02-02 - 2023 - USTC-Petitioners' Motion To Stay Proceeding - Stay of Mandate-Case No.23105 - 18 W

USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1984256 Filed: 02/02/2023 Page 1 of 374
Docket No. 23105-18 W -1-
UNITED STATES TAX COURT

400 SECOND STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

Docket No. 23105-18 W
Petitioner Filed Electronically
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Respondent,
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -RE:

MANDATE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, ISSUED SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
To: Honorable Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge

United States Tax Court
400 Second Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20217
I.
INTRODUCTION
On February 1, 2023, the US Tax Court Chief Judge, Honorable Kathleen Kerrigan,
issued the following Court Order (EXHIBIT #1):

Docket No. 23105-18 W -2-
ORDER
In accordance with the mandate of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, issued September 19,
2022, it is ORDERED that this case is assigned to Judge Joseph
Robert Goeke for the purpose of conducting any further
proceedings pursuant to the above-referenced appellate mandate.
By this motion, the Petitioner Jaroslaw Waszczuk ( pronounced Vashchook
hereafter Waszczuk ) respectfully requests that that the US Tax Court issue an order
that would stay any further proceeding in the Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v Internal
Revenue Service v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service USCA District
of Columbia Circuit Case (No. 20-1407) and (Waszczuk’s) US Tax Court Case
Waszczuk v, Waszczuk v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020)
pursuant to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
mandate issued on September 19, 2022. (EXHIBIT #2)
The Waszczuk requests the court stays any further proceeding until the pending
Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue USCA case (No. 21-1268)
(Lissack) filed on December 16, 2021 and Luis Villa-Arce v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue USCA Case No.22-1006 are decided and finalized by the USCA
and perhaps by the United States Supreme Court. Lissack’s and Luis Villa-Arce case
that is pending in the USCA are about Internal Revenue Code 7623(b) (IRC
7623(b) as Waszczuk’s case. Waszczuk’s case (No. 20-1407) with out being
Docket No. 23105-18 W -3-
reviewed by the Court was dismissed on June 1, 2022 because of Mandy Mobley Li
v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue USCA case (No. 20-1245) Both case Li and
Waszczuk Case were unjustly dismissed by the USCA District of Columbia Circuit
Court on June 1, 2022 after the USCA issued Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of
Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 case (D.C. Cir. 2022 opinion on January 11, 2022
regarding the IRC 7623(b). Similarly, Lissack’s and Luis Villa-Arce USCA cases
are still pending. The only difference is that Waszczuk and Li represented themselves
in pro se, contrary to Lissack and Luis Villa-Arce are being represented by super
lawyers. The National Whistleblower Center, including Dean Zerbe, from Zerbe,
Miller, Fingeret, and Jadav, LLP and Stephen M. Kohn represents Lissack .These
National Whistleblower Center attorneys have outstanding expertise with such
cases. The Waszczuk is confused about how it was possible that his and Li and
Waszczuk’s case were dismissed when Lissack’s USCA case (No. 21-1268) was
pending was heard and is still reminded pending without any consequences of
Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 case (D.C. Cir. 2022
issued opinion.
The Luis Villa-Arce v. Comm’r USCA Case No.22-1006 was filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit two days after Mandy
Docket No. 23105-18 W -4-
Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) opinion
was issued but Waszczuk’s case was dismissed due to lack of court jurisdiction.
Luis Villa-Arce in Appellant’s Brief on page No.1 -JURISDICTIONAL
STATEMENT stated :
The United States Tax Court ("Tax Court") had subject matter
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Internal Revenue Code
("IRC") Section 7623(b)(4), 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4), because
Waszczuk-Appellant, Luis Villa-Arce, petitioned the Tax Court for
a redetermination of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS")
Whistleblower Office's denial of his IRC Section 7623(b)
whistleblower award within 30 days of the IRS Whistleblower
Office's Final Determination. 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4).
How it is work that the same court refused to review Waszczuk’s case and
dismissed it due to lack of jurisdiction to rule on 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4) but two
other cases were heard with same subject matter . This is a just not only bias but a
blunt discrimination of Waszczuk the pro se litigants in the court of law .
Thomas Jefferson wrote that: "the most sacred of the duties of a

government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its
citizens." Those words impart that all citizens, no matter their
plight in life, should be accorded justice in our court system. “
United States v. Surratt, 855 F.3d 218 (4th Cir. 2017)
The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal

justice under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied
and emphasized that ideal
Byrd v. Sexton, 277 F.2d 418 (8th Cir. 1960)
Docket No. 23105-18 W -5-
History clearly demonstrates that in any free society all that

any citizen can rightfully expect from the law is that it provide
to any who are confronted with it that they will have equal
opportunity to or for justice. Anything more than that involves
rank meddling by the government and/or the judiciary and
carries with it all of the ramifications which history has shown
result from such micro management of life, the chief result of
which is the loss of individual freedom so clearly and jealously
regarded by the founders of our government.
Danskine v. Miami Dade Fire Dept, 253 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2001)
In Mayweather v. Local 743 Union, No. 2:09 cv 58 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 3, 2011) the
Court ruled :
As a pro se litigant, [a] [p]laintiff is permitted a more lenient

standard with respect to her pleadings than that imposed on a
practicing attorney." Cintron v. St. Gobain Abbrassives, Inc., 2004
WL 3142556, *1 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 18, 2004). Although the court
recognizes that pro se litigants face special challenges that litigants
represented by counsel do not, pro se litigants are not excused
from following procedural rules, and the substantive law will
not be ignored because of the plaintiff's pro se status. Lee v.
Wal-Mart Stores, 1994 WL 899240, *1 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 12, 1994);
Cintron, 2004 WL 3142556 at *1
Waszczuk as a pro se litigant never asked or expected from the Court for more
lenient standard or to be excused from following the procedural rules . However ,
Waszczuk don’t deserve to be discriminated in the Court and shall not be deserve to
be discriminate because the former University of California President Janet
Napolitano embezzled and laundered with others $ 175,000,000 via university
different accounts beside millions of dollars tax evasion and fraud by buying and
Docket No. 23105-18 W -6-
selling illegally electricity for tax free profit in violation of university tax-exempt
status outlined in IRC Section 501(c)(3).
II.
THE JUNE 1, 2022 COURT ORDER DISMISSING JAROSLAW JANUSZ
WASZCZUK V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
CASE NO. 20-1407, U.S. TAX COURT CASE (USTC) NO. 23105-18 W,
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED ON 10/07/2020.
BEFORE: Katsas, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges

ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, the opposition thereto,
and the motions to govern future proceedings, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. §
7623(b)(4). See Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014,
1017 (D.C. Cii. 2022). The case is hereby remanded to the Tax
Court with instructions to do the same. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to govern future
proceedings be dismissed as moot. To the extent the motions
include a request that the court appoint amicus curiae, that request
is denied.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be
published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the
mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely
petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.
App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
The Court two Per Curiam orders, dated September 15, 2021 and January 11, 2022,
mandated or directed Waszczuk to file motions to govern future proceedings within 30

Docket No. 23105-18 W -7-
days of the court’s disposition of Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue,
22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
Waszczuk is still wondering why the Court issued two orders mandating that he
file motions to govern future proceedings. When Waszczuk complied and followed the
Court order, his motion was dismissed as moot, and his appeal was trashed.
Waszczuk, by following the Court order from October 1, 2021, consequently
opposed Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP attorneys Robert Loeb and Robert Manhas’
interference in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v Internal Revenue Service v.
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Case No. USCA No. 20-1407 by
using a divorce whistleblower case, Li v. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, Case No.
20-1245, which was aimed at dismissing his case and whistleblower claim.
On October 1, 2021, Waszczuk submitted his objection, combined with a
motion/opposition titled “Jaroslaw Waszczuk’s Concerns Regarding the September 15,
2021 Per Curium Order to Orrick attorneys Manhas and Loeb’s September 1, 2021
Amicus Curiae Brief.” Waszczuk, in his objection titled “Notice of Jaroslaw Waszczuk’
Concerns Regarding the September 15, 2021 Per Curium Court Order,” requested that
the Court separate his case from Li’s, that it vacate the September 15, 2021 Court Order
placing his appeal in abeyance, and asked for a dismissal of Manhas and Loeb’s amicus
curiae brief
Docket No. 23105-18 W -8-
https://www.scribd.com/document/537958972/09-01-2021-Case-No-20-1245-
Amicus-Curiae-Brief-in-Li-v-Commissioner-of-Internal-Revenue-Case-No-20-1245).
Waszczuk, in his March 10, 2022 Motion to Govern Future Proceedings, asked the
Court to appoint in his case legal expert(s) as amicus curiae who are:
• Consumers’ attorneys with outstanding expertise in tax evasion and tax

fraud
• Attorneys with expertise in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission laws

and regulations related to cogeneration power plant operations.
• https://www.scribd.com/document/581871938/03-10-2022-Jaroslaw-Janusz-
Waszczuk-v-IRS-Commissioner-USCA-No-20-1407-Motion-to-Govern-Future-
Proceeding-Filed).
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. l 7985-l 9W
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.
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
Docket No. 23105-18 W -9-
target taxpayers in §7623(b)(5)(A) is similarly not

jurisdictional. See Rogersv. 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).
The USTC Judge Toro's s Rogers v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. l 7985-l 9W
(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.
Waszczuk, by making this request in his March 10, 2022 filed motion to have
a Court-appointed amicus curiae with expertise in Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) regulations, did not have a clue that Orrick attorney Loeb was
representing Broadview Solar LLC and Broadview Solar LLC’s successor, Broad
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 10 -
Reach Power, with FERC, and representing Broadview Solar LLC before the D.C,
Circuit in Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Case USCA #21-1126 (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/581925929/04-07-2022-Case-USCA-21-
1126-Solar-Energy-Industries-Association-SEIA-v-the-Federal-Energy-
Regulatory-Commission-Case-USCA-21-1126-Joint-App).
On the same day, March 10, 2022, the Appellee IRS Commissioner’s attorney
from the DOJ Tax Division Department filed a Motion to Dismiss Waszczuk’s
appeal
(see https://www.scribd.com/document/581930059/03-10-2022-USCA-No-
20-1407-Jaroslaw-Janusz-Waszczuk-v-IRS-Commissioner-USCA-No-20-1407-
IRS-Commissioner-Motion-To-Dismiss).
The January 11, 2022 D.C. Circuit Opinion in Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of
Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) was the key IRS Commissioner
attorney’s argument in their Motion to dismiss Waszczuk’s appeal.
On June 1, 2022, Waszczuk received a D.C. Circuit Court Order. The “order”
is so artlessly drafted and showed a manifest disregard of Waszczuk’s right to equal
access to justice, and to every applicable principle of justice, that it appears likely
to have been dictated by Loeb to D.C. Court Clerk Mark J. Langer or his deputy.
On June 10, 2022, Waszczuk filed an objection to the June 1, 2022 Court Order
combined with the motion for reconsideration of the same to express his outrage at
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 11 -
being the subject of gross and unprecedented Court prejudice against him. He
requested from the Court that the Court set aside the Order dated June 1, 2022 and
review Waszczuk’s case on its merit and without conspiracy with Orrick’s attorneys
acting against him
III.
MICHAEL LISSACK V. COMM’R OF INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE, DC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 21, U.C.T.C.
CASE NO. 399-18W
On December 16, 2021, a NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed in the D.C. Circuit
by Michael Lissack seeking review of a decision by the U.S. Tax Court in USTC-
399-18W. Lissack’s appeal was docketed as Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue USCA Case Number: 21-1268. The Notice of Appeal Stated:
https://www.scribd.com/document/581943796/12-16-20210-Notice-of-
Appeal-DC-District-Court-Case-No-21-1268-Lissack-v-Comm-r-of-
Internal-Revenue-No-399-18W-U-S-T-C-Aug-17-2021
Notice is hereby given that Michael Lissack, appeals to the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from
the decision of the United States Tax Court entered in the above-
captioned proceeding on August 18, 2021, relating to the opinion
issued by the Tax Court on August 17, 2021, 157 T.C. No. 5
(2021), denying Petitioner Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
and granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment relating
to eligibility for an award under section 7623 and affirming the
construction of section 7623(b) (1) as set forth in the Treasury
Regulations under section 7623; and on September 20, 2021,
denying Petitioner Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 12 -
Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161 and Motion to Vacate or Revise

Pursuant to Rule 162.
The United Sates Tax Court (USTC) decision in Lissack v. Comm’r of Internal
Revenue, No. 399-18W (U.S.T.C. Aug. 17, 2021) issued by USTC Judge Albert G.
Lauber was routinely the same as in Waszczuk v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2020-75
(U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) and Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue
(USTC-5070-19W) 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), which granted Commissioner a
Motion for Summary Judgement relating to the Waszczuk’s eligibility for an award
under section 7623 and denying the Waszczuk’s Motion for Reconsideration of
Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161 and Waszczuk’s Motion to Vacate or
Revise Pursuant to Rule 162. Contrary to Waszczuk, Mandy Mobley Li did not file
in September 2021 an opposition or objection to the amicus curiae brief filed in her
case on September 1, 2021 by Loeb and Manhas from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, based in San Francisco, who were appointed by the Court to dismiss
Waszczuk’s appeal.
https://www.scribd.com/document/537958972/09-01-2021-Case-No-20-1245-
Amicus-Curiae-Brief-in-Li-v-Commissioner-of-Internal-Revenue-Case-No-20-
1245).
On February 18, 2022, the CLERK’S ORDER set a briefing schedule in
Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case Number: 21-

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 13 -
1268, with an APPELLANT Brief due March 20, 2022. The APPELLEE Brief
was due on April 29, 2022. The APPELLANT Reply Brief was due May 20, 2022.
The DEFERRED APPENDIX was due May 27, 2022. FINAL BRIEFS were due
June 10, 2022.
On February 24, 2022, Mandy Mobley Li filed a PETITION for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc in Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir.
2022), which was denied by the Court on March 18, 2022 (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/581973138/02-24-2022-PETITION-for-
Rehearing-and-Rehearing-En-Banc-Mandy-Mobley-Li-v-Comm-r-of-Internal-
Revenue-22-F-4th-1014-D-C-Cir-2022).
On March 4, 2022, the CLERK’S ORDER granted the Appellant a 15-day
extension of time in Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case
No.: 21-1268, to file an APPELLANT Brief on April 15, 2022, which was previously
due on March 30, 2022.
On March 25, 2022, Mandy Mobley Li filed the UNOPPOSED MOTION in Li
v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) to Stay Mandate To
File Writ Of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Li’s motion was denied
by the Court on April 4, 2022
(see https://www.scribd.com/document/581972439/03-25-2022-Stay-Mandate-To-File-
Writ-Of-Certiorari-Mandy-Mobley-Li-v-Comm-r-of-Internal-Revenue-22-F-4th-1014-
D-C-Cir-2022).
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 14 -
On April 12, 2022, the Court issued a MANDATE to U.S. Tax Court, Internal
Revenue Service in Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue (22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022)
ending Li’s whistleblower case IRS Form 211 submitted on December 12, 2018 to the
IRS WBO in Ogden, Utah.
On April 21 , 2022, nine days after the MANDATE in Li v. Comm’r of Internal
Revenue (22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), the attorney in Michael Lissack v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case Number: 21-1268, filed a
CORRECTED AOB, which was due on April 12, 2022
(see https://www.scribd.com/document/581978913/04-21-20220-
CORRECTED-APPELLANT-OPENING-BRIEF-Michael-Lissack-v-Commissioner-
of-Internal-Revenue-USCA-Case-Number-21-1268).
On April 26, 2022, the CORRECTED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FOR
APPELLANT was filed by [Whistleblower 11099-13W by LMC] (Mohammad,
Usman) in Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue USCA Case No. 21-
1268
https://www.scribd.com/document/581982392/04-26-2022-CORRECTED-
AMICUS-CURIAE-BRIEF-for-APPELLANT-Mohammad-Usman-in-Michael-
Lissack-v-Commissioner-of-Internal-Revenue-USCA-Case-No-21-1268).
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 15 -
On the same day, April 26, 2022, a CORRECTED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
FOR APPELLANT was filed by National Whistleblower Center (Kohn, Stephen) in
Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue USCA Case No. 21-1268
https://www.scribd.com/document/581983455/04-26-2022-DC-Circuit-
CORRECTED-AMICUS-CURIAE-BRIEF-FOR-APPELLANT-Whistleblower-
Center-Kohn-Stephen-Michael-Lissack-v-IRS-Commissioner-Case-No).
On April 27, 2022, the National Whistleblower Center (NWC) sent an e-
mail to Waszczuk in which Waszczuk learned that Michael Lissack v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268, exists and is pending in the D.C.
Circuit, and the Appellant, Michael Lissack, is being represented by the attorneys in
his case and NWC attorney’s as amicus curiae for the Appellant Michael Lissack.
Waszczuk read in the STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE on
the brief’s Pages 1 & 2 as follows:
The National Whistleblower Center (the “NWC”) respectfully submits this

memorandum of law as amicus curiae. Amicus asks the Court to accept this
brief and urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”)
to rule in favor of Waszczuk and reverse the U.S. Tax Court’s (“Tax Court”)
ruling, particularly regarding a de novo standard of review being proper for
cases brought to review under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 7623(b)
(“Section 7623(b)”).1
The NWC was founded in 1988 and has long been recognized as a leading
voice for whistleblowers by policymakers in Washington, D.C. The NWC and
associated attorneys regularly work with tax whistleblowers who have
1 Pet’r’s Opening Brief, Lissack v. Comm ‘r, No. 21-1268 (D.C.C.).

1
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 16 -
filed submissions with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) under
Section 7623(b). The NWC has also served as amicus curiae in several cases. 2
Counsel for amicus are particularly well suited to provide this Court necessary
insight into the legislative intent and historical backdrop behind the statute at
issue. Dean Zerbe and Stephen M. Kohn are widely recognized as two of the
nation’s leading whistleblower attorneys, with both having represented some of
the most successful tax whistleblowers in the program’s history, including
Bradley Birkenfeld, who obtained the largest whistleblower award in the
history of the IRS Whistleblower Program. Dean Zerbe and Stephen Kohn
have both successfully litigated influential tax whistleblower cases in this
Court, including the seminal case of Whistleblower 21276-13 Wv.
Commissioner, which clarified the definition of “collected proceeds,” and was
later codified by Congress.3
On June 15, 2022, an IRS Commissioner’s attorney from the DOJ Tax Division
Office (Avetta, Julie) filed an APPELLEE BRIEF in Michael Lissack v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268
https://www.scribd.com/document/581986088/06-15-2022-IRS-Commissioner-
APPELLEE-BRIEF-in-Michael-Lissack-v-Commissioner-of-Internal-Revenue-USCA-
Case-No-21-1268).
The IRS Commissioner’s attorney filed an Appellee Initial Brief in Lissack’s
case two weeks after the June 1, 2022 Court-issued Order dismissed Waszczuk’s
2
E.g., Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), EEOC v. Waffle House, 534 U.S. 279
(2002), Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000)9 Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United
States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000), Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121
(1998), English v. Gen. Elec., 496 U.S. 72 (1990), Kan. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Brock,
780 F.2d 1505 (lOth Cir. 1985), Mann v. Heckler & Koch Defense, 630 F.3d 338 (4th
Cir. 2010), Stone v. Instrumentation Lab. Co., 591 F.3d 239 (41 Cir. 2009).
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 17 -
appeal and five days after Waszczuk filed his Motion for Consideration, on June 10,
2022. The Commissioner stated in his Appellee’s Initial Brief, citing Mandy Mobley
Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022):
Although the Tax Court held that it had jurisdiction under

I.R.C.§ 7623(b)(4) (Doe. 56 at 3, JA ), we explain in the Argument,
infra, that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to review the
Whistleblower Office’s denial of Lissack’s claim. See Li v.
Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
The Commissioner’s attorney failed, or forgot, to explain in his June 15, 2022
Appellee’s Initial Brief why Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
USCA Case No. 21-1268, is still pending in the D.C. Circuit Court after the D.C.
Circuit’s January 11, 2022 opinion decided the Li case and Li’s and Waszczuk’s
cases were dismissed by the June 1, 2022 in D.C. Circuit Clerk because of the
fraudulent January 11, 2022 Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22
F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) opinion dictated by the September 1, 2021 deceptive
amicus curiae crafted by the legal mercenaries Manhas and Loeb, tampering with
the administration of justice.
https://www.scribd.com/document/537958972/09-01-2021-Case-No-20-
1245-Amicus-Curiae-Brief-in-Li-v-Commissioner-of-Internal-Revenue-
Case-No-20-1245).
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 18 -
The deceptive amicus curiae crafted by Manhas and Loeb, and their
representation in the U.S. Court of Appeal District for the District of Columbia case
Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Case No. 21- 1136 filed by SEIA on May 27, 2021 in D.C. Circuit
Court Docket No. QF 17-454-006, FERC-QF17-454-007;174 FERC 61,199 (Mar.
19, 2021) led Waszczuk to discovery of new tax evasion and fraud committed by
the Regents of the University of California and other perpetrators . On September 3,
2022 Waszczuk submitted Application for Award for Original Information (IRS
Form 211) to the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden; Utah . (EXHIBIT # 3)
Waszczuk addressed and reported on a suspected multi-million-dollar of tax evasion
and fraud due to purchase and resale of electricity for profit in violation of the
exempt status Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The targets
in this claim are the tax-exempt entities the University of California (UC) Board of
Regents or executives from the University of California Office of the President
(UCOP), with headquarters in Oakland, California, and conspiring with UC Regents
or UCOP the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), located in Folsom,
CA.
Robert Loeb; his colleague Robert Ranvir Sing Manhas; and their employer Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP notoriously represents corporations/employers against

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 19 -
whistleblowers, including my former employer from 1999–2012, the Regents of
University of California the perpetrator in tax evasion and fraud and target in
Waszczuk’s case.
On June 17, 2022, the Court, by a CLERK’S ORDER in Michael Lissack v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268, granted to Lissack’s
attorney Erica L. Brady-Gitlin from the Ferraro Law Firm an unopposed motion to
extend time to file an APPELLANT Reply Brief on July 20, /2022 (the brief was
initially due July 6, 2022).
https://www.scribd.com/document/582085377/06-17-2022-Unopposed-
Motion-for-14-Day-Extension-for-Reply-Brief-Michael-Lissack-v-Commissioner-
of-Internal-Revenue-USCA-Case-No-21-1268).
Waszczuk noticed that there was a lot of juggling in the documents’ filing and
corrections in Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case No.
21-1268 to take Li and Waszczuk’s cases out of Lissack’s case picture after Mandy
Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) was decided
on January 11, 2022.
On November 14, 2022 Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268 was heard and argued before the Court
(EXHIBIT # 4)
On the same day Luis Villa-Arce v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 20 -
Services USCA Case No. 22-1006 (Luis Villa -Arce ) filed on January 13, 2022
was heard and argued before the Court . (EXHIBIT # 5)
Waszczuk by receiving the February 1, 2023 Court Order is suspecting
that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is
ready to issue opinions in the following pending appeals after the US Tax Court
will take care of further proceedings in the Waszczuk Case No.
• Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue USCA Case No.
21-1268 heard and argued on November 14, 2022
• Luis Villa-Arce v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue USCA Case
No.22-1006 heard and argued on November 14, 2022
• Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Case No. 21- 1136 heard and argued on
September 7, 2022 (EXHIBIT # 6)
Beside the above the court proceeding in US Tax Court case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services Case No. 23105-18 W and the appeal
case in United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services Case No. USCA Case No.
20-1407 was always precisely coordinated by my adversaries attorneys with the
cross connected Waszczuk’ wrongful termination case pending in the Sacramento

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 21 -
County Superior Court case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 34–2013–34–00155479, filed on December 4, 2013 and
related to pending appeal 3DCA case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California, Case No. C095488, Notice of Appeal filed on 12/23/2021
IV.
CONCLUSION
In fact, the Court is prejudiced by Mandy Mobley Li by issuing the Li v. Comm’r
of Internal Revenue (22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) opinion knowing that Michael
Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268, is pending in
the D.C. Circuit and that Michael Lissack is being represented by very experienced
attorneys, contrary to Mandy Mobley Li and Waszczuk, who handled their cases by
themselves pro se.
Furthermore, by denying Mobley Mandy Li’s Petition for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc on March 18, 2022 and denying her to Motion to Stay Mandate on
April 4, 2022 and issuing a Mandate to Tax Court on April 12, 2022, when Michael
Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268, was pending,
the Court not only showed prejudice against Mandy Mobley Li and Waszczuk it also
deprived them of equal access to justice and due process of law, which has affected so
far at least 200 Waszczuks whose appeals of the WBO’s decisions on whistleblowers
claims from Form 211 were pending in U.S. Tax Court. Their appeal cases were brutally
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 22 -
dismissed in the U.S. Tax Court because this Court denied Mandy Mobley Li’s Motion
of Mandate Stay during the pending Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268, in which the Appellant is represented by attorneys
with two amicus curiae. This is a legal holocaust for whistleblowers in U.S. Tax Court
dictated and committed base on the fraudulent amicus curiae brief filed by the two
attorneys Robert Loeb & Robert Ranvir Sing Manhas from Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe
LLP and their employer their firm notoriously represents corporations/employers against
whistleblowers, including my former employer from the University of California.
In the light of the above facts and arguments the Waszczuk’s Motion to Stay
the Further Proceeding shall be granted until the pending Michael Lissack v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268 will be resolved and
finally decided by the USCA or US Supreme Court.
Dated February 2, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk , Pro Se
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 687-1180
Fax: (209) 729-5154
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 23 -
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -RE:

MANDATE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, ISSUED SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
contains 4588 words.
The number of lines of monospaced type in the motion is 609
Dated February 2, 2023 ________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Appellant Pro Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-425-0512
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 24 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -RE: MANDATE OF THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT, ISSUED SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
was served on February 2, 2023 by Electronic Mail
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court-CMECF
Anthony Thomas Sheehan, Attorney- Anthony.T.Sheehan@usdoj.gov -CMECF
Richard L. Parker, Attorney- Richard.L.Parker@usdoj.gov- CMECF
Darrick D. Sun Darrick.D.Sun@irscounsel,treas.gov , ELECTRONIC MAIL

Gordon L. Gidlund - Gordon.L.Gidlund@IRSCOUNSEL.TREAS.GOV
Terri L. Ornato - Terri.L.Onorato@irscounsel.treas.gov
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES
Office of Chief Counsel
Large Business & International 701 B
Street, Suite 901
San Diego, CA 92101
_______________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Petitioner Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 687-2977
Fax: (209) 729-5154
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 25 -
USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1984256
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 33
43 of 374
383
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 34
44 of 374
383
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 35
45 of 374
383
2216 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-729-5154
Email: jjw1980@live.com
September 3, 2022
Via FEDEX
U.S. Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service
Whistleblower Office, ICE Team
1973 N. Rulon White Blvd.
M/S 4110
Ogden, UT 84404
Re: Millions of dollars in tax evasion and fraud perpetrated by the University of California’s
Office of the President (UCOP) and former and present members of the University of
California Board of Regents, between 2015 and 2022, under the umbrella of the University
of California's tax-exempt status, in violation of Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3)
To Whom It may Concern:
INTRODUCTION
Enclosed with this cover letter is an Application for Original Information (Form 2011) with
a detailed explanatory Addendum and Exhibits to support this application for award. This
cover letter is a very short version of the attached Addendum to this Application. The
perpetrators commented on in this report are the former and present executives of the
University of California’s Office of the President (UCOP) and former and present members
of the University of California Board of Regents (UC Regents).
The UCOP and UC Regents headquarters are located in Oakland, California.
University of California
Office of the President
1111 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94607
https://www.ucop.edu/contacts/
-1-
Cover Letter to the Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211)
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 36
46 of 374
383
https://www.ucop.edu/locations-maps/index.html
THE FIRST TARGET(S) OF THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAX EVASION

AND FRAUD DUE TO VIOLATION OF IRC 501(C)(3) PERPETRATED BY UCOP
ORGANIZED WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS AND THEIR COLLABORATORS
The first target in this Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) are
the three power purchase agreements (PPA) from the three solar power plants, listed below, which
are supposedly owned and operated by private solar power producers who have sold solar power
to the UC Regents at wholesale prices since 2016 via the California Independent System Operator
(CAISO) distribution system, or via California-based public utilities companies PG&E, based in
San Francisco; SD&E, based in San Diego; and/or Southern California Edison, based in Los
Angeles.
• The 13-MW solar power plant owned or co-owned by Solar Star California
XXXII, LLC (University of California, Davis South Campus Project) was
constructed in 2015 on a 62-acre plot at Levee Road, in Solano County, owned by UC
Davis. FERC Docket QF16-481. https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/solar-farm-and-
running
• The 60-MW solar power plant owned or co-owned by Clenera, LLC, 800 W. Main
Street, Suite 90D, Boise, ID 83702, FERC Docket QF16-1011. Five Points Solar
Park LLC is a ground-mounted photovoltaic solar energy facility located on a 480-
acre parcel o f l a n d with a solar array t h a t covers 350 acres.
• The 20-MW Giffen Solar Park LLC solar power plant owned or co-owned by
Clenera, LLC, 800 W. Main Street, Suite 90D, Boise, ID 83702, FERC Docket
QF17-938. The Giffen Solar Park (“Project”) is located in Cantua Creek, Fresno
County, CA. The Project consists of a photovoltaic generation facility with a
maximum generating capacity of 20MW AC.
The three above-listed solar power plants produce 93 MWh in total, which could provide
electricity to approximately 30,000–40,000 average homes. If I am correct that the perpetrators in
the fraud under the UC Regents’ name, since 2016, have purchased power from these plants at
wholesale prices and resold it via CAISO on the open market for a tax-free profit, then this is an
instance of tax evasion, due to violations of the university’s tax-exempt status provision in Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
Looking at the CAISO 2020 Annual Report on Market Issues and Performance, published
on August 12, 2021, http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Presentation-2020-Annual-Report-on-
-2-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 37
47 of 374
383
Market-Issues-and-Performance-Aug-12-2021.pdf, it is clear that the wholesale electricity costs in

CAISO's markets between 2016 and 2020 were between $31 and $42/MWh.
I am a resident of Lodi, California. My monthly bill for electricity over the past ten years
has been an average of $100, meaning that I pay an average of 15–21 cents/kWh and use average
of 400–600 kW/h per month. This translates to a retail electricity cost in the City of Lodi of
approximately $180/MWh per month. It would be not difficult to figure out what retail electricity
costs would be for 30,000 homes, or the amount of electricity produced by the three solar power
plants with a combined capacity of 93 MW for six years, and thus the unlawful tax-free profit
would amount to tens of millions of dollars.
Hypothetically, if the suspected perpetrators in the scheme of fraud resold 93 MW /hour

for 10 hours each day = 930 MW/day x 30 days = 27,900 MW/month x 5.5 years (66 months)
= 1,841,400 MW x $50 with a net tax-free profit $50 dollars per 1 MW, then it would
amount to approximately $ 92.07 million untaxed dollars. The amount could be a lot
greater.
Based on the above a simple hypothetical calculations, I should be eligible for a

whistleblower reward, since my claim exceeds the $200,000 or $2 million threshold requirement
under the provisions of Section 7623(b)(5)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code (as amended by the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-123, Div. ID, Title II, § 41108(c), Feb. 9, 2018, 132
Stat. 158. The IRC 7623(b) states:
• The law applies to cases in which the amount in dispute exceeds $2 million. If the
taxpayer is an individual, the individual's gross income must exceed $200,000 for any
taxable year at issue in a claim.
• Requires the Whistleblower Office to analyze these $2 million cases, and authorizes
the IRS to request assistance from the whistleblower and their counsel.
• Individuals are eligible for awards based on additions to tax, penalties, interest, and
other amounts collected as a result of any administrative or judicial action resulting
from the information provided.
• Awards are subject to appeal to the U.S. Tax Court.
The key perpetrators in this fraud on behalf of the UC Regents are University of California
General Counsel Charles Robinson, who is also the former General Counsel and Vice
President of CAISO (April 2000–January 2007), and Janet Napolitano, the former President
of the University of California.
On March 27, 2014, in violation of IRC 501(c)(3), Napolitano and Robinson registered the UC
-3-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 38
48 of 374
383
Regents with the California Public Utilities Commission as an ELECTRIC SERVICE

PROVIDER (ESP), ESP # 1389 to buy and resell electricity for tens of millions of dollars and
launder the money via various university accounts, in violation of the University of California’s
tax-exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3).
In addition to the above, in December 22, 2014, CAISO (Robinson’s former employer) issued a
notification that stated, “The Regents of the University of California successfully completed the
Congestion Revenue Rights registration process.”
On May 3, 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission changed the date of the UC Regents’
registrations as an ESP from March 27, 2014 to May 3, 2022, after I discovered the registration
on April 29, 2022.
The exact amount of power purchased and resold in relation to the IRS Whistleblower Office
can be found by requesting data from the UCOP:
General Information
Business Name: The Regents of the University of California
Registered Name: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA Business Address: 1111 FRANKLIN STREET,
6TH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CA 94607
Business Phone: (510) 287-3846
Date Registered: May 3, 2022
Contact/Complaints
CYNTHIA CLARK
CLEAN POWER PROGRAM DIRECTOR
1111 FRANKLIN STREET
6TH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CA 94607
(510) 287-3360
cynthia.clark@ucop.edu
https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=511:5:0::NO::P5 ESP,P5 CODE TYPE:1389,O
The IRS Whistleblower Office will not find another tax-exempt higher education institution
among the CPUC ESP providers (see https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=511:1:0::NO).
UCOP Chief Financial Officer Nathan Brostrom and his staff should know how many millions of
tax-free dollars were laundered via the UCOP’s various accounts from the unlawful power
purchase and resale via CAISO from 2016 to the present, and who got the money.
Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer Nathan Brostrom

Phone: (510) 987-9029 Email: Nathan Brostrom - Nathan.Brostrom@ucop.edu
-4-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 39
49 of 374
383
THE SECOND TARGET OF TAX EVASION AND FRAUD DUE TO LAUNDERING

$175 MILLION BY UC PRESIDENT JANET NAPOLITANO USING VARIOUS
ACCOUNTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
The second target in this Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) is the
untaxed $175 million (possibly more) that UC President Napolitano and her lieutenants Seth
Grossman and Bernie Jones Chief received in 2015 and 2016 from unknown sources and
laundered using the University of California’s various accounts.
In 2016, California Assemblymembers Phil Ting and Kevin McCarty requested a state audit
aimed at the UCOP’s administrative operations and budget administrative functions. This was
California State Audit 2016-130 and was concluded by the State Auditor Report on April 25,
2017 (see https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2016-130.pdf).
California State Audit 2016-130 not only disclosed that Napolitano and her associates laundered
$175 million, it also disclosed that Napolitano, Grossman, and Jones brutally interfered with the
audit in an attempt to prevent the disclosure of millions of untaxed and laundered dollars via
various UC discretionary accounts.
On November 16, 2017, Hueston Hennigan LLP presented a smoke screen, damage control
pseudo investigation titled “Independent Fact-Finding” to cover up $175 million in money
laundering by Napolitano and her UCOP mob.
The $175 million was not mentioned in Hueston Hennigan LLP’s report (see
https://www.hueston.com/uc-regents-hire-hueston-hennigan-investigation/).
The State Auditors had the power to find where the $175 million came from and how it was
laundered using the UCOP’s various accounts. The State Auditor’s investigators did the best they
could when dealing with the UCOP’s crimes. UCOP has a long history of violating the UC’s non-
profit, tax-exempt status. The April 25, 2017 report was without consequences for crimes
committed. I think that the former Chief of Public Affairs and Quality Assurance in the State
Auditor’s office, Margarita Hernandez, knows a lot more than was disclosed in State Audit Report
2016-130.
By any measure, $175 million is an enormous amount of money to hide in the university’s
accounts. The auditor’s investigation team found the money, but had no authority to find out from
-5-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 40
50 of 374
383
where it was transferred or wired in 2015–2016, just 1.5 years after Napolitano arrived at the
UCOP headquarters in Oakland as the UC President.
The UC Regents met on November 16, 2017 at UC San Francisco’s Mission Bay Conference
Center (see https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/minutes/2017/board%2011.16.pdf). The
members present were: Regents Anguiano, De La Peña, Guber, Kieffer, Lansing, Lemus,
Lozano (a regent since 2001), Makarechian, Mancia, Monge, Ortiz Oakley, Park, Pattiz, Pérez
(a former California Assembly speaker), Sherman, Tauscher, and Torlakson; Napolitano (UC
President); and Gavin Newsom (then-Lt. Governor). Also in attendance were: Regents-
designate Anderson, Graves, and Morimoto; Faculty Representatives May and White; Secretary
and Chief of Staff Shaw; General Counsel Robinson (former CAISO General Counsel);
Provost Brown; Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Brostrom; Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Nava; Executive Vice President Stobo; Vice President
Brown; Chancellors Block, Blumenthal, Christ, Hawgood, Khosla, Leland, May, Wilcox, and
Yang; and Recording Secretary McCarthy. The meeting convened at 9:00 a.m., with Chair
Kieffer presiding.
The short published summary from the closed session meeting, entitled “Report on Personnel
Actions Relating to the State Audit Report Taken in Closed Session,” is about admonishing
Napolitano for interfering with the state audit and her apology for the same. However, the closed
session meeting summary does not mention one word about why Napolitano interfered in the state
audit at all.
Most of those present at the meeting knew how much was at stake for themselves, so they did not
to go beyond admonishing Napolitano. California Attorney General Becerra, who refused to open
a probe against Napolitano, knew who transferred the $175 million, where it came from, and how
it was transferred into the discretionary UC accounts for distribution.
In 2017, I did not pay much attention to the $175 million laundered by the UCOP mob, aside from
writing a letter about it to US Congressman Darrel Issa, from San Diego, entitled “The leftovers
from the California’s energy market deregulation, the energy crisis of 1999–2001, and the State of
California recall election of Governor Gray Davis in 2003. August 2000 Complaint with FERC,
San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets
-6-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 41
51 of 374
383
Operated by the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Power
Exchange.”
In 2003, Issa helped California Governor Gray Davis with $1.7 million after he was
recalled for causing, together with the UCOP white collar criminals, Enron, and CAISO,
a $40 billion loss to California’s economy and taxpayers.
In regards to Napolitano’s laundered $175 million, I wrote in my inquiry to Congressman

Issa:
The question remains: why did UC President hide the $175 million and
what did she need it for? The amount of money hidden by Janet
Napolitano indicates that UC President Janet Napolitano and UC Regents
had something in their mind and Napolitano did not want to disclose the
reason or admit why she stashed the $175 million dollars.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476785397/UTC-20170605-Inquiry-with-U-S-
Congressman-from-San-Diego-CA-Darrel-Issa
However, in June 2019 I realized that Napolitano had deployed former UC Vice President
Judith Boyette to the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities
(TEGE), not only to delete my whistleblower claim submitted against the UCOP and UC
Regents to the IRS WBO on March 23, 2016, Claim No. 2016-007481, but also to prevent
disclosure to the WBO of the untaxed $175 million laundered by Napolitano via UC accounts
(see https://www.hansonbridgett.com/Our-Attorneys/judith-w-boyette).
On July 29, 2019, in a 24-page Reply to the U.S. Tax Court Order served on July 9, 2019 and
signed by Special Trial Judge Hon. Robert N. Armen, Re: Protective Order—Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure Section 6103(B)(L), (2), and (3) (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0019)
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Tax Court Case
No. 23105-18 W https://www.scribd.com/document/476775930/UTC-20190729-Judge-Armen-
Order-Petitioner-Objection-to-Motion-for-Protective-Order, I brought again to the surface the
$175 million laundered by UC President Napolitano in 2015–2016 disclosed by State Audit 2016-
130 in April 2017 and then covered up in November by the damage control/pseudo investigation
report produced by Hueston Hennigan LLP in a joint venture with former California Supreme
Court Justice Carlos Moreno. Thereafter, the $175 million vanished from public view.
-7-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 42
52 of 374
383
In my response to Judge Armen, I elaborated as follows about the $175 million Napolitano
received from somewhere to use for the different costs to maintain the university’s needs:
“It is still a puzzle whether Assemblymen Phil Ting and Kevin McCarty,
by ordering the State Audit, prevented Napolitano from using the
$175,000,000 of dirty cash to possibly orchestrate a new 9/11 terrorist
attack or to assassinate Donald Trump on the Presidential campaign trail
in 2016.”
In 2019, I should have paid more attention to the money Napolitano had in her hands; however, I
was under constant siege and attacks from her assigned thugs to eliminate me and my presence in
the state courts, U.S. Tax Court, and in general from the US. Besides the money laundered by
Napolitano, I addressed in my reply to Judge Armen’s Order the victims of the UCOP mob’s
criminal activities with the conclusion:
Janet Napolitano's appointment as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security

in January 2009 and her appointment to UC President Post in September
2013 emboldened the UC white collar criminals to intensify their terror
aimed at their adversaries without any hesitation to kill people if needed.
I still do not entirely know where Napolitano got the $175 million of dirty money to launder
with the help of her lieutenants Grossman and Jones, who brutally interfered with the state
audit in an attempt to prevent the disclosure of millions of untaxed and laundered money via
the university’s accounts. However, all of the events and facts I presented in my addendum to
the Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) lead me to believe that
UC General Counsel Charles Robinson’s 11-year presence (2011–2022) at PJM as a Member
of the Regulatory and Competitive Market Committee and as Chair of the PJM Board of
Governance Committee has something to do with the money laundered by Napolitano. PJM
is the largest regional transmission organization (RTO) in the US and coordinates the
movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
PJM has nothing to do with the University of California, UC executives, or represents California
at all. PJM is about electricity production and distribution on an enormous scale. Taking into
consideration that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the IRS have both
audited the UC and questioned its ownership of the power cogeneration facility on the UC San
-8-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 43
53 of 374
383
Diego campus, I am not excluding the possibility that the UCOP executives and UC Regents have
a good sized power plant in the PJM-RTO area. Otherwise, they would not permit Robinson to be
a PJM board member without any benefit to themselves via corruption in the UCOP
Headquarters.
I especially turned my attention to Robinson’s 11-year presence at PJM after September 15, 2021,
due to interference in my D.C. Circuit appeal Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner,
USCA No. 20-1407, by two attorneys, Robert Manhas and Robert M. Loeb, from Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP of San Francisco, and their unlawful tampering with the
administration of justice, which caused my appeal to be unjustly dismissed. In reference to the
two attorneys, Manhas and Loeb interfered in the divorce whistleblower case Mandy Mobley Li v.
Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022). I expressed my feelings about the
D.C. Circuit 06/01/2022 Decision in my motion for reconsideration, on Pages 5 & 6, as follows
(EXHIBIT #22 on flash drive and DVD).
Loeb and Manhas’s mission of using Li’s “divorce whistleblower case ” and
Broadview Solar, LLC cases to remove Waszczuk’s appeal from the D.C.
Circuit Court with the help of DOJ Tax Division attorneys is basically the same
as the mission of the former University of California Executive Vice President
Judith Boyette in the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government
Entities (TEGE) presented by Waszczuk in his filed in the U. S Tax Court on
June 29 ,2020 the Motion To Vacate Or Revise The U. S Tax Court
Memorandum Opinion And Order And Decision In Waszczuk V.
Commissioner R. T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) The Motion
was docked with the Waszczuk’s appeal record in the D. C Circuit Court and
provided as the Appendix No. 8 with filed on in D.C Circuit Br
https://www.scribd.com/document/467408938/20200629-Motion-to-Vacate-
or-Revise-Filed-U-S-Tax-Court
Boyette was dispatched in June 2016 to TEGE by UC President Janet
Napolitano, just after Waszczuk hired an experienced attorney from the
prestigious Los Angeles-based law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman
Law Corporation to handle his March 23, 2016 multimillion tax evasion and
fraud claim case concerning whistleblower claim Form 211 and a crime
committed by University of California executives in collaboration with CAISO.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476775292/UTC-20160518-UC-President-
Janet-Napolitano-Meets-President-Obama-Vice-President-Biden-BIDEN
The history of corruption orchestrated by Napolitano and Boyette in the
WBO and TEGE repeated itself in the Department of Justice, Tax
Division and D.C Circuit Court.
-9-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 44
54 of 374
383
I believe and am quite sure that FERC Commissioner Mark C. Christie, who took office on
January 4, 2021, has a lot of information about UC General Counsel Robinson’s presence and
activities with PJM from 2011 through 2020.
During Commissioner Christie's service as a state regulator, he was elected president of the
Organization of PJM States, Inc. (OPSI), a group of utility regulators representing the 13 states
and the District of Columbia that participate in the PJM transmission and market organization. He
served for more than a decade on the OPSI governing board. Christie also served as president of
the Mid-Atlantic Conference of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners (MACRUC), a regional
chapter of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) (see
https://www.ferc.gov/about/commission-members/commissioner-christie).
CONCLUSION
All of this is happening today because, one month before CAISO and the California Power
Exchange (CalPX) commenced operations, in March 1998, the UC and California State
University (CSU) systems entered into a direct access services contract with Enron Corporation
Energy Services to provide electricity and related metering, billing, and communications for all of
their campuses. The direct access was a part of California’s 1996 Electricity Restructuring Act,
AB 1890, California Public Utility Code 365.1 (PUC 365.1).
Enron was required to act as the universities’ scheduling coordinator for energy supplies with
CAISO. The UC system in 1998, with nine campuses, and the CSU system, with 23 campuses,
were and still are one of the largest university systems in the U.S., and they are the largest
universities in California. Such a contract with Enron had to be approved by the California
government, and the transactions were planned long before they were implemented.
In 1996, white collar criminals from UCOP, the California Legislature, and California
Government meticulously planned to use Enron to launder megawatts and hundreds of millions of
dollars using UC and CSU campuses, but their plan failed. Enron collapsed and the white collar
criminals lost hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-free money (see explanation in the Addendum
and Exhibits).
- 10 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 45
55 of 374
383
Respectfully submitted on September 3, 2022 by FEDEX
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Enclosed :
Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211 )
\The 323 pages long explanatory with illustrations Addendum to the Application for
Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) ( Hard copy and Flash Drive and
DVD
The 71 Exhibits in support of the Application for Award for Original Information
(IRS Form 211 ) and Addendum
- 11 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 46
56 of 374
383
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
WHISTLEBLOWER OFFICE
1973 N Rulon White Blvd, MS 4110
Ogden, UT 84404
__________________________________________________________________
THE ADDENDUM TO THE APPLICATION FOR AWARD FOR ORIGINAL

INFORMATION (IRS FORM 211) WITH ALL FACTS WHICH LED TO THE
DISCOVERY OF THIS TAX EVASION AND FRAUD COMMITTED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (UCOP),
IN COLLABORATION AND CONSPIRACY WITH CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT
SYSTEM OPERATOR (CAISO) , CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
AND OTHER UNKNOWN COLLABORATORS
VIOLATION OF TAX EXEMPT STATUS - SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL

REVENUE CODE OF 1954
__________________________________________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-729-5154
Email: jaros-law@jaros-law.org
I.
INTRODUCTION
My name is Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk (pronounced Yaroslav Vashchook,.) I am a former employee

of the University of California, UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) located in Sacramento. CA I
-1-
Addendum to the Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211)
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 47
57 of 374
383
was employed by UCDMC from June 27, 1999 through December 7, 2012 as a plant operator and
associate development engineer for UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant.
-2-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 48
58 of 374
383
This Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) addresses and reports
on a suspected multi-million-dollar of tax evasion and fraud due to purchase and resale of
electricity for profit in violation of the exempt status Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954. The targets in this claim are the tax-exempt entities the University of California
(UC) Board of Regents or executives from the University of California Office of the President
(UCOP), with headquarters in Oakland, California and their collaborators including and not
limited to the the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), located in Folsom, CA.
(EXHIBIT #1 on flash drive and DVD) Application for Award for Original Information (IRS
Form 211)
II.
MY PREVIOUS APPLICATION FOR AWARD FOR ORIGINAL INFORMATION (IRS
FORM 211) SUBMITTED ON MARCH 23, 2016- CLAIM NO. 2016-007481 AND ON
AUGUST 3, 2018 - MASTER CLAIM NO. 2018-012118 AND SUB CLAIMS 2018-012139
AND 2018-012141.
I previously submitted a similar claim involving the same entities to the Whistleblower Office
(WBO) in Ogden, Utah on March 23, 2016, Claim No. 2016-007481.) (EXHIBIT #2 on flash drive
and CD).,https://www.scribd.com/document/476776874/UTC-20160323-IRS-WHISTLEBLOWER-
Claim-No-2016-00748 which was updated on August 3, 2018 by Master Claim No. 2018-012118 and
Sub Claims 2018-012139 and 2018-012141. .) (EXHIBIT #3 on flash drive and DVD ).
The perpetrators in the previous case bluntly used their tax-exempt status and disregarded
Section 501(c)(3) by inventing a scheme of fraud, which surfaced as early as August 2000 with a
complaint filed by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) (Docket No: EL00-95-000 & Docket No. EL00-98-000). The San Diego
complaint to FERC alleged that the major energy sellers, producers, ancillary services, financial
institutions, and 27-MW cogeneration plant located at UCDMC owned by the UC Regents
manipulated the western electricity markets in all fashions (including, but not limited to,
claims of economic or physical withholding, gaming, fraud or misrepresentation). I, as an
operator of the plant from June 1999 through March 2007, was a direct witness to the
-3-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 49
59 of 374
383
electricity laundering operation and tax evasion outlined in the above-mentioned San Diego
Gas and Electric Company 2000 complaint to FERC against major power producers and
distributors, which included, but was not limited to, the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration
power plant (UC Regents) and CAISO.
This whistleblower claim, although rooted in the 2016–2018 claims is different and not a
supplemental submission to the previous claim. In this claim the laundering Megawatts for tax free
profit using by using the University of California exempt from taxes status took a different turn
than in previous whistleblower claim .
Megawatt laundering is the term, analogous to money laundering, coined

to describe the process of obscuring the true origins of specific quantities
of electricity being sold on the energy market.
This entirely new claim is based on my recent discovery that came as a part of my still-
pending litigation involving the targets in this claim, the University of California and CAISO.
These are pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court, the Court of Appeals’ Third
Appellate District (3DCA), and the U.S. Court of Appeal District for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit), and are unrelated to my claims and litigation related to pending proceedings with
the FERC and in D.C. Circuit Court.
More specifically, I am referring to the following court cases and FERC docket items:
• Sacramento County Superior Court case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University
of California, Case No. 34–2013–34–00155479, filed on December 4, 2013 (wrongful
termination) and related to pending appeal 3DCA case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California, Case No. C095488, Notice of Appeal filed on 12/23/2021
(pending)
• Sacramento County Superior Court case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) v. Regents of the University of California as the Real Party
-4-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 50
60 of 374
383
in Interest, 34–2013–80001699–CUWMGDS, The Court of Appeals, 3DCA, Waszczuk v.

CUIAB Case No. C079254, and California Supreme Court cases Waszczuk v. CUIAB
S253713 and S245879 (decided)
• The U.S. Court of Appeal District for the District of Columbia case Jaroslaw Janusz
Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, Case No. 20-1407, U.S. Tax Court
Case (USTC) No. 23105-18 W, Notice of Appeal filed on 10/07/2020.
Rulings under review
• October 23, 2018, IRS Whistleblower Office’s Final Decision Under IRC Code Section 7623
(a) Claim Numbers 2018-012118, 2018-012139, and 2018-01214
• The U.S. Tax Court Memorandum Opinion, Order, and Decision in Waszczuk v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), served on June 4, 2020
• The U.S. Tax decision granting the IRS Commissioner’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment and further denial of the whistleblower award to the Appellant
• The U.S. Court of Appeal District for the District of Columbia case Mandy Mobley Li (Li) v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, Case No. 20-1245 – Notice of Appeal filed
07/10/2020 and decided by the D.C. Circuit on 01/11/2022
• The U.S. Court of Appeal District for the District of Columbia case Solar Energy Industries
Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Case No. 21-
1136. The petition filed by SEIA on May 27, 2021 in D.C. Circuit Court addressed
the FERC’s order regarding arguments raised on rehearing and setting aside a prior order,
Broadview Solar, LLC, Docket No. QF 17-454-006, FERC-QF17-454-007;174 FERC ¶
61,199 (Mar. 19, 2021) (“Rehearing Order”) (pending)
III.
THE MULTI-MILLION-DOLLAR TAX EVASION AND FRAUD IS CENTERED ON
THE SUSPECTED PURCHASE AND RE-SALE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR TAX-FREE
PROFIT UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE NONPROFIT, TAX-EXEMPT UNIVERSITY
-5-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 51
61 of 374
383
OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN CONSPIRACY AND COLLABORATION WITH CAISO .

