Does UC Davis’ Whistleblower System Work?

whitleblowerLast month, a jury awarded former UC Davis Health Systems employee Janet Keyzer $730,000 after she sued several years ago, alleging that she had been retaliated against and ultimately terminated because she complained to her supervisor and the UC Davis Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) that the COPE (Community Oriented Pain-management Exchange) project management did not comply with the IRB approval process before implementing human subject research activities on prisoners at San Quentin.

The jury ruled that the Regents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the termination would have occurred for legitimate and independent reasons even if Ms. Keyzer had not engaged in the protected disclosures.

This leads us to the question – did UC Davis’ whistleblower protection system fail in this case and is that a sign of an endemic problem?

University of California Whistleblower Policy

The Vanguard spoke to Wendi Delmendo who oversees investigations into whistleblower retaliation.

According to the UC policy on whistleblower protections, “The university is committed to protecting individuals who file complaints or who attempt to file complaints about protected activities.”

When an individual feels that these rights have been violated, they can file a complaint with a locally designated official – on the UC Davis campus, that is Wendi Delmendo herself. They can file the complaint with their supervisor. Or they can file the complaint through some sort of formal grievance process.

Ms. Delmendo explained that once she gets the complaint, her role is to review the complaint to make sure it’s timely. Employees have one year to file their complaint from the time that the alleged retaliation occurred. “They also need to set forth that they engaged in protected activity and provide some facts around the retaliatory action and why they believe they were retaliated against,” she explained.

At that point, they move forward with an investigation. Ms. Delmendo told the Vanguard that typically she will assign the investigation to one of her two staff members for investigation. There are also times when they use outside investigators to investigate the complaints. Typically those are performed by outside law firms, however, when faculty members are the ones accused of retaliation, a faculty member is required by the academic senate to be part of the investigation.

“For the majority of the elements of a retaliation complaint, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence,” Ms. Delmendo explained. They would look at whether the complainant made a protected disclosure, whether there was an adverse action that they experienced, whether there was a connection between the adverse action and their protected activity and the review would be focused on the preponderance of the evidence.

However, the accused could make the claim that there was a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the action and the standard for that showing is clear and convincing evidence. At that point the burden of proof shifts to the university to “show that adverse action had occurred independent of the employee’s engagement in a protective disclosure.”

Clear and convincing evidence represents a higher standard of proof than preponderance, which simply represents a level of proof that is more likely than not.

“Even though it’s a higher standard of proof, we would be looking for clear evidence from management to support these reasons,” she said.

Wendi Delmendo believes that they have about seven to ten of these sorts of complaints a year. The Vanguard did a public records request on the number of whistleblower retaliation complaints, the results of the investigation, and whether they went to litigation.

The results show that Ms. Delmendo’s estimate was largely accurate. In 2007 there were 10 complaints – none of them substantiated. In 2008 there were nine, one of which was partially substantiated. In 2009, there were seven, one substantiated and one handled through the grievance process.

In 2010, there were seven, and none were substantiated. In 2011, there were four, none were substantiated. In 2012, there were five, none were substantiated. In 2013 and 2014, many remain in progress, and one was partially substantiated.

Many of these complaints either involve the UC Davis Health System or the UC Davis Medical Center.

But these numbers do not tell the whole story. Perhaps the system’s ineffectiveness or perceived bias prevents legitimate complaints from going forward. Perhaps the system is rigged to result in an unsubstantiated finding.

Michele McCuen from the Office of Campus Counsel told the Vanguard, “There is only one case that has resulted in a lawsuit (UC Davis Health System – Center for Healthcare Policy and Research).  To date, we have spent $341,915 on that matter.”

She added, “There was one instance where an employee did not elect or participate in our internal processes for reporting whistleblower retaliation, but did pursue litigation for retaliation.  Since this instance was not reported to us, allowing us the opportunity to investigate (and therefore become a ‘case’ as you refer in your request), it is not included in the spreadsheet.”

The Keyzer Case

In a statement from the university, they explained, “Ms. Keyzer filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint under the University of California Whistleblower Protection Policy. The University’s internal investigation was conducted by a UC Davis School of Law faculty member and a member of the Academic Personnel Office, both of whom were unaffiliated with the research project and the Center.”

“The investigation found that Ms. Keyzer was not retaliated against, but found that Ms. Keyzer should have been provided continuing preferential reemployment rights notwithstanding her refusal to accept the Analyst VII position,” the statement noted. “As a remedy, Ms. Keyzer was granted a severance package and preferential reemployment rights for two years. Ms. Keyzer did not pursue preferential reemployment rights. On September 18, 2009, Ms. Keyzer filed a lawsuit alleging whistleblower retaliation.”

The attorneys for Ms. Keyzer disagree, as they note that she was offered a non-career path position.

The university provided a timeline for the Keyzer case but was unable to directly comment on it. The Vanguard, however, received a copy of the deposition of Beth De Lima from February 19, 2014.

Ms. De Lima is the president and principal of HRM Consulting, and a nationally certified Senior Professional in HR. She was the defense expert on the case and she sits on the Employee Health, Safety, and Security Special Expertise Panel and is a certified mediator through the UC Berkeley Extension program.

As a senior consultant, she explained, “I deal with the complex challenges, writing the policies and the procedures, managing — setting up and helping organizations implement integrated medical leave management policies with ADA, FMLA, workers’ comp, those issues.”

She said they assist people in terminations and do management and supervisory training.

In her testimony she explained, “In HR industry standards of care there’s some criteria that you start with when you start an investigation. One of them is to make sure that the parties that are involved in the investigation perceive the person who is investigating as an unbiased investigator.”

She noted, “As it relates specifically to this particular investigation, based on the documentation that I read and the documents that I looked at, Ms. Pruitt readily admitted that she didn’t have any training in terms of how to do investigations and attended less than, I think not even a quarter, barely a quarter of the actual interviews.” Despite this, she was considered the primary investigator.

She also noted that the report regarding the retaliation was written by someone who did not sign it. “So we’ve got an investigation report that has somebody else’s signature on it. So it’s hard for me to have an opinion that the report was adequate when the person who signed it did not write it,” she explained.

She asserts, “The investigator is not really the one doing the investigation, in my opinion that’s not meeting HR industry standards of care.” She adds, “Your standard operating procedure of implementing that policy requires the lead investigator to be responsible for doing the investigation, in this case I didn’t see that occur.”

Attorney for Ms. Keyzer, Lawrence Bohm, in a phone interview with the Vanguard, said, “There were too many high level leadership people who had no explanation for why things turned out the way they did.”

He explained that the university’s position “ended up being very confused by contradictory statements amongst their own people.”

“They seemed to constantly contradict themselves,” he added.

Most interesting, however, was his assessment of the university’s whistleblower process.

Lawrence Bohm told the Vanguard, “I think you can say that their whistleblower protection did not work. The reason that it did not work is that in their world they take a person’s word for it.”

If they ask an employee if they did this and the answer is no, that is the end of the discussion, he added.

“I think they appropriately investigated their complaints,” he explained. “They’re not trying to prove she is correct. That’s not their job. Their job is to find out if people on their side are even trying to have a defense.”

“If someone really wants to do something bad to somebody, as long as they never admit it and they make up some other reason, the university itself, that’s all they report” is the denial, Mr. Bohm stated. “Therefore there was no evidence to conclude that this thing was improper.”

The difference between the university investigation and the jury trial, Mr. Bohm argued, is that “the jury weighs the credibility of witnesses.” He added, “The jury gets to decide if that was really a truthful denial.”

UCD spokesman Andy Fell told the Vanguard, “I think we do take these things very seriously. There is a detailed process both for the original whistleblower complaint and also for their retaliation complaint.”

He added, “We did do a whistleblower investigation as conducted by a faculty member from the School of Law working with academic personnel – that internal investigation concluded that there wasn’t a retaliation.”

“I think one thing we’ll be looking at in general is how the internal investigation came to a different conclusion from the jury,” he added.

“Good governance demands that people stand up to wrong-doing,” stated Mary-Alice Coleman, also an attorney for Ms. Keyzer. “In this case, Janet Keyzer stood up to a powerful and influential multi-billion dollar organization – the Regents of the University of California — to protect not only those who are unable to protect themselves, but also to protect the best interests of the UC system, and the integrity of its research efforts.”

This case is one of the first cases to be successfully tried to a verdict on behalf of a University employee under the revised California Whistleblower Protection Act, Government Code section 8547.10.

“Nobody ever took responsibility,” Lawrence Bohm said. “Nobody was even disciplined because of this incident with the improper research. At least it should have been a mark on somebody’s record.”

The only person disciplined was the lead investigator.

