---

PART I — WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

A. The CFO Who Said It Out Loud — February 13, 2026

On February 13, 2026, the Daily Bruin published an interview with UCLA Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer Stephen Agostini, who had overseen UCLA’s $11-billion budget since his appointment in May 2024. Prior to UCLA, Agostini served as the Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance and Budget at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as Chief Financial Officer of the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — where he testified before Congress — and in senior finance positions at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

In the interview, conducted February 6, 2026, Agostini made the following statements:

The unaudited annual financial reports UCLA posted on its website since 2002 are “erroneous,” and the UC Office of the President asked him to stop posting them.

UCLA has a $425 million annual structural deficit caused by “financial management flaws and failures” predating his arrival.

“I have rarely seen the kind of financial management flaws and failures that I see here when I got here.”

The Ascend Finance Transformation Project — UCLA’s initiative to replace its legacy mainframe financial system, designed in the 1980s, with Oracle Cloud — had cost at least $213 million over seven years with few concrete results. Agostini called it “a terrific waste of resources” and paused it indefinitely: “We spent $150 million on the Ascend project, and we have nothing to show for it.”

Approximately 75% of UCLA’s academic units are running operational deficits.

Sources: Daily Bruin, “Financial mismanagement contributed to $425 million annual deficit, UCLA CFO says,” published February 13, 2026; Daily Bruin, “‘One timeline after the other was not met’ — UCLA’s $213 million project is failing,” published May 13, 2025.

On Tuesday, February 17, 2026 — four days after the article was published — Chancellor Julio Frenk fired Agostini, effective immediately. UCLA Vice Chancellor for Strategic Communications Mary Osako stated that the $425 million deficit figure was “inaccurate.” The Los Angeles Times reported that a source with knowledge of the situation stated the firing was tied to Agostini’s public statements, which were made without the Chancellor’s approval. The Daily Bruin editorial board responded on February 19, 2026: “Agostini’s departure after interview with The Bruin shows UCLA punishes transparency.”

Sources: Daily Bruin, “UCLA CFO out days after alleging history of financial mismanagement,” published February 17, 2026; Los Angeles Times, “UCLA fires top finance officer, saying he made inaccurate claims about campus budget,” published February 18, 2026; Chronicle of Higher Education, “UCLA’s Head of Finance Alleged Years of Mismanagement. Days Later, He Was Fired,” published February 18, 2026; Inside Higher Ed, “UCLA CFO Out After Claiming Administrators Mishandled Money,” published February 18, 2026; CFO.com, “UCLA CFO blows whistle on university finances,” published February 17, 2026.

B. The Retired Officer Who Documented It for Thirty-Seven Years

Charles A. Harold, Jr. — a retired UCLA Police Department officer (Badge #341), the founding president of the Federated University Police Officers’ Association (FUPOA), a cancer patient with surgery scheduled for February 25, 2026, and a documented whistleblower whose case is cited in UCLA’s own institutional history — has spent thirty-seven years documenting the same category of institutional dysfunction that Agostini identified from the executive suite in February 2026.

During those thirty-seven years, the University of California has applied six mutually contradictory employment classifications to Harold:

#	Classification	Source	Effect on Harold
1	“Medically Separated”	Chobanian 2023/2026	Used to deny CCW after 21 years of continuous issuance
2	“Retired” / “Retired in Good Standing”	CCW Cards 2002/2013; All retiree emails 2011–2020	Treated as retired officer eligible for all retiree benefits for 21 years
3	“Disabled Member” receiving DDI	Octagon 2001; 1099-R Code 3 (2010–2014)	Received Disability Deferred Income payments; tax-reported as disability
4	“Retiree” (pension recipient)	UC RASC 2015–present; 1099-R Codes 2/7 (2015–2024)	Reclassified from disability to pension without notice; tax liability increased
5	“Retiree on Disability”	Thomas Herz / UCOP 2009–2010 (SSA application)	Hybrid classification used for SSA; exists in no UC policy manual
6	“Resigned”	Karl T. Ross (entered while defendant in Harold’s civil rights case SC022125)	Classification suppressed DDI payments 1996–2001; Harold received zero income for 49–84 months

Five independent sources have confirmed that UC’s records are missing, destroyed, or incomplete:

#	Source	Date	Statement
1	Karl Ross, former Acting Chief, UCLA PD	∼1998–2003	Harold’s personnel file was “old and had been destroyed.” Ross was a named defendant in Harold’s civil rights case SC022125.
2	Ida Fong, UC Retirement Administration	March 18, 2021	Records were “lost during computer system upgrades.”
3	UCRAYS Portal (UC’s own system)	February 2026	No records available before January 1, 2024. System only retains “a couple years.”
4	Anthem Blue Cross	February 2026	No records prior to January 1, 2024 available for Harold’s account.
5	Stephen Agostini, UCLA CFO	February 13, 2026	Financial reports since 2002 “erroneous and unaudited.” $213M failed technology upgrade. Fired four days after making these statements.

Two independent sources — one on the benefits floor, one in the executive suite — identified the same category of institutional failure affecting the same record-keeping systems during overlapping time periods. Neither was aware of the other’s statements. Agostini was fired within four days of making his.

C. The Segue: This Is Not New

The institutional dysfunction Agostini identified in February 2026 is not new. The following sections document that the same pattern has operated continuously for thirty-seven years. What follows is an evidentiary record compiled entirely from UC’s own documents, UC’s own recorded telephone lines, UC’s own IRS filings, and UC’s own institutional publications — presenting the civil rights case, the constitutional violations, the demand for financial restitution, and the institutional pattern that produced all three.

PART II — THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE

This Part presents the civil rights claims arising from the University of California’s thirty-seven-year pattern of conduct toward Charles A. Harold. These claims are presented pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (deprivation of rights under color of law), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (conspiracy to interfere with civil rights), the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code § 12940 et seq.).

The facts presented herein are drawn exclusively from documents generated by the University of California’s own administrative systems, recorded telephone communications with UC agents on UC’s own telephone systems, IRS Form 1099-R filings issued by UC, and UC’s own institutional publications. No facts are taken from third-party sources. The reader is invited to evaluate whether the documented record establishes a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional and statutory rights of a disabled, 65-year-old, documented whistleblower and cancer patient.

Note Regarding Damages: The monetary demands set forth in Chapter 14 of this evidentiary package represent the documented financial harm arising from UC’s unauthorized modification of settlement terms, erroneous tax filings, and improperly deducted premiums. The civil rights claims documented in this Part carry independent statutory remedies — including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 — that are expressly reserved and not included in the Chapter 14 demands.

A. Complainant’s Standing

Law Enforcement Officer: Charles A. Harold served as a sworn peace officer with the UCLA Police Department, Badge #341. He was injured on duty in approximately January 1996 and was classified by the University of California as receiving Disability Deferred Income (DDI) pursuant to a March 2003 workers’ compensation settlement. Harold’s settlement preserved his medical insurance coverage, with UC paying insurance premiums as part of the settlement terms.

Whistleblower: In the early 1990s, Harold exposed corruption within the UCLA Police Department that resulted in the termination of the Chief of Police (John C. Barber) and command staff. These events are documented in UCLA’s own academic record: the Luskin Center for History and Policy publication, “The History of Racism and the Quest for Racial Justice at UCLA” (March 2022), at pages 35–36 and footnotes 147–164.

Union Founder: Harold was the founding president of the Federated University Police Officers’ Association (FUPOA), the union that represents sworn officers at all ten University of California campuses. FUPOA was the first National Labor Relations Board-recognized statewide law enforcement bargaining unit in the history of the University of California police system.

Journalist and Security Industry Professional: Harold operates SecurityGuyTV, through which he has produced more than 3,000 podcast episodes and broadcasts reporting on security and crime. Harold holds California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) licenses including guard card and firearms permit. Harold has worked in security consulting for Fox Broadcasting, the Walt Disney Company, and other major media corporations. Harold’s CCW permit was integral to his professional livelihood.

Disabled Individual: Harold was rated 6¾% permanent disability, permanent and stationary, by Octagon Risk Services on August 8, 2001. Harold was subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent surgery on February 25, 2026. At the time UC initiated adverse actions against Harold’s medical coverage, Harold was actively preparing for cancer surgery.

Current Cardiac Condition: As of February 2026, Harold is experiencing atrial fibrillation (AFib). This cardiac condition represents the continuation of a documented progressive cardiac deterioration that began during Harold’s active service at UCLA PD. Harold’s pre-UCLA medical record — five separate examinations across three employers from December 29, 1980 through December 1, 1989 — uniformly showed a normal heart. The first documented cardiac damage (right ventricular enlargement) appeared on April 12, 1991, sixteen months after Harold started at UCLA. By February 29, 1996, Dr. Timothy Reynolds documented right ventricular hypertrophy (enlarged heart), possible lateral infarct of undetermined age (heart damage), and abnormal EKG. Under California Labor Code § 3212.5, heart trouble developing or manifesting during a period in which a peace officer is in active service is presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment. The employer bears the burden of rebuttal. UC’s own Chief of Police acknowledged in February 1996 that Harold’s heart condition qualified for a 100% tax-free medical retirement (see Section B.5 below). UC never processed that retirement. Harold is now in AFib thirty years later.

Age 65 and Medicare-Eligible: Harold turned 65 on January 3, 2026. His Medicare enrollment became effective January 1, 2026. The adverse actions documented in this chapter — including the Via Benefits transfer attempt, income reduction, and coverage disruption — cluster around Harold’s 65th birthday and Medicare eligibility transition, the precise age milestone at which UC initiates the Via Benefits transfer pipeline.

B. Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)

Statutory Framework: The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals on the basis of disability in employment, public services, and public accommodations. Title II of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12132) provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity. The University of California is a public entity subject to Title II. Stanley v. Regents of the University of California (N.D. Cal. 2022) confirmed that retirees may bring ADA claims against the Regents for benefits discrimination.

B.1. Permanent Disability Rating

On August 8, 2001, Octagon Risk Services determined that Harold’s industrial injury resulted in a 6¾% permanent disability rating, permanent and stationary. This determination was made pursuant to Harold’s March 2003 workers’ compensation settlement with the University of California.

B.2. Cancer Diagnosis and Surgery

Harold was diagnosed with prostate cancer. His surgery was scheduled for February 25, 2026. At the time UC initiated adverse actions against Harold’s medical coverage, Harold was actively preparing for cancer surgery — making the disruption of his medical coverage not merely an administrative inconvenience but a direct threat to his medical treatment and recovery.

B.3. Via Benefits Ineligibility Confirmation

On February 2, 2026, at 12:11 PM Arizona time, Via Benefits program administrator Joshua Lewis called Harold from the Willis Towers Watson number (+1 866-322-2824). The call lasted 7 minutes and 6 seconds. Lewis identified himself as a Via Benefits representative and stated he was calling because Harold had not yet enrolled in the Via Benefits program.

Harold explained his disability rating and the history of his disability income classification. Lewis confirmed that Harold was indeed ineligible for the Via Benefits program because of his disability status. Lewis stated that Via Benefits was “not designed for someone in your situation” and acknowledged that Harold’s case required resolution by UC directly.

Harold informed Lewis that his prostate cancer surgery was scheduled for February 25, 2026 — 23 days from the date of the call. Lewis responded that they needed to fix the situation before the surgery. Lewis acknowledged the urgency and stated he would escalate the matter.

Harold specifically directed Lewis not to enroll him in Via Benefits because it would seriously jeopardize his quality of healthcare coverage and possibly a favorable medical recovery outcome.

B.4. ADA Violations Documented

The following actions constitute potential violations of the ADA as applied to Harold’s documented disability status:

(a) Discriminatory Reclassification: UC reclassified Harold’s income from disability (IRS Distribution Code 3, approximately 92.7% tax-free) to taxable retirement income (Codes 2 and 7) without providing notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to contest the change. This reclassification eliminated the tax benefit that constituted a core component of Harold’s disability income. (See Chapter 7: UC’s Own Tax Filings Expose the Switch from Disability.)

(b) CCW Denial Based on Disability Status: Captain Jeff Chobanian denied Harold’s CCW renewal in August 2023, reclassifying Harold as “medically separated” rather than “retired.” The classification that UC used to deny the CCW is the same disability classification that should have entitled Harold to continued disability income. UC used Harold’s disability as a sword (to deny benefits) while simultaneously denying it as a shield (by reclassifying his disability income to retirement income). (See Chapter 12: The Case Against Competence.)

(c) Benefits Transfer During Active Cancer Treatment: UC initiated a transfer of Harold from UC group coverage to Via Benefits — a program that Via Benefits’ own administrator confirmed would not accept Harold because of his disability status — while Harold was preparing for prostate cancer surgery. (See Chapter 1: The Unqualified Benefits Transfer.)

(d) Failure to Accommodate: UC made no effort to engage in the interactive accommodation process required under the ADA before reclassifying Harold’s disability income, denying his CCW permit on disability-related grounds, or attempting to transfer him to a program for which he was categorically ineligible. (See Chapters 1, 7, and 12.)

B.5. The Heart Presumption: UC’s Own Chief Acknowledged a “Slam Dunk” Retirement That Was Never Processed

Statutory Framework: California Labor Code § 3212.5 provides that heart trouble developing or manifesting during a period in which a peace officer is in the active service of the employing entity shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of the employment. This presumption is rebuttable, but the burden falls on the employer to prove the heart trouble did not arise from employment. This is one of the strongest presumptions in California workers’ compensation law for peace officers.

The Documented Medical Baseline (Pre-UCLA):

December 29, 1980: Chest x-ray at St. John’s Hospital. Dr. P.W. Joyce: “The heart is normal size and the lungs are clear.”

