03-10-22 - USCA Appellan's Motion To Govern Future Proceeding Case No. 20-1407

USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1938514 Filed: 03/10/2022 Page 1 of 400
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
Appellant U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 23105–

18 W
v.
Notice of Appeal Filed on October
Commissioner of Internal Revenue 7, 2020
Service APPELLANT’S MOTIONS TO
GOVERN FUTURE
Appellee PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE
AFTER THE CASE Mandy Li v.
Cmsnr. IRS, No. 20-1245, WAS
HEARD AND DECIDED
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO GOVERN FUTURE PROCEEDINGS IN

THIS CASE, DUE TO THE DISPOSITION OF Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of
Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 11, 2022)
I.
THE GROUNDS FOR THIS MOTION (D.C, CIRCUIT RULE 27(2)(A))
The ground for this Motion is the January 11, 2022 D.C. Circuit Court Opinion
filed by Senior Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle and the January 11, 2022 Court Order
(EXHIBIT #1), which mandates the Appellant, Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced
1
Appellant’s Motion to Govern Future Proceedings
“Vashchook,” hereafter “Waszczuk”), file this motion to move this Court to Govern
Future Proceedings in this Case.
WASZCZUK’s motion mandated by the January 11, 2022 Court Order is supported by
the attached (EXHIBITS) Rule 27(B)(i)
II.
THE SUBSTANTIVE RELIEF - RULE 27(B)(iii)
WASZCZUK’s motion is seeking substantive relief thus the motion per Rule
27(B)(iii) includes a copy of the 08/07/2018 & 10/23/2018 IRS Whistleblower Office
(WBO), Final Decisions Under Section 7623(a) (EXHIBIT # 2); the United States Tax
Court (USTC) Order and Decision that granted a Motion for Summary Judgment to the
IRS Commissioner and Waszczuk v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4,
2020) (EXHIBIT # 3)
It is Waszczuk’s understanding that the Court Opinion in Mandy Mobley Li
v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245, delivered by Senior Circuit Judge
Sentelle on 01/11/2022, is targeting Waszczuk’s appeal and that his pending and
fully briefed appeal in D.C. Circuit Court, Case No. 20-1407, became a subject for
dismissal without being reviewed by the Court because of the Mandy Mobley Li v.
Comm'r of Internal Revenue appeal.
Waszczuk disagrees with this outcome and, by this Motion, Waszczuk
respectfully requests the following:
2
• With all respect to the Court and Judges in the D.C. Circuit Court, Waszczuk
requests that this Court review and make a decision in Waszczuk’s pending
case-appeal separately from Ms. Li’s case using a different panel of judges.
• Preferably, Waszczuk would like to have his appeal to fully reviewed and
decided by the Honorable GREGORY G. KATSAS, the Honorable NEOMI
RAO, and the Honorable JUSTIN R. WALKER.
• Waszczuk respectfully requests that the Court, by its own order, request that the
Respondent-Appellee, the Commissioner of the IRS, transmit to the D.C. Circuit
Court all documents from Waszczuk’s whistleblower claim, No. 2018–012118,
and all documents and evidence supporting Waszczuk’s whistleblower claim
No. 2018–012118 Form 211.
Waszczuk submitted an update of his 03/23/2016 whistleblower claim, Form 211, to
the WBO in Ogden, Utah on 08/03/2018. The WBO received Waszczuk’s updated
claim on 08/06/2018, here as EXHIBIT #4, is WBO Form 211 with the cover letter
and Table of Contents of 153 pages of Addendum and an Index of 65 Attachments-
Exhibits. These should have been transmitted by the Commissioner from the WBO to
the USTC on or before 11/07/2019 and to the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia in October 2020 or thereafter. Furthermore, Waszczuk, by this
motion mandated by the January 11, 2022 Court Order, respectfully requests that that
3
the Court, on its own motion, appoint an amicus curiae to assist the court in deciding
Waszczuk’s very complex whistleblower claim.
For the sake of the Court’s fairness toward Waszczuk, it is an appropriate request,
taking into consideration that two attorneys from a very powerful law firm based in
San Francisco were appointed as amicus curiae in the Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of
Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 11, 2022) case.
If the Court agrees with Waszczuk’s request and decides to appoint an amicus
curiae to his case, then Waszczuk is requesting that the Court, contrary to the
appointed attorneys in the Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-
1245 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 11, 2022) case, should appoint legal expert(s) as amicus curiae
who are:
• Consumers’ attorneys with outstanding expertise in the tax evasion and fraud
who represented or representing whistleblowers.
• Attorneys with expertise in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission laws and
regulations related to cogeneration power plant operations
• Attorneys from law firms that are located outside the State of California
• Attorneys who are not associated in any way with the University of California,
Waszczuk did not instigated this whistleblower claim and has never had the
desire to deal with corruption in the University of California’s Office of the
President. However, since 2005 Waszczuk became a subject of vicious and
4
merciless witch hunt to be framed and deported back to his native country
Poland he was deported from in 1982 by the communist government . See the
October 20, 2021 JUDGMENT- DECISION OF THE COURT IN THE NAME
OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND (EXHIBIT # 5)
III.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK’S AND
MANDY MOBLEY LI’S WHISTLEBLOWING CLAIMS (WASZCZUK
CASE NO. 20-1407 AND LI CASE NO. 20-1245)
A. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Services, USCA Case No. 20-1407
On March 23, 2016 and August 3, 2018, Waszczuk submitted whistleblower
claims for awards (IRS Form 2011) to WBO in Ogden, Utah. In these claims, he
reported that his former employer, the Regents of the University of California and their
collaborators had engaged in tax evasion and fraud totaling millions of dollars, due to
violations of the Provision of Section 50I c(3) of the IRC Code of 1954. These
violations occurred because of the unlawful production and sale of electrical energy.
Claim number 2016-007481 Form 211, dated 03/23/2016; and 08/03/2018
update of Claim 2016-007481, which was labeled as Claims No.: 2018-012118, 2018-
012139, and 2018-012141 (Ex. #2). See also: Waszczuk’s Brief filed on 02/22/2021
(Apendix #1and #2).
5
Consequently, on 08/06/2018 , just one day after the WBO received Waszczuk's
updated claim, it sent to Waszczuk notification that his Claim 2016-00748 was rejected
under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 7623(a). This was followed on October 23, 2018
with the WBO issuing an identical notification regarding Claims 2018-012118, 2018-
012139, and 2018-012141, which were also rejected under IRC 7623(a) (See Ex. #2).
The notifications contained identical statements of rejection under IRC 7623(a)
On November 18, 2018, Waszczuk submitted to United States Tax Court
(USTC) a Petition/Appeal of the WBO’s decision, following its rejection of his claim.
In the short Addendum to the Petition, Waszczuk explained what the Petition/Appeal
was about (EXHIBIT #6).
On December 6, 2018, Waszczuk sent letter to the WBO clarifying that the
copy of his Petition to the USTC was not a request for reconsideration of the WBO’s
decision (EXHIBIT #7). Waszczuk’s Petition was docketed by the USTC as Jaroslaw
Janusz Waszczuk vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services, Docket No. 23105-
18W.
On June 4, 2020, Waszczuk’s Petition was denied by USTC Judge Joseph
Robert Goeke, (See :Ex. #3)
On June 30, 2020, Waszczuk filed a Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision
of the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision (USTC Rule 162). Waszczuk’s
Motion, which was unopposed by the Commissioner, was denied by USTC Judge
6
Goeke on 06/30/2020 (EXHIBIT #8)
On July 15, 2020, Waszczuk filed a Motion for Reconsideration for Findings or
Opinion and Order and Decision (USTC Rule 161) see Waszczuk’s 02/22/2021 Brief
(Appendix #9). Waszczuk’s Motion, which was unopposed by the Commissioner,
was denied by US Tax Court Judge Goeke on 07/17/2020 (EXHIBIT #9).
The USTC record or USTC docket (EXHIBIT #10) in Waszczuk’s case shows that the
WBO or Commissioner never transmitted Waszczuk’s August 3, 2018 whistleblower
claim records 2018-012118, 2018-012139, and 2018-012141 to the USTC.
On September 25, 2020, Waszczuk filed his Notice of Appeal (EXHIBIT #11).
Prior to the filing of the Notice of Appeal. Waszczuk was very dissatisfied with the
discriminatory, biased, partial, and grossly prejudicial June 4, 2020 order and decision
issued by Judge Goeke. On September 21, 2020, Waszczuk submitted to the USTC a
Motion for Recusal of Judge Joseph Robert Goeke and for the assignment of a new
judge.
Motion for Recusal of Judge Joseph Goeke and the supported motion and filed
by Waszczuk documents were rejected by the U.S Tax Court and were stricken by the
USTC from the Court record (EXHIBIT # 12)
B. Mandy Mobley Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service USCA

Case No. 20-1245
7
On November 30, 2018, Mandy Mobley Li submitted a whistleblower claim to
the WBO in Ogden, Utah (Form 211) Li alleged that the target taxpayer had filed false
claims of rental income, dependent children, paid alimony, and paid mortgage interest.
On February 8, 2019, the WBO, under IRC Section 7623(a), rejected Li’s
claim. (EXHIBIT #13).
On March 13, 2019, Li filed her Petition/Appeal with the USTC. (EXHIBIT
#14).
On September 3, 2019, the USTC granted an unopposed Motion for
Protective Order to the Commissioner (EXHIBIT #15). In Waszczuk’s case,
wherein the Motion for Protective Order was denied to the Commissioner on July
31, 2019 (EXHIBIT #16) by the Court, after Waszczuk’s July 29, 2019
Petitioner’s Reply to USTC Order, which was served on July 9, 2019 (EXHIBIT
#17).
On December 5, 2019, while presiding over Li’s case, USTC Judge Hon.
Courtney D. Jones ordered that (EXHIBIT #18):
on or before January 13, 2020, the parties shall submit to the Court
a stipulation of facts which shall include the administrative
record. It is further ORDERED that, if the parties are unable to
stipulate to the contents of the administrative record, on or before
January 13, 2020, respondent shall file with the Court and serve on
petitioner the record which, in respondent's view, constitutes the
entire administrative record in this case, appropriately certified as
to its genuineness and completeness. It is further ORDERED that,
on or before January 27, 2020, petitioner may file a response to
8
respondent's above-referenced filing, alleging with as much

specificity as possible any factual disputes concerning the
contents or completeness of the administrative record, and
attach any documents petitioner asserts should be added to the
administrative record.
Judge Jones’s actions were contrary to Waszczuk’s case wherein USTC Judge
Goeke, did not issue such a mandate to submit to the Court a stipulation of facts that
should include the administrative record; thus, the Commissioner’s attorney produced
no record whatsoever and did not submit to the Court any of the documents that
Waszczuk had submitted to the WBO on 08/03/2018 On December 13, 2019, with his
Opposition to Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Waszczuk submitted
Exhibits #2 and 12, which showed indexes of documents that should have been
transmitted by the Commissioner from the WBO to the USTC as the most important
part of the administrative record (EXHIBIT #19), Waszczuk addressed the
administrative record in his 12/13/2019 Opposition to Commissioner’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Waszczuk and more specifically on pages 20–38 in his June 29,
2020 Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision((USTC Rule 162). [02/22/2021
Appellant Brief (Appendix #8).]
On December 5, 2019, the Commissioner filed a Motion for Summary
Judgement in Li’s case (EXHIBIT #20). Judge, Hon. Courtney D. Jones, on December
9, 2019, issued a Court Order advising Ms. Li :(EXHIBIT # 21)
9
If Ms. Li disagrees with the facts set out in the respondent's motion,
then her response should point out the specific facts in dispute If
she disagrees with the respondent's argument as to the law, then her
response should also set out her position on the disputed legal
issues.
Contrary to the Hon. Courtney D. Jones’s informing the self-represented Li what a
Motion for Summary Judgment Motion is about and how to respond, Judge Goeke, in
Waszczuk’s case, stated on November 8, 2019 (EXHIBIT #22):
Upon due consideration of respondent's Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment, filed November 7, 2019, it is ORDERED that petitioner is directed
on or before December 6, 2019, to file with the Court a response to
respondent's above-referenced motion.
Furthermore, after Li filed her objection to the Commissioner’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on 01/05/2020, Judge Jones, on01/27/2020, stated in Court
Order (EXHIBIT #23):
ORDERED that, on or before March 3, 2020, respondent shall file

a reply to petitioner's objection to motion for summary judgment
addressing specifically petitioner's assertion that her claim included
supporting materials for tax year 2015 that were not considered.
In contrast with Waszczuk’s case, Judge Goeke was silent about Waszczuk’s specific
multiple assertions about the non-transmitted to the Court documents he had
submitted to the WBO after August 3, 2018 and other matters Waszczuk discovered
in the course of his legal research in preparation to oppose the Commissioner’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.
10
On April 6, 2020, USTC Hon. Courtney D. Jones granted a Motion for
Summary Judgment to the Commissioner (EXHIBIT #24):
On May 6, 2020, Li filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order and
Decision dated April 6, 2020, (EXHIBIT #25). This was followed Judge Jones’s
Court Order, which mandated that the Commissioner (EXHIBIT #26):
ORDERED that, on or before June 5, 2020, respondent shall file a

response to petitioner's above-referenced motion.
This was contrary to Judge Goeke’s presiding over Waszczuk’s case when he denied
Waszczuk’s Motion for Reconsideration on July 17, 2020, two days after the motion
was filed by Waszczuk on July 15, 2020. Judge Goeke did it (Ex# 9) this without any
order mandating that the Commissioner respond to Waszczuk’s Motion (see Appendix
#8 &9) and Waszczuk’s 02/22/2021 Brief.
On June 19, 2020, the Hon. Jones denied Li’s Motion for Reconsideration
(EXHIBIT #26).
On June 19, 2020, Li filed a Notice of Appeal which was concluded on January
11, 2022 by the D.C Circ. Opinion with words :
For the reasons set forth above, we dismiss this

appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4). We remand to the Tax Court
with instructions to do the same.
IN CONTRARY,
Waszczuk v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) held:
11
In Myers v. Commissioner, 928 F.3d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 2019), rev'g

and remanding 148 T.C. 438 (2017), the Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit held that the 30-day filing period in section 7623(b)(4)
is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling. Presumably,
an appeal in this case would lie to the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit.
Friedel v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2020-131 (U.S.T.C. Sep. 17, 2020) held:
In Myers the D.C. Circuit held that section 7623(b)(4) sets forth a "non-
jurisdictional claim-processing rule[]," the violation of which does not
deprive a court of authority to hear the case.
Damiani v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2020-132 (U.S.T.C. Sep. 17, 2020) held :
In Myers the D.C. Circuit held that section 7623(b)(4) sets forth a "non-
jurisdictional claim-processing rule[]," the violation of which does not
Stevenson v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2020-137 (U.S.T.C. Sep. 30, 2020) held :
In Myers v. Commissioner, 928 F.3d 1025, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012)), rev'g and remanding 148
T.C. 438 (2017), the D.C. Circuit held that section 7623(b)(4) sets forth a
"non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule," the violation of which does not
Boechler, P.C. v. Comm'r, 967 F.3d 760 (8th Cir. 2020) held :
That the "nearly identical" filing deadline in 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b) is not

jurisdictional, reaching the same conclusion when analyzing the identically
worded parenthetical in § 7623(b)
On February 24, 2022 Mandy Mobley Li, Petitioner-Appellant, filed her
Petition. For Panel Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc (EXHIBIT #27)
On September 15, 2021 the Court issued Per Curiam Order which stated
and placed Waszczuk’s appeal in abeyance (EXHIBIT # 28)
12
The D.C Circuit 01/11/2022 Court Opinion in the case Mandy Mobley Li v.
Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 is not a justice . The Opinion filed by
Senior Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle on January 11, 2022 is dressed in disguise , is
groundless , despicably unjust and and meritless.
IV.
ARGUMENT
A. What Waszczuk Learned from the Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of
Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245, Case Court File in Relation to His Case
Waszczuk v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020)
On October 1,2021 Waszczuk addressed the 09/15/2021 Court’s Per Curiam
Order in his Notice of Concerns (EXHIBIT # 29) Waszczuk sympathizes with Ms. Li
because her whistleblower claim is her whistleblower claim is no less important to her
than Waszczuk’s case is to him.
By reviewing the Mandy Mobley Li) case file, and especially by examining and
comparing the Court Orders issued by the Hon. Courtney D. Jones and the Hon.
Joseph Robert Goeke, Waszczuk learned what Judge Goeke did and did not do and
what Judge Goeke should do an did not do it in Waszczuk case .
After Waszczuk filed his opposition to the Commissioner’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, the Commissioner’s attorney was not very anxious to participate
further in Waszczuk case . Thereafter, Judge Goeke took everything into his own
hands and consequently ended on June 4, 2020 Waszczuk’s desire to be rewarded for
reporting the multimillion-dollar tax evasion and fraud.
13
B. The Amicus Curiae Brief Filed on September 1, 2021 by Two Court-

Appointed Attorneys, Robert Mark Loeb and Robert Ranvir Sing Manhas,
from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, based in San Francisco, CA
Waszczuk has addressed the amicus curiae brief and Orrick’s two attorneys in his
09/15/2021 Notice of Waszczuk’ Concerns. (attached here as EXIBIT #29). Waszczuk
did not find anything in attorneys Messrs Loeb and Manhas’s amicus curiae brief that
could be beneficial for his or Ms. Mobley Li’s appeal.
Waszczuk views the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit June 15, 2021 per curium order employing two attorneys from Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, of San Francisco, California, as Amicus Curiae as an act
of bad faith and against the spirit of the Whistleblower Program Improvement Act of
2021 introduced in Senate on June 15, 2021 by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), which would strengthen the Internal Revenue Service’s
Whistleblower Awards Program if enacted into law .
C. The November 5, 2021 ORAL ARGUMENT in Mandy Mobley Li v.

Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245
On November 5, 2021, the cause in Li’s case was argued before three Circuit Judges
panel (EXHIBIT #30).
By reading the court transcript (CT) from the 11/05/2021 Oral Argument
Court Hearing (EXHIBIT #31), nothing can be found in the discussions or
arguments between panel of three Judges, and the court-appointed amicus curiae
14
that could be considered as impartial and unbiased Court Hearing for the self-
represented Appellant Li at the hearing. The Abuse of Discretion by the WBO,
which should be a key issue in the Oral Argument (Kasper v. Comm'r, 150 T.C.
No. 2 (USTC Jan. 9, 2018) was basically left out of picture .
In the last accord of the Oral Argument (CT page no. 13, 1–13), Appellant
Li attempted to raise the issue of Abuse of Discretion, in light of the incomplete
administrative record, but the Hon. KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON’s responses
directed to Li were very discouraging:
Judge Henderson: Well, that doesn't necessarily mean, you have two minutes left.
We don't.
Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: Okay.
Judge Henderson: But you can say what you want.
The very interesting part of the Oral Argument that caught Waszczuk’s attention
was a discussion between Judge Henderson and the DOJ attorney representing the
Commissioner, Mr. Matthew S. Johnshoy, on CT page 6 , 1–27.
EXCERPT FROM PAGE 6:
Matthew S. Johnshoy: Well, Your Honor, I'm not familiar with those other
specific cases, but I think it if it could be best to proceed on a case-by-case basis
and statute by statute and I think that this statute specifically links B5 back to B4
and to all of B. They, they, they put
Judge Henderson: How does it do that in a way? How does it do ... turns out if...
if we go statute by statute, we have to have a reason and your argument as I
understood it was that, well, it applies to the whole subsection, right? And that...
Matthew S. Johnshoy: That's right.
Judge Henderson: THAT ARGUMENT WILL GET US IN TROUBLE UNDER
OTHER STATUTES, SO.
15
Matthew S. Johnshoy: Yeah, Your Honor, there's a reason it applies to the whole
subsection though. Had, had they simply said that B4 would not apply or the
statutory grant that B4 would not apply, that would have left in place the awards.
Judge Henderson: Mm-hmm.
Matthew S. Johnshoy: So here by saying the subsection will not apply, right,
where there's no action, you're, you're not only knocking out the ability to review
and the grant of jurisdiction,
Waszczuk does know how to exactly interpret Johnshoy’s argument
exchange with Judge Henderson in light of Judge Henderson’s clear intention to
dismiss Ms. Li’s appeal at any means regardless of applicable laws. Judge
Henderson’s Mm-hmm is the best argument which agreed with Mr. Johnsoy that
Ms. Li’s Appeal shall not be dismissed by the D.C Circuit under any
circumstances.
D. The January 11, 2022 Court Opinion in the Case Mandy Mobley Li v.
Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 11, 2022)
The January 11, 2022 very short Court Opinion on Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r
of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 11, 2022, EXHIBIT #32),
is basically a copy and paste of part(s) merely redacted from the amicus curiae
brief crafted by very expensive attorneys Messrs. Loeb and Manhas of Orrick’s . The
good comparison is how much Mr. Loeb and Mr. Manhas eventually were paid to be
“Friends of The Court “ is the $1,000,000 -President of the University of California
Janet Napolitano (former US DHS Secretary 2009–2013) paid to two of Orrick’s
attorneys (former US District Attorneys from California Melinda Haag and McGregor
Scott) for helping to frame, prosecute, and throw into federal prison for five years the
16
most popular Democrat in California, 68-year-old Senator Leland Yee, from San
Francisco, and for an unsuccessful attempt to throw Greek-born UC Davis Chancellor
Linda Katehi into prison at Guantanamo Bay ( see: Exhibit #17).
On page 2, in footnotes of the 01/11/2022 opinion delivered by D.C.
Circuit Senior Judge David B. Sentelle the Court is highly praising San Francisco-
based Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP attorney Mr. Robert Manhas:
The Court appointed Mr. Robert Manhas to assist in

addressing the Court's jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The
Court extends its appreciation to Mr. Manhas for his excellent
amicus brief on the topic.
Contrary to the Court’s appreciation and the recognition given Messrs. Manhas
and Loeb. Waszczuk considers them to be legal mercenaries deployed to the D.C.
Circuit by the same perpetrators from California .The OrrickLLP attorneys are from
the same political clique that, in 2018, launched from California an unbelievably
merciless, destructive, and beyond human decency attack against D.C. Circuit Judge
and nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh to derail his
confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Perpetrators of the unprecedented attack
portrayed Kavanaugh as a sexual predator who allegedly brutalized Palo Alto
University Professor of Psychology Christine Blasey Ford 39 years ago.
See Waszczuk’s September 19, 2018 open letter entitled “In Defense of Judge Brett
Kavanaugh and His Family,” (EXHIBIT #33).
17
In September 2018, when Waszczuk was writing his open letter regarding Judge
Kavanaugh, who is now a member of the Supreme Court, he would never have
imagined that four years later he would face Kavanaugh’s colleagues from the D.C.
Circuit who are attempting to erase Waszczuk’s multimillion-dollar tax evasion and
fraud whistleblower claim via the unrelated case Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of
Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 11, 2022), with the help of attorneys
from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.
The Judges from D.C. Circuit needed no help from San Francisco based law
firm to decide Li’s whistleblower claim from the State of Georgia and to throw
Waszczuk out of Court on taxpayers expenses
The appreciation and recognition given to Orrick’s attorneys by the D.C. Circuit
in the Opinion reminds Waszczuk about the State of California’s Court of Appeal
Third Appellate District (3DCA), in Sacramento, CA, and its October 17, 2017
unpublished opinion in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017) (EXHIBIT #34). In this opinion, 3DCA praised and complemented
Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas Stein, who was practicing law with a suspended
attorney license, stole $20,000 from Waszczuk, See In re Stein, No. S245982 (Cal.
Mar. 1, 2018), . Finally, Stein was disbarred in January 2020 for misconduct both
related and unrelated to his misrepresentation of Waszczuk.
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/131248
18
The 3DCA opinion is related to Waszczuk’s IRS whistleblower claim and it was a
decision granting the Regents of the University of California an anti-SLAPP
(strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion, California Code of Civil
Procedure section 425.16 (C.C.P 425.16). It was filed on December 14, 2014 and
pursued in the wrong trial court. For Waszczuk, the saga of the anti-SLAPP motion
ended on July 2, 2021 with the extorsion of $22,284 from Waszczuk’s 70-year-old
wife by the thugs representing perpetrators of tax evasion and fraud. (EXHIBIT
#35).
This mentioned anti-SLAPP motion was the most expensive and time-
consuming anti-SLAPP motion in the State of California since the California
Legislature enacted its anti-SLAPP law in 1992 . It cost perpetrators in tax evasion
and fraud approximately $50,000,000 in tax-free cash since the anti-SLAPP
motion was filed on 12/01/2014 against Waszczuk .
E. The Case -Rogers v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 17985-19W

(U.S.T.C. Aug. 2, 2021) in Light of D.C. Circuit 01/11/2022 Opinion in
Case Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C.
Cir. Jan. 11, 2022)
The Rogers v. Comm’r case, No. 17985-19W, was decided on August 2, 2021
by USTC Judge Hon. Emin Toro. Judge Toro was born in communist Albania as same
as Waszczuk in Communist Poland thus Judge Toro knows the meaning of the
uncontrolled and total government corruption. Judge Toro was appointed by President
19
Trump as Judge of the United States Tax Court and sworn in on October 18, 2019 for a
term ending October 17, 2034. Prior to his appointment to the USTC, Judge Toro
served as a law clerk to Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, co-author of the
01/11/2022 opinion in Li ‘s case.
The amicus curiae brief filed on 09/01/2021 and 01/11/2022 Opinion in Li’s
case basically ignored USTC Judge Toro’s case and his 08/02/2021 Order and
Decision in Rogers v. Comm’r case, No. 17985-19W
DOJ attorneys Messrs. Ellisen and Johnshoy, representing the Commissioner in
Li’s case, cited Judge Toro’s Rogers’ in their 09/22/2021 Appellee's Reply to
amicus curiae brief .
Mr. Johnshoy’s argument for the Commissioner in a brief citing Rogers v.
Commissioner, 157 T.C. No. 3, 2021 WL 3284613, at *4 (Aug. 2, 2021) (Page No. 14)
was as follows:
Recently, the Tax Court extended this same reasoning and held that
the $200,000 gross income requirement for individual target
taxpayers in §7623(b)(5)(A) is similarly not jurisdictional. See
Rogers v. Commissioner, 157 T.C. No. 3, 2021 WL 3284613, at *4
(Aug. 2, 2021). These holdings, that the threshold requirements in
§7623(b)(5) are not jurisdictional, have allowed the Tax Court to
engage in a very expansive review. The Tax Court may now, in
effect, substantively review all whistleblower award
determinations-including determinations with respect to purely
discretionary awards under §7623(a)-in order to decide whether
the Whistleblower Office abused its discretion in failing to
grant a non-discretionary award under §7623(b).
20
This is consistent with his statement on page 16 of the brief, where the DOJ
Commissioner’s attorney stated:
I.R.C. §7623(b)] may, within 30 days of such determination,
be appealed to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall
have jurisdiction with respect to such matter)." The
Commissioner originally took the position in his brief for the
appellee (at pp. 2, 12-13) that the Tax Court had jurisdiction over
this case under §7623(b)(4)-a view that was based on the Tax
Court's prior precedents. But, after considering the arguments
raised by Amicus as well as re-evaluating the statutory text of
§7623(b), the Commissioner has reconsidered his position and
now agrees with Amicus that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction
to review the rejection of Li's whistleblower claim.
Reading the 09/22/2021 Commissioner Brief filed by Mr. Johnshoy
it is not difficult to conclude and determine that the amicus curiae brief
filed on September 1, 2021 was not written to help serve justice, but was
instead written to cover up tax evasion and fraud and harm Ms. Li and
Waszczuk and should be disregarded .
The USTC Judge Toro’s s Rogers v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 17985-19W
(U.S.T.C. Aug. 2, 2021), a 48-page-long decision, is a real amicus curiae brief
for Mandy Mobley Li and Waszczuk’s cases and others who had deal with “
friends of corruption “ from the WBO office in Ogden, Utah
Hon. Toro, in his August 2, 2021 Court Decision, precisely outlined,
explained, and pointed what the WBO and USTC can and cannot do, and how
whistleblower claims should be reviewed by the WBO and he focused in their
decision on the WBO’s abuse of discretion in rejecting or denying claims.
21
If the case Rogers v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 17985-19W had been
decided before Waszczuk filed his Brief for Appellant and his Reply Brief, then
Waszczuk would have had no problem writing his briefs. Waszczuk would simply
have redacted and made changes in Judge Toro’s Decision and adapted it as his briefs.
Everything is in Hon. Toro’s Decision what a self-represented whistleblower should
know and how he or she should argue a whistleblower case. (EXHIBIT # 36)
Waszczuk is not making any attempts to make an argument for Ms. Li, who on
02/24/2022 filed a Petition for Rehearing and Petition for En Banc Rehearing;
however, based on Judge Toro’s Rogers v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 17985-
19W (USTC Aug. 2, 2021) decision and base on Commissioner’s Attorney Mr.
Johnshoy’s brief, filed on 09/22/2021, his Oral Argument on 11/05/2021 the amicus
curiae brief should be disregarded by the Court, Ms. Li’s Petition for Rehearing should
be granted and Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C.
Cir. Jan. 11, 2022) Opinion should be vacated .
V
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Waszczuk requests that the D.C. Court Circuit, without
bias and partiality, review Waszczuk’s case separately and independently from the
case Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245, and the January
11, 2022 D.C. Circuit Opinion in the Li case. He also asks that his matters be
considered and separately and independently from the September 1, 2021 totally
22
fraudulent amicus curiae brief filed by San Francisco based Orrick Herrington
& Sutcliffe, LLP attorneys Messrs. Manhas and Loeb.
Dated: March 9, 2022________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Appellant Pro Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-425-0512
23
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
THE APPELLANT’S MOTION TO GOVERN FUTURE PROCEEDINGS

IN THIS CASE, DUE TO THE DISPOSITION OF Mandy Mobley Li v.
Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 11, 2022) contains
5160 words [( less than 5200 words Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2),)]
The number of lines of monospaced type in the motion is 543
Dated March 9, 2022 ________________________________

Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Appellant Pro Se
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-425-0512
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper APPELLANT’S

MOTION TO GOVERN FUTURE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE, DUE TO
THE DISPOSITION OF Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No.
20-1245 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 11, 2022) was served on March 9, 2022, by electronic mail,
to the following recipients:
Richard L. Parker Richard.L.Parker@usdoj.gov

Antony T. Sheehan Anthony.T.Sheehan@usdoj.gov
U.S. Department of Justice
Tax Division, Appellate Section
P.O. Box 502
Washington, DC 20044
Dated: March 9, 2022
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Appellant Pro Se
206 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.687.1180
Fax: 209.425.0512
25
26
EXHIBIT # 1
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1930118 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
01/11/2022 Page
Page281of
of400
1
United States Court of Appeals

____________
No. 20-1407 September Term, 2021

USTC-23105-18 W
Filed On: January 11, 2022 [1930118]
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk,
Appellant
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
Appellee
ORDER
Upon consideration of the court’s order filed September 15, 2021, holding this
case in abeyance and the court’s disposition in Mandy Li v. Cmsnr. IRS, No. 20-1245,
which was decided on January 11, 2022, it is
ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that the parties file motions to govern
future proceedings in this case by February 10, 2022.
FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT # 2
EXHIBIT # 3
EXHIBIT # 4
8/6/2018 USPS.com® - USPS Tracking® Results
August 6, 2018,9:58 am
Delivered
OGDEN, UT 84201
Your item was delivered at 9:58 am on August 6, 2018 in OGDEN, UT 84201 to IRS. The item was signed
for by M ANSLEY.
August 6, 2018, 7:46 am

Arrived at USPS Facility
OGDEN, UT 84401
August 6, 2018,4:13 am
Departed USPS Regional Facility
SALT LAKE CITY UT NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER
August 5, 2018,4:12 am
Arrived at Hub
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84199
August 5, 2018,3:25 am
Arrived at USPS Regional Destination Facility
SALT LAKE CITY UT NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER
August 4, 2018,4:58 am
Departed USPS Regional Facility
SACRAMENTO CA DISTRIBUTION CENTER
August 3,2018,5:53 pm
Arrived at USPS Regional Origin Facility
SACRAMENTO CA DISTRIBUTION CENTER
August 3, 2018,5:08 pm
Departed Post Office
WOODBRIDGE, CA 95258
August 3, 2018,11:20 pm
USPS in possession of item
WOODBRIDGE, CA 95258
https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackconfirniAction?tLabelsOSl 0813819678215206497 3/5

lJ:3fl/-\ Case i.2n-4O7
USCA #20-1407 Document #1938514
D1:urnn ttSØ1iO lcc, I03/10/2022
Filed: 3O!9/2ui2I Page 52 rjf
Pacie Fil of 400
3
Department of the Treasury internal Revenue Service OMB Number 1545 0409
Form 211 Application for Award for Date Claim received
_________________
(March 2014) Claim number (cornpiers by IRS)
Original Information
1. Name of taxpayer (include aliases) and any related taxpayers who committed The violation 2. Last 4 digits of Taxpayer Identification
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA INDEPENEDENT Number(s) (e.g., SSN, IT/N, orE/N)
SYSTEM OPERATOR (('AlSO) CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE (CaIPX) N/A
a, Taxpayers address, Irdisling ZIP cede 4. Taxpayers date 'of bfrth or approximate age
SEE; ATTACHED SUPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION ADDENDUM TO THE APPLICATION
N/A
C1{ARISE WOOD, TEAM MANAGER

S. Date violation reported (in number 5), II applicable Did you submit this Information to other Federal or Agencies
03123/2016 ]Yes fl No
8. If yes in number 7, list the Agency Name and data submitted
(Orginat Complaint) FBI 03/25/2016; U.S 9th District Attorac) 04/111201 California Franchise Tax Board 07/26/2016-
a, is tls New submission or (!] Supplemental submission
If a supplemental submission bat previously assigned daim number(s) 2016-007481
10. Alleged Violation of Tax Law (check all that apply)
E Incomelax j EmploymentTax Estate a Gift Tax 0 TaxtxamptBcnds
D Employee Plans Governmental Entities ] Exempt Organ zations 0 Excise
California Independent System Operator , (('AlSO) California Attorney General Office
[] Other
11 Describe the Alleged Violation State all pertinent facts to the alleged violation (Attach a detailed explanation and include all supporting Information
In your possession and describe the availability and location of any additional supporting information not in your possession.) Explain why you
believe the act described constitutes a violation of the tax laws
SEE: ADDENDUM TO THE APPLICATION
12.Describe how you learned about and/or obtained the Information that supports this claim, (Attach sheet if needed)
Through the self representation in litigations with the University of California and complaints with state and federal agencies.
13.What date did you acquire this information July 2013- July 2018
14.What is your relationship (current and former) to the alleged itncortipliant taxpayer(s)? Check all that apply. (Attach sheet)! needed)
0 Current Employee [] Fainter Employee Attorney CPA
litigations and complaints,
fl RelativelFaimly Member [J Other (describe)
15. Do you still maintain a relationship with the taxpayer [] Yes No
16 It yes to number 16 describe your relationship with the taxpayer
Litigations in State of CaIiforniCourts,
17. Are you involved with any governmental or legal proceeding involving the taxpayer J Yes El No
18 If yes to number 17 Explain in detail (Attach sheet theeded)
See: Addendum to the Application -
¶9. Descilbethe amount of tax owed by the taxpayer(s). Provide a summary of the information you have that supports your claim as to the amount owed
e. 000ks, ledgers, records, receipts, tax returns, etc), (Attach sheet if needec$)
Not suit how mirth but amount byt the best guess the amount could be tens of millions of dollars
20. Fill in Tax Year (TV) and Dollar Amount ($), If known
TV 2000 $ 20,000,000 TV 2001 $ 20,000,000 IV 2002 It 10,000,000 TV 2003 $ 10,000,000 TV 2004 $ 10,000,000
21 Name of individual claimant 22 Claimants data of birth (MMCD?VYY) 23 Last 4 digits of Claimants SSN or ITIN
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK 05130/1951 6448
24. Address of claimant, including ZIP code 25. Telephone number (including area code)
2216 KATZAK1AN WAY 209L663-2977
LOD!, CA 95242
26. Email address jwc I 89@corncastnet
27, Declaration under Penalty of Perjury I re that I have examin t application, all accompanying statement and supporting documentation, and,
to the beat ofmyknowiedge six beliof yaretrueMet a com
/ August 3,2018
Catalog Number 185718 1ij s.irs.gov Form 211 (Rev. 32014)
AP-2 AP53
fl-
'Ce #20-1407 Di'. L1 ':J/2C2' flcjjrj
USCA
usct Case Document #1938514 Filed: 03/10/2022 Page 53 of 400
Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk

2216 ICatzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 833-817-7080
E-mail: jjwl980live.com
August 3, 2018
Charise Wood., Team Manager

U.S. Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Whisteblower Office, ICE Team
1973 N. Rulon White Blvd., MS 4110
Ogden, UT 84404
Re: The Original and Supplemental Submission of Application for Award Claim
No. 2016-007481
Presently, I do not know the status of my original claim (No. 2016-007481) which I
submitted to your office in March 2016 The last information that I received from the
Internal Revenue Service's Whistleblower Office was a letter dated October 31, 2016; the
letter informed me that my claim was still open. Also , I did not receive any information
about from my attorney Mark Schlein who suppose to assist me with this complaint.
Along with a summary of my original Application for Award submitted to your office in
March 2016; a review of my litigation against the University of California and the
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; and a review of my complaint with
the State Bar of California against my former attorney Douglas Stein, I have enclosed, the
Supplemental Submission for the Application for Award regarding Claim No. 2016-
007481.
An enormous tax-fraud scheme played an integral part in the 1999-2003 energy crisis,
which was invented by the authors of the California Electricity Restructuring Act (AB
1890) in collaboration with University of California scholars, professors, and experts; the
California governor's office; and the Enron Power Corporation.
This power-laundering scheme gouged prices and committed enormous tax fraud, all of
which benefited the scheme's key players: the University of California; attorneys
working with the California attorney general's office; California attorneys general Bill
Lockyer (01/04/1999-01/08/2007), Jerry Brown (01/07/2007-01/03/2011), and Kamala
AP-2 AP54
USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1938514 Filed: !'p:;pc1/2r(I
03/10/2022 fcjt 54
Page J! of 400
Harris (01/03/2011-01/03/2017); and the supposedly "nonprofit" California Independent

System Operator (CAISO). Throughout the energy crisis engineered by these corrupt
organizations, CAI SO alone managed to pilfer millions—if not billions—of taxpayer
dollars in the process of purposely destabilizing the California and western U.S.
electricity markets and power grids.
All facts point to AG Lockyer as one of the one main inventors of the fraud scheme,
which was initiated during California's electricity market deregulation. As a legislator
and then a beneficiary of the fraud, he and other key players collaborated to profit greatly
from this ruinous scam. After Governor Gray Davis was removed from his post by $1.7
million dollars from Congressman Darrell issa's private account, Lockyer became
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's shadow. Governor Schwarzenegger was well loved
because of his role as the Terminator and was a perfect candidate for Lockyer and his
energy crisis collaborators. They wanted Schwarzenegger to replace Davis because Davis
was not involved in but eventually would have discovered the sophisticatedly designed
energy crisis. With his fame, Austrian mentality, admiration for the Third Reich, and lack
of any clue or knowledge about the California legislature and government, the
Terminator was practically a golden goose for Lockyer. Schwarzenegger and Lockyer
had been casual friends since Lockyer's state senate years; the actor chaired the
Governor's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, and the two men toured together
through charter schools in southern California.
In my June 5, 2017, correspondence to Congressman Issa titled "The leftover from

California's energy market deregulation, energy crisis of 1999-2001," I requested
information regarding the 2003 Davis recall election, which was accomplished in large
part due to Congressmen Issa's Sl.7 million contribution. Today, I still view the Davis
recall as a very strange and unsolved mystery—especially because it was orchestrated by
the same white-collar criminals responsible for the California energy crisis. However, my
attempt to gather relevant information from Issa was fruitless (see enclosed copy of the
letter).
According to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Judge Hon. Clarence
Thomas, who reviewed CATSO's petition in 464 F.3d 861 (2006), No. 04-70635 and No.
04-71613,
IN THIS CASE, WE CONSIDER ANOTHER PIECE OF THE

CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS PUZZLE. Before us are petitions for
review from the California Independent System Operator ("Cal-ISO")
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG & E'), alleging that the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC') committed various
errors in permitting Cal-ISO to re-run certain Settlement Statements, We
dismiss the petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude
AP-2 AP55
iJSCt, Case
USCA jfl
'Cc:: #20-1407 Document #1938514 C3c2fl1'
Filed: 03/10/2022 fl 1 ! jj Pfl
Page aSS
55 of 400
worth a lot more than S300,000, S224,000, or $50,000. Your office will not find the
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant or CAISO on the California Energy Task Force
Enforcement Recoveries. The other issue is lack of surplus powers sales from the
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant since 2009 (see Addendum). Monetary losses due to
the lack of surplus power sales since 2009 are approximately $80 million. However, no
one seems to care. Even UC President Janet Napolitano does not care about $80 million.
In 2016, she was too busy spending $1 million to pay her two friends, former U.S.
Attorneys Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, to conduct a witch hunt directed at Greek-
born UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi. California attorneys general, state auditors, and
even UC Davis chancellors do not care about $80 million that should have been
generated.
As I pointed out in my July 24, , 2018, inquiry addressed to FBI Special Agent in Charge
Sean Ragan at the Sacramento field office (attached), I don't have $ I million to hire
Melinda Haag or McGregor Scott to conduct deeper investigations related to the
California energy crisis tax evasion and the accompanying tens of millions in kickbacks
from power corporations distributed or laundered by the California Attorney General's
Energy Task Force and other California parties under the direction of the California
attorney general. In fact, my life has been decimated by people like Napolitano and her
white-collar criminal subordinates. I lost my home and S million of my income,
benefits, and retirement.
In 2016,1 hired Mr. Mark H. Schlein—Senior Counsel at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman, PC Law Corporation. Although he is assisting me with my original claim
with the IRS, Mr. Schlein does not represent me in my litigations against the
University of California or the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
represented by the California Attorney General office Therefore, I am seeking an
update on my Application for Award on my own behalf.
However, if your office has any questions about Mr. Schlein' s representation in the
Application for Award, you are welcome to contact him directly:
Mark H. Schlein, Senior Counsel

Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC
12100 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90025
MSchlein@BaumHedlundLaw.com
Office: 310-207-3233
Cell: 850-322-7941
Fax: 310-820-7444
I declare under penalty of perjury and wider the laws of the State of California and
federal law that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
AP-2 AP56
uscA Case #20-1407
USCA n-c Document #1938514 acvc±
Filed: 03/10/2022 n of 400
Page 56
that we lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider Cal-ISO's petition for

review because it implicates FERCs prosecutorial discretion.
Fully understanding the puzzle behind the fraud invented by the white-collar crime
syndicate was impossible for any federal judge. The illegal billion-dollar enterprise that
came to be known as the California energy crisis involved California attorneys general,
CAW, the Franchise Tax Board, the California Public Utilities Commission, the
University of California Office of the President, the UC Regents, the California
governor's office, and the Enron Corporation.
Lockyer was a key California legislator, attorney general, energy task force chief, party
chief, and treasurer from January 8, 2007, to January 5, 2015. Being in charge of the
settlements put him in a perfect position to maintain and cover up the distribution of tens
of millions in kickbacks stolen by the bullying and greedy power corporations. The
California Energy Task Force led by him and his successors, Jerry Brown and Kamala
Harris, "assembled a group of entities" including the California parties that perfectly
legitimized the artificially engineered energy crisis. Lockyer received hundreds of
millions of dollars in settlements and kickbacks from the power corporations, and no one
initially detected the hoax. The California energy crisis scheme was perpetrated in clever
and underhanded ways.
As I explained in the enclosed inquiry submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

during the California electricity market deregulation, I reported one of the major players
in the scheme concocted by Lockyer, CAISO executives, and others. Dynegy Power
Corporation, formerly Destec Energy, committed $240 million of fraud against PG&E
ratepayers and California taxpayers (see Attachments #27-29). PG&E did not need
Lockyer, the Attorney General's Energy Task Force, or other California parties to settle
the $240 million of fraud. This amount was massive. After the PG&E settled the fraud
with Dynegy,, the settlement hunted me down at the UC Davis Medical Center
(IJCDMC), and my life and my livelihood were completely destroyed by the white-collar
criminals from the University of California Office of the President and their UC Davis
and UCDMC thugs. The PG&E settlement is still haunting me throughout the California
courts including the California Supreme Court. However, I lost everything; I have
nothing left but my life for these criminals to take.
If your office examines the documents enclosed with this letter, you will see that the
California Attorney General's Energy Task Force Enforcement Recoveries retrieved
settlements as low as $300,000, $224,000, and $50,000 from some listed energy
producers; these lowest three came from listed power producers or public utilities. The
list is also included under Chapter XXV.
In addition, I have enclosed the 1999-2018 power sales chart from the IJC.D.MC 27 MW
cogeneration plant (Chapter 1 of the Addendum). This chart shows numbers that are
AP-2 AP57
USCA Case
USCA Case #20-1407 Document
Document #1880
#1938514 0(312.912020
Fed. 03/10/2022
Filed: of 400
S2 of
Page 57 308
ctfbllY sub ç, ust3 , 2018.
J slaw Waszezuk
CC: FBI, Sacramento Office, Special Agent in Charge Sean Ragan
Mark H. Schlein, Senior Counsel -Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC
ENCLOSED:
• SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD CLAIM
NO. 2016-007481 WITH A NEW 153 PAGES ADDENDUM TO THE
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD
• Attachments -Documents on Flash Drive
• August 3, 2018 Inquiry with FBI IN RE: Violation of my Civil and Human
Rights, Request for Assistance , Cover Letter to FBI Special Agent In Charge
Sean Ragan plus Addendum (Hard Copy and on Flash Drive)
• 6/25/2016 95 pages long Disapproval of the Proposed Order -Sacramento County
Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS Jaroslaw Wuszczuk v.
The Regents of the University of California (Hard Copy and On Flash Drive)
AP-2 AP58
; 'C
USCA Case #20-1407 Dy
Document I 3SQ7
#1938514 Filed: 03/10/2022
/1 9/2C2' Page M of 400
r1 p 58
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADDENDUM OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION TO THE

