALIFORNIA
2535 Capitol Oaks Drive, Suite 230
Subject: Application for Reimbursement of $375.00 Submitted to the Court

Reporters Board of California on April 8, 2022

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA (34-2031-00155479- 3DCA C095488)
Re: Your Letter Dated July 8, 2022- Court Reporter Transcript (CRT) on
Appeal
Dear Ms. Bruning,
I am responding to your July 8, 2022, letter (Attachment #1) because I see from this
letter and the email correspondence with you that we have some misunderstanding on
the matter. I did not have time to respond earlier to your letter because I was working
on Petition for Panel Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc, in Jaroslaw
Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, Case No. 20-1407,
pending in U.S. Court of Appeal District for the District of Columbia (D.C Circuit )
https://www.scribd.com/document/582301661/07-12-2022-Appellant-s-Petition-for-
for-Rehearing-En-Banc-Waszczuk-v-IRS-CommissionCase-No-20-1407er and
https://www.law360.com/tax-authority/articles/1510983/tax-whistleblower-asks-dc-
circ-to-rethink-award-denial).
which is cross referenced with the pending in Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
-1-
District (3DCA) Case No. 095488 Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California
et al.
I would not bother you and your office if I only had to pay $23 for the Court
Reporter Transcript (CRT). This is about the CRT for which I paid $375 on March 9,
2022, and the CRT should be produced and provided to me and transmitted by the
Sacramento Superior Court and to the 3DCA for the pending appeal in the above-
captioned case by May 9, 2012; see April 8, 2022, Sacramento County Superior Clerk
Notice (Attachment #. 2) The notice is a proof itself that I paid for CRT.
Today is July 15, 2022 and CRT was not produced and not provided to me not
is not transmitted to 3DCA . This a very short CRT to prepare and send to me and to
3DCA. Don’t you make you wander what is in this $ 23.00 CRT which is causing that
the appeal process is being manipulatively delayed .
FACTS
On August 31, 2021, Superior Application for the Court Fee Waiver

(Attachment # 3) was granted by the Court and included
• Filing papers in Superior Court

• Making copies and certifying copies
• Sheriff's fee to give notice
• Court fee for phone hearing
• Reporter's fee for attendance at hearing or trial, if reporter provided
by the court
• Assessment for court investigations under Probate Code sections 1513,
1826, or 1851
• Preparing, certifying, copying, and sending the clerk's transcript on
appeal
• Holding in trust the deposit for a reporter's transcript on appeal under
rules 8.130 or 8.834
• Making a transcript or copy of an official electronic recording under
rule 8.835
• Sending papers to another court
• Court-appointed interpreter in small claims court
The August 31, 2021, Court Order on Court Fee Waiver clearly shows that
the reporter's fee for attendance at hearing or trial and preparing, certifying,
-2-
copying, and making a transcript or copy of an official electronic recording
under rule 8.835 were waved. . Therefore, I do not know why you implied in
your email correspondence and the July 8, 2022, letter that I should pay $23 for
the September 1, 2021, Court Hearing CRT. I provided to you the August 31,
2021, copy of the Court Order on Court Fee Waiver with April 8, 2022,
Application for Reimbursement and copies of the two checks totaling $375; thus,
you should acknowledge and know that all fees related to CRT were waived by the
August 31, 2021, Court Order, and in addition, to the waiver, fees were paid by
myself on March 9, 2022, for the amount of $375.
I thought that the August 31, 2021, Court Order on Court Fee Waiver,
which waived the reporter's fee for attendance at hearing or trial, and for making a
transcript or copy of an official electronic recording under rule 8.835, would take
care of all fees for CRT after I provided the Court Order on the Court Fee Waiver
to the Sacramento County Superior Court Clerk with my Appellant's Notice
Designating Record on Appeal filed on January 31, 2022. Apparently, this was not
the case.

On March 1, 2022, I received a Notice of Default from the Sacramento
Superior Court, Appellate Unit (attached), which stated:
You are hereby notified that you are in default for failure to:
[X] Deposit the Court Reporters fee for preparation of the Reporter's
Transcript
In addition to the Superior Court trust hold fee of $50 (payable as separate
checks) as required by C.R.C. 8.130(b)(1) or substitute for cost of
transcript under C.R.C. 8.1130(b)(3).
[IX] As an Appellant your appeal may be dismissed by the reviewing
court if you fail to perform the act(s) necessary to procure the record
as enumerated in this notice within 15 days of the date of the mailing
of this notice.
On the bottom of the Notice of Default, you could read in bold italic letters:
TO: THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

/7 APPELLANT has failed to relieve the above matter from default.
-3-
The Appeals Unit of the Sacramento Superior Court is requesting a
dismissal of the above referenced case on appeal.
DATED:
Deputy Clerk
Superior Court of California
Regardless of the August 31, 2021, Court Order on Court Fee Waiver on
March 9, 2022, according to California Rules of Court 8.130(b)(1) and
8.130(b)(1)(b)(i) I submitted two separate checks for $50 and $325 to clear the
alleged default and avoid having my appeal dismissed. (Attachment # 4) The
checks both cleared on March 17, 2022; the $375 should be reimbursed to me by
the Court Reporters Board of California or Sacramento County Superior Court due
to the August 31, 2021, Court Order on Court Fee Waiver, and the CRT should be
produced and transmitted to the 3DCA for the ongoing appeal as a part of the
designated record on appeal and provided to me in May 2022 as per the Superior
Court Clerk (Kevin M.) April 8, 2021, Notice to the Court Reporter.
On April 15, 2022, I informed the 3DCA about the situation.

Yesterday (July 13, 2022), I received from the Sacramento County Superior
Court, Appellate Unit (Deputy Clerk Kevin M.) part of the missing Clerk
Transcript on Appeal, which was certified on April 22, 2022, but which somehow
could not be delivered for another two months to Lodi, CA, and to the 3DCA,
which is located one mile from Sacramento County Superior Court.
I received part of the missing Clerk Transcript on Appeal (the Clerk

Transcript on Appeal is still incomplete). However, the CRT on Appeal from
September 1, 2021, was not in the package at all .
I will send today the $23 check to the Court Reporter Ms. Valerie F. Halley
CSR 10771, and afterward, hopefully I will receive one original and one copy of
the transcript; then I will send the original to the 3DCA. What other options do I
have? I could file a motion to augment the record on appeal as I did in January
2016 over six years ago in the same 34-2031-00155479 case (different appeal;
attached). (Attachment # 5)
In conclusion, to avoid any misunderstanding between us, my inquiries or

correspondence with you is not a complaint aimed at Ms. Valerie Haley, Ms. Tina
Tavalero, or any Court Reporter. Court Reporters are hard-working people, and I
admire their hard work and skill and appreciate what they do. The Court Reporters
-4-
have nothing to do with manipulation of my case which going for 9 years in three
California Court. Please read my Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
filed in D.C Circuit than you will understand what is the CRT about.
I hope that my letter will make you understand that my April 8, 2022,
Application for Reimbursement was not about $23, but about the CRT from the
10–15 minutes Court Hearing (Ms. Valerie Haley) with Judge Christopher
Krueger on September 1, 2021 for which I paid $375 long time ago and I and the
3DCA still waiting to receive it.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your

convenience.
Sincerely,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk
-5-
MAILING LIST
Clerk of Court of Appeals ( Via TrueFiling )

914 Capitol Mall
Lindsay A. Goulding -Via TrueFiling - E-mail - [email protected]

PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
H. Thomas Watson- Via TrueFiling - E-mail- [email protected]

Karen M. Bray - Via TrueFiling - E-mail- [email protected]
Horvitz & Levy LLP

3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
Valerie Haley-Court Reporter -Via E-mail – [email protected]

Tina Tavalero -Court Reporter -Via E-Mail - [email protected]
Annabelle Coleman, Court Reporters Supervisor- Via E-mail - [email protected]
Araceli Plasencia, Lead Court Reporter-Via E-mail - [email protected]
Sacramento Superior Court
720 9th Street, Appeals Unit Room 102
-6-
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-729-5154
Email: [email protected]
July 18, 2022
Paula Bruning, Executive Analyst

Court Reporters Board of California
Subject: Application for Reimbursement of $375.00 Submitted to the Court

Reporters Board of California on April 8, 2022
Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California (34-
2013-000155479 / C095488

Re: Your Letter Dated July 8, 2022 and Your July 15, 2022 E-mail Response to My
Letter, dated July 15, 2022 - Court Reporter Transcript (CRT) on Appeal
Dear Ms. Bruning:
With this letter, I am informing you again that I am not interested in a reimbursement of
$23.00 for the Court Reporter Transcript on Appeal, which was due to be produced and
transmitted to the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District on May 9, 2022.
In regard to your email dated July 15, 2022, which made reference to my letter dated
July 15, 2021, you said:
I hope in the future you can send me a simple email or pick up the phone to call
me instead of faxing and emailing 35 pages of documents, some of which I
already had with your application. There is no need to complicate this.
I can only say to you that, instead of conspiring with my adversaries, you in April
2022 could have picked up the phone or sent me a simple e-mail letting me know that
you could not process my Application for Reimbursement of $375.00. I would not then
have had to write the letter with 35 pages of documents to you, which, in fact, was a
response to your official letter dated July 8, 2022 (see attached,)
-1-
Response to Paula Bruning ‘s 7/15/2022 e-mail
https://www.scribd.com/document/582903463/7-15-2022-Re-Court-Reporter-Transcript-
on-Appeal-Court-Reporter-Boards-of-California-Paula-Bruning.
Conspiracy and corruption sometime work, but not always, and your deceptive behavior
has cost me a few hundred dollars to deal with problems you caused with others in
Sacramento Superior Court and Court of Appeal , Third Appellate District .
Furthermore, I am requesting with this letter that you cease all communications
on my behalf with the Court Reporter Valerie Haley, CSR 10771, or anyone else from the
Sacramento Superior Court in this matter. At this point, I am not interested in any
reimbursement from your office.
Using your words from your July 15, 2022 e-mail response, “I came to the
conclusion” by taking into consideration all facts related to my Application for
Reimbursement of $375.00, which I submitted to your office after you bluntly conspired
and unlawfully interfered to delay the legal appeal process in the above-captioned case,
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et al. Case No. C095488. The
appeaL was delayed for at least six months because of your and others’ reckless
conspiracy and corruption.

Your job in this matter, as an Executive Analyst for the Court Reporter Board of
California, was only to process my April 8, 2022 Application for the Reimbursement
of $375, which I paid on March 9, 2022 for the Court Reporter’s transcription of the 10–
15 minute-long September 1, 2021 Court Hearing with Sacramento County Superior
Court Judge Christopher E. Krueger from Department 54. He presided over the Motion
for Summary Judgement hearing via Zoom on that day.
All I needed for you to do in this matter was to inform me in April 2022 that
your office could not process the Application for the Reimbursement of $375 that I
submitted to your office. That was it.
As you know from the previous documents I submitted to your office with my
April 8, 2022 Application for Reimbursement of $375, the CRT from the September 1,
2021 hearing was an integral part of my APPELLANT’S NOTICE DESIGNATING
RECORD ON APPEAL, FILED ON JANUARY 31, 2022. It should have been
produced and transmitted by Sacramento Superior Court Appellate Unit to the 3DCA for
the ongoing appeal by May 9, 2022. Simultaneously, the Clerk Transcript on Appeal was
certified by the Sacramento County Superior Court’s Appeals Unit on April 22, 2022 and
should have been transmitted right away to 3DCA, as a record on appeal, and to me.
Instead of informing me as soon as you received the April 8, 2022 Application of

Reimbursement of $375.00 that your office has no jurisdiction to reimburse the money,
two and half months (2 ½ ) you e-mailed me on June 27, 2022 saying:
-2-
From: Bruning, Paula@DCA <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 5:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California (34-2013-
000155479 / C095488)
Dear Applicant,
Thank you for your application for the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF) in the above-
referenced case number. A review of your application reveals the following deficiencies:
You indicated that you paid for the transcript of September 1, 2021; however, we require
itemized invoices from the court reporter. The invoice should include the case information,
the date(s) of proceedings, the number of pages, and the price per page. It should also denote
that the court reporter has been paid. Please obtain this from the court reporter. I have
attached a sample for your reference.
We cannot process your application without the above information. Please provide the
required information or make other arrangements within 10 days from the date of this letter.

If we do not hear from you by July 7 2022, we will return your application without
processing.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Paula Bruning
Executive Analyst
Direct: 916-263-4690
Fax: 916-263-3664
I did not know what you were talking about in your e-mail, when you said:
You indicated that you paid for the transcript of September 1, 2021; however,
we require itemized invoices from the court reporter. The invoice should include
the case information, the date(s) of proceedings, the number of pages, and the
price per page. It should also denote that the court reporter has been paid.
Please obtain this from the court reporter. I have attached a sample for your
reference
-3-
On the same day, I forwarded your June 27, 2022 email to Court Reporter Valerie Halley
with the following statement:
From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk

Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 11:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California (34-
2013-000155479 / C095488)
Dear Ms. Haley ;

I am forwarding to you e-mail I received from Ms. Paula Bruning ,Executive Analyst of
Court Reporters Board of California. Ms. Bruning by her e-mail
requesting itemized invoices from the court reporter to process my 4/8/22 application for the
Court Reporter Transcript (CRT) reimbursement . (See attached file) I paid for CRT on
3/9/2022 , checks were cleared on March 17, 2022. (See attached file ) Would you please let
me know what is the status of the CRT and would you please provide the copy of Invoice to
Ms. Bruning than she can process my application for reimbursement .

The CRT is for the appeal pending in the Court of Appeal , Third Appellate District ( 3DCA)
Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California (34-2013-000155479 /
C09548 . The requested CRT is from the September 1,2021 Court Hearing in Dept 54 with
Judge Christopher Krueger. The 9/1/2021 Court Hearing via Zoom last only a few minutes
and CRT should be very short.
I appreciate your prompt response and help in this matter
If you have any questions , please let me know by e-mail or phone 209-687-1180
Jerry Waszczuk
On June 28, 2022, at 11:36 A.M., Ms. Haley responded to my June 27, 2022 e-mail as
follows:
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 11:36 AM

To: Jaroslaw Waszczuk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California (34-
2013-000155479 / C095488)
Good morning,
I'm a little confused by your request, so if I can get a little clarification, please?
-4-
I have not received any appeal notice on Waszczuk v Regents. I did produce the transcript
previously due to a transcript request from the Porter Scott law firm. I did look through my
past emails and could not find any requests for the transcript from you directly. The cost of
any transcript would therefore be at the copy price, as the original has already been
produced.
As far as the transcript reimbursement fund, the $375 is a fee paid to the court directly, and I
have nothing to do with that payment. As far as the transcript on appeal, you would either
have to submit a pre-determined deposit to the Sacramento court when you file your appeal,
and they would notice me to produce it, or you can pay me directly for the transcript, and I
would give the appeals department a waiver of costs for the transcript on appeal. I would
then produce the appeal transcript once I receive the appeal notice to produce it. If you
wanted a copy before filing the appeal, I can send you a copy at the copy price, which you
would pay to me directly, but you would have to purchase another copy in the appeal format,
which would be produced once I receive the appeal notice. I can submit an invoice to the
CRB for the amount of the appeal transcript, and once I receive payment, I will provide the
appellate department the notice of waiver of deposit for the reporter's transcript on appeal.
I hope that's not too confusing! Please let me know how I can further assist you.

