07-30-2019 U.S Tax Court - Motion For Protective Order

US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT
RECEIVED y % eFILED
sUS
JUL 29 2019 * JUL 29 2019
8:02 PM
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK,

Petitioner,
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
v- Docket No. 23105-18W
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent
PETITIONER'S REPLY TO ORDER DATED 07/09/2019
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
SERVED Jul 29 2019

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

Docket No. 23105-18W
Petitioner Filed Electronically
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Respondent,
PETITIONER'S REPLY TO U.S. TAX COURT ORDER SERVED ON

JULY 9, 2019 SIGNED BY SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE HON. ROBERT N.
ARMEN
RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER -TAX COURT RULES OF PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE SECTION 6103(B)(L), (2), AND (3)
INTRODUCTION
Hereby and for the record, Petitioner Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced Yaroslav
Vashchook), hereafter Petitioner, is replying timely to the captioned July 9, 2019
Order.
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -2-
Petitioner appreciates the Court's advice found in the Order which lets the
Petitioner know what consequences to expect and face if he withdraws or does not
withdraw his June 3, 2019 Opposition to Respondent's May 15, 2019 Motion For
Protective Order Pursuant To Rule 103. What especially caught Petitioner's
attention in the Court Order is the following Court statement on page 2:
Section 6103(a) provides as a general rule that Section 6103 information

shall be confidential. Exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality are
extremely limited and narrow. Unauthorized disclosure of Section 6103
information is punishable as a felony. Sec. 7213.
After Petitioner received the Court Order, he seriously considered withdrawing his
opposition to Respondent's May 15, 2019 Motion For Protective Order and to work
out with Respondent Counsel Darrick D. Sun how to manage non-disclosure under
Section 6103(a) in light of Petitioner's litigations against the University of
California administration.
However, Petitioner noticed that since March 20, 2019, Respondent's counsels from
the IRS Chief Counsel's Division Office in San Diego are closely coordinating their
action in the U.S. Tax Court with the University of California attorneys' terror
campaign aimed at Petitioner and his 69-year-old wife in the Sacramento County
Superior Court in relation to this proceeding. The Respondent's coordinated actions
in U.S. Tax Court with Petitioner's adversaries in state court is a clear indication
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -3-
that Respondent's attorney Darrick D. Sun is in direct contact with attorneys from
the Porter Scott law firm located in Sacramento, CA or in direct contact with the
University of California General Counsel Charles Robinson, former California
Independent System Operator and the "Godfather" of the sophisticated scheme of
fraud by white collar criminals entitled "The California Energy Crisis" of2000-
2001, which cost California ratepayers and taxpayers $40 billion and a lot of
suffering for many people, including Petitioner. Most likely Responded attorney
Mr. Sun knows UC Davis executives , educated and employed by Rutgers
University School of Law, N.J. It is more to this story but Petitioner won't
elaborate about.
PETITIONER'S DECISION NOT TO WITHDRAW HIS OPPOSITION TO

RESPONDENT'S MAY 15, 2019 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
By this Reply, Petitioner respectfully informs the Court that he is unwilling to
withdraw his June 3, 2019 Opposition to the Respondent and will not certify, and
the Court should deny Respondent's aforementioned motion.
While former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is still in
charge of the University of California Office of the President (UCOP), and while
attorney McGregor Scott, re-appointed by Napolitano, is still in charge of the
Eastern District of California U.S. Attorney's office, the withdrawal of my

Docket No. 23105 -18 W -4-
opposition to the Motion For Protective Order is out of the question.
Petitioner's situation is very complicated and Petitioner's adversaries from the
University of California, led by former Governor of Arizona and U.S. Secretary of
Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, are using all available tricks and resources to
frame Petitioner for deportation to Poland or throw him into prison. The last two ill-
crafted desperate UCOP mob attempts to frame Petitioner in Sacramento Courts on
December 12, 2018 and February 8, 2019 have added to the gravity of Petitioner's
decision not to withdraw his opposition, regardless of the consequences and fate of
his whistleblower claim.
THE BACKGROUND OF PETITIONER'S REPLY
The Climate Surrounding Petitioner's Whistleblower Claim
Petitioner perfectly understands the Court's advice that without the disclosure of
Section 6103, information to a whistleblower by respondent pursuant to an order
granting a motion such as Respondent's May 15, 2019 Motion For Protective Order
Pursuant To Rule 103, Petitioner has little, if any, likelihood of success in this Court
for Petitioner's claim for reward under Section 7623(b).
Petitioner also perfectly understands the Court's advice in the July 9, 2019 Court
Order that a lengthy response to this Order is not required; indeed, a lengthy
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -5-
response would be inappropriate and may be regarded by the Court as tantamount to
Petitioner choosing option (2) of the above ORDERED paragraph.
Under different circumstances and situation, Petitioner would not oppose the
Respondent's Motion For Protective Order, but today, Petitioner has to make a
tough decision. He is compelled to explain to the Court that the reward Petitioner is
seeking in his whistleblower complaint is very important, but so too is Petitioner's
well-being, taking into consideration the merciless terror aimed at Petitioner coming
from the University of California President, led by Janet Napolitano since
September 2013 and terrorized by Napolitano judges and justices in Sacramento's
two Courts.
The climate surrounding Petitioner's whistleblower claim is not promising, and
Petitioner is not sure how it will go. Petitioner assumes that Hon. Robert N. Armen
noticed in the Petitioner's Opposition the copy of the University of California Davis
Police's September 2012 poster portraying Petitioner in a similar way as the FBI
portrays its "Most Wanted Terrorist." But who is the real terrorist? Petitioner
submitted this question in September 2018 to U.S. Senate Chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate Hon. Charles E. Grassley, with a letter
titled "In Defense of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and His Family."
https://www.scribd.com/document/398421315/In-Defense-of-Judge-Kavanaugh-
and-his-Family
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -6-
The Lodi Resident Hamid Hayat Prosecuted by Janet Napolitano's Friend,

U.S. Attorney McGregor William Scott
The most severe example in this chain of events involves Hamid Hayat, the
cherry picker from Lodi, CA. In October 2001, a month after the 9/11/2001
terrorist attack, Hayat was chosen by someone to be converted into a terrorist by
an FBI hired and paid informer with a criminal past. Why Lodi, California?
This question should be addressed to the former U.S. Attomey in the Northern
District of California and the FBI Director Robert Mueller and his former
subordinate, former FBI employee John Lohse and U.S. Attorney from the
Eastern District of California, McGregor William Scott, who prosecuted Hayat
and cashed a $500,000 check from Janet Napolitano in 2016.
Janet Napolitano's Friend John Lohse
John Lohse is Napolitano's old friend from Arizona. He served as a FBI
Special Agent, Associate Division Counsel, and Chief Division Counsel for the
FBI's San Francisco Division, Lohse was recruited by the University of
California Office of the President (UCOP) organized crime in January 2004 to
keep the FBI agents out of UC campuses. He has also served as a criminal
prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Phoenix, Arizona.

Docket No. 23105 -18 W -7-
Lohse resurfaced in my case in May 2012 , just a few days before ill crafted
unsuccessful provocation to end my employment in UC Davis Medical Center
Trauma Unit # 11 on May 31, 2012 .
Hamid Hayat's Incarceration and Judge Tashima's Dissent Opinion
Hayat received a 24-year prison sentence that destroyed him and his family.
It was perfectly described by Hon. A. Wallace Tashima in his dissent opinion in the
United States Court of Appeals Opinion filed on March 13, 2013 in Case No. D.C.
CR-05-00240-GEB, USA v. Hamid Hayat, Opinion No. 07-10457.
Judge Tashima perfectly understood that Hamid Hayat was sent to prison for
24 years for the same reason that Judge Tashima as a child, his family, and
thousands of other Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps during
World War II by the American government. Because Petitioner too, was forced
into an internment camp by the communist Polish government in 1981, I am sharing
my feelings for Judge Tashima's dissent opinion that viewed the brutal punishment
of Hamid Hayat and the destruction of his family as a Soviet Union-era prosecution
and "Show Trial."
Petitioner noticed that the opinion was filed almost four years after the case was
argued on appeal on June 10, 2009. The Ninth Circuit Judge Hon. A. Wallace
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -8 -
Tashima sharply disagreed with two other Circuit Judges the Janet Napolitano old
friend from Arizona Judge Mary M. Schroeder and Judge Judge Berzon from San
Francisco who denied freedom to Hayat. Judge Tashima expressed his feeling about
Hayat's prosecution and incarceration with words:
"This case is a stark demonstration of the unsettling and untoward

consequences of the government's use of anticipatory prosecution as a
weapon in the 'war on terrorism."'
Judge Tashima on appeal recognized the problem in Hamid Hayat's case and
basically stated in his dissent opinion that the case was a total hoax fabricated by
government agents. Judge Tashima recognized that Hayat became a sacrificial lamb
and that his 24-year prison term delivered by Judge Garland E. Burrell on
September 10, 2007 (Hayat's 25th birthday) had a different purpose other than to
serve justice.
Hamid Hayat in 2001-2007 was the most vulnerable subject of the FBI that
FBI could find in the western Hemisphere that was preyed on by U.S. Attorney
McGregor Scott. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Robert Mueller , Melinda
Haag , McGregor Scott made Hayat a "scare crow" and "sacrifice lamb" to divert
public attention from the resurfacing crimes and white collar criminals in the state
and federal courts in relation to the enormous and very sophisticated scheme of
fraud titled " California Energy Crisis . It was NO Al-Qaeda terrorist network
sleeper cells in our Lodi communities and neighborhoods. It was a completely
different
Docket No. 23105 -18 W -9-
reason to frame and prosecute a 19-year-old cherry picker from Lodi and present his
prosecution and the destruction of him and his family to the entire U.S. population
and the world. If any Al-Qaeda terrorist network sleeper cells could be found in
California that it would be the UC Office of the President in Oakland , CA , UC
Davis and UC San Diego campus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v-09sUJ0Tld)Pw ( Lodi 2005)
This is exactly how Stalin's prosecutors and judges took care of business
to terrorize the Soviet Union and Soviet Union's occupied countries
population.
This is exactly how Stalin's prosecutors and judges took care of business to
terrorize the Soviet Union and the population in the Soviet Union's occupied
countries.
The Sophisticated Scheme of Fraud of 2000-2001 Entitled "California
Energy Crisis" and FBI Director Robert Mueller
Petitioner in his August 2018 inquires sent to the FBI stated:
"It is still unknow whether 2000-2003 sophisticated scheme of

fraud and deception which was labeled "California Energy
Crisis" and which caused California econorny 40 billion dollars
losses was deliberate sabotage by greedy power corporations to
make billions of dollar by laundering rnegawatts or whether man
made" "energy crisis was coordinated act of terror synchronized
with September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on US soil with
intensified terrorists attacks against United States abroad during
the time of the California electricity deregulations and California
Energy Crisis .
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 10 -
Whether foreigner terrorist network or foreign power penetrated

or infiltrated the California Independent System Operator
(CAISO ) Califomia Power Exchange (CalPX), University of
California and California government during the process
California electricity market deregulation of 1996-1998 to
destabilize the California and US economy by manipulating the
electricity market in Western states power grid is the question
which should asked and answered by FBI . . A 40 billion dollars
loss by California econorny and California rate payers and tax
payers is not a srnall change but enormous amount of money
which were disappeared and were never recovered.
It is hard to find out whether the CAISO personnel which was
given to maintain 75 % of the California electric grid went
through the criminal background check in 1996-1998. If the FBI
carefully read my Application for Award with IRS than will find
out that the artificially created "California Energy Crisis "
becarne a 'Gold rnine " for California Attorney General staff "
for over two decades"
The fraud cost California ratepayers and taxpayers $40 billion and almost collapsed
the Western State Power Grid. If that had have happened, than nation would have
faced unimaginable apocalyptic consequences throughout the whole country.
Somehow, the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, the
newly appointed FBI Director Robert Mueller, in September 2001 did not notice
what happened in 2000 and 2001 to the millions of people living in San Francisco
experiencing rolling blackouts, yet he found a 19-year-old cherry picker, Hamid

Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 11 -
Hayat, to convert him into a terrorist in Lodi, California, where Petitioner has lived
since 1989.
Lodi Resident, Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft Ph.D. and His Wife

Dorothy Bernhoft
The second severe example is the 2011-2012 UCOP mafia terror that was the witch
hunt aimed at Petitioner psychologist in Lodi, Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D., and his
family, orchestrated by Janet Napolitano's friend from Arizona, John Lohse, in a
joint venture with University of California Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley and
his wife, Diane Dooley, the last Chief of Staff for California Governor Jerry Brown.
In that witch hunt, California government thugs from Social Services framed Dr.
Bernhoft and his 65-year-old wife, Dorothy Bernhoft, who narrowly escaped five
years in prison with a plea bargain.
The 65-year-old psychologist, Franklin O. Bernhoft, is a Vietnam War veteran with
the rank of Captain, like the former FBI Director and former Special Counsel
Robert Mueller. In February 2012, Dr. Bernhoft's residence in Lodi was raided by
government thugs and his property was confiscated because he dared to protest the
terror and inhumane treatment that Petitioner was subjected to at the UC Davis
Medical Center (UCDMC) in 2011. This was terror and inhumane treatment beyond
human decency, which included and was not limited to canceling Petitioner's
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 12 -
Medical Insurance Benefits and Short-Term Disability benefits in the amount of
$4,500. The benefits were denied to Petitioner in 2011 in attempt to force
Petitioner to quit his job. Those denied Short-Term Disability Insurance Benefits
resurfaced EIGHT YEARS LATER on March 20, 2019 as "UNCLAIMED
PROPERTY" in the State of California's Controller Office. On the same day,
March 20, 2019, the IRS Commissioner's attorney from San Diego IRS Chief
Counsel Division office sent an inquiry to Petitioner asking him to sign a stipulated
Motion for Protective Order.
The Petitioner
The Petitioner is a 69-year-old Polish immigrant who has been living in
Lodi, California, near Sacramento for almost three decades. Petitioner is one of
three different families from Lodi whose lives were destroyed by the group of
people being representing by or connected to the State of California or U.S. federal
government and to the President of the University of California Janet Napolitano,
the former Arizona Governor and former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.
Lodi is located in the San Joaquin Valley and is a relatively small city of
approximate 60,000 people. Lodi received a lot of attention from the national media
in 2005 when a 19-year-old cherry picker of Pakistani decent, Hamid Hayat, was
arrested upon his return from Pakistan in May 2005 and was then accused of being
affiliated with the Al-Qaeda terror group. Hayat was then

Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 13 -
prosecuted by Janet Napolitano's friend, U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District
of California, McGregor W. Scott, and was thrown into federal prison for 24
years. It was the first terror case in the United States after the deadly 9/11
terrorist attack on U.S. soil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v-09sUJ0TkPPw
(Lodi 2005)
It was not a coincidence that a new FBI Director, Robert Mueller, appointed in
September 2001, gave his okay to find the guy in Lodi and make him a
dangerous terrorist and to make the terror case in Lodi, CA. Instead of opening
a probe and conducting an investigation to find out who was directly and
personally responsible for the ruthless attack on the California Power Grid that
almost collapsed in 2001, the FBI Director, rather, ordered the creation of a
terrorist and terrorist sleeping cell located in Lodi to serve as a scarecrow and
sent 19-year-old Hamid Hayat to 24 years in Federal prison.
Robert Mueller and Janet Napolitano's friend, Melinda Haag, was perfectly
aware in May 2000-September 2001 who was responsible for the sophisticated
scheme of the $40 billion fraud of the California Energy Crisis. They both
worked during the relevant time in 2000-2001 for the U.S. Attorney's Office in
the Northern District of California.

Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 14 -
Petitioner is the third person from Lodi, CA who has been targeted since 2005
by the white collar criminals from the University of California backed up by the
California government and judges and justices from the Califomia Courts.
There has been a 14-year-long desperate effort by the UCOP mafia to frame and
deport Petitioner to his native country of Poland. In 1982, the Polish government
sent Petitioner to the United States because of Petitioner's participation in political
activities in the anti-communist movement called "Solidarity" to liberate Poland
from Soviet domination and communist rulers who had been enslaving the Polish
people for 50 years. The UCOP mob also orchestrated an ill-crafted but
unsuccessful attempt to provoke and kill Petitioner on May 31, 2012 along with
portraying him as a Most Wanted Terrorist on September 26, 2012. These acts of
terror involved Janet Napolitano's friend from Arizona and former FBI agent and
UCOP Director of Investigation John Lohse who was recruited by the UCOP mob
in January 2004.
Political Prisoner - California Senator Leland Yee
The other victim of this same ring of people from outside Lodi is former
Senator Leland Yee, who was framed and prosecuted in 2016 in the the same way
as Hamid Hayat from Lodi , CA . Senator Yee has been targeted since 2007 and
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 15 -
has escaped 20 years in prison with a five-year plea bargain offered to him 2015 by
the U.S. Prosecutor from Northern District of California Melinda Haag, the friend
of Janet Napolitano
On December 4, 2006, Leland Yee was elected California Senator, and on
the same day, UCOP assigned a witch hunter in order to erase Petitioner from the
UC Davis Medical Center landscape and from the UC payroll.
Senator Yee relentlessly targeted the misappropriation of public funds by
the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) and the UC Regents
in relation to executives' salaries, bonuses and shady UC Regents businesses
under the umbrella of the University of California
In February 2010, Leland Yee requested a State Audit aimed at the UC
administration's lavish money spending. If the 2010 State Audit would be properly
conducted and UC Davis Medical Center would be audited including 27 MW
cogeneration plant than most likely Petitioner would be not writing today his reply
to the U.S Tax court Order .
The decision was made in around May 2010 to neutralize Senator Leland Yee the
arch enemy of UCOP mob. Most likely than not Robert Mueller gave green light or
ordered FBI Special Agents in Charge in San Francisco and Sacramento to take
out Yee from the political arena . To prosecute Leland Yee , the former Robert
Mueller's assistant and friend of Janet Napolitano's , Melinda Haag was appointed
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 16 -
U.S Attomey for Northern District of Califomia in August 2010 by U.S Senator
Barbara Boxer's recommendation
Barbara Boxer was succeeded by Kamala Harris in 2017 , the former San
Francisco District Attorney where Leland Yee lived with his family until March
2016 .
Leland Yee was a very well-known legislator in the California State Legislature,
and the decision to frame him , take him out of picture and send him to prison
undoubtedly was made in Washington D.C
The $1,000,000 aimed at UC Davis Greek Born Chancellor Linda Katehi
UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi has also been targeted since 2011. She narrowly
escaped Yee's fate in March-August 2016. The $1 million witch hunt was
orchestrated by UC President Janet Napolitano and carried out by the two former
U.S. prosecutors, Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, who were framing and
prosecuting Hamid Hayat in 2005-2007 and Senator Leland Yee in 2009-2016
For the 2016 witch hunt, Napolitano employed two former federal prosecutors
specializing in white-collar crime; she also coerced five California legislators: State
Senator Joel Anderson and Assemblymen Luis Alejo, Lorena Gonzales, Mike Gato, and
Freddie Rodriguez. In addition, Napolitano and Haag enlisted two Sacramento Bee
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 17 -
reporters, Diana Lambert and Sam Stanton, to publish despicable smear articles about
Katehi. By joining the board of the for-profit education group and textbook publisher
DeVry, which allegedly violated university policies, Katehi ignited the flames of
distraction and disorientation, and several other state legislators swallowed the bait. The
attacks against the chancellor escalated to the point that student protestors occupied UC
Davis's Mark Hall and demanded her resignation. One state lawmaker, apparently
alluding to the prosecution of Senator Yee, told reporters that if he had done the same as
Chancellor Katehi, he would have ended up in federal prison.
After looking at Haag's and Scott's fame and outstanding performances in prosecuting
terrorists from Al Qaeda and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in 2016, I prayed for
Chancellor Katehi and her family, especially after discovering that she had associated
herself with the Saudi Arabian University of King Abdulaziz in Jeddah by serving as a
university board member. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.
I thought that Haag and Scott, who were paid $1 million by Napolitano, would make
Chancellor Katehi an enemy combatant and that Napolitano would send Chancellor
Katehi to Guantanamo Bay. A million dollars is a lot of money to spend in three months
to convert Katehi from UC Davis chancellor to UC Davis chancellor emerita. Napolitano
is a reckless, dangerous, and merciless individual, and her method of using public funds
to deal with her personal adversaries resembles the tactics of the Soviet Union's Stalin-
era NKVD secret police. I was baffled as to why two former U.S. prosecutors agreed to
participate in her witch hunt against Katehi. Even a million-dollar price tag on Katehi's
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 18 -
head and Napolitano's former position as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security should
not have motivated decent people to commit such underhanded crimes.
Death of UC Davis Medical Center Employee, Todd Goerlich
The ultimate price in these ongoing witch hunts since September 11, 2001 was paid
by Petitioner's replacement employee in April 2007 at the UCDMC, 41-year-old
employee Todd Goerlich, who was found dead hanging from a tree in Rancho
Cordova Park on December 22, 2010. That same year, Kamala Harris was "elected"
California Attorney General not to investigate his death, and Melinda Haag was
appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California to prosecute Leland
Yee.
Goerlich was Petitioner's replacement after Petitioner was subjected to a witch hunt
and was abruptly removed from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant in April
2007. In 2010, Goerlich became too curious why Petitioner was being witch hunted
and removed from the UCDMC cogeneration plant, which is the subject of this U.S.
Tax Court Case.
Death of UC Davis Former Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vanderhoef

Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 19 -
UC Davis former Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vanderhoef was euthanized on
October 15, 2015 at the UCDMC two days after Petitioner disclosed to the
Sacramento County Superior Court the fraud related to unlawful generation and
sale from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant. Vanderhoof was the key
perpetrator and witness in an ongoing white collar crime. Twelve days after
Vanderhoef died, U.S. Congressman John Garamendi glorified Vanderhoef on
the U.S. Congress floor.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Petitioner apologizes to the Court for this long reply to the Court
Order dated July 9, 2019. After Court, the Order advised Petitioner that
unauthorized disclosure of Section 6103 information is punishable as a felony.
Sec. 7213.
Also, Petitioner believes that this whistleblower case should be returned by the
Court to the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah for further investigation
because this case was not investigated or should be recommended by the Court to
the U.S. Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service, Criminal
Investigation Department.
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 20 -
If Petitioner withdrew his Opposition, then he would be become very vulnerable to
be framed or set up in a very simple way to get him into trouble with Section 7213
if the Respondent's attorneys collaborate with UCOP attorneys against Petitioner.
Petitioner is not accusing Respondent's attorneys of anything nor is Petitioner
paranoid or a conspiracy theorist. However, Petitioner is taking all precautions and
analyzing the situation and facts so he does not become another Hamid Hayat,
Senator Yee, Dr. Bernhoft's wife, or UCDMC employee, Todd Goerlich, who was
found dead hanging from the tree.
Petitioner would like to emphasize that Hamid Hayat, Senator Leland Yee, UC
Davis Greek born Chancellor Linda Katehi, Todd Goerlich, and Petitioner's
psychologist's wife, Dorothy Bernhoft, all had no criminal past and some of them
were mercilessly prosecuted in Criminal Courts and thrown into prison. Senator
Yee, Linda Katehi, and Dorothy Bernhoft are of a similar age as Petitioner. They all
are American citizens. Petitioner at least has the option to ask the Polish
Ambassador for help if needed.
This whistleblower case most likely would have had a different outcome if in April
2016, UC President Janet Napolitano did not cause the resignation of the U.S.
Attorney from the Eastern District of California, Benjamin B. Wagner, who was
replaced by Phillip Talbert. This happened just after Petitioner submitted his claim
to the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, UT and the separate inquiry filed with
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 21 -
the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office to bring criminal charges against perpetrators
involved in unlawful megawatts laundering by UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant
and related to criminal tax fraud. U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner in 2009-2014
was conducting an investigation of the grants provided to UC Davis by the
Department of Energy (DOE). He was familiar with DOE jurisdiction and DOE
Division Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has jurisdiction over
electricity production and distribution in the United States. Petitioner's inquiry with
the U.S. Attorney's Office was swept under the rug by Benjamin Wagner's
replacement, Phillip Talbert. Petitioner's reported fraud was bigger than the DOE
grants provided to UC Davis. At the same time, UC President and former U.S.
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano became the subject of a State
Audit request by California Assemblyman Phil Ting and Kevin McCarty (Audit
2016-130). The Audit disclosed that Napolitano had embezzled $175,000,000 of
University of California reserve funds.
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.
Janet Napolitano's appointment as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security in

January 2009 and her appointment to UC President Post in September 2013
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 22 -
emboldened the UC white collar criminals to intensify their terror aimed at

their adversaries without any hesitation to kill people if needed .
In light of the presented facts outlined in Petitioner's opposition and in this Reply,
Petitioner is praying that the relief sought by Respondent in the Motion for
Protective Order shall be denied by the U.S. Tax Court to Respondent.
Dated July 29, 2019
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Petitioner Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (833) 817-7080
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
Docket No. 23105 -18 W - 23 -
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper PETITIONER'S REPLY

TO 7/9/2019 U.S. TAX COURT ORDER SIGNED BY SPECIAL TRIAL
JUDGE HON. ROBERT N. ARMEN
was served on July 29, 2019 by Electronic Mail to:
Darrick D. Sun- Darrick.D.Sun@irscounsl.treas.gov

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
Dated June 3, 2019
By: J
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk,

Petitioner
206 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.663.2977
Fax: 833.817.833
E-mail : jjw1980live.com
WASHINGTON, DC 20217
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK, )

)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Docket No. 23105-18W.
)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )
)
Respondent )
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
On May 15, 2019, respondent filed a Motion For Protective Order Pursuant
To Rule 103¹in this whistleblower case. Such motion is substantively identical to
the same motion for protective order that is typically filed by respondent in
virtually every whistleblower case in this Court.
In his motion, respondent moves the Court to issue a protective order

concerning the return, return information, and taxpayer return information, as those
terms are defined by section 6103(b)(1), (2), and (3)2 of the third-party taxpayer(s)
identified in petitioner's whistleblower claim, that respondent provides to
petitioner in connection with the present whistleblower action. (Return, return
information, and taxpayer return information as so defined are referred to in
respondent's motion and in this Order as "Section 6103 Information".) The
protective order that respondent seeks from the Court:
¹ All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
SERVED Jul 09 2019

-2-
(1) would allow respondent to mark Section 6103 Information as

"Confidential - Section 6103 Information Subject to Protective Order"
prior to providing such Section 6103 Information to petitioner
pursuant to the Court's Order granting the motion;
(2) would prohibit petitioner from disclosing such Section 6103

Information so marked and so provided by respondent for any purpose
other than in connection with the present whistleblower proceeding,
and upon such disclosure by petitioner in connection with the present
whistleblower proceeding (i.e., disclosure by petitioner for use only in
connection with the present whistleblower proceeding) would require
petitioner to inform any person receiving the Section 6103
Information that he or she must comply with the terms of the
protective order; and
(3) would require petitioner to return to respondent or destroy the

Section 6103 Information upon the final resolution of the present
whistleblower proceeding.
Section 6103(a) provides as a general rule that Section 6103 Information

shall be confidential. Exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality are
extremely limited and narrow. Unauthorized disclosure of Section 6103
Information is punishable as a felony. Sec. 7213.
Paragraph 5 of respondent's May 15, 2019 Motion For Protective Order

Pursuant To Rule 103 states that "Petitioner objects to the granting of this motion
due to his concerns with other, unrelated litigation involving the third party
taxpayers."
On June 3, 2019, petitioner filed a 136-page Opposition to respondent's

aforementioned motion, alleging such motion to be "frivolous, meritless, and
groundless". Petitioner then goes on to allege that "By granting the Motion for
Protective Order to Respondent, the Court would interfere with Petitioner's
litigations in State of California Courts and with Petitioner's complaints with
various state and federal law enforcement agencies." The scores of pages and
exhibits that then follow this allegation suggest to this Court (i.e., to the Tax Court)
that petitioner may regard the present whistleblower proceeding as collateral to his
other "litigations" and "complaints" and that he may also regard the present
whistleblower proceeding useful in unearthing material for his use in such other
"litigations" and "complaints".
-3-
Petitioner should understand that respondent's May 15, 2019 Motion For
Protective Order Pursuant To Rule 103 is neither frivolous nor meritless nor
groundless. Rather, as previously stated, it is substantively identical to the same
motion for protective order that is typically filed by the Commissioner in virtually
every whistleblower case in this Court. Petitioner should further understand that
the Court typically grants such motions for protective order so as to authorize the
disclosure of Section 6103 Information by the Commissioner to the whistleblower
but for use only in the whistleblower's action in this Court. Thus, respondent's
May 15, 2019 motion is fully consistent with practice in this Court when it comes
to whistleblower proceedings and the disclosure of Section 6103 Information.
Petitioner should also understand that without the disclosure of Section 6103
Information to a whistleblower, the whistleblower has little, if any, likelihood of
success in this Court insofar as the whistleblower's claim for reward under section
7623(b) is concerned. (This is not to say that the disclosure of Section 6103
Information by the Commissioner to the whistleblower assures such success.)
Further, petitioner should understand that any disclosure of Section 6103
Information in a whistleblower action in this Court is for use gly in such
whistleblower action in this Court and may not be used in any other action,
proceeding, or matter, or for any other purpose.
In sum, petitioner has a choice to make: He can either:
(1) withdraw his June 3, 2019 Opposition to respondent's May 15, 2019
Motion For Protective Order Pursuant To Rule 103 ançl certify that he will abide
by a Court order granting such motion (which order will, inter alia, prohibit
petitioner from using Section 6103 Information that is furnished to him by
respondent pursuant to such order for any purpose other than in connection with
the present whistleblower proceeding in this Court; or
(2) not so withdraw such Opposition and not so certify, in which case the
Court will most likely deny respondent's aforementioned motion.
If petitioner chooses the first option, such option will not preclude him from
pursuing his "litigations in State of California Courts and with [his] complaints
with various state and federal law enforcement agencies"; however, such first
option will preclude him from using Section 6103 Information obtained by him
from respondent in the present whistleblower case in this Court in those other
"litigations" and "complaints".
_4_
Premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioner shall, on or before July 29, 2019, file a response
to this Order and state either:
(1) that he wishes to withdraw his June 3, 2019 Opposition to respondent's

May 15, 2019 Motion For Protective Order Pursuant To Rule 103 and that he
affirmatively certifies that (a) any Section 6103 Information that he may receive in
the present whistleblower case from respondent pursuant to an order of this Court
granting such motion will NOT be used for any purpose other than in connection
with the present whistleblower proceeding in this Court and that (b) he understands
that unauthorized disclosure of any Section 6103 Information contrary to the terms
of an order granting respondent's aforementioned motion is potentially punishable,
criminally, as a felony under Federal law; or
(2) that he is unwilling to withdraw his June 3, 2019 Opposition and will not
certify as provided above in option (1) of this ORDERED paragraph.
Petitioner is again advised (see page 3 of this Order) that without the
disclosure of Section 6103 Information to a whistleblower by respondent pursuant
to an order granting a motion such as respondent's May 15, 2019 Motion For
Protective Order Pursuant To Rule 103, the whistleblower has little, if any,
likelihood of success in this Court insofar as the whistleblower's claim for reward
under section 7623(b) is concerned because respondent will not disclose Section
6103 Information because of the strictures of section 6103.
Petitioner is further advised that a lengthy response to this Order is not

required; indeed, a lengthy response would be inappropriate and may be regarded
by the Court as tantamount to petitioner choosing option (2) of the above
ORDERED paragraph.
[continued on next page]

-5-
Finally, petitioner is advised that a response in which he seeks to condition,

qualify, or otherwise limit what option (1) of the above ORDERED paragraph
requires him to do may be treated by the Court as tantamount to petitioner
choosing option (2) of such paragraph.
(Signed) Robert N. Armen

Special Trial Judge
Dated: Washington, D.C.

July 9, 2019
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

Petitioner Filed Electronically
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
Respondent,
PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 103 FILED
ON MAY 15, 2019
I. INTRODUCTION
By this opposition, Petitioner Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced Yaroslav
Vashchook), hereafter Petitioner, respectfully asks that the Court deny
Respondent’s frivolous, meritless, and groundless Motion for Protective
Order.
-2-
By granting the Motion for Protective Order to Respondent, the Court
would interfere with Petitioner’s litigations in State of California Courts
and with Petitioner’s complaints with various state and federal law
enforcement agencies.
Since December 2013, Petitioner represents himself in State of
California Courts litigations and complaints with various state and federal
law enforcement agencies about the University of California
administration, who is the main third-party taxpayer identified in
Petitioner’s March 23, 2016 claim and Petitioner’s August 3, 2018 update
of the claim. Contrary to Respondent’s statement in the motion that
Petitioner’s litigations are not related to third-party taxpayers, the
enormous multimillion-dollar tax evasion and fraud was discovered by
Petitioner because of his self-representation in litigations and complaints
against the University of California administration. Petitioner’s litigations
and complaints are deeply rooted in the sophisticated billions of dollars of
fraud of the 2000–2003 titled by organized white collar crime as the “The
California Energy Crisis.”
See the recent Petition for Review filed by Petitioner in California
Supreme Court on January 29, 2018 in the Sacramento County Superior
Court, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board ( CUIAB) & Real Party In Interest, the Regents of the University
-3-
of California , Case No. 34-2013-80001699, the Court of Appeal , Third
Appellate District, Case No. C079254 , Supreme Court Case No.
S253713. (EXHIBIT A) Also see the Petitioner’s most recent inquires
dated May 15, 2019 to Leah T. Wilson, Executive Director of the State
Bar of California. (EXHIBIT B).
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On March 20, 2019, Respondent’s attorneys sent to Petitioner a meet-
and-confer letter with an attached draft of the Joint Motion for Protective
Order to sign in order to protect the third-party taxpayers identified in
Petitioner’s Application for Award (Form 211) submitted to IRS
Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah on March 23, 2016 and updated by
Petitioner on August 3, 2018
(EXHIBIT C).
On April 9, 2019, Petitioner replied to Respondent’s attorneys’ March 20,
2019 inquiries and explained in his nine-page response why he cannot
sign the Joint Motion for Protective Order. (EXHIBIT D). Petitioner’s
explanation in his April 9, 2019 response to Respondent’s inquiry should
be good enough reason alone for the Court to deny the Motion for
Protective Order.
On April 10, 2019, Respondent’s counsel, Gordon Gidlund from the IRS
Chief Counsel’s Office, San Diego Division, in a telephone conversation

-4-
informed Petitioner that Respondent will file a Motion for Summary
Judgment if Petitioner refuses to sign the Joint Motion for Protective
Order. Instead of a Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent on May
3, 2019 filed a Motion for Entry of Order that Undenied Allegations Be
Denied Admitted Pursuant to Rule 37(C), followed by a Motion for
Protective Order that Respondent filed May 15, 2019 pursuant to Rule
103.
III. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

MUST BE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS
1. Respondent did not show any good cause or cause at all to be granted
the Motion for Protective Order on behalf of the University of California
administration. The University of California is a public, nonprofit entity with
a $32 billion annual budget and is the subject of state and federal audits.
Therefore, Willie Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 914, 917-20
(1985) does not apply to this case as Respondent implied in his motion.
Willie Nelson Music Corp. was or still is a private enterprise. Contrary to the
University of California which is nonprofit public entity, Willie Nelson did
not build, own, and operate a cogeneration power plant and generated
illegally electricity.
-5-
2. In Application of Sarkar, 575 F.2d 870 (C.C.P.A. 1978), a
patent application proceeding, the court granted Sarkar’s motion to seal
the record. The Court found that the seal was justified by
Sarkar’s showing that the application contained material constituting a
trade secret. Thus, to encourage patent applicants to pursue their rights to
patents and provide the public with early disclosure of inventions, the
Court determined that legitimate trade secrets must be
protected. Application of Sarkar, supra at 872.
In Petitioner’s whistleblower claim submitted to the IRS Whistleblower
Office in Ogden, Utah on March 23, 2016 and updated on August 3, 2018,
patents or disclosure of inventions are not involved at all.
However, in Sacks v. Frank H. Lee Co., 18 F.R.D. 500, 501 (S.D.N.Y.
1955) the court stated that the affidavit of plaintiff's attorney was "an
utterly insufficient showing that the testimony sought will betray any
secrets."
Petitioner’s claim is not about trade secrets or patents or any other
information’s which should be protected from disclosure to public .
Petitioner claim is about the multimillion dollar tax fraud and evasion due
to illegal generation of electricity for profit in the University of California