March 1983: LAPD treadmill test showed PVCs (Premature Ventricular Contractions). Doctor stated not uncommon in athletic people.

April–May 1983: Extensive cardiac testing by cardiologist Dr. Nigel Roberts for San Gabriel PD — stress treadmill, 24-hour Holter monitor. Harold was cleared for duty and hired.

July 28, 1984: Chest x-ray at St. John’s compared to 12/29/80 x-ray. “No change. The heart size and pulmonary vascularity are within normal limits.” — Dr. R.K. Davis.

January 1985 – August 1988: Culver City PD — thorough pre-hiring physical and psychological with Dr. Agzarrian. Passed all tests. No heart problem identified. Harold’s own statement: “Never experienced any sensations with my heart, stomach, or any other part of my body.”

July 16, 1986: Chest x-ray at Santa Monica Radiological. “The overall cardiac size is within normal limits. No definite evidence of active pulmonary disease.” — Dr. B.J. Whelan.

December 1, 1989: Hired by UCLA PD. Passed all physical and psychological exams. No heart, stomach, or lung problems.

The Documented Cardiac Deterioration (During UCLA Employment):

January 1991: Stomach aches began every night before work, increasing when working. Did not occur on days off.

March 23, 1991: Harold believed he was having a heart attack. Chest pains, shortness of breath, left arm pain, nausea, dizziness. Wife drove to St. John’s ER.

April 4, 1991: Filed worker’s comp claim for heart and stomach under the order of supervisor Lt. Michael Shain.

April 12, 1991: Heart tests at St. John’s under Dr. Joyce Herrold’s direction. Nuclear medicine report by Dr. Julian R. Karelitz: “Right ventricular enlargement” — thallium dye showed “non uniform” distribution with “minimal reperfusion in the inferoapical region” — recommended evaluation for cardiomyopathy. Stress treadmill by Dr. Harry Rockoff showed occasional PVCs with exercise and recovery. This is the first documented heart damage — sixteen months after starting at UCLA.

April 15, 1991: Applied Risk Management Claims Administrator John Hodson interviewed Harold about job stressors. At the end of the interview, Hodson stated Harold’s filing of a WC claim “would not help the grievances” Harold had filed. Hodson’s interview notes later disappeared — Michael Lehman told Harold the notes “don’t exist.” Harold later saw a letter from Hodson at Dr. Reynolds’ office referencing that conversation.

August 27–29, 1991: Blood test showed significantly high cholesterol.

November 6, 1992: Michael Lehman — the same claims administrator who later denied Harold’s benefits — subpoenaed Harold’s St. John’s Hospital medical records without notifying Harold.

November 12, 1993: Harold paid $2,060 out of his own pocket for stress treadmill at Pacific Heart Institute. Dr. Merz found “Equivocal anteroapical/anteroseptal defect” — findings “may be similar” to 4/12/91 St. John’s results. Heart damage persisting.

November 10, 1994: Chest x-ray ordered by Dr. Herrold for shortness of breath — heart normal size but scarring on lungs discovered.

January 1996: Dr. Saccone prescribed Pravachol 20mg for cholesterol for the rest of Harold’s life. Poor ratio of good to bad cholesterol. Diet would not correct it.

February 29, 1996: Dr. Timothy Reynolds tested Harold. Results: NORMAL SINUS RHYTHM — RIGHT VENTRICULAR HYPERTROPHY (enlarged heart) — POSSIBLE LATERAL INFARCT, AGE UNDETERMINED (heart damage) — ABNORMAL EKG. During the test, the nurse printed out then threw away approximately four heartbeat strips from the EKG. Harold asked why. The nurse said they were “extra.” Harold told him to keep all printouts. He did not. Those strips could have contained evidence of arrhythmia or other cardiac events that would have strengthened Harold’s heart presumption claim.

February 2026: Harold is in atrial fibrillation.

The Chapman Admission — February 15, 1996:

On Thursday, February 15, 1996, Harold encountered Chief John Chapman in the UCLA PD parking lot on his day off. Harold told Chapman he was looking into leaving police work because of the health effects. Harold described his heart condition — “a slightly enlarged right ventricle and minimal scarring on the lower lobe” — and that his doctor had put him on cholesterol medication for life.

Chapman’s documented response, as recorded by Harold in a February 17, 1996 letter to his attorneys Jennifer Eason and Edgar Saenz:

“That’s a slam dunk.” When Harold asked what he meant, Chapman stated: “That’s a medical retirement, 100% tax free for the rest of your life. Anything having to do with your heart is a slam dunk. They can’t argue about it. When I was with the Sheriff’s department, (as a captain) we used to retire guys like that all the time. If you had any little mark on your heart, you were out of there.”

Chapman was a former Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department captain with direct professional experience processing heart-based medical retirements under the same statutory presumption. His statement constitutes an institutional acknowledgment by UC’s own Chief of Police that Harold’s heart condition qualified for the highest tier of retirement available under California law.

What Happened Instead:

The very next day — February 16, 1996 — Harold was injured on duty in a fight while arresting a combative suspect. Right knee, right lower ribs, right wrist, back. He was given workers’ compensation forms and sent to the hospital.

While Harold was being treated for his arrest injuries, Assistant Chief Karl T. Ross approached him and gave him a letter with additional worker’s comp forms relating to Harold’s February 14, 1996 letter to Cueba about industrial injury from punitive job actions. Harold asked Ross why he was receiving these forms when the department and Applied Risk Management already had two claims on file. Ross told Harold that he had spoken to Michael Lehman of Applied Risk Management, and Lehman told Ross he had no such record of a worker’s comp claim. Harold reminded Ross that former Lt. Shain and Captain Baker completed the forms several years earlier and turned them in. Harold also reminded Ross that Lehman himself had subpoenaed Harold’s St. John’s Hospital records showing the enlarged right ventricle and scarring. Ross’s documented response: “...and they have those records...?” — acting surprised.

The Documented Harm:

UC never processed the heart presumption retirement that its own Chief of Police described as “a slam dunk.” Instead, Applied Risk Management claimed Harold’s records did not exist. Ross acted surprised that medical records were on file. Harold was injured on duty the next day. UC stopped paying Harold disability income for a period of 49–84 months (1996–2001), during which Harold lost his home, was forced into bankruptcy, and his wife suffered a miscarriage. Seven years later, in March 2003, Harold settled for a workers’ compensation package providing lifetime health insurance and disability income — which is less than the 100% tax-free heart presumption medical retirement Chapman described. And now, in 2026, UC is attempting to reclassify even that lesser settlement.

The differential between what Chapman said Harold was entitled to (100% tax-free medical retirement for life) and what Harold actually received (a WC settlement with income that UC has since reclassified from tax-free disability to taxable retirement) represents additional damages that are expressly reserved and not included in the demands set forth in Chapter 14.

Sources: February 17, 1996 letter to attorneys Eason and Saenz; SCOTT_WC.docx medical synopsis to Dr. Cranford Scott, March 7, 1996 (with 50 attached medical documents); St. John’s Hospital records; Pacific Heart Institute records; Dr. Timothy Reynolds EKG results dated February 29, 1996.

C. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.)

Statutory Framework: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discrimination against individuals who are 40 years of age or older. 29 C.F.R. § 1625.10 specifically addresses age-based benefits reductions. The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (29 U.S.C. § 626(f)) requires that any waiver of age-protected benefits be knowing and voluntary, supported by consideration, and comply with specific disclosure requirements.

C.1. Age Milestone and Adverse Actions

Harold turned 65 on January 3, 2026. His Medicare enrollment became effective January 1, 2026. The following adverse actions occurred at or after Harold’s 65th birthday and Medicare eligibility transition:

Via Benefits Transfer Attempt: UC initiated a transfer of Harold from UC Blue Cross High Option coverage to Via Benefits — a Medicare coordination program that provides a $4,000-per-year stipend in place of UC group coverage. Via Benefits’ own administrator confirmed Harold was ineligible. (See Chapter 1.)

Income Reduction: Harold’s income was reduced from approximately $3,000 per month (tax-free disability income under IRS Code 3) to approximately $1,300 per month (taxable retirement income under IRS Codes 2 and 7). (See Chapter 7.)

Supplemental Insurance Disruption: Harold’s UC Blue Cross High Option coverage, which he had maintained for approximately twenty years, was threatened with removal precisely at the age when supplemental coverage becomes most critical. (See Chapter 3.)

Medigap Window Consumption: Harold’s one-time, non-renewable Medigap open enrollment window began January 1, 2026, and expires approximately July 1, 2026. UC’s failure to properly coordinate the Medicare transition has consumed months of this irreplaceable window during which Harold is unable to make informed enrollment decisions because UC has not clarified his coverage status. (See Chapter 3.)

C.2. ADEA Violations Documented

(a) Age-Triggered Benefit Reduction: The Via Benefits transfer constitutes an age-triggered reduction in benefits. Harold’s UC Blue Cross High Option coverage would be replaced with a $4,000-per-year stipend — a fraction of the value of his existing coverage. This reduction is triggered by Harold reaching age 65 and becoming Medicare-eligible. (See Chapter 1.)

(b) Older Workers Benefit Protection Act Violation: The UBEN 100 form UC sent Harold did not comply with the OWBPA requirements for knowing and voluntary waivers of age-protected benefits. The form contained no disclosure of the rights being waived, no consideration beyond what Harold was already entitled to, and no advisory to consult an attorney. (See Chapter 2: The Right to Rescind.)

(c) Pattern of Age-Correlated Adverse Actions: Every major adverse action affecting Harold’s benefits status clusters around age milestones: the Via Benefits enrollment pipeline activated as Harold approached 65; the coverage disruption coincides exactly with his Medicare eligibility date; and the income reduction compounds the financial impact at the precise moment Harold transitions to fixed income. (See Chapters 1, 3, and 7.)

D. California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code § 12940 et seq.)

Statutory Framework: FEHA provides broader protections than federal law for both disability discrimination (Government Code § 12940(a), (m)) and age discrimination (Government Code § 12940(a)). FEHA covers employers with five or more employees and extends to post-employment fringe benefits. FEHA’s definition of disability is broader than the ADA’s, requiring only a “limitation” upon a major life activity rather than a “substantial limitation.”

Application: Harold’s 6¾% permanent disability rating and cancer diagnosis qualify as disabilities under FEHA’s broader definition. Harold’s age (65) places him in the protected class under FEHA’s age discrimination provisions. The adverse actions documented in Sections B and C above constitute potential violations of FEHA § 12940(a) (discrimination), § 12940(m) (failure to accommodate), and § 12940(n) (failure to engage in the interactive process).

FEHA also imposes an affirmative obligation on employers to engage in a “timely, good faith, interactive process” to determine effective reasonable accommodations for employees with known disabilities (Government Code § 12940(n)). UC made no effort to engage in any interactive process before reclassifying Harold’s disability income, denying his CCW permit, or initiating the Via Benefits transfer. (See Chapters 1, 7, and 12.)

E. Constitutional Rights Violated

The following constitutional violations are presented in order of evidentiary strength, from those most directly provable through UC’s own documents to those requiring additional factual development. All violations arise from conduct by the University of California acting under color of state law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

TIER 1: DOCUMENTED IN UC’S OWN RECORDS

These violations are provable entirely from documents generated by the University of California’s own systems.

E.1. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment — Due Process

The violation: Over a period of thirty-seven years, the University of California applied six mutually contradictory employment classifications to Harold without providing notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to contest any of the changes. Each reclassification produced adverse financial and legal consequences.

The Six Classifications:

#	Classification	Source	Effect on Harold
1	“Medically Separated”	Chobanian 2023/2026	Used to deny CCW after 21 years of continuous issuance
2	“Retired” / “Retired in Good Standing”	CCW Cards 2002/2013; All retiree emails 2011–2020	Treated as retired officer eligible for all retiree benefits
3	“Disabled Member” receiving DDI	Octagon 2001; 1099-R Code 3 (2010–2014)	Received Disability Deferred Income; tax-reported as disability
4	“Retiree” (pension recipient)	UC RASC 2015–present; 1099-R Codes 2/7	Reclassified without notice; tax liability increased
5	“Retiree on Disability”	Thomas Herz / UCOP 2009–2010	Hybrid classification; exists in no UC policy manual
6	“Resigned”	Karl T. Ross (while defendant in SC022125)	Suppressed DDI 1996–2001; zero income 49–84 months

Due process requirement: Under the Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights (Government Code § 3305), no adverse comment shall be entered in the personnel file of a peace officer without the officer first reading and signing the instrument. Under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), a public employee with a property interest in continued employment is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before deprivation. Harold received neither for any of the six reclassifications.

Current continuing violation: In approximately February 2026, Harold formally requested his personnel file from the UCLA Police Department. As of the date of this document, the file has not been produced. Harold has filed a crime report under California Labor Code § 132a and a POST complaint documenting the refusal to produce records. (See Chapters 8, 9, and 12.)

E.2. Second Amendment — Right to Bear Arms

The violation: Harold held a Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) permit issued by the UCLA Police Department continuously from September 6, 2002 through approximately August 2023 — a period of twenty-one (21) years. The permit was issued under two different chiefs, renewed multiple times, and was an express term of Harold’s March 2003 workers’ compensation settlement. UCLA PD’s own range qualification emails from 2011 through 2020 uniformly addressed Harold as a retiree eligible for CCW privileges.

The retroactive denial: In August 2023, Captain Jeff Chobanian denied Harold’s CCW renewal, reclassifying Harold as “medically separated” rather than “retired.” In his February 10, 2026 denial letter, Chobanian applied UCLA PD General Order 21-02 — a policy adopted in 2020 — retroactively to a CCW permit that had been maintained since 2002. The policy did not exist when Harold’s CCW was issued, when it was renewed, or during the twenty-one years it was continuously maintained. (See Chapter 12 and Chapter 13.)