APPLICATION FOR AWARD FOR CLAIM NUMBER: 2016-007481
TITLE: PAGE:
1. MARCH 2016 ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR AWARD .....................1

A. Claim No. 2016-007481 .....................................................................
B. Subject of the March 2016 Application for Award......................................I
C. The illegal generation of the electricity by the University of California and
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954...............................5
THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR AWARD WITH A DIFFERENT

PERSPECTIVE OF THE TAX FRAUD SCHEME IN RELATION TO
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY MARKET DEREGULATION AND
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS.
1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................6
A. About myself ..................................................................................6
IL THE CRUX OF THE TAX EVASION AND FRAUD DUE TO VIOLATION
OF SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 19546
A. The main components of the Tax Evasion and Scam. ..... ..............................6
B. The Parties in the scheme of fraud..........................................................7
III. PRIOR THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKET DEREGULATION ......12
A. The 1986-1989 Corruption scandal in State of California legislature............... 12
B. Noticable and relevant names from the time period of 1986-1988 ...................12
C. California Senate anti -SLAPP Bill (SB 1264)-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation.................................................................................14
D. The key players in the California Electricity Market deregulation .................. 14
E. The Noticabte names from that period ..................................................16
F. The Noticabie names from that period ..................................................16
IV. AR 1890 OR "ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING ACT" AR 1890...........17
A. "Electricity Restructuring Act ..............................................................17
B. The AB 1890 addressed California Power Exchange in the Article 4...............17
AP-2 AP59
sc; Case
USCA 'C . #20-1407
I2Y!'-:tQ7 Dur71en #1938514
Document I Filed: 03/10/2022
'1iV/2i1"J' ao:
Page 59 of1 400
C. The AB 1890 addressed CAISO in the Article No. 3 ...................................18

D. The AB 1890 addressed Electricity Oversight Board in the Article No. 2 ...........20
E. California privately held Public Utilities companies in AB 1890....................21
IN THE TAX FRAUD AND THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY
RESTRUCTURING ACT (AB 1890)..................................................23
A. University of California campus situated in Yolo County ............... ..............23
B. Demand for power in UC Davis Medical Center ...................................... 25
VI. THE JOIN VENTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UC),
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY (CSU) ENRON
CORPORATION ENERGY SERVICES AND THE CALIFORNIA'S
INDEPENDENT SERVICES OPERATOR (CAISO).............................25
A. One month before CAISO and CaIPX commenced operation in March 1998... .26
VII. DIVESTITURE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES AFTER THE
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY MARKET WAS DEREGULATED..........26
A. Pacific Gas & Electric_(PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric_(SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE)........................................................26
B. Southern California Edison's Application No. 96-11-046)............................27
C. SDG&E filed an Application No. A.97-12-039 .......................................27
D. PG&E Application No. 98-01-008 ....................................................... 27
VIII. HUMBERTO JOSE MILAN - PROGRAM COORDINATOR FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONER AND
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER..................28
A. Jose Milan's relation to Destec Energy/Dynegy Power Corporation ............... 28
B. $281.5 Million Settlement with Dynegy in Energy Refund Case.................... 29
C. General Information.........................................................................31
D. The Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) of 1978 & Jose Milan ......3 1
E. Changes in the California Wages and Hour Laws in 1989 ............................32
F. Waszczuk's employment a Power System Engineering Inc..........................33
G. The new owner of the Power Operating Company......................................34
H. Alternative Work Schedule in Destec's San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant.
Lathrop, CA ................................................................................34
I. Fraud of the employees 401K retirement plan by Destec ............................35
J. Waszczuk's February 15, 1996 meeting with California Area Destec's
Management................................................................................. 35
K. Waszczuk claim with the Labor Commissioner's Office ..............................37
L. The Hearing and the Labor Commissioner Decision ..................................37
M. Destec's retaliation against Waszczuk after Labor Commissioner's ruling ...... 38
N. Termination of Waszczuk's employment by Destec Energy Inc. /NGC and
Waszczuk's and PG&E litigations against Destec Energy Inc . ......................39
AP-2 AP6O
USCA
'.JSCA Case #20-1407
I2O-O7 Document
Dc mn #1938514
I Filed: 03/10/2022
'O/2D2' fli:ie13
Page 0
60 of 400
0. December 1999 3DCA Unpublished Opinion 3DCA Case No. C030005 San
Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. CV 000737................................40
IX. CALIFORNIA ELECTION OF 1998..................................................41
A. The 1998 California election had the following results: ...............................41

X. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER 27-MW COGNERATION POWER
PLANT.......................................................................................42
A. 1999: UC Davis Medical Center's 27-M.W cogeneration power plant named
centralplant .................................................................................42
XI. THE VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC UTILITY
REGULATORY ACT (PURPA) AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS...........42
A. The California Senate and Assembly environmental Bills...........................42
B. Misrepresentations of the law and unlawful conduct of Destec/Dynegy.........47
C. The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant versus Destec's
San Joaquin 50 MW cogeneration power plant ........................................49
D. Gross pollution of the Sacramento River by UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogenerationplant ..........................................................................52
E. The UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento versus the main campus in Davis in
1999 ..........................................................................................56
XII. THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS, ILLEGAL POWER RESALE, AND
MEGAWATTS LAUNDERING BY THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT POWER
OPERATOR, AND CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE.....................58
A. Frozen investment of $65,000,000 in the UCDMC 27-MW plant ...................58
B. $100,000,000 PG&E Settlement-Agreement with Dynegy Inc., and Waszczuk's
lawsuit against PG&E and his attorney Scott Malm. .................................. 59
C. April 8, 1999 PG&E Application of Termination for Power Purchase Agreement
with Dynegy's San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant........................................59
D. SDG&E lifts consumer price caps in summer of 1999.................................60
XIII. ROAD TO ILLEGAL POWER SALE, POWER LAUNDERING, AND TENS
OF MILLIONS IN TAX FRAUD......................................................60
A. Illegal power sale and resale, and power-laundering collaborators ..................60
B. Participating Generator Agreement and Meter Agreement between the University
of California and CAISO ..................................................................61
C. Notice of Self-Certification ................................................................ 62
X1V. WASZCZUK'S LITIGATIONS AGAINST DESTEC INC/NGC/DYNEGY
IN1999.......................................................................................63
A. Dynegy's subpoena of Waszczuk' employment record from UCDMC, Case No.
CV04940 ....................................................................................63
r.
AP-2 AP6I
USCA
iJ:5LA Case #20-1407
t!t2Th.:Q7 Document
Dcjriiei #1938514
I Filed: 03/10/2022
iI-.., '/9./2ui'. flinje i&
Page 61 of 400
XV. STATE OF CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1298(SB 1298).......................64

A. Introduction of SB 1298....................................................................64
B. The UCDMC 27-MW plant as a cogeneration (combined heat and power) system
in light of SB 1298..........................................................................64
C. The People of the State of California Do Enact as Follows:. . . . . ..................... 65
XVI. THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERTOR AND NEW
CAISO GENERAL COUNSEL CHARLES ROBINSON........................67
A. Charles F. Robinson, new general counsel and senior vice president of CAISO ... 67
B. Deregulation of California electricity market before and after Robinson's hiring.68
XVII. THE MAN-MADE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS............................70
A. The upward escalation of California electricity prices in May 2000.................70
B. The UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant and the UC San Diego and UC Berkley
cogeneration plants in May and June 2000..............................................71
C. The UC San Diego cogeneration plant in May and June 2000........................72
D. The UC Berkeley cogeneration plant in May and June of 2000......................72
XVIII. THE JULY 27, 2000, AMENDMENT TO THE INTERIM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC AND THE SACRAMENTO
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT...................................................73
A. The subject of the Amendment ...........................................................73
B. Amendment No. I of the Agreement ...............................................73
XIX. THE SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPLAINT FILED WITH
THE FERC AGAINST MAJOR ENERGY SELLERS, PRODUCERS, AND
ANCILLARY SERVICES ON AUGUST 2,2000 ................................... 76
A. The SDG&E Complaint ...................................................................76
B. The parties that supported the SDG&E complaint filed with the FERC in August
2000 to cap electricity prices .............................................................77
C. The opposing parties to the August 2000 SDG&E complaint ........................79
D. FERC Order issued on August 23, 2000 ............. ............... ........... 79
XX. THE CALIFORNA ATTORNEY GENERAL's "ENERGY TASK
FORCE.......................................................................................80
A. The California Attorney General's Office ............................................... 80
B. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's "Energy Task Force ...................81
C. AB-265 ....................................................................................... 83
XXI. THE SEPTEMBER 1, 2000, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
APPLICATION 00-09-001 ...............................................................83
A. April 8, 1999, PG&E Application of Termination for Power Purchase Agreement
with Dynegy's San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant ........................................83
B. PG&E's September 1, 2000, Application 00-09-001 ..................................83
XXII. THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER 27 MW COGENERATION PLANT
AP-2 AP62
i JSCA Case
USCA 'C&c: #20-1407
•C'i Document #1938514
I I s I 03/10/2022
Filed: rr•e 62 of 400
Page
AT THE END OF 2000 AND STATE-WIDE ALERT IN

DECEMBER2000.........................................................................85
A. Profit generated by the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant ........................85
B. The Stage 3 Power Alert in the State of California ....................................85
XXIII. CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 1127 (AB 1127) AND THE UCDMC 27
MW COGENERATION PLANT IN JANUARY 2001 .............................87
A. AB 1127......................................................................................87
B. The UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant in January 2001 in light of AB 1127... 87
VIOLATION OF SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE OF 1954 AND CALIFORNIA TAXATION CODE AND TAX
EVASION BY THE CALIFORNIA INEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR
AND CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE .......................................90
A. California Independent System Operator and California Power Exchange.........90
B. State of State Governor Grey Davis's speech on January 8, 2001 ...................91
C. The State of Emergency -EXECUTIVE ORDER D-40-01 ............................94
D. February 14, 2001, Governor Gray Davis tour the UC Davis Medical Center's
27 MW cogeneration plan..................................................................97
E. CaIPX and PG&E Bankruptcy ..........................................................100
F. The Witch Hunt ............................................................................ 101
G. The March 2002 California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's lawsuits against
power corporations .......................................................................102
H. Fat Boy", "Death Star", "Forney Perpetual Loop", "Ricochet", "Ping Pong",
"Black Widow", "Big Foot", "Red Congo", "Cong Catcher .......................... 105
1. June 06/06/2002 San Diego County Superior Court complaint Art Madrid v.
Perot System Corporation et al. -Case No. GIC790009; Superior Court of
Sacramento County Case No. 03AS04763; The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
District Case No. C046683 ..............................................................107
J. The October 10, 2017 Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District Unpublished
opinion in case Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et, al
Case No. C0524............................................................................120
K. The July 26, 2016, Tax Evasion And Fraud in Violation of the State of California
Revenue and Taxation Code Complaint against University of California with the
State Board of Equalization -Investigations Division ................................126
XXV. THE SETTLEMENTS-AGREEMENTS WHICH HELD CAISO's AND
CaIPX's EXECUTIVES ,DIRECTORS AND MANAGERS HARMLESS.130
A. Getting Our Money Back-Attorney General's Energy Task Force Enforcement
Recoveries..................................................................................130
B. The January 5, 2007, Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited
Consideration Submitted to the United States of America Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission..................................................................138
10
AP-2 AP63
U1 4V
USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1938514 i€t; WI
Filed: !.'4j72f,1
03/10/2022 iP'ELQ Wi)of':if400
Page 63 Bi5
C. The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility "Central Plant" in

the Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited Consideration submitted
by the Respondents to the FERC on January 5, 2007.................................139
D. The CAISO in the January 5, 2007 Settlement -Agreement .........................140
E. Ultimatum and United. States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Order Approving the Joint Offer of Settlement.......................................143
XXVI. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ILLEGAL POWER SALE AND
TAX EVASION IN THE SECOND DECADE OF THE NEW
MILIENIUM .............................................................................144
A. University of California and CAISO's executives conspiracy and collaboration
with the University of California white collar criminals in illegal power sale and
taxevasion .................................................................................144
B. Amendment No. 1 of the Agreement ..................................................145
C. May 2012 Power Purchase Agreement between Regents of the University of
California and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)...............147
D. The Regents of the University of California successfully completed the CAISO
Congestion Revenue Rights registration process ...................................... 150
E. 2013 California Parties settlement with Powerex over claims arising from the
2000-2001 California energy crisis and CA-ISO's non for profit status .......... 150
F. Joint Motion to Intervene of the California Parties...................................151
XXVII. CONCLUSION........................................................................... 152
11
AP-2 AP64
UI1t1X4\
USCA tCie*.:
Casectf_11:11UW
#20-1407 Documenti4B3I7I
#1938514 FFu:t;
Filed: 03/10/2022 k3_9offf4W25
Page 64 400
ATTACHMENTS -EXHIBITS ON FLASH DRIVE AND DVD

NUMBER: NAME PAGE NO.
1. MARCH 2016 APPLICATION FOR AWARD ......................................... 1
2. POWER GENERATION LOGS AND CHARTS FROM THE UCDMC 27
MW COGENERATION PLANT ............... ____ ............................... 4
3. 1998 PG&E' RECOVERY OF $100,000,000 FROM DYNEGY POWER
CORPORATION ..........................................................................10
4. 1986 TO 1988 FBI CONDUCTED A BRIBERY AND SPECIAL INTEREST
(BRISPEC) STING OPERATION INVESTIGATTNG CORRUPTION IN THE
STATE'S LEGISLATURE..............................................................12
5. 1998 DIRECT ACCESS SERVICES CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM ON FEBRUARY 19, 1998, WITH ENRON ENERGY SERVICES,
INC..................................................................................................26
6. APRIL 26, 2004 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'
ANNOUNCEMENT OF $281,000,000 RECOVERY FROM DYNEGY.........29
7. CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
JOSEMILAN ............................................................................31
8. IWC ORDER 1-89 ........................................................................35
9. DESTEC'S 401K RETIREMNET PLAN $ 4.000.000.00 FRAUD ....................35
10.PILLSBURY, MADISON & SUTRO LLP ATTORNEY WILLIAM GAUS
LETTER ABOUT CORRUPTED STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER JOSE
MILAN....................................................................................35
11.SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 DLSE'S DECISION IN UNPAID OVERTIME.. . 37
12.WASZCZUK'S JANUARY 1998 CORRESPONDENCE WITH PG&E CHIEF
COUNSEL DAVID FLEISIG..........................................................40
13.CASE NO. 986126 PG&E vs. DESTEC ENERGY INC ............................40
14.APRIL 29, 1998, WASZCZUK'S WRONGFUL TERMINATION LAWSUIT
AGAINST DESTEC/NGC...... ......................................................... 40
15. DYNEGY'S 1,21SMWENCINA POWER PLANT .............................. 40
16. DECEMBER 3, 1999 THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT (3DCA) UNPUBLISHED OPINION IN CASE NO. C030005
WASZCZUK vs. DSESTEC ENERGY INC .........................................40
17.UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER FIVE EMERGENCY GENRATORS ........57
12
AP-2 AP65
)kt1X:
USCA Case #20-1407 D)imiiverl 16.Fr17}
Document #1938514 'Fut;
Filed:1.flJtt1J2Dl
03/10/2022 F1Errc
Page 65H]?tdfBI€5
of 400
18.WASZCZUK'S MARCH 27, 1999 LETTER TO PG&E CHIEF COUNSEL

DAVID FLEISIG .......................................................................... 59
19.CASE NO. CV 0077112 PVASZCZUK vs. MALM AND CASE NO. CV 007392
WASZCZUKvs. PG&E .......................................................................... 59
20. THE REQUEST TO WAVE THE 60-DAY WAITING PETRIOD AND METER
AGREEMENT BETWEEN UC AND CAISO FILED BY FERC ON AUGUST
13, 1999 NO. ER 99-4011-000 .......................................................... 61
21.AUGUST 18, 1999, THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER (UCDMC) NOTICE
OF SELF-CERTIFICATION (FERC FORM 556)....................................62
22. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER PRODUCTION REPORT DATED
DECEMBER 20, 2000, WHICH WAS SENT TO FERC-DOCKET NO. ELOO-
95-045 .......................................................................................63
23.UC BERKELEY COGENERATION FACILITY ..................................... 72
24. JULY 27, 2000 INTERIM AGREEMENT BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E), SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY
DISTRICT (SMUD) AND CAISO......................................................73
25. August 2, 2000 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC COMPLAINT WITH THE
FERC AGAINST THE SELLERS OF ENERGY AND ANCILLARY
SERVICES..................................................................................76
26. FERC ORDER DATED AUGUST 23,2000 .......................................... 79
27.1999 S240,000,000 PG&E RECOVERY FROM DYNEGY'S FRAUD OF
($100,000,000 NET VALUE AT THE RELEVANT TIME).......................82
28. SEPTEMBER 1,2000- PG&E FILED APPLICATION 00-09-001(U39 E)
WITH THE CPUC IN THE 2000 ANNUAL PROCEEDING.................83
29.CPUC decision on PG&E's application 00-09-001(U39 E) ....................83
30. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER (UCDMC) "CENTRAL PLANT." THE
PLAQUE IN THE BUILDING'S FRONT ENTRY .............................. ....87
31. DECEMBER 2000BRIEF SUBMITTED TO CAL/OSHA DISTRICT
MANAGER WILLIAM ESTAHRI.....................................................88
32. THE GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS STATE OF STATE SPEECH OF 2001-
"CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS ". .................................................. 91
33. DECEMBER 13, 1981 POLISH COMMUNIST SECRET POLICE ARREST
WARRANT................................................................................93
34. THE COPY OF THE FAX TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS
DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2001 .........................................................99
13
AP-2 AP66
USCA Case #20-1407 Documentiik'B2UGJ
iJ5i:tjp-qw #1938514 EFUct
Filed: 1Ti:42TRD1
03/10/2022 P'Erici
Pagel?DL3i:cfThTh
66 of 400
35. MARCH 2002 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'S

LAWSUITS AGAINST POWER PRODUCERS IN SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERIOR COURT.. .... ..... ............................................. ............. 103
36.2001 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'S LAWSUIT
AGAINSTPG&E .......................................................................104
AGAINST ENI{ON .....................................................................105
AGAINST MIRANT............ ....................... .. ............................... 105
39. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S BILL LOCKYER'S ENERGY WHITE PAPER
PAMHLET...............................................................................105
40. THiRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (31)CA) OPINION CERTIFIED FOR
PUBLICATION OPINION IN THE CASE ART MADRID vs.. PEROT
SYSTEM CORPORA TIONet, al. CASE NO, C046683, CITED AS 3DCA
CASE:[ 130 CAL.APP.4TH 440,30 CAL.RPTR.3D 210 ...................107
41. CALIFORNIA SUPREME CASE NO: S245982- RE: STEIN ON DISCIPLINE
DECISION DATED MARCH 1,2018..................................
................. .... 120
42. OCTOBER 10,20 17 3DCA OPINION IN CASE NO. C079524 WASZCZUK vs.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA .......................120
43. OCTOBER 25 ,2017 3DCA PETITION FOR REAHEARING CASE NO.
C079524 WASZCZUK vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA......................................................................................121
44. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT -PETITION FOR REVIEW CASE NO.
S245508 WASZCZUK vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UWJVERSJTY OF
CALIFORNIA......................................................................................121
45. WASZCZUK'S DECEMBER 1, 2017 FILED MOTION IN THE SUPREME
COURT TO TRANSFER WASZCZUK'S OTHER 3DCA APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME COURT OR OTHER CALIFORNIA APPELLATE DUE TO
CORRUPTION IN 3DCA CASE NO. C079254 WASZCZUK vs.
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD (CUIAB)
............................................................................121
46.APPELLANT REPLAY BRIEF FILED IN 3DCA ON 10/17/20 16 IN CASE
C079254..................................................................................122
47. AUGUST 20, 2016 WASZCZUK'S INQUIRY WITH CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN OFFICE.........................................125
SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE HON, CANTIL- SAKAUYE-RE: EVIL
14
AP-2 AP67
17(Cscti4-11Th7
USCA Case #20-1407 ftm'wsi f'Bk21Ii
Document1Y1#1938514 ffcN'A 1j2-2T2l
Filed: 03/10/2022 Page lTR
P:a. 67 of 400
(41:%B.L5
OF CORRUPTION IN THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT, THE COURT OF APPEAL THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR..,... . . .................................. 125
49. AUGUST 24, 2016 COMPLAINT WITH SACRAMENTO COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT PRESIDENING JUDGE KEVIN CULHANE ............125
50. AUGUST 31, 2016 INQUIRY SENT TO US CONGRESSMAN JOHN
GARAMENDI ABOUT UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR LARRY
VANDEROEF'S RECOGNITION ON THE U.S CONGRESS FLOOR.....125
51.SEPTEMBER 2016 CORRESPONDENCE WITH CALIFORNIA SENATOR
CATHLEEN CALCIANI ............................................................. 125
52.MARCH 2018 WASZCZUK CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE CLERKS
FROM THE 3DCA.....................................................................125
53. AUGUST 2016 WASZCZU'K COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AGAINST UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS ANALOGOUS TO THE
COMPLAINT, WHICH WASZCZUK SUBMITTED TO U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES IN
MARCH2016 ............ .............................................. .............. .26
54. JUNE 26, 2002, MEMO SENT TO UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (UCOP) BY. DENISE HUBBARD, A
REPORTING SPECIALIST FROM THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE
TAXBOARD...................................................................126
55."THE PERFECT IMAGE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA" .................................................................127
56.JANUARY 5,2007 JOINT OFFER OF SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION, WITH ACCOMPANYING JOINT
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT AND AUTOMATED POWER EXCHANGE
(APX)......................................................................................138
57.JANUARY 19, 2007 COMMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT
SYSTEM OPERATOR CORPORATION CONCERNING JOINT OFFER OF
SETTLEMENT INVOLVING THE AUTOMATED POWER EXCHANGE. 140
58.MARCH 1, 2007, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE APX JOINT OFFER
OF SETTLEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
AGREEMENT..........................................................................143
59.JULY 27, 2000 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE INTERIM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E),
15
AP-2 AP68
USCA Case #20-1407 DijtwilifljIff3
Document #1938514 91 tJThDl
Filed: FThjri
03/10/2022 Page 683tff5
of 400
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (SMUD), AND

CAISO... .......................................... ____ ............................ 144
60.MAY 31, 2012 UC REGENTS UNLAWFUL POWER PURCHASE
AGREEMENT WITH SACRAEMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILTY DISTRICT
(SMUD)...................................................................................148
61. ANNUAL EMISSION TEST FOR JET LM2500 GAS TURBINE AND
FOUR AUXILIARY NATURAL GAS FIRE BOILERS IN UCDMC
COGENRATION PLANT .............................................................148
62.2013 UCDMC 27 MW COGENERATION PLANT POWER SALE TO
SMUD LOG -ILLEGAL AND TAXABLE.......................................149
63. DECEMBER 22, 2014 WITCH STATED THAT: "THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE
CAISO CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHTS REGISTRATION PROCESS"
TO LAUNDER MEGAWATT OUT OF UC CAMPUSES .......................149
64." MOTION TO INTERVENE OF THE CALIFORNIA PARTIES" THE
MOTION WAS FILED IN BY CALIFORNIA PARTIES IN THE IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ON
FEBRUARY 4, 2014 CASE NO: 14-70326............ ...................... ........151
65. DECEMBER 4, 2013,FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
(FERC) APPROVED CONTESTED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN POWEREX
CORP. (POWEREX) AND THE CALIFORNIA PARTIES FILED ON
AUGUST 16, 2013 ......................................................................151
16
AP-2 AP69
EXHIBIT # 5
The Spanish Group LLC

1 Park Plaza, Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92614
United States of America
https://www.thespanishgroup.org
Certified Translation
Furnished on the 29th day of October, 2021
I, Josip Taurkalj ( ), hereby certify that I translated the attached

document from Polish into English or English into Polish and that this translation is an accurate
and faithful translation of the original document. Furthermore, I certify that I am proficient in
translating both Polish and English and that I hold the capacity to render and certify the validity
of such a translation. This document has not been translated for a family member, friend, or
business associate.
I, Salvador G. Ordorica, as a Quality Assurance Agent of The Spanish Group LLC,

hereby attest that the aforementioned translator is a proficient Polish-English translator.
Accordingly, as an authorized representative of The Spanish Group, I certify that this document
has been proofread and that the attached document is a faithful and authentic translation of its
original.
Respectfully,
Salvador G. Ordorica
The Spanish Group LLC
(ATA #267262)
The Spanish Group LLC verifies the credentials and/or competency of its translators and the present certification, as well as any attached pages, serves to affirm that
the document(s) enumerated above has/have been translated as accurately as possible from its/their original(s). The Spanish Group LLC does not attest that the original
document(s) is/are accurate, legitimate, or has/have not been falsified. Through having accepted the terms and conditions set forth in order to contract The Spanish
Group LLC’s services, and/or through presenting this certificate, the client releases, waives, discharges and relinquishes the right to present any legal claim(s) against
The Spanish Group LLC. Consequently, The Spanish Group LLC cannot be held liable for any loss or damage suffered by the Client(s) or any other party either during,
after, or arising from the use of The Spanish Group LLC’s services.
Ref. act II Ko 186/19.
[Coat of Arms]
JUDGMENT DECISION
OF THE COURT IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF
POLAND
On October 20th, 2021
District Court in Krosno, II Criminal Division composed of: Chairman:

Judge SO Janusz Szarek Record clerk: senior
secretary court Renata Walczak-Wojcik
with the participation of the Public Prosecutor of the District
Prosecutor's Office in Krosno - Alicja Dworzanska
after examining at hearings on June 28, 2021, and October 6, 2021, the
case from Jaroslaw Waszczuk's request for compensation for activities
for the independent existence of the Polish State pursuant to Art. 8 sec.
1 and art. 13 of the Act of February 23, 1993, on declaring invalid
judgments issued against persons repressed for activities for the sake of
the independent existence of the Polish State (Journal of Laws of 2020,
item 1820, consolidated text):
I. awards the State Treasury to the applicant Jaroslaw Janusz
Waszczuk, son of Andrzej and Wanda nee Pawelska, born on
May 30th, 1951, in Motarzyn, PESEL number 51053003717,
residing at 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, California, USA
compensation in the amount of PLN 60,000.00
2
(Sixty thousand zlotys) with statutory interest from the date

of validity of the judgment to the date of payment,
II. dismisses the remainder of the action,
III. awards the State Treasury to the applicant Jaroslaw
Waszczuk in the amount of PLN 240.00 (two hundred and
forty zlotys) as reimbursement of the applicant's attorney's
representation costs,
IV. the costs of the proceedings are charged to the State

Treasury.
Chairman
EXHIBIT # 6
jjwl 980@Iive.com
From: auto-reply@usps.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 11:30 AM
To: jjw1980@live.com
Subject: USPS® Item Delivered EL237675151US
Hello Jaroslaw Waszczuk,
Your item was delivered at 1:59 pm on November

21, 2018 in WASHINGTON, DC 20217 to TAX
COURT 20217 Ri. The item was signed for by G
FEUER.
Tracking Number: EL237675151US
Delivered
O
!V7
My Account
Visit USFS Tracking to check the most up-to-date status of your package. Sign up
for Informed Deliveryr to digitally preview the address side of your incoming letter-
sized mail and manage your packages scheduled to arrive soon! To update how
frequently you receive emails from LISPS, log in to your USFS.com account.
Want regular updates on your package? Set up text alerts.

Download USPS Mobiles
USPS.com I Privacy Policy I Customer Service I FAQs
Delivery date and time depends on origin, destination and Post Office"' acceptance time and is
subject to change. Delivery options are subject to restrictions and may not be available for your item.
This is an automated emait please do not reply to this message. This message is for the designated
recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherse private information, if you have
received it in error, please delete. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Copyright i 2017. All rights reserved.

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
www.ustaxcourt.gov
(FIRST) (MIDDLE) (LAST)
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT) Petitioner(s)
V. Docket No.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent
PETITION
1. Please check the appropriate box(es) to show which IRS NOTICE(s) you dispute:
0 Notice of Deficiency 0 Determination of Worker Classification
0 Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action 0 Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for
Relief From Joint and Several Liability'
lid Notice of Final Determination Not to Abate Interest'
'Please see the Court's Web site, www.ustaxcourt.gov, or information booklet for additional information
if (1) you filed a claim for interest abatement or requested relief from joint and several liability, and the
IRS has not made a determination, or (2) the petition involves a worker classification case.
2. Provide the date(s) the IRS issued the NOTICE(S) checked above and the city and State of the IRS office(s) issuing
the NOTICE(S): OCTOBER 15, 23 & 24 IRS WHISTLE BLOWER OFFICE OGDEN , UTAH M/S 4110
3. Provide the year(s) or period(s) for which the NOTICE(S) was/were issued: 1999-2018
4. SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
If you want your case conducted under small tax case procedures, check here: 0 (CHECK
If you want your case conducted under regular tax case procedures, check here: R ONE BOX)
NOTE: A decision in a "small tax case" cannot be appealed to a Court of Appeals by the taxpayer or the IRS.
If you do not check either box, the Court will file your case as a regular tax case.
5. Explain why you disagree with the IRS determination in this case (please list each point separately):
Petitioner Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk (pronounced Yaroslav Vashchook, hereafter Waszczuk) submitted his
Applications for Award to IRS Whistleblower Office, Ogden, Utah on March 23, 2016, Claim Number 2016-00748 and
Waszczuk updated his claim on August 3, 2018 Claims Number(s) 2018-012118; 2018 -012139 and 2018-012141
The IRS FINAL DECISION UNDER SECTION 7623(a) dated October 23, 2018 does not corespondent with the facts
and the law Waszczuk provided to the IRS Whistle Blower Office in his Applications for Award of 2016 and 2018
Nothing was speculative in the Waszczuk's Applications for Award.
Further explanation of the disagreement with IRS Whistle Blower Office Determination in additional pages-addendum --
T.C. FORM 2 (REV. 3/16)

6. State the facts upon which you rely (please list each point separately):
Waszczuk in his 153 pages long Updated Application submitted on August 3, 2018 to IRS Whistle Blower Office
In Ogden, Utah provided very specific information about the scheme of tax fraud and tax evasion and millions of
dollars tax free unlawfully made.The subject of Waszczuk initial Application for Award was the unlawful generation,
distribution, and sale of at least $150,000,000 worth of power from the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27 MW
cogeneration plant in violation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the requirements set
18 C.F.R. for efficiency and use of energy output.The perpetrators repeatedly violated Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 and State of California Revenue and Taxation Code.
Further explanation of the disagreement with IRS Whistle Blower Office Determination in additional pages-addendum
You may use additional pages to explain why you disagree with the IRS determination or to state additional
facts. Please do not submit tax forms, receipts, or other types of evidence with this petition.
ENCLOSURES:
Please check the appropriate boxes to show that you have enclosed the following items with this petition:
A copy of any NOTICE(S) the IRS issued to you
Statement of Taxpayer Identification Number (Form 4) (See PRIVACY NOTICE below)
The Request for Place of Trial (Form 5) R1 The filing fee
PRIVACY NOTICE: Form 4 (Statement of Taxpayer Identification Number) will not be part of the Court's public
files. All other documents filed with the Court, including this Petition and any IRS Notice that you enclose with this
Petition, will become part of the Court's public files. To protect your privacy, you are strongly encouraged to omit or
remove from this Petition, from any enclosed IRS Notice, and from any other document (other than Form 4) your
taxpayer identification number (e.g., your Social Security number) and certain other confidential information as
specfied in the Tax Cou "Notice Regarding Privacy and Public Access to Case Files", available at
ww4ustaxcourt.gOv.
u ,
SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER
11/20/2018
DATE
209-663-2977
(AREA CODE) TELEPHONE NO.
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY LODI, CA 95242

MAILING ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
State of legal residence (if different from the mailing address): E-mail address (if any): JJwl 980@ live .corn
SIGNATURE OF ADDITIONAL PETITIONER (e.g., SPOUSE) DATE (AREA CODE) TELEPHONE NO.
MAILING ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
State of legal residence (if different from the mailing address): E-mail address (if any):
SIGNATURE OF COUNSEL, IF RETAINED BY PETITIONER(S) NAME OF COUNSEL TAX COURT BAR NO.
MAILING ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE DATE
E-MAIL ADDRESS (AREA CODE) TELEPHONE NO.


www.ustaxcourt.gov
I
Petitioner(s)
V. Docket No.
Respondent
STATEMENT OF TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

(E.g., Social Security number(s), employer identification number(s))
Name of Petitioner 449-59-6448
Petitioner's Taxpayer Identification Number N/A
Name of Additional Petitioner
Additional Petitioner's Taxpayer Identification Number
If either petitioner is seeking relief from joint and several liability on a joint return
pursuant to Section 6015, I.R.C. 1986, and Rules 320 through 325, name of the other individual
with whom petitioner filed a joint return:
N/A
Taxpayer Identification Number of the other individual, if available:
(\ N/A
1~4 V 0~~/ 11/20/2018

SIGTURE OF PETITIONER OR COUNSEL DATE
SIGNATURE OF ADDITIONAL PETITIONER DATE
T.C. FORM 4(01/08)

www.ustaxcourt.gov

Petitioner(s)
V. Docket No.
Respondent
REQUEST FOR PLACE OF TRIAL

PLACE AN "X" IN ONLY ONE BOX TO REQUEST THE PLACE OF TRIAL. IF PETITIONER(S) ELECTED TO
HAVE THE CASE CONDUCTED AS A SMALL TAX CASE, REQUEST ANY CITY LISTED BELOW; OTHERWISE,
REQUEST ANY CITY NOT MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*).
ALABAMA KANSAS 011110

D Birmingham o Wichita* 0 Cincinnati
El Mobile KENTUCKY 0 Cleveland
ALASKA o Louisville 0 Columbus
0 Anchorage LOUISIANA OKLAHOMA
ARIZONA o New Orleans 0 Oklahoma City
El Phoenix o Shreveport* OREGON
ARKANSAS MAINE 0 Portland
0 Little Rock O Portland* PENNSYLVANIA
CALIFORNIA MARYLAND 0 Philadelphia
X Fresno* 0 Baltimore 0 Pittsburgh
0 Los Angeles MASSACHUSETTS SOUTH CAROLINA
0 San Diego o Boston 0 Columbia
0 San Francisco. MICHIGAN SOUTH DAKOTA
COLORADO O Detroit 0 Aberdeen'
o Denver MINNESOTA TENNESSEE
CONNECTICUT 0 St. Paul 0 Knoxville
0 Hartford MISSISSIPPI 0 Memphis
DISTRICT OF 0 Jackson 0 Nashville
COLUMBIA MISSOURI TEXAS
0 Washington 0 Kansas City 0 Dallas
FLORIDA o St. Louis 0 El Paso
0 Jacksonville MONTANA 0 Houston
0 Miami 0 Billings* 0 Lubbock
0 Tallahassee* 0 Helena 0 San Antonio
0 Tampa NEBRASKA UTAH
GEORGIA O Omaha 0 Salt Lake City
0 Atlanta NEVADA VERMONT
HAWAII O Las Vegas 0 Burlington'
0 Honolulu o Reno VIRGINIA
IDAHO NEW MEXICO 0 Richmond
o Boise 0 Albuquerque 0 Roanoke
0 Pocatello NEW YORK WASHINGTON
ILLINOIS O Albany* 0 Seattle
o Chicago 0 Buffalo 0 Spokane
o Peoria* 0 New York City WEST VIRGINIA
INDIANA o Syracuse* 0 Charleston
o Indianapolis NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN
IOWA 0 Winston-Salem 0 Milwaukee
o Des Moines NORTH DAKOTA WYOMING
0 Bismarck* 0 Cheyenne*
11/20/2018
of Petitioner(s) or Counsel Date
T.C. FORM 5 (REV. 09/10)

November 20, 2018
ADDITIONAL PAGES - ADDENDUM TO THE UNITED STATE TAX COURT

PETITION - FINAL IRS DECISION UNDER SECTION 7623(A) - APPLICATIONS
FOR AWARD SUBMITTED TO IRS WHISTLEBLOWER OFFICE, OGDEN, UTAH-
CLAIM NUMBER 2018-012118. TAX EVASION AND FRAUD, VIOLATION OF
SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954.
I. INTRODUCTION
Shortly after Petitioner Jaroslaw Waszczuk (hereafter Waszczuk) submitted his updated
Application for Award to the IRS on August 3, 2018 , he received a response from IRS
Whistleblower Office dated October 23, 2018 stating that his claim had been rejected because
Waszczuk' information were speculative. Waszczuk strongly and entirely disagree with IRS
Ogden, UT Whistle Blower office Nothing was speculative in Waszczuk's claim. Waszczuk was
a direct witness to the unlawful generation and sale of electricity and millions of dollars of related
tax evasion committed by the Regents of the University of California from June 1999 to February
2009, and Waszczuk backed his my claim with documents he discovered in the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission e-library in 2015 and other sources.
II. ATTORNEY MARK SCHLEIN'S REPRESENTATION
After Waszczuk received confirmation from IRS Whistleblower Office in April 2016 that his
Application for Award had been accepted and was being reviewed, he hired legal consul Mark
Schlein from Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, & Goldman Professional Law Corporation of Los Angeles to
represent him regarding the claim especially in United Tax Court if needed . This is a well-
established law firm that specialized in whistleblower tax fraud claims and advertised itself with
this statement:
• "If you are thinking about becoming a tax fraud whistleblower, it is in your best interest to
ADDITIONAL PAGES -ADDENDUM TO THE PETITION

hire an attorney with experience in preparing and filing these types of cases. Thousands of
tax whistleblower claims get filed each year, but some are rejected because they are not
properly prepared and submitted.
The IRS whistleblower attorneys at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman work with you to
evaluate and prepare all of the evidence necessary for your claim. As your advocate, our
attorneys work with the IRS and provide whatever additional assistance and evidence the
government requests in order to present the best possible case."
https ://www. baum hed! undlaw.corn/wh I st!eb!ower-c lal m s/tax-fraud/
After Waszczuk retained Mr. Schlein, he thought his firm would do more research and
professionally update his claim with the IRS, because Waszczuk's English is his second language
and Waszczuk have to use professional proofreaders to correct his awkwardly written inquires and
letters. However, Waszczuk do not always do so, because he had have been forced by his
employer, the University of California, to live on $1500 social security income since June 2013,
and proofreading is costly and sometimes unaffordable. . Waszczuk representing myself in state
courts in two cases against the University of California in relation to megawatt laundering and tax
fraud, which has required a lot a research. Due to the silence of his legal counsel and the IRS
Whistleblower Office for more than a year and a half, Waszczuk decided to update his
whistleblower claim on my own.
On February 4, 2018, Waszczuk sent a letter to Mr. Schlein by U.S. mail and e-mail reminding him
that he represents him and that his claim with the IRS needs to be updated. In his letter, Waszczuk
pointed out:
• "I am writing because I am working on the supplemental submission of the application for
award in or amendment regarding California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and
California Power Exchange (Ca1PX), which raked in tens of million, if not billions, of
dollars by deliberately destabilizing the California power market in 2000 and 2003. 1 have to
do it because of heavy involvement of the UC General Counsel Charles Robinson in my
court cases and a systematic destruction of my normal life since January 2007.
Robinson was transferred from CAISO in January 2007 to UCOP. He is a "God Father" of
California Energy Crisis. I don't know how much you know about the California Energy
Crisis. In 1998 University of California paired itself with Enron to make million free of tax
money from the manipulation of the electricity market."
• I am also preparing the motion to intervene with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) under Rule 716 of its Rules of Practice, 18 CFR §385.7 16, to reopen the record and
re-investigate and modify or nullify the January 5, 2007 settlement agreement between
Ca1PX, Automated Power Exchange Inc. (APX), and APX Sponsoring Parties Dockets No.
EL00-95-000 et al. and e100-98-000 et al. This agreement was approved in an FERC order
dated March 1, 2007, and triggered the Regents' attacks against me in 2007-2012 ."
Furthermore , Waszczuk wrote:
• Let me know what you think about updating the application for award with the IRS and the
motion with FERC to nullify the January 5, 2007 settlement agreement between Ca1PX and
APX sponsoring parties which caused the devastation of my life.
• Look at the years of powers sale. The UC Regents signed a new power purchase agreement
with SMUD on May 31, 2012, and they basically did not sell any power from June 2012 to
the present. As I am writing, they have 12 MWh available to sell nonstop, 24 hours a day.
What a waste.
• I know everything about this, but I can't find out who had the idea to mess with me because
of the power export, or why. I never said a word about this when I was UCDMC employee.
Maybe this is why my life was devastated because I did not say anything about in my 13
years of employment with UC.
• I think that you are aware that in 2016 UC President Janet Napolitano hired two former US
attorneys from Orrick's law firm Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott and conducted internal
audit of damages caused by the regent's power sale free of tax. It was done under smoke
screen to investigated Katehi. Audit cost UC I million dollars. Thereafter, Napolitano
stashed away $ 170,000,0000 to pay damages but it was surfaced. McGregor Scott was
appointed last year by President Trump as a U.S attorney for 9th District. He was there
before under the President Bush. Most likely McGregor Scott was recommended by Senator
Feinstein and Janet Napolitano to reclaim his title and his position . Good to have back up
with President Trump 's appointee. In 2005 McGregor Scott prosecuted alleged terrorist
from Lodi , where I live since 1989 and threw him into prison for 25 years.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09sUJOTkPPw
• Melinda Haag threw into prison California Senator Leland Yee in 2016 after Yee got idea to
amend in 2010 the California Whistleblower Protection Act by 5B650 to go after UC
cronies. The 2010 SB 650 was followed by 2011 Audit instigated by Yee against UC
corrupted executives. UC is a very "Deep State "in the Sanctuary State"
Please let me know what yours thoughts to amend the Application for Award.
Afterward, I have to deal with IRS Tax Court
Mr. Schlein confirmed that day that he had read Waszczuk's e-mail, but he never responded to
Waszczuk's concerns and never stated his position on amending the Application for Award. After

that, Waszczuk became concerned about his claim with the IRS and about Mark Schlein and his
firm's representation he provides to Waszczuk
III. 2018 UPDATED APPLICATION FOR AWARD
On August 3, 2018, Waszczuk sent a 153-page updated Supplemental Application for Award
with a cover letter and supporting documents to the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden. These
showed the scheme behind the enormously sophisticated fraud called the "California Energy
Crisis," which became a gold mine for the California Attorney General's Office and other
participants who named themselves the "California Party." This endless source of untaxed
millions of dollars in the form kickbacks from power corporations to the Attorney General's Office
and other "California Party" participants is still going on, almost two decades after the energy crisis
was invented by white-collar organized crime and carried out by California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) executives and collaborators. In addition to the application, Waszczuk sent the
IRS a draft of the inquiry he wrote to the FBI Sacramento office regarding the tax fraud and the
violation of his civil and human rights by the white-collar criminals from the University of
California's Office of the President and their thugs from UC Davis and UC Davis Medical Center,
where Waszczuk worked for 13 years. Waszczuk intended to send these inquiries to the FBI office
together with the Application for Award, but he put it on hold because they were poorly edited and
Waszczuk did not have the funds to send them to professional proofreaders.
IV.THE IRS WHISTLEBLOWER OFFICE'S FIRST RESPONSE, DATED AUGUST 7,

