Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11


k* **
i! A1 iy

t o
. -.
r •

-- ---

7 \ .
.-.. o(
- - ' : '-
-t Tt$ :i '

• 1
I \ ( '
:. .• . 'J fn'• . ,- - -
E •4g' . fD• ' —

:.! I •4 4 : 53,
t,- j : • ,
; c •N I-
, c) .4
t .

r- •<t
..pr 0


1 •
-jJ .

}-SI-'• Ø
-. -
.-J '-J - :.
r : :- : .• w

•h1 Sa : l
. -
... ,. 0. d A F Z
. -t- -
• 0 4 .-.
, • Uo ,
.- p-I. •

c: p + t4 •

0' 1tc+tn
-. p.


OO( •
0 .

-. t)o

D .

2. (fl qç
(Di) ( f
• . ,— -
i z-kI-
• r) u.n

1 c+DD
'< rI
o e-
--- -c

CA v
.T1 z

flll fH g 2fl
;••c 9 ;8•
•cyn, tim
C3 3
9L ;.t1 ...
2 c23• c1

- cr
5. z :C .

50 !i ' J>
tve tp Lo rT1 c3cZ , : CC

35 h! P C1 Cl)

thu lii !E11t !

1 Ill
-'-- -L

h 1

* IILi ~.A

m w
0 11
3 O


On October 10, 2017, the State of California Court of Appeal Third Appellate District
(3DCA) issued an unpublished opinion affirming the Sacramento County Superior Court
judgement dated April 12, 2015, in the special motion to strike filed on December 1,
2014, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP). Sacramento
County Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents
of the University of California, 3DCA Case C097524, concerns the wrongful termination
of Jaroslaw Waszczuk.

The anti-SLAPP motion was filed December 1, 2014, by the five UC Davis Health
System (UCDHS) employees named as defendants in the lawsuit: Danesha Nichols, JD,
UCDHS Human Resources Investigator and Consultant; Brent Seifert, JD, UCDHS
Human Resources Labor Relations Supervisor; Cindy Oropeza, UCDHS Human
Resources Benefits and Equal Employment Opportunity Manager; Stephen Chilcott, JD,
UCDHS Human Resources Executive Director and the superior of Nichols, Seifert, and
Oropeza; and Mike Boyd, UCDHS Facilities Executive Director.

In their anti-SLAPP motion, the defendants claimed that their activities and duties while
they were investigating my first four causes of action in the lawsuit and acting as hearing
officers in the employee complaints concerning various UC Davis policies and
procedures were protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

After this anti-SLAPP motion brought against me by these UC Davis employees was
pending for three years, both the Superior Court and appellate courts grossly
discriminated against me as plaintiff and appellant by deny me the same rights under the
First Amendment of United States that they granted to the five defendants. As a former
employee of UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), I was providing representation and
assistance for other UCDMC employees; I participated as an official representative in
hearings with compliance resolution officers (CROs). The last hearing in which I
represented a UCDMC employee in a “Does not Meet Expectation” evaluation took place
on December 5, 2013—exactly one year after termination of employment with the
UCDMC. The presiding CRO at the hearing was UCDHS Executive Director Mike Boyd,
who terminated my employment. The hearing was pleasant, and Director Boyd changed
the degrading “Does not Meet Expectation” evaluation to “Meets Expectation.” My
activities as representative were protected by the First Amendment; however, the judge
from the Superior Court and the justice from the Court of Appeal did not appreciate my
efforts. The 3DCA unpublished opinion was discriminatory, demeaning, and degrading—
far more than the one my coworker’s evaluation he received from his manager in the UC
Davis HVAC Shop. In their unpublished opinion, the 3DCA used my mistake of not
citing the record against me as plaintiff and appellant. The 3DCA stated that:

Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his failure to
cite to the record, and 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.

In fact it is not plaintiff’s by defendant’s brief was completely stricken by

the court.
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

The second 3DCA opinion praised my former attorney as diligent and transparent. I
dismissed my attorney in December 2014 for gross misconduct, misrepresentation,
conspiring with the defendants, and colluding against me with the judge he’d known for
more than 20 years. While the 3DCA was writing the unpublished opinion in this case,
my dismissed attorney was being prosecuted by the State Bar of California; his license to
practice was suspended for failure to pay child support and State Bar fees. Due to the
court’s three-year delay in deciding the motion and my related unemployment since
December 2012, his conspiracy with the defense attorneys and collusion with the superior
court judge caused me immense suffering and financial disaster.

On October 25, 2017, in response to the 3DCA unpublished opinion, I filed a 50-page
petition for rehearing. The petition and attached 3DCA opinion are enclosed.

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

“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.

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
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
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.
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 the UC Regents signed a Settlement
Agreement with the employee giving him an engineering title.

Third Cause Of Action [Harassment and Failure to Prevent Harassment,

Discrimination, Retaliation: Government Code §
12940 (A)]
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 Court House , 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.

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.”

These attacks show the University of California white collar criminals evil. It is a pattern
of behavior and continuance what was happening to Waszczuk in the time period of
January 2007 to December 2012 when Waszczuk was employed by the UC Davis
Medical Center.