-6-
Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant in a conspiracy with
other public entities, private entities, and State of California agencies in
violation of the 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, and Business and Professions
Code § 17200 & California Commodity Law of 1990 (Corp. Code, § 29500
et seq., "CCL") and 7 U.S. Code § 6b
All documents about the fraud were published in the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission library and provided to Respondent’s IRS
Whistleblower Office in March 2016 and August with Petitioner’s claim
as exhibits.
Under 18 C.F.R. § 1c 1 it is unlawful for any entity, directly or indirectly,
in connection with the purchase or sale of electric energy or natural gas or
the purchase or sale of transmission or transportation services subject to
[Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] jurisdiction:
a) To defraud using any device, scheme or artifice (i.e. intentional or

reckless conduct);
b) To make any untrue statement of material fact or omit a material
fact; or
c) To engage in any act, practice or course of business that operates or
would operate as a fraud or deceit.
-7-
In Pierce v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 68, the
California Court of Appeal recognized that 'Electricity is a commodity”
All details about this enormous tax evasion, fraud, and illegal production of
electricity can be found in Petitioner’s 47-page letter with 35 exhibits of
March 23, 2016, claim number 2016-007481. See the cover letter to the
claim. (EXHIBIT E)
The Whistleblower Office received on August 6, 2018 Petitioner’s 158-page
update of Claim No. 2016-007481 with a cover letter and 65 exhibits. See
the attached cover letter (EXHIBIT #F). The Petitioner’s August 3, 2018
update of claim addressed to Charise Wood, Team Manager, U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service Whistleblower
Office, ICE Team was relabeled by Respondent with new four different
numbers . See my 09/12/2018 inquiry sent to IRS Criminal Department
Investigation , Washington D.C (EXHIBIT # G)
3.. Respondent’s argument in the Motion for Protective Order is
that the Tax Court Rule 103(a) provides
“[u]pon motion by a party or any other affected person,

and for good cause shown, the Court may make any order
which justice requires to protect a party or other person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense.” See also T.C. Rule 345(c) regarding
privacy protections in whistleblower actions.
-8-
Petitioner was portrayed like a “dangerous terrorist” by the University of
California administration after the unsuccessful attempt to provoke and to
end Petitioner’s employment and his life in the UC Davis Medical Center
Trauma Unit #11 on May 31, 2012. It happened four years before his
scheduled retirement from university of California at age the age of 62 .
Nothing would be a worse annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden than the UC Davis Police Department poster, similar to the
FBI’s “Wanted Terrorist” poster, that featured Petitioner’s photo and
description that was distributed in public . That should be good reason
alone for the U.S. Tax Court to deny Respondent’s Motion for Protective
Order. The white collar criminals from the University of California and
their collaborators from different entities listed in Petitioner’s Application
for Reward (Form 211) submitted on March 23, 2016 to the IRS
Whistleblower Office in Ogden and updated on August 3, 2018 should
not be protected by U.S Tax Court.
//
//
//
-9-
If the Respondent’s Motion for Protective Order is about annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, and undue burden or unpaid taxes due to
fraud, then the IRS Whistleblower Office would have conducted and
- 10 -
completed the initial evaluation and classification of Petitioner’s Claim
No. 2016-007481 in August or September 2016 within the statutory 90
days. Petitioner submitted his Application for Reward (Form 2011) on
March 23, 2016.
In Willie Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner, the Court held citing other
cases :
A party must come forth with proper testimony and

factual data to support claims of harm that would occur as
a consequence of disclosure. Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d
276, 283 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. United Fruit
Co. 410 F.2d 553 n. 11 (5th Cir. 1969); and public
interests are weighed against those advanced by the party
seeking the protective order, and, in its discretion, a court
may seal the record or portions thereof where justice so
requires and the party seeking such relief demonstrates
good cause. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v.
Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596 (7th Cir. 1979); Rule 103(a).
However, a party may not rely on mere conclusory
statements or his attorney’s unsupported self-serving
hearsay statements to establish good cause. In re Coord.
Pretrial Proc. in Pet. Prod. Antitrust, supra at 44; Sacks v.
Frank H. Lee Co., 18 F.R.D. 500, 501 (S.D.N.Y. 1955).
Respondent’s attorney did not provide any valid justification or supportive
material to the Court to get relief on behalf of Petitioner’s former employer
who devastated Petitioner’s life at the age of 62 and caused damaged to
Petitioner in approximate $ 1000,000 in wages and benefits not mention

- 11 -
deterioration of Petitioner’s health condition . (More details in attached
Exhibits #3&4.)
IV. CONCLUSION
By this opposition, and in light of the presented facts outlined in Petitioner’s
opposition and attached exhibits, Petitioner is praying that the relief sought
by Respondent in the Motion for Protective Order shall be denied by the
U.S. Tax Court to Respondent.
Dated June 3, 2019 _______________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Petitioner Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (833) 817-7080
- 12 -
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper PETITIONER’S
OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER PURSUANT was served on June 3, 2019 by Electronic Mail :
Darrick D. Sun Darrick.D.Sun@irscounsel,treas.gov
Gordon L. Gidlund Gordon.L.Gidlund@irscounsel.treas.gov
Terri L. Ornato Terri.L.Onorato@irscounsel.treas.gov

Large Business & International
San Diego, CA 92101
Dated June 3, 2019 By: ______________

________________________________
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk , Petitioner

206 Katzakian Way
Lodi , CA 95242
Phone : 209.663.2977
Fax: 833.817.833
E-mail : jjw1980@live.com
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
Email: jjw1980@live.com
January 23, 2019
Jorge E. Navarrete
Supreme Court Clerk/Administrator
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Appellant’s Petition for Review after the decision by the Court of Appeal, Third
Appellate District, C079254, Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board
Dear Mr. Navarrete,
Enclosed is the Petition for Review in the above 3DCA case. Although the petition is
bookmarked, it may contain some minor mistakes. The 3DCA justices unfairly
decreased my allotted time to file the Petition by two days. The 3DCA fully explains
that I am representing myself and that I have had all my documents proofread prior to
submitting anything to the Court because I am immigrant. I am struggling to maintain
my life on $1500 in monthly Social Security income after being forced by the Regents
to take early Social Security at age 62 in 2012. A 3DCA means that the justices have
done it a second time. First time in the case number C079524 Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California in 2017 and again this year.
The California Rule of Court CRC 8.500(e)(1)states that, if the last day to file a
Petition for Review falls on a day that the Supreme Court clerk’s office is closed
(either a Saturday, a Sunday, or a court holiday), the deadline is not extended to the
next regular business day.
PETITION FOR REVIEW C079254
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
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 in
my 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. My written statement
was as follows:
• On August 28, 2017 just after 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 casein 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 sheriffs deputies and city police is either very foolish or very underhanded
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
I am 68 years old, and I may never see the unemployment benefits of which I was
defrauded because of the wrongful termination of my employment five years ago.
However, until I cannot write or speak, I will be asking for what I was unlawfully
deprived of by corrupted state judicial officers.
Enclosed, please find the original and eight copies of the Petition for Review, in
addition to the copy that I sent by Truefiling, the Proof of Service, and the Waiver of
Fees and Costs.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Petitioner and Appellant in Pro Per
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,
Defendant and Respondent;
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
___________________________________________
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW
_______________________________________
AFTER THE DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CASE NO. C079254
Sacramento County No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
-1-
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
II. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND WASZCZUK’S ALLEGED
MISCODUCT WHICH DISQUALIFIED HIM FROM RECEIVING
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS .................... 7
A. Misconduct as interpreted by the Unemployment Insurance Code, section
1256 5
B. The story behind RPii’s “witch hunt” against Waszczuk in 2006–2009 and
in 2011–2012 ……………………………
III. APPELLANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER THE CAUSES ....... 12

A. Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al.,
3DCA Case No. C079254 ............................................................ 12
B. State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110-LM and Supreme Court
Case S245982……………………………………………………..14
IV. 12/27/2018 UNPUBLISHED OPINION IN CASE NO. C079254 -

Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al.
ISSUED ON DECEMBER 27, 2018 ………………………………15
A. The 12/27/2018 C079254 Unpublished Opinion. ………………...15
B. The Oral Argument and the 3DCA Review Panel for Case No. C079254:
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board…………………………………………………………….……..…16
V. REASONS TO GRANT WASZCZUK PETITION FOR REVIEW

AND REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT, UNPUBLISHED OPINION. ..................................... ..21
A. The Respondent, RPii, failed to provide in December 2012 a
timely response to the Employment Development Department
(EDD) to the unemployment insurance claim Waszczuk filed with
the EDD on December 16, 2012. ................................................ 21
B. The EDD failed to resolve the conflicting information about
Waszczuk’s unlawful termination of employment by the RPii….21
C. The EDD failed to appear at the hearing with Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) Marilyn Tays on February 13, 2013………...…….22.
-2-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
D. Administrative Law Judge Marylin Tay’s biased decision dated

February 14, 2013, and the California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board decision dated May 31, 2013. …………………...23
E. The CUIAB and RPii filed frivolous demurrers in April 2014 in

trial court. …………………………………………...………….23
F. The trial Court Decision of March 2, 2015, and the CUIAB’s
attorney Ashante Norton’s violation of the California Rule of
Court §3.13129 (b). ………………………………………..……25
G. Record on Appeal ……………………………………………….26
H. The CUIAB failure to submit a Respondent Brief on the Appeal
due on September 9, 2016………………………..………...……26
I. Waszczuk’s request to schedule oral arguments in Waszczuk v.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al. 3DCA
Case No. C079254………………………………………….…………27
J. Motion for New Evidence on Appeal……………………………29
K. Oral Arguments on December 12, 2018…………...…………….30

VI. CONCLUSION ………………………………………..…………30
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE………………………………….35
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC AND BY US
MAIL……………………………………………….…………………….36
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT “ A” December 17, 2018 -3DCA Unpublished Opinion in Case
No. C079254 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board ………………………………………………………………1
EXHIBIT “B’ -3DCA January 17, 2019 Order denying Waszczuk Petition
for Rehearing ………………………………………………………...……1
-3-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 671,
678.)………………………………………………………………………...7
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].
.................................................................... ………….…...…………....9, 17
Paratransit Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551,
558 (Paratransit)
[S204221]………………………………………...…............................….17
Melissa G. v. Raymond M., B284031 (September 20, 2018) Cal. App. Dist.
2…………………...………………………………………………………27
California Custom Coach, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal. App. 3rd 333, 338
Williams Construction, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School Dist. (2007) 146 Cal.
App. 4th 757, 763)………………………………………………...………27
STATUTES
Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256 ........................................ …..7
Unemployment Insurance Code, section1142(a)……………………...…..21
Business and Professions Code, section 6140.5………………..…………14
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT
California Rules of Court Rule 8.500 (a) ......................... …………………1
California Rules of Court, rule 10.1000 ………………………………….12
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a) (2)……………………………..………27
California Rules of Court 8.204 (a) (1) (B),………………………………
California Rules of Court, rule 8.252………………..……………………29
California Rules rule 8.23………………………….…………………………….26
California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b)…………………………………………..26
-4-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
OTHER AUTHORITIES
2005 Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Interview with The

Sacramento Bee, …………………………………………………...………1
California Assembly Bill 1890 -“Electricity Restructuring Act”………..…9
California Public Utilities Commission - OPINION ON 2000 ANNUAL
TRANSITION COST PROCEEDING Decision 03-02-047 February 27,
2003…………………………………………… ………………………..10
California Constitution Article VI Sec.12………………...…………...….12
State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110-LMA; STEIN ON
DISCIPLINE,; Supreme Court Case S245982]…………………...………23
UC Davis Personnel Policies for Staff Members 34 PPSM 34 ; University
of California Clinical Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2 ……...29
PETITION FOR REVIEW

-5-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE

AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to rule 8.500 (a) of the California Rules of Court, appellant and
petitioner Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk (hereafter Waszczuk) petitions this Court
for a Review in the above-entitled matter after the Court issued a discriminatory
and insulting unpublished opinion on Waszczuk, dated December 27, 2018,
(EXHIBIT “A”) and denied Waszczuk’s Petition for a Rehearing on January
17, 2019. (EXHIBIT “B”)The Court of Appeal, through its unpublished
opinion, affirmed the March 2, 2015 trial Court decision authored by the trial
Court Judge, Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, a friend of Administrative Law
Judge, Marilyn Tays (CT 00154). ALJ Tays slandered Waszczuk in her
decision of 2/14/2013 in a manner she should be ashamed of. The trial Court
Judge, Hon. Chang, denied Waszczuk’s Petition for a Writ of Mandate on
March 2, 2015, in a similar way to ALJ Tays’ response to Waszczuk (CT
00154-00162; 00200-002011). The Writ of Mandamus was filed in the Court on
December 2, 2014, against the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board (hereafter CUIAB) as the primary Defendant and Respondent, and
against the Regents of the University of California (hereafter UC Regents or
RPii) as the secondary Defendants and Respondents and the Real Party in
Interest (RPii) (CT 00001–00011).
Simultaneously with the petition for a Writ of Mandamus, on December 4,

2013, Waszczuk filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against his employer in
the Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California. The related appellate
-6-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
case is Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California Case No.

C079524. https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C079524.PDF
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 Justices
rather than a request for review of Waszczuk case .
However , Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, in a 2005 interview with

The Sacramento Bee, said:
“My philosophy is to really listen closely to what people have
to say and try to balance it with everything they’ve told me
and give them a fair shot to tell me what they’re thinking...If I
let them ramble a bit, point them in a direction, I learn
why that person is there much better than in a question-
and-answer format.”
II. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND WASZCZUK’S ALLEGED
MISCODUCT WHICH DISQUALIFIED HIM FROM
RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
A. Misconduct as interpreted by the Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256

The Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256, disqualifies an employee from
receiving unemployment compensation benefits if he or she has been discharged for
misconduct. Misconduct as understood within section 1256 involves a willful or wanton
disregard for an employer's interests, or such carelessness or negligence as to manifest
equal culpability. It does not include, among other things, errors in judgment made in
good faith (Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 671, 678.)
Waszczuk urges the Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court's published decisions
because Waszczuk’s employment with the University of California UC Davis Medical
Center (RPii) from June 17, 1999 to September 31, 2011 was not marred by any
misconduct, good faith error, insubordination, or any wrong doing and because no harm
was done to the university or its activities by Waszczuk. Waszczuk his being hunted
-7-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
down (like a Jew during the Holocaust in his native country Poland during War II) by
the University and by the California Court judges and justices for the completely
different reason than the despicable unfounded accusations produced by the RPii’s
witch hunters . Waszczuk only found out why it was that he was being hunted down
like an animal in June 2015, three years after the termination of his employment, due to
Superior Court Judge Shelleyan Chang’s decision of March 2, 2015, in which she
disclosed that she had worked together with ALJ Marilyn Tays in Governor Davis
office. Furthermore, on August 6, 2012, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor, Dr.
Shelton Duruisseau, gave an interview to the Sacramento-based African-American
magazine, Sac Cultural Hub, regarding the whistle blowing on the Regents power sale
from the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant at gouged or overcharged Megawatts
prices, together with Enron during the California Energy Crisis.
In this interview with Sac Cultural Hub, Dr. Shelton Duruisseau stated that:
“Internally, I convinced the university to build its own central plant because we
recognized our patients come into the hospital on ventilators, etc. They couldn’t be
disrupted, so by having our own central plant the health system doesn’t depend on
any central outfit to supply water, power, etc. SMUD [and] PG&E are backup
systems for us. We sold enough power to the state for the central plant to be paid for
in the first four years. Lots of energy companies like Enron, all around the country,
caused prices to go up. The plant provides stable power for the campus without
interruption and without blackouts. This plant was built out for 50 years capacity;
we are only using 9%, so we have lots of room built in for growth.”
http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-look-back
From the interview with Dr. Duruisseau, which Waszczuk came across in March 2014,
and from Judge Chang’s disclosure about her tenure with ALJ Tays in Gov. Davis
office, it was not difficult for Waszczuk to conclude that the UC Davis 27 MW
cogeneration power plant, named the Central Plant, where Waszczuk was employed
from June 1999 to April 2007, did not meet the requirements of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA). These mandated that any cogeneration facility, certified and recognized
legally as a “qualified cogeneration facility” must meet special requirements for the
ratio between electric energy production and thermal energy.
-8-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Dr. Shelton Duruisseau, who was in charge of diversity and inclusion at the UC Davis
Health System (UCDHS), was also a Member of the California Medical Board, having
been appointed in 2004 to the Board by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397955146/Dr-Shelton-Duruisseau
A. The story behind RPii’s “witch hunt” against Waszczuk in 2006–2009 and
in 2011–2012
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.
-9-
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
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/Decisions_D9
901001_to_D0006092/D9910016_19991007_A9904009.pdf
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/2
4198.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
- 10 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
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 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
- 11 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
• 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.
III. APPELLANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER THE CAUSES
A. Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al., 3DCA

