Request for Reibmursment-Attorney Douglas Stein, SB #131248

Request for Reimbursment Attorney Douglas Stein, SB #131248

Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000099


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000100


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000101


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000103


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000104


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000105


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000106


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000107


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000108


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000109


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000110


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000111


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000112


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000113


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000114


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000115


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000116

Request for Reimbursment

Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000117


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000118


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000119


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000120


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000121


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000122


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000123

Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk 2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242 Phone: 209-663-2977 Email: [email protected]

July 10, 2017 Jairo Vergara, Research Remediation Analyst Overdraft Deposit Collection and Recovery Department Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. P.O. BOX 5058 Portland, OR 972208-5058 Re: Response to your letter dated June 20, 2017 Wells Fargo Checking Account Ending in 6717 in response to your letter dated June 20, 2017 Wells Fargo Visa account number ending 8259 Wells Fargo Dealer Services (WFDS) car loan account number ending in 2737. Wells Fargo Business checking account ending 8995 Dear Mr. Vergara Thank you for your letter dated June 20, 2017. I am assuming that that your letter is a response to my seven page inquiry along with an attachment dated May 15, 2017; sent to the Wells Fargo Vice President Mr. Alberto Santarelli, in the Wells Fargo Des Moines, IA office. My letter was a response to Mr. Santarelli’s notification dated March 7, 2017, about the Wells Fargo’s Credit Defense Platinum services in relation to my Wells Fargo Visa account number ending 8259. The courtesy copy of my letter to Wells Fargo Vice President Mr. Santarelli was sent to Wells Fargo’s following offices: Los Angeles, Irvin , Sana Ana, and Rancho Cucamonga in California; Irving in Texas, a nd your office in Portland, Oregon because I am receiving correspondence from these Wells Fargo’s offices without any resolution of the existing problems. On May 26, 2017, I received a short response from Wells Fargo’s Des Moines Executive dated May 19, 2017, and postmarked May 22, 2017 which stated: “Thank you for contacting us about your account. Your inquiry sent to Wells Fargo was forwarded to our team to help address your concerns. You can expect to hear from us with more information by Ju ne 1, 2017”. 1

Checking Account Ending in 6717 Response to WF letter dated June 20, 2017


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000124

I am still waiting for the response to my inquiry from the Mr. Santarelli as it was promised by Wells Fargo notification dated May 19, 2017, signed by the Research and Remediation Representative Roxy Ibarra. (Copy of the notification enclosed) Beside the Wells Fargo Visa account that I addressed in my letter to Wells Fargo Vice President Mr. Santarelli, there were other unresolved matters with Wells Fargo which contributed to my inability to make full payments on my Wells Fargo Visa account number ending 8259 and the WFDS car loan account ending 2737. To avoid any misunderstanding, it would be nice and professional on your part if you and the other Wells Fargo representatives would state to which recent correspondence you are responding to by simply mentioning the date of the corresponde nce you and others received and are responding to. A.

DEPOSIT ACCOUNT ENDING 6717

The reference in your response to the Wells Fargo’s Analyst, Ms. Sonya Hall’s letter dated December 15, 2016, did not solve the problem and making statements that Wells Fargo thoroughly reviewed this matter and stands by its own position is just a denial of the wrongdoing. However, the record of Wells Fargo’s missteps, wrongdoing, and the violation of the California Business and Professions Code § 17200 by Wells Fargo has to be eventually determined by the court of law or State of California Attorney General office. Even though you noticed that I responded to Ms. Hall’s letter on January 2, 2017, you failed to acknowledge that I firmly and clearly explained in my letter d ated February 1, 2017, by using Wells Fargo’s record that Wells Fargo Dealer Services, a subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank, accessed my checking account without my authorization and withdrew $347.00 from the empty account. The unauthorized withdrawal of $347.00 by Wells Fargo Dealer Services triggered an overdraft fee of $35.00, which was added to the negative balance of −$347.00, bringing the total negative balance to −$387.00 and thus caused a whole mess with the closing of my checking account. Furthermore, you failed to acknowledge that I personally visited Wells Fargo Branch twice in attempt to close my checking account, but alas, to no avail. The Wells Fargo’s bureaucracy and bully attitude towards defenseless and financially devastated customers prevailed. That all in this matter.

B.

WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES (WFDS) CAR LOAN ACCOUNT NUMBER ENDING 2737

2



Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000125

Prior the unauthorized withdraw of $347.00 from my zeroed or i n other word, empty Wells Fargo checking account, I asked WFDS to lower my car payment or refinance my car loan due to my financial instability caused by my unemployment. Instead of working with me on the issue of loan, the WFDS caused further unnecessary problems by withdrawing the money my basically closed checking account without my authorization. In my letter dated November 5, 2016, which was sent by a certified mail to Wells Fargo Dealer Service, I informed WFDS in detail of my currently grim financial situation, a situation that precludes me making the full car payment. In that letter, I further explained that I had tried to refinance the remaining balance with a lower payment. However, WFDS refused to cooperate; being fully aware of the fact that I was two years ahead with loan payments and that the loan matures on September 2, 2018. As a result of WFDS’s refusal to refinance the loan with a lower payment for the next two years, I have had no alternative to sending $100.00 every month as a payment until I can pay off my car or until my financial situation improves to the extent that I am able to pay off the loan quickly. Around December 12, 2016, I received a letter dated December 6, 2016, from the office of the President of WFDS, located in Irving, TX. The letter informed me that WFDS had received my correspondence of November 5, 2016, and that it expected to provide me with a written and/or verbal response within ten business days. However, I have not received the promise response yet. I do not consider the WFDS letter dated January 3, 2017, as being responsive to my own letter. It did not at all refer to the inquiries I had submitted to the WFDS on November 7, 2016, by certified mail. To this date, I am waiting for a response to that letter. Since the maturity date of the loan is September 2, 2018, I do not believe that WFDS should charge me any late fees in light of the $100.00 payments that I am sending to WFDS every month. I request that WFDS stop charging me late fees with immediate effect. A late payment is an entirely different matter from a lower payment. WFDS has had no problem accepting and cashing the checks that I had been sending every month since September 2016. After my request to stop charging me late fee from the $100 payments, WFDS stopped accepting the $100.00 payments for the loan for which the maturity date is September 2, 2018. Moreover, if WFDS let me pay $100.00 per without charging me late fee, then the loan would be paid off on September 2, 2018.

3



Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000126

My multiply inquiries with numerous WFDS offices including the Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Office of the President in Irving, Texas to resolve the problem with the car loan did not produce any result due to bad faith, irresponsiveness, and an overall lack of will on the part of WFDS representatives. At this particular point in time, with my worrisome f inancial situation and a lack of will on the part of WFDS representatives to resolve the problem, I believe it would be best for me I would give the car – a 2005 BMW X5 – back to the WFDS and get this over with. However, I fail to seen any desire on the part of WFDS to take this care back. I would consider selling this car but this car has a lot of problems and I don’t see a nybody who would pay any money for this car. It was an unfortunate buy me myself. After I bought this car in 2012, I spent a few tho usand dollars in repairs itself, despite having an extended warranty. The BMW 4.41 engine is one of the best BMW engines out there, however, in this particular unit, the engine is excessively burning oil with a little over 100,000 mileage which should ideally not occur. It indicates that this car which was brought on auction to California from Florida most likely has a lot more miles than shows on the mileage gauge. C.

WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CHECKING ACCOUNT ENDING 8995

For the record, the Wells Fargo letter dated January 15, 2015, did not solve any problem with the business checking account ending in 8995 and it was just a case of sweeping the problem under the carpet by the Wells Fargo Bank. I lost 20,000 USD, and Wells Fargo Bank is the party responsible for t he loss along with my crooked former attorney Douglas Stein. Seeing as the Wells Fargo is clearly trying the deflect the responsibility of wrongdoing and causing losses, I think it is time to file an official complaint with the State of California State of California Attorney General (AG) against Wells Fargo and ask the AG to look into this matter. To avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to reiterate and emphasize why I am dissatisfied with Wells Fargo resolution in this matter. To mention clearly, the letter from Wells Fargo dated January 15, 2015 was a vague, ambiguous, and a bad spirited response to my detailed inquiries addressed to Wells Fargo Corporate Offices in San Francisco and Wells Fargo Dispute Resolution Department in Des Moines, IA. The Wells Fargo response came from Wells Fargo’s National Business Center in Sacramento, California, and was signed by T. Crowder who deceptively enough, failed to 4



Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000127

mention my correspondence that he was responding to. In same sa me deceptive manner yours letter is written to confuse the recipients to which correspondence Wells Fargo is responding. I would further encourage you to read my letter to Wells Fargo Bank dated December 31, 2014, before Wells Fargo sent forth another worthless response. On the 1 st and 2nd of June 2014 , my former attorney Douglas Stein; State State Bar Number (SBN) 131248; called me and told that he was informed by Wells Fargo Bank in Folsom, CA that cannot open an account with with WFB and deposit the check check I gave him as retainer in amount of $ 19,500. Furthermore, Furthermore, he asked me to drive to his residence res idence in El Dorado Hills , CA from Lodi and go with with him to Wells Fargo Bank Bank to open the account . Apparently Apparently it was true tr ue what he was saying because after I arrived with Douglas Douglas Stein at the Wells Bank in Folsom, the WFB representative asked me for my Social Security number and my California Ca lifornia Driver License. In 2014, 2015 or even in 2016 or 2017, I basically was was not made aware of the fact that Wells Fargo fraudulently opened the business account for my crooked attorney and attached me to the account. However, Wells Fargo apparently forgot to provide me the statement statement rather conveniently, thus causing the disaster. d isaster. By going over the account closing statement I received from the WFB on December 26, 2014, I understood that Wells Fargo Bank Ba nk made me solely responsible for the taxes o n the Douglas Stein’s Business account, on his behalf. It was apparent that the attorney Douglas Stein could deposit the checks or cash that he received fro m other clients to the account. However, I as an account tax responsible costumer and and account sole client I would be responsible for the Douglas Stein’s taxes from the income he would eventually generate and deposit into the account to which I was ass igned as tax responsibl respo nsiblee customer and sole client . I am not sure if the IRS IRS guidance 5.17.7.1 (08-01-2010) Trust Fund Recovery Recovery Penalty or violation of the State of California California Taxation codes applies applies to this joint venture of Wells Fargo and Douglas Stein’s fraudulent activities act ivities but I will file f ile inquiry/complaint with the U.S Department of Treasury Treasury (IRS) (IRS) and with State State of California Board of Equalization’s Equalization’s Tax Recovery and Criminal Cr iminal Enforcement Enforcement Task Force (TRaCE), and California C alifornia Attorney General Office Office to get to the bottom of this th is fraud. I believe it was not coincidental that in May 2016, I received notification from the IRS that I was audited and I had to pay extra taxes for year 2014 in amount of $1432.32. I have no other explanation and I am a m assuming that the check I gave to Douglas Stein as a retainer was deposited to the opened business account and it triggered the IRS audit because Wells Wells Fargo Bank made me responsible of the tax on this business account. account. 5



Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000128


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000129

Melissa Saenz -Williams, Sr.Vice President Wells Fargo Dealer Services Office of the President P.O. Box 168071 Irving, TX 75016 Wells Fargo Dealer Services National Recovery Center PO Box 25341 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Wells Fargo Dealer Services P.O. Box 3599 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Wells Fargo Dealer Services P.O. Box 19733 Irvine, CA 92623-9733 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. P.O. Box 6995 Portland, OR 97228-6995 WELLS FARGO National Business Banking Center P. O. BOX 3402214 Sacramento, CA 95834-0214 Attn : T. Crowder Senior Correspondence Specialist WELLS FARGO BANK EMPIRE RANCH 25015 BLUE RAVINE RD FOLSOM, CA, 95630 WELLS FARGO CORPORATE OFFICES 420 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104

7



Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000130


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000131


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000132


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000133


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000134


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000135


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000136


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000137


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000138


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000139


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000140


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000141


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000142


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000143


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000144


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000145


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000146


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000147


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000148


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000149


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000150


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000151


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000152


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000153


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000154


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000155


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000156


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000157


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000158


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000159


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000160


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000161


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000162


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000163


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000164


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000165


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000166


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000167


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000168


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000169


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000170

Jaroslaw Waszczuk 2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242 Phone: 209.663-2977 Fax: 209.370.8281 E-mail: [email protected] Appellant, In Pro Per IN THE COURT FOR APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

Jaroslaw Waszczuk Plaintiff and Appellant v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Defendant and Respondent The Regents of the University of California Real Party of Interest and Respondent

Court of Appeal No. C079254 Sacramento County Superior Court No. 34-2013- 34-2013-80001699 Notice of Appeal Filed on May 7, 2015 Appeal to the Honorable Judge Shelleyanne Chang’s Order Denying Petitioner the Petition for Writ of Mandamus

APPELLANT’s REQUEST THAT THE COURT PLACE THE CASE ON THE COURT CALENDAR AND SCHDEULE THE ORAL ARGUMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

TO THE PRESIDING JUSTICE FOR DIVISION OF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL: 1


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000171

I.

THE REQUEST

I, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, Plaintiff and Appellant (hereafter Waszczuk), requests that the Court place the Case No. C079254, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) on the Court’s calendar and

schedule the oral argument AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. The Waszczuk v. CUIAB appeal has been pending in 3DCA since May 7, 2015. On March 12, 2015, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Honorable Shelleyanne W.