The Jacobs irony: Chobanian attached to his denial letter the case of Jacobs v. Regents of the University of California. The plaintiff in Jacobs was FUPOA — the Federated University Police Officers’ Association, the union that Harold founded. UC used the union Harold created to deny Harold’s own rights. (See Chapter 12.)

E.3. First Amendment — Whistleblower Retaliation / Freedom of Speech

The violation: Harold exercised his First Amendment rights in the early 1990s by exposing corruption within the UCLA Police Department. His whistleblowing resulted in the termination of Chief John C. Barber and command staff. This is documented in UCLA’s own institutional record (Luskin Center publication, March 2022, pp. 35–36).

Thirty-seven years of adverse consequences followed: From 1996 to 2026, the officer who exposed the corruption experienced: (a) five years of zero disability income despite being classified as disabled (1996–2001); (b) unauthorized reclassification from disability to retirement income; (c) retroactive denial of a CCW permit maintained for twenty-one years; (d) personnel file characterized as “old and destroyed” by a named defendant in his civil rights case; (e) refusal to produce records; (f) refusal to communicate after Harold cited applicable law; and (g) attempted transfer to a benefits program for which he was categorically ineligible during active cancer treatment. (See Chapters 1–12.)

TIER 2: STRONG PATTERN EVIDENCE

These violations are supported by multiple independent documentary sources and institutional records.

E.4. Fourteenth Amendment — Equal Protection

The violation: Harold was the only officer on the UCLA PD retiree email distribution list singled out for a different employment classification. From 2011 through 2020, Harold received every retiree communication, range qualification invitation, and CCW renewal notice sent to all other retirees. In August 2023, Harold alone was reclassified as “medically separated” and denied the CCW renewal that every other retiree received. (See Chapter 12.)

Differential treatment based on protected activity: The distinguishing characteristic between Harold and every other retiree is not his employment classification (which UCLA PD itself treated as “retired” for twenty-one years) but his whistleblowing history and pending legal claims. Harold is the only retiree who exposed corruption leading to the chief’s termination. Harold is the only retiree who founded the union. Harold is the only retiree with an active civil rights case history involving named defendants who served in the same department. (See Chapters 8 and 12.)

E.5. Commerce Clause / Economic Liberty

The violation: Harold holds expired California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) licenses including guard card and firearms permit. Harold has worked in security consulting for Fox Broadcasting, the Walt Disney Company, and other major media corporations. These engagements frequently require interstate travel and the ability to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), 18 U.S.C. § 926C.

Impact of CCW denial: The denial of Harold’s CCW permit directly restricts his ability to conduct interstate security consulting operations that he has performed for decades. A security professional who cannot carry a firearm is unable to perform executive protection, high-value asset security, or other engagements that constitute Harold’s professional livelihood. The lost earning capacity claim documented in Chapter 14 reflects this documented harm. (See Chapter 13.)

E.6. First Amendment — BruinWatch.org: Suppression of Protected Speech (Approximately 1998–1999)

The violation: During the period between Harold’s on-duty injury (January 1996) and his workers’ compensation settlement (March 2003), Harold created a website at BruinWatch.org. The website posted public information about UCLA PD operations and events. Harold registered the domain and created the site as an exercise of his First Amendment right to comment on matters of public concern regarding law enforcement.

UCLA’s response: UCLA ordered Harold to take down BruinWatch.org, claiming the word “Bruin” was a copyrighted trademark of the University of California. UCLA Policy 110 lists “Bruins” and “Bruin” as protected trademarks. UCLA initiated contempt proceedings in the Santa Monica Superior Court to enforce the takedown. Harold ultimately removed the website under legal and financial duress rather than fight the University of California’s legal resources. (See Chapter 8.)

Internet Archive verification: The Wayback Machine at web.archive.org confirms that BruinWatch.org existed. The main site was first captured on December 5, 1998, and last captured on April 30, 1999 (six captures). A robots.txt file was captured nine times between September 18, 1999, and August 31, 2007, confirming the domain remained registered after the site’s content was removed. (See Chapter 5.)

Constitutional significance: UCLA did not dispute the accuracy of the information posted on BruinWatch.org. UCLA’s institutional response was to suppress the publication through trademark enforcement rather than address the substance of what Harold was reporting. This is the same institutional pattern documented throughout this package: when an individual reports institutional problems, the institution responds by suppressing the reporter rather than addressing the problem.

E.7. First Amendment — Freedom of Association

The violation: Harold exercised his right of association by founding the Federated University Police Officers’ Association (FUPOA). Thirty-seven years later, UCLA PD used the Jacobs v. Regents case — in which FUPOA was the plaintiff — to deny Harold’s CCW renewal. The union Harold created was weaponized against its founder. (See Chapter 12.)

TIER 3: SUPPORTING PATTERN EVIDENCE

These elements strengthen the overall pattern and demonstrate institutional dysfunction enabling the violations.

E.8. First Amendment — Right to Petition / Throckmorton Fraud Analysis

United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878): The Supreme Court held that “fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments” where a party is “prevented from presenting all of his case to the court.”

Application: Karl T. Ross — who was a named defendant in Harold’s civil rights case SC022125 (filed January 29, 1993; dismissed April 8, 1998) — told Harold’s attorney that Harold’s personnel file was “old and had been destroyed.” Ross also entered a “resigned” classification into UC’s system that suppressed Harold’s disability income payments for 49–84 months (1996–2001). Ross had a direct personal interest in the outcome of Harold’s case because he was a defendant in it. The destruction or concealment of Harold’s personnel file by a named defendant in Harold’s own lawsuit raises Throckmorton issues. (See Chapter 9.)

Continuing pattern (2026): Harold formally requested his personnel file from the UCLA Police Department in approximately February 2026. The file has not been produced. Harold has filed a crime report under California Labor Code § 132a documenting UC’s failure to produce records that would demonstrate his disability classification and settlement terms.

The 1996 Records Pattern — Predating the Modern Disappearances by Two Decades: The pattern of records appearing and disappearing did not begin in 2014. The February 17, 1996 letter to attorneys Eason and Saenz documents that on February 16, 1996 — the day Harold was injured on duty — Assistant Chief Ross told Harold that Michael Lehman of Applied Risk Management had “no such record of a worker’s comp claim.” Harold reminded Ross that former Lt. Shain and Captain Baker had completed worker’s compensation forms several years earlier and turned them in, and that Lehman himself had subpoenaed Harold’s St. John’s Hospital records showing the enlarged right ventricle and scarring. Ross responded: “...and they have those records...?” — acting surprised.

Earlier in the same chain: On April 15, 1991, Applied Risk Management Claims Administrator John Hodson took extensive interview notes during an interview with Harold about his job stressors. On July 8, 1992, Harold asked Lehman for Hodson’s notes; Lehman said Harold could not have them. Subsequently, Lehman told Harold the notes “don’t exist.” Harold later saw a letter from Hodson at Dr. Reynolds’ office referencing that very conversation — the notes did exist. On November 6, 1992, Lehman subpoenaed Harold’s St. John’s Hospital medical records without notifying Harold.

The documented records pattern thus spans thirty-five years: Hodson’s notes that “don’t exist” (1991–1992); Lehman claiming “no record” of worker’s comp claims while possessing subpoenaed medical records (1996); Ross telling Harold’s attorney the personnel file was “old and had been destroyed” (~1998); UC RASC claiming “no records” of the 2003 settlement (2014–2015); Ida Fong stating records were “lost during computer system upgrades” (recorded call, ~2015); and Chobanian stating “I do not know what you are referring to” regarding Harold’s IOD, personnel file, and Chief Ross (February 10, 2026). The same individual’s files going missing across three decades, under multiple administrators, with multiple custodians, is a documented pattern of institutional records management failure — or worse.

E.8A. First Amendment Right to Petition: The Chancellor Young / Peltason Reporting Chain and the Documented Retaliation for Using It

All documented misconduct referenced in this section was committed by command staff — not the rank-and-file line officers Harold served alongside. Harold’s whistleblowing activities and this chapter’s civil rights analysis are directed at institutional conduct by individuals in positions of command authority, not at the officers who performed their duties professionally.

When a police officer discovers misconduct by the Chief and his command staff, the institutional chain of command runs upward to the Chancellor. There is no alternative reporting authority within the University for complaints against the Chief of Police. Harold’s exercise of this reporting channel — the only channel available to him — is protected First Amendment activity under the Petition Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I; Cal. Const. art. I, § 3).

The documents below, presented in full and in chronological order, establish a three-phase pattern: (1) a preemptive effort to chill Harold’s use of the institutional reporting channel before he used it; (2) next-day retaliatory escalation when Harold did use it; and (3) formal invocation of statutory protections that the University never acted upon. All documents are from Harold’s original files uploaded into evidence.

Phase 1: The Preemptive Chill (May 18, 1992)

Vandenberg’s Fabricated Chancellor Young Rumor (May 18, 1992): On May 18, 1992, a completely false rumor began circulating around the station from Lt. Vandenberg that Harold “had tried to obtain an appointment with Chancellor Young, was refused, became upset and had to be physically restrained and removed from his (Young’s) office.” Harold was then supposedly “sent to a psychologist for evaluation.” None of this occurred. On May 29, 1992, Karl Ross responded to Harold’s memo about this rumor.
(Source: MEDSYNOP_WC.pdf and SYNOP_WC.pdf, entry dated May 18, 1992; Ross response May 29, 1992, Document #23.)

Significance: This fabricated rumor was designed to accomplish two objectives: first, to make Harold appear mentally unstable to other officers and administrators; and second, to poison the institutional perception of any future contact Harold might make with the Chancellor — the constitutionally correct reporting authority for complaints against the Chief. The rumor was circulated before Harold had written to Chancellor Young, establishing preemptive retaliation against protected First Amendment petition activity.

Cueba’s “Enough Is Enough” Memo (Same Day — May 18, 1992): On the same day that Vandenberg circulated the false Chancellor Young rumor, Harold found a memo in the computer printer from Assistant Chief Cueba to Chief Barber and Kit Espinosa that stated in part: “...I believe Harold will again come down with stomach problems and seek a medical retirement. This may be his actual intent. Enough is enough!” This memo was reported to Campus Human Resources and documented in the grievance Harold subsequently filed against Cueba on May 26, 1992 (no number assigned). The University never responded to those allegations.

(Source: MEDSYNOP_WC.pdf and SYNOP_WC.pdf, entry dated May 18, 1992; grievance filed May 26, 1992, Document #22.)

Significance: Two command staff officers — Lt. Vandenberg (#2 in supervision of Harold) and Assistant Chief Cueba (#2 in command of the department) — engaged in simultaneous documented actions on the same day: Vandenberg fabricated a rumor to discredit any future contact Harold might make with the Chancellor, while Cueba expressed command-level animus toward Harold’s exercise of his statutory rights. The memo was not addressed to Harold; it was found accidentally in a printer and was directed to Chief Barber and the police administrative director. This simultaneous conduct by two different command officers, documented on the same date, constitutes evidence of coordinated institutional action.

Phase 2: Harold’s Use of the Institutional Reporting Channel and the Next-Day Retaliation (May – October 1993)

Harold’s Letter to Chancellor Young (May 6, 1993) — Full Text: On May 6, 1993, Harold wrote directly to Chancellor Charles Young. The letter is reproduced in full below from the original document (Copy_of_CHR-93-05-06.html):

The University of California Police Department

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

May 6, 1993

Mr. CHARLES E. YOUNG
Chancellor – UCLA
405 Hilgard Ave. Room 2147
Los Angeles, CA. 90024
FAX 206-6030

Dear Mr. Young:

The handling of my University grievances, regarding administrative members of the UCLA Police Department, has become unmanageable and is seriously damaging my career and reputation as well as the career and reputation of James Vandenberg.

I request an immediate and formal University investigation into the following matters.

On 5/4/94 I was contacted by several UCPD supervisors who told me that Asst. Chief Cueba had given them orders not to allow me to return to work. If I did so I was to be ordered out of the station.

I have received no such formal orders from UCPD to date. Is this true? If so, please have someone put it in writing and send it to me.

I was also told that there was an internal affairs investigation being conducted regarding the release of documents containing my grievances and the findings of the Campus Human Resources investigation conducted on James Vandenberg. I have not been formally notified of such an investigation by UCPD management to date.

Is this true? If so, please have someone put it in writing and send it to me.

Later that day I was contacted by the Los Angeles Times and asked if there was disciplinary action pending against me. I told them that to my knowledge there was not. When I inquired about his question, the reporter told me that he had received a phone call from University attorney Bruce Pratt who told him that I could not return to work because there was disciplinary action pending against me.

Mr. Pratt also told the reporter that I was never included in the August 1992 police department personal lay-offs. Enclosed is a copy of a letter from UCLA Campus Human Resources Department stating something quite the opposite. In fact your University seems to think that I am still on lay-off status.

Is this true? If so, please have someone put it in writing and send it to me.

I called Asst. Chief Cueba and asked him about this “pending disciplinary action” against me. Asst. Chief Cueba told me he did not feel comfortable talking about it and referred me to Asst. Chief Ross.

Later that day, I went to the station to speak with Asst. Chief Ross. Prior to my meeting I checked my station mailbox and discovered a manila envelope addressed to me with no return address. The envelope was labeled “Two Day Priority Mail” and postmarked April 29, 1993, P.M. Oxnard, CA.

The envelope contained copies of my grievances, a copy of Tina Simmons fact finding report against James Vandenberg, a copy of a disciplinary letter to Vandenberg from Barber, and a copy of my law suit.