Case No. C079254
On December 1, 2017, Waszczuk filed in the California Supreme Court an
Appellant's Motion for Transfer the Causes, pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 10.1000 and the California Constitution Article VI Sec.12.
[Supreme Court Case No. S245879].
https://www.scribd.com/document/397957647/SUPRA-S245508-3DCA-
C079254-CUIAB-Motion-to-Move-Causes-pdf
Waszczuk did not see any reason to pursue his appeal further in the 3DCA
after that court issued an unbelievably discriminatory, prejudicial, biased,
accusatory, demeaning, and defamatory 14-page unpublished opinion on
October 10, 2017, in the cross-referenced case Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California Case No. C079524 (anti-SLAPP motion) and
after the 3DCA denied the Petition for Rehearing on November 9, 2017.
- 12 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Waszczuk made no mistakes in 2017 by filing the motion with the Supreme
Court to transfer the causes.
On January 10, 2018, Supreme Court Chief Justice Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye denied
Waszczuk’s Motion to Transfer Causes in Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board et al. Case No. C079254 and denied the Petition for Review in
the cross-referenced Waszczuk v. the Regents of the University of California et al. Case
No. C079524.
The issuance of a decision in both cases on the same day, January 10, 2018, makes
Waszczuk believe that not one of the Supreme Court justices ever saw or reviewed
Waszczuk’s Petition for Review in Case No. C079524 and Motion to Transfer Cause in
Case No. C079254. In March 2018, Waszczuk exchanged correspondence on this
matter with Supreme Court Clerk and Executive Officer Mr. Jorge E. Navarrete. In
response to Waszczuk’s inquiry dated March 21, 2018, Deputy Clerk Mr. Robert R.
Toy wrote:
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
Thank you for submitting your letter. Please rest assured, that the petition, and
the contentions made therein, were considered by the entire court, and the
denial expresses the decision of the court on this matter.
Waszczuk didn’t believe that the Supreme Court of California chief justice was
encouraging attorneys to practice law with suspended licenses so as to misrepresent
their clients, steal their retainers, collude with judges and conspire with opposite party
counsels to have their clients thrown out of court, and take bribes from opposite party
counsels. Waszczuk wrote a Motion to Recall the Remittitur in Waszczuk v. Regents of
the University of California et al. Case No. C079524. Waszczuk waited until after
Waszczuk v. the California Unemployment Insurance et al. Case No. C079254 was
resolved to file his motion in the 3DCA.
After oral arguments on December 12, 2018, in Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board et al. Case No. C079254, Waszczuk received from the 3DCA a
despicably discriminatory and biased response in an unpublished opinion on December
27, 2018. His detailed Petition for Rehearing portraying the court’s discrimination and
- 13 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
bias was denied on January 17, 2018. Waszczuk is afraid to file a Motion to Recall
Remittitur in Waszczuk v. the Regents of the University of California et al. Case No.
C079524, believing that the 3DCA justices will not hesitate to declare the motion
frivolous and sanction Waszczuk or declare Waszczuk a vexatious litigant in retaliation
on behalf of the Regents of the University of California. Waszczuk will ask the
California Commission on Judicial Performance for advice about what to do about the
Motion to Recall Remittitur or maybe the Supreme Court should help and on its own
motion Recall the Remittitur in Case No. C079524 and restore order and justice in the
3DCA.
Waszczuk in his briefs, and especially in the Petition for Rehearing and Petition
for Review in Case No. C079524, provided all the details about how the courts
were biased and had discriminated against him.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397958778/3DCA-C079524-10-25-
2017-SLAPP-Petition-for-Rehearing
https://www.scribd.com/document/397958925/Supra-S245508-11-20-2017-
Slapp-Petition-for-Review
B. State Bar of California Case No. 15-O-10110-LM and Supreme Court
Case S245982
• Douglas Edward Stein is suspended from the practice of law for a

minimum of one year of probation, and he will remain suspended
until the following conditions are satisfied:
• He makes restitution to Jaroslaw Waszczuk to the amount of $14,
694.33, plus 10 percent interest per year from June 2, 2014.
Alternatively, he must reimburse the Client Security Fund to the
extent of any payments by the Fund to Jaroslaw Waszczuk, in
accordance with Business and Professions Code, section 6140.5.
https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=223928
2&doc_no=S245982&request_token=NiIwLSIkTkw%2BW1BJSyNdWElIIFQ0UDxTJy
NOIzJTUCAgCg%3D%3D
- 14 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
The 3DCA panel of Justices in the 10/10/2017 unpublished opinion praised

Waszczuk’s counsel, Douglas Stein, who it is alleged stole Waszczuk’s
$20,000, with the following words:
• To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making an ex

parte application to assure the integrity of the document he
inadvertently filed during the briefest of suspensions for a minor
transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He should
be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of the
plaintiff’s interests.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C079524.PDF
It is unbelievable that such words, praising and complimenting the thief Douglas
Stein, licensed by the State Bar of California, came from the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District, where California Supreme Court Justice, Hon. Tani
Cantil-Sakauye served as justice from 2005–2010, and where the 3DCA justices
affirmed the trial Court Judgment.
IV. 12/27/2018 UNPUBLISHED OPINION IN CASE NO. C079254 -

Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et
al. ISSUED ON DECEMBER 27, 2018
A. The 12/27/2018 C079254 Unpublished Opinion.

In the same manner, in Case No. C0749524, the author of the unpublished
12/12/27 Court Opinion accused Waszczuk of breaking Court Rules with regard
to the Waszczuk Briefs. The fact that 3DCA accusations in the two unpublished
court opinions with regards to the Waszczuk Briefs were unfounded and
ridicules. In facts , the Defendants Reply Brief was stricken in 2016 in Case
No Case No. C079524 and in 2016 the Defendant’s and Respondent’s brief
(CUIAB) were not filed at all. This is the best example and indication of the
discrimination and bias aimed at Waszczuk by the 3DCA Justices.
- 15 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
In his Petition for a Rehearing, filed on January 11, 2019, and denied by the
order of 3DCA Hon. Cole Blease on January 17, Waszczuk provided detailed
information from the records to show how the 3DCA panel of Justices had
applied a “de novo” standard of review and resolved any evidentiary doubts or
ambiguities in the plaintiff’s favor. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25
Cal.4th 763, 768; https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1072325.html
Aguilar Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843).
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/25/107.html [Petition
for Rehearing, Page 10].
The Waszczuk Petition for a Rehearing is very detailed and portrays how
Waszczuk’s life is being destroyed by the California Justice system on behalf of
the Regents of the University of California and UC President, Janet Napolitano.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397961378/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-01-11-
2019-Petition-for-Rehearing
B. The Oral Argument and the 3DCA Review Panel for Case No.
C079254: Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board.
The case was heard on December 12, 2018 by 3DCA Justice Hon. Cole Blease,
Hon. M. Kathleen Butz, and Hon. Elena J. Duarte. Waszczuk argued for
himself. The CUIAB legal counsel did not show up for the Oral Argument and
David Burkett from the Porter Scott law firm had nothing to say beside
slandering Waszczuk. Waszczuk has fully covered the Oral Argument on[
pages 16–17 of his Petition for Rehearing ]An unpublished opinion was
delivered by 3DCA Justice Hon. Elena J. Duarte five days after the Oral
Argument, on December 17, 2018.
The Waszczuk 3DCA Appeal Case No. C079254 was reviewed by a different
panel than appeal in cross-referenced case No. C079524 Waszczuk v. Regents of
the University of California et, al . 3DCA Justices, the Hon. Elena J. Duarte,
Hon. Cole Blease, and the Hon. M. Kathleen Butz. Hon Cole Blease and Hon.
- 16 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
M. Kathleen Butz are listed in the C079254 opinion as Concurring Justices.

Waszczuk was discriminated against in 2013 by an Employment Development

Department interviewing officer and subsequently by Administrative Law Judge,
Marilyn Tays; by two CUIAB Board Members, Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn;
by trial Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang (in her March 12, 2015 decision); and
now by 3DCA Justices, Hon. Elena J. Duarte, Hon. Cole Blease, and Hon. M.
Kathleen Butz.
Waszczuk addressed Hon. Cole Blease in his Petition for a Rehearing on Pages
28–30 in relation to his dissenting opinion in Paratransit Inc. v. Unemployment
Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 558 (Paratransit) [S204221].
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/paratransit-inc-v-unemployment-ins-appeals-
bd-34332
Hon. Cole Blease denied Waszczuk’s Petition for a Rehearing on January 17,
2019
In Paratransit Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd, it is worth noting that Hon.
Cole Blease was on the 3 DCA review panel with Hon. Rick Sims and Hon.
Harry E. Hull JR. in a case related to the manmade sophisticated fraud named
California Energy Crisis 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 ].
This could explain Hon. Cole Blease’s apparent 180 degree turn in his approach
to humanitarian causes regarding unemployment in Waszczuk’s appeal versus
that of Craig Medeiros in Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.
(2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 558 (Paratransit) [S204221].
3DCA Justice Hon M. Kathleen Butz is a former UC Davis employee, who

ordered in 2015 that both Waszczuk’s appeals, Case No. C079524 (anti -SLAPP
motion) and C079254 (Writ of Mandamus) are not eligible for mediation.
- 17 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963082/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-
06182015-Mediation-Statement-Denied-Hon-Butz
Waszczuk is especially concerned about his detailed 69-page Mediation

Statement in Case C079524 (anti-SLAPP), in which Waszczuk on Douglas Stein
gross misconduct which cost Waszczuk $20,000 of his retainer, stolen by his
attorney, Douglas Stein, who colluded with the Porter Scott attorneys, not to
mention a $3000 cost for Clerk Transcripts and filing.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397962401/3dca-C079524-07-16-2015-
SLAPP-Appellant-Mediation-Statement
The Hon. M. Kathleen Butz, in this case, did further harm to Waszczuk on behalf
of RPii by participating in issuance of unjust and discriminatory unpublished
opinion dated December 17, 2018.
Waszczuk had especially focused in the Mediation Statement mentioned above,
on February 2009, Settlement Agreement. Waszczuk had signed with Regents in
good faith after Waszczuk had defeated Regents in the arbitration process and he
was hoping that filing the detailed Mediation Statement would resolve the anti-
SLAPP case without occupying the Court for the next two years. Also, in his
Mediation Statement, Waszczuk focused on the UC Davis Policies and
Procedures, and especially on the UC Davis Employee Performance Review
Policy, PPSM 23, pointing out that the progressive discipline policies were
grossly violated and disregarded by the Defendant’s and the Courts . [See :
Appellant Reply Brief ARB 8-16; 39–42].
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963986/3DCA-CUIAB-C79254-ARB-07-
22-2016-Appellant-Reply-Brief
Waszczuk was not provided with an evaluation for the last two years of his
employment with the university. The Hon. M. Kathleen Butz is a former UC
Davis employee and Waszczuk believes that she is familiar with UC Davis
policies and knows how important an annual evaluation is for every employee of
the University of California, regardless of whether it is a good or bad evaluation.
- 18 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
As a former UC Davis employee, Hon. M. Kathleen Butz should have excluded

herself from the review panel instead of participating and discriminating against
Waszczuk. It is contended that her intention was to harm him on behalf of her
former employer.
3DCA Justice Hon. Elena J. Duarte is the Justice who delivered the final blow to
Waszczuk on January 17, 2019 in the form of an unpublished opinion that was
biased and outrageously discriminatory to Waszczuk. This was a disgrace to the
California Justice system as it not only violated Waszczuk’s right to equal access
to justice as a US and Californian taxpayer, but also violated 68 years of
Waszczuk’s human rights, and further destroyed Waszczuk and his family’s
normal existence.
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
- 19 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
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.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397965046/07012015-USA-v-Leland-Yee-
Plea-Agreement-1-1-pdf
This coincidently happened at the same time that Waszczuk provided
information to the UC legal counsels from Porter Scott about the unlawful
operation of the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant. On
October 15, 2015, the UC Davis Chancellor, who in 2009 was ordered to sign
the Settlement-Agreement with Waszczuk was euthanized in the UC Davis
Medical Center. This was coincidently two days after Waszczuk provided
information to the Court about the enormous violation by the Regents concerning
tax fraud in relation to the illegal sale of power from the UCDMC 27-megawatt
cogeneration plant (ARB 51-52).
https://www.scribd.com/document/390511699/SI-22-U-S-Senator-Garamendi-
UC-Davis-Chancellor-Larry-Vanderhoef
Waszczuk will follow up with his own inquiry and will ask the FBI Special
Agent in Charge, Mr. Sean Ragan from the Sacramento FBI field office, whether
he knows Justice Duarte. Mr. Ragan was transferred from the Los Angeles FBI
to the Sacramento FBI office. In March–August 2016, UC Davis Chancellor
- 20 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Linda Katehi was the next candidate for UC President Janet Napolitano to be
persuaded to sign a plea bargain and to fo11ow Senator Leland to the federal
prison after an unsuccessful attempt to remove Chance11or Katehi from her post
by November 18, 201 1, fo11owing a pepper spray provocation.
V. REASONS TO GRANT WASZCZUK PETITION FOR REVIEW AND

REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
A. The Respondent, RPii, failed to provide in December 2012 a timely

response to the Employment Development Department (EDD) to the
unemployment insurance claim Waszczuk filed with the EDD on December
16, 2012.
The Rpii, UC Davis HR Unemployment Insurance (UI) Coordinator Holly Sohor, failed
to timely respond (AR-139) to the Waszczuk claim and lied to the EDD claim reviewer
about the reason for the response being late; thus, the RPii violated Section 1142(a) of
the UI Code which provides:
That an employer who willfully makes a false statement or representation,
or willfully fails to report a material fact in connection with a separation
issue may be assessed a penalty of up to 10 times the claimant's weekly
benefit amount.
Waszczuk fully described the UI Coordinator's lies about her late response to the EDD
in his [Petition for Rehearing on pages 18-21 ] Administrative Record (AR 139-141)
https://www.scribd.com/document/397969304/3DCA-EDD-1-2-2013-RPil- Late
Response-to-EDD-UI-Claim-N otification-AR-139-141
B. The EDD failed to resolve the conflicting information about Waszczuk's

unlawful termination of employment by the RPii.
On January 8, 2013, the EDD interviewed UCDMC Plant Operation (PO&M)

Department Administrative Supervisor Phyllis Reginelli (AR 133- 136). Ms. Reginelli
testified during the interview that August 31, 2011, was the date of Waszczuk's
employment termination and that December 5, 2012, was his last day of work or more
precisely the last day of forced leave since August 31 , 2011.(LDW) (AR 133) not day
of termination .
- 21 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Ms. Reginelli’s January 8, 2013, interview testimony about Waszczuk’s termination of

employment on August 31, 2011, corresponds with the facts Waszczuk provided in AR
545-547 and the information Waszczuk provided in the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal
(CT 00188,000189,00190) [Petition for Rehearing, pages 22-23 .] (AR 133-136)
https://www.scribd.com/document/397969833/3DCA-EDD-01-01-04-Record-of-Claim-
Status-Interview-Misconduct-AR-133-136
EDD ignored Waszczuk’s information about his unlawful termination of employment
and failed to resolve conflicted Waszczuk information
C. The EDD failed to appear at the hearing with Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Marilyn Tays on February 13, 2013.
The Notice of the Hearing clearly instructed the EDD to appear in person, but the EDD
representative did not show and during and after the hearing ALJ acted as if nothing
had happened. ALJ Tays pleased the RPii by defaming Waszczuk in her decision and
affirmed her hateful behavior toward Waszczuk in her decision. The EDD officer could
have provided information about Waszczuk’s ill-planned employment termination on
September 23, 2011, information the EDD received by interviewing UCDMC PO&M
Department Administrative Secretary Phyllis Reginelli on January 8, 2013 (AR 133). In
addition to the EDD officer’s absence from the hearing, ALJ Marlin Tays quickly
neutralized Waszczuk’s witness and former coworker William Buckans and did not let
him testify. Waszczuk’s witness William Buckans was the person who on September
23, 2011, at 8:45 a.m., alerted Waszczuk and department management by e-mail about
Waszczuk’s RPii employment termination on September 23, 2011. The date of
Waszczuk’s unlawful termination of employment was confirmed by the RPii’s
administrative secretary Phillis Reginelli on January, 8, 2013, in an interview with the
EDD, See: [ Petition for Rehearing, page 25 .] (AR -35)
https://www.scribd.com/document/397970483/3DCA-CUIAB-01-31-2013-Notice-of-
Hearing-with-ALJ-M-Tays-AR-35
- 22 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
D. Administrative Law Judge Marylin Tay’s biased decision dated February

14, 2013, and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
decision dated May 31, 2013.
Waszczuk in his Petition for Rehearing on pages 23-28 fully described the February 13,
2013, hearing with ADJ Marilyn Tays and her slanderous Waszczuk decision on
February 14, 2013, followed by the May 31, 2013, paste and copy document of ADJ
Tays’s decision issued by two California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
(CUIAB) members, Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn (pages 12-14, AOB).
In addition, Waszczuk in his Appellant Opening Brief (AOB) on page 14 and

