One was in an editorial written by the President of Tremco and printed in the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Magazine, the Midwest Roofer - in 2000 ( he gleefully stated my case had been dismissed - that was Federal Court and due to a whistleblower case ruled on from Vermont, so we had gone to State Court and it was there at the time of his statement).
Here is a typical description of the case you might find on a legal website:
Exhaustion Rule Requires Public Employee to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Before Proceeding to Lawsuit
In Campbell v. Regents of the University of California, 2005 DJDAR 2708 (Supreme Court No. S1132275, March 7, 2005), the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's demurrer of a retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies created by the Regents of the University of California to handle whistle blower claims.
Janet Campbell was an architect for the University of California, San Francisco ("UCSF"). While employed for the Regents of the University of California, she complained to the University about violations of competitive bidding laws. When no action was taken, Campbell made a report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This action resulted in a criminal investigation of UCSF officials.
Thereafter, Campbell's job duties changed and she was assigned to less challenging and "more menial" tasks. Campbell soon went on extended disability leave. Shortly after she returned to work, she was discharged. The Regents blamed her discharge on downsizing. Campbell claimed that less senior and less qualified employees were retained.
Campbell subsequently filed an internal complaint alleging a violation of personnel policies. By letter, she was informed that allegations of retaliation for whistleblowing had to be filed under a specific whistle blower protection procedure, not the general personnel grievance procedure. Instead of refiling the complaint under the Regents' whistle blower protection procedure, Campbell opted to file a complaint in superior court. The Regents demurred, arguing that Campbell's refusal to file a grievance amounted to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court sustained the demurrer to Campbell's complaint and the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The California Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint finding that Campbell should have exhausted administrative remedies before bringing suit. The court noted that the Regents' broad powers as a constitutionally-created arm of the state under Cal. Const. art. IX, § 9 included the authority to create a policy for handling whistle blower claims. Further, the court rejected the architect's assertions that the administrative remedies were inadequate and that administrative jurisdiction was lacking. Rather, the court found that the Regents' Policy and Procedures allowed it to provide the complainant with "any appropriate relief" and to impose any sanctions on the offending employees. Finally, the court noted that neither Cal. Gov't Code § 12653 (False Claims Act) nor Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5 (No retaliation for disclosing violations of the law to government or law enforcement) contained any provision abrogating the exhaustion requirement.
Now what you don't know is the following:
That there was no requirement for the University of California to follow any laws, that they were a "fourth branch of government" as the California Supreme Court Justice wrote in his opinion. Further, that meant that though my attorneys argued that you had to follow the California Statutes, including the taking of oaths in testimony (and in grievances), UC did not have to do so if they chose not to.
My attorneys argued futility issues with regards to the lack of taking of oaths in grievances, and therefore, we could not get a fair hearing.
The California Supreme Court saw it otherwise.
In fact, the ruling flew in the face of the previous case, 180 degrees from their ruling in the Palmer vs. UCLA, as pointed out by an attorney in their Amicus Curiae Brief (friend of the court brief) in the next whistleblower case against UC now in the California Supreme Court, desperately attempting to alert the Courts that no matter what the Court says, UC will and has ignored all forms of our legal system in doling whatever they want to - and are getting away with it, with our Tax Dollars.
So what did that attorney file in their friend-of-the-court brief in the next UC Whistleblower retaliation case now in the courts?
That:
"Despite the previous case where the whistleblower (Palmer) had not filed a grievance, Campbell had filed a grievance. However, the Respondent (UC) was allowed to "delay and play hide-the-ball with its policies, summarily disposing of the whistleblower claims by bifurcating (separating) allegations based on the same core of operative fact, procedurally rejecting her allegations for retaliation for whistleblowing under the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual (PPSM), while proceeding under the PPSM with other of her non-whistleblower claims that took over a year for them to vindicate themselves, despite State Auditor findings to the contrary."
