The Guardian - Shame On Janet Napolitano For Rigging The AS Election

USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1916342 Filed: 10/01/2021 Page 1 of 83
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2866
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk USCA No. 20-1407
Waszczuk U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 23105–18 W
v. Notice of Appeal Filed on October 7,

2020
Commissioner of Internal Revenue NOTICE OF APPELLANT
Service JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’s
CONCERNS REGARDING THE
Appellee SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 PER CURIAM
COURT ORDER
NOTICE OF JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’S CONCERNS

REGARDING THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 PER CURIAM COURT
ORDER WHICH PLACED WASZCZUK’S CASE IN ABEYANCE DUE
TO PENDING DISPOSITION OF THE CASE LI V. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, NO. 20-1245 (D.C. CII.), WHICH RAISES
THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THE TAX COURT'S ORDER SUSTAINING A FINAL
DETERMINATION MADE UNDER I.R.C. § 7623(A).
I.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, pronounced “Vashchook” (hereafter Waszczuk)
-1-
SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 PER CURIAM COURT ORDER
was forced to represent himself in his tax evasion and fraud whistleblower claim since
after the Waszczuk’ legal counsel Mark Schlein from the prestigious California law
firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Corporation abounded the Petitioner in
panic in August 2018 . It occurred after the IRS Whistleblower Office (WBO) in
Ogden , Utah received Waszczuk’ August 3, 2018 updated Application for Award The
Petitioner filed a Petition on November 21, 2018, seeking an appeal of the IRS WOB’s
rejection of his updated expanded and detailed August 3, 2018 claim lodged in the
IRS WBO office as the Master Claim No. 2018-012118 and Sub Claims Numbers
2018-012139 2018-012141, by the IRS WBO on August 24, 2018. The updated August
3, 2018 included March 23, 2016 claim which was attached to the updated Application
for Award Form 2011 as the attachment.
On June 4, 2020, Waszczuk was served with the Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C.
June 4, 2020) which granted Motion for Summary Judgment to the Commissioner.
On September 25, 2020, pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 13
(A) &(B), the Waszczuk filed a timely appeal to the Memorandum Opinion and Order
and Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4,
2020) that was served on June 4, 2020. This Court, therefore, has the jurisdiction to
-2-
review this case.
II.
THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 COURT NOTIFICATION
On September 15, 2021, Waszczuk received via electronic mail a notification
from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(EXHIBIT # 1)The Court notified Plaintiff that his appeal from the Findings or
Opinion ) and Order and Decision (UTC Rule 161) in Waszczuk v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) was placed in abeyance due to the
Court’s pending disposition of Ms. Mandy Mobley Li’s case Li v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.). Her case raises the issue of whether this
court has the jurisdiction to review the Tax Court’s order sustaining a final
determination made under I.R.C. § 7623(a). Waszczuk became concerned about the
court notification, but did not have time to review the docket of the Li v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.) because, at the same time, Waszczuk was
preoccupied with his wrongful termination complaint Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479, which has been
pending for the last eight years in the State of California Sacramento County Superior
Court. Waszczuk’s wrongful termination case in state court is cross-referenced or