(As I stated in my April 30th letter to Sandra Rich, Employee & Labor Relations Manager for UCLA Campus Human Resources, this amounts to a serious breach of Mr. Vandenberg’s and my protectable interest to have our investigation remain confidential. It is rather obvious that someone in the UCLA administration who has access to such restricted and confidential records is leaking them to members of the department.)

A short time after finding the envelope, I spoke with Asst. Chief Ross and specifically asked him if there was any investigation being conducted on me or if there was any pending disciplinary action against me. Ross replied, “Not at this time, no.” When I asked him to clarify his response he said, “We’re looking into who’s releasing this information.”

I asked Asst. Chief Ross when I would be returning to work. He told me that decision was up to your personnel department. When I spoke with the personnel department they told me it was up to the police department and the Chief of Police. This whole chain of events is starting to sound like a Joseph Heller novel.

When I first went on administrative leave with full pay and benefits in June of 1992, I was told by Kit Espinosa that I could return to work as soon as the investigation on James Vandenberg was completed. Both Kit and Tina told me that this would take approximately three to four weeks.

Mr. Young, it has been over a year since I first filed grievances with your department, and in June of 1993 it will be one year that I have been on leave for no apparent reason or justification, getting paid full salary and benefits of over $42,000.00 a year, to sit at home and do nothing. This does not make any sense to me. Could you please tell me when I will be returning to work? No one else in your University seems to have an answer.

As you will recall, I am not the person who was investigated for misconduct, I was the victim of the misconduct.

Please respond to this letter in writing, no later than Thursday, May 13, 1993.

Cordially,

Charles A. Harold
P o l i c e O f f i c e r

(Source: Copy_of_CHR-93-05-06.html — original inter-departmental correspondence.)

Ross’s Next-Day Retaliatory Escalation (May 7, 1993): The day after Harold sent his letter to Chancellor Young, Ross sent Harold a letter changing his leave status from Administrative Leave to Investigatory Leave. Ross ordered Harold to surrender his gun, badge, and I.D. card. Harold had already surrendered these items to Kit Espinosa on June 17, 1992 — approximately eleven months earlier. Harold was not informed what he was being investigated for until almost a year later. On June 14, 1993, Harold asked the Internal Affairs investigating officer, Lt. Boyarski, why he was being investigated. Boyarski stated: “He did not know and he was just following orders.” (Source: MEDSYNOP_WC.pdf and SYNOP_WC.pdf, entries dated May 7, 1993 and June 14, 1993.)

Significance: The temporal proximity — one day — between Harold’s written petition to the Chancellor and Ross’s escalation of Harold’s leave status creates a near-irrefutable inference of retaliatory intent. The escalation from Administrative Leave (paid status pending resolution) to Investigatory Leave (implying Harold was the subject of an investigation) changed Harold’s institutional posture from victim-on-leave to suspect-under-investigation. The demand that Harold surrender items he had already surrendered eleven months earlier suggests the escalation was reactive rather than procedurally grounded. Under Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, the one-day temporal proximity is sufficient to establish that Harold’s petition was a “contributing factor” in the adverse action, shifting the burden to UC to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action regardless.

Harold’s Public Letter to UC President Peltason (October 11, 1993) — Full Text:

After receiving no substantive response from Chancellor Young, Harold escalated directly to UC President Jack Peltason. The letter is reproduced in full below from the original document (PRES93-10-11.html). The document title identifies it as “A PUBLIC LETTER.”


October 11, 1993

MR. JACK PELTASON
President of the University of California
300 Lakeside Drive. 22nd Floor
Oakland, CA. 94612

Dear Mr. Peltason:

A dangerous working environment exists within the U.C.L.A. Police Department and as a police officer with that organization I feel I have an affirmative duty to notify you of these conditions. It is my professional opinion that if these hostile working conditions being perpetuated by U.C.L.A. management are not corrected immediately, an employee of the University of California, Los Angeles may be seriously injured or killed by another employee.

My name is Charles A. Harold. I have been employed with the U.C.L.A. Police Department since December 1989. Prior to serving with the University I was a police officer with the Culver City Police Department and prior to that the San Gabriel Police Department. I have approximately 9 years experience in law enforcement and I have personally known and worked with over 250 police officers during my career.

On May 6th, 1993, I sent you a letter outlining the various problems officers of my department were having with police management. I informed you that I had filed several grievances and a lawsuit against administrators of the UCLA Police Department and the University. In an attempt to end these discriminatory harassment procedures, five other employees have filed lawsuits since my last letter to you. There are numerous new grievances and lawsuits pending by other employees.

The incidents alleged in my grievance/lawsuit are based upon information and belief I have obtained during my employment with the department and include but are not limited to the following acts: SEXUAL HARASSMENT of female and male employees by police supervisors, RACIAL HARASSMENT and DISCRIMINATION against police employees and citizens by police supervisors, EXCESSIVE FORCE against suspects by police supervisors, one highly documented traffic TICKET FIXING case directed by CHANCELLOR CHARLES YOUNG, U.C. Regent DEAN WATKINS, and U.C.L.A. police administrators, numerous fraudulent INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS against police officers, and in my case specifically, the strange inexplicable fact that after ONE YEAR and FOUR MONTHS, I am still on leave from the police department with full pay and benefits simply because I decided to file several grievances against the University, (all of which have been subsequently decided in my favor).

The acts I have just outlined represent only a small fraction of the incompetent management techniques being applied within the U.C.L.A. Police Department today. This “witch hunt” atmosphere has caused considerable friction among management and its employees and has resulted in several verbal altercations as well as acts of violence and harassment against supervisors and employees alike.

The irony of this situation is the fact that the supervisors who are committing the various acts I have discussed are well aware of the potential for violence within our department. This is evidenced by the fact that they have recently scheduled two of their supervisors to attend a “Violence in the Workplace” training class. It would appear that the University itself is also aware of the potential for violence as they have recently installed a security door and security reception window at the Campus Human Resources employee complaint and grievance office located on the second floor of P.U.B.

By these actions, the University and its police department have demonstrated an outward objective belief that violent acts between U.C. employees on campus is inevitable, yet, the management of the police department continues to unlawfully and unjustly harass, lie to, and intimidate employees simply because they disagree with management.

At this very moment, the U.C.L.A. Police Department is an emotional powder keg, primed and waiting for some unknown emotional catalyst to ignite it.

In wake of recent postal employee shooting sprees, it doesn’t take a great leap of logic to foresee that in a place like a police station where every employee carries a gun 12 hours a day, the potential for violence is tremendous. If a shooting were to occur, it would make the post office incidents look like a Nintendo game.

THE TIME TO ACT MR. PELTASON IS NOW! I implore you Sir to take swift and immediate personal intervention in the managerial affairs of the U.C.L.A. Police Department BEFORE some employee falls victim to violence.

Sincerely,

Charles A. Harold

cc: The Daily Bruin / Los Angeles Times / 60 Minutes

(Source: PRES93-10-11.html — original correspondence titled “A PUBLIC LETTER TO.”)

Significance: This letter documents seven facts critical to the First Amendment and § 1983 analysis:

First, Harold’s whistleblowing implicated Chancellor Young himself in a ticket-fixing case, along with UC Regent Dean Watkins. This creates a structural impossibility: the person Harold was constitutionally required to report command staff misconduct to (the Chancellor) was himself implicated in misconduct Harold was reporting. The governance structure offered no alternative.

Second, Harold’s complaints were not isolated. Five other employees had filed lawsuits since Harold’s initial complaint, with “numerous new grievances and lawsuits pending by other employees.” Harold was the representative voice of a documented institutional pattern, not a lone complainant.

Third, Harold escalated from the Chancellor to the UC President after receiving no substantive response — exhausting the next level of the institutional chain.

Fourth, the letter was CC’d to the Daily Bruin, the Los Angeles Times, and 60 Minutes — the highest-profile media escalation available, constituting the most protected form of First Amendment petition activity.

Fifth, the University’s own contemporaneous actions — scheduling “Violence in the Workplace” training for supervisors and installing a security door and reception window at the Campus Human Resources grievance office — constitute institutional acknowledgment that the conditions Harold reported were real and presented a genuine safety risk.

Sixth, Harold had been on full paid leave for one year and four months ($42,000+/year) as of this letter, with all grievances decided in his favor, yet he was still not permitted to return to work. The institutional response to a successful whistleblower was not reinstatement but indefinite paid exile.

Seventh, Harold identified the exact governance paradox that persists to this day: “When I spoke with the personnel department they told me it was up to the police department and the Chief of Police.” When Harold asked the police department, they told him it was up to personnel. Harold described this as “a Joseph Heller novel.” Thirty-three years later, in 2026, Captain Chobanian would state that the CCW decision “rests with the Chief of Police” while simultaneously declining to communicate further. The institutional deflection pattern has not changed.

Phase 3: Formal Statutory Invocation — No University Action (July 5, 1994)

Harold’s Formal § 8547.10 Complaint to Chancellor Young (July 5, 1994) — Full Text: On July 5, 1994, Harold sent identical formal complaints invoking the Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities Act to both Chancellor Young and UC President Peltason. Both letters are reproduced in full below. The letter to Chancellor Young:

The University of California Police Department

INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

July 5, 1994

Mr. CHARLES E. YOUNG
Chancellor – UCLA
405 Hilgard Ave. Room 2147
Los Angeles, CA. 90024
FAX (310) 206-6030

RE: the “Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities Act”

Dear Mr. Young:

I am writing this letter to file a formal complaint with the University of California, thereby evoking my right to pursue an additional civil action and collect punitive damages and reasonable attorney’s fees per California Government Code 8547.10.

I intend to bring formal charges against several employees of the University of California who have engaged in numerous acts of reprisal and retaliation against me for exercising my rights under the law to report improper governmental activities.

The most recent acts of reprisal and retaliation are Internal Affairs Investigation, 93-08 and the subsequent notice of intent to terminate my employment as a police officer with the University of California, Los Angeles.

I am prepared to prove that during the preparation of this investigation report and the supporting documents, Karl Ross, Michael Shain, Katherine Espinosa, Donald Boyarski, Phil Baugio, Daniel Tregarthen, and others, collectively and/or individually engaged in numerous acts of fraud by violating Government Code Section 3300, altering official documents, omitting pertinent witnesses and information, concealing official documents, concealing evidence, and lying about facts that would tend to prove my innocence in these matters.

Administrative Vice Chancellor John Curry and Jeffrey A. Blair, Esq. have also participated in acts of reprisal and retaliation by ratifying the acts of Karl Ross and his subordinates.

Per California Government Code 8547.10, the University must now reach a decision regarding my complaint within the time limits established for that purpose by the regents.

Please notify me in writing when you intend to promptly start the investigation into these matters.

I, the undersigned, have prepared and read the foregoing complaint and I declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Charles A. Harold
Police Officer
University of California, Los Angeles

cc: Bureau of State Audits, Chief Clarence R. Chapman, Chancellor Charles Young, A.V.C. John Curry, Karl Ross, E. Tina Simmons, Los Angeles Times

(Source: Copy_of_RIGA940705_doc.pdf and RIGA94-07-05.html — identical letters sent to both Young and Peltason.)

An identical letter was sent simultaneously to UC President Jack Peltason at 300 Lakeside Drive, 22nd Floor, Oakland, CA 94612, FAX (510) 987-9086. The Peltason letter additionally CC’d President Jack Peltason (confirming the dual-filing). Both letters were signed under penalty of perjury.

Significance: Harold formally invoked California Government Code § 8547.10, which requires the University to reach a decision regarding the complaint within the time limits established by the Regents. The documented record does not reflect that the University ever reached the required decision or notified Harold of any investigation into his complaint. Harold named seven individual employees (Ross, Shain, Espinosa, Boyarski, Baugio, Tregarthen) and two senior administrators (AVC Curry and University Attorney Blair) as having engaged in fraud, document alteration, witness omission, evidence concealment, and perjury — all in connection with a retaliatory internal affairs investigation (IA 93-08) triggered by Harold’s whistleblowing.

The CC to the Bureau of State Audits and the Los Angeles Times demonstrates that Harold simultaneously engaged external oversight and media — both constitutionally protected petition activities. Harold exhausted every available institutional channel: department level (grievances), Campus Human Resources (Tina Simmons), the District Attorney’s Office S.I.D. (John Spillane, June 22, 1992), the FBI (Salvador Valdez, July 9, 1992), the Chancellor (May 6, 1993), the UC President (October 11, 1993), and then formal statutory complaint to both the Chancellor and the UC President simultaneously (July 5, 1994) with copies to the Bureau of State Audits and the press.

The Structural First Amendment Problem: Who Does a Police Officer Report the Chancellor’s Misconduct To?

Regent’s Parking Ticket — Harold Wrote It

Harold’s October 11, 1993 letter to Peltason documented a ticket-fixing case “directed by Chancellor Charles Young, U.C. Regent Dean Watkins, and U.C.L.A. police administrators.” Harold’s contemporaneous record provides the granular detail: in approximately July 1990, the Regents held a meeting on campus. Harold wrote a parking ticket to a vehicle driven by a Regent. Assistant Chief Cueba and Lt. Vandenberg told Harold they canceled the ticket. Harold was not merely a whistleblower reporting secondhand information — he was the officer who wrote the ticket and was directly ordered by his chain of command to participate in the fix. The two officers who ordered the cancellation (Cueba and Vandenberg) subsequently became central figures in the retaliatory campaign against Harold. (Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entry dated 7/90.) This creates a governance paradox that is central to the First Amendment analysis:

The Chief of Police reports to the Chancellor. A police officer reports misconduct by the Chief to the Chancellor. But when the Chancellor is himself implicated in the misconduct being reported, the institutional reporting structure collapses. Harold reported to every institutional authority available: department supervisors (who were the perpetrators), Campus Human Resources (which failed to act), the Chancellor (who was implicated), and the UC President (who did not respond). When every internal channel has been exhausted or is structurally compromised, the First Amendment protects the officer’s right to petition external authorities — the District Attorney, the FBI, the Bureau of State Audits, and the press. Harold did all of these, and each is documented.

