Guest Commentary: Another Nail in the Coffin

Share:

57769f3726946by Jerry Waszczuk

It seems to me that UC President Janet Napolitano’s “Internet Scrubbing” Campaign Hypocrisy” and the $158,000 internet publicity campaign to suppress criticism of a scathing state audit is not so much “another nail in the coffin” as it was stated recently by Melinda Guzman who is a Chancellor Katehi legal counsel. Rather it is a prelude to the settlement-agreement negotiations.

I don’t know for sure and I believe that nobody on the Davis Vanguard forum knows what is the real subject of the investigation conducted by Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, who are “white-collar crime” defense attorneys and former U.S. prosecutors.

Haag and Scott, defense attorneys of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, were supposedly hired by the UCOP at the end of April 2016. Due to the circumstances surrounding the investigation, I am guessing that they were retained by UCOP in February 2016 or in early March 2016.

Taking into consideration the UC Davis Academic Senate TIMELINE disclosure, Napolitano stated on March 9, 2016, that Chancellor Katehi had good intentions when she accepted a seat on the board of DeVry Education Group. The chancellor has since apologized and taken other appropriate measures, she said. Napolitano stated that: “Katehi has done a good job and that it would hurt the university if she resigned.”

Why did Napolitano suddenly turn around and demand a resignation from Katehi and then serve a suspension letter to the chancellor after she refused to resign? This all happened after protesters left Mrak Hall and everything was going back to normal. Who gave the order to Napolitano to destroy Katehi? Was it the president of the Board of Regents after the phone conference with Napolitano and UC General Counsel Charles Robinson?

Why did Napolitano or the UC Regents attempt to fire Katehi knowing that it is legally impossible and is unlawful regardless of the chancellor’s employment-at-will status?

Apparently Napolitano’s March 9, 2016, statement supporting Katehi was made by the UC president without consultation with the UC Regents or Robinson, who most likely had already retained Haag and Scott to defend UCOP white-collar criminals including Robinson himself and former UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown

The witch hunt aimed at Katehi was orchestrated by Robinson and his partner in crime, Drown, who was fired by Katehi in 2013 and found safe haven in Robinson’s office. It serves purely to distract from their own and others’ past white-collar crimes.

The vicious and despicable attack against Katehi and her family is retaliation against Katehi from Robinson and Drown. Apparently, she was singled out for termination in 2011 because of her refusal to join Drown and Robinson to participate in covering up their and the UC regents’ crimes.

If Katehi had collaborated with Drown and Robinson in 2011, then today I would not be writing in my court briefs about the misappropriation of the $ 65,000,000 in public funds by UC Regents and the previous UC Davis administration.

I would not be writing in my court briefs about UC Davis’s loss of approximately half a billion dollars in revenue because of the UC Regents Al Capone-style multimillion-dollar tax fraud.

I would not be writing in my court briefs about two former State of California Attorneys General, Bill Lockyer and Edmund Brown, who is currently president of the Board of Regents.

I would be not writing in my court briefs and motions about former State of California recalled Governor Grey Davis and his former Chief Deputy Shelleyanne Chang, who is today Sacramento County Superior Court Judge.

Chang was involved in Janet Keyzer’s wrongful termination case, which was covered by the Davis Vanguard.

More specifically, in Keyzer’s wrongful termination case, Chang granted an anti-SLAPP motion filed against Janet Keyzer by the former UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef, who together with the UC Regents participated in misappropriation of the $65,000,000 in public funds. In 2014, Chang was disqualified by Keyzer’s legal counsel, Mary Alice-Coleman, who was the subject of a recent Davis Vanguard article.

Keyzer’s wrongful termination case is indirectly connected to Katehi, who succeeded Vanderhoef and inherited from him Drown, who participated in the Al Capone-style unlawful power sale by the regents in 1999-2003 and 2012-2013. UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown with other perpetrators orchestrated the pepper spray provocation attack against protesters on November 18, 2011, to create the infamous image of Lt. Pike for the UC Davis Chancellor and for UC Davis.

Keyzer’s wrongful termination case is also connected to UC Davis, as it involves unlawful research that was intended to evaluate pain diagnosis and treatment in state prisons but did not meet research requirements involving human subjects. This happened before Katehi became UC Davis chancellor.

Keyzer’s wrongful termination case is also connected to San Joaquin Superior Court Judge Brett H. Morgan, the former chief deputy for the State of California Inspector General and chief of staff of the State of California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.