2018
On August 6, 2018, the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah, received my updated
Application for Award by U.S. priority mail with recipient signature request. After Waszczuk
knew that IRS received his updated application ,on August 8, 2018 Waszczuk sent a copy of the
application to his counsel of record, Mr. Schlein. After Mr. Schlein received the copy he criticized
Waszczuk in a phone conversation that day, pointing out that the Supplemental Application was
poorly edited, but he never offered to his client help from the time Waszcuk hired him, even after
4
Waszczuk sent him a letter on February 3, 2018 asking him about updating the Application. On
August 7, 2018 however, he emailedWaszczuk that he was sending a letter to the IRS requesting
an update on the case. He never sent any such letter, however, and Waszczuk never got a copy of
it from him or any news about from the the IRS Whistle Blower Office in Ogden , UT
On August 13, 2018 Waszczuk received a letter from the IRS Whistleblower Office stating that
my Claim 2016-007461, dated March 23, 2016, had been rejected under Section 7623(a). The letter
was dated August 7, 2018, one day after the IRS office received Waszczuk's updated Application
The same day, Waszczuk sent the IRS rejection letter by email to Mr. Schlein with the words,
From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk

Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 5:20 PM
To: 'Schlein, Mark' <MSch!ein(BaurnHedIundLaw.com>
Cc: 'GBrown@BaumHedlundLaw.com' <G Brown (I3aurnHedI Lind Law.corn>;
'PHedlund@BaumHedlundLaw.com' <PHedIund(3aurnHedIundLaw.com >;
'RGoldman@BaumHedlundLaw.com' <RGoI din an(Baurn Hedl Lind Law. com> Subject: IRS FINAL
DECISION UNDER SECTION 7623(a)
Hi Mark
It was quick for IRS to let me know why my Application for Award vanished.
Numbers of MWh illegally sold in violation of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954 and State of California Revenue and Taxation Code)
as were no speculative in my applications . Section 7623(a) . Very
clever. Napolitano or Blum must provide instruction to IRS office which section they should apply
(a) or (b).
I knew that something is wrong after I sent you update letter on February 4, 2018 and you did not
respond. Napolitano, Feinstein, Blum, IRS, Jerry Waszczuk and Mark Schlein . Very nice.
Take care Jerry
After Mr. Schlein received it, he panicked for some reason and called Waszczuk several times,
texted him , and asked Waszczuk to call him. When Waszczuk called Mr. Schlein he was told
that he would not represent me anymore, and few days later Waszczuk received a letter from Mr.
Schlein dated August 14, 2018. stating that Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, and Goldman would not
represent me in this matter. I had hired Mr. Schlein to handle the appeal to the U.S. Tax Court and
especially to appeal if Waszczuk claim would be denied. If Waszczuk had known in May 2016
the his firm would not represent me properly in this matter, Waszczuk would have hired someone
5
else. Two other big law firms that specialized in tax evasion wanted to represent Waszczuk with
the IRS, but they were out of state, so Waszczuk chose Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, and Goldman
from Los Angeles. However, Waszczuk noticed later that Mr. Schlein is from the Florida office
and is not licensed by the State Bar of California. Waszczuk is quite sure that he quit the cases for
completely different reasons than the Notice of Appeal in the U.S. Tax Court.
V. THE IRS WHISTLEBLOWER OFFICE'S SECOND RESPONSE, DATED AUGUST

24 , 2018
After Waszczuk received the August 7, 2018 letter and his legal counsel abruptly terminated his
retainer fee agreement on August 14, 2018 Waszczuk had no choice but to deal with the appeal in
the U.S. Tax Court on his own. However, Waszczuk thought that the IRS had rejected both his
March 23, 2016 Application for Award and its August 3, 2018 update together. Waszczuk was
thus surprised when on August 30, 2018, Waszczuk received a second letter from the IRS
Whistleblower Office dated 8/24, 2018 from Ogden confirming that that his updated Application
for Award had been received and three claims numbers assigned to it: the master number 2018 -
012118 and two other claim numbers, 2018-012139 and 2018 -012141. Waszczuk dropped the idea
of filing an appeal with IRS Tax Court of the August 7, 2018 decision (rejecting the claim no.
2016-007491), assuming the IRS had updated its records and assigned the new numbers to
Waszczuk's initial 2016 claim and 2018 updated claim together.
However, the Waszczuk counsel Mr. Schein's reaction after Waszczuk submitted the updated
application on August 3, 2018 and the fact that the participants in the fraud included the University
of California, CAISO, Pacific Gas and Electric, and California government officials and state
agencies including the Attorney General's Office and the California Public Utilities Commission,
convinced Waszczuk that it would be helpful for the IRS Whistleblower Office if Waszczuk also
submit the copies of his Application for Award also the IRS's Criminal Investigation Office.
VI. SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR SUPREME COURT

NOMINEE HON. BRETT KAVANAUGH
On September 6, 2018, during Supreme Court nominee Hon. Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation
6
hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California raised out of the blue questions about the 2000-03
California Energy Crisis, Enron Corporation, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as
follows:
TRANSCRIPT
01:40:12 THE LIMITED SET OF DOCUMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED INDICATES YOU WERE
HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE'S RESPONSE TO CONGRESSIONAL
INVESTIGATIONS AFTER THE ENRON SCANDAL. IS THAT ACCURATE?
01:40:34 RIGHT, SO YOU KNOW ENRON WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST CORPORATE
SCANDALS IN AMERICAN HISTORY. AND I CAN TELL YOU AS A SENATOR FROM
CALIFORNIA, NOT ONLY DID MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS LOSE EVERYTHING
FINANCIALLY WHEN ENRON COLLAPSED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF ITS ACCOUNTING
FRAUD, BUT THE FRAUD AND MARKET MANIPULATION CONTRIBUTED TO AN
ENERGY CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA. WHITE HOUSE E-MAILS SHOW YOU WERE ASKED
TO REVIEW A SET OF DRAFT TALKING POINTS FOR PRESS SECRETARY ARI
FLEISCHER THAT ADDRESS THE ROLE OF ENRON'S MARKET MANIPULATION IN THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS. ESSENTIALLY, THE TALKING POINT SAID, IF THERE
WAS ANY MISCONDUCT BY ENRON, IT WAS UP TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE AND PUNISH THE COMPANY. I'M NOT
GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU REMEMBER THE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT, BUT WAS THAT
YOUR VIEW THAT FERC (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission) WAS THE REGULATORY BODY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP
THIS SORT OF MISCONDUCT?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?449706-I/suprerne-court-norninee-brett-kavanaugh- confirmation-
hearing-day-3-part- I
httns://www.scribd.com/docurnent/393 7OO599/In-Defense-of-Jude-Kavanauh
It was just prior to the hearings that Waszczuk had submitted copies of his Application for
Award to the Whistleblower Office of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Senator Chuck
Grassley is chair and the two Senators from California, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, are
members.
In my August 21 e-mail to Senator Grassley, Waszczuk had addressed process of deportation of an
Iraqi refugee who was arrested in Sacramento by the FBI. This deportation was carried out by U.S.
Attorney McGregor Scott. The widely publicized arrest of this refugee had taken place on August
15, 2018 a few days after my Application for Award was received by IRS Whistleblower Office
7
and the day after Mr. Schlein quit Waszczuk's IRS case. This was also not long after Waszczuk
addressed UC Davis Medical Center employee Todd Georlich's December 2010 suicide, or more
likely homicide, to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District on August 5, 2018.
Todd Georlich was an operator in the UC Davis Medical Center 27 cogeneration plant which is
subject of the tax fraud. Georlich was a homosexual and he was found death in December 2010
hanging from the tree in Rancho Cordova, CA . Waszczuk did not realized for long time that the
mentioned above UC Davis Medical 27 MW cogeneration plant was unlawfully build and operated
by the LGBT mafia under umbrella of the University of California, UC Davis and UC Davis
Medical Center. The other two people suddenly died in direct or indirect relation to this plant
operation and tax fraud and many other UC Davis employees were witch hunted by the powerful
UC LGBT mafia thugs and gangsters.
Waszczuk still wondering why his counsel Mr. Mark Schlein abruptly abandoned him
without waiting for a response from the IRS. Maybe Ronald L. M. Goldman, senior trial attorney
and senior partner at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, and Goldman, is related to Senator Feinstein, who
was born Dianne Emiel Goldman.
In 2016, Mr. McGregor Scott, a private attorney, and former U.S. attorney Melinda Haag of
San Francisco, participated in an unbelievably vindictive and ruthless $1,000,000 witch hunt
orchestrated by UC president Janet Napolitano and aimed at UC Davis's Greek-born chancellor
Linda Katehi and her family, just after I submitted my first Application for Award to the IRS
Whistleblower Office on March 23, 2016. Former Haag prosecuted and imprisoned California
Senator Leland Yee, who was an archenemy of the corrupt officers of the University of California
Office of the President (UCOP).
McGregor Scott, who was again appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District in
California in 2017 , earned his fame through the 2003-05 prosecution of Hamid Hayat, a Pakistani
ice cream truck driver from Lodi, CA supposedly working to support Osama Bin Laden and the Al
Qaeda terrorist network. Hayat also allegedly attended an Al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan. He
was punished with 24 years in prison.
Instead to look after the perpetrators and terrorist who with a sophisticated equipment were
destabilizing the Western Power Grid which almost collapsed in 2000-2001 , FBI and U.S Attorney
8
Mr. McGregor grabbed Pakistani cherry picker and ice cream truck driver from small town Lodi,
CA where I lived since 1989 and show for whole world how they fighting terrorism on UCOP
mafia and corrupted Sanctuary State government behalf.
Hayat became a target before or just after former San Francisco FBI Chief John Lohse (most likely
a friend of UC President Janet Napolitano, as they are both from Arizona and attended the same
college in California) was recruited by the UCOP as Director of Investigation , California governor
Grey Davis was recalled from office and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the California
Public Utilities Commission publicized my name, in 2003, in relation to my confidential settlement
agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). This agreement was related to the Dynegy Power
Corporation and a $240,000,000 fraud committed by Dynegy's predecessor, Destem Energy Inc.,
against PG&E ratepayers and California taxpayers. Later in the so-called California Energy Crisis,
Dynegy again defrauded California ratepayers of $280,000,000, and California Attorney General
Bill Lockyer's office received millions of dollars of untaxable profit from this deal through a
kickback from Dynegy. Senator Kamala Harris knows all details of this.
With the above fragment, I wanted to show IRS investigators the pattern in the way attention was
being deflected from the real crimes, those by UCOP and the California government's white-collar
criminals, by witch hunts and prosecuting and imprisoning alleged terrorists, including and limited
to California Senator Leland Yee and UC Davis Chancellor Greek born Linda Katehi under heavy
TV and press coverage.
Hayat was from Lodi, where I have lived since 1989. In September 2007 he was sentenced to 24
years in federal prison. In January 2007, Senator Feinstein's husband, then a chief of the UC
Regents Richard Blum in 2007 , ordered UC Davis LGBT mafia thugs to hunt me down and fire
me in an unbelievably ruthless and indecent but ultimately unsuccessful witch hunt just after I had
open-heart surgery. However, Waszczuk was abruptly removed from the UCDMC 27 MW
cogeneration plant and replaced by 20 years younger homosexual individual 37 years old Todd
Georlich who three years later was found death hanging from tree in the park after the UCDMC
Director who brought this individual to the plant was black mailed about his homosexual
9
relationship with other employees.
For the above stated reasons as well Waszczuk totally disagree with IRS Whistle Blower office
from Ogden, Utah Final Decision Under Section 7623 (a) and appalling the decision to United
States Tax Court with hope to rewarded by the United States IRS Tax Court for reporting the crime
to IRS.
I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California and
Respectfully submitted on November 20, 2018 by U.S Express Overnight Mail.
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk

Petitioner Per Se
10
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S MAIL
Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. IRS Whistle Blower Office

Claim No. 2018-012118; 2018-012139; 2018-012141
I, IRENA WAS ZCZUK the undersigned, declare that 1 am over 18 years of age and not a party
to the within cause; my address is 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA. On November 20, 2018, I
served a true copy of the attached each of the following.
PETITION TO THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
By placing the same copy in an envelope or envelopes addressed respectively as follows:

1973 N. Rulon White Blvd., MS
4110 Ogden, UT 84404
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 20, 2018 , at Lodi CA
IRENA WASZCZUK
11
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION ON DECEMBER 14, 2018.

www.ustaxcourt.gov
I
Petitioner(s)
V. Docket No.
Respondent
STATEMENT OF TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

(E.g., Social Security number(s), employer identification number(s))
Name of Petitioner 449-59-6448
Petitioner's Taxpayer Identification Number N/A
Name of Additional Petitioner
Additional Petitioner's Taxpayer Identification Number
If either petitioner is seeking relief from joint and several liability on a joint return
pursuant to Section 6015, I.R.C. 1986, and Rules 320 through 325, name of the other individual
with whom petitioner filed a joint return:
N/A
Taxpayer Identification Number of the other individual, if available:
(\ N/A
1~4 V 0~~/ 11/20/2018

SIGTURE OF PETITIONER OR COUNSEL DATE
SIGNATURE OF ADDITIONAL PETITIONER DATE
T.C. FORM 4(01/08)

www.ustaxcourt.gov

Petitioner(s)
V. Docket No.
Respondent
REQUEST FOR PLACE OF TRIAL

PLACE AN "X" IN ONLY ONE BOX TO REQUEST THE PLACE OF TRIAL. IF PETITIONER(S) ELECTED TO
HAVE THE CASE CONDUCTED AS A SMALL TAX CASE, REQUEST ANY CITY LISTED BELOW; OTHERWISE,
REQUEST ANY CITY NOT MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*).
ALABAMA KANSAS 011110

D Birmingham o Wichita* 0 Cincinnati
El Mobile KENTUCKY 0 Cleveland
ALASKA o Louisville 0 Columbus
0 Anchorage LOUISIANA OKLAHOMA
ARIZONA o New Orleans 0 Oklahoma City
El Phoenix o Shreveport* OREGON
ARKANSAS MAINE 0 Portland
0 Little Rock O Portland* PENNSYLVANIA
CALIFORNIA MARYLAND 0 Philadelphia
X Fresno* 0 Baltimore 0 Pittsburgh
0 Los Angeles MASSACHUSETTS SOUTH CAROLINA
0 San Diego o Boston 0 Columbia
0 San Francisco. MICHIGAN SOUTH DAKOTA
COLORADO O Detroit 0 Aberdeen'
o Denver MINNESOTA TENNESSEE
CONNECTICUT 0 St. Paul 0 Knoxville
0 Hartford MISSISSIPPI 0 Memphis
DISTRICT OF 0 Jackson 0 Nashville
COLUMBIA MISSOURI TEXAS
0 Washington 0 Kansas City 0 Dallas
FLORIDA o St. Louis 0 El Paso
0 Jacksonville MONTANA 0 Houston
0 Miami 0 Billings* 0 Lubbock
0 Tallahassee* 0 Helena 0 San Antonio
0 Tampa NEBRASKA UTAH
GEORGIA O Omaha 0 Salt Lake City
0 Atlanta NEVADA VERMONT
HAWAII O Las Vegas 0 Burlington'
0 Honolulu o Reno VIRGINIA
IDAHO NEW MEXICO 0 Richmond
o Boise 0 Albuquerque 0 Roanoke
0 Pocatello NEW YORK WASHINGTON
ILLINOIS O Albany* 0 Seattle
o Chicago 0 Buffalo 0 Spokane
o Peoria* 0 New York City WEST VIRGINIA
INDIANA o Syracuse* 0 Charleston
o Indianapolis NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN
IOWA 0 Winston-Salem 0 Milwaukee
o Des Moines NORTH DAKOTA WYOMING
0 Bismarck* 0 Cheyenne*
11/20/2018
of Petitioner(s) or Counsel Date
T.C. FORM 5 (REV. 09/10)

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
WHISTLEBLOWER OFFICE
Date October 23, 2018
JAROS LAW WASZCZUK

2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242-4799
Re: Claim Number(s) 2018-012118, 2018-012139 and 2018-012141
Dear Jaroslaw Waszczuc;
FINAL DECISION UNDER SECTION 7623(a)
The Whistleblower Office has considered your Form 211, Application for Award for Original
Information, dated 8/3/2018 Internal Revenue Code section 7623 provides that an award may
be paid only if the information provided results in the collection of tax, penalties, interest,
additions to tax, or additional amounts. The Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to
reject your claim for an award.
The claim has been rejected because the information provided was speculative and/or did
not provide specific or credible information regarding tax underpayments or violations of
internal revenue laws.
This letter is a final determination for purposes of filing a petition with the United States
Tax Court. If you disagree with this determination, you have 30 days from the date of this
letter to file a petition with the Tax Court. Information about filing a petition can be found
on the Tax Court's website.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact the
Whistleblower Office at 801-620-2169.
Sincerely,
-JsJ- Layne Carver for -
Joseph Hebb, I-'rogram Manager

Whistleblower Office, SPPA

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224
October 15, 2018
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODICA 95242
Re: Claim Number(s): 2018-012118, 2018-012139 and 2018-012141
Dear Jaroslaw Waszczuk:
We received your correspondence dated October 2, 2018. Your claim is still open and
under active consideration. We are unable to give you any specific information due to
(Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code) Federal Disclosure and privacy laws that
protect tax information for all taxpayers.
If you move or change the address to which you want correspondence directed, you
must inform this office in writing of the change of address. Failure to notify this office of
a change of address regarding this claim could result in you not receiving time-sensitive
correspondence.
Additional information about the whistleblower claim process can be found in

Publication 5251, The Whistleblower Claim Process. Publication 5251 can be found
online at IRS.gov.
If you have further questions about your claim, please call or write the Whistleblower
Office at the address below or call 801-620-2169.

Initial Claim Evaluation Team, M/S 4110
1973 N. Rulon White Blvd.
Ogden, UT 84404
Thank you for your interest in compliance with the tax laws
Sincerely,
IsI Layne Carver for
Joseph Hebb, Program Manager

August 24, 2018
Claim Number: 2018-012118

RE: THER
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK Contact Representative Number: 801-620-2169
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY (This is not a toll-free number)
LODI, CA 95242 Contact Address: Internal Revenue Service
1973 N Rulon White Blvd, MS 4110
Ogden, UT 84404
We received your Form 211 with the information you furnished and have assigned the above
claim number(s). We will evaluate the information you provided to determine if an investigation is
warranted and an award is appropriate. Please retain this notice for future reference.
If we initiate an investigation as a result of your information, it is important to understand that it

could take several years until final resolution of all tax matters. This is especially true if the
taxpayer exercises all administrative and judicial appeal rights. In addition, before we can pay an
award, we must collect any additional taxes, penalties, or fines, assessed by reason of your
information. Collection action could also take several years.
At the conclusion of our review and/or investigation, we will only be able to tell you whether or not
the information you provided met our criteria for paying an award. Unfortunately, we cannot tell
you specific details about what actions we took, if any, using the information you gave us. Internal
Revenue Code Section 6103 protects the tax information of all taxpayers and prevents us from
making these disclosures.
We will notify you as soon as all actions relating to your claim have been completed. Please note
that we will be sending all correspondence from this office regarding this claim to you at the
address you provided. If you move or change the address to which you want correspondence
directed, you must inform this office in writing of the change of address. Failure to notify this
office of a change of address regarding this claim could result in you not receiving time-sensitive
correspondence.
Additional information about the whistleblower claim process can be found in Publication 5251,
The Whistleblower Claim Process. Publication 5251 can be found online at IRS.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/ Layne Carver for

Master Claim Number 2018-012118
Taxpayer Name
• Assigned Claim Number Control
2018-012139 CALIF
2018-012141 CALIF
jjwl 980@Iive.com
From: auto-reply@usps.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 11:30 AM
To: jjw1980@live.com
Subject: USPS® Item Delivered EL237675151US
Hello Jaroslaw Waszczuk,
Your item was delivered at 1:59 pm on November

21, 2018 in WASHINGTON, DC 20217 to TAX
COURT 20217 Ri. The item was signed for by G
FEUER.
Tracking Number: EL237675151US
Delivered
O
!V7
My Account
Visit USFS Tracking to check the most up-to-date status of your package. Sign up
for Informed Deliveryr to digitally preview the address side of your incoming letter-
sized mail and manage your packages scheduled to arrive soon! To update how
frequently you receive emails from LISPS, log in to your USFS.com account.
Want regular updates on your package? Set up text alerts.

Download USPS Mobiles
USPS.com I Privacy Policy I Customer Service I FAQs
Delivery date and time depends on origin, destination and Post Office"' acceptance time and is
subject to change. Delivery options are subject to restrictions and may not be available for your item.
This is an automated emait please do not reply to this message. This message is for the designated
recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherse private information, if you have
received it in error, please delete. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Copyright i 2017. All rights reserved.

EXHIBIT # 7

WHISTLERLOWER OFFICE
11/30/2018
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242-4799
Claim Number(s): 2018-012118, 2018-012139 and 2018-012141
We received your request for reconsideration dated November 20, 2018

Your claim was previously rejected. A copy of that decision is enclosed.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact the Whistleblower Office at
801-620-2169.
Sincerely,
Is! Layne Carver for

Enclosed: Prior Decision Letter


2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 833-817-7080
Email: jjw1980live.com
December 6, 2018
Layne Carver, Program Manager

Ogden, UT 84201
Re: Claim Numbers 2018-012118,2018-012139 and 2018-012141
Re: Your letter 11/30/2018
Dear Manager Layne Carver,
In your letter dated 11/30/2018, you wrote:
• "We received your request for reconsideration dated November 20, 2018. Your
claim was previously rejected. A copy of that decision is enclosed. If you have any
questions about this letter, please contact the Whistleblower Office at 801-620-
2 169."
For the record, I did not send to your office a request for reconsideration on November
20, 2018. Therefore, you had nothing to reject in this matter.
What I sent to your office was a copy of the Petition with the United States Tax Court
with Proof of Service, understanding that I should send you this copy if I appealed the
IRS Whistleblower Office decision dated October 23, 2018.
Your letter makes me believe that you or your staff did not even bother to read what I
sent to your office on November 18, 2018 but responded very quickly to the received
Petition with the United States Tax Court for an unknown reason.
Furthermore, the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden has kept my initial Match 23, 2016
claim for more than two years and has not bothered to inform me about what is going on
with my claim and whether a decision is being made one way or another.
IRS -Whistleblower Office -L. Carver

After I detailed and updated my claim and sent the updated copy to your office in August
2018, my attorney Mark H. Schlein, Senior Counsel at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman, PC Law Corporation, panicked and abandoned me without waiting for a
response from the IRS after he read the 153-page updated claim.
To make a long story short without repeating the previously written information, I was
employed from June 1999 to April 2007 by the University of California in a relatively
small 27 MW cogeneration power plant at the UC Davis Medical Center.
This tiny but very profitable plant became a trigger for the manmade "California Energy
Crisis." The well-organized white collar crime from the California government and
legislature, and the California Independent System Operator, which was created by the
California Electricity Restructuring Act (AB 1890), paired with the University of
California and California State University to launder the electricity out of university
campuses with enormous tax-free profit.
The plant in which I was employed was solely built and operated to sell illegal electric
power tax-free.
It is still a puzzle almost two decades after the California Energy Crisis, created by white
collar criminals from the University of California and the California government, whether
the 1998 joint venture of the two largest university systems in California with Enron was
a deliberated and sophisticated scheme of fraud to collapse Enron, which had no its own
power plants to supply power to the two universities. After the California Energy Crisis
was triggered by organized crime and competitors of Enron like my former employer
Dynegy Power Corporation, it destroyed and collapsed Enron by withholding power and
gouging energy prices. After Enron's collapse and the end of the energy crisis
orchestrated by white collar crime, the California Attorney offices of AG Bill Lockyer,
Jerry Brown, and Kamala Harris racked in hundreds of millions of dollars tax-free in
kickbacks from the settlements between power corporations sucked into this sophisticated
game of fraud, which cost the California economy and California taxpayers 40 billion
dollars but benefitted white collars criminals from the University of California, the state
government, and California Independent System Operator (CAISO) cronies. The tax
evasion and the California Energy Crisis scam guardian was the California Attorney
General's office and the Energy Task Force crated by California Attorney General Bill
Lockyer.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who in August 2002 crowned himself as Chief
of the Energy Task Force and made himself the Representative of "California Parties" in
ongoing complaints with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against
2
CAISO, CaIPX, power producers, and auxiliary services, made sure that his colleagues
and the executives from CALISO, Ca1PX, and the University of California would be held
harmless in the settlements and multiple lawsuits that Lockyer filed in the California
Courts.
Many people suffered because of this crime. The individual who replaced me in the UC
Davis Medical 27 MW cogeneration plant after I was forcibly removed in April 2007 was
found dead three years later hanging from a tree in the park . After I discovered the fraud
in 2015 and informed the court about it on October 13, 2015, UC Davis Chancellor Larry
Vanderhoef, who was involved in illegal power from the plant on behalf of other
university white collar criminals, died in the UC Davis Medical Center. As for myself, I
was almost killed in unsuccessful provocation by UC Davis policeman bribed for this
purpose with a $35,000 pay raise. Shortly after the UC Davis Chancellor died in the UC
Davis Medical Center, the most known adversary of the University of California's
corrupt administration, the 67-year-old California Senator Leland Yee, was thrown into
Federal Prison for his ideas of updating the whistleblowing law Bill SB 650.
If your office for any reason responds to my letter, please do not write that my
information is not credible or speculative. I know what I am talking about. I was dealing
from 1996-2000 with a very similar fraud of $240,000,000 committed by my former
employer Dynegy Power Corporation against Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(PG&E). (See enclosure.)
In conclusion, I sent a timely Petition to the U.S. Tax Court, and eventually the claim will
be resolved by the U.S. Tax Court or the U.S. Federal Court.
As I pointed out in my June 16, 2018 inquiry addressed to the FBI Special Agent in
Charge Sean Ragan at the Sacramento field office (attached), I don't have $1 million to
hire Melinda Haag or McGregor Scott to conduct deeper investigations related to the
Attorney General. In fact, my life has been decimated by people like Napolitano and her
white-collar criminal subordinates. I lost my home and $1 million of my income,
benefits, and retirement that worked for 37 years in this country Since December 2006 1
being mercilessly hunted down like a Jew during the Holocaust in occupied by Nazis
Europe.
If you office could not do the job or is not able to handle the University of California
and California government mafia because is lacking manpower and resources than your
office should informed me about in 2016 or turn over the claim to the IRS Criminal
Division , FBI and U.S Attorney General office , than maybe some lives would be spared

ENCLOSURE
CC. FBI Director, Hon. Christopher A. Wray

Don Fort, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation Department
U.S Attorney General
U.S Department of Treasury - Inspector General
State of California Franchise Tax Board
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
in

11/30/2018
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242-4799
Claim Number(s): 2018-012118, 2018-012139 and 2018-012141
We received your request for reconsideration dated November 20, 2018

Your claim was previously rejected. A copy of that decision is enclosed.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact the Whistleblower Office at
801-620-2169.
Sincerely,
/s/ Layne Carver for

Enclosed: Prior Decision Letter


TXLT. COO Date October 23, 2018
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242-4799
Re: Claim Number(s) 2018-012118, 2018-012139 and 2018-012141
Dear Jaroslaw Waszczuc;
FINAL DECISION UNDER SECTION 7623(a)
The Whistleblower Office has considered your Form 211, Application for Award for Original
Information, dated 8/3/2018 Internal Revenue Code section 7623 provides that an award may
be paid only if the information provided results in the collection of tax, penalties, interest,
additions to tax, or additional amounts. The Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to
reject your claim for an award.
The claim has been rejected because the information provided was speculative and/or did
not provide specific or credible information regarding tax underpayments or violations of
This letter is a final determination for purposes of filing a petition with the United States
Tax Court. If you disagree with this determination, you have 30 days from the date of this
letter to file a petition with the Tax Court. Information about filing a petition can be found
on the Tax Court's website.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact the
Whistleblower Office at 801-620-2169.
Sincerely,
IsI Layne Carver for

EXHIBIT # 8
EXHIBIT # 9
EXHIBIT # 10
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document
#1938514
#1867250 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page
Page
113
1 of 4
400
DOCKET ENTRIES
Docket No. 023105-18W INDEX
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk

v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
2216 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
Petitioner Counsel (Total 01) Respondent Counsel (Total 01)
PRO SE SD1081 Sun, Darrick D.
IRS Office of Chief Counsel
Suite 901
701 B Street
San Diego, CA 92101
NO. DATE EVENT FILINGS AND PROCEEDINGS ACT/STAT DTE SERVED M

0001 11/21/2018 PF PETITION FILED by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz R 12/07/2018
Waszczuk: FEE PAID (SEALED)
0002 11/21/2018 MISL REQUEST FOR PLACE OF TRIAL AT FRESNO, R 12/07/2018
CA by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk (LODGED)
0003 12/06/2018 O ORDER PETITION FILED ON 11-21-18 IS B 12/07/2018
SEALED.
0004 12/06/2018 O ORDER PETR. BY 12-28-18 FILE A PROPER B 12/07/2018
REQUEST FOR PLACE OF TRIAL.
0005 12/26/2018 RQT REQUEST FOR PLACE OF TRIAL AT SAN R 12/28/2018
FRANCISCO, CA by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz
Waszczuk
0006 02/05/2019 A ANSWER by Resp. P 02/05/2019
0007 05/03/2019 M008 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER THAT DNM 06/04/2019 P 05/03/2019
UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED
ADMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C) by Resp.
0008 05/13/2019 O ORDER THAT PETITIONER BY JUNE 10, 2019 B 05/14/2019
FILE A REPLY. RESPONDENT BY JUNE 10, 2019
FILE AN APPROPRIATE JURISDICTIONAL
MOTION WITH RESPECT TO SO MUCH OF THIS
CASE RELATION TO A NOTICE OF
DETERMINATION NOT TO ABATE INTEREST.
0009 05/15/2019 M026 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT ORD 07/31/2019 P 05/15/2019
TO RULE 103 by Resp. (EXHIBIT) (OBJECTION)
0010 05/17/2019 O ORDER PETITIONER BY 6/10/19 SHALL FILE AN B 05/17/2019
OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER.
0011 06/03/2019 OPPO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF R 06/03/2019
ORDER THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE
DEEMED ADMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C)
by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk (C/S 06/03/19)
0012 06/03/2019 OPPO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE R 06/03/2019
ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 103 by Petr.
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk (C/S 06/03/19)
(EXHIBITS)
0013 06/04/2019 DNM DENIED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER THAT B 06/05/2019
UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED
ADMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C) by Resp.
10/15/2020 Page 1 of 4
USCA
USCA Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1867250 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page
Page
114
2 of 4
400
0014 06/07/2019 M126 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF ORD 06/10/2019 P 06/07/2019
JURISDICTION AS TO NOTICE OF FINAL
DETERMINATION NOT TO ABATE INTEREST by
Resp.
0015 06/09/2019 OPPO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR R 06/09/2019
LACK OF JURISDICTION AS TO NOTICE OF
FINAL DETERMINATION NOT TO ABATE
INTEREST by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk
(C/S 06/09/19)
0016 06/10/2019 O ORDER THAT RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO B 06/12/2019
DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AS TO
NOTICE OF FINAL DETERMINATION NOT TO
ABATE INTEREST IS DENIED. ON THE COURT'S
OWN MOTION, SO MUCH OF THIS CASE
RELATING TO A NOTICE OF FINAL
DETERMINATION NOT TO ABATE INTEREST IS
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND
IS DEEMED STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD IN
THIS CASE.
0017 07/02/2019 OAJ ORDER THAT CASE IS ASSIGNED TO S.T. B 07/02/2019
JUDGE ARMEN . FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DISPOSING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 103.
0018 07/09/2019 O ORDER THAT PETITIONER BY JULY 29, 2019 B 07/09/2019
FILE A RESPONSE TO THIS ORDER.
0019 07/29/2019 REPL REPLY TO ORDER DATED 07/09/2019 by Petr. R 07/29/2019
0020 07/31/2019 O ORDER THAT RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR GD 07/31/2019 B 07/31/2019
PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE IS
DENIED.
0021 08/16/2019 NTD NOTICE OF TRIAL ON 1/6/2020 AT SAN B 08/16/2019
FRANCISCO, CA.
0022 08/16/2019 SPTO STANDING PRE-TRIAL ORDER ATTACHED TO B 08/16/2019
NOTICE OF TRIAL
0023 11/07/2019 M024 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORD 06/04/2020 P 11/07/2019
by Resp.
0024 11/07/2019 CERT CERTIFICATE AS TO THE GENUINESS OF THE P 11/07/2019
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD by Resp. (EXHIBIT)
0025 11/07/2019 USDL UNSWORN DECLARATION OF KAREN M. P 11/07/2019
FOSTER UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT by Resp.
0026 11/07/2019 USDL UNSWORN DECLARATION OF KEITH DEHART P 11/07/2019
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
by Resp.
0027 11/07/2019 O ORDER PETR. BY 12/6/19 FILE A RESPONSE TO B 11/08/2019
RESP. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT.
0028 11/08/2019 M006 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE by Petr. Jaroslaw ORD 12/03/2019 R 11/08/2019
Janusz Waszczuk (C/S 11/08/19) (EXHIBITS)
(OBJECTION)
0029 11/12/2019 O ORDER THAT RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED BY B 11/13/2019
DECEMBER 6, 2019 FILE A RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.
0030 11/12/2019 AMNT FIRST AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL ORD 06/04/2020 P 11/12/2019
SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Resp.
0031 11/22/2019 NTDT NOTICE REMINDING THE PARTIES OF TRIAL B 11/22/2019
ON 1/6/2020 AT SAN FRANCISCO, CA.
10/15/2020 Page 2 of 4
USCA
USCA Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document #1938514
#1867250 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/19/2020 PagePage
115
3 of 4
400
0032 11/26/2019 RSP RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE by P 11/26/2019
Resp. (EXHIBITS)
0033 12/02/2019 M011 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 12/13/19 GRM 12/02/2019 R 12/02/2019
TO FILE OPPOSITION TO RESP'S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Petr.
(EXHIBIT)
0034 12/02/2019 GRM GRANTED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME B 12/02/2019
TO 12/13/19 TO FILE OPPOSITION TO RESP'S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk
0035 12/03/2019 OJR ORDER THAT JURISDICTION IS RETAINED BY B 12/04/2019
JUDGE GOEKE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED IN THAT THIS
CASE IS STRICKEN FOR TRIAL FROM THE
COURT'S 1/6/20 SAN FRANCISCO, CA TRIAL
SESSION AND IS CONTINUED.
0036 12/13/2019 OPPO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL R 12/13/2019
SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz
Waszczuk (C/S 12/13/19) (EXHIBITS)
0037 03/13/2020 RPT STATUS REPORT by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz ORD 03/16/2020 R 03/13/2020
Waszczuk (C/S 03/13/20) (EXHIBITS) (NO
OBJECTION)
0038 03/16/2020 O ORDER PETR. MOTION FOR SUMMARY B 03/16/2020
JUDGMENT IS RECHARACTERIZED AS PETR.
STATUS REPORT.
0039 04/02/2020 M115 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST ORD 06/04/2020 P 04/02/2020
AMENDMENT TO ANSWER by Resp.
(OBJECTION)
0040 04/02/2020 MISL FIRST AMENDMENT TO ANSWER by Resp. P 04/02/2020
(ELODGED) (EXHIBITS)
0041 04/03/2020 O ORDER THAT PETITIONER BY MAY 1, 2020 FILE B 04/03/2020
RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
ANSWER.
0042 04/13/2020 OPPO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE R 04/13/2020
FIRST AMENDMENT TO ANSWER by Petr.
(EXHIBITS)
0043 06/04/2020 MOP MEMORANDUM OPINION, JUDGE GOEKE T.C. B 06/04/2020
MEMO. 2020-75 (AN APPROPRIATE ORDER &
DECISION WILL BE ENTERED FOR RESP.)
0044 06/04/2020 OAD ORDER AND DECISION ENTERED, JUDGE B 06/04/2020
GOEKE. RESP. MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED 11-7-19 &
AMENDED 11-12-19 IS GRANTED. RESP.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST
AMENDEMENT TO ANSWER FILED 4-2-20 IS
DENIED AS MOOT.
0045 06/29/2020 M110 MOTION TO VACATE OR REVISE PURSUANT DNM 06/30/2020 R 06/29/2020
TO RULE 162 by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk
(C/S 06/29/20) (EXHIBITS)
0046 06/30/2020 DNM DENIED MOTION TO VACATE OR REVISE B 06/30/2020
PURSUANT TO RULE 162 by Petr. Jaroslaw
Janusz Waszczuk
0047 06/30/2020 M011 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO JULY 15, GRM 07/01/2020 R 06/30/2020
2020 TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS OR OPINION
by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk (C/S 06/30/20)
10/15/2020 Page 3 of 4
USCA
USCA Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document #1938514
#1867250 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page
Page
116
4 of 4
400
0048 07/01/2020 GRM GRANTED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME B 07/01/2020
TO JULY 15, 2020 TO FILE A MOTION FOR
0049 07/15/2020 M028 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORD 07/17/2020 R 07/15/2020
FINDINGS OR OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE
161 by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk (C/S
07/15/20) (EXHIBIT) (OBJECTION)
0050 07/17/2020 O ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR B 07/17/2020
UNDER RULE 161 IS DENIED.
0051 09/21/2020 OBJN NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR R 09/21/2020
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Petr.
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk (C/S 09/21/20) (
STRICKEN)
0052 09/21/2020 M030 MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE by Petr. R 09/21/2020
(EXHIBIT) (NO OBJECTION) (STRICKEN)
0053 09/23/2020 O ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR B 09/24/2020
RECUSAL OF JUDGE AND NOTICE OF
OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE STRICKEN FROM
THE RECORD IN THIS CASE.
0054 09/25/2020 RSP RESPONSE TO ORDER DATED 09/23/2020 by R 09/25/2020
Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk (C/S 09/25/20)
(EXHIBIT) (STRICKEN)
0055 09/25/2020 O ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S RESPONSE IS B 09/25/2020
STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD IN THIS CASE.
APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS
0056 09/25/2020 NOAP NOTICE OF APPEAL BY PETR(S). TO U.S.C.A. R 09/25/2020
D.C. CIR. by Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk (C/S B 10/07/2020
09/25/20) (ATTACHMENTS) (NO FEE)
0057 09/25/2020 APW APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF FILING FEE by R 09/25/2020
Petr. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk (C/S 09/25/20) (
STRICKEN)
0058 10/06/2020 O ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR B 10/07/2020
WAIVER OF FILING FEE IS STRICKEN FROM
THE COURT'S RECORD.
0059 10/07/2020 NOFC NOTICE OF FILING W/ COPY OF NOT. OF APP. B 10/07/2020
SENT TO THE PARTIES.
10/15/2020 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT # 11
EXHIBIT # 12
USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1938514
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 126
306 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18 W
JAROSLA W JANUSZ WASZCZUK

Docket No. 23105-18 W
Petitioner Filed Electronically
V.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICES
Respondent
THE PETITIONER 'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE JOSEPH

ROBERT GOEKE AND FOR REVIEW THE POLITICALLY
MOTIVATED PARTIAL AND BIASED JUDGE GOEKE'S DECISIONS
IN THIS CASE .
FOR ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW JUDGE APPOINTED TO THE U.S.
TAX COURT BY PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, PREFERABLY
HONORABLE PATRICK J. URDA
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner respectfully requests that the U.S. Tax Court or Chief Judge Maurice
B. Foley, by his executive power, assign a new judge to this case. The Petitioner
would prefer Judge Patrick J. Urda, who was appointed by President Donald
Trump, and who assumed office in the Tax Division on September 27, 2018.
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 127
307 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W -2-
This case requires a different Judge and another look at the Petitioner
whistleblower claims that the Petitioner submitted to the Whistleblower Office
(WBO) in Ogden, Utah. on March 23, 2016 (Claim No. 2016-007481), and updated
August 3, 2018 (Claim No. 2018-012118), the Petition submitted to the U.S. Tax
Court on November 20, 2018 and politically motivated partial, prejudicial and
discriminatory Judge Goeke's decisions which includes:
1. The Judge Goeke's December 3, 2019, Order which granted Petitioner
motion for trial continuance did not set a new approximate trial date. (U.S
Tax Court Docket No. 0035)
2. The Judge Goeke's Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in
Waszczuk v. Commissioner. T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020),
served on June 4, 2020 which granted Respondent Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and denied Petitioner Reward. (U.S Tax Court Docket
No. 0044)
3. The Judge Goeks's Order dated June 30, 2020 which denied Petitioner's
Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision of the Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Decision (UTC Rule 162) in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), filed on June 29, 2020(U.S Tax
Court Docket No. 0046)
4. The Judge Goeke's Order dated July 17, 2020 which denied Petitioner's
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 128
308 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W -3-
Motion for Reconsideration for Finding 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), filed on July 15, 2020(U.S Tax Court Docket No.
According to U.S. Tax Court documentation

(https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/iudges/urda.htm), Judge Urda held several
positions with the U.S. Department of Justice's Tax Division, including counsel
to the deputy assistant attorney general for appellate and review, counsel to the
Criminal Division's Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance
and Training, and former adjunct professor of law at American University
Washington College of Law. Appointed by President Trump as judge of the
U.S. Tax Court and sworn in on September 27, 2018, for a term ending
September 26, 2033, Judge Urda is four years younger than the Petitioner's
daughter and will not retire right after signing an order or issuing an opinion, as
happened with Special Trial Judge Robert N. Armen. The Petitioner believes
that this appointment by President Trump is meaningful for Judge Urda.
11. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The first judge assigned to this case was Judge Armen, who was appointed to
the U.S. Tax Court by President Clinton on August 27, 1993. Judge Armen was
assigned to this case with the purpose of disposing of the respondent's Motion for
Protective Order pursuant to Rule 103, which was filed on May 15, 2019 (U.S. Tax
Court Docket No. 0017). Judge Armen denied the respondent's motion on July 31,
2019 (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0017). He then retired one month later, on August
31, 2019. In the meantime, 16 days after Judge Armen denied the respondent's
motion, on August 16, 2019, Judge Goeke was assigned to the case by the court and
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 129
309 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W -4 -
set the pretrial order and the trial date was set in San Francisco for January 6, 2020
(U.S. Tax Court Docket Nos. 0021 and 0022).
Judge Goeke was appointed to the bench of the U.S. Tax Court by President
George W. Bush in April 2003. He was the second retired senior trial judge assigned
to this case. Judge Goeke retired at age 68, on April 21, 2018, but he continues to
perform judicial duties as the senior judge on recall. The Petitioner 's whistleblower
claims are deeply rooted during and after President Clinton and President George W.
Bush's era, from 1996-2003.
Following Judge Goeke's August 16, 2019 pretrial order and when Judge
Armen retired on August 31, 2019, Janet Napolitano, President of the University of
California (UC) and former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security (2009-2013)
announced her resignation from her post as UC President effective August 1, 2020.
Napolitano arrived in California in September 2013, along with former FBI Director
Robert Mueller (2001-2013), to take care of unfinished and new business they had in
California.
In September 2013 Napolitano positioned herself as UC President and Mueller
positioned himself as a supposedly distinguished lecturer at Stanford University, not
far from Napolitano's headquarters in Oakland, California.
On November 7, 2019, the respondent's counsel, Darrick Sun, from the IRS
Chief Counsel Regional Office in San Diego, California, filed a motion for partial
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 130
310 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W -5 -
summary judgment without producing any administrative record. The respondent did
not summarize anything, and this motion was pure fraud upon the court (U.S. Tax
Court Docket No. 0023). The respondent's motion was supported by two pseudo-
declarations that were produced by two corrupt managing officers from the WBO
and WBO-ICE, Keith Dehart and Karen M. Foster, who affirmed by their deceit in
their declarations on Judith Boyette's special mission in Tax Exempt and
Government Entities (TEGE) from 2016-2019 (U.S. Tax Court Docket Nos. 0025
and 0026). Boyette, who once worked for Pillsbury and Sutro Law Corporation in
San Francisco, where Mueller had also been employed, was appointed to a three-year
term on the IRS Advisory Committee on TEGE, from June 2016 through June 2019,
with undoubted help from Napolitano's influence in President Obarna's
administration. The Petitioner addressed Boyette's presence in TEGE and Dehart
and Foster's deceptive and fraudulent declarations in his December 13, 2019
Opposition to Respondent Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, which was
ignored by Judge Goeke.
On November 9, 2019, due to exceptional circumstances (Rule 133), the
Petitioner requested that the court issue an order granting his trial continuance on
any court working day between January 6, 2020, and September 2020. The
Petitioner explained the exceptional circumstances that necessitated the
continuation of his trial in Exhibit No. 3, attached to the Motion for Trial
Continuance (November 7, 2019 meet-and-confer letter addressed to the Petitioner

#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 131
311 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W -6-
's counsel, Sun, Exhibit No. 3). On December 3, 2019, Judge Goeke ordered this
motion for continuance be granted but did not set a new trial date
,
https://www.sci- lbd.coiii,l'doctiiiietit-. 468961 62511 -0-2() 19-US-Tax-
CoLIrt -Mouon-to-Continue-Irial-PETfl TONER
In March 2020, four months after the respondent's counsel filed this, the
Petitioner became concerned about the fate of his petition, which was submitted
to the U.S. Tax Court on November 20, 2018, The Petitioner believed that
Judge Goeke did not set a new trial date because in December 2019, the U.S.
Tax Court already knew about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak,
and Judge Goeke was advised not to set a new trial date or to rule on the
November 7, 2019 respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
On March 13, 2020, the Petitioner submitted a request to the U.S. Tax Court
for an update on the case. The respondents counsel, Sun, reacted to the Petitioner 's
inquiry, and April 2, 2020, he filed a motion for leave to file a first amended
answer. IRS Counsel Darrick Sun blatantly lied to the court to control damages, as
demonstrated on Page 2 of this motion, which untruthfully stated that the November
21, 2018 petition was submitted to the U.S. Tax Court too late (U.S. Tax Court
Docket Nos. 0039 and 0040)
On April 13, 2020, the Petitioner filed an opposition to the respondent's

#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 132
312 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W -7-
Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer (U.S. Tax Court Docket
No.0042)
Petitioner provided to the court a copy of the March 23, 2016 Claim
Form 211 with a 45-page addendum; thus, the court had liberty to find out that
the Petitioner's claim is not about IRC 511, 512 or 513 but is, instead, about the
Regents of UC's violation of UC's tax-exempt status by illegally producing and
selling electric power at the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) in
Sacramento.
However, Judge Goeke disregarded the information in the Petitioner's filed
documents, especially the information in his opposition to the respondent's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment, and, in bad faith, issued Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C.
June 4, 2020), based on the respondent's deceit.
Through this memorandum, Judge Goeke denied the respondent's Motion for
Leave to File a First Amended Answer on April 2, 2020, but he granted the
respondent's November 7, 2019 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and closed
the case, sustaining the IRS WBO's decision, dated October 23, 2018, which denied
the Petitioner any reward for reporting the tens of millions of dollars of tax evasion
and fraud committed by the corrupt UC administration, which was connected with
the California government.