“You have four or five people doing illegal stuff, I’m not saying they all need to be fired, but you need to recognize that four or five people failed, not just one,” Mr. Bohm added.

Ultimately, he believes there will be no consequences for this other than this verdict.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

For more details on the case and the verdict go here.

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

9 thoughts on “Does UC Davis’ Whistleblower System Work?”

  1. Jerry Waszczuk

    http://www.davisvanguard.org/political-refugee-from-poland-files-whistleblower-retaliation-case-against-uc-davis/
    Case Title
    Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
    Case Number:34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
    Case Type:Wrongful Termination :Filed Date 12/04/2013 ,Case Category:Civil – Unlimited
    Case Title

    Jarsolaw jerry Waszczuk vs. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB)

    Case Number: 34-2013-80001699-CU-WM-GDS
    Case Type:Writ of Mandate

    Filed Date:12/02/2013 , Case Category:Civil – Unlimited

    *********************************************************************************************************************************************
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

    OFFICE OF THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT -¬EXTERNAL RELATIONS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 1111 Franklin Street
    Oakland, California 94607-5200

    September 10, 2014
    Jaroslaw Waszczuk 2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95240
    Re: Your Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
    In my role as the Locally Designated Official (LDO) for the University of California System, I have carefully reviewed the investigation report prepared by Judith Rosenberg, who investigated your allegations of whistleblower retaliation under the University’s Whistleblower Protection Policy. While Ms. Rosenberg found that you had made protected disclosures under the Whistleblower Policy, she concluded that the preponderance of the evidence did not substantiate your allegation that your protected disclosures were a contributing factor in the University’s decision to suspend you without pay from May 16 to May 30, 2012, or in the University’s subsequent decision to terminate your employment. She further concluded that the University’s decision to place you on investigatory leave and the California Employment Development Department’s denial of unemployment benefits did not constitute adverse employment actions.
    I agree with Ms. Rosenberg’s analysis and conclusions. In light of the foregoing, it is my decision that you have failed to meet your burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that you were subjected to an adverse employment action as a result of engaging in conduct protected by the Whistleblower Protection Policy. I am therefore closing the University’s file with regard to your complaint.
    Thank you for cooperating with the University’s investigation.

    Daniel M. Dooley Senior Vice President
    Locally Designated Official

    cc: Senior Vice President Vacca
    Chief Compliance Officer Delmendo
    ******************************************************************************************************************************
    Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk.
    2216 Katzaldan Way
    Lodi, CA 95242
    Phone: 209-339-1982
    Cell: 209-663-2977
    Fax: 209-247-1089
    E-mail: ucdmclaborchat@comcast.net

    March 7, 2013

    The Honorable Ralph J. Hexter
    Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
    Mrak Hall, Fifth Floor
    University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue
    Davis, CA 95616

    Re: Retaliation and Interference Complaint

    Dear Vice Chancellor Hexter,

    Enclosed is a copy of my Retaliation and Interference Complaint against certain individuals who are managing UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, California where I was employed for over thirteen years and where my employment was abruptly and without valid and legitimate reason terminated on December 7, 2012.
    In addition to the managing officers at the UC Davis Medical Center who are included in the complaint, UC Davis Chief of Police, Matt Carmichael, and his subordinate, Lieutenant James Barbour, are included in the complaint for alleged act(s) of provocation and conspiracy with other individuals listed in the complaint in an attempt to murder me on May 31, 2012 or send me to the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit in a state of extreme harm.
    It is very disturbing and also unthinkable that UC Davis leaders should use the UC Davis Police Force to resolve labor relations disputes with employees who are making complaints. The original Retaliation and Interference Complaint included approximately 1500 pages of documents and photos that I sent to your office yesterday by U.S. Certified mail.
    I would like to inform you that I am representing myself in this matter until such time as I decide to hire an attorney at law.
    If you have any questions or concerns, the University Of California Legal Counsel or other investigators may contact me at their convenience in the event that you decide to review the complaint and investigate tie allegations.

    CC: UCDMC Principal; HR Labor Relations Consultant,’ Gina Harwood; UC President, Mark Yudof; UC Regents Office; UC Davis Chancellor, Linda Katehi

  2. Miwok

    Ms Keyzer is one of the winners among a host of losers with the UC system. They still cover themselves with glory while covering up policy and legal violations.

    While they revise the Whistle blower Retaliation system every ten or fifteen years, they largely fight every complaint even if it is justified and correct. The violators are usually management and supervisors/faculty who are never disciplined or arrested or fired. This includes sex crimes, thievery, and mismanagement.

    It has always been strange when a Major University has something pointed out to make them better and they fight it, and try to remove the person who points it out while keeping the thief or incompetent.

  3. Jerry Waszczuk

    Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
    2216 Katzakian Way
    Lodi, CA 95240
    Phone: 209-339-1982/Cell: 209-663-2977
    Fax: 209-247-1089
    Mail: ucdmclaborchat@att.net

    October 14, 2014

    Dan Dooley – Locally Designated Official
    SVP External Relations
    Department: External Relations
    1111 Franklin St., 12th Floor
    Office: 12301
    Oakland, California 94607-5200

    Re: Response to your September 10, 2014 Whistle Blowing Retaliation Complaint Decision- OPEN LETTER
    The complaint was filed with the UC Davis Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor on March 7, 2013.

    Dear Vice President Dooley:

    The decision you have issued after 18 months of investigation is not only outrageous insult to me but is also a total fraud and can’t be accepted. I am running a little late with my response dealing with my health problem, lawsuit against University and providing representation to other University employee.

    I don’t have any details of Ms. Judith Rosenberg’s investigation yet, so I will refrain from any allegations about why this insulting and fraudulent decision was sent to me from the office of the University of California’s Senior Vice President. I don’t know at this point whether the decision was made base on Ms. Rosenberg’s investigation or my case was forgotten then somebody reminded you that eighteen month time limit set by law is running out and you ad hoc fabricated few words to be in compliance set by the CAL. GOV. CODE § 8547.10.

    Your decision is also discriminatory, just like UC Davis Investigators Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert, Cindi Oropeza, Bruce Hupe, Molly Theodossy, Bettie Andreos, and Veronica Busby’s Investigation Reports issued about me and other UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) employees I was helping and am still helping or providing representation with their complaints against UCDMC management retaliation and discrimination.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the decisions of the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, in cooperation with UCDMC HR Management, about my Supplemental Term Disability claim which was denied in fall 2011, leaving me without income.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo’s decision in the Whistle Blowing Complaint issued on March 7, 2012.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the discriminatory and retaliatory notice of intent to suspend dated April 13, 2012 and discriminatory and retaliatory letter of suspension for 10 days without pay dated May 11, 2012. Both documents were signed by UCDMC Plant Operation & Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher, who is UCDMC Director Mike Boyd’s subordinate.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like Skelly Reviewer Michael Pansius’ discriminatory and retaliatory decision issued by him in my wrongful suspension in May 2012. Michael Pansius was a subordinate of UCDMC Executive Director Mike Boyd, who was directly responsible for my suspension and later termination of my employment.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the discriminatory and retaliatory Notice Intent to dismiss dated September 25, 2012 and discriminatory and retaliatory Letter of Employment Termination dated December 5, 2012. The both documents were signed by UCDMC Plant Operation &Maintenance Manager, Charles Witcher who is UCDMC Director Mike Boyd’s subordinate.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the Skelly Reviewer and UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson’s discriminatory and retaliatory decision dated December 3, 2012 for my wrongful termination appeal I filed with his office.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the UC Davis Administration discriminatory and retaliatory request submitted to the State of California Employment Development Department (EDD) after I filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits with EDD after my employment termination in December 2012

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the January 11, 2013 State of California EDD decision based on UC Davis Administration lies and slander.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the February 1, 2013 decision issued by Thomas Rush in my Step I PPSM 70 Appeal  

    Mr. Rush was assigned by HR to review the Appeal Step I from termination of my employment I filed with UCDMC HR under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 provision. Mr. Rush, like Mr. Pansius mentioned above, was a subordinate of UCDMC Executive Director Mike Boyd, who was directly responsible for my suspension and termination of my employment.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the State of California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) Judge Marlin Tay’s February 14, 2013 decision which denied me unemployment insurance benefits on the appeal.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the UCDMC Executive Director Mike Boyd’s, dated May 2, 2013, in the PPSM 70l Step II Appeal I filed from his subordinate Thomas Rush’s decision dated February 1, 2013.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the State of California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) members Michael Allen’s and Roy Ashburn’s May 31, 2013 decision which denied me unemployment insurance benefits on the appeal I filed against CUIAB’s Administrative Judge Marlin Tay’s decision.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the frivolous Joiner in Motion (Demurrer) filed on April 17, 2014 in Count of Sacramento Superior Court by University of California Office of the President four legal counsels, Karen Petrulakis, Margaret Wu, Cynthia Vroom and UCOP Chief Counsel Charles Robinson. Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The frivolous and retaliatory Joiner in Motion (Demurrer) was filed in support the Demurer filed with the court on April 1, 2013 by State of California Attorney General Office legal counsel Ashante Norton who provides legal representation for the CUIAB in this case. The frivolous Demurrer and Joiner in Motion was removed from the court by CUIAB’s legal counsel ‘Ashante Norton on June 9, 2013

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston which two months ago insulted me with an outrageous offer to settle the 2011 Supplemental Term Disability Liberty denial with apparent UCDMC HR department advice and cooperation to make me suffer.