-3-
cross-related to the pending appeal in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
III.
THE JUNE 15, 2021 COURT PER CURIAM COURT ORDER [1902353] IN Li
v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, NO. 20-1245 (D.C. CIR.)
On June 15, 2021, the PER CURIAM ORDER [1902353] was filed in Li v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 20-1245. The Order stated that by its
own motion, the court appointed Robert Manhas, a member of the State Bar, as amicus
curiae to assist the case by addressing the court's jurisdiction to hear Li v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service’s appeal. The Court further stated that the
amicus curiae is directed to file a brief by September 1, 2021, not to exceed 13,000
words. The parties may each file a reply brief, not to exceed 6,500 words, by
September 22, 2021. The Court directed the clerk to schedule this case for presentation
to a merit panel before Judges Milett and Wilkins.
If Waszczuk were to receive a notification in June 2021, which stated that the
amicus curiae was appointed to Mandy Mobley Li’s case and was directed by the clerk
to schedule this case to a merit panel before judges, Waszczuk would not be worried at
all about his pending appeal in the D.C. Cir. However, Waszczuk received a copy of
the September 15, 2021 Per Curiam Court Order, which sounded different from the
-4-
June 15, 2021 Per Curiam Order. Waszczuk read the filed on September 1, 2021, a 74-
page-long amicus curiae brief titled “BRIEF OF COURT-APPOINTED AMICUS
CURIAE ADDRESSING THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION” filed by the two
attorneys Robbie Manhas and Robert M. Loeb from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP based in San Francisco, California, and became very worried about the fate of his
pending appeal from the Findings or Opinion and Order and Decision (UTC Rule 161)
in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020). The
amicus curiae brief conclusion:
“This Court should dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction based on the Tax Court's lack of jurisdiction
under § 7623(b)(4).”
The conclusion was repeated by the Appellee Final Reply Brief filed on September 22,
2021, by the Appellee in the Li case the Commissioner of Internal Commissioner
Services represented by the two attorneys Bruce R. Ellissen and Matthew S. Johnshoy
from the U.S. Department of Justice.
IV.
THE WASZCZUK’S CONCERNS IN REGARD TO COURT PER CURIAM
COURT ORDER [1902353 DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2021
Why the Appellant Mandy Mobley Li of Li v. Commissioner of Internal
-5-
Revenue Services Case No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.) did not file her Reply Brief to Amicus
Brief before or on September 22, 202 is mystery to Waszczuk . Appellant Li is the
primary target of the Amicus Curiae Brief, which insists that the Court should dismiss
her appeal for want of jurisdiction based on the Tax Court's lack of jurisdiction under §
7623(b)(4) relaying .
Question is: What will happen to Waszczuk’s case if the court, base on the
Amicus Curiae Brief will dismisses Mandy Mobley Li’s appeal? On September 25,
2020, pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 13 (A) & (B), Waszczuk filed
a timely appeal to the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in Waszczuk v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) that was served on June
4, 2020. The Court, therefore, has the jurisdiction to review the appeal in this case.
Waszczuk paid $500 for a Notice of Appeal. Waszczuk was not sure whether the
Notice of Appeal should be marked to be filed in U.S Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit,
or the D.C. Circuit. Thus, the Petitioner enclosed a signed Notice of Appeal for the
Ninth and the D.C. Circuits. The Notice of Appeal was filed in the D.C. Circuit Court
by U.S . Tax Court
Waszczuk noticed that the attorneys representing the Regents of the
University of California in Waszczuk’s wrongful termination case Jaroslaw Waszczuk
-6-
v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479 and the
new Sacramento County Superior Court Judge presiding over Waszczuk’s case in the
state court closely coordinated court proceedings with his appeal in D.C. Circuit Court.
The coordination included the Court appointment of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP (Orrick) based in San Francisco as a as amicus curiae for Li v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Service’s Case No. 20-1245 appeal . On September 1, 2021, Orrick’s
attorneys Robbie Manhas and Robert M. Loeb filed their Amicus Curiae Brief in the
D.C. Circuit, advising the court that the D.C. Circuit has no jurisdiction over the
appeals from the U.S Tax Court Findings or Opinions and Order and Decisions in
whistleblower cases . Orrick’s Attorneys Manhas and Loeb in their Amicus Brief
attempted to reverse the history and outrageously exploited on pages 10, 12, 25, 29,
30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39 & 41 the Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. 146 (2019)
Case.
On the same day, September 1, 2021 when the Amicus Brief was filed , the
newly assigned to Waszczuk’s case, the Sacramento Superior Court Judge Christopher
E. Kruger granted the Motion for Summary Judgment to the Regents of the University
in a five-minute court hearing via ZOOM in Waszczuk’s wrongful termination case,
which has been pending since December 4, 2013. Before Judge Christopher E. Kruger
-7-
was appointed to the bench in Sacramento County’s Superior Court, he worked for
former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer with Sacramento County Superior
Court Judge Jennifer Rockwell, who was also involved in Waszczuk’s wrongful
termination case. See state v. All Persons, 152 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Cal. Ct. App., 2007).
In August 2000 AG Lockyer crowned himself the "Chief of California Parties" and
became the chief of the money-extortion team, named the "California Energy Task
Force." For the next two decades, the sophisticated scheme of fraud titled California
Energy Crisis became a gold mine for California Attorney Generals Lockyer, Jerry
Brown, and Kamala Harris’s Energy Task Force. In 2004, Lockyer’s California Parties
and California Energy Task Force received a kickback from Waszczuk’s former
employer Dynegy Inc formerly Destec Energy Inc. amounting to $280,000,000, and in
2005, they received $460,000,000 from Reliant Energy. Lockyer cashed out
approximately $20,000,000 for him and his “California Energy Task Force.” Nobody
knows what happened to the tens of millions of dollars cashed out by Lockyer, Brown,
and Harris. In 1997, Waszczuk reported that Destec Energy /Dynegy Inc. defrauded
California Public Utilities Company, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers
and California tax payers of $ 240, 000,000. Approximately $3,000,000 in unpaid
overtime fraud was committed by Destec Energy against 119 employees. As well (see:
-8-
Link)
https://www.scribd.com/document/489028741/February-1999-Fire-in-My-
Daughter-s-Apartment-San-Carlos-California
California AG Bill Lockyer and his successors were the key players in the cover up of
the tens of millions of dollars tax evasion and fraud committed by the Regents of the
University of California, or the real owners of the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogeneration plant . The millions of dollars tax evasion and fraud committed by UC
Regents is subject of Waszczuk Appeal in this DC Circuit Court proceeding and
related to the unlawful generation and sale of electricity from the plant Waszczuk was
employed and witnessed and two other University of California campuses. Since
2005, Waszczuk have become UC Regents and their assigned thugs to be framed and
deported to his native country Poland. His family, as well especially his wife, has
become a target of UC Regents hired thugs. It has come to the point that Waszczuk is
afraid to go to the Sacramento Court alone, so as not to be provoked and harmed after
two provocations attacking Waszczuk’s wife in the Court Halls. On top of this,
someone fired a shot at Waszczuk’s home, at a spot where his wife frequently sits and
watches TV in the living room. On August 16, 2013, California Attorney General
Harris, who is currently the U.S. Vice President, announced a $750 million settlement
with Powerex over claims arising from the sophisticated fraud scheme taking place
-9-
between 2000–2001, titled California Energy Crisis. According to her testimony,
Powerex gamed the market by purchasing and exporting huge quantities of electricity
that California needed, to Canada, and then selling it back to California at exorbitant
prices. Contrary to Lockyer’s announcements about kickbacks, Harris’s announcement
did not say how much she got in kickbacks from Powerex, a company that California
Attorney General Lockyer, Brown, and Harris chased for 13 years. Because the
Petitioner had, on multiple occasions, informed Harris about California Independent
System Operator’s (CAISO's) joint venture in white collar crime with the University of
California Office of the President (Regents of the University of California), he
followed Harris's announcement about the California Parties' settlements with
Powerex.
Waszczuk recaptured what happened in 2021 in the Sacramento Superior Court in
relation to his pending District of Columbia Circuit Court case Waszczuk v.
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Services Case No. 20-1407 in his Court
pleadings filed in the the Sacramento County Superior Court on September 22, 2021
which includes : The Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration of the Order
dated September 1, 2021 grants the Defendants the Motion for Summary Judgment or,
the alternative, Summary Adjudication (EXHIBIT #2), in Memorandum of Points and
- 10 -
Authorities (EXHIBIT #3), and Declaration in Support (EXHIBIT #4).
It took 12 long days and a lot of effort and money for Waszczuk to file his Motion for
Reconsideration in the Sacramento County Superior Court Department 54 (Hon.
Christopher E. Krueger) on September 22, 2021. See Waszczuk inquiry sent to United
Parcel Service (UPS) on September 19, 2021 (EXHIBIT #5). The UC Regents
attorneys from the Sacramento Porter Scott law firm, in collaboration with the Superior
Court staff, were doing anything possible to prevent Waszczuk from filing his Motion
for Reconsideration and scheduling a court hearing in Sacramento County Superior
Court until the Appellee , the Commissioner of Internal Commissioner Services,
represented by the two Attorneys Bruce R. Ellissen and Matthew S. Johnshoy from the
U.S Department of Justice, filed on September 22, 2021 their final Appellate Brief in
the Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services Case No. 20-1245 and the D.C.
Circuit Court. Commissioner ‘s Attorneys Mr. Ellissen and Mr. Johnshoy repeated in
their Reply Brief the conclusion from the Orick’s Attorneys Mr. Manhas and
Mr.Loeb Amicus Curiae Brief resolution for the self -represented whistleblowers
appeals pending in the United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Waszczuk feels that he no need to elaborate on what will happen to his and Leon
Conor Black Appeals from the Findings or Opinions and Orders and Decisions of US
- 11 -
Tax Court if the D.C. Circuit Court dismiss Mandy Mobley Li’s appeal base on the
appointed by the Court Orick’s Attorneys Amicus Curiae Brief , Appellee in Li case
Reply Brief filed on September 22, 2021 and lack of Reply Brief from Appellant
Mandy Mobley Li.
On September 29, Waszczuk attempted to contact Ms. Li by e-mail and phone
to find out why she did not file her Reply Brief to oppose Orrick’s Amicus Curiae
Brief.
Because Waszczuk could not get in touch with Ms. Li to find out why she did
not file her reply, Plaintiff looked further into Orrick’s Attorneys background who
were appointed by the Court as a Amici Advocates. Orrick’s Attorney Robert M.
Loeb and his participation in the Amicus Curiae Brief process received the Waszczuk
‘s utmost attention.
V.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP (ORRICK LLP) BASED IN
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Orrick LLP from San Francisco is no stranger to Waszczuk. Waszczuk’s
former employer, the University of California, is Orrick’s permanent client in
litigations against whistleblowers and other lawsuits. The former employer devastated
- 12 -
Waszczuk and his family, damaging his livelihood six years before retirement at age
60, causing financial destruction that amounted to losses over $1,000,000 in wages and
benefits. In March 2016, when Waszczuk submitted his March 23, 2016 Original
Application for Award (Claim No. 2016-007481) to the IRS Whistleblowing Office in
Ogden, Utah, the President of the University California Janet Napolitano hired two of
Orrick’s LLP attorneys, former U.S attorney Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott. They
were paid $1,000,000 in March 2016 for sending California’s most popular 68-year-
old Democrat Senator Leland Yee to federal prison. Yee was going after corruption in
California’s government and after white collar criminals at the University of
California’s Office of the President. This was a trick and clearly a clever operation,
getting paid for a dirty job using dirty cash. To have access to the tens of millions
of dollars of dirty cash, Ms. Napolitano transformed herself in August 2013 from
the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to the President of the
University of California. Her friend Melinda Haag converted herself in 2015 from
a U.S. attorney in the Northern District of California back to an Orrick Law Firm
lawyer where she had worked previously. There was no other way to get paid
$1,000,000 for sending Senator Leland Yee to prison. UC Davis Chancellor Linda
Katehi was used as hoax prey to justify paying off Melinda Haag and McGregor
- 13 -
Scott . The deal between Janet Napolitano and Orrick’s attorneys Melinda Haag
and McGregor Scott was a pure violation of (RICO), (18 U.S.C. § 1961).
Chancellor Katehi was the perfect choice for Napolitano, Haag, and Scott to
accomplish the goal of Senator Yee’s incarnation and to pay Haag and Scott
$1,000,000 of dirty cash for their efforts and dedication to the cause. On April 30,
2016, an FBI agent spoke to Waszczuk about the tens of millions of tax evasion
and fraud committed by UC Regents or owners of the UC Davis 27 MW
Cogeneration Plant in relation to unlawful power generation and sale. Shortly after
Waszczuk spoke to the FBI agent, the Agent in Charge of the Sacramento FBI
Office Monica Miller and the U.S Attorney for the Eastern District of California
Benjamin Wagner, who investigated UC Davis for a different case of fraud, were
replaced. U.S Senator Dianne Feinstein was sent two letters in April and May
2016 to Waszczuk than Waszczuk asked Senator Feinstein for intervention with
President Obama to pardon Senator Leland Yee. Senator Yee’s spouse was ill, but
it was to no avail. In 2015-2016, Napolitano was given $175,000,000 by the Regents to
pay a ransom, most likely to Porter Scott attorneys who blackmailed their own client
and paid off the owners of the UC Davis Medical Center 27-MW cogeneration plant
the subject of the tax evasion and fraud . However, Napolitano was caught by the
- 14 -
state auditor due to an audit requested by Senator Leland Yee’s friend, California
Assembly Member Phil Ting who appointed San Francisco Assessor-Recorder in 2005 by
then- Mayor Gavin Newsom, becoming San Francisco’s highest-ranking Chinese-American
official at the time.
The UC President Janet Napolitano’s Chief Deputy Seth Grossman unlawfully
interfered ion the State Audit requested by California Assemblyman Phil Ting . Seth
Grossman was the former employee of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
where Janet Napolitano was a Chief from January 2009 to September 2013
Aside from the shady business with Orrick attorneys, Haag and Scott, Napolitano also
practiced on the UC Associated Students Organization how to rig the elections by
using sophisticated software. It was reported on in 2016 by student newspaper The
UCSD Guardian, published by students attending University of California San Diego
(UCSD)
Shortly after Waszczuk submitted his Application for Award to IRS WBO in
March 2016 , the UC President Janet Napolitano traveled to Washington D.C and met
with President Obama and Vice-President Biden and Department of Energy
executives , then former UC executive vice-president Judith Boyette was appointed by
the Secretary of the Treasury to a three-year term from June 2016 – June 2019 on the
- 15 -
IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE) to take
care of Waszczuk’s tax evasion and fraud whistleblower claim submitted to IRS
WBO. The Waszczuk’s Original Application for Award (Claim No. 2016-007481)
submitted to the IRS Whistleblowing Office (WBO) in Ogden, Utah on March 23,
2016 vanished for more than two years until Waszczuk submitted to WBO in August
2018 his update of the March 2016 whistleblower claim Waszczuk has no doubt that
in 2016 and thereafter, UC Regents and UC President Janet Napolitano were advised
by Orrick’s LPP attorneys about Waszczuk’s whistleblower claim. In addition, the
Orick’s Attorney , former U.S Attorney McGregor Scott who cashed from UC
President Janet Napolitano $ 500,000 was responsible for the prosecution and
incarceration of an innocent young man, the Lodi Resident Hamid Hayat, who spent 14
years in federal prison wrongfully accused of associating with a terror network in
Pakistan. https://youtu.be/O9sUJ0TkPPw
Waszczuk has lived in Lodi, CA since 1989. Waszczuk addressed UC
President Janet Napolitano and Orrick’s LLP attorneys Melinda Hagg and McGregor
Scott’s activities in his Waszczuk’s/Petitioner's Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order Served
On July 9, 2019 Signed By Special Trial Judge Hon. Robert N. Armen Re: Protective
Order-Tax Court Rules Of Practice and Procedure Section 6103(B)(L), (2), (3).
- 16 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/476775930/UTC-20190729-Judge-
Armen-Order-Petitioner-Objection-to-Motion-for-Protective-Order
Coincidently or not, after Waszczuk submitted on July 29, 2019 his
response to Hon. Robert N. Armen July 9, 2019 Order, Lodi Resident Hamid
Hayat was released after 14 years of incarceration in federal prison in August 2019 by
the same judge who sentenced him for 24 years (United States v. Hayat, Case No.
2:05–CR–240–GEB (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2019)
https://www.scribd.com/document/476776215/UTC-20190730-HAMID-HAYAT-JUDGMENT .
Thereafter, Waszczuk Case was set for trial in August 2019 by the U.S. Tax court, and
months later Janet Napolitano announced her resignation from her post as President of
the University of California. Now Waszczuk must deal with the University of
California’s Office of the President’s legal advisors from Orrick’s LLP appointed by
the D.C. Circuit Court as a Amici’s to erase Waszczuk’s whistleblower case. Their
Amicus Curiae was filed on September 1, 2021 and was not objected to by Appellant
Mandy Mobley Li, who should have been the first to reply.
VI.
ORRICK LLP ATTORNEY ROBERT MARK LOEB
Orrick’s LLP attorney Robert Mark Loeb, the author and coauthor of the
Amicus Curiae Brief in Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services Case No.