#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 133
313 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W -8 -
On June 29, 2020, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate or Revise the
Decision of the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in Waszczuk v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), served on June 4,
2020 (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0045)
https://wvw.scribd.com/documenl46740893 S?0200629-Motion-to-Vacate-
or-Revise-Filed-U-S-Tax-Court.
This motion was denied by Judge Goeke on the following day, June 30, 2020,
with a rubber stamp from the court with the Judge Goeke's name on it (U.S. Tax
Court Docket No. 0046).
The Petitioner is left with no choice but to file this motion for Judge Goeke
recusal and the request to replace Judge Goeke with a judge appointed by
President Trump, preferably Judge Urda.
ARGUMENT
The Petitioner is perfectly aware and understands that adverse rulings are not
grounds for disqualification or Judge recusal. See United States v. Conforte, 624
F.2d 869, 882 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Carroll, 567 F.2d 955, 958 (10th Cir.
1977); United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 136 (D.C. Cir. 1976); United States
v. Ming, 466 F.2d 1000, 100.3-1004 (7th Cir. 1972).
However, in this proceeding, the impartiality of Judge Goeke has to be questioned
after all the Respondent's motions filed in the U.S. Tax Court were
USCA Case
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
Filed: 10/19/2020 Page 134
314 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W -9 -
denied by the Court but Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with exception to
the politically motivated 11/7/2019 Respondent Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment which was granted to Respondent on 6/4/2020 by Judge Goeke with
gross bias prejudice and double standard against Petitioner.
The partial and politically motivated Judge Goeke Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C.
June 4, 2020) Petitioner, sustained the October 24, 2018 WBO Final Decision
Under Section 7623(a). The Court Order & Decision dated June 4, 2020, basically
nullified all previous Court decisions, erased the Petitioner's whistleblower claims,
and his November 21, 2020, petition with the U.S. Tax Court, thus giving the green
light for uncontrolled corruption to white-collar criminals from the University of
California Office of the President lead by Napolitano and the political swamp in the
State of Californian and federal government agencies like Internal Revenue Service
Whisteblower Office in Ogden Utah or IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt
and Government Entities (TEGE)
In fact the Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on
November 7, 2019 without producing by Respondent any administrative record or
evidence to the Court does not constitute the Respondent's motion valid or
legitimate court documents. Petitioner addressed the Respondent's administrative
record in his 6/29/2020 Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision or Opinion. The
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 135
315 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W - 10-
motion was rubber stamped" Denied "next day with Judge Goeke's name on the
rubber stamp..
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) warrants Judge Goeke's recusal or replacement because a
reasonable person would not believe the judge to be impartial under the
circumstances based on the facts and arguments provided above.
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is similar to, but somewhat broader than, section 455(b).
Any circumstance in which a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
whether or not touched on in section 455(b), requires recusal under section 455(a).
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 553 (1994). Disqualification is warranted
under section 455(a) when a reasonable person would question a judge's
impartiality. 28 U.S.C. 455(a) requires: Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the
United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.
The test for sufficiency of grounds for disqualification hinges on whether the
J udge's "impartiality might be reasonably questioned." United States v. Ritter, 540
F.2d 459, 462 (10 Cir. 1976). The latter test was further affirmed in United States v.
Hines 696 F.2d 722,729 (10 Cir. 1982) which states:
"Under Section 455(a), the judge is under a continuing duty to

ask himself what a reasonable person knowing all the relevant
thcts would think about his impartiality."
The broader of the two provisions, § 455(a), is designed to prevent even the
appearance of partiality. Liljeberq v. Health Services. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S.

#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 136
316 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18 W -11-
847, 860 (1988). Therefore, the judge must recuse himself where there is the
appearance of bias, regardless of whether any actual bias exists. Caperton v. A.T.
Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009) (when impartiality is in doubt, the
appropriate remedy is to disqualify the judge from further proceedings); sec also
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994).
In the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT Aug 31, 2020 Opinion denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus to
Michael Flynn, In re Flynn No. 20-5143 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 31, 2020) Court
pointed in contrary to it is own politically motivated opinion
The "standard for disqualification under § 455(a) is

objective' and "[t]he question is whether a reasonable and
informed observer would question the judge's
impartiality." United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34,
114 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (en bane) (per curiarn), "The very pwllose
of5t is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding
even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible," id.
(quoting Li] jcbcrg v. Health Scrvs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S.
847. 865 (1988)). because "[d]eference to the judgments and
rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity
and independence of judges." In re Al-Nashiri, 921 F.3d 224,
234 (D.C. Cir. 20 19) (alteration in original) (quoting Microsoft
Corp., 253 F.3d at 1 15). Strict adherence to § 455(a)'s command
is required to ensure that every federal judge performs his duties
so that "justice . . . satisflies] the appearance of
justice." LII jeberg, 486 U.S. at 864 (quoting In re
Murchison. 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)). Such adherence is all the
more vital in a high-profile case like this one, in which public
interest is nationwide. See United States v. Tucker, 78 F.3d
1313. 1325 (8th Cir. 1996) (reassigning case to diffirent trial
judge, in part, "[gliven the high profile ... of [the] case in
particular"); In re Bos.'s Children First, 244 F.3d at 169-
USCA Case
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
Filed: 10/19/2020 Page 137
317 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W - 12 -
70 United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985. 995 (10th Cir. 1993).

"Congress enacted subsection 455(a) precisely because 'people
who have not served on the bench are often all too willing to
indulge suspicions and doubts concerning the integrity of
judges, " and "[i]n high profile cases such as this one ....such
suspicions are especially likely and untoward." In re
Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 781-82 (3d Cir. 1992)
(quoting Liljeherg, 486 U.S. at 864-65). A judge must proceed
with the utmost care, then, to ensure that the parties are treated
with the same fairness as those in any other case, that the
administration of the case is handled judiciously and
expeditiously and that he, at all times, maintains seamless
impartiality both in fact and in appearance.
The Petitioner is very hesitant to write this motion for Judge Goeke's recusal
suspecting that the Memorandum - Opinion and the Order & Decision issued on
June 4, 2020 However is a fruit and result of ex-parte communication of the
Respondent's attorney with Judge Goeke's department attorneys, taking into
consideration the Petitioner's similar experiences related to this proceeding in the
corrupted State of California court system.
However, the Petitioner was left with no other option, because whether
Judge Goeke personally participated in writing the Memorandum - Opinion and the
Order & Decision or not, his robber-stamped name justified and legitimized bias
and prejudice, which could impact the Petitioner's wrongful termination cases in the
State Court. Also, Judge Goeke is the Petitioner's age and can quit his job and not
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 138
318 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W - 13 -
serve in the U.S. Tax Court at any time he decides, thus the Petitioner is submitting
this Motion for Assignment of new Judge.
Iv.
CONCLUSION
The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, tellingly wrote in his book,
Making Our Democracy Work (Motion Page 22, 22-24), "The Court itself must
help maintain the public's trust in the Court, the public's confidence in the
Constitution, and the public's commitment to the rule of law." Justice Stephen
Breyer also wrote, "(A) court that acts politically plays with fire"
Personally, the Petitioner has nothing against Judge Goeke or any judge in the U.S.
Tax Court or any other court. However, Petitioner can't not accept and will not
accept the politically motivated Court decisions which have nothing to do with
serving justice in the Court of law which should be impartial and shall not protect
corruption and white collar criminals from state or federal government agencies.
On the contrary, in September 2018, the Petitioner was outraged by the witch hunt
aimed at Judge Brett Kavanaugh, which was carried out by the California political
mob and Napolitano's and Robert Mueller's friends in California.
The Petitioner sent his Open Letter, "In Defense of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and His
Family," to U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary (EXHIBIT # 1)
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 139
319 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W - 14-
littps://www.scrib(i.coin/document/476625769/1 n-Defense-of-J udLe
Kavanau2h-and-ll is-Fa mliv
Chairman Grassley authored the Brief of United States Senator Charles E. Grassley
as Aniicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellee and Affirmance On Appeal
From The United States Tax Court, T.C. No. 21276-13W filed on 10/24/2017
https:/Jwww.scribd.com/docurnent/469320009/1 0-24-201 7-US-Tax-Court-T-C-
NO-2 1276-1 3W-Amicu s-Cu riae-Brief-G rassiev
The Petitioner being witch hunted for 14 years by friends of same political mob
which pursuing ruthless and unpreceded witch hunt aimed President Trump and
associates or appointees thus Petitioner understands very well the meaning of the
"witch hunt" words.
The Petitioner prays that based on the provided facts, documents, and
authorities in the Petitioner's Motion that his motion should be granted and
Judge Goeke should be replaced or recuse himself from this case; that the
Judge Goeke order in part that granted the Respondent Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment should be vacated and that the U.S Tax Court should open
the case and assign a new judge to this case who was appointed to the U.S. Tax
Court by President Donald Trump, preferably the Honorable Patrick J. Urda

#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 140
320 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W - 15-
Dated September 21, 2020
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Petitioner Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (833) 787-3131
Email: jjw 1980@live.com
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 141
321 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W - 16-
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper THE PETITIONER 'S
MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE JOSEPH ROBERT GOEKE AND
FOR ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW JUDGE APPOINTED TO THE U.S.
TAX COURT BY PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, PREFERABLY
HONORABLE PATRICK J. URDA
was served on September 21, 2020 by Electronic Mail to the following recipients:
Trial Judge: Judge Joseph Robert Goeke - U.S Priority Mail

United States Tax Court, Room 331
400 Second Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20217
Darrick D. Sun 1)arrick.I).Sun(airscounsel,treas.gov , -Via electronic -U.S Priority

Mail
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES
Office of Chief Counsel
Large Business & International
701 B Street, Suite 901
San Diego, CA 92101
Don Fort, Chief- U.S Priority Mail

Internal Revenue Service,
Criminal Investigation Department
1111 Constitution Ave. NW
William Barr - U.S Priority Mail

U.S Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 142
322 of 400
384
Docket No. 23105-18W - 17-
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration- U.S Priority Mail

Tracey V. Giannakoulias
Assistant Special Agent in Charge Complaint
Management Team
1401 1-1 Street, NW
Suite 469
Dated: September 21, 2020 By:

Jaroslaw Janisz Waszczuk, Petitioner
206 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242
Phone : 209.663.2977
Fax: 209.787.3131
E-mail : jjwl980live.com
EXHIBIT # 13
EXHIBIT # 14
EXHIBIT # 15
EXHIBIT # 16
20
#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 153
241 of 400
247

WASHINGTON, DC 20217 DRC
JAROSLAW JANUSZ W ASZCZUK, )

)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) DocketNo. 23105-18W.
)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )
)
Respondent )
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Pending in this whistleblower case is respondent's Motion For Protective

Order Pursuant To Rule 103, filed May 15, 2019, to which petitioner filed an
Opposition on June 3, 2019. Thereafter, as relevant, by Order dated July 9, 2019,
the Court explained in detail to petitioner what was at stake with respondent's
motion and directed petitioner to advise the Court whether petitioner wished to
withdraw his June 3, 2019 Opposition to respondent's motion and certify that he
would abide by a Court order granting such motion; or whether petitioner would
not withdraw his Opposition and not so certify, in which latter case the Court
would most likely deny respondent's motion and petitioner would be obliged to
face the potential consequences insofar as his whistleblower case is concerned.
On July 29, 2019, petitioner filed a Reply to the Court's July 9, 2019 Order.
Although such Reply is lengthy, petitioner clearly states that "he is unwilling to
withdraw his June 3, 2019 Opposition to the Respondent and will not certify, and
the Court should deny Respondent's aforementioned motion." Petitioner makes
clear that he continues to oppose the granting of respondent's motion "regardless
of the consequences and fate of his whistleblower claim." Petitioner concludes his
July 29, 2019 Reply by "praying that the relief sought by Respondent in the
Motion for Protective Order shall be denied by the U.S. Tax Court to Respondent."
SERVED Jul 31 2019

#1867250 Filed: 03/10/2022
10/19/2020 Page 154
242 of 400
247
-2-
Premises considered, and consistent with the Court's July 9, 2019 Order, it is
hereby
ORDERED that respondent's Motion For Protective Order Pursuant To Rule

103, filed May 15, 2019, is denied.
Robert N. Armen, Jr.

Special Trial Judge
Dated: Washington, D.C.

July 31, 2019
EXHIBIT # 17
USCA Case
USCA Case #20-1407
#20-1407 Document #188Sml0
Document #1938514 Filed: CD0/29/202CD
Filed: 03/10/2022 Page 310
Page of 3Bli!
164 of 400
Docket No. 23105 -18 w -8 -
Tashima sharply disagreed with two other Circuit Judges the Janet Napolitano old
friend from Arizona Judge Mary M. Schroeder and Judge Judge Berzon from San
Francisco who denied freedom to Hayat. Judge Tashima expressed his feeling about
Hayat's prosecution and incarceration with words:
"This case is a stark demonstration of the unsettling and untoward

consequences of the government's use of anticipatory prosecution as a
weapon in the 'war on terrorism.'"
Judge Tashima on appeal recognized the problem in Hamid Hayat's case and
basically stated in his dissent opinion that the case was a total hoax fabricated by
government agents. Judge Tashima recognized that Hayat became a sacrificial lamb
and that his 24-year prison term delivered by Judge Garland E. Burrell on
September 10, 2007 (Hayat's 25th birthday) had a different purpose other than to
serve justice.
Hamid Hayat in 2001-2007 was the most vulnerable subject of the FBI that
FBI could find in the western Hemisphere that was preyed on by U.S. Attorney
McGregor Scott. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Robert Mueller, Melinda
Haag , McGregor Scott made Hayat a "scare crow" and"sacrifice lamb" to divert
public attention from the resurfacing crimes and white collar criminals in the state
and federal courts in relation to the enormous and very sophisticated scheme of
fraud titled" California Energy Crisis . It was no Al-Qaeda terrorist network
sleeper cells in our Lodi communities and neighborhoods. It was a completely
different
AP-14 AP366
EXHIBIT # 18
EXHIBIT # 19
T4 oF 305
USCA
EiS :.A Case #20-1407 Document
Docuc!'ent#1938514
#1 :723C Filed: 03/10/2022
led 1011 O/202D Page
Paae184 of 400
Department af$n twav y InteS qw."s Ss ts OMil Nuecb&1S450409

Fom 211 Application for Award for
(4sth214) Claim Mummer Ictimicimod by VS)
Original Information
I. Naww of ux4ws (indude s) ondory ftSa'n iapøas w$* oeminAred line vsLAcn 2. Last 4 do of
THE UNIVERSrfl OF CALIFORNIA -OFFICE OF WE ME MEN NUIlteI$Ue g $N IflN. or E1r
.: •. • •. .. . . .. : ..•.. . . .. . ................. :•:flsfl33• ..
3 bApsyets tI&mgbL Sduig LIPde The Regerts of the Umvesnty of Catifomia ' IUXPWt$ S dote O(thr&k ar euc.rw&unatt ant.
IHIHtAN MIN STREET OKLAND Ct15 2 Wi

5 Name and Wic un8 4QIIMU it*aU*IOn of IRS empleyoc to wtum violulloq wn (kMreported, tknvwn
4!A
6. nMBaIOtt iwoded flutnbø S V ardcS 7 1*1 nu *uWn t tts mronn, W other Fede,eI r $ste Mscms
N/A 3 •fps 0 °
& fls'awin number 7, ItinthirAoartarNameaiid dato ouliwiftif
FBI Copy sent on same days as to IRS 0312412016
9 is una, nx *Wtubrornounve 0 Supj$wutnu suUaisn
P a i,i pplenwThø subrtoMn list rrsvuusy assny*d claim nWntS)
40 Mid dakun of fat tjjw &fl*ck at? (Uat
M Income in Q rnpyiiqntiax 0 esban, eii raw 0 laxlExernpteleritis
C] I1 Owermauntai firmotna EEl Eompt O,tu,zabui 0
fl oser4ioeitfp)
It Oesarhsi e Alleged Vitiation, Sbts all partn.stfta to the 3U090d i4olaoit (Attactt a detz'Aada4IwSon and i'dudS all scppthSgnfotmetn
in yncpouonk' and dcwtho tho aual4athltty and location o aty additional supot otniion aol to your pcsitnssion }€q,*Sn why you
beüøva the act dascilbed corgativio a wSttOq of to tax lava
L'NREALThD EItJSINTS NCOME UNDER SECTION 5 11 OF THE iRS CODE
IZ Desnti Fa,w you Itaus about andkt obbthed the in*imlapun that st4lçxids this sin (fleuth sJwM enverimarl
THKOU6H THE PE'WINCi WkOWCWUL TUtMIkNTTON I S1WSC1T ACMWc.T TEE REGENTh OP TUE UKIVE!tsffV oV CAIWORM
It W'iat data did yOu aiiMr this Somiobon rn AtictiS? 201

IA, Wtat is your rdatiomhi icurriant and ftnin}to to a4egad txrconihani taxpsywl;fi Chock S that apjly Mltct seQt if needed)
o Ctnent Fmployee Fx1 Fc*lner Employee U Atomney 0

D ftslvawaSy wintsr fl Othw zdiclbuij SEP REPRESENTED IN WROXCFUIJERMINAflQNIAW3UIT
It Do Wj $4 rnaltn a dattmp with the bxpaor [} Yts [J No
i ff$tonvmber18 detywrmeltntipw,thetaxpoyer
TWO SEPAItA1t LA\\SUIIS RAt gAMLNrotaoutcfl St ruum( LOlift AWNS) D1t RUitiNIS
IT Are you kwolvd lb any ipvammsritsi or tagat proasadln Iwe4no Ins taxpayer J 'Yea [] No
it tfs ti unt.x U tn in detait 'Adsc#i sbn#aecoe4
MVSI 111 AQAI)Jit liii' UNIVM61TV OF CALIFORNIA
* Dascthe lMsiliauntsi tax owed by the tsxpayer(4 P!tkido a summary tttM infcnnaiis you We tttsuppctyour Sim astothe amount owed
(La Saa4cs ladjws scoS rao&^ tax returns sic) WMc* sMst sfl'aade
I SMLIFW IIIAX It U)UIJ) W4 5vIIUJCINS IN utir*ui IAXLi' IM LL1ULMO PVNAI;IY LYUL 10 U 1L).(YAL F1tJcj Y SAIL
21k HU in mcYer widDdAnqunt($J if
Iv $________ TV $ ____ $________TV____ ¶ ________ TV &
21, Name atlndwbS dakitard 22. Qwmur&s data of t4t fMMODYYYY) 23. Last 4 dih oICaivanrs SSN or If IN
JAROSLA\% WASZCZUK Oi,O44S1
A Aud ofcitiionk litslAn 2W aide 5. Tdepiloilc niaUec (Oio11019 ,V'aa WOO
224i% L\74AJJkNWt tODI CA c5242 215446A29'1
* Fma.tadi± JILsc4
2? Drlaffitinp utter PsoSty arPa*juiy I dedars I bayS nal*n*t this Awrlknihml An anrompnseig slitteinani rid stpniliitg dnewntatrn.j and
to the best ot my kaeMtidgp slid bsbot IoWtmi.fvqcompq
role. LOU
Css1tigNunbwt1471S Weiiii.imflov iarm211 (Rov,J-2tri4i
USGACase
USCA Case#20-1407
#20-' 407 Doc urn e n#1938514
Document #1 661250 ied 103/10/2022
Filed: 0/1 9/2020 Page
Page 185 of 305
45 of 400

2216 Katzakian Way
Loch, CA 95242
Phone 209-663-2977
Fax 209-370-8281
E-Mail j_iwl98O@tive.com
March 23, 2016

Whistleblower Office ICE
1973 N Ruton White Blvdd,
MIS 4110
Ogden, UT 84404
Re Application for Award and Addendum to the Application for Award

Violation of the Provision of Section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 by the
Regents of the University of California due to Unrelated Business Income
Dear Sir or Madam
Enclosed is the Application for Award and Addendum to the Application for Award with
exhibits in which I am describing the suspected tax evasion or fraud in the amount of millions of
dollars due to illegal generation and sale of electrical energy by the Regents of the University of
California in conspiracy with State of California government officials or agencies, the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMI Jfl), California Independent System Operator
,
(CAISO) and California Power Exchange (Cal-PX)
The crux of this tax fraud scheme is that almost twenty years ago a group of decision makers
from the University of California got the idea to build a 27-megawatt cogeneration power plant
on one of the university campuses, the UC-Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, CA, which
needed only 5 megawatts of electrical energy and 30,000 pounds per horn of steant
The UC-Davis Medical Center in Sacramento is an integrated part of the University of
California, Davis, located in the city of Davis twenty miles west of Sacramento
In contrast to the UC-Davis Medical Center, the UC-Davis campus's demand for electric
power twenty years ago was around 100 megawatts and demand for steam was around 150,000
pounds per hour, However, the 27-megawatt cogeneration facility was built in UC-Davis
Medical Center instead of being built at the UC-Davis Campus This fact itself shows that
somebody had an idea to make millions of dollars in short time under the umbrella of providing
utilities for the UC-Davis Medical Center.
The 27-megawatt plant is a money-making machine and the UC-Davis Medical Center
cogeneration facility made between $70,000,000 and 80,000,000 free of tax in the years 1999-
2003 by illegally selling electrical energy to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District was
gauging electricity prices selling power on spot market via CAISO Unfortunately, the wheel of
fortune for illegal power merchants was stopped for nine years, most likely because the San
1
Complaint Against LC Regents Tax Fraud
USGACase
USCA Case#20-1407
~~7 407 Document ##1938514
Document I 8672.30 ecL03/10/2022
Filed: 10/i )/2U2L) Page 46 jfof 305
Pare186 400
Diego Gas and Electric Company unexpectedly filed a complaint in 2000 with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission against the California Independent System Operator (CAISO)
and the California Power Exchange (Cal-PX) The CAISO and Cal-PX collaborated in an illegal
power sale from the UC—Davis Medical Center's 27-megawatt cogeneration facility. The
unlawful sale of power by the UC—Davis Medical Center facility was resumed for in June 2012
but ended in December 2013 a few days after I filed wrongful termination lawsuit
In the same time period of 1999-2000 UC Regents defrauded Medical and Medicate and
penalties against university were S 22, 500,0000
The fraud probably would be going on until today if State California Governor Gray Davis
would be not recalled from his office in 2003 and he would bail out Pacific Gas and Electric
from filing Bankruptcy as he promised visiting the Plant on February 14, 2001
Building the 27-megawn power plant was not the same as building a storage shed in the
backyard, which does not require as many permits as building a 27-megawatt power plant in the
wrong place
It was most likely the decision of a narrow group of criminally minded individuals from the
university and beyond to build this cogeneration power plant as a money-making machine for
their personal gain. The University of California system has many ways and forms to distribute
money to personal bank accounts which can't be detected by any audit, especially the
university's internal audit An auditor would be fired from the job if he tried to disclose the
fraud As an example, consider the case of credit card embezzlement at the UC—Davis Medical
Center in which three employees who reported the fraud and the UC—Davis Medical Center
auditor who confirmed the fraud lost their jobs. The case, William Prxndthle v The Regents of
the University of California U S Federal Court Eastern District of California Case No No 2:13-
cv-02256-KJM-EFB, was settled in January 2015 (Please see the attached June 14, 2014 letter
addressed to the University of California Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg)
I apologize that in my Addendum to the Application for Award I have to mix apples with
oranges to chronologically describe the suspected tax fraud committed by the Regents of the
University of California.
S rely,
Jar awW zczuk
As a supporting document I am enclosing the complaint with State Bar of California against
several present and former University of California attorneys, two attorneys of the State of
California Attorney General Office and one former attorney from Porter Scott Law Firm in
Sacramento plus exhibits on the Flash Drive
Also enclosed is a copy of the complaint against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge
Sheilayanne Chang, the former Deputy Chief Secretary for California Governor Grey Davis
CC The United States of America

Federal Bureau of Investigation
2
Complaint Against Ut Regents - as Fraud
T
kJsc:ACase
USCA Case #20-1407
#2.0-1407 Docurneni#1938514
Document #1867250 Eed: 10/1
Filed: g/2020
03/10/2022 Page187
Page 47 ofof305
400
TABLE OF C"TENTS
*JI1EJ DiMS. '..r.it kt .ti
I. INTRODUCTION •.................................41
THE BACKGROU1) OF THE FRAUD SCHEME. #1
Electricity Market Deregulation . 41
The PC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility "Central Phnt I
The LTC Davis Medical Center Versus UC Davis Campus /i 4
III STATEMENT OF FACTS AND EVENTS IN MGI-IT OF THE FEDERAL

ENEGRGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. DOCUMENTS.
The UC Davis Medical Center Power Sale Agreement with California Independent
System operator 46
The San Diego Gas and Electric Complaint Filed with FERC against Major Energy
Sellers, Producers, and Ancillary Serwees on August 2, 2000, with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission 46
The August 6, 1999 California hidcpcndcnt System Operator Memo to Wave the 60-
)ay Waiting Period for It Davis Medical Center to Begin Functioning as a Participant
in the California Power Market 48
August 18 1999 Notice of Self-Certification for the University of California, Davis

Medical Center s 27 MW Cogeneration Pacific FERC Docket No QF99-99-000 810
The September 12 2014 Deep Energy Efficiency and Cogeneration Study Findings
Report - #11
The September 12, 2014 Deep Energy Efficiency and Cogeneration Studs Findings
Report #13
The May 12 2003 CC Davis Medical Center Fuel Allowance Compliance Filing with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No EL00-95-045 3 15
The January 5 2007 mint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited
Consideration Submitted to the United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission 417
USCA
'JSCA Case
Case #20-1407
#2O1407 Document #1867250
DOC&JIIiEnI#1938514 Filed: 10/1 9i20 1 0
Filed 03/10/2022 Paqe188
Page 48 ofof305
400
The UC Davis \{cdia1 Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility Central Plain" in the

Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited Consideration submitted by the
Respondents to the I ERC on January 5, 2007 #19
The i 'inted States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order

Approving the Joint Offer of Settlement 21
IV. 'THE NEW MAY 2012 POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT BET\% EEN THE
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND THE
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT #22
The February 2009 Settlement Agreement with the Regents of the University of
California #22
April 2011 Provocation to Terminate M% Lniplo\ment #23
Litigations Against the Regents of the University of California and the California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board #23
The August 6 2012 Interview of Ut Davis Medical Center (I 'C'DMC) Associate

Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion Dr Shelton Durtnsseau ssith the
Sasainento-based African American Magazine Sac Cultural Hub 25
The Maicli 11 2014, lettet to the Unneistty of Califointa Office of the President
(UCOP) Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg 926
Aftermath of the March II 2014 Letter Addressed to UCOP Principal Investigator
Judith Rosenberg.... ........................... ... #29
V. THE viernis AND COLABORATORS IN UC REGENTS POWER SALE

FRAUD SCHEME * . #31
The Victims list *3l

The I IC Regents Collaborators- Cover up and Condone the Illegal Power Sale and the
in Fraud Scheme 4,17
VI. CONCLUSION.......
.. .........................................................................#45
ii
USCA Case
USCA #20-1407
fl:3sE #20-1407 Docunieni#1938514
Document #1867260 Filed: 0!i 9/2020
!Ted 03/10/2022 Page J9 oof805
Par4e189 400
EXHIBITS
ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION FOR AWARD
Exhibit Number: Description Page No
1 The 295 Pages Draft of the Third Amended Complaint in the Wrongful Termination Case
No 34-2013-001 55479 Ja,oclaw Was:czuk v The Regents of the Unzversitj.. of
Cal;fotrna I
2 'I 'lie UC Regents Motion for Automatic Stay filed September 25 2015 1
3 \Vazuk Opposition to the UC Regents Motion fox AutoAnatic Stay filed on October
13 2015 1
4 The Regents of the Lniversity of California Participating Generator Agreement (PGA)
with California Independent System Operator (CAJSO) signed on July 26 1999 6
5 The Regents of the University of California Meter Service Agreement with C AlSO
signed on Augiict 1 1999 6
6 1 he August 6 1999 California Independent Sstern Operator Memo to Wave the 60-Day
Waiting Period for UC Davis Medical Center to Begin Functioning as a Participant in the
California Power Market S
7 August 18, 1999 Notice of Self-Certification for the University of California, Davis
Medical Center's 27 MW Cogeneration Facility, FERC Docket No QF99-99-000 10
S. The UTC Davis Medical Center Production Report dated February 11. 2001 11
9 The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility Production Report dated
November 11, Y013 12
10 Improper Activities Report dated August 7 2005 13
11 Fax to the California Governor (hay Davis office dated February 14, 2001 14
12 The May 12 2003 UC Davis Medical Center Fuel Allowance Compliance Filing with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Docket No ELOO-95-045 (90 Pages Production
Reports) 15
13 The May 12, 2003 LC Davis Medical Center Fuel Allowance Compliance Filing with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket No EL00-95M45( 175 Pages Production
Reports) 15
14 The UC Davis Med Center Production Report dated May 6 2003 16
15 The January 5 2007 Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited Consideration
Subnuttcd to the United States of America Federal Energy Regulators Comanmsion 17
16 September 2006 Rick luncilo s Suspension 18
17 Machine Oil Discharge the Sacramento Riser from LTC Davis Medical Center
Cogeneration Plant 19
18 The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility "Central Plant" in the Joint
Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited Consideration submitted by the
Respondents to the FERC on January 5, 2007 19
19 Match 1, 2007,the United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Order Approving the Joint Oiler of Settlement 21
USCA Case #20-1407
tJSCA Case #20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1867250 Fed 10/1
Filed: 9/2020
03/10/2022 Page
Page 190 of 305
50 of 400
2t:t. The, Sacramento \I.wi L'inal I ji1i1 District Pt'\'...r Purchaso \.2ICfljtiiE for the I C. D.ii
Medical C enter 2" \E\\ Central I'i.ml signed with the Nct:LtH¼ v!t nncHiy of California
on May 29. 2012 .... -- ....... ...... ...... ----22
21 IlL March 13. 2011 ILILI 'I C Davis \i'diciI Center PIwi Operation .iittl h4aintertance
DwrIin._it1 Uc:td (litItc:. Witcher. ........ . -.23
22, The I (. Davis \o\L'inKt I . 201 I. Pepper Spray Ia'I. Force RL'iOtI.......................24
23 The I U Sejunt- ' ILL J'ic.uieut UWIcI decision in in' whistlebloning retaliation
L'mpIaiI1r IaI...d SrIcnibr 10 201-I......... .... ....................
---- ......... ..............................2 I
......
24. Time 25 2013 letter to the California Senate President Pro I t'nlpLrc Darrel Steinberg;
\.sc,nhI'- member and the (.... jj of the Higher Education ('unmhiIi- Des Williams; and
CIi€tr of tlte Labor Ilk! Employment mclii Unmmuicc Roger Hernandez
25. The May Alt. 2013 eOTllflI3Hll with the California State Ru against 5i' of 1 nk'rsii'_ of
California's LI11I1 R'.cCS \\Il,' were Iiccn'ci by California SUIIL Bar as Ltcrilc'. at law. .
26 Inquires -cut to various state agencies ... ................................................................. ..
27. UC Davis \eiatc Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Durw:'>ean.............. ...........................26
2. The \Iafth IL 2011 lUlL! to the Unit olCalifornia Office l The Prc-idciil (Oh''
Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg ....... ........................................................2c
29. Letter
hr In the I ( I a I'. Health It '-' '.I.Ifl Human 12 'LI 'Inc (HR) Labor Relations -Manager
Travis Lindsey dated \Iarch 27 2014
30 The KlLinptoi- \ Cid1LuL t( C. I' f 170.6i ;'t?iisI ,Iuu:c 'mciL-aiine Chang— ...............:)
31. May, 25. 2015 ku'i- to State ofCalifornia \ttrtrnc Gcu-ral dcpui' YhutntL' >.nrt'n 3''
.C. SiipiiLiii'n for \o\enil1.r IX. 2011 Pepper Spray Settlement ini njlc-d SI.uc' District
Court Eastern District Of California : t;.st . ...\ ' ! - 0'.i-L'(tj\,' _, ..........
33, Ye; UI LI 2011 coircspondence with I-TC Davis Police Le Da' IlL ii.................................I
34 IT, JAMES B.\1<1;t)i1&LTC Davis Police Department officer..................................4'I
3' Illiti!\ for IIl(IL])Cli(I..Iil investigation in the La-c I sent to United States Seluilur lion
])i:tiiiie Feinstein on SCj'LThbel 26. 2111........... ........... ........................................ -15
ii
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#201407 Document
Docunieni #1938514
#1867250 Filed:
riled:03/10/2022
10/19i2020 Page
Page191 of 305
88 or 400
k'A'II16
LAIIIIJR t
U!- A Case
USCA I #20-1407 Document ft 7i-y-
t'&ict;iiiij' #1938514 Filed: ltj 1h2U2O
iL 03/10/2022 Page
PR1 192 of 1r)r
.j r,t 400
Oepeflment of the Treasury internal Revenue Service OMB Number 1545 0409
Farm 21 1 Application for Award for Date
Claim received
(March 2014) Claim number (compet& by IRS)
Original information
1 Name of taxpayer(include aIasqs) and any related taxpayers who committed the violation 2, Last 4 digits of Taxpayer Identification
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA INOEI'ENEDENT Number(s) (e.g., SSN IT1W or ON)
SYSTEM OPERATOR (CA1SO) CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE (CaIPX) N/A
3 Taxpayers address Indtxlthg ZIP code 4 Taxpayer's date of bjrth or approximate age
SEE ATTACHED SUPLEMFNTAL SUBMISSION ADDENDUM TO THE APPLICATION
NA
S Name and tlUe and contact Information of IRS employee to whom violation was first reported, it known
CHARISE WOOD, TEAM MANAGER
6 Dale violation reported On number 5), it applicable 7 Did you submit this Information to other Federal or State Agendas
03/23/2016 [] Yes No
8 If yes in number 7 hat the Agency Name and date sitmttled
(Orginat Complaint) FBI 03/25/2016, US 9th Duthict Attorney 04/11/2016, California Franchise Tax Board 07/262016
9 Is the 0 New submission or [] Supplemental submission
If a supplemental submission, list previously assigned dam number(s) 2016-007481
10 Alleged Violation of Tax Law (check aft that apply)
o Income Tax 0 Employment Tax D Estate & Gift Tax [J tax Exempt Bonds
o Employee Plans [] Governmental Entitles N) Exempt Organ zatlons Excise
[] Other rJer%fy) California Independent Ssterr Operator, (CAISO) California Attorney General Office
II Describe the Alleged Violation State all pertinent facts to the alleged violation (Attach a detailed explanation and include all supporting information
in your possession and describe the availability and location of any additional supporting Information not in your possession) Explain why you
believe the ad described constitutes a violation of the tax laws
SET ADDENDUM TO THE APPLICATION
12 Deane how you learned about Cr4/or obtained the Information that supports this claim. (Attach sheet if needed)
Through the self representation in litigations with the University of California and complaints with state and federal agencies
13 What date did you acquire this information July 2015 July 2018
14 Mat is your relationship (current and former) to the alleged noncompliant taxpayer(s)9 Check all that apply, (Attach sheet %needed)
Current Employee Former Employee [] Attorney D CPA
escribe) litigations and complaints
o Relative/Fanly Member [] Other (d
15 Do you still maintain a relationship with the taxpayer j] Yes C] No
16 If yes to number 15 describe your relationship with the taxpayer
Litigations in State of Californiacourts
17 Are you involved with any governmental or legal proceeding involvIng the taxpayer ] Yes C] No
18 (yes to number 17 Explain in dated (Attach sheet if needed)
See Addendum to the Application
19 Describe the amount of tax owed by the taxpayer(s) Provide a summary of the information you have that supports your claim as to tie amount owed
( e, books ledgers records receipts tax returns etc), (Attach shoetif neadatO
Not sun how much but amount bvt the best guess the amount could be tens of millions of dollars
20 Fill in Tax Year (TV) and Dollar Amount ($) If known
TI 2000 $ 20,000000 TV 2001 $ 20,000,000 TV 2002 $ 10,000000 TV 2003 $ 10000000 TV 2004 $ 10000,000
21 Name of individual clamant 22 Claimants date of birth (MML)DYYfl9 23 Last 4 digits of Claimants 5811 or 11114
JAROSLAV WASZCZUK 05/2011951 6448
24 Address of claimant including ZIP code 25 Telephone number (including area code)
2216 KATZAIUAN WAY 2094563-2977
LOt)!, CA 95242
26 EmaIl address jwcl89@comcast.net
27 Declaration under Penalty of Perjury Itare that I have exarni thi application all accompanying statement and supporting documentation and
to the best of my knowledge and belief are true, fledt. a corn
August 3 2018
Sig of cl"nr Data
Care" Number lsS7lS q 4lrsgov Form211 (ev. 32014)
USCA
(i:;,Case #20-1407 Document #1938514
I Filed: 03/10/2022
I 2C1I: Rij.p193
Page QC rf
of 31)5
400

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 833-817-7080
E-mail: jjw1980live.com
August 3, 1
-018
Charise Wood, Team Manager

Ogden, UT 84404
Re: The Original and Supplemental Submission of Application for Award Claim
No. 2016-007481
Presently, I do not know the status of my original claim (No. 2016-00748 1) which I
submitted to your office in March 2016 The last information that I received from the
Internal Revenue Service's Whistleblower Office was a letter dated October 31, 2016; the
letter informed me that my claim was still open. Also, I did not receive any information
about from my attorney Mark Schlein who suppose to assist me with this complaint.
Along with a summary of my original Application for Award submitted to your office in
March 2016; a review of my litigation against the University of California and the
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; and a review of my complaint with
the State Bar of California against my former attorney Douglas Stein, I have enclosed the
Supplemental Submission for the Application for Award regarding Claim No. 2016-
00748 1.
An enormous tax-fraud scheme played an integral part in the 1999-2003 energy crisis,
which was invented by the authors of the California Electricity Restructuring Act (AB
1890) in collaboration with University of California scholars, professors, and experts; the
California governor's office; and the Enron Power Corporation.
This power-laundering scheme gouged prices and committed enormous tax fraud, all of
which benefited the scheme's key players: the University of California; attorneys
working with the California attorney general's office; California attorneys general Bill
Lockyer (01/04/1999-01/08/2007), Jerry Brown (01/07/2007-01/03/2011), and Kamala
USCA 'c
uSCA Case .crD?
#20-1407 Document #1938514
I Filed: 03/10/2022
•ID/ I *2C1C Page cii of 400
'j:ie194
Harris (01/03/21011-01/03/2017); and the supposedly "nonprofit" California independent

System Operator (CAISO). Throughout the energy crisis engineered by these corrupt
organizations, CAI SO alone managed to pilfer millions—if not billions—of taxpayer
dollars in the process of purposely destabilizing the California and western U.S.
electricity markets and power grids.
All facts point to AG Lockyer as one of the one main inventors of the fraud scheme,
which was initiated during California's electricity market deregulation. As a legislator
and then a beneficiary of the fraud, he and other key players collaborated to profit greatly
from this ruinous scam. After Governor Gray Davis was removed from his post by $1 .7
million dollars from Congressman Darrell Issa's private account, Lockyer became
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's shadow. Governor Schwarzenegger was well loved
because of his role as the Terminator and was a perfect candidate for Lockyer and his
energy crisis collaborators. They wanted Schwarzcnegger to replace Davis because Davis
was not involved in but eventually would have discovered the sophisticatedly designed
energy crisis. With his fame, Austrian mentality, admiration for the Third Reich, and lack
of any clue or knowledge about the California legislature and government, the
Terminator was practically a golden goose for Lockyer. Schwarzenegger and Lockyer
had been casual friends since Lockyers state senate years; the actor chaired the
Governor's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, and the two men toured together
through charter schools in southern California.
In my June 5, 2017, correspondence to Congressman Issa titled "The leftover from

California's energy market deregulation, energy crisis of 1999-2001 ,- I requested
information regarding the 2003 Davis recall election, which was accomplished in large
part due to Congressmen Issa's $1.7 million contribution. Today, I still view the Davis
recall as a very strange and unsolved mystery—especially because it was orchestrated by
the same white-collar criminals responsible for the California energy crisis. However, my
attempt to gather relevant information from Issa was fruitless (see enclosed copy of the
letter).
According to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Judge Hon. Clarence
Thomas, who reviewed CAISO's petition in 464 F3d 861 (2006), No. 04-70635 and No.
04-71613,
N THIS CASE, WE CONSIDER ANOTHER PIECE OF THE

CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS PUZZLE. Before us are petitions for
review from the California Independent System Operator ("Cal.-ISO")
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG &. E"), alleging that the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") committed various
errors in permitting Cal-ISO to re-run certain. Settlement Statements, We
dismiss the petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction We conclude
9
worth a lot more than $300,000, $224,000, or $50,000. Your office will not find the
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant or CAISO on the California Energy Task Force
Enforcement Recoveries. The other issue is lack of surplus powers sales from the
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant since 2009 (see Addendum). Monetary losses due to
the lack of surplus power sales since 2009 are approximately $80 million, However, no
one seems to care. Even UC President Janet Napolitano does not care about $80 million.
In 2016, she was too busy spending $1 million to pay her two friends, former U.S.
Attorneys Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, to conduct a witch hunt directed at Greek-
born UC Davis Chancellor Linda iCatehi. California attorneys general, state auditors, and
even UC Davis chancellors do not care about $80 million that should have been
generated.
As I pointed out in my July 24, , 2018, inquiry addressed to FBI Special Agent in Charge
Sean Ragan at the Sacramento field office (attached), I don't have $1 million to hire
Melinda Haag or McGregor Scott to conduct deeper investigations related to the
attorney general. In fact, my life has been decimated by people like Napolitano and her
white-collar criminal subordinates. I lost my home and $1 million of my income,
benefits, and retirement.
In 2016, 1 hired Mr. Mark H. Schlein—Senior Counsel at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman, PC Law Corporation. Although he is assisting me with my original claim
with the IRS, Mr. Schlein does not represent me in my litigations against the
University of California or the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
represented by the California Attorney General office Therefore, I am seeking an
update on my Application for Award on my own behalf.
However, if your office has any questions about Mr. Schlein' s representation in the
Application for Award, you are welcome to contact him directly:
Mark H. Schlein, Senior Counsel

Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC
12100 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90025
MSchlein@BaumHedlundLaw.eorn
Office: 310-207-3233
Cell: 850-322-7941
Fax: 310-820-7444
I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California and
4
USCA
USCACase
':I:ao #20-1407 1
Document #1938514 iHAirj/
Filed: I 2C1C
03/10/2022 Page
V611e196 of 400
that we lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider Cal-ISO's petition for

review because it implicates FLRC's prosecutorial discretion
Fully understanding the puzzle behind the fraud invented by the white-collar crime
syndicate was impossible for any federal judge. The illegal billion-dollar enterprise that
came to be known as the California energy crisis involved California attorneys general,
CAISO, the Franchise Tax Board, the California Public Utilities Commission, the
University of California Office of the President. the UC Regents, the California
governor's office, and the Enron Corporation.
Lockyer was a key California legislator, attorney general, energy task force chief, party
chief, and treasurer from January 8, 2007, to January 5, 2015. Being in charge of the
settlements put him in a perfect position to maintain and cover up the distribution of tens
of millions in kickbacks stolen by the bullying and greedy power corporations. The
California Energy Task Force led by him and his successors, Jerry Brown and Kamala
Harris, "assembled a group of entities" including the California parties that perfectly
legitimized the artificially engineered energy crisis. Lockyer received hundreds of
millions of dollars in settlements and kickbacks from the power corporations, and no one
initially detected the hoax. The California energy crisis scheme was perpetrated in clever
and underhanded ways.
As I explained in the enclosed inquiry submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

during the California electricity market deregulation, 1 reported one of the major players
in the scheme concocted by Lockyer, CAISO executives, and others. Dynegy Power
Corporation, formerly Destec Energy, committed $240 million of fraud against PG&E
ratepayers and California taxpayers (see Attachments #2729), PG&E did not need
Lockyer, the Attorney General's Energy Task Force, or other California parties to settle
the $240 million of fraud. This amount was massive. After the PG&E settled the fraud
with Dynegy , the settlement hunted me down at the UC Davis Medical Center
(UCDMC), and my life and my livelihood were completely destroyed by the white-collar
criminals from the University of California Office of the President and their UC Davis
and UCDMC thugs. The PG&E settlement is still haunting me throughout the California
courts including the California Supreme Court. However, 1 lost everything; I have
nothing left but my life for these criminals to take.
If your office examines the documents enclosed with this letter, you will see that the
California Attorney General's Energy Task Force Enforcement Recoveries retrieved
settlements as low as $300,000, $224,000, and $50,000 from some listed energy
producers; these lowest three came from listed power producers or public utilities. The
list is also included under Chapter XXV.
In addition, I have enclosed the 19992018 power sales chart from the UCDMC 27 MW
cogeneration plant (Chapter 1 of the Addendum). This chart shows numbers that are
USCACase
USCA Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document#1938514
Document #1867250 Fed: 10/19/2020
Filed: 03/10/2022 Page 197
Page 94 of
of SOb
400
ctfbllY sub ç, ust3 , 2018.
J slaw Waszezuk
CC: FBI, Sacramento Office, Special Agent in Charge Sean Ragan
Mark H. Schlein, Senior Counsel -Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC
ENCLOSED:
• SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD CLAIM
NO. 2016-007481 WITH A NEW 153 PAGES ADDENDUM TO THE
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD
• Attachments -Documents on Flash Drive
• August 3, 2018 Inquiry with FBI IN RE: Violation of my Civil and Human
Rights, Request for Assistance , Cover Letter to FBI Special Agent In Charge
Sean Ragan plus Addendum (Hard Copy and on Flash Drive)
• 6/25/2016 95 pages long Disapproval of the Proposed Order -Sacramento County
Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS Jaroslaw Wuszczuk v.
The Regents of the University of California (Hard Copy and On Flash Drive)
5
)SCA
USCA 'C:#20-1407
Case C'i Document fl
DHlu1en #1938514 I Yfi'J:
Filed: 03/10/2022 Page 198iiof305
fl'e 95• 400
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADDENDUM OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION TO THE

APPLICATION FOR AWARD FOR CLAIM NUMBER: 2016-007481
TITLE; PAGE;
1. MARCH 2016 ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR AWARD .....................1

A. Claim No. 2016-007481 .....................................................................1
B. Subject of the March 2016 Application for Award ................... ... ................ 1
C. The illegal generation of the electricity by the University of California and
Section 501 (c)(3) of the internal Revenue Code of 1954............................... 5
THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR AWARD WITH A DIFFERENT

PERSPECTIVE OF THE TAX FRAUD SCHEME IN RELATION TO
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY MARKET DEREGULATION AND
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS.
'p INTRODUCTION..........................................................................6
A. About myself ..................................................................................6
II. THE CRUX OF THE TAX EVASION AND FRAUD DUE TO VIOLATION
OF SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 19546
A. The main components of the Tax Evasion and Scam. ..... ...................... ........6
B. The Parties in the scheme of fraud ................................. ...... ............. ......7
PRIOR THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKET DEREGULATION......12
A. The 1986-1989 Corruption scandal in State of California legislature............... 12
B. Noticable and relevant names from the time period of 1986-1988................... 12
C. California Senate anti -SLAPP Bill (SB 1264)-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation.................................................................................14
D. The key players in the California Electricity Market deregulation .................. 14
E. The Noticable names from that period .................................................. 16
F. The Noticable names from that period ..................................................16
IV AB 1890 OR "ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING ACT" AB 1890...........17
A. "Electricity Restructuring Act ..............................................................17
B. The AB 1890 addressed California Power Exchange in the Article 4...............17
USCA
USC;Case ifl'
';I:c, #20-1407 Document #1938514
l 0.6 Filed: 03/10/2022
10' I 6/2056 Page
RSi:ie199 ':6
of 305
400
C. The ABI 890 addressed CAISO in the Article No. 3...................................18

ft The AB 1890 addressed Electricity Oversight Board in the Article No. 2 ...........20
E. California privately held Public Utilities companies in AB 1890....................21
IN THE TAX FRAUD AND THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY
RESTRUCTURING ACT (AB 1890)..................................................23
A, University of California campus situated in Yolo County.. .... ...... ............... ..23
B. Demand for power in UC Davis Medical Center ...................................... 25
VI. THE JOIN VENTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UC),
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY (CSU) ENRON
CORPORATION ENERGY SERVICES AND THE CALIFORNIA'S
INDEPENDENT SERVICES OPERATOR (CAISO).............................25
A. One month before CAISO and Ca]PX commenced operation in March 1998.... 26
DIVESTITURE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES AFTER THE
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY MARKET WAS DEREGULATED..........26
A. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE)........................................................26
B. Southern California Edison's Application No. 96-11-046)....... ....... ..............27
C. SDG&E filed an Application No. A.97-12-039 .......................................27
D. PG&E Application No. 98-01-008 .................................... ---- .........27
VIII. HUMBERTO JOSE MILAN - PROGRAM COORDINATOR FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONER AND
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER..................28
A. Jose Milan's relation to Destec Encrgy/Dynegy Power Corporation ............... 28
B. $281.5 Million Settlement with Dynegy in Energy Refund Case .................... 29
C. General Information ................... ..... ...... --- ...................... --- .....3 1
D. The Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) of 1978 & Jose Milan ...... 31
E. Changes in the California Wages and Hour Laws in 1989 ............................32
F. Waszczuk's employment a Power System Engineering Inc..........................33
G. The new owner of the Power Operating Company ............... .... ...................34
H. Alternative Work Schedule in Destec's San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant.
Lathrop, CA .................................................................................34
1. Fraud of the employees 401K retirement plan by Destec ............................ 35
J. Waszczuk's February 15, 1996 meeting with California Area Destec's
Management.................................................................................35
K. Waszczuk claim with the Labor Commissioner's Office. ............. .............. ..37
L. The Hearing and the Labor Commissioner Decision ..................................37
M. Destec's retaliation against Waszczuk after Labor Commissioner's ruling ......38
N. Termination of Waszczuk's employment by Destec Energy inc. /NGC and
Waszczuk's and PG&E litigations against Destec Energy Inc . ................ ......39
7
USCA n-ioi
uc; Case #20-1407 Document
Dr #1938514 Filed: 03/10/2022
10./I 0;20.55 Page 5/ Di
jje200 of 305
400
0, December 1999 3DCA Unpublished Opinion 3DCA Case No. C030005 San
Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. CV 000737................................40
IX, CALIFORNIA ELECTION OF 1998..................................................41
A. The 1998 California election had the following results: ............................... 41

X. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER 27-MW COGNERATION POWER
PLANT.......................................................................................42
A. 1999: UC Davis Medical Center's 27-MW cogeneration power plant named
centralplant .................................................................................42
XL THE VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC UTILITY
REGULATORY ACT (PURPA) AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS...........42
A. The California Senate and Assembly environmental Bills .... ....................... 42
B. Misrepresentations of the law and unlawful conduct of Destec/Dynegy.........47
C. The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant versus Destec's
San Joaquin 50 MW cogeneration power plant ........................................49
ft Gross pollution of the Sacramento River by UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogeneration plant ..........................................................................52
E. The UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento versus the main campus in Davis in
1999 ..........................................................................................56
XII. THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS, ILLEGAL POWER RESALE, AND
MEGAWATTS LAUNDERING BY THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT POWER
OPERATOR, AND CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE.....................58
A. Frozen investment of $65,000,000 in the UCDMC 27-MW plant ...................58
B. $100,000,000 PG&E Settlement-Agreement with Dynegy Inc., and Waszczuk's
lawsuit against PG&E and his attorney Scott Mahn . .................................. 59
C. April 8, 1999 PG&E Application of Termination for Power Purchase Agreement
with Dynegy's San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant........................................ 59
D. SDG&E lifts consumer price caps in summer of 1999.................................60
XIII. ROAD TO ILLEGAL POWER SALE, POWER LAUNDERING, AND TENS
OF MILLIONS IN TAX FRAUD......................................................60
A. Illegal power sale and resale, and power-laundering collaborators ..................60
B. Participating Generator Agreement and Meter Agreement between the University
of California and CAI SO ..................................................................61
C. Notice of Self-Certification ........................... .............. ..... .................. 62
XIV. WASZCZUK'S LITIGATIONS AGAINST DESTEC INC/NGC/DYNEGY
IN1999.......................................................................................63
A. Dynegy's subpoena of Waszczuk' employment record from UCDMC, Case No.
CV04940 ....................................................................................63
8
'JSCA Case
USCA 'n
#20-1407 125011k.
Document #1938514 Filed: 03/10/2022
I0/l DJC2'D I of 505
Page 201 Di 400
XV. STATE OF CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1298(SB 1298).......................64

A. Introduction of SB 1298....................................................................64
B. The UCDMC 27-MW plant as a cogeneration (combined heat and power) system
in light of SB 1298..........................................................................64
C. The People of the State of California Do Enact as Follows: .......................... 65
XVI. THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERTOR AND NEW
CAISO GENERAL COUNSEL CHARLES ROBINSON........................67
A. Charles F. Robinson, new general counsel and senior vice president of CAISO.,.67
B. Deregulation of California electricity market before and after Robinson's hiring.68
XV1I. THE MAN-MADE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS............................70
A. The upward escalation of California electricity prices in May 2000.................70
B. The UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant and the UC San Diego and UC Berkley
cogeneration plants in May and June 2000..............................................71
C. The UC San Diego cogeneration plant in May and June 2000........................72
D. The UC Berkeley cogeneration plant in May and June of 2000......................72
XV1II. THE JULY 27, 2000, AMENDMENT TO THE INTERIM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC AND THE SACRAMENTO
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT...................................................73
A. The subject of the Amendment ...........................................................73
B. Amendment No. 1 of the Agreement ...............................................73
XIX. THE SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPLAINT FILED WITH
THE FERC AGAINST MAJOR ENERGY SELLERS, PRODUCERS, AND
ANCILLARY SERVICES ON AUGUST 2,2000 ...................................76
A. The SDG&E Complaint ...................................................................76
B. The parties that supported the SDG&E complaint filed with the FERC in August
2000 to cap electricity prices .............................................................77
C. The opposing parties to the August 2000 SDG&E complaint ........................79
D. FERC Order issued on August 23, 2000.......................................79
XX. THE CALIFORNA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S "ENERGY TASK
FORCE. ......................................................................................80
A. The California Attorney General's Office ......... ......... .............. .--- ___ ... 80
B. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's "Energy Task Force ............. ... ..... 81
C. AB-265 .......................................................................................83
XXI. THE SEPTEMBER 1, 2000, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
APPLICATION 00-09-001...............................................................83
A. April 8, 1999, PG&E Application of Termination for Power Purchase Agreement
with Dynegy's San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant ........................................83
B. PG&E's September 1, 2000, Application 00-09-001 ..................................83
XXII. THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER 27 MW COGENERATION PLANT
9
USCACase
USCA 'C4.#20-1407
201 tli H1250
Document #1938514 10.' I 0;2{D20
Filed: 03/10/2022 fli:e 202
Page 00 of 305
400
AT THE END OF 2000 AND STATE-WIDE ALERT IN

DECEMBER 2000.........................................................................85
A. Profit generated by the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant ........................85
B. The Stage 3 Power Alert in the State of California ....................................85
XXI". CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 1127 (AB 1127) AND THE UCDMC 27
MW COGENERATION PLANT IN JANUARY 2001 *****************************87
A. AB 1127.......................................................................................7
B. The UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant in January 2001 in light of AB 1127 .87
XXIV VIOLATION OF SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE OF 1954 AND CALIFORNIA TAXATION CODE AND TAX
EVASION BY THE CALIFORNIA INEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR
AND CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE .......................................90
A. California Independent System Operator and California Power Exchange, .. ...... 90
B. State of State Governor Grey Davis's speech on January 8, 2001 ...................91
C. The State of Emergency -EXECUTIVE ORDER D-40-01 ............................94
D. February 14, 2001, Governor Gray Davis tour the UC Davis Medical Center's
27 MW cogeneration plan ........... ....... .............. .................................. 97
F. CaIPX and PG&E Bankruptcy ..........................................................100
F. The Witch Bunt ... ........................................................................ .101
G. The March 2002 California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's lawsuits against
power corporations .......................................................................102
H. Fat Boy", "Death Star", "Forney Perpetual Loop", 'Ricochet", "Ping Pong",
"Black Widow", "Big Foot", "Red Congo", "Cong Catcher ................. ......... 105
1. June 06/06/2002 San Diego County Superior Court complaint Art Madrid v.
Perot System Corporation et al. -Case No. G1C790009; Superior Court of
Sacramento County Case No. 03AS04763: The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
District Case No. C046683 ..............................................................107
J. The October 10, 2017 Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District Unpublished
opinion in case Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et, al
Case No, C0524............................................................................120
K. The July 26, 2016, Tax Evasion And Fraud in Violation of the State of California
Revenue and Taxation Code Complaint against University of California with the
State Board of Equalization -Investigations Division ................................126
THE SETTLEMENTS-AGREEMENTS WHICH HELD CAISO's AND
CaIPX's EXECUTIVES ,DIRECTORS AND MANAGERS HARMLESS,130
A. Getting Our Money Back-Attorney General's Energy Task Force Enforcement
Recoveries.......................... ........................................................ 130
B. The January 5, 2007, Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited
Consideration Submitted to the United States of America Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission .......... ___ ... .. ........................................... 138
10
41 •5f; fl!Th)Th()
USCA Case #20-1407
2D-i iO7 Document #1938514 Filed: 03/10/2022 Page 203 of 400
C. The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility "Central Plant" in

the Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited Consideration submitted
by the Respondents to the FERC on January 5, 2007.................................139
D. The CAISO in the January 5, 2007 Settlement -Agreement .........................140
E. Ultimatum and United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Order Approving the Joint Offer of Settlement. ........... ........................... 143
XXVI. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ILLEGAL POWER SALE AND
TAX EVASION IN THE SECOND DECADE OF THE NEW
NHLLENIUJVI .............................................................................144
A. University of California and CAISO's executives conspiracy and collaboration
with the University of California white collar criminals in illegal power sale and
taxevasion .................................................................................144
B. Amendment No. I of the Agreement ..................................................145
C. May 2012 Power Purchase Agreement between Regents of the University of
California and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) ... ...... ...... 147
D. The Regents of the University of California successfully completed the CAISO
Congestion Revenue Rights registration process ............... ..... ..... ............. 150
E. 2013 California Parties settlement with Powerex over claims arising from the
2000-2001 California energy crisis and CA-ISO's non for profit status ..........ISO
F. Joint Motion to Intervene of the California Parties ................................. ..151
XXVH. CONCLUSION...........................................................................152
11
117
USCA Case #20-1407 Document ;1 C
'):iflirji•H 'I#1938514 1 Filed: 03/10/2022 Page 204
1 of 400
ATTACHMENTS -EXHIBITS ON FLASH DRIVE AND DYD

NUMBER: NAME PAGE NO.
1. MARCH 2016 APPLICATION FOR AWARD .........................................I
2. POWER GENERATION LOGS AND CHARTS FROM THE UCDMC 27
MW COGENERATION PLANT .......................... ............................ ...4
3. 1998 PG&E' RECOVERY OF $100,000,000 FROM DYNEGY POWER
CORPORATION .........................................................................10
4. 1986 TO 1988 FBI CONDUCTED A BRIBERY AND SPECIAL INTEREST
(I3RISPEC) STING OPERATION INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION IN THE
STATE'S LEGISLATURE ................ ......................................... .....12
5. 1998 DIRECT ACCESS SERVICES CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM ON FEBRUARY 19, 1998, WITH ENRON ENERGY SERVICES,
INC..... .... ................................................................................. ........26
6. APRIL 26, 2004 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'
ANNOUNCEMENT OF $281,000,000 RECOVERY FROM DYNEGY ........ .29
7. CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
JOSE MILAN ............................................................................31
8. IWC ORDER 1-89 ........................................................................35
9. DESTEC'S 401K RETIREMNET PLAN $ 4.000.000.00 FRAUD.. 35
10, PILLSBURY, MADISON & SUTRO LLP ATTORNEY WILLIAM GAUS
LETTER ABOUT CORRUPTED STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER JOSE
MILAN ....................................................................................35
11. SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 DLSE'S DECISION IN UNPAID OVERTIME .. . 37
12.WASZCZUK'S JANUARY 1998 CORRESPONDENCE WITH PG&E CHIEF
COUNSEL DAVID FLEISIG..........................................................40
13. CASE NO, 986126 PG&E vs. DESTEC ENERGY INC ......... ...................40
14, APRIL 29, 1998, WASZCZUK'S WRONGFUL TERMINATION LAWSUIT
AGAINST DESTEC/NGC...............................................................40
15. DYNEGY'S 1,218 MW ENCINA POWER PLANT..............................40
16. DECEMBER 3, 1999 THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT (3DCA) UNPUBLISHED OPINION IN CASE NO. C030005
WASZCZUK vs. DSESTEC ENERGY INC .........................................40
17.UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER FIVE EMERGENCY GENRATORS ........57
12
:C-1 107
USCA Case #20-1407 Document Th F0 /250
D.Dcurji.sr 'I #1938514 E02'220
FC:.cj 03/10/2022
Filed: Page 205 of 400
18.WASZCZUK'S MARCH 27, 1999 LETTER TO PG&E CHIEF COUNSEL

DAVID FLEISIG ...................................................... ...... .............. 59
19. CASE NO, CV 0077112 WASZc'ZUK vs. MALM AND CASE NO. CV 007392
WASZC'ZUKvs. PG&E ......... ..................
............... ... ... ....... ... ... ......... ... .59
29. THE REQUEST TO WAVE THE 60-DAY WAITING PETRIOD AND METER
AGREEMENT BETWEEN UC AND CAISO FILED BY FERC ON AUGUST
13, 1999 NO. ER99-4011-000 .............................. --- ........ ..... ....... 61
21. AUGUST 18, 1999, THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER (UCDMC) NOTICE
OF SELF-CERTIFICATION (FERC FORM 556)....................................62
22.UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER PRODUCTION REPORT DATED
DECEMBER 20, 2000, WHICH WAS SENT TO FERC-DOCKET NO. ELOO-
95-045 .......................................................................................63
23. UC BERKELEY COGENERATION FACILITY"............... ......... ........... 72
24. JULY 27, 2000 INTERIM AGREEMENT BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E), SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY
DISTRICT (SMUD) AND CAISO ...... ....................................... .........73
25. August 2, 2000 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC COMPLAINT WITH THE
FERC AGAINST THE SELLERS OF ENERGY AND ANCILLARY
SERVICES................................................... ..... .......................... 76
26. FERC ORDER DATED AUGUST 23, 2000..........................................79
27.1999 $240,000,000 PG&E RECOVERY FROM DYNEGY'S FRAUD OF
($100,000,000 NET VALUE AT THE RELEVANT TIME) ... ...... ............. .82
28. SEPTEMBER 1, 2000- PG&E FILED APPLICATION 00-09-001(U39 E)
WITH THE CPUC IN THE 2000 ANNUAL PROCEEDING .... .... .........83
29.CPUC decision on PG&E's application 00-09-001 (U3 E)....................83
30. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER (UCDMC) "CENTRAL PLANT." THE
PLAQUE IN THE BUILDING'S FRONT ENTRY .......................... ........87
31. DECEMBER 2000BRIEF SUBMITTED TO CAL/OSHA DISTRICT
MANAGER WILLIAM ESTAHRI ........................ ............................. 88
32. THE GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS STATE OF STATE SPEECH OF 2001-
"CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS " ...................................................91
33. DECEMBER 13, 1981 POLISH COMMUNIST SECRET POLICE ARREST
WARRANT ............ ................................................ .... ..... ........... 93
34. THE COPY OF THE FAX TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS
DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2001 .........................................................99
13
USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1938514 F '-i 03/10/2022
Filed: çir' E/2C2C' Page 206 of 400
iaqr:
35. MARCH 2002 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'S

LAWSUITS AGAINST POWER PRODUCERS IN SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERIOR COURT.....................................................................103
AGAINSTPG&E .......................................................................104
AGAINST ENRON .....................................................................105
AGAINST MIRANT ...... ...... ........................................ .. .............. 105
39. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S BILL LOCKYER'S ENERGY WHITE PAPER
PAMHLET ...............................................................................105
40, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (3DCA) OPINION CERTIFIED FOR
PUBLICATION OPINION IN THE CASE ART MADRID vs.. PEROT
SYSTEM coRPoIATIavn, at CASE NO, C046683, CITED AS 3DCA
CASE:[ 130 CAL,APP.4TH 440,30 CA.LRPT.R.3.I) 2101 107
41, CALIFORNIA SUPREME CASE NO: 5245982- RE: STEIN ON DISCIPLINE
DECISION DATED MARCH 1,2018. .... .................................................. 120
42. OCTOBER 10,2017 3DCA OPINION IN CASE NO . C079524 WASZGZUK vs.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA .......................120
43. OCTOBER25 ,20I7 3DCA PETITION FOR REAHEARING CASE NO.
C079524 WASZC'ZUK vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA......................................................................................121
44. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT -PETITION FOR REVIEW CASE NO.
S245508 W4SZZUK vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
('ALIFORNIA ......................................................................................121
45. WA.SZCZUK' S :DECEMBER, 1, 2017 FILED .MOTION IN THE SUPREME
COUR.T TO TRANSFER W.ASZCZUK'S OT.HER 3DCA APPEAL To THE
SUPREME COURT OR OTHER CALIFOR].'IA, AIPELLATE. DUE TO
CORRUPTION IN 3DCA CASE NO. C079254 WASZCZUK vs.
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD (CUIAB)
............................................................................121
46. APPELLANT REPLAY BRIEF FILED IN 3DCA ON 10/17/2016 IN CASE
C079254.................................................................................122
GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN OFFICE.........................................125
SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE HON, CANTIL- SAKAUYE-RE: EVIL
14
50. AUGUST 31, 2016 ENQUIRY SENT TO US CONGRESSMAN JOHN

GARA..M.ENDI ABOUT UC .DAVIS CHANCELLOR LARRY
VANDEROEF'S RECOGNITION ON THE U.S CONGRESS
51.SEPTEMBER 2016 CORRESPONDENCE WITH CALIFORNIA SENATOR
CATHLEEN GALGIANI.............................................................125
52.MARCH 2018 WASZCZUK CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE CLERKS
FROM THE 3DCA.......... ..... 25
53. AUGUST 2016 WASZCZUK COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AGAINST UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS ANALOGOUS TO THE
COMPLAINT, WHICH WASZCZUK SUBMITTED TO U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES IN
MARCH 2016........................................................................126
54. JUNE 26, 2002, MEMO SENT TO UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (UCOP) BY. DENISE HUBBARD, A
REPORTING SPECIALIST FROM THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE
TAXBOARD...................................................................126
55."THE PERFECT IMAGE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA".................................................................127
56.JANUARY 5,2007 JOINT OFFER OF SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION, WITH ACCOMPANYING JOINT
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT AND AUTOMATED POWER EXCHANGE
(APX) ............ ..... ............................ .... ...... ........... ....................138
57.JANUARY 19, 2007 COMMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT
SYSTEM OPERATOR CORPORATION CONCERNING JOINT OFFER OF
SETTLEMENT INVOLVING THE AUTOMATED POWER EXCHANGE. 140
58.MARCH 1, 2007, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE APX JOINT OFFER
OF SETTLEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
AGREEMENT.. ....... ... ... --- ........................... ---- ................ .143
59.JULY 27, 2000 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE INTERIM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E),
15
USCA Case #20-1407
2D-i iO7 urjier Th
Document 1 /75C
#1938514 Filed: 03/10/2022 Page 208 of 400
SACRAMENTO MUNiCIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (SMUD), AND

CAISO....................................... ...... ........................................ 144
60.MAY 31, 2012 UC REGENTS UNLAWFUL POWER PURCHASE
AGREEMENT WITH SACRAEMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILTY DISTRICT
(SMUD) ......... ..................................................... ..................... 148
61. ANNUAL EMISSION TEST FOR JET LM2500 GAS TURBINE AND
FOUR AUXILIARY NATURAL GAS FIRE BOILERS IN UCDMC
COGENRATION PLANT .............................................................148
62.2013 UCDMC 27 MW COGENERATION PLANT POWER SALE TO
SMUD LOG -ILLEGAL AND TAXABLE.......................................149
63. DECEMBER 22, 2014 WITCH STATED THAT:" THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE
CAISO CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHTS REGISTRATION PROCESS"
TO LAUNDER MEGAWATT OUT OF UC CAMPUSES .......................149
64." MOTION TO INTERVENE OF THE CALIFORNIA PARTIES" THE
MOTION WAS FILED IN BY CALIFORNIA PARTIES IN THE IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ON
FEBRUARY 4, 2014 CASE NO: 14-70326..........................................151
65. DECEMBER 4, 2013,FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
(FERG) APPROVED CONTESTED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN POWEREX
CORP. (POWEREX) AND THE CALIFORNIA PARTIES FILED ON
AUGUST16,2013 ......................... _ .......................................... 151
16
EXHIBIT # 20
15
USCACase
USCA C:;'se#20-1407
#2fli245 #185325
Document #1938514
Document leci:03/10/2022
Filed: 07/16/2020 Page 210 of 400
US TAX COURT US TAX COURT
RECEIVED eFILED
JRB
DEC 52019
12:00 PM
10 DEC 52019
MANDY MOBLEY LI,

Petitioner,
IT'

Respondent
RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Ee .43 of To!:)
J:5LA Case
USCA 'Ce #20-1407
#2fl-245 Dcur11en
Document ft35325
#1938514 Filed:
le::. 03/10/2022
D7!i€./2C2C Page
Psce211
41 of 400
MANDY MOBLEY LI,
Petitioner,
Docket No. 5070-19W
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Filed Electronically
Respondent
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
RESPONDENT MOVES, pursuant to Rule 121 of the Tax Court's
Rules of Practice and Procedure, for summary judgment in
Respondent's favor on all the issues in this case.
IN SUPPORT THEREOF, Respondent respectfully states:
1. The pleadings in this case closed on May 17, 2019. This
motion is made at least 30 days after the date that the
pleadings in this case closed, within such time as not to delay
trial, and not within 60 days before the first day of the
Court's session at which the case is calendared for trial. T.C.
Rule 121(a).
2. Concurrently with this motion, Respondent has filed a
Motion for Leave to File Declaration Under Seal (Motion for
Leave) , and lodged, under seal, the Declaration of Layne Carver,
with accompanying exhibits setting out the relevant documents
contained in the administrative record.
Pr .IL of Tc:tj
USCA
1:3 A Case
'Ce e.#20-1407
2i1- Document
Dumen #1938514
I Filed: 7/ fi.f,:
' 03/10/2022
1
Page
REia. 212
2 of 400
Docket No. 5070-19W -2-
FACTS:
3. Petitioner filed Form 211, Application for Award for
Original Information, which was received and date stamped by
Respondent on December 10, 2018. Declaration Ex. A.
4. In the Form 211, Petitioner alleged that the target
taxpayer had false reporting item. Declaration Ex. A.
5. Petitioner's claim was assigned claim number 2019-
003513. The Whistleblower Office then sent Petitioner an
acknowledgement letter dated December 18, 2018. Declaration
Ex. B.
6. On February 6, 2019, an initial classifier under the
direction of Respondent's Whistleblower Office, Marie Holt,
reviewed Petitioner's Form 211. After reviewing the Form 211 and
the target taxpayer's returns for the periods covering the
allegations, Ms. Holt recommended Petitioner's claim be rejected
because the "[a]llegations are not specific, credible, or are
speculative" and the "[taxpayer] has not violdated [sic] the tax
laws as the [whistleblower] has stated." Declaration Ex. C.
7. On February 8, 2019, Lisa Marturello, a Tax Examining
Technician for Respondent's Whistleblower Office, drafted an
Award Recommendation Memorandum (ARM) for Keith Dehart, Manager
of the Initial Claim Evaluation (ICE) unit. Ms. Marturello
J
J:$LACase
USCA 'Ce. 2n-245
#20-1407 Dccuriien#1938514
Document tP65325 Filed: 03/10/2022 ['ç 213
Page . of 400
Docket No. 5070-19W -3-
recommended the claim be rejected based on the recommendation of
Ms. Holt. Declaration Ex. D.
8. As reflected in Exhibits C and D of the Declaration,
Petitioner's Form 211 was not forwarded to any IRS examiner for
possible action.
9. As a result, by letter dated February 8, 2019,
Respondent's Whistleblower Office rejected Petitioner's claim
for an award. Declaration Ex. E. The letter, stated in part:
The claim has been rejected because the

information provided was speculative and/or did
not provide specific or credible information
regarding tax underpayments or violations of
Declaration Ex. E.
10. On March 13, 2019, Petitioner timely filed the petition
with this Court.
ANALYSIS:
11. A motion for summary judgment may be granted where
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and where the
moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Tax
Court Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.
518, 520 (1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994)
12. The Tax Court reviews whistleblower award
determinations made by Respondent's Whistleblower Office under
section 7623 for an abuse of discretion based on the
Tc:tj
USCA
iJ:$LACase
'Cd4 #20-1407
2 Document
Dirnen #1938514
I !7/I/lDI
Filed: 03/10/2022 Page 214 of 400
Docket No. 5070-19W
administrative record before the Whistleblower Office. Kasper v.
Commissioner, 150 T.C. 8, 20, 23 (2018) . Review for abuse of
discretion means that the reviewing court will not substitute
its judgment for that of the Whistleblower Office, but will
decide whether the agency's decision was based on an erroneous
view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the facts.
Id. at 24.
13. Under section 7623, the Secretary has the authority to
pay an award for the detection of underpayments of tax, or the
detection and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty of
violating the internal revenue laws, from the proceeds of
amounts collected by reason of the information provided.
14. If the Secretary proceeds with an administrative or
judicial action based on information provided by a whistleblower
and collects taxes, the whistleblower will, subject to certain
conditions, receive an award of 15 percent to 30 percent of the
proceeds collected resulting from the action. I.R.C. § 7623(b).
Thus, the determination to pay a whistleblower award under
section 7623(b) (1) is dependent on two prerequisites: (1) the
Commissioner must proceed with an administrative or judicial
action based on the whistleblower's information; and (2)
collected proceeds must result from the action. See Cohen v.
Commissioner, 139 T.C. 299, 302 (2012), aff'd, 550 F. App'x 10

USCA
:$LA Case #20-1407
'Ce s. 2O- 245 Document
r)yJr11e #1938514
I Filed: 03/10/2022
!7/1 6/:.?111'i Page 215 C:of 400
Docket No. 5070-19W -5-
(D.C. Cir. 2014); Cooper v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 597, 600
(2011) (Cooper II) ("[A] whistleblower award is dependent upon
both the initiation of an administrative or judicial action and
collection of tax proceeds.") Where it is undisputed that
Respondent did not proceed with an administrative or judicial
action against the taxpayer and did not collect any proceeds
after considering the petitioner's claim, the petitioner has not
met the threshold requirements for a whistleblower award under
section 7623 and Respondent is entitled to a decision as a
matter of law. Cooper II, 136 T.C. at 601; cf. Lacey v.
Commissioner, 153 T.C. No. 8, slip op. at 44 (2019) (denying
respondent's motion for summary judgment where a dispute existed
as to whether the whistleblower office actually considered the
petitioner's claim).
15. In this case, Respondent is entitled to summary
judgment because there are no genuine issues of material fact
and Respondent's Whistleblower Office did not abuse its
discretion in rejecting Petitioner's claim for award.
16. The administrative record reflects that Respondent's
Whistleblower Office reviewed Petitioner's information and sent
the information for initial evaluation by Respondent's
classification function. The initial classifier, Ms. Holt,
reviewed the information and the target taxpayer's returns, but

USCA ::e #20-1407
:$c:/,Case Document
DJr11en #1938514
tt •':03/10/2022
Filed: !7Hi C.!:.?D1 IJ: Page .•JU of 400
Psq 216
Docket No. 5070-19W -6-
recommended that the claim be rejected because the information
was not specific or credible and the returns reviewed did not
support Petitioner's allegations. Thus, Ms. Holt forwarded the
information back to Respondent's Whistleblower Office with the
recommendation that the information not be pursued.
17. The Whistleblower Office adopted the recommendation
from the initial classifier and a determination letter was
mailed to Petitioner rejecting her claim.
13. Because the administrative record reflects that
Respondent did not proceed with an administrative or judicial
action after reviewing Petitioner's claim and information - and a
whistleblower award depends upon both an action and the collection
of proceeds the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in
rejecting Petitioner's claim for an award. See Cohen 139 T.C. at
304; Cooper II, 136 T.C. at 601. Accordingly, Respondent is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
19. Respondent respectfully states that counsel of record
has reviewed the administrative claim file and on the basis of
the review of the file and the pleadings, concludes that there
remains no genuine issue of material fact for trial.
'1CI i rif Tc:t•

iSCA':la
USCA Case so#20-1407
#201 245 Document#1938514
Document #16532 5 I eci:03/10/2022
Filed: 07/1 6t2020 Page 217
Page 47 of
ofI400
13
Docket No. 5070-19W -7-
20. Petitioner objects to the granting of this motion.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this motion be granted.
MICHAEL J. DESMOND
Chief Counsel
Digitally signed by
JDFNB
Date: 2019.12.05
09:18:41 M500
By:
BRANDON S. CLINE
Senior Attorney
Large Business & International
Tax Court Bar No. CB0316
1000 South Pine Island Road,
Suite 300
Plantation, Florida 33324
Telephone: (954) 423-7991
OF COUNSEL:
BRUCE MENEELY
Division Counsel (SBSE)
ROBERT W. DILLARD
Acting Area Counsel (SBSE: AREA 3)
JOHN T. ARTHUR
Associate Area Counsel (SBSE: AREA 3: ATL)
50 of Total)
UsC;ACase
USCA .--:as #'20- 1'245,
#20-1407 Document#1938514
Document #1853215 Eeci: 03/10/2022
Filed: 07/16/2020 1R or
Page218
Page 13
of 400
Docket No. 5070-19W -8-
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was served on
Petitioner by mailing the same on December 52019 in
a postage-paid wrapper addressed as follows:
Mandy Mobley Li
119 Kennemer Court
Johns Creek, GA 30097
Digitally
signed by
JDFNB
BRANDON S. CLINE
Senior Attorney (LBI)
Tax Court Bar ?o. CB031E
Pac1e 51 of Tola)
EXHIBIT # 21
USCA Case
USCA ':i #20-1407 Document
ur1H #1938514
lre ) )
18 Filed: 03/10/2022
1I P lIt: 220 of 400 JRB
Page

WASHINGTON, DC 20217
MANDY MORLEY LI,
Petitioner(s),
V. Docket No. 5070-19W.
Respondent
ORDER
On December 5, 2019, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this case
pursuant to Rule 121, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure Respondent's motion states
that petitioner objects to the granting of this motion. The Court will order petitioner Mandy
Mobly Li to file a response to respondent's motion.
If Ms. Li disagrees with the facts set out in the respondent's motion, then her response
should point out the specific facts in dispute If she disagrees with the respondent's argument as
to the law, then her response should also set out her position on the disputed legal issues. Q&As
that the Court has prepared on the subject "What is a motion for summary judgment? How
should I respond to one?" are available at ustaxcourtgov/taxpayerjnfo_start.htm#START4O and
are printed on the page attached to this order.
Ms. Li should note that Tax Court Rule 12 1(d) provides, "If the adverse party [ie., Ms.
Li] does not so respond [to a motion for summary judgment], then a decision, if appropriate, may
be entered against such party-i.e., against Ms. Li. To resolve respondent's motion for summary
judgment, it is
ORDERED that, on or before December 26, 2019, petitioner shall file an opposing
written response, if any, to respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment Failure to comply with
this Order may result in the granting of the motion for summary judgment.
Courtney D. Jones
Judge
Dated: Washington, D.C.

December 9, 2019
57 SERVED Dec 122019

USCA Case
USCA 2fl'-243
'Ch #20-1407 Document #1938514 7'lC/2C?'D
Filed: 03/10/2022 fli :ie221
Page 1 iI:[
of 400
-2-
What is a motion for summary judgment? How should I respond to one?
The motion. A motion for summary judgment requests a ruling from a judge on some or all of
the issues in a case before trial. If a motion for summary judgment is filed, the judge wiLl review
the documents submitted by the parties and consider whether the case can be decided without a
trial The party filing the motion must show that there is no genuine dispute of any important fact
and that the party filing the motion is entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law See
Rule 12].
Your response. If the Court orders you to file a response to a motion for summary judgment,
your response must: specify which factual statements in the motion for summary judgment you
dispute, state what you contend the actual facts are, and cite the specific evidence that you rely
on to support your factual contentions. That is, you must do more than deny or disagree with the
motion. Instead, you must set forth specific facts that establish there is a factual dispute and that
a trial is necessary to resolve that dispute. It is not enough merely to claim that a fact is in
dispute. You must support your claim that there is a question about a material fact (or facts) by
submitting with your response the evidence on which you rely.
Your evidence Your supporting evidence may include your own sworn affidavit or unswom
declaration given under penalty of perjury. (Form 18, Unsworn Declaration under Penalty of
Perjury). Your declaration can state facts about which you have personal knowledge. If your
evidence includes documents, then you should submit those with your response (preferably
numbered as Exhibits), and your declaration should identify and authenticate those documents.
Your supporting evidence may also include other affidavits, stipulations, admissions, answers to
interrogatories, or deposition transcripts
Legal disputes. A motion for summary judgment may involve not only factual disputes but also
legal disputes. If you disagree with the IRS's explanation of the law that applies to your case,
you should explain your disagreement and cite the statutes, regulations, or other authorities that
apply to your case.
Failure to respond. If the IRS files a motion for summary judgment in your case and the Court
orders you to file a response, then your failure to file a response may be grounds for granting the
motion. See Rules 121(d) and 123(b).
Results of summary judgment If a motion for summary judgment is granted in favor of the IRS,
then there will be no trial, and a judgment will be entered against you. Similarly, if you file a
motion for summary judgment and it is granted, then there will be no trial, and a judgment will
be entered in your favor S
3C1H Tct
EXHIBIT # 22
EXHIBIT # 23
EXHIBIT # 24
EXHIBIT # 25
EXHIBIT # 26
EXHIBIT # 27
EXHIBIT # 28
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document
#1938514
#1914186 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
09/15/2021 Page
Page
262
1 of 1
400

____________
USTC-23105-18 W
Filed On: September 15, 2021
Appellant
v.
Appellee
BEFORE: Rogers, Millett, and Katsas, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the record from the United States Tax Court and the briefs
filed by the parties, it is
ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that this case be held in abeyance
pending this court’s disposition of Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245
(D.C. Cir.), 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).
The parties are directed to file motions to govern future proceedings within 30
days of the court’s disposition of Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:

BY: /s/
Manuel J. Castro
Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT # 29
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document
#1938514
#1925855 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
12/08/2021 Page
Page
264
1 of 1
400

____________
USTC-23105-18 W
Filed On: December 8, 2021
Appellant
v.
Appellee
BEFORE: Millett, Wilkins, and Jackson, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to vacate and for other relief, it is
ORDERED that the motion to vacate and for other relief be denied. This case
remains in abeyance pending this court’s disposition of Li v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.).
Per Curiam
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page265
1 of
of83
400
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

333 Constitution Avenue, NW
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
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page266
2 of
of83
400
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-
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page267
3 of
of83
400
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-
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page268
4 of
of83
400
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-
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page269
5 of
of83
400
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-
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page270
6 of
of83
400
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-
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page271
7 of
of83
400
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-
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page272
8 of
of83
400
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-
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page273
9 of
of83
400
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-
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page274
10 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page275
11 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page276
12 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page277
13 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page278
14 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page279
15 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page280
16 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page281
17 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page282
18 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page283
19 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page284
20 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page285
21 of 83
400
Dated: October 1, 2021 ________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Waszczuk Pros Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
- 21 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page286
22 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page287
23 of 83
400
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 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page288
24 of 83
400
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 -
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
(DOJ) Tax Division, Appellate Section
P0 Box 502, Ben Franklin Station
Email: Jacob.e.christensen@usdoj.gov
Email: regina.s.moriarty@usdoj.gov
- 24 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1938514
#1916342 Filed:
Filed:03/10/2022
10/01/2021 Page
Page289
25 of 83
400
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
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 -
EXHIBIT # 30
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1245 Document
Document
#1938514
#1921089 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
11/05/2021 Page
Page
291
1 of 1
400

____________

USTC-5070-19W
Filed On: November 5, 2021 [1921089]
Mandy Mobley Li,
Appellant
v.
Appellee
BEFORE: Circuit Judges Henderson and Millett, and Senior Circuit Judge
Sentelle
COURTROOM MINUTES OF ORAL ARGUMENT
PROCLAMATION BEING MADE, the Court opened on Friday, November 5, 2021 at

10:19 a.m. The cause was heard as case No. 2 of 2 and argued before the Court by:
Mandy Mobley Li (Pro Se), counsel for Appellant.

Matthew S. Johnshoy (DOJ), counsel for Appellee.
Robert Manhas (Court-Appointed), Amicus Curiae.
FOR THE COURT:

BY: /s/
Anne A. Rothenberger
Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT # 31
Certificate of Transcription
Transcription of “20-1245”
We, Vanan Online Services, Inc. a professional transcription company, hereby certify that
the above-mentioned document(s) has/have been transcribed by our qualified and
experienced transcriber(s) is/are accurate and true transcription of the original document(s).
This is to certify the correctness of the transcription only. Our transcriber is in no way
related, by immediate family ties or marriage, to any parties related to the materials
transcript. Transcription was done in the regular course of business.
A copy of the transcription is attached to this certification
Date: 02nd February of 2022
Vanan Online Services, Inc.