Thank you,
Valerie Haley, CSR 10771

Sacramento Official Court Reporters
Ms. Haley’s response to my e-mail clearly indicated that she had never received the
Notice of Filing of Designation/Notice to Reporters issued on April 8, 2022 by the
Sacramento Superior Court, Appeals Unit Deputy Clerk Kevin M. On that same day,
April 8, 2022, I sent my Application of Reimbursement of $375.00 to the Court
Reporters Board of California. (your office)
I examined again the April 8, 2022 Notice of Filing of Designation and Notice to
Reporters to Prepare Transcripts, which was sent by Deputy Clerk Kevin M. (no full last
name), from Appeals Unit Room 102, under penalty of perjury, and discovered that a
Notice was sent to Tina Tavalero with a due date to produce transcripts on appeal. The
April 8, 2022 Notice of Filing of Designation/Notice to Reporters was addressed to
Court Reporter Tina Tavalero, CRS Number 8923, with a due date to file the CRT in
3DCA on May 9, 2022.
This appeal is not regarding a Judgement from Sacramento County Superior

Court Judge David Brown, but is instead from Judge Christopher Krueger, of the Law
and Motion Department 54, who was assigned to my eight-years-pending case in July
-5-
2021 and who granted a Motion for Summary Judgement to the Defendants on
September 1, 2021 during the 10–15 minute Court Hearing held via Zoom. Judge Brown
resigned or retired from Sacramento Superior Court Dept. 53 in December 2020 and was
replaced by Judge Shama H. Mesiwala in January 2021.
-6-
Attorney Douglas Ropel does not represent the Regents of University of
California in this appeal. Ropel resigned from the Porter Scott law firm six years ago, in
March 2016, and since then has been working for Littler Mendelson. The Regents of the
University of California are represented in this appeal by Lindsay Goulding, from Porter
Scott, a Sacramento-based law firm, and attorneys Karen Bray and Thomas Watson,
from the prestigious Horvitz & Levy LLP, based in Los Angeles (see
https://www.horvitzlevy.com/our-value-to-clients).

Porter Scott Attorney Lindsay Goulding did not appear at the September 1, 2021
Court Hearing (Motion for Summary Judgement). The Regents of the University of
California were represented at the September 1, 2021 Court Hearing presided over by
Judge Christopher Krueger by Porter Scott Attorney Thomas L. Riordan (see
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/104827 ;
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/02-O-11078.pdf
I notified the Sacramento County Superior Court 3DCA, and the three above-
listed Defendants’ attorneys, about this error on April 15, 2022, seven days before the
incomplete Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal was certified on April 22, 2022.
I forwarded your e-mail to Ms. Tavalero, and she responded that she had nothing to do
with the CRT from the 9/1/2022 Court Hearing with Judge Krueger. She stated in her
email response:
PASTE E-MAIL FROM TINA TAVALERO
Original Message-----
From: Tavalero, Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:06 PM
To: Jaroslaw Waszczuk <[email protected]>; Haley, Valerie
<[email protected]>
Cc: Bruning, Paula@DCA <[email protected]>
-7-
Subject: Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California (34-
2013-000155479 / C095488)
I was not the court reporter for this case. My name was put on the appeal notice by
mistake. It had another court reporter's CSR No. and my name. I checked all my
notes and I was not the reporter on this. I sent a declaration to the 3DCA stating that I
was listed by mistake and I have no notes for any of the proceedings.
thank you.
Tina Tavalero, RPR, CSR No. 8923

Official Court Reporter for Hon. Sharon A. Lueras
720 9th Street, Room 14
(916)874-7332
[email protected]
All of the facts lead to the conclusion that my Application for Reimbursement of
$375.00, which I submitted to your office on April 8, 2021, caused that entire process of

my appeal in Case C095488 Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California to
be stopped by someone in the Sacramento Superior Court and deliberately delayed for
over two months. Instead of conspiring with my adversaries, you could have notified me
in April 2022, instead June 2022 and then I would not be writing this letter to you. It very
clear that from the learned facts and documents that the Sacramento Superior Court,
Appeal Unit had no desire to produce the CRT from the September 1, 2021 Court
Hearing with Judge Kreuger and provide the CRT to 3DCA and to me . I wonder why.
Once again, please stop any further efforts to communicate on my behalf with
Court Reporters without my consent. I am not interested in any reimbursement from your
office for the CRT from the Court Hearing with Judge Krueger on September 1, 2021.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
-8-
MAILING LIST
Yvonne Fenner Via E-mail - [email protected]

Executive Officer
Lindsay A. Goulding -Via - E-mail - [email protected]

H. Thomas Watson- Via - E-mail- [email protected]

Karen M. Bray - Via - E-mail- [email protected]

Horvitz & Levy LLP
3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
Valerie Haley-Court Reporter -Via E-mail – [email protected]

Tina Tavalero -Court Reporter -Via E-Mail - [email protected]
Annabelle Coleman, Court Reporters Supervisor- Via E-mail - [email protected]
Araceli Plasencia, Lead Court Reporter-Via E-mail - [email protected]
Sacramento Superior Court
720 9th Street, Appeals Unit Room 102
-9-
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
COURT OF APPEAL
State of California
914 Capitol Mall ANDREA K. WALLIN-ROHMANN
Sacramento, CA 95814-4814 Clerk/Executive Officer
916.654.0209
www.courts.ca.gov COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN
Assistant Clerk/ExecutiveOfficer
March 20, 2018
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242

C079524 Sacramento County No. 34201300155479CUWTGDS
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
This letter is in response to your letter received on March 19, 2018, in case number
C079524 only. I apologize for missing some questions in your first letter received on
March 9, 2018, and rejected on March 16, 2018. I'll attempt to give you more answers
now, although the Clerk's Office is not allowed to give legal advice.

Documents filed in this court are public and may be reviewed by anyone, unless they are
confidential by law or sealed. This court does not keep records about public requests to
view the files. Therefore, I cannot tell you who requested to view the record in case
number C030005 in February of 2012, nor can anyone else.
I cannot tell you when a decision will be made in case number C079254. This case is with
the court and has not yet been scheduled for oral argument. I will inform the court that you
inquired as to the status of the case.
It is standard procedure for this court to transmit only the first volume of a record to the
Supreme Court when a Petition for Review has been filed.
Your letter received on March 9, 2018, was rejected because the letter was considered an
inquiry on a motion to recall the remittitur in case number C079524. Nevertheless, my
letter dated March 16, 2018, was in response to your inquiry.
Please send a letter to the court requesting what files you would like to be retrieved from
the State Records Center. You must send $20.00 for each file, and if a file is located in
more than one box, you must send $20.00 for each box retrieved.
Very truly yours,
ANDREA K. WALLIN-ROHMANN
Clerk/Executive Officer
By: Anita Kenner

Deputy Clerk
cc: See Mailing List

MAILING LIST

C079524
Sacramento County No. 34201300155479CUWTGDS
Copies of this document have been sent by mail to the parties checked below unless they
were noticed electronically. If a party does not appear on the TrueFiling Servicing
Notification and is not checked below, service was not required.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
David P.E. Burkett

Porter Scott
Sacramento County Superior Court

720 Ninth Street

Court of Appeal Case No. C079524
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants and Respondents,

APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING
On Appeal from a Judgment of the Superior Court,

County of Sacramento
The Honorable David I. Brown, Judge
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34201300155479CUWTGDC
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
E-mail: [email protected]
1
TO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
APP-008
Court of App<l&I Caoo Number.
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELL.ATE DISTRICT, DIVISION CIVIL
C079524
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY {N9me, Sta!e Bar number. Md sd1ress): Superior Court case Number.
-Jarosluw Waszczuk In Pro Ptlr 34-2013-00155479

2216 Katzakian Way FOR COURT USE ONLY
Lodi, CA 95242
TELEPHONE NO" 209.663.2977 FAX NO. (Optlon81): 2 09 .3 70. 82 8 I
E-MP.ILADDRESS (Op/jonal) _jjW J [email protected]
mORNEY FOR !Natnt1): Jaroslaw Waszczuk (self respresented) ln Pro Per
APPELLANT/PETITIONER: Jaroslaw Waszczuk
RESPONDENT/REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CA
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

(Check one): 0 INITIAL CERTIFICATE 0 SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE
Notice: Please read rules 8.208 and 8.488 before completing this form. You may use this form for the initial
certificate In an appeal when you file your brief or a prebriefing motion, application, or opposition to such a
motion or application in the Court of Appeal, and when you file a petition for an extraordinary writ. You may
also use this form as a supplemental certificate when you learn of changed or additional information that must
be disclosed.

1. This form is being submitted on behalf of the following party (name): JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2. a. 0 There are no interested entities or persons that must be listed in this certificate under rule 8.208.
b. D Interested entities or persons required to be listed under rule 8.208 are as follows:
Full name of Interested Nature of interest

entity or person (Explain):
( 1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
D Continued on attachment 2.
The undersigned certifies that the above-listed persons or entities (col'porations, partnerships, finns, or any other
association, but not including government entities or th air agencies) have either (1) an ownership interest of 10 perc,nt or
more in the party if it is an entity; or (2) a financial or other i nterest in the outcome of the proceeding that the justices
should consider in determining whether to disqualify themselves, as defined in rule 8.208(e)(2).
Date: October 25, 2017
JAROSALAW WASZCZUK
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
Page 1 of 1
Form Approved for OptloMI Use C.I. Rul�• of Coo�. rule& 8.208, 8.488
Judicia CouncJ of California
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS �c:-.o.Jrl,nfa.ca.gav
APP-008 [Rov. January 1, 2009]
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
II. THE COURTS' BIAS, DISCRIMINATION, AND PREJUDICE TOWARD

WASZCZUK AND FAVORITISM GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANTS AND
DEFENDANTS' ATORNEYS... ............................... ............ ...........4
A. The Oral Argument...... ....................................... ... .............. ......... 4

B. The Court's Preliminary Statement in the Opinion...................................8
C. The old Defendants' demurrer filed as the Special Motion to Strike by the
Defendants' attorney Michael Pott on December 1, 2014 ............... ........ 10
D. Waszczuk's pleading in the Superior Court entitled "Plaintiffs Ex-Parte
Application for Postponement"
.......................................... ..............15

E. Waszczuk's Opposition to the Defendants' anti-SLAPP Motion and
Waszczuk's Motion for Reconsideration...... ..................... ................. 15
F. Waszczuk's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion because
of violation by the Defendants of Discovery Stay Code of Civ. Proc. §
425.16(g)............................................................ ..................... 16
G. Appellant Mediation Statement.................................... ............ ........ 17
III. THE MERIT OF THE CASE.................................... ............ ..........18

A.Superior Court Judgment Affirmation by the Court of Appeal ......... ..........18
B.
Waszczuk's Proposed third Amended Complaint ........................ ......... 20
C.The Defense Michael Pott's August 19, 2014 confer letter and Douglas Stein's
response dated August 26, 2014 ...... ........................... ..................... .20
D. The Second Amended Complaint is not valid.............................. .........22
IV. ARGUMENTS..................... ............................. ............... ......... 27
A. First Cause of Action ............................................. ......................27
B. Second Cause of Action: Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage... 31
C. Third Cause Of Action [Harassment and Failure to Prevent Harassment,
Discrimination, Retaliation: Government Code § 12940 (A)] ... .................32
D. The Fourth Cause of Action - Violation of California Government Code
Section 8547 .10(b), which allows people to sue University of California
employees who intentionally engage in acts of reprisal........................ .33
3
TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE AND THE HONORABLE
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT:
PETITION FOR REHEARING

FOR ERROR IN LAW OR PROCEDURAL PROCESS
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to rule 8.268 of the California Rules of Court, appellant

Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk (hereafter Waszczuk) petitions this Court for a
rehearing in the above-entitled matter after the Court issued an unpublished
opinion, dated October 10, 2017. The Court of Appeal, by the issued

Opinion, affirmed the April 14, 2015, State of California, County of
Sacramento Court Judgment signed by the Honorable Judge David I. Brown
(AOB 2) (Vol.VI, CT 1554-1562).
With the Judgement granted to the five Defendants, MICHAEL
BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
OROPEZA, and BRENT SEIFERT, the Special Motion to Strike entered
judgment in favor of the five individual Defendants pursuant to the Code of
Civil Procedure, Section 425.16. The Court Order also granted to the
Defendants the right to strike the first four Causes of Action (COA) from the
Second Amended Complaint (SAC), which was crafted and unlawfully filed
against Waszczuk’s will and instruction by Waszczuk’s former attorney
Douglas Stein on September 30, 2014 (Vol. I, CT 170-244). The SAC was
filed by Stein with a suspended attorney’s license and with help or
collaboration from the Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott, and the defective
SAC was approved by the Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown (Vol. I
8
CT 164-168). Waszczuk is submitting this Petition for rehearing because the
Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District (hereafter
Court or 3DCA) unpublished Court Opinion in the above captioned case was
issued by the Court with unbelievable blunt bias against Waszczuk and with
favoritism given to the Defendants. Waszczuk views the Court decision as
prejudicial and discriminatory against and a large part of the Opinion as
merely a redacted Defendants’ Respondent Brief (RB) and other documents
filed by the Defendants in the Superior Court.
In the biased Opinion, the Court did not even mention the Oral
Argument which took place on August 28, 2017. The Superior Court and the
Court of Appeal also completely failed to address in their ruling the breached
2009 Settlement Agreement by the Defendants in relation to the Code of
Civil Procedure section 425.16 and to Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146

Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos) in the light of Navellier v. Sletten 29
Cal.4th 82, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530, 52 P.3d 703 (ARB 47). Regardless of the
fact that Waszczuk had nothing to do with the defective Second Amended
Complaint filed by his former attorney Douglas Stein with a suspended
attorney license, the Superior Court and the 3DCA completely failed to
properly address the law and establish whether Waszczuk had a probability
of prevailing in the first causes of action defectively pleaded by Waszczuk’s
attorney sufficient to meet the minimum requirement under § 425.16, subd.
(b).
The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal failed to establish
whether the Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike pursuant to § 425.16 had
anything to do with Waszczuk’s complaint in furtherance of his right of
petition or free speech under the United States and California Constitutions
in connection with a public issue (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)), or whether it is a
form of abusive litigation to throw Waszczuk out of court and not let him
9
find out through litigation about the Defendants’ electric power laundering
from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility in relation
to enormous tax fraud.
The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal completely failed to
establish that their speech and writings are constitutionally protected, and
both Courts’ decisions are fraudulent in light of information and evidence
that Waszczuk provided, which were ignored after citing Vergos v. McNeal
(Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165)
and repeating aspects of the Defendants’ Respondents Brief (RB 16) in a
redacted statement that Waszczuk’s disregard of the Rules of Court should
not be overlooked, citing Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Ca1.App.4th 1229, 1246-
1247 and other cases in the Court Opinion PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
on page 2. In this matter, Waszczuk agrees with the Superior Court and the

Court Appeal. However, both Courts should apply the same rules to both
parties and should not discriminate against Waszczuk and use Waszczuk’s
unintentional mistakes against him because of his lack of proper knowledge
in litigations while ignoring the Defense attorney’s mistakes and violation of
court rules and conspiracy against Waszczuk regarding Waszczuk’s
dismissed attorney, Douglas Stein.
Instead, the Court should writ something about the age discrimination
law by the Defendants, Skelly Law (AOB 15) [Waszczuk Ex-Parte
Application] (Vol. II 493-494) [Brief for Skelly Reviewer] (Vol. IV CT 983-
1005) regarding two of Waszczuk’s employees’ performance reviews for
2010/2011 and 2011/2012. Additionally, by some statements written in the
Opinion, the Court implies that the 66-year-old Waszczuk is an obsessive
lunatic.
Waszczuk was unlawfully fired from his job at age 61 without the
possibility of obtaining new employment and lost his house. Waszczuk’s life
10
was entirely destroyed after 13 years of service to the University of California
with an outstanding employee record, provided in [SAC] (Vol. I CT 175).
Waszczuk is happy in having no need to be more aggrieved by the Court of
Appeal than already caused by the Superior Court Judges Hon. David Brown
and Hon. Shelleyanne Chang.
II. THE COURTS’ BIAS, DISCRIMINATION, AND PREJUDICE

TOWARD WASZCZUK AND FAVORITISM GIVEN TO THE
DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANTS’ ATORNEYS
A. The Oral Argument

On June 19, 2017, Pursuant to Rule 8.256 (c)(1) of the California
Rules of Court, Waszczuk conditionally requested the Oral Argument due to
the procedural posture of this case.