- 17 -
20-1245, is not a stranger in California. According to Orrick’s Website
https://www.orrick.com/en/People/4/A/4/Robert-Loeb Mr. Loeb handled significant
bankruptcy matters, including a billion-dollar dispute over whether DHL’s claim was
discharged by United’s bankruptcy and a Ninth Circuit matter involving the interplay
of the Takings Clause and bankruptcy laws. His recent work includes matters for
Johnson & Johnson, Credit Suisse, Microsoft, Gannett, Eni, Lending Club, Deloitte,
EY, Medidata, Intel, Renco, and the City of Stockton, CA. The City of Stockton is
located 10 miles from Lodi, CA, where Waszczuk has lived since 1989. In 2012-
2015, Orrick’s Sacramento office represented the City of Stockton in Bankruptcy
Court, Eastern District of California Case No. 2012-3218 Chapter 9. As Mr. Loeb
was handling such an important case, from 2012-2016, he had to be frequently
present in the Sacramento Orrick’s office, located 50 miles north of the City of
Stockton. The Sacramento office employed former U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott,
who most likely was involved in Waszczuk’s former employer UC Davis, UC Davis
Medical Center’s legal affairs, where Waszczuk was employed for 13 years as an
operator of the 27 MW cogeneration plant and as an Associate Development
Engineer. This is where his life and livelihood were devastated because of the
unlawful operation of the power plant and the unlawful production of electricity since
- 18 -
1998. As a result, tens of millions of dollars of tax evasion and fraud took place.
Orick’s Attorney Mr. Robert Mark Loeb and Mr. Robert Ranvir Sing Manhas should
not insert themselves into Waszczuk’s case this way. This is constitutes professional
misconduct and fraud Defendants’ attorneys from Porter Scott tampering with the
administration of justice in the manner shown here indisputably involves far more than injury to self
-represented litigants including Waszczuk. It is wrong against the institutions set up to protect and
safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot be complacently tolerated consistent with
the good order of society.
VII
CONCLUSION
Waszczuk found the PER CURIAM Court Order [1902353] disturbing, as it
appointed one of the most powerful American professional law corporations against
self-represented litigants and this law corporation concluded that one of most
powerful Circuit Courts in the United States suddenly has no jurisdiction over the
Findings or Opinions and Orders and Decisions issued by the U.S. Tax Court in
whistleblower cases. Besides, there is a significant conflict of interest, as two
attorneys from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP based in San Francisco, CA are
participating in the proceedings. What the court has done in this proceeding is
extremely prejudicial, biased, and discriminatory to self-represented litigants, by
appointing one of the most powerful anti-whistleblower law firms to write the
- 19 -
Amicus Curiae Brief of which the conclusion is speaking for itself what the Amicus
Curiae Brief is about.
Waszczuk has do any doubt that if the Court would appoint the law firm which
is specializing in the representation of the whistleblowers with IRS WBO and the
U.S Tax Court than conclusion in the Amicus Curiae Brief’s would be a completely
different than Mr. Loeb’s and Mr. Manhans conclusion in their Amicus Brief .
This is not only an issue of prejudice, bias, and discrimination aimed at self-
represented litigants, but it is also just unfair to let this law firm attack the very
vulnerable self-represented litigants. It is additionally an issue of legitimizing tax
evasion and fraud, giving the green light for white collar criminals to do more harm
to the American taxpayers.
For the above reasons, Waszczuk is respectfully asking the Court to vacate the
PER CURIAM Court Order [1902353] dated September 15, 2021 and disregard the
Orick’s Attorney Amicus Curiae Brief filed on September 1, 2021. Waszczuk
additionally requests the dismissal of the Orrick LLP attorney from this proceeding,
and review of the whistleblower cases with fairness and without bias to self -
represented litigants in order to serve justice as it should be served.
- 20 -
Dated: October 1, 2021 ________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Waszczuk Pros Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
- 21 -
DECLARATION
Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk states as follows:
I am representing myself Pro Se in this appeal.
The facts recited in the foregoing motion are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this on October 1, 2021 in Lodi,
California
Dated: October 1, 2021

Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Waszczuk Pros Se
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
- 22 -
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This motion contains 4480 words. It uses a monospaced face and contains
476 lines of text.
Dated: October 1 , 2021
_______________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Pro Se
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 833-817-7080
Email: jjwl980@live.com
- 23 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper NOTICE OF

APPELLANT JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’s CONCERNS
REGARDING THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 PER CURIAM COURT
ORDER was served on October 1, 2021, by electronic mail to the following
recipients:
mail to the following recipients:
Richard L. Parker -
U.S. Department of Justice
Tax Division, Appellate Section
Post Office Box 502
Washington D.C. 20044
richard.l.parker@usdoj.gov
LEO CONOR BLACK

5200 Clark Avenue #765
Lakewood, CA 90714-7037
Ph. & Fax (562) 498-9463
email: leoconorblack@outlook.com
Jacob Earl Christensen, Attorney

Regina S. Moriarty, Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) Tax Division, Appellate Section
P0 Box 502, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Email: Jacob.e.christensen@usdoj.gov
Email: regina.s.moriarty@usdoj.gov
- 24 -
Mandy Mobley Li
119Kennemer Court
Johns Creek , GA 30097
Email: mandy.mobley@gmail.com
Bruce R. Ellisen , Attorney

Matthew S. Johnshoy, Attorney
Tax Division Department of Justice
Post Office Box 502
Washington, D.C. 20044
Email: Appellate.Taxcivil@usdoj.gov
Email: Mathew.s.johnshoy@usdoj.gov
Robert Mark Loeb

Robert Ranvir Singh Manhas
Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe LLP 1152
1152 15th Street NW
Columbia Center
Washington, DC 20005
Email: rloeb@orrick.com
Email: rmanhas@orrick.com
Dated: October 1, 2021

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Waszczuk Pros Se
206 Katzakian
Way Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.663.2977
Fax: 209.787.3131
- 25 -
- 26 -
1 TABLE OF CONTENT
2
I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….1
3
II. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE…………………………………….….2
4 III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE…………………………………………...…..2
5 IV. THE COURT HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 IN DEPARTMENT 54, HON.
6 CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER (VIA ZOOM)………………………………………….....5
7 V. HIS COURT HAS THE STATUTORY POWER TO RECONSIDER A PRIOR ORDER
8
AND MODIFY, AMEND, OR REVOKE THE ORDER…………………………………..5
VI. THE PLAINTIFF’S OVERVIEW OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 COURT ORDER
9
AND NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE………………………………………………………6
10
A. The Order…………………………………………………………………………………..…6
11
B. The Court’s refusal to rule on Regents' objections to Plaintiff’s evidence and Refusal to
12 rule on Plaintiff's Objection to Defendants' Objections to Evidence was dictated by
Favoritism toward the Regents and Porter Scott’s Attorney ……………………..….……6
13
C. The 2007–2009 Regents’ Adverse Action Aimed at the Plaintiff in light of the Objection
14
to Defendants' Objections to Evidence………………………………………………..……..6
15
D. Adverse Regents Action aimed at Plaintiff in April 2011–December 2012 and thereafter
16 carried out by Regents’ Appointees in Light of the 09/01/2021 Court Hearing and Court
Order …………………………………………………………………………...……………..7
17
18 E. The Skelly Reviewer UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson……………..10
19
VII. THE LEGAL ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………..10
20
A. The Court Abused its Discretion, Showing Bias and Discrimination Against the Plaintiff
21 by Granting MSJ/MSA to the Regents by Exploiting the Lack of a Responsive Separate
Statement With Plaintiff’s Objection to the Regents’ MSJ/MSA………………….…….10
22
23 B. Court Order - Procedural History - Regents’ Motion to Deem Matters Admitted …….11
24 C. Court Order- Discussion …………………………………………………………………...13
25
VIII. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….…….14
26 IX. PROOF OF SERVICE ………………………………………………………………….15
27 X. EXHIBITS ……………………………………………………………………………….16
28
ii
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
2
Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp., 128 Cal.App.4th 187 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005),………....….1,14
3 Kim v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., A155073 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019)…………....................…..2,3
4 Simon v. City & County of San Francisco (1947) 79 Cal.App.2d 590, 60 …………………………..11
Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 120……………………………………………. ……….11
5
Palmer v. Regents of the University of California, 107 Cal. App. 4th 899, 132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 567 (Cal.
6
App. Dist. 2 04/08/2003).,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,…………………………………………………...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12
7
Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1061 (dis. opn. of Liu, Acting P.J.)……………...12
8 Lombardi v. Citizens Nat. Trust & Say. Bank (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 209………..……………13
9 STATUTES
10
Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a)………………………………….…….…………………………1,5
11
Civil Code of Procedure §§ 491.110, 708.110, 708.120,,,,,…………………………………..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4
12
Code of Civil Procedure CCP § 437c(q)…………………………………………………...…………..6
13
14 Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220…………………………………...……………………………..12
15 Code of Civil Procedure §583.310……………………………………………………………………13