TIME FRAME 2016 -2022
The target in this Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) are the UC
Regents, CAISO and three power purchase agreements from the three solar power plants owned and
operated supposedly by private solar power producers who have sold solar power to the Regents at
wholesale prices since 2016 via the California Independent System Operator distribution system, or
via the California-based public utilities companies PG&E, based in San Francisco; SD&E, based in
San Diego, and/or Southern California Edison, based in Los Angeles.
• The 13-MW solar power plant owned or co-owned by Solar Star California XXXII,
LLC (University of California, Davis South Campus Project) was constructed in 2015
on a 62-acres plot at Levee Road, in Solano County owned by UC Davis. FERC Docket
QF16-481. https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/solar-farm-and-running
• The 60-MW solar power plant owned or co-owned by Clenera, LLC, 800 W. Main
Street, Suite 90D, Boise, ID 83702, FERC Docket QF16-1011. Five Points Solar Park
LLC is a ground-mounted photovoltaic solar energy facility located on a 480-acre
parcel o f l a n d with a solar array t h a t covers 350 acres.
• The 20-MW Giffen Solar Park LLC solar power plant owned or co-owned by Clenera,
LLC, 800 W. Main Street, Suite 90D, Boise, ID 83702, FERC Docket QF17-938. The
Giffen Solar Park (“Project”) is located in Cantua Creek, Fresno County, CA. The Project
consists of a photovoltaic generation facility with a maximum generating capacity of
20MW AC.
The three above-listed solar power plants produce 93MW in total, which could provide electricity to
approximately 30,000 -40,000 average homes. The perpetrators in the fraud under the name of the
Regents of the University of California, since 2016, have purchased power from these plants at
wholesale prices and resold it via CAISO on the open market for a tax-free profit, this is an instance of
tax evasion, due to violations of the university’s exempt status provision in Section 501 (c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954. This could be an even greater instance of tax evasion and fraud than
-6-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 52
62 of 374
383
my reports to the IRS Whistleblower Office on March 23, 2016 and August 3, 2018, when Applications
for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) were also filed.
Looking at the CAISO 2020 Annual Report on Market Issues and Performance, published on
August 12, 2021, http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Presentation-2020-Annual-Report-on-Market-
Issues-and-Performance-Aug-12-2021.pdf, it is clear that the wholesale electricity cost in CAISO's
markets between 2016 and 2020 was between $31/MWh and $42/MWh.
I am a resident of California. My monthly bill for electricity over the past ten years has been an
average of $100, meaning that I pay an average of 15–21 cents/kWh and use average of 400–600 kW/h
per month. This translates to a retail electricity cost in the City of Lodi of approximately $180/MWh
per month. It would be not difficult to figure out what retail electricity costs would be for 30,000 homes,
or the amount of electricity produced by the three solar power plants with a combined capacity of 93
MW for six years, and thus the unlawful tax-free profit would amount in millions of dollars .
Hypothetically , if the suspected perpetrators of tax evasion and fraud resold 93 MW /HOUR
for 10 hours a day = 930 MW /day x 30 days = 27,900 MW/month x 5.5 years or 66 months=
1,841,400 MW x $50 with net tax free profit $50 dollars per 1 MW than it amount approximately
of $ 92,070,000 untaxed dollars .
I would be eligible for whistleblower reward due to my claim exceeds the $ 200,000 or $2
,000,000 threshold requirement under the provisions of Section 7623(b)(5)(B) of the Internal Revenue
Code (as amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-123, Div. ID, Title II, § 41108(c),
Feb. 9, 2018, 132 Stat. 158. The IRC 7623(b) states :
• The law applies to cases in which the amount in dispute exceeds $2 million. If the
taxpayer is an individual, the individual's gross income must exceed $200,000 for any
taxable year at issue in a claim.
• Requires the Whistleblower Office to analyze these $2 million cases, and authorizes the
IRS to request assistance from the whistleblower and their counsel.
• Individuals are eligible for awards based on additions to tax, penalties, interest, and other
amounts collected as a result of any administrative or judicial action resulting from the
information provided.
• Awards are subject to appeal to the U.S. Tax Court.
-7-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 53
63 of 374
383
In this whistleblower claims as same as in the previous 2016-2018 claim the amount of tax evasion
exceed $2 million.
IV.
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL DISTRICT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 COURT ORDER, WHICH PLACED JAROSLAW
JANUSZ WASZCZUK V INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE V. COMMISSIONER OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, CASE NO. USCA NO. 20-1407 IN ABEYANCE
On September 15, 2021,I received via electronic mail a notification from the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court notified me by the Court Order that
my 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) had been placed in abeyance, due to the
Court’s pending disposition of the then-unfamiliar to me case Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.) (EXHIBIT #4 hard copy and on flash drive and DVD).
The Court Order raised the issue of whether or not the D.C. Circuit Court has the jurisdiction to
review the Tax Court’s order in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4,
2020 sustaining a final determination made under I.R.C. § 7623(a).
I became concerned about the D.C. Circuit’s remedy after my appeal, filed in September 2020
in D.C. Circuit Court, as it had already been briefed fully on June 28, 2021. In examining the mentioned
Court Order for Li’s case docket, I found:
On June 15, 2021, the PER CURIAM ORDER [1902353] was filed in Li v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, Case No. 20-1245.
-8-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 54
64 of 374
383
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
-9-
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 55
65 of 374
383
the appeal in Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service. The presentation was made to a
merit panel before Judges Milett and Wilkins. The Court further stated that the amicus curiae
was directed to file a brief by September 1, 2021, not to exceed 13,000 words. The parties could
each file a reply brief, not to exceed 6,500 words, by September 22, 2021 (EXHIBIT #5 hard
copy and on flash drive and DVD).
On September 1, 2021, two attorneys appointed by the D.C. Circuit Court, Robbie Manhas
https://www.orrick.com/en/People/7/A/F/Robbie-Manhas
and Robert Loeb, https://www.orrick.com/en/People/4/A/4/Robert-Loeb from Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP of San Francisco, California (Washington D.C. Office)
filed a 74-page-long amicus curiae brief titled “Brief of Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae Addressing
D.C Circuit Court’s Jurisdiction” (EXHIBIT #6 on flash drive and DVD) in Li v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, Case No. 20-1245, with a conclusion stating: “This Court should dismiss this
appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on the Tax Court's lack of jurisdiction under § 7623(b)(4).”
On September 22, 2021, the Appellee in the Li case, the Commissioner of the Internal
Commissioner Service, represented by attorneys Bruce R. Ellissen and Matthew S. Johnshoy from
the U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division (DOJ) filed a reply to the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP attorneys’ amicus curiae brief, repeating the conclusion: “This Court should dismiss this
appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on the Tax Court's lack of jurisdictionunder § 7623(b)(4)”
- 10 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 56
66 of 374
383
V.
OCTOBER 1, 2021 NOTICE OF JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’S CONCERNS REGARDING
THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 PER CURIAM COURT ORDER
The presence and interference in my D.C. Circuit appeal by attorneys Manhas and Loeb got my
utmost attention.
On October 1, 2021, I submitted my objection, combined with a motion/opposition titled
“Jaroslaw Waszczuk’s Concerns Regarding the September 15, 2021 Per Curium Order to Orrick
attorneys Manhas and Loeb’s September 1, 2021 Amicus Curiae Brief.” In my objection titled
“Notice of Jaroslaw Waszczuk’s Concerns Regarding the September 15, 2021 Per Curiam Court,” I
requested that the Court separate my case from Li’s case, that it vacate the September 15, 2021 Court
Order placing my appeal in abeyance, and asked for a dismissal of Manhas and Loeb’s amicus curiae
brief (EXHIBIT #8 on flash drive and DVD).
Manhas and Loeb interfered in my case by using a whistleblower case from the State of
Georgia, Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 20-1245. Their meddling in my D.C.
Circuit case by using Li’s whistleblower divorce case got my utmost attention, especially after Ms.
Li did not file an objection to their September 1, 2021 amicus curiae brief. Further, Ms. Li did not
file an opposition to the September 22, 2021 IRS Commissioner’s Reply Brief to it which, in fact,
was a Motion to Dismiss Li’s appeal. The lack of objection from Li to her adversaries’ briefs reminded
me of my attorney’s actions of December 2014 in the Sacramento County Superior Court. His
friendship with one of the Superior Court Judges was used against me by my adversaries in a wrongful
termination case that is related to my appeal in D.C. Circuit Court.
The Court denied my request for relief on December 8, 2021 (EXHIBIT #9 on flash drive and
DVD), more than two months after I filed my objection/motion and one month after oral arguments
were held in Li’s case, on November 5, 2021 (EXHIBIT #10 on flash drive and DVD) before D.C.
Circuit Judges Henderson, Millett, and Sentelle.
- 11 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 57
67 of 374
383
VI.
THE JANUARY 11, 2022 D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OPINION IN LI V.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, CASE NO. 20-1245. FILED ON
JANUARY 11, 2022
On January 11, 2022, the D.C. Circuit Court filed an Opinion in Li v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, Case No. 20-1245 (EXHIBIT #11 on flash drive and DVD). The opinion, by Senior Circuit
Judge David B. Sentelle was based on Manhas and Loeb’s September 1, 2021 amicus curiae brief and
dismissed Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 20-1245, with the following conclusion:
Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022)
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.
Furthermore, on January 11, 2022, the Court issued an Order (EXHIBIT #12 on flash drive and
DVD) mandating that the parties in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner, USCA No. 20-
1407, file a motion, the purpose of which was to move this Court to govern future proceedings in this
case. The Court Order stated:
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.
VII.
APPELLANT JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK’S MOTIONS 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)
- 12 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 58
68 of 374
383
On March 10, 2022, per the February 1, 2022 D.C. Circuit Court Order which granted me an
extension of time, I made a timely submission of my Motion to Govern Future Proceedings in the Case,
supported by 36 exhibits (EXHIBIT #13 on flash drive and DVD).
I felt strongly that appointing the two attorneys from the Orrick law firm as amicus curiae and
using the case Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245, from the State of
Georgia, in an attempt to dismiss my appeal had become a high priority for the D.C. Court judges
appointed to dispose of Li’s case and for the Department of Justice, Tax Division, which was
representing the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service in both my and Li’s appeals. I
suspected that something was going on in the background of my appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court; thus,
in addition to the arguments in my Motion to Govern Future Proceedings, I requested the following:
• That the D.C. Circuit Court review and make a decision in my pending case-appeal separately
from Li’s case using a different panel of judges (i.e., one that did not include the Honorable
Sentelle, the Honorable LeCraft Henderson, and the Honorable Millett);
• I would prefer to have my appeal fully reviewed and decided by the Honorable Gregory G.
Katsas, the Honorable Neomi Rao, and the Honorable Justin R. Walker;
• I requested 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 my
whistleblower 2018 claim, No. 2018–012118, and all documents and evidence supporting
whistleblower claim No. 2018–012118 Form 211; and
• The Court, on its own motion, appoint an amicus curiae to assist in deciding my very
complex whistleblower claim, in the belief that my request to appoint an amicus curiae to
help decide my claim is both appropriate and legitimate, taking into consideration the
complexity of the case, the parties involved, and the different venues of tax evasion and fraud
and threshold requirements to decide the case.
The Court should appoint legal expert(s) as amicus curiae who are:
• Consumers’ attorneys with outstanding expertise in tax evasion and fraud
• Attorneys with expertise in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission laws and
regulations related to cogeneration power plant operations
- 13 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 59
69 of 374
383
• Attorneys from law firms located outside the State of California

• Attorneys who are not associated in any way with the University of California, Office of
the President, Office of the General Counsel, the Regents of the University of California, and
not associated with any University of California campus or nuclear laboratory in Los Alamos,
New Mexico
• Attorneys who are not associated with California state government, State of California state
agencies, and especially the State of California Attorney General’s Office. In particular, they
should not be associated with former State of California Attorneys General Bill
Lockyer, Jerry Brown, Kamala Harris, and Xavier Becerra, who racked up millions of
untaxed dollars from power companies, including but not limited from my former employer
Destec Energy Inc. (since 1998, Dynegy Inc. has been based in Houston, Texas)
• Attorneys not associated with collaborators in the tax evasion and fraud listed in my 2016 and
2018 whistleblower claims, including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, of
Sacramento, California; Pacific Gas & Electric Company, based in San Francisco, CA; and
California Independent System Operator, based in Folsom, CA
• Attorneys not associated in any way with the former U.S. Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security and former President of the University of California JANET
NAPOLITANO (September 2013–August 2020)
On March 10, 2022, the same day I filed my Motion to Govern Future Proceedings, the
DOJ-Tax Division attorneys representing Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service on the
appeal filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v Internal Revenue Service
v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service’s Case No. USCA No. 20-1407. Their rationale
for dismissing the appeal was the IRS Commissioner’s alleged lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
They cited the Court's recent ruling in Li v. Commissioner, dated January 11, 2022 Mandy Mobley
Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (EXHIBIT #14 on flash drive
and DVD)
- 14 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 60
70 of 374
383
VIII.
MY MARCH 17, 2022 RESPONSE-OPPOSITION IRS COMMISSIONER MOTION
TO DISMISS FILED ON MARCH 10, 2022-RE: MOTION TO GOVERN FUTURE
PROCEEDINGS
IN
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE V.
COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE’S CASE NO. USCA NO.
20-1407
On March 17, 2022, I FILED AN APPELLANT’S RESPONSE-Opposition To The

Appellee’s, IRS Commissioner Motion To Dismiss Filed On March 10, 2022 in the Jaroslaw
Janusz Waszczuk v Internal Revenue Service v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service,
Case No. USCA No. 20-1407 (EXHIBIT #15 on flash drive and DVD).
In my opposition, I focused on the WBO, IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and
Government Entities (TEGE), U.S. Tax Court, and the Commissioner’s Attorneys’ deliberate
and gross exploitation of my meaningless and unintentional mistakes in the 2016 and 2018
whistleblower claim, where I titled them “The Suspected Tax Evasion and Fraud, Violation
of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 by the Regents of the University
of California (UC) DUE TO UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME.”
The other issue I emphasized in my opposition was the fact of the IRS Commissioner’s
attorneys representing the DOJ Tax Division “FLIP FLOP” arguments in their briefs and motions
in my case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v Internal Revenue Service v. Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service, No. USCA No. 20-1407 and in Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 20-
1245 (D.C. Cir.).
The below-pasted fragment from my 03/17/2022 opposition is sneak preview to let the WBO
know what I am talking about in using the term “FLIP-FLOP.”
Waszczuk, in pages 15 and 16 of his Motion To Govern Future Proceedings In This
Case dated March 10, 2022, addressed the “FLIP – FLOP” position presented by
Attorney Matt Johnsoy, representing the Commissioner in Mandy Mobley Li v.
Comm'r of Internal Revenue (Case No. 20-1245), in the arguments exchanged with
- 15 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 61
71 of 374
383
D.C. Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson during the Oral Arguments on
November 5, 2021.
The arguments show the Commissioner’s unwillingness to agree with Judge
Henderson to dismiss the Li case under false pretenses of lack of jurisdiction
implied by the two Amicus Curiae court-appointed Attorneys, Robert Mark Loeb
and Robert Ranvir Sing Manhas, from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, based
in San Francisco, CA.
The Commissioner’s Attorney Matt Johnsoy “FLIP-FLOP” argument with Judge
Henderson was preceded by Mr. Johnsoy’s consistent statement as found in page 6
of his and Mr. Bruce R. Ellisen’s Appellee’s Reply To Brief of Amicus Curiae
dated September 22, 2021 where the DOJ Commissioner’s attorneys stated:
Commissioner originally took the position in his brief for the appellee (at pp. 2, 12-
13) that the Tax Court had jurisdiction over thiscase 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. (Emphasis ours)
In Waszczuk v. Comm'r Case No. 20-1407, the Commissioner’s Attorneys, Mr.

Richard Parker and Mr. Antony Sheehan, in their Motion to Dismiss Waszczuk’s
case dated March 10, 2022, parroted Mr. Matt Johnsoy and Mr. Bruce Ellisen’s
“FLIP-FLOP” Appellee’s Reply To Brief of Amicus Curiae in Li’s Case No. 20-
1245 dated September 22, 2021, contradicting their own arguments in their
Appellee’s Reply Brief filed on April 21, 2021. All four attorneys in Li’s Case and
Waszczuk’s Case are from the same Tax Division Office of the Department of
Justice.
IX
MARCH 7, 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CLERK’S ORDER IN SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
(“SEIA”) V. THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, CASE NO.
21-1136, WHICH REVISED THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE TO FILE FINAL BRIEFS
ON APRIL 12, 2022 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MANDATE DISPOSING MANDY MOBLEY LI V. COMM’R
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, CASE NO. 20-1245
In the coordinated and synchronized action of the involved parties’ attorneys in Solar Energy
Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Case No. 21-
1136, and the D.C. Circuit Court Clerk, the D.C. Clerk, on March 7, 2022, issued an order revising
- 16 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 62
72 of 374
383
the briefing schedule to file final briefs on April 12, 2022 in SEIA’s case (EXHIBIT #16 on flash
drive and DVD).
April 12, 2022 was the incoming scheduled day to dismiss the Li appeal and to use the
fabricated opinion co-authored by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP attorneys Robbie Manhas
and Robert M. Loeb in the Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir.
2022) case to dismiss my appeal in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue
Service, Case No. USCA No. 20-1407, which is indirectly related to Solar Energy Industries
Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Case No. 21-1136.
On April 12, 2022, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a mandate in Li’s case stating (EXHIBIT #17
on flash drive and DVD):
In accordance with the judgment of January 11, 2022, and pursuant to

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41, this constitutes the formal
mandate of this court.
The mandate was issued approximately one month after I filed my motion to govern future
proceedings in my appeal and my March 17, 2022 opposition to the March 10, 2022 Commissioner’s
Motion to Dismiss my appeal.
On the same day, April 12, 2022, Li’s appeal was entirely dismissed and the massive court
filing of briefs in the D.C. Circuit’s SEIA case, No. 21-1136, occurred (see the SEIA case’s docket
printout, EXHIBIT #18 on flash drive and DVD).
- 17 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 63
73 of 374
383
The massive filing of briefs on the same day by all parties in the SEIA case shows that attorneys
in this case knew that my appeal would be dismissed after the Court Mandate was issued in Mandy
Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) on April 12, 2022.
- 18 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 64
74 of 374
383
This encouraged me to look further into what and who is behind the SEIA case, No. 21-1136,
and why this case is happening.
After the IRS Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss on March 10, 2022 and my opposition
to that motion was filed March 17, 2012. The Court did not inform me, either before or after the
mandate was issued in Li, whether my appeal was still in abeyance or not, if I could expect a Court
ruling on my March 10, 2022-filed motion to govern future proceedings, or on the IRS Commissioner’s
motion to dismiss.
After the very vague and ambiguous to me court mandate in Li’s case was issued, my thought
was to file a motion requesting a status update on the ongoing appeal in the above-captioned case,
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner, USCA No. 20-1407, in light of the September 15,
2021 D.C. Circuit Court Order, which held this case in abeyance until Li v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, Case No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.) was disposed. However, after reading two articles about Li’s
case and my D.C. Circuit whistleblower case on Law360, dated 04/22/2021 and 03/10/2022 and titled
“Gov't Urges DC Circ. To Dismiss IRS Whistleblower Case” and “DC Circ. Urged To Affirm
IRS Whistleblower Award Denial” (EXHIBIT #19 on flash drive and DVD), I came across another
Law360 article dated 02/15/22, “FERC Defends PURPA Eligibility Redo for Solar Projects” in
which amicus curiae appointed by the D.C. Circuit in Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue
-Case No. 20-1245 declined to comment on FERC’s brief regarding D.C. Circuit Case No. USCA #21-
1126 Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
filed by FERC on 02/10/2022 (EXHIBIT #20 on flash drive and DVD). Attorney Robert Loeb’s
involvement at the same time in Li’s whistleblower case and SEIA’s case led to further research and to
my submission of this whistleblower claim Form 211 to report multi-million-dollar tax evasion and
fraud committed by the Regents of the University of California or/and the University of California
Office of the President (UCOP) executives, in collaboration with the California Independent System
Operator (CAISO), by purchasing and reselling electrical energy for tax-free profits from the three
solar power plants, in violation of tax-exempt status outlined in Section 501(c)(3).
- 19 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 65
75 of 374
383
X.
THE JUNE 1, 2022 D.C. CIRCUIT COURT ORDER WHICH DISMISSED MY APPEAL
IN JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK V. IRS COMMISSIONER, CASE NO. 20-1407
On June 1, 2022, the D.C. Circuit Court dismissed my case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS
Commissioner, USCA No. 20-1407, by a Court Order stating (EXHIBIT #21 on flash drive and
DVD):
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4). See Li v. Comm'r of
- 20 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 66
76 of 374
383
Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The case is hereby remanded to
the Tax Court with instructions to do the same.
The Order dismissing my appeal was issued four days after the renomination by President Biden
of the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Richard Glick, who was
first nominated to the post on January 21, 2021. The renomination was sent to the Senate on May 24,
2022 with the recommendation: “Richard Glick, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission for a term expiring June 30, 2027 (Reappointment).”
XI.
JUNE 10, 2022, APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION, COMBINED WITH MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE 06/01/2022 COURT ORDER WHICH GRANTED
APPELLEE IRS COMMISSIONER MOTION TO DISMISS MY APPEAL JAROSLAW,
JANUSZ WASZCZUK V. IRS COMMISSIONER CASE NO. 20-1407
On June 10, 2022, I filed in the D.C. Circuit an Appellant’s Notice of Objection, Combined with
Motion for Reconsideration of the 06/01/2022 Court Order Which Granted Appellee Motion to
Dismiss, Denied Appellant’s Motions to Govern Future Proceedings, and Dismissed Unjustly His
Appeal (EXHIBIT #22 on flash drive and DVD).
In my June 10, 2022-filed Motion for Reconsideration, which is based on

new evidence and facts, I requested that the Court set aside the June 1, 2022 Court
Order and review my case without partiality, bias, or discrimination and that it
issue a proper decision. In my motion, I focused on the interference in my case by
two attorneys, Robert Manhas and Robert M. Loeb, from Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP of San Francisco, and their unlawful tampering with the
administration of justice, which caused that my appeal was unjustly dismissed. In
reference to the two attorneys, Robert Manhas and Robert M. Loeb interference
and divorce whistleblower Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22
- 21 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 67
77 of 374
383
F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) case I expressed my filing about D.C Circuit
06/01/2022 Decision in my motion for reconsideration on page 5 & 6 as follow
Loeb and Manhas’s mission of using Li’s “divorce whistleblower case ” and
Broadview Solar, LLC cases to remove Waszczuk’s appeal from the D.C. Circuit
Court with the help of DOJ Tax Division attorneys is basically the same as the
mission of the former University of California Executive Vice President Judith
Boyette in the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities
(TEGE) presented by Waszczuk in his filed in the U. S Tax Court on June 29 ,2020
the Motion To Vacate Or Revise The U. S Tax Court Memorandum Opinion And
Order And Decision In Waszczuk V. Commissioner R. T.C. Memo. 2020-75
(U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) The Motion was docked with the Waszczuk’s appeal
record in the D. C Circuit Court and provided as the Appendix No. 8 with filed on
in D.C Circuit Br
https://www.scribd.com/document/467408938/20200629-Motion-to-Vacate-or-
Revise-Filed-U-S-Tax-Court
Boyette was dispatched in June 2016 to TEGE by UC President Janet Napolitano,
just after Waszczuk hired an experienced attorney from the prestigious Los
Angeles-based law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Corporation to
handle his March 23, 2016 multimillion tax evasion and fraud claim case
concerning whistleblower claim Form 211 and a crime committed by University of
California executives in collaboration with CAISO.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476775292/UTC-20160518-UC-President-
Janet-Napolitano-Meets-President-Obama-Vice-President-Biden-BIDEN
The history of corruption orchestrated by Napolitano and Boyette in the
WBO and TEGE repeated itself in the Department of Justice, Tax Division
and D.C Circuit Court.
I specifically focused on Loeb’s simultaneous and unusual activities in my

case and his representation of the solar power producers Broadview Solar LLC and
Broad Reach Power in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and
D.C. Circuit Court case Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Case USCA #21-112, which led to the
submission of THIS Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form
211 whistleblower claim.
- 22 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 68
78 of 374
383
The common cause and ground for Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission Case USCA #21-112 and Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS
Commissioner, USCA No. 20-1407 is the FERC Form No. 556, which is a Certification of
Qualified Status (QF) Status for Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities.
Any person seeking to certify a facility as a qualifying facility pursuant to sections
3(17) or 3(18) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 796(3)(17), (3)(18), unless
otherwise exempted or granted a waiver by Commission rule or order pursuant to
§ 292.203(d), must complete and file the Form of Certification of Qualifying
Facility (QF) Status for a Small Power Production or Cogeneration Facility, FERC
Form No. 556. Every Form of Certification of Qualifying Status must be submitted
on the FERC Form No. 556 then in effect and must be prepared in accordance with
the instructions incorporated in that form. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-
18/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-131/section-131.80
FERC instituted its Form No. 556 filing requirement in February 1995. On June 1, 2010,
FERC instituted an electronically fileable Form No. 556. Since then, electronic filing of this form
has become mandatory for all small power production and cogeneration facilities. This occurred
after the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) was implemented to encourage:
• the conservation of electric energy
• increased efficiency in the use of facilities and resources by electric utilities.
When I read FERC Dockets QF l 7-454-006 and QF l 7-454-007, related to Broad Reach Power projects
in Montana (Broadview Solar LLC), which are subjects of the pending Solar Energy Industries
Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Case USCA #21-112, I seriously
thought that this was a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sting operation investigating corruption
in the FERC similar to the 1986–1988 FBI Th e Br iber y an d Sp ecial In t er est (BRISPEC)
st in g op er at ion in Sacramento , California known as SHRIMPSCAM. From 1986 through

1988, the FBI conducted a bribery and special interest sting operation to investigate corruption in the
California state legislature. (EXHIBIT #23 on flash drive and DVD
The operation was named SHRIMPSCAM because the FBI agents posed as representatives of a
shrimp-processing company offering campaign contributions to lawmakers in exchange for legislation
- 23 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 69
79 of 374
383
favorable to their corporation. A couple of the bills were actually passed by both the California
Assembly and the California Senate, but the governor vetoed them.
The operation sent California Board of Equalization member Paul Carpenter to prison. In addition to
Carpenter, three members of the state legislature spent time in jail: Assemblyman PAUL NOLAN, the
minority leader at the time of the raid (Pardoned b President Trump in 2019) , and State Senators Joseph
Montoya and Frank Hill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRISPEC sting operation
- 24 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 70
80 of 374
383
In this scheme which is known as a Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Case USCA #21-112 a Broadview Solar LLC employee or
attorney Ros Rocco Vrba on December 19, 2016 submitted electronically from his private residence
at 1612 E Bainbridge Road, Sandy, UT 84092 to FERC two Self-Certification Forms 556, Docket
QF17-455 and QF17-454, to certify same solar power plant supposedly located at the same location,
in or near Broadview, Yellowstone County, Montana as 390,000-kW and 104,250kW (see Forms
556 (EXHIBIT #24 & 25 on flash drive and DVD) Page 9 of the Form 556 under FERC Docket
QF17-455 describes the Broadview Solar LLC Plant as a 390,000-kW or 390-MW with alleged losses
in interconnection transformers, DC/AC conversion, interconnection losses in power lines, total losses
- 25 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 71
81 of 374
383
of 90,000 kW, and net power production of 300,000 kW and as I had never heard that a power plant
could lose a quarter of its capacity via interconnection transformers. Solar power equaling 69,500 kW
could power around 18,000–20,000 homes. A 300,000 kW plant is almost four times more than
PURPA 18 C.F.R. § 292.204(a) (2016) allows for certification by FERC as a small power production
QF facility. To be certified as a QF, a small power production facility must not exceed 80,000 kW, or
80 MW.
The FERC should have rejected Vrba’s Form 556 for the 390,000-kW plant certification as soon
as it was submitted; instead, this happened eight months later. The FERC should have rejected Vrba’s
Form 556 for the 390,000-kW plant certification as soon as it was submitted; instead, this happened
eight months later. on August 2, 2017, by order of Penny S. Murrell, Central Director of the Division
of Electric Power Regulation, without verification of what was behind the certification attempt
(EXHIBIT #26 on flash drive and DVD)
Consecutively Two years latter On September 11, 2019, the sixth QF Certification Form
556 was submitted to FERC this time by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP to approve the same
solar plant, with different twists and lies.( EXHIBIT #27 on flash drive and DVD) This time, the
form was prepared or signed by a different person, Steve Vavrik, the Managing Partner and CEO of
Broad Reach Power, an independent power producer with offices in Houston, Texas and Los Angeles,
California (https://www.linkedin.com/in/steve-vavrik-3a12b53/).
Prior to July 2019, Vavrik was employed by Enron, my former employer of 1989–1998 the
Dynegy Power Corporation, Sun Power, and other electric power-producing companies. The sixth
Form 566 includes six pages of explanatory notes that are full of lies and deceiving statements; it was
submitted to FERC by two attorneys, Adam Wenner
https://www.orrick.com/en/People/9/9/D/Adam-Wenner
and Cory Lankford https://www.orrick.com/en/People/2/2/B/A-Cory-Lankford from Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, based in San Francisco.(Washington D.C Office) They were apparently
hired to represent Broadview, LLC II or Broad Reach Power to certify the Broadview solar plant
- 26 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 72
82 of 374
383
I checked out the Broad Reach Power Company’s projects in Montana online
(https://broadreachpower.com/projects/montana/) and could not find a 160-MW Broadview Solar
power plant among the Broad Reach projects in Montana Broad Reach Power an owner or co-owner
of Broadview Solar, LLC. The FERC, on March 19, 2021, granted Broadview Solar, LLC’s application
for Commission certification Form 556 of its 160-MW solar plant, which does not exist and has
never existed.
A. Broad Reach Power Projects in Montana
• Broadview I
Broadview, MT – Yellowstone County
Capacity: 80-MW (AC) / 50-MW (ESS)
Status: In Development
Commercial Operation Date: 2023
Broadview I is an 80-MW (AC) solar project with a DC-coupled 50-MW energy storage
system
• Broadview II
Capacity: 150-MW wind / 150-MW solar / 150-MW (ESS)
Broadview II is a 150-MW wind project and a 150-MW solar project with a DC-coupled
150-MW energy storage system
• Broadview III
Capacity: 80-MW (AC) / 80-MW (ESS)
- 27 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 73
83 of 374
383
Broadview III is an 80-MW (AC) solar project with a DC-coupled 80-MW energy
storage system
• Broadview IV
Capacity: 250-MW wind / 250-MW solar / 500-MW (ESS)
Broadview IV is a 250-MW wind and 250-MW solar project with a DC-coupled 500 MW
energy storage system
https://broadreachpower.com/projects/montana/
The above chart descriptions of the Broad Reach Power projects clearly shows that no 160-MW
project exists but was certified by FERC. Waszczuk guess is that Broadview III is that 160 MW MW
plant listed as the 80-MW (AC) /80 MW (ESS). No one of these Broad Reach Power projects were
commissioned to be certified by FERC as QF facility . See more details in the attached Exhibit # 25,
the June 10, 2022, Appellant’s Notice of Objection, Combined With Motion For Reconsideration Of
The 06/01/2022 Court Order Which Granted Appellee IRS Commissioner Motion To Dismiss My
Appeal Jaroslaw, Janusz Waszczuk V. IRS Commissioner Case No. 20-1407
XII.
THE JULY 12, 2022 PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND PETITION FOR
REHEARING EN BANC IN JAROSLAW, JANUSZ WASZCZUK V. IRS COMMISSIONER
CASE NO. 20-1407
On July 12, 2022 awaiting the D.C Circuit to rule on my Notice of Objection, Combined
with Motion for Reconsideration of the 06/01/2022 I filed in the D.C. Circuit the Petition for
Panel Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc in which I pointed to the D.C Circuit
.(EXHIBIT #28 on flash drive and DVD)
UNIFORMITY OF THE COURT DECISION
Appellant-Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced “Vashchook,” hereafter “Waszczuk”), files his

Petition for Panel Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Waszczuk filed his
petition in a timely manner, within 45 days after the entry of the June 1, 2022 Order, and one
of the parties is a United States agency (see FRAP 40(a)(1)(B)).
- 28 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 74
84 of 374
383
The panel order conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court, so a
common sense consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and
maintain uniformity of the Court’s decision. In Bond v. Vance, 327 F.2d 901 (D.C.
Cir. 1964), the D.C. Circuit Court ruled by citing Securities Comm’n v. Chenery
Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947) and remanding the case back to the District Court.
The familiar Chenery rule, that we judge the propriety of agency action “solely by
the grounds invoked by the agency,” applies to the factual grounds as well as the
legal grounds. Not only must the “ultimate findings * * * flow rationally from the
basic findings” of fact, but the “basic findings [must also be] supported by
evidence.” Capital Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 93 U.S.App.D.C.
194, 205, 213 F.2d 176, 187 (1953), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 816, 75 S.Ct. 25, 99
L.Ed. 643 (1954). Since here a significant part of the factual foundation of the
Commission’s decision cannot stand, the conclusions drawn therefrom must be
reconsidered.1
For these reasons, the record will be remanded to the District Court with directions
to carry out the order of this court.
In particular, Waszczuk provided evidence and proof of millions of dollars in tax
evasion and fraud, as submitted with his Application for Award for Original
Information (IRS Form 211) to the IRS Whistleblower Office (WBO) in
Ogden, Utah on March 23, 2016, Claim No. 2016-007481. This was updated on
August 3, 2018 by Master Claim No. 2018-012118 and Sub Claims 2018-
012139 and 2018-012141, which were untouched by the WBO. The tax evasion
and fraud were due to the illegal production and sale of electricity for profit in
violation of the tax-exempt status conferred by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 by the tax-exempt entities the University of California (UC)
Board of Regents or executives from the University of California Office of the
President, connected to the California and Federal governments. The claim was too
big to swallow and be pursued by the WBO. In December 2019, while doing
research for his Opposition to Respondent Partial Motion for Summary Judgment,
filed on November 7, 2019 (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0036, see
https://www.scribd.com/document/476775659/UTC-20191213-Petitioner-
Objection-to-Respondent-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment-Objection),
Waszczuk discovered that shortly after Janet Napolitano’s May 2016 meeting with
President Obama, Vice President Biden, and executives from the Department of
Energy, the former UC Executive Associate Vice President Judith Boyette was
1
Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp ., 332 U.S. 194 , 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 91
L.Ed. 1995 (1947); see also Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp ., 318 U.S.
80, 87, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943).
- 29 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 75
85 of 374
383
appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to a three-year term on the IRS Advisory
Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE) (see Appendix Nos.
8 & 17 to Waszczuk’s Appellant Brief filed on 02/22/2022 in this case,
https://www.scribd.com/document/582129721/02-22-2022-APENDIX-No-8-17-
to-the-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-Jaroslaw-Janusz-Waszczuk-v-Internal-
Revenue-Service-v-Commissioner-of-the-Internal-Re).
Boyette’s appointment to the TEGE was not coincidental. It is apparent from the
case Requa v. Regents of the University of California, Al 32778 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan.
29, 2013) that the Regents of the University of California were a client of Hanson
Bridgett, LLP. Boyette was employed by the UC from 1998–2008 and participated
in the adverse but unsuccessful action (witch hunt) against Waszczuk in 2006–2008
to terminate his employment with the university. In March 2007, Waszczuk was
unlawfully removed from the UC Davis Medical Center’s 27-MW
cogeneration plant (the tax evasion target in this case) by the order of U.S.
Senator Dianne Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, who was the Chairman
of the UC Board of Regents at the time. Waszczuk is not making up this story.
These are all true facts.
To maintain the uniformity of the Court’s decision, this Court must remand this
case back to the WBO for investigation to determine whether the tax-exempt
University of California, which is subsidized by $10 billion in taxpayers’ money
every year, shall pay taxes from the illegal profit following the illegal production
and sale of electricity and whether Waszczuk is entitled to a reward for reporting
the UC Regents for tax evasion and fraud.
As I pointed previously , I felt strongly that appointing the two attorneys from the Orrick law firm as
amicus curiae and using the case Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245,
from the State of Georgia, in an attempt to dismiss my appeal had become a high priority for the D.C.
Court judges appointed to dispose of Li’s case and for the Department of Justice, Tax Division,
which was representing the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service in both my and Li’s
appeals. I suspected that something was going on in the background of my appeal dismissed by
the D.C. Circuit Court on June 1, 2022 Order stating :
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4). See Li v. Comm'r of Internal
Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014, 1017 (D.C. Cii. 2022). The case is hereby remanded to the Tax
Court with instructions to do the same.
- 30 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 76
86 of 374
383
In the QUESTIONS OF EXCEPTIONAL IMPORTANCE of my En Banc Petition I asked

D.C Circuit Whether the whistleblower case pending before this court [IRC Section 7623 (b)] Michael
Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue USCA Case Number: 21-1268, filed on December 16,
2021, is in conflict with the Court’s January 11, 2022 Opinion on Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of
Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
The filed briefs in Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue USCA Case Number: 21-
1268 include:
• The CORRECTED APPELLANT OPENING BRIEF (AOB) filed on April 21, 2022 and
authored by attorneys Erica L. Brady-Gitlin and Gregory S. Lynam from the Ferraro Law
Firm EXHIBIT #29 on flash drive and DVD
• The CORRECTED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FOR APPELLANT filed by

[Whistleblower 11099-13W by LMC], authored by attorneys Mohammad Usman and
Brian C. Willie from Kostelanetz & Fink, LLP, filed on April 26, 2022 (EXHIBIT #30
on flash drive and DVD )
• APPELLEE BRIEF filed by IRS Commissioner filed on June 15, 2022

(EXHIBIT #31 on flash drive and DVD)
• Two days later on June 17 , 2022 CLERK'S ORDER filed scheduling oral argument on
Wednesday, 09/07/2022 in Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Case USCA #21-112. The due date for the writ of
certiorari in my appeal Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner, USCA No. 20-
1407 would be August 28, 2022
• APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF filed by Michael Lissack (EXHIBIT #32 on flash drive
and DVD
The CORRECTED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FOR APPELLANT authored by NATIONAL

WHISTLEBLOWER CENTER attorneys Dean Zerbe, from Zerbe, Miller, Fingeret and Jadav, LLP;
and Stephen M. Kohn, were my best arguments in this PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND
PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC to convince the Court to vacate the June 1, 2022 Order
which dismissed my appeal and to remand my case back to the WBO for proper handling and
investigation.
- 31 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 77
87 of 374
383
The filed on September 1, 2021 amicus curiae brief, ill crafted by Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP attorneys Robert Loeb and Robert Manhas in Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal
Revenue to dismiss my appeal is a legally dangerous joke and legal plagiarism, when compared with
briefs authored by attorneys in the pending Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
USCA Case Number: 21-1268, especially that by the National Whistleblower Center attorneys, who
have outstanding expertise with such cases. I asked the Court to disregard Manhas and Loeb’s
deceptive amicus curiae brief in his opposition filed on October 1, 2021. My request was denied on
December 8, 2021.
In my Petition for Panel Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed on July 12, 2022 I
focused on Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268 for
obvious reason . My appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and because of Mandy Mobley
Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) January 11, 2022 issued D.C Circ.
Opinion but the Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268 is
still pending like Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) never
happened and the January 11, 2022 issued D.C Circ. Opinion never was written .
I noticed that there was a lot of juggling in the documents’ filing and corrections in Michael
Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268 to take Li and Waszczuk’s
cases out of Lissack’s case picture after Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th
1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) was decided on January 11, 2022.
The Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) has
affected so far at least 90 petitioners whose appeals of the WBO’s decisions on whistleblowers claims
from Form 211 were pending in U.S. Tax Court. Their appeal cases were brutally dismissed in the U.S.
Tax Court because D.C Court denied Mandy Mobley Li’s Motion of Mandate Stay during the pending
Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case No. 21-1268, in which the
Appellant is represented by attorneys with two amicus curiae. This is a legal holocaust for
whistleblowers in U.S. Tax Court.
- 32 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 78
88 of 374
383
All details in the Exhibit # 30- Petition for Panel Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc
in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v Internal Revenue Service v. Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service, Case No. USCA No. 20-1407
XIII.
THE CROSS-REFERENCED CASES SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT-
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (3DCA) WASZCZUK V. THE
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET.AL. CASE NO . C095488
The Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP attorneys Robert Manhas and Robert M. Loeb action aimed
at my appeal in the D.C. Circuit was and still is precisely coordinated with the proceedings in my
interconnected cases , which have been pending since December 2013 in State of California
Sacramento County Superior Court as Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479 and 3DCA , Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University
of California et.al. Case No.C095488. The UC Regents are the target and perpetrators of millions
of dollars’ worth of tax evasion and fraud in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v Internal Revenue Service
v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Case No. USCA No. 20-1407. On the same day,
September 1, 2021, Loeb and Manhas filed their amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit Li case, the judge
from Sacramento Superior Court, Christopher Krueger, a former Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP attorney and former Chief Deputy Legal Secretary to California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, granted the UC Regents’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge Krueger was
assigned to Waszczuk’s case in July 2021, just two weeks after Loeb and Manhas were appointed
as amicus curiae in the Li case. The case is now pending now in the State Court of Appeal, Third
Appellate District as Waszczuk v. UC Regents, Case No. C095488 See: Details in PLAINTIFF AND
APPELLANT JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’S SECOND NOTICE OF OMISSION RE:
DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL filed in Sacramento County Superior Court and 3DCA on
July 20, 2022 (EXHIBIT #33 on flash drive and DVD)
- 33 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 79
89 of 374
383
XIV.
MY APRIL 12, 2022 FOIA REQUEST WITH FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION A the 16.3-MW SOLAR PLANT LOCATED ON THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA , UC DAVIS 62-ACRE PLOT AT LEVEE ROAD IN SOLANO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
On April 12, 2022, I submitted to FERC an FOIA request to help me retrieve from FERC’s
eLibrary the self-certification Form 556 for the 16.3-MW solar plant located on a 62-acre plot at Levee
Road in Solano County, California owned by UC Davis. (EXHIBIT# 34 on the flash drive and
DVD). I was seeking more information about the plant after I came to suspect that my former
employer, the University of California, had something to do with Robert Loeb’s representation of the
solar power producer Broadview Solar, LLC in the D.C. Circuit case Solar Energy Industries
Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Case No. 21-1136 .
The Self-Certification QF Forms 556 retrieved from the FERC’s eLibrary, which had been
filed with FERC by Solar Star California XXXII, LLC on 02/24/2016, 08/03/2018, and
03/15/2022 under FERC Docket QF16-481, did not show anything extraordinary that would
raise a red flag of any wrongdoing by the owner of the plant or its operating company
(EXHIBIT #35 on flash drive and DVD). The three QFs include the following short description of
the plant:
The facility is expected to total approximately 16.3 MW-DC (13.0 MW-AC gross inverter
capacity). The design includes 9 Oasis Power Blocks, including one 1.0 MW-AC inverter and
eight 1.5 MW-AC inverters. In total, the design includes 37,440 SunPower modules. The facility
is interconnected to an existing University of California, Davis substation at 12 kV.
Consulting a satellite photo of the plant, I counted the number of solar modules to determine whether
the numbers of modules was the same as was stated in the QF Forms .These were the same number.
- 34 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 80
90 of 374
383
In my August 3, 2018 Addendum to the Application for Award for Original Information (IRS
Form 211), docketed in the WBO as Master Claim No. 2018-012118 and Sub Claims 2018-012139
and 2018-012141, on pp. 42–56, I addressed greenhouse gas emissions and environmental laws in
relation to violations by the University of California of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 (PURPA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other laws including but not limited to
violation of tax-exempt status outlined in IRC Section 501(c)(3). In 2018, I became curious why UC
Davis had sacrificed 62 acres of land next to the Putah Creek North Levee Trail, which is a part of the
UC Davis National Reserve System, disturbing the natural habitats of many species (see
https://www.hikingproject.com/trail/7030342/putah-creek-north-levee-trail). The 62-acre solar
farm generates 14% of UC Davis’ electricity and supposedly reduces the university’s carbon footprint
by 9%. This plant did not, in fact, reduce the carbon footprint at all because UC Davis’ main campus
- 35 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 81
91 of 374
383
has a power demand of over 100 MWh and a steam demand of 150,000 lb/hr. The production of
150,000 lb/hr of high and low pressure steam requires the burning of a large amount of natural gas in
the boilers, a process in which the emission of greenhouse gases is not controlled. The amount of
natural gas needed to produce 150,000 lb/hr steam could power a 60-MW cogeneration power plant
using one 60-MW LM 6000 and one 25-MW LM 2500 gas turbine (net total output 75 MW.) with
attached heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) to produce 150,000lb/hr steam. The plant could also
be built on two acres of land, instead of 62 on the UC Davis main campus. Alternatively, GT and HRSG
could be added to the existing UC Davis Central Plant. This would fulfill 50% of electrical energy
needed and 100% of the steam needed by UC Davis’ main campus. Instead of using 62 acres for a solar
plant, trees could be planted to naturally reduce the carbon footprint, most likely by more than 9%.
Purchasing carbon credits and offsets should be a last resort, because they are expensive, doing so is
not a long-term solution for emissions reduction, and these approaches are subject to regulatory
changes After my April 12, 2022 FOIA request with FERC I reviewed almost all of the files from the
D.C. Circuit Court’s documents and pleadings in the SEIA v. FERC case to determine how the UCOP
white collar criminals managed to interfere in my D.C. Circuit pending appeal involving Orrick’s
Attorney Robert Loeb and how my whistleblower case, Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS
Commissioner, USCA No. 20-1407, was connected or related to Solar Energy Industries Association
(“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Case USCA #21-112, which is basically
about the fraudulent certification by FERC of the Broadview Solar LLC solar power plant supposedly
located in Yellowstone County, Montana. Contrary to the Broadview LLC case, my D.C Circuit case
is about a 27-MW natural gas-fired cogeneration plant located at the UC Davis Medical Center, in
Sacramento, and about the unlawful production and sale of electricity in violation of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the requirements set in the 18 C.F.R.§§ 292.203(b) and
292.205 for the operation, efficiency, and use of energy output. This plant was certified as a Qualified
Facility (QF) pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 292.20 requirements, Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a),
California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, the State of California Unfair Business Competition
law, Business and Professions Code § 17200, and violation of tax exempt status Section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and State of California Revenue and Taxation Code.
- 36 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 82
92 of 374
383
XV.
LOSSES AMOUNTING TO TENS OF MILLIONS OF TAX-FREE DOLLARS DUE TO THE
UNLAWFUL AND INSUFFICIENT OPERATION OF THE 27-MW COGENERATION
POWER PLANT COMMISSIONED IN 1998 LOCATED AT THE UCDMC IN
SACREMENTO, CALIFORNIA
I was hired by the UCDMC on June 17, 1999 as a non-exempt senior power plant mechanic or
cogeneration power plant operator. My job was to maintain and operate the newly built, state-of-the-
art 37-MW cogeneration power plant. (EXHIBIT #36 on flash drive and DVD).
The plant was commissioned in 1998 and built for $65 million. It was powered by a General
Electric 23-MW LM 2500 gas turbine attached to an exhaust heat recovery steam generator (HRSG).
- 37 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 83
93 of 374
383
One 4-MW steam turbine, five 2-MW Caterpillar emergency generators, and four natural gas-fired
steam boilers have a total steam generation capacity of 100,000 lbs/hr. The plant’s total capacity is 37
MWh of electricity and 200,000 lbs/hr of steam.
Between 1999 and 2003, the total power demand at the UCDMC was around 6 MWh
during the day and 4–4.5 MWh at night if the Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD)did not call for power . EXHIBIT #37 on flash drive and DVD). The plant was
required to dump 2 MW into the Sacramento Municipal Utility District grid to keep its 23-MW
gas turbine (GT) operational and to properly control its nitric oxide air pollution. The steam
demand of UCDMC in 1999 was around 25,000 lbs/hr, and a GT with a 5-MW load could not
generate enough exhaust heat to produce this in the HRSG. The absorption chillers were required
to run auxiliary steam boilers, which were to be used only when the GT was shut down.
The plant was commissioned in 1998 and should have supplied electricity and steam to the
campus, but the steam and hot water lines were not finished, and the old boiler plant remained in use.
- 38 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 84
94 of 374
383
The plant was mechanically unfinished and unsafe, and CAL/OSHA intervention was needed to fix
several problems that endangered personnel. By contrast, the UC Davis main campus had a power
demand of about 100 MWh in 1999, and a steam demand of 150,000 lbs/hr. The main campus could
have built a 60–75-MW cogeneration facility powered by one LM 6000 GT and one LM2500 without
violating PURPA or FERC regulations or environmental laws, but instead, the 37-MWh plant
(including five emergency generators of 2MW each) was built on the relatively small UCDMC campus,
where power and steam demand was only one-fifth of what the plant could produce.
When I was hired, I found it strange, given my work experience, that a 27-MW plant costing
tens of millions was not being used as designed. I thought that this was temporary and that not all of
the UCDMC buildings were being powered by the facility. The other operators and I had no clue that
we had been hired to operate the plant solely to sell power for profit to benefit o UCOP white collar
criminal and their friends At least three of the 2-MW Caterpillar emergency generators included in
the package commissioned by the UCDMC were apparently intended to be used for power sale. The
UCDMC’s in-house power load in 1999–2003, and for a long time thereafter, was in the 4.5–6 MW
range, and having 10 MW of emergency power was a plan to make millions of dollars in tax-free
money. Unfortunately, after the emergency generators began being tested frequently, nearby residents
complained about the resulting high concentration of diesel fumes. Those fumes also entered the plant’s
control room and other medical center ventilation systems, causing sickness.(see Exhibit # 36)
Prior to working at UCDMC, I was employed from 1989 to 1998 by Destec Energy Inc., based
in Houston, TX as an operator of a 50-MW natural gas-fired plant cogeneration plant powered by a
General Electric LM 5000 GT similar to UCDMC’s LM 2500 GT. Known as “San Joaquin
Cogeneration Plant ,” this 50-MW cogeneration plant was located in Lathrop, California, 50 miles
south of Sacramento. Destec had 9 plants in California and had a 20-year power sale contract with
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), and the plant was operated 24/7 at full 50-MW load, with the
exception of shutdowns for scheduled maintenance or unexpected equipment breakdown. In addition,
the plant was making money by selling superheated steam to the auto glass company Libby-Owens-
Ford, in Lathrop. In addition, Destec Energy Inc., as operator of a qualified cogeneration facility (QF),
- 39 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 85
95 of 374
383
received a 25% (equaling millions of dollars) natural gas discount from PG&E under California Public
Utilities Code Section 218.5.
Destec Energy Inc. renamed to Dynegy defrauded PG&E ratepayers and California tax
payers of approximately from $240 million 1989 to 1996 EXHIBIT #38 on flash drive and DVD
and then repeated the fraud against California ratepayers and taxpayers during the California Energy
Crisis..
The exact amount of that fraud was $281 million according to California Attorney General Bill
Lockyer’s disclosure who cashed out for his office in approximately $20 million from the deal with
Destec’s successor Dynegy Inc.
(see:https://www.scribd.com/document/489028741/February-1999-Fire-in-My-Daughter-s-
Apartment-San-Carlos-California).
The principles of GT-powered cogeneration facilities are outlined in the law (Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act, PURPA, enacted by Congress on November 9, 1978), which calls for a proper
demand for steam use by capturing the exhaust gases’ heat (thermal energy) from GT via an HRSG, to
- 40 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 86
96 of 374
383
be certified by FERC as a QF. PURPA mandates that any cogeneration facility certified and recognized
by law as a “qualified cogeneration facility” must meet special requirements related to the ratio between
electric energy production and thermal energy production to be certified and permitted for energy
production (18 C.F.R. § 292.20; Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a)). Making a profit and fulfilling
any power sale contract and steam host production demands a natural gas-fired cogeneration plant must
run 24/7 at full load with exception to maintenance shut down on unexpected breakdown of equipment
.
The white collar criminals from the UCOP conspired with white collar criminals from CAISO,
made a gross miscalculation by investing in their crime tens of millions of dollars by adding to
UCDMC’s utility plant, the 23-MW LM 2500 GT, the 4-MW steam turbine, five emergency generators,
and a waste condenser to hide PURPA violations.
The UCOP white collar criminals and their collaborators entirely ignored the the PURPA .Facility
was and still is incapable of either to meet the efficiency standards as outlined in Title 18 CFR Part
292.205 (a) and (b) and/or not using natural gas in the sequential production of electricity and steam,
heat or useful work.
On top of this, UCOP white collar criminals and their collaborators made a grave mistake in
their February 1998 joint venture with Enron Corporation Energy Services to launder megawatts from
UC campuses under umbrella a direct access services contract. Enron, without a single power plant in
the State of California, was quickly outgunned and collapsed in December 2001 by competing with my
former employer, Destec/Dynegy, El Paso, Miriam, and other greedy power-selling sharks in the State
of California for the billion-dollar bone that was thrown to them by cash-hungry organized criminals
from CAISO, the UCOP, and state agencies.
Hypothetically, if the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration had been owned and operated by a
private power producer as a QF facility and operated 24/7 according to PURPA regulations, then after
24 years of operation, the plant would have been able to sell to public utility companies around,
5,598,720 MW when calculating
27 MW x 24 hours x 30 days x 12 months x 24 years.
- 41 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 87
97 of 374
383
Hypothetically if the 5,598,720 MW had been sold with a net profit $50/MW, then it would
have totaled $ 279,936,000
In March 2016 and August 2018, I provided to the WBO an Application for Award for Original
Information (IRS Form 211) (Exhibits 2 & 3), so that the WBO could chart the power production and
power sale amounts from UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration power plant from 1999–2015 (see
EXHIBIT #39 on flash drive and DVD).
• 1999: Sold 8,875 MWh (Sacramento Municipal Utility District, SMUD), Sacramento
Municipal Utility District
• 2000: Sold approximately 70,000 MWh (date missing, October–December)
• 2001: Sold 75,767 MWh (via CaPX-CAISO)
• 2002: Data missing, no sale; CalPX filed for bankruptcy
• 2003: Sold 17,793 MWh (to SMUD, by a power purchase agreement signed by UC
Regents on 02/13/2003)
• 2004: Sold 13,810 MWh (SMUD)
• 2005: Sold 27,580 MWh (SMUD)
• 2006: Sold 3,783 MWh (SMUD; new power purchase agreement with SMUD effective
June 1, 2006)
• 2007: Sold 2,917 MWh (SMUD); I was removed from the plant on March 23, 2007 by
UCOP white collar criminals in preparation for a full-scale power sale)
• 2008: Sold 7,884 MWh (SMUD; at the end of 2008, I prevailed in the arbitration process
against the UCOP for abruptly and unlawfully removing me from the UCDMC’s 27-
MW cogeneration plant the 2007).
• 2009: Sold only 342 MWh (to SMUD). On January 31, 2009, UCOP white collar
criminals signed a settlement agreement with me. In January 2009, Janet Napolitano was
appointed DHS Secretary.
• 2010: Sold only 355 MWh (to SMUD, at $45/MWh; dumping energy)
• 2011: Sold 155 MWh (to SMUD, on August 31, 2011; I was removed from UCDMC
premises as an obstruction to the perpetrators for preparations to sign a new power
purchase agreement with SMUD)
• 2012: Sold only 312 MWh between January 6 and December 31. The UC Regents
signed a new power purchase agreement with SMUD on May 31, 2012. On the same
day, I was lured to the UCDMC premises and I became the subject of a heinous but
- 42 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 88
98 of 374
383
unsuccessful provocation to be shot by a UC Davis cop bribed with a $35,000 pay raise.
I was to be delivered dead or alive to UCDMC’s trauma unit, which was prepared to
receive me. The provocation was unsuccessful, and my employment was terminated on
December 7, 2012 at age of 61, following a 1.5-year forced by UCOP mob absence
from work,
• 2013: Sold only 1,383 MWh (to SMUD); Sales to SMUD were discontinued in
December, a few days after I filed a wrongful termination suit against the Regents and a
petition of writ of mandamus for denied unemployment benefits in Sacramento County
Superior Court.
• 2014: No power exported