Appellant Reply Brief (ARB) on pages 45-47 informed the Court of Appeal that
he submitted a complaint to CUIAB’s Chief Administrative Law Judge Ms. Elise
Rose and CUIAB Chief Counsel Mr. Kim Steinhardt against ALJ Marylin Tays
and two CUIAB members, Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn. CUIAB’s Chief
Counsel Kim Steinhardt apparently conducted an investigation, and the EDD in
May 2014 informed Waszczuk that Waszczuk’s unemployment insurance
benefits were restored.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398000531/3DCA-EDD-05-14-2014-EDD-
REINSTATED-WASZCZUK-UI-BENEFITS
However, Waszczuk never received any money from the EDD. In 2014, Waszczuk was
represented (misrepresented) by legal counsel Douglas Stein [State Bar of California
Case No. 15-O-10110-LMA; STEIN ON DISCIPLINE, which is the California
Supreme Court Order dated March 1, 2018, Supreme Court Case S245982][ Petition for
Rehearing, page 14 .]
E. The CUIAB and RPii filed frivolous demurrers in April 2014 in trial
court.
In April 2014, California Attorney General Deputy Ashante Norton, who represented
and still represents CUIAB in absentia, in a coordinated action with four attorneys from
the UC Office of the General Counsel representing the RPii, Cinthia Vroom, Charles
Robinson, Margaret Wu, and Karen Petrulakis, in collaboration with Waszczuk’s
attorney, Douglas Stein, filed a frivolous demurrer to delay the legal process and to end
- 23 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
the Waszczuk Petition of Writ of Mandate (CT 16-23; 35-37). The allegation of the
CUIAB and RPii was that Waszczuk filed the Petition for Writ on December 2, 2013,
two days after the statute of limitations had run out and that Waszczuk had violated
Unemployment Insurance Code § 410. The demurrer was removed from the court
calendar by the CUIAB on (CT p. 00038) after Waszczuk exchanged correspondence
with Norton. Waszczuk counsel Stein did not want to file an objection to the CUIAB
and RPii demurrer, and Waszczuk should have fired him rather than hire him in May
2014 for the wrongful termination case, paying him a $20,000 retainer which he spent
on drugs and other private purchases. See: [Petition for Rehearing, pages 14, 20; AOB
page 16 . ]
On December 16, 2016, Waszczuk dismissed his counsel Douglas Stein from both the
wrongful termination case and the Petition for Writ of Mandate due to Stein’s gross
misconduct, misrepresentation, and collaboration with UC Regents’ attorneys to harm
Waszczuk. However, after Waszczuk dismissed Stein on December 16, 2016, Stein
refused to sign a Substitution of Attorney and wrote the Petitioner’s Opening Brief (CT-
00050-00075), which he delivered to Waszczuk’s home in Lodi on January 13, 2014
(last day to file Brief), together with the Substitution of Attorney (CT p. 91) and
Administrative Record file (CT pp. 00053-00088). January 14, 2014, was the last day to
file the Petitioner’s Opening Brief; thus, Waszczuk had no time to read what Stein had
written and filed the brief as is on January 14, 2015. On top of this, Waszczuk had to
deal with an anti-SLAPP motion filed by the University of California (UC) Regents
counsel on December 1, 2014, and Stein failed to object to the motion by the due date
of December 16, 2014
In December 2014 and January 2015 Waszczuk had no much clue what the Writ of
Mandamus and anti-SLAPP motion stand for. Never heard about.
Waszczuk in June 2014 had not realized that after the CUIAB and RPii demurrer failed
to remove Waszczuk from the Court. Stein, in collaboration with RPii counsel Michael
Pott, who was handling the RPii’s wrongful termination case, purposely set the hearing
date for the Petition for Writ of Mandate for February 27, 2015, two months after the
hearing for the anti-SLAPP motion scheduled for December 30, 2014. Stein had no
- 24 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
desire to object to the UC Regents anti-SLAPP motion for the price of the approximate
$300,000 payoff end Waszczuk’s wrongful termination and writ of mandamus litigation
together in January 2015.
F. The trial Court Decision of March 2, 2015, and the CUIAB’s attorney
Ashante Norton’s violation of the California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b).
After the recorded Court hearing on February 27, 2015 the trial court judge Hon.
Shelleyanne Chang, issued her court decision, which was a copy and paste document
with statements taken from the February 14, 2013, ALJ Marilyn Tays decision, the
May 31, 2013, CUIAB decision issued by the redacted Respondent’s Statement in
Support of Decision filed in the Court on February 2, 2015, (CT pp. 00094-00104) and
the RPii’s slanderous and libelous Opposition to Writ of Mandamus filed on February 2,
2015 (CT pp. 00124-00141).
https://www.scribd.com/document/397971789/3DCA-Writ-2-27-2015-Hearing-Court-
Reporter-Transcript
On top of this, Hon. Chang Completely disregarded Waszczuk’s Petitioner Reply Brief
(PRB) even though the Court had been informed that it was impossible for Waszczuk to
write a Petitioner Opening Brief because Waszczuk could not get the file and
substitution for attorney from Douglas Stein until January 13, 2015 (CT p. 00173).
The Supreme Court should read Waszczuk’s Petitioner Reply Brief (PRB) which has
enough information needed to reverse the 3DCA unpublished opinion. (CT 00105-
00123)
However, Judge Chang on page 2 of her decision (CT-00170) confirmed that Waszczuk
had not worked from September 1, 2011, to December 5, 2012. It did not seem to bother
her how it was possible that Waszczuk was not working yet violated UC policies, even
being placed on stress-related sick leave for several months by his physician and
psychologist during over his one-year absence, [Petition for Rehearing pages 33-39],
Waszczuk’s detailed absence from work history in 2011-2012 . Waszczuk protested the
CUIAB and RPii’s outrageous, and libelous accusations, which portrayed Waszczuk as
an agitator who wanted to kill Jews in his place of employment. (CT 00128; 00240)
Waszczuk protested such despicable and beyond imagination accusations in his
- 25 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
February10, 2015, letter Waszczuk sent to Hon. Shelleyanne Chang and Hon. David
Brown in Department 53, which was filed on February 11, 2015 (CT p. 00142).
After the Judge Chang issued decision the CUIAB ‘s Counsel Ashante Norton on
March 5, 2015, sent to Waszczuk a Proposed Order to approve or disprove. Waszczuk
submitted a 20-page long Disproval of the Proposed Order on March 10, 2015, to the
CUIAB counsel (CT pp. 00179- 00199). Waszczuk noted that the CUIAB counsel had
not submitted Waszczuk’s Disproval of the Respondent Order with her Proposed Order,
as is mandated by the California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b). The trial court ignored the
CUIAB counsel’s violation of the California Rule of Court §3.13129 (b) and
disregarded Waszczuk’s Petitioner’s Notice of Objection to Respondent’s Proposed
Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate and Judgment in Favor of Respondent filed
on March 13, 2015, making the RPii and CUIAB winners on 64-year-old Waszczuk and
his family’s suffering and expenses (CT pp. 00212-00261).
G. Record on Appeal
After Waszczuk’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Third Court of Appeal (3DCA)
on May 14, 2015, and after Waszczuk submitted an Appellant Notice Designating
Record on Appeal on June 22, 2015, it took seven months for the Superior Court clerk
from 3DCA to file a notice to prepare one volume of the 284-page clerk’s transcript and
one volume of the 12-page court reporter’s transcript. Waszczuk had to file two separate
motions in 3DCA to get the record on appeal transferred, an April 6, 2016 Motion for
Sanction Pursuant to California Rules rule 8.23 and an April 14, 2016 Motion to
Transmit the Administrative Record, California Rules of Court rule 8.123. Both motions
were denied by the 3DCA P. J Hon Vance Raye All details about the Record on Appeal
are in Waszczuk’s (AOB pp. 19-22)
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963839/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-AOB-07-22-
2016-Appellant-Opening-Brief
H. The CUIAB failure to submit a Respondent Brief on the Appeal due on

September 9, 2016.
In the December 27, 2012, unpublished opinion in Standard of Review on page 7

(EXHIBIT A), the Court bluntly blamed Waszczuk for violating California Rules of
- 26 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Court 8.204 (a) (1) (B), but did not specify which of Waszczuk’s briefs violated
California Rules of Court 8.204 (a) (1) (B). Waszczuk wrote two briefs.On the
contrary, the CUIAB failed to submit a Respondent Brief which was due on
September 21, 2016; thus, the Court should decide the appeal on the record of the
opening brief by the appellant (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220 (a) (2) Melissa G.
v. Raymond M., B284031 (September 20, 2018) Cal. App. Dist. 2; Bennett v.
California Custom Coach, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal. App. 3rd 333, 338. See also D.H.
Williams Construction, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School Dist. (2007) 146 Cal. App.
4th 757, 763).
However, the Court did not seem to notice that the CUIAB had not filed a Respondent’s
Brief and it was ok.
In the [Petition for Rehearing , on pages 10-15] Waszczuk provided a detailed response
to the 3DCA author’s nitpicking allegations about Waszczuk’s briefs, including similar
discriminatory allegations in the cross-referenced case Waszczuk v. the Regents of the
University of California Case No. C079524, an unpublished opinion filed on October
10, 2017.
The 3DCA accusations in the Court’s two unpublished opinions in regard to the
Waszczuk briefs make no mention that the Defendant’s and Respondent’s briefs were
stricken or not filed at all. This is the best example of the pattern of discrimination
aimed at Waszczuk by the 3DCA justices.
I. Waszczuk’s request to schedule oral arguments in Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board et al. 3DCA Case No. C079254.
On August 6, 2018, Waszczuk submitted to the 3DCA a Request to Schedule Oral
Argument in Case No. C079254 pending appeal, which had been pending in the 3DCA
since May 2015.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397972861/3DCA-C079254-08062018-
Request-to-Schedule-Oral-Argument
Along with the Request to Schedule Oral Argument, Waszczuk attached several
exhibits. One of the attached exhibits is the 94-page Plaintiff’s Disproval of the
- 27 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Defendants' Proposed Order and Judgment in the cross-referenced Waszczuk v the

Regents of the University of California Case No. C079524.
The plaintiff's Disapproval of the Defendants' Proposed Order addresses in detail the
terror that Waszczuk experienced and witnessed between 2011 and 2012 in his place of
employment, the UC Davis Medical Center. The order describes various incidents that
victimized both Waszczuk and his coworkers. Additionally, from December 2011 to
January 2012, Waszczuk's psychologist, Dr. Franklin Bernhoft, and Bernhoft's family in
Lodi became the targets of coordinated attacks.
The plaintiff's Disapproval of the Defendants' Proposed Order also addressed the
suicide, or more likely homicide, of UC Davis Medical Center employee Todd
Georlich, who replaced Waszczuk in 2007 and was three years later found dead,
hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park. Georlich’s death triggered a massive
witch hunt against Waszczuk, his coworkers, and anyone who was associated with
Waszczuk, including Waszczuk' s physician and psychologist. This witch hunt resulted
in Waszczuk's termination of employment in September 2011; his final day on the
University of California payroll was December 5, 2012. Due to this witch hunt,
Waszczuk's subsequent losses in income, benefits, and property have exceeded
$1,000,000, and Waszczuk’s family life was devastated.
On August 21, 2018, the 3DCA denied Waszczuk’s request for scheduling oral
arguments. However, on October 1, 2018, a 3DCA clerk sent Waszczuk a notification
that the court was prepared to render a decision in the above case without hearing oral
arguments. Two days later, on October 3, 2018, two RPii attorneys from the Porter
Scott law firm, David Burkett and Daniel Bardzell, filed a Motion to Compel; they did
so in the wrong court department in order to sabotage Waszczuk’ wrongful termination
lawsuit and to obtain a court order from a judge who was not presiding over the
Waszczuk wrongful termination case (ROA pp. 151–154). Waszczuk requested oral
arguments in 3DCA appeal Case No. C079254. On October 23, 2018, Waszczuk
received notification from the 3DCA that oral arguments were scheduled for December
12, 2018.
- 28 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
J. Motion for New Evidence on Appeal
Prior to the oral arguments scheduled for December 12, 2018, Waszczuk, on December
4, 2018, filed a Motion for New Evidence on Appeal pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 8.252 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 909. Most of the new evidence
(documents) Waszczuk received due to the discovery process in the cross-referenced
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California 2013, Sacramento
Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479 were from the
February 13, 2013, hearing with ALJ Marlin Tays or for the February 27, 2015, court
hearing with trial court judge Shelleyanne Chang .
https://www.scribd.com/document/397997431/3DCA-C079254-CUIAB-12-042018-
Motion-for-New-Evidence-on-Appeal
This new, clear and undisputable evidence, which Waszczuk wanted to introduced prior
to oral arguments, would show the Court that in 2011 and on September 25, 2012,
Waszczuk was eligible for the Clinical Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2
(“Plan”) CEMRP2 award like any other employee; instead, he was slandered, and
libeled with an RPii Notice to Dismiss and a UC Davis police like most wanted poster,
which included Waszczuk’s photo and description, and which was distributed on and
around UC Davis campuses on September 26, 2012, without Waszczuk’s knowledge.
Waszczuk was harassed, threatened, and terrorized, even during his work-related sick
leave for stress.
CEMRP2, as mentioned above, stands for the University of California Clinical

Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2 (“Plan”), which is governed by the
Personnel Policies for Staff Members 34 (Incentive and Recognition Award Plans –
Managers & Senior Professionals and Professional & Support Staff)
https://policy.ucop.edu/_files/policies/CEMRP2-
Plan.pdfhttps://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4010430/PPSM-34. Without any objection from the
respondents to Waszczuk’s motion, the Court denied the motion in the same manner as
the other motions Waszczuk had previously filed with the 3DCA, [Petition for
Rehearing pages 17-18 .]
- 29 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
K. Oral Arguments on December 12, 2018

On December 12, 2018, Waszczuk argued the case for himself in pro per. David Burkett
argued for the RPii and Regents of the University of California. The legal counsel from
the California Attorney General Office Ashante Norton represented the primary
respondent, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB). CUIAB’s
legal counsel Norton did not attend the 15-minute oral arguments at the 3DCA.
Apparently, Norton had nothing to say since she failed to submit a Respondent Brief in
September 2016. She also had nothing to say during the oral arguments in the trial court
Oral Argument in February 2015 (see the February 27, 2015, Reporter Transcript on
Appeal).
https://www.scribd.com/document/397971789/3DCA-Writ-2-27-2015-Hearing-Court-
Reporter-Transcript
Waszczuk fully describes the December 12, 2018, oral arguments in his [Petition for
Rehearing pages 16-18] . Waszczuk and his former coworker from UC Davis Medical
center notice that whole 3DCA Court was reserved only for Waszczuk on that day. It
was very strange .
VI. CONCLUSION
During the course of Waszczuk’s employment with the UC Davis Medical

Center, he provided representation to other non-represented union
employees in their complaints regarding adverse management actions
against them under the UC Davis Compliant Resolution PPSM 70. In his
briefs for the appeals of Case No. C079524 and C079254, he provided
specific information on how detrimentally different the RPii’s treatment of
his case is in comparison to their treatment of employees he represented in
suits of severe adverse management action. Page: 30
(ARB 8-16); this discrepancy is especially noted in the Appellant Reply
Brief (ARB) in the C079254 appeal case.
https://www.scribd.com/document/397963986/3DCA-CUIAB-C79254-
ARB-07-22-2016-Appellant-Reply-Brief
- 30 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
In Waszczuk’s Petition for Rehearing, pages 40–47 address an e-mail dated

May 3, 2012 that Waszczuk wrote to UC Davis Medical Center HR
Manager Humberto Garcia on behalf of his coworker. See: Petitioner Reply
Brief (PRB) (CT 00109-00111) . This e-mail contained a warning statement
about hostility in the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
facility where Waszczuk’s former coworker, William Buckans, was bullied
and harassed for years by managers and coworkers ; Waszczuk was
employed at this facility from June 1999 to April 2007. Waszczuk was
abruptly removed from the plant in April 2007. In the e-mail to Humberto
Garcia and other managers, Waszczuk used the columbine massacre as an
example of what could happen at UC Davis Medical Center if the hostile
and violent working environment was not addressed. (CT 00109-00111)
https://www.scribd.com/document/398001801/3DCA-C079254-05-03-
2012-Waszczuk-e-mail-to-Humberto-Garcia-with-warning-statement-
about-Columbine-Massacre
Waszczuk alerted management by e-mail after he received an alarming e-mail

and phone call from William on May 2nd, 2012. Waszczuk cannot say today
what could have happened if he did not offer to assist William and the others
attacked by management; Waszczuk convinced William and the other coworker
to attend a Stress Management Class on May 30,2012 to defuse the volatile and
dangerous situation
https://www.scribd.com/document/398001457/0005-Stress-Managament-2-pdf
The hostility was purposely orchestrated and heated up by the UCDMC HR
assigned witch hunters for the May 31, 2012 provocation to end the Waszczuk
’employment in UCDMC Trauma Unit #11. (CT 00081) which was ended
anyway on August 31, 2011 (CT 00188)
The Supreme Court will notice from the Clerk Transcript that Waszczuk’s e-
mail containing the statement about the Columbine massacre was used by ALJ,
- 31 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
CUIAB Board members as a justification for denying Waszczuk unemployment

insurance benefits . (CT 00026; 00095;00134;00171)
Waszczuk does not know for sure what would eventually happen in May 2012
if Waszczuk would not offer help to William Buckans and other employee
Kenny Diede by assisting them in the formal harassment complaints under UC
Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 and convince them to attend the
Stress Management Class.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398002099/3DCA-C079254-May-2012-
Waszczuk-s-representation-to-William-Buckans-and-Kenneth-Diede-UC-
Davis-Policy-PPSM-23
Waszczuk e-mail was not a threat or misconduct but preventive action from the
eventual disaster waiting to happen in place of employment where Waszczuk
replacement of 2007 three years latter was found death hanging from the tree in
the Rancho Cordova park , If Waszczuk would be not removed from the plant
in 2007 than most likely 41 years Todd Georlich would still alive today and his
9 years old daughter who was left behind in December 2010 would have and
she would know her father.
The Supreme Court will notice in the Clerk Transcript the e-mail
containing the Columbine massacre example was presented to the court by
ALJ, CUIAB Board Members, and other RPii attorneys as a threat made
against the school by Waszczuk as opposed to the true intention of this
communication.
On January 5, 2012, Waszczuk’s four month work-stress related sick leave
ended and Waszczuk was staying home , not knowing what is his
employment status with university until May 11, 2012.
Waszczuk was lured by UCDMC HR and Waszczuk’s department

manager to UCDMC premises on May 31, 2012 by the statement in
suspension letter Waszczuk received from RPii on May 11, 2012. The
suspension letter for 10 days without pay was given to Waszczuk during
- 32 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Waszczuk forced by RPii absence from work was given to him for sole
purpose to agitate Waszczuk and to make Waszczuk mad and angry, after
Waszczuk was on forced by RPii absence from work for almost one year.
(CT 00128)
https://www.scribd.com/document/398003074/3DCA-C079254-May-11-
2012-Ten-days-Suspension-without-pay-during-Waszczuk-forced-10-
months-absence-from-work
The RPii’s inviting Waszczuk onto the premises is questionable because
they portrayed the e-mail Waszczuk sent on May 3, 2012 as evidence of a
threat and misconduct made towards the school; however, here they have
not followed procedure to allow him back onto the premises. This
exemplifies a flaw in their claim of the e-mail being a threat of safety for
the campus; they willingly invited him back without verifying with his
medical practitioners that his state of mind was not a harm to himself or
others. Therefore, the e-mail could not have stipulated a threat as they have
claimed.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398002561/3DCA-C079254-Waszczuk-
s-August-31-2011-UC-DAVIS-HEALTH-SYSTEM-RETURN-TO-
WORK-CLEARANCE-after-sick-leave-mandated-by-UC-Davis-Policies
The two unpublished opinions issued by the 3DCA in Waszczuk v. The Regents
of the University of California Case C079524 (issued on October 10, 2017) and
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board C079254
(issued on December 17, 2018), along with the denial if the Petition for
Rehearing by the 3DCA will only perpetuate the unseemly behavior of
management at the university toward their employees. Furthermore, these
unpublished opinions may present grounds for discrimination in the currently
pending cases . For this reason, and the above mentioned details, Waszczuk
- 33 -
Petition for Review
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-833-7080
May 15, 2019
Leah T. Wilson, Executive Director

The State Bar of California
Office of the Executive Director
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1617
Subject: Follow-up on my April 9, 2019 Inquiry – Request to Expedite

the Reimbursement of Theft, or an Act Equivalent to Theft, Perpetrated
by Attorney Douglas Stein, SBN 131248
Re: State Bar of California, Case No.15-0-10110-LMA [18-F-16299]

Re: California Supreme Court Case S245982,
In re: Douglas Edward Stein on Discipline
INTRODUCTION
Dear Director Wilson:
This is a follow-up to my inquiry that I sent to your office on April 9, 2019 to be reimbursed
by the State Bar of California Client Security Fund (CSF) for the money that was basically
stolen by my former attorney, Douglas Stein. (ATTACHMENT #1)
I have already addressed in my earlier correspondences why Douglas Stein did what
he did. (ATTACHMENT #2) Therefore, I will my focus my attention now on why the State
Bar of California CSF is refusing to reimburse the stolen money which I absolutely cannot
recover from Douglas Stein due to his own financial disaster and his tarnished life in general.
The Declaration of Douglas E. Stein in Support of the State Bar Rule 9.20 Compliance
speaks for itself on how Stein’s attorney’s carrier was ended after he colluded or was most
likely forced to collude with the Porter Scott attorneys from November 2013 to December
2014. (ATTACHMENT #3) Stein’s homelessness and separation from his daughter should
-1-
Request to Expedite
the Reimbursement of Theft
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
be a factor for the State Bar of California to help him recover from his downfall and to
reimburse the losses I incurred by hiring Stein in November 2013, rather than punish him and
me because of the State Bar’s association with the almighty Janet Napolitano and her
University of California Office of the President (UCOP) mob. As I read in the State Bar of
California’s informational pamphlet entitled, “Special Events at the State Bar of California
Annual Meeting of September 29, 2016–October 2, 2016,” one of the presented subjects was
“Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health Vulnerability in the Legal Profession: Facing the
Facts” with Patrick Krill, Hon. Catherine Purcell, Dr. Robert A. Simon, and Richard Canton.
(ATTACHMENT #4) It is worth mentioning that UC President Janet Napolitano attended
the 2016 State Bar of California Annual Meeting along with California Chief Justice Hon.
Tani Cantil-Sakauye and State Bar of California and State Bar Executive Director Elizabeth
R. Parker.
Unfortunately for Stein and the UCOP “ advocates” from Porter Scott, my legal
action against the UC Regents for breach of written contract, which the UC Regents signed in
January 2009 with me and then trashed in April 2011, did not end in January 2015 as they
had anticipated. The legal action is still pending in Sacramento County Superior Court as
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California. For how long the case will be in Court, I can’t say because I don’t know.
AFTERMATH OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA PROSECUTION OF