16 UC DAVIS PERSONNEL POLICIES FOR STAFF MEMBERS (PPSM)
17
UC Davis Policy PPSM 23,………………………………………………..…………………….2,3,7,9
18
UC Davis Policy PPSM 1616………………………………………………………………………….8
19
UC Davis Policy PPSM 62
20 ……………………………………………………………………..………………………………….10
21 UC Davis Policy PPSM 63 63……………………………………………………………....………..10

22 UC Davis Policy PPSM 64…………………………………………………….…………………….10
23
OTHER AUTHORITIES
24
California Rule of Court 2.1…………………………………………………………………………..4
25
26
27
28
iii
1 EXHIBITS
2
NUMBER: PAGE NO.
3
1. August 31, 2021 Tentative Ruling …………………………………………..…………………….7
4
2. Plaintiff’s August 24, 2021 Notice of Objection to Defendants’ Objections to Evidence Proffered in
5 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s MSJ/MSA………………………………………………………8
6 3. E-mail conversation dated May 10, 2012 about Plaintiff’s New Job Description and Dorin Daniliuc
7 and Patrick Putney Suspension from work ……………………………………………………………10
8 4. Joel Vandviver’s June 14, 2012 e-mail to Travis Lindsay and Brent Seifert about Letter of Intent to
Dismiss Plaintiff (LOID 14 days after Plaintiff was suspended without pay and was not working . .11
9
5. June 22, 2012 Gina Harwood Memo informing Plaintiff that Joel Vandviver and Huberto Garcia is
10
working anymore for UCDMC HR Department …………………………..……………………..……1
11
6. August 16, 2012 UCDMC HR E-mail stating that Plaintiff’s appeal from wunlaful suspension
12
complaints in which Plaintiff represented other workers were placed in abeyance . Plaintif was denied
13 due process of law in violation of UC Davis Policy PPSM 70. Complaint Resolution ………….…..11
14 7. Informational Brief Plaintiff sent to Skelly Reviewer UC Davis Assistant Vice Chaneclor Allean
15 Tollefson on November 12, 2012. ……………………………………………………………………11
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iv
2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