The UCDMC’s 27-MW Cogeneration Facility Production Report dated November 13,
2015, which was issued 17 years after the plant was commissioned, shows that the average
plant house load is 9.7 MW per 24-hour period, and the 23-MW LM2500 gas turbine is
being operated at average of 9. l MW per 24-hour period (in-house load) (EXHIBIT #40
on flash drive and DVD).
- 43 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 89
99 of 374
383
The UCDMC’s 27-MW Cogeneration Facility Production Report dated July 23, 2022,
which was issued 24 years after the plant was commissioned, shows that the average plant
house load is 11.1 MW per 24-hour period, and the 23-MW LM2500 gas turbine is being
operated at average of 10.53 MW per 24-hour period (in-house load) (EXHIBIT #41 on
flash drive and DVD).
- 44 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1962104
#1984256 Filed:
Filed:09/05/2022
02/02/2023 Page
Page100
90 of
of374
383
Hypothetically, taking into consideration the highest average plant load, which is 11.1 MW per
24-hour period, it will mean that plant did not generate and sell approximately 15 MW per hour for 24
years, taking into consideration the fact that the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant was
commissioned in 1998.
At an average net profit $50 per 1 MW not sold, it would amount to losses of:
- 45 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1962104
#1984256 Filed:
Filed:09/05/2022
02/02/2023 Page
Page101
91 of
of374
383
15 MW/hour x 24 hours =360 MW x 30 days = 10,800 MW x 12 months =129,600 MW x 24

years = 3,110,400 MW x $50/MW = 155,520,000 TOTAL LOSS.
This shows that the UCDMC’s plant, powered by an LM 2500 GT is being operated equal
to approximately 50 diesel semi-trucks driving 24 /7 with a half of load. The $155,520,000 tax-
free losses is a lot of money for owners/investors of the LM 2500 GT and HRSG, who did not
make money from power. The UC Regents had to pay them for the remaining megawatts sold to
SMUD, CAISO, or used to power the UCDMC. The owners/investors of the LM 2500 GT and
HRSG have made tens of millions dollars in tax-free money since 1998. This was the subject of
my Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) filed on March 23, 2016,
Claim No. 2016-007481, and updated on August 3, 2018 by Master Claim No. 2018-012118 and
Sub Claims 2018-012139 and 2018-012141.
However, the profits from the electric energy produced from 2006 to 2016 ( 10 years statute of
limitation to collect taxes ) and from 2016 to the present (2022) by the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration
power plant was, and is still, taxable, due to violations of the tax-exempt status outlined in IRC
section 501 (c)(1) by the UCOP’s corrupt executives. The approximate amount of untaxed, illegally
generated profit from the produced energy between 2006 and 2016 and from 2016 to the present is
11.1 MW/hour x 24 hours =266.4 MW x 30 days = 7992 MW x 12 months =95904 MW x
16 years = 1,534,464 MW x $ 50/MW = 76,723,200 TOTAL TAXABLE PROFIT (MINIMUM),
taking into consideration an average production of 11.1 MW in-house load and minimum $50 profit
per produced megawatt.
XVI.
THE CAUSE OF THE LOST MILLIONS OF TAX-FREE DOLLARS DUE TO UNLAWFUL
OPERATION OF THE 27-MW COGENERATION POWER PLANT COMMISSIONED IN
1998 AT THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
The tax evasion and fraud I reported to the WBO with my Application for Award for Original
Information (IRS Form 211) on March 23, 2016, Claim No. 2016-007481, and updated on August 3,
- 46 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1962104
#1984256 Filed:
Filed:09/05/2022
02/02/2023 Page
Page102
92 of
of374
383
2018 by Master Claim No. 2018-012118 and Sub Claims 2018-012139 and 2018-012141, which is
still due and for which I am still eligible for a reward, was meticulously planned and initiated by
the corrupt California legislators in 1995–1996 and sponsored by the corrupt California government
and carried out by rotten, corrupted executives from the UCOP, CAISO executives, and other
collaborators like SMUD and PG&E. The fraud was covered up by California Attorneys General and
their deputies, California Public Utility Commission staff . and corrupt judges and justices from the
California Courts who were employed by the California Attorney General’s or U.S Attorney Office
before they were appointed to the bench by California governors . I don’t want to elaborate about them
in this Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) about them before I file specific
complaint with California Commission on Judicial Performance .
The following July 26, 1999, the UC Regents signed a Participating Generator Agreement
(PGA) with CAISO, a collaborator in the fraud.
On August 6, 1999, CAISO submitted to FERC a request to wave the 60-day waiting
period for UCDMC to begin functioning as a participant in the California power market. On
August 18, 1999, UCDMC sent a Notice of Self-Certification (FERC Form 556), to the FERC to
certify its 27-MW cogeneration facility as a QF for generating electric power.
The first page of the Notice of Self-Certification states:
"The UC Regents (governing body for the University of California (UC) system) are 100
percent owners and operate the UCDMC facility. The UC system is not an electric utility or
electric utility holding company. To the applicant's knowledge, the UC system does not
own any electric facilities, other than QF facilities, that are used to generate electric
power for sale."
UCDMC Principal Engineer Michael Lewis, who signed the Notice of Self-Certification,
provided a statement to the FERC stating that the UC system had QF facilities used to generate
electric power for sale. Some UC campuses have QF facilities to provide needed utilities,
including electric energy for campuses, but not to generate electric power for sale as the primary
purpose of the on-campus cogeneration facilities.
- 47 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1962104
#1984256 Filed:
Filed:09/05/2022
02/02/2023 Page
Page103
93 of
of374
383
The bold-faced statement above clearly shows that, by constructing the 27-MW facility at
UCDMC, a facility that needed only 5 MW of power, the UC Regents got themselves into the
business of piracy by illegally generating and selling power to make millions of dollars in quick
cash for themselves and their collaborators in the fraud scheme.
In 2016, I did not FULLY understand why Michael Lewis wrote in the Self-Certification
FERC Form 556 that that: “the UC system does not own any electric facilities, other than QF
facilities, that are used to generate electric power for sale,” knowing that the UC is a non-profit,
tax-exempt entity and cannot legally generate electricity for sale to make a profit from its power
plants, a practice that violates every possible FERC regulation and environmental laws. I knew
Mike Lewis personally. He retired, or was forced to retire, in 2012 along with a few other people
attached to UCDMC’s cogeneration plant and witch hunted by UCOP thugs . My employment
was terminated in December 2012, after an unsuccessful and ill-crafted plot to kill me on May
31, 2012, an attempt to frame me with Lodi, police where I have resided since 1989, and then
portraying me like a “most wanted” terrorist with UC Davis Police posters featuring my photo and
distributed all over the UC Davis campuses. Lewis sadly died in May 2019, when my tax evasion
and fraud case was pending in the U.S. Tax Court.
The UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant is mentioned in Mike Lewis’ obituary
See:https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sacbee/name/michael-lewis-obituary?id=2011619
It is unknown to me who or which attorney from the office of the UC General Counsel or
CAISO helped Mike Lewis or dictated to him what to write in the fraudulent Self -Certification
FERC FORM 556, which never should have been approved by FERC if reviewed.
In my updated on August 3, 2018 WBO claim, which was docketed as Master Claim No. 2018-
012118 and Sub Claims 2018-012139 and 2018-012141, I found and provided more information
concerning how the perpetrators from UCOP; the California legislature; California government
agencies including, but not limited to, the California Attorney General’s Office, California Public
- 48 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1962104
#1984256 Filed:
Filed:09/05/2022
02/02/2023 Page
Page104
94 of
of374
383
Utilities Commission, and their collaborators, orchestrated a $40 billion fraud aimed at misleading the
public through the “California Energy Crisis,” from May 2000–October 2001, to make for themselves
millions of dollars in untaxed money via Assembly Bill 1890, the California Electricity Restructuring
Act, which was signed in law by Governor Pete Wilson on September 23, 1996 in collaboration with
the Enron Power Corporation, based in Houston, Texas (see ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-).
AB 1890 mainly made amendments to the Public Utility Code (PUC) and other
California codes, including Chapter 2.3: Electrical Reconstructing, Articles 1–17, Sections 330–
400. The authors of AB 1890, in Section 377 (7)(b) of the PUC, addressed my employer of June
1999– December 2012, the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) with these words:
• To give effect to an existing relationship, the obligation to pay the uneconomic costs
specified in Sections 367, 368, 375, and 376 shall not apply to that portion ofthe load of
the University of California campus situated in Yolo County that was being served
as of May 31, 1996, by preference power purchased from a federal marketing
agency, or its successor, provided the power is used solely for the facility load of
that campus and not, directly or indirectly, for sale.
The above statement in AB 1890 about UC Davis, although vague and ambiguous, is referring
to the Western Area Power Administration, which provided power at a great discount to be used
solely for the facility load of the UC Davis campus and not, directly or indirectly, for sale.
https://www.wapa.gov/regions/SN/Pages/customers.aspx
In actuality, the above part of AB 1890 was the premeditated use of the California energy
market’s deregulation and the UC campuses in conspiracy among corrupt California politicians,
legislators, state agencies, the UC Regents and the University of California Office of the President
(UCOP), the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) executives, and others to pocket tens of millions of dollars by evading taxes
and disregarding the University of California’s tax-exempt status, as noted in IRC 501(c)(3)
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the State of California Revenue and Taxation Code.
- 49 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1962104
#1984256 Filed:
Filed:09/05/2022
02/02/2023 Page
Page105
95 of
of374
383
Taking into consideration that the University of California had nine campuses during the
period of market deregulation and permission via AB 1890 to launder megawatts, this was an
irresistible opportunity for white collar criminals to make millions of dollars tax-free by using the
UC campuses for this purpose.
To bypass AB 1890’s provisions related to the UC Davis Main Campus, and to generate and
sell power for tax-free profit, UCOP officials constructed and commissioned in 1998 a 27-MW
cogeneration plant at the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), located 20 miles east of Davis in
Sacramento, CA. Its sole purpose was to unlawfully generate and sell electric power via CAISO, the
California Power Exchange (CalPX), and SMUD, in violation of 18 C.F.R. § 292.20; the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a); California Public Utilities Code (CPUC), Section 218.5; the State
of California Unfair Business Competition Law, Business and Professions Code, § 17200; the
California Commodity Law of 1990 (CCL), Corporation Code, § 29500 et seq.; and 7 U.S. Code §
6 (b); and in violation of section 50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the State of
California Revenue and Taxation Code.
Two other similar cogeneration plants were built at the same time, on the UC San Diego and
UC Berkely campuses. The UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant was the main target of my
previously submitted similar claim and involved the same entities as noted in my report to the IRS
Whistleblower Office (WBO) in Ogden, Utah submitted on March 23, 2016 as Claim No. 2016-
007481. This claim was updated on August 3, 2018 by Master Claim No. 2018-012118 and Sub Claims
2018-012139 and 2018-012141.
Going back to LOSES OF THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF TAX-FREE DOLLARS DUE TO THE
UNLAWFUL AND INSUFFICIENT OPERATION OF THE UCDMC 27-MW COGENERATION
POWER PLANT COMMISSIONED in 1998 I along with my Application for Award for Original
Information, I submitted Exhibit No. 7 (here, EXHIBIT #42 on flash drive and DVD), which was a
fraudulent-bogus Notice of Self-Certification for UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant (FERC Form
556, FERC Docket FERC Docket No. OF99-99-000) which triggered the tax evasion and fraud in
amount of millions of dollars and enormous monetary losses for white collar criminals who vested in
the illegal production and powers sale
- 50 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1962104
#1984256 Filed:
Filed:09/05/2022
02/02/2023 Page
Page106
96 of
of374
383
XVII.
FEBRUARY 19, 1998: THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DIRECT ACCESS SERVICES
TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY BY ENRON CORPORATION ENERGY SERVICES
With the updated on August 3, 2018 whistleblower docked in the WBO as Master Claim No. 2018-
012118 I provided copy of the document which sent on May 9, 2001 by UC General Counsel to UC
Committee on Finance (EXHIBIT #43 on flash drive and DVD) which titled : “REGENTS v.
ENRON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. - Preliminary Injunction for University and Stay of
Preliminary Injunction - Breach of Contract
One month before CAISO and CalPX commenced operation, in March 1998, the University of
California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) systems entered into a direct access services
- 51 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1962104
#1984256 Filed:
Filed:09/05/2022
02/02/2023 Page
Page107
97 of
of374
383
contract with Enron Corporation Energy Services to provide electricity and related metering, billing,
and communications for all of their campuses. The direct access was a part of California’s 1996
Electricity Restructuring Act, AB 1890, California Public Utility Code 365.1 (PUC 365.1).
Enron was required to act as the universities’ scheduling coordinator for energy supplies with
CAISO. The UC system in 1998, with nine campuses, and the CSU system, with 23 campuses, was
and still is one of the largest university systems in the U.S., and they are the largest universities in
California. Such a contract with Enron had to be approved by the California government, and the
transactions were planned long before they were implemented.
XVIII.
THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR (CAISO) AND NEW CAISO
GENERAL COUNSEL CHARLES ROBINSON
On March 8, 2000, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), created by California
Assembly Bill 1890 (AB1890), announced the appointment of Charles F. Robinson to the post of
general counsel effective April 10, 2000. Robinson came from Packard Bell Inc., where he had been
assistant general counsel and director of litigation.
Robinson was a Trojan horse and “godfather” of the May 2000–October 2001 sophisticated
scheme of $40 billion fraud known as the “California Energy Crisis.” Robinson was brought to CAISO
by the rotten and corrupt University of California Office of the President (UCOP), their friends from
the California governor’s office, and most likely by then-California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. In
a joint venture, the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems
entered into a direct access service contract with Enron on February 18, 1998, just two weeks before
the energy market deregulation took effect. By using Enron as bait, the white collar criminals of the
UCOP, CAISO, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and California government
carried out their evil plan to destabilize the Western States Power Grid and racked up millions of tax-
free dollars between May 2000 and October 2001. In May Charles Robinson and his gang were lured
into the billions dollars fraud game greedy power corporations like Dynegy; El Paso; Miriam;
Powerex; Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC; American Electric Power Service Corp.; APX
Inc.; Aquila Merchant Services, Inc.; Avista Energy, Inc.; BP Energy Company; Calpine Energy
- 52 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1962104
#1984256 Filed:
Filed:09/05/2022
02/02/2023 Page
Page108
98 of
of374
383
Services, L.P.; Commonwealth Energy Corporation; NIKIA Commerce Energy, Inc.; Consumer
Telcom, Inc. F/K/A Clean Earth Energy, Inc.; Constellation New Energy, Inc.; Duke Energy Shared
Services, Inc. F/K/A Cinergy Services, Inc.; El Paso Marketing, LP F/K/A El Paso Merchant Energy,
L.P.; FPL Energy Power Marketing, Inc.; Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc.; Midway Sunset
Cogeneration Company; Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc.; NRG Power Marketing Inc.; Preferred
Energy Services, Inc. D/B/A Gogreen; Power Source Corp.; Sempra Energy Solutions LLC; Sierra
Pacific Industries; Torch Operating Company; Tractebel Energy Marketing, Inc.; NIKIA Suez Energy
Marketing NA, Inc.; and Trans Alta Energy Marketing (US) Inc., all of whom outgunned and collapsed
the Enron Corporation which did not own any power plants in California or Western States Power
Grid to produce and supply own power .
The artificially created billions dollars fraud titled California Energy Crisis became a gold mine
for California’s organized white collar criminals led by the California Attorney General’s after the
meticulously orchestrated California Energy Crisis magically and surprisingly ended right aways after
the September 11, 2001 most deadly terrorist attack on US soil . For over two decades, AGs Bill
Lockyer, Jerry Brown, Kamala Harris, and Xavier Becerra received millions of dollars in kickbacks of
tax-free dollars which were funneled to who knows where or who got the money from settlements -
agreement that were signed off on by California Parties and California Energy Task Force with the
California Attorney General in charge of the money. When, in 1997, during a labor dispute about
unpaid overtime, I reported Destec Energy Inc.’s $240 million fraud against PG&E ratepayers and
California taxpayers, PG&E did not need AG Bill Lockyer’s Energy Task Force to recover millions of
dollars from Destec, as this took place in acts orchestrated by white collar criminals between May 2000
and October 2001 via a cyberattack on the Western States Power Grid. This was well described in the
San Diego County Superior Court complaint filed on June 6, 2002 as 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.
In May 2000, just one month after Robinson arrived at CAISO headquarters in Folsom,
California to carry out and oversee the successful and sophisticated scheme of fraud known as the
California Energy Crisis, a group of foreign terrorists arrived in San Diego. Their lifestyle and sources
- 53 -
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#1962104
#1984256 Filed:
Filed:09/05/2022
02/02/2023 Page
Page109
99 of
of374
383
of support were not well known for more than one year, until they delivered the deadliest-ever attack
on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001. However, by accident, the I found that these “uninvited” guests
from the Middle East converted their Camaros and Firebirds into hot rods at a San Diego shop, so they
could cruise freely around UC San Diego and Arizona (Napolitano’s home state) for a full year, before
killing more than 3,000 innocent people in their terror attack. Somehow, the presence of Al-Qaeda
terrorists in the San Diego area went unnoticed. This was precisely coordinated with the ongoing attack
on the Western States Power Grid and synchronized with the state of emergency declared by Governor
Gray Davis on January 17, 2001. The state of emergency should have ended in October 2001, but it
lasted almost three years, until Davis was bailed out from his post by U.S. Congressman Darrel Issa,
from San Diego, who used $11.7 million from his private funds to do so.
XIX.
THE BREACH OF THE MAY 9, 2000 CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)
In March 1999, PG&E settled a lawsuit with my former employer, Destec Energy (Dynegy
Inc.) for $100 million, but refused to pay me the 25% whistle-blower award it had promised me because
my lawyer neglected to secure an agreement for this reward, as his law firm also represented PG&E. I
was ignored by his legal counsel. In 1997, I was relying entirely on his attorneys and had no knowledge
of legal matters in the US. I did not expect that PG&E would recover $100 million and pay me $25
million. When I learned of PG&E’s $100 million settlement, I was shocked and expected that PG&E
would keep its promise and compensate me accordingly for helping it to recover damages, but my
efforts were to no avail. See :
https://www.scribd.com/document/489028741/February-1999-Fire-in-My-Daughter-s-Apartment-
San-Carlos-California
In March 1999, I filed suit against PG&E and my former attorney, Scott Malm, in San Joaquin
County Superior Court, Stockton, CA (Case No. CV 0077112 Waszczuk v. Malm and Case No. CV
007392 Waszczuk v. PG&E).
- 54 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 100
110 of 374
383
On May 9, 2000, I settled the lawsuit with PG&E via a confidential settlement agreement
On September 1, 2000, just 1.5 months after I settled my lawsuit against PG&E out of court
(settled June 14, 2000; filed April 1999 in San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. CV 007392)
through a strictly confidential settlement agreement, PG&E filed Application 00-09-001(U39 E) with
the CPUC in its 2000 Annual Proceedings. My confidential settlement with PG&E appeared in this
six-page application, and my name became subject to disclosure due to the Office of Ratepayer
Advocates’ (ORA) questioning PG&E about the settlement and asking whether PG&E should recover
the $150,000 paid to me from all customers, including direct access customers, through the Transition
Cost Balancing Account (TCBA). If I had known in 1999 what I know today, it is most likely that the
settlement agreement with PG&E would have had a completely different outcome.
On February 27, 2003, the CPUC issued its decision on PG&E’s application and further
publicized the confidential settlement agreement between PG&E and me. This disclosure and breach
of settlement agreement by PG&E, and later disclosure of settlement by CPUC, caused that I become
the subject of a witch hunt by white-collar criminals from the UCOP and their assigned thugs from UC
Davis and the UCDMC.
PG&E (which supplied natural gas to the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant), the CPUC,
and the Regents of the University of California were parties in the January 2007 Settlement. The
- 55 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 101
111 of 374
383
Settlement, which was approved by the FERC on March 1, 2007 (Dockets No. EL00-95-000 & EL00-
98-000), triggered a witch hunt against me and many other University of California employees. The
witch hunt against me is ongoing in California with Sacramento’s court judges and justices on behalf
of their friends from the University of California and state agencies which were involved in the cover-
up of the tens of millions of dollars of tax evasion and fraud due to the unlawful operation of the
UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant and in violation of the tax-exempt status, per IRC Section 501
(c)(3).
XX.
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER
White-collar criminals from the UCOP headquarters were apparently emboldened by AB 1890 (which
amended Section 377 (7)(b) of the Public Utility Code), and they teamed up with Enron to invest
hundreds of millions of dollars in Enron’s stock, which collapsed together with Enron between May
2000 and October 2001 by Miriam Corp, El Paso, and Dynegy, which were described together with
Enron by California AG Bill Lockyer as the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who rode in from
Texas and ran roughshod over California consumers, taxpayers and businesses.”
On April 6, 2001, Lockyer issued a memo that did not make any sense or make reference to
the ongoing California electricity market manipulation by CAISO and power sellers. The memo stated:
Over the last four years, state and local government agencies have spent
billions of dollars in state and local taxpayer money to purchase electricity
and natural gas. Under California false claims law, any person or
corporation who obtains state taxpayer money by fraud or illegal acts is
liable for financial penalties that can be as high as three times the actual
losses. And anyone who provides information leading to the successful
prosecution of a false claim action may be entitled to a percentage share in
that award. Since billions of state dollars may be recovered, the award to
an informant could potentially range from $50 million to the hundreds of
millions of dollars.
I am asking any member of the public with personal knowledge of any wrongful act
which may have resulted in reduction in the California supplies or increase in the price
of natural gas or electricity to contact my office immediately by calling: 1-800-952-5225
- 56 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 102
112 of 374
383
(w/in CA) or (916) 322-3360 (local or out of state), or e-mail the Attorney General's
Energy Emergency Task Force at energywhistleblower@doj.ca.gov.
This was the boldest memo Attorney General Lockyer had issued since taking office in January
1999. CAISO was ordered in May 2000 to throw a billion-dollar bone, the California Energy Crisis, to
power sellers to fight over to create millions of dollars in tax-free cash on-site by generating illegal
power and laundering megawatts from the University of California campuses, in collaboration with
state agencies including but not limited to the California Attorney General’s office, which is supposed
to enforce the law, not give a protective shield to white collar criminals from the University of
California, CAISO, or the California Power Exchange.
Three miles from Lockyer’s office, the UCDMC’s cogeneration power plant was operating with
his full knowledge to generate illegal power worth tens of millions of dollars, in conspiracy with
CAISO, CalPX, PG&E, SMUD, and CPUC, and in violation of every possible state and federal law
that applies to cogeneration facilities included and not limited to violations of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the requirements of 18 C.F.R. §§ 292.203(b) and
292.205 on the operation, efficiency, and use of energy output for certification as a QF (pursuant to 18
C.F.R. § 292.20; Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a); California Public Utilities Code Section
218.5; State of 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).
California AG Bill Lockyer by blaming Enron executive Ken Lay in his announcements for
all evil and at the same time condoning crimes of white collar criminals from the University of
California and CAISO Bill Lockyer in his demeanor most likely meant what he wished to Ken Lay
in 2000 by stating :
I would love to personally escort Enron CEO Ken Lay to an 8-by-10 cell
that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, ‘Hi, my name is Spike,
honey.’
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer instead of send cops to CAISO, CalPX . UCOP office
and arrest Charles Robinson and UC Regents for conspiracy and sabotage which caused billions
- 57 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 103
113 of 374
383
of dollar losses for California taxpayers and destabilized California and Western States power grid,
Bill Lockyer crowned himself as California Energy Task force and the leader of the “California
Parties “ and participated in cover the crime .
On April 26, 2004 California Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced $281,000,000 recovery from
my former employer ( 1989-1998 ) DestecEnergy /Dynegy Inc. for gauging energy price during the
Energy Crisis of 2000-2001
My former employer defrauded Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers and California taxpayers
in 1989-1996 of $ 240,000,000
https://www.scribd.com/document/489028741/February-1999-Fire-in-My-Daughter-s-Apartment-
San-Carlos-California
XXI.
ENRON’S CORPORATION ENERGY SERVICES CANCELLATION OF THE DIRECT

ACCESS CONTRACT WITH THE UC REGENTS, FEBRUARY 1, 2001
Enron was outgunned by its competitors in the $40 billion California Energy Crisis. My former
employer (1989–1998), Dynegy Power Corporation, with headquarters in Houston, Texas, was
described by observers of the California Energy Crisis as one of the “Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse” who came in from Texas and ran roughshod over California consumers, taxpayers, and
businesses, along with the Reliant El Paso Corp. They caused the collapse of Enron and the bankruptcy
of the largest California public utility, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, based in San Francisco. Enron
cancelled the direct access contract with the UC Regents on February 1, 2001. On that same day, Enron
unilaterally notified PG&E and SCE that it was no longer a direct services provider for the universities,
so PG&E/SCE should resume providing bundled electrical supply service to the universities.
PG&E/SCE were told to replace the Enron meters, which the universities had purchased under the direct
services contract, with their own meters (EXHIBIT #21 on flash drive and DVD).
XXII.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DIRECT ACCESS ELECTRIC
SERVICE SUSPENSION, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 20, 2001
- 58 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 104
114 of 374
383
Nine days after the 9/11 attacks, the California Public Utilities Commission, under
Decision D.01-09-060, the right of retail end-users (customers) to acquire direct access electric
service from energy service providers (ESPs), was suspended, effective September 20, 2001 (January
2001 California Assembly Bill ABX-1). Enron, which provided direct access for UC campuses,
collapsed and was dissolved; thus, PG&E and SCE had to resume utility services for all UC campuses.
After Enron collapsed and after suspension of the direct access to electric services, white collar
criminals who had meticulously planned to get filthy rich by laundering megawatts via UC and
California State University campuses by not paying taxes from the profit were left with UCDMC’s 27-
MW in UC Davis Medical Center , cogeneration plant located in Sacramento , CA which was designed
to produce and sell 27 MW, but since October 2001 has been idling at an average 9 MW/hour load,
losing millions of tax-free dollars.
XXIII.
THE CLOSER AND NEW LOOK AT THE AUGUST 2005–NOVEMBER 2008 WITCH
HUNT RELATED TO THE UNLAWFUL OPERATION AND ILLEGAL GENERATION
AND SALE OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY BY THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER’S
27-MW COGENERATION POWER PLANT
Between August 2005 and November 2008, I did not know that my 1996–1998 labor dispute
with my employer prior to the University of California, Destec Energy Inc/Dynegy Inc., about
$27,000 in unpaid overtime, was the reason why the UCOP’s white collar criminals and their
collaborators blacklisted me. I became the subject of merciless and inhumane witch hunts at the
UCDMC from August 2005 through November 2008, from March 2011 through December 2012,
and thereafter in the California Courts.
At some point, I became a liability, rather than an asset, to the university after the
university learned from PG&E, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), or
from the state Attorney General’s office that I had reported Dynegy’s $240 million fraud
against PG&E ratepayers in 1997 during my dispute with Dynegy about the $27,000 in
unpaid overtime due to me and approximately $3 million due to 119 other
Destec/Dynegy employees in California (see
- 59 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 105
115 of 374
383
https://www.scribd.com/document/489028741/February-1999-Fire-in-My-Daughter-s-
Apartment-San-Carlos-California.
The unpaid overtime was resolved by the California Court of Appeal’s Third
Appellate District (3DCA) in my favor in a December 3, 1999 unpublished opinion in
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case Number C030005. I represented myself on appeal,
and Destec was represented by the notorious and powerful Littler Mendelson Professional Law
Corporation, based in San Francisco (see https://www.scribd.com/document/547306716/In-
PRO-PER-Novel-About-Polish-Immigrant-Jaroslaw-Jerry-Waszczuk-Authored-by-
Maurizio-Spinozas
By December 3, 1999, when Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case

Number C030005 and my wrongful termination case against Destec Energy Inc /Dynegy were
pending, I had been working since June 1999 as an operator at the newly commissioned 27-MW
cogeneration power plant located at the UCDMC, in Sacramento California. Prior to the 3DCA’s
issuing its unpublished opinion in Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case
Number C030005, I settled out of court the wrongful termination lawsuit against Destec Energy
Inc.’s successor, Dynegy Inc., in October 1999.
- 60 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 106
116 of 374
383
In May 2000, I settled a whistleblower award with the publicly owned utility company Pacific
Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), based in San Francisco. The lawsuit was related to my wrongful
termination case against Dynegy Inc. and unpaid overtime in the 3DCA case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
Destec Energy Inc. Case Number C030005.
The fourth lawsuit against my attorney, who misrepresented me in legal proceedings with
PG&E for the whistleblower award, was settled in May 2022.
- 61 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 107
117 of 374
383
When I was hired in 1999 by UCDMC to operate its 27-MW cogeneration power plant. I did
not know that PURPA qualified facility (QF) regulations applied to the plant. If I had known this, I
would not have blown the whistle on UCOP after my horrible experience with my previous employer,
Destec Energy/Dynegy Inc, between 1996–1998
(see https://www.scribd.com/document/489028741/February-1999-Fire-in-My-Daughter-s-
Apartment-San-Carlos-California).
From 2000 and thereafter, I would have kept my mouth shut if I had known that, on August 2,
2000, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.206
(2000), San Diego Gas & Electric filed a complaint with the FERC against the Sellers of Energy and
Ancillary Services into Markets Operated by CAISO and CalPX, Docket No. EL00-95-000 & Docket
No. EL00-98-000 and included into the complaint the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant. They
alleged that the major energy sellers, producers, ancillary services, and financial institutions,
including my place of employment, the power plant located at UCDMC and supposedly
owned by the UC Regents, had manipulated the western electricity markets in all fashions
(including, but not limited to, claims of economic or physical withholding, gaming, fraud or
misrepresentation or alleged forms of market manipulation causing an electricity shortage and
rolling blackouts and/or any other forms of wrongful conduct, electricity market
- 62 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 108
118 of 374
383
manipulation, violations of any applicable tariffs, regulations, laws, rules, or orders relating
to the western electricity markets; or entered into the APX transactions when the western
electricity markets were non-competitive).
The above-mentioned April 2000 arrival by Charles Robinson to CAISO led to the
escalation of the electricity price war, a shortage of electricity, and massive blackouts. In June
2000, the rolling blackouts affected almost 100,000 PG&E ratepayers in the San Francisco area.
On February 14, 2001, Governor Davis toured the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant,
where I had been employed since June 1999. Gov. Davis and his staff’s tour, which most likely
included his Chief Deputy Legal Secretary Shelleyanne Chang, took place in the middle of a cyber-
attack on the Western States Power Grid orchestrated by UCOP white collar criminals and the
CAISO gang led by the new General Counsel Charles Robinson.
Gov. Davis toured the plant to find out why the five brand new 2-MW each Caterpillar
emergency generators installed there were not running and not making hundreds of
thousands of tax-free dollars. In 1995, Davis, as the California Lt. Governor and UC Regent, by
law approved the construction of the UCDMC’s 27-MW plant to illegally produce and sell power
worth tens of millions of tax-free dollars. Having 10 MW of power to sell was a big chunk of tax-
free money for the investors into illegal power sale .
- 63 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 109
119 of 374
383
In Public Utility Dist. No. 1 v. FERC, 471 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. granted,
128 S.Ct. 30 (Sept. 25, 2007) (No. 06-1457), the Ninth Circuit stated:
California is part of a single integrated electricity market in the West. Its energy
problems therefore created a ‘dysfunctional marketplace both in California and the
remainder of the West.’ . . . For example, in the Pacific Northwest, prices have
historically averaged approximately $24/MWh.
During this period, short term prices spiked to unprecedented levels, peaking at
$3,300/MWh in early December of 2000.
Unfortunately, after the emergency generators began being tested frequently, in 2000,
nearby residents complained about the resulting high concentration of diesel fumes. Those fumes
also entered the plant’s control room and other medical center ventilation systems, causing
sickness. Further, the undersized cooling tower with defective cooling tower fans’ motor gear
boxes were leaking massive amounts of machine oil, which was recklessly and unlawfully
discharged for seven years into the Sacramento River via storm drains, until the new colling tower
was built in 2006–2007 (see Exhibit # 36). Governor Davis’s plant tour took place shortly after he
declared a State of Emergency.
Please note the wording of the State of Emergency EXECUTIVE ORDER D-40-01,
which was issued on January 17, 2001:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that during the time a power plant is operating under
any of the above conditions, the facility shall not be subject to any provision limiting
its hours of operation or generation capability, or imposing conditions or penalties
related to its additional hours of operation or power generation, whether imposed by the
California Health and Safety Code, the California Code of Regulations, a local air
pollution control or air quality management district rule or regulation, or any permit.
IT IS ORDERED that, in order to avoid blackouts and minimize operation of backup

diesel-fired generators, local air districts are directed to allow natural gas-fired power
plants to operate in excess of their hourly, daily, quarterly and/or annual emission
limitations if operated: (a) to sell power to the California Department of Water
Resources or to a utility located in California; (b) to serve an operating utility's own
load; or (c) as dispatched by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO).
- 64 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 110
120 of 374
383
How did Governor Davis know that the artificially created energy shortages and blackouts
would end in October 2001? This is exactly what happened, and the UCOP white collar criminals and
their collaborators from CAISO and other agencies were made richer by approximately $130 million
tax-free dollars from illegally sold and extremely gouged megawatt prices from the UC Davis
Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant where I was working as an operator from June 199 to
March 2007.
The shortage of electricity and seemingly endless blackouts magically and miraculously
disappeared in California in October 2001, just after Robert Mueller III was appointed the FBI director
by President George W. Bush, and just after Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists completed their training in
San Diego and Florida and delivered the most deadly attacks ever on U.S. soil, which killed more than
3000 innocent people and triggered costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking innumerable lives in
the name of freedom and democracy.
Just a few days before September 11, 2001, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California
Robert Mueller was appointed FBI director. Also in September 2011, Rahim Reed arrived at UC Davis
from the University of Florida, where he held the position of Director of the Center for the Study of
Race and Race Relations.
The State of Emergency declared by Gov. Davis was to have ended in October 2001, just
three weeks after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; however, it remained in effect until
November 2003, when Davis left office before he could be recalled. He was bailed out by U.S.
Representative Darrell Issa, of San Diego, who paid $1.7 million from his private account to do so. The
reason for extending the State of Emergency until November 2003 was obviously justified to facilitate
the unrestricted laundering of more megawatts to make additional millions of untaxed dollars at the
UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant, and perhaps from similar plants at UC Berkeley and UC San
Diego. All three plants were commissioned and built between 1996 and 2000 to sell electricity for
enormous profit, due to the UCOP and California government’s white collar criminals’ February 1998
joint venture with Enron, which almost led to the collapse of the Western Power Grid between May
2000 and October 2001.
- 65 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 111
121 of 374
383
The plan did not work as anticipated. The orchestrated $40 million fraud titled “California
Energy Crisis magically and immediately ended after 9/11 terror attack, and thereafter demand
for power was less that it had been between May 2000 and September 2001.
For the sake of comparison, in 2001, UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration power plant sold
75,767 MW illegally (via CaPX-CAISO), while only 17,793 MW were sold in 2003, one quarter
of what was sold in 2001. In 2004, 13,810 MW were sold; in 2005, it was 2750 MW; in 2006,
3783 MW; in 2007, 2917MW; and in 2008, 7884MW were sold to SMUD. Thereafter, there
were no sales because, in November 2008, I defeated the UCOP’s criminals in arbitration to keep
my job. Then, SMUD refused to buy power from the UCDMC’s plant, to which SMUD is
directly connected.
In 2017, I sent an inquiry to U.S. Representative Darrel Issa asking why he bailed out Gray
Davis with his own money. I was curious about Issa’s actions because he is from San Diego where,
in May 2000, a terrorist group trained there, the University of California San Diego campus is
located in his district, and because he was accused by Jewish extremists of collaborating with
Hezbollah, which has been branded by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization.
Furthermore, his office was targeted by an aborted bomb plot orchestrated by a Jewish Defense
League leader in 2001 for his alleged collaboration with Hezbollah.
One month after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, FBI Director Mueller ordered the framing and
prosecution of Hamid Hayat, a completely innocent 19-year-old resident and U.S. citizen of
Pakistani descent who was wrongly accused of being an Al-Qaeda terrorist. The FBI paid $250,000
to an informer to help frame Hayat.
Why were Mueller or his subordinates from the FBI’s Sacramento office looking for Al-
Qaeda terrorists in Lodi, but not bothering to find out who was behind the $40 billion fraud known
as the California Energy Crisis? Why did Mueller choose Lodi, where I have lived with my family
since 1989? Why not, for example Dearborn, Michigan, a city densely populated by people from
the Middle East, or San Diego, where Al-Qaeda terrorists were trained to fly jumbo jets in
preparation for their 2001 terror attacks?
- 66 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 112
122 of 374
383
The UCOP mob , California governor’s office, CAISO, CPUC, SMUD, PG&E, etc. did
not care how many innocent people died on September 11, 2001. They only cared about how many
millions of tax-free dollars would flow to their bank accounts from the illegal sale of energy at
sky-rocked prices from the orchestrated fraud titled California Energy Crisis. I was a direct
witness to their criminal activities because I was employed as an operator at the UCDMC’s 27-
MW cogeneration plant and had to follow their orders to keep my job.
On February 12, 2002, during a hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee of the United States, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, from San Francisco,
whined that the University of California said it lost nearly $145 million on its investments in Enron
stock, while two of the state's public employee pension funds also lost nearly $90 million.
The respected California Public Employees Retirement fund, which had been known as an
advocate for stronger corporate governance, was embarrassed by revelations that it had invested in one
of the dubious partnerships that Enron used to hide its debt from investors.
Senator Boxer was perfectly aware of what kind of deal her colleagues from the UCOP had
with Enron. She is originally from Brooklyn, but she did not cry about 3000 innocent people perished
in New York in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. She cried about the corrupt UC’s $145 million investment
in Enron stock. Unbelievable.
In January 2004, the UCOP recruited John A. Lohse, Mueller’s subordinate and most likely
friend, and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano’s friend, to serve as Director of Investigation in the
UCOP Office of the Senior Vice President and as Chief Compliance and Audit Officer, to keep the FBI
out of UC campuses and eyes on whistleblowers and adversaries of the UCOP. This was after the 2004
U.S. Department of Treasury audit of UC San Diego and FERC’s questioning of UC San Diego
administrators about the validity of the UC San Diego cogeneration facility, which was one of three
plants commissioned during the California electricity deregulation to launder megawatts from of UC
campuses by hiring Enron in 1998 as the electricity provider for all UC campuses. Lohse’s recruitment
corresponded with his 2010 publication for the UC Business Officer Institute entitled
Reporting and Investigating Improper Governmental Activities. It featured George

Wills’ satirical cartoon what was captioned “You Did the Right Thing,
- 67 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 113
123 of 374
383
Whistleblower, So Naturally, We Have to Fire You. Goodbye” and “See No Evil,

Hear No Evil.”
Lohse resurfaced in 2011–2012, during the second witch hunt in which my employment almost
ended on May 31, 2012 at UCDMC’s Trauma Unit #11 or in the UCDMC morgue with a bullet
in my head from UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour’s Glock, after he was bribed with a $35,000
pay raise to kill me.
On August 5, 2005, in preparation to erase me from the UCDMC landscape and the UC
payroll, thereafter ending my litigation and protecting UCOP white collar criminals responsible
for millions of dollars tax evasion and fraud, two attorneys representing the UC Regents, Michael
- 68 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 114
124 of 374
383
Pott and George Acero (a former UC General Counsel intern) from the notorious Porter Scott law
firm, based in Sacramento, orchestrated in the Court of Appeal’s Third Appellate District a phony
appeal fabricated for the purpose of filing a bogus anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation) motion, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 (C.C.P § 425.16). It was filed
in Yolo County Superior Court and then denied on November 22, 2005. The denied phony motion
found its way to the 3DCA, and the case became known as Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th
1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). It was used in 2014 by UC filed anti-SLAPP motion against me in my
Sacramento County Superior Court wrongful termination case against the Regents of the
University of California, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California,
Case No. 34-2013-00155479. The wrongful termination case is still pending after more than
eight years in the 3DCA as Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et. al.,
Case No. C095488. I have been representing myself in litigation against the UC Regents since
December 16, 2014.
Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 is like a copycat scenario, using the totally bogus
whistleblower divorce case from the D.C. Circuit, Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal
Revenue, F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), to dismiss my appeal, Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, Case No. 20-1407, U.S. Tax Court Case (USTC) No.
23105-18 W, Notice of Appeal filed on 10/07/2020.
The D.C Circuit opinion in Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th
1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) was dictated by another notorious law firm representing the UC Regents
against whistleblowers, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, based in San Francisco, CA. They
were appointed in June 2021 by the D.C. Circuit as amicus curiae in Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r
of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
In 2005, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge (and UC Davis alumna) Tani G. Cantil
Sakauye, with the recommendation of the UCOP, was elevated to Associate Justice of the Court
of Appeal, Third Appellate District, where she coauthored the bogus Vergos v. McNeal, 146
Cal.App.4th 1387, 3DCA opinion in January 2007.
- 69 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 115
125 of 374
383
In December 2006, by the order of the UC Regents Chairman of the Board Richard Blum
(the husband of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein), a group of witch hunters was assigned to fabricate
a false cause to fire me from UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration operator job.
On the same day, December 4, 2006, when the UCOP mob assigned thugs to hunt me down,
California Assemblyman from San Francisco Leland Yee was elected California Senator. Yee had
a long history of feuding with the corrupt officials in the University of California administration.
- 70 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 116
126 of 374
383
At relatively the same time, on January 2, 2007, former CAISO General Counsel and
Vice President Charles F. Robinson, the key perpetrator in orchestrating the sophisticated
scheme of 40 billion fraud titled California Energy Crisis, arrived at UCOP headquarters in
Oakland, where he began serving as the university's new general counsel, reporting directly to
the UC Regents (see https://www.ucop.edu/uc-legal/attorneys-staff/bios/charles-f-
robinson.html).
Robinson had previously worked as general counsel and vice president for CAISO. He
replaced Eric K. Behrens, who handled the UCDMC cogeneration plant's involvement in the illegal
power generation, sale, tax evasion, and fraud, as well as the manipulation of the power market.
On January 5, 2007, respondents in the complaint San Diego Gas & Electric Company v.
Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Service Into Markets Operated by the California Independent
System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange, Re: Investigation of Practices
of the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the California Power Exchange (Cal-
APX), Docket Nos. EL00-95-000 and EL00-98-000, submitted to Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) a Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited Consideration, with an
accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement and APX Settlement and Release of Claims
Agreement ("Settlement Agreement"), in accordance with the provisions of Rule 602 of the Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.602 (2007) of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
The respondents, including CAISO, Cal-APX, UCDMC’s COGENERATION
POWER PLANT, and the major power producers, sellers, and distributors, were charged
with allegations of manipulating the western electricity markets in Energy Crisis of May
2000–October 2001. The respondents manipulated the power market in any fashion,
including, but not limited to, claims of economic or physical withholding, gaming, fraud,
or misrepresentation among the other sellers, causing an electricity shortage and rolling
blackouts.
The APX and APX participants in the January 2007 Settlement and Release of Claims
Agreement§ 5.2 entitled Non-Monetary Consideration stated:
- 71 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 117
127 of 374
383
UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER.” (27 MW cogeneration power plant )
THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER represents that the generation unit at the
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER only sold
ancillary services to the ISO during the Refund Period. APX submitted unit-
specific bids and schedules on behalf of the Regents of the University of California
("Regents') to the ISO and APX received unit specific dispatch instructions and
ancillary service awards from the ISO. Settlement statements from the ISO clearly
identify all UC Davis Medical Center schedules and transactions by unit
designation for instructed energy, deviations and ancillary service award. If the
Regents and the California Parties reach a settlement of refund issues related to
APX Transactions p1ior to the Settlement Effective Date, the Regents shall be
excluded from this Agreement. The APX Participants will not impede the Regents
from settling issues directly related to the APX Transactions with the California
Parties.
The above paragraph explained why CAISO General Counsel Robinson was welcomed by the
UCOP in January 2007.
Following Robinson's arrival from CAISO and the approval of the APX settlement by
FERC on March I, 2007, I was abruptly removed from the UCDMC cogeneration plant and
reassigned to the UCDMC’s HVAC shop as a daytime watchman for the Metasys computer
system, which monitored critical alarms in the UCDMC. I thought that I was being retaliated
against for helping my coworker with his whistleblowing complaint in 2005, which was related to
the massive amounts of oil discharged to the Sacramento River for seven years from the defective
cooling tower's 24 gear boxes. These notoriously leaked oil, causing environmental and safety
hazards.
On March 23, 2007, I received a Letter of Suspension and Reassignment that defaced and
defamed me with fabricated accusations of crimes committed closely akin to accusations against
prosecuted war criminals, KKK members, or guards from Nazi death camps.
By the Letter of Suspension and Reassignment, I was abruptly removed from the
- 72 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 118
128 of 374
383
cogeneration plant and moved to the UCDMC HVAC shop. I was immediately replaced by a
younger worker, a close friend of the plant supervisor, whom he had personally recruited. His
name was Todd Goerlich.
After being reassigned to the HVAC shop, I was informally prohibited from visiting
friends in the cogeneration facility where I had worked for eight years with perfect employee
evaluations every year. Even though my title was still operator, and I technically had the right to
visit the plant during lunch to visit my former coworkers, I was not allowed in.
I became the target of merciless and unpreceded attacks and witch hunt orchestrated by
the UCOP and caried out by its assigned thugs, who were tasked with erasing me from the
UCDMC landscape and UC payroll. I fought back using UC policies, and the attempt to
terminate my employment was unsuccessful. At the same time, I was recovering from triple
bypass open heart surgery.
In 2007 UC President Robert Dynes announced his resignation in a phone press conference
on Monday, August 13, 2007, in Oakland, CA (Lacy Atkins, San Francisco Chronicle, 8/15/2007,
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-president-didn-t-bail-he-was- pushed-out-2510179.php).
Richard Blum met with 64-year-old Dynes in July 2007 over dinner at Trader Vic’s in Emeryville,
CA, three weeks before the resignation, and forced him to resign, telling him the regents had grown
impatient with his lack of progress in reforming a dysfunctional university hierarchy, sources say.
Robert Dynes was replaced on June 16, 2008 with the law professor from Texas MARK YUDOF
as a 19th President of the University of California
- 73 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 119
129 of 374
383
Also in 2007, Lodi resident Hamid Hayat was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison. It was his
25th birthday . Hayat was a 25-year-old cherry picker of Pakistani descent from Lodi, California,
where I am living since 1989. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9sUJ0TkPPw&t=254s
XXIV.
THE END OF THE FIRST WITCH HUNT -AUGUST 2005- NOVEMBER 2008
In November 2008 , one year and half after I was abruptly and unlawfully removed from
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant I defeated UCOP mob and their attorneys in
arbitration process representing myself. My rights to return and work in UC Davis Medical
Center 27 MW cogeneration plant were reinstated by the UCOP mob assigned arbitrator .
However , the arbitrator decision did not end the witch hunt , I was blacklisted by UCOP white
collar criminals and sentenced to be destroyed at any means.
I deliberately chose the University of California arbitrator instead of an outside arbitrator,
showing the extent to which the university system is corrupted.
- 74 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 120
130 of 374
383
The Arbitration Step III Appeal hearing was set for November 3 & 4 2008, 1 ½ years after
my suspension and reassignment from the Central Plant to HVAC shop.
UC Davis assigned to the hearing two UC Davis Campus HR attorneys who were also -licensed
by the California State Bar: UC Davis HR Assistant Director Dawn M. Capp J.D and HR Analyst
VII, Danesha Nichols J.D
As Arbitration Step III Appeal Hearing Officer, UCOP mob assigned Connie Melendy,
UC Davis Assistant Vice Provost from the UC Davis Academic Personnel Offices of the
Chancellor and Provost.
In 2008 LARRY VANDERHOEF was a UC Davis Chancellor who held this post since
1994 . During Vanderhoof watch the UCDMC 27 cogeneration plant was commissioned in 1998
and Vanderhoef directly was overseeing the unlawful operation of the plant and distribution of the
illegal profit from power sale. Vanderhoof was a close friend of the U.S Congressman JOHN
GARAMENDI from Davis, California
Larry Vanderhoef’s and other participants in the fraud were displayed on plaque in plant front
entry with statement: .”
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER
https://www.scribd.com/document/468924283/UC-DAVIS-MEDICAL-CENTER-27-MW-
COGENRATION-PLANT-PHOTO
“A mission to teach, discover, heal and serve” CENTRAL PLANT PROJECT
1995-1998
“Conceived, designed and constructed to support the Medical Center’s mission to providing
clean and reliable utilities in the next millennium”
These names follow underneath:

LARRY N. VANDERHOEF – Chancellor, UC Davis
FRANK J. LOGE – Director, Hospital & Clinics
SHELTON DURUISSEAU, PhD – Associate Director, Hospital & Clinics
TONY MODDESSETTE, MBA – Manager, Plant Operation
MICHAEL LEWIS, PE – Project Manager, Principal Engineer
DAVID DERUSSO – Construction Manager and CRSS Constructors, Inc.
JAMES L. BARTLETT, PE – Principal and Caldwell
- 75 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 121
131 of 374
383
The coordinator in arbitration on the UC Davis Medical Center site was the newly promoted HR
Labor Relation Manager and attorney at law STEPHEN CHILCOTT J.D.
I reexamined and reviewed all the documents I had and I came to the conclusion that the
point of dragging me into to the arbitration was to further humiliate him and that arbitration would
end with same result as Step I and Step II Appeals under UC complaint policies and procedures .
. For the arbitration hearing, I ordered a sworn Court Reporter at my own all expense because the
university refused to share the cost.
To prepare myself for the arbitration hearing, I reviewed the University of California and UC
Davis policies and was trying to find the University of California policy that could allow
management to remove and reassign an employee to the different shop against that employee’s
will and as a disciplinary measure.
The Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 62 Corrective Action Policy had no such
option.
- 76 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 122
132 of 374
383
I found only the Principles of Reassignment for the UC Davis Medical Center on the UC
Davis Website, which had nothing to do with disciplining employees, but I forgot to present it
during the arbitration.
I submitted by e-mail the mentioned UCDMC Principles of Reassignment to Hearing
Officer M Connie Melendy on November 9, 2008.
UC arbitrator Melendy responded to my e-mail e-mail with thanked me for the copy of the policy
. Principles and cc’d my e-mail to Defendant Danesha Nichols and Stephen Chilcott who from the
beginning of the appeals process together with Taylor and Boyd knew that the reassignment was
unlawful and against any UC Policies—especially Stephen Chilcott and Danesha Nichols, who
were HR employees and licensed by the State Bar with J.D. degrees. Chilcott was trying to control
damages, but it did not go far.
It was lucky for I that he found this policy and the information about reassignment and I sent
it to Arbitration Hearing Office
On December 19, 2008, Arbitrator Melendy sent her Step III–Arbitration decision to me . The
decision was not much different than the March 2007 “Witch Hunt” decision issued by assigned
witch hunter on December 4, 2006 or Department Manager March 2007 Letter of Intent to
Suspend and Notice of Reassignment with exception of the following statement “The
reassignment was not for just cause. The remedy shall be to allow Mr. Waszczuk to return
to Central Plant (UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration Plant ) if he desires.” .
Furthermore, Hearing Officer Melendy brought Waszczuk’s Employee Performance Reviews into
her decision as follows:
Mr. Waszczuk’s past record, in the form of his documented performance history, is
remarkable for a complete absence of problems regarding threatening behavior or
inappropriate language prior to the corrective action (Exhibit J1/1/ 2). He received
“very good” performance ratings in 2000 and 2001, and “outstanding” ratings in
2002 and 2003. Beginning with the 2004 review, the rating categories on the
performance forms were changed to eliminate the “outstanding” category and
substitute with a “meets expectation” or “does not meet expectation” option for the
supervisor. Thereafter, Mr. Waszczuk consistently received “meets expectations”
ratings for each year through 2008. Many positive comments appear for each year,
- 77 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 123
133 of 374
383
such as the following comment that was consistently made each year of his
employment in the Central Plant:
“Jerry can be counted on to make the right operational decisions regarding the plant,
and to keep his supervisor informed of the operational status of the plant and its
equipment. Jerry is a valuable employee committed to the future success of the
Medical Center.” (Performance reviews from 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)
There are no comments regarding threatening behavior or inappropriate language
in any of the annual evaluations from the time of Mr. Waszczuk’s first evaluation
in 2000 and including the 2006 evaluation that was written prior to the suspension
and reassignment. The University presented no evidence to show that there were
verbal or written discussions or performance appraisals intended to caution or warn
Mr. Waszczuk about inappropriate behavior prior to the October 2007 evaluation
(University Exhibit 13), which is a cumulative review by three supervisors (Central
Plant supervisors Tom Kavanaugh, Steve McGrath and HVAC Plumbing
supervisor Patrick Putney). That review, while overall very positive, contains the
following comment about Mr. Waszczuk’s behavior: ‘His communication skills
and professionalism toward some of his co-workers needs some improvement.’ His
overall job performance for 2007 is rated outstanding, with notations that he is, ‘...
a very valuable member of the staff since joining the section in April... is talented...
accepts extra work... is dependable.’”
The UCOP mob did not expect such result of the arbitration and in the panic and unlawful power
sale from the 27 MW cogeneration plant was ceased . As I stated previously I never had any desire
to deal with UCOP organized white collar crime and it never crossed my mind until June 2015 that
I became subject of the merciless witch hunt because of the illegal power sale from the plant I
worked since June 1999. Shortly after arbitration UC Davis HR Assistant Director Dawn Capp,
UC attorney in arbitration, lost her job. Most likely, Ms. Capp was fired or forced to quit a few
months after arbitration. The Hearing Officer in arbitration Connie Melendy, disappeared from
the UC Davis landscape in
2010.
- 78 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 124
134 of 374
383
XXV.
APPOINTMENT OF JANET NAPOLITANO TO THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY POST
On January 21, 2009, former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano was appointed by President
Barak Obama to lead the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Napolitano, prior to her
appointment as DHS Secretary, was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, from November
19, 1993–November 1, 1997; the Attorney General for the State of Arizona from January 4, 1999–
January 6, 2003; and the Governor of Arizona from 2003–2009.
https://www.dhs.gov/archive/person/janet-napolitano
I addressed Napolitano’s appointment as DHS Secretary in my July 29, 2019 Reply to U.S.
Tax Court Order, which was served on July 9, 2019 and signed by Special Trial Judge Honorable
Robert N. Armen with the following statement .
Janet Napolitano's appointment as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security in
January 2009 and her appointment to UC President Post in September 2013
emboldened the UC white collar criminals to intensify their terror aimed
at their adversaries without any hesitation to kill people if needed
https://www.scribd.com/document/476775930/UTC-20190729-Judge-Armen-Order-
Petitioner-Objection-to-Motion-for-Protective-Order
Following the November 2008 arbitration result and the Janet Napolitano’s appointment
to the DHS Secretary post on January 21, 2009 the UC Regents signed a settlement agreement
with me on January 31, 2009 promoting me from power plant operator to exempt employee
with the title OF Associate Development Engineer. The Regents of the University of California
, per the 2009 Settlement -Agreement signed with me agreed to employ me infinitely as an
Associate Development Engineer at the UC Davis Medical Center HVAC Shop with initial annual
salary.
$70, 000. Also , UCOP mob in panic ceased illegal power sale from the UCDMC’s 27-MW
cogeneration plant . In 2009 I did not know that power sale is illegal or legal and I did not know
- 79 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 125
135 of 374
383
why I am being witch hunted by Janet Napolitano’s friends from UCOP Headquarters in Oakland
, CA ,
Shortly after UC Regents signed a settlement agreement with me , UC Davis Chancellor
Larry Vanderhoef resigned from the UC Davis chancellor position and took one year of
sabbatical leave. His last day as chancellor was August 16, 2009. His successor was LINDA
KATEHI, who was appointed by the UC Board of Regents on May 7, 2009, effective August
17, 2009. Linda Katehi, was a provost and vice chancellor for Academic Affairs and professor
of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
On February 27, 2009 California Senator Leland Yee responded with SB 650 after after the
California Supreme Court ruled in Miklosy v. Regents of University of California, No. A107711
(Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2009)that UC employees who are retaliated against because they report
wrongdoing cannot sue for damages under the state’s Whistleblower Protection Act
“LELAND YEE was elected to the State Senate in November 2006 with the largest
winning percentage for any Democratic candidate. In 2010, Senator Yee was re-elected,
receiving the most votes of any Democratic legislator in the State. Representing District 8,
which included San Francisco and San Mateo County, Yee was the first Chinese American ever
elected to the California State Senate.”
On October 11, 2009, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed California
Senate Bill 695. Under this bill, DIRECT ACCESS TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY WAS
REOPENED, starting in 2010, but only to non-residential customers
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-
10/bill/sen/sb_06510700/sb_695_bill_20091011_chaptered.html and
https://www.electricchoice.com/blog/direct-access-program/).
These types of customers include: lighting, agriculture, medium and large commercial industrial
sites, and small businesses.
https://archive.senate.ca.gov/member-archives/2013-14/leland-y-yee-d-district-8
- 80 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 126
136 of 374
383
In January 2010 Senator LELAND YEE reintroduced the SB 650 after the bill was vetoed
in 2009 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger . The SB650 meant lot of money and encouragement
for the UC employees to report corruption in UC system and misuse of university resources and
wrongdoing by UC administration and ruthless and vicious management.
In January 2010 Senator YEE was outraged and very vocal about UC’s Board of Regents
approval of 3.1 million dollars in incentive to 38 senior medical executives for meeting their
2009 performance goals. The payouts would range from 30,000 to 220,000 dollars in
bonuses. The move comes six months after top executives received a 25 percent pay hike.
Senator Yee expressed himself about the UC Regents 3.1 million dollars’ incentive with words:
• At a time when the university is increasing student fees and issuing furloughs and layoffs
for low-wage workers, it is outrageous that they are finding new ways to enrich their top
executives. You would hope that the exorbitant salaries and perks would be enough for
administrators to do their jobs without further taxing students, taxpayers, and patients.”
Governor Schwarzenegger who has spent the last few years cutting back salaries and
attempting to furlough state workers vetoed legislation authored by Senator Yee that
would have prohibited executive pay raises during bad budget years at the UC and the
California State University.
Said the Senator:
• “The public is tired of the UC administration acting like AIG. We can ill-afford an
administration that continues to disrespect taxpayers, students, and low-wage workers
and faculty.”
This really falls into the category of “what are these guys thinking.” The incentive
structure here makes zero sense, particularly the amount of the bonuses during a time of
budget crisis. It also sends the wrong message to the workers who are being asked to
suffer while top executives already making good salaries are getting large bonuses. I am
simply baffled at the arrogance of UC on this matter.
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2010/01/inexplicable-uc-executive-pay-bonuses-draw-
fire-once-again/
In 2010, California Senator Leland Yee had 18 bills chaptered into law. Most notably,
SB 650 provided legal protection for University of California employees who were retaliated
against for reporting illegal or improper actions (see
- 81 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 127
137 of 374
383
https://archive.senate.ca.gov/member-archives/2013-14/leland-y-yee-d-district-8).
In January 2010 California Senator Leland Yee, a Democrat from the 8th Senate
District that encompasses San Francisco and San Mateo, requested that the California Joint
- 82 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 128
138 of 374
383
Legislative Audit Committee authorize an audit of the UC. The committee voted unanimously to
approve the request on February. 17, 2010
The Senator Leland Yee asked the auditors to specifically focus on the UC Office of the President
(UCOP), the head office of the University of California.
A comprehensive state audit will help further uncover the extent of the waste, fraud and abuse
within the UC, and finally hold university executives accountable,” said Yee in a statement on his
Senate website.
The audit will track where the UC gets its funds and where each dollar goes.
Specifically, it will follow where private funds, state funds, student fees and
federal funds all end up.
The audit will also search out how much money is spent per student and what
the rest is spent on. Also, the inquiry will include a survey of which outside
organizations the UC pays to and which funds are used to pay them.
Yee’s audit request was prompted by two exposés about the University of California. The the
investigative website Spot.us reported that some of the UC’s regents have direct financial ties to
many of the UC’s investments. Then CaliforniaWatch.org reported that a consulting firm, Huron
Consulting Group, which was recently hired by UCLA, is being investigated by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In 2010 under the watch of FBI Director Robert Mueller , the FBI special agent UCE
4599 was assigned to frame Senator Leland Yee take him out from California political arena and
get him off the UCOP mobsters back.
The decision to eradicate Senator Leland Yee, and UCDMC 27 MW

cogeneration plant operator Jerry Waszczuk from the California landscape most
likely was made during the May 2010 big gathering in in Washington, D.C
which included U.S Secretary of Homeland Security Department (DHS) Janet
Napolitano, California Assembly Speaker John Perez (today a UC Regent),
Xavier Beccera (former California Attorney General), Monica Lozano (UC
- 83 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 129
139 of 374
383
Regent, retired in 2017), Hilda Solis (former California Assemblymember and