In his June 19, 2017 Oral Argument request, Waszczuk wrote to the
Court:
“JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, Plaintiff and Appellant (hereafter
Waszczuk),request respond to the June 9, 2017 (enclosed) inquiry by the
Court as to whether oral argument is sought by Appellant in the instant
matter. Due to the procedural posture of this case, Waszczuk conditionally
request oral argument.
The conditional request is a result of the new finding and discovery after
Waszczuk filed this appeal in June 11, 2015 and the new facts and
discovery basically changed the venue of the case and appeal. In June -July
2015, Waszczuk discover new facts and why Waszczuk was
unscrupulously hunted down since January 2007 by Respondents and
Defendants until his employment was terminated in December 2012 with
the University of California after 13 years of service.
After the discovery of new facts which are partly outlined in Waszczuk’s
Augmented Record on Appeal, Waszczuk intended to File Third Amended
11
Complaint) in the Sacramento County Superior Court but Waszczuk
intentionally was blocked by the Respondents Motion to Stay on September
25, 2015 before Waszczuk actually was able pursue his idea to file the
Third Amended Complaint.
The new evidentiary material and corresponding arguments with
Appellant's Reply Brief need some clarification from Waszczuk especially
some statements from the February 2009 Settlement -Agreement, the
Regents of the University of California signed with Waszczuk. The grossly
violated and breached by the Respondents the February 2009 Settlement -
Agreement is the written contract enforceable only by the State of
California Courts if breached or violated by either party.
For the above reasons Waszczuk reverently requests that oral argument is
permitted and scheduled by the Court to afford Waszczuk an opportunity to

present and discuss the matter. Waszczuk, also considerately requesting
from the Court, not to grant Respondent’s any Motion to Strike before the
scheduled oral argument date.
Waszczuk’ conditional request for oral argument is based on the
appeal records and files in this matter.”
Waszczuk’ conditional request for oral argument is based on the
appeal records and files in this matter.”
The above case was ordered on the calendar for a hearing on Monday,
August 28, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. Waszczuk argued for himself in Pro Per, and
the Defendants were represented by an attorney from the Porter Scott law
firm, David Burkett.
According to Waszczuk’s recollection, in his 15 minutes allotted time
to speak, he pointed out to the Court that this appeal never should and never
would take place if Waszczuk’s attorney Douglas Stein would file a motion
pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 to enforce the Settlement
12
Agreement that the Regents of the University of California signed with
Waszczuk in February 2009 after Stein filed the First Amended Complaint
on June 16, 2014. Waszczuk visited Douglas Stein in El Dorado Hills just
before the Defendants filed the Special Motion to Strike with the hope that
Stein would cure the faulty pleading in the Second Amended Complaint.
Stein finally agreed to amend the complaint after Waszczuk gave him an
extra $500.00 in cash, thinking that the extra money would encourage Stein
to properly amend the complaint (AOB Page #14). Stein was very pleased to
have the $500.00 cash bonus from Waszczuk before Thanksgiving.
As Waszczuk pointed out to the Court, a few days later, instead of the
Third Amended Complaint to cure the defective SAC, Douglas Stein with
the Defense Attorney Michael Pott served Waszczuk the Special Motion to
Strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP) in order

to teach Waszczuk a lesson about the First Amendment.
The last of Waszczuk’s issues during the oral argument was that he
attempted to amend the defective Second Amended Complaint and to dismiss
all individual Defendants after dismissing Douglas Stein on December 16,
2017. However, the Hon. Judge David Brown did not let Waszczuk do this.
In the October 10, 2017 Opinion, the Court did not mention by one
word that an Oral Argument took place nor that the Court Opinion
completely ignored Waszczuk’s argument and the information that his
attorney took Waszczuk’s money and did nothing for it.
The Court of Appeal shall not ignore Waszczuk’s Oral Argument
about the money that Waszczuk paid Stein for representation. The fact that
Stein purposely did not inform Waszczuk about the anti-SLAPP law and the
grave consequences of this law for Waszczuk’s wrongful termination lawsuit
is proof of the collusion between him and the Defense Attorney Michael Pott.
Hiding information from Waszczuk about the anti-SLAPP law and teaching
13
Waszczuk a lesson about the First Amendment in the form of a Special
Motion to Strike pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 425.16 for the cost of a
$20,000 retainer to destroy Waszczuk’s lawsuit and devastate his life further
is too extreme, and the Court of Appeal should recognize this.
After just 15 minutes of oral argument, the Defendants legal counsel
David Burkett from the Sacramento-based law firm Porter Scott approached
Waszczuk in the Court Hall outside the courtroom and attempted to instigate
a confrontation. He made threats toward Waszczuk wife and tried to exploit
the emotional and financial suffering we have both experienced since UC
Regents terminated Waszczuk employment in December 2012 at age 61
without any possibility to find new employment . For the Court information
, Waszczuk spouse Irena Waszczuk is working in Nordstrom in Sacramento
as seamstress -fitter for almost 30 years and has nothing to do with the

University of California and Waszczuk’ lawsuit , Waszczuk spouse should
retire on September 21, 2017 at age of 66 but he can’t due to devastation of
Waszczuks life and livelihood by UC Regents and their collaborators.
Burkett knew that Waszczuk was stressed due to financial hardship caused
by his client’s criminal behavior; he thought that his attacks against my
spouse would easily provoke a confrontation. Sadly, this encounter was my
second time experiencing such shameful tactics in the court building. It is a
second time Waszczuk experienced such Defendants attorney behavior . It
happened before in 2015, prior to the court hearing with presiding Judge
Shelleyane Chang in the unemployment benefits Writ of Mandamus case—
in which UC Regents is party as a Real Party In Interest( RPii.) UC legal
counsel and UC administrators must be very desperate if they resort to using
such tactics. Trying to provoke the opposing party into a physical
confrontation in an area heavily trafficked by sheriff’s deputies and city
police is either very foolish or very underhanded.
14
B. The Court’s Preliminary Statement in the Opinion
On pages no. 1 & 2 of the Preliminary Statement, the Court stated:

“We must reiterate what the trial court admonished plaintiff. “At the
outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated
like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater
consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific
Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941, 944.) Thus, as is the
case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules
of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247;
see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.” We add
that plaintiff has an equal responsibility to follow the California Rules

of Court applicable to appeals, no matter how sympathetic his claims
may seem to himself or us. It is a responsibility he has ignored to his
peril.Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his
failure to cite to the record. He makes grandiose accusations against the
University for illegally generating and selling electric power and for tax
evasion, but those allegations are not supported by citations to the
record and are not relevant to the special motion to strike. Plaintiff fails
to appreciate the limited scope of our review, which stands in stark
contrast to the wide-ranging allegations plaintiff lodges which are
untethered to the second amended complaint or the special motion to
strike. We are compelled to ignore any factual allegations that are not
supported by citations to the record.”
Waszczuk sincerely apologizes to the Courts for his unintentional

mistakes in relation to the record on appeal. However, Waszczuk found the
15
Court statement discriminatory, biased, and prejudicial toward himself.
Regardless of what Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein and the
Defense attorney Michael Pott did to Waszczuk, forcing him to maintain his
lawsuit in Pro Per, the Court of law shall not use a double standard giving
preferential treatment to the Defendants.
The Court of Appeal record (Register of Action) shows that this
appeal was initially declared by the Court as fully briefed on August 23, 2016
after Waszczuk filed his Appellant Reply Brief. It appears that two and half
months later, after the case was fully briefed, the Court reviewed the case
and issued the following order on November 9, 2016:
“On the court's own motion, the respondent's brief filed July 25, 2016,
is stricken for failure to ‘[s]upport any reference to a matter in the
record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record

where the matter appears.’ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)((1)(c).)
A respondent's brief with proper citations to the record must be filed
on or before December 15, 2016.” RAYE, P.J.”
The Order was electronically filed on 11/9/2016 by Deputy Clerk
Anita Kenner.
In their July 25, 2016 RB, on pages 16 and 17 – “LEGAL
ARGUMENTS” – the Defendants cited Nwosu v. Uba (2004) (122
Ca1.App.4th) and complained about how Waszczuk disregarded the Rules
of Court by not citing the record and had their entire RB Brief stricken, which
had to be corrected and refiled. The incident with the RB in November 2016
indicates that the Court reviewed and screened all briefs to issue the Opinion.
If Waszczuk’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules was his
failure to cite the record, then Waszczuk would appreciate if he would be
given the same chance as the Defendants’ attorney to correct his briefs and
resubmit. For the above reason alone, Waszczuk’s Petition for Rehearing
16
should be granted because Waszczuk sees many Court statements in the
issued Opinion that do not correspond with the facts. Waszczuk does not
understand why the Court placed Waszczuk’s appeal in abeyance for another
10 months after the Defendants’ attorney corrected their RB and refiled on
December 15, 2016. The Court’s delay to resolve the appeal for almost a year
translated to Waszczuk being unemployed for another year and a $70,000
loss for Waszczuk, since he was dismissed by the Defendants in December
2012. Five years without a job translated to $350,000 lost since December
2012. The October 10, 2016 Court Opinion added more devastation to
Waszczuk’s life and health.
C. The old Defendants’ demurrer filed as the Special Motion to Strike

by the Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott on December 1, 2014

On September 1, 2017, just two days after Waszczuk’s Argument in the
Court of Appeal Third Appellate District (3DCA), the State Bar of California
suspended the attorney license for Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas
Stein for matters supposedly unrelated to Waszczuk’s complaint violations:
the failure to pay the Bar members’ fees and Administrative Inactive/MCLE
noncompliance. The Case No. 15-O-10110, previously No. 14-31877,
against Douglas Stein, who defrauded Waszczuk of his $20,000 retainer, has
been pending in the State Bar since December 2014, as long as the Special
Motion to Strike that the Defendants filed against Waszczuk on December 1,
2014 [5/1/15 letter to State Bar Senior Trial Counsel Donald R. Steedman]
(AOB 18-19;27) (Vol. III 672-680). Waszczuk made multiple inquires with
the State Bar and asked California Senator Kathleen Galgiani to help resolve
the case against Douglas Stein in a timely manner. Apparently, the State Bar
was timing the resolution in Stein’s case with the 3DCA resolution in
17
Waszczuk’s Special Motion to Strike appeal, which is connected to Douglas
Stein.
On September 8, 2017, Waszczuk received a subpoena from the State
Bar to appear as a witness in the State Bar Court to testify against Douglas
Stein on October 12, 2017, just two days after the 3DCA issued the
Unpublished Opinion affirming the Superior Court’s Judgement.
On September 9, 2017, a State Bar Notice of Disciplinary Charges
was filed against Douglas Stein in the State Bar Court in relation to
Waszczuk’s complaint.
On October 11, 2017, Waszczuk informed State Bar Investigator Ms.
Laura Sharek and Deputy Trial Counsel Ms. Laura Higgins that Waszczuk
was ill and asked for a trial continuance for one month.
On October 12, 2017, the California State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel

Ms. Laura Higgins informed Waszczuk that he had no need to appear on
the Bar Court Trial and that Douglas Stein had agreed to return the
advanced costs specified in the fee agreement ($14,500) in addition to the
costs Waszczuk incurred when closing Douglas Stein’s Wells Fargo
account.
During his preparation for the trial set for October 12, 2017 in the
disciplinary matter pending against Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas
Stein, Waszczuk reviewed the Special Motion to Strike documents filed by
the Defendant on December 1, 2014. The anti-SLAPP motion was filed just
5 days after Waszczuk visited Douglas Stein’s residence in Eldorado Hills
on November 25, 2014 and paid him $500. 00 to fix the Second Amended
Complaint that was filed on September 30, 2014 with a suspended attorney
license in collaboration with the Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott. (Oral
Arguments on August 28, 2017)
18
While examining the documents, Waszczuk noticed that the Special
Motion to Strike all pleadings included five individual Defendant
Declarations and one Declaration that was not by a Defendant are the old,
altered Defendants’ Demurrer documents striking Waszczuk’s First
Amended Complaint or part of it with the pleading front pages, which instead
read “Amended Complaint filed: September 30, 2014,” whereas in the
Second Amended Complaint (SAC), all filed pleadings read “Amended
Complaint filed June 16, 2014,” referring to the First Amended Complaint
(FAC).
• APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS (VOL. I , CT 255-256)
• DECLARATION OF STEPHEN CHILCOTT – HR EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR (Vol. II CT 338-343)
• DECLARATION OF DANESHA NICHOLS (Vol. II, CT 386-388)

• DECLARATION OF WENDI DELMENDO (Vol. II, CT 394-396)
• DECLARATION OF CINDI G. OROPEZA (Vol. II, CT 404-406)
• DECLARATION OF BRENT SEIFERT (Vol. II, CT 408-410)
• MEMORANDUM OF POINT AND AUTHORITIES (Vol. II, CT
451-475)
• DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BOYD (Vol. II, CT 440-442)
• NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
(Vol. I, 251, CT 251-254)
• DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. POTT (Vol. I, CT 258-259)
Michael W. Pott is an expert in SLAPP law and public employment
law, and, as the Defendants’ attorney, he ad-hoc redacted and converted his
July 2014 Demurrer to anti-SLAPP motion against Waszczuk’s First
Amended Complaint and filed the defective pleading. The Proof of Service
attached to Michael Pott’s Declaration in Support of the Special Motion to
Strike states that:
19
“On the date below, I served the following document:
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. POTT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
COMPLAINT. Declaration was dated July 23, 2014 and was sent to
the Law office of Douglas E. Stein.”
The fact is that the Special Motion to Strike was fabricated from the
old Demurrer in a rush manner during the long Thanksgiving weekend when
the University of California employees are off work for four days (ARB 26)
(Vol. V, CT 1479;1515). This shows that Defense Attorney Michael Pott was
tipped off by Stein that Waszczuk was demanding changes in SAC after Stein
agreed on November 25, 2014 to fix Waszczuk’s defective complaint

pleading for $500. The Defense attorney Michael Pott filed the old Demurrer
on December 1, 2014 as an anti-SLAPP motion, which never should have
been accepted by the Court . A special motion to strike is governed by section
Code of Civ. Proc. 425.16(f):
“The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the
complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it
deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court
for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion
unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing.”
The pleadings filed as a Special Motion to Strike fabricated during the

Thanksgiving weekend and filed by the Defense attorney Michael Pott on
December 1, 2014 are not the valid Special Motion to Strike court document,
20
but a fraudulent court document that should be rejected and dismissed by the
court.
Waszczuk’s attorney did not file an objection to the Defendants’
Motion to Strike due on December 15, 2014, and he panicked when
Waszczuk told him on December 15, 2014 that he would report him to the
State Bar, then sent Waszczuk a text message saying that he had known the
Honorable Judge David Brown for more than 20 years and would get an
extension to file. The text message about the Hon. Judge Brown 1 was the
main reason that Waszczuk fired Stein. Waszczuk hates corruption and
corrupted lawyers.
Waszczuk is bringing up the issue of the old Defendants’ Demurrer
because it shows that the Special Motion of Strike was fabricated at the last
minute during the Thanksgiving weekend, which makes Waszczuk believe

that the Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott and Waszczuk’s attorney Douglas
21
Stein had something completely different on their minds to end Waszczuk’s
lawsuit.
D. Waszczuk’s pleading in the Superior Court entitled “Plaintiff’s