It was on Morgan’s watch that UC Davis was conducting unlawful research involving human subjects, which apparently happened with his permission.

San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Brett H. Morgan was involved in the prosecution of my psychologist spouse with media coverage and attacks similar to the attacks against Katehi today.
This happened shortly after the November 18, 2011, pepper spray attack on the UC Davis campus.

Morgan’s work history with the State of California government is similar to Chang’s.

In 1999, both Chang and Morgan worked together as deputy attorneys general in the State of California Attorney General’s Office.

Also, from 1999 to 2004, Morgan worked in the State of California Attorney General’s office with present UC Davis Campus Chief Counsel Jacob Appelesmith, who in September 2013 was transferred to the UC Davis Campus from the California Governor Jerry Brown’s Office, where he had served as senior Brown’s adviser since 2011. Appelsmith replaced Drown.

At the same time, Napolitano, the former US Homeland Security chief, replaced Mark Yudof as the new UC president.

It is no coincidence that former Napolitano was hired in 2013 as the new UC president, and it is no coincidence that Appelsmith was deployed to the UC Davis campus by the president of the UC Board of Regents, the Honorable Jerry Brown.

It is also no coincidence that Robinson, on the advice of Napolitano, retained her two colleagues, the two former US prosecutors and white-collar crime defense attorneys, to prepare a defense for the regents and himself under false pretenses and to orchestrate a witch hunt against the UC Davis Greek-born chancellor and her Greek family from Davis, California.

It is also no coincidence that the attack against Katehi and her family occurred after I submitted my complaints about UC Regents, Robinson and Drown’s crimes to the federal authorities.

Apparently, from reading my complaints Robinson and Drown got the impression that I am Katehi’s dedicated enemy and that attacking the chancellor and her family would distract me from their crimes, destruction and devastation of many UC Davis employees’ normal existence, lives and livelihoods.

This makes me wonder how Napolitano will rescue herself from the standoff with Katehi, who is still legally the UC Davis chancellor.

Share:

About The Author

Born In Poland Live in Lodi , California since 1989. In USA since 1982. Worked last 13 years in UC Davis Medical Center , Sacramento as a Power Plant Technician and Associate Development Engineer . Wrongfully terminated by UC Davis Neo -Nazis in December 2012 after despicable and inhumane retaliatory action akin closely to hunting Jews during the Holocaust

Related posts

5 thoughts on “Guest Commentary: Another Nail in the Coffin”

  1. Tia Will

    Jerry

    UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown with other perpetrators orchestrated the pepper spray provocation attack against protesters on November 18, 2011, to create the infamous image of Lt. Pike for the UC Davis Chancellor and for UC Davis.”

    One point for clarification. How exactly ( not speaking in generalities) do you feel that Campus Counsel Steven Drown and his associates could possibly have “orchestrated the pepper spray” incident ?  By her own statement Chancellor Katehi made the decision to clear the quad, over road the advice that she was given both by members of her own leadership team about the need to do so and by the police about how and when to do so. I am at a loss to understand how Steven Drown could have possibly orchestrated all of these decisions that the Chancellor herself made. But I am listening.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk Post author

      Tia Will

      How exactly ( not speaking in generalities) do you feel that Campus Counsel Steven Drown and his associates could possibly have “orchestrated the pepper spray” incident ? 

      Answer: I don’t feel , I know.
      The story is a lot  longer than Reynoso’s and Kroll’s reports and you need  to read these reports and   my two   letters  which were addressed to   Melinda Guzman and  to   U.S  Attorney. The letters were posted on DV.  Also, you have to understand the power of UC Davis Campus Counsel and power of the UC General Counsel in relation to the November 18, 2011 and you have to know the reason why UC Campus Counsel Steven Drown and UC General Counsel Charles Robinson used students protest in 2011 to remove Annette Spicuzza . Lt Pike , Cpt. Souza and  Chancellor Katehi . Steven Drown and Charles Robinson are white collar criminals and this why they hired two Napolitano’s friends Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott for preparation of lawsuit which if take place than undoubtedly will expose the regents crimes and their involvement .
       It happened that Linda  Katehi  found herself in the bad place at the bad time when she decided to take UC Davis  chancellor position in  2009  as same as myself in 1999.  We both did not know what is coming.