California Senator).
I had occasion to deal with Solis due to the corruption scandal involving
my former employer, Dynegy Power Corporation. Senator Leland Yee was a very
well-known legislator in the California State Legislature, and the decision to take him
out and send him to prison was undoubtedly made in Washington. California Senate
President Pro Tempore Darrel Steinberg (today Mayor of Sacramento) in
collaboration with UCOP mob aimed at Senator Yee, removed Senator Yee’s name
from several Senate bills, largely ceremonial post as the No. 2 ranking member of the
Senate before Senator Yee was removed from California in 2016 for next five years .
Most likely during the May 2010 during the big gathering in in Washington, D.C
decision was made that DHS Chief Janet Napolitano will became the next President of
the University of California to take care of power generation business in University of
California and protect the UCOP mobsters from the California’s curious legislators
and law enforcement agents interference in their IRC Section 501 (c ) (3 ) exempt
status and IRC Section.
On August 6, 2010, Melinda Haag, was appointed U.S. Attorney for the
Northern District of California. she was recommended for this job by U.S. Senator
Barbara Boxer, the same U.S Senator Boxer who on February 12, 2002, during a
hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee of the United States, whined that the University of California said it
lost nearly $145 million on its investments in Enron stock, while two of the
state's public employee pension funds also lost nearly $90 million. Senator Boxer
was perfectly aware of what kind of deal her colleagues from the UCOP had with
Enron. She is originally from Brooklyn, but she did not cry about 3000 innocent
- 84 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 130
140 of 374
383
people perished in New York in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. She cried about the
corrupt UC’s $145 million investment in Enron stock.
Melinda Haag, a former federal prosecutor, friend of Janet Napolitano and U.S Attorney
McGregor Scot whose fame came from prosecuting Lodi cherry picker Hamid Hayat United States
v. Hayat 710 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2013) was recruited in 1999 by Mueller to the U.S. Attorney’s
Office in San Francisco. She came from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. After two
years with Mueller in San Francisco, from 1999–2001, Haag joined Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP in San Francisco and worked there until August 2010.
On August 13, 2010, I was returning to the US from a vacation in Gdansk, Poland. On that day,
at Germany’s Frankfurt International Airport, I was approached by an English-speaking agent
dressed in civilian clothes who attempted to prevent me from boarding my plane to San Francisco.
After a heated 15-minute-long argument, not knowing what this person wanted from me, I was
able to board the plane and return home. Since then, out of fear of not being able to return to the
US to see my children and grandchildren, I have not visited my native country of Poland and my
family living there. I am afraid to fly anywhere outside the US, due to the treatment I received
from my employer before and after the incident in Frankfurt. I expressed my feelings about this in
my July 7, 2015 letter/response to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (the wife of UC Regent Richard
Blum) saying:
Dear Senator Feinstein;
I appreciate your response dated June 5, 2015. Instead of the long letter as update I am
sending to you my July 6, 2015 69 pages The Appellant’s Civil Appeal Mediation
Statement in my wrongful termination case No. 34-2013-00155479 CU –WT –GDS
.The above Appeal Statement is like summary what is going on in the University of
California System in regards to corrupted administration and management which
notoriously violates employees civil and human rights and terrorizing employees to
cover up their own crimes and violations. This is probably tip of the iceberg what I and
my coworkers have experienced in course of the employment with UC Davis Medical
- 85 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 131
141 of 374
383
Center in Sacramento and what I found out representing myself and others in the in
internal complaints under UC Policies and Procedures PPSM 70 and in the, state
various agencies and the court of law.
It looks like there is nowhere to turn for help.
I perfectly understand that the University of California has autonomy in self-governance

I perfectly understand universities. Even in communist Poland, where I lived for 30
years, the universities had greater independence and autonomy than did any other
entities given by the Polish communist government.
From what I see so far, the University of California absolutely infiltrated the State of
California government agencies, and any complaints with any state agency in relation to
employment with University is futile.
I intended to go to Poland because of the illness of someone close to my family, and I

got continuance for one motion in the court for this purpose. However, I had a second
thought about it after what I had experienced already: the provocation to be physically
harmed or killed. I am not paranoid, but my second thought was that University of
California President Janet Napolitano, who was the chief of the Homeland Security
Department, could make one call to her friends and I could" mistakenly "be placed on
the non-fly list as a suspected terrorist and could thus get stranded in Poland or
Germany for a month and not be allowed to come back to the USA until my eases were
thrown out of the court due to self-representation without attorney. My life has been
destroyed, and the University of California president knows why and who destroyed my
and my family life at age 61, leaving me without health insurance and the possibility of
getting a new job. I sent many pieces of correspondence by e-mail, fax and certified
mail to Ms. Janet Napolitano Office before lawsuit was filed in the court and thereafter.
- 86 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 132
142 of 374
383
I thought Ms. Napolitano beside to be a UC President she was hired by Regents to fight corruption
and waste in the UC System due to her previous position and experience as the # 1 COP in USA.
- 87 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 133
143 of 374
383
2010 In September, unknow perpetrators by names orchestrated a gas pipe explosion in

Democratic California Senator Leland Yee’s district to discourage him from introducing more
- 88 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 134
144 of 374
383
Senate bills or audits aimed at corruption in the UCOP and among the UC Regents, and to prevent
him from becoming mayor of San Francisco, where Kamala Harris served as District Attorney
from January 8, 2004 – January 3, 2011.
On September 9, 2010, at approximately 6:11 p.m., a deadly natural gas pipeline explosion in
Senator Yee’s district, San Bruno’s older Crestmoor neighborhood, killed eight people and injured
58 and damaged 108 homes, 38 of which were completely destroyed.
Senator Yee commuted daily from his office at the State Capitol in Sacramento to meet his
constituents at daily and evening meetings around San Francisco and San Mateo County. In 2010,
Senator Yee spent $5,314.66 on gas commuting to his district from the State Capitol in
Sacramento. Senator Yee was not in San Bruno on the day of the explosion.
FBI Director Robert Mueller never ordered an investigation to find out whether the San Bruno
explosion was an act of terrorism. He ordered his subordinates from San Francisco to frame and
entrap Senator Yee, to remove him out from the political landscape and prevent his further desire
to “Make California Great Again.”
Instead of the FBI investigating the deadly San Bruno explosion, the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) President appointed in September 2010 UC Davis Chancellor Emeritus
Larry Vanderhoef; UC Santa Cruz Chancellor Emeritus Karl S. Pister; former SMUD CEO
Jan Schori; and Paula Rosput Reynolds, an officer of a PG&E affiliate, PG&E Gas
Transmission Company, to serve on an Independent Review Panel investigation with Larry
Vanderhoef as its Chairman, from 2010–2011. Vanderhoef, from 2000 through 2009, oversaw
the illegal power sale from the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration power plant to SMUD and on the
open market via CAISO, in violation of the University of California’s tax-exempt status, IRC 501
(c)(3).
On December 22, 2010, just three months after the deadly pipeline explosion in Senator Yee’s
district, the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant operator, 41-YEAR-OLD TODD
GOERLICH, was found dead, hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park near
Sacramento. Goerlich was my replacement in 2007, after I became the subject of a witch-hunt
- 89 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 135
145 of 374
383
and was abruptly removed from the cogeneration plant in April 2007. At the time of the San Bruno
explosion, Goerlich became too curious as to why I was removed from the plant and how much
money I received from the January 31, 2009 settlement agreement I signed with the UC Regents.
He also wondered why I was being witch-hunted. Two days before Goerlich was hanged, I spoke
with him on the phone
This tragic event was never investigated by the UCDMC Human Resource Department
investigators. Todd Goerlich was the former coworker and friend of the UCDMC 27 MW
- 90 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 136
146 of 374
383
cogeneration plant manager Steve McGrath who signed informational letter about Todd
Goerlich’s tragic death. . Before Goerlich death , Steve McGrath’s first wife committed suicide;
now, his friend and former coworker. After the Todd Georlich suicide the traumatized Central
Plant Manager Steve McGrath tried unsuccessfully to get a job in the UCDMC Carpenter shop and
later in the HVAC shop.
XXVI.
THE SECOND WITCH HUNT
Following Goerlich's death on December 22, 2010, I BECAME THE SUBJECT OF A

SECOND WITCH HUNT and unprecedented attacks ordered by the UCOP mob to erase me
from the UCDMC landscape and the UC payroll. Just before the attacks occurred, UCDMC Plant
Operation and Maintenance Department Principle Engineer Mike Lewis issued a memo restricting
access to the 27-MW cogeneration plant, stating:
March 11, 2011
To: Thomas Kavanaugh-Sr. Superintendent Central Plant
Mark Boskovich-Maintenance Superintendent
Central Plant
From: Mike Lewis P.E.
Principal Engineer
Plant Operations and Maintenance
Subject: - Access to Central Plant
Please inform all Central Plant personnel that access to the Central Plant is
restricted to operators on duty and vendors performing work requested by the
University. All operators not on duty and other personnel with no direct
reason to be in the Central Plant shall not be granted access to the Central
Plant. If illegal access is gained to the Central Plant please call 4-2555 for a
non-emergency event or 911 for an emergency.
If an employee not on duty or other individuals with no direct need to gain
access to the Central Plant request access to the Central Plant please contact
Charles Witcher, Mike Lewis, or Dennis Curry for direction. Thank you.
- 91 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 137
147 of 374
383
Following Goerlich’s tragic death in December 2010 and the March 11, 2011 memo from
Michael Lewis restricting access to the cogeneration plant, I became, from March 2011–December
2012, the subject and target of a beyond the bounds of human decency malicious and unthinkable
form of psychological terror in the workplace which included but was not limited to:
• stalking in the workplace;
• malicious sabotage of my job and the duties assigned to me, to set me up for failure;
• false accusations of racism, bigotry, and antisemitism;
• not providing me with a mandatory annual Employee Performance Review for the years
2010/2011 and 2011/2012, to let me know that I was persona non grata and to let me
know that I had been singled out and that my employment days were numbered; and
• an attempt to force me to file a fraudulent workers compensation claim and thus remove
me from the UCDMC premises.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
524 Swallow Lane
Lodi, CA 95240
Phone: 209-339-1982
Fax: 866-406-2605
E-mail: jwcl89@comcast.net
August 22, 2011

Via Fax [Mail
Lara Lougheed-Claims Examiner II

SEDG WICK CMS P. 0. BOX 14553
LEXINGTON, KY 40512-45433
RE: NOTICE OF DENIAL OF CLAIM - CLAIM NO. 2012124785
Dear Mrs./Ms. Lougheed:
I received your letter dated August 16, 2011 and I am not sure how I should respond to this
letter.
Especially the following statement in your letter caught my attention:
"After careful consideration of all available information, we deny all liability for your
claim of injury because you failed to cooperate with our investigation by refusing to
provide a statement."
- 92 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 138
148 of 374
383
It would nothing wrong with the above statement if I filed the worker's compensation claim.
In your statement you are making allegations that! failed to cooperate with your
Investigation. I am wondering where you got this idea if I never filed claim with your
office.?
I am assuming that my employer's generosity and hospitality for my "wellbeing" caused
the chain of events and lead to your unusual statement in your letter. My employer had
been informed that I don't intend to file worker's compensation claim believing that it
would be a fraudulent claim and I don't do frauds.
Please see attached correspondence in regards to this matter.
CC Hugh Parker -UCDMC FIR;

CA State Division of Workers Compensation,
State Of California Department of Insurance, Fraud Division
• I was not allowed to come back to work on September 1, 2011, after one month of sick
leave for work-related stress.
• My job was reassigned in September 2011, though it had been guaranteed to me by the
January 31, 2009 Settlement Agreement I signed with the UC Regents in 2009. My
position was given to an individual who brought onto the premises a felon twice-
convicted of child pornography and who was then allowed to illegally surf the shop’s
computers (Case: 2 :6 –cr- 00418-LKK, The United States of America v. Sean
Christopher Robideaux, United States District Court, Eastern District of California,
Indictment Violation(S) 18 U.S.C § 2252 () (4)(B) –Possession of Visual Depiction of
Minors in Sexually Explicit Conduct).
• I was denied short-term disability income in an attempt to force me to take UC
retirement and quit my job at the age of 60.
Eight years later, on March 21, 2019, 1 was informed by a private investigator that my
short-term disability benefits, Claim 44154074, were found in the California State Controller's
- 93 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 139
149 of 374
383
Office as unclaimed property. The amount of benefits to be reclaimed was $4,545.08. These are
my benefits that were denied in 2011 by Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston in conspiracy
with the University of California Davis, UCDMC, and UCOP corrupt Human Resources attorneys.
In response to being denied my benefits, I asked the private investigator to also help me find my
unemployment insurance benefits, which have been missing since May 2014.
I have no idea how my benefits from 2011 found their way to the California State
Controller's Office after eight years, or why they were never paid to me in 2011 or 2012, when I
was disabled and needed the money the most.
Furthermore, the terror tactics included:

• Placing me on investigatory-administrative leave for over one year and not letting me
know when the administrative leave would end;
- 94 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 140
150 of 374
383
• Sending me threatening letters, even during the time when I had been placed on work
stress-related sick leave and was under a physician’s and psychologist’s care;
• Denying me health insurance coverage in December 2011 and January 2012;
• Changing my title from Associate Development Engineer, provided to me by the
Settlement Agreement that I signed with the UC Regents on January 31, 2009, to
Programmer I without my knowledge or consent;
• Crafting false, defamatory, and defacing investigatory reports about me when I was not
working; and
• Attacking in November 2011 UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, who replaced Larry
Vanderhoef in 2009, for refusing to meet the UCOP mob’s demands to fire me from my
job.
XXVII.
THE SECOND WITCH HUNT, NOVEMBER 2011, AND STEPS TAKEN BY THE UCOP
WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS TO NEUTRALIZE CHANCELLOR LINDA KATEHI,
UC DAVIS POLICE CHIEF ANNETTE SPICUZZA, LT. JOHN PIKE, AND CAPTAIN
JOYCE SOUZA
The UCOP mob did not allow me to return to work after a month of stress-related sick leave, which
ended on August 31, 2011. My job was given to another person and based on prematurely leaked
information my employment would be terminated on September 23, 2011 if the confidential
information about would be not leaked .
On October 5, 2016, I asked UC Davis Police Cpt. Joyce Souza, from the Professional Standards Unit,
to search the police records and to check if any with my name were there.
In my eight-page e-mail, entitled “Request for Information in regards to the unfounded
accusation against me from UCDMC HR Attorneys and other individuals,” I included multiple
examples of the despicable, unfounded, and defamatory accusations against me. I copied UC Davis
Police Lt. John Pike on my email to Cpt. Souza. It read:
“Dear Captain Souza:

- 95 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 141
151 of 374
383
I have been working for 12 years in the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
Operation and Maintenance, Sacramento Department. In last few months I have
been constantly accused by the UCDMC HR Attorney Danesha Nichols and
PO&M Department Manager Charles Witcher of being violent, making
discriminatory comments, etc. without any factual evidence in my employment
record, like evaluation or written or verbal warning.
I would appreciate it if you would let me know if any complaint has been
filed by anyone against me with the UC Davis Police Department (UC
Campus or UC Medical Center) for the abovementioned fabricated
accusations and allegations for the period from March 1, 2011 to the
present time.
If so, then I would be glad to hear from the UC Davis Police Department that
the allegations against me are being investigated, and I will be glad to answer
any question related to the complaint. I would be glad to talk with the UC
Police Investigation Unit/Detectives instead of crooked HR Attorneys from
UCDMC.”
On October 6, 2011, Captain Souza from the UC Davis Police Department responded to
my inquiry dated October 5, 2011 regarding the accusations fabricated against me. She wrote:
Dear Mr. Waszczuk,

I have performed a check of our records system and there is nothing noting your
name.
Please let me know if you need any further assistance.
Captain Joyce A. Souza
UC Davis Police Department
I noticed that Captain Souza cc’d her e-mail response to her superior, UC Davis Police Chief
Annette Spicuzza, and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo, who participated in
witch hunt to terminate my employment.
On that same day, in response to Captain Souza’s information, I replied to and thanked Captain
Souza for the information. I also copied my response to Chief Spicuzza; Lt. Pike; Chancellor Katehi;
UCDMC CEO Ann Madden Rice; UC HR Vice President Dwain Duckett; UC Davis Chief Compliance
Officer Wendi Delmendo; UCDMC Directors Michael Boyd, Robert Taylor, Shelton Duruisseau, and
- 96 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 142
152 of 374
383
Stephen Chilcott, and HR investigator (witch hunter) Danesha Nichols, who was assigned to her role
in September 2010 and was fabricating, together with others, despicable accusations against me.
Thereafter, according to information I received under Public Records Act requests, UC Davis Chancellor
Katehi requested from Nichols a confidential report on me, which she received in November 2011. The exact
date of the confidential report was blacked out and removed by the UC Davis Public Record Act’s office, but it
appears that it was sent prior to November 18, 2011, because Lt. Matt Carmichael, prior to that date, was
deliberately deployed from the UC Davis Main Campus by Provost Ralph Hexter to the UCDMC not to
participate in the November 18, 2011 pepper spray provocation to remove Chancellor Katehi, Chief Spicuzza,
and Lt. Pike, who became the new Mascot for UC Davis after November 18, 2021 paper spray provocation,
from their posts
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC Davis pepper spray incident).
The main reason for deploying Lt. Carmichael to UCDMC was to get him out from the spotlight of the
pepper spray attack against protesting students on the UC Davis campus.
Chancellor Katehi was new to UC Davis, but she was an electrical engineer who knew what
electrons, VARS, and MWs were. In would have been unfortunate for the UCOP crowd if the very
business- and money-oriented Chancellor Katehi had found out that the UCDMC’s 27-MW
cogeneration plant had spare capacity during the peak hours, around 12 MW, and during off-peak hours
between 15–17 MW, and which, since November 2008, had not been sold or transmitted to the UC
Davis Main campus, where the demand for electricity is over 100 MWh. The UC Davis Main Campus
has a cogeneration plant, but has to buy all of its power, paying millions of dollars. Twenty miles away,
there was a cogeneration plant that could not be used as designed, and the university was losing millions
of dollars on it every year.
The UCOP’s white collar criminals, especially UC Senior Vice President Dan Dooley, were
connected with the government, and UC General Counsel Charles Robinson and UC Regent Richard
Blum did not want to see any investigation into the UCDMC Plant Operation Department (PO&M),
- 97 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 143
153 of 374
383
where the cogeneration plant was unlawfully operated at labor costs of $1.5 million per year as the
plant was idling at minimum load, instead of making money. The investigation into plant operator Todd
Goerlich’s suspicious suicide in December 2010 could have led to unpredictable consequences for
Dooley, Robinson, and their UCOP gang.
In November 2011, the students’ protest was used by the UCOP as the first attempt to
remove Katehi from the UC Davis Chancellor position. It was applauded by many from the old UC
Davis establishment. She was a stranger to them; however, this was not the primary reason why she
was targeted at that time.
Katehi was too new to her position and too new to be trusted to willingly participate as the
Head of UC Davis in the unlawful power sale deal from the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration
facility. Todd Goerlich’s suicide, illegal medical experiments at UCDMC, and the unlawful UC
Davis medical research on prisoners at San Quentin added gravity to the situation.
In 2007, I was able to appeal my dismissal, and I survived, just as Chancellor Katehi
survived the 2011 provocation attack. Lt. Pike’s image with an M-9 can of pepper spray, which was
created especially for Chancellor Katehi, did not look promising for her future employment with the
University of California. It was Chancellor Katehi’s intelligence in such an extreme situation to
shield herself and protect her family, whom she brought with her to California and to UC Davis,
that were the main factors why she and her family survived the UCOP white collar criminals’
assault on her life and livelihood, which she had worked so hard for for many years in Greece and
the United States.
In 2011, and for many years thereafter, I viewed Chancellor Katehi as my enemy, especially
after 2012 when I received, under Public Record Act provisions, a copy of the “Confidential
Summary on Waszczuk,” which Chancellor Katehi supposedly requested from the UCDMC’s
witch hunters in November 2011. I should have looked more closely at this summary in 2012, but I
was so preoccupied with my struggle to survive the UCOP’s attacks to erase me from the UC
landscape and the planet Earth .
The pepper spray provocation to remove Chancellor Katehi, Chief Spicuzza, Lt. Pike, and
Captain Souza and costs to compensate the victimized students and lawyers was approximately $2
- 98 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 144
154 of 374
383
million, which could be easily have recovered in one or two months if the UCDMC’s 27-MW
cogeneration had resumed the illegal tax-free sale of power after the November 18, 2011 pepper spray
assault and ill crafted provocation. It could have cost a lot more if something had gone wrong and
UCDPD officers had been attacked by protesters in defense of the pepper sprayed students.
What caught my attention in former Supreme Court Justice for hire “Reynos’s Task Force
Report “ was the lack of Janet Napolitano’s friend John Lohse’s name. Lohse was recruited in 2004
by the UCOP mob and was a very skilled, experienced former FBI agent and employee. He would
most likely have figured out right away that something was wrong with Reynos’s or Kroll’s
investigations, or he was the one who was overseeing whole pepper spray provocation.
In my March 23, 2016 Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) Claim
No. 2016-007481, I stated:
“There was no needed to be a former Professor Emeritus, School of Law, UC

Davis, and Former Associate Justice, California Supreme Court Cruz
Reynoso, Professor, School of Law, UC Davis Alan Brownstein or Senior
Vice President, External Relations, UC Office of the President and Designated
System-wide Administrator for Whistleblower Complaint Dan Dooley to
figure out that something was wrong with the national media’s publicity of Lt
John Pike’s action by portraying him as a walking prima donna with the can of
M-9 pepper spray and spraying protesters without any hesitation. It looked on
video that Lt. Pike was doing it with joy and pleasure.
However, UC Davis Police Department Lt. John Pike did not spray
protesters with joy and pleasure. According to the Kroll Report marked
Confidential—Do Not Distribute, on the relevant Friday morning, November
18, Lieutenant Pike and Officer P contacted Campus Counsel Sweeney and
discussed their concerns with him. Sweeney told them he would get back to
them, and at around 1:00 p.m., a conference call was conducted in Chief
Spicuzza's office with Pike, Officer P. Sweeney and Steven Drown. Both
Officer P. and Pike "had several questions about the legality of conducting a
planned operation during the middle of the afternoon versus the early morning
- 99 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 145
155 of 374
383
hours. Pike's description of the subsequent discussion on the conference call

was redacted, apparently due to attorney-client privilege.
Furthermore, the same Kroll Report states that Chief Annette Spicuzza was the
representative of UCDPD on the Leadership Team and communicated her
understanding of the guidance from the Leadership Team to Lieutenant Pike
and Officer P., including that the operation was not to be "like Berkeley" and
was to be conducted on Friday afternoon.' When her Lieutenants questioned
the legal basis for the operation, she joined them for a call with Campus
Counsel Steven Drown. When her Lieutenants called the 3 p.m. period a "bad
idea," she told them that this direction came directly from the Chancellor's
office. At UCDPD headquarters, during the 24 hours leading up to the police
operation on November 18, the legal basis for the operation, the timing of the
operation, and the use of force options were questioned by Lieutenant Pike,
Officer P., and other officers.
UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown is same person who orchestrated

together with his colleague UCDMC HR Director Steven Chilcott by the UC
Regents or UC General Counsel (attorney) witch hunt against me and my
coworkers in 2007 and other personnel and later again in 2011 prior and after
pepper spray provocation. I have no any doubt that UC Chief Steven Drown on
behalf of Chancellor Katehi and UC Vice Chancellor Hexter made the verbal
assurance or clear suggestion for Lt. Pike and Chief Spicuzza that they are well
protected and they have to go with the plan as ordered by Chancellor Katehi.
UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown was the person who signed the
Settlement Agreement on the Regents of University of California’s behalf in
February 2009 and three years on May 31, 2012 in an ill-crafted but
unsuccessful provocation almost got me killed by two corrupted UC Davis
cops, new Chief Matt Carmichael and Lt. James Barbour, who were who
replaced by Chief Annette Spicuzza and Lt. John Pike after setting them for
pepper spray action against protesters on November 18, 2011.
For his effort to remove Chief Spicuzza and Lt. Pike, the UC Davis Chief
Counsel Steven Drown was awarded by regents a 21.9% pay raise effective
December 1, 2011. The UC Davis Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter was awarded
$113,916 extra pay for year 2011. The UC Board of Regents awarded the
- 100 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 146
156 of 374
383
raises, effective Dec. 1, 2012 during protests and turmoil in UC campuses with
only Regent Eddie Island voting in opposition.”
Shortly after I sent my “Application for Award in March 2016” to the IRS, UC President Janet
Napolitano intensified and escalated the already ongoing witch hunt and “blitzkrieg” against
Chancellor Linda Katehi. Napolitano was finishing the job of November 18, 2011 using her two friends,
former U.S. Attorneys Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, employed by Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, a San Francisco law firm. The second witch hunt against Katehi and her family members
employed at UC Davis started sometime in February 2016 and ended only partially successfully, at a
cost of $1 million from public funds, in August 2016. The witch hunt resulted in Katehi’s resignation
and designation as Chancellor Emerita and her teaching one class at UC Davis.
XXVIII.
THE SECOND WITCH HUNT - JANUARY 31, 2012 UCOP MAFIA PROVOCATION TO
KILL OR HARM MY PSYCHOLOGIST FRANKLIN O. BERNHOFT Ph.D
On December 14, 2011, my psychologist Dr. Bernhoft Ph.D., sent an informational letter to
Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, stating that my mental health significantly deteriorated due
to the situation with Petitioner’s employment and denial by Liberty’s Short-Term Disability
Benefits.
- 101 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 147
157 of 374
383
Franklin O. Bernhoft Ph.D

- 102 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 148
158 of 374
383
Dr. Franklin Bernhoft and his family reside in in Lodi, California, in San Joaquin County where lived
with his family since 1989.
Dr. Franklin Bernhoft, as a psychologist, was not only helping me in 2011-2012 to cope with enormous
stress and anxiety caused by the UCOP gangsters and their thugs from UC Davis and UC Davis Medical
Center (UCDMC), but Dr. Bernhoft was also intensively involved in Short Term Disability (STD)
claim dispute with the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston which was denied in December 2012
due to conspiracy of Liberty Assurance Company of Boston with UCOP mob than eight years later in
March 2019 resurfaced as a unclaimed property in the State of California Controller office .
The STD was administrated by the UCOP during the therapy sessions with Dr. Bernhoft in the period
of time from August 2011 to December 2011. I provided a lot of information to Dr. Franklin Bernhoft
about his place of employment in the UC Davis Medical Center. The information included corruption
among UCDMC management and administrative abuse of power, vicious management retaliations
against employees, and violations of employees’ civil and human rights. I provided Dr. Bernhoft with
copies of multiple correspondences/complaints, which included correspondences/complaints submitted
by Waszczuk to the UC Davis Chancellor and the UC President’s office. Dr. Bernhoft provided some
of this information to the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston claims reviewers, which were
handling my Short Term Disability and conspired with UCOP lawyers to destroy my and the Dr.
Bernhoft’ s family life.
- 103 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 149
159 of 374
383
On February 3, 2012, I learned from the local newspaper The Lodi News-Sentinel (“Lodi day care
provider Dorothy Bernhoft gives up license” by staffer Katie Nelson) that investigators from the
Department of Social Services on January 31, 2012 and Lodi Police raided Bernhoft’s house on
the 2300 block of Woodlake Circle after someone complained Bernhoft was not properly taking care
of the children in her care.
The accusations and allegations were serious and very disturbing.

http://www.lodinews.com/news/article 10e93e82-4e9b-11e1-9f2b-0019bb2963f4.html
Perpetrators, Participants, and Collaborators
• Daniel Morris Dooley: UCOP senior vice president; UCOP mafia chief until October 2014.
Key decision maker, perpetrator, and coordinator in the attacks against me in 2011–2014 and
attacks aimed at UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi on November 18, 2011.
• Diana Dooley: Daniel Dooley’s wife; key perpetrator. On Daniel Dooley’s and the UCOP
mob’s behalf, she ordered and set up the confrontation on January 31, 2011, to provoke and
kill Lodi psychologist Dr. Franklin O. Bernhoft. The attack destroyed Bernhoft’s family and
life.
From 1974 to 1975, Diana Dooley worked as an analyst at the State Personnel Board. Starting in 1975,
she worked as legislative director and special assistant during Governor Jerry Brown’s (D) first term
(1975–1983).
In 2011, Diana Dooley became secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency.
She was a Democratic political advisor working in the State of California. She was the executive
secretary, a role comparable to chief of staff, for Governor Jerry Brown. She was appointed to the
position on May 31, 2018.
• Will Lightbourne: Director of the California Department of Social Services; key perpetrator.
On January 31, 2012, based on Diana Dooley’s orders, Lightbourne coordinated vengeance
and provocation against psychologist Dr. Bernhoft. Lightbourne went to Dr. Bernhoft’s
- 104 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 150
160 of 374
383
residence in Lodi to kill or harm Dr. Bernhoft and his wife, Dorothy Bernhoft.
In April 2011, California Health and Human Services Secretary Diana Dooley named Lightbourne
director of the California Department of Social Services. Lightbourne served in this new post through
an interagency agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the State of California.
Since 2000, Lightbourne has served as agency director of Santa Clara County Social Services.
• Michael Weston: Deputy director of California Health and Human Services secretary since
February 2012; key perpetrator. Weston collaborated to harm Dr. Bernhoft and his family.
In February 2011, Diana Dooley promoted Weston to the deputy director position. This promotion
occurred after the unannounced January 31, 2012, Social Services and Lodi Police raid of Bernhoft’s
residence in Lodi, California. The goal of the raid was to provoke Dr. Bernhoft and lure him into a trap
that was professionally set and carried out by the malicious perpetrators. After the unsuccessful attempt
to lure Dr. Bernhoft from his office to his residence and provoke him, Weston orchestrated mass media
coverage of the alleged crimes of Dr. Bernhoft’s wife, Dorothy Bernhoft. Thereafter, I in fear
disconnected myself from Dr. Bernhoft’s services and distanced myself from Dr. Bernhoft personally
as well.
From July 2000 to March 2006, prior to the Social Services raid, Weston was employed as a television
news producer in a very popular local news station, KCRA3. Weston’s connections at the television
station allowed him to orchestrate enormous media coverage of the Social Services raid on Dr.
Bernhoft’s residence. The degree of coverage was similar to what was seen during the pepper-spray
provocation aimed at Chancellor Katehi; the pepper-spray incident took place on the UC Davis
campus on November 18, 2011.
• Sharon Ogbodo, Tawny Grossman, and Alison Newkirk: Collaborators. Social Services
employees. On January 31, 2012, on the order of Director Lightbourne or his deputy Weston,
Ogbodo, Grossman, and Newkirk stayed in Bernhoft’s residence until Dr. Bernhoft arrived
home between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. They were present to ensure that Bernhoft would clash
with the Lodi Police. Ogbodo, Grossman, and Newkirk called before they left the Bernhoft
residence at 4:00 p.m.
- 105 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 151
161 of 374
383
• Mark M. Reese, Assistant Social Services Chief Counsel; Cori A. Dutra, Staff Attorney;
and Jeffrey Hiratsuka, Deputy Director of Social Services, Services Licensing
Department: Perpetrators and collaborators with JD degrees. On February 3, 2012, three days
after the unsuccessful attempt to harm Dr. Bernhoft, these individuals filed mostly false
charges against Dorothy Bernhoft.
Reese resigned from the State Bar of California. Dutra is a friend of Porter Scott Law Corporation
attorney David P. E. Burkett—who represented the UC Regents in my wrongful termination lawsuit .
• Kristine Reed, San Joaquin County District Attorney: In 2012, Reed filed criminal
charges against Dorothy Bernhoft.
• Brett H. Morgan, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge: Before Judge Morgan was
appointed to the bench, he was chief deputy for the State of California Inspector General and
chief of staff of the State of California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.
Judge Morgan sentenced Dorothy Bernhoft to four years’ probation with many conditions—
including not being alone with her own grandchildren. She had to serve 416 hours of community
service at an approved nonprofit organization and pay many thousands of dollars in restitution. She
also had to complete a child abuse course and seek mental health counseling.
All of the individuals listed above are guilty of willfully depriving Dorothy and Franklin Bernhoft of
rights and privileges protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The above
individuals destroyed the Bernhoft’s family and forced them and myself live in fear.
On January 5, 2016, I copied San Joaquin Superior Court files of the Case No.
LM051206A; LPD CASE, DA Case CR-2012-4029037-The People of the State of California
Plaintiff v. Dorothy Bernhoft, Defendant, filed on August 6, 2012 and Civil Case No. 39-2012-
00283391-CU-PO-STK;
In the Bergholt Court file I noticed one document titled MISDEMEANOR ADVISEMENT OF
RIGHTS, WAIVER AND PLEA FORM filed on August 13, 2013 in San Joaquin County
Superior Court
- 106 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 152
162 of 374
383
- 107 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 153
163 of 374
383
From the Bernhoft Court file I noticed the following surprising facts:
1. The California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division Complaint
Investigation Report contains three different dates of 01/27/2012, 01/30/2012, and 01/31/2012.
2. The Complaint Investigation Report Page #1, the most important page of the report, was
not signed by Dorothy Bernhoft, who should acknowledge by her signature that she received
the allegations and findings and understands the appeal rights as explained and received.
3. During the 4.5-hour visit, the Department of Social Services’ Sharon Ogbodo, Tawny
Grossman, and Alison Newkirk toured the entire facility including the garage, upstairs and yard.
Complaint Investigation Report and findings completely does not correspond in some ways
with the complaint in the Matter of DOROTHY BERNHOFT dba Family Day Care Home 2363
Woodlake Circle Lodi, CA 95242 filed by Department of Social Services Legal Division on
February 2, 2012. CDSS No. 7012032101; CDSS No. 7012032101B and with Search Warrant
dated January 31, 2012.
The Department of Social Services Legal Division filed the complaint with the following
accusations just two days after, not mentioned in January 31, 2012 Complaint Investigation
Report issued by the licensing evaluator Jeanne Smith.
• Failure to fence or barricade the facility stairs;

• Two loaded firearms (shot guns) and ammunition stored in a closet where an
infant in a car seat was found
• Plastic dry cleaner bags accessible to children in care
• Cleaning materials, medication, scissors, and knives accessible to children in care;
• Failure to maintain heat in the facility where children were kept;
• A roster for children in care at the facility;
• Immunization records for children in care at the facility;
• Signed and dated parents’ rights forms for children in care
• Failure or refusal to respond to children upstairs when they cried and called
‘Mammy, Mommy” and “Help, Help”;
• On or about December 20, 2011, five (5) infants and three (3) preschool children
present in the facility without an assistant;
- 108 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 154
164 of 374
383
• Children restrained and/or confined in car seats, from which they ate insulation. It
is unknown who provided the car seats and whether Ms. Bernhoft purchased the
car seats or children’s parents were delivering infants to the Ms. Bernhoft Day
care in the car seats.
I noticed the fact that the Department of Social Services on December 20, 2011 visited Dorothy
Bernhoft’s home and acknowledged that Dorothy Bernhoft operates facility without inactive
license, without assistant, and most likely in same way as it was described in the January 31,
2012 Complaint Investigation Report. It was no any problem for the Department of Social
Services and Complaint Investigation Report was not issued because apparently Dorothy
Bernhoft’s Day Care was in compliance with law and regulations with maybe the exception that
her license was activated on December 21, 2012.
THE LODI POLICE SEARCH WARRANT
The Search Warrant dated January 31, 2012 and Statement of the Probable Cause was signed
by Lodi Police Detective Michael Mannetti and Judge Lauren P. Thomasson.
1. Affidavit to search Bernhoft’s residence was signed by Judge Lauren Thomasson at 4:11
P.M., 11 minutes after unannounced Department of Social Services visit/investigation
was completed.
2. The date and time that the warrant was served is not stated on the designated line and is
unknown.
3. Lodi Police Detective Michael Manetti signed the Statement of Probable Cause which
was attached to the Search Warrant in presence of the Judge Lauren P. Thomson on
January 13th 2012 (handwritten date) but is dated January 31st (handwritten date) by
Detective Michael Manetti.
These date of January 13th 2012 shows that Social Services or somebody provided all
information to Lodi Police Detective Michael Manetti about the planned “unannounced “raid” by
Social Services on Bernhoft’s residence in Lodi. If the Social Services and Lodi Police knew
before January 13, 2012 what is going in the Dorothy Bernhoft’s Day Care than why Police
- 109 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 155
165 of 374
383
did not intervened earlier to protect children from endangerment and why District
Attorney office was not informed about . ?
The issuance of search warrant on January 31, 2012 at 4: 11 P. M clearly indicated that time was 4:
11 P.M that time correspondences with the time Dr. Franklin Bernhoft would come back home to
from his office after work day. Dr. Bernhoft’ office is locate 3-4 miles away from his residence in
Lodi. Dr. Bernhoft most likely was profiled if he would be easy to provoke after he sent to Liberty
Assurance Company of Boston lot of information he received from me about himself and after phone
conversation with Liberty consultant Dr. Vlach at the end of October 2016. Dr. Franklin Bernhoft
was Vietnam Veteran at Captain rank and coming home and seeing the police searching his home
without informing him about and taking his guns could lead easily to the heated confrontation
between Dr. Bernhoft and Lodi cops It is not my imagination. I talked about with Dr. Bernhoft in
2016 and I could only imagine how the ill crafted UCOP mafia provocation to get Dr. Bernhoft
would end regardless whether Social Services found some violation in the Dorothy Bernhoft’s
Children Day Care or not.
It was no needed for Social Services personnel inspecting Dr. Bernhoft home to stay in Bernhoft’s
residence from 11: 30 AM until 4: 00 PM and wait until Lodi Police and Dr Bernhoft will show up
after coming back from work.
Why the Social Service did not call Lodi Police one hour after they arrived in Dr. Bernhoft
Residence and let the Lodi Police witness the strapped children in car seats in dark rooms closet with
guns unloaded guns next to children? It is mystery for me why these facts were not noticed by Deputy
District Attorney Kristine Reed who filed on March 18, 2012 filed charges against Dorothy Bernhoft
with 35 Counts which most were filed CRUELTY TO CHILD BY ENDANGERING HEALTH PC.
273A(B)
On April 6, 2016 I shared my opinion about Bernhoft’s prosecution with San Joaquin Deputy
District Attorney Kristine Reed as follow::
April 6, 2016
Kristine Reed
- 110 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 156
166 of 374
383
Deputy District Attorney

San Joaquin County
222 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202
Re: The Dorothy and Franklin Bernhoft San Joaquin County Superior Court
Cases:
The San Joaquin Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin Lodi
Branch - Complaint Case No. LMOS l206A LPD CASE, DA Case CR-2012-
4029037-The People of the State of California Plaintiff v. Dorothy Bernhoft,
Defendant.
The cross-connected civil case:
The San Joaquin Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin Civil
Case No. 392012-00283391-CU-PO-STK; Chiari Colarossi, through her
Guardian adLitem, Alison Colarossi,' Alison Colarossi; Robert Colarossi; Maia
Nabhoiz, through her Guardian ad Litem, Joanna Wlodawer and Trevor
Nabholz v. Dorothy Bernhofl; Franklin Bernhoft.
Dear Ms. Reed:
Recently, I filed a complaint with the State of California Commission on

Judicial Performance against the Sacramento County Superior Court
Judge Hon. Shelleyanne Chang for misconduct. In the mentioned complaint
against Judge Chang, I included the two San Joaquin County Superior Court
cases filed against the Bernhoft’s.
It is my understanding that you are the San Joaquin County District Attorney
who brought the criminal charges against Ms. Dorothy Bernhoft in 2012,
I am bringing the two court cases involving the Bernhofts (captioned above) to
your attention because Defendant Franklin Bernhoft, Ph.D., in the Civil Case
No. 39-2012- 00283391-CU-PO-STK, was my retained psychologist from
August 2011 to January 2012.
It is not my intention by this letter to question the charges the District

Attorney's office brought against Ms. Dorothy Bernhoft. However, I found
both of the cases involving the Bernhoft’s very odd and bizarre in relation to
the service Franklin Bernhoft was providing to me in 2012.
- 111 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 157
167 of 374
383
For the above reason, I am sending the part of my complaint against the
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang to your office
for your review and consideration, plus a copy of the complaint cover letter
addressed to the State of California Commission on Judicial Performance
Chairperson, Honorable Erica R. Yew.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
CC: Maria Gross; Cori Dutra, Esq.; Mark Reese, Esq. - California Department
of Social Services
I attached to my letter the June 21, 2012 e-mail UC Davis Police Department sergeant Jennifer
Garcia sent to Gina Guillaume-Holleman from the UC Davis Medical Center Chief Compliance office
and UCDPD Lt. James Barbour about inquiry about me with Lodi Police.
Also, I enclosed the copy of the Lodi Police Search Warrant dated January 31, 2012.
I sent copy of my correspondence with District Attorney office to Maria Gross – listed on the 1/31
/2012 Investigation Report as a CDSS supervisor and two California Department of Social Services
(CDSS) attorneys Cori Dutra and Mark Reese listed on CDSS Complaint filed- dated February 2, 2012
was issued days after Bernhoft’ s home was raided by CDSS.
The CDSS raided Bernhoft’s home on January 31, 2012 in Lodi one day before my scheduled
visit on February 1, 2012 with the MLS National Evaluation Services for an independent
psychiatric evaluation which was requested by Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston after
Dr. Bernhoft sent to Liberty update about my health condition and postponed my termination for
another year thus. I am still wondering what the UCOP bandits in collaboration with their Liberty’s
buddies were planning for me on February 1, 2012 in MSL National Evaluation Services office in
Sacramento if I would show up there as requested by Liberty.
It still makes me wonder Waszczuk if the Complaint filed against Dorothy Bernhoft on February 2,
2012 by CDSS attorney Cori Dutra and Mark Reese was dictated whether Waszczuk will show up in
MSL office for psychiatric evaluation on February 1, 2012.
- 112 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 158
168 of 374
383
According to State Bar of California record CDSS attorney Mark Reese resigned on 8/24/2017 (Causes
unknown)
It is appear that CDSS attorney Cori Dutra is a friend (Facebook, Law School) of Porter Scott
attorney David Burkett who represents UCOP against me in Sacramento County Superior Court in two
cases.
David Burkett attempted to provoke Waszczuk into physical confrontation in the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District (3DCA) by making threats toward my wife in the Court building just
after scheduled Oral Argument which took place in the August 28, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.
I described the Mr. Burkett’s behavior as follow in the Petition for Rehearing from unpublished
Court decision in Anti-SLAPP motion Case No. C079524 issued on October 10, 2017.
“After just 15 minutes of oral argument, the Defendants legal counsel David
Burkett from the Sacramento-based law firm Porter Scott approached
Waszczuk in the Court Hall outside the courtroom and attempted to instigate a
confrontation. He made threats toward Waszczuk wife and tried to exploit the
emotional and financial suffering we have both experienced since UC Regents
terminated Waszczuk employment in December 2012 at age 61 without any
possibility to find new employment. For the Court information Waszczuk
spouse Irena Waszczuk is working in Nordstrom in Sacramento as seamstress -
fitter for almost 30 years and has nothing to do with the University of
California and Waszczuk’ lawsuit, Waszczuk spouse should retire on
September 21, 2017 at age of 66 but he can’t due to devastation of Waszczuks
life and livelihood by UC Regents and their collaborators. Burkett knew that
Waszczuk was stressed due to financial hardship caused by his client’s
criminal behavior; he thought that his attacks against my spouse would easily
provoke a confrontation. Sadly, this encounter was my second time
experiencing such shameful tactics in the court building. It is a second time
Waszczuk experienced such Defendants attorney behavior. It happened before
in 2015, prior to the court hearing with presiding Judge Shelleyane Chang in
the unemployment benefits Writ of Mandamus case— in which UC Regents is
party as a Real Party In Interest (RPii.) UC legal counsel and UC
administrators must be very desperate if they resort to using such tactics.
Trying to provoke the opposing party into a physical confrontation in an area
- 113 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 159
169 of 374
383
heavily trafficked by sheriff’s deputies and city police is either very foolish or
very underhanded.”
It is customary for the UCOP, which is interconnected with the state government and state agencies,
to go after vindictively and brutally retaliate against family members or friends of complaining
employees as a terrorizing tactic to discourage employees from pursuing complaints against the
university management and administration. This happened in the case of Janet Kayzer when the
university thugs retaliated against her husband and fired him from his job. Sacramento County
Superior Court Case No. 34201000079869CUWTGDS , 3DCA Keyzer v. Regents of the University of
California et al. Case Number C077974
It happened in my case when university legal counsel from Porter Scott law firm Douglas Ropel
was making threats that he will go after my wife for the legal fees that the university had not yet been
awarded. This occurred on February 27, 2015, during the discussion with Douglas Ropel just before
entering the Court hearing with Judge Chang in Sacramento County Superior Court. My wife works
not for the university but for Nordstrom Corporation, where she has been employed for 31 years
XXIX.
THE SECOND WITCH HUNT -MY LAST VISIT ON NOVEMBER 28, 2011 WITH MY
LODI , CA PHYSICIAN DR. HARVEY HASHIMOTO M.D.
The November 28, 2011 was my last scheduled appointment with Dr. Harvey Hashimoto. I was
on stress leave at that time from September 22, 2011 to January 5, 2012 provided to me by Dr.
Hashimoto
In September 2011, confidential information about employment termination was prematurely
leaked. My physician Dr. Hashimoto and my psychologist Franklin Bernhoft, Ph.D., placed me on
stress-related sick leave effective September 22, 2011.
My salary was paid by his accrued sick leave and vacation hours until I ran out of hours in December
2011.
- 114 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 160
170 of 374
383
- 115 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 161
171 of 374
383
Dr. Hashimoto was my physician more than for decade and he was taking care of me prior and
after my open-heart surgery I had on January 1, 2006. During the 11/28/2011 visit Dr. Hashimoto
unexpectedly told me that cannot provide medical care and services to.
I was not very happy about because is hard to find new physician in Lodi. I asked Dr. Hashimoto
why I can’t be his patient anymore. He vaguely told me that is getting supervisory position in Lodi
Hospital. I congratulated Dr, Hashimoto with new job wished him well and thanked him for taking
care of me for a long time. I was referred by Dr. Hashimoto to new physician Victor Gellineau
M.D in same clinic with next scheduled appointment on March 28, 2012.
Losing Dr. Hashimoto It meant that Dr. Hashimoto can’t provide me more sick leave if needed
being stressed out to the maximum due to constant harassment and unknown tomorrow.
On December 5, 2011, my Department Head sent me a threating letter with attempt to force
me come to work an give an interview for the assigned witch hunter when was on stress related
sick leave .
The December 5, 2011 threatening letter which was sent to me was making reference to October
27, 2011 Liberty’s Consulting Psychiatrists David Vlach M.D Review – Conclusion and
apparently was the result of Dr. Vlach conversation with Dr. Hasimoto and my psychologist
Franklin Bernhoft Ph.D. The letter stated :
“This directive is made under University Personnel Policy and Procedures for
Staff Members, Section 63. You are expected to cooperate with the
investigation, despite your previous refusal to do so. Your failure to attend
the investigatory interview and participate in the investigation will be
deemed insubordination on your part and you will be subject to discipline
up to and including dismissal
- 116 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 162
172 of 374
383
- 117 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 163
173 of 374
383
The threating letter was without a request from Department Head to provide the mandatory UC
DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM RETURN TO WORK CLEARANCE which mandated that :
EMPLOYEE: You must provide medical certification of ability to perform job duty to your supervisor
prior to return to work date when returning from a medical leave of absence.
I still don’t know what the UCOP thugs were planned for me on December 12, 2011 if I would show
up in the UCDMC campus on December 12, 2011.
On December 12, 2011, my employment status during my medical leave was changed to
administrative leave without pay; my medical, dental, and other benefits were canceled.
- 118 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 164
174 of 374
383
On December 22, 2011, my employment status during m official medical leave was changed again
to investigatory leave, and my official title, for an unknown reason, was changed from Associate
Development Engineer to Computer Programmer I .
On January 5, 2012, I ended m medical leave and did not ask my new doctor for an extension,
waiting for an employment termination notice. After such a roller-coaster in 2011, I did not have a
clue and I did not know for the next four years why his UCOP thugs assaulting me and tried to
physically destroy me even during his medical leave. After my medical leave ended On January 5,
2012 I did not receive any notification about my employment status and was left in limbo but on the
UC payroll.
My income for 2011 was $62,919 instead of $71,640, almost $10,000 less than it should have been.
After I ended his medical -leave on January 5, 2012 nobody cared about the mandatory UC DAVIS
HEALTH SYSTEM RETURN TO WORK CLEARANCE which mandated that :
EMPLOYEE: You must provide medical certification of ability to perform job duty to your
supervisor prior to return to work date when returning from a medical leave of absence.
I was fired without being fired yet.
On my first visit on March 28, 2012 with new Dr. Victor Gellineau, he or his assistant nurse was
curious why I am not longer with Dr. Hashimoto after so many years. When I told him or her that Dr.
Hashimoto has new job in Hospital I got response that it is not true and that Dr. Hashimoto is still in the
clinic and he is does same job serving as family general medicine physician.
I was not surprised and I was quite sure that Dr. Hashimoto was advised by the UCOP mafia not
to serve me any medical permits anymore . The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
plant was idling at house load since November 2008 and UCOP white collar criminals lost millions
of tax free dollars not selling any power from the plant. In November 2008 I prevailed in arbitration
against UCOP mafia .
I still don’t know what the UCOP thugs were planned for me on December 12, 2011 if I would
show up in the UCDMC campus on that day .
- 119 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 165
175 of 374
383
XXX.
THE SECOND WITCH HUNT FROM FEBRUARY 8, 2012 TO DECEMBER 7, 2012-
INFORMAL RESOLUTION OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA , UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER
On February 8, 2012, UC Davis Medical Center HR Benefits & Equal Employment Opportunity
Manager Cindy G. Oropeza contacted me by phone and asked me whether I would be interested
in informally resolving my long-ongoing and unresolved conflict (since March 2011) with the
UCOP. I told her that I was always open to constructive discussions to informally resolve the
problem.
On that same day, I confirmed receipt of the invitation for informal dispute resolution via
e-mail correspondence with Ms. Oropeza. I also confirmed our phone conversation and
emphasized again that I was always open to discussions to find the best resolution for both sides
of the conflict.
On February 14, 2012, I had a meeting with HR Labor Relations Manager Mike Garcia
at his office in his HR Building. The meeting was fruitless, and I was asked how much I would
take, dollar-wise, to voluntarily quit my job. I proposed resigning if the UC would pay me, in a
lump sum, the annual wage that would be due to me until I became eligible for full Social Security
benefits at age 66. In February 2012, I was close to 61 years old (my 61st birthday was May 30,
2012). I noticed during the meeting that Garcia was stressed out; he told me that he was very
concerned about the whole situation and that it was very unpleasant for him to deal with this
problem. He commented that he was ready to retire from the University himself. The meeting
lasted approximately 30 minutes. Garcia made no promises or offers during the meeting.
Instead of a response from the UCOP mob in regard to the informal resolution initiated by them
in February 2012, on April 13, 2012, I received a Letter of Intent to Suspend. The letter was almost
identical to a letter I received during the First Witch Hunt, on March 23, 2007, which featured very
similar lies and unfounded accusations defacing and defaming me. The difference was that, in 2007, I
was working in plant, whereas in April 2012, I had been absent from work for eight months.
- 120 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 166
176 of 374
383
The April 13, 2012 Letter of Intent to Suspend without pay for 10 days during a nine (9)-
month forced absence from work did not even say or inform me of when I was supposed to return
to work.
UCDMC HR Manager Mike Garcia, who had the idea to meet me on February 14, 2012, was
forced to leave UC with his assistant, HR attorney Jill Noel Vandeviver, after May 31, 2012, when I
was the subject of an ill-crafted but unsuccessful attempt to kill me or end my employment with the
University of California, carried out at UC Davis Trauma Unit No. 11.
- 121 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 167
177 of 374
383
XXXI.
THE SECOND WITCH HUNT BY THE UCOP MOB, MAY 2012–DECEMBER 2012,
PROVOCATIONS TO KILL OR FRAME, PROSECUTE, AND DEPORT THE FORMER
UCDMC 27-MW COGENERATION PLANT OPERATOR, POLISH IMMIGRANT
JAROSLAW “JERRY” WASZCZUK
In April or May 2012, I did not know or care that the UCOP mob was selling power from the
UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration power plant. I had worked since April 2007 in the HVAC shop, and
I could not have cared less what was going on in the cogeneration plant. I signed a Settlement
Agreement on January 31, 2009 with the UC Regents and agreed to work permanently in the HVAC
shop, and it was a done deal. In May 2012, I would not have cared if someone had told me that the UC
Regents were negotiating a new power sale contract with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD) to sell power from the UCDMC’s Central Plant cogeneration facility. In May 2012, the
UCOP’s white collar criminals grew very inpatient with my continued presence on the UC payroll,
wrongly assuming that I intended to report them for their illegal power sales. My friends were working
in the plant, and even if I had known of the UCOP mob’s wrongdoing, I would have hesitated to report
their crimes, so as not to hurt my former coworkers still working at the plant.
The psychological terror, abuse, harassment, and retaliation to which I was subject for almost
one year did not work to force me to quit my job. In May 2012, the UCOP mob made the decision to
eliminate me by whatever means necessary, up to and including a bullet from the pistol of UC Davis
Police Lt. James Barbour, who was assigned by the Defendants to carry out my assassination on May
31, 2012.
On May 7, 2012, I received information at a gathering of the UCDMC’s Plant Operation and
Maintenance (the department where I worked) managers and supervisors at the UCDMC police station.
Also on May 7, 2012, to prime me for the planned May 31, 2012 provocation, UCDMC
HR ordered a pseudo Skelly Officer to sign “his” decision to suspend and deprive me of 10 days’
income. My budget was already stretched due to the previous year’s financial losses caused by the
reckless UCOP mob’s adverse actions against me.
- 122 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 168
178 of 374
383
The UCOP Director of Investigations John Lohse, a friend of U.S. Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, became openly involved in the witch hunt by sending to me
a letter in which he defended the corrupt UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo
who was pretending that she is investigating whistleblowers complaints and in fact she was setting
up complaining employees for termination.
I am convinced that Director Lohse, who was recruited to his position in 2004, was
coordinating unknown actions against me and that he perfectly fit the profile of someone who
would frame others. I expressed my thoughts in a response letter to Director Lohse dated May 14,
2012. After responding to this letter, I also sent to his office a few other documents related to the
ongoing actions to dispose of me. I never heard from Lohse again.
May 7, 2012 was a very busy day. I did not know at this point whether there was a
coordinated action against me to elevate my stress level to the expectations of the conspirators.
Three days later, on May 11, 2012, my department manager was ordered by the UCOP mob to
serve me a 10-day suspension without pay, from May 16–30, 2012, even though I had not worked
for the past nine months. The letter was based on despicable, unspecified, and fabricated
accusations and allegations against me of actions never witnessed by anyone.
May 11, 2012

Jaroslaw Waszczuk
524 Swallow Lane
Lodi, CA 95240
RE: Letter of Suspension
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am suspending you for a period
of ten (10) working days without pay, commencing May 16, 2012 through May
30, 2012. The reason for this action is your continued inappropriate behavior in
the workplace. Specifically, your behavior is in violation of UCDHS Policy
1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and UC Davis Policy
and Procedure 380-15 Staff Complaints of Discrimination. Additionally, your
failure to adhere to specific instructions during the investigation to refrain from
- 123 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 169
179 of 374
383
engaging in email communications with witnesses interfered with the

investigation as outlined in the report. The suspension will begin on
Wednesday, May 16, 2012 and end on Wednesday, May 30, 2012.
You are expected to report to work at 8 a.m. on Thursday, May
31, 2012 to Facilities Support Services Building, :4800 2nd
Avenue, Suite 1500, Sacramento, CA, to Charles Witcher. No
new information has been received to cause a change in the action.
On an immediate and sustained basis, I expect you to:
Follow and abide by all UC Policies and Procedures
Show respect and remain professional at all times in the workplace
Follow the direct orders given to you by a superior
Attend classes as requested by management, specifically in regard to
communication and respectful treatment
Failure to meet my expectations may result in further corrective action up
to and including dismissal.
You have the right to request review of this action under Personnel
Policies for Staff Members 70 - Complaint Resolution. If you wish to
request review of this action, you must do so in writing, using the
appropriate complaint form. A written request must be received in the
Employee & Employee & Labor Relations office no later than thirty (30)
calendar days from the date of this letter.
Charles Witcher
In Charles Witcher’s Letter of Suspension, dated May 11, 2012, I was instructed to report
to his office on May 31, 2012, at 8:00 a.m.
On May 14, 2012, I filed a complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 against the UCOP
mob for wrongful suspension.