L. Chang denied the Waszczuk Writ of Mandamus filed December 2, 2013, against

CUIAB and Real Party In Interest (RPii), the Regents of the University of California (Regents) The Waszczuk appeal against CUIAB was pending since May 2015 simultaneously with the appeal in Case No. C079524, Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et, al., which was filed one month later on June 11, 2015. The appeal in Case

No. C079524 was from the Sacramento County Superior Court judgment dated April 17, 2015, in the Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16filed by the Regents of the University of California on December 1, 2014. Case No. C079524 was finalized in January 10, 2018 after 3DCA denied on November 9, 2017 the Petition for Rehearing. Waszczuk ‘s petitioned the 3DCA’s decision in Case No. C079524 to the Supreme Court. The Petition for Review was filed on November 20, 2017, and was docked as Waszczuk v. Regents of the University et al. , Case No. S245508. Waszczuk’s Petition for Review was denied on January 10, 2018, and was followed by the Remittitur, which was issued on January 16, 2018. On March 9 and 19, 2018, by correspondence with the court, Waszczuk asked 3DCA Clerk Anita Kenner to provide him with information about status of the pending

2


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000172

second Waszczuk’s appeal , Case No. C079524 appeal Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board case status Bo, (EXHIBIT #1). On March 20, 2018, almost three years after the Notice of Appeal was originally filed, Ms. Kenner responded to the inquiry: 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. (EXHIBIT #2)

•

Thereafter, Waszczuk never heard a word from the court about his writ of mandate appeal. The writ of mandate appeal should have been concluded long before the 3DCA issued its October 10, 2017, Unpublished Opinion in the a nti-SLAPP motion. Said opinion shamelessly praised Douglas Stein as transparent and diligent; however, at the time, the State Bar of California was prosecuting Stein for gross misconduct. This prosecution was affirmed by the Supreme Court on March 1, 2018, in Supreme Court Case No. S245982, Re: Stein on Discipline. On June 7, 2018, the trial court denied Waszczuk’s continuance of the court hearing to August 23, 2018, or until the 3DCA finally resolved the writ of mandate appeal in this case (EXHIBIT #3). On July 16, 2018, Waszczuk sent correspondence to the Sacramento County Superior Court Clerk, Department 53, Hon. David Brown. Waszczuk submitted the Plaintiff’s Disapproval of Defendants’ Proposed Order and Judgment, which should have been submitted by Defendants’ counsel David Burkett on June 26, 2018 (EXHIBIT #4). Defendant’s counsel was mandated to do so by California Court Rule 3.21312 (b). On July 16, 2018, Waszczuk submitted his 94-page Plaintiff’s Disproval of the Defendants’ Proposed Order and Judgment. On July 19, 2018, the court denied Waszczuk’s Motion for Reconsideration, which Waszczuk filed on June 18, 2018; the court did not permit oral argument (EXHIBIT #5). 3


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000173

Plaintiff’s Disapproval of the Defendants’ Proposed Order addressed in detail the terror that Waszczuk experienced and witnessed between 2011 and 2012 in his place of employment, the UC Davis Medical Center. The order described various incidents that victimized both Waszczuk and his coworkers. Additionally, in December 2012, Waszczuk’s psychologist, Dr. Franklin Bernhoft, and Bernhoft’s family from Lodi became the target of coordinated attacks lead by UC Office of the President Senior Vice President Dan Dooley, the husband of California Governor Jerry Brown’s chief legal secretary or chief of staff. Diana Dooley was appointed in May 2018, and she is behind the attacks on Dr. Bernhoft’s wife. Such attacks were unsuccessful attempts to provoke and harm Dr. Bernhoft. Plaintiff’s Disapproval of the Defendants’ Proposed Order also addressed the suicide of UC Davis Medical Center employee Todd Georlich. Sadly, Georlich committed suicide in December 2010, and the incident triggered massive witch hunts against Waszczuk, his coworkers, and anyone who was associated with Waszczuk including Waszczuk’s physician and psychologist. These witch hunts resulted in Waszczuk’s termination of employment in December 2012. Waszczuk’s subsequent losses in income, benefits, and property have exceeded $1,000,000. Waszczuk is quite certain and sure that Judge Chang and her friend Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Marilyn Tays who denied Waszczuk’s unemployment benefits have great knowledge regarding the subject. On February 13, 2013, ALJ Tays presided over Waszczuk’s CUIAB hearing. When Waszczuk with witnesses arrived in the CUIAB office, we watched ALJ Tays pace nervously in the hearing room; she was visible through big glass windows that separated the waiting room from the hearing room. Once the hearing began, she did her best to silence my witness Kenny Diede when he attempted to cite Georlich’s suicide as an example of hostility within the UCDMC. ALJ Tays flipped on Kenny Diede and shouted, “All right, I guess he is not here .” Thus, ended Waszczuk’s witness’s testimony about hostility within the