  2. Tia Will

    Jerry

    I have recently re read the Reynoso report with summarization of the Kroll report findings. Although you have repeatedly stated that the Chancellor had no fault in this matter, the report itself offers the following conclusions (paraphrased for brevity) which would not seem to support your interpretation.

    Section 1

    All six points including failure to investigate whether there were truly “non-affiliates present, the decision to deploy police to remove tents on November 18 before considering other alternatives, the scope of the police operation was ineffectively communicated and not clearly understood by key decision makers, there were no clear lines delineating the responsibility for decision making between civilian administrators and police, there was confusion as to the legal basis for the police action and the leaderships team’s informal, consensus based decision making process was ineffective for supporting a major extraordinary event were under the direct responsibility of the Chancellor.

     Section III – Individual Responsibility

     A. The Chancellor bears primary responsibility for the decision to deploy the police at 3 pm rather than during the night or early morning which is a tactical decision properly reserved for police authorities.

     B. The Chancellor bears primary responsibility for the failure to communicate her position that the police operation should avoid physical force

     C. Many members of the leadership team including the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor Meyer, and Vice Chancellor Wood share responsibility for the decision to remove the tents on Friday and as a result, the subsequent police action against protestors.

    I have also read your previous posts on the Vanguard on this issue and unlike with the Reynoso report, I have not seem much by substantiation of what I see as your heartfelt beliefs about the situation. What I was asking you for was not further demonstration of your personal commitment to your views, but some objective support for your perspective.

     

  3. Jerry Waszczuk Post author

    I see as your heartfelt beliefs about the situation.

    Ms. Tia

    It is not my heartfelt beliefs , I ma dealing with UCOP white collar criminals in two separate lawsuits .

    I am trying to convince of anything . I am presenting my point of view on many different documents which you never would see because I can’t publish these documents on DV.  I have thousands of pages of documents . A lot more than  the SacBee received from PRA UCOP office .

    In regards to Reynoso’s and Kroll report you have to look the outcome of  these reports .

    You missed the most important part in the report:
    According to the Kroll Report marked Confidential—Do Not Distribute, on the relevant Friday morning, November 18, Lieutenant Pike and Officer P contacted Campus Counsel Sweeney and discussed their concerns with him. Sweeney told them he would get back to them, and at around 1:00 p.m., a conference call was conducted in Chief Spicuzza’s office with Pike, Officer P. Sweeney and Steven Drown. Both Officer P. and Pike “had several questions about the legality of conducting a planned operation during the middle of the afternoon versus the early morning hours. PIKE’S DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION ON THE CONFERENCE CALL WAS REDACTED, APPARENTLY DUE TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
    Everything was buried by the settlement  in 2012 in the very speedy settlement . The   Yolo County District Attorney refused to file the  criminal charges against responsible for the  pepper spray attack where so many people were hurt.  Do you know why? The charges would lead the District Attorney straight to  Steven Drown , Charles Robinson , Stephen Chilcott and Matt Carmichael and to many to  others who collaborated with them.
     

  4. Jerry Waszczuk Post author

    Ms. Tia
    Last year UC Davis Chancellor Katehi got perfect five years review and this what does matter in this case. The Chancellor’s performance evaluation or five years’ stewardship review given her by UC Davis Academic Senate and then approved by the UC President and UC Regents is a lot more important in this his case than ad hoc fabricated legally groundless allegations and accusations to destroy her and her family.
    In 2011 Chancellor was represented in the Federal Court by Porter/Scott firm which now is representing UC Regents in two lawsuits I have against UC Regents in the court.
    One of the Porter /Scott law firm attorney Michael Pott  in the  published article on their website 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 Michael Pott article correspondents with the Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958, 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) which cited Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 654 [254 Cal. Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373] as follow.
    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 be 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. Tangential beneficiaries are ordinarily, as in the case here, all part of a management group with a common interest, i.e., the efficient running of the business.
    Maybe  Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard does not apply in exact words to Chancellor Katehi case and it would  for the  court to decide if  the Jensen v. Hewlett -Packard could be cited as a precedent.
     
    Following the events since 2011 and dealing with the two lawsuit I see the UCOP desperation in Napolitano’s action against Chancellor and that she is the one who is carry the UC Regents or Gov. Brown Order to finish Chancellor and it nothing to do with alleged Chancellor Kathei missteps which were forgiven by Napolitano.

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