ATTORNEY DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN
California Supreme Court Case S245982, In re Douglas Edward Stein on

Discipline
In 2015, State Bar Investigator Amanda Gormley informed me that after Douglas
Stein’s prosecution for his misconduct, the State Bar CSF would reimburse me the amount of
money I was entitled to due to the perpetrated theft by Stein. Ms. Gormley was perfectly
aware of Stein’s grave financial situation and his lack of any resources to pay the money
back.
On March 1, 2018, the California Supreme Court affirmed Stein’s suspension
imposed on him by the State Bar and ordered him to pay me back the amount of $14,694.33
-2-
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
plus 10% interest per year from June 2, 2014 (or reimbursement from the CSF, to the extent
of any payment from the CSF, in accordance with Business and Professions Code section
6140.5).
Application for Reimbursement dated August 30, 2018

After the California Supreme Court on March 1, 2018 issued the decision in Stein’s
case, I waited a few months to see if he would pay the stolen money, not being aware of his
totally disastrous financial and life situation caused by his 2013–2014 (most likely forced)
collusion with Porter Scott attorneys representing the UCOP that lead to his gross
professional misconduct in representation. Stein probably figured out what happened to his
friend Todd Goerlich, who was my replacement in 2007 at my job at the University of
California. Goerlich was found hung to death in the Rancho Cordova Park on December 22,
2010. Stein did not want to be another suspicious suicide statistic caused by the UCOP ‘s
Principles of Community. https://www.ucop.edu/local-human-resources/op-life/principles-
of-community.html
(ATTACHMENT #5)
The State Bar of California Client Security responses to my August 30, 2018 inquiry
to be reimbursed was something that I did not take lightly, and I looked for further clues as to
what, who, and why is behind the scenes of the misused or stolen money by Douglas Stein in
2014.
I saw and I currently see the desperation of the UCOP organized crime , their
“advocates “ from Porter Scott, and other collaborators to deliver to me the final blow in the
courts. This is after the October 3, 2018–March 20, 2019 actions by a Porter Scott attorney in
the Sacramento Superior Court with Motions to Compel; after the December 27, 2019
collaboration and coordination with the UCOP mob and the California State Bar; after the
December 27, 2018 Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District (3DCA) March 8, 2019
California Supreme Court decision in my Unemployment Insurance Benefits Case No.
34201380001699CUWMGDS Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board (CUIAB), 3DCA Case No. C079254, Supreme Court Case No. S253713; and
finally, after my denied disability benefits of 2011 in the amount of $4,546.08 resurfaced at
-3-
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
the California State Controller Office, discovered there by a private investigator on March 20,
2019. See my May 1, 2019 inquiry with the State Controller Office. (ATTACHMENT #6)
The April 19, 2019 Request for Records under California Public Records Act
Douglas Stein’s case was simple; he basically did not challenge the State Bar’s
decision and gave up practicing law. Therefore, there was no reason for the State Bar CSF to
say that it needed another three years to investigate Stein, who was already investigated for
five years resulting in a 2018 Supreme Court Decision in this matter.
By standing for myself in Court and in the State Bar for the last five years, I became
aware that my adversaries were doing everything possible to cut me off from any financial
resources to make my continued litigation against UC Regents impossible. What happened to
my 2011 disability insurance benefits and 2014 unemployment insurance benefits are the best
examples of what the UCOP mob and their hired “advocates” from Porter Scott, in
collaboration with the Courts, State Bar, and Attorney General’s office staff, are doing to get
rid of me.
It seems to me that CSF reimbursement is another example of State Bar personnel’s
close collaboration with the UCOP mob against me.
To learn what is really going on, I requested information from the State Bar under the
Public Record Act Provision (PRA) on April 19, 2019 about Karen Jensen Petrulakis SBN
168732, who was UC General Counsel Charles Robinson’s Chief Deputy, who has served
on the State Bar’s Litigation Section Executive Committee since October 2012.
ATTACHMENT #7)
UC General Counsel was employed in the past by the same law firm as State Bar
Court Judge Hon. Lucy Armendariz, who was elevated to Los Angeles County Superior
Court last year by Governor Jerry Brown. Charles Robinson was a key player and perpetrator
in the scheme of enormous fraud committed by white collar criminals known as the
“California Energy Crisis.”
Furthermore, Petrulakis was listed as a UC Regents attorney in my Unemployment
Insurance Benefits Case No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
-4-
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB), 3DCA Case No. C079254. In addition,
Petrulakis was one of the UC General Counsel’s attorneys who interfered with the State
Audit No. 2016-130. The 2016 State Audit disclosed $1,000,000 that UC President Janet
Napolitano gave in 2016 to two former U.S. attorneys, Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott.
We don’t know for sure yet why Napolitano handed $1,000,000 to Haag and Scott or what
they knew about Napolitano to extort such money in such short time period .
The other two people in my April 19, 2019 PRA request are two State Bar CFS
Commission members, Ms. Shanae S. Buffington SBN 263829 and Mr. Robert C. Bowman,
Jr. SBN 232388. Since 2012, Ms. Buffington has been an employee and attorney of the State
of California Employment Development Department, which denied my benefits in 2013. But
these benefits were restored in May 2014, and then promptly disappeared. The State Bar was
informed about this and likely knows who is behind this crime.
The other person I am needing information about is CSF Commission member Robert
C. Bowman, Jr. SBN 232388. In March 2013, I paid to Bowman $1,000 to review all my
documents and to file a lawsuit against the UC Regents for breach of contract and for
wrongfully ending my employment in December 2012. (ATTACHMENT #7-1) After
reviewing my file for $1,000, Bowman wanted to take the case but he wanted too much
money up front for representation. He probably figured from the documents I sent to the
Employment Development Department (EDD) in 2012 that I cashed my UC retirement after
I lost my employment, income, and my house at the age of 61 and that I was not eligible even
for Social Security at that age. It happened just after my unemployment benefits were denied
by EDD and by the CUIAB’s Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Elizabeth Tays, SBN
158370. Tays is a friend of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang.
Tays, together with another CUIAB member, Michael Allen, SBN 86871, were the subjects
of my complaint with the State Bar along with 21 other attorneys that I submitted to the State
Bar in March 2016. My complaint was quickly swept under the carpet, most likely by the
order of State Bar CEO Elizabeth Parker, Case No.: 16-15525, and State Bar of California
Reviewers, attorneys Peter Eng and Carissa Andersen closed the file
Therefore I am looking for information about Bowman and how he found his way to
the CSF Commission.
-5-
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
The third person I am looking for information for under the PRA provision is another
attorney from the Sacramento area, Chair of the CSF Commission, Mr. Etan E. Rosen
In the Matter of A. Edward Ezor, Case No(s): 13-0-10239; 13-0-10597

Douglas Stein’s misconduct case is not complicated, as is the Case in the Matter of A.
Edward Ezor, Case No(s): 13-0-10239; 13-0-10597, Supreme Court Case No. S227682.
(ATTACHMENT #8) Attorney Ezor misappropriated $194,683.00. In June 2017, the CSF
Commission in Ezor’s case directed reimbursement of $1,000,000 to the victim.
I have asked CFS for $1,000–$2,000 for now so I could have money for medicine and
doctors, to buy new shoes, and to repair my old car. CSF’s response was that the
investigation will take three years. What investigation? I asked CSF if it was going to
investigate the Supreme Court Decision dated March 1, 2018. That is why I am asking the
State Bar Executive Director for intervention to expedite the reimbursement. I provided
specific information to the State Bar on what my current health condition is and how many
medicines I have to take every day just to keep going.
THE CHAIR OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CLIENT SECURITY FUND

COMMISSION, MR. ETAN E. ROSEN
Mr. Etan E. Rosen
“Etan Rosen was born and raised in Haifa, Israel. He was a Staff Sergeant
in the Airborne Division of the Israeli Army. In 1980 after his military
service, he came to Texas to attend classes. Mr. Rosen received a B.B.A. in
Finance and an M.B.A. in Finance and Marketing from the University of
Texas at Austin. After graduating in 1985, he worked as a Loan Analyst at
Liberty National Bank in Oklahoma City and afterward, as an Assistant
Controller for Lexus Pharmaceuticals in Austin, Texas.
Mr. Rosen graduated from the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento
and received his license to practice law in 1994. He joined Beyer and
Pongratz as the first law clerk just before taking the Bar Exam and has
served as an Associate and a Partner. Mr. Rosen has served as the
-6-
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
Managing Partner of the firm for the last seven years. His areas of expertise
include Mediation, Trust Litigation, Will Disputes, Business Law,
Business/Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Employment
Litigation, Discrimination, and Administrative Law. In 2000, Mr. Rosen
tried a wrongful termination lawsuit in El Dorado County winning a seven
million dollar judgment for his client. Mr. Rosen has tried numerous jury
and bench trials and is an experienced litigator.
Mr. Rosen is currently the Chairman and Commissioner of the California
State Bar Client Security Fund Commission. He has been married for 32
years and has 2 daughters. He is fluent in Hebrew. In his spare time, he
enjoys international travel and reading.”
https://bprlaw.net/etan-rosen/
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California Case # 2:14-cv-02187-WBS-DB -

Lamont Williams, Plaintiff v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District a.k.a. SMUD; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
The above captioned wrongful termination case against SMUD was filed on behalf of
Plaintiff Lamont Williams in Federal Court on September 22, 2014 by attorney Etan R.
Rosen SBN 258608 from Beyer, Pongratz & Rosen, A Professional Law Corporation located
in Sacramento, California. (ATTACHMENT #9)
Coincidently with lawsuit against SMUD on the same day , September 22, 2014, my
attorney, Douglas Stein, with a suspended attorney licensee, stipulated with Porter Scott law
firm attorney Michael Pott SBN 186156 to file a faulty Second Amended Complaint(SAC)
in the Sacramento County Superior Court wrongful termination suit against UC Regents,
Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California. The Stipulation or Ex-Parte Application was signed on the same day,
September 22, 2014, it was signed by the Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon.
David Brown. (ATTACHMENT #010) Stein knew Judge Brown for more than 20 years.
That was why he was useful for the UCOP mob “ advocates” from the Porter Scott’s
law firm .
On November 21, 2014, an Answer with Jury Demand by Sacramento Municipal
Utility District was filed in the Lamont Williams case by Porter Scott attorney David
-7-
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
Burkett SBN 241896 who represented the Defendant, the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District.
On the same day, November 21, 2014, I tried to dismiss my attorney, Douglas Stein.
Stein refused to sign the Substitution of Attorney and sent me on that day the following text
message.
“ext_O (3).txt
WARNING ADVISORY
The attorney-client privilege prevents me from disclosing the content or
substance of any and all communications with you. You, as the client, hold
the privilege. If you disclose purported or claimed aspects of
communications or actual communications between us, it is my opinion
that you will have waived the privilege, at least to the extent of the subject
matter of your disclosure. Of course I will make sure the privilege is
waived if, and before, I would disclose something necessitated by your
waiver. I plan to talk with the Ethics hotline Monday about the present
issue concerning my belief I cannot sub you in pro per.”
Nine days later on December 1, 2014, Porter Scott’s attorney Michael Pott
filed an anti-SLAPP motion, then I dismissed Stein on December 16, 2014. Pott
followed Stein and quit or got fired by Porter Scott on January 23, 2015. Pott was
replaced on the same day by David Burkett as a lead attorney in my wrongful
termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California
TWO YEARS LATER: FEBRUARY 2016 – NOVEMBER 2016
Political Prisoner, California Senator Leland Yee
Senator Leland Yee’s sentencing was scheduled for February 24, 2016. University of
California President Janet Napolitano and her friend Melinda Haag, who had resigned from
the U.S. Attorney’s office in September 2015, did not want any surprises when Senator
-8-
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
Leland Yee was sentenced on that date and had to prepare, at age 67, to serve five years in
the Fort Worth Federal Correctional Institution.
Senator Leland Yee was a very well-known and popular Democratic state legislator in
California. Out of blue, he was molested for three years by the FBI and thrown down the well
like a piece a garbage by the UC white-collar criminals and their allies from California ‘s
California legislature and government.
February 17, 2016 United States Acting U.S. Attorney Brian J. Stretch sentencing Senator
Leland Yee Memorandum Case No. 3:14-CR-00196-CRB
In the conclusion of the February 17, 2016 memorandum sentencing Senator Yee, Acting
U.S. Attorney Brian J. Stretch, a colleague of Melinda Haag in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for
the Northern District of California, wrote:
For all the reasons above, the government respectfully recommends that the
Court impose the following sentence on Count Two of the Second
Superseding Indictment: 96 months in the custody of the Attorney General,
a three-year term of supervised release, a fine of $25,000, and a $100
special assessment.
DATED: February 17, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN J. STRETCH
Acting United States Attorney
The sentencing memorandum shows that the FBI agents did not know the background and
the real reason for the sting operation aimed at Senator Leland Yee. However , they did an
excellent job before the jury and U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to send away Leland Yee
.
The federal jury and Judge Breyer most likely did not know how dangerous Leland Yee
was to the UCOP mob which enjoying the protection of former U.S. Secretary of Homeland
Security Janet Napolitano departed by President Barak Obama in 2013 to take care of
unfinished business rooted into sophisticated scheme of enormous billions dollars fraud and
crime titled by white collar criminals “California Energy Crisis”
-9-
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
Shortly after Senator Yee was sentenced , Napolitano and Haag enlisted two Sacramento
Bee reporters, Diana Lambert and Sam Stanton, to publish articles smearing UC Davis Greek
born Chancellor Linda 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 UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and they occupied the UC Davis Mark Hall
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.
The goal of Napolitano was to deflect the attention from her own special assignment in
UCOP and in State of California. Also $ 1,000,000 for Malinda Haag and McGregor Scott
and hidden and ready to be used by Napolitano $175, 000,000 were very high stakes in
whole operation to deflect the attention from their conspiracy.
Napolitano and Haag also hoped to divert public opinion from the criminal trial coming up
in August 2016 of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, having to do with a September
2010 natural gas line explosion in San Bruno, California. The line had been maintained by
PG&E, and when it exploded it killed eight people, injured 50 people, and demolished 37
houses in the surrounding area. The criminal charges against PG&E had been filed by
Melinda Haag just four days after Senator Leland Yee had been arrested by the FBI on March
26, 2014.
Senator Yee’s district included San Bruno.
The ploy by Napolitano and Haag to divert attention from Yee and from their own white-
collar crime’s activities worked perfectly. At the end of April, Napolitano formally placed
UC Davis Chancellor Katehi on administrative leave in consequence of the phony
investigation conducted by Haag and another former U.S. Attorney, McGregor Scott. In
2005-2007, Scott had prosecuted two Pakistanis, Umer and Hamid Hayt of Lodi, California.
The father and son had both been accused of terrorism, and the son, Hamid Hayat, was
sentenced to 24 years in federal prison due to prosecution by Scott . In 2016 Melinda Haag
- 10 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
and McGregor Scott were employed by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. (ATTACHMENT
#11)
Five 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 demanded that Katehi resign. (ATTACHMENT #12)
2016 COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRES
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 Due to Unrelated Business Income
Following the Senator Leland Yee’s sentencing on March 23, 2016, I submitted 45 pages
complaint with 35 exhibits to the U.S. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Services.
The complaint is still pending in U.S Tax Court Docket No. 23105-18
(ATTACHMENT # 13)
March 22, 2016, Complaint with the State Bar of California
On March 22, 2016 for the record I submitted to the State Bar of California, 211
pages complaint plus 177 exhibit against licensed attorneys from the University of
California and state agencies, which were direct or indirect participants in the witch
hunt against me and involved in cover up of Regents and UC administrators white
collar crimes related to illegal power sale and tax fraud. The complaint was swept
under the carpet by the State Bar of California executives (ATTACHMENT # 14)
Complaint included : Karen Jensen Petrulakis SBN 168732 ;Charles Furlonge Robinson,
SBN 113197; Steven Arnold Drown, SBN 119689; 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
- 11 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
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; Darrell Steinberg, SBN 86871; Michael William Pott, SBN 186156; Ismael
A. Castro, SBN 85452, Ashante L. Norton, SBN 203836; Jacob Adam Applesmith,
135850; Jill Noel Vandeviver, SBN 227901
March 23, 2016, Complaint with State of California Commission on Judicial

Performance against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang
On March 21, 2014, the former Chief Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary for Governor
Davis Judge Chang was assigned to the complaint filed by me in December as the Petition for
the Writ of Mandamus. (The Sacramento County Superior Court—Writ of Mandamus, Case
No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The Reagents of the University of
California (UC Regents), filed on December 2, 2013) (ATTACHMENT # 15)
April 11, 2016, Inquiry with U.S Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner- Eastern District of
California
Following the complaint with IRS, the State Bar of California and State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance in April 2016, I submitted an inquiry to the outgoing
U.S. Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner to bring criminal charges against the Regents of the
University of California due to the multimillion dollars federal tax fraud relating to unlawful
generation and power sale in 1999-2003 and 2012-2013 by the UC Davis Medical Center 27
MW cogeneration power plant and for destruction of mine and my family's life and gross
violations of my civil and human rights (ATTACHMENT # 16)
July 26, 2016, Complaint with the State Board of Equalization -Investigations
Division
- 12 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
The complaint I submitted to the State Board of Equalization against UC Regents was or is
analogous to the complaint, which I submitted to U.S. Department of Treasury - Internal
Revenue Services in March 2016. The encouragement to file the complaint with the State
Board of Equalization - Investigation Division in addition to the complaint with IRS was the
California Assembly Bill 576.
The California Assembly Bill 576 facilitated a pilot program entitled, ‘The Tax Recovery and
Criminal Enforcement (TRaCE) Task Force,’ which combats illegal business activities that
rob California State of public funds and its citizens of public services. The Task Force is
comprised of investigators and special agents from multiple agencies working together to
investigate, prosecute and recover revenue lost to the underground economy. This made me
believe that the approximate $ 100,000, 000 revenue generated by illegal power sale, in
violation of the in violation of the State of California Revenue And Taxation COD, violation
of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and total disregard of the
California Business and Professions Code section 17200 provides that "unfair competition
shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice”, by the owners of
the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration facility would accordingly be a great issue of concern to
the California State. (ATTACHMENT # 17)
DEBORAH L. BARNES APPOINTMENT TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AS A FEDERAL MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The April 20, 2016 Judge Morrison C. England’s Jr. Announcement
“Congratulations Deborah Barnes, Sacramento's Newest Magistrate Judge