3
I.
4
INTRODUCTION
5
6 Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a) states:
7
When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and
8 refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any
party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of
9 written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts,
circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the
10 order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.
11 In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1008, Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced
12 Vash-chook, hereafter “Waszczuk”) submitted in a timely manner his Memorandum of Points and
13 Authorities of Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Dated September 1, 2021, which granted to
14 the Defendants a Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication
(MSJ/MSA). Plaintiff’s Memorandum is supported by the Notice of Motion and Motion and
15
Plaintiff’s Declaration Motion The Plaintiff also requests that the Plaintiff’s Motion for
16
Reconsideration be treated as a Motion for New Trial, due to new facts and evidence which are
17
required to amend the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed seven years ago, on September 30,
18
2014, and which is now completely outdated. The Plaintiff has twice attempted to amend his
19 defective SAC; the first time in December 2014 and again in October 2015. No chance .
20
The Plaintiff’s attempts to amend the SAC were blocked by the Defendants’ attorneys from
21 the Porter Scott law corporation, thus the Plaintiff is respectfully asking the Court for permission to
22 file a Motion of Leave to File to amend his Defective Second Amended Complaint. This would ask
23 for the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration to be treated by the Court as a Motion for New Trial
24 and vice versa, as the Plaintiff the understands the Appellate Court’s opinion in Sole Energy Co. v.
25
Petrominerals Corp., 128 Cal.App.4th 187 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005), which affirmed Court Orders
treating a Motion for Reconsideration as a Motion for New Trial.
26
The Court is biased against the Plaintiff and has completely ignored and left out of the picture
27
the Plaintiff’s new evidence (exhibits) and the Plaintiff’s explanations of the exhibits provided to the
28
Court by his Opposition to Defendant’s MSJ/MSA, filed August 10, 2021 (ROA # 279-280) and the
-1-
1 Plaintiff’s Notice of Objection to the Defendants’ August 20, 2021 Reply to the Memorandum of
2 Points and Authorities in Support of the Defendants’ MSJ/SA (ROA #284). With this Notice of
Objection to the Defendants to Evidence Proffered in the Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Defendants’
3
MSJ/MSA filed on August 24, 2021, the Plaintiff is compelled to reintroduce some of the exhibits as
4
new evidence in this Motion for Reconsideration.
5
6
II.
7 THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
8
In the June 1999 the Plaintiff was hired by the University of California’s UC Davis Medical
9
Center on June 17, 1999 as a non-exempt Senior Power Plant Mechanic, or Cogeneration Power Plant
10
Operator. He was charged with maintaining and operating the newly built, state-of-the art 37-
11
megawatt (MW) total capacity cogeneration power plant at the UC Davis Medical Center in
12 Sacramento, California
13
On January 30, 2009, by Settlement Agreement (Written Contract ) Regents MSJ/MSA
14 Ex. K with the Regents of the University of California d the Plaintiff was promoted to
15 Associate Development Engineer In April 2011- December 2012 the Regents of the University
16 of California breached and unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff’s employment at age 61, on
17 December 7, 2012; this devastated the Plaintiff and his family’s lives.
III.
18
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE
19
20 On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination complaint in pro per against
21
the Regents of the University of California;
22
The Plaintiff based his December 2013 wrongful termination complaint on six Causes of
Action, which included the Violation and Breach of the 2009 Settlement Agreement that the Plaintiff
23
signed with the Regents of the University of California in good faith and UC Davis Policy PPSM 23,
24
Kim v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., A155073 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019) which is the employee
25
annual performance review (evaluation) policy. The Plaintiff considered these two Causes of Action
26
to be the most important in the complaint and were the basis for prevailing in the lawsuit against the
27
Defendants.
28
The nine individual Defendants were included in the complaint because they were all
-2-
1 perfectly aware and constantly informed that the Plaintiff had been employed since February 2009 as
2 an Associate Development Engineer, per the Settlement Agreement; all Defendants listed in the
complaint grossly violated and breached the Settlement Agreement by terminating the Plaintiff 's
3
employment on December 7, 2012 without alleging, verbally or in writing in any document, that the
4
Plaintiff violated the signed the February 2009 Settlement Agreement with the Regents of the
5
University of California. The nine individual Defendants were included in the complaint because they
6
all knew, by their educational knowledge and positions at the UC Davis Medical Center, that UC
7 Davis Policy PPSM 23 mandated the provision of an annual evaluation to every employee. They also
8 knew that UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 was strictly enforced. Kim v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., A155073
9 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019) Plaintiff’s Oppos. Regents MSJ/MSA Exh. 7
10 On June 16, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel, Douglas Stein, filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC)
11 on the Plaintiff's behalf without mentioning a word about the Plaintiff's employee performance
review for the last two years of employment, from 2011–2012. Stein pleaded in the eight Cause of
12
Action (COA) Rescission of the February 2009 Settlement Agreement that was signed by the UC
13
Regents with Plaintiff. Through these eight COAs, Stein declared the 2009 Settlement Agreement an
14
unlawful Contract entered into against the Plaintiff's will.
15
On September 10, 2016, Plaintiff's attorney Stein, filed a faulty Second Amended Complaint
16 without Leave to the Court. The filed SAC, without Leave to Court, was deliberately filed by Stein to
17 cause the SAC filing to be rejected by the Court Clerk (ROA#18)
18 On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff visited his attorney, Stein, at his residence in Eldorado
19 Hills, CA, since Stein had refused to meet with the Plaintiff since July 2014 and properly amended
the SAC.
20
On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff gave to Stein $500.00 and offered him an additional
21
$20,000 for help with the lawsuit. The Plaintiff left Stein's home with the impression that Stein would
22
properly amend the SAC, as per the Plaintiff's instructions regarding the Plaintiff's evaluations, the
23
January 2009 Settlement Agreement, and other faulty pleadings.
24 On December 1, 2014, instead of amended properly complaint, the Plaintiff was ambushed by
25 an anti-SLAPP motion, and Stein completely emptied the retainer account he had opened with Wells
26 Fargo Bank using the Plaintiff’s $20,000. Stein was disbarred in January 2020.
27
28
-3-
1 On February 9, 2015, the Court granted a Special Motion to Strike to Defendants Nichols,
2 Chilcott, Oropeza, Seifert, and Boyd (anti-SLAPP motion), pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 425.16. The February 9, 2015 Court Order also lifted the Discovery Stay.
3
On October 10, 2017, the Court of Appeal’s Third Appellate District (3DCA), via the unpublished
4
opinion Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017), affirmed the
5
Trial Court judgment which granted the anti-SLAPP motion to the five Defendants.
6
The Supreme Court of California denied the Plaintiff’s Petitions for Review on January 10,
7 2018, based on Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., S245508 (Cal. Jan. 10, 2018). The Remittitur
8 was issued by 3DCA on January 18, 2018 (ROA #128).
9 On October 3, 2018, Defendants’ attorney and Porter Scott law firm shareholder David
10 Burkett attempted to terminate the Plaintiff’s lawsuit by filing a motion to compel in Department 54
11 (Hon. Christopher E. Krueger ) by bypassing Judge David I. Brown, of Department 53, where the
Plaintiff’s case had been pending since September 30, 2014. This was an attempt to set up and to
12
frame the Plaintiff for a Bench Warrant with Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell from Department 37, who
13
signed on November 7, 2018 an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination of Plaintiff,
14
in violation of the 45-day requirement (Civil Code of Procedure §§ 491.110, 708.110, 708.120, &
15
Sacramento Superior Court Local Rule 2.1) (ROA# 172).
16 Three years later, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s wife became targets and were ambushed another
17 Porter Scott shareholder, Lindsay Goulding, with an Order of Examination in Department 43, under
18 Judge Thadd Blizzard -(ROA #245-253, 262.263,264,265,274) and with a filing on May 14, 2024
19 (ROA #253-258) MSJ/MSA in Department 53, before Hon. Hakim Mesiwala on May 14, 2021. This
was transferred to Dept. 54 on July 2, 2021 (ROA # 266). The same Plaintiff’s 70-year-old wife was
20
terrified and traumatized in Department 43 with help of Judge Thadd Blizzard and the Clerk from
21
Department 43. This was done to provoke Plaintiff to get violent in place where lot of law
22
enforcement officers are doing their duty It happened before twice and provocation were caried out
23
by the other two Porter Scott attorneys . It is not first time The Porter Scott attorneys attempted to
24 frame and harm the Plaintiff’s wife and the Plaintiff, just as they framed and devastated the life in
25 2011 of the Plaintiff’s psychologist, Dr. Franklin Bernhoft and his wife Dorothy Bernhoft, in a
26 conspiracy of Porter Scott attorney David Burkett with UC Vice President Dan Dooley and his wife,
27 Diana Dooley (ROA # 148), or as they framed and tarnished the life of UC Davis Chancellor Linda
28
Katehi and UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, Cpt. Joyce Souza, Lt. John Pike in a conspiracy
-4-
1 with UC Vice President Dan Dooley and UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown. They dragged into
2 their dirty game former Supreme Court Associate Justice Cruz Reynoso, with whom the Plaintiff
exchanged e-mail correspondence a long time ago about professionally but ill crafted ill pepper spray
3
provocation on November 18, 2011 to remove Katehi, Spizuzza, Pike, and Souza from their posts.
4
If the Hon. David Brown were still in charge of Department 53, the orchestrated ambush in
5
Department 43 would not have taken place, and the Motion for Summary Judgment would not have
6
been granted on September 1, 2021; further, the January 30, 2009 Settlement Agreement would have
7 been enforced sooner or later. Porter Scott’s attorneys waited until Judge Brown left Department 53
8 for good.
9 IV.
THE COURT HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 IN DEPARTMENT 54, HON.
10 CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER (VIA ZOOM)
11
The self-represented Plaintiff appeared remotely via video. Thomas Riordan appeared for the
12
defendant, The Regents of the University of California, remotely. The Plaintiff believes that Riordan
13 is the Defendants’ 12th or 13th attorney associated with this case.
14 During the hearing on September 1, 2021, the Plaintiff attempted to present and explain to the
15 Court the undisputed new evidence that the Plaintiff’s employer, UC Davis Medical Center, had no
16 desire to suspend or terminate the Plaintiff in May 2012. However, the Court abruptly ended the
17
hearing after five minutes, despite this case having been pending for eight years. Thus, the Plaintiff is
respectfully requesting that the Court vacate the September change in decision and allow the Plaintiff
18
to amend the complaint with only two COAs, without individual Defendants, as the Plaintiff wanted
19
to do in December 2014 and September 2015 but was not permitted.
20
21
V.
22 THIS COURT HAS THE STATUTORY POWER TO RECONSIDER A PRIOR ORDER AND
MODIFY, AMEND, OR REVOKE THE ORDER
23
Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a) states that:
24
25 When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and
refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any
26 party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of
27
written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts,
circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the
28 order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The
-5-
1 party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made
before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new
2 or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.
3 The Plaintiff did not receive written notice of entry of the order by U.S. Mail or electronic
4 mail on September 10, 2021; therefore, this motion has been filed in a timely manner. This court has
5 jurisdiction to reconsider the Court Order dated September 1, 2021 in which the Defendants were.
6
unjustly granted the Motion for Summary Judgment and or, in the Alternative, Summary
Adjudication
7
VI.
8 THE PLAINTIFF’S OVERVIEW OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 COURT ORDER AND
9
NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE
10 A. The Order
Plaintiff was not allowed to present his disagreement with the Court’s August 31, 2021 Tentative
11
Ruling (EXHIBIT # 1) during the September 1, 2021 court hearing; thus, the Plaintiff’s arguments
12
were not taken under Court submission. The Plaintiff is compelled to provide his disagreement,
13 different facts and circumstances, or laws, in lieu of the August 31, 2021 Motion for Reconsideration
14 and Plaintiff Declaration in Support as a valid ground and reason for the Court to reconsider the
15 discriminatory and very partial August 31, 2021 Tentative Ruling, which became a Court Order on
16 August 1, 2021 after five minutes or less of a scheduled hearing presided over by the Hon.
Christopher E. Krueger.
17
B. The Court’s refusal to rule on Regents' objections to Plaintiff’s evidence and Refusal to
18 rule on Plaintiff's Objection to Defendants' Objections to Evidence was dictated by
Favoritism toward the Regents and Porter Scott’s Attorney
19
The Court’s refusal to rule on the Regents’ objection to the Plaintiff’s evidence or on the
20
Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Objection has nothing to do with the consideration of the motion
21
(CCP § 437c(q)). The Court’s bias, partiality, or discrimination against the Plaintiff was the real
22
reason. An unwillingness to find out who is wrong and who is right and true was the real reason the
23
Court opted not to rule on the Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s objections.
24 C. The 2007–2009 Regents’ Adverse Action Aimed at the Plaintiff in light of the Objection
to Defendants' Objections to Evidence
25
26 In this particular matter, Regents’ Attorney Lindsay Goulding introduced in her MSJ/MSA of
27 March 2007 documents covering January–April 2007 Regents’ adverse action against the Plaintiff,
28 which was a prelude to terminating the Plaintiff’s employment in 2007. This did not end as the
-6-
1 Regents anticipated, because the new interim UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager
2 Charles Witcher, along with three other Department Superintendents, Steve McGrath, Tom
Kavanaugh, and Patrick Putney, who were the Plaintiff’s superiors, provided on July 25, 2007 to the
3
Plaintiff a good evaluation for the evaluation period of July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. The Court
4
will not find in the Plaintiff’s 2006/2007 evaluation mandated by UC Davis Policy PPSM 23
5
https://ucdavispolicy.ellucid.com/documents/view/169 anything that would picture or resemble
6
Witcher’s derogatory March 23, 2007 Letter of Intent to Suspend and Reassign, or the April 16, 2007
7 Letter of Suspension and Reassignment signed by Witcher. Apparently, Witcher was the author of
8 both letters, but was forced to sign these documents and act against his will in dealing with the
9 Plaintiff (Defendants MSJ/MSA Exhibits I & J). Instead of elaborating further, the Plaintiff resubmits
10 for the Court’s convenience and for serious reconsideration the September 1, 2021 Order the
11 Plaintiff’s August 24, 2021 Notice of Objection to Defendants’ Objections to Evidence Proffered in
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s MSJ/MSA (EXHIBIT # 2) without exhibits, which were
12
already docked in the Court (ROA # 283). These presented evidence are the new evidence especially
13
for Department 54’s Presiding Judge, Christopher E. Krueger. The case is eight years old and had
14
been handled since September 30, 2014 by the Hon. David I. Brown.
15
The Plaintiff survived the 2007 termination because of a vigorous rebuttal and opposition to
16 the fabricated, despicable, and ethnically motivated accusations and allegations
17 The battle which began in August 2005 was declaration of war against a Polish immigrant and
18 communism survivor was won in November 2008 Plaintiff , and a truce was declared by the January
19 30, 2009 Settlement Agreement between the parties and the Plaintiff was promoted from power plant
operator to the exempt position of Associate Development Engineer.
20
D. Adverse Regents Action aimed at Plaintiff in April 2011–December 2012 and thereafter
21
carried out by Regents’ Appointees in Light of the 09/01/2021 Court Hearing and Court
22 Order
23
In April 2011, the Regents broke the truce outlined in the January 30, 2009 Settlement
24 Agreement and attacked the Plaintiff to terminate his employment with more powerful forces and
25 different tactics with the clear goal of disposing of the Plaintiff by any means not excluding option to
26 killing . Anyone who was associated with the Plaintiff or who was sympathetic to him became the
27 subject of attacks and ruthless brutalization or victimization.
28
-7-
1 After the Plaintiff’s almost full year of forced absence from work, someone in the University
2 of California Office of the President’s UC Davis Chancellor Office (most likely Chancellor Linda
Katehi) who requested a report on the Plaintiff in November 2011 from UCDMC HR witch hunter
3
Danesha Nichols ordered to move Plaintiff from the HVAC Shop and separated Plaintiff from the
4
UCDMC METASYS Computer Control System, which controlled the HVAC equipment at the
5
Medical Center, critical medical freezers and refrigerators, fire dampers, and room temperatures in
6
hospital patients’ rooms and administrative buildings on the UCDMC campus.
7 The Regents’ attorney, Lindsay Goulding, in her May 14, 2021 filed MSJ/MSA, brought the
8 Plaintiff’s May 11, 2012 unsigned Letter of Suspension (Defendant MSJ/MSA Ex M). The
9 suspension letter stated:
10
The suspension will begin on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 and end on Wednesday,
11 May 30, 2012. You are expected to report to work at 8 a.m. on Thursday, May 31,
2012 to Facilities Support Services Building, 4800 2 Avenue, Suite 1500,
12 Sacramento, CA, to Charles Witcher.
13 Attorney Goulding skipped the April 13, 2012 Letter of Intent to Suspend, on which the May 11,
14 2012 letter was based; the Letter of Intent to Suspend was appealable under UC Davis Policy PPSM
15 70. The Plaintiff submitted the April 13, 2012 Letter of Intent to Suspend with his August 10, 2012
Opposition to Defs. MSJ/MSA as Exhibit # 16. The April 13, 2012 letter stated, in part:
16
17 An allegation was made that on March 8, 2011, April 21, 2011 and May 5, 20011
that you engaged in behavior that violated UCDHS Policy 1616 - Violence and
18
Hate Incidents in the Workplace. It was alleged that you were disruptive and
19 intimidating with Dorin Daniliuc when you pointed your finger in his face and used
profanity on March 8, 2011. Further, on April 21, 2011 you became disruptive and
20 intimidating with Patrick Putney during a discussion regarding your work
performance. An investigation was conducted and both these allegations were
21
substantiated (see attached report Issue #1, #2 and #3).
22 The above fragment was the reason why Attorney Goulding skipped the Letter of Intent to Suspend.
23 The Court showed bias and discriminated against the Plaintiff in the proceeding and did not rule on
24 the Regents’ Objection to Evidence because Goulding was objecting the Letter of Intent to Suspend
25 in her August 20, 2021 filed an Objection to Evidence Objection #16 (ROA #282).
26
Hypothetically, even if the allegations in a Letter of Intent to Suspend for 10 days without pay
were unjustified, it was unlawful to suspend the Plaintiff when he was not working and was absent
27
28
-8-
1 from work for the previous nine months, including five months on short-term disability or sick leave
2 related to the ruthless attacks aimed at the Plaintiff to terminate his employment.
The main reason for Goulding’s decision not to introduce this objection to the Plaintiff’s April
3
13, 2012 Letter of Intent to Suspend was because the Plaintiff’s alleged violation of UC Davis
4
policies outlined in the letter were null and void, given that they were from the Plaintiff’s employee
5
evaluation period of 2010//2011, with a resolution deadline of June 30, 2011. The Plaintiff was
6
unlawfully suspended in gross violation of UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 and suspended for allegations
7 stemming from the wrong evaluation period and with cause, without being asked if he was not sick or
8 in a mental health facility following the psychological terror imposed upon him when he was on
9 work-related stress leave. The Plaintiff responded to the April 13, 2012 Letter of Intent to Suspend
10 with a 26-page memorandum in April 2012
11 With the August 10, 2021 Objection to Regents MSJ/MSA, the Plaintiff introduced to the
Court two emails dated May 10, 2012 as Plaintiff’s Exhibits No. 17 & 18, in which the UCDMC HR
12
Principal Employee & Labor Relations Consultant Joel Noel Vandevier and HR Manager Travis
13
Lindsay had a conversation about providing a new job description to the Plaintiff, thus obviously
14
someone in the upper administration at UC Davis or the UC Davis Medical Center made the decision
15
not to suspend the Plaintiff, but to let him return to work and provide him a new job description.
16 Furthermore, Vandiver was talking at the same time about a suspension from work of two of the
17 Plaintiff’s supervisors, Dorin Daniliuc and Patrick Putney, not the Plaintiff. This conversation took
18 place one day before the Plaintiff received a letter of suspension for ten days without pay (EXHIBIT
19 #3). The Plaintiff also discovered in the September 25, 2012 Notice of Intent to Dismiss, and in the
May 12, 2012 Letter of Termination, the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant, that his title was
20
changed (a promotion upon termination) from Associate Development Engineer to Senior
21
Development Engineer, a position with an annual salary $20,000 more than what he was being paid
22
(see Plaintiff’s Exhibits No 23 & 27). In objection to the Regents’ MSJ/MSA, the Plaintiff
23
attempted to discuss the above crucial new material evidence in the Plaintiff’s lawsuit during the
24 August 31, 2021 court hearing, but the hearing ended after five minutes with a discriminatory and
25 very partial Court Order granting the MSJ/MSA to the Regents. The provided evidence shows that
26 something happened on May 10, 2012, but the Court did not care about the Plaintiff’s evidence,
27 proved that the Plaintiff was witch-hunted and unlawfully by the December 5, 2012 Letter of
28
Termination.
-9-
1 HR Consultant and Attorney Joel Vanderviver, who on May 10, 2012 was writing about a
2 new job description for the Plaintif and suspension of the Plaintiff ‘s two supervisors Putney and
Daniliuc (not Plaintiff suspension ) whose Plaintiff supposedly threatened and offended in March ,
3
April and May 2011 one month later in his June 14, 2012 confidential e-mail to Travis Lindsay and
4
Brent Seifert, was not talking anymore about a new job description for the Plaintiff, but about a
5
Letter of Intent to Dismiss (LOID) for him. (EXHIBIT # 4) Eight days later, on June 22, 2012,
6
young HR attorney Vandevier was fired from the job, together with HR Manager Mike Garcia
7 (EXHIBIT # 5). The Plaintiff filed a formal complaint and appeal of the unlawful suspension in
8 violation of UC Davis Policy PPSM 23, but he was denied due process of law as it is happening in
9 this Court, and his complaint/appeal was placed into abeyance on August 16, 2012 (EXHIBIT # 6)
10 and Plaintiff was terminated in breach of Written Contract -January 30 , Settlement Agreement
11 (Cause of Action No. 6) and in violation of every possible UC Policy related to discipline and
separation of employment . https://hr.ucdavis.edu/departments/elr/policies/PPSM ,
12
https://ucdavispolicy.ellucid.com/documents/view/201/active; PPSM 62 Corrective Action
13
https://ucdavispolicy.ellucid.com/documents/view/203/active/ ; PPSM 63 Investigatory Leave
14
https://ucdavispolicy.ellucid.com/documents/view/205/active/ Termination PPSM 64
15
E. The Skelly Reviewer UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson
16 The Plaintiff had some hope that the assigned Skelly Reviewer, UC Davis Assistant Vice
17 Chancellor Allen Tollefson, would be able to preserve the Plaintiff’s job after the Plaintiff sent him
18 an information brief on November 12, 2012 and met with him on the UC Davis Campus on
19 November 16, 2012. This did not help (EXHIBIT # 7).