    Your decision is insulting, fraudulent, and discriminatory just like the many retaliatory decisions I came across by providing help and representation to other employees from UCDMC during my courses of employment.

    Your decision is even more despicable, insulting, and discriminatory because it came from highest office of the University of California, thus I expected a little more than half a page of ambiguity and vagueness for 18 months’ investigation, The investigation was not conducted by Gina Harwood or Shawn Hadnot from UCDMC HR office but by the UC Office of the President Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg and this investigation was monitored by UCOP HR Director Joseph Epperson and two UC Senior Vice Presidents, Ms. Sheryl Vacca and yourself.

    No to elaborate any further who else was involved or not involved in this 18 months investigation resulting in one half-page decision written and signed by UC Senior Vice President, I would like ask you two simple questions.

    Has UCOP Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg provided you with my employee performance reviews (evaluations) for the 13 years of my employment with UCDMC?

    Has Rosenberg written in her Final Investigatory Report anything about those evaluations?

    I submit these two questions not only because you have been assigned as UCOP’s Locally Designated Official to oversee the investigation and write the final decision but also because you are the UC Senior Vice President who manages and supervises people in your office. It is my understanding that you, as a manager with that title, have to annually apprise your office staff, such as UC Senior Vice President Sheryl Vacca and UCOP HR Director Joseph Epperson, per UCOP Human Resources Procedure PPSM 23, which states:

    “The UC-PPSM states that each employee shall be appraised in writing at least annually by the employee’s immediate supervisor. However, additional appraisals may be conducted at any time the supervisor, or employee, feels it would be of value.”

    This is very clear and simple. You do not need to be a J.D. Graduate from the McGeorge School of Law at the University of Pacific to understand the language of UC Policies.

    I ask you these two questions about my reviews because I do not think any supervised employee in the University of California can work without being evaluated at least once a year. I believe that you would have no problem agreeing with my statement based on PPSM 23.

    If you disagree with that, I have to know the reason why, and you must provide an answer to me either voluntarily or through deposition.

    The reason for this request is my two evaluations for the two final years of my employment with UCDMC. Either I was fired without being evaluated for the last two years or the evaluations were submitted to HR by my supervisor with my forged signature or without my signature with note that I refused to sign my evaluation.

    My two Employee Performance Reviews for the last two years of employment with UCDMC is the also reason that I am writing this response to your decision. This is also the reason that I am stating in my response that your decision and other decisions I received in the last two years of my employment and after being fired from the job are despicable insults, fraud, discriminatory, malicious, and retaliatory regardless of decisions from UC Davis Management and HR staff or whether decisions were issued by the State of California Offices.

    If I would receive my last two evaluations for years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 and I would get a chance to challenge the evaluations by filing a complaint under UC Davis Policy and Procedure PPSM 70 if I disagree with them than I would not be writing this letter today.

    Suspending me without pay and firing me from the job based on fabricated accusations and allegations in Investigatory Reports fabricated by Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindy Oropeza is not a substitute for my evaluations, letter of expectations, verbal and written warnings, or any part of progressive discipline required by UC Policies to correct the problems with employee performance and behavior.

    In Section 23A the UC Davis PPSM 23 states:
    Note 1—Ongoing Communication. The supervisor and the employee share responsibility for ongoing, timely and productive communication throughout the year. Supervisors must clearly communicate goals and objectives, competency expectations and performance measures. The employee must provide the supervisor with timely information about both successes and challenges in meeting goals and objectives and seeking help when needed (e.g., additional resources necessary to be successful or prioritization of functions and tasks). The supervisor and the employee must be proactive and accountable in the communication and feedback process and take initiative to insure that communication is continuous and productive.”
    The above excerpt from PPSM 23 sounds similar to the Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958,18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 (Cat Ct. App. 1993) decision. In Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co. court held as follows:

    “In light of the multitude of laws designed to protect the employee from oppressive employment practices, evaluations serve the important business purpose of documenting the employer’s hiring, promotion, discipline and firing practices. Moreover, the laudable practice of evaluating employees is to he encouraged for other important reasons. The performance review is a vehicle for informing the employee of what management expects, how the employee measures up, and what he or she needs to do to obtain wage increases, promotions or other recognition. Thus, the primary recipient and beneficiary of the communication is the employee.”

    The above UC Davis PPSM 23 and the California Appellate Court statement speaks for itself. UC fired me from the job in unlawful and baseless reasons not providing me  evaluation for last two years of my employment regardless what was written in fabricated maliciously and in slanderous way and defacing  me investigatory reports and other decisions I received .

    It also worth calling your attention to a significant change in the whistleblower statute in California. It 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.”

    In addition to the above, the failure to provide me with evaluations for the last two years is discriminatory itself by nature due to threating me differently than any other UC Davis employee.

    The UC Davis management’s measure unlawfully deprived me of resolving the disagreement with my direct supervisors Dorin Daniluc and Patrick Putney (if any) through the UC Davis administrative remedies outlined in the UC Davis Policy and Procedure PPSM Policy 70, including mediation process. This began when I would have received my evaluation in June of 2011 (the annual evaluation process in UC Davis begins and ends in June). In that month, I was on premises in my office every day and nothing precluded my manager Patrick Putney, his assistant Dorin Daniluc, UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department Assistant Manager Dennis Curry and Department head from serving me with a letter of expectation, giving me verbal or written warning or even sending me home. Instead, I was stalked, intimidated, and sabotaged by Patrick Putney after I wrote a letter to Department Head Charles Witcher outlining working condition in the shop and other problems in the department included and not limited to my coworker’s suicide. This ongoing harassment caused intolerable conditions in the shop and my physician placed me on work-related sick leave on August 2, 2011. Thereafter, I was never permitted to come back to work. My position was awarded to a person who was bringing to the HVAC shop a twice-convicted child pornography felon and shop manager Patrick Putney and assistant Dorin Daniluc permitted him illegally surf the Internet. This felon was on probation and prohibited by court to touch any computer. Instead of reporting this person to UC Police, HR Investigators Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert made me look worse in their maliciously fabricated and defacing me Investigatory Reports than child pornography twice convicted felon accessing illegally UC computer.    (see attached copy of the case United States of America v. Sean Christopher Robideaux, Case No. CR S-06-0418).

    The State of California Appellate Courts in Janet Campbell v. Regents of the University of California S113275; Ct.App.1/1 A097560; San Francisco Super. CT. No. 312736 and Patricia M. Palmer v. Regents of The University of California 2nd App. Div.7 B154868; Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 187036 is very clear and decisive about the meaning of Administrative Remedies under PPSM 70 for the University of California itself and for the University of California employees.

    The UC Davis management’s deliberately maliciously and unlawfully deprived me of administrative remedies in 2011.

    This is also the reason that I am stating in my response that your decision and other decisions I received in the last two years of my employment and after being fired from the job are despicable insults, fraud, discriminatory, malicious, and retaliatory and without any legal ground regardless whether they come from UC Davis Management and HR staff or from the State of California Offices.

    Furthermore, the UC Legal Counsel Michael W. Pott representing UC Regents in my wrongful termination lawsuit against UCDMC managers and administrators http://www.davisvanguard.org/political-refugee-from-poland-files-whistleblower-retaliation-case-against-uc-davis/   is an legal expert who advising employers on his web page how the employees should be evaluated to avoid costly litigations in wrongful termination lawsuits (http://www.porterscott.com/articles/takenote/94).

    In his article entitled “Six Tips for Preparing Employee Evaluations” (enclosed) UC Regents legal counsel Mr. Pott wrote,

    “Employee performance evaluations are a critical part of the employer-employee relationship. Well-done evaluations provide guidance and feedback to employees to help them develop and improve their skills. This, in turn, benefits the organization. Performance evaluations are also an important part of minimizing liability if an employment dispute arises.