In a further action to intimidate me, the UCOP mob assigned thugs in a retaliatory manner
and attacked my two coworkers and friends within one week. My friends and coworkers Kenny
Diede and William Buckans were served, out of the blue, with despicable Letters of Expectation,
which were based on phony, unfounded, and fabricated accusations.
On May 24, 2012, I issued a 13-page protest letter entitled “The Retaliation Isn’t Wise,”
- 124 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 170
180 of 374
383
due to the vicious attack on Diede and Buckans and sent it to the perpetrators – senior management
and administration at UC Davis and the UCOP.
Per the instructions in the May 11, 2012 letter of suspension, May 30, 2012, my two
coworkers, Diede and Buckans, and I attended a voluntary stress management class at the
UCDMC’s HR Building, Tycon III. I signed up for the class one week before it was scheduled.
Just after I arrived and signed into the class, which was open to any UCDMC employee who
wanted to participate, I was approached by the class host, HR Licensed Social Worker Marjorie
Trogdon Shock and HR Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker. To my disbelief, after a
short conversation with Shock and Parker, I was asked to leave and told that my staying and
participating in the discussion was out of the question. I left and drove home without any further
incident. I did not know on that day, nor was I aware on my 61st birthday, that I had been sentenced to
death by the UCOP mob following the May 29, 2012 UCOP’s signing of a long-awaited power sale
contract with the SMUD to sell surplus electrical energy from the UCDMC Central Plant’s
cogeneration facility.
May 30, 2012 was my 61st birthday. I did not know that the HR Workers Compensation
Manager was a coordinator of the assembled “UC Davis Death Squad” and had been ordered to
end my “stay at home employment” with the University of California on May 31, 2012 (the next day)
at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit. I also did not know that the host of the stress
management class, Marjorie Trogdon Shock, was also a member of the assembled “UC Davis Death
Squad,” the goal of which was to end my employment at the UCDMC in Trauma Unit #11.
On May 31, 2012, per the suspension letter dated May 11, 2012, I was scheduled to return to
work after a 10-month absence and report to my department manager’s office in Bldg. 68. That
morning, I drove to work, from Lodi to the UCDMC (35 miles), and at 8:00 a.m. I reported to Charles
Witcher’s office, as instructed in the Letter of Suspension. I was expecting that, after 10 months of
absence and the unwarranted suspension from work, I would be reinstated to my position of Associate
Development Engineer, per the Settlement Agreement signed with the UC Regents on January 31,
2009.
Instead of telling me where I would be working, Witcher handed me a letter and sent me
- 125 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 171
181 of 374
383
with it to HR Building Tycon III for an interview with HR Supervisor Brent Seifert. If I had read
the letter in Witcher’s office and found out that the UCOP mob was not allowing me to return to
work, I most likely would not have gone to the HR building, which was being guarded by a UC
Davis police car parked out front.
I did not read the letter Witcher gave me in his office, but instead went straight to the HR Tycon
Building to meet with Seifert. Seifert looked at me upon my arrival as if he wanted to ask me what I
was doing there. At the end of the meeting, which was about nothing, I asked Seifert, “What’s next?”
In response, he said, “Didn’t you read the letter Witcher gave you? You are on investigatory leave
for the next two weeks.” I said “okay” and drove home to Lodi.
I knew something was wrong, but I did not know at the time that, during my forced absence
from work, I had been profiled by UC Davis’ top psychologists and police as part of the UCOP mob’s
malicious plan to set me up and provoke me into a violent confrontation with Witcher, with police
standing by observing us. The letter Witcher handed to me was designed to trigger a violent
confrontation.
Based on the documents I received in November 2011, under the Public Record Act Provision,
I found out what the perpetrators of the heinous but unsuccessful provocation had in mind. The
documents were very clear concerning what they had planned for me on May 31, 2012. I did not know
until June 2015, through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s e-Library, that on May 31,
2012, SMUD had signed with the UCOP mob an unlawful Power Purchase Agreement to buy power
from the UCDMC cogeneration plant. The sale from UCDMC’s plant was ceased in panic in November
2008, after I unexpectedly prevailed in the arbitration process against the UC Regents when I accused
them of illegal acts. This caused them enormous losses, amounting to tens of millions of tax-free
dollars.
- 126 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 172
182 of 374
383
The UCOP white collar criminals never used the PPA signed with SMUD because their meticulously
crafted provocation to end my employment on May 31, 2021 in the UCDMC’s Trauma Unit # 11 or
Morgue with bullet in my head fired by UCDPD Lt. James Barbour Glock did not work as anticipated
(EXHIBIT #23 on flash drive DVD).
- 127 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 173
183 of 374
383
The Davis 11 Trauma Nursing Unit (TNU) is a 36-bed acute care specialty
and telemetry unit that primarily provides inpatient care and treatment for
patients who have sustained blunt or penetrating injury, as well as those
who may require surgical intervention. This includes care of patients with
suspected or confirmed intra-abdominal injuries, complex wound
management, orthopedic fractures, head/neck/face injuries, brain trauma,
chest trauma, and pulmonary injury.
June 2012–August 2012
On June 1, 2012, one day after falling ill and the maliciously crafted provocation by the
assembled UC Davis Death Squad, the coordinator of the provocation, HR Workers Compensation
Manager Hugh Parker, sent an e-mail message to the other members of the assembled UC Davis Death
Squad. It stated:
“Mr. Waszczuk had returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was placed
back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent by Mr. Waszczuk
while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk did not display any anger when told he was being placed
on investigatory leave.
- 128 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 174
184 of 374
383
Parker’s e-mail statement read: “At issue are writings sent by Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. Mr.
Waszczuk did not display any anger when told he was being place on investigatory leave.” This
translates to the following: I, after an almost one-year absence due to the UCOP’s psychological terror
aimed at me, including threatening my employment and livelihood by means of multiple investigatory
leave letters, which I received from the UCOP-assigned thugs at UC Davis and the UCDMC, the
endless phony investigatory and administrative leave of absence, constant threating letters with
unfounded and ill-crafted accusations and allegation sent to my residence, not letting me assume my
duties in the HVAC shop as Associate Development Engineer, was not provoked on May 31, 2011 into
a violent confrontation with my manager, who had no clue why these things were happening.
Renegade UC Davis Police Lt James Barbour, who was bribed with a $35,000 wage increase
by the UCOP mob, and had no knowledge of why he was assigned to participate in my termination.
I believe that similar provocations to end my employment were planned for September 23,
2011 and December 12, 2011.
On June 6, 2012, one week after the unsuccessful provocation to end my employment, the UC
Davis Medical Plant Operations and Maintenance Assistant Manager Dennis approached my
coworker and friend, Kenny Diede, in a threatening manner and requested that he stay as far away
from me as possible. This was bizarre, because I was not working. I was in Lodi, California, 40
miles from the UCDMC, on forced administrative leave.
That same day, I received a paystub for the pay period ending May 26, 2012. It showed
only $182.00, because of the malicious suspension without pay for 10 working days.
- 129 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 175
185 of 374
383
On June 14, 2012, two weeks after the unsuccessful provocation to end my employment,
I received a decision from the State of California’s Insurance Commissioner Office regarding the
complaint I filed in November 2011 against the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which, in
conspiracy with the UCOP mob, denied my short-term disability benefits. The decision, issued
after an eight-month investigation, stated:
- 130 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 176
186 of 374
383
After reviewing the information provided, we conclude that we are unable

to assist you further with this matter. The issues involved with your
complaint indicate that there is a difference of opinion between you and
the insurance company that this Department, as outlined in California
Insurance Code Section 12921.4(a), does not have the authority to decide.
How convenient.
The best of this pseudo investigation was the fact that my short-term disability was denied
in November 2011 by Liberty Assurance Company of Boston in conspiracy with the UCOP mob
resurfaced in the State of California’s Controller Office as unclaimed property on March 19, 2019.
- 131 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 177
187 of 374
383
After the unsuccessful attempt to euthanize me on May 31, 2012, the UCOP mob did not give up on
killing or framing me for criminal prosecution and deportation.
On June 21, 2012, UC Davis Police Department Sergeant Jennifer Garcia informed
UCDMC’s Chief Compliance Officer, Gina Guillaume-Holleman, via email, the following:
"Jerry" is clear any warrants, has no guns registered and no current

dealer of sales for guns and has negative criminal history. Lodi PD
informed they have nothing on him.
The UCOP mob became desperate get to rid me after SMUD signed the PPA with the UC
Regents.
In another e-mail UCDPD Sergeant Jennifer Garcia informed his UCDPD colleagues that that the
after May 31, 2012, unsatisfying provocation outcome, the UCDMC-corrupted administration
utilized California Penal Code 626 and two corrupted UCDPD cops with hopes and dreams that I
would show on the premises while I was on investigatory leave, that I would be arrested with most
likely false accusations made that I assaulted verbally a peace officer and resisted arrest. The UC
Davis Police Chief Matt Carmichael was brought to power without proper qualification for this
position after the November 18, 2011, plot and provocation to remove UCPD Chief Annette Spicuzza
and Lt. James Barbour, who was set up by UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown, J.D., to spray
students with pepper spray and was later receiving death threats. The other corrupted UCPD cop,
James Barbour, was awarded a $35,000 wage increase to carry out an attack against me on May 31,
2012, to deliver me to UCDMC Trauma Nursing Unit # 11.
The UCDMC Chief Operating Officer signed an undated Penal Code 626 Order to get Waszczuk if
he show up while was on phony investigatory leave. Waszczuk did not show up.
The California Penal Code 626.2 states:
Every student or employee who, after a hearing, has been

suspended or dismissed from a community college, a state university,
the university, or a public or private school for disrupting the
orderly operation of the campus or facility of the institution, and
as a condition of the suspension or dismissal has been denied access
to the campus or facility, or both, of the institution for the period
- 132 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 178
188 of 374
383
of the suspension or in the case of dismissal for a period not to

exceed one year; who has been served by registered or certified mail,
at the last address given by that person, with a written notice of
the suspension or dismissal and condition; and who willfully and
knowingly enters upon the campus or facility of the institution to
which he or she has been denied access, without the express written
permission of the chief administrative officer of the campus or
facility, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
The undated Penal Code 626 order, which was signed by the UCDMC corrupted Chief Operating
Officer Vincent Johnson, was signed with malicious and evil intention to harm me by UCDPD Police
and was entirely unlawful.
I am still scratching my head concerning who had the idea to convince the UCOP mob in
2007 or 2011 that I would blow the whistle because of the unlawful operation of the UCDMC
plant and power sale, in violation of IRC Section 501 (c)(3). This never crossed my mind,
because I was convinced that PURPA’s regulations did not apply to University of California
cogeneration plants, due to the university’s autonomy from the government.
It is not difficult to understand what consequences the UCOP mob was facing in 2012 by
signing the PPA with SMUD and not delivering the power promised in the contract. During hot
California summers, electric power is most expensive to buy and to sell.
I have no doubt that, if I had been a gun owner or had even one outstanding warrant for a traffic
ticket, the Lodi police would have searched my home and I would have faced Brett Morgan, a San
Joaquin County Superior Court Judge, former chief deputy for the State of California Inspector
General, and chief of staff of the State of California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, who,
in a witch hunt orchestrated by the UCOP mob against my psychologist, Dr. Franklin Bernhoft,
sentenced his wife, 65-year-old Dorothy Bernhoft, to four years’ probation. She narrowly escaped five
years in prison with a plea agreement. Shortly after I attempted to contact again her attorney but he
died after Dorothy Berghoft was sentenced to four years’ probation .
In 2012, Dr. Bernhoft’s residence in Lodi was raided by government thugs, and his firearms
and other property were confiscated because he dared to protest the terror and inhumane treatment that
- 133 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 179
189 of 374
383
I had been subjected to at the UCDMC in 2011. My coworkers who supported me became targets as
well.
In another act of the UCOP mob’s desperation, Gina Guillaume-Holleman, the same UCDMC
Chief Compliance Officer who was ordered by the UCOP mob to frame me with Lodi Police in June
2012, was ordered to call my coworker and friend Mark Montoya to her office for an unexpected
interview. Ms. Guillaume-Holleman, upon Montoya’s arrival on July 18, 2012, showed him my photo
and asked him whether I was a threat to him. Without any hesitation, she attempted to solicit from
Montoya a confirmation signature on an affidavit stating that I was a threat to him and a dangerous
individual. Montoya refused to sign; he left Guillaume-Hollmann's office, and I was informed about
their meeting. This interview took place when I off UCDMC’s premises for almost a full year. My last
working day at UCDMC’s HVAC shop was August 3, 2011.
I anticipated that something would happen to me during the more than one forced absence from
work, despite not knowing that the UCOP mob, on May 29–31, 2012 signed a Power Purchase
Agreement (PPA) with SMUD to resume power sales from UCDM’s 27-MW cogeneration plant.
On September 26, 2012, I received by overnight mail a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious
Misconduct dated September 25, 2012. It was routinely similar to other documents that I received in
the past 12 months from UCDMC Plant Operations and Maintenance Department Manager Charles
Witcher and from UCDMC’s Human Resources department.
The notice stated:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I intend to dismiss you from your
position as a Sr. Development Engineer in Plant Operations and Maintenance.
The reason for this action is your failure to adhere to UC Davis Policy and
Procedure 380-15, Staff Complaints of Discrimination, UCDHS 1616, Violence
and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and the Principles of Community.
I had been on a forced leave of absence from the UCDMC premises for more than one year, though the
letter accused me of violating UCDHS 1616 policy -Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace
and the Principles of Community was something else . Between August 3, 2011 and September 25,
- 134 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 180
190 of 374
383
2012, I had been at my home, in Lodi, California, and walking my dog Oddie around Lodi Lake.
I documented all of this in my May 10, 2012 letter addressed to Janet Napolitano’s friend,
UCOP Director of Investigation John Lohse, who was recruited by the UCOP mob from the FBI in
2004. In my letter, which now titled “RESPONSE TO YOUR LETER DATED MAY 7, 2012
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST FOR CASE 2011.-41& 11-079 EP 2001 THE HAPPY DOG
"ODDIE,” I included the following words and photo.
I am also not sure whether your intention is to investigate the case or to defend
Mrs. Wendi Delmendo?
Not to elaborate about whole case which is quite complex and bulky, I
would like to mention that I am babysitting or dog-sitting my dog
"Oddie" instead of working in the UC Davis Medical Center HVAC Shop
since August 2011.
It would be nothing wrong with babysitting my dog if it would on my private
time and my own expenses
However, it is not the case because the University of California is paying for
this babysitting or dog-sitting
The babysitting or dog- sitting "Oddie" cost University of California
$ 29, 850.00 for the last five months + approximately same amount of money
for the person who is doing my job instead of do his job as a mechanic.
My dog "Oddie" of course is very happy no to be alone and go to Lodi Lake
Park and chase squirrels every day and play with other dogs in Lodi Dog Park .
Oddie is probably is not aware and does not care who is paying his luxury
to have 24 hours a day "babysitter." (See attached photo) He is just very
happy dog.
The UC Davis Chief Compliance Director Mrs. Wendi Delmendo is aware of
this expensive dog care and she knows about it.
She is not less responsible for misuse and abuse of UC Resources than Patrick
Putney , Dennis Curry, Charles Witcher, Dorin Daniliuc, Danesha Nichols ,
Cindi Oropeza , Danesha Nichols , Stephen Chilcott and few others in lesser
scale or involvement. I think that I mentioned to Mrs. Delmendo in one of
my letters that UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer requires another Chief
Compliance Officer to be compliant with compliance.
- 135 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 181
191 of 374
383
- 136 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 182
192 of 374
383
My dog, Oddie, is 16 years old and is still in good shape toda riding with me to Lodi Lake Park in our
1998 BMW Z3, just as he was in May 2012.
In addition to the above, the September 25, 2012, perhaps to make me feel better, the Notice of Intent
to Terminate promoted me from Associate Development Engineer to Senior Development
Engineer. Compassion and Human Kindness of the UCOP mob.
Following the September 25, Notice of Intent to Terminate for Serious Misconduct, on
September 26, 2012, one of my coworkers sent me a photo of a UC Davis Police poster bearing my
photo and the verbiage “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY,” which was similar to
an “FBI’s Most Wanted” sign.
The UC Davis Police Poster stated:
“Jaroslaw Waszczuk is currently on administrative leave from

employment with the UC Davis Med Center. Mr. Waszczuk is not
authorized to be on UC Davis property without a legal reason or a medical
emergency.
Mr. Waszczuk is described as an older white male with brown and gray
hair. He is approximately 5’8” and 190 lb.
If Mr. Waszczuk is seen trespassing on University of California Davis

properties, please contact the Davis Police Department immediately at
916-734-1555.”
The UC Davis Police poster that said “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY” and
included my photo and a description. It was distributed around the two UC Davis campuses, the UC
Davis Main Campus and the Davis Medical Center, and was most likely sent to managers and UC
Davis employees via electronic mail.
- 137 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 183
193 of 374
383
- 138 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 184
194 of 374
383
In addition, the UCOP assigned thugs to witch hunt me and did not inform me that the poster had been
issued and distributed. The question is : What were their intentions?
After the UCOP mob’s ill-minded but unsuccessful provocation to kill me or end my
employment, I experienced terrifying thoughts that never left my mind. I am still terrified to think about
what would have happened to me on May 31, 2012 if the criminally minded UCOP mob’s provocation
had been successful, or what would have happened if I had shown up unexpectedly at UCDMC to meet
my coworker friends for lunch at the Marriott Hotel located on UCDMC premises, directly across from
the HVAC shop, not knowing that a poster had been distributed around campus and that the UC Police
had been instructed to attack me upon my arrival.
Not many assigned by the UCOP mob witch hunters knew at all what the more than one-year-
long witch hunt to destroy me and my normal existence was about. They just followed the orders they
had been given. In 2005–2009 and 2011–2012, the witch hunters, like me, had no clue that this was
about millions of tax-free dollars from a now-frozen in an idling at the house load power sale contract
for the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant commissioned in 1998 by UCOP white collar criminals.
Those assigned to torment me followed the orders to keep their jobs and applied to the witch
hunt a philosophy it is better be a witch hunter than witch hunted. One of them, HR consultant Gina
Harwood, expressed her view about the UCDPD’s “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY”
as follows, in a September 27, 2012 e-mail to her manager, Travis Lindsay:
From: Gina Harwood/HR/HS/UCD

To: Travis Lindsey/HR/HS/UCD@UCDavis
Date: 09/27/201208:56 AM
Subject: Fw: Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw Waszczuk)
Hi There:
This is really out of the norm to post this in the department and I was not
aware that we were going to do this. Did we ask the police to do this? His letter
stated that he would remain on paid leave which implies the same expectations
but I am a little concerned that this is being posted in the department since we have
not done this before on any other violence cases.
Just want to make sure that we sanctioned this before it was posted in the
- 139 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 185
195 of 374
383
department because I suspect we will be getting an email about it soon.

Gina
Gina Harwood, SPHR

Principal Employee and Labor Relations Consultant
UC Davis Health System
Human Resources
Harwood’s manager, Travis Lindsay, responded:

"From: Travis Lindsey/HR/HS/UCD
To: Gina Harwood/HR/HS/UCD@UCDavis
Date: 09/27/2012 09:06 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw Waszczuk)
SENIOR LEADERSHIP ASKED STEVE TO HAVE PD TAKE THIS PRECAUTION.
Travis J. Lindsey, J.D.

Manager, Employee & Labor Relations
Human Resources"
..................................................................................
On 9/27/12 9:18 AM,
From: gina.harwooducdmc.ucdavis.edu
To: "Travis Lindsey"<travis.lindsey(ãucd me. ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Fw: Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw Waszczuk)
wrote:
OK, THANKS FOR THE INFO, WAS JUST CONCERNED BECAUSE WE HA VE NOT
DONE THIS BEFORE.
Gina
09/27/2012 09:37 AM
From: Travis Lindsey/HR/HS/UCD
To: Gina Harwood/HR/HS/UCD@UCDavis
Subject: Re: Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw Waszczuk)
WE'VE NEVER TERMINATED JW EITHER.
- 140 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 186
196 of 374
383
The above e-mail conversation, including Travis Lindsey’s statements, clearly show that he gave
Harwood a clear message to shut up and to make her understand that it was not his or her decision to
distribute the UC Police poster with my photo and description on it. It was also not either of their
decision to terminate me, and bragging about it could cause problems for them.
The e-mail conversation between Lindsey and Harwood also clearly shows that everything was
orchestrated by the UCOP mob to hunt me down and terminate my employment to cover up a secret
regarding millions of dollars' worth of power generation and power sale fraud, which had been going
on since 1999. It ceased in 2008 and resumed again on May 31, 2011 by the PPA between the UCOP
and SMUD.
My department head manager, Charles Witcher, offered an opinion on my persona not grata poster,
which is copied below.
Witcher routinely signed all investigatory leave letters, as well as my suspension letters written
for him by Harwood and other HR Labor Relations staff and my evaluations. He became concerned
about the UC Davis Police poster with my photo and description on it and, on September 27, 2012,
wrote an e-mail to Harwood and Lindsey:
Good Morning
The Bulletin attached below was delivered to FSSB Suite 1500 yesterday
afternoon about 3:00pm by a uniformed officer. Were these Bulletins
delivered to other locations were POM has staff located?
The Letter of Intent to Dismiss, our last communication with Jerry, did
not have any statements requiring Mr. Waszczuk to stay away from the
Sacramento Campus as a requirement of his "paid administrative leave".
Is any additional communication with Jerry required to ensure his
understanding of this requirement?
Thanks, Charles
Charles Witcher, Manager
Plant Operations & Maintenance
After the unsuccessful ill attempt to end my employment at UCDMC, the UCOP mob coordinated a
witch hunt with UC Davis Chancellor Katehi and three UC Davis police officers: Chief of Police
- 141 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 187
197 of 374
383
Annette Spicuzza, Captain Joyce Souza, and Lt. John Pike, in relation to a November 18, 2011 pepper
spray provocation to remove Chancellor Katehi, Chief Spicuzza , Lt. Pike, Captain Souza. On the same
day, September 26, 2012, the UCOP mob ordered UCDPD to distribute the poster with my photo and
description and a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), to resolve the November 18, 2011
pepper spray provocation was entered into between parties and filed in the U.S. District Court Eastern
District of California Case, No. Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB
The action was coordinated among notorious Porter Scott law firm attorneys, based in Sacramento,
CA, which has represented the UCOP mob for decades.
Porter Scott attorneys and shareholders Nancy J. Sheehan and Terence J. Cassidy, (Both
died ) who helped orchestrate the November 18, 2011 pepper spray provocation, represented Katehi,
Spicuzza, and other listed Defendants in U.S. District Court Eastern District of California Case No.
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB they helped to frame on November 18, 2011. They coordinated their
actions pending in U.S District Court with other Porter Scott attorney Michael Pott and former
Porter Scott attorney George Acero (a former UC General Counsel Intern) who at same time
were advising the UCOP thugs from the UC Davis Medical Center HR Department in their
- 142 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 188
198 of 374
383
merciless witch hunt to eradicate me from UC payroll .

Pott and Acero, in year 2005–2007, orchestrated in the Court of Appeal’s Third Appellate
District a phony anti-SLAPP motion appeal (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 (C.C.P § 425.16). It was filed in Yolo County Superior
Court and then denied on November 22, 2005. The denied phony motion found its way to the 3DCA,
and the case became known as Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). Vergos
was used in 2014 by the UC in my Sacramento County Superior Court against my wrongful
termination case against the Regents of the University of California, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479. In 2014 (June 2014–January
2015), the UC Regents were represented by Porter Scott attorney Michael Pott, who in conspiracy
with my drug-addicted and financially broke (now former) attorney Douglas Stein attempted sell
my litigation in December 2014 for $300,000. Pott resigned or was fired from Porter Scott on
January 23, 2015, after I dismissed Stein on December 16, 2014 for stealing my $ 20,000 retainer
money .
Douglas Stein was long time friend with Sacramento Count Superior Court Judge David I Brown
from Law and Motion department 53 .
- 143 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 189
199 of 374
383
In addition, Stein stole my retainer money. He was disbarred in January 2020 for his misconduct
(see https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/131248).
- 144 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 190
200 of 374
383
Porter Scott attorneys and shareholders Sheehan and Cassidy, who helped to orchestrate the November
18, 2011 pepper spray provocation on the UC Davis campus to remove from their posts Chancellor
Katehi, Police Chief Spicuzza, Captain Souza and Lt. Pike, have both since died.
Nancy J. Sheehan, SBN 109419, was an employee at Porter Scott and a Porter Scott
shareholder for 34 years. Sheehan’s name was added in October 23, 2019 to the Sacramento County
Superior Court case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34–
2013–34–00155479, filed on December 4, 2013, pleadings at a time when she was gravely ill with
metastatic breast cancer; she died on November 23, 2019, exactly one month after evil-spirited Porter
Scott added her to the case to represent the UCOP mob. Sheehan probably did not know that she had
been added as an attorney to the case (see
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sacbee/name/nancy-sheehan-obituary?id=2059585).
Terence J. Cassidy died one year later, in October 2021 (see
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sacbee/name/terence-cassidy-obituary?id=30483812).
George Acero resigned from Porter Scott in 2008. He was a former UC General Counsel
and friend of former California Supreme Court Associate Justice Cruz Reynoso, who died in 2021
(see https://www.faithonview.com/cruz-reynoso-an-obituary/) and friend of former California
Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Acero was the founder of the La Raza Lawyers of
Sacramento Association, a Mexican-American nationalist association historically rooted in the
former Aztec Empire. He renamed the La Raza Lawyers of Sacramento the Cruz Reynoso Bar
Association, after former California Supreme Court Justice Reynoso, who died in 2021. Acero and
Porter Scott attorneys Cassidy and Sheehan dragged into their dirty game former Supreme Court
Associate Justice Cruz Reynoso, with whom I exchanged e-mail correspondence a long time ago about
the professionally but ill-orchestrated pepper spray provocation on November 18, 2011 to remove UC
Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, and Lt. John Pike, and
Captain Jennifer Souza from their posts.
- 145 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 191
201 of 374
383
https://ahed.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ahed.assembly.ca.gov/files/hearings/1.%20Reynoso%20Task
%20Force%20Report.pdf
- 146 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 192
202 of 374
383
Justice Cruz Reynoso’s Pepper Spray Task Force report destroyed the lives of many good people,
solved nothing, and further concealed the uncontrolled corruption and racketeering in the UC Office
of the President.
Acero resurfaced briefly in my Sacramento County Superior Court case Jaroslaw Waszczuk
v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34–2013–34–00155479, on August 4, 2021 as
the newly appointed Sacramento County Superior Court case judge appointed by Governor Gavin
Newsom.
- 147 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 193
203 of 374
383
The UCOP mob’s war-like hysteria and propaganda did not end with placing the UCDPD
“Persona Non Grata” poster, complete with my photo and description around the UC Davis main
campus and UC Davis Medical Center.
On September 26, 2012, the UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director Stephen
Chilcott, who communicated directly on the operation with the UCOP, sent an e-mail entitled
“Confidential – Jerry Waszczuk” to HR Labor Relations Department Manager Travis Lindsey to ask
the UC Davis Police department to offer to speak to any of the supervisors or employees of Plant
Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher about safety at work and the relevant
agencies that should be contacted, according to the location they live in, and related to guidance in
terms of safety precautions, etc.
Lindsey was also instructed by Stephen Chilcott to ask for police patrols to start immediately
and to include the Ticon 3 Human Resources Building. He was also instructed to ask UC Davis Police
to continue patrols through 10/31, at which time the patrols would be reassessed.
Further, Lindsey was instructed by Chilcott to ask UC Davis Police what resources the UC
Davis Police Department might need that could be assigned by Chilcott, the Skelly reviewer, and the
UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson from the UC Davis Campus.
Allen Tollefson was a key “actor “ participant in the Court of Appeal’s Third Appellate District
bogus appeal fabricated and orchestrated by Porter Scott attorneys Acero and Pott (motion, pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 (C.C.P § 425.16). known as Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th
1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). It was not able to be used against me in 2007–2009 as the UCOP mob had
anticipated. However, it was used in 2014 when the UC filed on December 1, 2014 an anti-SLAPP
motion against me in my Sacramento County Superior Court wrongful termination case against the
Regents of the University of California, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479.
UC Davis Police Department Lt. James Barbour responded to Lindsey’s request and said he
had assigned Police Officer Thomas McGee to UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Allen
Tollefson’s Office.
- 148 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 194
204 of 374
383
Barbour was reassigned from the UC Davis Campus to the UCDMC, which represented an
enormous demotion and involved a decrease in his salary, after the November 18, 2011 pepper spray
attack against protesting students on the UC Davis Campus. Documents show that Lt. Barbour was
sucked into the action against me by the “UC Davis Death Squad,” not knowing what the case was
about.
Apparently, he was promised that his salary would be restored to its normal level. By reading
the Public Record Acts documents, one can see that Lt. Barbour was assigned to attack me in 2012 by
any means necessary. He was rewarded with a $35,000 pay raise for his dedication to kill me or harm
me .
- 149 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 195
205 of 374
383
I was furious and disbelieved what had actually happened and that I had worked for such a
brutal, unscrupulous entity that violated my civil and human rights, not to mention violating the
February 2009 Settlement Agreement that I had signed with UC Regents in good faith and will.
On September 29, 2012, I cut my photo from the UC Davis Police “Persona Non Grata”
poster and pasted my scanned UC Davis Health System ID with photo on it, showing the title of
Associate Development Engineer, which was given to me by the February 2009 Settlement Agreement
with the Regents. I printed on the ID "UC Davis Most Unwanted." In addition to my ID, I wrote on the
poster in large capital, bolded letters in red ink:
UC DAVIS MOST UNWANTED WITH SPECIAL DEDICATION
- 150 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 196
206 of 374
383
TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA "UPPER CIRCLE" & PRESIDENT MARK YUDOF UC

DAVIS "UPPER CIRCLE, VICE CHANCELLOR RALPH HEXTER UC DAVIS CHIEF
COMPLIANCE OFFICER WENDY DELMENDO
UCDMC PO&M AND INHUMANE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MANAGERS AND STAFF
I also signed and dated on September 29, 2012 the redacted UC Davis Police poster with a blue
marker and sent it together with an open letter to UC Davis' corrupt Chief of Police, Matt Carmichael.
On October 1, 2012, by e-mail, I sent this to all people responsible for this despicable action which had
- 151 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 197
207 of 374
383
resulted in a violation of my employee, civil, and human rights. I also sent it to many other employees,
as information about what the University of California regime was capable of after just beating and
gassing protesters on the campuses, conducting illegal medical experiments causing patients' deaths,
and the unbelievable terror aimed at complaining employees. The new Chief of UC Davis Police
whined that I had altered the witch hunt poster. He did not last long; he resigned shortly thereafter and
moved to Oregon. Undoubtedly, he was a co-conspirator to leave Chief Spicuzza, Captain Souza, and
Lt. Pike unemployed.
On October 1, 2012, UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter (second in
command after Chancellor Linda Katehi at the UC Davis Campus) reacted to my email and questioned
by e-mail the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer, Wendi Delmendo, about the poster and my letter
to the UC Davis Police Chief.
From: Ralph J Hexter

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 6:30 AM
To: Wendi Delmendo
Subject: FW: OPEN LETTER TO UC DAVIS POLICE CHIEF MATT
CARMICHAEL IN RE: UC DAVIS POLICE WARRANT AGAINST WASZCZUK
WENDI, LET'S DISCUSS ALL OF THESE ATTACHMENTS AT OUR MEETING

TODAY
Ralph Hexter
Provost & Executive Vice Chancellor
Distinguished Professor of Classics & Comparative Literature
University of California, Davis
Delmendo, who actively collaborated with the UCOP mob to fire me from my job, became concerned
about Hexter’s e-mail and sent an official e-mail to UCDMC HR Director Stephen Chilcott to prepare
some statements for Hexter about who was responsible for the war-like hysteria and UCDPD “Most
Unwanted Poster.”
From Wendi Delmendo <wjdelmendo@ucdavis.edu>

To Stephen Chilcott <stephen.cbilcottOucclmc.ucdavis.edu>
Date 10/01/2012 08:23 AM
Subject. FW: OPEN LETTER TO UC DAVIS POLICE CHIEF MATT
- 152 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 198
208 of 374
383
CARMICHAEL IN RE: UC DAVIS POLICE WARRANT AGAINST WASZCZUK

Hi Steve,
As you can see the Provost would like to discuss Mr. Waszczuk 's most recent
message with me today. Can you let me know when the violence group at
UGDMC last assessed this matter and the conclusions of that assessment?
Also, can you Rive me some background on the decision to post the flyers
with Mr. Waszczuk 's photo? Who makes these decisions? What are the
criteria that are used? Where are the flyers located? Any other information
that you can provide that you think would he helpful would be appreciated.
I'll he meeting with the Provost at 3 p today.
Thank you, Wendi
UC Davis Health System HR Director Stephen Chilcott, in his response, blamed the leadership
and stated that it was done before for me, something of which I was not aware.
I did not see it when I was asked to come to work on May 31, 2012. Perhaps Chilcott was
making a reference to the June 7, 2012 e-mail UCDPD Sergeant Jenifer Garcia sent to all UC Davis
Police officers with the following information:
Employee Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk "Jerry" dob/5/30/51 is on administrative

leave from the UCD Health System. However, he has continually emailed
several people and has not been cooperative with Chief Operating Officer
Vincent Johnson has signed an undated 626 order it is on the bulletin board in
the set's office. IF WASZCZUK IS CONTACTED ON THE PROPERTY
HE NEEDS TO BE
SERVED WITH THE 626. It's mostly filled out. Just add the date and any
current info you receive. Take a fresh case number MSR.
Please forward any information on "Jerry's to Lt, Barbour. Thanks Jen.
Jennifer Garcia
The UCOP mob’s assigned witch hunters were ready to harm me after the unsuccessful May 31, 2021
efforts to end my employment.
HR Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey blamed the leadership for my termination, and
- 153 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 199
209 of 374
383
Stephen Chilcott blamed the leadership for police actions against me, but they wrote and gave orders
to disoriented UCDMC PO&M Department Manager Charles Witcher to sign every letter placing me
on investigatory leave for more than one year, as well as notices of suspension and termination of my
employment.
They both were blaming the leadership, but they had assigned (together with the Chief
Compliance Officer) their subordinates to conduct false investigations and to fabricate false cause for
termination of my employment, in disregard of my outstanding employee record, in violation of my
civil and human rights, and out of despicable ignorance and in violation of the February 2009
settlement agreement I signed with the Regents of the University of California.
The UC Davis police poster clearly indicates that the UC leadership or UCOP mob or corrupted
regime had clearly instructed UC Davis Police, Stephen Chilcott, and others not to provide me any
information about the distributed poster prohibiting my presence on the premises, with the apparent
hope that I would show up unannounced so that police could shoot me or charge me with trespassing
or fabricate alleged crimes. This would have ended my employment with the university. This was a
conspiracy to harm or kill an unwanted blacklisted employee based on the wrongful assumption that I
knew too much about the UCOP mob’s crimes.
On December 5, 2012, UCDHS Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher
sent to me a Letter of Termination effective December 7, 2012. It was sent via e-mail with the attached
Skelly Reviewer decision dated December 3, 2012.
Dear Jerry:
Attached below is a letter informing you that I am dismissing you from your
position as a Sr. Development Engineer, Plant Operations and
Maintenance at UC Davis Health System effective December 7, 2012.
Skelly Officer’s recommendations dated December 5, 2012 and Proof of
Service are also included. This Letter of Termination and attachments has also
been sent to you in US Mail today.
- 154 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 200
210 of 374
383
Sincerely,
Charles Witcher
- 155 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 201
211 of 374
383
Regardless of Tollefson’s motivation and his orders from the UCOP mob, he grossly violated
the Skelly Law, depriving me the opportunity to find any employment:
In Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 194, the California Supreme Court ruled that:
as part of constitutionally guaranteed due process, public employees are entitled to certain
- 156 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 202
212 of 374
383
procedural safeguards before discipline, which is sufficiently severe to constitute a deprivation of

a liberty or property right is imposed on them. The constitutionally protected liberty interests
requiring Skelly protections arise whenever the allegations against an employee are
sufficiently onerous to seriously impact the employee’s ability to find future work in his/her
chosen career
XXXII.
MOTION TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) TO
REOPEN THE RECORD —RE: JANUARY 5, 2007 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN THE “CALIFORNIA PARTIES,” AUTOMATED
POWER EXCHANGE INC. (APX), AND APX-SPONSORING PARTIES
In June and July 2015, I was preparing my opposition documents to one of the UC regents'
motions in my wrongful termination lawsuit pending in Sacramento County Superior Court, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479.
I carefully reviewed my entire court file and my work history with Destec Energy Inc./Dynegy
Inc. and litigation and court files related to the $240 million fraud that was committed by Destec Energy
Inc. against Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers and tax payers in 1989–1997 (PURPA
violations).
After reviewing all of the documents, I decided to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) in
my wrongful termination case. In addition to the TAC, I decided to file, pursuant to Rule 716 of the
Rules of Practice of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR § 385.716, with FERC a
motion to reopen the record and re-investigate the matter of the January 5, 2007 Settlement Agreement
entered into by and between the “California Parties:” the California Power Exchange (CalPX),
Automated Power Exchange Inc. (APX), and APX-Sponsoring Parties (EXHIBIT #44 on flash drive
and DVD), Dockets No. EL00-95-000 et al. and EL00-98-000 et al. The January 5, 2007 Settlement
Agreement was approved by a Commission order dated March 1, 2017 (EXHIBIT #45 on flash drive
and DVD).
- 157 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 203
213 of 374
383
On March 1, 2007, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted on a Joint Offer of
Settlement and Settlement and Release of Claims Agreement (collectively, “the Settlement”) filed on
January 5, 2007, in the instant proceedings by the parties1 to the settlement. The January 5, 2007,
filing consisted of the previously listed parties.
• The UC Davis Medical Center 27-MW cogeneration facility, owned and operated by the
Regents of the University of California, was excluded from the settlement and liability for
- 158 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 204
214 of 374
383
manipulating the Western electricity markets in any fashion (including, but not limited to,
claims of economic or physical withholding, gaming, fraud or misrepresentation together
with the other sellers, power producers, and ancillary services mentioned and listed
previously, as well as exporting and selling electrical energy unlawfully via CALISO and
Cal-APX in 1999–2003).
The FERC’s March 1, 2007 order approving the settlement did not end the dispute at FERC
about the 2000–2001 California power crisis.
More than eight years later, on December 4, 2015, the California parties, led by Kamala D.
Harris, California Attorney General; the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California;
Pacific Gas and Electric Company; and Southern California Edison Company, requested that FERC
clarify some of its orders related to the 2000–2001 California power crisis, Docket Nos. EL00-95-280,
EL00-95-271, and EL00-95-281.
Following Charles Robinson’s arrival from CAISO to the University of California as the new
general counsel, in January 2007, and the approved settlement by FERC on March 1, 2007, I was
abruptly removed from the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant and reassigned to the UCDMC
HVAC shop as a daytime watchman for the Metasys computer system, which monitored critical alarms
in the UCDMC. I thought I was being retaliated against for helping a coworker with his
whistleblowing retaliation complaint in 2005, which was related to the massive oil discharge to the
Sacramento River for seven years from the defective cooling tower’s 24 gear boxes, which
notoriously leaked oil, causing and safety hazards. My coworker, William Buckans, was inspecting
cooling tower fans and fell on the cement floor because of the oily and slippery surface underneath the
cooling tower. As a result of this accident, Buckans was taken by ambulance to the UCDMC
emergency room with severe back pain. The accident was reported to the Central Plant manager;
however, the accident did not encourage management to take care of oil leaks beneath the cooling
tower, and every day, Central Plant operators and mechanics were risking injury working in that unsafe
environment.
- 159 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 205
215 of 374
383
- 160 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 206
216 of 374
383
Due to FERC’s approval of the January 5, 2007 fraudulent Settlement Agreement between the
California Parties and APX Inc., more than $100 million tax-free dollars from the illegal production
and sale of power by UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration power plant in May 2000-October 2001
disappeared into the pockets of the UCOP white collar criminals and their collaborators in the
sophisticated $40 billion fraud scheme known as the California Energy Crisis.
In 2007, FERC approved a settlement in addition to the UC Regents’ settlement, to hold
harmless two other nonprofit entities, the California PX and CAISO, which made millions at the
expense of the ratepayers and taxpayers because of energy price gouging during the period May
2000–October 2001.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who joined the California Parties in the settlement
and as chief of the Energy Task Force, was perfectly aware of the UCOP mob, CAISO, and CAPX’s
crimes and, instead of enforcing the law, collaborated with them to cover up the millions of dollars that
were stolen from California taxpayers. Lockyer and his successor, Edmund Brown, represented the
California Parties and agreed to the ultimatum given to FERC by APX Inc. (Power Exchange)
Sponsoring Parties. It stated that the settlement would be terminated if the Commission did not approve
it by March 1, 2007; therefore, it requested that the Commission approve the settlement without
modification by that date. The order approved the settlement without modification, subject to the APX-
Sponsoring Parties making a compliance filing, as outlined below. In the proposed settlement, CAL-
PX stated that this was the hold harmless provision from the other settlement that the Commission
approved in the Duke, Dynegy, Williams, Mirant, Reliant, and IDACORP global settlements. Duke,
Dynegy, Williams, Mirant, Reliant, and IDACORP are private corporations, and they paid taxes, even
if they were engaged in the fraudulent operation along with others. By contrast, CAISO and the
University of California are tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, so their unlawful sale and distribution
of power was similar to Al Capone’s tax evasion, because electrical energy is a commodity, just like
alcohol. The APX Inc.-Sponsoring Parties stated that they were agreeable to a hold harmless provision
for the CAISO , CAL-PX, and the UC Regents
Under the pressure of an ultimatum and intimidation, the FERC determined that both CAISO
and CAL-PX had provided the Commission with a compelling justification as to why they, along with
- 161 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 207
217 of 374
383
their officers, directors, employees, and consultants, should be held harmless for the steps taken to
implement the settlement. Further, the parties to the settlement agreed to a hold harmless provision.
Therefore, consistent with Commission precedent, the Commission determined that CAISO, CAL-PX,
and the Regents would be held harmless for actions taken to implement the settlement, and this order
incorporated the “hold harmless” language requested by CAL-PX as set out above. After the settlement
was approved in March 2007, in that same month, FERC’s leadership changed.
FERC’s approval of the settlement on March 1, 2007 gave the green light to the UCOP white
collar criminals and their collaborators to continue violating the University of California’s tax-exempt
status under IRC Section 501 (c)(3) and to commit tax evasion and fraud by illegally producing power.
The UCOP mob viewed my presence in the plant as a threat to their ongoing criminals activities, so
they determined that I had to be fired. This plan did not work as anticipated, so at the end of March
2007, I was witch hunted and abruptly and unlawfully removed from the UCDMC 27-MW
cogeneration plant. Due to the UCOP mob’s criminal activities, the rest of my life, and the lives of my
family, was severely negatively affected. This remains the case today. Many other lives were also
severely negatively affected. Some people paid the ultimate price, including incarceration and death,
because of the UCOP mobsters and their thugs’ uncontrolled and unpunished criminal activities.
In August 2015, I informed the UC Regents’ counsel of record that I intended to file a TAC
in my wrongful termination suit in the Sacramento County Superior Court case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479.
On September 15, 2015, the Regents’ counsel responded to my intention to file a TAC, saying
that, if I would provide them with a copy of the proposed TAC for approval, they would arrange to
prepare the stipulation to get the court's approval of the court agreement to file the TAC.
Furthermore, on September 16, 2015, the Defendants' counsel repeated his offer for a TAC
stipulation via email correspondence dated September 15 and September 16, 2015.
On September 22, 2015, I sent the TAC draft to the Regents’ counsel (EXHIBIT #46 on
flash drive and DVD). This is what this Application for Award for Original Information (IRS
Form 211) is partially based on.
- 162 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 208
218 of 374
383
After the UC Regent lawyers read my almost 300-page-long proposed TAC, which
revealed for first time the UCOP’s unlawful operation of the 27-MW cogeneration power plant
and the merciless witch hunt and termination of my employment in December 2012, following the
attempt to end my life in the UCDMC Trauma Unit morgue, , they filed on September 25, 2015
a Motion for Automatic or Discretionary Stay pursuant to C.C.P. §916(a) to block my TAC before
the Court would even see it, or before my motion leave could be filed and endorsed by the clerk.
On October 13, 2015, I filed my opposition to the UC Regents’ lawyer’s Motion for Automatic
or Discretionary Stay (EXHIBIT #47 on flash drive and DVD), in which one of the exhibits was the
May 29–31, 2012 unlawful PPA between the Regents and SMUD to illegally launder megawatts from
the UCDMC cogeneration plant. The PPA was signed by SMUD on May 31, 2012, the day I escaped
unharmed from the UC Davis Death Squad’s unsuccessful attempt to assassinate me via UC Davis
Police Lt. James Barbour’s actions, for which he would be rewarded with a $35,000 pay raise.
- 163 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 209
219 of 374
383
Two days after I filed my opposition to the Regents’ motion for an automatic stay, the key
witness and perpetrator in the unlawful power generation and sale, UC Davis Chancellor Emeritus
Larry Vanderhoef, was euthanized at the UCDMC, where he had been recovering from a stroke.
Vanderhoef was 74 when he died. I addressed the event in my letter to Vanderhoef’s close friend, U.S.
CONGRESSMAN JOHN GARAMENDI, who eulogized Vanderhoef on the floor of the U.S. House
of Representatives 12 days after his death (see https://www.scribd.com/document/388627104/2016-
LETTER-TO-CONGRESSMANJOHN-GARAMENDI).
- 164 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 210
220 of 374
383
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Brown, who presided over the UC Regents’ Motion
for Automatic Stay, granted the motion to the UC Regents on October 28, 2015, never having seen or
read my proposed (Draft) of the TAC.
This Court action and the presence of Janet Napolitano at UCOP’s

Headquarters in Oakland convinced me that, instead to submit a motion to FERC
to reopen the record and re-investigate the matter of the January 5, 2007 Settlement
Agreement, I should submit an Application for Award for Original Information
(IRS Form 211) to the IRS WBO office to report on the multi-million-dollar tax
evasion and fraud due to the unlawful production and sale of electricity for profit,
in violation of tax-exempt status Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954. I submitted my claim to the WBO in Ogden, Utah on March 23, 2016. It was
docketed at the WBO as Claim No. 2016-007481 (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/476776874/UTC-20160323-IRS-
WHISTLEBLOWER-Claim-No-2016-00748).
XXXIII.
JANET NAPOLITANO’S AS A NEW PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA
In September 2013, former Governor of Arizona (2003–2009) Janet