VII.
20
THE LEGAL ARGUMENT
21
A. The Court Abused its Discretion, Showing Bias and Discrimination Against the Plaintiff
22 by Granting MSJ/MSA to the Regents by Exploiting the Lack of a Responsive Separate
Statement With Plaintiff’s Objection to the Regents’ MSJ/MSA
23
24 In the Plaintiff’s Objection to the May 14, 2021 Regents’ MSJ/MSA, and in the previous section,
25 titled “Plaintiff ‘s Overview of the September 1, 2021 Court Order and New Facts and Evidence,” the
26 Plaintiff provided enough undisputed material and facts that Goulding’s filed MSJ/MSA is one big lie
27 about the Plaintiff’s termination of employment wrapped up in ethnically charged statements aimed
at the Plaintiff to provoke him.
28
- 10 -
1 Second, soon after Judge David I. Brown left Department 53, Regents’ attorney Goulding, in a
2 coordinated and despicable action, ambushed the Plaintiff with her racist MSJ/MSA motion in
Department 53 (Hon. Hakim Mesiwala) and ambushed the Plaintiff’s wife in Department 43 (Hon.
3
Thadd Blizzard). She also attempted to break into the Plaintiff’s wife bank account and her 401(K).
4
The Plaintiff’s wife had to pay more a ransom of more than $20,000 to her to protect her accounts.
5
Goulding never would have cashed this check if Judge Brown were still in charge of Department 53.
6
Third, the Plaintiff devoted enormous amounts of time and resources to protecting his wife from
7 Porter Scott’s obviously routine gangsterism in the Courts of Law. This time could have been used by
8 the Plaintiff to deal with the Regents’ attorneys’ MSJ/MSA (Plaintiff Motion for Recall the
9 Remittitur from Court of Appeal Third Appellate District 3DCA filed on June 18, 2021).
10 Fourth, if, during the court hearing on July 26, 2021 for Determining the Disposition of the
11 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Objection to Regents MSJ/MSA, the
Court had been less prejudicial (Hon. Christopher E. Kruger) toward the Polish immigrant devastated
12
by his employer, the Sacramento Court could have asked the Plaintiff if he needed more time than 15
13
days to file his Objection to the MSJ/MSA instead of providing to the Plaintiff only 10 days. Then,
14
the Plaintiff would have filed the Responsive Separate Statement with his Objection to the Regents
15
MSJ/MSA. However, the Plaintiff believes that it would not make any difference if the Plaintiff made
16 a separate statement or not. The result would be same. The Plaintiff is being threatened in
17 Sacramento Court like something less than human, and his wife has become a soft target and black
18 mail tool for Porter Scott attorneys since February 2015.
19 The trial of a lawsuit is not a game where the spoils of victory go to the clever and technical
regardless of the merits; rather, it is a method devised by a civilized society to settle disputes between
20
litigants peaceably and justly. The rules of the contest are not an end in themselves. Simon v. City &
21
County of San Francisco (1947) 79 Cal.App.2d 590, 600, cited by Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54
22
Cal.3d 105, 120.
23
B. Court Order - Procedural History - Regents’ Motion to Deem Matters Admitted
24 The Court’s refusal to consider Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 is a total abuse of the Court’s
25 discretion and a manipulation of law and litigation for the benefit of the Regents and an act of
26 prejudice against the Plaintiff. The Regents’ attorney Lindsay Goulding did not have any problem
27 with Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 in her Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ MSJ/MSA filed
28
on August 20, 2021 (ROA 281). The Regents filed formal Objections to the Plaintiff’s Evidence with
- 11 -
1 the Reply and Objection to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, but the Court refused to rule on the Regents’
2 objection for obvious reasons, thus declining Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 is beyond the abuse of
discretion and a show of prejudice against the Plaintiff by the Court. In eight years of litigation in this
3
case, the Plaintiff never heard of a time when the Court declined a Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s exhibits.
4
The Court in this matter is acting like the Super Regents, as it was pointed by Justice Hon. Jeffrey
5
Johnson, in the Palmer v. Regents of the University of California, 107 Cal. App. 4th 899, 132 Cal.
6
Rptr. 2d 567 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 04/08/2003).
7 On November 12, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted his Response to Defendants’ Request for
8 Admission by U.S. Priority Mail. This was not the first time the Judge provided the Plaintiff’s
9 submitted documents after the ruling. It happened again not so long after, when Regents’ attorney
10 Goulding orchestrated an ambush aimed at the Plaintiff’s wife in Department 43 (Hon. Thadd
11 Blizzard), where the Judge was supposedly not provided with the Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to
continue the Court Hearing. The Plaintiff’s wife was ambushed by Goulding and forced to pay over
12
$20,000 to prevent Goulding from emptying her bank account and 401(K) retirement account.
13
In addition to the above, the February 9, 2015 Court Order (ROA #58), besides granting the
14
Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, also lifted the Discovery Stay Order.
15
16
The Court’s statement:
17 at no point in the past 33 months has Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the
deemed admissions and there has been no finding that Plaintiff’s 195-page response
18 to Regents’ 19 Requests for Admissions was in substantial compliance with CCP §
2033.220. An admission cannot be amended or withdrawn except by leave of court
19
after noticed motion.
20
The above statement is inappropriate and an abuse of discretion by ruling on an issue neither the
21
Defendant nor Plaintiff asked for. The Court in this matter looked for any error to dismiss the
22
Plaintiff’s lawsuit based on a technicality. There has always been a judiciary preference to resolve
23
matters on their merits, rather than on procedural defaults. It has always been the policy of the courts
24
in California to resolve disputes on the merits of the case, rather than allowing a dismissal on a
25 technicality, as noted in Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1061 (dis. opn. of Liu,
26 Acting P.J.). This principle requires the judge not to allow procedural irregularities to serve as the
27 basis for precluding a self-represented litigant from presenting appropriate evidence or presenting a
28 potentially valid defense. It is the trial judge's duty to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
- 12 -
1 “The trial judge has a 'duty' to see that a cause is not defeated by mere inadvertence."
Lombardi v. Citizens Nat. Trust & Say. Bank (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 209
2
3 Furthermore, the February 9, 2015 Court Order that granted the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP
4 Motion also lifted the Discovery Stay. It took the Defendants’ attorneys more than 33 months to
5 conduct any discovery, and the case was not brought to trial within five years after the action
6 commenced (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 583.310).