Ex-Parte Application for Postponement”
On December 29, 2014, Waszczuk filed a pleading in the Superior

Court entitled Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Application for Postponement (Vol. II &
Vol. III CT 485-656).
In his “Ex-Parte Application,” Waszczuk requested from the Court
that the Court dismiss the pending anti-SLAPP motion "without
possibility to refile.” (p. 14, II. 14-15); (2)
The Court declared Waszczuk’s Ex-Parte Application defective in the
Court Order dated December 30, 2014 (Vol. III CT 657-658) and denied

Waszczuk’s requests. However, the December 30, 2014 Court Order shows
that Waszczuk’s “Ex-Parte Application” first pleading document caught the
Court’s attention.
E. Waszczuk’s Opposition to the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motion

and Waszczuk’s Motion for Reconsideration
On January 23, 2015, Waszczuk filed a Plaintiff Opposition to the

Defendants' anti-SLAPP Motion (Vol. III CT 00704-00740) with 42
exhibits totaling 443 pages (Vol. III & IV CT 741-1145) and the
Motion for Reconsideration (Vol. V; CT 1252-1275) with 10 exhibits
(Vol. V; CT 1276-1354) on February 20, 2015. Waszczuk’s Opposition
and Motion for Reconsideration were ignored as usual by the Court as
a formality with the words (Vol. VI; 1551-1553): 2
2 “A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled

to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.
22
The Hon. David Brown granted the anti-SLAPP Motion to the
Defendants, affirming the tentative decision after a court hearing that
took place on February 6, 2015 (Vol. V CT 1246-1251) (RT 0001-
00018), and the Court affirmed its own position against Waszczuk by
the Court Order (Vol. VI; CT 01551-01552) dated April 14, 2015,
granting the Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike. The Court Order
prepared by the Defendants’ attorney was signed on the same day, April
14, 2015 (Vol. VI, CT 1554-1562).
On March 16, 2015, Waszczuk filed the Notice of Objection to the
Proposed Court Order Granting Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motion due to
violation by the Defendants of California Court Rule 3.1312(b) (Vol V. CT
1403-1461). Waszczuk’s Notice of Objection was ignored by the Court as
well.

F. Waszczuk’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion
because of violation by the Defendants of Discovery Stay Code of
Civ. Proc. § 425.16(g)
On February 28, 2015, Waszczuk’s dismissed attorney, Douglas

Stein, forwarded an email to Waszczuk informing him that the Defendants
violated the Discovery Stay Code of Civ. Proc. § 425.16(g) just six days after
the Defendants filed the Anti-SLAPP Motion in December. Somehow,
Waszczuk overlooked this and did not include it in his AOB or RB during
the pending appeal. The documents that Stein sent to Waszczuk contained a
(Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941,
944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must
follow correct rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th
1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975,
984”
23
Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to obtain
Waszczuk’s record from the State of California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing. The subpoena was issued by the Defendants'
former Counsel, Michael Pott, on December 8, 2014, six days after the
Defendants filed the Anti-SLAPP Motion and violated Discovery Stay CCP
§ 425.16 (g). The Defendants obtained the requested Plaintiff records without
the Plaintiff's knowledge on January 12, 2015, which was five days after the
Court issued an Order on January 7, 2015 stating that DISCOVERY
REMAINS STAYED PENDING RESOLUTION OF THIS MOTION.
On March 2, 2015, Waszczuk filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Defendants’ ant-SLAPP motion with prejudice for violation of Discovery
Stay by the Defendants during the time that the Defendants were pursuing
the anti-SLAPP motion they filed on December 1, 2014 (Vol. V CT 1376-

1402).
Waszczuk’s efforts to dismiss the Defendants’ motion for violation of
Discovery Stay were ignored as usual by the Court Order signed with bias
against Waszczuk by the Hon. David Brown on April 10, 2015 (Vol. VI, CT
1549-1550).
G. Appellant Mediation Statement
On July 9, 2015, Waszczuk filed the Appellant Mediation Statement

with detailed information, hoping that the Court of Appeals Third Appellate
District would consider his Appellant Statement. Instead, the resolve that was
oppressive to Waszczuk, the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, occupied the
Court for another two years.
The eligibility for mediation was ignored and denied by the Court of
Appeals Order signed by the Honorable Justice Kathleen Butz on July 16,
24
2015 (Vol. VI, CT 01725-01800). Waszczuk covered this part in his
Appellant Reply Brief (ARB 13, 14).
III. THE MERIT OF THE CASE
A. Superior Court Judgment Affirmation by the Court of Appeal
In the first part of the Opinion, on pages 1 & 2, the Court, by affirming
the judgment which struck the Waszczuk four causes of action against the
Defendants, stated: 3
Waszczuk sincerely apologizes to the Court for offending the Court
by misunderstanding the burden on appeal and for unintentional ignorance
of the dispositive issue, of which Waszczuk still is not sure to what the Court

is referring. Furthermore, Waszczuk sincerely apologizes to the Court that he
brought to the appeal the issue of corruption, including collusion between his
then lawyer, the Defense counsel, and the trial judge. However, if the Court
felt offended and affirmed the judgment because Waszczuk insisted that the
judgment should be reversed due to systemic corruption, including collusion
3 “Although Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a self-represented plaintiff, purports to

appeal the trial court’s order granting five individual employees of the
University of California’s special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., §
425.16) four causes of action arising from their involvement in his
termination, he does not argue the merits of the motion but insists the
judgment must be reversed because of systemic corruption including
collusion between his then lawyer, defense counsel, and the trial judge. He
misunderstands his burden on appeal, ignores the dispositive issues, provides
no evidence of corruption or untoward collusion, and fails to demonstrate
either relevance or prejudice from the shortcomings he cites. We need go no
further than to answer the contentions he raises, and in finding no merit in
those claims, we affirm.”
25
between his then lawyer, the Defense counsel, and the trial judge, then
Waszczuk feels that it was unnecessary for the Court to write another 13
pages in legal opinion to further aggrieve a person who is already aggrieved
by the justice that he was served in the Sacramento County Superior Court
by two judicial officers, the Hon. Judge David Brown and the Hon.
Shelleyanne W.L. Chang. The Hon. Judge Chang is handling a cross-
connected case, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board (CUIAB), Case No. C079254; Superior Court Case No: 34-2013-34-
00155479 No. 34-2013-80001699-CU-WM-GDS, which Waszczuk was
hoping would be resolved first by the Court of Appeal instant of slapping
Waszczuk with fraudulent anti-SLAPP Unpublished Opinion
However, even though Waszczuk disagrees with the Court Opinion,
which added more pain and suffering to his devastated life, Waszczuk was

somehow encouraged by the Court Opinion to look harder at where he made
unintentional mistakes and errors due to his lack of proper education and
experience in handling complex litigations, especially the appeals in the
Appellate Courts.
Waszczuk’s insufficient education and experiences in legal matters
does not mean that Waszczuk cannot recognize what is wrong and what is
right and who is wrong and who is right and who devastated Waszczuk’s and
his family’s lives and livelihood at Waszczuk’s retirement age.
Based on facts and the clear and convincing evidence, Waszczuk has
little doubt and strongly believes that corruption, including collusion
between his dismissed attorney Douglas Stein, Defense counsel Michael
Pott, and the trial judge the Hon. David I. Brown took place, and, for this
reason, the Superior Court judgment should be reversed by the Court of
Appeal.
26
B. Waszczuk’s Proposed Third Amended Complaint
This case has merit, but not as the Court of Appeal presented in the
Opinion on pages 9-13. The merit of this case presented by the Court on
pages 9-13 is the fruit of former Defense attorney Michael Pott and
Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein unusual friendship and their
Second Amended Complaint, with which Waszczuk had nothing to do, with
the exception that his name is attached to it. Waszczuk wrote in September
2015 his 295-page detailed amended complaint without individual
defendants and with only two causes of action. Waszczuk provided the
proposed amended complaint to the Defendants’ attorneys David Burkett and
Douglas Ropel because they wanted to see it and they offered to help file it.
[See Waszczuk’s meet and confer letter Augmented Record on Appeal] (Vol.

I CAT 227-228) However, after Waszczuk sent his draft of the Third
Amended Complaint (TAC), it was blocked on September 25, 2015 by the
Defendants’ attorney’s Motion to Stay pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §
916(a) (Vol. I CAT 1-20). Waszczuk filed an objection (Vol. I CAT 126 -
203) to the Defendants’ Stay Motion on October 13, 2015, which did not do
Waszczuk any good, as the Hon. Judge Brown killed Waszczuk’s objection
as usual by the Court Order (Vol. I CAT 231) dated October 28, 2015 without
seeing the proposed TAC.
C. The Defense Michael Pott’s August 19, 2014 confer letter and
Douglas Stein’s response dated August 26, 2014
In the Opinion FACTS on page 5, the Court stated: 4
4 In a meet and confer letter dated August 19, 2014, Michael Pott,
representing the Regents and the employees sued in their individual
capacity, described a number of deficiencies in the first amended
27
Waszczuk understands the definitions of meet and confer and
demurrer and the new changes in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.41 & 472
regarding the demurred and complaint amendment. What the Court presented
in the Opinion is completely irrelevant to Waszczuk’s case, however.
The meet and confer letters exchanged between Stein and Pott
completely left the Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 out of the picture, since
the main goal of Pott and Stein was to avoid letting Waszczuk know about
the anti-SLAPP law. Waszczuk paid $20,000 to be advised about the anti-
SLAPP law and the consequences of this law, having nine individual
Defendants in the complaint. If Waszczuk had known that such a law existed,
then he would not be struggling today to write this Petition. This is why
Waszczuk does not care about the merit of this anti-SLAPP appeal. Stein and
Pott, by their corrupted behavior, caused Waszczuk enormous financial

losses of over $200,000 of his retirement funds through dealing with the anti-
SLAPP motion for three years.
Is the Court trying to imply in its own Opinion that Douglas Stein,
with 30 years of experience as an attorney at law, did not know the Code of
complaint “that warrant the filing of a demurrer unless they can be

resolved by amendment.” Stein spent 10 hours reviewing the first
amended complaint and researching the law in light of the alleged
deficiencies set forth in Pott’s letter. By letter dated August 26, 2014,
Stein agreed to amend the complaint in response to those deficiencies he
found legitimate and he explained why he rejected many others.
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight
causes of action. He signed the second amended complaint on September
8, 2014. Unbeknownst to him at the time, his license to practice law was
suspended on September 24, 2014, due to child support issues that he
resolved by October 7, 2014, but due to logistical aspects of the process,
the State Bar of California did not restore his license to an active status
until October 23, 2014. In the meantime, he filed the second amended
complaint on September 30, 2014.
28
Civil Procedure § 425.16 and what SLAPP meant? Is it not a duty of
attorneys to protect their clients’ interests instead of exposing their clients to
harm by adverse parties?
Waszczuk is rather interested in whether the Court would explain in
the Opinion what would have happened if Stein had not filed a Second
Amended Complaint on September 30, 2014. Waszczuk has nothing to do
with the Second Amended Complaint.
D. The Second Amended Complaint is not valid.

The Court, in the “DISCUSSION” on pages No. 8 & 9, stated: 5
Douglas Stein, in collaboration with the Defense attorney Michael

Pott, by amending the First Amended Complaint, removed the University of
California, University of California Davis Health System, UC Davis Medical

Center, and UC Davis as Defendants, which Stein could just dismiss by the
Notice of Dismissal. Stein also removed some irrelevant material copied
from newspapers into the First Amended Complaint as a pretext to amend
the complaint and as the first stage of derailing Waszczuk’s lawsuit against
the University of California. As the Court noticed, Stein prepared a Second
Amended Complaint with the same eight causes of action, including the same
four causes of action that were sent by Defense Counsel Michael Pott’s
5 Yet plaintiff asserts that defense counsel colluded with Stein to file a second
amended complaint designed to rob him of meritorious claims. He also
contends that Stein bowed to defense counsel’s untoward pressure to amend
the complaint and subjected his pleadings to the anti-SLAPP motion. He adds
the naked allegation that the trial court acted improperly as well because the
trial judge had known defense counsel for a number of years. Plaintiff’s
allegations are without evidentiary support.
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight causes of
action. He signed the second amended complaint on September 8, 2014.
29
Demurrer to Stein on July 23, 2014. Stein did not prepare a second amended
complaint with the same eight causes of action and with the same nine
individual Defendants for Waszczuk’s benefit. The SAC was needed for
Michael Pott to include in the complaint a copy of the 2009 Settlement
Agreement that Douglas Stein declared in the FAC’s eight causes as void,
unlawful, and against public policy (AOB 10) (Vol. I, CT 81-82) (Vol. VI
CT 1706-1707) (Vol. VII CT 1852).
Nothing was held back, allowing Defense attorney Michael Pott to file
the anti-SLAPP motion of the FAC in July or August 2014. Michael Pott is
a skilled attorney in SLAPP lawsuits.
Furthermore, the Court, on the same page of the Opinion, stated: “He
signed the second amended complaint on September 8, 2014.” (Vol. I CT
151) Douglas Stein signed the SAC on September 8, 2014 and submitted it

to the Court to file by the Drop Box with the attached proposed SAC and a
copy of the 2009 Settlement Agreement that the Regents of the University of
California signed with Waszczuk after the Regents were defeated by
Waszczuk in the arbitration process in November 2008 (Vol. I 153-163).
On September 9, 2014, Douglas Stein submitted the SAC to the Court
to be filed via Drop Box without being required to do so by Cal. Rule of
Court 3.1324 Leave of Court (Vol. I CT 244). Douglas Stein, as a licensed
attorney who had practiced law for 27 years, knew perfectly well that he
could not file the SAC without Leave of Court. Also on September 9, 2014,
Douglas Stein knew that he did not pay his members’ dues and child alimony
that his attorney’s license from the State Bar of California was about to be
suspended.
On the same day, September 9, 2014, a Clerk of the Court returned
the SAC to Stein, stating: “Leave of Court is required for all subsequent
amended complaints after the first amended.” (Vol. I, CT 85)
30
The filing without Leave of Court was a premeditated and well-
planned move by Stein and Defense Counsel Michael Pott to get the SAC to
be returned and to manipulate into their dirty game against Waszczuk the
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. David I. Brown, who
Douglas Stein had known for 20 years. Nothing was amended, and Stein and
Pott needed Judge Brown to approve Stein’s Ex-Parte Application for Leave
to File the SAC. The SAC did not meet the strict requirements of the Cal.
Rule of Court 3.1324, as was stipulated by Stein’s and Pott’s Ex-Parte
Application for Leave to File SAC on 9/19/2014 (AOB 25)(Vol. I, CT 164),
and the Order approving the Ex-Parte Application was signed on September
22, 2014 by the Hon. David I. Brown from the Department 53 Law and
Motion Department without appointment or the appearance of the parties
(Vol I. CT 166-167).