EIN 81-3795675
ATA Member #266532
ISO 9001:2015
Central Park Corporate Center

Vanan Online Services, Inc.
1320 Central Park Blvd. Suite 200, Office 227
Fredericksburg VA 22401
Email: support@vananservices.com
Website: www.vananservices.com
20-1245
1 Madam Clerk: Case number 20-1245, Mandy Mobley Li a balance versus Commissioner
2 of Internal Revenue. Ms. Li for the appellant, Mr. Johnshoy for the appellee, Mr. Manhas Amicus
3 Curiae.
4 Judge Henderson: Miss Li, please proceed.
5 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: Thank you Judge Henderson, may it please the court. This is the
6 case of an abuse of discretion. I humbly request that this court review the tax court's decision to
7 grant opposing counsel's motion for summary judgment. Both opposing counsel and Amicus have
8 raised jurisdictional concerns, however jurisdiction is not a barrier preventing this court from
9 hearing the merits of this case, therefore when this court has been satisfied that no jurisdictional
10 issue exists, I request that we proceed to the merits of this case. This court has jurisdiction,
11 exclusive jurisdiction to hear tax court decisions under 26 USC Section 7482A1. This jurisdiction
12 allows the ... this court to review cases that are grants of summary judgment, which is what we
13 have. The record will show that the commissioner did not meet his burden of showing that there
14 was no issue of material fact. The WO rejection grounds lacked sound basis in fact and the WO
15 rejection decision was not supported by the administrative record. Therefore this court should
16 reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings in the tax
17 court.
18 Judge Henderson: But can you, can you tell me how ... if you, if you got the relief you
19 want, how would that give you any kind of remedy?
20 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: It would give me the opportunity to be heard, Your Honor.
21 Judge Henderson: The opportunity to be heard, but you have been heard. You've been
22 heard by the office, you've been heard by the tax court, you're being heard by this court.
1
20-1245
1 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: Your Honor, although I have had audiences with both courts and
2 the WO, my position is that the WO did not consider the information which is submitted and the
3 tax court or the tax care and … tax relief and Healthcare Act of 2006 requires that they analyze
4 my claim and either investigate or assign it and they did neither.
5 Judge Henderson: Well but, I mean, they, they definitely looked at it. We have a record
6 here of things that they've, they’ve kind of want to be careful about what we talk about. We have
7 a record of things that look into [indiscernible] [00:03:00] it's not that you want to be heard. You
8 say that you want them to do still more examination, is that right?
9 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: Your Honor, I want to exercise my legal right of review under the
10 APA.
11 Judge Henderson: So, but you had reviews. So, you want ... what you want to say is you
12 want more review, right? You don't deny that they reviewed what you submitted to them. You
13 just wanted them to look further, look at more stuff.
14 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: I want them to consider everything that was presented to them,
15 and the record will show that they did not.
16 Judge Henderson: And once that happens, where does the statute give you a remedial
17 right? They have actually ... they have analyzed the information you gave them to … for a court
18 to dictate sort of the contours of the examinations. Normally that sort of enforcement stuff is
19 discretionary with the executive branch.
20 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: Yes Judge Millett, discretionary decisions are unreviewable,
21 however, and that is something that I believe opposing counsel did raise. That is not the situation
22 in this case. For example, the Commissioner could have issued a one dollar reward and I would
23 not have a legal remedy to ask the tax court to review that award, but that is not the case here.
2
20-1245
1 Judge Millet: Are you claiming it right, are you claiming that your injury is that you didn't
2 get an award?
3 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: No Your Honor, my injury is that the WO did not consider, they
4 foreclosed my possibility of receiving an award because they did not consider everything that was
5 presented to them.
6 Judge Millet: But even if they considered it that wouldn't give you an award.
7 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: That would be their determination, Your Honor.
8 Judge Millet: So they would have to consider it and then they would have to choose to
9 exercise their prosecutorial discretion to go after a taxpayer which courts can't order.
10 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: Correct.
11 Judge Millet: And they ... and then they would have to prevail of course can't order that,
12 right? They'd have to actually win their case and then they would make a discretionary judgment
13 whether to give you something. That's the chain of events that would lead to you receiving an
14 award.
15 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: You're, you are correct Judge Millett and, and that is what I’m
16 requesting is that due process be served in this case. Your Honor, the tax court does have
17 jurisdiction to review WO rejections. Opposing counsel raised that they did not, however, the
18 leading authority [indiscernible] [00:06:00] versus the Commissioner shows that this court
19 approved or affirmed that case just last year and this court's affirmation does suggest that inherent
20 in every subsection A rejection is a corresponding subsection B1 determination and this determin-
21 , corresponding determination assures that the tax court retains jurisdiction over subsection A
22 rejections. In addition, subsection B was added by the Tax Relief and Healthcare Act of 2006,
23 however, the whistleblower office was created in 1867 and the tax court has always had review of
3
20-1245
1 those rejections. There are two cases out of the Court of Federal Claims that support this position.
2 D’Costa versus the United States and Lloyd versus the United States. Therefore, the tax court did
3 properly review the WO's decision, but they aired when they granted the motion for summary
4 judgment. Therefore, I am requesting that this court reverse the motion for summary judgment
5 and remand the case to prefer the proceedings in the tax court.
6 Madam Clerk: Alright, are there any further questions? Alright, we’ll hear from Mr.
7 Johnshoy.
8 Matthew S. Johnshoy: Good morning, may it please the court. My name is Matthew
9 Johnshoy and I represent the appellee, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. I’ll just
10 start briefly by addressing some of the points raised. I think the, the record reflects that all of the
11 materials submitted were reviewed but the, the WV [indiscernible] [00:08:01] in its discretion over
12 the evaluation investigation decided not to go beyond those materials and it has no obligation to
13 do so. There was no action initiated, which also means there was no attempt to collect proceeds,
14 which means there can be no award and there's, there's then no award to be reviewed. Sort of
15 getting to the jurisdictional issue, after initial briefing this court appointed amicus and amicus
16 submitted a brief indicating that the tax court lacked jurisdiction. Everyone reviewed amicus's
17 briefing and also reevaluating the language of the statute. The government changed its view and
18 now argues the tax court did not have jurisdiction to review the whistleblower office's decision
19 regarding appellant's claim. And just to briefly summarize the amicus opined the tax court lacked
20 jurisdiction over pre-action or threshold rejections, because such initial rejections will not award
21 determinations and for them to be an award determination there would at least need to have been
22 an action taken against the target taxpayer and proceeds collected. Only then would you have an
23 award determination under B1 through 3 that could be reviewed under B4 and B4 is the section of
4
20-1245
1 the statute that includes the, the grant of jurisdiction. The government while agreeing with amicus
2 has put forward as its primary argument that this court should find the requirements in B5 or
3 jurisdiction. This argument complements amicus's argument, but it's not based on it and so we
4 think the two, we think the two stand side by side and, and, and on there. So B5 sets, sets for some
5 threshold requirements that must be met for all of subsection B you apply, which means that the
6 jurisdictional grants in B4 would … is limited by B5 and wouldn't apply in cases where the
7 threshold requirements are not met. Similarly, there's no, there's no bullet.
8 Judge Henderson: How does that make, but how do we know them? I’m sorry finish your
9 sentence.
10 Matthew S. Johnshoy: Oh, I was just going to say that similarly there's no non-
11 discretionary awards, where the B5 requirements aren't met. The ... all of subsection B is knocked
12 out.
13 Judge Henderson: That doesn't make B5 jurisdictional, right? It could just be a claims
14 processing rule?
15 Matthew S. Johnshoy: Well, well Your Honor, we think it, we think it is jurisdictional.
16 Judge Henderson: Because?
17 Matthew S. Johnshoy: That is B5 clearly applies to B4 and B4 has no application, where
18 the threshold requirements in B5 are not met.
19 Judge Henderson: I know but there are ...you know, this isn't the only statute in the US
20 code that has a lot of sections, including one on jurisdiction and then another later on that's, in that
21 same list and the subsection says, here's something that applies to this entire provision.
22 Matthew S. Johnshoy: Well …
5
20-1245
1 Judge Henderson: And, and, and so if we adopt your theory, we are adopting a rule not
2 just for this statute, but for a lot of other statutes including some, where that very question, that
3 very jurisdictional question has been rejected. The very jurisdictional interpretation that there's
4 another subsection one, two, three, four down from the jurisdictional one and it says this applies
5 to the entire provision, that that will be treated as jurisdictional. That's been rejected under other
6 statute, that same reading has been rejected under other statutes and so that would be the difficulty
7 with just assuming that when you've got a, one, subsection provision that says this applies to the
8 whole subsection and another provision of that subsection is jurisdictional that the one that applies
9 to all is jurisdictional as opposed to claims process.
10 Matthew S. Johnshoy: Well, Your Honor, I’m not familiar with those other specific cases,
11 but I think it, if it could be best to proceed on a case-by-case basis and statute by statute and I think
12 that this statute specifically links B5 back to B4 and to all of B. They, they, they put ...
13 Judge Henderson: How does it do that in a way? How does it do … turns out if... if we go
14 statute by statute, we have to have a reason and your argument as I understood it was that, well, it
15 applies to the whole subsection, right? And that...
16 Matthew S. Johnshoy: That’s right.
17 Judge Henderson: That argument will get us in trouble under other statutes, so.
18 Matthew S. Johnshoy: Yeah, Your Honor, there's a reason it applies to the whole subsection
19 though. Had, had they simply said that B4 would not apply or the statutory grant that B4 would
20 not apply, that would have left in place the awards.
21 Judge Henderson: Mm-hmm.
22 Matthew S. Johnshoy: So here by saying the subsection will not apply, right, where there's
23 no action, you're, you’re not only knocking out the ability to review and the grant of jurisdiction,
6
20-1245
1 you're also getting rid of the awards that would have been reviewed. So this, this is sort of negating
2 the whole thing and it clearly does apply back to, to, to before.
3 Judge Sentelle: In any event, B4 is a jurisdictional view of what's going on here and that
4 B4 is good enough to knock this out of court. Is that ... the government now accept that position?
5 Matthew S. Johnshoy: Yes, yes we do. We, we think, we think the amicus is certainly
6 correct that an award determination under B1 through 3 is required for there to be jurisdiction and,
7 and that that would not occur in cases where there has been not an action.
8 Judge Sentelle: And there is no jurisdiction to the tax court to review the threshold
9 determination.
10 Matthew S. Johnshoy: Right, right and there would need to be an action in a collection of
11 proceeds under the amicus's theory, under our theory in addition to an action there also needs to
12 be an amount in dispute in excess of $2 million. These threshold requirements …
13 Judge Henderson: I just want to be crystal clear because the United States, you know,
14 changed its position in response to the amicus, but then chose to offer a whole different theory, but
15 the United States also agrees with the amicus reading of the statute [indiscernible] [00:13:51] B4
16 is requiring the type of determination. I mean, it's only to review how much money you were
17 given or not given under the preceding three sections. You don't disagree with that, I want to check
18 with that.
19 Matthew S. Johnshoy: No, no and if I could just, if I could just explain why we, we also
20 argued B5 is the only difference between awards under A and B are whether the threshold
21 requirements are met. So, these requirements are the, the distinguishing factor. I see my time is
22 expired.
23 Judge Henderson: And so do you think? Judge Millett, do you have more questions?
7
20-1245
1 Judge Millett: I may, my sound might have clicked out for a second, so I thought, I saw
2 you talking but didn't hear anything for your last couple sentences.
3 Judge Henderson: Mr. Johnshoy.
4 Matthew S. Johnshoy: Let me try to repeat. So the reason, the reason we've raised the
5 complementary argument is because we believe that the, the difference between awards purely
6 discretionary awards that could still be made under A and the sort of nondiscretionary awards
7 under B as these threshold requirements and the tax court's failure to, to inquire about the threshold
8 requirements is, is what's caused them to in, in a sense review all, all award determinations as
9 though there be award determinations when in fact they're not.
10 Judge Henderson: Okay, thank you. Alright, if there are no more questions then, Mr.
11 Manhas.
12 Robert Manhas: Hello, good morning, Robbie Manhas. The tax court lacked jurisdiction
13 under 7623 before and that's all this court needs to reach here. Under B4, what can be reviewed is
14 deter-, a determination that was made under paragraphs one through three or should have been
15 made under paragraphs one through three and that's not an issue here. The decision was labeled
16 as under A and there is no argument that the rules of B one through three apply. The argument is
17 instead that the whistleblower office as Judge Millet mentioned, didn't exercise its evaluative
18 function well enough and should look at more information or should do further, a further review
19 of the claim, but it's conceded that there was a review, there was some look at the claim and there
20 was a determination made that it was speculative and not credible and that's not something that the
21 statute speaks to as being reviewed. Can be ... that can be reviewed by the tax court, that is an
22 enforcement or nonenforcement decision by the agency.
8
20-1245
1 Judge Millet: Can you help me, can you help me understand how this statute fits together
2 and in particular what counts as a determination? And if you just look at B1, 2 and 3, it gives you
3 one sense of determination, but B1 says if the secretary proceeds with any administrative or judicial
4 action described in subsection A, and subsection A seems only talks about, about like criminal
5 prosecution, this is what it sounds like. It talks about guilt maybe it doesn't mean criminal, but it
6 talks about guilt or in A1 it says detecting underpayments of tax. Is that a form of action to which
7 B1 is referring?
8 Robert Manhas: Yes, ...
9 Judge Millet: But just detecting an underpayment of tax is not going forward with a
10 proceeding, you know.
11 Robert Manhas: Right, but I believe then, I mean, then you have the rest of the statute both
12 at A and B then talks about actually collecting proceeds based off that action. So, even though it's
13 maybe not contained discretely within one detecting underpayments of tax, the rest of the statute
14 speaks to the proceeds requirements, so there has to be something further.
15 Judge Millet: Is that detecting underpayment of tax debt? Is that something that they ... is
16 that just what they do within their own office, like, if you send this off to some office of the IRS
17 and if they find like under Ms. Li's theory if they had examined further as she wants and internally
18 detected underpayment of tax, that counts as the type of administrative action for purposes of B.
19 Is that right? It's just if I get that you say that we can't pay you unless, we can only pay out of
20 proceeds, so we got to get proceeds too is your theory, but that counts.
21 Robert Manhas: Right, I think that's correct, yes, it's an internal administrative proceeding
22 in … by the IRS that could involve looking at a whistleblower's complaint or just independently
9
20-1245
1 the agency is finding an underpayment of tax and then collects that money administratively against
2 them, the target taxpayer.
3 Judge Millet: And so that's now, so I was trying to figure out how, you know, there's this
4 the note 406B which imposes, you know, the job of this office is to analyze information received
5 from any individual, it's an individual described in 7623B and so, sorry, I’m trying to help you,
6 help me please this whole thing together. So, the individual described in 7623B would include an
7 individual under 7623A?
8 Robert Manhas: Well, you've hit on a confusing and I think in our full drafting of the
9 statute and the statutory note, you're right that the statutory note refers to the individual and B
10 which is a bit odd because the whole presupposition of the B rules is that there actually is already
11 an action with proceeds and so how can you know when you're supposed to analyze in the first
12 place …
13 Judge Millet: Right. So, it suggests that you don't get that far down the line under B
14 actually.
15 Robert Manhas: Right. Right I don't, and I don't think that's the right inference to make
16 although I do think it's inartfully worded that note. I think it just refers to, if you look at subsections
17 A and B, B is the only one that refers to an actual individual. A, although it's clearly talking about
18 whistleblowers, it doesn't actually speak in terms of an individual person. It's just talking about
19 that, you know, the secretary paying such sums as he deems necessary for these actions and so I
20 think it's just trying to, it's referring to B, because that's what the individual just is described and
21 it's just referring to someone involved in the whistleblower process, not somebody who's
22 necessarily entitled to an award under, award under B or even necessarily going to merit, you
23 know, application of these rules B through one through three. It's just the individual who's given
10
20-1245
1 information and it's sort of referenced in, in subsection B so someone who's involved in the
2 whistleblower process. I think that's the best way to make sense of this language in the statutory
3 note.
4 Judge Millet: So it creates ... yeah, I’m just trying to figure out because, like you like, like
5 you explained in your briefings very much about actions that have produced proceeds on what the
6 obligation to analyze information received clearly precedes that, that, that process. Do you
7 dispute? Do you think it's right that, you know, is there any reason Ms. Li wouldn't be covered by
8 406B that she had and the office had an obligation to analyze the information that was provided
9 around?
10 Robert Manhas: Not at all, I think that statutory note clearly applies to Ms. Li and any
11 whistleblower who submits information and so there is a command to investigate and analyze the
12 information but here that, that duty was discharged. There was conceitedly some investigation
13 and analysis that's what led to the rejection. To be a different case if there was none at all then
14 maybe there was some sort of, some form of review somewhere that could take place under the
15 statutory note and then some sort of other jurisdictional provision, but it wouldn't be B4 because
16 B4 doesn't talk about that sort of action.
17 Judge Millet: But then, but sort of the tax court theory has been once we concede that
18 people who just submit information like Ms. Li, our individual is covered by B and those are the
19 individuals referenced in B, this 406B kind of drives us there. Then, you know, once at any point
20 when you cut off further considerate, the IRS cuts off further consideration, it's kind of determining
21 no recovery, right?
11
20-1245
1 Robert Manhas: Right, but it's more of a ... it's a, we're sort of in this weird world where
2 it's not a consideration of an award when there's already been an action taking place on proceeds
3 quite fit in.
4 Judge Millet: Well, you said that the administrative actions count as actions, it's purely
5 internal administrative actions reviewing papers count as actions, because that's what 7623A want.
6 Robert Manhas: So, ... so to be clear on that point, I do think that's right, but my
7 understanding is that the IRS has regulations defining what an action is and it's not just any, there
8 has to be actually a formal sort of administrative detection of underpayments against the target
9 taxpayer, it's not merely enough just to look at the whistleblower's claim and so …
10 Judge Millet: And that would look, okay, so that would look like a letter to the taxpayer,
11 or to the taxpayer.
12 Robert Manhas: I believe so, I’m not exactly sure what form it would take, but there would
13 be some sort of formal sort of action against the target taxpayer himself or herself.
14 Judge Millet: So we don't need to decide whether in a case like that if they just said we've
15 detected it, but we're not doing anything more, whether that would be reviewed as a determination
16 under B that would qualify under B4? We don't need to decide that because that didn't happen in
17 this case.
18 Robert Manhas: Certainly, this court can just rest on the fact that there's no action
19 whatsoever and leave for another day any further questions about whether there also needs to be
20 proceeds or anything else or this B5 question of these threshold monetary amounts. There is no
21 action here and that's enough too and the jurisdictional inquiry.
22 Judge Millett: Alright, any more questions?
23 Judge Henderson: Okay, how much time does Ms. Li have left, madam clerk?
12
20-1245
1 Madam Clerk: Ms. Li has three minutes left.
2 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: Alright, thank you Your Honors. I disagree with Mr. Manhas’s
3 suggestion that there was no action taken here. In fact, the WO issued a letter which was a rejection
4 letter and cited section 7623A, and the award in question is at zero-dollar award. It is a foreclosure
5 of an award and by saying that a claim is rejected under subsection A, then that is also saying that
6 the whistleblower is not entitled to a mandatory award, which is what subsection B provides. This
7 ... I, I request that we proceed to the merits if the panel is satisfied that there is no jurisdictional
8 issue.
9 Judge Henderson: Well that doesn't necessarily mean, you have two minutes left. We
10 don't.
11 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: Okay.
12 Judge Henderson: But you can say what you want.
13 Ms. Mandy Mobley Li: Thank you Judge Henderson. Regarding the decision of the WO,
14 without going into specifics, not everything that was submitted was considered and reviewing the
15 record will show that their decision was not based … and the grounds for their decision were not
16 based in sound fact and the administrative record does not support the decision to reject the claim.
17 Therefore, the WO's rejection was an abuse of discretion, and it should be reviewed and the case
18 remanded to the tax court for further tax proceeding, for further proceedings.
19 Judge Henderson: Alright, if there are no further questions, Mr. Manhas, you were
20 appointed by the court and we want to thank you for your very able assistance. So madam clerk,
21 if you'll adjourn court.
13
EXHIBIT # 32
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1245 Document
Document
#1938514
#1930034 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
01/11/2022 Page
Page
308
1 of 8
400

Argued November 5, 2021 Decided January 11, 2022
No. 20-1245
MANDY MOBLEY LI,

APPELLANT
v.

APPELLEE
On Appeal from a Decision and Order

of the United States Tax Court
Mandy Mobley Li, pro se, argued the cause and filed the
briefs for appellant.
Matthew S. Johnshoy, Attorney, U.S. Department of

Justice, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the briefs
was Bruce R. Ellisen, Attorney.
Robert Manhas, appointed by the court, argued the cause

as amicus curiae to assist the court by addressing this court’s
jurisdiction. With him on the brief was Robert M. Loeb,
appointed by the court.
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1245 Document
Document
#1938514
#1930034 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
01/11/2022 Page
Page
309
2 of 8
400
2
Before: HENDERSON and MILLETT, Circuit Judges, and
SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge

SENTELLE.
SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellant Mandy

Mobley Li appeals the United States Tax Court’s final decision
awarding summary judgment to the IRS Commissioner in her
whistleblower case. Specifically, the Tax Court held that the
IRS Whistleblower Office (“WBO”) did not abuse its
discretion in rejecting Li’s request for a whistleblower award,
since Li provided only vague and speculative information as to
purported tax violations. For the reasons explained below, we
dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
remand to the Tax Court with instructions to do the same. 1
I. Background
On December 12, 2018, Li filed a Form 211 with the

WBO alleging four tax violations by a third party (the “target
taxpayer”). A Form 211 is an application to receive a monetary
whistleblower award for supplying the IRS with actionable tax
violation information, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b). A
WBO classifier reviewed Li’s Form 211, as well as the target
taxpayer’s 2016 and 2017 tax returns, and concluded that Li’s
allegations were “speculative and/or did not provide specific or
credible information regarding tax underpayments or
violations of internal revenue laws,” making Li ineligible for
an award. Therefore, the WBO did not forward Li’s form to an
1
The Court appointed Mr. Robert Manhas to assist in addressing the
Court’s jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The Court extends its
appreciation to Mr. Manhas for his excellent amicus brief on the
topic.
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1245 Document
Document
#1938514
#1930034 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
01/11/2022 Page
Page
310
3 of 8
400
3
IRS examiner for any potential action against the target
taxpayer. The WBO communicated its decision by letter to Li
on February 8, 2019 and informed her that she could appeal to
the United States Tax Court if she thought the WBO had erred.
Li did so by petition on March 13, 2019. Neither party
identified a jurisdictional issue with the Tax Court’s review of
the case. The Commissioner subsequently filed a motion for
summary judgment, which the Tax Court granted. The Tax
Court found that the WBO adequately performed its evaluative
function in reviewing Li’s application and did not abuse its
discretion by rejecting it for an award. Li then filed a motion
for reconsideration. After the Tax Court denied the motion, Li
appealed to this Court.
II. Analysis
Statutory law gives exclusive jurisdiction over Tax

Court decisions to the United States Courts of Appeals, which
are required to review Tax Court decisions in the same manner
as any district court decision. 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1).
However, this Court’s jurisdiction is predicated upon the Tax
Court having had jurisdiction over the case. Bender v.
Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). If the
Tax Court lacks jurisdiction, this Court has “jurisdiction on
appeal, not of the merits but merely for the purpose of
correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440
(1936)). For the reasons set forth below, such is the case
presently. The Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to hear Li’s
appeal from the WBO, leaving this Court with jurisdiction only
to cure the defect. Even though the parties did not raise the
issue, “federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure
that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and
therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions
that the parties either overlook or elect not to press.”
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1245 Document
Document
#1938514
#1930034 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
01/11/2022 Page
Page
311
4 of 8
400
4
Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434
(2011).
a. The Whistleblower Statute
There are three relevant provisions of the whistleblower

statute, 26 U.S.C. § 7623. The first, subsection (a), authorizes
the IRS to grant monetary awards to persons helping to
“detect[] underpayments of tax, or . . . detect[] and bring[] to
trial and punishment persons guilty of violating the internal
revenue laws or conniving at the same . . . .” § 7623(a). The
second, subsection (b)(1), requires the IRS to give awards to
whistleblowers “[i]f the Secretary proceeds with any
administrative or judicial action described in subsection (a)
based on information brought to the Secretary’s attention by an
individual . . . .” § 7623(b)(1). This provision only applies if
certain monetary conditions are met ((b)(5)). The remainder of
that portion of the statute provides the parameters for such
awards, including a floor and ceiling award amount ((b)(1)), a
reduction in award amount for information based on public
data ((b)(2)), and a reduction or denial of award amount in
which the whistleblower participated in the tax violations
((b)(3)).
The third relevant segment, subsection (b)(4), gives the

Tax Court exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal of “[a]ny
determination regarding an award under paragraph (1), (2), or
(3) . . . .”
When a whistleblower makes a Form 211 filing, the

WBO follows several steps. First, it reviews the Form, and any
related information, to determine whether the provided
information may lead to the discovery of a tax violation. If the
information is too vague or speculative, the WBO issues a
rejection. Rogers v. Comm’r, No. 17985-19W, 2021 WL
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1245 Document
Document
#1938514
#1930034 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
01/11/2022 Page
Page
312
5 of 8
400
5
3284613, at *5 (T.C. Aug. 2, 2021). “[A] rejection is
appropriate when a whistleblower’s claim fails to comply with
the threshold requirements as to who may submit a claim or
what information the claim must include.” Id.; see also 26
C.F.R. § 301.7623-3(c)(7) (defining “rejection”). If the
whistleblower’s information signals a potential tax violation,
the IRS may initiate a proceeding against the target taxpayer.
If the proceeding then yields payments to the IRS, the
whistleblower receives an award, subject to 26 U.S.C.
§ 7623(b)(1)-(3). Any appeal of an award determination under
subsections (b)(1)-(3) is then directed to the Tax Court.
§ 7623(b)(4).
As we noted earlier, we have the continuing duty to

examine our jurisdiction, regardless of whether the parties raise
the issue. The jurisdictional issue in this case asks whether
§ 7623(b)(4) gives the Tax Court jurisdiction over the
threshold first step, the initial rejection of a whistleblower
award before the WBO makes an award determination under
subsections (b)(1)-(3). This issue is not one of first impression
for the court below. In Cooper v. Comm’r, the Tax Court held
that an initial rejection of a whistleblower award is in fact an
award determination under subsection (b)(4), rejecting the
argument that “there can be a determination for jurisdictional
purposes only if the Whistleblower Office undertakes an
administrative or judicial action and thereafter ‘determines’ to
make an award.” 135 T.C. 70, 75 (2010). Instead, the Tax
Court held that it had jurisdiction even over threshold
rejections of whistleblower awards, interpreting the statute to
“expressly permit[] an individual to seek judicial review in this
Court of the amount or denial of an award determination.” Id.
(emphasis added).
This position was echoed in the Tax Court’s decision in

Lacey v. Comm’r, 153 T.C. 146 (2019), where the Tax Court
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1245 Document
Document
#1938514
#1930034 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
01/11/2022 Page
Page
313
6 of 8
400
6
found jurisdiction on the grounds that “a denial or rejection is
a (negative) ‘determination regarding an award’, so the Tax
Court has jurisdiction where, pursuant to the WBO’s
determination, the individual does not receive an award.”
Lacey, 153 T.C. at 163 n.19 (emphasis in original) (citing in
accompanying text Cooper, 135 T.C. 70); see also id. at 150
n.5 (citing Cooper, 135 T.C. at 75–76).
In the case at bar, the Tax Court relied on its precedent

in Cooper and Lacey to find jurisdiction over Li’s WBO
appeal. Neither party identified a problem with the Tax Court’s
jurisdiction. However, as we noted above, we have the
continuing duty to examine our own jurisdiction.
b. Lack of Jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.

§ 7623(b)(4)
After review, we conclude that Cooper and Lacey were

wrongly decided. The Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
appeals from threshold rejections of whistleblower award
requests.
Subsection (b)(4) of § 7623 gives the Tax Court

exclusive jurisdiction over only a “determination regarding an
award” under subsections (b)(1)-(3). The Cooper and Lacey
Courts held that a threshold rejection of a whistleblower award
request constituted such an award determination because the
rejection of an award was a so-called “negative” award
determination. Lacey, 153 T.C. 163 n.19 (citing in
accompanying text Cooper, 135 T.C. 70); see also id. at 150
n.5 (“[A] ‘rejection’ is also a ‘determination’ . . . .”). We
disagree. A threshold rejection of a whistleblower’s Form 211
for vague and speculative information is not a negative award
determination, as there is no determination as to an award
under subsections (b)(1)-(3) whatsoever. Per subsection (b)(1),
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1245 Document
Document
#1938514
#1930034 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
01/11/2022 Page
Page
314
7 of 8
400
7
an award determination by the IRS arises only when the IRS
“proceeds with any administrative or judicial action described
in subsection (a) based on information brought to the
Secretary’s attention by [the whistleblower] . . . .” 26 U.S.C.
§ 7623(b)(1) (emphasis added). A threshold rejection of a
Form 211 by nature means the IRS is not proceeding with an
action against the target taxpayer. See Cline v. Comm’r, 119
T.C.M. (CCH) 1199, 2020 WL 1249454, at *5 (T.C. 2020).
Therefore, there is no award determination, negative or
otherwise, and no jurisdiction for the Tax Court. 2
In this case, the WBO rejected Li’s Form 211 for

providing vague and speculative information it could not
corroborate, even after examining supplemental material Li
herself did not provide. The WBO did not forward Li’s Form
211 to an IRS examiner for further action, and the IRS did not
take any action against the target taxpayer. There was no
proceeding and thus no “award determination” by the IRS for
Li’s whistleblower information. Therefore, the Tax Court had
no jurisdiction to review the WBO’s threshold rejection of Li’s
Form 211.
This Court regrets that Li was informed otherwise by

letter to her from the WBO. However, “no action of the parties
can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.”
Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de
Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982).
2
Li does not argue on appeal that the IRS, in fact, did proceed against
the target taxpayer based on information in her Form 211
application. So we need not and do not decide whether the Tax Court
would have jurisdiction to hear a whistleblower’s claim in a case in
which the IRS wrongly denied a Form 211 application but
nevertheless proceeded against a target taxpayer based on the
provided information.
USCA
USCA
Case
Case
#20-1407
#20-1245 Document
Document
#1938514
#1930034 Filed:
Filed:
03/10/2022
01/11/2022 Page
Page
315
8 of 8
400
8
Finally, the parties have called our attention to our
decision in Myers v. Comm’r which contains the statement that
“‘written notice informing a claimant that the IRS has
considered information that he submitted and has decided
whether the information qualifies the claimant for an award’
suffices to constitute a ‘determination’ for the purpose of
§ 7623(b)(4).” 928 F.3d 1025, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Upon
review, we conclude that this statement is not a holding
concerning the issue in the present case. This statement was
responding to petitioner’s argument that the WBO denial letter
in his case did not contain enough information to qualify as a
“determination” under the statute. Id. We subsequently
declined to “craft requirements out of whole cloth” regarding
what information a WBO denial letter must contain. Id. at
1033. By contrast, the question in this case asks whether
§ 7623(b)(4) confers jurisdiction only when there is both an
IRS action based on whistleblower information and proceeds
collected from that action. As this issue was not squarely
before us in Myers, the above statement from Myers does not
bind our decision today.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we dismiss this appeal

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.
§ 7623(b)(4). We remand to the Tax Court with instructions to
do the same.
So ordered.
EXHIBIT # 33
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-817-7080
Email: jjw1980@live.com
September 19, 2018
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C., 20510
The Honorable Lindsey 0. Graham Chairman

Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C., 20510
Re: In Defense of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and His Family – Open letter.
I. INTRODUCTION
Dear Chairman Grassley and Chairman Graham:
My name is Jaroslaw (Jerry) Waszczuk, pronounced Yaroslav Vashchook or simply

Jerry.
I am a Polish immigrant who has been living in the sanctuary state of California for
almost three decades. I am 67 years old and was an employee of the University of
California for 13 years. Senator Feinstein husband Richard Blum has served the
university as a member of the University of California Board of Regents since 2002.
I have had 11 years of experience with the University of California Office of the
President (UCOP), white-collar criminals and ruthless and unscrupulous witch hunters
who destroyed my and my family’s live, as well as other UC employees who dared to
criticize the UC regime.
1
It is not surprising to me that they found Christine Blasey Ford at Palo Alto University
and used her as a last-minute blockade to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh as
the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. Since the nomination hearings did not achieve the
results the left-wing extremists anticipated, they portrayed Judge Kavanaugh as a sexual
predator who allegedly brutalized Ms. Ford more than 35 years ago.
Taking into consideration the ongoing investigation and prosecution of Paul Manafort
and others by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this is an ill-crafted, unfounded, and
despicable accusation aimed at Judge Brett Kavanaugh and indirectly at President Donald
Trump. The 35 lawsuits filed against the president by California Attorney General Xavier
Becerra shows the witch hunt that California’s political extremists are engaging in as a
means of delegitimizing President Trump and his administration.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article188901094.html
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbk33q/xavier-becerra-california-ag-lawsuits-against-trump
The attempt to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is propaganda by the mass media
and social media which shows that the witch hunt to remove the president from office is
far from over.
II. SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR SUPREME

COURT NOMINEE BRETT KAVANAUGH
In my letter dated September 12, 2018 to Don Fort, chief of the U.S. Department of the
Treasury Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Department, I addressed the
September 6, 2018 confirmation hearing (letter attached).
On September 6, 2018, during Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation

hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California raised out of the blue questions about
the 2000–03 California Energy Crisis, Enron Corporation, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission as follows:
TRANSCRIPT
01:40:12 THE LIMITED SET OF DOCUMENTS WE'VE

RECEIVED INDICATES YOU WERE HEAVILY INVOLVED
IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE'S RESPONSE TO
2
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS AFTER THE ENRON

SCANDAL. IS THAT ACCURATE?
01:40:34 RIGHT, SO YOU KNOW ENRON WAS ONE OF THE

GREATEST CORPORATE SCANDALS IN AMERICAN
HISTORY. AND I CAN TELL YOU AS A SENATOR FROM
CALIFORNIA, NOT ONLY DID MANY OF MY
CONSTITUENTS LOSE EVERYTHING FINANCIALLY
WHEN ENRON COLLAPSED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF
ITS ACCOUNTING FRAUD, BUT THE FRAUD AND
MARKET MANIPULATION CONTRIBUTED TO AN
ENERGY CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA. WHITE HOUSE E-
MAILS SHOW YOU WERE ASKED TO REVIEW A SET OF
DRAFT TALKING POINTS FOR PRESS SECRETARY ARI
FLEISCHER THAT ADDRESS THE ROLE OF ENRON'S
MARKET MANIPULATION IN THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
CRISIS. ESSENTIALLY, THE TALKING POINT SAID, IF
THERE WAS ANY MISCONDUCT BY ENRON, IT WAS UP
TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
TO INVESTIGATE AND PUNISH THE COMPANY. I'M NOT
GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU REMEMBER THE SPECIFIC
DOCUMENT, BUT WAS THAT YOUR VIEW THAT FERC
(Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) WAS THE
REGULATORY BODY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP THIS
SORT OF MISCONDUCT?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?449706-1/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-
confirmation-hearing-day-3-part-1
It was just prior to the hearings that I had submitted copies of my Application for Award
to the Whistleblower Office of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Senator Chuck
Grassley is chair and the two Senators from California, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala
Harris, are members
When I listened to Senator Feinstein’s concerns about the California energy crisis during
her confirmation hearing, I got the impression that she was fishing for information from
Judge Kavanaugh to find out what he knows about the California energy crisis and if
3
knew how the 40 billion dollar loss for California ratepayers and taxpayers was invented
and by whom.
I looked closer at Senator Feinstein’s statement after she brought to light Palo Alto
University Professor of Psychology Christine Blasey Ford’s “MeToo” story, in which
Judge Kavanaugh supposedly sexually brutalized and attempted to rape Ms. Ford. The
attempt to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by bringing out Ms. Ford’s story was a
well-planned and premeditated attack against the nominee and was only used when other
attempts to stop the confirmation failed.
III. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND HER “METOO” STORY PROVIDED

TO SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN.
The crux of Ms. Ford’s “MeToo” story is to find out who is the real author of the
fabricated accusations and how she was convinced to sacrifice her professional career in
the dirty political game orchestrated by extremists from the Democratic Party to
delegitimize President Donald Trump and his nominees.
As I read Ms. Ford’s “MeToo” story and witnessed the hysterical outcry in the mass
media and social media, I looked at who she is, where she lives, and if she is a registered
or licensed psychologist with the California Board of Psychology. I also looked at her
employment history and her superior at Palo Alto University where she is or was
employed.
A. My findings about Christine Blasey Ford
According to Zillow, Christine Blasey Ford lives at 3872 Duncan Pl., Palo Alto,
California. This is a four-bedroom, three-bath home of approximately 2200 sf which was
built in 1953 and is worth over $3,000,000. I don’t know whether Ms. Ford is the owner
of the house or if she rents it.
The California Board of Psychology has no record of Christine Blasey Ford. Most likely,
Palo Alto University’s policies don’t require licenses for faculty members.
According to the Palo Alto University (PAU) Faculty Employees Directory

(https://www.paloaltou.edu/faculty-directory), Professor Christine Blasey Ford is a PhD,
but her employee email and her office phone number is not listed like other employees’.
It is unusual. At this point I am not sure if Ms. Ford is employed by PAU or if she is
solely employed by Stanford University, where she is listed under
4
https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/christine-blasey. No phone or email is listed under Ms.

Ford’s profile at Stanford University.
The Santa Clara County Superior Court has records of lawsuits with the names Christine
Blasey and Christine Blasey Ford.
IV. PRESIDENT OF PALO ALTO UNIVERSITY DR. MAUREEN O’CONNOR

AND MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL DOUGLAS WALGREN,
J.D
A. Dr. Maureen O’Connor J.D

According to the PAU website (https://www.paloaltou.edu/about/leadership), prior to
becoming president at PAU in August 2016, Dr. Maureen O’Connor completed a dual
degree program in psychology, law, and policy at the University of Arizona, earning both
her PhD and JD. She is a member of the bar in Arizona and Washington, D.C., and she
clerked for the Honorable Patricia Wald, then chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
This information leads to the conclusion that it was no coincidence that Dr. O’Connor,
who clerked for the Honorable Patricia Wald, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals, where future Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh is employed,
found herself in the middle of the 2016 presidential election as president of Palo Alto
University.
It is no coincidence that Dr. Maureen O’Connor found herself in Palo Alto, California
where Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s former classmate Christine Blasey Ford was employed
or is still employed. The question is whether Ms. Ford knew or had a friendship with Dr.
O’Connor before or after Dr. O’Connor arrived in PAU and became PAU’s president.
These are other questions which should be answered:
• Whether Dr. Maureen O’Connor, a graduate of the University of Arizona, where

she earned her PhD and JD, and a member of the bar in Arizona and Washington,
D.C., knows or personally knew the former Arizona attorney general, governor of
Arizona, U.S. secretary of homeland security and the present University of
California President Janet Napolitano.
• Whether Dr. Maureen O’Connor knows or knew personally the former University
of California Director of Investigation John Lohse.
5
John A. Lohse is the former Director of Investigation in the Office of the Senior Vice
President and Chief Compliance and Audit Officer. He is responsible for coordinating,
tracking, managing and conducting investigations at the University of California Office
of the President (UCOP) and system-wide. He came to UC in January 2004 after a career
with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), where he served as a special agent,
associate division counsel and chief division counsel for the FBI's San Francisco
Division. He has also served as a criminal prosecutor with the Maricopa County
Attorney's Office in Phoenix, Arizona. John Lohse is a member of the bar in California
and in Arizona.
John Lohse, together with many other University of California attorneys and executives,
is responsible for covering up millions of dollars in tax evasion by UC regents in
conspiracy with California Independent System Operator (CAISO) executives in
collaboration with the attorney general’s office and other state agencies. John Lohse,
together with other UC executives, including Dianne Feinstein and UC Regent Richard
Blum, is also responsible for the coverup of the mysterious suicide in December 2010 of
UC Davis Medical Center employee Todd Georlich, who apparently died before he was
hanged. Senator Kamala Harris and her AG deputy Ashante Norton know details about
this.
• Whether PAU President Dr. Maureen O’Connor and Judge Kavanaugh’s “MeToo”
accuser Christine Blasey Ford know or knew the former chief deputy for UCOP’s
general counsel Karen Petrulakis, who served or is still serving as executive law
chapter chair for Stanford Law School and as a member of Stanford Law School’s
Board of Visitors. She also served on the state bar’s Litigation Section Executive
Committee.
B. Douglas Walgren
The other person who eventually should be considered as a potential participant in the
plot against Judge Kavanaugh and should be questioned is Douglas Walgren, former U.S.
congressman, who is currently the advisory member counsel for PAU President Dr.
Maureen O’Connor and an attorney in Washington, D.C. Mr. Walgren is not eligible to
practice law in California (suspended license). He probably or most likely knows
Christine Blasey Ford and her legal counsel Ms. Deborah Katz, licensed in the District of
Columbia.
V. JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH AND 2000-2003 CALIFORNIA ENERGY
6
A. Swidler & Berlin v. United States
In his early career, Judge Kavanaugh played a lead role in drafting the Starr Report,
which urged President Bill Clinton to investigate the suicide of Clinton aide Vince Foster.
Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) was a case in which the Supreme
Court of the United States held that the death of an attorney’s client does not terminate
attorney-client privilege in respect to records of confidential communication.
At the same time as Judge Kavanaugh argued the above case before the Supreme Court,
the same law firm (Swidler & Berlin) represented CAISO and their partner in crime and
advised their clients to enhance competitiveness and efficiency of the deregulated power
market by illegally generating and laundering electricity and to violate every possible
state and federal law regulating cogeneration plants in addition to the California Unfair
Business Competition Law, Business and Professions Code §17200, Section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and the State of California Revenue and Taxation
Code. This was the biggest University of California fraud scheme of the 20th century,
and it was carried over into two decades of the 21st century and covered up by the
California attorney general, including the former attorney general Kamala Harris, today a
U.S. senator from California.
CAISO’s attorneys from Swidler & Berlin also represented the UCOP mafia interests
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from 1999 to 2003, making sure that
this enormous fraud will never surface. It surfaced in 2015.
VI. CHIEF JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE NINTH DISTRICT HONORABLE ALEX KOZINSKI
In his early legal career, Judge Kavanaugh served from 1991-1992 as law clerk for the
U.S. Federal Court in California Ninth Circuits Court of Appeals Judge Honorable Alex
Kozinski.
On March 9, 2001, the University, pursuant to authorization, joined the California State
University in filing a lawsuit against Enron in U. S. District Court in San Francisco. The
lawsuit,, which was assigned to Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, alleges breach of contract and
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and requests both injunctive relief to
restore the original contract and specific performance of that contract.
Judge Hamilton granted the universities' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on April
11. Her order required Enron to perform specifically all of its contractual obligations
7
tinder the 1998 Direct Access Services Agreement, including directing SCE and PG&E
to convert the universities' accounts back to direct access service. In addition to attorneys
for the universities, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, key player and one of inventors of the
scheme of fraud named “California Crisis” or well planted terrorist operation to collapse
the Western Power Electric appeared and argued on behalf of UCOP mafia as a friend of
the court in support of the Universities' position.
Enron filed an appeal of Judge Hamilton's order on April 16 along with a Request for an
Emergency Stay of that order pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on
Enron's appeal. On May 3, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit consisting of Judges
Sneed, Canby and Kozinski issued a nine line order staying the injunction issued by
Judge Hamilton. The defeated UCOP mafia stated that Judge Hamilton's injunction
may represent only a temporary setback and the different panel of Ninth Circuit judges
will decide Enron's appeal of the injunction itself
After George W. Bush became president in 2001, Judge Kavanaugh was hired as an
associate by the White House counsel and worked on the Enron scandal.
In 2015 millions of dollars in tax evasion was discovered in relation to illegally
producing and laundering megawatts from UC campuses by UCOP organized white-
collar crime in a joint venture with CAISO, the California attorney general’s office and
others. After President Donald Trump was elected it took only one year for the deep state
to remove from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the powerful and well-known jurist
Alex Kozinski. When President Obama was in the White House, nobody complained
about Judge Kozinski. It would be interesting to find out why and who was behind the
attack on Judge Kozinski which was very similar to attack aimed at Judge Kavanaugh.
Looking at Senator Feinstein’s despicable actions to stop Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination,
it is not difficult to conclude that most likely Judge Kozinski was considered by President
Trump as a future nominee to the Supreme Court, and his fate was quickly decided by the
same perpetrators .
In a similar scenario which eliminated Judge Kozinski , , Judge Kavanaugh was accused
and trashed. It is apparent that this attack on Judge Kavanaugh was developed and
crafted a year or more ago after PAU President Dr. Maureen O’Connor arrived in Palo
Alto. The ill-crafted plan to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court
was kept secret by perpetrators as a last resort if the confirmation hearing did not go as
anticipated.
VII. CONCLUSION
8
Don Fort, Chief

Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service,
Criminal Investigation Department
1111Constitution Ave. NW
Enclosed
Copy of the 8/12/2018 inquiry to Don Fort , IRS Criminal Investigation ( by Fax and by
Tweeter with link to letter)
Copy of the June 5, 2017 letter to U.S Congressman Hon. Darrel Issa. (via twitter link to
letter )
Copy of the 8/31/2016 letter to Congressman Hon. John Garamendi (via twitter link to )
letter )
10
EXHIBIT # 34
Filed 10/10/17 Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, C079524
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No.