UCDMC. Additionally, ALJ Tays prevented another witness, William Buckans, from testifying 4


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000174

at all; Buckans worked in the plant with Georlich from April 2007 until Georlich’s death in December 2010. ALJ Tays was so belligerent and hostile toward witnesses that Waszczuk struggled to argue against her. Wasszczuk’s witnesses reported feeling very uncomfortable in Tays’s presence and with her bizarre, disrespectful, completely unwarranted behavior. For a long time, we could not figure out what prompted her to act in such an aggressive and unprofessional manner. All facts are pointing to the direction of two C UIAB board members Michael Allen ,especially Roy Ashburn who knows details about Georlich’s life and his suicide. Both members were assigned to review the appeal that Waszczuk filed against ALJ Tays’s decision, which she handed down the day after the hearing on February 13, 2013. After serving in the Assembly, Allen was appointed to the CUIAB by Assembly Speaker John Perez in January 2013. It happened one month before Waszczuk hearing with ALJ Tays in CUIAB office in Stockton. Three years earlier on March 3, 2010, Ashburn, who denied Waszczuk 's

unemployment benefits, was arrested on suspicion of d runk driving; at the time of

the infraction, he was operating a vehicle owned by the State of California. The senator was pulled over in Sacramento by the California Highway Patrol shortly before 2:00 a.m. Sources claim that he was leaving a gay nightclub, Faces, in the Lavender Hill neighborhood and that he was accompanied by an unidentified male passenger. Ashburn was driving a state-owned Chevy Tahoe. Ashburn’s blood alcohol content was measured at 0.14%. The arrest “launched nationwide speculation that the veteran lawmaker is gay and therefore a h ypocrite for voting against gay-rights bills.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Ashburn

This occurred a few months before Georlich’s suicide. Hopefully, the FBI will reveal the identity of the male passenger in Ashburn’s state-owned Chevy and find out whether it was UCDMC 27 MMW cogeneration operator Todd Goerlich who hang himself few month later. . Most likely the UC Davis Chief of Police Joseph A. Farrow knows all details about Senator Ashburn arrest and who was the passenger in Ashburn’s state -owned Chevy. 5


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000175

Joseph A. Farrow served as the commissioner of the California Highway Patrol from 2008 under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and current Gov. Jerry Brown https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/joseph-farrow-takes-post-uc-davis-police-chief/ Mr. Farrow was hired by UC President Janet Napolitano in 2017 and he succeeds Matt Carmichael, who served as police chief for four years and was disposed by Napolitano in September 2016. Lt. Jennifer Garcia served as interim chief of police since following Carmichael's moving to University of Oregon. Chief Carmichael and Lt. Jennifer Garcia actively participated in despicable witch hunt against Waszczuk

in 2011-2012 .

On July 10, 2013, I submitted a copy of the complaints against Tays, Allen, and Ashburn to State of California Assembly Speaker Perez with a short cover letter. Waszczuk has no any doubt that Perez, who became a member of the UC Board of Regents in November 2014, knows details about Georlich’s suicide as well. It is a great possibility that Perez was associated

himself

with Georlich. In 2013 Waszczuk sent an inquiry to Speaker Perez

about CUIAB board members Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn . Perez in his response redirected Waszczuk for unknown reason to California Assemblyman Richard Pan (EXHIBIT # 6) Recently, on June 26, 2018, Waszczuk sent the inquiry to California Senator Galgiani and

her

asked to schedule an appointment with her. In 2016 Senator Galgiani supposed to help Waszczuk

find out what happened to Waszczuk's complaint with State Bar of California

against his dismissed attorney Douglas Stein . (ATTACHMENT # 7) From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 2:27 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: 'Senator Galgiani' Subject: RE: Thank You For Contacting Senator Galgiani Dear Ms . Myers Would you please schedule for me face to face an appointment with Senator Galgiani. I need to talk to Senator Galgiani if possible . She knows the LGBT environment and I need to talk to her. I appreciate 6