On July 15, 2015, Waszczuk filed a Plaintiff’s Opposition to the
Defendants’ Motion for the Fees and Cost (AOB 22) (Vol. VI, CT 1698-
1717). From the Defendants’ Motion for Fees and Cost exhibits (filed on
May 11, 2015) (AOB 22) (Vol. VI CT 1695-1696), Waszczuk found that the
Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP) was approved to be filed by the
Sedgwick Insurance Liability Company on September 24, 2014 (Vol. VI CT
1636). This took place two days after the Hon. David Brown approved the
SAC to be filed in the Court without checking what was different between
the FAC and SAC. The Sedgwick approved the anti-SLAPP motion six days
before Douglas Stein filed the SAC on September 30, 2014 with a suspended
attorney’s license (Vol. VI, CT 1711-1712).
The Sedgwick Insurance Company is a company that is doing serious
business and conducting any lawsuit in which the University of California is
involved. Apparently, the financially insolvent Waszczuk’s attorney
31
provided 100% assurance for the Defense attorney Michael Pott and used his
long friendship with the Honorable David Brown to achieve the above.
Because of the listed and not listed in the lawsuit Defendants
conspiracy 6 Waszczuk life since January 2007 became a misery and since
2012 was entirely devastated by the University of California white collar
criminals and thereafter by corrupted state of California administrative
agencies and corrupted judicial officers who collaborated with Waszczuk
former employer attorneys to harm Waszczuk.
On pages No. 8 of the Opinion Court stated: 7
6 The civil conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more

people to participate in an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful

manner. See Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472, 477 (D.C.Cir.1983);
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 620-21 (7th Cir.1979), modified on
other grounds, 446 U.S. 754, 100 S.Ct. 1987, 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980). An
express agreement among all conspirators is not necessary. "A Plaintiff ...
need not prove that each participant in a conspiracy knew the `exact limits
of the illegal plan or the identity of all participants therein.'" Hampton, 600
F.2d at 621 (quoting Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Greenberg, 447 F.2d 872,
875 (7th Cir.1971)). The conspirators "must share the general conspiratorial
objective, but they need not know all the details of the plan ... or possess
the same motives." Id. Thus, to "demonstrate the existence of a
conspiratorial agreement, it simply must be shown that there was a single
plan, the essential nature and general scope of which [were] known to each
person who is to be held responsible for its consequences." Id. (quoting
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Greenberg, 447 F.2d 872, 875 (7th Cir.1971)).
To make the conspiracy actionable, there must also be an overt act in
furtherance of the object of the conspiracy that injures Plaintiff his or
deprives him of having or exercising any right or privilege of a legal
resident of the United States.
7 “His license to practice was reinstated within about two weeks of his
discovery of the suspension. On these facts, there is not the slightest hint
of impropriety. To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—
making an ex parte application to assure the integrity of the document he
inadvertently filed during the briefest of suspensions for a minor
transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He should be
32
Douglas Stein’s diligence and transparency cost Waszczuk $20,000
of the retainer fee and 3 years of fighting the anti-SLAPP motion instead of
working in the UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop. The breach of the
2009 Settlement Agreement that the UC Regents signed with Waszczuk in
December 2012 resulted in Waszczuk losing approximately $800,000 of
income and benefits.
Because of Stein’s personal problems and misconduct, Waszczuk’s
retainer of $20,000 was basically stolen by Stein. Then, Stein became
vulnerable to conspire with Defense attorneys and Judge of Superior Court
David Brown to end Waszczuk’ lawsuit in December 2014 by the anti-
SLAPP motion. The Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of
Appeal does not have jurisdiction over the attorney Douglas Stein’s
professional misconduct, and judicial officers from both courts knew that.

8Waszczuk knows that the trial court has wide discretion in allowing the
commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of plaintiff’s

interests.
8 No one may practice law in California without being an active member of

the State Bar of California, admitted to practice by the California Supreme
Court. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6064, 6125.) The California Supreme Court
controls both admissions and attorney discipline (including suspension and
disbarment). (Saleeby v. State Bar (1985) 39 Ca1.3d 547, 557-58 [216
Cal.Rptr. 367].) The Supreme Court's control over these issues is absolute.
(Ibid.)
The State Bar of California acts as the Supreme Court's administrative
arm for purposes of admission, discipline, and regulation of attorneys. (In
re Rose (2000) 22 Ca1.4th 430, 438-446 [93 Cal.Rptr.2d 298]; In re
Attorney Discipline System (1998) 19 Ca1.4th 582, 599-600 [79
Cal.Rptr.2d 836].) Attorney discipline proceedings are prosecuted by the
State Bar's Office of Chief Trial Counsel ("OCTC") before the State Bar
Court. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6079.5; Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule
5.4(16).)
33
amendment of any pleading, but, in this case, the Court allowed the
amendment in order to hurt Waszczuk.
After the Appeal is finally concluded, Waszczuk will ask the Court
for Court Order to let Waszczuk include the civil conspiracy cause of action
in the amended complaint pursuant to California Civil Code Section
1714.10(a).
IV. ARGUMENTS
A. First Cause of Action
On page 12 of the Opinion, the Court stated:

“Plaintiff’s first cause of action for the intentional infliction
of emotional distress fails because the tort requires a
showing of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of
human decency.”
Waszczuk is curious whether the Court of Appeal ever came across

any wrongful termination case involving the University of California where,
in any University of California campus, management reassigned a blue collar
worker from one shop to another shop and made him look like a KKK leader
or guard from a Nazi concentration camp in their letter of suspension and
reassignment, (Vol.III, CT 870-875) then, three months later, gave the
employee a normal performance review for the same evaluation period in
which the employee’s alleged gross misconduct took place. (Vol. III, 876-
878)After giving the employee a normal evaluation and acknowledging that
the employee did nothing wrong, the management continued to process the
employee’s Appeal-Complaint under the UC Policy PPSM 70 for another
year and half and lost to the employee in the arbitration process, after which
34
the UC Regents signed a Settlement Agreement with the employee giving
him an engineering title. It will not end until the Court issues a proper
decision.
Furthermore, Waszczuk is curious whether the Justices of the Court
of Appeal who issued the Opinion in this case had ever come across a
wrongful termination case where any University of California employee with
whom the Regents signed a Settlement Agreement to make him isolated from
other department shops removed the employee from the premises for over
one year without alleging one word in any “witch hunt” documents that UC
“witch hunters” generated as a cause of termination without stating
that the employee violated or breached the signed Settlement Agreement?
Furthermore, the UC witch hunters did not provide the employee with
evaluations for the final two years of his employment because they knew

that, once removed from the premises, the employee would appeal the bad
evaluation under UC Policy PPSM 70, and a complaint could take two years
to resolve, during which process the employee could not be fired.
This happened to Waszczuk in the period of time between January
2007 and December 2012 in order to hide an illegal power sale fraud of which
Waszczuk was still unaware. Waszczuk got angry at the Defendant Chilcott
and UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown when Waszczuk, by looking into
US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission e-library documents, found out
why they persecuted him in 2007-2009 and again in 2011-2012. The Defense
attorney Douglas Ropel complained about Waszczuk’s correspondence in
the Defendants’ Motion for Automatic Stay filed on October 19, 2015 to
block Waszczuk’s TAC (Vol. I, CAT 204-228 page 7[17-28]; Vol. I, CAT
2014). Ropel also attached as the Exhibit B to his pleading Waszczuk’s
correspondence in this matter to US Senator Dianne Feinstein. Waszczuk
was exchanging correspondence with the Senator for quite some time, not
35
knowing that Senator Feinstein’s husband ordered Waszczuk’s dismissal
from his job in January 2007 (Vol. I CAT 218-225).
University of California, Davis, administration subjected 60-year-old
Waszczuk to malicious psychological terror unthinkable for any normal
person and beyond the bounds of human decency from April 2011 to
December 2012 and prior to this, in 2006-2007, with involvement of four of
five listed defendants in the lawsuit, Michael Boyd, Cindy Oropeza,
Stephen Chilcott, and Charles Witcher.
The terror and witch hunt aimed at Waszczuk between 2006 and
2012 included unwarranted suspension and reassignment interrogations in a
style Waszczuk knew from his native country during the Communist era,
when Waszczuk was subjected to such interrogation by Communist secret
police for his political activities against communism in 1980-1981.

Furthermore, the psychological terror and which hunt aimed at Waszczuk
included and was not limited to stalking Waszczuk; maliciously sabotaging
Waszczuk’s job and the duty assigned to him to set Waszczuk up for
failure; falsely accusing Waszczuk of racism, bigotry, and antisemitism; not
providing Waszczuk with a mandatory annual Employee Performance
Review for the years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 to let Waszczuk know that
he was a persona non grata and to let him know that he had been singled
out and that his employment days were numbered; an attempt to force
Waszczuk to file a fraudulent workers compensation claim and thus remove
Waszczuk from the premises; and reassignment of Waszczuk’s job, which
was guaranteed by a Settlement Agreement Waszczuk signed with the UC
Regents in 2009, to an individual who bringing on premises a twice-
convicted child pornography felon and who was then allowed to illegally
surf shop computers (Case: 2 :6 –cr- 00418-LKK, The United States of
America v. Sean Christopher Robideaux, United States District Court,
36
Eastern District of California, Indictment Violation(S) 18 U.S.C § 2252 ()
(4)(B) –Possession of Visual Depiction of Minors in Sexually Explicit
Conduct ).
After Waszczuk and his coworker reported the above-mentioned
crime, Waszczuk and his coworker Kenneth Diede automatically became
subjects of a witch hunt by the Defendants in July 2011, and Waszczuk was
not allowed to come back to work on September 1, 2011, after one month
of sick leave for work-related stress.
In addition to the above-listed acts of terror against Waszczuk, the
Defendants denied Waszczuk’s disability income in an attempt to force him
to take UC retirement and quit; placed Waszczuk on investigatory-
administrative leave for over one year and did not let Waszczuk know when
the administrative leave would end; sent Waszczuk threatening letters, even

during the time when Waszczuk was placed on work-stress-related sick
leave and was under physician and psychologist care; denied Waszczuk
health care insurance in December 2011 and January 2012; changed
Waszczuk’s title from Associate Development Engineer, given to
Waszczuk by the Settlement Agreement that Waszczuk signed with UC
Regents in 2009, to Programmer I without Waszczuk’s knowledge or okay;
crafted false, defamatory, and defacing investigatory reports about
Waszczuk; and, in May 2012, attacked Waszczuk and Waszczuk’s two
coworkers, to whom Waszczuk was providing representation, with
unwarranted disciplinary action in the form of suspension and ill-crafted
letters of expectations to prime Waszczuk for heinous ill-orchestrated but
unsuccessful provocation on May 31, 2012, in order to end Waszczuk’s
employment in UC Davis Medical Center Nursing Trauma Unit No. 11. For
this purpose they bribed UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour with a
$35,000.00 wage increase as the executor and assigned Trauma Unit
37
Supervisor Karen Kouretas to receive Waszczuk if provocation was
successful. [Barbour Pay raise](Vol V CT 1354);[ Danesha Nichols
Waszczuk Confidential Summary for Chancellor ]( Vol. V ; CT 1349) -
What the UC Chancellor wanted to know about an immigrant from Poland
.? [ UC Davis Med. Center Poster Boy ) (Vol IV ; CT 1057-1061)
The involvement of the Defendants in the criminally minded pseudo
investigation to terrorize the employee because of believing that the
employee would blow the whistle constitutes the type of outrageous conduct
beyond the bounds of human decency that should not be tolerated by the
Court, and the Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action shall remain in Waszczuk’s
complaint.
Blocking Waszczuk’s Third Amended Complaint by the Court after
the Court was informed about electric power laundering from the UCDMC

27 MW cogeneration plant by the UC Regents violated Waszczuk’s rights
to petition the government for redress of grievances under the First
Amendment of the US Constitution and was akin to close participation in the
Civil conspiracy with the Defendants.
B. Second Cause of Action: Tortious Interference with Economic

Advantage
The Second Cause of Action will be part of the Breach of the

Settlement Agreement Cause of Action in the new Third Amended
Complaint, with already calculated financial damages caused by the
Defendants in the approximate amount of $800,000 due to Waszczuk’s
unlawful termination.
C. Third Cause Of Action [Harassment and Failure to Prevent

Harassment, Discrimination, Retaliation: Government Code §
12940 (A)]
38
The significant change in the whistleblower statute in California went into
effect on January 1, 2014. The statute, Cal, Lab. Code section 1102.5, has
been substantially expanded beyond its prior form to now protect employees
from retaliation for making internal complaints or even potential complaints
about suspected violations of federal, state or local law.
Under the revised provisions of Labor Code section 1102.5, it is unlawful
for any person acting on behalf of the employer to retaliate against the
employee based on a belief "the employee disclosed or may disclose" the
information, either internally or to a government agency. In effect, the
revamped law protects employees who have not yet even complained against
"anticipatory retaliation."
[ See the October 14, 2014 Waszczuk letter to UCOP Senior Vice President

and Locally Designated Officer in regard to his decision in Waszczuk’s
Whistle Blower Retaliation Complaint ]( Vol. IV , CT 1073-1082 page 5)
The Defendants, and especially five individual Defendants, knew and were
aware that Waszczuk is over 60 years old and has had open heart surgery and
life experiences that they have never had and that Waszczuk does not wish
for them to have. What the Defendants have done to Waszczuk and his
family is beyond Government Code § 12940. The Defendants violated
Waszczuk’s human rights and denied him and his family the right to work
and live their normal lives. Even in the Court of Appeal, Hall, their attorney,
did not hesitate to make threats toward Waszczuk’s 66-year-old spouse, who
has nothing to do with the University of California.
39
D. The Fourth Cause of Action – Violation of California
Government Code Section 8547.10(b), which allows people to sue
University of California employees who intentionally engage in
` acts of reprisal
On page 2 in the Opinion Preliminary Statement, the Court stated:
“A brief excerpt from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the
University reflects his bitterness as well as his belief that there is much
more at stake than his mere wrongful termination lawsuit. He wrote: ‘The
stake in this lawsuit must be a lot bigger and more important than the life of
a 63-year-old Polish refugee who escaped communist oppression and was
promised protection from oppression in his new country by the US

government. Instead of protection from oppression, the Polish refugee
received treatment from the University of California that has been a lot
worse than the treatment he received in the Polish communist prison, where
the communist’s prison guard was more respectful to the political prisoners
than UC management to its own employees.’ His experience has left him
emotionally distraught. At the end of a hearing in the trial court, he
announced he was done and was going to go outside of the courtroom and
shoot himself.”
Actually, this is not what Waszczuk said at the Court hearing on

Friday April 10, 2014. Waszczuk asked the Hon. Judge Brown if he had to
go outside the Court building and shoot himself to make the judge look for
truth after a heated and lengthy discussion with Judge Brown about his over
20-year relationship with Waszczuk’s dismissed attorney, who stole
Waszczuk’s $20,000 retainer (CRT page 21). The Court hearing was about
the $500.00 that Waszczuk gave to Stein on November 25, 2014 to amend a
40
faulty complaint that he filed with a suspended attorney’s license on
September 30, 2014 in conspiracy with Defense Attorney Michael Pott
(CRT page 20,19-28). Furthermore, Waszczuk disputed two conflicting
statutes: the Code of Civ. Proc 425.16 and Government Code 8547.10(b).
Waszczuk disputed these with the Hon. Judge Brown in his 443-page
opposition to the Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion (CRT page 20). In
addition, Waszczuk disputed the Judge Order dated December 17, 2014 that
approved the Second Amended Complaint, which was filed by Stein
against Waszczuk’s will and instruction and with a suspended attorney’s
license, because nothing was amended in the complaint. Waszczuk pointed
out to the Judge that, by Court Order on January 7, 2014, he nullified all
documents filed after December 16, 2014 by Waszczuk’s attorney Douglas
Stein and the Defendants’ attorney Michael Pott, but let the anti-SLAPP

motion continue (CRT page 22). This was total abuse of discretion by the
Court. It seemed that what was most important to the Court of Appeal was
to twist Waszczuk’s statement about shooting himself within the Opinion to
make Waszczuk look mentally unstable. Waszczuk is stable and will
continue to fight in the Courts of Law against white collar criminals from
the University of California and their collaborators.
Furthermore, on page 3 in the Opinion’s Preliminary Statement,
the Court stated:
“He makes grandiose accusations against the University for

illegally generating and selling electric power and for tax
evasion, but those allegations are not supported by citations
to the record and are not relevant to the special motion to
strike. “
Waszczuk don’t believe that it would proper to have thousands of

documents from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in in anti-
41
SLAPP On top of this Waszczuk found out about the regents and their
collaborators white collar crime during the pending Waszczuk’s
appeals. Hon. Sheleyanne Chang and her friend from California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Marylin Tays are two major
to uncover the UC Al Capones shady businesses UC Davis Medical Center
. The generation , sale and resale illegally power in tens of millions of dollars
from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant in time period of 1999-2003
and resumed in 2012-2013 was closely akin to the crimes committed by
like alcohol is a commodity( Pierce v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1985)
166 Ca1.App.3d 68) and sale of commodities is regulated by the
international law( Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Superior Court (1962)
208 Cal. App. 2d 803, 81) that the sale of a commodity is regulated by
international law and profit from sale is taxable .