Apparently, the Defendants were waiting for the Plaintiff to pass away or leave the U.S., or to
7
eliminate Judge David I. Brown from Department 53.
8
After three years of doing nothing, in October 2018, the Defendants’ attorneys from Porter
9
Scott bypassed Judge Brown in Department 53 and attempted to obtain termination sanctions in
10
Court Department 54 from Hon. Christopher E. Krueger by filing a motion to compel for monetary
11 and termination sanctions on October 3, 2018 (ROA #150–154).
12 C. Court Order- Discussion
13 In a discussion, the Court brought the Causes of Action (COA) from the Plaintiff’s Second
14 Amended Complaint (SAC), which the Plaintiff will not relitigate and will not argue about,
15
regardless of whether the Regents are attached to these COAs or not. It does not matter.
The Plaintiff’s defective SAC has eight COAs:
16
1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 2) tortious interference with economic advantage; 3)
17
harassment, failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under FEHA; 4)
18
whistleblower/unlawful retaliation Government Code § 8547 et. Seq; 5) violation of Health and
19
Safety Code, sec. 1278.5; 6) breach of written contract; 7) wage and hour violations; and 8) rescission
20 – unlawful contract. Of the above COAs, point 6, “breach of written contract,” is the only important
21 COA in this litigation. However, the Plaintiff was not able to amend the SAC with only one COA and
22 without naming individual Defendants.
23 The January 30, 2009 Settlement Agreement is a COA itself. The Agreement provided the
Plaintiff employment in the UCDMC HVAC shop as an Associate Development Engineer, but he
24
was terminated because the Regents signed a power purchase agreement on May 31, 2012 with the
25
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and the Plaintiff was an obstruction to the Regents’
26
efforts to sell the surplus power from UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant, where the Plaintiff was
27
employed from June 17, 1999 through April 16, 2007. The Plaintiff initiated legal action against this
28 breach and violation of the signed settlement by terminating the Plaintiff’s employment, and it was
- 13 -
1 expected of Court that the Settlement Agreement (Written Contract) would be enforced, per
2 Paragraph No. 20 of the agreement, which states: “This Agreement is made and entered into in the
State of California and shall in all respects be interpreted and enforced in accordance with California
3
law.” Further, legal fees should have been awarded if the Plaintiff prevailed against the Regents, per
4
Paragraph No. 10, ATORNEY FEES, which states: Defendants MSJ/MSA E:
5
6 If any party to this Agreement initiates an action to enforce this Agreement, the
prevailing party shall recover as costs his/her/its attorneys fees, costs and expenses
7 actually incurred in such action. ‘Action' includes the University's defense of any
claim or lawsuit filed by Mr. Waszczuk based on legal claims that have been
8
released and discharged under this Agreement. Such a defense will be considered
9 an action initiated by the University to enforce this Agreement.
10
The Court must decide whether the Settlement is enforceable or not by ruling after seven
years of litigation that wrongfully terminated and devastated the Plaintiff, in breach of the
11
written contract. The Plaintiff does not want any favor from the Court, but is expecting
12
treated fairly instead being treated like an animal to be hunted down in open season to hunt
13
Pollacks in California
14
VIII.
15 CONCLUSION
16
In light of the above-presented facts and new evidence, the Plaintiff again respectfully
17 requests that the Court modify the September 1, 2021 Court Order and that the Plaintiff’s Motion for
18 Reconsideration be treated by the Court as a Motion for New Trial and vice versa, as the Plaintiff
19 understands is permitted, as per the Appellate Court’s Opinion in Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals
20 Corp., 128 Cal.App.4th 187 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005), which affirmed a Court Order treating the Motion
for Reconsideration as a Motion for a New Trial. The Plaintiff also respectfully asks the Court for
21
permission to file a Motion of Leave to File to amend his Defective Second Amended Complaint.
22
Respectfully Submitted on September 10, 2021
23
24
25
___ -------------------------------------------------------------------
26 Jaroslaw Waszczuk . In Pro Per
27
28
- 14 -
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California
3
Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
4
5
I, Irena Waszczuk the undersigned, declare that I am over 18 years of age, and I am not the party of
6
this proceeding. My address is 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA. On September 10, 2021, I served a
7 true copy of each of the following: PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
8 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
9 WHICH GRANTED TO THE DEFENDANTS THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
10 JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND REQUEST
11 THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BE TREATED AS A MOTION

FOR NEW TRIAL
12
13
14
By e-mail: lgoulding@porterscott.com to:
15
16 Lindsay A. Goulding
17 PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
18 350 University Avenue, Suite 200
19 Sacramento, CA 95825
20
21 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
22
Executed on September 10, 2021, at Lodi, CA.
23
24
25 _____________________________________________________
Irena Waszczuk
26
27
28
- 15 -
2216 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-833-7080
Email: jjw1980@live.com
September 19, 2021
Via US Priority Mail
UPS Customer Center

1380 Shore St. West
Sacramento, CA 95691
Subject: Request for investigation
Re: UPS Failure to deliver on time an envelope with court documents sent from
Lodi, CA to Sacramento Superior Court, Department 54, 813 6th Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tracking No. 1Z4AR5850128843195
To Whom It May Concern:
By this inquiry I am respectfully requesting from UPS Customer Service to fully

investigate what caused my envelope containing time-sensitive documents sent on
September 10, 2021 via UPS (from a Staples store) from Lodi, California 95240 to not be
delivered by UPS on time to Sacramento County Superior Court, Law & Motion
Department 54, at 813 6th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
This is not so much a money issue, though I did pay $42.75 for the envelope’s
delivery, but a matter of being able to file documents in the Court by the time set by
California law and California Courts Rules.
THE FACTS
Late in the evening of August 10, 2021, I sent a package from Staples-UPS
(Tracking No. 1 Z4AR58501 16140298) in Lodi, CA containing court documents to be
1
Request for Investigation
filed in Sacramento County Superior Court Department 54, located at 813 6th Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814. The expected delivery date and time were 8/12/2021 at 10:30
A.M. The package was delivered on 8/13/2021 and the documents were filed by the
Court Clerk the following day (ATTACHMENT # 1).
One month later, on September 10, 2021, at approximately the same time, I sent
another package from the same location in Lodi, CA, Staples-UPS (Tracking No. 1
Z4AR58501 28843195) to the same Sacramento County Superior Court destination with
an expected delivery date and time of 9/13/2021 at 10:30 A.M. (EXHIBIT # 2)
On September 13 and 14, 2021, I checked to see whether the package had been
delivered and the documents filed. The package was not delivered, per information
available on the UPS tracking website.
On September 14, 2021, the UPS tracking website indicated that the package was
out for delivery at 9:01 A.M, but at 9:43 A.M., a notice was posted saying, “The suite
number is either missing or incorrect. This may delay delivery. We’re attempting to
update the address. West Sacramento, CA.” The same message, stating that the suite
number was missing or incorrect, was repeated at 8:09 P.M. for reasons unknown to me.
On September 15, 2021, UPS did not provide any updates on the envelope’s
whereabouts, which made me quite nervous, since the documents were to be filed with
the Court, but UPS had not delivered them.
On September 15, 2021, at approximately 3:00 P.M., I sent a message to UPS
Costumer Service via the UPS website stating that the address on the label was and is
correct, and noting that package had still not been delivered to the Court. A few hours
later, at 7:00 P.M., I received a message from UPS Costumer Service (Byron L.) who
asked me for the tracking number, which I provided.
On September 16, 2021 at 2:59 A.M., I received the following:
UPS CUSTOMER SERVICE <customer.service@ups.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 2:59 AM
To: jjw1980@live.com
Subject: C-0064685052 - Sending a Package/General
ref:_00DF05wsA._5003k20J2LT:ref ]
Dear Jaroslaw,
I have processed your address correction request. The package will be delivered on
09/17/2021 by the end of the day to the following address:
813 6TH ST
FL 2 STE 54
2
SACRAMENTO CA 95814 2427