    If an employee challenges a disciplinary action or termination based on performance problems, a fair and accurate evaluation can be a critical piece of evidence in defending the case. Conversely, a poorly prepared evaluation can undermine the employer’s credibility before a judge or jury, or worse, provide the plaintiff-employee with the evidence needed to prove their claim.”

    The UC Regents legal counsel in my wrongful termination lawsuit does not advise employers what would happen in the court if employers fail to evaluate employee performance. Mr. Pott, however, clearly advises correspondents with UC Policy PPSM 23 and Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958,18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 (Cat Ct. App. 1993) decision.

    However, I don’t believe that UCDMC HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey on behalf of UC Regents hired Mr. Michael Pott as a legal counsel because Mr. Pott knows  what employee performance review stands for.

    I have no doubt that Mr. Pott was hired by Mr. Chilcott and Mr. Lindsey because Porter and Scott represents Dignity Health where the former UCDMC HR Labor Relation Principal Consultant Ms. Jill Noel Vandeviver is working as a Director of Employee & Labor Relations (see attachment).

    It would be nothing unusual and important in this proceeding that Ms. Vandeviver is an employee of Dignity Health and Mr. Pott represents University of California and Dignity Health in employment related matters.

    However, in 2012, Ms. Vandeviver, as principal consultant in UCDMC HR labor relations, was intensively involved in my labor relation dispute with UCDMC Management and in the cases of other UCDMC employees I was providing representation with their complaints against Plant Operation and Maintenance management. It is appears from the documents I received under the Public Record Act that in May of 2012 Ms. Vandeviver and her manager, Mr. Humberto Garcia, was under enormous pressure in handling my case and my coworkers’ cases for which I was providing representation. In May of 2012, Plant Operation and Maintenance Management together with HR launched despicable and vicious attacks against the two coworkers I was representing and crafted ill-minded, unsuccessful provocation on May 31, 2012. They either sought to end my employment in UCDMC Trauma Unit 11 or kill me. It is still unsolved mystery in this case.

    Apparently something happened in May and June 2012 and I received a letter dated June 22, 2012 from another HR labor relation consultant Gina Harwood who informed me that Ms. Vandeviver and her manager Mr. Garcia were no longer employees of HR Labor relation and that she was taking over my case (Gina Harwood’s letter enclosed).

    I would like to mention that Mr. Humberto Garcia removed Ms. Gina Harwood from my case sometimes in January or February 2012 and assigned Ms. Jill Noel Vandeviver to handle my and the my coworkers case I was involved in. . In February 2012, Mr. Garcia held a meeting with me to resolve the dispute informally. Instead of responding to my offer, Mr. Garcia was replaced by a graduate attorney-at-law from McGeorge School of Law at the University of Pacific, Mr. Travis Lindsey on May 1, 2012. Then, right away, my coworkers I was representing were attacked and I almost got killed or badly harmed in ill minded provocation set UC Davis Administration for May 31, 2012 would succeed.   Mr. Garcia and Ms. Vandeviver disappeared from the UCDMC Landscape shortly after.

    I would like to mention without particular reason that you are the seventh attorney who graduated from McGeorge School of Law at the University of Pacific and I am dealing with, including my present attorney who is handling my wrongful termination lawsuit against University of California for now.

    As I see it, Ms. Vandeviver is a potential key witness in my wrongful termination lawsuit against the University of California and hiring Mr. Pott, who also represents Dignity Health, where Ms. Vandeviver is HR Labor Relation Director, is done only to neutralize Ms. Vandeviver as a potential witness.

    I am waiting for UC Regents to file tomorrow the answer or responsive plea with court to my second amended complaint filed with court on September 30, 2014 which I already consider the same as any other answers or decisions I received from University of California officials and State of California offices. I will ask the California State Bar whether Mr. Michael Pott or his law firm did not violated the Canons of Ethics by providing legal representation to Dignity Health and UC Regents under such circumstances.

    In conclusion I would like to emphasize that your deceptive, despicable, fraudulent, insulting, and discriminatory approach to the problem together with Sheryl Vacca, Judith Rosenberg, and Joseph Epperson is nothing else but further destruction of my family life and my livelihood.
     
    I am 63 years old, in deteriorating health, draining my retirement and savings for the  litigation against UC and to maintain my normal standard of living which will probably only last for another year. It appears, I have to pay the ultimate price to prove my case and escape further humiliation, insults and discrimination I received and am receiving for the good service I provided for my employer for 13 years.

    It is happening because, as is shown in this case and other cases I am handling, the UC system is corrupt to the bones, from the bottom to the top—the UCDMC HVAC shop supervisors, plant operation and maintenance management with Charles Witcher and his superior Executive Director Mike Boyd, HR Management with Stephen Chilcott and Travis Lindsey in charge, UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo and her staff, UC’s two Senior Vice Presidents, Sheryl Vacca, yourself, and UCOP Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, in addition to UCOP HR Joseph Epperson.

    I will instruct my attorney to amend again the Second Amended Complaint and add you, Ms. Sheryl Vacca, Joseph Epperson, and Judith Rosenberg as additional defendants in the complaints for the aforementioned reasons.

    In addition to the above you together with Ms. Vacca , Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Epperson needs to be reminded more often what you have done to me by your decision . You should be shame of yourself. .    

    Sincerely,

    Jaroslaw Waszczuk

    CC: UC President Janet Napolitano, UC Regents, UC Senior Vice President Sheryl Vacca and staff, UCOP Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, UC HR Senior Vice President Dwaine Ducket, UCOP HR Director Joseph Epperson, UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo, State of California Attorney General Office , Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

  4. Jerry Waszczuk

    Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
    2216 Katzakian Way
    Lodi, CA 95242
    Phone: 209-663-2977
    Fax: 209-247-1089
    E-mail: Jjw1980@live.com

    November 3, 2014

    Margaret L. Wu, Managing Counsel
    University of California
    Office of the President Public Records Office
    Office of the General Counsel
    UC Office of the President
    1111 Franklin Street
    Oakland, CA 94607-5200

    Re: Public Record Act Request Set # 1 Judith Rosenberg’s Investigation Report.

    Dear Ms.Wu,

    Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to (inspect/obtain) a copy of the following, which I understand is held by the University of California, Office of the President Public Records Office.

    INTRODUCTION

    On September 8, 2014, UC Senior Vice President and Locally Designated Officer Mr. Daniel Dooley issued an insulting half-page decision after an 18-month investigation of the Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint that I filed with the UC Davis Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor on March 7, 2013.

    The mentioned complaint was transferred for investigation from the UC Davis Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor to Office of the President (UCOP) shortly after it was filed in March 2013. The UCOP Principal Investigator, Ms. Judith Rosenberg, was assigned to investigate the complaint. To my understanding of the record and physical observation, UCOP Human Resources Director Joseph Epperson was an active participant in the investigation, and the investigation was monitored by two UCOP Senior Vice-Presidents, Ms. Sheryl Vacca and Mr. Daniel Dooley, who made a final decision.

    THE PUBLIC RECORD ACT DOCUMENTS REQUESTS

    1.) The final investigation report issued and signed by Judith Rosenberg for Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint that I filed with the UC Davis Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor on March 7, 2013.

    2.) The drafts of the reports generated or issued by UCOP Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg. They contained revisions made, suggested, or required by SVP Sheryl Vacca, SVP Daniel Dooley, HR Director Joseph Epperson, or another person. The time frame is from June 1, 2013 to September 10, 2014.

    3.) Judith Rosenberg’s notes, memos, and/or summaries for each witness interviewed in connection with the investigation. The notes, memos, and/or summaries shall include but not be limited to the following witnesses: UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), HVAC Shop personnel, HVAC Shop Manager Patrick Putney, HVAC Shop Supervisor Dorin Daniluc, HVAC Shop Technicians George Ursu, Dan Radulescu, Angelo Saldana, Joshua Hedges, Dereck Cole, Kenny Diede, Mark Montoya, Isaack Barios, William Rabidaoux, Mike Shelly, Mike Vehtomov, UC Davis Medical Center CEO Ann Madden Rice, UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, UCDMC Facilities Executive Director Mike Boyd, UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M) Head Charles Witcher, Charles Witcher’s former assistant, Dennis Curry, UCDMC HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, former HR Labor Relation Manager Mike Garcia, former HR Labor Relation Principal Consultant Jill Noel Vandeviver, HR Labor Relation Consultant Gina Hardwood, former HR Investigator Danesha Nichols, UC Davis new Chief of Police Matt Carmichael, UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo, and UCDMC Chief Compliance Officer Teresa Porter and her assistant Gina Gailluame-Holleman. In the complaint, the UCDMC group of individuals was nicknamed as the “HR Death Squad” due to its participation in ill crafted but unsuccessful provocation to kill me or end my employment at the UCDMC Hospital Trauma Unit #11 in extreme harm. The “HR Death Squad” members were: HR Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, HR Analyst Debra Schmidt, HR Licensed Social Worker Marjorie Tragadon, HR Medical Director Dr. Neil Speth, HR Psychologist Ph. D. Carol Kishnit, HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey, former HR Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert, HR Equal Opportunity Employment and Discrimination Manager Cindi Oropeza, UCDMC Legal Counselor David Levine, UCDMC Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Glynis Faulk,. Nurse Manager for UCDMC 11 Trauma Nursing Unit (TNU) Karen Kouertas, and UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour.