The retaliation for exercising these rights is also documented: next-day escalation of leave status after writing to the Chancellor (May 6–7, 1993); a fabricated internal affairs investigation (IA 93-08) that Harold’s formal statutory complaint alleges involved document alteration, witness omission, and evidence concealment; and a notice of intent to terminate Harold’s employment — which ultimately failed at the Skelly hearing when Harold produced the property log proving the investigation’s central allegation was fabricated (see Section F.5 of this chapter).

E.9. Fourth Amendment — Unreasonable Seizure of Property Interest

The violation: A CCW permit maintained and renewed for twenty-one years constitutes a property interest protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The retroactive revocation of that permit — using a policy that did not exist during the twenty-one years the permit was maintained — constitutes an unreasonable seizure of Harold’s vested property interest without due process.

E.10. Eighth Amendment (By Analogy) — Cumulative Punishment for Whistleblowing

While the Eighth Amendment technically applies to criminal sentencing, the cumulative effect of UC’s actions over thirty-seven years constitutes what amounts to continuing institutional punishment for Harold’s protected whistleblowing activity: zero income for five years; loss of home; bankruptcy; miscarriage; reclassification of disability income; denial of CCW; disruption of medical coverage during cancer treatment; and refusal to produce records, communicate, or respond to lawful demands.

E.11. Pattern Evidence — The UCPD Mentor Program and the Castillon Rape (November 1995)

In 1994, the UCLA Police Department initiated the "UCPD Mentor Program," consisting of volunteer police officers assigned as resources to UCLA Athletics. The program was created to address documented problems with violence and alcohol among players on Coach Terry Donahue's football team. Officers provided annual presentations, game management, and instruction about "staying out of trouble." A 1998 Daily Bruin piece separately confirmed "a mentorship program that partners young athletes with officers." In October 1995, the program was operationally active on Gayley Avenue — a Daily Bruin article cited a 500-person party on Gayley where football players, working with mentor officers, shut down the gathering.

On November 19, 1995, UCLA student Carol Castillon reported rape (Penal Code § 261(a)(4)(A) — Rape, Victim Unconscious of Nature of Act, Incident #953230035) by Lamont Darrell Goodlett (DOB 5/4/75) at 633 Gayley Avenue, Apartment #2 — on the same street where the Mentor Program had been operationally active one month earlier. Goodlett had told Castillon he was on the UCLA football team. After the assault, two men Castillon recognized as actual football team members near Dykstra Hall told her Goodlett was NOT on the team. A sexual assault evidence kit was collected at Santa Monica Hospital. Rape Treatment Center counselors Michelle Nitka and Kim Skavaril responded.

Watch Commander J. Kuehn #364 notified the entire command chain: Det. Brown, Sgt. Vandenberg, Captain Ross, Captain Peitz, and Chief Chapman. The report does not document: any follow-up investigation; any DA referral; any athletic department records check to verify Goodlett's claimed football team association; any inquiry through the active Mentor Program officers who were working with the football team; or any case disposition.

Separately, one week earlier, on November 12, 1995, Harold (Badge #341) handled a WIC § 5150 detention and possible rape of a woman named Magaña with documented professionalism — completing the 72-hour detention application, following up the next day after Magaña was discharged, and providing referrals for counseling and campus support organizations.

The significance of these facts to the current claims: In November 1995, Harold was handling sensitive cases including sexual assault and psychiatric emergencies with documented professionalism and follow-up. During the same period, the command staff that was retaliating against Harold was notified of a documented rape in the geographic area where their own Mentor Program operated — and the report reflects no documented follow-up. This occurred during the same 90-day window in which Harold testified against the University at the WC Appeals Board (November 15), Peitz issued the retaliatory sick leave memo (November 22), Harold led the statewide FUPOA union drive (December 1995–January 1996), the FLSA lawsuit was filed (January 19, 1996), and Chapman told Harold his heart was "a slam dunk" (February 15, 1996). The institutional context in which UCLA paid over $1 million in confidential settlements involving rape, sexual harassment, and gender bias (LA Times, June 4, 1994; Washington Post, June 5, 1994) — with over 1,600 pages released only after a court order obtained by the Daily Bruin — provides additional documented background.

Sources: RAPE.pdf (Incident #953230035, Reporting Officer Schuerger #384); 5150.pdf (C. Harold #341); Daily Bruin, November 5, 2009; Daily Bruin, September 27, 1998; Daily Bruin, September 21, 1997; LA Times, June 4, 1994; Washington Post, June 5, 1994.

F. One Officer, Eleven Tenures, Thirty-Seven Years — UCLA PD Leadership Instability as Evidence of Systemic Dysfunction

F.1. The Framing

The institutional instability documented in this section is measured from a single fixed point: Charles A. Harold’s thirty-seven-year association with the UCLA Police Department, beginning in December 1989. During that period, the department cycled through ten different chiefs of police across eleven separate leadership tenures. Harold is the constant. The chiefs are the variables.

F.2. The Non-Traditional Oversight Structure

UCLA PD does not operate under the oversight structure of a traditional municipal police department. In a traditional municipal structure, a police chief reports to an elected mayor or city council, who in turn answer to voters in regular elections. This creates a direct chain of accountability from the badge to the ballot box.

UCLA PD’s chief of police reports to a Vice Chancellor, who reports to the Chancellor, who reports to the UC President, who reports to the Board of Regents — a body of appointed, not elected, officials. No member of this chain answers to voters in any election. The officer on the street is five organizational layers removed from the nearest accountable authority, and that authority is appointed, not elected. Following the events of April 30, 2024 — when UCPD officers in riot gear confronted students and faculty at a pro-Palestinian encampment — Chancellor Gene Block transferred police oversight to a newly created Office of Campus Safety, adding yet another organizational layer.

F.3. The Contrast: Culver City

Chief Ted Cooke served as Chief of the Culver City Police Department from 1976 to 2003 — twenty-seven (27) years — making him the longest-serving, still-active police chief in California during his tenure. Culver City’s police department, located approximately four miles from UCLA, maintained one chief for 27 years under elected oversight while UCLA PD cycled through ten chiefs under appointed oversight during the same general period. The contrast illustrates the structural governance difference.

F.4. Ten Chiefs, Eleven Tenures — Harold’s Reporting Record

The following table documents every chief and acting chief during Harold’s thirty-seven-year association with UCLA PD. The “Departure Circumstances” column identifies what is documented in the public record — including where no documentation exists.

Chief / Acting Chief	Tenure	Departure Circumstances
John C. Barber (Harold’s chief when hired, December 1989)	1978–1993 (15 years)	Retirement under pressure during discrimination litigation and federal audit. Harold’s whistleblowing — exposing vehicle sales to Tijuana PD, missing VINs, ghost employees, drug seizure tire sales, job-selling schemes — reported to UC President Peltason. Harold founded FUPOA. Four independent campus newspaper investigations (UC Davis 10/19/92, UC Riverside 5/18/93, SMC Corsair 3/16 & 3/23/94) documented the same misconduct Harold reported internally. Luskin Center, pp. 35–36.
Karl T. Ross (Acting) (Named defendant in Harold’s civil rights case SC022125)	∼Nov 1993–∼June 1994 (6 months)	Vote of no confidence February 28, 1994; union cited “decaying operations and hostile officers.” Entered “resigned” classification for Harold into UC system — suppressing disability income for 49–84 months. Told Harold’s attorney personnel file was “old and had been destroyed.” Named defendant in Harold’s federal and state civil rights cases.
Clarence R. Chapman (Harold’s third chief; convened Harold’s Skelly hearing)	∼June 1, 1994–∼2003/2004 (10+ years)	UNDOCUMENTED DEPARTURE. Former Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department captain. Had prior personal contact with Harold from a Culver City traffic stop where Chapman observed Harold’s mixed-race family. Convened Skelly pre-termination hearing against Harold based on Lt. Shain’s investigation. Harold produced UCPD Property Sheet Log proving Shain’s report was fabricated. Chapman: “This conversation is over.” Harold reinstated; Shain terminated. Chapman simultaneously operated as an expert witness through National Justice Consultants, testifying for the defense in police misconduct cases, for approximately $20,000 per engagement (Chicago Tribune, October 1, 2003). No documented retirement, resignation, or departure announcement has been located.
Karl T. Ross (Permanent) (Returned as permanent chief)	∼2003/2004–∼2008/2009 (4–5 years)	UNDOCUMENTED DEPARTURE. Received vote of no confidence in 1994, was retained under Chapman, promoted to Captain, then returned as permanent chief. Signed Harold’s 2002 CCW permit as Acting Chief. Under his command: 2006 Taser incident (Officer Duren tasered handcuffed student Mostafa Tabatabainejad five times in Powell Library; $220,000 settlement). 2013: Superior Court Judge David S. Cunningham III pulled over and arrested by UCPD on Gayley Avenue; $500,000 settlement for excessive force. No departure documentation found.
James D. Herren (Harold’s chief from Torrance; signed Harold’s 2013 CCW)	Sept 2009–June 2016 (7 years)	Voluntary retirement — clearly documented, no controversy. Previously served as Chief of Police, Torrance Police Department. Signed Harold’s second CCW permit (August 29, 2013). The only clean departure in Harold’s thirty-seven-year association with UCLA PD.
Manny Garza (Interim)	June 20, 2016–March 13, 2017 (9 months)	Planned interim — delayed own retirement to bridge leadership gap. No controversy.
Tony Lee	March 13, 2017–Dec 23, 2022 (nearly 6 years)	Voluntary retirement — subsequently appointed LA DA Bureau of Investigation Chief under DA Gascón.
John Thomas	Dec 2022–Dec 10, 2024 (2 years)	FORCED REMOVAL. Reassigned May 22, 2024 after catastrophic failure during April 30, 2024 pro-Palestinian encampment violence. Officers in riot gear deployed against students and faculty. National media coverage. Legislative hearings. Chancellor Block subsequently transferred police oversight to new Office of Campus Safety.
Gawin Gibson (Acting)	May 22–Sept 27, 2024 (4 months)	ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. Placed on leave September 27, 2024; no public explanation. Fourth chief-level departure in Harold’s case timeline.
Scott Scheffler (Interim)	Oct 2024–Sept 1, 2025 (11 months)	Planned interim — served during search for permanent chief.
Craig Valenzuela	Sept 1, 2025–Present	Current chief — third chief in three years. LAPD Commander. CC’d on Harold’s February 8, 2026 demand letter. February 18, 2026 compliance deadline passed unanswered on his watch.

F.5. The Three-Chief Pattern: Harold’s Reporting Record

Of the first three unique chiefs Harold served under, three departed in connection with conduct Harold reported or exposed:

Chief Barber (1978–1993): Harold’s whistleblowing and FUPOA founding directly precipitated Barber’s departure. UCLA investigated based on Harold’s audit findings. Barber and command staff terminated. Documented in four independent campus newspaper investigations and UCLA’s own Luskin Center institutional history.

Acting Chief Ross (November 1993–June 1994): Received vote of no confidence six months into his tenure. Named defendant in Harold’s pending civil rights case SC022125. Entered a “resigned” classification for Harold that suppressed disability income payments for years. Told Harold’s attorney the personnel file was “old and had been destroyed.” Subsequently returned as permanent chief approximately 2003/2004.

Chief Chapman (June 1994–approximately 2003/2004): Former Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department captain. Chapman had prior personal knowledge of Harold from a Culver City traffic stop predating Harold’s employment at UCLA, where Chapman observed Harold’s mixed-race family. Chapman assigned Lt. Michael Shain — a named defendant in Harold’s pending tort action for alleged assault and battery — to conduct an investigation of Harold. Shain produced a report alleging Harold displayed a personal firearm and police identification at a bank.

Physical evidence proved Shain’s report was fabricated. Harold obtained a copy of the UCPD Property Sheet Log from the UCLA Police Department Property Division. The log documented that Lieutenant Boyarski had taken possession of Harold’s personal weapon, badge, and police identification approximately one year before the date of the alleged bank incident in Shain’s report. Harold did not have his gun, badge, or police identification at the time Shain’s report alleged he used them. The UCLA Police Department had them in its own property room, per its own official property records.

The Skelly hearing: Chief Chapman convened a pre-termination due process hearing consistent with the requirements of Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194. Chapman informed Harold that he intended to terminate Harold’s employment and asked if Harold had anything to say. Harold produced the UCPD Property Sheet Log and asked where his gun and police identification were, since the department’s own records showed Lt. Boyarski had taken possession of them a year before the alleged incident. Chapman responded: “This conversation is over.” Chapman ended the hearing and walked out.

Outcome: Harold was not terminated. Harold was reinstated to full active duty. Lieutenant Michael Shain was terminated from the UCLA Police Department for falsifying the investigation report. Harold’s personal weapon and police identification were subsequently located — they had been in UCLA PD’s custody the entire time, per their own property log.

Chapman’s expert witness business: While serving as UCLA’s Chief of Police, Chapman simultaneously operated as a paid expert witness through National Justice Consultants, testifying for the defense in police misconduct cases. The Chicago Tribune reported on October 1, 2003, that Chapman was paid approximately $20,000 per engagement. Chapman testified for the defense in cases alleging police misconduct — the same category of conduct Harold had exposed at UCLA. Chapman’s departure from UCLA PD is undocumented: no retirement announcement, no resignation letter, no departure documentation has been located in the public record.