Congrats to Deb Barnes for her selection as the newest Sacramento U.S.
Magistrate Judge, replacing Judge Drozd after his confirmation to the
district court bench. Always glad to see an alum from the Federal
Defender's Office being named a judge. Here's Chief Judge England's
welcoming announcement email:
- 13 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
On behalf of the Judges of the Eastern District of California, I am pleased

to announce that Deborah L. Barnes has been selected to fill a magistrate
judge position located in Sacramento. Ms. Barnes will fill the position
Judge Drozd vacated when he was elevated to district judge this past
November.
Ms. Barnes possesses an extensive legal background. Since 2003 (and from
1993-2000) she has worked as a Deputy Attorney General for the State of
California - Office of the Attorney General. Her background also includes
work with the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of
the Federal Defender, the law firm of Weintraub, Genshlea, Hardy, Erich &
Brown and the Sacramento District Attorney's Office. She completed her
undergraduate education at UC Berkeley and her law studies at McGeorge
School of Law.
Ms. Barnes must still undergo a standard background investigation by the
FBI and the IRS. This process has traditionally taken approximately three
months to complete. The court cannot make a formal announcement of her
appointment until after the reports are submitted and she receives favorable
evaluations. In the meantime, we may publicly disclose that Ms. Barnes has
been selected by the court and that her appointment process is moving
forward.
We believe Ms. Barnes will be an outstanding addition to our court family
and we look forward to having her serve as a magistrate judge on our
bench.”
On August 1, 2016, an unknown attorney from the California Attorney General’s

office, Deborah L. Barnes, was appointed to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
California as a Federal Magistrate Judge.
2016–present: Federal Magistrate Judge, Eastern District of California

2003–2016: Office of the Attorney General of California
Judge Barnes’ assignment to the Lamont Williams v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD) Case No: Case # 2:14-cv-02187-WBS-DB
Three days later after the appointment to the bench , on August 3, 2016, Judge Barnes was
assigned to Lamont Williams v. SMUD in which the parties were represented respectively by Etan
- 14 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
R. Rosen SBN 258608 and Ralph C. Lee, SBN 258608) from Beyer, Pongratz & Rosen and by
David Burkett SBN 241896 from Porter Scott Law Corp.
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District was a participant in the scheme of fraud titled
“California Energy Crisis” and SMUD participated in the UC Regent’s fraud as a buyer of the
unlawfully generated and laundered megawatts (electric power) worth tens of millions of dollars
from the UC Davis 27 MW Cogeneration Power Plant from 1999 to 2009.
The power was generated and sold in violation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978 (PURPA) Business and Professions Code § 17200 and Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and State of California Revenue and Taxation Code by laundering
generated power and not paying taxes on the unlawful profit.
Obviously, Porter Scott clients, UCOP, Regents and Executives from UC Davis and UC
Davis Medical Center , did not want to have two cases pending in Federal court and State court
one of which was charged with SMUD, and the UCOP and UC Regents’ white collar crime
activities which were covered up by the California Attorney General’s office and California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) , CAISO The Lamont Williams v. SMUD would easily lead
to the SMUD’s participation in the enormous fraud as my case did.
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 that
“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.”
During the peak of the California energy crisis (May 2000 to October 2001), the UCDMC 27
MW cogeneration power plant sold approximately 140,000 MWh via the California Power
Exchange (CalPX) and CAISO—these tax-free sales were carried out at massively inflated
- 15 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
prices. With additional assistance from the special natural-gas discount purchase allowance,
the unlawful profits generated during this period exceeded
$100,000,000. At one point during my time working for the UCDMC facility (around
December 2000), Waszczuk listened in shock as a manager disclosed with pride that the tiny
plant had made more than $20,000,000 in one month.
1999: Sold 8,875 MWh to Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD).
2000: Sold approximately 70,000 MWh (date missing, approximately October– December;
sale via CalPX and CAISO).
2001: Sold 75,767 MWh (via CalPX and CAISO).
2002: Data missing, no sale (CalPX filed for bankruptcy).
2003: Sold 17,793 MWh to SMUD (by power purchase agreement signed by UC Regents on
February 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).
2008: Sold 7,884 MWh (SMUD).
2009: Sold 342 MWh (SMUD).
The unlawful power sale to SMUD by the owners of the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant
was ceased in January 2009 after UC Regents signed with me Settlement -Agreement on January
31, 2009 which was trashed by UCOP mob in May 2011. Year later on May 31, 2012 I almost
got killed in unsuccessful provocation by the assembled “UC Davis Death Squad “
It seems to me that attorney Rosen missed a great opportunity in 2016. However, I am
more interested in when and how he became Chair of the State of California CSF Commission
because I need my stolen money back. For the above presented facts ,Mr. Rosen appointment to
the State Bar Client Security Fund as Chair is my concern.
On August 3, 2016, the same day as Hon. Barnes was appointed to the case, SMUD’s
attorney, David Burkett, sent to the Court a Notice of Settlement and on the same day,
August 3, 2016, the case was settled then disappeared from the public view on August 11,
2016. Very bizarre .
- 16 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
The Hamid Hayat’s terror Case No 2:05-cr-00240-GEB-DB-1USA v. Hayat et al

filed on 06/16/ and referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 08/03/2016
On the same day, August 3, 2016 beside the Lamont Williams v. SMUD case Judge
Barnes was appointed to appointed to the 2005 terrorism case from Lodi, California, where I
have been residing since 1989. The case The United States of America v. Hamid Hayat, Case
No. 2:05-cr-00240-GEB-DB, was filed on June 16, 2005. Hamid Hayat was a 19-year-old
cherry picker from Lodi of Pakistani descent who was accused of associating with terrorist
organization Al-Qaeda, was jailed upon his return from Pakistan in May 2005, and
prosecuted by Janet Napolitano friend, U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of California,
McGregor Scott. Hayat was sentenced to 24 years in Federal prison in 2007. At the same time
in 2005-2007 I was witch hunted by UCOP mob and in the unsuccessful attempt to erase me
from UC Davis Medical Center landscape I was brutally removed from the UCDMC 27
MW cogeneration facility just few month after I had open heart surgery and I was recovering
from disability ..
Judge Barnes , Janet Napolitano, $ 1,000,000 McGregor Scott and UC Davis Greek born
Chancellor Linda Katehi
Nine days after AG Attorney Deborah Barnes was appointed to the bench , On
August 9, 2016, Janet Napolitano and her two friends, the former U.S. prosecutors Melinda
Haag and McGregor Scott witch hunted and converted UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi to
UC Davis Chancellor Emerita for the $1,000,000 price paid by Napolitano to Haag and Scott
and obviously for the reappointment of Scott to a U.S. attorney position in the Eastern
District of California.
Reappointment of McGregor Scott to the United States Attorney Position
McGregor Scott was sworn again in on December 29, 2017 as a new U.S. attorney by
U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr . Scott returned to the position he held from
2003 to 2009 when he was appointed U.S. attorney by President George W. Bush. . Judge
England was involved in the federal Case No. 2:05-cv-01157-MCE-KJM in which the
- 17 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
Defendants were McGregor Scott and Porter Scott attorney Michael Pott, who in 2014
coerced or blackmailed my attorney, Douglas Stein, to utilize his long-time friendship with
Sacramento County Superior Judge Hon. David I. Brown from Department 53 against me in
an attempt to end my litigations against UC Regents.
However, Napolitano and her allies, Haag and Scott, with their outstanding skills to
orchestrate a “Show Trial” to throw innocent people into prison for years and to terrorize
others were not able to do the same to UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi as they had done to
19-year-old Hamid Hayat and to the arch enemy of the UCOP mob, Senator Leland Yee.
Katehi was a perfect target for Napolitano, Haag, and Scott to divert attention from their dirty
political activities and from the $175,000,000 of laundered cash Napolitano was ready to use.
Born in Greece, Katehi is a a naturalized U.S. citizen as same as Leland Yee and
$ 1,000,000 in play to make Linda Katehi a Al -Qaeda sleeping cell was not a joke with her
association to the Saudi Arabian University of King Abdulaziz in Jeddah by serving as a
university board member. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. I
thought that Haag and Scott, who were paid $1 million by Napolitano, would make
Chancellor Katehi an enemy combatant and Chancellor Katehi would be send to the
Guantanamo Bay. Perhaps the whole deal with Katehi was a hoax with her full participation
in Napolitano’s , Haag’s and Scott’s dirty political game .
The puzzle to solve is: Who was on the list to receive $175,000,000 millions of
dollars and why? Perhaps the 2016 prosecution of Senator Yee, the Katehi target, and the
assignment of Judge Barnes to the Hamid Hayat terrorism case was part of the plan to divert
public and media attention from the $175,000,000, which perhaps would be used in some
nasty plan Napolitano had in her mind .
MY SUMMARY OF 2016 EVENTS
In 2016, I did not know that after the incarceration of Senator Yee, a State Audit
requested by Assemblyman Phil Ting was approved by the Joint Legislative Audit
Committee in August 2016, which lead to the disclosure of Janet Napolitano’s serious crimes,
namely, the $1,000,000 she gave to two former prosecutors who specialized in throwing
- 18 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
innocent people into prison for political reasons, and the $175,000,000 hidden cash, which
should be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, Honest Services Conspiracy. For the
$1,000,000 Napolitano gave to Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, the giver and receivers
should be prosecuted under State and Federal laws.
Not to guess or be a conspiracy theorist, because I am not, I think that Assemblyman
Phil Ting, by requesting a State Audit like the Audit Senator Leland Yee requested in 2010,
prevented something terrible from happening. Assemblyman Ting was most likely outraged,
like I was myself, seeing his colleague from the California Senate Leland Yee being framed
and thrown into Federal prison at the age of 67.
As I mentioned earlier a few legislators in 2016 were doomed by Janet Napolitano
believing that UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi caused the incarceration of Senator Yee
and applauded Napolitano, Haag, and Scott for their orchestrated witch hunt, not knowing in
2016 what the $1,000,000 racketeering money and $175,000,000 hidden cash would be used
for. At the end of September 2016, Napolitano armed with $175,000,000 cash traveled to San
Diego to meet her colleague, Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker of the CIA, NSA employee, and
principal deputy legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State and then Executive Director of
the State Bar of California. After the San Diego State Bar of California Annual Meeting, UC
President Janet Napolitano traveled to her home state of Arizona to see her dear friend Judge
Mary M. Schroeder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit who on March 13,
2013 denied freedom to Hamid Hayat who had been incarcerated for eight years in spite of
and fierce opposition from Judge Wallace Tashima. In Case No. 07-10457 D.C. No. CR-05-
00240-GEB, Judge Tashima, in his dissent opinion, strongly condemned Hayat’s unjust
prosecution and incarceration. Hayat was prosecuted in 2005–2007 by Napolitano’s friend,
McGregor Scott. Before Napolitano arrived in California in September 2013, Hamid Hayat
was moved to Federal prison in Arizona.
I summarized the year 2016 in my inquiry dated September 15, 2016 and submitted to
California Senator Cathleen Galgiani in the following statement:
The systematic destruction of my life by the University of California mafia

is no different than the devastation and destruction of the former California
Senator Leland Yee’s existence and life by the same entity’s lead by the
- 19 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
former US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. The

coordinated assault against Senator Leland Yee and myself began May
2011 for the same reason of which Senator Yee and myself was not aware.
I found out the reason after Senator Leland Yee was sentenced to five years
in federal prison. The Leland Yee’s was sentenced after the death of the
former UC Davis Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vanderhoef who died on
October 15, 2015. Vanderhoef took lot of information and names to his
grave.( (See enclosed letter to US Congressman Hon. John Garamendi ) In
October 2015 my complaint with the California State Bar against attorney
Douglas Stein disappeared together with complaint’s investigator Amanda
Gormley.
In my May 11, 2016, letter to United States Attorney Phillip A. Talbert
entitled “Assignment of the Former U.S Attorney for Northern District of
California Melinda 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 I wrote:
With this letter I am following up on my inquiry dated April 11, 2016,
with regard to the alleged multimillion dollars’ tax fraud committed in
1999–2003 and 2012–2013 by the Regents of the University of California
through an unlawful sale of power from the UC Davis Medical Center 27
MW’s cogeneration facility.
I understand that the U.S. Attorney for the northern California office
covers a large area and is very busy enforcing the law and prosecuting
criminals, and I also understand that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in
Sacramento is in a transition period due to the resignation of the Hon.
Benjamin Wagner
After I learned that Ms. Haag had been hired by UC to
investigate UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, I became seriously
concerned about Ms. Haag’s professional conduct due her conflict of
interest while representing the UC Regents in a dispute that arose from
the university’s adverse actions against UC Davis Chancellor Linda
Katehi, a former U.S. Attorney for northern California, where the UC
Regents’ headquarters are located and where UC Davis is located as well.
Furthermore, the UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi is or was also in

charge of the UC Davis Medical Center from 2009 to 2016, where the UC
Regents’ alleged multimillion dollar fraud took place.
- 20 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
On May 5, 2016, I sent an e-mail to Ms. Haag informing her about my

complaints with the federal authorities, regardless of what Ms. Haag had
been informed about before I sent my e-mail to her.
I don’t believe that the Regents hired Ms. Haag for $1200/hour to find
out if UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi had violated university policies
and procedures. This could have been determined fairly and more
independently by an agreed-upon third-party arbitrator or mediator, not the
university attorney hired for whom it was a conflict of interest to represent
the university.
Furthermore I wrote in same letter:
„It is also worth mentioning that Ms. Melinda Hag is the former U.S.
prosecutor who prosecuted and brought down California Senator
Leyland Lee.
I am mentioning former Senator Leyland Yee’s achievements in this
complaint because Leyland Yee authored Senate Bill SB 650, which was
signed into law in July 2010 with an effective date of January 1, 2011.
This bill was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to
protect UC faculty and staff who report illegal or improper actions from
retaliation in the workplace.
SB 650, which was authored by Senator Leland Yee, provides UC
employees with the same legal protections as other state employees,
including those at California State University and California’s
community colleges. The new law ensured that UC employees could
exercise their right to seek damages in court on a retaliation complaint to
which the university did not respond fairly.
Leyland Yee’s SB 650 was a step forward, and without it the UC Davis
employee Janet Keyzer would not have prevailed in her termination
lawsuit, which was filed in 2010 and finalized in 2015. It cost the
university about $5,000,000, most of which were legal fees for attorneys
on both sides.”
(In the Janet Keyzer’s whistleblowing wrongful termination case the three
individual defendants , the UC President Mark Yudof , UC Davis
Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and the UC Davis professor Klea Bertakis
were facing jail time up to one year under the provision of the amended by
- 21 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
the SB 650 Government Code 8547.10 (b) and (c). for their malicious
oppression and retaliation against Janet Keyzer and her husband.)
In my August 31,2016 letter addressed to US Congressman Hon. John
Garmendi I wrote:
The 2010 Vanderhoef’s participation in investigation related to
the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) maintained natural gas pipeline,
explosion where 8 people got killed, it t would be a last place where I
would expect to see Vanderhoef taking into consideration PG&E’s
participation in the Vanderhoef $ 65,000,000 worth illegal power
sale and tax fraud in 1999-2003
I concluded my letter to US Attorney Phillip Talbert with words :
“It is sad that Leyland Yee, a great legislator and public servant who had
the courage to stand up against the corrupted but very powerful
University of California administration, fell shortly after SB 650 took
effect in 2011.’
The 67-year-old Yee had no choice but to plead guilty to racketeering
charges in connection with the allegations that he had accepted bribes in
exchange for his political influence. Five years in prison versa twenty
years were convincing factor to plead guilty .
However, if I look at the crimes Leyland Yee allegedly committed with
help of the FBI agents and for which he was harshly punished, I would
say that his crimes are not comparable with those committed by the
corrupted and rotten University of California administration, and no one
there was sentenced to prison. The UC administrators could drive
employees to end their lives, commit Medicare and Medicaid fraud up to
$25,000,000, commit multimillion power sale and tax fraud, conduct
illegal medical experiments that resulted in several patients’ deaths at the
UC Davis Medical Center, fund illegal research on prisoners (Keyzer’s
case) or discharge machine oil via storm drains into the Sacramento
River from the UC Davis Medical Center Cogeneration Power Plant for
seven years, but I have not heard that anybody responsible for these
crimes faced the District Attorney’s office or criminal prosecution like
Leyland Yee faced for his crime.
I will write a petition to President Barack Obama and I will ask him to
pardon Senator Leyland Lee for humanitarian reasons or to shorten
Senator Leyland Lee’s prison sentence”.
UC President Janet Napolitano’s action in March 2016 against the UC
Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi was a totally well-crafted hoax to divert
- 22 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
attention from Senator Yee’s prosecution and his sentencing at the same
time.
It seems to have worked because five upset legislators joined UC President
Janet Napolitano and demanded, by submitting a supportive letter to Janet
Napolitano, that UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi should be fired. One
legislator stated in his interview with a newspaper that he would land in
federal prison if he did what Chancellor Linda Katehi has done, apparently
making a reference to Senator Yee and two other California legislators,
Senator Ronald Calderon and Senator Rod Wright, who were investigated
and prosecuted at the same time as Senator Leland Yee.
After I read the March 26, 2013 unsealed 137-page Affidavit of Special
FBI agent Emmanuel v. Pascua in Support of the Complaint against
Senator Leland Yee; the July 15, 2015, 51-page Leland Yee’s Plea
Bargain the February 17, 2016, the United States sentencing Senator
Leland Yee memorandum and the November 13, 2013 Notice of Motion
and Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Government Should Not Be
Held In Contempt for or Violation of Magistrate Judge’s Order Sealing FBI
Affidavit; and the Request For Sanctions in the California Senator Ronald
Calderon’s case I came to the conclusion that:
The former United States of America Secretary of Homeland Security Janet
Napolitano and her friend, the former United States of America Attorney
from the Northern District of California Melinda Haag and gangsters from
the University of California are entirely responsible for the destruction of
California Senator Leland Yee’s existence in order to divert attention away
from and thereby protect the University of California’s white collar
criminals who are responsible for more serious crimes.
The California Senator Yee was molested for three years by FBI until he
was attached to some Chinese gang from the San Francisco Bay Area to
make him criminal and to make him disappear from California’s political
arena. It took the FBI almost three full years to take the 65-year-old
Californian Senator Yee down.
The FBI converted $70,000 of Leland Yee’s debts from the San Francisco
Mayoral campaign into bribery, racketeering, money laundering, firearms,
and dealings with a terrorist organization in the Philippines, resulting in a
five-year prison term. It is unbelievable what the FBI is capable of. Even
former Speaker of the House Hon. Nancy Pelosi did not believe that it
could be true after Senator Yee was arrested and the Affidavit of Special
Agent Emmanuel V. Pascua in support of the complaint against Senator
- 23 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
Leland was unsealed two days after it was sealed and was then published to
discredit, humiliate, and prejudice the senator.
My two court cases and the California State Bar complaint against Douglas
Stein are part of a broader issue, and the corrupted California State Bar
personnel have no desire to see the complaint case against Douglas Stein
resolved due to the apparent discovery by State Bar Investigator Amanda
Gormley in September 2015 that Douglas Stein, together with University of
California counsel Michael Pott , attempted to bribe the Sacramento
County Superior Court Judge Hon. David Brown. I described their criminal
conduct in my 30-page complaint letter to Sacramento County Superior
Court Presiding Judge Hon. Kevin Culhane, which I believe I sent to your
office by fax in August 2016. I have no other explanation as to why my
complaint and the California State Bar Investigator disappeared in October
2015
I am working on the Clemency Petition for the State of California Former