    4.) Any and all the copies of the documents and correspondence related to this case investigation. This includes fax and e-mail correspondence received by UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg from the UC Davis Medical Center. The also includes and is not limited to my HR and departmental personnel files with my 1999-2012 employees performance reviews (Evaluations), my medical file from the UCDMC Hospital, my UC Davis Police Department file, . The time frame is from June 1, 2013 to September 10, 2014.

    5.) Any and all of the copies of the documents and correspondence. This includes fax and e-mail correspondence related to this investigation and sent by UCOP Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg to other personnel and offices in the UC Davis Medical Center, UC Davis Campus, UC Office of the President, and vice versa. The time frame is from June 1, 2013 to September 10, 2014.

    6.) Any and all copies of the documents and correspondence, including fax and e-mail correspondence that I sent to UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg, Senior Vice Presidents Sheryl Vacca, Daniel Dooley, and Dwain Duckett, HR Director and UCOP Director Joseph Epperson, the UC President, and the UC Regents Office from April 1, 2011 to the present.

    6.) Any and all copies of the documents and correspondence, including fax and e-mail correspondence sent to me by UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg, Senior Vice Presidents Sheryl Vacca, Daniel Dooley, and Dwain Duckett, HR Director and UCOP Director Joseph Epperson, the UC President, and the UC Regents Office from April 1, 2011 to the present.

    I ask for a determination of this request within 10 days of your receipt of it. I ask for an even prompter reply if you can make a determination without having to review the record[s] in question.

    If you determine that any or all the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask that you note whether, as it is normally the case under the PRA exemption is discretionary. If so, I ask that you note whether it is necessary for this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.

    If you determine that some but not all the information is exempt from disclosure, and you intend to withhold information, I ask that you redact the exempt portion[s] for the time being and make the rest available as requested.

    If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at your convenience. I ask that you notify me of any duplication costs exceed $1,000.00 before you duplicate the records so that I can decide on the records that I want copied.

    I believe that I should be exempt from paying for duplication costs because the request is related to my employment with the University of California.

    I am expecting to receive a quite a large volume of documents, considering one and a half years (18 months) of investigation. It is my understanding that the UCOP Investigator and others involved spent hundreds or perhaps thousands of working hours to review the documents and to interview witnesses to finalize this investigation and to issue half a page decision. It is shocking if you compare the length and resolution of this investigation conducted by UCOP with an investigation related to UC Davis from November 18, 2011 regarding gas assault against protesting students by the UC Davis Police ordered by Chancellor Katehi. The final investigation report on the gas attack on the UC Davis students took only four months to complete, and the report was published on March 12, 2012. One of the members of Reynoso’s task force was the Senior Vice President, External Relations, UC Office of the President and Designated System-wide Administrator for Whistleblower Complaints. The same Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley was overseeing and was responsible for the investigation of my retaliation complaint (Reynoso’s report page is attached).

    The question is: by dragging investigation for 18 months, did Mr. Dooley think that destroying my life was less important than gassing UC Davis students? The question is also whether my case would be unnoticed because of the lack of TV cameras and newspaper reporters and if it will go away. It will not go away because apparently nobody else but the same Chancellor Katehi, who ordered the attack on students in November 2011, also requested a confidential report of me in November 2011. It is quite clear that the same UC Davis Policeman Lt. James Barbour, who was assigned to kill me or end my employment in UCDMC Trauma Unit #11 on May 31, 2011, could have received such a sickening order only from the Chancellor Katehi through the  UCD PD Chief Matt Carmichael . The same Chancellor Katehi did not hesitate to attack peaceful protesters during the 38-year anniversary of Athens Polytechnics student’s massacre by Greek Fascist Military Junta than I have no doubt that order to attack me in May 2012 came from her office and above. . UC Davis Chancellor Katehi was a student in Athens Polytechnic in November 1973.

    In conclusion, I expect that by submitting this PRA request, my two missing employee performance reviews for 2011 and 2012 will be delivered to me.

    Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

    Sincerely,

    Jaroslaw Waszczuk

    CC. UC General Counsel Charles Robinson UC Regents, UC President Janet Napolitano, California State Bar, UC SVP Daniel Dooley, Sheryl Vacca, UC HR Director Joseph Epperson, UC Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, State of California Attorney General Office, UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo, and UCDMc HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott.

    Enclosed: UC SVP Daniel Dooley’s decision dated September 10, 2014

  5. Jerry Waszczuk

    From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk [mailto:jjw1980@live.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:51 AM
    To: ‘Jana L Gabby’
    Cc: margaret.wu@ucop.edu; regentsoffice@ucop.edu; president@ucop.edu; Kamala.Harris@doj.ca.gov; jappelsmith@ucdavis.edu; mfsweeney@ucdavis.edu; lstemple@ucdavis.edu; charles.robinson@ucop.edu; chancellor@ucdavis.edu; ann.rice@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu; ‘Stephen Chilcott’; anna.orlowski@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu; ‘Mike Boyd’
    Subject: RE: PRA/IPA request

    Lodi, CA 95242
    Phone: 209-663-2977
    Fax: 209-247-1089
    E-mail: Jjw1980@live.com

    November 17, 2014

    Jana L. Gabby
    Legal Assistant
    Office of the Campus Counsel
    Offices of the Chancellor & Provost
    University of California
    One Shields Avenue
    Davis, CA 95616-8558

    Public Record Act Request Set # 1 Judith Rosenberg’s Investigation Report.

               Response to your e-mail dated November 13, 2014 –Item No.4 & No.5

    Dear Ms. Gabby, 

       You stated in your e-mail response that “UC Davis campus/Medical Center will be providing records responsive to item #4 and item #5 of your attached request.”

    I appreciate your response to the PRA inquiry I sent to the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) Managing Counsel Ms. Margaret Wu on November 3, 2014.

    However, for the record and to avoid any misunderstanding, I would like clarify further that the Item No. 4 and Item No. 5 request for strictly the UC Office of the President to respond, not UC Davis or UC Davis Medical Center. I am interested in what UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg requested from others and what she received in response to her inquiry.   

    Item No. 4:

    Any and all copies of the documents and correspondence related to this case investigation. This includes fax and e-mail correspondence received by UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg from the UC Davis Medical Center. This also includes and is not limited to my HR and departmental personnel files with my 1999–2012 employee performance reviews (evaluations), my medical file from the UCDMC Hospital, my UC Davis Police Department file, etc. The time frame is from June 1, 2013 to September 10, 2014.

    In the above inquiry, I am requesting documents that were actually inquired for or requested by UCOP Investigator Ms. Judith Rosenberg from UC Davis Medical Center, not vice versa. I would like to receive  index(es) or list(s) of documents that Ms. Rosenberg sent to UC Davis Medical Center between June 1, 2013, and September 10, 2014. I want to know what she actually requested and received for the investigation, not just my personnel files from UCDMC Human Resources Department or my medical file from UCDMC Hospital, which I can get without the PRA request. To make this simple, I want to receive the copies of all documents from UCOP that were delivered to Ms. Judith Rosenberg’s office by fax, email, US mail, FedEx, etc., between June 2013 and September 10, 2014, in relation to her investigation of the Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint I filed on March 7, 2013, with the UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Office. (A copy of the complaint cover letter is enclosed.)

    Also by my No. 4, item request, I would like to find out whether Ms. Rosenberg requested for and she received my UC Davis Police Department file. The UC Davis Police Department file should include and is not limited to Lt. James Barbour’s and UC Davis Police Chief Matt Carmichael’s involvement  in ill-crafted provocation on May 31, 2012, which would end my employment with UCDMC in the Trauma Unit # 1, where I would have been killed or badly harmed if provocation had been successful.

    Also by my No. 4 item request, I would like to find out why, after the May 31, 2014, unsuccessful provocation to harm me, UC Davis Police Department Lt. Barbour and new Chief of Police Matt Carmichael were involved in the preparation of my employment termination in September 2012.The preparation included a Police Warrant/Poster with my photo on it, which was distributed without my knowledge around the UC Davis Medical Center. Also, UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael retained psychologist Dr. White for the termination of my employment.