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000176

Thank you Jerry Waszczuk 209-663-2977 From: Senator Galgiani > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:33 AM To: Jaroslaw Waszczuk > Subject: Thank You For Contacting Senator Galgiani Thank you for your message. I truly appreciate that you have taken time to communicate your concerns and opinions regarding matters before the California State Legislature to me. As your elected representative in the California State Senate, it is essential that I know the views of my constituents. co nstituents. Due to the large volume of e-mails I receive, I am unable to respond personally to each one. However, please be assured that your concerns will be reviewed by my staff. To schedule an appointment or invite me to attend an event, please email your request to [email protected] or by fax to 916-651-4905. If you are seeking assistance resolving an issue with a state government agency, please call my Stockton District Office at 209-948-7930 or Modesto District Office 209-576-6273.

If you would like provide feedback feedba ck on specific Legislation or issues click here click here and fill out the form. Again, thank you for your e-mail. It is an honor to represent you in the State Senate. Sincerely, Cathleen Galgiani Senator, 5th District So far, no response from Senator Galgiani office about face to face appointment. Senator Galgiani is one of eight openly op enly gay legislators serving in the California legislature; she is familiar with the LGBT community and Todd Georlich’s name . 7


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000177

Senator Galgiani served Congressman Garamendi during his tenu re as California Insurance Commissioner; Congressman Garamendi was a close friend of former UC Davis Chancellor Vanderhoef, who was forced to resign from his position in 2009 because he and his best friend UC Davis Symphony Orchestra Conductor Kern Holoman were most likely blackmailed by Danny Gray. UC Davis employee Gray is gay. Allegedly, Holoman raped Gray when he was a UC Davis student, and later he was sued su ed by UC Davis gay ga y employee Edith Cartwright in Federal Court in the sexual harassment and wrongful termination lawsuit. . https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/ucd/uc-davis-administrator-levels-sexual-assaultcharges-against-emeritus-professor/ Furthermore, Congressman Garamendi is from Mokelumne Hills, California, which is also the home of UCDMC plant manager Steve McGrath. M cGrath. After McGrath’s wife, an RN from Jackson Hospital, committed suicide, McGrath brought Georlich in April 2007 to UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant as a my replacement replac ement . This was shortly after I was subjected to a witch hunt perpetrated by UCOP gangsters; on Chancellor Vanderhoef’s order and Waszczuk was abruptly removed from the plant and reassigned to the UCDMC HVAC shop. Waszczuk didn’t work there long before being attacked in a second witch hunt began April 2011 that was meant to permanently erase him. In December 2010, the plant crew received a 14% pay raise to keep quiet about Georlich’s suicide. McGrath most likely knows Porter Scott atto rney David Burkett. Both Burkett and McGrath are endurance bicyclist in Triple Crowns Bicycle Raids competition. Burkett most likely participated together with Cori Dutra from California Social Services in preparation to provoke and harm Lodi psychologists Dr. Franklin Bernhoft in January 2012, Burkett represents UC Regents in against Waszczuk in his wrongful termination lawsuit and on the appeal in unresolved 3DCA Case C079254 Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) . Ashante Norton from California Attorney General office represents

CUIAB on the appeal and she most likely knows everything about Todd Goerlich life, employment with UC Davis Medical Center and who and why pushed Georlich G eorlich to suicide . I could draw a chart detailing how h ow the California political swamp relates to the corrupt UCOP crime family that has been run by b y “Godmother” Janet Napolitano for the last five years. 8


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000178

In addition to replacing the deposed UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael with former California CHP Commissioner Joseph Farrow, Napolitano hired a former U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, 2002–2011: Alexander A. Bustamante. When Locally Designated Officer and Senior Vice-President (SVP) Dan Dooley was deposed or quit in 2014 and andUCOP UCOP Chief Compliance and Audit Officer SVP Sheryl Vacca left the UCOP in 2016, Napolitano, in her distrust of replacing Vacca with an outsider, b rought John Lohse back from retirement as an interim replacement. Most likely, John Lohse is Napolitano’s old friend from Arizona. Th ey even graduated from Santa Clara University a few years apart. John Lohse was recruited by the UCOP organized crime in 2004. He came to the UC system in January 2004 after a career with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, where he served as a spe cial agent, associate division counsel, and chief division counsel for the FBI’s San Francisco Division. He has also served as a criminal prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix, Arizona. John Lohse is a member of the bar in California and Arizona. Lohse resurfaced and joined the witch hunt against me in May 2012 in relation to Todd Georlich’s suicide and tens of millions of dollars of tax evasion due to illegal megawatts being laundered from the UC David Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant, where I was employed from June 1999 to April 2007. In my response to Lohse’s letter dated May Ma y 14, 2012, I wrote: I am very impressed with your professional background and your career with law enforcement. When I read the Association of Workplace Investigators webpage, I said to myself, “This guy with such an impressive career and connections is the perfect guy to frame me.” A few days later on May 31, 2012, my employment emplo yment with the University of California almost ended in UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11. Napolitano then replaced Lohse with a former U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, California, 2002–2011, Alexander A. Bustamante. Mr. Bustamante, besides his his impressive career with the U.S. Federal Government as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California from 2002 to 2011, 2011, has also served since 2011 as the inspector general for the Los Angeles P olice 9