F.6. The Pattern and Its Significance

Three of the first three unique chiefs who served during Harold’s association with UCLA PD departed in connection with conduct Harold reported or exposed. Only one chief in Harold’s thirty-seven years — James D. Herren — had a clean, documented, voluntary departure. The crisis-driven turnover continued after Harold’s active service: Thomas was forced out after the 2024 encampment violence, Gibson was placed on administrative leave four months later, and UCLA has had three chiefs in three years as of the filing of this document.

The officer who exposed the corruption in 1992 is the same officer whose records disappeared, whose file was “old and destroyed,” whose disability income was suppressed for five years, and whose CCW permit was retroactively denied thirty-one years later by a captain who stated he does “not know what you are referring to regarding the other matters you mentioned with IOD, Chief Ross, your personnel file, etc.” The institution has changed chiefs ten times. The documented pattern of conduct toward Harold has not changed once.

G. UC Systemwide Pattern — Los Alamos National Laboratory

The pattern documented in the preceding sections is not isolated to UCLA PD. An examination of the University of California’s management of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) reveals an identical institutional response to whistleblowers who investigate corruption within UC-managed institutions.

G.1. The UC Management Context

Los Alamos National Laboratory, located in Los Alamos, New Mexico, is the birthplace of the atomic bomb and home to some of the country’s most sensitive nuclear weapons secrets. The University of California managed LANL under contract with the United States Department of Energy from 1943 until 2006 — a period of sixty-three years. During the late 1990s, LANL was rocked by multiple national security scandals: the false accusation and prosecution of nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee (for which a federal judge subsequently apologized from the bench), the discovery of missing nuclear hard drives found behind a copy machine, and a failed security exercise in which mock intruders successfully penetrated the facility.

G.2. 2002: Walp and Doran Hired to Investigate

In 2002, LANL hired Glenn Walp as the head of the Office of Security Inquiries (OSI). Walp was the former Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. In July 2002, Walp brought on Steven L. Doran as a senior investigator. Doran was a former Chief of Police from Oceanside, California, and a 30-year law enforcement veteran.

Walp and Doran discovered a massive procurement fraud scheme in which facilities team leader Peter Bussolini and purchaser Scott Alexander used government purchase cards and classified order forms to buy personal items with taxpayer money. The stolen goods included TV sets, power tools, night-vision binoculars, ATVs, barbecue grills, camping equipment, and hunting knives — hidden in Cold War-era Quonset hut bunkers on the LANL campus. Bussolini owned a 20,000-acre ranch, and the investigation determined he planned to use Alexander to help run it. The ranch was later sold for $1. The stolen items were consistent with stocking a hunting operation.

As their investigation deepened, their supervisors repeatedly instructed them to stop investigating. Walp testified that managers told them their primary job was to protect LANL’s image and the University of California’s contract. At congressional testimony, Walp stated that LANL’s attitude toward nuclear security and procurement oversight was “like they were manufacturing firecrackers.”

G.3. November 25, 2002: The Retaliation

On November 25, 2002, LANL fired both Walp and Doran. Walp was told he “did not fit in” at the lab. At his subsequent congressional testimony, Walp responded: “They were accurate about that. We were investigators, and they weren’t used to that.” The firing occurred three days after the Albuquerque Journal published a memo documenting the scope of the fraud. Doran later stated: “I was followed on multiple occasions. I started carrying a gun everywhere I went.”

G.4. Congressional Response, Reinstatement, and Settlements

Instead of preventing scrutiny, the firings triggered congressional hearings. Eighteen (18) top officials at Los Alamos were fired, demoted, or transferred as a direct result of Walp and Doran’s disclosures. LANL’s Director resigned. The University of California ultimately lost the LANL management contract in 2006 after sixty-three years.

On February 26, 2003, both testified under oath before the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The congressional hearing record is publicly available.

Walp’s settlement included a $900,000 outright payment and three and a half months of salary, totaling approximately $930,000. Attorney Lynne Bernabei of Bernabei & Kabat PLLC, Washington, D.C., who secured the settlements, stated publicly that this was the first time in the laboratory’s history that the University of California had been effectively forced to acknowledge wrongdoing against whistleblowers. Doran’s settlement terms were private. Doran was subsequently rehired as Director of Public Safety and Systems Security overseeing security for the entire UC system.

G.5. January 24, 2003: The Death of Richard Burick

One week after Walp and Doran were reinstated, on January 24, 2003, former LANL Deputy Director for Operations Richard Burick was summoned to LANL for a meeting. A few hours later, Burick, age 63, was found dead in his home of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Burick had overseen the operations directorate under which the procurement fraud occurred. He owned a 20,000-acre ranch that was sold for $1 and was reportedly the planned beneficiary of Bussolini’s stolen goods pipeline.

Doran, applying his extensive law enforcement investigative expertise, identified multiple forensic problems with the suicide determination: the gun was found a yard past Burick’s feet despite instant incapacitation being expected from the described wound; the scene lacked certain expected forensic indicators; and the rapidity of the death determination raised questions. Doran has stated publicly that the investigation was inadequate.

G.6. CBS Television: National Broadcast

On August 10, 2018, CBS aired Season 1, Episode 5 of “Whistleblower,” titled “The Case Against Los Alamos,” featuring on-camera interviews with Walp, Doran, and attorney Bernabei. The episode is available on CBS.com and through streaming services.

G.7. The Continuing Fight: 2010–2018

A third LANL whistleblower, auditor Chuck Montaño, who had been employed at LANL for thirty-two years, founded Citizens for LANL Employee Rights (CLER) — an employee rights organization parallel to Harold’s founding of FUPOA at UCLA. A fourth whistleblower, auditor Tommy Hook, was physically beaten and told to keep silent.

On December 5, 2016 — fourteen years after the original firings — Walp, Doran, and Montaño sent a certified letter to United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico Damon P. Martinez, requesting investigation of continuing fraud. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) analyzed the continuing pattern. Montaño published a book documenting his experience. As of 2018, none of the three had received a substantive response from the Department of Justice.

G.8. The Parallel Pattern

Ten documented parallel elements between Harold’s case at UCLA PD and the Walp/Doran case at LANL:

Same institution. Both UCLA PD and LANL were managed by the University of California under UC’s administrative structure with ultimate authority in the UC Office of the President and Board of Regents.

Whistleblowers hired/employed to investigate corruption. Harold exposed corruption within UCLA PD leading to Chief Barber’s termination. Walp and Doran were hired to investigate corruption at LANL. In all three cases, the corruption was institutional and systemic.

Institutional suppression. At UCLA PD, Harold’s file was characterized as “old and destroyed” by Ross (a named defendant). At LANL, supervisors refused to produce documents and altered others.

Retaliation through employment action. Harold received six contradictory classifications including “resigned” during active litigation. Walp and Doran were fired for “not fitting in.”

Financial harm. Harold received zero disability income for 49–84 months ($150,000–$258,000), forcing bankruptcy. Walp and Doran lost their livelihoods.

Investigation derailed. At UCLA PD, Ross destroyed evidence needed for Harold’s civil rights case. At LANL, the firing prevented congressional investigators from learning the full scope of criminal activity.

Accountability only when forced. At both UCLA PD and LANL, the institution resisted accountability until external pressure made continued denial untenable.

Records destruction or concealment. At UCLA PD: file “old and destroyed” (1998) and “internal records” referenced but production refused (2026). At LANL: purchases under $5,000 not tracked; police reports sanitized.

Physical harm to whistleblowers and families. At LANL, Deputy Director Burick died under disputed circumstances one week after Walp and Doran’s reinstatement. At UCLA PD, Harold’s wife suffered a miscarriage during the period of financial hardship caused by UC’s refusal to pay disability income.

Continuing pattern measured in decades. At LANL, in 2016 — fourteen years later — Walp, Doran, and Montaño were still fighting. At UCLA PD, in 2026 — thirty-seven years later — Harold is still fighting for records, benefits, and basic recognition of his documented disability status.

G.9. Witness Availability

Complainant Charles A. Harold has known Steve Doran personally for more than ten years. For several years, Doran resided within a few miles of Harold’s Arizona residence, and the two met regularly on a personal basis. Harold is prepared to facilitate contact with Doran regarding Doran's willingness to provide testimony or declarations regarding the University of California's institutional pattern of conduct toward whistleblowers. Attorney Lynne Bernabei of Bernabei & Kabat PLLC, Washington, D.C., who represented both Walp and Doran and successfully obtained settlements from the University of California including UC's effective admission of wrongdoing, may be contacted regarding the institutional pattern she documented in her representation.

The significance of these facts to the current claims: In November 1995, Harold was handling sensitive cases including sexual assault and psychiatric emergencies with documented professionalism and follow-up. During the same period, the command staff that was retaliating against Harold was notified of a documented rape in the geographic area where their own Mentor Program operated — and the report reflects no documented follow-up. This occurred during the same 90-day window in which Harold testified against the University at the WC Appeals Board (November 15), Peitz issued the retaliatory sick leave memo (November 22), Harold led the statewide FUPOA union drive (December 1995–January 1996), the FLSA lawsuit was filed (January 19, 1996), and Chapman told Harold his heart was “a slam dunk” (February 15, 1996). The institutional context in which UCLA paid over $1 million in confidential settlements involving rape, sexual harassment, and gender bias (LA Times, June 4, 1994; Washington Post, June 5, 1994) — with over 1,600 pages released only after a court order obtained by the Daily Bruin — provides additional documented background.

Separately, one week earlier, on November 12, 1995, Harold (Badge #341) handled a WIC § 5150 detention and possible rape of a woman named Magaña with documented professionalism — completing the 72-hour detention application, following up the next day after Magaña was discharged, and providing referrals for counseling and campus support organizations.

Watch Commander J. Kuehn #364 notified the entire command chain: Det. Brown, Sgt. Vandenberg, Captain Ross, Captain Peitz, and Chief Chapman. The report does not document: any follow-up investigation; any DA referral; any athletic department records check to verify Goodlett’s claimed football team association; any inquiry through the active Mentor Program officers who were working with the football team; or any case disposition.

On November 19, 1995, UCLA student Carol Castillon reported rape (Penal Code § 261(a)(4)(A) — Rape, Victim Unconscious of Nature of Act, Incident #953230035) by Lamont Darrell Goodlett (DOB 5/4/75) at 633 Gayley Avenue, Apartment #2 — on the same street where the Mentor Program had been operationally active one month earlier. Goodlett had told Castillon he was on the UCLA football team. After the assault, two men Castillon recognized as actual football team members near Dykstra Hall told her Goodlett was NOT on the team. A sexual assault evidence kit was collected at Santa Monica Hospital. Rape Treatment Center counselors Michelle Nitka and Kim Skavaril responded.

In 1994, the UCLA Police Department initiated the “UCPD Mentor Program,” consisting of volunteer police officers assigned as resources to UCLA Athletics. The program was created to address documented problems with violence and alcohol among players on Coach Terry Donahue’s football team. Officers provided annual presentations, game management, and instruction about “staying out of trouble.” A 1998 Daily Bruin piece separately confirmed “a mentorship program that partners young athletes with officers.” In October 1995, the program was operationally active on Gayley Avenue — a Daily Bruin article cited a 500-person party on Gayley where football players, working with mentor officers, shut down the gathering.

H. Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985)

Section 1985 provides a cause of action where two or more persons conspire to deprive any person of the equal protection of the laws. The coordinated actions of multiple UC officials across multiple departments — reclassifying Harold’s status, denying benefits, refusing records production, and applying retroactive policies — constitute a pattern of coordinated institutional conduct that may rise to the level of a § 1985 conspiracy. (See Chapters 1–12.)

The Documented Mechanism of Coordination — The Three Shain Assignments: The coordination of institutional conduct against Harold is documented through the repeated assignment of a single compromised officer — Lt. Michael Shain — to three separate matters involving Harold’s cases. Each assignment was made by command staff with knowledge of the existing conflicts:

Assignment 1 (May 1992): Assistant Chief Cueba declared Harold’s CHS hospital criminal investigation “closed,” then assigned Acting Lt. Shain to conduct further investigation into the same matter. Harold protested in writing that Shain was unqualified and that his involvement would “further jeopardize the case.” Source: May 13, 1992 interdepartmental correspondence forwarded by Sgt. Natzman.

Assignment 2 (~1993–1994): Shain was assigned to investigate the Duren excessive force complaints against students Dilworth and Bryan — as reported in the March 23, 1994 Santa Monica College Corsair article — while Shain himself was a named defendant in Harold’s pending tort action (Santa Monica Superior Court, Case No. SC022125). This constituted a direct conflict of interest: the investigator was a defendant in litigation brought by the officer whose cases he was investigating.

Assignment 3 (~1994–1995): Shain conducted a fabricated investigation against Harold himself, alleging Harold displayed a personal firearm and police identification at a bank. Harold disproved this at the Skelly hearing by producing the UCPD Property Sheet Log showing Lt. Boyarski had Harold’s gun, badge, and police identification approximately one year before the alleged incident. Shain was terminated from the UCLA Police Department for falsifying the investigation report. (See Section F.5 of this chapter.)

The pattern of using a compromised investigator across three separate matters involving the same complainant, over a period of approximately three years, constitutes documented evidence of coordinated institutional conduct. The command officers who made these assignments — Cueba, Ross, Barber, and Chapman — had knowledge of the conflicts and made the assignments regardless.

PART IV — NOTICE OF PROTECTED STATUS

Note: All documented misconduct referenced in Part II was committed by command staff officers in positions of supervisory and command authority — not the rank-and-file line officers Harold served alongside throughout his career. The individuals named below held positions including Chief of Police, Assistant Chief, Captain, and Lieutenant. Harold’s whistleblowing activities, grievances, and this chapter’s civil rights analysis are directed exclusively at institutional conduct by individuals who exercised command authority, not at the officers who performed their duties professionally.