    The information about Dr. White was disclosed in UC Davis PD Lt. Barbour’s e-mail dated September 13, 2012, to UCDMC HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey, UCDMC HR Workers’ Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, and another UC Davis Police Department Officer Williette Roy. (UC Davis Warrant/Poster and Lt. Barbour’s e-mail are enclosed.)

    Furthermore, on June 9, 2013, I sent UC Davis Director of Legal Affairs Ms. Lynette Temple the PRA request and asked her to search for and provide me with the full name of the above-mentioned psychologist retained by UC Davis PD Chief Matt Carmichael for my employment termination.

    In response to my inquiry, UC Davis Legal Analyst Ms. Michele M. McCuen on August 26, 2013, informed me as follows: “The full name of Dr. White. (Presumably hired by Chief Carmichael.)…Chief Carmichael has indicated he has no knowledge of this doctor. (e-mail from Ms. McCuen enclosed.)

    Lt. Barbour’s and Ms. McCuene’s e-mails are contradictory to each other. The McCuene e-mail indicates that the new UC Davis Chief of Police by denying existence of Dr. White apparently was tried to distance himself from his involvement in my unusual employment termination and that he apparently lied to Ms. McCuene or Ms. Temple that he had no knowledge of Dr. White. Nobody will believe that “Dr. White” was a phony name made up by Lt. Barbour, who associated Dr. White with his superior Chief Carmichael and wrote about to others in his e-mail. Hiring a Doctor of Psychology for my employment termination and lying that it did not take place is a very serious matter in light of the May 31, 2012, provocation to end my employment in the UCDMC Trauma Unit #11.

    This why I need to know whether and when UCOP Investigator Rosenberg requested for and received a copy of my file from the UC Davis Police Department in relation to my Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint investigation.     

    Furthermore, UC Davis Legal Analyst Ms. Michele M. McCuen, in her August 26, 2013, response to my PRA inquiry, wrote:
      “I contacted everyone you identified in your email and no one provided any responsive records.”

    As I stated at the beginning of this letter, what I am strictly interested in by the Item No.5 is what UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg requested from others and what she received back in response from others to her inquiry in relation to the investigation of my Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint filed with the UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Office on March 7, 2013. 

    I would like to emphasize again that the investigation in my Whistleblowing Complaint was pending for 18 months and was monitored by UC Senior Vice Presidents Sheryl Vacca and Daniel Dooley and UCOP HR Director Joseph Epperson. 

    As I stated in my PRA request dated November 3, 2014, the final investigation report on the gas attack on the UC Davis students took only four months to complete, and the report was published on March 12, 2012. One of the members of Reynoso’s task force was the Senior Vice President, External Relations, UC Office of the President and Designated System-wide Administrator for Whistleblower Complaints. The same Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley was overseeing and responsible for the investigation of my retaliation complaint.

    If you read my letter entitled “My concerns about investigation and investigator” dated October 9, 2013, and addressed to UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg, you will understand why I am requesting copies of the all documents Mr. Rosenberg received and sent out in relation to this investigation and why the requests for Item No.4 and No. 5 shall be responded to by the Office of the President instead of the UC Davis Medical Center or UC Davis Campus. (October 9, 2013, letter to J. Rosenberg is enclosed.)

    Sincerely;

    Jaroslaw Waszczuk

    CC: UC President Hon. Janet Napolitano, UC Regents , Margaret Wu, Office of Governor Jerry Brown –Constituent Affairs , United State Senator Hon. Diane Feinstein , California Attorney General Office . 

    ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
    From: Jana L Gabby [mailto:jlgabby@ucdavis.edu]
    Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 1:44 PM
    To: ‘jjw1980@live.com’; ‘jjw1980@live.com’
    Subject: PRA/IPA request

    Dear Mr. Waszczuk,

    I am writing to you today regarding the request our office received on November 3, 2014 (see attached).

    A search for records is underway.  Please note, the University’s ability to share personal information it maintains about individuals is governed by, among other laws, the California Information Practices Act (“IPA;” Calif. Civil Code § 1798 et seq.).  The records you have requested may contain information which does not pertain to you, and disclosure of which would be an unwarranted invasion of other’s privacy. 

    The Information Practices Act allows 30 days for our office to provide records.  Your request was forwarded to our office on November 3, 2014.  You will receive records on or before December 4th.     

    For clarification, UC Davis campus/Medical Center will be providing records responsive to item #4 and item #5 of your attached request. The remainder of your request will be responded to by the Office of the President.

    Finally, the Information Practices Act allows agencies to make records available upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication.  The charge is $0.10 per page for copies.  Prior to releasing records we will ask you to forward a check in the amount of the copying charge before sending you the records. 

    Best,

    Jana L. Gabby
    Legal Assistant
    Office of  the Campus Counsel
    Offices of the Chancellor & Provost
    University of California
    One Shields Avenue
    Davis, CA 95616-8558
    Telephone: 530-752-8715
    Email: jlgabby@ucdavis.edu

  6. Jerry Waszczuk

    UPDATE
    From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk [mailto:jjw1980@live.com]
    Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 10:01 AM
    To: Elliott@sacramentoadvocates.com; eoakley@lbcc.edu; brianne@donateLIFEcalifornia.org; slfasst@sherrylansingfoundation.org; gkieffer@manatt.com; Speaker.Atkins@assembly.ca.gov; bruce.varner@varnerbrandt.com; Kristin.Varner@varnerbrandt.com; senator@feinstein.senate.gov; siu@sedgwick.com; Kamala.Harris@doj.ca.gov; Ashante.Norton@doj.ca.gov; Assemblymember.Stone@assembly.ca.gov; creynoso@ucdavis.edu; atprovost@ucdavis.edu; ‘Anne Applebaum’ <anne.e.applebaum@gmail.com>; Christopher.Simon@ucop.edu; charles.robinson@ucop.edu; Judith.Rosenberg@ucop.edu; Joseph.Epperson@ucop.edu; Sheryl Vacca <Sheryl.Vacca@ucop.edu>; ‘Wendi Delmendo’ <wjdelmendo@ucdavis.edu>; dvsmith@sacbee.com; rreed@ucdavis.edu
    Cc: ‘David Burkett’ <dburkett@porterscott.com>; ‘Douglas Ropel’ <dropel@porterscott.com>; elowry@bfesf.com; scrawford@bfesf.com; ahalby@bfesf.com; tsaypoff@bfesf.com; jtran@bfesf.com; pblack@bfesf.com; esears@bfesf.com; cwestfall@bfesf.com; tbertrand@bfesf.com; gfox@bfesf.com; eelliot@bfesf.com; rosman@bfesf.com; mwenzel@bfesf.com
    Subject: FW: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA -THE EVIL EMPIRE – HOWARD ALAN ZOCHLINSKI’S CASE -UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    Dear Regents .
     
    I am appealing to you to stop prosecuting Mr. Zochlinski .  It is appears from Mr. Zochlinsk’s  correspondence that his parents were Jewish and escaped Nazis prosecution and Holocaust ,
    Mr . Zochlinski’s uncle  was fighting Nazis in Polish Army in Battle of Mlawa in 1939 during Hitler’s  invasion of Poland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mlawa.
     It is a shame for the  name of  University of California that Regents and the  Regents staff prosecuting people like Mr. Zochlinski who has no legal representation and is disabled . Don’t you all have any mercy regardless of the Mr. Zochlinski’s cause of action .
    As I pointed many times  your Principle of Community is The  Principles of Communists “Karl Marks Communist Manifesto” ,  Adolf Hitler’s  Mein Kampf and Joseph Goebbels propaganda. You propagandist attempted to make me looks like KKK leader and Nazi Concentration Camp guard in defaming and defacing me IN Danesha Nichol’s , Bettye Andreo’s and Judith Rosenberg’s, Brent Seifert and Cindy Oropeza’s  reports .  Look into the mirror who you are and what you doing  
    I will appear on the court hearing on Thursday with Mr. Zochlinski and I let you know thereafter who you are and where you belong and I  will  let  know Federal Court Judge who you are .
     

    Regards
     
    ;
    Jerry Waszczuk 

    Hearing in the Federal Court was postpone by Regents lawyers until December after I sent this e-mail .