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000179

Department. As such, I believe that Mr. Bustamante is very familiar with the Kroll’s Report and the November 18, 2011 paper spray provocation at the UC Davis Campus, which was crafted by the order of UCOP SVP gangster Dan Dooley and carried out by UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown to remove Chancellor Katehi, UCPD Chief Annette Spicuzza, Lt . John Pike, and Captain Joyce Souza from their posts. Assembly Speaker John Perez’s (today UC Regent) involvement in hiring former LA Police Chief William Bratton to investigate the provocation was not coincidental. Mr. Bratton was misled regarding what the November 18, 2011 pepper spray provocation was about and why was carried out . The March-August 2016 witch hunt against Chancellor Katehi orchestrated by Janet Napolitano and carried out by two former U.S. Attorneys, McGregor Scott and Melinda Haag, for a price of $1,000,0000, did not go as well as anticipated, and Linda Katehi is still around. In my latest inquiry to the FBI and U.S. Homeland Security Department to protect my family and myself from the UCOP gangsters, I wrote: After looking at Haag’s and Scott’s fame and outstanding performances in prosecuting terrorists from Al Qaeda and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in 2016, I prayed for Chancellor Katehi and her family, especially after discovering that she had associated herself with the Saudi Arabian University of King Abdulaziz in Jeddah by serving as a university board member. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. I thought that Haag and Scott, who were paid $1 million by Napolitano, would make Chancellor Katehi an enemy combatant and that Napolitano would send Chancellor Katehi to Guantanamo Bay. A million dollars is a lot of money to spend in three months to convert Katehi from UC Davis chancellor to UC Davis chancellor emerita. Napolitano is a reckless, dangerous, and merciless individual, and her method of using public funds to deal with her personal adversaries resembles the tactics of the Soviet Union’s Stalin-era NKVD secret police. I was baffled as to why two former U.S. prosecutors agreed to participate in her witch hunt against Katehi. Even a million-dollar price tag on Katehi’s head and Napolitano’s former position as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security should not have motivated decent people to commit such underhanded crimes. The witch hunt against Katehi was timed perfectly not only with Senator Yee’s sentencing in federal court and his departure to prison but also with the incoming August 2016 criminal trial of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for the natural gas line explosion in San Bruno, California, in September 2010. PG&E was brought to trial following UC Davis Chancellor Eme ritus 10


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000180

Vanderhoef’s death. After his resignation from the UC Davis chancellor position in August 2009 and his subsequent one-year sabbatical, Vanderhoef resurfaced in September 2010 as the chair of the CAPUC’s independent review panel investigating the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion caused by gas leaks from a pipeline maintained by PG&E. When the pipeline exploded, it killed 8 people, injured 50 people, and demolished 37 houses. The charges against PG&E were filed by Haag just four days after the FBI arrested Yee on March 26, 2014. Former Chancellor Vanderhoef had a lot of information about this explosion and might have shared it with Katehi. Vanderhoef and Yee would have been very inconvenient and unwelcome witnesses for federal prosecutors and for Haag’s friends in the PG&E trial, in which millions of dollars were at stake. Before the trial even began, the potential $500-million settlement for the San Bruno victims was reduced to $3 million by Haag’s friends from the U.S. Attorney’s Office. UC Davis Chancellors Vanderhoef and Katehi were brought to FBI attention because they were my chancellors from June 1999 to December 2012. Chancellor Vanderhoef was ordered to sign my 2009 Settlement Agreement on behalf of the UC Regents. This Settlement Agreement was trashed by UCOP bandits between April 2011 and December 2012 when Chancellor Katehi was in office and when I was disposed of like a piece of garbage.