Waszczuk is not sure how the Court determined that Waszczuk’s
allegation about the University generating and selling illegal power and
defrauding taxpayers is not relevant to the special motion to strike which
cause of action with the Government Code 8547.11
Waszczuk’s “grandiose” accusations are real. The Court was
properly informed about the Regents’ fraud in Waszczuk’s Augmented
Record on Appeal. In addition, Waszczuk informed the Court about the
Regents’ white collar crime in his Notice of Objection to the Defendant and
Respondents' Application for Extension of Time to File Respondents Brief,
which was due on 7/5/2016, when Waszczuk was being represented by the
Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, and Goldman Professional Law Corporation from
Los Angeles as well as in his complaint against the UC Regents to the US
Treasury Inspector General. This law firm specializes in such fraud cases.
On March 23, 2016, Waszczuk filed a 47-page detailed whistleblower
complaint with 35 exhibits. IRS Whistleblower Office Case No. 2016-007-
42
481 followed with a similar 53-page complaint with the State Board of
Equalization and the Tax Recovery and Criminal Enforcement as well as a
213-page complaint with the State Bar of California against 23 university
and state agency attorneys involved in covering up the fraud, including three
listed defendants in the ant-SLAPP lawsuit and 47 detailed complaints
against Superior Court Judge Hon. Shelleyanne Chang with the Commission
on Judicial Performance.
Keeping Waszczuk out of UCDMC premises for over one year and
persecuting him with pseudo investigations in order to fire him because of an
unlawful contract power sale between the UC Regents and the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District was underway and was signed on May 31, 2012.
Not providing Waszczuk with employee evaluations for the last two years of
his employment is a classic example of a despicable and outrageous violation

of the Government Code 8547.11 by all five individual Defendants: Boyd,
Chilcott, Nichols, Seifert, and Oropeza. Four of these Defendants are UC
Davis Medical Center Human Resources officers. Three of them have law
JD degrees. All of them knew how to harass Waszczuk with interrogations
and pseudo investigation reports for almost two years, but they did not
provide Waszczuk with employee evaluations for two years under UC Davis
Policy 23, making Waszczuk persona non grata
Government Code 8547.11 states: 9
9 (a) A University of California employee, including an officer or faculty

member, may not directly or indirectly use or attempt to use the official authority
or influence of the employee for the purpose of intimidating, threatening,
coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or
command any person for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person
to disclose to a University of California official, designated for that purpose by
the regents, or the State Auditor matters within the scope of this article.
(b) For the purpose of subdivision (a), “use of official authority or influence”
includes promising to confer, or conferring, any benefit; effecting, or threatening
43
In the Discussion on page 13, the Court stated: 10
These five individuals Defendants did not want see Waszczuk death for filing a
whistleblower complaint. Regents and their friends wanted to see Waszczuk W
death because UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant was plant was not selling
power since Grey Davis was recalled from office in 2003 . Waszczuk estimates
no matter who spent $ 65,000,000 in 1998 to build the 27 MW cogeneration
facility in UC David Medial Center lost approximate $ 250, 000,000 from 2003
to 2012. It is a lot of cash free of tax .
The power illegal power sale was briefly resumed on June 1,2012 but was
ceased eight days after Waszczuk filed his wrongful termination lawsuit in
December 2013. [Power purchase Agreement ] (Vol I , ACT ; Vol 156-180)
[Corespondence with US Senator Dianne Feinstein dated 9/26/2015] (Vol I ,
ACT , 195-203)

The five individual defendants were ordered by the Regents to hunt
Waszczuk down and fire him in 2007-2009 and 2011-2012 because
to effect, any reprisal; or taking or directing others to take, or recommending,

processing, or approving, any personnel action, including, but not limited to,
appointment, promotion, transfer, assignment, performance evaluation,
suspension, or other disciplinary action.
10 Finally, the trial court found that plaintiff did not establish that the
individual defendants’ conduct was in retaliation for his whistleblowing. The
court explained: “The mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted
investigations and reached conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree
with does not establish their investigatory findings are an act of retaliation.
Nor can Boyd’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s grievance at the Step II level of
PPSM 70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is no
allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that could
be deemed to be a retaliatory action.” In the absence of any evidence or
analysis provided by plaintiff, we have no basis for reaching a finding at odds
with the trial court. Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on a
whistleblower retaliation cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 8547.10.)
44
whoever invested $65,000,000 into the UCDMC 27 cogeneration facility
in 1998 lost millions of dollars after the illegal power sale was ceased in
2003 due to Governor Grey Davis’s recall from office. Waszczuk was
viewed as an obstruction who could find out about the laundered power
from the UCDMC 27 MW plant because of his involvement in the similar
$100,000,000 fraud in 1990-1998 committed by Waszczuk’s previous
employer, Dynegy, against Pacific Gas and Electric ratepayers and
California taxpayers. Waszczuk learned the real reason for his termination
in June 2015 thanks to an August 2012 interview of the UC Davis
Assistant Vice Chancellor, Dr. Shelton Dur uisseau, which Waszczuk
described in the letter to the University of California Office of
the President (UCOP) Principal Investigator J udith Rosenberg
in the Plaintiff’s Opposition to the anti-SL APP motion (Vol.

III CT 794-802 page 3). Dr. Duruisseau disclosed in the
interview that the plant was built for a 50-year capacity and
that it was currently o nly us ing 9%. [Letter to UCOP Princ ipal
Investigator J udith Rosenberg ](Vol III, CT 793-8 01)
Waszczuk suspected that the UCDMC 27 MW plant was not in
complia nce with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA) or the requirements set in 18 C.F.R.
§§ 292.203(b) and 292.205 for operation, efficiency, and use of energy
output and being certified as a Qualified Facility (QF) pursuant to 18
C.F.R. § 292.20 requirements, the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §
824d(a), California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, State of
California Unfair Business Competition law, and Business and
Professions Code § 17200. The prosecutor’s eye was closed to the tax
evasion and fraud that violated Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954 and the State of California Revenue and Taxation Code in
45
relation to the illegal power sale from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration
plant.
E. February 2009 Settlement Agreement
Since February 2009 Waszczuk was employed by the Defendants per
2009 by written Settlement -Agreement agreement thus Vergos v. McNeal
(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)) has no weight in Waszczuk
case . Defendants did not provided any evidence that they investigation
Waszczuk because breach of settlement agreement . The Settlement
agreement was result of the Defendnts January -March 2007 witch hunt
aimed at Waszczuk and which was orchestrated and supervised by the
Defendant Stephen Chillcott Witch who assigned to this task by the UC
Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven
Drown in 2006. See the UCDM HR assigned witch hunter’s report dated

March 8, 2007 (Vol .III ;CT 858-868) and the Suspension and
reassignment letter dated March 23, 2007 portraying Waszczuk as a a
bigot , Jew heater etc. (Vol.III, CT 870-875) . The Annual Employee
Performance Review (Evaluation ) dated July 25, 2007 for the evaluation
period which Waszczuk included suspension and reassignment was signed
by the same manager Charles who suspend and reassign Waszczuk to
HVAC shop . (Vol. III, 876-878) . The evaluation for 2006/2007 is the best
proof that everything was orchestrated to fire Waszczuk but the plant’s
two managers basically refused to participate in the witch hunt and the
Chilcott’s maliciously planned attempt to destroy Waszczuk failed . In
January 2009 Defendant Chilcott solicited Settlement -Agreement with
Waszczuk . See the Waszczuk’s meet and confer negotiation letter
addressed to Defendant Chilcott and dated January 19, 2009 (Vol. III 881-
883) following by February 2009 Settlement -Agreement Waszczuk signed
with UC Regents (Vol. III, CT 884-899) The peace did not last long and
46
Chilcott promoted from the investigator position to the UC Davis Health
System HR Executive Director position with $ 300, 000 annual salary and
lot of given power employed forces which almost ended Waszczuk
employment with UCDMC in the UCDMC Trauma Unit # 11 on May 31,
2011. See March 7, 2003 Waszczuk Whistle Blowing Retaliation
Complaint ( Vol IV , CT 1015-1057 page 15-23) . On September 26, 2012
Defendant Chilcott in collaboration with new UC Davis Police Chief
distributed Police Poster with Waszczuk photo and description on and did
not inform Waszczuk about (Vol. IV , CT 1057-1061) In October 2011
Waszczuk complained against Defendants Chilcott and Danesha Nichols to
the UC Davis Police Department not knowing why Waszczuk being
attacked so viciously and removed from the premises on September 1, 2011
for over one year until Waszczuk’s employment was terminated on

December 7, 2012. See Waszczuk inquiry to UCDPD Captain Joyce Souza
( Vol IV , CT 1131-1141) In this letter on page 6, Waszczuk provided
information to Captain Souza that Waszczuk complained to State Bar
against Defendands Chillcott and Danesha Nichols.
After February 2009, Waszczuk was employed by the Defendants by

written Settlement Agreement. Thus, Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146
Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)) has no weight in Waszczuk’s case. The
Defendants did not provide any evidence that they investigated Waszczuk
because Waszczuk breached or violated the signed with Regents February
2009 Settlement -Agreement. In Vergos Plaintiff was not employed by
settlement agreement . If five Defendants did not provide Waszczuk with
evaluation for 2 years than Court must decide what polices were applied to
Waszczuk to judge Waszczuk performance as an employee .
47
V. THE DEFENDANTS GROSSLY VIOLATED WASZCZUK’S
RIGHT OF PETITION OR FREE SPEECH UNDER THE
UNITED STATES AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH A PUBLIC ISSUE C.C.P § 425.16.
The five Defendants filed the anti-SLAPP motion against Waszczuk’s

wrongful termination under Code of Civ. Proc. § 425.16, claiming that they
had investigated, represented, and reviewed Waszczuk’s complaints and
were protected from the lawsuit under the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution or State of California SLAPP law, which Waszczuk heard
of for the first time on December 1, 2014.
Waszczuk did not know anything about SLAPP law in December
2014, but he knew that the Defendants lied in their declarations attached to
the anti-SLAPP motion because they did harass and discriminate against

Waszczuk.
Waszczuk does not deny the Defendants their right to free speech, but
their free speech should not have been used to violate Waszczuk’s and other
UC employees’ civil and human rights.
Besides defending himself, Waszczuk was also defending others from
the orchestrated witch hunts that were carried out by other HR employees
and department managers and supervisors under the guidance of Stephen
Chilcott, Bren Seifert, Danesha Nichols, and Cindy Oropeza. The Defendants
were doing everything possible to prevent access to his job site and contact
with employees who Waszczuk represented under the UC Davis Compliant
Resolution Policy PPSM 70 or UC Whistle Blowing Policy. They also
attacked the employees that Waszczuk represented in order to isolate
Waszczuk from them.
On October 23, 2012 after Waszczuk was kept out of the UC Davis
Medical Center premises for more than one year by criminally and ill
minded Defendants HR Consultant Gina Harwood sent a letter to
48
Waszczuk informing him that he is permitted to serve as the representative
in complaint meeting for Kenneth Diede , William Buckans and Dereck
Cole. Gina Harwood forgot mention to Waszczuk that the UC Police
“Most Unwanted” poster with Waszczuk photo and description is still
hanging araound UC Davis Campuses and Ms. Harwood did not say
what is going to happen to Waszczuk if show up in UC Davis Medical
Center . (Vol IV , CT 1106 [letter] and 1057 [Most Unwanted Poster ]
[10/20/2013 Waszczuk ‘s sent inquiry sent to Defendant Boyd in Re :
Request to Schedule a Hearing for the Step II Appeal -Dereck Cole’s
2011/2012 Evaluation UC Davis PPSM 70 . Defendants Boyd and
others did not give a same chance to Waszczuk with his evaluations for
2010/2011 and 2011/2012. ] (Vol VI , CT 1517 -1526) to defend his
employees rights under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70. No one of the

listed Defendants should be dismisses by the court from the lawsuit
because of their notorious violations of UC Policies they were
supposedly to enforce for the employees and university protection and
rights So far no one Judge or Justice had a courage to ask Defendant
attorneys why Defendants did not provide Waszczuk with the
evaluations he was entitle to have as any other UC Davis Medical
Center employees including the Waszczuk represented during the course
of his employment with the UCDMC The Compliance Resolution
Officer (CRO) and listed Defendant Michael Boyd and other highly
skilled professionals were aware that denying Waszczuk administrative
remedies to resolve dispute under the UC Davis Complaint Resolution
Policy PPSM 70 . The California Supreme Court in the quite clear about
the administrative remedies to UC employees under the PPSM 70 These
administrative remedies which are the main subject in Palmer v.
Regents of the University of California, 107 Cal.App.4th 899, 132
49
Ca1.Rptr.2d 567 (Cal.App. Dist.2 04/08/2003) and Janet Campbell v.
Regents of the University of California (Supra S113275.) However, as
Court noticed on the Page No. 4
“ The first amended complaint did not, however, contain a cause of action
for violation of PPSM 23.
However Court anyway affirmed the Superior Judgment having full
knowledge how much effort Waszczuk put to force his crooked lawyer to
amend properly the First Amended Complaint and restore the violation of
PPSM 23 by the five listed Defendants . Four of them are highly skilled
UCDM Human Resources Department including Defendant , HR
Executive Director Steven Chilcott . The Court completely ignored
Waszczuk Oral Argument in this matter during the Court hearing on
August 28, 2017.