  7. Jerry Waszczuk

    UPDATE: 
    Case 2:11-cv-03295-KJM-KJN Document 71 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 98                                                                                     2-  THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    I. TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE PRESIDING FOR THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:
     
    PARTIES:
    1.                  Plaintiff is Howard Alan Zochlinski (hereafter Zochlinski or Plaintiff), an Orthodox Ashkenazi Jew and disabled citizen. He is both a former graduate student in the Genetics Group (hereafter GG) at the University of California, Davis, (hereafter UCD) and a former employee of UCD: a Research Associate in the laboratory of Dr. Janet Yamamoto, an Asian-American female, employed to do AIDS vaccine related molecular biology research under the auspices of the School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, UCD and its chair, Dr. Murray Gardner. He thus held positions as both student and employee at UCD.
    2.                  Defendants, and all of them, are sued in their individual capacity for monetary damages, inclusive of exemplary and punitive, and in their official capacity, within the limits of the law, for equitable, injunctive, prospective and other relief available. These are inclusive of the following individuals who were actively involved in actions against Zochlinski’s interests within statute of limitations period and responsible for denial of his Ph.D. under the Three-Paper Rule (hereafter TPR):
    a)   

    Regents or former Regents: Richard C. Blum; William De La Peria, M.D.; Russell Gould, Eddie Island, Odessa Johnson; George Kieffer; Sherry Lansing; Monica Lozano; Hadi Makarechian; George M. Marcus; Norman J. Pattiz; Bonnie Reiss; Fred Ruiz; Leslie Tang Schilling; Bruce Varner; Paul D. Wachter; Charlene Zettel; Arnold Schwarzenegger; Abel Maldonado; John Perez; Jack O’Connell; Mark G. Yudof; Ronald W. Stovitz; Yolanda Nunn Gorman;

     
    UC Davis Principle of Community
    The Court in the Anti-SLAPP Decision brought to the Plaintiff’s  attention that Personnel Policies for Staff Members (“PPSM”) and the UC Davis Policies and Procedure Manual (“PPM”) have the force and effect of the state statute (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 165.).The Plaintiff was familiar with the Kim v. Regents case for a long time, and the Plaintiff is glad that the court included this case in the Ant-SLAPP Decision. The Kim v. Regents of University of California case applies to the official UC Davis PPSM Policies and PPM Policies with which the Plaintiff is quite familiar due to providing representation or aid for many UC Davis Medical Center employees under the provision of PPSM 70 (Complaint Resolution Policy). The Court is not aware of UC Davis’ unofficial UC Davis Policy which is most important Policy to hunt down employees. The Policy is entitled “UC Davis’ Principle of Community,” Because the court did read the Plaintiff’s 42 exhibits that were attached to the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant SLAPP. A few days ago, the Plaintiff addressed the unconstitutional UC Davis Principles of Community in an email dated February 11th, 2015, to the UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor, Robert Loessberg-Zahl. The Plaintiff responded to Mr. Zahl’s e-mail dated February 9th, 2015. (EXHIBIT #)
    This UC Davis unconstitutional and unofficial manifesto entitled “UC Davis Principle of Community” (EXHIBIT #) is a UC Davis Administration tool of oppression and malicious prosecution of Christians, Jews, and any employee who has complained against the corrupted UC Davis Administration protected by Anti-SLAPP law. Initially, this above mentioned unconstitutional UC Davis manifesto was perhaps a good idea, but it most likely was not. The scenario of attacking employees with this manifesto is simple. The “accusation of racism, bigotry, violence; then, Policy 1616 and Policy 380-15; then, the Witch Hunt began with a witch hunter assigned by UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer, Wendy Delmendo, in coordination with executives like Defendants Stephen Chilcott, Cindy Oropeza, and Mike Boyd; then, they assigned harassers and witnesses-for-hire, like Defendants Witcher, Daniluc, and Putney . The Court may look at the example used by the UC Davis Administration as a tool of oppression and intolerance in the (Plaintiff s Opposition to SLAPP, Exhibits No.),In charge of the UC Davis manifesto entitled “Principles of Community” is Associate Executive Vice Chancellor Rahim Reed http://occr.ucdavis.edu/Rahim bio.html. Rahim Reed is a very well educated person his only job for $173,000.00 is to maintain and make sure that this UC Davis is unconstitutional tool is in motion, is visible, and is inflicting fear in anybody who dares to criticize the UC Davis Administration, or point to a misuse of University resources, or a violation of the law.
    In February 2008, this unconstitutional manifesto and the tool of oppression were forcibly incorporated into the UC Davis employee’s job description. See: the Defendant Charles Witcher’s memo dated February 22nd, 2008, and the Plaintiff’s response dated March 11th, 2008, as EXHIBIT #. On May 7th, 2009, Greek born Linda Katehi was appointed chancellor by the University of California’s Board of Regents, effective August 17th, 2009. It is apparent that the new UC Davis Chancellor, Linda Katehi, fell in love with the UC Davis manifesto “Principal of Community” and gave the green light for the Associate Executive Vice Chancellor to raise the bar for the “Manifesto.”
    In February 2011, Katehi, together with Rahim Reed, implemented an unconstitutional (under both the Federal and California State Constitutions) policy incorporated into the “Principles of Community.” This additional “UC Davis Principle of Community” was labeled “CHRISTIANS AS A OPPRESSORS.” After the protest of the Alliance Defense Fund  a Christian legal group
    EXHIBIT #, the definition of Christian as oppressors was removed from the “Manifesto” entitled “UC Davis Principle of Community.” However, Chancellor Katehi is still in power and Rahim Read still maintains the unconstitutional UC Davis Manifesto for $173, 000.00 per year , spreading hate and intolerance in the UC Davis University. Labeling Christians as oppressors was nothing else but Linda Katehi’s and Rahim Read’s ideological invitation for religious cleansing.
     
     

  8. Jerry Waszczuk

    UPDATE
    THE  WILLIAM PRINDIBLE’S CASE –  THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
     
     
    TO UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER HR INVESTIGATOR  GEOFFREY BRITTON
     
     
     
    From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk [mailto:jjw1980@live.com]
    Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 2:14 PM
    To: geoffrey.britton@ucdavis.edu
    Subject: William Prindible Case
     
    Hi Geoff,
     
    In the previous e-mail,  I forgot to mention the  UC Davis Auditor William Printable’s  Case.  By his duty and Audit,  William Printable  confirmed Credit card’s  embezzlements committed  by the  supervisors in UCDMC Darin  Latimore’s  Department..  William Printable was fired  by Jeremiah Maher, who is  the UC Davis Internal  Audit  Director.     The two or three other employees who reported the embezzlement  were taken care by  Darin  Latimore  his assistant ,HR Investigators and  the  UC Davis Principle of Community, and William Prindible  landed in  the unemployment office. William  Printable  was 60 years old and had bipolar problems.  William Prindible Worked 10 years for UCDMC.  Responsible for this  brutal assault  against  60 years William Principle  was Jeremiah Maher and same folks from HR I am dealing with.  You have to decide what you want to be in UC System. The   Corrupted thug or  advertised person  on Linked with ‘Danesha Nichol’s  references and recommendation. ?   . It is  to not late yet.  The California  weather is nicer than in Nebraska’s weather .   Enjoy weather and watch your back.  
    If you want to know something about me , just ask  me on e-mail .  I have no secrets in regards to my  employment in any place I worked in United States. I was always  a good worker and I proof of it . I hate corruption of any kind  because I lived before in completely corrupted political system named  communism which has lot of common with UC system .  The State is wasting so much money to support UC system with Tax payers money that it is beyond the corruption ,
     
     Regards
    Jerry
     
     
    GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
    7.             Prindible is a 57 year old male, with over 10 year’s employment at the University of California, Davis (UCD) all of which were as an Auditor in the Internal Audit Services Department (IAS). Prindible worked successfully with Bi-Polar Disorder, management knew of Prindible’s disability. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) lists Bi-Polar Disorder as a mood disorder. Thus, Prindible is a member of one or more protected classes.
    8.             Beginning in or about July 2010 and continuing through in or about May 2013, Defendants created and maintained a hostile work environment and subjected Prindible to a concerted and pervasive barrage of severe discrimination. Due to emotional upset caused by these acts of harassment, Prindible took leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Upon returning to work Defendants continued their overall discrimination and commenced retaliatory and other discriminatory acts against Prindible.
    9.             Defendants unfairly disciplined Prindible, subjected Prindible to different work rules than other employees, and generally harassed Prindible daily.
    10.         Defendants violated established University policies and procedures regarding several matters, wrote derogatory emails regarding Prindible, lying on several occasions, and posted derogatory comments regarding Prindible, which colleagues inquired about causing additional stress and embarrassment.
     