That the way Godmother Napolitano and her friends guard from investigation and prosecution the most corrupt public entity in California . I hope that the FBI office will have no problem determining these connections even without my chart. Waszczuk hope that the FBI office discovers who pushed Georlich to suicide and why. Why Waszczuk and others have to pay the enormous price for gays prostitution ring in the University of California, California legislature and California government and for Todd Georlich’s suicide whom Waszczuk never knew and never met. ? The puzzle crux of this case is to find out to whom Georlich was connected from the California political swamp before Georlich took his life in December 2010. After trial Court denied Waszczuk Motion for Reconsideration on J uly 19, 2018 and not permitted oral argument to Waszczuk than Waszczuk asked Federal Bureau of Investigation to solve the puzzle of the Tod Georlich’ suicide . Furthermore Waszczuk asked FBI for protection from further deprivation of Waszczuk’s rights under color of law and violation of his civil and 11


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000181

human rights and to prevent further provocative attack and hostile behavior of Porter Scott’s attorneys in the Court’s building as it happened on February 27, 2015 prior the Court Hearing with Judge Shelleyan Chang in Sacramento County Superior Court and in the 3DCA on August 28, 2017 just after the oral argument in Case C079524 . . Waszczuk informed the 3DCA Court about Porter Scott’s attorney David Burkett’s hostility in his Petition for Rehearing filed in 3DCA on 10/25/2017.

•

“After just 15 minutes of oral argument, the Defend ants legal counsel David Burkett from the Sacramento-based law firm Porter Scott approached Waszcz uk 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 Waszcz uk was stressed due to financial hardship caused by his client’s criminal behavior; he thou ght 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 despe rate 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.”

Most likely no one of 3DCA Justices ever seen or read Waszczuk ‘s Petition for Rehearing .. II CONCLUSION

Waszczuk is being treated unfairly and unlawfully, and the legal process is being endlessly delayed by the court staff (see

EXHIBIT #8:

Waszczuk’s Motion to Deny

Regents’ Counsel David Burkett the Extension of Time to File Respondent’s Brief, which 12


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000182

was due on August 22, 2016). The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution provides that no state “shall . . . deny any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Similarly, the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, provides that “a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Due process “principally serves to protect the personal rights of litigants to a full and fair hearing” ( Miller v. French (2000) 530 U.S. 327). The constitutional “right to due process is a personal one” (Jones v. Omnitrans (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 273). The right to due process is not merely afforded to a person in a trial court but also pervades to all levels of the courts.

For the above reasons and because of Waszczuk’s deteriorating health and medical conditions, Waszczuk is appealing to 3DCA Presiding Justice Honorable Vance Raye to issue the order to place Waszczuk’s appeal on the court calendar as soon as possible. Waszczuk requests that Judge Raye permit and schedule oral argument in order to afford Waszczuk an opportunity to present and discuss the matter. Waszczuk’s Motion to Recall Remittitur and Reinstate the Appeal in the Case No. C079524, Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et al. , will follow. The Waszczuk ‘s Motion to Recall Remittitur and Reinstate the Appeal in the Case C079524 Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et, al will follow .

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my review of the record filed in this matter. Dated : August 6, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

By:

_ Jaroslaw Waszczuk Plaintiff & Appellant In Pro Per

13


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000183

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NUMBER I.

NAME

PAGE NUMBER

THE REQUEST ……………………………………………………………...………………...……….1- 13

II. III.

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 13-14 EXHIBITS ...................................................................................................................... 16

PROOF OF SERVICE

14


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000184

III.

NUMBER

EXHIBITS

NAME

PAGE NUMBER

1.

March 9 & 19, 2018 by correspondence with Court Clerk Ms. Anita Kenner ......... 2

2.

March 20, 2018 Court Clerk Anita Kenner’s response to Waszczuk inquiry ................... 2

3.

June 7, 2018 Sacramento County Superior Court Order ................................................... 3

4.

July 16, 2018 Waszczuk correspondence submitted to Sacramento County Superior Court with Plaintiff’s Disapproval of the Defendants Proposed Order and Judgement ….3

5.

June 18, 2018 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and the Superior Court Order date July 19, 2018… .................................................. ................................................................. 3

6.

2013 Waszczuk sent an inquiry sent to the California Assembly Speaker John Perez about CUIAB’s board members Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn .................................... 5

7.

September 2016 inquiry Waszczuk sent to California Senator Cathleen Galigiani about his complaint with State Bar of California against attorney Douglas Stein ........................ 6

8.

August 19, 2016 Waszczuk Motion to Deny UC attorney David Burkett extension of time to file Brief .

15


Case No.15-O-10110- LMA-000185

Request for Reibmursment-Attorney Douglas Stein, SB #131248

Recommend Documents