The California Supreme Court had ruled in Palmer vs. UCLA that that whistleblower had to file a grievance to be able to procced to court. In my case, Campbell vs. UCSF, they found that I could not proceed despite the fact that a grievance was filed, timely, and not timely answered nor under oath, and was separated into two parts by the University - after the fact.
Further, during my employment in one instance and directly after my employment in the other instance, at the University of California, San Francisco......twice two folks in charge of telling me what my rights were specifically related to my cases and with regards to my legal obligations lie to me, one a federal employee and one my first attorney....hmmm, now just how does that happen?
How did we know? The attorney for Morgenstein & Jubelier, the UC Attorneys, seemed to believe me, after trying to drive me into the ground as fast as she could in 5 days of depositions, 900 some pages....to the point the person taking the notes had to beg us to keep stopping we were going so fast. She wound up running scared.....
So guess what I find in alllll those boxes of my evidence after I pick them up from M&J?
Not only do I find them "stuffed" with "rough drafts" of personnel policies for about every year I was there - and only one which I ever saw, in late 1997 long after I went to the FBI, it had a box of info in it I had never seen. (You see the Personnel Policies I had to pay for a copy of at UCSF in 1997 while going to the FBI had absolutely nothing in there about Whistleblowing, not even that they had a Policy for Whistleblowing, yet some of these rough drafts had one paragraph about having a Whistleblowing Policy and nothing else about who to go to for them, what to file, time deadlines, etc.)
So what was in that box? Copies of letters from a Federal Agency that apparently and unbeknownst to me allowed me in 1996 to sue my employer - UCSF - for sexual harrassment. If my boss could do anything, he was certainly trying to do everything - and getting nowhere with me. Yet the Federal Employee called me to their offices and told me they didn't find anything, so I couldn't do anything. She lied. She also never sent me any of the paperwork.
The lawyer at M&J obviously knew I was telling the truth - and she left that firm 3 weeks after my depositions were done, in the middle of buying a home in Alameda.....
My first attorney said that I couldn't file a grievance for whistleblowing after we had filed the first grievance including whistleblowing (from which the university separated out the whistleblowing, two months later) because I had not done so in 1997 in the first six months after I went to the FBI (remember, no whistleblowing policy was printed in our manuals they gave us at UCSF).
I have never seen the policy. Never. I still don't know to whom I was to have reported what and when - I have never seen a written Policy from the University.
No matter the latter lie from my first attorney regarding whistleblowing - - my other attorneys said that since UC was not required to take oaths when "investigating" (as in "covering up") grievances - under recognized law and cases, we should have had the right to sue and be heard (it's called "futility" in law).
Further, UC apparently did not have the right to separate the grievances - and did - and required re-filing of such.
They also refused to send me a copy of the rules, after sending me a letter that they were going to do so and had attached the rules - but had not done so.
Did you get the main point?
UC Administrators demanded the force of law behind statements from administrator and other employees without benefit of oaths, while also demanding they were their own government, of course (haha) operating as per our laws.
Right.
Futile - futile - futile.....
So THAT'S why the US Congressional Committee looking into the misuse of funds and rank lawlessness at the UC-run National Nuclear Labs, Los Alamos in New Mexico, read my case into the US Congressional Record. They described my case, according to attorneys and their committee staffers, as "a Prime Example of the Lack of Accountability of the University of California".
They were absolutely right.
After all, suspicious Los Alamos US Congressional Committee staffers in Washington, DC, after hearing my story from attorneys other than my own, called me up one day and asked to see if I could find out if the same scam was going on at Los Alamos.
With one call to a New Mexico roofing supplier, himself on the Task Force in Albuquerque trying to stop the scam in Albuquerque Public Schools with Garland operating there, he told me yes, Tremco was operating inside Los Alamos facilities - Tremco was doing most of their roofing, that it was illegally sole-sourced, just who inside Los Alamos was stopping all competitive bidding, and named just one of a possible number of "gifts" that facilities person was suspected of getting for such.