Napolitano resigned from her post as the U.S. Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and, together with retired FBI Director Robert Swan
Mueller III, arrived in California to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars lost
due to the collapse of Enron in 2001 during the sophisticated 40 billion fraud titled
“California Energy Crisis “ (May 2000-October 2001) UCOP white collar
criminals and their collaborators made a grave mistake in their February 1998 joint
- 165 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 211
221 of 374
383
venture with Enron Corporation Energy Services to launder megawatts from UC

campuses under a direct access services contract . It caused also approximate $
200, 000,000 losses due to inefficient operation of the 27-MW cogeneration power
plant commissioned in 1998 at the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), in
Sacramento, where I was employed as a plant operator from June 1999 through
March 2007 and as an associate development engineer from February 2009
through December 2012 . UCDMC As I stated in one of the previous chapter
Napolitano’s UC presidency was most likely decided in May 2010 gathering in
Washington D.C which included but not limited Napolitano herself California
Assembly Speaker John Perez (today a UC Regent), Xavier Beccera (former
California Attorney General), Monica Lozano (UC Regent, retired in 2017), Hilda
Solis (former California Assemblymember and California Senator).
Napolitano became the new President of the University of California, with headquarters located
in Oakland, CA, a few miles from San Francisco.
- 166 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 212
222 of 374
383
Mueller arrived at Stanford University as a consulting professor and the Frank E. and Arthur
W. Payne Distinguished Lecturer. While at Stanford, he focused on issues related to cybersecurity
(https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/news/former fbi director to bolster security research at stanf
ord 20131105).
Mueller and Napolitano were neither strangers to each other nor strangers to the state of
California prior to September 2013. They both graduated from the University of Virginia School of
Law, founded in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence. In 1976,
Mueller worked for the San Francisco-based Pillsbury and Sutro Law Firm together with former
Associate UC Vice President Judith Boyette, who from 2005–2008 participated in a witch hunt against
me in an attempt to terminate my employment with the university.
At the same time Mueller was working for Pillsbury and Sutro, Napolitano was studying at
Santa Clara University, forty miles south of San Francisco. Both served for four years together as the
top law enforcement officials of President Barack Obama’s administration, from 2009 to 2013.
- 167 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 213
223 of 374
383
Napolitano, as DHS Secretary, had the HIGHEST SECURITY CLEARANCE and access to
all classified information, state or organizational secrets, and to restricted areas. She had no problems
securing for herself the post of President of the University of California or, in different words, hiring
herself as the UC President and convincing others to perpetrate a new tax evasion and fraud scheme to
recover the hundreds of millions tax free dollars lost due the failed UCOP February 1998 joint venture
with Enron Corporation Energy Services to launder megawatts from UC campuses under a direct access
services contract which included UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant where I was employed
and similar plants on the UC Berkeley and UC San Diego campuses,
After Napolitano arrived in September 2013 at the UC Headquarters in Oakland, California, I

sent to her office, in, several letters related to my unlawful employment termination, naively hoping
- 168 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 214
224 of 374
383
that she would order the reinstatement of my employment. Instead, I was almost deported, and would
have been, had I not been careful and vigilant.
- 169 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 215
225 of 374
383
XXXIV.
JANET NAPOLITANO’S AS A PERPETRATOR OF THE NEW TAX EVASION AND
FRAUD- DUE TO VIOLATION BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA TAX EXEMPT
STATUS IRC 501 (C ) (3 ) COMMITTED UNDER THE NAPOLITANO’S SCHEME
TITLED “CARBON NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE IN UC CAMPUSES “
On October 11, 2009, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed California Senate
Bill 695. Under this bill, DIRECT ACCESS TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY WAS REOPENED,
starting in 2010, but only to non-residential customers
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_06510700/sb_695_bill_20091011_chaptered.html
and https://www.electricchoice.com/blog/direct-access-program/).
- 170 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 216
226 of 374
383
These types of customers include: lighting, agriculture, medium and large commercial industrial
sites, and small businesses.
In November 2013 two months after Napolitano arrived in UCOP Headquarters in
Oakland , CA she announced THE CARBON NEUTRALITY INITIATIVE, which commits
the entire University of California to emitting net zero greenhouse gases from its buildings and
vehicle fleet by 2025, something no other major university system has done. In November
2013 Napolitano most likely did not know where the nine UC campuses are located .
On March 24, 2014, six months after Napolitano and Mueller arrived in California, , their
friend , U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag from Northern District of California filed a criminal
complaint in U.S. district court against California Senator Yee, and twenty 25 other people were
rounded up by the FBI alongside him. Yee, who was from the 8th Senatorial District, which
includes San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, served as senator from December 4, 2006–March
28, 2014. As previously noted, from 1998–2001, Haag was Mueller’s assistant in the U.S.
Attorney’s Office in San Francisco, and then, from 2001–2010, a partner at Orrick, Herrington, &
Sutcliffe, LLP, based in San Francisco.
On March 26, 2014, the FBI raided Yee’s office in Sacramento, and he was arrested on charges
related to public corruption and gun trafficking. He was alleged to have bought automatic firearms and
shoulder-launched missiles from the Moro Islamic Liberation organization in the Philippines. Twenty
five other people were rounded also arrested.
XXXV.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGISTRATION WITH

THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES (CPUC) COMMISSION AS AN ELECTRIC
SERVICE PROVIDER (ESP), ESP # 1389
- 171 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 217
227 of 374
383
On March 27, 2014, one day after Senator Leland Yee was arrested by the FBI, the UC
Regents registered themselves with the California Public Utilities Commission as an ELECTRIC
SERVICE PROVIDER (ESP), ESP # 1389, (EXHIBIT #49 on flash drive and DVD) offering new
services to commercial customers. discovered this more than eight years later, on April 29, 2022, by
searching the CPUC website after I filed my Appellant’s Response-Opposition to the Appellee’s,
IRS Commissioner Motion To Dismiss, Filed on March 10, 2022 in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v
- 172 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 218
228 of 374
383
Internal Revenue Service v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Case No. USCA No.
20-1407 (see Exhibit 15).
UC Regents registered themselves with the CPUC as an ESP offering electricity for sale to commercial
customers, they entered into a long-term power purchase agreement with the 60-MW Five Points
Park and 20-MW Giffen Solar Park, both located in Fresno County, CA. They produced a color poster
illustration that featured the Frontier Renewable Solar Company’s logo (https://frontier-
renewables.com/) and the banner “UC Solar Power Initiative” (EXHIBIT #50 on flash drive and
DVD) and provided the following information about the facilities:
- 173 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 219
229 of 374
383
• UC entered into a long-term power purchase agreement with the 60-MW Five Points
Park & 20-MW Giffen Solar Park, both located in Fresno County, CA.
• The projects will generate ~200,000MWh/year, enough power for approximately
30,000 homes.
• The projects will use high-efficiency solar photovoltaic modules mounted onto a single
axis tracking system.
• The projects will supply power to UC Direct Access and WAPA-served campuses.
• COMMERCIAL OPERATION DATE: DECEMBER 2016
• The projects connect directly to the California Independent System Operator
(CAISO)-controlled transmission system.
• UC will manage the power as a registered electric service provider (ESP).
• The UC System will receive all power and environmental benefits, including RPS
Category 1 Renewable Energy Credits (RECs).
The clean power generated will offset approximately 88,000 tons of CO2 annually
XXXVI.
DECEMBER 2014 -THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHTS REGISTRATION PROCESS.
On December 11, 2014, U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner, from the U.S. Attorney’s Office,
Eastern District of California, announced that the UC Regents had agreed to pay to the U.S. DOE and
the National Science Foundation $499,700, due to grant fraud. Due to fraud, these agencies had been
approved for duplicative grant funding that would not otherwise have been awarded. The investigation
of the fraud was conducted by U.S. Attorney Wagner between 2008 and 2014. The UC Regents paid a
token fine for the fraud and six-year-long investigation, which involved both the U.S. Department of
Justice and the FBI.
- 174 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 220
230 of 374
383
- 175 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 221
231 of 374
383
- 176 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 222
232 of 374
383
On December 22, 2014, eleven days after Wagner cut deal with UC President Napolitano and UC
General Counsel Robinson (former CAISO General Counsel and Vice President), CAISO issued
a notification that stated, “The Regents of the University of California successfully completed
the Congestion Revenue Rights registration process.” (EXHIBIT #51 on flash drive and
DVD )
https://www.caiso.com/Documents/NoticeofNewMarketParticipant122214.htm.
- 177 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 223
233 of 374
383
The Congestion Revenue Rights registration with CAISO was needed for Napolitano in addition
to ESP registration with CPUC, to sell surplus power from the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant,
which had been idling at house load since January 2009 and to resell the purchased power from the
solar power plants Napolitano contracted with in 2014. May 31, 2012, the UC Regents signed an
- 178 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 224
234 of 374
383
unlawful Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Sacramento Municipal Utility District to resume
illegal sale of tax-free surplus power worth millions of dollars. From January 2009 through December
2014 the real owners of the UCDMC’s 27-MW did not sell any power lost approximately $25 million
in tax-free profit because I was not killed or deported or thrown in prison , as the UCOP white collar
criminals had anticipated in 2011–2014.
December 2014 became the opportunity for Napolitano’s thugs to fix the problems of Jerry
Waszczuk and the illegal power sale.
My former drugs addicted attorney Douglas Stein and Napolitano and the Regents’ thugs learned in
November 2014 that I planned to go to Poland for Christmas. That is why my attorney stole my retainer
money and cut a deal with Regents’ attorneys to end my litigation in December 2014. I cancelled my
trip, and since then I have never travelled outside the US, for fear that I would be not able to return to
see my wife, children, and grandchildren. In 2015 . Thereafter I never visited my native Country in
fear that I would be placed on no “fly -list “ by UC President Janet Napolitano’s colleagues from U.S
Department of Homeland Security and will be no able to comeback to USA as it happened to YONAS
FIKRE who was placed and maintained on “No Fly List” for more than six years because he refused
to be FBI’s informer . . Fikre v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 904 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2018)
The Congestion Revenue Rights deal between CAISO and UCOP’s white collar criminals in
December 2014 did not work as white collar criminal anticipated because my drug-addicted attorney
over-drafted the Wells Fargo retainer account. The bank called me because my name was attached to
it, and I cancelled my trip to Poland. As mentioned previously, the owners of the UCDMC’s 27-MW
cogeneration plant from January 31, 2009 through December 2014 lost approximately $25 million in
tax-free money due to the lack of surplus power sales because I was not killed, deported, or placed by
Napolitano’s DHS friends on the no-fly list. The unexpected problems infuriated the UCOP’s white
collar criminals and their thugs. Perhaps the UCOP crooks have some other ongoing fraud operation
since 2014 of which I am not aware and thus they needed access to power grid .
XXXVII.
PRIOR TO JANET NAPOLITANO’S MAY 18, 2016 MEETING WITH PRESIDENT
BARACK OBAMA, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN - THE STATE AUDIT
- 179 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 225
235 of 374
383
Shortly after Senator Leland Yee turned himself in to the U.S. Marshal's Service on March 25, 2016 to
serve a 5-year federal prison sentence in Fort Worth, Texas, two of his former colleagues, California
Assemblymembers, Phil Ting from San Francisco and Kevin McCarty from Sacramento, requested a
state audit.
Ting and McCarty’s requested audit had similar merits to Yee’s 2010 audit, which ended Yee’s
crusade against the UCOP mobsters and ended his desire to become mayor of San Francisco and his
flourishing political career. This was all brought on by a 5-year federal imprisonment in Fort Worth,
Texas following a Soviet/Stalinist-style prosecution against him. see :
https://www.scribd.com/document/580562404/2010-2020-Witch-Hunt-Prosecution-and-
Incarcaration-of-the-California-Senator-Leland-Yee
- 180 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 226
236 of 374
383
Senator Yee requested an audit in 2010 that was meant to uncover the extent of the waste,
fraud, and abuse within the UC and finally hold the university executives accountable. He asked the
auditors to focus specifically on the UC Office of the President (UCOP), the head office of the
University of California, and to track where the UC gets its funds and where each dollar goes.
Specifically, the audit was to follow where private funds, state funds, student fees, and federal funds
all ended up. The audit also included a survey of which outside organizations the UC pays monies to
and which funds are used to pay them.
Assemblymember Ting, in 2016, was in a lot better position with his audit aimed at the
UCOP than Yee had been in 2010. Ting, a Chinese-American, was elected to the CA State Assembly
in 2012 representing the 19th Assembly District, which spans the west side of San Francisco and the
communities of Broadmoor, Coloma, Daly City, and South San Francisco. He had been appointed San
Francisco’s Assessor-Recorder in 2005 by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, becoming San Francisco’s
highest-ranking Chinese-American official at the time. He served as Chair of the Assembly Budget
Committee after having served as Chair of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation.
Kevin McCarty was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014 to represent the 7th
Assembly District, which includes Sacramento, West Sacramento, and parts of unincorporated
Sacramento County. He serves as Chair of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance,
which oversees the largest component of California’s multi-billion dollar budget (see
https://a07.asmdc.org/article/biography).
Ting and McCarty, with their professional backgrounds, knew in 2016 exactly what to look for
when requesting the state audit aimed at the UCOP.
XXXVIII.
MARCH 23, 2016 APPLICATION FOR AWARD SUBMITTED TO IRS - SUSPECTED TAX
EVASION AND FRAUD, VIOLATION OF SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE OF 1954 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
On March 23, 2016, almost same time Senator Leland Yee was sent away from California , I
submitted the Application for Award for Original Application, Form 2011, to the IRS Whistleblower
- 181 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 227
237 of 374
383
Office (WBO), in Ogden, Utah. The application included Form 2011, a 45-page letter addendum, and
35 exhibits lodged by the IRS WBO, as Claim No. 2016–00748. The My IRS Application for Award
for Original Application demonstrated millions of dollars of tax evasion and fraud, due to the illegal
production of tax-free power at the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27-MW cogeneration plant,
which the I directly witnessed when he was employed as an operator there . (See Exhibit # 2)
https://www.scribd.com/document/476776874/UTC-20160323-IRS-WHISTLEBLOWER-Claim-No-
2016-00748
- 182 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 228
238 of 374
383
XXXIX.
MARCH 23, 2016, COMPLAINT TO THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE (CCJP),AGAINST SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT JUDGE SHELLEYANNE W.L CHANG
On March 23, 2016, I submitted a complaint to the California Commission on Judicial

Performance (CCJP),against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Sheleyane Chang, a copy of
which was submitted to the IRS WBO with the Petitioner’s March 23, 2016 Application for Award
for Original Application.
After graduating from law school, Chang joined the Office of the Chief Counsel for the IRS, where she
initially served as a trial attorney, before being named a senior trial attorney. During her time there,
Chang represented the IRS in civil and criminal tax cases. She also served as a special assistant U.S.
Attorney, representing the IRS in federal bankruptcy court. In 1993, Chang joined the California
Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, where she served as a deputy attorney general
for the next six years. In 1999, she became the senior deputy legal affairs secretary for then-governor
Gray Davis. During her three-year tenure there, she was promoted to chief deputy legal affairs secretary
to the governor. In that position, she advised state officers and government agencies on matters of
litigation and legislation involving government ethics and other legal matters. She served in that
capacity at the time of her appointment to the Superior Court in 2003.
XL.
MARCH 22, 2016, COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
On March 22, 2016, the I submitted a complaint to the State Bar of California, Office of the Chief
Trail Counsel, in Los Angeles, against the following twenty-three witch hunters and human rights
violators, most of were the witch hunters and thugs assigned by the University of California
Office of California (UCOP) mobster to destroy me in two separate witch hunts of 2005-2008 and
2011-2012 EXHIBIT #52 on flash drive and DVD )
- 183 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 229
239 of 374
383
• Charles Furlonge Robinson, SBN #113197

• Steven Arnold Drown, SBN #119689
• Karen Jensen Petrulakis, SBN #168732
• Margaret Louisa Wu, SBN #184167
• Cynthia Ann Vroom, SBN #139470
• John Allen Lohse, SBN #195278
• Stephen Edward Chilcott, SBN #196905
• Daniel Morris Dooley, SBN #70674
• Danesha Nicole Nichols, SBN #2227784
• Brent John Seifert, SBN #249305
• David Mark Levine, SBN #251523
• Anna Orlowski, SBN #155577
• Travis James Lindsey, SBN #220935
• Wendi J. Delmendo, SBN #177389
• Mia Belk, SBN #216890
• Marilyn Elizabeth Tays, SBN #158370
• Michael Allen, SBN #86871
• Darrel Steinberg, SBN #114588

• Michael William Pott – SBN #186156
• Ismael A. Castro – SBN #85452
• Ashante L. Norton – SBN #203836
• Jacob Adam Applesmith – SBN #135850
• Jill Noel Vandeviver – SBN #227901
The above listed witch hunters and violators of my civil and human rights were licensed by State Bar
of California. They had titles including but not limited to: Regents of the UC, general counsels,
executive directors, presidents and senior vice presidents, chief compliance officers, principal
investigators, chief executive officers (CEOs), supervising deputy attorney generals, administrative law
judges, CUIAB members, human resource (HR) managers and supervisors, etc. Through their
despicable conspiracy and their disregard for rules, policies, and laws, they hunted me down and others
and attempted to kill me on May 31, 2012 in ill orchestrated but unsuccessful provocation.
- 184 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 230
240 of 374
383
XLI.
APRIL 1, 2016 UC SAN DIEGO STUDENT NEWSPAPER THE GUARDIAN
ARTICLE “ SHAME ON JANET NAPOLITANO FOR RIGGING THE A.S ELECTION”
https://ucsdguardian.org/2016/04/01/shame-on-janet-napolitano-for-rigging-the-a-s-elections/
- 185 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 231
241 of 374
383
“From administration's hushed installation of spyware on UC student and faculty

devices earlier this year to the distinctly unpredictable A.S. campaign unfolding before
us, it's clear that something is up. This something - the UCSD Guardian Editorial
Board confidently believes - has a name. It's Janet Napolitano.
If you recall, Napolitano and the University of California Office of the President
installed - with taxpayer dollars - spyware systems across the UC system in an
attempt to prevent breaches that happened at UCLA and at UC Berkeley. This gives them
unfettered access to the searches of students and professors alike, certainly including
search histories. It is with this data that Napolitano was able to hack into the Amazon
wish lists of the candidates for UCSD's A.S. elections, purchase every single luxurious,
dreamy product - new editions of textbooks and Student Loan Coupons, to name a couple
- and bribe candidates with the contents of their lists, in exchange for a dropout from the
race.” (See https://ucsdguardian.org/2016/04/01/shame-on-janet-napolitano-for-rigging-
the-a-s-elections/).
XLII.
APRIL 11, 2016, INQUIRY WITH U.S. ATTORNEY BENJAMIN B. WAGNER,
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Following my complaint to the IRS, the State Bar of California, and the State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance in April 2016, I submitted an inquiry to the outgoing U.S.
Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner, in hopes that he would bring criminal charges against the UC
Regents due to the multimillion-dollar federal tax fraud relating to the unlawful generation and
power sale from 1999–2013 by the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration power plant and for the
destruction of my and my family's lives and gross violations of my civil and human rights
On April 20, 2016, nine days after I sent my inquiry to Wagner, he resigned effective
April 30, 2016 and was replaced by Philip Talbert, from Davis, California. Talbert became a U.S.
Attorney without a presidential appointment; then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch appointed
- 186 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 232
242 of 374
383
Talbert the new Attorney of the Eastern District of California until President Obama could appoint
a new U.S. Attorney (see
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/united-states-attorney-wagner-announces-his-resignation). Prior
to 2016, I did not know that, from 2009–2014, Wagner had handled a fraud case against my employer,
UC Davis.
In 2014, Wagner announced that the UC Regents had agreed to pay the United States $499,700
to resolve grants fraud committed against Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science
Foundation (NSF).
- 187 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 233
243 of 374
383
The UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant remains under the DOE Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (FERC) jurisdiction, as are all power plants and cogeneration plants in the U.S.
XLIII.
APRIL 14, 2016 LETTER FROM U.S, SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Diane Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, was a UC Regent appointed by Governor
Gray Davis in 2007. He was the one who, in December 2006, ordered the UCOP thugs to hunt me
down and, in March 2007, unsuccessfully attempted to terminate my employment. I was abruptly
removed from the 27-MW cogeneration plant while recovering from open heart surgery. The plant
- 188 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 234
244 of 374
383
was the subject of my March 23, 2016 and August 3, 2018 Application for Award for Original
Information (IRS Form 211) and is still pending as a botched appeal in the United States Court of
Appeal for the District of Columbia as Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner, USCA No.
20-1407.
XLIV.
WITCH HUNT AIMED AT UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR LINDA KATEHI AND JANET
NAPOLITANO’S APRIL 27, 2016 LETTER PLACING KATEHI ON 90 DAYS’
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
After Senator Yee was witch hunted, prosecuted, and sentenced to five years in federal prison on
February 24, 2016, Janet Napolitano orchestrated a bogus witch hunt against UC Davis Chancellor
Linda Katehi to divert attention from Yee’s prosecution. She called on the UCOP mobsters together
with her friends, FBI Director Robert Mueller and U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag (2010–2016). This
happened after an unsuccessful attempt to kill or harm Yee in the deadly September 9, 2010 natural
gas pipeline explosion in Yee’s district, San Bruno’s older Crestmoor neighborhood, which killed eight
people, injured 58, and damaged 108 homes, 38 of which were completely destroyed.
Yee commuted daily from his office at the State Capitol in Sacramento to meet his constituents at
daytime and evening meetings around San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. In 2010, Yee spent
$5,314.66 on gas commuting to his district from the State Capitol in Sacramento. He was not in San
Bruno on the day of the explosion.
FBI Director Mueller never ordered an investigation to find out whether the San Bruno explosion
was an act of terrorism. After the explosion, he ordered his subordinates from San Francisco to frame
and entrap Yee, removing him from the political landscape and preventing his desire to become mayor
of San Francisco.
Napolitano, in her April 27, 2016 letter to Linda Katehi, stated:
Dear Linda,
I am writing to inform you that I am placing you on paid administrative leave,

effective immediately. This leave will be for a period of 90 days, unless
otherwise extended upon approval by The Regents.
- 189 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 235
245 of 374
383
An independent investigator will be appointed to review allegations

concerning whether there have been serious violations of University
policy. The investigation will be completed as expeditiously as possible, but
before the fall of the 2016-17 academic year. While I previously have shared
with you the issues that underlie this investigation in our meeting on April 25,
2016, I want to again reiterate what those matters entail.
- 190 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 236
246 of 374
383
- 191 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 237
247 of 374
383
On April 28, 2016, California legislators—four Assemblymen, Luis Alejo, Lorena Gonzales,
Mike Gato, and Freddie Rodriguez; and one State Senator, Joel Anderson—fell for Napolitano’s hoax
and sent a letter on April 28, 2016 to Napolitano demanding that Katehi resign.
- 192 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 238
248 of 374
383
In April 2016, I still viewed Katehi as my adversary. On her watch as Chancellor, my

employment with UCDMC was terminated on December 7, 2012, after two separate and merciless
witch hunts, in 2005–2008 and 2011–2012. After taking a closer look at what happened to Senator
Yee and what was happening to Chancellor Katehi, the scenario of the witch hunts aimed at them
were not much different than what I had been experiencing, which included an unsuccessful attempt
to provoke me and kill me on May 31, 2012 and thereafter to portray me, with a distributed poster,
like a most wanted terrorist.
What caught my attention about the five legislators’ demands to fire Katehi was her decision
to pad her $424,360 taxpayer-funded UC salary with outside activities by serving on the boards of
directors of both DeVry University and textbook publisher John Wiley and Sons.
In my March 24, 2016 letter titled Re: UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and Widespread
Corruption in the University of California UC System,- Open Letter To State Of California Assembly
Members Louis Alejo, Kevin McCarty, Lorena Gonzales And Jim Cooper (EXHIBIT #55 on flash
drive and DVD), I pointed out to the five listed Assembly Members that UC General Counsel Charles
Robinson was padding his $400,000 taxpayer-funded UC salary with outside activities as in the same
way Katehi had. In addition to his position as UC General Counsel, Robinson has also served since
2011 on the Board of Directors at PJM Interconnection.
XLV.
PRIOR TO JANET NAPOLITANO’S MAY 18, 2016 MEETING WITH PRESIDENT
BARACK OBAMA, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN- MARCH 30, 2016 LETTER FROM
FBI’S SACRAMENTO FIELD OFFICE
On April 30, 2016, an FBI agent called me at my residence, and I briefed him for roughly 15 to 30
minutes about the tax evasion the UCOP mob had committed due the unlawful production and sale of
power by the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant
- 193 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 239
249 of 374
383
- 194 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 240
250 of 374
383
XLVI.
JANET NAPOLITANO’S HENCHMEN MELINDA HAAG AND MCGREGOR SCOTT
In the April 27, 2016 witch hunt letter placing UC Davis Chancellor Katehi on leave,
Napolitano stated that an independent investigator would be appointed to review allegations
concerning whether there had been serious violations of University policy. It happened that
Napolitano hired two friends, former U.S. prosecutors Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, employed
by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP of San Francisco, California, the same firm that orchestrated
the bogus case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Mandy Mobley Li
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 20-1245, and Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of
Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) to dismiss my tax evasion and fraud
whistleblower case appeal, Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v Internal Revenue Service v.
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Case No. USCA No. 20-1407.
Haag resigned from her post in September 2015, vanished for seven months, and then
resurfaced again in March 2016 as a partner at Orrick, where she had worked previously, prior to her
appointment by President Obama to the San Francisco U.S. Attorney’s Office in August 2010 (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda Haag). In August 2010, Haag was appointed to the Northern
District of California U.S. Attorney's Office by President Barack Obama and unanimously confirmed
without debate by the United States Senate. Her appointment marked the first time in 90 years that a
female U.S. Attorney represented the district. She served in that position for five years, stepping down
in September 2015.
On January 13, 2016, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe announced that Haag would be rejoining
the firm as head of its Global Litigation Practice beginning March 1, 2016. The question is, where was
Haag and what she was doing between September 2015 and March 2016, before she and Scott were
hired by Napolitano to oust Katehi?
Napolitano’s other friend, former U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott from the Eastern District of
California and another Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe employee, surfaced to join Haag in hunting down
Katehi in 2016.
- 195 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 241
251 of 374
383
Scott, the current U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, earned his fame through
the 2005 prosecution of alleged Pakistani terrorist Hamid Hayat, an ice cream truck driver and cherry
picker from Lodi, California, where I have resided since 1989.
Napolitano before she hired Haag and Scott to carry out the witch hunt against Katehi , she
enlisted two Sacramento Bee reporters, Diana Lambert and Sam Stanton, to publish articles smearing
- 196 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 242
252 of 374
383
Katehi. Katehi’s joining the board of the for-profit education group and textbook publisher DeVry,
which allegedly violated university policies, served to ignite the flames of distraction and
disorientation. Several California legislators swallowed the bait. The smear attacks against the
chancellor escalated to the point that students protesting against the chancellor occupied the UC Davis
Mark Hall ( Chancellor Headquarter) demanding her resignation. One state lawmaker, apparently
alluding to the prosecution of Senator Leland Yee, told reporters that if he had done what Chancellor
Katehi had done, he would have ended up in federal prison.
UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi. Katehi had been unpopular with students, the press, and
California legislators since a November 18, 2011 pepper spray attack against student protestors, an
incident on the UC campus that had been nationally publicized in mass media and social media.
The controversy over Chancellor Linda Katehi and the employment of family members at UC
Davis presented a perfect opportunity to use the media to distract the public from the role of UC’s
white-collar criminals in the prosecution of Leland Yee.
When Linda Katehi came to UC Davis in 2009, Senator Leland Yee opposed her appointment
and called for her contract to be rescinded. Just before coming to the university, Katehi had been
involved in a big scandal at her previous job, a scandal dubbed the “University of Illinois clout scandal.”
Although she was never charged, questions persisted about her possible involvement. Katehi had
served as provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs at Illinois and had overseen the admissions
office during much of the period relevant to the investigation of the clout scandal. But only indirect
evidence came to light of her own involvement in improper student admissions.
After the November 18, 2011 pepper spraying of student protestors, Senator Yee called for
Katehi’s resignation. He also called on UC President Mark Yudof to launch an independent probe of
the incident: “Chancellor Katehi’s task force is a sham with the fox guarding the hen house. Only a
truly independent investigation—absent the influence of her office or the police department—is in
order. Students and taxpayers deserve to know what she knew and when, and what direction she gave
to campus police. Waiting 30 days, as Katehi suggests, is unacceptable. The evidence is clear and we
need to hold individuals accountable.”
- 197 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 243
253 of 374
383
Although the controversy surrounding UC Chancellor Linda Katehi was used to divert the
attention of the public attention and the legislative colleagues of Leland Yee from his prosecution, it
has been suggested that Katehi could be partially blamed herself for the FBI sting operation against
Senator Yee and for his subsequent prosecution. In 2010, she had been appointed to the National
Security Higher Education Advisory Board, which promotes discussion and outreach between research
universities and the FBI.
To legitimize the witch hunt aimed at Senator Leland Yee , the other 26 people were rounded per
order of the Haag’s former boss and friend , FBI Director Robert Mueller and prosecuted by Haag .
The 26 people, mostly Chinese immigrants or U.S. citizens of Chinese descent without previous any
law violations or criminal convictions, including popular California legislator, Senator Yee. These
people were rounded up by the FBI and prosecuted, like people in the Soviet Union during Stalin's
era or like Jews in Nazi’s -occupied Europe.
Incarcaration-of-the-California-Senator-Leland-Yee
The FBI and the UCOP gang, backed by the U.S. Attorney Office with Haag in charge could not
label Senator Yee as a Nazi, a fascist, a KKK sympathizer, Islamophobic, a Jew hater, etc., because
he is a Chinese-born naturalized U.S. citizen. Senator Yee was attached to other people of Chinese
descent, most of them without criminal history or law violations, to make him looks and others like a
Chinese gangster from the movie about San Francisco's Chinatown.
https://www.scribd.com/document/488141900/Motion-for-Compassionate-Release-Raymond-
Chow-Prosecution-and-Sentence-of-Life-in-Prison
- 198 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 244
254 of 374
383
https://www.scribd.com/document/488141900/Motion-for-Compassionate-Release-Raymond-Chow-
Prosecution-and-Sentence-of-Life-in-Prison
- 199 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 245
255 of 374
383
XLVII.
MAY 9, 2016 LETTER FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
On May 9, 2016, I received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector
General Investigations Division advising me to send my inquiries about the UCOP’s tax evasion and
fraud to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office.
- 200 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 246
256 of 374
383
I was curious why I directed to Los Angeles, not Sacramento, because I live only 40 miles from
Sacramento and had already spoken with someone on April 30 2016 who introduced himself as an FBI
agent from the Sacramento FB Field Office. Per the DOJ IG office, I resent my inquiry to the Los
Angeles FBI Field Office on May 19, 2016. I received no reply.
- 201 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 247
257 of 374
383
On May 13, 2016, I sent a follow-up letter to U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert of the Eastern
District of California regarding Haag’s assignment as an independent investigator to witch hunt
Chancellor Katehi. The letter was titled “Re: Assignment of the Former U.S Attorney for Northern
District of California Malinda Haag by the University of California President Janet Napolitano to
Investigate UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi in Relation to My April 11, 2016 Request To Bring
Criminal Charges Against The Regents of The University Of California Due To Multimillion
Dollar Federal Tax Fraud and Violation of My Civil and Human Rights” (see EXHIBIT #57 on
flash drive and DVD). In June 2016, I received a general, meaningless response from the U.S.
Attorney’s office.
- 202 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 248
258 of 374
383
XLVIII.
A CLOSER LOOK AT JANET NAPOLITANO'S MAY 18, 2016 MEETING IN
WASHINGTON, D.C. WITH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, VICE PRESIDENT JOE
BIDEN, AND THE CABINET SECRETARIES FOR ENERGY, EDUCATION, AND
AGRICULTURE
In May 2016, UC President Napolitano traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with President
Obama and Vice President Biden and the cabinet secretaries for energy, education, and agriculture. A
UC Newsroom article dated May 19, 2016 shows a photo of Napolitano meeting VP Biden in his West
Wing office on May 18, 2016 (see EXHIBIT #57 on flash drive and DVD).
- 203 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 249
259 of 374
383
https://www.scribd.com/document/476775292/UTC-20160518-UC-President-Janet-
Napolitano-Meets-President-Obama-Vice-President-Biden-BIDEN).
In meeting with Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, Napolitano said
UC supports the Department of Energy's Mission Innovation
http://mission-innovation.net/ efforts, aimed at combating global
climate change and spurring innovations in clean energy.
As part of UC's Carbon Neutrality Initiative
http://www.ucop.edu/initiatives/Carbon-neutrality-initiative.html , for
example, researchers from all 10 campuses have come together to
develop scalable solutions http://uc-
carbonneutralitysummit2Ol5.ucsd.edu/ fllesf Bending-the-Curve.pdf.
The university is also the sole institutional member of the Breakthrough
Energy Coalition [http:f/universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-
only-university-join-coalition-led-bill-gates-invest-climate-solutions] ,
a consortium that aims to expand the pipeline of clean energy solutions
through targeted investments in research and technology. As part of its
participation, UC has committed $1 billion of its investment capital to
early-stage and scale-up investments in clean energy innovation over
the next five years.
In my March 23, 2016 WBO Claim No. 2016-007481 and August 3, 2018 No. 2018-012118,
I basically focused on the unlawful production and sale of power since 1998 from the UCDMC’s 27-
MW cogeneration plant, which was in violation of the UC’s tax-exempt status under IRC Section 501
(c)(3), in addition to a violation of Federal Energy Commission Regulatory Commission (FERC)
regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 292.20, Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a), California Public Utilities
Code Section 218.5, State of California Unfair Business Competition law, and Business and
Professions Code § 17200 & California Commodity Law of 1990 (Corp. Code, § 29500 et seq., “CCL”)
and 7 U.S. Code § 6 (b).
What I did not know in March 2016 and August 2018, when I was submitting my Application
for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) on March 23, 2016 and August 3, 2018, and until
I discovered it in April 2022, was that on March 27, 2014, one day after Senator Yee was arrested by
the FBI, the UC Regents registered themselves with the California Public Utilities Commission as an
- 204 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 250
260 of 374
383
ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDER (ESP), ESP # 1389, (Exhibit #49), offering new services to
commercial customers. I discovered this more than eight years later, on April 29, 2022, by searching
the CPUC website after I filed my Appellant’s Response-Opposition to the Appellee’s, IRS
Commissioner Motion To Dismiss, filed on March 10, 2022 in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v
Internal Revenue Service v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Case No. USCA No.
20-1407 (see Exhibit 15).
Once the Napolitano registered UC Regents with the CPUC as an ESP, they entered into a
long-term power purchase agreement with the 60-MW Five Points Park and 20-MW Giffen Solar
Park, both located in Fresno County, CA.
Napolitano made an emergency trip to Washington, D.C. in May 2016 to meet President Obama
and Vice President Biden, but had a different purpose than to talk about her UC Carbon Neutrality
Initiative. Let’s find out what Napolitano had in her mind, in in light of her May 18, 2016 meeting
with Obama, Biden and Secretary of Energy Moniz, and in light of her abuse of power and her crimes
as the self-appointed President of the University of California
XLIX.
MAY 24, 2016 LETTER FORM U.S SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
I received the following response from U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein regarding my concerns
about actions taken by Janet Napolitano against Chancellor Linda Katehi.
- 205 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 251
261 of 374
383
- 206 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 252
262 of 374
383
L.
MAY 31, 2016 LETTER FROM IRS WHISTLEBLOWER OFFICE , OGDEN

UTAH .
On May 31, 2016, I received a response from the IRS WBO regarding additional information
for my March 23, 2016 Claim No. 2016-007481, which I sent to the WBO on May 19, 2016, not May
9, 2016 as stated in the letter (EXHIBIT #58 on flash drive and DVD):
- 207 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 253
263 of 374
383
LI.
WHISTLEBLOWER LAWYERS BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN
At the end of May 2016, I hired an experienced attorney, Mark Schlein, from the prestigious
California consumer law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, based in Los Angeles, to legally
represent me with the WBO and in U.S. Tax Court in my whistleblower case about tens of millions of
dollars of tax evasion and fraud. Baum, Hedlund, Aristoi & Goldman assigned Schlein, an out-of-
state attorney from Florida. Schlein was a former lieutenant colonel and the director of the
Department of Law Enforcement (see https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/attorneys/mark-h-schlein/).
Shortly after I retained Schlein, Napolitano used her connections in the Obama
Administration to enable former UC Executive Associate Vice President Judith Boyette to be
- 208 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 254
264 of 374
383
appointed by the Secretary of Treasury to a three-year term on the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax
Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE).
This made it possible to delete my tax evasion and fraud claims submitted to the WBO.
Between 2005 and 2008, Boyette participated in an unsuccessful witch hunt to terminate my
- 209 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 255
265 of 374
383
employment with the university and eradicate me from the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration power
plant, where I had worked since June 1999 as an operator.
LII.
WITCH HUNTERS” INDEPENDENT REVIEW” OF ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO
CHANCELLOR LINDA KATEHI (AUGUST 1, 2016)
Napolitano’s $ 1,000,000 witch hunt hoax aimed at UC Davis Chancellor Katehi lasted for four
months, from March–August 2016, and was carried out by two of her friends, Melinda Haag and
McGregor Scott former District US Attorneys employed by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP,
based in San Francisco, CA. Colleagues of theirs Mark Loeb and Robert Ranvir Sing Manhas
employed in Orrick’s Washington DC office interfered in my tax evasion and fraud whistleblower
case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner, USCA No. 20-1407, which is pending in the
D.C. Circuit, by producing false court precedents to dismiss my appeal using a completely unrelated to
my case divorce case that was supposedly a whistleblower case, Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of
Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022). On August 1, 2016, Haag and Scott issued a report
for which Napolitano paid them $1 million. Napolitano used it as justification to force Katehi to resign
from her post as UC Davis Chancellorsee https://www.davisenterprise.com/files/2016/08/Independent-
Review-of-Allegations-Related-to-Chancellor-Katehi-REDACTED-FOR-CPRA-RELEASE-4838-.pdf).
- 210 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 256
266 of 374
383
Napolitano forced Katehi to resign from her post nine days later, on August 9, 2016 Katehi
most likely did not know the reason why she had become the subject of two separate witch hunts,
in 2011–2012 and 2016. Katehi denied any wrongdoing in her August 9, 2016 resignation letter.
- 211 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 257
267 of 374
383
After Chancellor Katehi’s forced resignation, I commented on one of Davis Enterprise

newspaper reporter Tania Perez’s articles, as follows:
- 212 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 258
268 of 374
383
In 2016, I prayed for Chancellor Katehi and her family, especially after discovering that she,
herself, had served as a board member of the Saudi Arabian University of King Abdulaziz, in
Jeddah. Fifteen of the 19 participants in the September 11 terrorist attacks were from Saudi
Arabia. I thought that Haag and Scott, who were paid $1 million by Napolitano, would make
Katehi an enemy combatant and that Napolitano would send Katehi to Guantanamo Bay. A
million dollars is a lot of money to spend for a three-month-long witch hunt, especially since I
know what McGregor Scott did to Lodi resident Hamid Hayat, Melinda Haag, and Senator Leland
Yee. I lost approximately $1 million in wages and benefits being witch hunted for seven years and
terminated at age of 61 in 2012 by the UCOP mob. I know what $1 million can do if you have it
and what it can do if you don’t have it.
LIII.
UC DAVIS ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CONTRACTING SERVICES DEBORAH
FRAGA-DECKER
- 213 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 259
269 of 374
383
On August 2, 2016 , one day after Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott issued their pseudo
investigative report to legitimize Janet Napolitano’s witch hunt aimed at UC Davis Chancellor
Linda Katehi, I sent the following e-mail to former UC Davis Associate Director of Contracting
Deborah Fraga-Decker:
From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk [mailto:laborchat@icloud.com]

Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 2:15 AM
To: 'deborah.fraga-decker@osi.ca.gov' <deborah.fraga-decker@osi.ca.gov>
Cc: 'ellen.ishimoto@state.ca.gov' <ellen.ishimoto@state.ca.gov>; 'richard.rogers@state.ca.gov'
<richard.rogers@state.ca.gov>; 'kevin.piombo@state.ca.gov' <kevin.piombo@state.ca.gov>;
'barabra.garrett@state.ca.gov' <barabra.garrett@state.ca.gov>; 'jerry.brown@gov.ca.gov'
<jerry.brown@gov.ca.gov>
Subject: UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR LINDA KATEHI -CONTRACTS
Dear Ms. Fraga-Decker:
Attached are copies of the two contracts that you have signed. One is the illegal
power sale contract with SMUD, which almost got me killed on May 31, 2012 at
the hands of the crooked UC Davis cop Lt. Barbour. Thereafter, I was fired and my
life was completely devastated.
The second contract you signed is the January 30, 2013 agreement with Nevins &
Associates, which is related to the psychological terror aimed at the framed
Chancellor Katehi and her family in a copycat scenario to the way in which I was
terrorized.
I am not accusing you of anything, but I am letting you know that your signature
on the May 29, 2012 illegal contract with SMUD caused a lot of suffering for many
UC Davis Medical Center employees, apart from the tax fraud related to the illegal
power sale. I will find out sooner or later who advised you to sign the illegal power
contract with SMUD. I am guessing that it was Steven Drown or Charles Robinson.
The UC President and UC Regents were well informed what is going on; however,
they condoned this white collar crime, and now Ms. Napolitano and the Regents
are looking for a scapegoat.
Regards,
Jerry Waszczuk
- 214 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 260
270 of 374
383
Deborah Fraga-Decker was listed in the Haag and Scott report titled “Independent Review
Independent Review of Allegations Related to Chancellor Linda Katehi (August, 2016)”
on Page 12 as one of the seven witnesses who were contacted but declined interviews or never
responded to the inquiries.
I received an automatic reply from Deborah Fraga-Decker:
From: Fraga-Decker, Deborah@OSI [mailto:Deborah.Fraga-Decker@osi.ca.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 2:15 AM
To: Jaroslaw Waszczuk <laborchat@icloud.com>
Subject: Automatic reply: UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR LINDA KATEHI -CONTRACTS
Effective October 2, 2015, I am no longer employed by the State of California. If you need to reach
me personally, please send an email to dfragadecker@gmail.com. Thank you.
I forwarded my e-mail on the same day to Orrick attorney McGregor Scott, the author of the
report.
- 215 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 261
271 of 374
383
From: Scott McGregorW .mcgregor.scott@orrick.com

Sent: Tuesday August 2, 2016 12:11 PM
To: Jaroslaw Waszczuk jjw1980@live.com
Subject: Automatic reply: UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR LINDA KATEHI- CONTRACTS -

TAX FRAUD
PLEASE READ: I will be out of the office on work-related travel Monday, August 1 through
Wednesday, August 3 and will be back in the office the afternoon of August 3. I may be delayed
in responding to you.
If your matter is urgent and requires immediate attention, please contact Catherine Ferrannini at
cferrannini@orrick.com or 916-329-7987.
Thank you.
- 216 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 262
272 of 374
383
- 217 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 263
273 of 374
383
- 218 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 264
274 of 374
383
LIV.
AUGUST 10, 2016 CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
COMMITTEE HEARING REQUESTING AN AUDIT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNCTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
(UCOP) BY ASSEMBLYMEMBERS TING AND MCCARTY
On August 10, 2016, one day after Chancellor Katehi was forced to resign, the 2016-130
state audit of the administrative functions of the University of California Office of the President
(UCOP) was approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee hearing presided over by Chair
Freddie Rodriguez.
- 219 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 265
275 of 374
383
It was no coincidence that the hearing for the 2016-130 audit was scheduled the day after Katehi
became UC Davis Chancellor Emerita, at a cost of $1 million, paid by Napolitano to Haag and Scott.
The Chairman of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee for the August 8, 2016 state audits hearing,
including audit 2016-130, was Freddie Rodriguez, one of the five California lawmakers who, in
March and April 2016, demanded Katehi’s resignation. They were also the authors of the April 28,
2016 letter sent to the UC Regents and Napolitano regarding this matter. This happened after Leland
Yee was prosecuted and sentenced to five years in federal prison on February 24 , 2016.
LV.
2016-SPECIAL EVENTS AT THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ANNUAL
MEETING
After Senator Yee and UC Davis Chancellor Katehi were taken care of and neutralized by witch hunts,
Napolitano, at the end of September 2016, traveled to San Diego to meet California Supreme Chief
Justice Cantil-Sakauye and her friend, State Bar of California Director and CEO Elizabeth Rindskopf
Parker, who was a former General Counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National
Security Agency (NSA) and a former principal deputy legal adviser at the U.S. Department of State.
- 220 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 266
276 of 374
383
In August 2016, my complaint against 23 attorneys, which I had submitted to the State Bar in
March 2016 for participating in witch hunt against me and others, was swept under the carpet by State
Bar CEO Elizabeth Parker, Case No. 16-15525, Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim, and State Bar of
California Reviewers attorneys Peter Eng and Carissa Andersen.
State Bar of California Executive Director Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, on August 26, 2016,
reacted to the inquiry I sent to the California Chief Justice on August 21, 2016. The inquiry was a about
the disappearance of my complaint to the California State Bar, which I submitted in January 2015
against my then-attorney Douglas Stein, who stole my $20,000 retainer and attempted to sell my case
for $300,000 to my adversaries in 2014. My complaint disappeared together with California State Bar
investigator Amanda Gormley, who was handling the complaint. She had informed me via e-mail on
September 25, 2015 that, by October 9, 2015, my complaint against Douglas Stein would be submitted
to the California State Bar prosecutor.
After the September 2016 San Diego meeting with Rindskopf Parker and the California
Supreme Court Chief Justice, Napolitano campaigned in her home state of Arizona for Hillary Rodham
Clinton, in 2016.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are
absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or
intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any
candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or
public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization
in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the
prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may
result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain
excise taxes.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would
favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of
favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention
LVI.
NOVEMBER 8, 2016, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DAY
On November 8, 2016, Donald Trump and Mike Pence defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton and
Tim Kaine. That same day, Yahoo’s Global News anchor Katie Couric interviewed Janet Napolitano,
- 221 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 267
277 of 374
383
the former Governor of Arizona, former DHS Secretary, and University of California President. The
interview took place at Clinton's campaign headquarters on election night and was titled “2016 The
Choice: Janet Napolitano Says James Comey & FBI Have ‘Soul-Searching to Do.’” Couric asked
Napolitano about her campaigning in October 2016 for Clinton in her home state of Arizona.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/2016-choice-janet-napolitano-010340615.html
On January 3, 2017, California Attorney General Kamala Harris became a US Senator, and
US Congressman Xavier Becerra replaced Harris as California Attorney General on January 24,
2017.
- 222 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 268
278 of 374
383
LVII.
JANET NAPOLITANO AND CHARLES ROBINSON KEY PLAYERS AND
PERPETRATORS IN FRAUDULENT SCHEME AND TAX EVASION TO RECOVER
LOSSES INCURRED DUE TO PREVIOUS FRAUDS
In September 2013, Janet Napolitano arrived at the University of California (UC) Office of
the President (UCOP) headquarters in Oakland, CA with a plan to help recover hundreds of millions
of tax-free dollars lost by the UCOP’s white-collar criminals and their collaborators following the
collapse of Enron. They used a sophisticated scheme to accomplish the $40 billion fraud (May 2000–
October 2001) that came to be known as the “California Energy Crisis.”
As previously explained, one month before the California Independent System Operator
(CAISO) commenced operation, in March 1998, the UC and California State University (CSU)
systems entered into a direct access services contract with Enron Corporation Energy Services to
provide electricity and related metering, billing, and communications for all of their campuses. This
direct access was a part of California’s 1996 Electricity Restructuring Act, AB 1890, California
Public Utility Code 365.1 (PUC 365.1). Enron cancelled the direct access contract with the UC
Regents on February 1, 2001, ending the laundering of megawatts using UC campuses with the
grossly inflated costs.
Nine days after the 9/11 attacks, the California Public Utilities Commission, under Decision
D.01-09-060, the right of retail end-users (customers) to acquire direct access electric service from
energy service providers (ESPs), was suspended, effective September 20, 2001 (January 2001
California Assembly Bill ABX-1). Enron, which provided direct access for UC campuses, collapsed
and was dissolved; thus, PG&E and SCE had to resume utility services for all UC campuses.
After Enron collapsed and after the suspension of direct access to electric services, white
collar criminals who had meticulously planned to get filthy rich by laundering megawatts via the UC
and CSU campuses by evading taxes on the profit were left only with the 27-MW facility at the
UCDMC. This cogeneration plant is located in Sacramento, California and designed to produce and
sell 27 MW, but since October 2001 has been idling at loads averaging at 9 MW/hour, losing millions
of tax-free dollars. After October 2001, the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant, because of the
- 223 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 269
279 of 374
383
lack of a power purchase agreement with public utilities to operate the plant at full capacity, caused
the UCOP white collar criminals and their collaborators to lose at least $200 million in tax-free
money, and they continue to lose money every day they are not selling surplus power.
The 60-MW Five Points Park and the 20-MW Giffen Solar Park plants are both located in
Fresno County, California. They and the 13-MW solar plant located at UC Davis on a 62-acre lot
have had power purchase agreements with the UC Regents since 2014 and 2015. They cannot
compensate for the hundreds of millions of dollars lost by the UCOP’s white collar criminals and
their collaborators over the past 24 years. This happened because of Enron’s collapse in February
2001, the suspension in September 2001 of direct access electric service from energy service
providers (ESPs) by the CPUC, and a lack of surplus power sales from the UCDMC’s 27-MW
oversized cogeneration plant, which was commissioned in 1998.
The UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration power plant is a fraud in itself because it was built,
commissioned, certified, operated, and has produced power since 1998 in violation of Federal Energy
Commission Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 292.20; the Federal Power
Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a); California Public Utilities Code (CPUC), Section 218.5; the State of
California Unfair Business Competition Law, Business and Professions Code, § 17200; the California
Commodity Law of 1990 (CCL), Corporation Code, § 29500 et seq.; and seven US Codes § 6 (b), in
gross violation of section 50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the State of California
Revenue and Taxation Code.
Based on the November 2013 bogus UC Carbon Neutrality Initiative, Napolitano and her
collaborators took the following steps to recover the millions of tax-free dollars lost by perpetuating a
new fraud. The UCOP white collar criminals took the following steps:
In January 2007, former CAISO General Counsel and Vice President Charles F.
Robinson, the key perpetrator in orchestrating the sophisticated $40 billion fraud, (May 2000–
October 2001) titled California Energy Crisis. arrived at UCOP headquarters in Oakland, where
he began serving as the UC’s new general counsel and vice president.
In January 2009, Governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano was appointed by President
Barack Obama to be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
- 224 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 270
280 of 374
383
In 2011, UC General Counsel and Senior Vice President Charles Robinson began serving
as a member of the PJM Board Governance Committee.
PJM is a regional transmission organization (RTO) that coordinates the movement of
wholesale electricity in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia,
and the District of Columbia.
In 2011 and 2012, the UCOP’s white collar criminals attempted to frame me for criminal
prosecution and deport me (see https://www.scribd.com/document/390464721/SI-17-UCOP-
Mafia-Most-Unwanted-Poster).
In September 2013, Janet Napolitano resigned her post as DHS Secretary and arrived in
California with FBI Director Robert Mueller, who retired at the same time. Napolitano arrived at the
UCOP headquarters in Oakland as the new president of the University of California. Mueller went to
Stanford University as a Distinguished Lecturer on issues related to cybersecurity.
In November 2013, two months after Napolitano arrived at UCOP headquarters, she
announced a bogus carbon neutrality initiative for university campuses.
On March 27, 2014, to purchase and resell power via CAISO, the UC Regents, in violation
of IRC Section 501(c), registered with the CPUC as an ESP, ESP #1389, offering new services to
commercial customers.
Between 2014 and 2016, the UCOP mob initiated the prosecution and incarceration of the
popular California Senator Leland Yee (a Democrat), who was sent to federal prison for five years in
March 2016 (see https://www.scribd.com/document/580562404/2010-2020-Witch-Hunt-Prosecution-
and-Incarcaration-of-the-California-Senator-Leland-Yee).
In 2014, Napolitano or the UC Regents entered into a long-term power purchase agreement
with the 60-MW Five Points Park and 20-MW Giffen Solar Park, solar power plants located in
Fresno County, CA, far from any UC campus.
On December 22, 2014, CAISO ( UC General Counsel Charles Robinson’s former
employer) issued a notification that stated, “The Regents of the University of California successfully
- 225 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 271
281 of 374
383
completed the Congestion Revenue Rights registration process.”