34201300155479CUWTGDS)
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Although Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a self-represented plaintiff, purports to appeal the

trial court’s order granting five individual employees of the University of California’s
special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) four causes of action arising from
their involvement in his termination, he does not argue the merits of the motion but
insists the judgment must be reversed because of systemic corruption including collusion
between his then lawyer, defense counsel, and the trial judge. He misunderstands his
burden on appeal, ignores the dispositive issues, provides no evidence of corruption or
untoward collusion, and fails to demonstrate either relevance or prejudice from the
1
shortcomings he cites. We need go no further than to answer the contentions he raises,

and in finding no merit in those claims, we affirm.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, feels deeply aggrieved by the University of
California (the University), his lawyer, the defense lawyer, and the trial judge. A brief
excerpt from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the University reflects his
bitterness as well as his belief that there is much more at stake than his mere wrongful
termination lawsuit. He wrote: “The stake in this lawsuit must be a lot bigger and more
important than the life of a 63-year-old Polish refugee who escaped communist
oppression and was promised protection from oppression in his new country by the US
government. Instead of protection from oppression, the Polish refugee received treatment
from the University of California that has been a lot worse than the treatment he received
in the Polish communist prison, where the communist’s prison guard was more respectful
to the political prisoners than UC management to its own employees.” His experience
has left him emotionally distraught. At the end of a hearing in the trial court, he
announced he was done and was going to go outside of the courtroom and shoot himself.
While plaintiff’s pain is clear, his legal analysis is not. We have carefully
scrutinized his briefs and the record in a diligent attempt to decipher his legal theories.
Much remains a mystery. We must reiterate what the trial court admonished plaintiff.
“At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any
other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants
and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941,
944.) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct
rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also
Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.” We add that plaintiff has an equal
responsibility to follow the California Rules of Court applicable to appeals, no matter
2
how sympathetic his claims may seem to himself or us. It is a responsibility he has
ignored to his peril.
Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his failure to cite to
the record.1 He makes grandiose accusations against the University for illegally
generating and selling electric power and for tax evasion, but those allegations are not
supported by citations to the record and are not relevant to the special motion to strike.
Plaintiff fails to appreciate the limited scope of our review, which stands in stark contrast
to the wide-ranging allegations plaintiff lodges which are untethered to the second
amended complaint or the special motion to strike. We are compelled to ignore any
factual allegations that are not supported by citations to the record.
Plaintiff loses this appeal, but it is not the end of his lawsuit for wrongful
termination. The trial court reminded plaintiff at the hearing on the special motion to
strike that the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) were not protected if
they discriminated or retaliated against him and, therefore, “[i]ndependent of the five
individuals who are before the Court on this motion, [plaintiff] still retains his right to sue
the Regents because they are still in the lawsuit and he’s still the plaintiff.” In this
context, we recite the brief facts relevant to the issues plaintiff raises on appeal.
1 An “appellant must support all statements of fact in his briefs with citations to the
record [citation] and must confine his statement ‘to matters in the record on appeal.’
[Citation.]” (Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 29.) “[I]t is counsel's duty to
point out portions of the record that support the position taken on appeal.” (Del Real v.
City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) The Court of Appeal must not search
the record on behalf of an appellant or serve as “backup appellate counsel.” (Mansell v.
Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546.)
3
FACTS
Plaintiff worked in the University of California Davis Medical Center’s Plant
Operations and Maintenance Department for 13 years. He received many years of
favorable performance reviews. In 2007, however, he was given a disciplinary transfer
from the central plant to the HVAC/plumbing shop. He filed a grievance and ultimately
entered into a settlement agreement with the University whereby he agreed to the transfer
in exchange for a promotion to an exempt position with a more prestigious job title.
In 2011 the University again initiated an investigation of plaintiff based on
complaints that he had violated University policies by engaging in acts of ethnic
discrimination constituting hate incidents in the workplace. He was terminated in 2012.
He appealed the termination and ultimately filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint.
In this court, he fixates on his belief the University’s suspension, investigation, and
termination were nothing more than a “witch hunt” designed to remove him, preferably
by getting him to quit, and thereby enable the University to resume its alleged tax-free
illegal power sales. He asserts, again without citation to the record, the University
attempted to assassinate him.
Plaintiff filed his first complaint, in pro. per., in December 2013. The complaint
included six causes of action: wrongful termination; retaliation; the intentional infliction
of emotional distress; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; breach
of the settlement agreement; and violation of the University’s Personnel Polices for Staff
Members (PPSM) 23. Plaintiff thereafter hired a lawyer, Douglas Stein, who filed a first
amended complaint on his behalf in June 2014. The first amended complaint set forth
eight causes of action, including a cause of action entitled “Breach of Written Contract.”
The written contract referred to the settlement agreement plaintiff reached with the
University to resolve his first grievance. The first amended complaint did not, however,
contain a cause of action for violation of PPSM 23.
4
In a meet and confer letter dated August 19, 2014, Michael Pott, representing the
Regents and the employees sued in their individual capacity, described a number of
deficiencies in the first amended complaint “that warrant the filing of a demurrer unless
they can be resolved by amendment.” Stein spent 10 hours reviewing the first amended
complaint and researching the law in light of the alleged deficiencies set forth in Pott’s
letter. By letter dated August 26, 2014, Stein agreed to amend the complaint in response
to those deficiencies he found legitimate and he explained why he rejected many others.
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight causes of action.
He signed the second amended complaint on September 8, 2014. Unbeknownst to him at
the time, his license to practice law was suspended on September 24, 2014, due to child
support issues that he resolved by October 7, 2014, but due to logistical aspects of the
process, the State Bar of California did not restore his license to an active status until
October 23, 2014. In the meantime, he filed the second amended complaint on
September 30, 2014.
On December 1, 2014, five defendants, Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert (the individual defendants) filed a special
motion to strike the first four causes of action in the second amended complaint as a
strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) suit (hereafter referred to as the
anti-SLAPP motion). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Stein, then unaware that plaintiff had
fired him, filed an opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion on plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff
did fire Stein, proceeded in pro. per., and requested an extension of time to file his own
opposition. Plaintiff filed his opposition late and exceeded the page limit. Nevertheless,
the trial court considered the entirety of plaintiff’s opposition and granted his request to
disregard the opposition filed by Stein.
On December 17, 2014, Stein filed an ex parte application for relief from the
potential defective filing of the second amended complaint. Stein explained to the court
that his license had been temporarily suspended because he had mistakenly paid the
5
wrong amount of child support for two or three months, a mistake that was quickly
rectified once he learned of it. The trial court granted Stein’s application and ruled that
the second amended complaint filed on September 30, 2014, “is deemed validly filed.”
In ruling on the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court
followed the requisite two-step process. First, the court examined the individual
defendants’ showing whether their acts were taken in furtherance of their constitutional
rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. The court found the
individual defendants made a prima facie showing. The individual defendants’ speech,
the court ruled, was “made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and
deciding the workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University
policies.” Second, the court found that plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a
likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of the four causes of action as well as
defeating the individual defendants’ affirmative defenses. The court, therefore, granted
the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
Plaintiff appeals.
DISCUSSION
I
The Allegations
Plaintiff believes that his employer, defense counsel, the trial judge, and even his
own lawyer, are corrupt and colluded to destroy his life. These allegations, not the merits
of the anti-SLAPP motion, are at the heart of plaintiff’s appeal. He writes: “There is no
need for Waszczuk to base this appeal on the merit of the case which is important and
Clerk Transcript is speaking for itself, if the whole legal process in this case was
corrupted by the Defendants’ attorney, Michael Pott, and Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas
Stein misconduct, and their actions against Waszczuk were approved by the Court on
September 22, 2014, and December 17, 2014.”
6
There is nothing we can decide in this appeal or write in this opinion that will
disabuse plaintiff of this fiercely held belief. He fails to understand that these very
serious allegations are not before us on appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion. We will
explain for his benefit what the record discloses to us—the utter absence of any evidence
to support even a colorable claim of misconduct by any of the lawyers or judicial officers
in this case. We will also briefly describe the procedural context in which the allegations
are made and the futility of pursuing his corruption theory against these individual
defendants. Despite the ferocity of plaintiff’s feelings to the contrary, the fact that the
second amended complaint did not contain what he hoped it would does not translate into
reversible error and the fact that his lawyer and defense counsel engaged in an interactive
process to avoid an unnecessary demurrer does not translate into corruption.
Let us begin with plaintiff’s focus on the second amended complaint. As best we
can decipher, his objection is twofold: (1) He is troubled that Stein did not pursue his
theories that the University breached the settlement agreement and failed to follow
internal policies by not providing him annual performance reviews for two years, and (2)
he accuses the trial court of improperly validating the filing when Stein’s license had
been temporarily suspended.
Both objections are irrelevant to the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion,
which sought to strike only four of the eight causes of action stated in the second
amended complaint. Whether or not Stein would have expanded the second amended
complaint to include additional causes of action has no bearing on whether the four
causes of action were properly stricken. In any event, we are baffled by plaintiff’s
insistence that Stein refused to include a cause of action for breach of the settlement
agreement is belied by the language of the sixth cause of action for breach of a written
contract which appears to embody that very claim.
Plaintiff fails to cite any authority to support his claim that the trial court
improperly validated the filing of the second amended complaint. The claim lacks both
7
legal authority and evidentiary support in the record. Rather, Stein was forthright in his
disclosure to the court. When he filed the second amended complaint he was unaware
that his status with the State Bar had changed. The reason for his very brief suspension
was unrelated to his competency or ethics in the practice of law. Rather, as Stein
explained, he made an inadvertent error on the amount he paid in child support for two or
three months. His license to practice was reinstated within about two weeks of his
discovery of the suspension. On these facts, there is not the slightest hint of impropriety.
To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making an ex parte application to
assure the integrity of the document he inadvertently filed during the briefest of
suspensions for a minor transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He
should be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of plaintiff’s interests.
Yet plaintiff asserts that defense counsel colluded with Stein to file a second
amended complaint designed to rob him of meritorious claims. He also contends that
Stein bowed to defense counsel’s untoward pressure to amend the complaint and
subjected his pleadings to the anti-SLAPP motion. He adds the naked allegation that the
trial court acted improperly as well because the trial judge had known defense counsel for
a number of years. Plaintiff’s allegations are without evidentiary support.
The record discloses a cordial, thorough, and appropriate exchange between two
lawyers engaged in a meet and confer process designed to avoid an unnecessary
demurrer. The thoughtful letters exchanged by counsel described the legal issues
presented by the first amended complaint and the authorities upon which they relied to
support their positions. Stein relented on a few minor issues, but held steadfast as to the
viability of his theories. Plaintiff’s sheer speculation about the lawyers’ motives is totally
unsubstantiated; indeed, the record belies his accusations.
In summary, we conclude plaintiff’s accusations of misconduct, corruption, and
collusion between the lawyers and the trial court are unsubstantiated and unfounded. But
even more importantly, they are irrelevant to the sole issue properly before us on
8
appeal—whether the trial court erred by granting the five individual defendants’ anti-
SLAPP motion to strike four of the causes of action alleged against them. We turn,
therefore, to the only relevant issue presented.
II
The Merits
The anti-SLAPP statute provides: “A cause of action against a person arising
from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech
under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a
public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that
the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the
claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) We review an order granting an anti-
SLAPP motion de novo. (Daniel v. Wayans (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 379.)
As explained above, the trial court engages in a two-step process in determining
whether to grant an anti-SLAPP motion. (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State
University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061.) In this case, the trial court found the individual
defendants made a prima facie showing to satisfy the first prong and plaintiff did not
challenge this finding in his opening brief. Belatedly in reply, he contends that the
defendants did not “show any record or evidence that the Defendants Nichols, Chilcott,
Boyd, Seifert, and Oropeza, who brought the anti-SLAPP motion to strike Waszczuk’s
first four causes of action, were made in connection with the processing, investigation,
hearing, and deciding of the workplace complaints filed by Waszczuk.”
In short, the court acknowledged that University policies and procedures have the
force and effect of a state statute (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000)
80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165); statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized
by law as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (Vergos v. McNeal
(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)); the constitutional right to petition includes
the act of seeking administrative action (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity
9
(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1115); and investigations and investigatory reports prepared in
connection with an issue under consideration or review by an official body, such as a
public entity’s internal investigations, are protected activities under the anti-SLAPP
statute (Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1383). Because the
speech of the individual defendants who were subject to the anti-SLAPP motion was
“made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding the
workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University policies,” the
court concluded the individual defendants satisfied their burden and shifted it to the
plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Plaintiff insists that Vergos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, cited by the trial court,
does not support the granting of the anti-SLAPP motion. We disagree. In Vergos, an
employee of the University named the manager who denied his administrative grievance
as a defendant in his sexual harassment lawsuit in her individual capacity. (Id. at
p. 1390.) The manager filed a special motion to strike contending that her statements and
communicative conduct in handling the employee’s grievances were protected by Code
of Civil Procedure section 425.16 because “they (1) were connected with an issue under
review by an official proceeding authorized by law, and (2) furthered the right to petition
of the plaintiff and similarly situated employees.” (Vergos, at p. 1394.) We agreed and
affirmed the judgment.
We pointed out that the manager’s only conduct targeted in the complaint involved
her hearing, processing, and deciding the employee’s grievances. (Vergos, supra,
146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.) Similarly, here the trial court’s finding parroted our
conclusion in Vergos. And the court reviewed the allegations against each of the five
individual defendants and reported their involvement as follows:
“The allegations of the SAC [second amended complaint] against Nichols attack
her protected participation in the official investigations. The SAC specifically alleges
Nichols’ communications regarding the investigation and her investigative conclusions.
10
Nichols was appointed to investigate Plaintiff’s whistleblower complaints, and was also
appointed to conduct an investigation into complaints of workplace violence filed by
Putney and Daniliuc. All were protected petitioning activities.
“The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of emails
from Nichols relating to the investigations, and Chilcott’s sending of an email relating to
the investigation of Plaintiff. The emails are protected speech in connection with an
investigation process.
“The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their investigation
into the emails plaintiff sent to Nichols in April 2012. Oropeza and Seifert conducted
their investigation pursuant to the University’s grievance protocol and reached
conclusions documented in a report.
“Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer (“CRO”) at Step II of the
University’s PPSM 70 process, hearing and deciding Plaintiff’s appeal of his
termination.”
In sum, each of the individual defendants, like the manager in Vergos, were
involved in the investigation, hearing, processing, and/or deciding plaintiff’s and his co-
workers’ grievances. We conclude, as in Vergos, their conduct was within the protective
ambit of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Thus we must review the trial court’s
resolution of the second step in the analysis—whether plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood
of success on the merits.
Without citation to specific pages in the record or argument about the likelihood of
success of each element of the four causes of action or even a response to the trial court’s
thorough analysis, plaintiff invites us to review his 443-page opposition to the anti-
SLAPP motion and insists, again without analysis, that the evidence is “overwhelming.”
He falls miserably short of his duty on appeal to cite to the record, to present cogent
argument, and to support his argument with applicable legal authority. In this vacuum,
we turn to the trial court’s statement of decision wherein the court provides a brief and
11
apt rationale for finding plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a likelihood of
prevailing.
Plaintiff’s first cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress
fails because the tort requires a showing of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of
human decency. The court found “[w]hat plaintiff has alleged, and what his evidence in
opposition appears to support, are complaints concerning personnel management by
defendants. Pleading of personnel management activity is ‘insufficient to support a claim
of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged.’
(Janken v. [GM Hughes Electronic (1996)] 46 Cal.App.4th [55,] 80.)” We agree with the
trial court that none of the allegations against these individual defendants involved in the
investigation and resolution of the grievances constitutes the type of outrageous conduct
beyond the bounds of human decency necessary to prevail on a claim of the intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff is unable to surmount the basic principle of law that an employee or
former employee cannot sue a current or former supervisor or employee for interfering
with his or her prospective economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate
the plaintiff’s employment. (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24; Shepperd v.
Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347.) On this basis, the trial court properly
concluded plaintiff failed to provide any countervailing authority or analysis as to why
the facts before the court show the likelihood of prevailing on his interference with
prospective economic advantage cause of action.
Plaintiff’s discrimination claim meets another definitive legal obstacle. Individual
defendants cannot be sued for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), nor can they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and
12
harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664;2 Janken v. GM Hughes

Electronic, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.) Plaintiff has not shown any likelihood of
surmounting this obstacle.
Finally, the trial court found that plaintiff did not establish that the individual
defendants’ conduct was in retaliation for his whistleblowing. The court explained: “The
mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations and reached
conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree with does not establish their investigatory
findings are an act of retaliation. Nor can Boyd’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s grievance at
the Step II level of PPSM 70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is
no allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that could be
deemed to be a retaliatory action.” In the absence of any evidence or analysis provided
by plaintiff, we have no basis for reaching a finding at odds with the trial court. Plaintiff
has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on a whistleblower retaliation cause of action.
(Gov. Code, § 8547.10.)
III
Plaintiff maintains he should have been allowed to amend his complaint for the
third time. As support he cites cases involving demurrers, not special motions to strike a
SLAPP. His authorities, therefore, are inapposite. The anti-SLAPP statute makes no
provision for amending the complaint once the court finds the targeted conduct is
protected speech. (Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073.)
2 After Reno v. Baird, supra, 18 Cal.4th 640 was decided “the California Legislature
amended FEHA's harassment provision expressly holding individual employees liable for
their harassment.” (Scott v. Solano County Health & Soc. Orders Servs. Dep't (E.D. Cal.
2006) 459 F.Supp.2d 959, 966, citing Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j).) There is no
harassment claim targeted by the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
13
DISPOSITION
The judgment striking the four causes of action against defendants Nichols,
Oropeza, Seifert, Boyd, and Chilcott is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs
on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , J.
ROBIE , J.
14
EXHIBIT # 35
2216 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
Email: jjw1980(2ilive.corn
October 08, 2021
Michelle Kern
Secretary to Trial Counsel
State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Response to your letter dated September 16, 2021
Dear Ms. Kern:
Thank you for your letter dated September 16, 2021. 1 was unable to respond sooner
because I have been very preoccupied with my litigation in the Sacramento and Federal
courts, where I have been representing myself since December 2014 in the Sacramento
County Superior Court wrongful termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California (UC Regents) and with Jaroslaw
Jerry Waszczuk vs. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (C UIA B) and The
Regents of the University of California as a Real Party of Interest, Case Number 34-2013-
8000 1699-CU-WM-GDS. I have also been representing myself in Federal court since August
2018 in a multimillion-dollar tax evasion and fraud whistleblower case, No. 20-1407
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, which is currently
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Also I will put on hold my more detailed response until I will receive a tentative
decision from Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Christopher E . Krueger concerning
my Motion for Reconsideration from the Court Order, dated September 1, 2021, which
granted a Motion for Summary Judgment to the Regents of the University of California in
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California.
In October 2018, Judge Krueger from Department 54, together with Judge Jennifer
Rockwell from Department 37, were chosen by members of an organized crime
organization to end my litigation efforts and destroy me and my wife.
For clarification, the documents I faxed to your office on September 16, 2021 were a
not complaint about judges or justices. Rather, they were just a sneak preview of what I am
1
Response to UP letter dated 8/16/2021
dealing with in the Sacramento courts. I take no pleasure in complaining about judges or
justices. Since December 2, 2013, I have been seeking justice in the California courts in
response to my life at age 60 and my normal family life and livelihood being devastated by
white collar criminals, or their advocates with J.D. degrees, who operate in the University of
California, and within the ranks of the California government and courts.
I appreciate your explanation of what the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP)
can and cannot do. My inquiry with the CJP is not about relitigating my cases pending in the
state courts; rather, it is about protecting myself and my family from organized crime which
has incapacitated judges, justices, and the legal system in general and efforts to serve justice
in litigation related to my December 7, 2012 employment termination by the University of
California, UC Davis Medical Center's management, which was forced by organize crime to
hunt me down and terminate my employment, framing me for deportation to my native
country of Poland during my 13 years of employment with the university and after the
termination of my employment nine years ago.
In regard to your advice to hire an attorney, I can only say that I hired two very
experienced attorneys. They did not last long.
I have no expectation that the CJP will do anything beyond reading about the
provided facts and events in my inquiries about the justice I have received in the state courts
since September 2014 and which has entirely ruined the lives of my family and me.
My inquiry with the CJP was triggered in the defense of my 70-year-old wife who
has nothing to do with my litigation against the University of California, but who has
nevertheless been threatened by gangsters with J.D. degrees from the Porter Scott law firm
since February 2015. On July 2,2021, my wife was literally robbed of $22,284 from her
savings by Porter Scott attorney Lindsay Goulding in Court Department 43. This happened
while appearing before Judge Thadd Blizzard and the Court Clerk, and after an unsuccessful
attempt to set up my wife for an interrogation to break into her bank and 401(K) accounts.
Judge Blizzard, the Clerk, and Goulding did not want to accept the $22,284 check from my
wife. I literally had to force Goulding to take the check, which she had no right to cash, and
I told her in front of this judge and clerk to stop harassing my wife. I had a witness with me
during this event in court. I believe this was a coordinated criminal act by the two Court
departments (Depts. 43 and 53 or 54 ) to extort money. These departments should be audited
by the State Auditor and the FBI.
I will provide a detailed brief about my inquiry with CJP next week. For now, I am
enclosing as background to my inquiry with CJP latest my filing in the United States Court
of Appeal for the District of Columbia, dated 10/01/2021 titled "Appellant Concerns about
the Court Per Curium Order dated 9/15/20219." Thank you for your time and consideration.
Response to CJP letter dated 8/16/2021

Sincerely
) 41L
II
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Enclosure:
CC: State Auditor, State Bar of California, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, California Senator Dr.
Susan Talamantes Eggman
Response to UP letter dated 8/16/2021

• --'- - tnfe of Ulalffdrni,,

1• ammissiart rat uit erfrrnuc
455 lhlben Gate Afapnue, $uite 14400
1
g4102-3650
(415) 557-1200
Fax (415) 557-1266
Website: http://cjp.ca.gov
September 16, 2021

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Dear Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk:
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your recent complaint against California

judges. We appreciate your time and effort in bringing this matter to the commission's
attention. We are presently reviewing this information and, if further information is
needed, you will be contacted. You will be advised in writing, at a later date, of the
commission's action in this matter.
To give you some information about the process, each complaint about a judge is
voted upon by the commission. When a complaint states facts which could be
misconduct, if the facts are true and there is not another explanation for what happened,
the commission typically opens an investigation. The commission's staff will interview
witnesses, review documents or files and conduct other investigation. If there is
sufficient evidence supporting the complaint, the judge will be contacted and asked to
respond to the allegations. The commission then reviews the available evidence, and the
judge's response if the judge was contacted, to make a determination whether misconduct
has occurred. Misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, a
higher standard than is required in civil cases but lower than in criminal cases. If the
evidence does not support a finding of misconduct, the commission will
close the case.
The Commission may also close the case if the misconduct was relatively minor and the
judge has acknowledged the problem and taken steps to prevent it from happening again.
If the evidence supports a finding of misconduct and the commission determines that
discipline may be appropriate, the commission may proceed to impose discipline.
It may also be helpful to explain that the Commission on Judicial Performance is

not a court. It does not have the authority to reverse a judge's decision, move your case
to another department or court, disqualify a judge or otherwise get involved in your case.
The commission's role is limited to reviewing allegations ofjudicial misconduct. A
judge's legal rulings and discretionary decision-making without more, are not a basis for
review by the commission. Even if ajudge's decision is later determined by an appellate
September 16, 2021
Page Two
court to be legally incorrect, that by itself is not a violation of the Code of Ethics and is
not misconduct. A judge's legal error might be a basis for investigation by this
commission if there is sufficient evidence of bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, disregard
for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of the law or any purpose other than the
faithful discharge of judicial duty.
Lastly, our office is not able to provide legal advice. If you wish to determine
what legal avenues are available to you, you might consider contacting an attorney or
legal services provider to see if they can help you.
Very truly yours,
Michelle Kern
Confidential under California Constitution,

Article VI, Section 18, and Commission Rule 102
thte of a1ifdrnià .
•l.
mrniziott an
455 u1ben lth uft 14400
g4102-3660
.. (415)557-1200 ..
Fax (415) 557-1266 -
Website: http:I/cjp.ca.gov
September 16, 2021 '

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Dear Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk:
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your recent complaint against California

judges. We appreciate your time and effort in bringing this matter to the commission's
attention. We are presently reviewing this information and, if further information is
needed, you will be contacted. You will be advised in writing, at a later date, of the
commission's action in this matter.
To give you some information about the process, each complaint about a judge is
voted upon by the commission. When a complaint states facts which could be
misconduct, if the facts are true and there is not another explanation for what happened,
the commission typically opens an investigation. The commission's staff will interview
witnesses, review documents or files and conduct other investigation. If there is
sufficient evidence supporting the complaint, the judge will be contacted and asked to
respond to the allegations. The commission then reviews the available evidence, and the
judge's response if the judge was contacted, to make a determination whether misconduct
has occurred. Misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, a
higher standard than is required in civil cases but lower than in criminal cases. If the
evidence does not support a finding of misconduct, the commission will close the case.
The commission may also close the case if the misconduct was relatively minor and the
judge has acknowledged the problem and taken steps to prevent it from happening again.
If the evidence supports a finding of misconduct and the commission determines that
discipline may be appropriate, the commission may proceed to impose discipline.
It may also be helpful to explain that the Commission on Judicial Performance is

not a court.
It does not have the authority to reverse a judge's decision, move your case
to another department or court, disqualify a judge or otherwise get involved in your case.
The commission's role is limited to reviewing allegations ofjudicial misconduct. A
judge's legal rulings and discretionary decision-making, without more, are not a basis for
review by the commission. Even if ajudge's decision is later determined by an appellate
September 16, 2021
Page Two
court to be legally incorrect, that by itself is not a violation of the Code of Ethics and is
not misconduct. A judge's legal error might be a basis for investigation by this
commission if there is sufficient evidence of bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, disregard
for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of the law or any purpose other than the
faithful discharge of judicial duty.
Lastly, our office is not able to provide legal advice. If you wish to determine
what legal avenues are available to you, you might consider contacting an attorney or
legal services provider to see if they can help you.
Very truly yours,
Michelle Kern
Confidential under California Constitution,

Article VI, Section 18, and Commission Rule 102
157 T.C. No. 3
BOBBY LEE ROGERS, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 17985-19W. Filed August 2, 2021.
P submitted nine claims (collectively, the claim) for a

whistleblower award under I.R.C. sec. 7623 to the IRS Whistleblower
Office (WBO). The claim asserted that certain individuals had
conspired to commit “grand theft through conversion” of the assets of
P’s mother. After reviewing P’s claim, a classifier from an IRS
operating division recommended that the claim be rejected because it
failed to meet threshold criteria set out in the regulations under I.R.C.
sec. 7623. The WBO then issued P a letter purporting to reject the
claim on an alternative ground, stating: “The claim has been rejected
because the IRS decided not to pursue the information you provided.”
P timely appealed to our Court under I.R.C. sec. 7623(b)(4).

I.R.C. sec. 7623(b) provides that we may review whistleblower award
determinations when certain monetary thresholds established in I.R.C.
sec. 7623(b)(5)(A) (relating to claims against individuals) and (B)
(relating to all claims) are satisfied. The record in this case does not
establish whether the action here satisfies these thresholds.
Served 08/02/21
-2-
After P’s petition for review, R filed an answer that did not
address the monetary thresholds under I.R.C. sec. 7623(b)(5). R
subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the
WBO’s determination should be classified as a rejection and did not
represent an abuse of discretion.
Held: Consistent with our holding in Lippolis v.

Commissioner, 143 T.C. 393 (2014), which considered I.R.C.
sec. 7623(b)(5)(B), the monetary threshold set out in I.R.C.
sec. 7623(b)(5)(A) is not a jurisdictional requirement, but rather
creates an affirmative defense that must be pleaded in the answer and
proved by R.
Held, further, because R did not plead in his answer that the
action here fails to satisfy the monetary thresholds under I.R.C.
sec. 7623(b)(5), that section does not preclude us from considering the
case on the merits.
Held, further, when the WBO determines that a whistleblower

is not entitled to an award, the regulations provide for two potential
courses of action: The WBO may reject the whistleblower’s claim or
it may deny the claim; failure to follow one of the paths set out in the
regulations is an abuse of discretion.
Held, further, although the WBO’s letter purported to reject P’s

claim, the rationale included in the letter is associated with a denial
(rather than a rejection) under the regulations.
Held, further, given the rationale included in the WBO’s letter,

neither the letter alone nor the letter coupled with the administrative
record provides a coherent account of the WBO’s determination that
is consistent with the regulations; therefore, the WBO’s determination
constitutes an abuse of discretion and cannot be upheld on review.
Held, further, the mere involvement of a classifier from an IRS

operating division in the WBO’s determination does not preclude this
Court’s review of the determination.
-3-
Bobby Lee Rogers, pro se.
Robert J. Braxton, Timothy B. Heavner, and Bartholomew Cirenza, for
respondent.
OPINION
TORO, Judge: Section 76231 provides for awards to individuals (commonly
referred to as whistleblowers) who submit information to the Government about
third parties who have underpaid their taxes or otherwise violated the internal
revenue laws. The Whistleblower Office (“WBO”) of the Internal Revenue
Service (“IRS”) has been entrusted with the responsibility of reviewing claims
under section 7623 to determine whether a whistleblower is entitled to an award.
The Department of the Treasury and the IRS have adopted regulations under
section 7623 that describe, among other things, actions that the WBO is
empowered to take when making award determinations, including rejections and
denials of whistleblower claims.
In this case, we consider the extent to which the WBO is constrained by the
regulations when it communicates adverse decisions to whistleblowers.
1
Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
-4-
Specifically, petitioner, Bobby Lee Rogers, has appealed, pursuant to
section 7623(b)(4), a determination of the WBO that declines to grant him an
award. Respondent, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the “Commissioner”),
has filed a motion for summary judgment under Rule 121, arguing that the WBO
“rejected” Mr. Rogers’ claim and that this determination was consistent with the
regulatory scheme and supported by the administrative record. But the letter that
the WBO sent to Mr. Rogers purported to reject his claim based on a rationale that
the regulations specifically associate with an alternative adverse determination, a
denial.
Under long-established administrative law, we can uphold the WBO’s
determination only on the grounds it actually relied on when making its
determination. See Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. 8, 23-24 (2018) (citing SEC
v. Chenery Corp. (Chenery I), 318 U.S. 80, 93-95 (1943), and SEC v. Chenery
Corp. (Chenery II), 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947)). A review of the record here leaves
us unable to conclude that the determination reflected in the WBO’s letter was
consistent with the regulations. Accordingly, the WBO’s determination was an
abuse of its discretion, and we therefore must deny the Commissioner’s motion.
-5-
Background
The facts described below are drawn from the parties’ pleadings and motion
papers, including the exhibits attached thereto and the administrative record as
certified by the Commissioner.
A. Mr. Rogers’ Award Applications
In 2019, Mr. Rogers submitted nine Forms 211, Application for Award for
Original Information, to the WBO, along with certain attachments. Mr. Rogers’
Forms 211 identified nine target taxpayers--all individuals and extended family
members or personal acquaintances of Mr. Rogers--and alleged that they had
conspired to commit “grand theft through conversion” of the assets of Mr. Rogers’
mother. The forms further alleged that the target taxpayers knowingly engaged in
a “planned offense,” through which property owned in part by Mr. Rogers’ mother
was fraudulently shifted through a variety of business entities, with the result that
she was “[divested] of her financial assets and property without her direct
knowledge or control.”
Mr. Rogers attached a number of supporting documents to his Forms 211,
including various trust instruments, affidavits, corporate filings, and news articles.
The documents were part of an “investigation report” that Mr. Rogers had prepared
-6-
and submitted to law enforcement agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels in
an attempt to regain ownership of his mother’s assets.2
B. WBO Review
Mr. Rogers’ Forms 211 and attachments (collectively, his claim) were
received and date-stamped by the WBO Initial Claims Evaluation (“ICE”) Team in
August 2019. The ICE Team assigned nine separate claim numbers--including one
master claim number--to Mr. Rogers’ claim and mailed him a letter acknowledging
that the WBO had received the materials. The ICE Team then routed Mr. Rogers’
claim to a classifier in the IRS Small Business Self-Employed (“SBSE”) operating
division.3 The SBSE classifier reviewed the claim and completed a classification
sheet for each of the nine separate claim numbers. The classifier made the same
recommendation on each sheet: “Reject the Claim: Allegations are not specific,
credible, or are speculative--Allegations are not credible.” On the classification
2
The package that Mr. Rogers sent to the WBO included a power of attorney
authorizing Mr. Rogers to act on his mother’s behalf. Mr. Rogers’ mother died on
July 10, 2020, and he is now the executor of her estate.
3
As the Court observed in Cline v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-35,
at *5 n.3, the operation of the claim evaluation function of the WBO--which
includes claim intake, monitoring, and awards processing--is now shared by the
SBSE operating division. See Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”) pt. 1.1.26.1.3.5
(Jan. 11, 2018).
-7-
sheet for the master claim number, the SBSE classifier listed the following as bases
for his recommendation:4
• TP has filed [F]orm 1040 through 2017, missing 2018.
• There are no balances due.[5]
• WB did not provide a breakdown of the years and how much

money was benefitted to TP per year.
• The * * * [whistleblower’s information] states that TP and

associates embezzled a total of $8M since 1992.
• WB does not provide documentation to show how much money

was embezzled and when money was embezzled.
• Failure to provide substantive information, if available, to

support the allegation. Rejecting claim per Treas. Reg.
301[.]7623-1(c)(1) for failing to include specific and credible
information to support a potential tax violation/allegation, as
well as documentation to support the claim.
The WBO E-Trak report for each claim number associated with Mr. Rogers’ claim
indicates that the SBSE classifier further recommended: “Treat as a 7623(a) claim
for purposes of the rejection[.] The allegations may describe an amount greater
4
The classification sheets for the remaining claim numbers were identical in
all material respects to the sheet for the master claim number, apart from minor
variations in the tax histories of the target taxpayers.
5
These first two entries demonstrate that the SBSE classifier performed at
least a cursory review of each target taxpayer’s tax filings.
-8-
than $2 million, but the claim lacks specific/credible information, is purely
speculative in nature, or does not allege a tax issue.”
A few days after the SBSE classifier completed his review, a Tax Examining
Technician for the WBO drafted an Award Recommendation Memorandum (the
“ARM”). The ARM was addressed to Keith Dehart, a supervisory Tax Examining
Technician overseeing the WBO’s ICE team. The ARM included a notation
recommending that the WBO “reject” Mr. Rogers’ claim. The ARM further
explained that the claim had been “[r]ecommended for rejection by classification.”
In addition to this “Summary Recommendation,” the ARM recited the same bases
for the recommendation that appeared in each of the SBSE classifier’s
classification sheets.
After the ARM’s preparation, the WBO did not forward Mr. Rogers’ claim
to an IRS examiner for possible action with respect to the target taxpayers.
Instead, the ICE Team immediately issued Mr. Rogers a letter (the “WBO Letter”
or “Letter”), dated September 10, 2019, declining to grant him an award. The
Letter, which was styled “Final Decision Under Section 7623(a),” was signed by
“Layne Carver for Joseph Hebb, Program Manager Whistleblower Office, SPPA,”
and stated in relevant part:
The Whistleblower Office has considered your Form 211, Application

for Award for Original Information, dated 08/05/2019 * * * The
-9-
Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to reject your claim

for an award.
The claim has been rejected because the IRS decided not to pursue the
information you provided.[6]
The WBO E-Trak report for each claim number associated with Mr. Rogers’ claim
lists the date the Letter was issued as the date of “Closure Action.” According to
the E-Trak reports, the action taken for each claim number was “Claim Rejected:
Allegations are not specific, credible, or are speculative.” Each report listed
“Classification” as the relevant decision maker.
C. Tax Court Proceedings
Mr. Rogers timely appealed to this Court seeking review of the WBO’s
award determination under section 7623(b)(4). The petition repeated the
allegations from Mr. Rogers’ Forms 211 and asserted that the cash and property
converted by the target taxpayers were not “taxed appropriately” at the Federal or
the State level. Mr. Rogers also requested that the Commissioner produce certain
records to facilitate Mr. Rogers’ investigation of the target taxpayers, including
more than 50 years of tax returns and “Tax and Earnings Statements” for his
mother.
6
The Letter also stated: “If you disagree with this determination, you have
30 days from the date of this letter to file a petition with the Tax Court.”
-10-
The Commissioner filed an answer that did not address certain monetary
thresholds under I.R.C. section 7623(b)(5) discussed in greater detail below. The
Commissioner subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment under Rule 121,
along with a supporting declaration and attachments.7 Mr. Rogers responded in
opposition. On September 28, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the
Commissioner’s motion in which both parties appeared and were heard. The
Commissioner filed a supplement to his motion after the hearing.
Discussion
I. Summary Judgment
The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid
unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).
Generally speaking, the Court may grant summary judgment when there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter
of law. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992),
aff’d, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).
The usual summary judgment standard is less apt in a case like this one,
where we must confine ourselves to the administrative record to decide whether
7
The declaration and supporting exhibits were lodged with the Court, and the
Commissioner simultaneously filed a motion for leave to file under seal the
declaration and exhibits to declaration of Keith Dehart in support of respondent’s
motion for summary judgment. The Court granted the motion to file under seal.
-11-
there has been an abuse of discretion. See Van Bemmelen v. Commissioner,
155 T.C. 64, 78 (2020). In such a case, generally there will be no trial on the
merits. Therefore, when we review final agency action under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. secs. 551-559, 701-706 (2018), summary judgment serves
as a mechanism for deciding, as a matter of law, whether the agency action is
supported by the administrative record and is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Van Bemmelen v.
Commissioner, 155 T.C. at 79.
II. Whistleblower Framework
A. Section 7623(a) and (b)
As we have said, section 7623 provides for awards to whistleblowers who
submit information about third parties who have underpaid their taxes or otherwise
violated the internal revenue laws. Section 7623(a) authorizes discretionary
payments in certain circumstances, while section 7623(b) provides for
nondiscretionary (i.e., mandatory) awards. Before an award may be paid, the IRS
generally must proceed with an “administrative or judicial action” and collect
proceeds from the target taxpayer. See sec. 7623(b)(1); Cohen v. Commissioner,
139 T.C. 299, 302 (2012), aff’d, 550 F. App’x 10 (D.C. Cir. 2014); see also
sec. 7623(a).
-12-
Under section 7623(b), the WBO first determines whether a whistleblower is
entitled to a mandatory award. If an award is due, then the WBO also determines
the amount of the award. See sec. 7623(b)(1), (2), and (3). This Court has
jurisdiction to review the WBO’s determinations under section 7623(b), including
determinations that no award is due. See sec. 7623(b)(4); Lacey v. Commissioner,
153 T.C. 146, 169 (2019); see also Cooper v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 70, 75-76
(2010). We do not, however, have authority to order the IRS to commence an
administrative or judicial action or to review its determination of the alleged tax
liability to which a whistleblower’s claim pertains. See Lacey v. Commissioner,
153 T.C. at 166; see also Cohen v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. at 302 (citing Cooper
v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 597, 600 (2011)).
In addition, this Court generally does not review award determinations that
have been properly made under section 7623(a) as opposed to section 7623(b).
Section 7623(a) applies if certain monetary thresholds under section 7623(b) are
not met.8 Those thresholds provide that section 7623(b), rather than
section 7623(a), applies with respect to any action if the proceeds in dispute exceed
8
We note that the WBO has a practice of labeling all claims that it believes
are purely speculative or do not identify a specific or credible tax issue as
section 7623(a) claims, see IRM pt. 25.2.2.7.1(2) (Jan. 12, 2018), but those labels
do not preclude our review, see, e.g., Van Bemmelen v. Commissioner, 155 T.C.
64, 71-72 & n.6 (2020).
-13-
$2 million, sec. 7623(b)(5)(B), and, for an action against an individual, if the
individual’s gross income exceeds $200,000 for any taxable year subject to the
action, sec. 7623(b)(5)(A); see Smith v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 449, 461 (2017)
(explaining that the $200,000 threshold applies to individuals and the $2 million
threshold applies to all taxpayers). We have held, however, that the $2 million
threshold set out in section 7623(b)(5)(B) is not jurisdictional. Lippolis v.
Commissioner, 143 T.C. 393, 397-398 (2014). Rather, that threshold constitutes
an affirmative defense that the Commissioner must raise in his answer and with
respect to which the Commissioner bears the burden of proof. See id. at 400. Our
reasoning and conclusions in Lippolis apply with equal force to the $200,000
threshold, and we now hold that section 7623(b)(5)(A) likewise is not
jurisdictional. Accordingly, if the Commissioner wishes to argue that we are
precluded from reviewing a determination based on either of the monetary
thresholds under section 7623(b)(5), he must so allege in his answer and must
satisfy his burden of proof.
B. Rejections and Denials
The statutory provisions governing whistleblower awards are succinct, and
the Department of the Treasury and the IRS have adopted regulations
supplementing the statutory scheme. As relevant to our decision, the regulations

-14-
provide for two distinct types of determinations that result in no award: rejections
and denials. We describe each type of determination in greater detail below.
1. Rejection
The regulations establish certain minimum criteria that apply to all
whistleblower claims. In particular, section 301.7623-1(b), Proced. & Admin.
Regs., describes which individuals are eligible to file a claim (i.e., it addresses the
“Who may file?” question), while section 301.7623-1(c), Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
describes the information each claim should include (i.e., it addresses the “What
information must be submitted?” question). Among other things, a claim generally
must (1) include specific, credible, and nonspeculative information that the
whistleblower believes will lead to collected proceeds, (2) report a failure to
comply with the internal revenue laws and identify the person(s) believed to have
failed to comply with the internal revenue laws, and (3) provide substantive
information in support of the whistleblower’s allegations, including all available
documentation. See sec. 301.7623-1(c)(1), (4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also
Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. at 160. For these purposes, a claim is considered
purely speculative if it lacks any basis or support for its allegations. See Lacey v.
Commissioner, 153 T.C. at 161.

-15-
Under the regulations, “[a] rejection is a determination that relates solely to
the whistleblower and the information on the face of the claim that pertains to the
whistleblower.” Sec. 301.7623-3(c)(7), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Internal
Revenue Manual (“IRM”) pt. 25.2.1.1.3(7) (Apr. 29, 2019) (“A rejection is a
determination that relates to the whistleblower’s eligibility to file a claim for
award, or the submission of information and claims for award (i.e., the claim did
not contain a tax issue, the information on the Form 211 was not specific/credible
information, the claim was purely speculative in nature, or the Service was unable
to identify the taxpayer based on the information provided by the
whistleblower).”).9 Accordingly, and as provided in the regulations, a rejection is
appropriate when a whistleblower’s claim fails to comply with the threshold
requirements as to who may submit a claim or what information the claim must
include. See sec. 301.7623-1(b), (c)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also
sec. 301.7623-3(b)(3), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
9
The definition of “rejection” in the current IRM is identical to the 2019
version. See IRM pt. 25.2.1.1.3(7) (May 28, 2020). We note that the provisions of
the IRM can be instructive in understanding the IRS’ interpretation of a statute, see
Ginsburg v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 75, 87 (2006), and in ascertaining the
procedures the IRS expects its employees to follow, see Wadleigh v.
Commissioner, 134 T.C. 280, 294 (2010). The IRM, however, does not have the
force of law. See Marks v. Commissioner, 947 F.2d 983, 986 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1991),
aff’g T.C. Memo. 1989-575; Vallone v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 794, 807 (1987).
-16-
Congress has entrusted to the WBO the initial evaluation of whistleblower
claims to determine whether they satisfy the minimum standards for an award.10
See Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432,
sec. 406(b)(1)(B), 120 Stat. at 2960 (providing that the WBO “shall analyze
information received from any individual * * * and either investigate the matter
itself or assign it to the appropriate Internal Revenue Service office”); see also
sec. 301.7623-1(c)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Accordingly, the WBO determines
whether a claim should be rejected on its face or whether further consideration is
warranted.
If a claim fails to meet the threshold criteria, depending on the
circumstances, the WBO may choose to notify the whistleblower of any
deficiencies and give him an opportunity to perfect the claim before the WBO
takes further action.11 See sec. 301.7623-1(c)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Once
the WBO determines that it will reject a claim, what happens next turns on whether
the claim is subject to section 7623(a) or section 7623(b). If the claim is subject to
10
As noted above, see supra note 3, the claim evaluation function of the
WBO is now shared by the SBSE operating division.
11
This opportunity is available only if the deficiency relates to the contents
of the claim (i.e., the “what” question under section 301.7623-1(c)(1), (2), or (3),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.), as opposed to the eligibility of the whistleblower (i.e.,
the “who” question under section 301.7623-1(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs.). See
sec. 301.7623-1(c)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
-17-
section 7623(a), the WBO provides written notice to the whistleblower stating the
basis for the rejection without sending a preliminary rejection letter.
Sec. 301.7623-3(b)(3), Proced. & Admin. Regs. If the WBO instead determines
that it will reject a claim under section 7623(b), it commences a “whistleblower
administrative proceeding” by sending the whistleblower a preliminary rejection
letter that states the basis for the rejection and invites the whistleblower to submit
comments. Sec. 301.7623-3(c)(7), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The WBO reviews all
comments timely submitted by the whistleblower and, if it still believes that a
rejection is appropriate, provides written notice of the rejection to the
whistleblower, again with an explanation. Id. When a claim (whether under
section 7623(a) or section 7623(b)) is rejected for failure to meet threshold criteria
other than those relating to the eligibility of the whistleblower under section
301.7623-1(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs., the regulations provide that the
whistleblower has a post-rejection opportunity to “perfect and resubmit the claim.”
See sec. 301.7623-1(c)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Lacey v.
Commissioner, 153 T.C. at 161-162.