Within five minutes, I was back on the phone to the Los Alamos Committee staffers in Washington, DC. In shock, they listened. I offered to check through another route. I did, going form the Midwest into a "safe" Texas Roofing Contractor and into their "safe" roofing contractor list. One did talk to me, and within 30 minutes, I not only had confirmed the previous information without divulging such, I got more....and the Committee staffers seemed to go numb that I was able to do so, and so quickly.
But they were not surprised at the actions of the University of California.
The roofing scam has continued ad infinitum across country because UC Administrators have stamped their feet with the courts to keep playing spoiled child - they might miss allllll those wonderful lifestyle enhancements detailed in the State Auditor's recent report on Executive Compensation, Judicially Noticed by an attorney in the next UC whistleblower case - and which Judicial Notice was granted for - or be held accountable, worse for them, but best for us, the taxpayers.
Don't you think an end to the graft and corruption is needed - yesterday?
Have you, California residents, noticed how the State Auditors keep getting barred from looking into the University of California's finances?
And also, California residents, have you noticed all those SF Chronicle reports re: Enormous personal gifting by UC Administrators to themselves?
Or did you as I did hear about the setting up a female Vice Chancellor (Santa Cruz) for dogruns built, and then "not hear" about them letting her jump off a 42-story building here in San Francisco last year (one of a number of hopeless employees who commit suicide at UC) for making her literally "take the Fall" for the others - and you can bet it wasn't dogruns that needed to get hidden.
I heard about that 42-story fall first from a friend in San Diego at 6 pm on the Saturday it happened (and it happened early morning) - our time, and on the 10 pm local news that "something had happened" at that location. No details. But in between 6 pm and 10 pm, I got more details from relatives and friends in Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Atlanta - a news blackout here in northern California.....
In other words, for the laymen: UC used the system to somehow get those telling me my rights to lie.
Twice.
And had very good reason to to do so.
They wanted to stop any investigations.
After all, the Assistant Vice Chancellor in my Dept., himself a trained musician from Stanford running an 800-person facilities Dept., a former VP of Lincoln Savings Bank and Loan charged with fraud in that case (which he did not deny, and which he told me the charges had been dropped for "lack of evidence"), told me:
"Janet it's not what you know - it's WHO you know."
Hmmm......that sounds like a bona-fide Banana Republic, not the US.
Is that what "Administrators" in "Education" need to create - and have?
UC claimed the right in my case to make their own laws and apart from our sytem in a "fourth branch of government scheme" in Business Operations, not in academic freedoms needed to explore ideas - and against their Charter in the Way they operated (Organic Act in the 1850's, a Land Grant Charter Act).
The California Constitution only allows three branches of government - which are to function as a check on each other.
UC's friends in the Courts bought it - and in their ruling stated that UC was "a fourth branch of government" - and their friends allllll the way up to the US Supreme Court bought it.
And that is despite what the California Supreme Court said in the oral hearings in my case.
The oral hearings were held in a closed door session at the other end of the state from San Francisco, in a private Jesuit University (University of San Diego) and at Christmastime (Dec. 8, 2004).
With just a few in the courtroom, the youngest male Justice stood up and pointed his finger at the UC Attorney and for a very long time, maybe ten minutes, loudly said as he wagged his pointed finger at the UC Attorney and saying it, over and over, "You tell your client that we said these were Criminal Acts.. You tell your client that we said these were Criminal Acts!!!"
And those were only the ones the Justices were allowed to see - not the lying from involved Federal Employees and my first attorney, not the death threats one week prior like clockwork to the lower court rulings, not the kickbacks - NOTHING.
Look for the same to be happening in your states and to other whistleblowers....another country operating illegally inside our borders, with no laws they have to obey.
Got it? It's called Due Process Rights, folks.....an important constitutional issue necessary in the exposure of scams reaming us all out. Its complex, but very important when those rights are abrogated, and in exposing how the tentacles of the scam reach so very far into houses of corruption.
And have cost the taxpayers billions in education......
The three players in the roofing scam are tiny cogs in the wheel of corruption......
