University of California Whistleblowers' Due Process Rights Ignored - again - in Oral Hearings at the California Supreme Court Level

A number of folks are beginning to think that something is beyond wrong here.

How can lawyers arguing in oral hearings before the California Supreme Court miss the most basic issues regarding how whistleblowers are suppressed at the University of California - through:
1. Procedural shenanigans (Due Process Rights)
2. Trickeries that are used to thwart constitutionally-required
due process rights (see http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/02/in-california-who-is-stopping.html
for more details)
3. A system of governance grown apart from laws and checks
and balances
a. Prescribed by a legislature without the authority to do so
b. Affirmed by the California Supreme Court in Campbell vs.
Bd. of Regents stating that UC was a "fourth branch of
government that did not have to obey any laws", against
the California Constitution, and against the Charter that
formed UC. UC's Charter required that the Academic
Senate ruled all aspects of the University, and the
Administrators were underneath them. Academic Freedoms
were for the Academics, and the organization of the
government within was to be centralized.
Contrarily, the Administrators pulled out from under the
Academic Senate on an opinion letter from the State Attorney
General with no case law to back it up, about 40 years ago. In
so doing, they abrogated their centralized form of government,
and took the Academic Freedoms of the Academics with them
into their Business Operations.

Do you understand that?

So now we have a state agency with powers of their own organization under an illegal form of government operating, telling employees that they do not have to obey any laws, and who refuse any audits by public entities of the expenditures of taxpayer dollars.

The latest case is Miklosy vs. the Board of Regents (Case No. S139133). At issue is whether or not the whistleblowers, working on nuclear projects and who find safety hazards being ordered by superiors, have any rights when attempting to alert authorities to those hazards.

UC argued State Code 8547 has one section that applies to State employees except for UC employees, and the section that applies to UC employees was not amended at the same time nor was there given any reason for such in the Legislative records. (Changes to the laws were made in the early 2000's by State Senator Jackie Speier and unequally changed.)

The whistleblower's attorneys argued that the law should have been changed. In so doing, the Court noted that they could not change laws made by legislators, only interpret the laws. The Court also noted that any exposure of UC in the courts could damage their reputation.

No real thought as to how to protect UC's reputation was broached, other than squelching whistleblowing.

Two of the Justices brought up the history of UC's illegal administrative separation and ensuing due process rights issues as laid out in the Amicus Briefs, but the plaintiff's attorneys refused to argue those points. The Due Process Rights points, along with the illegal form of government at UC (non-conforming to their Charter), makes UC's arguments null and void, but the plaintiff's attorneys apparently did not get it, while two very bright justices got it and attempted to get the plaintiff's attorneys to argue such - and they did not.

As to the fear about UC's reputation: it's been damaged since the 1960's and will never get back any good reputation with most people in the US, nor will they ever have a chance by focusing repeatedly on coverups.

If you have lived in other parts of the country, Nixon was considered the typical Californian - and as the way their institutions are. Despite "national security 'reasons' ", UC instead seems more bent on bringing in dollars from wherever to dump at the black hole known as the Office of the President (without accountability - look at the Executive Compensation Package Audit the State Auditors attempted to do - without much disclosure from the Office of the President).

Without complete exposure of wrongdoing and real punishment for the "criminals", as so called by one Justice repeatedly in the oral hearings in the Campbell vs. Bd. of Regents case (he stood up, finger wagging at the UC Attorney for a very long time, and repeatedly stated, "You tell your clients these were criminal acts! You tell your clients these were criminal acts!"), UC can never gain any portion of a good reputation back. They have clearly put themselves on the side of the con man.

For those who wish to see the pleadings written by a lawyer who whistleblew at UC San Diego in NIH contracts (National Institute of Health), who discovered UC was operating illegally through much research, please contact roofreports@gmail.com or comment below. We will get you or your lawyers a copy....the research documented and sent to the US Supreme Court is very thorough.