Waszczuk was attacked by Defendants in 2007 and again in 2011-2012
Waszczuk because :
On January 5, 2007, respondents in the filed in August 2000 with
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) complaint San Diego Gas
& Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Service Into
Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator
Corporation and the California Power Exchange, Re: Investigation of
Practices of the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the
California Power Exchange (CalPX), Docket Nos. EL00-95-000 and EL00-
98-000, submitted a Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited
Consideration, with accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement and APX
Settlement and Release of Claims Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”), in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 602 of the Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.602 (2007) of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
50
The APX and APX participants in the January 2007 Settlement and Release
of Claims Agreement § 5.2 entitled Non-Monetary Consideration stated:
“UC Davis Medical Center. The UC Davis Medical center represents that
the generation unit at the University of California Davis Medical Center
only sold ancillary services to the ISO during the Refund Period. APX
submitted unit-specific bids and schedules on behalf of the Regents of the
University of California (“Regents’) to the ISO and APX received unit-
specific dispatch instructions and ancillary service awards from the ISO.
Settlement statements from the ISO clearly identify all UC Davis Medical
Center schedules and transactions by unit designation for instructed energy,
deviations and ancillary service award. If the Regents and the California
Parties reach a settlement of refund issues related to APX Transactions

prior to the Settlement Effective Date, the Regents shall be excluded from
this Agreement. The APX Participants will not impede the Regents from
settling issues directly related to the APX Transactions with the California
Parties.”
A. The Court Hearing on February 6, 2015 – Defendants’ anti-SLAPP

Motion Code of Civ. Proc, 425.16 with Presiding Hon. David I. Brown
Waszczuk does not know why he was not given the same rights as
the Defendants under Code of Civ. Proc. 425.16. Quite a few times,
Waszczuk represented UC Davis Medical Center employees during
pending “witch hunt” action orchestrated and conducted by the Defendants
listed in the lawsuit. Waszczuk was denied access to UCDMC premises for
over one year.
The Defendant Chilcott ordered the employees’ complaint to be
placed in abeyance, and the employees that Waszczuk represented were
harassed, wrongfully accused, and disciplined.
51
This occurred on February 6, 2015 during the discussion with Hon.
David Brown on the issue of Waszczuk’s representation of others (CRT page
8, 25-28) (CRT page 9, 1-28) (CRT 10, 1-5):
THE COURT: Let's talk about the five guys that are implicated by this
motion. After paragraph 70 of your papers, you said, and I believe this was
in your complaint, your first amended complaint, and this is not just the
only paragraph, you said the investigation was flawed, corrupt and biased.
The five people that you're addressing in this particular motion that you're
opposing, this motion, these five you've alleged were involved in the
investigation and proceeding that you alleged are corrupt, fraudulent, and
bad.
MR. WASZCZUK: Exactly, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But it all arises out of the investigation. Their actions all

arise out of the investigation.
MR. WASZCZUK: Your Honor, I cannot be treated differently than other
employees.
THE COURT: Agreed.
MR. WASZCZUK: This is the whole point here. You know, if other
employees are getting an evaluation, then I have to get an evaluation. If
other employees get the same acquisition letter of expectation, then I should
get a letter of expectation, and everything is there in this big pile.
THE COURT: And unfortunately I read all of it; every bit.
MR. WASZCZUK: It's necessary to understand I understand perfectly UC
policies because I represent people, Your Honor, many people. I don't
violate policies. I am representing people who were accused of violating
policies.
THE COURT: What do you mean, you're representing?
52
MR. WASZCZUK: I am representing – I was representing people, my
coworkers, policies PPM 70.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WASZCZUK: I'm still one guy who I still represent. I moved this to
the EEOC. Represent in the EEOC for discrimination.
The above conversation with the Hon. David Brown shows that
Waszczuk’s representation caught the Court’s attention, and Waszczuk
believes that the Court did not read the exhibit, subsequently ignoring
Waszczuk and his representation of others.
After the Court granted the anti-SLAPP Motion for the Defendants,
Waszczuk, in his Motion for Reconsideration filed on February 20, 2015
(Vol. V, CT 1252-1270), on page 2, reminded the Court about his

representation of others and how, at the same time as Waszczuk was denied
access to the employees represented by him, he was attacked by letters of
suspensions, causing him to be absent for eight months from the UC Davis
Medical Center HVAC shop [Suspension Letter absent in shop 8 months]
(Vol. V CT 1316-1354).
If Waszczuk had known anything about SLAPP and the anti-SLAPP
law in December 2014, then Waszczuk would have filed a cross-complaint
against the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP. This should have been done by
Waszczuk representation for Frank Gonzales: Letter of Expectation (Vol

V, CT 1311-1313) ;Frank Gonzales’s Declaration (Vol.III, CT 767-770);
September 30, 2014 Waszczuk letter to Defendant Mike Boy ‘Re: Frank
Gonzales’s letter of Expectation (Vol. IV , CT 1092-1096); November
Waszczuk’s representation for Dereck Cole :-Letter of Expectation (Vol. V,
CT 1319-1335); [Waszczuk’s inquiry to Gina Harwood ; HR SPHR Re:
53
Dereck Cole’s latter of Expectation with copy of the complaint under UC
Davis Policy PPSM 70 ] (Vol IV , CT 1107-1114 ) [10/20/2013 Waszczuk ‘s
inquiry sent to Defendant Boyd in Re : Request to Schedule a Hearing for the
Step II Appeal -Dereck Cole’s 2011/2012 Evaluation UC Davis PPSM 70 .
Defendant Boyd did not give a same chance to Waszczuk with his
evaluations for 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. ] (Vol VI , CT 1517 -1526)
.Waszczuk presented in details how differently Waszczuk was treated by
Defndannt ‘s Boyd in Plaintiff’s Appeal Meditation Statement using Dereck
Cole case in which Waszczuk represented Cole
Waszczuk’s represention for Kenneth Diede: [ Kenneth Diede’s Declaration]
(Vol. III, CT 759-765) ;
Waszczuk’s representation for William Buckans: [William Buckans’;
Declaration ](Vol. III, CT 745-757);

[Waszczuk’s July 12, 2007 Public Record Act Request In Re: Unlawful
machine oil discharge from UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant to
Sacramento River for 7 years] (Vol .III , CT 774-792);[Waszczuk
correspondence with UCOP Principal Investigator dated March 11, 2014] (Vol
III , CT 793 -802) ; [Waszczuk correspondence with US Senator Dianne
Feinstein ](Vol. III, CT 804-814); October 2000 [Eduardo Espinosa
correspondence with UCOP Vice President Judith Boyette ](Vol III. CT 815-
830); [Waszczuk April 2001 letter to CAL/OSHA District Manager and in
regards to unsafe working condition in the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration
plant plus the issued copies of citations by CAL/OSHA] (Vol III, CT 835-
845) [May 24, 2012 Waszczuk inquiry entitled ‘REVANGE ISN’T WISE ‘ in
re of Waszczuk two cowerkers and Waszczuk friends , Kenny Diede and
William Buckans who were viciously attacked by their supervisors at the
order of Defendant Stephen Chilcott ]
54
Waszczuk’s attorney, who wasted Waszczuk’s $20,000 retainer and
conspired with the Defense attorney Michael Pott.
VI. CONCLUSION
The Waszczuk Petition for Rehearing in the above shall be granted
to Waszczuk by the Court for the captioned reasons:
1. The Superior Court abused its own discretion by accepting the Second
Amended Complaint filed on September 30, 2014 against Waszczuk’s
will and instructions. The Second Amended Complaint did not amend
anything relevant that should have been amended. The Second
Amended Complaint was filed with an evil motive by Waszczuk’s
attorney Douglas Stein in conspiracy with the Defendants’ Attorney

Michael Pott in order to harm Waszczuk. The Second Amended
Complaint was filed by Ex Parte Application stipulated between Stein
and Pott to bypass the filing Drop Box and avoid a Court Clerk
detecting that the Second Amended Complaint was the same as the First
Amended Complaint and grossly violated the Cal. Rule of Court 3.1324.
The Superior Court abused its own discretion and jurisdiction in
accepting the Second Amended Complaint and deeming it valid by
Court Order dated December 17, 2014, which was extorted from the
Superior Court Hon. Judge Brown by Waszczuk’s dismissed attorney
Douglas Stein and his partner Michael Pott by Ex Parte stipulated
application for an extension of time to oppose the old, defective
Defendants’ Demurrer, which was filed as an anti-SLAPP motion.
2. The Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike, filed on December 1, 2014,

shall be dismissed by the Court. The motion is actually the old July
55
2014 Defendants’ Demurrer and was filed with a defective pleading as
the anti-SLAPP motion of Waszczuk’s First Amended Complaint.
The Second Amended Complaint, filed on September 30, 2014 by
Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein with a suspended attorney’s
license, should be declared null and void. Douglas Stein is currently
suspended to practice law and is being prosecuted by the State Bar due
to misrepresenting Waszczuk and defrauding Waszczuk of a $20,000
retainer fee. The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal have no
jurisdiction to permit attorneys to practice law with suspended licenses.
The Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion is the old demurrer crafted by
Defense attorney Michael Pott in July 2014 and was filed as the
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint instead of the Second Amended
Complaint. The Plaintiff would never be permitted by the Court to file

such defective documents, and the documents would be stricken by the
Defendants’ motion. Additionally, the individual Defendants’
Declarations are most likely forged.
3. The Superior Court Hon. Judge Brown was biased and prejudiced
against Waszczuk in every Court Order issued and signed since
September 22, 2014 [Ex Parte Application] (Vol. I, 166-167), with the
exception of the Stay Order for the Defendants to attempt to extort legal
fees from Waszczuk in the amount of $32,738 (Vol. VI, CT 1694-
1695).
4. The Court of Appeal Third Appellate District Opinion in the above
captioned case is discriminatory, prejudicial, demeaning, and degrading
toward Waszczuk, using twisted facts and statements. The Opinion
praised Waszczuk’s dismissed attorney, who is an ordinary thief who
stole Waszczuk’s retainer in the amount of $20,000 and caused
Waszczuk enormous damage. Rather than being transparent and
56
diligent, this attorney has had his license suspended for not paying child
alimony and being prosecuted by the State Bar.
The Court’s prejudicial and discriminatory Opinion reminded
Waszczuk of his employment at UC Davis Medical Center and how
differently the five individual Defendants treated other employees in
comparison to Waszczuk. By giving the opportunity to the Defendants
to correct the Reply Brief while denying Waszczuk the ability to correct
his briefs, the Court acted in a similar manner to how the five
Defendants acted in providing evaluations to other employees to give
them a chance to correct their performance but denying this chance to
Waszczuk. The Court used Waszczuk’s mistakes against him in the
discriminatory and outrageously biased Opinion.
For this reason alone, the Petition for Rehearing should be granted to

Waszczuk.
In conclusion of this Petition for Rehearing , Waszczuk respectfully asks the
Court of Appeals to reverse the Superior Court Judgment dated April 14,
2015, and allow Waszczuk to correct and refile the SAC or file the TAC.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 25 day of October 25,
2017, in Lodi, California.
___________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk – Plaintiff and Appellant
57
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.360(b)(1), I certify that
this Petition for Rehearing contains 14257 words, based on the word-
count feature of my word-processing program.
DATED: October 25, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff and Appellant In Pro Per
58
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
TRUEFILING
Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California

Case No.: C079524
I, IRENA WASZCZUK the undersigned, declare that 1 am over 18 years of age
and not a party to the within cause; my address is 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi,
CA . On October 25 ,2017 served a true copy of the attached PETITION FOR
REHEARING on each of the following, by ELECTRONIC MAIL
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall

CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of Sacramento
720 Ninth Street, Department 53, Honorable David I. Brown
Sacramento, CA 95814-1380
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister St,
San Francisco, CA 94102
David P.E. Burkett Esq.

Each said envelope was then sealed and deposited in the United States Mail at San
Joaquin County, California, the county in which I am residing, with the postage
thereon fully prepaid.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 25, 2017 , at Lodi CA
______________________
IRENA WASZCZUK
59
Filed 10/10/17 Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, C079524

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No.
34201300155479CUWTGDS)
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Although Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a self-represented plaintiff, purports to appeal the

trial court’s order granting five individual employees of the University of California’s
special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) four causes of action arising from
their involvement in his termination, he does not argue the merits of the motion but
insists the judgment must be reversed because of systemic corruption including collusion
between his then lawyer, defense counsel, and the trial judge. He misunderstands his
burden on appeal, ignores the dispositive issues, provides no evidence of corruption or
untoward collusion, and fails to demonstrate either relevance or prejudice from the
1
shortcomings he cites. We need go no further than to answer the contentions he raises,
and in finding no merit in those claims, we affirm.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, feels deeply aggrieved by the University of
California (the University), his lawyer, the defense lawyer, and the trial judge. A brief
excerpt from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the University reflects his
bitterness as well as his belief that there is much more at stake than his mere wrongful
termination lawsuit. He wrote: “The stake in this lawsuit must be a lot bigger and more
important than the life of a 63-year-old Polish refugee who escaped communist
oppression and was promised protection from oppression in his new country by the US
government. Instead of protection from oppression, the Polish refugee received treatment
from the University of California that has been a lot worse than the treatment he received

in the Polish communist prison, where the communist’s prison guard was more respectful
to the political prisoners than UC management to its own employees.” His experience
has left him emotionally distraught. At the end of a hearing in the trial court, he
announced he was done and was going to go outside of the courtroom and shoot himself.
While plaintiff’s pain is clear, his legal analysis is not. We have carefully
scrutinized his briefs and the record in a diligent attempt to decipher his legal theories.
Much remains a mystery. We must reiterate what the trial court admonished plaintiff.
“At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any
other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants
and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941,
944.) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct
rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also
Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.” We add that plaintiff has an equal
responsibility to follow the California Rules of Court applicable to appeals, no matter
2
how sympathetic his claims may seem to himself or us. It is a responsibility he has
ignored to his peril.
Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his failure to cite to
the record. 1 He makes grandiose accusations against the University for illegally
generating and selling electric power and for tax evasion, but those allegations are not
supported by citations to the record and are not relevant to the special motion to strike.
Plaintiff fails to appreciate the limited scope of our review, which stands in stark contrast
to the wide-ranging allegations plaintiff lodges which are untethered to the second
amended complaint or the special motion to strike. We are compelled to ignore any
factual allegations that are not supported by citations to the record.
Plaintiff loses this appeal, but it is not the end of his lawsuit for wrongful
termination. The trial court reminded plaintiff at the hearing on the special motion to

strike that the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) were not protected if
they discriminated or retaliated against him and, therefore, “[i]ndependent of the five
individuals who are before the Court on this motion, [plaintiff] still retains his right to sue
the Regents because they are still in the lawsuit and he’s still the plaintiff.” In this
context, we recite the brief facts relevant to the issues plaintiff raises on appeal.
1 An “appellant must support all statements of fact in his briefs with citations to the
record [citation] and must confine his statement ‘to matters in the record on appeal.’
[Citation.]” (Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 29.) “[I]t is counsel's duty to
point out portions of the record that support the position taken on appeal.” (Del Real v.
City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) The Court of Appeal must not search
the record on behalf of an appellant or serve as “backup appellate counsel.” (Mansell v.
Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546.)
3
FACTS
Plaintiff worked in the University of California Davis Medical Center’s Plant
Operations and Maintenance Department for 13 years. He received many years of
favorable performance reviews. In 2007, however, he was given a disciplinary transfer
from the central plant to the HVAC/plumbing shop. He filed a grievance and ultimately
entered into a settlement agreement with the University whereby he agreed to the transfer
in exchange for a promotion to an exempt position with a more prestigious job title.
In 2011 the University again initiated an investigation of plaintiff based on
complaints that he had violated University policies by engaging in acts of ethnic
discrimination constituting hate incidents in the workplace. He was terminated in 2012.
He appealed the termination and ultimately filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint.
In this court, he fixates on his belief the University’s suspension, investigation, and

termination were nothing more than a “witch hunt” designed to remove him, preferably
by getting him to quit, and thereby enable the University to resume its alleged tax-free
illegal power sales. He asserts, again without citation to the record, the University
attempted to assassinate him.
Plaintiff filed his first complaint, in pro. per., in December 2013. The complaint
included six causes of action: wrongful termination; retaliation; the intentional infliction
of emotional distress; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; breach
of the settlement agreement; and violation of the University’s Personnel Polices for Staff
Members (PPSM) 23. Plaintiff thereafter hired a lawyer, Douglas Stein, who filed a first
amended complaint on his behalf in June 2014. The first amended complaint set forth
eight causes of action, including a cause of action entitled “Breach of Written Contract.”
The written contract referred to the settlement agreement plaintiff reached with the
University to resolve his first grievance. The first amended complaint did not, however,
contain a cause of action for violation of PPSM 23.
4
In a meet and confer letter dated August 19, 2014, Michael Pott, representing the
Regents and the employees sued in their individual capacity, described a number of
deficiencies in the first amended complaint “that warrant the filing of a demurrer unless
they can be resolved by amendment.” Stein spent 10 hours reviewing the first amended
complaint and researching the law in light of the alleged deficiencies set forth in Pott’s
letter. By letter dated August 26, 2014, Stein agreed to amend the complaint in response
to those deficiencies he found legitimate and he explained why he rejected many others.
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight causes of action.
He signed the second amended complaint on September 8, 2014. Unbeknownst to him at
the time, his license to practice law was suspended on September 24, 2014, due to child
support issues that he resolved by October 7, 2014, but due to logistical aspects of the
process, the State Bar of California did not restore his license to an active status until