Between March and August 2016, Napolitano paid $1 million for a witch hunt aimed at UC
Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi to eradicate her from UC Davis and the UC system in general.
Napolitano paid the $1 million for this witch hunt to two friends, former US attorneys employed by
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott (see
https://www.davisenterprise.com/files/2016/08/Independent-Review-of-Allegations-Related-to-
Chancellor-Katehi-REDACTED-FOR-CPRA-RELEASE-4838-.pdf).
On May 18, 2016, Napolitano, held emergency meeting with President Obama, Vice
President Biden, and DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz in Washington, DC, briefed them about her
carbon neutrality initiative to decarbonize the United States via University of California Office of the
President
In June 2016, after meeting in May with Obama and Biden, Napolitano, in her goal of
decarbonizing America, deployed former UC Vice President Judith Boyette to an IRS Advisory
Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE) to delete a reported multimillion
tax evasion and fraud claim submitted against the UCOP and UC Regents to the IRS WBO on
March 23, 2016, Claim No. 2016-007481 (see https://www.hansonbridgett.com/Our-
Attorneys/judith-w-boyette).
On September 29, 2016, Napolitano met in San Diego with California Supreme Court
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and her friend, State Bar of California Director and CEO, Elizabeth
Rindskopf Parker, a former general counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the
National Security Agency (NSA) and the former principal deputy legal adviser at the US
Department of State.
In October 2016, Napolitano campaigned in the presidential election on behalf of Hillary
Clinton in her home state of Arizona having laundered and hidden on UC various account $
175,000, 000 .
LVIII.
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE DECEMBER 19, 2016 BROADVIEW, LLC II FERC SELF-
CERTIFICATION FORMS 556, FERC DOCKET QF 17-455, AND DOCKET QF 17-454 FOR
THE BOGUS, NONEXISTENT 390-MW AND 104.250-MW SOLAR PLANTS
- 226 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 272
282 of 374
383
Hypothetically, if Hillary Rodham Clinton had prevailed in the 2016 presidential election, it is
most likely that Richard Glick, the general counsel for the Democrats on the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, would have been appointed as a FERC commissioner and would have
become the FERC chairman. Then, the FERC would have issued an order in 2017 that certified
Broadview LLC’s 390-MW solar plant as an 80-MW plant, and the 2017 FERC order would sound
similar to the FERC order dated March 19, 2021, 174 FERC ¶ 61,199, which stated (Exhibit #59 on
flash drive and DVD):
- 227 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 273
283 of 374
383
Commission Certification of Broadview's Facility as a QF (Qualified

Facility )
Because Broadview has demonstrated that its facility meets the Commission’s
requirements for QF status, we grant certification of small power
production QF status for the facility, provided that the facility is operated in
the manner described in Broadview’s application on September 11, 2019,
Broadview’s answer on October 17, 2019, in the Commission’s September
2020 Order, and in this order. To the extent that facts or representations that
form the basis of this order change, this order cannot be relied upon.18
Although Broadview's facility might still meet the technical requirements for
QF status under the changed circumstances, self-recertification or
Commission-recertification at that point will be necessary to maintain QF
status
Between December 2016 and October 2019, Broadview LLC submitted six QF certification
forms for the same solar plant facility, which was never constructed or commissioned. Normally,
companies in the small power plant business are constructing and commissioning QF facilities
according to Section 3(17) or 3(18) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 796(3)(17), (3)(18) and the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), certifying or self-certifying plants with
FERC, and making money. What Broadview LLC did with FERC Commissioner Richard Glick in
March 2021 is a crime. As I stated in the previous chapter, I came to think that the Broadview LLC
plant certification was a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sting operation investigating
corruption in the FERC, similar to the 1986–1988 FBI sting operation in California known as
SHRIMPSCAM, after I read FERC Dockets QF l 7-454-006 and QF l 7-454-007, related to Broad
Reach Power projects in Montana (Broadview Solar LLC), which are subjects of the pending Solar
Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Case USCA
#21-112
On December 19, 2016, Broadview Solar LLC submitted two versions of Form 556 under
Docket QF17-455 for the two nonexistent Broadview Solar LLC Plants with a 390-MW capacity and
the same nonexistent plant with a 104.250-MW capacity. FERC Docket QF17-454 was the last
chance to fraudulently obtain a false QF certification before Donald Trump was sworn in as
US President and appointed a new FERC Chairman.
- 228 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 274
284 of 374
383
Furthermore, if in 2016 or 2017 FERC would have certified Broadview LLC’s 390-MW or
160-MW plant as a small 80-MW QF facility, then most likely Napolitano and her mob would have
spent $200 million or more in a joint venture with Broadview LLC on QF certification operatives to
quickly construct several solar plants with an approximate capacity of 800 MW coupled with an 800-
MW energy storage system. The power, worth hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of tax-free
dollars, would be sold by UCOP white collar criminals via CAISO, former UCOP General Counsel
Charles Robinson’s employer from April 2000 through January 2007. It is not a coincident that
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP attorneys who are representing Broadview LLC with FERC and
in D.C. Circuit Court in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v Internal Revenue Service v. Commissioner
of the Internal Revenue Service, Case No. USCA No. 20-1407 unlawfully tampered with the
administration of justice, and caused that my appeal was unjustly dismissed by served rubber stamp
justice .
LIX.
A CLOSER LOOK AT STATE AUDIT 2010-105, REQUESTED BY CALIFORNIA
SENATOR LELAND YEE IN JANUARY 2010 TARGETING THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT EXECUTIVES AND FINANCES
In January 2010, State Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat from the 8th Senate District, which encompasses
San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, requested that the Joint Legislative Audit Committee authorize
an audit of the UC. The committee voted unanimously to approve the request on Feb. 17, 2010.
The approved audit requested that the California State Auditor, California’s nonpartisan external
auditing office for state agencies, conduct
“A comprehensive state audit will help further uncover the extent of the waste,
fraud and abuse within the UC, and finally hold university executives
accountable,” as Yee noted in a statement on his Senate website.
The senator asked the auditors to specifically focus on the UCOP, the head office of the
University of California.
The audit will track where the UC gets its funds and where each dollar goes.
Specifically, it will follow where private funds, state funds, student fees and federal
funds all end up.
- 229 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 275
285 of 374
383
The audit will also search out how much money is spent per student and what
the rest is spent on. Also, the inquiry will include a survey of which outside
organizations the UC pays to and which funds are used to pay them.
State Audit 2010-105 was concluded on July 28, 2011 (EXHIBIT #60 on flash drive and DVD, see
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2010-105.pdf).
The State Auditor’s cover letter summarized the audit by merely stating that the Office of the President
needs to track more precisely about $1 billion of expenses annually, which it currently tracks
under a single accounting code—Miscellaneous Services (see
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/recommendations/2010-105).
Furthermore, the cover letter focused on the subsidizing of auxiliary enterprises with funding from
other sources, despite the intent that they be self-supporting (see
https://www.ucop.edu/financial-accounting/financial-reports/university-auxiliary-support/index.html)
- 230 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 276
286 of 374
383
The information provided or disclosed by audit 2010-105 was already, in most ways, accessible to the
general public, and the information was not what Senator Lee was looking for with his expectation that
“A comprehensive state audit will help further uncover the extent of the waste, fraud and abuse
within the UC, and finally hold university executives accountable.”
The 67-year-old Senator Yee, who immigrated to the US from China when he was a 3 years old, most
likely never imagined in that 64 years he would be witch hunted and prosecuted because he requested
a state audit (see
Incarcaration-of-the-California-Senator-Leland-Yee).
LX.
STATE AUDIT 2016-130, REQUESTED IN MARCH 2016 BY CALIFORNIA
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS PHIL TING AND KEVIN MCCARTY AND APPROVED BY
THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 10, 2016
California State Audit 2016-130, addressing the administrative functions of the UCOP, was concluded
by the State Auditor on April 25, 2017 (see EXHIBIT #61 on flash drive and DVD).
Contrary to the meaningless State Audit 2010-105 concluded on July 28, 2011, State Audit 2016-130
disclosed information about tens of millions of dollars secretly hidden by Napolitano in various UC
accounts.
The auditor’s cover letter dated April 25, 2017 and attached to the 2016-130 Audit “The University
Of California Office of The President Failed To Disclose Tens Of Millions In Surplus” speaks for
itself about what State Auditor investigators were able to find and disclose via the audit (see
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2016-130.pdf).
- 231 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 277
287 of 374
383
In May 2017, Napolitano again became the subject of headline news in relation to audit 2016-130
requested in 2016 by two Assembly Members, Phil Ting and Kevin McCarty.
Ting commented:
“I am a proud Cal grad, but my job demands that I ask tough questions. The Office
of the President’s duties, budget, and staffing remain a mystery,” said Ting,
Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee. “We must be assured the maximum
resources are directed to classrooms and student services. An independent audit
will help us ensure that UC efficiently prioritizes access to higher education before
they ask students to pay more.” (see https://a19.asmdc.org/press-
releases/20160810-lawmakers-approve-audit-uc-presidents-office).
- 232 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 278
288 of 374
383
The May 2017 news about the audit was followed by the headline news about Napolitano’s gesture to
benefit her friends, former US attorneys Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, with $1 million for the
March–August 2016 witch hunt aimed at UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi to eradicate her from the
UC System and the intention to throw her into prison, as they had done to California Senator Yee at
relatively the same time.
LXI.
JANET NAPOLITANO AND THE UCOP’S STAFF INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016-130
STATE AUDIT
State Auditor Elaine M. Howle wrote in Part 1 of her April 25, 2017 cover letter:
Furthermore, when we sought independent perspective from campuses about

the quality and cost of the services and programs the Office of the President
provides to them, the Office of the President intentionally interfered with our
audit process. Auditing standards require that we disclose this interference
and prohibit us from drawing valid conclusions from this portion of our work.
Napolitano’s interference in state audit 2016-130 shows her and the UCOP’s panic and desperation to
prevent disclosure of their crimes committed under the UC umbrella. After the audit was completed,
Napolitano tried to control the damage by hiring former state Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno,
who joined in the phony investigation with Hueston Hennigan LLP (see https://www.hueston.com/).
This investigation produced more than 50 pages of damage control in a meaningless report entitled
“Independent Fact-Finding Review for the Board of Regents of the University of California:
Summary of Findings” (see https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov17/b2attach3.pdf).
Napolitano got herself of off the hook by throwing under the bus her top two aides, her Chief of Staff,
Seth Grossman (https://www.american.edu/profiles/staff/sethg.cfm) and deputy Chief of Staff Bernie
Jones, UC Chief Compliance and Audit Officer and Senior Vice President, Sheryl Vacca
(https://www.hcca-info.org/sheryl-vacca), and UC Deputy General Counsel Karen Petrulakis
(https://www.wellesley.edu/administration/offices/generalcounsel).
- 233 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 279
289 of 374
383
All of those listed above resigned from their posts. Prior to that, Daniel Dooley,
(https://newcurrentwater.com/), a UC Senior Vice President and locally designated officer, resigned
from his post. Dooley is the husband of Diana Dooley, the former Chief of Staff for former California
governor Jerry Brown. Vacca and Dooley directly oversaw my whistleblowing retaliation complaint in
2013–2014.
Napolitano replaced Vacca and Dooley with her friend, former US Attorney Alexander
Bustamante (see https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-names-alexander-bustamante-
chief-compliance-and-audit-officer). Bustamante was employed in the same US Attorney’s office in
Los Angeles as US Congressman Adam Schiff and Justice Elana Duarte of the Court of Appeal, Third
Appellate District (3DCA) (see Petition for Review Supreme Court Case No. S253713, Waszczuk v.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and The Regents of the University of
California, filed in the Supreme Court on January 29, 2019 (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/476827015/UTC-20190129-California-Supreme-Court-Petition-
for-Review-Case-No-S253713).
When Dooley resigned in 2014 and Vacca resigned from the UCOP in 2016, Napolitano, in her
distrust of replacing Vacca with an outsider, brought her friend John Lohse back from retirement as an
interim replacement.
Lohse was recruited in 2004 by the UCOP mob and was a very skilled, experienced former FBI agent
and employee. He was brought in to serve as Director of Investigation in the UCOP Office of the Senior
Vice President and as the Chief Compliance and Audit Officer, to keep the FBI out of UC campuses
and eyes on whistleblowers and adversaries of the UCOP. This was after the 2004 US Department of
Treasury audit of UC San Diego and FERC’s questioning of UC San Diego administrators about the
validity of the UC San Diego cogeneration facility.
Shortly thereafter, Napolitano hired her friend Bustamante, former US Attorney for the Central District
of California, 2002–2011, when he became available.
- 234 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 280
290 of 374
383
LXII.
STATE AUDITOR ELAINE M. HOWLE’S SPECIFIC CONCERNS OUTLINED IN THE
APRIL 25, 2017 COVER LETTER TO THE 2016-130 AUDIT REPORT
The Specific concerns in the audit report include the following:
• The Office of the President has accumulated more than $175 million in
undisclosed restricted and discretionary reserves; as of fiscal year 2015-16,
it had $83 million in its restricted reserve and $92 million in its
discretionary reserve.
• More than one-third of its discretionary reserve, or $32 million, came from
unspent funds from the campus assessment—an annual charge that the
Office of the President levies on campuses to fund the majority of its
discretionary operations.
• In certain years, the Office of the President requested and received

approval from the Board of Regents (regents) to increase the campus
assessment, even though it had not spent all of the funds it received from
campuses in prior years.
• The Office of the President did not disclose the reserves it had
accumulated, nor did it inform the regents of the annual undisclosed
budget that it created to spend some of those funds. The undisclosed
budget ranged from $77 million to $114 million during the four years we
reviewed.
• The Office of the President was unable to provide a complete listing of the
systemwide initiatives, their costs, or an assessment of their continued
benefit to the university.
• While it appears that the Office of the President's administrative spending

increased by 28 percent, or $80 million, from fiscal years 2012-13 through
2015-16, the Office of the President continues to lack consistent definitions
of and methods for tracking the university's administrative expenses.
- 235 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 281
291 of 374
383
LXIII.
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL XAVIER BECERRA’S INVESTIGATION
REFUSAL INTO UC PRESIDENT JANET NAPOLITANO’S $ 175 MILLION IN MONEY
LAUNDERING REVEALED BY THE 2016-130 STATE AUDIT
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-ag-punts-on-probe-over-allegations-against-uc-
president-napolitano
On January 3, 2017, California Attorney General Kamala Harris became a US Senator, and US
Congressman Xavier Becerra replaced her as California’s Attorney General on January 24, 2017.
Napolitano and her collaborators were caught off guard in the Spring of 2016 by Assembly Members
Ting and McCarty’s request for a state audit targeting UCOP finances. My March 23, 2016 Application
- 236 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 282
292 of 374
383
for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211), submitted to the WBO, which addressed and
reported multi-million dollars of tax evasion and fraud due to violation of the university’s tax-exempt
status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, added gravity to the situation.
On May 18, 2016, Napolitano held an emergency meeting with her former superiors President Barak
Obama and Vice President Biden.
The UCOP mob was taking all precautions and actions to neutralize anyone they viewed as a potential
danger to the disclosure of their underground criminal activities under the defense shield of the UC’s
autonomous and independent-of-government status.
When the California state auditor charged the UCOP with tampering with confidential responses to
the auditor’s survey—an action that then-Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom decried as outrageous
and unjust, Newsome as Lt. Governor automatically became a UC Regent.
California Attorney General Becerra refused to open an investigation into the millions of dollars ($175
million) laundered and hidden by Napolitano via various UC accounts.
Fox News reporter Brooke Singman correctly pointed out in a May 24, 2017 article that:
Any formal probe into Napolitano's office would involve questioning of the UC
Regents, the governing body of the UC-system responsible for fiscal oversight.
According to the California Constitution, it is "entirely independent of all political
and sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its Regents
and in the administration of its affairs."
Napolitano, who served as secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama
administration, is herself a former Regent, and some members and former members
of the board are prominent Democrats.
They include: Richard Blum, husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.;
California Gov. Jerry Brown, who appointed Becerra to his post as attorney
general; and California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon.
Singman continued:
- 237 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 283
293 of 374
383
A source within the Republican caucus of the California Legislature told Fox News
that while they'd like to say Becerra's decision was a "cop out," the proper channel
for further investigation is through Speaker Rendon.
On Monday, Republican members of the Assembly sent a letter to Rendon calling
for a subpoena of documents relating to the audit.
"We believe this is not a partisan or political issue, but an issue of trust in our
institutions," the letter reads.
"We should not fear the truth, in fact I believe it is one of our key roles on behalf
of our constituents to seek it out zealously," Republican Assemblyman Dante
Acosta told Fox News. "The legislature has the power to issue a subpoena, and my
Republican colleagues and I are urging the Speaker to take this necessary step to
bring transparency to the UC Office of the President. California's students, parents,
and taxpayers deserve answers."
Rendon's office pushed back, however, making clear they will not grant the request
at this stage.
'The legislature does have the power to subpoena various agencies but that's only
done in cases where there is criminal malfeasance. But in this case, the speaker
hasn't seen that. At this point, he will not be asking for a subpoena," a Rendon
spokesperson told Fox News.
If the laundering of $175 million by Napolitano using university accounts is not criminal malfeasance,
then what is?
The UC Board of Regents, in an effort to cover up the UCOP mob and Napolitano’s money laundering
of $175 million, retained in May 2017 the law firm of Hueston Hennigan and former California
Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno.
At the same time, I had two pending appeals in the Court of Appeal Third Appellate District related
to tens of millions of dollars tax evasion and fraud committed by the UCOP and UC Regents, due
to violations of the university’s tax-exempt status IRC Section 501 (c)(3). This particular case,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) v. Regents of
the University of California as the Real Party in Interest, 34–2013–80001699–CUWMGDS, The
Court of Appeals, 3DCA, Waszczuk v. CUIAB Case No. C079254, and California Supreme Court
cases Waszczuk v. CUIAB S253713 and S245879
- 238 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 284
294 of 374
383
was presided over by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyane Chang, the former
Chief Deputy Legal Secretary to Governor Gray Davis, who was recalled in 2003.
The university’s legal team in the case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board (CUIAB included General Counsel Robinson himself, Chief Deputy General Counsel
Karen Petrulakis, Senior Counsel Cynthia Wroom, and Managing Counsel Margaret Wu. The same
team interfered in State Audit 2016-130.
A writ of mandamus in an unemployment benefits case would usually not require a university to be
represented by four leading attorneys from the UCOP, but California Attorney General Kamala Harris
appointed her deputy and friend Ashante Norton to my unemployment insurance benefits case.
On June 14, 2017, I sent an informational letter to AG Xavier Becerra about tens of millions of dollars
in tax evasion and fraud committed by the UCOP and UC Regents. The letter was entitled “R: Re:
Letter to State of California Franchise Tax Board- “The left over from the California's energy
market deregulation, energy crisis of 1999-2001 and State of California recall election of the
Governor Grey Davis in 2003.” A few days later, I received a general response dated June 15, 2017
from AG Becerra’s office.
May June 14, 2017
Xavier Becerra -Attorney General

State of California Department of Justice
Attorney General Office
1300 I Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814-2919
Re: Letter to State of California Franchise Tax Board

The left over from the California's energy market deregulation, energy crisis of
1999-2001 and State of California recall election of the Governor Grey Davis in
2003
.
Dear Attorney, General Becerra
For your review and consideration I am forwarding to you the copy of the June 14,
2017 letters (with attachments on Flash Drive) I recently wrote to the State of
California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) and to U.S Senator Hon. Kamala Harris
I keep you update.
- 239 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 285
295 of 374
383
- 240 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 286
296 of 374
383
On October 25, 2017, with the filed Petition for Rehearing in Case Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California Case No.C079524 (see EXHIBIT #62 on flash drive and DVD),
I informed the Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District about the UC Regents’ attorneys
violent behavior in two separate incidents:
(August 28, 2017) After just 15 minutes of oral argument, the Defendants legal
counsel David Burkett from the Sacramento-based law firm Porter Scott
approached Waszczuk in the Court Hall outside the courtroom and attempted to
instigate a confrontation. He made threats toward Waszczuk wife and tried to
exploit the emotional and financial suffering we have both experienced since UC
Regents terminated Waszczuk employment in December 2012 at age 61 without
any possibility to find new employment . For the Court information
, Waszczuk spouse Irena Waszczuk is working in Nordstrom in Sacramento as
seamstress -fitter for almost 30 years and has nothing to do with the University of
California and Waszczuk’ lawsuit , Waszczuk spouse should retire on September
21, 2017 at age of 66 but he can’t due to devastation of Waszczuks life and
livelihood by UC Regents and their collaborators. Burkett knew that Waszczuk was
stressed due to financial hardship caused by his client’s criminal behavior; he
thought that his attacks against my spouse would easily provoke a confrontation.
Sadly, this encounter was my second time experiencing such shameful tactics in the
court building. It is a second time Waszczuk experienced such Defendants attorney
behavior . It happened before in 2015, prior to the court hearing (02/27/2015) with
presiding Judge Shelleyanne Chang in the unemployment benefits Writ of
Mandamus case— in which UC Regents is party as a Real Party In Interest( RPii.)
UC legal counsel and UC administrators must be very desperate if they resort to
using such tactics. Trying to provoke the opposing party into a physical
confrontation in an area heavily trafficked by sheriff’s deputies and city police is
either very foolish or very underhanded.
LXIV.
COVER-UP OF JANET NAPOLITANO’S AND THE UCOP WHITE COLLAR
CRIMINALS’ ACTIVITIES
On September 8, 2017, Napolitano filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California (San Francisco): THE
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official
- 241 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 287
297 of 374
383
capacity as President of the University of California, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY and ELAINE DUKE, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security Case No. 3:17-cv-05211. This lawsuit, brought under the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act
("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706, challenges the DHS’ unlawful decision to rescind the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") program, which protected from deportation nearly 800,000 individuals
brought to this country as children, known as “Dreamers.” Under DACA, the Dreamers, who came
to the United States through no choice of their own, who have clean records, and who have lived
continuously in the United States since 2007, were permitted to live, work, and study in this country
without fear of deportation (see https://universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/UC-DACA-
Complaint.pdf).
Regardless of her motivation, Napolitano and the UCOP mob made an excellent choice to file this
lawsuit against the Trump Administration to divert public attention from the $175 million they
laundered in 2015–2016, which was disclosed in April 2017 by State Audit 2016-130 and other
undisclosed crimes .
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision finding that the Trump
Administration's termination of DACA was (1) judicially reviewable and (2) done in an arbitrary and
capricious manner, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020)
It worth mentioning that, between 2009 and 2015 (when Napolitano was in charge of the DHS),
the DHS deported more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders. This is not include
the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to their home
country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). According to governmental
data, the Obama Administration deported more people than any other administration in
history. In fact, they deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century.
- 242 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 288
298 of 374
383
Together, the figures indicate that, contrary to Obama’s avowed policy, a huge part
of ICE enforcement efforts resulted in the separation of families, and a much
smaller portion went toward deporting people who posed legitimate public safety
threats see https://theintercept.com/2017/05/15/obamas-deportation-policy-was-
even-worse-than-we-thought/
To control the damage done by State Audit 2016-130 investigators, the UC Board of Regents retained
Hueston Hennigan LLP (https://www.hueston.com/) to repel Napolitano’s and the Regents’ adversaries
attacks due to the disclosure of $175 million in money laundering.
Former state Supreme Court Justice for hire Carlos Moreno joined the damage control investigation
with Hueston Hennigan LLP.
In 2013, the UC Regents and Napolitano employed Moreno for damage control related to high-profile
- 243 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 289
299 of 374
383
incidents of racial and ethnic bias and/or discrimination that occurred on the UCLA campus in recent
years (see final January 4, 2021 Moreno’s Report in this matter, EXHIBIT #63 on flash drive and
DVD).
Hueston Hennigan LLP fabricated the ad hoc “Independent Fact-Finding Review for the
Board of Regents of the University of California,” which was published on November 16, 2017.
- 244 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 290
300 of 374
383
The UC Regents and Napolitano’s damage control response to the audit, in the form of the
Hueston Hennigan’s fabricated review, regardless of its truthfulness, showed that Napolitano was
caught off guard by the state auditors, and she became very agitated and very nervous.
On the morning of October 21, 2016, Napolitano’s Chief of Staff Sett Grossman texted her:
(Appendix A page 7)
“One other thing going on is that the state auditor sent a survey to all the campus
audit directors and another survey to all the campus CFOs. The surveys ask about
their assessment of OP services and performance. Matt is convening a call of all
the internal audit directors. Nathan is going to speak with each of the campus CFOs
individually.”
Napolitano responded:
“As we know, this is a witch hunt. Glad we're in front of it. Should you let
chancellor [chiefs of staff] know so they can see what is being submitted?”
When asked what she meant by the term “witch hunt,” Napolitano said:
the term was “saltier language” than she normally used, but unsurprising “[i]n
the context of what was going on at the time and the relationship with the auditor.”
To her, it meant that she believed the UCOP Audit had a predetermined outcome.
On November 10 , 2016, two days after Napolitano’s interview with Katie Couric titled “2016 The
Choice: Janet Napolitano Says James Comey & FBI Have ‘Soul-Searching to Do,’” Donald Trump
- 245 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 291
301 of 374
383
was elected the 45th President of the United States. Napolitano hosted an internal UCOP meeting
(see Appendix “A,” page 9, of the Hueston Hennigan LLP Independent Fact -Findings).
According to one witness, at the meeting:
President Napolitano was "very upset," complaining about how "these auditors
have free range here at OP." This witness said Napolitano was so agitated that she
swore several times. This witness also sensed that Napolitano felt her reputation
was at risk and was concerned that UCOP did not have enough management or
control over the audit. One attendee recalled the President mentioning the reports
of state audit staff behavior and saying that she had been the head of large, complex
agencies and had never seen behavior like that. This witness described the President
as "displeased" and "frustrated," but not angry. One witness said that at one point,
Napolitano instructed that no one from the State Auditor's office was to be allowed
into the building "until we know who they want to meet with." It was decided that
Jones and Hicks would meet with the auditors to discuss ground rules for their
fieldwork and set up a protocol for UCOP-auditor engagement.
Napolitano similarly recalled the meeting being about the behavior of the state audit
staff. She said, " Vacca” was recording a lot of problems about how the auditor was
behaving. The purpose [of the meeting] was to get a better sense in terms of who
from auditor's office was in the building, to schedule interviews instead of waiting
outside offices. [Vacca] was reporting that people were feeling sabotaged."
According to Napolitano, they discussed what could be done to get better control
of or provide more structure to the process.
(EXHIBIT #64 hard copy and on flash drive and DVD).
https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov17/b2attach3.pdf
https://www.hueston.com/uc-regents-hire-hueston-hennigan-investigation/
One hundred seventy five million dollars is an enormous amount of money to hide in the
university’s accounts. The State Auditors’ investigation team found the money, but had no authority to
find out from where the $175 million was transferred or wired to various university accounts in 2015–
2016, just 1.5 years after Napolitano arrived at UCOP Headquarters in Oakland as the UC President.
LXV.
THE BOARD OF THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MEETING
ON NOVEMBER 16, 2017
On November 16, 2017, Hueston Hennigan LLP presented a smoke screen, damage control
pseudo investigation titled “Independent Fact-Finding” to cover up $175 million in money laundering
- 246 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 292
302 of 374
383
by Napolitano and her UCOP mob. The UC Regents met on the above date at UC San Francisco’s
Mission Bay Conference Center see
https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/minutes/2017/board%2011.16.pdf
The members present were: Regents Anguiano, De La Peña, Guber, Kieffer, Lansing, Lemus,
Lozano (a regent since 2001), Makarechian, Mancia, Monge, Ortiz Oakley, Park, Pattiz, Pérez (a
former California Assembly speaker), Sherman, Tauscher, and Torlakson; Napolitano (UC
President); and Newsom (Lt. Governor). Also in attendance were: Regents-designate Anderson,
Graves, and Morimoto; Faculty Representatives May and White; Secretary and Chief of Staff Shaw;
General Counsel Robinson (former CAISO General Counsel); Provost Brown; Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer Brostrom; Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer Nava; Executive Vice President Stobo; Vice President Brown; Chancellors Block, Blumenthal,
Christ, Hawgood, Khosla, Leland, May, Wilcox, and Yang; and Recording Secretary McCarthy. The
meeting convened at 9:00 a.m., with Chair Kieffer presiding.
What caught my attention in the summary of the November 16, 2017 meeting was the
announcement of Regent Ortiz Oakley’s retirement and Regent Monica Lozano’s
resignation from the Board effective November 30, 2017. Following a motion by Regent
Ortiz Oakley, which was duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, on the occasion of her retirement from the Board of Regents of the
University of California, the members of the Board wish to express their heartfelt
appreciation to Monica Lozano for the keen insight, broad experience, and integrity she
brought to the deliberations of this body from 2001 to 2013 and 2014 to 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Committees on Finance, Compensation, and Public Engagement and

Development, for which she served as Chair, and Compliance and Audit, Educational
Policy, and Governance, on which she served for many years, and other committees, have
benefited immeasurably from her judgment and perceptiveness and her remarkable ability to
master complex and highly disparate subject matter; and…
- 247 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 293
303 of 374
383
Lozano was one of the attendees at a large May 20, 2010 gathering in Washington, D.C. that included
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, Assembly Speaker John Perez (now a UC Regent), Xavier Beccera
(former California Attorney General), and Hilda Solis (former California Assemblymember and
California Senator). All facts lead me to believe that, during this meeting, the fate of the UCOP cronies’
archenemy, California Senator Leland Yee, was decided, after he requested a state audit aimed at the
UC administration’s lavish spending. The money laundered by Napolitano’s mob and other UCOP
crimes would not have resurfaced in 2010 if they had left Yee alone and allowed him to become
San Francisco’s mayor in 2010–2011, instead of trying to kill him in September 2010, and if they had
not witch-hunted Yee and thrown him into prison.
Napolitano, Mueller, Haag, and the California political swamp and UCOP white collar
criminals wanted to make sure that Yee, the most popular senator in California, especially in San
Francisco and Senatorial District 8, would lose the 2011 San Francisco mayoral election. He was
replaced with Ed Lee. Lee was hand-picked to serve as mayor of San Francisco by U.S. Senator
- 248 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 294
304 of 374
383
Feinstein, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, and the
former mayor of San Francisco, then California Lt. Governor (now Governor) Gavin Newsom. All of
them were from San Francisco.
The money laundered by Napolitano and the UCOP mob most likely would never have become
the subject of my tax evasion and fraud Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form
211) if the UCOP had left me alone in 2011–2012 and let me retire from the UCDMC in 2016 or 2017,
as I had planned, instead of trying to kill me on May 31, 2012 and attempting to deport me after that
failed.
Going back to the UC Regents meeting on November 16, 2017, the Regents recessed
the open session meeting at 11:15 a.m. and then went into a closed session.
UC Chief Compliance and Audit Officer Alexander Bustamante, who was not present during
the open session, attended the closed session. Napolitano hired Bustamante in September 2017. Prior
to that, he had served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles. He replaced Napolitano’s old friend
from Arizona, John Lohse, who was recruited by the UCOP mob in 2004 after serving as a Special
Agent, Associate Division Counsel, and Chief Division Counsel for the FBI’s San Francisco Division.
The UC Regents’ closed session meeting was about Napolitano and her staff’s interference in State
Audit 206-130, which was requested by two California Assembly Members, Phil Ting and Kevin
McCarty, after Leland Yee was witch-hunted and sentenced to five years in federal prison in February
2016.
The short published summary from the closed session meeting, entitled “Report on Personnel
Actions Relating to the State Audit Report Taken in Closed Session,” is about admonishing Napolitano
for interfering with the state audit and her apology for the same. However, the closed session meeting
summary does not mention one word about why Napolitano interfered in the state audit at all.
Like the Hueston Hennigan LLP joint venture with former California Justice Carlos Moreno’s
damage control “Independent Fact-Finding Review for the Board of Regents of the University of
California,” which was published on November 16, 2017, the closed session meeting’s summary
completely and purposely omitted Napolitano’s money laundering, which triggered her and her
- 249 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 295
305 of 374
383
deputies’ blunt attacks aimed at state auditors and their unprecedented interference and tempering with
the audit to divert attention from the UCOP mob and Regents’ bank accounts.
Regents Lozano and Perez; Chief Compliance and Audit Officer Bustamante; General Counsel
Robinson and his Chief Deputy Petrulakis; Napolitano and her lieutenants Seth Grossman and Bernie
Jones; and California Attorney General Becerra, who refused to open a probe against Napolitano, knew
who transferred the $175 million, where it came from, and how it was transferred into the discretionary
UC accounts for distribution.
Assemblyman Ting, D-San Francisco, who called for the original state audit 2016-130 of
Napolitano’s office that set off the chain of events, said he did not think the Regents went far enough
in disciplining Napolitano. Ting argued the issues in Napolitano’s office predated her appointment
and that he believed fixing them required addressing a broader systemic issue in the office, and that
the Regents were not strong enough, given the severity of the crime.
It was obvious that the UC Regents or AG Becerra would not punish Napolitano if they were
on her black list and “Christmas List” at the same time to share $175 million. The Christmas of 2017
was coming.
LXVI.
REPORT ON PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO THE STATE AUDIT REPORT
TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION -NOVEMBER 16, 2017
Chair Kieffer recalled that a recent report by the California State Auditor had found
that the Office of the President interfered in the audit process by previewing campus
responses to surveys issued directly to the campuses by the State Auditor. The audit
report concluded that this interference rendered the survey responses unreliable. In
response, the Regents authorized then Board Chair Lozano to retain an independent
law firm to assist the Regents in reviewing the actions taken by the Office of the
President with respect to the campus surveys issued by the State Auditor. Former
California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno and the law firm of Hueston
Hennigan were retained to conduct the independent fact-finding review.
The report found that members of the President’s executive office interfered with
the preparation and submission of survey responses from the ten individual
- 250 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 296
306 of 374
383
campuses to the State Auditor, with different levels of interference within the
executive office. The report identified four actions that resulted in the interference:
(1) directing the campuses to have the survey responses reviewed and approved by
the respective campus chancellors;
(2) instructing the campuses that the survey responses should then be submitted to
the Office of the President for review before submission to the State Auditor; (3)
informing the campuses that the survey responses were not an occasion to “air dirty
laundry” or otherwise provide negative information; and (4) reviewing the
responses submitted by the campuses and suggesting revisions and/or changes to
responses that reflected poorly on the Office of the President.
The report found, and President Napolitano had acknowledged, that she approved
the first two actions, directing the campuses to have the survey responses reviewed
and approved by the respective chancellors, and instructing the campuses that the
survey responses be submitted to the Office of the President for review before
submission to the State Auditor. The first of these two actions was not interference
by itself, but only when coupled with the second. President Napolitano’s then Chief
of Staff Seth Grossman and then Deputy Chief of Staff Bernie Jones stated that they
obtained legal advice from the Office of the General Counsel that the first two
actions were legally permissible. The Moreno-Hueston Hennigan review concluded
that interference with the surveys through the third and fourth actions, specifically
instructing campuses not to “air dirty laundry” and suggesting revisions to draft
survey responses, was carried out by then Deputy Chief of Staff Bernie Jones at the
direction of then Chief of Staff Seth Grossman. The review also found insufficient
evidence to conclude that President Napolitano knew or approved of these
subsequent actions to target unfavorable responses.
The Regents had discussed these factual findings at length in the preceding closed
session meeting and had decided on a number of disciplinary actions. These actions
were intended to communicate the Regents’ serious disapproval of the conduct that
occurred and to deter such conduct in the future. On behalf of the Board of Regents,
Chair Kieffer issued the following statement admonishing President Napolitano:
The President is responsible for setting an appropriate tone from the top and
fostering a culture of transparency and accountability on behalf of the University,
which operates as a public trust for the State and for the people of California. She
is also responsible for the conduct of her staff, particularly her direct reports,
including her Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff. It is important to note that,
- 251 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 297
307 of 374
383
in directing the State Auditor’s campus surveys to go through the chancellors and
also to her office for review, the President believed she was relying on advice of
counsel. We are also mindful of the context for the actions taken, including lack of
trust between the Office of the President and the State Auditor based on a previous
audit. Finally, we view the conduct of the President in the context of a long record
of public service and leadership, including strong leadership of this University. The
Board continues to have confidence in and fully supports that continuing leadership
of this University. Nonetheless, the President’s decision to approve a plan to
coordinate the survey responses reflected poor judgment and set in motion a course
of conduct that the Regents find unacceptable. Her decision and then the follow-on
actions of her direct reports reflect negatively on the University of California
community, which is committed to the highest ethical standards in furthering the
University’s mission of teaching, research, and public service. The Board has
therefore made it very clear to the President that her decision in connection with
the audit did not meet the high standards and the good judgment expected of her.
The Board has also asked the President to further examine the culture within the
University of California Office of the President that may have contributed to the
failure of others to meet their responsibilities.”
Chair Kieffer stated that the Regents had directed President Napolitano to issue a
statement accepting responsibility and apologizing for the Office of the President’s
interference with the State Auditor’s campus surveys. The Regents had noted that
while serious disciplinary actions regarding former Chief of Staff to the President
Seth Grossman and Deputy Chief of Staff Bernie Jones were warranted, any actions
were now rendered moot as both Mr. Grossman and Mr. Jones had resigned from
the University. The Board would be taking action on policies and bylaws at the
January 2018 meeting that would further strengthen its oversight of the Office of
the President and of positions that report to both the Board and the President.
President Napolitano made the following statement: “I accept the results of the
Board’s fact-finding review and the actions the Board has taken in response. I
recognize and understand that nothing is more important for someone in my
position than to uphold the highest possible ethical standards – and to ensure that
all of my staff do likewise. I would like to assure the Board, students, faculty and
staff of the University of California, State legislators, and the people of California
that I hear them loud and clear. I regret deeply that I did not show better judgment
in connection with this matter. I have already taken steps to ensure it does not
happen again and together with this Board will work to implement the additional
changes being recommended by the Board to further strengthen our processes in
this regard. I am incredibly proud to lead this University. I made this decision. I
made a serious error in judgment. I apologize again for my actions that have
detracted from the reputation of this great institution and the great people associated
- 252 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 298
308 of 374
383
with it, and I personally apologize to each member of this Board for what has
happened here.”
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
Attest:
Secretary and Chief of Staff
LXVII.
AFTERMATH OF NAPOLITANO’S $ 175 MILLION IN LAUNDERED MONEY WAS
COVERED UP AND VANISHED, THE FATE OF MY APPLICATION FOR AWARD
FOR ORIGINAL INFORMATION (IRS FORM 211) SUBMITTED TO THE WBO ON
MARCH 23, 2016- CLAIM NO. 2016-007481, AND MY LITIGATION AGAINST THE
UC REGENTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COURTS
In November 2017, I struggled with my motions briefs and petitions in the Court of
Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) in Sacramento: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents
of the University of California Case No. C079524, an anti-SLAPP motion appeal, and my
stolen unemployment benefits appeal in the case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) v. Regents of the University of California
as the Real Party in Interest No. C079254. Since December 2014, I have represented myself
in Court due to dismissing my drug-addicted attorney who stole my retainer money and
attempted to sell the wrongful termination case I filed in 2013 against the UCOP thugs and
UC Regents. In contrast to my litigation against the UC Regents in the state courts, my
March 23, 2016 Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) Claim No.
2016-007481, in which I reported on an illegal multi-million-dollar tax evasion and fraud
due to the unlawful production and sale of electricity for profit in violation of the tax
exempt status Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 by UC Regents, I
was represented by an attorney, Mark Schlein, from the prestigious California consumer
protection law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Corporation, based in Los
Angeles.
- 253 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 299
309 of 374
383
https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/attorneys/mark-h-schlein/
In November 2017, I was unaware that, after Napolitano’s May 2016 meeting with President
Obama, Vice President Biden, and executives from the Department of Energy, former UC Executive
Associate Vice President Judith Boyette was appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to a three-
year term on the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE), and that
it caused that my March 23, 2016 whistleblower claim to be swept under the rug or deleted and my
lawyer from Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Corporation to be silenced.
In 2017, I did not pay much attention to the $175 million laundered by the UCOP mob, aside
from writing a letter about it to US Congressman Darrel Issa, from San Diego, entitled “The leftovers
from the California’s energy market deregulation, the energy crisis of 1999–2001, and the State of
California recall election of Governor Gray Davis in 2003. August 2000 Complaint with FERC, San
Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated by
the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange.”
In 2003, Issa helped California Governor Gray Davis with $1.7 million after he was
recalled for causing, together with the UCOP white collar criminals, Enron, and CAISO, a
$40 billion loss to California’s economy and taxpayers.
- 254 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 300
310 of 374
383
In regards to Napolitano’s laundered $175 million, I wrote in my inquiry to

Congressman Issa:
The question remains: why did UC President hide the $175 million and what did
she need it for? The amount of money hidden by Janet Napolitano indicates that
UC President Janet Napolitano and UC Regents had something in their mind and
Napolitano did not want to disclose the reason or admit why she stashed the $175
million dollars.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476785397/UTC-20170605-Inquiry-with-U-S-
Congressman-from-San-Diego-CA-Darrel-Issa
- 255 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 301
311 of 374
383
On November 20, 2017, just four days after the $175 million laundered by
Napolitano was buried by the November 16, 2017 Hueston Hennigan LLP joint venture
with former California Justice Carlos Moreno’s damage control efforts, I filed in California
Supreme Court a Petition for Review in my wrongful termination case, Jaroslaw Waszczuk
v. The Regents of the University of California Case No. C079524.
- 256 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 302
312 of 374
383
https://www.scribd.com/document/374885556/Supreme-Anti-SLAPP-Supreme-
Court-Petition-for-Review
The Petition for Review was from the 10/25/2017 Petition for Rehearing
(https://www.scribd.com/document/363447524/Waszczuk-v-UC-Regents-Anti-Slapp-
Petition-For-Rehearing) of the Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct.
App. Oct. 10, 2017) unpublished opinion, which was denied by “rubber stamp justice” by
3DCA Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye on November 9, 2017.
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)
- 257 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 303
313 of 374
383
On December 1, 2017, following the November 20, 2017 Petition for Review in Waszczuk v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017), I filed in the California
Supreme Court a motion to move my stolen unemployment benefits case, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) v. Regents of the University of
California as the Real Party in Interest, out of Sacramento to a different Court of Appeal District,
pursuant to Rule 10.100, Transfer of Causes and California Constitution Article VI Judicial Section
122.
- 258 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 304
314 of 374
383
In my motion to move the case out of Sacramento Court, I wrote :
The California appellate justices are exempted from disqualification provisions of

the Code. Civ. Proc. section 170 § 170.6 thus is no other choice for Waszczuk but
to submit this motion and ask the Supreme Court to move the cause away from the
Sacramento courts which caused already to Waszczuk and Waszczuk’s family non-
recoverable damages , harm and pain.
The highly problematic discriminatory decision in the anti-SLAPP motion
(C079524) is also undeniable evidence of partiality and most likely of 3DCA
Presiding Justice Hon. Vance Raye’s collusion with two defendants in Case No.
C079524 who were participants in white-collar crime related to illegal power sale
from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility and tax fraud due to violation of
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the requirements
set in 18 C.F.R. §§ 292.203(b) and 292.205 for operation, efficiency and use of
energy output to be certified as a qualified facility (QF) (pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §
292.20 requirements; Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a); California Public
Utilities Code Section 218.5; State of California Unfair Business Competition law;
Business and Professions Code § 17200; Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954; and State of California Revenue and Taxation Code.( See Petition
for Review in Case No. S245508.)
The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution provides that no state “shall . .
. deny any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Similarly,
the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, provides that “a person may not
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Due process
“principally serves to protect the personal rights of litigants to a full and fair
hearing” (Miller v. French (2000) 530 U.S. 327). The constitutional “right to due
process is a personal one” (Jones v. Omnitrans (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 273). The
right to due process is not merely afforded to a person in a trial court but also
pervades to all levels of the courts; therefore, causes in this appeal must be
transferred to the Supreme Court or another appellate district to be impartially
reviewed.
It did not take long for the California Supreme Court Clerk to use a rubber stamp with Supreme
Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s name on it to serve the justice in both the Petition for review
in the case Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) and in the
- 259 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 305
315 of 374
383
motion to move out of the Sacramento Courts my stolen unemployment benefits appeal pursued by the
cases Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) v. Regents
of the University of California as the Real Party in Interest, 34–2013–80001699–CUWMGDS, The
Court of Appeals, 3DCA, and Waszczuk v. CUIAB Case No. C079254.
On January 10, 2018, the motion to move the cases out of the Sacramento Courts and Petition
for Review were denied.
- 260 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 306
316 of 374
383
I questioned the Supreme Court Clerk about the rubber-stamp justice I experienced in three different
California courts.
- 261 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 307
317 of 374
383
On February 3, 2018, I sent a letter to my attorney, Mark Schlein, from Baum, Hedlund,
Aristei & Goldman Law Corporation, via U.S. mail and e-mail, reminding him that he represents me
with the WBO in my tax evasion and fraud 2016 Application for Award for Original Information (IRS
Form 211) Claim No. 2016-007481, and that the claim with the IRS needed to be updated, due to my
new discovery, which his legal representation should have taken care of. My letter included an
attachment that showed the specific numbers concerning the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant’s
power production and sales from 1999 to 2015, which was the subject of my whistleblower claim dated
March 23, 2016. Schlein became silent and never responded to my inquiry on updating the
whistleblower claim. Later, I decided to update the claim on my own with the new information. My
unusual experiences in the state courts led me to become quite suspicious that something was wrong
with my attorney’s representation and with my whistleblower claim to the WBO.
On March 1, 2018, the California Supreme Court decided that my former drug-addicted attorney,
Douglas Stein (State Bar Number (SBN) 13124), should be suspended from practicing law in California
for two years. He was placed on probation for three years and, due to stealing my retainer in June 2014,
he was ordered to make restitution to me in the amount of $14,694.33, plus 10 percent interest per year,
starting on June 2, 2014 (or to reimburse my client's security fund, to the extent of any payment from the
fund). In re Stein, No. S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018), it said this should be done in 2015, but in September
2015, the State Bar Investigator who had wrapped up the case for Stein prosecution’s vanished, together
with the case against Stein, to deprive me of any extra social security money and force me to drop my
litigation against the UCOP mob, which had devastated my life and many other people’s lives as a result
of their crimes.
- 262 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 308
318 of 374
383
- 263 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 309
319 of 374
383
On August 3, 2018, I submitted an update to my March 23, 2016 Application for Award for Original
Information (IRS Form 211), which addressed and reported the multi-million-dollar tax evasion and
fraud committed by the Regents of the University of California and their collaborators.
I sent this due to a lack of response from my attorney, Schlein, or from the WBO since October 2016
regarding status of my March 23, 2016 claim.
On August 6, 2018, I received confirmation from the USPS that the updated 2016 claim was
delivered to the WBO in Ogden, Utah on August 6, 2018, at 8:58 AM, and the confirmation of delivery
was signed by a person named “Mansley.” My update triggered an unprecedented WBO action.
On August 7, 2018, just one day after the WBO received my updated claim, the WBO issued
a decision denying my initial and original March 23, 2016 claim, Claim Nr. 2016- 00748, without any
review or investigation.
- 264 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 310
320 of 374
383
Following the WBO’s decision denying my March 23, 2016 claim, on August 13, 2018, I sent
an e-mail to Mark Schlein, who had been silent for two years, pretending that he represented me with
the WBO.
After Schlein received my e-mail, on August 14, 2018 he broke his two-year silence and ended his
legal representation of me, which in fact had been a gross and deceptive misrepresentation to me, a
client who put his trust in his advertised outstanding expertise in whistleblower cases.
- 265 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 311
321 of 374
383
Today, I have no doubt that Schlein, with his legal knowledge of whistleblowing cases, quickly
found after I retained him in June 2016 that my March 23, 2016 Application for Award for Original
Information (IRS Form 211) had much bigger stakes that I claimed. I think it is likely that Baum,
- 266 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 312
322 of 374
383
Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman contacted the UCOP’s Office of General Counsel, or vice versa, or a law
firm that represents the UC Regents and UCOP — most likely Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP of
San Francisco, California — contacted Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman in 2016 or 2017. In March
2016, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP’s attorneys Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott were hired
by Janet Napolitano for $1 million to eradicate UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi from the UC payroll
and UC Davis landscape. Katehi was the Chancellor who refused the UCOP’s demands to fire me from
my job in 2011 and 2012 and then ordered her to let me return to work in May 2012. The UCOP
mobsters had a different plan for me, Katehi, and for many other people who they viewed as
obstructions to their criminal activities. Both Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Baum, Hedlund,
Aristei & Goldman have offices in California and Washington D.C.
Furthermore, in June 2021, two other UCOP mercenaries from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, Robert Manhas and Robert M. Loeb, were employed by the D.C. Circuit as amicus curiae in the
bogus whistleblower case Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir.
2022), in an attempt to remove my pending appeal, Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner,
USCA No. 20-1407, which was kept from moving forward to the more serious fraud or white collar
crimes outlined and scheduled in D.C. Court for oral arguments on September 7, 2022. The Petition in
Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Case No. 21-1136 was filed by the SEIA on May 27, 2021 in D.C. Circuit Court addressing
the fraudulent FERC order that granted qualified facility status (QF) to Broadview Solar, LLC, which
never existed, was never constructed, and never commissioned; see Docket No. QF 17-454-006, FERC-
QF17-454-007;174 FERC ¶ 61,199 (Mar. 19, 2021) (“Rehearing Order”).
Following Schlein’s resignation in my WBO claim, the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
District in Sacramento, on August 31, 2018, denied my motion to place my appeal on the court calendar
and schedule oral argument as soon as possible for the Case Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) v. Regents of the University of California as the Real Party in
Interest. This was about my unemployment benefits, which were stolen by my former drug-addicted
lawyer in collaboration with the respondents’ attorneys. The order was stamped by 3DCA Presiding
- 267 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 313
323 of 374
383
Justice Vance W. Raye.
The August 3, 2018 update of my March 23, 2016 Application for Award for Original
Information (IRS Form 211) ,which reported the multi-million-dollar tax evasion and fraud, instead of
being included or combined with the March 23, 2016 claim, Claim No. 2016-007481, was relabeled as
Claims No. 2018-012118, 2018-012139, 2018-012141, and 2018-0121419 on August 24, 2018. These
were denied as well, without any review or investigation by the WBO, on October 23, 2018.
- 268 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 314
324 of 374
383
- 269 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 315
325 of 374
383
Also in October 2018, the UCOP mob’s thugs from the Sacramento-based Porter Scott law
firm attempted to end my wrongful termination lawsuit against the UC Regents in the Sacramento
County Superior Court case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, Case
No. 34–2013–34–00155479, filed on December 4, 2013, by bypassing the judge presiding over my
case, David I. Brown from Department 53. They filed a motion for termination sanction on October
3, 2018 with Judge Christopher E. Krueger, from Department 54. Judge Krueger is a former
employee of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP of San Francisco, former Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, and was Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General under California Attorney
General Edmund J. Brown. He was also the former chief deputy legal affairs secretary for the Office
of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was appointed to the bench in December 2010 by
Governor Schwarzenegger to succeed Elena J. Duarte, who was elevated to Associate Justice in the
Court of Appeal Third Appellate District (3DCA), where Krueger’s wife is employed as a Senior
Research Attorney.
From October 2018 through February 2019, the UCOP mob’s thugs from the notorious
Porter Scott law firm, in addition to initiating termination sanctions, which they expected to obtain
from Krueger, also attempted to frame me for a Bench Warrant with Judge Krueger’s friend, Judge
Jennifer K. Rockwell from Dept 37, who signed on November 7, 2018 an Application and Order for
Appearance and Examination of in violation of the 45-day requirement (Civil Code of Procedure §§
491.110, 708.110, 708.120, & Sacramento Superior Court Local Rule 2.1) (ROA# 172), in preparation
for a bench warrant. The Application for Appearance and Examination was submitted to the Court on
October 24, 2018, after the WBO denied my August 3, 2018 update of my March 23, 2016 Application
for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) No. 2018-012118.
Judges Krueger and Rockwell both worked in the same California Attorney General office
before being appointed to the bench in Sacramento County Superior Court. See the 3DCA Case State
v. All Persons, 152 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)
July 3, 2007.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. 04AS04303, Raymond
M. Cadei, Judge.
- 270 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 316
326 of 374
383
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Louis R. Mauro and Stacy Boulware Eurie,
AssistantAttorneys General, Christopher E. Krueger and Jennifer K. Rockwell,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
This did not work to frame me as the UCOP mob anticipated, because the UCOP thugs were
caught tampering with the administration of justice after filing with Judge Krueger in Department
54, instead of Judge Brown in Department 53. They had to refile their papers with the right Court
Department. The examination for the anticipated Bench Warrant that Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell
from Dept 37 signed also had to be postponed.
- 271 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 317
327 of 374
383
The above facts show how desperate the UCOP’s white collar criminals were to eliminate me from the
Court and the WBO by employing Judges Krueger and Rockwell to finish me. The August 3, 2018
updated WBO claim contains many details of corruption in California Government and many names
that were very familiar to Krueger and Rockwell, due to their prior Court employment (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/476787351/20180803-UTC-20180803-IRS-New-Application-for-
Award-WBO-Claim-No-2018-012118-full-document).
This is in contrast to Judge David Brown, who has no known association with California Government,
the University of California executives, UCDMC, or Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP of San Francisco.
Brown did not work for relatives or friends in the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District; however,
he could not do much in my fight against the evil corruption surrounding him.
LXVIII.
MY U.S. TAX COURT CASE (USTC) NO. 23105-18, JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK
V. COMMISSIONER OF U.S. TAX COURT AND CONTINUOUS LITIGATION IN THE
CALIFORNIA COURTS AGAINST UC REGENTS
On November 21,2018 I filed with the U.S. Tax Court a Petition to appeal the October 23,
2018 WBO decision which denied my August 3, 2018 whistleblower’s tax evasion and fraud
claims, numbers 2018-012118, 2018-012139, and 2018-01214, under I.R.C. § 7623(a).
The Petition was docketed in the U.S. Tax Court as Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Tax Court Case No. 23105-18 W. In my Petition I wrote :
The IRS FINAL DECISION UNDER SECTION 7623(a) dated October 23, 2018
does not correspondent 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 Whistleblower Office
Determination in additional pages-addendum
- 272 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 318
328 of 374
383
- 273 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 319
329 of 374
383
On December 12, 2018, I attended the oral argument hearing in the Sacramento Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District in the cases Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board (CUIAB) v. Regents of the University of California as the Real Party in Interest, 34–2013–
80001699–CUWMGDS, The Court of Appeals, 3DCA, Waszczuk v. CUIAB Case No. C079254, and
California Supreme Court cases Waszczuk v. CUIAB S253713 and S245879. The oral argument was
about stolen unemployment insurance benefits which were reinstated by the California Employment
Development Department in May 2014 but then stolen by my drug-addicted (now former) attorney in
collaboration with the UCOP mob’s lawyers from the UC General Counsel Office and the California
Attorney General Office.
On January 29, 2019, I filed in California Supreme Court a Petition for Review in the above case by
appealing the December 27, 2018 unpublished opinion Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals
Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018).
The case was docketed in the Supreme Court as Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., No
S253713 (EXHIBIT #65 hard copy and on flash drive and DVD,
https://www.scribd.com/document/476827015/UTC-20190129-California-Supreme-Court-Petition-
for-Review-Case-No-S253713).
- 274 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 320
330 of 374
383
In the cover letter of my 01/1/218 Petition for Review submitted to the California Supreme Court
appealing the December 27, 2018 unpublished opinion Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals
Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018), I initially summarized the December 12, 2018 Oral
Arguments as follows:
Please note that, on December 12, 2018, when I argued my case, I got the
impression that either the Sheriff’s Department or the City of
Sacramento Police Department had sharpshooters on roofs around the
3DCA court building. The court was reserved for me only on that day.
No one was there either before, during, or after oral arguments inmy case
besides myself and my former coworker. It was quite intimidating and scary.
In addition, on August 28, 2017, Porter Scott Attorney David Burkett, who
is representing UC Regents, attempted to provoke me into a physical
confrontation. I informed the Court about this in my Petition for a Rehearing
(Case C079524; Supreme Court Case S245508), but nothing was done about
it.
The California Deputy Attorney General Ashante Norton assigned to the case in March 2014 by AG
Kamala Harris did not show up for oral arguments. The unpublished opinion was delivered on
December 27, 2018 by 3DCA Associate Justice Elana Duarte, who during the oral argument was
arrogant and unprofessional.
In the Petition for Review itself, I further described my experiences with judges and justices from the
Sacramento Courts as follows:
Waszczuk apologizes to the Supreme Court Justices that this Petition
for Review in some parts sounds more like a complaint with the State
of California Commission on Judicial Performance against six 3DCA
Justicesrather than a request for review of Waszczuk case .
In the chapter titled: The story behind RPii’s “witch hunt” against Waszczuk in 2006–2009 and in
2011–2019,” on pages 9–12 of the petition, I briefed the Supreme Court on why I had become the subject
- 275 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 321
331 of 374
383
of a ruthless and merciless witch hunt orchestrated by the UCOP’s white collar criminals and their
collaborators as follows:
To cut a long story short, Waszczuk was hired by RPii in June 1999 as an operator
in the newly commissioned 27 MW cogeneration plant which triggered in May
2000, a sophisticated and costly fraudulent scheme called “the California Energy
Crisis”. The UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) plant in which Waszczuk was
employed was solely built to illegally sell power tax-free at cost of California
ratepayers and tax payers. The California Energy Crisis was created in a
sophisticated way by the authors and coauthors of the 1996 Assembly Bill 1890
(“AB 1890” or “Electricity Restructuring Act”) and the Act of September 23, 1996,
1996 Cal. Legis. Serv. 854 (A.B. 1890) (West). This was signed into law by
Governor Pete Wilson. ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-
96/bill/asm/ab 18511900/ab 1890 bill 960924 chaptered.htm
To make the fraudulent scheme developed by the AB 1890 successful, the
California Government in created a joint venture in 1998 between the University of
California, California State University, Enron Corporation, California Independent
System Operator (CAISO), and California Power Exchange (CalPX), designed to
launder electricity via the UC and CSU campuses at gouged or overcharged prices
by using sophisticated equipment. Art Madrid v. Perot System Corporation et al.
Case No. C046683, cited as 3DCA Case: [130 Cal.App.4th 440, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d
210].
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1352785.html
Prior to working for the University of California UC Davis Medical Center,
Waszczuk was employed by Enron’s competitor, the Dynegy Power Corp, from
1989 to February 1998 as an operator in their 50 MW cogeneration plant, which is
similar to the UCDMC plant.
Former Attorney General Bill Lockyer described Waszczuk’s previous employer
Dynegy as a one the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who rode in from Texas
and ran roughshod over California consumers, taxpayers and businesses.”
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-lockyer-announces-460-
million-settlement-reliant-resolve-energy
Between 1989 and 1997 Dynegy Power Corporation defrauded PG&E, ratepayers
and California taxpayers of $240,000,000.
ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/LegacyCPUCDecisionsAndResolutions/Decisions/Decision
s D9901001 to D0006092/D9910016 19991007 A9904009.pdf
- 276 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 322
332 of 374
383
California Public Utilities Commission - OPINION ON 2000 ANNUAL