     
     
    To US  Senator Hon. Dianne Feinstein
     
     “The Hon. Steinberg responded to my inquiry but refused to help. If I had known in 2013 about the 60-year-old William Prindible, who was fired from his job because he was doing his duty, I would have mentioned this to Mr. Steinberg as well. The previously mentioned William Prindible was suffering from bipolar disorder, as was Mr. Steinberg’s daughter, Jordana, when she was 7 years old, according to many publications. Also, Mr. Steinberg’s daughter suffered and recovered from a more serious mental illness during a very challenging and heart-touching journey. Mr. Steinberg daughter’s illness is what drove Proposition 63.
    However, in 2013, I did not know that Mr. Steinberg had secured for himself the prestigious Director of Policy and Advocacy position for the new UC Davis Behavioral Health Center of Excellence, the $7.5 million UC Davis center funded by Proposition 63, California’s tax on millionaires that funds programs for people who are mentally ill. Steinberg, a longtime advocate for mental health programs, wrote the 2004 measure, and the institution was funded by a measure he championed while in the Legislature. It was a remarkable achievement. However, I am not sure whether Mr. Steinberg knew before he became a Director of Policy and Advocacy for the new UC Davis Behavioral Health Center of Excellence how many thousands of UC Davis employees, including myself, were forced to visit psychiatrists and psychologists to seek help due to unscrupulously abusive and vindictive Nazis such as the corrupted UC Davis administration and management. 

  9. Jerry Waszczuk

    UPDATE
    From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk [mailto:jjw1980@live.com]
    Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 8:13 AM
    To: Elliott@sacramentoadvocates.com; eoakley@lbcc.edu; brianne@donateLIFEcalifornia.org; slfasst@sherrylansingfoundation.org; gkieffer@manatt.com; Speaker.Atkins@assembly.ca.gov; bruce.varner@varnerbrandt.com; Kristin.Varner@varnerbrandt.com; senator@feinstein.senate.gov; siu@sedgwick.com
    Subject: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – THE EVIL EMPIRE

                    Ladies and Gentlemen ,
     
    My opinion  is that the Plaintiff’s  legal counsel  in the  Duane Hicks and Wanda Brown   case is wrong by pointing  at the  Defendants as  African –Americans .   This is not the color or race problems  in UC System . The UC System does not discriminate to abuse ,harass, violate employees civil and human rights  and retaliate regardless who is the witch hunter  and who is the  hunted  victim .
    This is how the  Inhuman Resources  Departments in the  University of California  System works and  provides training for supervisors and managers  to deal with labor  regardless of race, nationality or color . Few examples attached .
     
    “In March 2000, Plaintiff attended with permission of the Plant Manager the course Labor Principles in Public Employment. The course was for UC Davis Medical Center supervisors. The course host, Director of UCDMC HR Department Gloria Alvarado, was openly advising and instructing supervisors on how to harass and press employees to have them feel guilty and inefficient and how to force workers to self-demotion and employment resignations. Plaintiff could not listen to such principles in public employment and Plaintiff asked Ms. Alvarado if she was aware of lawsuits for wrongful demotion between PG&E and PG&E workers. Ms. Alvarado asked where Plaintiff was working and what was Plaintiff’s position in UCDMC. Plaintiff told her and she said that Plaintiff should not have been in this class. Thereafter, she changed the subject and the rest of the course was related to Labor Principles in Public Employment. EXHIBIT # 010”
     T

     
     
     
     
    “The year 2011 at UC Davis also was a year for  an attack against employees from the Medical Office of the Students and Residents Diversity by UC Davis management. The employees reported credit card embezzlement committed by the manager’s office. UC Davis auditor William Prindible was called to do an audit report. The auditor by his duty conducted an audit, which confirmed credit card embezzlement by the manager’s office. The two employees who reported the fraud and 60-year-old auditor William Prindible, who had bipolar disorder, were fired from the job. Waszczuk was asked to help one of the employees Seema Mani who reported the embezzlement and who was demoted and reassigned for the complaint she filed. The management’s despicable attack on Seema Mani was similar to the attack on Waszczuk in 2006/2007. Seema Mani lost her job as well. The William Prindible wrongful termination case which was pursued in  Federal Court, No. 2:13-cv-02256-KJM-EFB, was settled in January 2015. The people who are responsible for the crime still have jobs with UC Davis Medical Center. This is the are few examples of UC Davis’s Principles of Community.
    Anybody who knows history and who worked at UC Davis would read the UC Davis Principles of Community and know that 24% of UC Davis employees surveyed (4,000 of 11,500) by Rankin & Associates suffered while working in UC Davis’s hostile and discriminatory work environment, and the mental health of these people and their families was affected too. The slogan on the UC Davis HR Webpage, “One HR Community, One UC Davis,” closely resembles Joseph Goebbels’s propaganda slogan from the Third Reich, “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer,” but UC Davis’s HR propaganda slogan is missing “One Chancellor Katehi.”
    Perhaps UC Davis’s administration philosophy was drawing on a writing of Kurt Tucholsky from 1925, “Der Tod eines Menschen: das ist eine Katastrophe. Hunderttausend Tote: das ist eine Statistik!” It could be translated for the UC Davis climate and working environment as follows: “One destroyed and devastated employee life could be a problem and tragedy, a thousand destroyed and devastated: UC Davis employees’ lives are just a statistic outlined in the Rankin and Associate Survey Company.””
    about the June 8, 2000, open meeting between high-rank administration officials from the University of California  in the State of California’s capitol where the California Assembly of Higher Education Committee identified serious UC administration oversights regarding Labor Relation. Labor Union speakers called the UC System the “worst public employer in California”  and a “Stalin-era employer.” Ed Espinosa’s termination notice dated August 28, 2000, and July-October 2000 correspondence with UC HR Associate Vice President Judith Boyette in which he expressed his feeling about the statement, “Give this Polack a bad evaluation and fire him,” beside other issues, are attached as EXHIBIT #008. Also, Ed Espinosa in his October 2000 correspondence with UC HR Associate Vice President Judith Boyette mentioned the UC Davis Medical Center management’s retaliatory action against workers from UCDMC Integrated Access Uni. EXHIBIT # 009
     
    “The incident with the suspended employees of the Integrated Access Unit solidified my opinion about this organization. These people were suspended because they complained about safety by submitting a petition to their Supervisor. Soon thereafter, California State Senators’ intervention was required to reinstate these employees. In an attempt to gather the facts about this UC System, I attended a meeting, which was held by the State of California Assembly Committee for Higher Education, where UC President Atkinson and you responded to legislator’s questions and problems regarding the labor-management relationship in within the UC System. I hoped this event would have signaled a turning point.”
    1.       Defendant WANDA BROWN (“BROWN”) is an adult African American female, employed by THE REGENTS as a General Manager, at Defendant UC DAVIS’ Sacramento facility.

    2.       Defendant DUANE HICKS (“HICKS”) is an adult African American male, employed by THE REGENTS as a General Manager, at Defendant UC DAVIS’ Sacramento facility.
    51.     Ms. Dulay informed Plaintiff that both Brown and Hicks told her that Plaintiff took medical leave in order to complete a gender transition, including medical reassignment surgery. This statement was untrue, as Plaintiff was born as a female. Dulay was also told that Plaintiff was not permitted to work at the front counter because Brown and Hicks do not want customers to see Plaintiff’s face. Brown described Plaintiff as looking funny and looks like a man. Brown informed Dulay that she and Hicks needed to do whatever they could do to make sure Plaintiff leaves their office so they didn’t have to deal with “an employee like her.”
    Against All Defendants]
    142.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all allegations above as though fully set forth herein.
    143.  Brown intentionally caused harmful or offensive bodily contact with Plaintiff.
    144.  Brown was acting in part within the course and scope of her employment by UCD and was, at least in part, serving a purpose of her own in carrying out the above misconduct against Plaintiff. Brown was motivated, at least partly, by malice and ill will toward Plaintiff.
    145.  Defendants’ wrongful conduct proximately caused Plaintiff general and special damages including but not limited to physical, mental and emotional injury and distress, pain and suffering, lost wages and benefits and health care expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial.
    146.  Pursuant to Civil Code § 3294, Brown’s wrongful conduct was malicious, oppressive,
    fraudulent, despicable and not to be tolerated by civilized society, entitling Plaintiff to an award

    of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be proven.
    persons for requesting accommodations for a disability and/or medical condition, against members of a protected class (including females, employees over the age of 40, and employees who are/perceived to be transgendered or homosexual). At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class(es), as stated supra and incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff told Brown that this was retaliation for filing the complaint about Brown’s physical conduct and she could not do this. Brown responded that she could do anything that she wanted. Following this act of retaliation, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the UCD police department. UCD’s police department and UCD failed to take any action against Brown.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for