October 23, 2014. In the meantime, he filed the second amended complaint on
September 30, 2014.
On December 1, 2014, five defendants, Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert (the individual defendants) filed a special
motion to strike the first four causes of action in the second amended complaint as a
strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) suit (hereafter referred to as the
anti-SLAPP motion). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Stein, then unaware that plaintiff had
fired him, filed an opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion on plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff
did fire Stein, proceeded in pro. per., and requested an extension of time to file his own
opposition. Plaintiff filed his opposition late and exceeded the page limit. Nevertheless,
the trial court considered the entirety of plaintiff’s opposition and granted his request to
disregard the opposition filed by Stein.
On December 17, 2014, Stein filed an ex parte application for relief from the
potential defective filing of the second amended complaint. Stein explained to the court
that his license had been temporarily suspended because he had mistakenly paid the
5
wrong amount of child support for two or three months, a mistake that was quickly
rectified once he learned of it. The trial court granted Stein’s application and ruled that
the second amended complaint filed on September 30, 2014, “is deemed validly filed.”
In ruling on the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court
followed the requisite two-step process. First, the court examined the individual
defendants’ showing whether their acts were taken in furtherance of their constitutional
rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. The court found the
individual defendants made a prima facie showing. The individual defendants’ speech,
the court ruled, was “made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and
deciding the workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University
policies.” Second, the court found that plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a
likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of the four causes of action as well as

defeating the individual defendants’ affirmative defenses. The court, therefore, granted
the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
Plaintiff appeals.
DISCUSSION
I
The Allegations
Plaintiff believes that his employer, defense counsel, the trial judge, and even his
own lawyer, are corrupt and colluded to destroy his life. These allegations, not the merits
of the anti-SLAPP motion, are at the heart of plaintiff’s appeal. He writes: “There is no
need for Waszczuk to base this appeal on the merit of the case which is important and
Clerk Transcript is speaking for itself, if the whole legal process in this case was
corrupted by the Defendants’ attorney, Michael Pott, and Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas
Stein misconduct, and their actions against Waszczuk were approved by the Court on
September 22, 2014, and December 17, 2014.”
6
There is nothing we can decide in this appeal or write in this opinion that will
disabuse plaintiff of this fiercely held belief. He fails to understand that these very
serious allegations are not before us on appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion. We will
explain for his benefit what the record discloses to us—the utter absence of any evidence
to support even a colorable claim of misconduct by any of the lawyers or judicial officers
in this case. We will also briefly describe the procedural context in which the allegations
are made and the futility of pursuing his corruption theory against these individual
defendants. Despite the ferocity of plaintiff’s feelings to the contrary, the fact that the
second amended complaint did not contain what he hoped it would does not translate into
reversible error and the fact that his lawyer and defense counsel engaged in an interactive
process to avoid an unnecessary demurrer does not translate into corruption.
Let us begin with plaintiff’s focus on the second amended complaint. As best we

can decipher, his objection is twofold: (1) He is troubled that Stein did not pursue his
theories that the University breached the settlement agreement and failed to follow
internal policies by not providing him annual performance reviews for two years, and (2)
he accuses the trial court of improperly validating the filing when Stein’s license had
been temporarily suspended.
Both objections are irrelevant to the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion,
which sought to strike only four of the eight causes of action stated in the second
amended complaint. Whether or not Stein would have expanded the second amended
complaint to include additional causes of action has no bearing on whether the four
causes of action were properly stricken. In any event, we are baffled by plaintiff’s
insistence that Stein refused to include a cause of action for breach of the settlement
agreement is belied by the language of the sixth cause of action for breach of a written
contract which appears to embody that very claim.
Plaintiff fails to cite any authority to support his claim that the trial court
improperly validated the filing of the second amended complaint. The claim lacks both
7
legal authority and evidentiary support in the record. Rather, Stein was forthright in his
disclosure to the court. When he filed the second amended complaint he was unaware
that his status with the State Bar had changed. The reason for his very brief suspension
was unrelated to his competency or ethics in the practice of law. Rather, as Stein
explained, he made an inadvertent error on the amount he paid in child support for two or
three months. His license to practice was reinstated within about two weeks of his
discovery of the suspension. On these facts, there is not the slightest hint of impropriety.
To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making an ex parte application to
assure the integrity of the document he inadvertently filed during the briefest of
suspensions for a minor transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He
should be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of plaintiff’s interests.
Yet plaintiff asserts that defense counsel colluded with Stein to file a second

amended complaint designed to rob him of meritorious claims. He also contends that
Stein bowed to defense counsel’s untoward pressure to amend the complaint and
subjected his pleadings to the anti-SLAPP motion. He adds the naked allegation that the
trial court acted improperly as well because the trial judge had known defense counsel for
a number of years. Plaintiff’s allegations are without evidentiary support.
The record discloses a cordial, thorough, and appropriate exchange between two
lawyers engaged in a meet and confer process designed to avoid an unnecessary
demurrer. The thoughtful letters exchanged by counsel described the legal issues
presented by the first amended complaint and the authorities upon which they relied to
support their positions. Stein relented on a few minor issues, but held steadfast as to the
viability of his theories. Plaintiff’s sheer speculation about the lawyers’ motives is totally
unsubstantiated; indeed, the record belies his accusations.
In summary, we conclude plaintiff’s accusations of misconduct, corruption, and
collusion between the lawyers and the trial court are unsubstantiated and unfounded. But
even more importantly, they are irrelevant to the sole issue properly before us on
8
appeal—whether the trial court erred by granting the five individual defendants’ anti-
SLAPP motion to strike four of the causes of action alleged against them. We turn,
therefore, to the only relevant issue presented.
II
The Merits
The anti-SLAPP statute provides: “A cause of action against a person arising
from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech
under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a
public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that
the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the
claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) We review an order granting an anti-
SLAPP motion de novo. (Daniel v. Wayans (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 379.)

As explained above, the trial court engages in a two-step process in determining
whether to grant an anti-SLAPP motion. (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State
University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061.) In this case, the trial court found the individual
defendants made a prima facie showing to satisfy the first prong and plaintiff did not
challenge this finding in his opening brief. Belatedly in reply, he contends that the
defendants did not “show any record or evidence that the Defendants Nichols, Chilcott,
Boyd, Seifert, and Oropeza, who brought the anti-SLAPP motion to strike Waszczuk’s
first four causes of action, were made in connection with the processing, investigation,
hearing, and deciding of the workplace complaints filed by Waszczuk.”
In short, the court acknowledged that University policies and procedures have the
force and effect of a state statute (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000)
80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165); statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized
by law as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (Vergos v. McNeal
(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)); the constitutional right to petition includes
the act of seeking administrative action (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity
9
(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1115); and investigations and investigatory reports prepared in
connection with an issue under consideration or review by an official body, such as a
public entity’s internal investigations, are protected activities under the anti-SLAPP
statute (Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1383). Because the
speech of the individual defendants who were subject to the anti-SLAPP motion was
“made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding the
workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University policies,” the
court concluded the individual defendants satisfied their burden and shifted it to the
plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Plaintiff insists that Vergos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, cited by the trial court,
does not support the granting of the anti-SLAPP motion. We disagree. In Vergos, an
employee of the University named the manager who denied his administrative grievance

as a defendant in his sexual harassment lawsuit in her individual capacity. (Id. at
p. 1390.) The manager filed a special motion to strike contending that her statements and
communicative conduct in handling the employee’s grievances were protected by Code
of Civil Procedure section 425.16 because “they (1) were connected with an issue under
review by an official proceeding authorized by law, and (2) furthered the right to petition
of the plaintiff and similarly situated employees.” (Vergos, at p. 1394.) We agreed and
affirmed the judgment.
We pointed out that the manager’s only conduct targeted in the complaint involved
her hearing, processing, and deciding the employee’s grievances. (Vergos, supra,
146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.) Similarly, here the trial court’s finding parroted our
conclusion in Vergos. And the court reviewed the allegations against each of the five
individual defendants and reported their involvement as follows:
“The allegations of the SAC [second amended complaint] against Nichols attack
her protected participation in the official investigations. The SAC specifically alleges
Nichols’ communications regarding the investigation and her investigative conclusions.
10
Nichols was appointed to investigate Plaintiff’s whistleblower complaints, and was also
appointed to conduct an investigation into complaints of workplace violence filed by
Putney and Daniliuc. All were protected petitioning activities.
“The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of emails
from Nichols relating to the investigations, and Chilcott’s sending of an email relating to
the investigation of Plaintiff. The emails are protected speech in connection with an
investigation process.
“The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their investigation
into the emails plaintiff sent to Nichols in April 2012. Oropeza and Seifert conducted
their investigation pursuant to the University’s grievance protocol and reached
conclusions documented in a report.
“Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer (“CRO”) at Step II of the

University’s PPSM 70 process, hearing and deciding Plaintiff’s appeal of his
termination.”
In sum, each of the individual defendants, like the manager in Vergos, were
involved in the investigation, hearing, processing, and/or deciding plaintiff’s and his co-
workers’ grievances. We conclude, as in Vergos, their conduct was within the protective
ambit of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Thus we must review the trial court’s
resolution of the second step in the analysis—whether plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood
of success on the merits.
Without citation to specific pages in the record or argument about the likelihood of
success of each element of the four causes of action or even a response to the trial court’s
thorough analysis, plaintiff invites us to review his 443-page opposition to the anti-
SLAPP motion and insists, again without analysis, that the evidence is “overwhelming.”
He falls miserably short of his duty on appeal to cite to the record, to present cogent
argument, and to support his argument with applicable legal authority. In this vacuum,
we turn to the trial court’s statement of decision wherein the court provides a brief and
11
apt rationale for finding plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a likelihood of
prevailing.
Plaintiff’s first cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress
fails because the tort requires a showing of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of
human decency. The court found “[w]hat plaintiff has alleged, and what his evidence in
opposition appears to support, are complaints concerning personnel management by
defendants. Pleading of personnel management activity is ‘insufficient to support a claim
of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged.’
(Janken v. [GM Hughes Electronic (1996)] 46 Cal.App.4th [55,] 80.)” We agree with the
trial court that none of the allegations against these individual defendants involved in the
investigation and resolution of the grievances constitutes the type of outrageous conduct
beyond the bounds of human decency necessary to prevail on a claim of the intentional

infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff is unable to surmount the basic principle of law that an employee or
former employee cannot sue a current or former supervisor or employee for interfering
with his or her prospective economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate
the plaintiff’s employment. (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24; Shepperd v.
Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347.) On this basis, the trial court properly
concluded plaintiff failed to provide any countervailing authority or analysis as to why
the facts before the court show the likelihood of prevailing on his interference with
prospective economic advantage cause of action.
Plaintiff’s discrimination claim meets another definitive legal obstacle. Individual
defendants cannot be sued for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), nor can they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and
12
harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664; 2 Janken v. GM Hughes
Electronic, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.) Plaintiff has not shown any likelihood of
surmounting this obstacle.
Finally, the trial court found that plaintiff did not establish that the individual
defendants’ conduct was in retaliation for his whistleblowing. The court explained: “The
mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations and reached
conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree with does not establish their investigatory
findings are an act of retaliation. Nor can Boyd’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s grievance at
the Step II level of PPSM 70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is
no allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that could be
deemed to be a retaliatory action.” In the absence of any evidence or analysis provided
by plaintiff, we have no basis for reaching a finding at odds with the trial court. Plaintiff

has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on a whistleblower retaliation cause of action.
(Gov. Code, § 8547.10.)
III
Plaintiff maintains he should have been allowed to amend his complaint for the
third time. As support he cites cases involving demurrers, not special motions to strike a
SLAPP. His authorities, therefore, are inapposite. The anti-SLAPP statute makes no
provision for amending the complaint once the court finds the targeted conduct is
protected speech. (Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073.)
2 After Reno v. Baird, supra, 18 Cal.4th 640 was decided “the California Legislature
amended FEHA's harassment provision expressly holding individual employees liable for
their harassment.” (Scott v. Solano County Health & Soc. Orders Servs. Dep't (E.D. Cal.
2006) 459 F.Supp.2d 959, 966, citing Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j).) There is no
harassment claim targeted by the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
13
DISPOSITION
The judgment striking the four causes of action against defendants Nichols,
Oropeza, Seifert, Boyd, and Chilcott is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs
on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , J.

ROBIE , J.
14

07-20-2022 - 3DCA Case C095488 Waszczuk v. UC Regents - Second Notice of Ommission - Record On Appeal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

07-20-2022 - 3DCA Case C095488 Waszczuk v. UC Regents - Second Notice of Ommission - Record On Appeal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07-20-2022 - 3DCA Case C095488 Waszczuk v. UC Regents - Second Notice of Ommission - Record On Appeal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2216 Katzakian Way

July 20, 2022

Ms. Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann

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

Dear Ms. Wallin-Rohmann:

The incomplete Record on Appeal of 13 volumes of the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal

I noticed that the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL, which I

Plaintiff’s Second Notice of Omission -Record on Appeal 1

I would like to emphasize as I did in the attached copy of my Appellant’s SECOND

The CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL contains the most important

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

• 06/16/2014 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

• 09/10/14 NOTICE OF FILING PARTY

• 09/24/14 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

As I pointed in my Appellant’s Second Notice of Omission in Record on Appeal, the

Plaintiff’s Second Notice of Omission -Record on Appeal 2

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

Plaintiff’s Second Notice of Omission -Record on Appeal 3

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

SECOND NOTICE OF OMMISSION - DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

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

SECOND NOTICE OF OMMISSION - DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

3 TO: CLERK OF THE COURT, THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

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

18 DATED: July 11, 2022

SECOND NOTICE OF OMMISSION - DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

3 The NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT AND CERTIFICATE OF THE

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

SECOND NOTICE OF OMMISSION - DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

2 not as the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL. If Waszczuk would have to

12 In this appeal case, the 12/04/2013 COMPLAINT; 06/16/2014 FIRST AMENDED

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

SECOND NOTICE OF OMMISSION - DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

2 someone’s evil to unlawfully and recklessly interfere in the judicial process.

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

SECOND NOTICE OF OMMISSION - DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

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

SECOND NOTICE OF OMMISSION - DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

10 collar criminals from the University of California’s Office of the President.

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

SECOND NOTICE OF OMMISSION - DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

2 court record be produced and provided to him and to 3DCA.

10 Looking at the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX, the

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

SECOND NOTICE OF OMMISSION - DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

2 THE COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL- FROM THE SEPTEMBER 1,

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

18 Clerk Kevin M. Contrary to his statement, Court Reporter Tavalero stated:

SECOND NOTICE OF OMMISSION - DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL

March 20, 2018

Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

Dear Mr. Waszczuk:

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

Very truly yours,

By: Anita Kenner

cc: See Mailing List

Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

David P.E. Burkett

Sacramento County Superior Court