TRANSITION COST PROCEEDING Decision 03-02-047 February 27, 2003
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/WORD_PDF/FINAL_DECISION/24198.
PDF
2. Disputed settlement costs of $194,860 in the Jaroslaw Waszcuk v. PG&E case
are Qualifying Facility (QF) related costs and appropriately recorded in the TCBA.
In 2004, Bill Lockyer’s “California Parties” and California Energy Task Force got
a kick-back from Dynegy Power corporation amounting to $280,000,000 and in
2005 it received $460,000,000 from Reliant Energy. Bill Lockyer cashed out
approximately $20,000,000 for his offices in California.
The Mayor of La Mesa Art Madrid and his legal team almost solved the puzzle
called “The California Energy Crisis.” However, their effort became “a mission
impossible” when his complaints against CAISO and Perot Corporation were
transferred to the Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District. In April 2007, Waszczuk was abruptly removed from the
UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant and was replaced by a 37-
year-old friend of Waszczuk’s supervisor, Steve McGrath. Three years later, this
man was found dead, hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park. The two
Directors of UCDMC, Robert Taylor and Director Dr. Shelton Duruisseau, are
assumed to be behind the job replacement for Waszczuk by an unqualified person
and behind the 2011–2012 witch hunt as well.
A second suicide occurred when the wife of the same supervisor, Steve McGrath,
a 41-year-old RN Nurse from Jackson Hospital, took her own life.
Another sudden and mysterious death, apparently related to the witch hunt against
Waszczuk and the illegal sale of power, was the death of UC Davis Chancellor
Emeritus, Larry Vanderhoof, who died in the UC Davis Medical Center on October
15, 2015, two days after Waszczuk filed his Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion
for Automatic Stay, or the Alternative Motion for a Discretionary Stay. This was
filed on October 13, 2015 (ROA #111). (See Waszczuk’s 2016 letter addressed to
Congressman John Garamendi)
https://www.scribd.com/document/390511699/SI-22-U-S-Senator-Garamendi-
UC-Davis-Chancellor-Larry-Vanderhoef
The brutal and merciless witch hunts against Waszczuk, for no apparent reason
whatsoever, cost the University of California or the owners of the UCDMC 27 MW
cogeneration losses of approximately $100,000,000 in revenue, tax-free, due to a
lack of surplus power for sale since February 2009.In April 2007 Regents abruptly
- 277 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 323
333 of 374
383
removed Waszczuk from the cogeneration facility than in February 2009, Regents
signed a written Settlement Agreement with Waszczuk and ceased the export of
power from the UCDMC plant . Waszczuk was not aware about until June -July
2015.
The case is pending in the U.S Tax Court in relation to the above matter .
The 2009 Settlement Agreement with the Regents of University of California cost
Waszczuk at least $1,000,000 in loss in income, while his house and life were
decimated by UC gangsters and the California Justice System.
In relation to the California Energy Crisis puzzle, Waszczuk wrote in his August
2018 report, as submitted to the new FBI Special Agent in Charge of the
Sacramento FBI Office Mr. Sean Ragan
• It is still unknown whether the 2000–2003 sophisticated scheme of fraud

and deception, which was labeled the “California Energy Crisis” and which
caused losses to the California economy of 40 billion dollars was
deliberately sabotaged by power-greedy corporations to make billions of
dollars by laundering megawatts, or whether the man-made “energy crisis”
was a coordinated act of terror synchronized with the September 11, 2001
terrorist attack on US soil. This was accompanied by intensified terrorist
attacks against the United States abroad during the period of the California
electricity deregulation and the California Energy Crisis.
• Whether a foreign terrorist network or a foreign power penetrated or
infiltrated the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the
California Power Exchange (CalPX), the University of California and the
Californian government during the process of the California electricity
market deregulation of 1996–1998, and whether this was done to destabilize
the Californian and US economy by manipulating the electricity market in
the Western states power grid, is the question that should be asked and
answered by the FBI. A 40-billion-dollar loss by the Californian economy
and California’s rate payers and tax payers is not small change but an
enormous amount of money which disappeared and was never recovered.
- 278 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 324
334 of 374
383
On pages 19–20, I addressed the petition for Review by Justice Duarte, who delivered the unpublished
opinion on December 27, 2018 in Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., No. C079254
(Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018).
It was no coincidence that Justice Duarte was chosen for this dirty job intended to
harm Waszczuk. She caught Waszczuk’s attention because she was employed from
2000 to 2007 in the Los Angeles Office of the United States Attorney, where she
worked as an Assistant United States Attorney, first in the Major Frauds Section
and later in the Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section, becoming Section
Chief in 2005.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/12930.htm
In September 2017, President of the University, Janet Napolitano, hired Mr.
Alexander Bustamante as a new Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance and
Audit Officer, in the Office of the President, with an annual basic salary of
$350,000.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-names-alexander-
bustamante-chief-compliance-and-audit-officer
Mr. Bustamante served as an assistant U.S. attorney with Hon. Elena Duarte for the
Central District of California in the same Los Angeles U.S Attorney office from
2002–2007. It is not the first time that UC President Janet Napolitano has employed
her former colleagues to conduct witch hunts to eliminate the university’s
adversaries. In 2016, Ms. Napolitano employed, for $1,000,000, two former US
attorneys, Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, to hunt down UC Davis Chancellor
Linda Kathi and her family to bring her down and to convert Ms. Katehi from UC
Davis Chancellor to Chancellor Emerita at cost of $1,000,000 of public funds. Ms.
Napolitano was deployed to the University of California in August–September
2013 by President Barak Obama at the same time that the Californian Governor
deployed his Chief Deputy Jacob Appelsmith to UC Davis as a new Chief Counsel.
As a result, in July 2015, the arch enemy of the UCOP corrupt establishment, the
very popular Senator Leland Yee, author of the Senate Bill SB 650 and an audit
aimed at corruption in the UC System, was convinced by Ms. Napolitano’s friend,
Melinda Haag’s plea bargain, to go to federal prison for five years.
On February 8, 2019, per a Court Order dated December 7, 2018 signed by Judge Jennifer K.
Rockwell to frame me for a Bench Warrant, I attended an Appearance and Examination in Court
Department 37. Judge Rockwell is a friend and former coworker from the same Attorney General’s
- 279 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 325
335 of 374
383
office as Judge Kreuger from Department 54. They both worked there prior to being appointed to
the bench. As I pointed out in the previous chapter, the UCOP mob’s thugs from Porter Scott, by
bypassing Judge Brown who presided over my wrongful termination case, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34–2013–34–00155479, unsuccessfully
attempted in October 2018 to use Judge Krueger to end my litigation by termination sanctions (See
https://www.scribd.com/document/512401861/06-18-2021-Motion-to-Recall-the-Remittitur-
or-Modify-the-Opinion-anti-SLAPP-motion).
• Jennifer K. Rockwell is a judge of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, California.
She was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown (D) on July 31, 2014.[1]
• 2014-Present: Judge, Superior Court of Sacramento County
• 2008-2014: Chief counsel, California Department of Finance
• 1999-2008: Deputy attorney general, California Department of Justice, Office of the
Attorney General
• 1996-1999: Staff counsel, California State Treasurer's Office
• 1995-1996: Executive fellow, Center for California Studies at Sacramento State[1]
• Rockwell received a B.A. from the University of California - Davis, and a J.D. from the
University of Southern California.[1]
https://ballotpedia.org/Jennifer K. Rockwell
I arrived at Court Department 37 with my former coworker from the UCDMC, William
Buckans, on February 8, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. When officials from Department 37 realized that I was
not alone, I was redirected to Department 43, with Presiding Judge Blizzard, where the Court Clerk
ordered me to go to the Court Cafeteria to meet and confer with Porter Scott attorney Daniel
Bardzell, who was representing the UC Regents.
During the meeting, Bardzell was very nervous and uncomfortable. I did not know that
Bardzell’s nervousness was caused by the unexpected change of courtroom from No. 37, with
Judge Rockwell, to 43, with Judge Blizzard.
For the record, I memorized the meeting with Bardzell and recorded it in a follow-up letter
entitled “Appearance and Examination on February 8, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 43, Hon.
Thadd A. Blizzard, Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California.”
- 280 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 326
336 of 374
383
RE: SUMMARY OF THE MEETING IN THE COURT CAFETERIA ON

FEBRUARY 8, 2019
Dear Mr. Bardzell,
For the record, I would like to briefly summarize our meeting that took place on
February 8, 2019 in the Sacramento County Superior Court Cafeteria on the sixth
floor at 9:30 a.m.
I and my witness, William Buckans (UC Davis Medical Center employee), viewed
the meeting as unpleasant, provocative, and hostile. William and I noticed that you
were very nervous and uncomfortable during the meeting. At some point when you
started bringing my wife and children into the terror I have been experiencing for
the last 12 years from the University of California Office of the President (UCOP)
mob, William, who was sitting at the next table, turned his chair toward you and
looked at you. You did not know that William was my former coworker from the
UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant where I worked from June
1999 to April 2007. You were also informed previously that two Porter Scott
attorneys attempted to provoke me into physical confrontation outside the court
room in February 2015 and in August 2017.
From your redundant and provocative questions about my wife, children, landlord,
and the insurance on my rental house, it was not difficult to conclude that Janet
Napolitano is looking to inflict a different type of harm to me and my family than
to enforce the unlawful judgment (see the Letter to the Clerk filed on July 18, 2018
and the Letter to Judge Brown filed on November 16, 2018).
Your questions about insurance on the rental house clearly indicate that
UCOP mob led by Janet Napolitano is planning a raid on my home with
involvement from the Lodi Police or San Joaquin Sheriff’s Department to
terrorize me and my family by ransacking my house to cause psychological
trauma. As you probably read in court documents, I have been terrorized and
hunted like a Jew during the holocaust by the UCOP mob since January 2007, and
I don’t see it ending soon while I’m still alive.
During our meeting on February 8, 2019, I provided you with the
following documents as potential assets:
- 281 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 327
337 of 374
383
• A copy of the January 31, 2009 Settlement Agreement by UC Regents and myself
plus the calculated damages of approximately $1,000,000 caused by UC Regents
due to breach and violation of this Settlement Agreement (attached).
• The March 1, 2018 copy of the California Supreme Court decision, which ordered
that I be paid back my stolen retainer money in the amount of $14,694.33 plus
10% interest that I paid to my former attorney, Douglas Stein, for representation.
Stein on Discipline Case No. S245982 (attached).
• The unfinished case with Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which is in
conspiracy with UC Regents that denied my short disability benefits in 2011.
Minimum value $4,546 (attached).
• The unfinished unemployment insurance benefits case pending in the California
Supreme Court, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
3DCA Case No. C079254, Supreme Court Case No. – Value $25,000 if prevail.
• Whistleblower case pending in the U.S. Tax Court, Waszczuk v. United States
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services, Docket No. 023105. The IRS
whistleblower case is about an enormous amount of unlawful power sales by
regents in conspiracy with Enron and the California Independent System Operator
and related to multimillion dollars in tax fraud. Fraud was disclosed in August
2012 by UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Duruisseau in this
interview with Sac Cultural Hub (attached).
http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-look-back
LXIX.
THE KRISTALLNACHT
It has come to the point that I am afraid to go to the Sacramento Court alone, so as not to be provoked
and harmed there. On top of this, someone fired a shot at my home into the living room. It entered in a
spot where my wife frequently sits and watches TV. It was probably a small caliber firearm. I do not
know if this incident was accidental or not. The incident was not reported to Lodi Police because I
would most likely have been kicked out by my landlord and not been able to find another rental property
in Lodi.
- 282 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 328
338 of 374
383
I lost my house in 2012 https://www.scribd.com/document/387070788/Swallow-Lane-2, due to the

beyond human decency witch hunt I was subjected to since 2005 and the unlawful termination of my
employment in December 2012 at age of 61, not to mention almost $1 million in lost wages and benefits
- 283 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 329
339 of 374
383
(see https://www.scribd.com/document/467979634/U-S-Tax-Court-Calculated-Damages-Caused-by-
UCOP-Mafia).
LXX.
THE MARCH 20, 2019, CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA EN BANC
DECISION
On March 20, 2019, an en banc session of the Supreme Court of California supposedly denied
my petition for review, which had been filed on January 29, 2019 as Waszczuk v. Cal.
Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018).
- 284 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 330
340 of 374
383
The Supreme Court justices denied my stolen unemployment insurance benefits, which the California
Employment Development Department (EDD) had restored on May 14, 2014. These benefits vanished,
just like my short-term disability benefits of 2011 and State Bar Investigator Amanda Gormley, who
disappeared with my complaint against Douglas Stein in October 2015.
The Supreme Court’s decision was unreal, not genuine, and very bizarre, considering that 3DCA, the
Supreme Court, and the State Bar were all informed that my unemployment insurance benefits had
been restored and then disappeared. The decision states that Justice Joshua Groban was recused and
did not participate. Groban was appointed to the Supreme Court in November 2018 by Governor Jerry
Brown and sworn into office on January 3, 2019. I have no clue why he was recused in my case. The
decision was just another example of the Supreme Court Clerk’s rubber-stamp justice under Chief
Justice Tani Kantil-Sakauye.
The UCOP mobsters, with their connections in the Sacramento Courts and the California Supreme
Court, were doing everything possible to cut me off from any additional financial resources, such as
my social security income, in hopes of forcing me to quit litigation against them.
LXXI.
MY SHORT-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE
On March 21, 2019, I was informed by a private investigator that my short-term disability insurance
benefits, which were denied in 2011 by Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston in a conspiracy
with UC Davis, UC Davis Medical Center, and the UCOP corrupt HR attorneys, were actually found
after eight years in the California State Controller’s Office as unclaimed property. The amount of
benefits to be reclaimed was $4,545.08. In response, I asked the private investigator to help me find
my unemployment insurance benefits, which had been missing since May 2014.
- 285 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 331
341 of 374
383
Coincidently or not, my short-term disability insurance benefits were found one day after the Supreme
Court of California denied my unemployment insurance benefits, which had been missing since May
2014,
I have no idea how my short-term disability insurance benefits of 2011 found their way to the California
State Controller’s Office after eight years or why they were not paid to me in 2011 or 2012, when I
was disabled and needed the money most. Justices from 3DCA and the Supreme Court of California
denied my missing unemployment insurance in a mean-spirited manner to please Janet Napolitano and
the UCOP.
- 286 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 332
342 of 374
383
https://www.scribd.com/document/476791675/UTC-20190502-State-Controller-
Office-Unclaimed-Property
LXXII.
THE CALIFORNIA SECURITY FUND COMMISSION
In October 2018 I received a letter from the Security Fund stating that I would have to wait
approximately another 36 months to receive the money stolen from in 2014 by my former
attorney. That was unacceptable to me, as the Supreme Court had already made a decision
in this matter.
- 287 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 333
343 of 374
383
On April 9, 2019, I sent a request to the State Bar of California’s Executive Director Leah
T. Wilson to intervene with the State Bar of California’s Client Security Fund to reimburse
me for the theft perpetrated by attorney Douglas Stein in 2014 (California Supreme Court
Decision dated March 1, 2018, Case No. S245982, EXHIBIT #66 hard copy and on flash
drive and DVD).
In my letter to State Bar Director Leah Wilson I pointed out that “
In September 2015, I already had pending two appeals in 3DCA. One that was
granted to UC was , the Anti-SLAPP Motion in Case No. 34-2013-00155479, and
the other which was was denied, was the Petition in Writ of Mandamus from the
benefits that were either stolen by my attorney Douglas Stein or blocked from being
paid due to a
conspiracy between the University of California’s Office of the General Counsel
attorneys and CUIAB attorneys from the California Attorney General office
When Ms. Gormley was removed from the case, the case against Stein was placed
in abeyance until the 3DCA and the Supreme Court could finish Jerry Waszczuk.
The court records and the State Bar of California’s records do not lie. They
emphatically show from October 2015 to March 20, 2019 how Ms. Gormley’s State
Bar successors conspired, collaborated, and precisely coordinated actions against
me with the UCOP white collar criminals and the 3DCA and Supreme Court staff
to destroy my life, as well as to
condone hundreds of millions of dollars of laundered money and enormous tax
fraud and evasion by UCOP organized crime led by Janet Napolitano.
In August of 2016, I alerted State Bar of California Executive Director Ms.
Elizabeth Parker and Hon. Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye about corruption in the
3DCA. Unfortunately, Director Parker and Hon. Cantil-Sakauye were more
impressed with Napolitano’s $1,000,0000 gift she gave to her two former
colleagues, former U.S. attorneys Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott for taking
care of Senator Leland Yee and converting U.C Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi to
Chancellor Emerita than about prosecuting crooked attorneys and serving justice in
3DCA.
After I exchanged multiple rounds of correspondence with California State Bar Director Leah Wilson
and other Executives, I received a final decision from the State Bar of California’s Security Fund
- 288 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 334
344 of 374
383
Commission informing me that I would be reimbursed for the money stolen from me money by my
attorney, Douglas Stein, in 2014.
- 289 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 335
345 of 374
383
On August 8, 2019, I received a check from the State Bar of California’s Client Security Fund
Commission. My former attorney, Douglas Stein, who stole the money, was disbarred in January 2020.
LXXIII.
THE JULY 29, 2019, 24-PAGE REPLY TO THE U.S. TAX COURT ORDER SERVED
ON JULY 9, 2019
On July 29, 2019, in a 24-page Reply to the U.S. Tax Court Order served on July 9, 2019 and
signed by Special Trial Judge Hon. Robert N. Armen, Re: Protective Order—Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure Section 6103(B)(L), (2), and (3) (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0019)
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Tax Court Case No.
23105-18 W https://www.scribd.com/document/476775930/UTC-20190729-Judge-Armen-Order-
Petitioner-Objection-to-Motion-for-Protective-Order
(EXHIBIT #67 hard copy and on flash drive and DVD), I brought again to the surface the $175
million laundered by UC President Napolitano in 2015–2016 disclosed by State Audit 2016-130 in
April 2017 and then covered up in the November damage control pseudo investigation report produced
- 290 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 336
346 of 374
383
by Hueston Hennigan LLP in a joint venture with former California Supreme Court Justice Carlos
Moreno. Thereafter this money vanished from public view.
In my response to Judge Armen, I elaborated as follows about the $175 million Napolitano received
from somewhere to use for the different costs to maintain the university’s needs:
“It is still a puzzle whether Assemblymen Phil Ting and Kevin
McCarty, by ordering the State Audit, prevented Napolitano from
using the $175,000,000 of dirty cash to possibly orchestrate a new
9/11 terrorist attack or to assassinate Donald Trump on the
Presidential campaign trail in 2016.”
In 2019, I should have paid more attention to the money Napolitano had in her hands; however, I was
under constant siege and attacks from her assigned thugs to eliminate me and my presence in the state
courts and U.S. Tax Court. Besides the money laundered by Napolitano, I addressed in my reply to
Judge Armen’s Order the victims of the UCOP mob’s criminal activities and concluded:
Janet Napolitano's appointment as U.S. Secretary of Homeland
Security in January 2009 and her appointment to UC President
Post in September 2013 emboldened the UC white collar criminals
to intensify their terror aimed at their adversaries without any
hesitation to kill people if needed.
By August 16, 2019, the US Tax Order in the Case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Tax Court Case No. 23105-18 W, was set for trial in San Francisco on
January 6, 2020
One month after the case was set for trial in San Francisco, UC President Janet Napolitano announced
her resignation on September 18, 2019, effective August 2020. The August 2020 resignation of
Napolitano from the UC President post is one of the reasons to continue the trial after August 2020 to
prevent Napolitano from meddling in this legal process.
LXXIV.
THE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON NOVEMBER 7, 2019
BY RESPONDENT, IRS COMMISSIONER IN JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK V.
- 291 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 337
347 of 374
383
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, U.S. TAX COURT CASE NO.

23105-18 W,
On November 7, 2019, the Respondent in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue Service, U.S. Tax Court Case No. 23105-18 W, the IRS Commissioner, filed a Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.
On November 8, 2019, I filed a motion to continue the trial in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Tax Court Case No. 23105-18 W after September 20,
2020 for the following reason:
After my July 29, 2019 PETITIONER'S REPLY TO THE JULY 9, 2019 U.S. TAX
COURT ORDER SERVED ON JULY 9, 2019 signed by the Special Trial Judge
Hon. Robert N. Armen: RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER, TAX COURT RULES OF
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE SECTION 6103(B) (L), (2), AND (3), Judge
Armen denied the Respondent's Motion for Protective Order and the Case was set
for trial by Standing Pretrial Order signed by Hon. Joseph Robert Goeke. (Judge
Armen retired on August 31, 2019.) One month after the case was set for trial in
San Francisco, UC President Janet Napolitano announced her resignation on
September 18, 2019, effective August 2020. The August 2020 resignation of
Napolitano from the UC President post is one of the reasons to continue the trial
after August 2020 to prevent Napolitano from meddling in this legal process.
(EXHIBIT #68 hard copy and on flash drive and DVD)
On December 5, 2019, I received a Court Order from the Polish Criminal Court in
Krosno, Poland to appear for a Court Hearing on January 9, 2020 for the pending case for
compensation due to me because of my anti-communist activities in 1980–1982 for the
independent existence of the Polish State (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/494446114/Solidarity-Anti-Communist-Movement-Poland-
1980-1982).
- 292 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 338
348 of 374
383
- 293 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 339
349 of 374
383
- 294 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 340
350 of 374
383
Taking into consideration who was the President of the University of California at the time, I did not
go to Poland for the trial set for January 9, 2020. One call from Napolitano, and my trip to Poland most
likely would have ended the same was that Yonas Fikre’s trip did. He was placed and maintained on
“No Fly List” for more than six years because he refused to be an FBI informant .(see Fikre v. Fed.
Bureau of Investigation, 904 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2018). I am certain that I would not be writing this
addendum today if I had flown to Poland in January 2020, taking into consideration what the UCOP
mobsters did to me in 2011–2012 (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/390464721/SI-17-UCOP-Mafia-Most-Unwanted-Poster).
On December 13, 2019, I filed my opposition to the IRS Commissioner’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (EXHIBIT #69 hard copy and on flash drive and DVD,
https://www.scribd.com/document/468743436/0001-12-13-2019-Us-Tax-Court-Petitioner-
Opposition-Summary-Judgment).
Also in December 2019, while doing research for my Opposition to Respondent’s Partial Motion for
Summary Judgment, filed on November 7, 2019 (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0036), I discovered that,
shortly after I retained Attorney Schlein in May 2016, Napolitano used her connections in President
Obama’s administration to enable former UC Executive Associate Vice President Judith Boyette to
be appointed by the Secretary of Treasury to a three-year term on the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax
Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE), to take care of my IRS whistleblower claim and my
attorney, Schlein. Boyette’s appointment to the TEGE was not coincidental. It is apparent from the case
Requa v. Regents of the University of California, Al 32778 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2013) that the UC is
a client of Hanson Bridgett LLP.
On March 13, 2020, I submitted a request to ascertain whether the Respondent’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, filed on November 7, 2019, had been placed on the Court Calendar
(docket) to render a decision in the above-captioned case, either with or without hearing oral
arguments.
- 295 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 341
351 of 374
383
On June 4, 2020, the U.S. Tax Court Judge, by a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in
Waszczuk V. Commissioner 'R, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), served on June 4, 2020 a
Granted Partial Summary Judgment to Respondent.
- 296 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 342
352 of 374
383
On June 26, 2020, the framed, witch-hunted, and prosecuted by Napolitano’s friends former CA
State Senator Leland Yee was released from federal prison after more than four years of
incarceration.
https://www.scribd.com/document/580562404/2010-2020-Witch-Hunt-
Prosecution-and-Incarcaration-of-the-California-Senator-Leland-Yee
LXXV.
THE MAY 5, 2020 ARTICLE IN THE ATLANTIC “WHY NOT JANET?”
A VICE-PRESIDENTIAL PICK WHO COULD SHOW THAT JOE BIDEN IS SERIOUS
ABOUT WINNING, AND THEN GOVERNING
BY JONATHAN RAUCH
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/sort-vp-biden-really-
needs/611122/
Jonathan Rauch is a contributing writer at The Atlantic. In his May 5, 2020 article, he wrote,
apparently after a chat with Janet Napolitano, that Napolitano should be considered as a potential
running-mate for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.
- 297 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 343
353 of 374
383
Napolitano, on many occasions, was named in the press as a possible candidate for a future
appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Some political commentators also suggested her candidacy in
the 2016 United States presidential election. In September 2014, some who remembered Napolitano as
the DHS Secretary and Arizona Governor said they saw her as a possible successor to Eric Holder,
serving as U.S. Attorney General. Instead, Loretta Lynch replaced Holder.
Rauch, in his anti-Trump article promoting Napolitano as better running-mate for Joe Biden in
the 2020 presidential election, wrote:
Harris, Whitmer, and Abrams lack seasoning. Harris has not yet
completed her first term in the U.S. Senate, Whitmer is still in her
second year as governor of Michigan, and Abrams has never served in
federal or statewide office.
- 298 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 344
354 of 374
383
Instead of Napolitano, the former California Attorney General who had not completed her first term
in the U.S. Senate, Kamala Harris, became the Vice President as a result of the 2020 presidential
election (see https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/vice-president-harris/).
In addition, Biden brought into his administration Harris’s successor in the California
Attorney General’s office, Xavier Becerra, who was nominated Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services (see https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/xavier-becerra.html).
It was on Harris and Becerra’s watch that Napolitano laundered $175 million that vanished
from public view because Becerra refused to open a probe against her and to disclose from where the
money had come into the University of California’s discretionary account, or what Napolitano with
her lieutenant, whom she brought with her from DHS to UCOP, intended to do with such huge
amount of laundered, untaxed dollars.
In the conclusion of his Why Not Janet? Article, Rauch elaborated:
I asked Napolitano about the vice-presidential nomination. She told me that she has
not had conversations with the Biden campaign, and is not, to her knowledge, under
consideration, but ruled nothing in or out. (“I don’t like to speculate or deal in what
ifs. Right now, there is nothing to consider.”) She endorsed Biden as
“knowledgeable, experienced, and a capable leader,” and she said they have had an
excellent relationship for years and have worked together on a wide range of issues.
Her health, she said, is good. “I did have a resurgence of breast cancer in 2016, but
my excellent doctors … got it all and I’ve had a clean bill of health ever since.”
In September, Napolitano announced that she will step down from the UC
presidency this coming August. Kids, can you say “available”? Biden would be
crazy not to short-list her, and crazy he clearly is not. In hewing to the center
and pitching to moderate voters who crave a sane, competent, nonscary
alternative to Trump, Democrats have played their hand shrewdly in 2020.
Putting Napolitano on the ticket would show they are serious about winning, and
then governing.
It did not happen. Napolitano was not short-listed by Biden as a potential running mate, or offered any
position in the administration after Biden was elected in November 2020. This article did not help
Napolitano’s bid to be considered. Rauch is from the same group of anti-Trump contributing writers as
- 299 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 345
355 of 374
383
Anne Applebaum, who despicably smeared Trump in her September 4, 2020 article in The Atlantic
“Who’s Putting These Ideas in His Head?”
Former FBI agent Peter Strzok worries that Americans will never learn the full story about
Trump’s relationship with Russia (see https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/anne-
applebaum-interviews-peter-strzok/616003/.
I commented on Applebaum’s article in September 2020: see :
https://www.scribd.com/document/478058037/Anne-Applebaum-Sikorska.
LXXVI.
THE PETITIONER, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’S, NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO THE
U.S. TAX COURT ORDER, DATED JULY 17, 2020, .IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION
FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE JOSEPH GOEKE AND ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW
JUDGE, PREFERABLY THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. URDA, APPOINTED TO
THE U.S. TAX COURT ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2018, BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DONALD JOHN TRUMP.
Re: 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.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476773839/UTC-20200604-MEMEORANDUM-AND-
ORDER-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment
Re: The 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, denied by the U.S. Tax Court on June 30, 2020.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476774356/UTC-20200629-ORDER-DENIED-Motion-to-
Vacate
Re: The Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration for 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), filed on July
15, 2020, denied by the U.S. Tax Court on July 17, 2020.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476774772/UTC-20200717-ORDER-DENIED-Motion-for-
Reconsideration
- 300 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 346
356 of 374
383
On September 21, 2020, I submitted to the U.S. Tax Court a Motion for Recusal of Judge Joseph
Goeke and Assignment of a New Judge, Preferably Judge Patrick J. Urda for the record (EXHIBIT
#70 on flash drive and DVD).
The motion was supported by a Notice of Objection to the July 17, 2020 U.S. Tax Court Order in
lieu of declaration in support of my Motion for Recusal of Judge Goeke and Assignment of New Judge
to Review the Case. I wrote the motion and a long notice of objection because I felt that I am still
horribly victimized by my former employer, mobsters from the UCOP and their collaborators from
various entities.
For whatever reason, on July 17, 2020, Judge Goeke denied my Petitioner’s 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), which was filed on July 15, 2020. I felt
that it was the wrong decision and politically motivated, dictated to the U.S. Tax Court by California's
corrupt political oligarchy and the UCOP mob, led by former Napolitano, who embezzled $175 million
of laundered money via University of California discretionary accounts.
I submitted Notice of Objection, the U.S. Tax Court on September 21, 2020, one month after
Napolitano resigned from her post as UC President
My 9/21/2020 Motion For Recusal of Judge Joseph Goeke and Assignment of a New Judge,
Preferably the Honorable Patrick J. Urda, Appointed To The U.S. Tax Court On September 27, 2018
by the President Donald Trump was supported by the 9/21/2020 Notice of Objection to the U.S. Tax
Court Order, Dated July 17, 2020 (EXHIBIT #71 on flash drive and DVD).
My 300-page-long notice of objection reflected the political climate of the US prior to and
during the presidency as I saw it, and in light of my experiences with the UCOP’s organized white
collar crime, which is also connected to the State of California, federal government, and various state
and federal agencies.
My motion was stricken from the record by Judge Goeke on 9/23/2020. Judge Goeke’s Order
striking my Motion for Recusal and Notice of Objection contains an error stating that my Notice of
- 301 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 347
357 of 374
383
Objection was from a Respondent IRS Commissioner Motion for Partial Summary Judgement. It was
not. The IRS Commissioner filed the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on November 7, 2019,
and I filed my opposition on December 13, 2019.
- 302 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 348
358 of 374
383
Although the Motion for Recusal of Judge and Notice of Objection were stricken from the
record, they were transferred to the United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit as a
Record of Appeal, which I filed on September 25, 2020.
- 303 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 349
359 of 374
383
The Appeal from the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) was filed and docketed in D.C. Circuit as Jaroslaw
Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, Case No. 20-1407.
LXXVII.
THE 2021–2022 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT WHITE
COLLAR CRIMINALS’ COORDINATED EFFORT TO END MY LITIGATION IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COURTS AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Re: Sacramento County Superior Court case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 34–2013–34–00155479, filed on December 4, 2013 (wrongful termination) and
related to pending appeal 3DCA case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California,
Case No. C095488, Notice of Appeal filed on 12/23/2021 (pending)
Re: The U.S. Court of Appeal District for the District of Columbia case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, Case No. 20-1407, U.S. Tax Court Case (USTC) No.
23105-18 W, Notice of Appeal filed on 10/07/2020.
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge David I. Brown, who had presided over my
wrongful termination case since September 2014 in Sacramento County Superior Court case
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34–2013–34–00155479,
refused in 2018–2019 to award the UCOP mobsters termination sanctions to end my litigation. He
was apparently forced to resign three years before his term expired. Judge Brown’s tenure in
Sacramento County Superior Court ended on December 31, 2020. My last court filing in Sacramento
County Superior Court with Judge Brown was on December 27, 2019.
- 304 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 350
360 of 374
383
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 351
361 of 374
383
After the UCOP mob’s thugs from the notorious Porter Scott law firm, based in Sacramento,
failed in 2018–2019 to frame me for a Bench Warrant by employing Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell,
from Dept 37, and to obtain termination sanctions from Judge Christopher Krueger, from Department
54, in April 2021 attacked my 70-year-old wife, who had been one of their targets since 2015.
As I provided information in Chapter XXXI, Judge Rockwell is a friend and former coworker
of Judge Kreuger, from Department 54. They both worked in the same California Attorney General’s
office prior to being appointed to the bench in Sacramento County Superior Court.
On April 22, 2021, my 70-year-old wife, Irena, was ambushed by a CIVIL SUBPOENA
(DUCES TECUM) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored
Information, and Things and Trial or Hearing and Declaration Issued to IRINA WASZCZUK by
Olatomiwa T. Aina on April 22, 2021 (APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND
EXAMINATION with a court hearing date of May 7, 2021 at 9:00 A.M. in Department 43, per a
DECLARATION OF OLATOMIWA T. AINA IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S
APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF IRINA WASZCZUK.
The above documents were filed in court by two attorneys, Lindsay A. Goulding and Olatomiwa
T. Aina, from the notorious Porter Scott law firm and served to me on April 22, 2021 (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/505164449/20210427-Meet-and-Confer-Order-to-Appear-for-
Examination-O-Aina-Porter-Scott).
After I closely screened the documents that had been served upon me, I came to the conclusion
that the documents for an examination of Irina Waszczuk were generated in October 2019 by other two
Porter Scott attorneys, Daniel Bardzell and Nancy Sheehan, because their email addresses appeared on
the first page of the Aina document. Sheehan was gravely ill with metastatic breast cancer at the time
and she died on November 23, 2019, exactly one month after the evil-minded Porter Scott attorneys
added her to the case to represent the UCOP mob.
I knew right away that the UCOP mobsters’ thugs were attempting to frame my wife for a
Bench Warrant and criminal prosecution, as they did to my psychologist’s Dr. Franklin Bernhoft’s
- 306 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 352
362 of 374
383
wife Dorothy Bernhoft in 2011–2012. Framed Dorothy Bernhoft escaped a prison term with a plea
agreement. I could have filed a motion to quash the subpoena, but it would not have done me any good.
In 2019, my wife gave me $25,000 to pay the judgment for unlawfully awarded legal fees in an anti-
SLAPP motion, but the UCOP mob did not care about money and did not want the money. They wanted
termination sanctions to end my litigations which Judge Brown refused to deliver to them.
Instead of a subpoena, the UCOP thugs could have sent my wife a letter asking her for a check,
if they wanted money. They did not want the money for an ant-SLAPP judgment. The Sacramento
County Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over my wife, because we live in San Joaquin County,
which has its Superior Court in Stockton. It did not matter. If my wife had not appeared in Sacramento
County Superior Court, I have no doubt that a Bench Warrant would have been issued, and the Sheriff
Department would have shown up at my residence in Lodi and ransacked my home .
On July 2, 2021, at 9:00 A.M., my wife and I attended the Court Hearing in Sacramento County
Superior Court’s Department 37.
- 307 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 353
363 of 374
383
I described the July 2, 2021 appearance of my wife in the state court (for the first time in her life) in
my correspondence sent on October 8, 2021 to Michele Kem, Secretary to the Trial Counsel in the
State of California’s Commission on Judicial Performance:
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) to extort money. These departments
should be audited by the State Auditor and the FBI.
On other side in the U.S. Court of Appeal District for the District of Columbia case Jaroslaw
Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, Case No. 20-1407, U.S. Tax Court
Case (USTC) No. 23105-18 W, Notice of Appeal, which was filed on 10/07/2020. The UCOP
mercenaries from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Robert Manhas and Robert M. Loeb, were
employed by the D.C. Circuit as amicus curiae in the bogus divorce whistleblower case Mandy Mobley
Li v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) from the State of Georgia to remove
my pending appeal, Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner, USCA No. 20-1407, which was
kept from moving forward to the more serious fraud or white collar crimes outlined and scheduled in
D.C. Court for oral arguments on September 7, 2022.
The above-mentioned bogus divorce whistleblower case Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm'r of
Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) from the State of Georgia, aimed at removing my
pending appeal, Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner, USCA No. 20-1407, reminds me of
the criminal case from Georgia United States v. Winner, No. 20-11692 (11th Cir. Dec. 7,
2020).
- 308 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 354
364 of 374
383
In this case, a young US Air Force veteran Reality Winner brainwashed by anti-Trump mass
media propaganda was set up to be used by Trump’s adversaries to remove him from office. It did not
work as the plotters anticipated, and Winner was arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to 63 months in
federal prison under the 1917 Espionage Act (see https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-
contractor-georgia-charged-removing-and-mailing-classified-materials-news).
I accidently came across Winner’s criminal case on Twitter via her mother, Billie J. Winner-
Davis's, Twitter account, @bjwinnerdavis, shortly after I appealed the U.S. Tax Court's decision to
deny me reward in my whistleblower case, United States Court of Appeals District for the District of
Columbia Circuit, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, Case No. 20-
1407, which was aimed at the UCOP, the UC Regents, and California government's political swamp
on November 7, 2020 (see https://www.scribd.com/document/483221260/U-S-COURT-OF-
APPEALS-FOR-THE-DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA-CIRCUIT-USCA-No-20-1407-STATEMENT-
OF-ISSUES-TO-BE-RAISED). Winner-Davis's Twitter campaign, which sought a presidential pardon
and the release of her daughter from federal prison, cried out against Trump for the prosecution and
incarceration of her daughter and portrayed Winner as a national hero who had warned the U.S. about
Russian President Vladimir Putin's interference in the 2016 presidential election. This encouraged
me to review some of the court-filed documents from the United States District Court, Southern District
of Georgia, Case No. 1:17-CR-00034-JRH-BKE and other available documents and information on the
internet to find out what happened to Winner, a 25-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran with exceptional
service in the military. Winner was charged by the U.S. Government, pursuant to the 1917 Espionage
Act, only a few months after she was honorably discharged from the Air Force, in November 2016.
She was sentenced to 63 months in federal prison and three years of supervised release on August 23,
2018. She is serving her sentence in Federal Medical Center, Carswell (FMC Carswell), Fort Worth,
Texas. On December 7, 2020, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit ruled unanimously that a trial judge had not abused his discretion in denying early release
to Winner, due to COVID-19 (see https://www.scribd.com/document/487850453/UNITED-STATES-
OF-AMERICA-v-REALITY-LEIGH-WINNER-Compassionate-Release).
- 309 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 355
365 of 374
383
LXXVIII.
JUDGMENT DECISION
OF THE COURT IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF
POLAND
On October 20, 2021, I received a Judgment with small compensation in the amount of
$15,000.00 from the Republic of Poland Government as a thank you for my anti- communist activities
in 1980–1981 to liberate Poland from the communist regime and Soviet domination. Please see:
- 310 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 356
366 of 374
383
- 311 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 357
367 of 374
383
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 358
368 of 374
383
PJM is a regional transmission organization (RTO) that coordinates the movement of

wholesale electricity in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the
District of Columbia.
It all started in 1927 when three utilities From New Jersey and Pennsylvania
formed an integrated power pool. On Sept. 26, 1956,
additional utilities from Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania joined the
founding utilities to form the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland
Interconnection - PJM.
https://learn.pjm.com/history-highway.html
PJM has 1096 members (https://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/member-services/member-list),
which includes public utilities companies and privately owned power producers, including my former
employer of 1989–1998, Dynegy https://www.dynegy.com/. Dynegy was one of the key players and
perpetrators in the May 2000–October 2001 sophisticated $40 billion fraud titled known as the
California Energy Crisis. Dynegy, along with Reliant, El Paso Corporation, and Enron, was labeled
by former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer as one of the Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse who rode in from Texas and ran roughshod over California consumers, taxpayers
and businesses.
Robinson, as CAISO’s General Counsel and Vice President, was a key architect and
perpetrator of the California Energy Crisis (May 2000–October 2001). His arrival in April 2001
at CAISO resulted in an escalation of the electricity price war and rolling blackouts economic, a
disaster in California and other western states.
The 10-year presence of Robinson at PJM and all of the facts I discovered led me to the
conclusion that the UCOP executives and UC Regents who permitted Robinson to be on PJM
Board are owners of power plant(s) in the PJM’s RTO area under fictitious names. Robinson, as
a PJM Board Member of the Regulatory and Competitive Market Committee and as Chair of the
PJM Board Governance Committee, is overseeing the UCOP’s underground business, and he
may not be working only for the UCOP. There is no other, better explanation for how
- 313 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 359
369 of 374
383
Napolitano, in 2015–2016, received and laundered $175 million and interfered in the State Audit,
or why California AG Becerra refused to open a probe to investigate.
I believe and am quite sure that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Commissioner Mark C. Christie, who took office on January 4, 2021, has a lot of information about
UC General Counsel Robinson’s presence and activities with PJM from 2011 through 2020.
During Commissioner Christie's service as a state regulator, he was elected president of the
Organization of PJM States, Inc. (OPSI), a group of utility regulators representing the 13 states and
the District of Columbia that participate in the PJM transmission and market organization. He served
for more than a decade on the OPSI governing board. Christie also served as president of the Mid-
Atlantic Conference of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners (MACRUC), a regional chapter of the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) (see
https://www.ferc.gov/about/commission-members/commissioner-christie).
- 314 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 360
370 of 374
383
FACTS:
In January 2007, Robinson arrived at UCOP headquarters in Oakland, where he began
serving as the new general counsel and vice president.
In January 2009, Napolitano was appointed by President Barack Obama to be Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
In January 2010, Yee requested a state audit to track where the UCOP gets its funds and
where each dollar goes. Specifically, it would follow where private funds, state funds, student fees,
and federal funds all ended up. Yee asked the auditors to specifically focus on the UCOP.
State Audit 2010-105 was concluded on July 28, 2011 (see Exhibit #60,
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2010-105.pdf). The State Auditor’s cover letter summarized
the audit by merely stating that the UCOP needs to track more precisely about $1 billion of expenses
annually, which it currently tracks under a single accounting code—"Miscellaneous Services.” Yee
paid ultimate price for his curiosity, five years in federal prison (see
Incarcaration-of-the-California-Senator-Leland-Yee).
In 2011, Robinson began serving as a member of the PJM Board Governance Committee.
In September 2013, Napolitano and Mueller arrived in California. Napolitano was the new
president of the University of California, Mueller went to Stanford University as a Distinguished
Lecturer on issues related to cybersecurity.
On May 18, 2016, Napolitano held emergency meeting in Washington D.C. with U.S.
President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.
Napolitano briefed them about her carbon neutrality initiative to decarbonize the University of
California and the United States.
In October 2016, Napolitano campaigned in the US presidential election in her home state of
Arizona for Democratic Nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.
On April 25, 2017, California State Audit 2016-130, in contrast to State Audit 2010-105,
disclosed that Napolitano and her associates laundered $175 million, which were hidden in various UC
discretionary accounts. The crime was covered up.
- 315 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 361
371 of 374
383
On May 17, 2017, former FBI Director Mueller resurfaced as U.S. Department of Justice
Special Counsel. He was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a key player in the
conspiracy to remove Trump from office in 2017. I covered this in my submitted to the U.S. Tax Court
on September 21, 2020 Notice of Objection to the July 17, 2020 U.S. Tax Court Order.
In November 2017, Napolitano’s money laundering was covered up by the hiring of former
state Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, who joined in the phony investigation with Hueston
Hennigan LLP (see https://www.hueston.com/). This investigation produced more than 50 pages of
damage control in a meaningless report entitled “Independent Fact-Finding Review for the Board
of Regents of the University of California:
Summary of Findings” see https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov17/b2attach3.pdf.
The unanswered questions remaining in this chapter are:

What benefits are there for the UCOP executives and UC Regents to have Charles Robinson on
the Board of Governance of the largest RTOs in the US, PJM, for 10 years, other than to make from
the deal tens of millions of dollars and to launder the money via UC’s discretionary accounts to UCOP
white collar criminals’ accounts?
The University of California is a non-profit, tax-exempt higher education entity and has nothing
in common with the PJM RTO. It makes no sense for the UC General Counsel to sit on the PJM Board
for 10 years but only to have power plant there and make a hundred of million of dollars for the rotten
by corruption University of California Office of the President and organized white crime in California
political establishment .
LXXX.
THAE CLOSER LOOK AT THE NAPOLITANO’S APPOINTMENT AS SECRETARY OF
THE PRESIDENT’S INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD ON MAY 4, 2022
On May 4, 2022, President Biden announced the appointment of former UC President Janet
Napolitano, among others, to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB).
- 316 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 362
372 of 374
383
The President's Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB), with its component

Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), is an independent element within the
Executive Office of the President.
The President’s Intelligence Advisory Board exists exclusively to assist the
President by providing the President with an independent source of advice on the
effectiveness with which the Intelligence Community is meeting the nation’s
intelligence needs, and the vigor and insight with which the community plans for
the future. The Board has access to all information needed to perform its functions
and has direct access to the President.
The Intelligence Oversight Board oversees the Intelligence Community’s
compliance with the Constitution and all applicable laws, Executive Orders, and
Presidential Directives. It complements and supplements, rather than duplicates the
oversight roles of the Director of National Intelligence, Department and Agency
Inspectors General and General Counsels, and the Congressional Oversight
Committees.
For more than five decades the PIAB has acted as a nonpartisan body, offering the
President objective, expert advice on the conduct of U.S. intelligence.
- 317 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 363
373 of 374
383
It is unknown by whose recommendation and why Biden appointed Napolitano to the PIAB.
What I know is that, shortly after Napolitano’s May 18, 2016 emergency meeting with President
Obama, Vice President Biden, and executives from the Department of Energy, former UC Executive
Associate Vice President Judith Boyette was appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to a three-
year term on the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE).
Thereafter, my March 23, 2016 whistleblower tax evasion and fraud claim was swept under the rug
or deleted and my lawyer from Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Corporation was silenced
(see https://www.scribd.com/document/476775292/UTC-20160518-UC-President-Janet-Napolitano-
Meets-President-Obama-Vice-President-Biden-BIDEN).
Shortly after the April 25, 2017 disclosure by the California State Auditor that Napolitano laundered
$175 million via UC accounts and interfered in a State Audit, on July 17, 2017, FBI agents raided the
home of President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/480651818/Witch-Hunt-Prosecution-of-Paul-J-Manafort-Jr).
It looks like history repeated itself. Napolitano was appointed in May 2022 by President Biden to the
PIAB, and two months later, the FBI raided Donald Trump’s Mar a Lago residence in Florida (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/589618571/08-26-2022-the-Mar-a-Lago-Raid-Redacted-Search-
Warrant-Affidavit).
Coincidentally or not, President Biden’s May 4, 2022 announcement to appoint Janet Napolitano to the
PIAB occurred just after I discovered on April 29, 2022 that she, on March 27, 2014, registered the
UC Regents with the California Public Utilities Commission as ESP #1389 to buy and resell electricity
for tens of millions of dollars and launder the money via the university’s various accounts, in violation
of the University of California’s tax-exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3).
On April 29, 2022, I forwarded my discovery about the UC Regents’ ESP registration to the FERC,
along with my inquiry about SunPower’s Self-Certification of Form 556 for the 16.3-MW solar located
on 62 acres owned by UC Davis. I cc’ed the e-mail to the UCOP Clean Power Program Director, Cynthia
Clark, who is responsible at the UCOP for the purchase and re-sale of power from three solar power
plants, which are the subject of this Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211) for
- 318 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 364
374 of 374
383
tax evasion and fraud.
On May 3, 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission changed the date of the UC Regents’
registration as an ESP from March 27, 2014 to May 3, 2022.
- 319 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 365
375 of 374
383
I do not know why exactly the date of the UC registration as an ESP was changed from March 27, 2014
to May 3, 2022, but I know for sure that the UC Regents have been acting in an official capacity to buy
and resell electric power for profit since 2016 from at least three different solar power plants, if not
- 320 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 366
376 of 374
383
more. This is in violation of their tax-exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3). The UC Regents are
responsible for at having evaded taxes worth a minimum of $90–100 million dollars in profit from the
sale of power via CAISO.
LXXXI.
AUGUST 30, 2022 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT PER CURIAM ORDERS - CASE JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK V
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE V. COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE, CASE NO. USCA NO. 20-1407.
On August 30, 2022, the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, by two separate
Per Curiam Orders, denied my 06/10/20220 Petition for rehearing, styled as a notice of objection
combined with a MOTION for reconsideration,
- 321 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 367
377 of 374
383
and my 07/12/2020 Petition for rehearing en banc of the Court order dated 06/01/2022, which
dismissed my appeal and further declined to reward me for reporting millions of dollars in tax evasion
and fraud committed by the UCOP due to the unlawful production and sale of electricity.
- 322 -
#1962104 Filed: 02/02/2023
09/05/2022 Page 368
378 of 374
383
The decisions denying my petitions were precisely coordinated with Court filings in the D.C. Circuit
Case Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Case No. 21-1136, which is due to begin scheduled oral arguments on September 7, 2022.
LXXXII.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am respectfully asking the IRS Whistleblower Office to fully investigate my report of
tax evasion and fraud committed by the University of California’s Office of the President executives
and the Regents of the University of California of including, but not limited to, former UC
President Janet Napolitano, UC General Counsel Charles Robinson, and their collaborators.
Respectfully submitted on September 3, 2022,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
- 323 -

02-02 - 2023 - USTC-Petitioners' Motion To Stay Proceeding - Stay of Mandate-Case No.23105 - 18 W

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

02-02 - 2023 - USTC-Petitioners' Motion To Stay Proceeding - Stay of Mandate-Case No.23105 - 18 W

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1984256 Filed: 02/02/2023 Page 1 of 374

Docket No. 23105-18 W -1-

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

Petitioner Filed Electronically

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -RE:

To: Honorable Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge

issued the following Court Order (EXHIBIT #1):

By this motion, the Petitioner Jaroslaw Waszczuk ( pronounced Vashchook

Revenue Service v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service USCA District

Waszczuk v, Waszczuk v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020)

mandate issued on September 19, 2022. (EXHIBIT #2)

Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue USCA case (No. 21-1268)

(Lissack) filed on December 16, 2021 and Luis Villa-Arce v. Commissioner of

National Whistleblower Center attorneys have outstanding expertise with such

Luis Villa-Arce in Appellant’s Brief on page No.1 -JURISDICTIONAL

dismissed it due to lack of jurisdiction to rule on 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4) but two

blunt discrimination of Waszczuk the pro se litigants in the court of law .

Thomas Jefferson wrote that: "the most sacred of the duties of a

The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal

History clearly demonstrates that in any free society all that

As a pro se litigant, [a] [p]laintiff is permitted a more lenient

lenient standard or to be excused from following the procedural rules . However ,

be discriminate because the former University of California President Janet

Napolitano embezzled and laundered with others $ 175,000,000 via university

status outlined in IRC Section 501(c)(3).

BEFORE: Katsas, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges

mandated or directed Waszczuk to file motions to govern future proceedings within 30

days of the court’s disposition of Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue,

22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

Waszczuk, by following the Court order from October 1, 2021, consequently

interference in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v Internal Revenue Service v.

using a divorce whistleblower case, Li v. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, Case No.

On October 1, 2021, Waszczuk submitted his objection, combined with a

motion/opposition titled “Jaroslaw Waszczuk’s Concerns Regarding the September 15,

• Consumers’ attorneys with outstanding expertise in tax evasion and tax

• Attorneys with expertise in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission laws

The amicus curiae brief filed on 09/01/2021 and 01/11/2022 Opinion in

and Decision in Rogers v. Comm'r case, No. l 7985-l 9W

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.

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:

target taxpayers in §7623(b)(5)(A) is similarly not

corruption " from the WBO office in Ogden, Utah.

abuse of discretion in rejecting or denying claims.

a Court-appointed amicus curiae with expertise in Federal Energy Regulatory

Circuit in Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission Case USCA #21-1126 (see

attorney’s argument in their Motion to dismiss Waszczuk’s appeal.

is so artlessly drafted and showed a manifest disregard of Waszczuk’s right to equal

acting against him

399-18W. Lissack’s appeal was docketed as Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of

Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161 and Motion to Vacate or Revise

(U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) and Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue

(USTC-5070-19W) 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), which granted Commissioner a

Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161 and Waszczuk’s Motion to Vacate or

On February 18, 2022, the CLERK’S ORDER set a briefing schedule in

Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, USCA Case Number: 21-

June 10, 2022.