UNITED STATES
Please keep tracking the package by visiting the following link:
http://www.ups.com/tracking/tracking.html
Sincerely,
Luisa
UPS Customer Support
ref:_00DF05wsA._5003k20J2LT:ref
I responded to Luisa in Customer Service a few hours later, at 5:47 A.M., as
follows:
Hi Luisa,
The address on the label was correct. The address did not need
correction. This is the Sacramento Superior Court Law and Motion
Department 54 on the 2nd floor, not STE. It must be delivered today, not
tomorrow at the end of the day. It was due Monday. I have never had a
problem sending documents by U.S. Mail. Every mail carrier in
Sacramento knows where the Superior Court buildings are located. The
main court building is located at 720 9th Street, and Law Motion
Departments 53 & 54 are located at 813 6th Street. Please deliver this
package this morning. This is package is already 4 days overdue and is
time-sensitive. The address was correct, but after you changed it, it is
incorrect. There is no STE there. The package should go to the
department as it was on the label. There are only two court departments
in the building, 53 & 54.
Thank you.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Jerry Waszczuk
209-663-2977
UPS Costumer Service Response at Thursday, September 16, 2021 6:20 AM
From: UPS CUSTOMER SERVICE <customer.service@ups.com>

To: jjw1980@live.com
Subject: C-0064685052 - Sending a Package/General [
Dear Jaroslaw,
3
Thank you for your response. I completely understand your frustration

with the delivery of the package since the address is correct and you
need this important package delivered as soon as possible.
To help you with this situation, I sent a concern to our warehouse and
provided them with the necessary details so they make arrangements
with the driver and there is no issue with the delivery, you will be
contacted with further updates today by the end of the day.
I hope this information was helpful, and I hope this incident does not
affect you using our service in the future since we do look forward to the
opportunity to serve you again and recover your trust.
Sincerely,
Katherine
UPS Customer Care Representative
My Response To Katherine from UPS Customer Service at September

16th at 6:43 A.M.
From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk
To: UPS CUSTOMER SERVICE <customer.service@ups.com>
Subject: RE: C-0064685052 - Sending a Package/General [
Thank you, Katherine, for your response.

Every mail or parcel service knows where the court buildings are located
in Sacramento. It looks like nobody ever tried to deliver the package. I
have been sending mail to the Court in Sacramento for years by U.S.
Priority Mail and FedEx overnight and never had this problem. Because
it was late, I had to use UPS. This is the second time this has happened
with UPS. I don’t know why. Nothing was wrong with the provided
address. The court building is not something that you don’t see or you
can’t find if you have a correct address, especially with GPS like the
UPS drivers have. If UPS will not deliver the package today, I will have
to use Rapid Legal Services to deliver the documents to the Court today.
It will cost me $300 because UPS can’t find the court building in
Sacramento. I am on Social Security, and $300 is a lot of money for me.
4
I would appreciate if you made it happen and UPS delivered the package
as soon as possible, today, to the Court. Furthermore, because of
COVID, the security guards on the first floor will tell the driver where to
leave the package.
Thanks and have a nice day,
Jerry
209-663-2977
After back and forth e-mail correspondence with Katherine from UPS and receiving
conflicting messages from the UPS tracking website, I realized that my documents would not
be delivered by UPS to the Sacramento Superior Court on 6th Street, Department 54, on
September 16, 2021 and the Clerk would not be able to review them and file them.
On September 16, at approximately at 2:30 P.M., I submitted all of the court
documents not delivered by UPS to Rapid Legal via the Internet, along with an explanatory
latter to the Sacramento Superior Court Clerk in Dept. 54 detailing why my documents were
not delivered on time. Within one hour, Rapid Legal sent me confirmation that my documents
had been delivered at 3:30 P.M., at a price of $233,35. (See: Confirmation and Receipt-
EXHIBIT # 3) I still have had no response from the Court concerning whether my
documents would be accepted or not due to late filing. UPS delivered the package on Friday,
September 17, 2021 at 3:30 P.M., exactly one week after I sent the package via UPS, on
September 10, 2021.
CONCLUSION
I fully expect that UPS Costumer Service will get to the bottom why my package,
which had a correct address on it, was delivered on September 17, 2021 instead of September
14, 2021, or at the latest by September 15,2023 which was the last day I was allowed to
deliver my documents my mail. As I am sure you understand, filing court documents is not a
trivial matter.
Please take my inquiry very seriously and determine what happened and why and let
me know. I will have to provide a justification to the Court for my late filing. This mess has
cost me a lot of stress , headache and money taking in consideration that I am living on
Social Security pension.
UPS must stand for what it promises to its customers:
UPS Next Day Air Shipping
5
UPS Next Day Air is a delivery service that guarantees next-day delivery
UPS Next Day Air Shipping serves more ZIP codes and more businesses
by both 10:30 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. than FedEx Priority Overnight
Ideal service for shipments that must arrive the next business day
Time-definite service—or your money back
Free UPS packaging included for your convenience
I appreciate your prompt response and resolution in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
CC:
UPS CORPORATE OFFICE
55 Glenlake Parkway . NE
Atlanta, GA 30328
6

The Guardian - Shame On Janet Napolitano For Rigging The AS Election

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Guardian - Shame On Janet Napolitano For Rigging The AS Election

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1916342 Filed: 10/01/2021 Page 1 of 83

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk USCA No. 20-1407

Waszczuk U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 23105–18 W

v. Notice of Appeal Filed on October 7,

NOTICE OF JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’S CONCERNS

Appellant JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, pronounced “Vashchook” (hereafter Waszczuk)

for Award Form 2011 as the attachment.

Order and Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C.

On September 25, 2020, pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 13

and Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4,

review this case.

On September 15, 2021, Waszczuk received via electronic mail a notification

Court’s pending disposition of Ms. Mandy Mobley Li’s case Li v. Commissioner of

preoccupied with his wrongful termination complaint Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The

Court. Waszczuk’s wrongful termination case in state court is cross-referenced or

curiae to assist the case by addressing the court's jurisdiction to hear Li v.

to a merit panel before Judges Milett and Wilkins.

page-long amicus curiae brief titled “BRIEF OF COURT-APPOINTED AMICUS

CURIAE ADDRESSING THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION” filed by the two

in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020). The

amicus curiae brief conclusion:

“This Court should dismiss this appeal for want of

2021, by the Appellee in the Li case the Commissioner of Internal Commissioner

from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Why the Appellant Mandy Mobley Li of Li v. Commissioner of Internal

Brief before or on September 22, 202 is mystery to Waszczuk . Appellant Li is the

by U.S . Tax Court

Waszczuk noticed that the attorneys representing the Regents of the

University of California in Waszczuk’s wrongful termination case Jaroslaw Waszczuk

LLP (Orrick) based in San Francisco as a as amicus curiae for Li v. Commissioner of

in a five-minute court hearing via ZOOM in Waszczuk’s wrongful termination case,

and California tax payers of $ 240, 000,000. Approximately $3,000,000 in unpaid

University of California, or the real owners of the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW

Regents is subject of Waszczuk Appeal in this DC Circuit Court proceeding and

between 2000–2001, titled California Energy Crisis. According to her testimony,

prices. Contrary to Lockyer’s announcements about kickbacks, Harris’s announcement

Petitioner had, on multiple occasions, informed Harris about California Independent

California Office of the President (Regents of the University of California), he

followed Harris's announcement about the California Parties' settlements with

Waszczuk recaptured what happened in 2021 in the Sacramento Superior Court in

relation to his pending District of Columbia Circuit Court case Waszczuk v.

the alternative, Summary Adjudication (EXHIBIT #2), in Memorandum of Points and

Authorities (EXHIBIT #3), and Declaration in Support (EXHIBIT #4).

Reconsideration in the Sacramento County Superior Court Department 54 (Hon.

for Reconsideration and scheduling a court hearing in Sacramento County Superior

Court until the Appellee , the Commissioner of Internal Commissioner Services,

Mandy Mobley Li.

On September 29, Waszczuk attempted to contact Ms. Li by e-mail and phone

were appointed by the Court as a Amici Advocates. Orrick’s Attorney Robert M.

Orrick LLP from San Francisco is no stranger to Waszczuk. Waszczuk’s

former employer, the University of California, is Orrick’s permanent client in

California’s government and after white collar criminals at the University of

and fraud committed by UC Regents or owners of the UC Davis 27 MW

it was to no avail. In 2015-2016, Napolitano was given $175,000,000 by the Regents to

then- Mayor Gavin Newsom, becoming San Francisco’s highest-ranking Chinese-American

official at the time.

The UC President Janet Napolitano’s Chief Deputy Seth Grossman unlawfully

practiced on the UC Associated Students Organization how to rig the elections by

using sophisticated software. It was reported on in 2016 by student newspaper The

UCSD Guardian, published by students attending University of California San Diego

with President Obama and Vice-President Biden and Department of Energy

executives , then former UC executive vice-president Judith Boyette was appointed by