Before addressing the specific financial demands, the following is placed on the record to establish Mr. Harold’s protected status under federal and state whistleblower protections, and to document the legal history that constitutes the foundation for the claims in this chapter.

Documented Whistleblower & Legal History

1. FUPOA Founding and Whistleblowing (1990–1996). Harold single-handedly founded the Federated University Police Officers’ Association (FUPOA), the first National Labor Relations Board-recognized statewide law enforcement bargaining unit in UC history. Through FUPOA and independent action, Harold exposed corruption within UCLA PD including the Chief’s sale of police vehicles to Tijuana PD and movie studios for cash, missing VIN numbers, ghost payroll, drug asset tire sales, and hospital theft/extortion schemes. UC investigated and terminated the Chief of Police and command staff. This is documented in UCLA’s Luskin Center institutional publication (March 2022, pp. 35–36).

When elections were held for the department’s newly formed Police Officers’ Association (POA). Harold was nominated for president and other positions. Per Harold’s contemporaneous record: “When news of my nomination reached management, I was contacted by Lt. Vandenberg and others who told me it probably would not be a good idea for me to accept the nomination because management was looking at releasing me from probation because of my outspoken attitude. I declined the nomination in fear of being fired.” Threatening an employee with termination for accepting a union nomination is a per se unfair practice under the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA, Gov. Code § 3571(a)). Harold’s subsequent founding of FUPOA occurred five years later, after his probationary period no longer served as a threat mechanism. (Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entry dated 7/90.) Mr. Harold single-handedly founded the Federated University Police Officers’ Association (FUPOA), the first National Labor Relations Board-recognized statewide law enforcement bargaining unit in UC history.

Specific Whistleblowing Activities Documented: Harold’s corruption exposure was not limited to financial irregularities. Harold personally conducted a criminal investigation beginning November 26, 1990 (Offense Report #01-90-004164) documenting systematic criminal activity inside the UCLA Center for Health Sciences (Medical Center). Through eight tape-recorded conversations with a confidential informant, Harold documented: (a) systematic theft of $10,000–$15,000 worth of hospital supplies and heavy equipment by housekeeping supervisor Issac Thompson and associates (Louis Wyatt, Norman Gaithers, Debbie Penland), with stolen goods loaded into University vehicles under the guise of legitimate deliveries and diverted to Thompson’s off-duty cleaning business; (b) an extortion and job-selling scheme in which Thompson sold jobs at the new UCLA Medical Plaza Buildings for $600 to $2,000 per hire; (c) prostitution on-duty inside the hospital by housekeeping employee Gloria Fife, including in the boiler room near the emergency area; and (d) drugs brought into the facility. Harold placed the tape-recorded conversations into evidence (Property Report #0190000204). Thompson’s off-duty cleaning business was verified through Los Angeles County Fictitious Business Name records: “T W MAINTEN CO” registered to Jerry B. Wright at 6102 Kings Rd., LA 90056, filed in both 1985 and 1989. Detective Longo conducted follow-up investigation.

Command Obstruction of the Investigation: On May 13, 1992, Harold sent an interdepartmental correspondence through chain of command (forwarded by Sgt. Natzman) to Assistant Chief Cueba protesting that Cueba had declared the CHS criminal investigation “closed” while simultaneously assigning Acting Lt. Shain to conduct further investigation into the same matter. Harold stated in writing that Shain was “not qualified to conduct this investigation because he is not familiar with the informant(s) and subtle facts of this case” and that “His investigation will only further jeopardize the case.” Harold warned Cueba: “I feel you are mismanaging this investigation and allowing CHS management personnel to break the law and further damage the University.” Harold further stated: “Your lack of interest and inaction in these and other matters may be viewed by some as an obstruction of justice.” Harold concluded: “If you do not care to investigate these allegations, I will find someone outside our department who will.” The investigation was never prosecuted.

2. Federal FLSA Victory — University Police Officers v. Regents (1996). Mr. Harold filed a federal lawsuit (Case No. 2:96-cv-00396-WDK-AJW, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, filed January 18, 1996) that resulted in all sworn UC police officers systemwide receiving overtime pay. This is the same lawsuit referenced in Jacobs v. Regents — the case Chobanian cited against Harold.

3. State Tort Action — Harold v. The Regents of the University of California. Mr. Harold and several other officers filed a state tort action for discrimination, whistleblowing, acts against public policy, and other claims (Santa Monica Superior Court, Case No. SC022125, filed January 29, 1993). Named defendants included the Regents, Karl T. Ross, Michael Shain, and other UCLA PD officials. Case dismissed April 8, 1998. Harold states he never signed a settlement agreement in this case, leaving it technically open for future claims.

4. EEOC and DFEH Complaints. Mr. Harold filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The DFEH investigated and issued a right-to-sue letter, confirming sufficient evidence existed to proceed.

5. Bankruptcy Court Seizure — No Settlement Agreement Signed. During a period of unpaid medical leave following his on-duty injury, Mr. Harold’s family suffered severe financial hardship, including a miscarriage, loss of their home, and forced bankruptcy. The tort lawsuit was seized by the bankruptcy court as an asset of the estate. Harold states he never signed a settlement agreement in the tort action and received no proceeds.

5a. The Administrative Leave (June 17, 1992 – August 23, 1994). Prior to the 1996–2001 payment gap, Harold was placed on “Administrative Leave” by Kit Espinosa on approximately June 17, 1992. Espinosa specifically stated it was NOT worker’s compensation. She took away Harold’s gun, badges, I.D. card and wallet. When Harold asked why, Espinosa said “when someone claims they are stressed she has to do it.” Harold was not given a worker’s compensation claim form or advised of any worker’s compensation procedure. Espinosa told Harold it would last “approximately three weeks.” It lasted two years and two months. The contrast with 1996 is significant: on February 23, 1996, when Harold filed a new workers’ compensation claim for injuries sustained in a fight with a suspect, the University followed proper procedure — provided W.C. forms, sent Harold to occupational health, and placed him on Labor Code § 4806 time. Harold’s contemporaneous observation: “The whole procedure was done by the book. Why didn’t they do this when I was placed on administrative leave on 6/17/92? Because they intended to fire me, not handle my claims.” The University’s demonstrated knowledge of and compliance with the proper § 4806 procedure in 1996 establishes that the failure to follow that same procedure in 1992 was deliberate. (Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entries dated 6/17/92 and 2/23/96.)

5b. Quid Pro Quo Meeting (May 12, 1991) “Drop Your Claims and We’ll Transfer You”: On May 12, 1991, Harold and his supervisor Lt. Rick Sanchez met with Chief John Barber, Assistant Chief Karl Ross, and Assistant Chief Allen Cueba. Harold requested transfer to duty not under Vandenberg’s control or direct supervision. Per Harold’s contemporaneous record: “They agreed to do so if I dropped my worker’s comp claim and grievances. I agreed to do so if I was transferred to duty not under Vandenberg because I wanted to work and be left alone.” Harold was transferred. From June 1991 to January 1992, his “stomach and heart problems improved and I was asymptomatic.” On January 6, 1992 — seven months later — “Against my numerous protests to Chief Barber, Karl Ross and Allen Cueba, I was transferred back to Lt. Vandenberg’s supervision. My medical and personnel problems started all over again.” Three command officers conditioned relief from documented harassment on Harold’s surrender of statutory rights (workers’ compensation and grievance rights), with Lt. Sanchez as witness. When Harold complied, the University broke its own agreement. The fact that Harold’s medical conditions resolved during the transfer period and resumed upon return to Vandenberg establishes that the University knew Vandenberg’s supervision was the cause. (Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entries dated 5/12/91, 6/91 to 1/92, and 1/6/92.)

5c. The Layoff Status Contradiction. On August 9, 1992, Assistant Chief Ross called Harold and informed him he was laid off due to budget cuts, along with six other officers. Harold protested that he could not be laid off because he was on 4806 time with a pending workers’ compensation claim. Several weeks later, all seven officers were “amazingly re-hired.”

On April 30, 1993, Layoff Survey Contradiction: Campus Human Resources sent Harold a survey for “employees on lay off status” — while UC attorney Bruce Pratt simultaneously told the Los Angeles Times that Harold “was never included in the August 1992 police department personal lay-offs.” Harold’s contemporaneous observation: “I guess they forgot to destroy the computer records that indicated that I was in fact laid off in 1992.” The University maintained two contradictory positions regarding Harold’s employment status at the same time: its attorney told the press Harold was never laid off, while its own HR computer records classified him as laid off and sent him correspondence in that capacity. (Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entries dated 8/9/92 and 4/30/93; see also Harold’s May 6, 1993 letter to Chancellor Young, Section E.8A of this chapter.)

5d. The Fitness-for-Duty Examination and Return to Work (August 1994). After the department's attempt to terminate Harold failed at the Skelly hearing, the University was required to return Harold to work. Harold was sent to UCPD doctor Messina at St. John's Hospital for a fitness-for-duty examination. Per Harold's contemporaneous record: "He had me fill out a medical history form then later had me change it because I was too specific about my medical history." A University-designated physician instructed Harold to make his medical history form less specific — reducing the documentation of Harold's work-related medical conditions during a University-directed examination. Harold was also evaluated by UCPD psychiatrist Dr. Lippian in Newport Beach, California, who interviewed Harold for over five hours straight and tape-recorded the interview. Despite the instruction to reduce specificity, Harold passed all tests including EKG (which Dr. Messina stated was normal) and the five-hour psychiatric evaluation. Both doctors cleared Harold as fit for duty — contradicting Vandenberg's "paranoid schizophrenic" characterization and the planned forced retirement Vandenberg described as a certainty in December 1992. Harold returned to work at the UCLA Police Department on August 23, 1994, having been on some form of undefined paid leave since June 17, 1992 — two years and two months. (Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entries dated 8/94 and 8/23/94.)

6. Documented Retaliation. The documented and verified retaliation Mr. Harold experienced included:

6. Documented Retaliation. The documented and verified retaliation Mr. Harold experienced included:

Motorcycle Cancellation Trick (July 21–22, 1992): The documented and verified retaliation Mr. Harold experienced included: false disciplinary write-ups (all of which were thrown out upon review); a bullet placed in his mailbox with his name on it; shooting at his house; canceled days off to prevent attendance at law school; interference with outside employment; documented sexual harassment by a superior officer; a second quid pro quo offer in which Tina Simmons told Harold on July 21, 1992 he could have his motorcycle position back if he dropped his claims — Harold agreed, Simmons cleared it with Chief Barber, and the next day (July 22, 1992) Barber canceled the entire motorcycle program so Harold could not get the position back, demonstrating the same next-day retaliatory pattern as the May 6–7, 1993 sequence (Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entries dated 7/21/92 and 7/22/92); assignment of a conflicted investigator (Shain) who falsified an investigation report and was subsequently terminated; and the five-year period (1996–2001) of zero disability income during which Harold lost his home and was forced into bankruptcy.

Nine formal grievances won: (AR 92-10: illegal motorcycle removal, WON, memo removed; AR 92-18: written warning from Vandenberg, WON, memo removed; AR 92-11: improper counseling memo from Sgt. Franklin, WON, memo removed; AR 92-12: Vandenberg physically threatened Harold for filing grievances, WON, Vandenberg demoted; AR 92-14: improperly issued performance evaluation, WON, evaluation removed; AR 92-16: sexual, racial, and general harassment by Vandenberg, WON, Vandenberg demoted; a Cueba harassment grievance with no number assigned, to which the University never responded; plus complaints filed with the District Attorney’s Office S.I.D. on June 22, 1992 through John Spillane, the FBI on July 9, 1992 through Salvador Valdez, and California DOJ on July 20, 1992 through Whitt Murray) — Harold won every internal University grievance, with the institutional response to losing every proceeding being escalation rather than compliance; the 1992 DA complaint was stymied because the DA investigator was personally acquainted with Chief Barber; all three external complaints were re-filed with new information in 1996 (Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entries dated 3/25/92 through 7/20/92)

Specific Documentation of Superior Officer Harassment and Biased Internal Investigation: The “documented sexual harassment by a superior officer” referenced above was perpetrated by Lt. Vandenberg, whose documented conduct included: : racial jokes targeting African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and Mexican-Americans; sexual jokes and pornographic material in the substation; pointing his gun at an African-American suspect and stating he would buy him “fried chicken and watermelon” if he came down from a tree (witnessed by Officers Gorostiza and Behrens); referring to female officers as lesbians; and calling Kit Espinosa a “cunt” and “amazon.” A pre-existing reputation among officers as “a prolific liar” and poor supervisor — so disliked that a fellow officer cut the brake lines on his personal vehicle (a police report was filed on the incident); a directive from “upper management” to “talk to” Harold and “change my aggrieved attitude,” with Vandenberg telling Harold to “stick close” to him (witnessed by Officer Gorostiza during an Alameda training trip dinner, February 3–8, 1991) (Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entries dated 7/90 to 1/91 and 2/3/91 to 2/8/91); racial jokes targeting African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and Mexican-Americans; sexual jokes and pornographic material in the substation;

Vandenberg’s “Ax Man” / “Hatchet Man” Admission: Vandenberg also told Harold and numerous other officers that he was Chief Barber’s and Assistant Chief Cueba’s “AX MAN” or “HATCHET MAN, the one responsible for getting rid of troublemakers, writing paper on people and initiating investigations.” This is a direct admission by Vandenberg of his assigned role in the retaliatory scheme — he identified himself as the designated enforcement tool of the two officers above him in the chain of command. The statement was made to multiple officers, establishing potential corroborating witnesses. (Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entry dated 7/90 to 1/91.) Campus Human Resources fact-finder Tina Simmons completed her investigation on January 29, 1993 and found Vandenberg violated university policy.