-18-
2. Denial
A “denial” is fundamentally different from a “rejection.” Under the
regulations, “[a] denial is a determination that relates to or implicates taxpayer
information.” Sec. 301.7623-3(c)(8), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also IRM
pt. 25.2.1.1.3(3) (“A denial is a determination that is made for reasons beyond the
information contained on the Form 211. [sic] (e.g., the Service did not proceed
based on the information provided by the whistleblower, the case was surveyed or
no changed by the operating division, the issue(s) alleged by the whistleblower
were no change issues, the issues alleged by the whistleblower were below
threshold, the statute has expired on the issues raised by the whistleblower, there
are no collected proceeds).”).12 The WBO’s denial of a claim indicates that “the
IRS either did not proceed based on the information provided by the whistleblower
* * * or did not collect proceeds” as a result of proceeding against the taxpayer on
the basis of the whistleblower’s information. Sec. 301.7623-3(c)(8), Proced. &
Admin. Regs.; see also sec. 301.7623-3(b)(3), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; T.D. 9687,
2014-36 I.R.B. 486, 500 (“[A] denial often relates to or implicates taxpayer
information (for example, because the IRS did not proceed based on the
information provided or did not collect any proceeds).”). Accordingly, a denial is a
12
The definition of “denial” in the current IRM is materially identical to the
2019 version. See IRM pt. 25.2.1.1.3(3) (May 28, 2020).
-19-
determination that is made after the WBO engages in some substantive
consideration beyond the face of a claim. See Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C.
at 161-162, 168.
The WBO handles a denial of a claim similarly to a rejection. In the case of
a denial under section 7623(a), the WBO provides written notice of the denial to
the whistleblower, but does not state the basis for the denial.13 See sec. 301.7623-
3(b)(3), Proced. & Admin. Regs. In the case of a denial under section 7623(b), the
WBO sends the whistleblower a preliminary denial letter that states the basis for
the denial and invites the whistleblower to submit comments, which starts the
whistleblower administrative proceeding to which the whistleblower is entitled
(similar to that afforded in the case of a rejection under section 7623(b)).
13
This provision of notice does not start a whistleblower administrative
proceeding. The preamble to the final regulations explains that
Treasury and the IRS considered whether to make denials of claims

under section 7623(a) subject to an administrative proceeding similar
to the denial of claims under section 7623(b). However, given the
nature of claims under section 7623(a) and the large number of such
claims, Treasury and the IRS determined that the administrative
burden of providing an administrative proceeding would significantly
outweigh the small amount of additional information that would be
provided in the denial letters. We note, however, that the same
section 6103 concerns are not present with rejection letters.
Accordingly, in the case of a rejection under section 7623(a) or (b),
the written notice is not subject to the same limitations under section
6103 and will explain the basis for the rejection. * * * [T.D. 9687,
2014-36 I.R.B. 486, 500.]
-20-
Sec. 301.7623-3(c)(8), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The WBO considers any timely
response from the whistleblower and, if it still believes a denial is appropriate,
provides written notice to the whistleblower so stating, including the basis for its
determination. Because a denial is based on factors beyond deficiencies on the
face of the whistleblower’s claim, the regulations do not provide the whistleblower
an opportunity to perfect his claim after a denial. Compare id. paras. (b)(3), (c)(8),
with sec. 301.7623-1(c)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
III. Standard and Scope of Review
Section 7623(b)(4) provides that “[a]ny determination regarding an award”
under section 7623(b) may be “appealed to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall
have jurisdiction with respect to such matter).” We review the WBO’s
determinations regarding an award for abuse of discretion. See Kasper v.
Commissioner, 150 T.C. at 22-23. Abuse of discretion exists when a determination
is arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Murphy v.
Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 320 (2005), aff’d, 469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006). An
agency’s failure to follow its own regulations typically is an abuse of discretion.
See Fort Stewart Sch. v. FLRA, 495 U.S. 641, 654 (1990) (“It is a familiar rule of
administrative law that an agency must abide by its own regulations.” (citing
Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 547 (1959) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in part,
-21-
dissenting in part), and Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 388 (1957))); Reuters Ltd.
v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 947 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“A precept which lies at the
foundation of the modern administrative state is that agencies must abide by their
rules and regulations.”); Blanton v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 909
F.3d 1162, 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (citing Reuters); see also Patton v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 206, 210 (2001) (“[The Commissioner] is required to
follow the statute and abide by regulations reasonably based on the statute, and
failure to do so will amount to an abuse of discretion.” (citing Lansons, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 622 F.2d 774, 776 (5th Cir. 1980), aff’g 69 T.C. 773 (1978), and
Buzzetta Constr. Corp. v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 641, 647 (1989))).
In ascertaining whether the WBO abused its discretion, we generally confine
our review to the administrative record. See Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C.
at 20. In the whistleblower context, the administrative record consists of “all
information contained in the administrative claim file that is relevant to the award
determination and not protected by * * * privileges.” Sec. 301.7623-3(e)(1),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
The Supreme Court has held that “a reviewing court, in dealing with a
determination or judgment which an administrative agency alone is authorized to
make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the
-22-
agency.” Chenery II, 332 U.S. at 196 (summarizing the holding of Chenery I, 318
U.S. 80). Consequently, we held in Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. at 23-24:
Under the Chenery doctrine we can uphold the WBO’s determination

only on the grounds it actually relied on when making its
determination. * * * This means that the WBO must clearly set forth
the grounds on which it made its determination, so that we don’t have
to guess. See * * * [Chenery II, 332 U.S. at 196]. We cannot uphold
the WBO’s determination “simply because findings might have been
made and considerations might be disclosed which might justify his
ultimate conclusion.” Antioco[ v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-
35], at *25 (citing Chenery I, 318 U.S. at 93-94).
Thus, our Court reviews a WBO determination by reference to the grounds
that it states, not by reference to post hoc rationalizations. Lacey v. Commissioner,
153 T.C. at 165. In performing this analysis, we may consider any
“contemporaneous explanation of the agency decision” contained in the record.
Tourus Records, Inc. v. DEA, 259 F.3d 731, 738-740 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting
Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 143 (1973)) (deciding not to remand a case involving
a letter with an insufficient explanation of an agency’s action because the record
contained contemporaneous explanations of the agency’s decision-making
rationale). We will “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path
may reasonably be discerned.” Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys.,
Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974).

-23-
If the Court decides that the WBO abused its discretion in rejecting or
denying a whistleblower’s claim, then we can remand the case for further
consideration. See Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. at 165, 172-173;
Whistleblower 769-16W v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. 172, 181-182 (2019) (holding
that the Tax Court may in appropriate circumstances remand a whistleblower case
to the WBO for further consideration); see also Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,
470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985) (“If the record before the agency does not support the
agency action, if the agency has not considered all relevant factors, or if the
reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the basis
of the record before it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to
remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.”).
IV. Applying the Standards to the Commissioner’s Motion
A. Section 7623(b)(5)
As we have discussed, section 7623(b) authorizes our review of WBO
determinations when two monetary thresholds set out in section 7623(b)(5) are
satisfied. We therefore begin with a procedural question: Are we precluded from
reviewing Mr. Rogers’ petition because the record does not establish that the action
here satisfies the monetary thresholds? We conclude that the answer is no.
-24-
As we held in Part II.A, neither of the monetary thresholds set out in
section 7623(b)(5) is jurisdictional. Therefore, if the Commissioner wishes to
argue that one or both of the thresholds precludes our review, he must so allege in
his answer and satisfy his burden of proof. The Commissioner has not done so
here, and we therefore proceed to consider the merits.
B. Abuse of Discretion
1. The WBO Letter
Under Chenery I, 318 U.S. at 89, we judge agency action “by the standards
which the * * * [agency] itself invoked.” See also Chenery II, 332 U.S. at 196.
Accordingly, in reviewing the WBO’s action in this case, we turn first to its
determination: the Letter mailed to Mr. Rogers. The WBO Letter was titled “Final
Decision Under Section 7623(a)” and stated in relevant part:
The Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to reject your

claim for an award.
The claim has been rejected because the IRS decided not to pursue the
information you provided. [Emphasis added.]
On its face, the Letter states that the WBO is rejecting Mr. Rogers’ claim.
But the WBO Letter fails to include any rationale that would support a rejection
under the regulations. See sec. 301.7623-1(b)(2), (c)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
(stating that a whistleblower claim may be rejected for violating specified

-25-
minimum criteria); see also IRM pt. 25.2.1.1.3(7) (stating that a rejection is
appropriate if a claim does not raise a tax issue or is purely speculative, the
information on the Form 211 is not specific or credible, or the IRS is unable to
identify the taxpayer based on the claim). The Letter identifies no deficiencies
with respect to the “who” or “what” questions addressed in the regulations. See
sec. 301.7623-1(b)(2), (c), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Put another way, the WBO
Letter does not say that Mr. Rogers is an impermissible whistleblower. See id.
para. (b)(2) (setting out the “who” requirements). Nor does the Letter say that the
materials he submitted fell short of providing the information the regulations
required. See id. para. (c) (setting out the “what” requirements). The WBO Letter
does not address any shortcomings on Mr. Rogers’ part, which is the focus of a
rejection inquiry under the regulations. Sec. 301.7623-3(c)(7), Proced. & Admin.
Regs. (“A rejection is a determination that relates solely to the whistleblower and
the information on the face of the claim that pertains to the whistleblower.”); see
also IRM pt. 25.2.1.1.3(7) (“A rejection is a determination that relates to the
whistleblower’s eligibility to file a claim for award, or the submission of
information and claims for award[.]”).
Rather than focusing on the whistleblower and explaining what he failed to
do, as required by the rejection rules under the regulations, the WBO Letter
-26-
switches its focus to the agency itself and what the agency chose to do. Thus, the
Letter tells Mr. Rogers that “the IRS decided not to pursue the information you
provided.” While this may be a plausible explanation for a denial, it does not
explain the basis of a rejection.14 A decision “not to pursue” (i.e., “not to proceed”)
is a quasi term of art. See sec. 301.7623-3(c)(8), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
(providing for “denial” where “the IRS * * * did not proceed based on the
information provided by the whistleblower”); see also sec. 301.7623-2(b)(1),
Proced. & Admin. Regs. (noting that the IRS “proceeds based on information”
when it “continues to pursue an ongoing action” that it would not otherwise have
“continued to pursue” (emphasis added)); sec. 301.7623-3(b)(3), Proced. &
Admin. Regs. (describing a denial for purposes of section 7623(a)). It does not
support rejections.
In short, the regulatory framework gave the WBO two distinct paths for
action--rejection or denial. Having come to that “fork in the road,” the WBO
Letter followed Yogi Berra’s advice and “took it.” The Yankee great’s suggestion
was sound in context, as both prongs of the fork led to his home. But with respect
to a whistleblower award, the two prongs of the regulations lead to very different
14
When a claim is rejected, it is inevitable that the IRS does not “pursue the
[whistleblower’s] information” (as the WBO’s Letter states) nor pursue a target on
the basis of that information, but to say so does not provide a reason supporting a
rejection.
-27-
places. By including the “decided not to pursue” rationale as the reason for its
purported rejection, the WBO Letter in effect said to Mr. Rogers “we reject your
claim because we are denying the claim.” This statement was self-contradictory--
and therefore impermissible--under the regulations.
We assume that WBO personnel are familiar with the rejection and denial
categories set out in the regulations and thus are puzzled by the Letter’s apparent
disregard of them.15 But, in any event, we will not attempt “to chisel that which
must be precise from what the agency has left vague and indecisive.” Chenery II,
332 U.S. at 197. The Commissioner has moved for summary judgment; he has the
burden of showing that the WBO’s determination is supported by the
administrative record and is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law. See Van Bemmelen v. Commissioner,
155 T.C. at 78-79. Based on the contents of the WBO’s Letter alone, we are
15
Apparently we are not alone in being puzzled by some of the WBO’s
communications, as that Office recently acknowledged. See WBO Mem. No.
WO-25-0621-0001 (June 1, 2021) (recounting “confusion where whistleblowers
have submitted letters, inquiries, and complaints” because of the rejection of
claims and describing revisions to internal WBO guidance to instruct classifiers
and subject matter experts who review whistleblower claims “not [to] use the terms
‘reject’ or ‘rejection’ when providing feedback for their decision to decline to
forward the whistleblower claim to the operating division’s audit/investigation
function for action,” although the “[f]eedback must [continue to] state the basis or
rationale for not taking action on the claim”).
-28-
unable to grant the Commissioner’s motion. See Reuters, 781 F.2d at 950-951;
Patton v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. at 210.
2. The Administrative Record
This conclusion does not end our inquiry. Consistent with Chenery I, a
determination letter that is silent or muddled with respect to a supportable rationale
may still be sustained if other materials in the record clarify the agency’s
reasoning. See Tourus Records, 259 F.3d at 738-740 (agency decision was
adequately supported because the record included contemporaneous explanations
of the agency’s decision-making rationale); Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C.
at 24-25 (evidence from an operating division classifier adequately explained
claim’s rejection).16 Such materials cannot suggest “post hoc rationalizations for
agency action,” but are acceptable if they offer “contemporaneous explanation[s]
of the agency decision.” Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. at 24-25 (quoting
Tourus Records, 259 F.3d at 738); see also Olivares v. TSA, 819 F.3d 454, 463-
464 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (materials that were before the agency at the time of its
determination, plus an affidavit that clarified the materials, could be considered by
the court).
16
See also Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75, at *12
(classifier’s findings supported the WBO’s stated grounds for rejecting a claim).
-29-
For example, in Tourus, 259 F.3d at 733, the Drug Enforcement Agency
(“DEA”) announced in a letter that it was denying a petition for waiver of a bond
requirement because the petitioner’s “Affidavit of Indigency” was “not adequately
supported.” Noting that the letter on its own was insufficient to sustain the DEA’s
determination because it failed to explain the DEA’s reasoning, id. at 737 (citing
Roelofs v. Sec’y of the Airforce, 628 F.2d 594, 599 (D.C. Cir. 1980)), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit went on to consider agency
memoranda that in that court’s view filled the gap left by the DEA’s letter, id.
at 738-739. We note two key distinctions between Tourus and this case. First, the
regulation the court considered in Tourus required the DEA to waive the bond
requirement “[u]pon satisfactory proof of financial inability to post the bond,” but
did not elaborate on the permissible reasons for such a determination or otherwise
constrain the DEA’s decision making. See id. at 735-736 (quoting 19 C.F.R.
sec. 162.47(e) (2000)). By contrast, the regulations under section 7623 describe in
detail the two types of determination available to the WBO when it declines to
issue an award (rejection and denial), as well as the circumstances that justify each
type of determination. Second, while the D.C. Circuit viewed the letter in Tourus
essentially as silent as to the rationale for the agency’s decision, the letter here does
provide a rationale. But that rationale, as discussed above, does not support the
-30-
determination (a rejection) reflected in the WBO’s Letter. Thus, the facts here are
materially different from those that were before the D.C. Circuit in Tourus.
Nevertheless, based on Tourus and the other authorities we have cited, we
will evaluate the WBO’s determination by looking beyond the four corners of the
Letter to consider the record more broadly. The purpose of this inquiry is to
determine whether any aspects of the record provide a basis for changing our initial
evaluation of the WBO’s decision. As we describe below, we find no such basis
here.
Rather than filling a gap left open by the WBO Letter, the administrative
record contradicts the rationale that the WBO provided to Mr. Rogers.
Specifically, the record indicates that multiple reviewers recommended the
rejection of Mr. Rogers’ claim based on the minimum threshold criteria established
by the regulations. For example, the SBSE classifier’s classification sheets made
the following recommendation: “Reject the Claim: Allegations are not specific,
credible, or are speculative--Allegations are not credible.” This statement mirrors
the requirements of section 301.7623-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs., which
mandates that whistleblower claims include “specific and credible information”
and states: “Submissions that provide speculative information or that do not
provide specific and credible information * * * do not provide a basis for an

-31-
award.” See also sec. 301.7623-1(c)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs. (stating that a
claim may be rejected if it fails to provide specific and credible information as
described in paragraph (c)(1)); IRM pt. 25.2.1.1.3(7) (stating that a rejection is
appropriate if a claim is purely speculative or is not specific or credible). The
classification sheets even cite the regulations in the section labeled “Basis for the
Recommendation,” which includes the following explanation:
Failure to provide substantive information, if available, to support the

allegation. Rejecting claim per Treas. Reg. 301[.]7623-1(c)(1) for
failing to include specific and credible information to support a
potential tax violation/allegation, as well as documentation to support
the claim.
The sheets elaborated that Mr. Rogers failed to provide documentation and “did
not provide a breakdown of the years and how much money was benefitted to TP
per year.” See sec. 301.7623-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. (stating that
whistleblower claims “should provide substantive information, including all
available documentation, that supports the whistleblower’s allegations”). The
SBSE classifier, therefore, could have hardly been clearer in recommending a
rejection for the reasons stated in subparagraphs (1) and (4) of section 301.7623-
1(c), Proced. & Admin. Regs.17
17
We note that, in making his recommendation, the SBSE classifier appears
to have considered information beyond the four corners of Mr. Rogers’ claim. He
also reviewed the tax histories of the target taxpayers. One might ask whether this
(continued...)
-32-
After the SBSE classifier’s review, a WBO technician drafted the ARM--
addressed to a WBO supervisor--which similarly recommended that the WBO
“reject” Mr. Rogers’ claim. The ARM explained that the claim had been
“[r]ecommended for rejection by classification” and recited the same bases for the
recommendation that appeared in each of SBSE’s classification sheets. The WBO
E-Trak reports associated with Mr. Rogers’ claim were consistent with the ARM,
stating that the action taken for each claim number was “Claim Rejected:
Allegations are not specific, credible, or are speculative,” again mirroring the
17
(...continued)
kind of additional research, potentially implicating taxpayer information within the
meaning of section 301.7623-3(c)(8), Proced. & Admin. Regs., suggests that a
denial, rather than a rejection, could have been appropriate. We do not think,
however, that the limited inquiry performed by the SBSE classifier in this case was
inconsistent with a rejection determination, particularly when his recommendation
was expressly based on the regulatory criteria for rejections. Compare Kansky v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-43 (concluding the WBO did not abuse its
discretion in rejecting a claim after review of IRS internal records), with Frantz v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-64 (concluding the WBO did not abuse its
discretion in denying a claim after review of IRS internal records). After a review
of Mr. Rogers’ claim, it made perfect sense for the SBSE classifier to check for
anything obviously amiss in the histories of the target taxpayers. Finding nothing
that changed his assessment of the claim, the SBSE classifier was free to
recommend its rejection for the reasons he stated. The Commissioner appears to
agree that limited research of this kind does not require a denial rather than a
rejection. See, e.g., IRM pt. 25.2.1.3.2(4) (May 28, 2020) (directing classifiers to
use all available resources, including databases with target tax histories, in
evaluating any whistleblower claim).
-33-
requirements of section 301.7623-1(c)(1) and (4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.18 But
none of these reasons was included in the WBO’s Letter.
Instead, in a situation where only two paths were available to the WBO
(reject or deny), the WBO Letter purported to adopt the former using a justification
for the latter. At best, this mixup betrays confusion in the mind of the ultimate
decision maker, whether with respect to the requirements of the regulations, the
recommendations made by the SBSE classifier and the WBO technician, or both.
The supporting declaration from Mr. Dehart, the WBO supervisor,
perpetuates the confusion. Mr. Dehart, to whom the ARM was addressed, states
that both the SBSE classifier and the WBO technician recommended rejecting
Mr. Rogers’ claim. This statement at least comports with our reading of the
record. But Mr. Dehart elaborates that the WBO technician’s recommendation was
based on “the IRS Operating Division’s decision not to pursue petitioner’s
Form 211 information.” Like the WBO Letter, therefore, Mr. Dehart’s declaration
attributes to the SBSE classifier a decision the SBSE classifier never made--and
that the record does not suggest he made--namely, the decision not to pursue
Mr. Rogers’ claim within the meaning of section 301.7623-3(c)(8), Proced. &
18
Each report listed “Classification” as the relevant decision maker.
-34-
Admin. Regs., as opposed to rejecting it simply based on the minimum threshold
criteria.19
The self-contradiction reflected in the WBO Letter leaves us unable to
“reasonably * * * discern[]” the WBO’s path. Bowman Transp., Inc., 419 U.S.
at 286. What we can discern is that, at every step before the WBO’s ultimate
decision, IRS employees recommended the rejection of Mr. Rogers’ claim because
it failed to satisfy the minimum threshold criteria established by the regulations.
Given the rationale stated in the WBO Letter, however, the ultimate decision
maker appears to have opted to base his decision on an alternative ground. Thus,
this is not a case in which the determination letter is silent or muddled, but the
administrative record clears up the confusion. See, e.g., Tourus Records, 259 F.3d
731. Rather, the WBO’s selection of its particular rationale, expressly tied to a
denial by the regulations, conflicts with the recommendations that it received.
The Commissioner’s explanation of the WBO’s rationale does more harm
than good to his case. The Commissioner maintains that the WBO intentionally
selected the “decided not to pursue” formulation (rather than relying on regulatory
criteria invoked by the SBSE classifier and WBO technician) because the WBO
19
Mr. Dehart continues on to say that none of Mr. Rogers’ Forms 211 were
forwarded to an IRS examiner for possible action and that the ICE Team “rejected
petitioner’s claim.” But these statements are unhelpful in reconciling Mr. Dehart’s
other comments with the record and the WBO Letter.
-35-
wanted to avoid suggesting that Mr. Rogers could perfect his claim by submitting
additional information. As already discussed, when a claim is rejected (and not
denied), the regulations state that a whistleblower “may [that is, he is permitted to]
perfect and resubmit” his claim if the rejection is premised on a lack of adequate
explanation or documentation. See sec. 301.7623-1(c)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
That option is foreclosed when a claim is denied. Here, the Commissioner tells us
that the formulation reflected in the WBO Letter was intended to signal to
Mr. Rogers that he was not entitled to perfect his claim.20 But the WBO is not free
to take away with double speak rights that the regulations plainly provide. See
Blanton, 909 F.3d at 1176; Reuters, 781 F.2d at 951. Under section 301.7623-
1(c)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs., Mr. Rogers was entitled to perfect his claim if it
was rejected because it was speculative, was not specific or credible, or failed to
provide other information required by the regulations. See Lacey v.
20
Specifically, the Commissioner states,
The regulations leave the * * * [WBO] discretion to (1) invite the

whistleblower to perfect a claim and (2) reject a claim on a basis that
would allow the whistleblower to seek to perfect or a basis that would
not allow the whistleblower to seek to perfect. Here, the * * * [WBO]
considered the information provided and the IRS Operating Division’s
enforcement decision, and, ultimately, decided to reject on a basis that
does not allow for perfection--because the IRS decided not to pursue
the whistleblower’s information. [Respondent’s First Supplement to
Motion for Summary Judgment, para. 33.]
-36-
Commissioner, 153 T.C. at 161-162. The WBO failed to provide Mr. Rogers with
this opportunity.
As the Supreme Court recently observed: “If men must turn square corners
when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the
government to turn square corners when it deals with them.” Niz-Chavez v.
Garland, 593 U.S. ___, ___, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1486 (2021). We cannot
countenance intentional obfuscation on the part of the WBO. And neither the
WBO Letter alone nor the Letter coupled with the administrative record here
provides a coherent account of the WBO’s determination that is consistent with the
regulations. That, in turn, represents an abuse of discretion, and accordingly we
must deny the Commissioner’s motion.
3. The Commissioner’s Additional Arguments
In his motion and the supplement to his motion, the Commissioner attempts
to rescue the WBO’s determination by offering three additional arguments. We
address each in turn.
a. Rejection Determination
First, the Commissioner contends that the WBO correctly rejected
Mr. Rogers’ claim because it based its determination on the SBSE classifier’s
recommendation and the contents of the claim alone. We need not tarry long on
-37-
this argument as we have addressed it extensively above. See supra Part IV.B.1
and 2. But we do wish to highlight a few points.
The Commissioner cites section 301.7623-3(c)(7), Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
and contends that a rejection was appropriate here because both the WBO’s
determination and the SBSE classifier’s recommendation were based on the face of
Mr. Rogers’ claim and not on any information beyond the claim. In the case of the
SBSE classifier, the Commissioner points to the reasons enumerated in the
classification sheets (e.g., that Mr. Rogers’ claim was not specific or credible or
was speculative and that Mr. Rogers failed to provide documentation) as
supporting the proposition that the classifier based his recommendation on the face
of Mr. Rogers’ claim. With respect to the WBO’s determination, however, the
Commissioner simply states, without providing further support, that “[u]pon
receiving [the] SBSE Classifier[’s] * * * recommendation, the * * * [WBO] did
not go beyond the face of the claim made by the petitioner in making the
determination to reject the claim.”21 Respondent’s First Supplement to Motion for
Summary Judgment, para. 25.
21
Elsewhere in his supplement, the Commissioner cites the “Entire
Administrative Record” as support for the proposition that the WBO rejected
Mr. Rogers’ claim based on his information submission and not any information
beyond the claim. But the Commissioner does not point to any specific evidence
that supports this theory.
-38-
The Commissioner’s argument is unpersuasive. To the extent the
Commissioner contends that a rejection would have been the correct determination
under the regulations based on the information available to the WBO, that
argument does not establish what the WBO actually did. We agree in light of the
record that the SBSE classifier and the WBO technician based their
recommendations on the face of Mr. Rogers’ claim. But we have no way of
knowing that the determination by the WBO was similarly limited. As we have
discussed, the rationale selected by the WBO to explain its determination was
different from the rationale offered by the SBSE classifier and the WBO technician
and does not specify what the WBO considered. The Commissioner appears to
acknowledge as much in his supplement, stating that “[w]hile [the] SBSE classifier
* * * referenced Treas. Reg. § 301.7623-1(c) in his analysis, this was not the
ultimate rationale provided by the * * * [WBO] for its rejection.” Id. para. 23 n.7.
As much as the Commissioner might wish us to, we cannot attribute the SBSE
classifier’s reasoning to the WBO’s ultimate decision maker when that individual
specifically (and, according to the Commissioner, intentionally) selected a different
rationale. See Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. at 23 (in reviewing a WBO
determination we consider only the grounds the WBO actually relied on when
making the determination); see also Chenery I, 318 U.S. at 94 (we cannot uphold a
-39-
determination “merely because findings might have been made and considerations
disclosed which would justify * * * [the determination]”).
The Commissioner also argues that the inclusion of the phrase “decided not
to pursue” in the WBO Letter supports his contention that the WBO rejected
Mr. Rogers’ claim. The Commissioner concedes that a decision not to proceed
based on a whistleblower’s information would constitute a denial under
section 301.7623-3(c)(8), Proced. & Admin. Regs., but contends that a decision not
to pursue a claim is distinct from a decision not to proceed. We see no daylight
between the two phrases.
The Commissioner is correct that the phrase “did not proceed based on” is
defined in the regulations and specifically cited as an example of a denial in
section 301.7623-3(c)(8), Proced. & Admin. Regs. But he should have read the
regulations more closely. Section 301.7623-2(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
which defines the phrase “proceeds based on,” states as follows:
For purposes of section 7623(b) and §§ 301.7623-1 through

301.7623-4, the IRS proceeds based on information provided by a
whistleblower when the information provided substantially
contributes to an action against a person identified by the
whistleblower. For example, the IRS proceeds based on the
information provided when the IRS initiates a new action, expands the
scope of an ongoing action, or continues to pursue an ongoing action,
that the IRS would not have initiated, expanded the scope of, or
continued to pursue, but for the information provided. The IRS does
not proceed based on information when the IRS analyzes the
-40-
information provided or investigates a matter raised by the

information provided. [Emphasis added.]
Under the regulations, therefore, a decision to pursue an action is equivalent to a
decision to proceed, see id., and a decision not to proceed is grounds for a denial,
see sec. 301.7623-3(c)(8), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also IRM pt. 25.2.1.1.3(3).
These rules flatly contradict the Commissioner’s contention that an IRS “deci[sion]
not to pursue” a claim would support a rejection instead of a denial under the
regulations.22
b. Not an Abuse of Discretion
The Commissioner next contends that the WBO did not abuse its discretion
when it rejected Mr. Rogers’ claim based on a “dec[ision] not to pursue,” because
the regulations allow for rejections other than those based on the minimum
threshold criteria of section 301.7623-1(b) and (c), Proced. & Admin. Regs. More
specifically, the Commissioner acknowledges that the regulations do not mention a
decision not to pursue a claim as a potential reason for rejecting (as opposed to
denying) the claim, but argues that the regulations in this area are illustrative, not
exclusive, and a rejection need not reference any specific criteria. The
22
We note that the Commissioner does not request deference under Auer v.
Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), on this or any other point, perhaps because he
recognizes that he would be unable to satisfy the standard articulated by the
Supreme Court in Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. ___, ___, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2415-2418
(2019).
-41-
Commissioner further contends that rejections for reasons not referenced in the
regulations are exempt from the requirements of section 301.7623-1(c)(4), Proced.
& Admin. Regs. (providing a whistleblower with the opportunity to perfect his
claim in certain circumstances), and section 301.7623-3(c)(7), Proced. & Admin.
Regs. (defining “rejection” and setting out certain procedural rules that apply to
rejections under section 7623(b)).
In light of the discussion above, we need not determine whether there is any
case in which the WBO could reject a claim on grounds other than the minimum
criteria set out in the regulations.23 Rather, it suffices to say that the rationale
chosen by the WBO in this case was incompatible with a rejection, and therefore
we cannot sustain it.
23
The regulations at several points describe rejections of claims “pursuant to
§ 301.7623-1(b) or (c)” without mentioning rejections on other grounds. See
sec. 301.7623-3(b)(3), (c)(7), Proced. & Admin. Regs. (providing procedures for
rejecting claims “pursuant to § 301.7623-1(b) or (c)”); see also sec. 301.7623-
1(c)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs. (describing procedural requirements for certain
rejections pursuant to subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) of that section). In addition,
regulations under section 7623(a) as well as the preamble to the proposed
regulations describe the full spectrum of determinations that result in no award as
comprising rejections “pursuant to § 301.7623-1(b) or (c)” and denials. See sec.
301.7623-3(b)(3), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; 77 Fed. Reg. 74802 (Dec. 18, 2012);
see also T.D. 9687, 2014-36 I.R.B. at 500 (noting that, on this point, the final
regulations reflect no substantive changes as compared with the proposed
regulations).
-42-
c. Our Authority To Review
Finally, the Commissioner argues that, regardless of the merits of the
WBO’s determination, we are precluded from reviewing the determination because
it reflects an “enforcement decision” by an IRS operating division--i.e., the
recommendation of the SBSE classifier. In the Commissioner’s view, our Opinion
in Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. 146, which held that the Tax Court has
authority to review the WBO’s threshold rejection of a whistleblower’s claim for
abuse of discretion, id. at 166-167, does not affect the rule that we lack authority to
review an IRS enforcement decision not to audit a taxpayer’s return or otherwise
pursue a whistleblower’s information, see id. at 163-164; see also Cohen v.
Commissioner, 139 T.C. at 302; Cooper v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. at 75-76.
Unlike in Lacey, 153 T.C. at 166-167, where the WBO acted alone, the
WBO in this case involved an operating division by transmitting Mr. Rogers’ claim
to the SBSE classifier for classification. The Commissioner contends that, when
the SBSE classifier made his recommendation to reject Mr. Rogers’ claim, he
made an enforcement decision on behalf of an IRS operating division. Therefore,
the Commissioner argues, our Court lacks authority to review the WBO’s
determination. We disagree.
-43-
To begin with, and as already discussed, the Commissioner has not
established that the WBO based its determination on the SBSE classifier’s
recommendation.24 The Commissioner admits as much, asserting that the SBSE
classifier’s rationale for rejection “was not the ultimate rationale provided by the
* * * [WBO] for its rejection,” Respondent’s First Supplement to Motion for
Summary Judgment, para. 23 n.7, and that the WBO “reject[ed] on a basis that
does not allow for perfection--because the IRS decided not to pursue the
whistleblower’s information,” id. para. 33.25
Yet, the Commissioner tries to have it both ways. Under his theory, the
WBO’s reliance on the SBSE classifier was complete enough to shield the WBO’s
determination from review, but not so complete as to adopt the classifier’s
rationale. We fail to see how the WBO could have based its decision on the SBSE
classifier’s recommendation while simultaneously rejecting his reasoning.
24
The SBSE classifier’s classification sheets expressly stated that his
recommendation was to “Reject the Claim: Allegations are not specific, credible,
or are speculative--Allegations are not credible.” The SBSE classifier listed the
ways Mr. Rogers’ claim failed to adhere to the regulations and stated that he
recommended “[r]ejecting claim per Treas. Reg. 301[.]7623-1(c)(1) for failing to
include specific and credible information to support a potential tax
violation/allegation, as well as documentation to support the claim.” But the WBO
selected a different--and inconsistent--rationale in its Letter.
25
The Commissioner appears to concede that rejection on the grounds stated
by the SBSE classifier would have allowed for perfection.
-44-
In any event, the involvement of an IRS operating division does not
automatically preclude our review of a WBO determination. The Commissioner is
correct that in Lacey this Court distinguished between a rejection determination
made by the WBO, on the one hand, and a determination not to proceed with a
claim made by an operating division, on the other.26 However, after the WBO
made the decision under review in Lacey, the claim evaluation function of the
WBO was realigned: The operation of this function is now shared by the SBSE
operating division. Specifically, the version of the IRM that was in effect at the
time the WBO considered Mr. Rogers’ claim (and that remains in effect today),
IRM pt. 1.1.26.1.3.5 (Jan. 11, 2018), states as follows for “Initial Claims
Evaluation”:
(1) Effective July 10, 2016, * * * the Initial Claim Evaluation Team
(ICE) [of the WBO], was realigned to Small Business/Self-Employed
(SB/SE). ICE will continue to act as the primary receipt and control
function responsible for performing whistleblower claim intake,
monitoring, [and] award processing * * *.
26
Specifically, we stated that the “‘decision not to act on * * * [the
whistleblower’s] information’ is what we do not review,” noting that such
determinations are made by operating divisions of the IRS pursuant to the
regulations under section 7623. Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. 146, 168 (2019)
(quoting Cohen v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. 299, 302 (2012), aff’d, 550 F. App’x
10 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). By contrast, we found that the Court does have jurisdiction
to review the threshold rejection determination--i.e., the decision to summarily
reject a claim because, on its face, the claim fails to meet minimum regulatory
criteria. Id.
-45-
(2) The Whistleblower Office has strategy, policy, administration,

oversight, review, and reporting responsibility for the IRS
Whistleblower Program. * * *
(3) SB/SE has operational responsibility for the ICE Unit. * * *
Under the realigned system, after initial processing by the WBO, all claims
not summarily rejected (e.g., for failure to include required information) are
forwarded to the operating division for classification. IRM pt. 25.2.1.2 (Apr. 29,
2019). An operating division classifier (like the SBSE classifier in this case) then
determines whether each claim should be rejected, denied, or forwarded for further
investigation, IRM pt. 25.2.1.3.1 (May 28, 2020), including by considering
whether the claim describes a specific and credible tax issue or is purely
speculative, IRM pt. 25.2.1.3.2(5) (May 28, 2020).27
We do not consider it improper for the IRS to reorganize itself to allocate the
initial classification function to SBSE or other operating divisions and to allocate
some audit decisions to the WBO. See Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006,
sec. 406(b)(1)(B) (providing that the WBO “shall analyze information received
from any individual * * * and either investigate the matter itself or assign it to the
appropriate Internal Revenue Service office”). But, accepting that such an
27
In this regard, the rules that were in effect during 2019 were materially the
same as the current rules. See IRM pt. 25.2.1.3.1-.2 (Jan. 11, 2018).
-46-
allocation of duties is permissible, the issue becomes not which IRS office made
the determination but rather what the nature of that determination was.
The determination whether a claim satisfies the minimum requirements of
the regulations (i.e., the decision whether or not to reject) is not equivalent to a
decision of whether to act on a whistleblower’s information by commencing an
audit (i.e., the decision whether to proceed based on a claim). The former is a
basic check of a claim against specified criteria, while the latter is akin to an
exercise of discretion--a narrow category of action long shielded from judicial
review. See 5 U.S.C. sec. 701(a)(2) (2018) (precluding judicial review of agency
actions “committed to agency discretion by law”); see also Heckler v. Chaney, 470
U.S. 821, 830-831 (1985) (explaining that under 5 U.S.C. sec. 701(a)(2), “review
is not to be had” in those rare circumstances where the relevant statute “is drawn so
that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the
agency’s exercise of discretion”).
As we held in Lacey, when the WBO rejects a claim on its face for failure to
conform to the minimum threshold requirements set out in the regulations, an
explanation is required and that explanation is reviewable for abuse of discretion.
See Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. at 168 (noting that an abuse of discretion
standard applies and that the WBO’s exercise of its discretion must conform with
-47-
the pertinent regulatory criteria). This is so whether or not an operating division
agreed with or participated in the decision.28 Put another way, the involvement of
an operating division does not transform a threshold rejection into an exercise of
discretion that is immune from judicial review.29 Rather, it is the substance of a
determination, not the identities of the actors involved, that governs the analysis.
The administrative record here does not show the SBSE classifier acting as a
decision maker determining whether the IRS would proceed with an audit. Instead,
he functioned as a classifier making a threshold evaluation of the sufficiency of
Mr. Rogers’ claim, and he ultimately recommended that the claim be rejected for
failure to satisfy the regulatory criteria. His actions therefore were consistent with
a threshold rejection of a claim and do not preclude our review.
28
The Commissioner relies on a more recent provision of the IRM, added
after (and perhaps in response to) our decision in Lacey, to argue that any
recommendation by the operating division is an “enforcement decision” that
precludes our review. See IRM pt. 25.2.1.3(2) (May 28, 2020) (“The
recommendation from classification reflects an enforcement decision of the
operating division.”). This statement, which the IRM repeats three times in one
section, see id.; see also IRM pt. 25.2.1.3.1(1), 25.2.1.3.5(1), was not in effect
when Mr. Rogers’ claim was under review. And, even if it had been, this kind of
self-help on the part of the IRS is unpersuasive. Our analysis turns on the content
of a classifier’s recommendation, not the label the IRM attaches to it.
29
Indeed, if we accepted the Commissioner’s argument, the WBO’s
realigned classification process would result in few, if any, cases being subject to
this Court’s review under Lacey.
-48-
V. Conclusion
As we describe above, neither the WBO Letter alone nor the Letter coupled
with the administrative record here provides a coherent account of the WBO’s
determination that is consistent with the regulations. Therefore, the WBO’s
determination constitutes an abuse of discretion. It may well be that Mr. Rogers’
claim is nothing more than a personal dispute that the IRS will decide not to pursue
even if Mr. Rogers provides additional information. Nevertheless, the WBO must
comply with the regulations, and Mr. Rogers is entitled to transparency and candor
as to the reasons for its ultimate determination. We cannot countenance intentional
obfuscation by the WBO, nor will we bless attempts to improperly shield cases
from judicial review. Accordingly, we will deny the Commissioner’s motion as
supplemented and remand the case to the WBO for further consideration.30
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will be issued.
30
We have considered all the arguments made by the parties, and to the
extent not mentioned above, we conclude they are moot, irrelevant, or without
merit.

03-10-22 - USCA Appellan's Motion To Govern Future Proceeding Case No. 20-1407

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

03-10-22 - USCA Appellan's Motion To Govern Future Proceeding Case No. 20-1407

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1938514 Filed: 03/10/2022 Page 1 of 400

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk USCA No. 20-1407

Appellant U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 23105–

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO GOVERN FUTURE PROCEEDINGS IN

(EXHIBIT #1), which mandates the Appellant, Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced

Future Proceedings in this Case.

the attached (EXHIBITS) Rule 27(B)(i)

THE SUBSTANTIVE RELIEF - RULE 27(B)(iii)

It is Waszczuk’s understanding that the Court Opinion in Mandy Mobley Li

v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245, delivered by Senior Circuit Judge

Comm'r of Internal Revenue appeal.

Waszczuk disagrees with this outcome and, by this Motion, Waszczuk

respectfully requests the following:

decided by the Honorable GREGORY G. KATSAS, the Honorable NEOMI

RAO, and the Honorable JUSTIN R. WALKER.

Respondent-Appellee, the Commissioner of the IRS, transmit to the D.C. Circuit

Court all documents from Waszczuk’s whistleblower claim, No. 2018–012118,

and all documents and evidence supporting Waszczuk’s whistleblower claim

No. 2018–012118 Form 211.

Waszczuk submitted an update of his 03/23/2016 whistleblower claim, Form 211, to

and Table of Contents of 153 pages of Addendum and an Index of 65 Attachments-

District of Columbia in October 2020 or thereafter. Furthermore, Waszczuk, by this

Waszczuk’s very complex whistleblower claim.

who represented or representing whistleblowers.

• Attorneys with expertise in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission laws and

regulations related to cogeneration power plant operations

desire to deal with corruption in the University of California’s Office of the

President. However, since 2005 Waszczuk became a subject of vicious and

October 20, 2021 JUDGMENT- DECISION OF THE COURT IN THE NAME

OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND (EXHIBIT # 5)

A. Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

On March 23, 2016 and August 3, 2018, Waszczuk submitted whistleblower

Claim number 2016-007481 Form 211, dated 03/23/2016; and 08/03/2018

(Apendix #1and #2).

The notifications contained identical statements of rejection under IRC 7623(a)

On November 18, 2018, Waszczuk submitted to United States Tax Court

was about (EXHIBIT #6).

On June 4, 2020, Waszczuk’s Petition was denied by USTC Judge Joseph

Robert Goeke, (See :Ex. #3)

Goeke on 06/30/2020 (EXHIBIT #8)

(Appendix #9). Waszczuk’s Motion, which was unopposed by the Commissioner,

was denied by US Tax Court Judge Goeke on 07/17/2020 (EXHIBIT #9).

WBO or Commissioner never transmitted Waszczuk’s August 3, 2018 whistleblower

claim records 2018-012118, 2018-012139, and 2018-012141 to the USTC.

USTC from the Court record (EXHIBIT # 12)

B. Mandy Mobley Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service USCA

On November 30, 2018, Mandy Mobley Li submitted a whistleblower claim to

claim. (EXHIBIT #13).

On September 3, 2019, the USTC granted an unopposed Motion for

Protective Order to the Commissioner (EXHIBIT #15). In Waszczuk’s case,

Courtney D. Jones ordered that (EXHIBIT #18):

respondent's above-referenced filing, alleging with as much

Opposition to Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Waszczuk submitted

part of the administrative record (EXHIBIT #19), Waszczuk addressed the

administrative record in his 12/13/2019 Opposition to Commissioner’s Motion for

2020 Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision((USTC Rule 162). [02/22/2021

Appellant Brief (Appendix #8).]

On December 5, 2019, the Commissioner filed a Motion for Summary

9, 2019, issued a Court Order advising Ms. Li :(EXHIBIT # 21)

Waszczuk’s case, stated on November 8, 2019 (EXHIBIT #22):

Upon due consideration of respondent's Motion for Partial Summary

Furthermore, after Li filed her objection to the Commissioner’s Motion for