Contained in the fact-finding was a statement from Assistant Chief Cueba: Harold was “riding the worker’s comp gravy train” and that Harold’s goal was to “milk the department and sue.” Cueba added that Harold’s claims were “not as large as I reported them to be and were manipulated, orchestrated, and blown out of proportion.” This was the same Cueba who, eight months earlier (May 18, 1992), had authored a memo found in the computer printer addressed to Chief Barber and Kit Espinosa stating: “...I believe Harold will again come down with stomach problems and seek a medical retirement. This may be his actual intent. Enough is enough!” The escalation from “enough is enough” (May 1992) to “gravy train” (January 1993) documents an eight-month progression of command-level animus by the same officer against the same whistleblower. Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entries dated 5/18/92 and 1/29/93; SYNOP_WC.pdf and MEDSYNOP_WC.pdf, entry dated 5/18/92, Document #22.

The Vandenberg/Peitz/Christie Tape Incident - Vandenberg “Paranoid Schizophrenic” — Psych Eval Setup Context (December 9, 1992):

On December 9, 1992, Lt. Vandenberg attended a mutual aid training session in Orange County and told officers in the class — including Harold’s friend Paul Christie — that Harold was “a paranoid schizophrenic, cocaine user,” that Harold filed worker’s comp claims for stress, and that the department “was definitely going to...force him out...he won’t get his job back.” Christie called Harold from the training course. Harold called Assistant Chief Ross. Almost immediately, someone entered the class and told Vandenberg to step out of class. Vandenberg walked out and left the training. Ross called Vandenberg back to the station and placed him on leave. Captain Peitz conducted the internal investigation. Peitz’s conclusion was that Harold was lying. Paul Christie then came in for his interview and produced a tape recording of the entire training session that captured Vandenberg’s statements verbatim — proving that Harold was truthful and Peitz’s investigation was factually wrong. In a February 1993 letter from Chief Barber to Vandenberg, Barber stated Vandenberg violated department and University policy on sexual harassment and violated a direct order by discussing Harold’s case at the training. Vandenberg was demoted two ranks from lieutenant to police officer. After an administrative hearing, Vandenberg retained the rank of sergeant — he was not terminated because of a POBR technicality (failure to provide Lybarger/Miranda warnings before the compelled investigation, per Government Code § 3300 et seq.). When the Chief and command staff were subsequently terminated following Harold’s whistleblowing, Vandenberg retained his position because he had already been disciplined for the same conduct. Christie’s tape recording remains available. Additional context from Harold’s contemporaneous record: On November 19, 1992 — twenty days before Vandenberg’s Orange County statements — claims administrator Michael Lehman had scheduled Harold for appointments with Dr. David (12/14/92) and a psychiatrist, Dr. Wixen (12/18/92). Vandenberg’s recorded statement, made with advance knowledge of the planned psychiatric evaluation, reveals the outcome was predetermined: “definitely going to...force him out.” Harold did not attend either appointment. Lehman never sent a follow-up letter about the missed appointments — consistent with the interpretation that the appointments were a mechanism for forced retirement, not a genuine medical necessity. Once Harold declined to attend, there was no follow-up because the purpose could not be accomplished. (Source: SCOTT_WC.docx, entries dated 11/19/92 and 12/9/92.)

The significance of this incident to the current claims is twofold: First, it establishes a documented pattern in which UCLA PD internal investigators reached conclusions unfavorable to Harold that were subsequently disproven by independent evidence — the same pattern as Captain Chobanian’s August 2023 “comprehensive review” that failed to discover Harold’s POST record, aggregate service years, and 2013 POST Requalification Certificate. Second, Cueba’s “gravy train” statement, made during a formal fact-finding, establishes documented command-level animus toward Harold’s exercise of his statutory rights as early as January 1993 — thirty-three years before the current adverse actions.

The same Cueba who made the “gravy train” statement had, on or about March 20, 1991 — seventeen days after the Rodney King beating — issued a departmental memorandum stating that “brutality will not be tolerated” and promising accountability (documented in UCLA’s Luskin Center publication, “History of Racism and the Quest for Racial Justice at UCLA,” March 2022, p. 35, fn. 164; the Santa Monica College Corsair, Part II, March 23, 1994). Per the contemporaneous press accounts, the same Cueba who authored the accountability memo refused to accept formal complaints from citizens who reported the very conduct the memo promised to prevent. This pattern — issuing public statements of accountability while privately obstructing the accountability process, and publicly calling a whistleblower’s legitimate claims a “gravy train” while privately directing the cancellation of a ticket written to a Regent — constitutes documented evidence of the “meeting of the minds” element required under § 1985(3). Cueba is a named defendant in Harold v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. SC022125, filed January 29, 1993. Sources: Luskin Center, “History of Racism and the Quest for Racial Justice at UCLA,” March 2022, p. 35, fn. 164; Santa Monica College Corsair, Part II, March 23, 1994; SCOTT_WC.docx, entry dated 7/90.

7. Continuing Tort Theory. The current dispute regarding UC’s failure to honor Mr. Harold’s disability status and medical insurance entitlements constitutes a continuing tort arising from the same pattern of institutional conduct that began in 1992 and has never been resolved. Each new adverse action — each reclassification, each wrongful deduction, each refusal to produce records — restarts the statute of limitations under the continuing violation doctrine.

Applicable Whistleblower Protections

Mr. Harold is a documented, protected whistleblower. Retaliation — including continued inaction, failure to respond to formal audit requests, and the ongoing deprivation of settlement benefits — triggers the following protections:

California Whistleblower Protection Act (Government Code §§ 8547–8547.12): Specific protections for University of California employees who report improper governmental activities.

California Labor Code § 1102.5: Prohibits retaliation against employees who report violations of law.

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703: The California Supreme Court held that the employee must show by a preponderance of the evidence that whistleblowing was a “contributing factor” in the adverse action. The burden then shifts to the employer to show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action regardless.

UC Regents Policy 1111 (Statement of Ethical Values and Standards of Ethical Conduct): Establishes reporting obligations for all UC employees who become aware of potential policy violations.

California Constitution, Article IX, § 9: The University of California is established as a public trust. The Regents, as trustees, owe fiduciary duties to beneficiaries including retirees.

California Constitution, Article XVI, § 17: The Regents bear “sole and exclusive fiduciary responsibility” to “administer the system in a manner that will assure prompt delivery of benefits and related services to the participants and their beneficiaries.”

The significance of this notice is direct: Every day that UC fails to respond to this demand, fails to reconcile its contradictory records, and continues to deduct premiums and misclassify income in violation of a March 2003 workers’ compensation settlement, constitutes a continuing act of retaliation against a documented whistleblower with cancer who is actively seeking medical treatment.

PART V — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE PACKAGE

The demands documented in Chapter 14 and the civil rights claims in Part II are supported by the following evidentiary chapters. Each chapter is a self-contained analysis with documentary citations. Together, they establish the factual foundation for every claim and demand in this document.

Chapter 1: The Unqualified Benefits Transfer

Documents the unauthorized conversion from disability to pension benefits, the Via Benefits transfer pipeline directed at a categorically ineligible disability recipient, and the enrollment confusion created by UC’s own systems. (See Part II, Sections B.3 and C.1.)

Chapter 2: The Right to Rescind the Benefits Enrollment

Analyzes California Civil Code rescission rights (§ 1689) for coerced benefits elections, presenting five independent grounds for rescission of the involuntary Via Benefits enrollment including lack of capacity, constructive fraud, undue influence, failure to disclose, and OWBPA noncompliance.

Chapter 3: Four Systems Can’t Agree on Coverage — $727/Month Deducted for Insurance That May Not Exist

Documents that four separate UC systems (UCRAYS, UC Benefits, Medicare records, and Blue Cross) produce mutually contradictory information about Mr. Harold’s medical coverage status, plan type, coverage dates, and premium amounts.

Chapter 4: Six Recorded Calls Capture UC Agents Admitting Coverage Failures on Tape

Presents transcripts and analysis of six recorded telephone calls in which UC and Blue Cross representatives make admissions regarding coverage confusion, inability to locate records, conflicting information, and system failures — on UC’s own recorded telephone lines.

Chapter 5: 25 Data Breaches Exposed the Systems That Were Supposed to Protect Harold’s Records

Compiles a comprehensive chronological archive of twenty-five documented data breaches affecting the University of California and Anthem Blue Cross between 2005 and 2026, correlating directly with the periods when Harold’s records changed, disappeared, or produced contradictory information.

Chapter 6: 10 Contradictions UC Cannot Reconcile

Presents documented contradictions in which UC’s own departments reach mutually exclusive conclusions about Mr. Harold’s employment status, disability classification, retirement date, tax treatment, CCW eligibility, and benefits entitlements.

Chapter 7: UC’s Own Tax Filings Expose the Switch from Disability — $149K in Harm

Presents a year-by-year chronological analysis of every IRS Form 1099-R issued by UC to Mr. Harold from 2010 through 2024, demonstrating the unauthorized reclassification from disability income to taxable retirement income and calculating the resulting financial harm.

Chapter 8: The Laws UC Violated — Constructive Notice, Breach of Contract, Whistleblower Retaliation

Applies the IRAC legal analysis framework to the documented facts, establishing reasonable and probable cause under four legal theories: Constructive Notice, Breach of Contract, Whistleblower Retaliation, and ERISA Violations.

Chapter 9: The Invalid Election — UC Federal Tax Filings Prove Conversion Was Coerced

Documents the 1996–2001 payment gap where Harold received zero disability income for 49–84 months despite being classified as disabled, the Ross “resigned” classification that mechanically suppressed payments, and the involuntary conversion from disability to retirement income.

Chapter 10: Master Evidence Index and Court Records

Serves as the complete formal exhibit index for the evidentiary package — every document, form, screenshot, email, letter, and recording referenced across all chapters, organized by document number, date, custodian, and relevance mapping. Includes the federal court record for University Police Officers v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. 2:96-cv-00396-WDK-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the state tort action Harold v. The Regents (Santa Monica Superior Court, Case No. SC022125), and the Jacobs v. Regents case — in which FUPOA, the union Harold founded, is the named plaintiff.

Chapter 11: Who’s Watching – The Regulatory Oversight Matrix

Catalogues twenty (20) oversight bodies organized across four tiers — Federal Agencies, State of California Agencies, University of California Internal Oversight, and State of Arizona Agencies — each entry identifying the body's specific jurisdictional authority with statutory citations, the documented violations within its purview, the evidentiary chapters containing supporting documentation, and the filing method with contact information. Constitutes formal constructive notice that complaints will be filed with every applicable authority if UC fails to provide a substantive written response within thirty days.

Chapter 12: The Case Against Competence

Institutional competence analysis documenting UCLA PD’s leadership instability, ten chiefs in thirty-seven years, crisis-driven turnover, and the structural governance failures that enabled the thirty-seven-year pattern of contradictory classifications and records management failures.

Chapter 13: CCW Evidence Compendium

Complete CCW chronology, POBR analysis, six classifications, crime reports filed under California Labor Code § 132a, and the full documentary record of Chobanian’s retroactive denial using a 2020 policy to revoke a 2002 permit.

Chapter 14: The Demand to Stop All Medical Coverage Transfers

 Documents UC's March 17, 2026 attempt to terminate Harold's UC Blue Cross High Option Medigap coverage effective May 1, 2026, and establishes through two independent legal paths why the transfer is prohibited: under Path A (UCRP disability recipient), UC's own published Via Benefits FAQ Questions 9, 10, and 17 independently exclude Harold from the program, a conclusion independently confirmed by Via Benefits' own administrator Joshua Lewis on February 2, 2026; under Path B (regular retiree), 42 U.S.C. § 1395ss(q)(1) federally prohibits cancellation of a Medigap plan on geographic grounds. Presents the complete WTW contact chronology, the Echols 41-minute reversal, the Agostini CFO admissions regarding erroneous UCLA financial records since 2002, the post-operative medical reality including the confirmed positive surgical margin and bilateral varicoceles, the complete IRS Form 1099-R year-by-year disability income record, and the documented financial harm calculation ranging from $880,043 to $1,278,382. Constitutes Harold's second and final pre-legal demand with a five-business-day written response deadline.

Chapter 15: The Civil Rights Case

Integrates the complete civil rights framework — ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101), ADEA (29 U.S.C. § 621), FEHA (Government Code § 12940), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 — applied to UC's thirty-seven-year documented pattern of conduct toward Harold, including the Chapman "slam dunk" heart presumption admission of February 15, 1996 establishing that UC's own Chief of Police acknowledged Harold was entitled to a 100% tax-free medical retirement that was never processed. Presents constitutional violations in three tiers of evidentiary strength: Tier 1 (Due Process — six mutually exclusive classifications without notice or hearing; Second Amendment — 21-year CCW retroactively revoked; First Amendment — whistleblower retaliation spanning 1992 to 2026), Tier 2 (Equal Protection; Commerce Clause; BruinWatch.org suppression; Freedom of Association), and Tier 3 (Throckmorton fraud analysis; Fourth Amendment property interest in CCW; cumulative retaliation pattern). Documents the Chancellor Young and President Peltason reporting chain through three phases of retaliation, the complete ten-chief leadership instability table, the UC systemwide Los Alamos National Laboratory parallel including the Walp/Doran/Bernabei settlements, and the § 1985 conspiracy evidence through the three Shain assignments. Includes the complete Notice of Protected Status with full whistleblower and legal history 1990 through 2026.