Senator Leland Yee who is incarcerated in Fort Worth, TX, Federal
Correctional Institution, Inmate Register Number: 19629-111. I am hoping
that President Barak Obama, before leaving office, will pardon Leland Yee
and will send him back to his family.
What was done to Leland Yee is like something from George Orwell’s
1984 or Animal Farm or like something from North Korean society with
Kim Jung-Un in charge.
The complaint against Douglas Stein is a small part of the picture related to
Leland Yee’s prosecution, but it is an important part.
I am quite sure of this, and I believe that California Attorney General
Kamala , half of the California government , Assembly Speaker John Perez
and former Senate President pro Tempore Darrel Steinberg are perfectly
aware of what really happened to Leland Yee and why.
CONCLUSION
In the above presented facts related and unrelated to my previous inquiry in which I
asked to Expedite the Reimbursement of Theft, or an Act Equivalent to Theft, Perpetrated by
Attorney Douglas Stein, SBN 131248, I would greatly appreciate the State Bar of California
Executive Intervention with the Client Security Fund Commission to provide me some relief
and refund to me at least some of my financial loss. For now, $1,000 or $2,000 would help
me a lot due to my low Social Security income, my health condition, and my age. To earn
any other income anywhere is impossible.
- 24 -
Request to Expedite
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk , Petitioner

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 833 -817-7080
Email: jjw1980@live.com5
April 9, 2019
Terri L. Onorato, Attorney at Law

Gordon L. Gidlund ; Attorney at Law
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
San Diego, California 92101
Subject: Petitioner Jaroslaw Waszczuk Response to IRS Counsel March 20, 2019 Meet
and Confer Letter.
In re: Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner
RE: JOINT MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

RE: RESPONDENT ANSWER FILED ON FEBRUARY 5, 2019.
Dear IRS Counsels:
INTRODUCTION
I apologize for the delay in my response to your Meet and Confer letter dated March 20, 2019. I
was very preoccupied dealing with the Defendant’s attorneys’ misconduct in my wrongful
termination case pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court and in the State Bar of
California.
I was quite surprised that the IRS Counsel Meet and Confer inquiry was sent to me on March 20,
2019, on the day the California Supreme Court denied my petition for review in Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal, Court Case No. S253713
(ATTACHMENT #1). I even expressed my surprise about the IRS Counsel’s inquiry in the
-1-
Response to IRS Counsel Meet and Confer dated March 20, 2019
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
correspondence I sent to State Bar of California General Counsel Ms. Vanessa Holton and Senior
Trial Counsel Ms. Rachel Grunberg on March 29, 2019 (ATTACHMENT #2).
What especially caught my attention in the IRS Counsel Motion for Protective Order was the
Tax Court Rule 103(a), which provides that the Court may make any order “which justice
requires” upon a motion by a party for “good cause” to protect a party or other person from
“annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”
I have been hunted down since 2005 by University of California Regents’ assigned thugs and
friends after their attempt to end my employment at UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC)
Trauma Unit #11.
In 2011-2012 UC Regents kept me out of UC Davis Medical Center premises place for a for over one
on year, the UC Regents could not find the pretext or basis to terminate me because there were none.
They then ordered to exercise the criminally minded plan to provoke and assassinate or end my
employment in UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11 on May 31, 2012, using the UC Davis
Police force. It happened just one day after UC Regents signed unlawful Power Purchase Agreement
with Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) to launder surplus megawatts from the UC Davis
Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant . The sale was ceased in January 2009 after UC Regent signed
with me Settlement -Agreement on January 30, 2009.
The UC Regents plan failed then they made the attempt to repeat the May 31, 2012 heinous employment
termination plan in September 2012 but the plan was canceled because I warned UC Regents thugs that
I was aware and I know what they were ready to do to me on May 31, 2012
Instead of luring me to the premises, the UC Davis assembled Death Squad decided that the UC
Davis Police would issue a poster bearing my photo and the verbiage “PERSON NOT
AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY,” which was similar to the “FBI’s Most Wanted” signage with
hope that I will show up in the UCDMC campus mad after I received nasty notice to terminate
my employment.
The UC Davis Police Poster stated: (ATTACHMENT # 3)
-2-
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
I was not on administrative leave as the poster claimed. I was on a list to be euthanized by the
real owners of UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant, which is the subject of my
whistleblower claim with the IRS. My replacement of March 2007, Todd Goerlich, was found
dead hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park, California, on December 22, 2010. In
addition, my psychologist from Lodi, California, Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D., in December 2011
-3-
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
also became a target because he did not keep his mouth shut. His residence in Lodi was raided in
January 2012 at the order of State of California Secretary of Health and Human Services Diana
Dooley, the last Chief of Staff for California Governor Jerry Brown (ATTACHMENT #4).
The other psychologist in this embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden story is the former
UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Shelton Duruisseau, Ph.D. (ATTACHMENT #5). Shortly
after Duruisseau retired, he threw a retirement party in his Eldorado Hill residence. The two
guests of honor at the party were Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson and Duruisseau’s colleague,
UCDMC Director Robert Taylor. Besides a lavish retirement party, Duruisseau gave an
interview to Sacramento African-American magazine Sac Cultural Hub. The interview was
conducted by Donna Michele Ramos on August 6, 2012 and was entitled “A Look Back.”
Duruisseau concluded his more than 30-year-long journey with the following words.
http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-look-back
“Internally, I convinced the university to build its own central plant because
we recognized our patients come into the hospital on ventilators, etc. They
couldn’t be disrupted, so by having our own central plant the health system
doesn’t depend on any central outfit to supply water, power, etc. SMUD,
PG&E are backup systems for us. We sold enough power to the State for the
central plant to be paid for in the first four years. Lots of energy companies
like Enron all around the country caused prices to go up. The plant provides
stable power for the campus without interruption and without blackouts. This
plant was built out for 50 years capacity; we are only using 9%, so we have
lots of room built in for growth.”
Psychologists should not be talking about cogeneration power plant operations to
newspapers.
The third and most famous person in my story is the former California Senator and psychologist
Leland Yee, Ph.D. (ATTACHMENT #6). In 2012, Yee did not know yet what U.S. Secretary
of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano with her UC friends were brewing for him for $
1,000,000 price tag .
In light of the above provided information, we could discuss further if necessary the Tax Court
Rule 103(a) if needed .
MARCH 20, 2019 MEET AND CONFER LETTER FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY (IRS) LEGAL COUNSEL, JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK V.
COMMISSIONER, DOCKET NO. 23105-18W
-4-
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
As a Petitioner in the above captioned case, I would not have a problem signing the Joint Motion
for a Protective Order. However, I am not sure at this point if my “agree” signature won’t impact
my pending 2013 wrongful termination case in the Sacramento County Superior Court, which is
entirely based on what I submitted to the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah, in March
2016 and August 2018. I am not certain whether the UC Regents’ defense attorneys in my
wrongful termination case will use the U.S. Tax Court Protective Order against me in the
Sacramento Superior Court and Appellate Courts.
I have been terrorized and hunted down by University of California thugs since 2005. We have
to discuss this further or the IRS counsel will file a Motion for Protective Order on his own and I
will file an opposition to the motion. I would be glad to go forward and do a “Stipulation of
Facts,” but in such a situation, I have to take precautions and make a decision on what is more
important to me: the IRS Whistleblower Case or my wrongful termination case and enforcement
of breach of contract the UC Regents signed with me in January 2009. The breached 2009
Settlement Agreement by the UC Regents devastated my life and incurred financial losses in the
amount of $1,000,000 in wages and benefits as well as my home, which I had to put up for short
sale. The UC Regents normally don’t sign Settlement Agreements with power plant operators
and immigrants from Poland, like myself. This fact alone is quite convincing that the stakes are
high and it is worth my pursuit of this whistleblower case but not to sign Join Motion for a
Protective Order for now .
THE RESPONDENT’S ANSWER eFILED IN U.S. TAX COURT ON FEBRUARY 5, 2019
Before our eventual further Meet and Confer discussion and agreement to sign a Joint Motion for
a Protective Order, I am compelled to address the IRS Respondent’s Answer to my Petition filed
in the above case. It would give an opportunity for the IRS counsel to properly assess if we have
any common ground for a “Stipulation of Fact” and grounds to voluntarily exchange the
necessary facts, documents, and other data under T.C. Rule (70)(a).
From reading the February 5, 2019 Respondent’s Answer, I don’t see so far how we can find any
common ground under T.C. Rule (70)(a). Personally, I view this case as a criminal case that
should be investigated by the FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation Department before the case
reaches the U.S. Tax Court (ATTACHMENT #7).
-5-
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
In my response dated December 6, 2018 to IRS Program Manager Layne Carver’s November 30,
2018 notification, I explained to her briefly what my claim is about (ATTACHMENT #8).
**********************************************************************
“For the record, I did not send to your office a request for reconsideration on November
20, 2018. Therefore, you had nothing to reject in this matter.
What I sent to your office was a copy of the Petition with the United States Tax Court
with Proof of Service, understanding that I should send you this copy if I appealed the
IRS Whistleblower Office decision dated October 23, 2018.
Your letter makes me believe that you or your staff did not even bother to read what I
sent to your office on November 18, 2018 but responded very quickly to the received
Petition with the United States Tax Court for an unknown reason.
After Enron’s collapse and the end of the energy crisis orchestrated by white collar
crime, the California Attorney offices of AG Bill Lockyer, Jerry Brown, and Kamala
Harris racked in hundreds of millions of dollars tax-free in kickbacks from the
settlements between power corporations sucked into this sophisticated game of fraud,
which cost the California economy and California taxpayers 40 billion dollars but
benefitted white collars criminals from the University of California, the state government,
and California Independent System Operator (CAISO) cronies. The tax evasion and the
California Energy Crisis scam guardian was the California Attorney General’s office and
the Energy Task Force crated by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
If your office for any reason responds to my letter, please do not write that my
information is not credible or speculative. I know what I am talking about. I was dealing
from 1996-2000 with a very similar fraud of $240,000,000 committed by my former
employer Dynegy Power Corporation against Pacific Gas and Electric Company”
Moreover, I don’t see that the IRS has any chance to prevail in U.S. Tax Court or U.S. District
Court if I do not die prematurely. I understand that it is easier for IRS attorneys to deal with Jerry
Waszczuk than to deal with the almighty University of California administration and their
friends from 9th Federal District Court and 9th Circuit.
The Respondent’s Answer to my Petition provided in most parts are false information provided
to the U.S. Tax Court with a routine accusation pursuant Section 7623(a) that my information
provided was speculative and/or did not provide specific or credible information regarding tax
underpayment or violation of Internal Revenue laws. The statement in affirmative defense in the
Respondent’s Answer that the proceeds in dispute do not exceed $2 million as required by
Section 7623(b)(5)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is totally groundless and a baseless
-6-
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
statement. I had no choice but to file complaint against IRS Ogden office with the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) for promoting tax evasion instead of
promoting enforcement and white collar criminals prosecution to prevent harm to society and
hard working people who are being chaise by IRS for minor violations of tax law .
Not only the sale but the whole production of energy (megawatts) used for the UC campus
violated Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC of 1954 taxable. This is because the plant was unlawfully
built, commissioned, and operated since 1998. This is below $2,000,000. This around $1 billion
of dirty laundered money which were not taxed since 1999 to the present time .
I was employed in the UCDMC 27MW cogeneration plant which , in May 2000, triggered the
sophisticated billions in fraud, at the expense of California ratepayers and taxpayers, labeled by
those in organized white collar crime as the California Energy Crisis. This sophisticated fraud
almost collapsed the Western Power Grid. The plant I was employed in UC Davis Medical
Center since June 1999 was commissioned in 1998 and was one of the three plants built just
before the money making machine called the California Energy Crisis kicked in. The two other
plants were built at UC San Diego and UC Berkeley.
The cogeneration plant in which I was employed from June 1999 to April 2007 was never
actually built and commissioned by UCDMC. It was actually operated and is still being operated
as a giant illegal slot machine to launder the megawatts and make millions of dollars of tax-free
dirty cash under the name of the University of California in violation of Section 501(c)(3) of the
IRC of 1954.
Attorney Mark Schlein from Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman was listed as my attorney of
record for over two years. He was supposed to find out who are the real owners of the plant and
provide me representation in Court if I needed it in August 2018 after I updated my 2016 claim
number 2016-007481 and August 2018 claim number 2018-012118, Tax Evasion and Fraud,
Violation of Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC of 1954.
I understand that IRC Section 6103 requires the IRS to keep taxpayer returns and return
information confidential, and that the Whistleblower Office will not disclose the results of any
actions from a taxpayer case to a whistleblower. However , it does not means that IRS
-7-
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
Whistleblower office without audit and conducted investigation knows if claim is legitimate or
not .
If I look at the IRS Whistleblower Office evaluation of my claim, which was totally legitimate,
the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah, did not touch my claim for over two years. When
I updated my claim in August with new information and data of unlawful power generation and
sale, the IRS Whistleblower Office almost instantly denied my 2016 claim and my updated
claim.
As I mentioned previously, I have been hunted down for 14 years since 2005, even after my
employment with UCDMC was abruptly ended in 2012 at my retirement age at 61.
In August 2005, I was told by the plant manager that Gestapo will be sent on my ass . I
liked and respected my manager and had a good normal relationship . I thought that he
was kidding by making such statement up front others employees but he wasn’t. Later I
learned that in 2005, the UC Office of the President (UCOP) mafia sent a special envoy to
UCDMC to erase me from the UCDMC landscape and from the UC payroll. Ten years
later in 2015, three yesrs after my termination of employment, I was tipped off by
Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang, former Governor Davis Chief of Staff, and the
former Senior Trial Attorney for the IRS Office of Chief Counsel, who represented the IRS
in civil and criminal tax matters before federal and district courts and the U.S. Tax Court
why UCOP sent Gestapo on my ass and destroyed my life .
WHY HAD I BECOME THE PREY OF UCOP WITCH HUNTERS IN 2005 AND
THEREAFTER?
What got me into trouble was the May 2000 Confidential Settlement Agreement with Pacific Gas
and Electric (PG&E). Its confidentiality was breached by the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC), which publicized information about the Settlement Agreement and my
name in several documents. The most harmful information in the CPUC documents was the
information that the Destec Energy Inc./Dynegy Power Corporation cogeneration plant where I
was employed from 1989 to 1998 committed a $240,000,000 fraud against PG&E ratepayers and
California taxpayers because it was built, commissioned, and operated in violation of
requirements under PURPA, 18 CFR § 292.205, et. seq. My dispute with Dynegy was about my
unpaid $27,000 overtime. I asked my manager about the unpaid overtime without any intention
-8-
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
of pursuing my overtime claim or fight with my employer. My question about overtime was
resolved by the Court of Appeal , Third Appellate District in 2000 , Case No C030005
Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc. I prevailed in the case by representing myself on the appeal. .
However , the overtime question $ 27,000 became $ 240, 000,000 question . This case is Part II
of 1996- 2000 case.
The plant was reported to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the power sale
contract was voided by PG&E, and the plant was shut down after my employment was
terminated
The UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant operates since 1998 under the same violation of
requirements under PURPA, 18 CFR 292.205, et. seq.
On May 27, 2004, the FERC sent the following inquiry to UC San Diego Administration
(ATTACHMENT #9).
May 27. 2004

Gerry W. White,P.E,
Assistant Director, Engineering Services
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla. CA 92093
Dear Mr. While:
Commission staff is reviewing its files to verify the accuracy of ownership information
contained in notices of self-cetificition and self-recertification of qualifying facility (QF)
status under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 197$ (PURPA) (. LIL,
Investigation of Certain Enron-Affiliated QEs, 101 FERC 161,076 (2002)). The
ownership requirements for QF status we set forth in 18 C.F.R. * 292.206 of the
Commission's Regulations, We are currently reviewing the accuracy of information
previously filed with the Commission associated with the facility referenced above.
The May 24, 2000 filing for this facility in Docket No. QFU-63-000 states that the
facility meets the QF ownership requirements. Please have an officer of your company
sign sworn affidavit confirming. (I) the current accuracy of ownership information
contained in the May 24, 2000 filing; (2) that the facility is still not controlled' or owned
more than 50 percent by an electric utility, or electric utility holding company, or a
combination thereof, (3) that the facility meets the ownership requirements of 18 C.F.R *
292.206 of the Commissions Regulations with the enabling states, and (4) that any
transfers of ownership referred to in the above-referenced filing did in fact occur as
described in that filing. Please document these representations with narrative
explanations of the current control over and ownership of the facility, a corporate
ownership chart(s) showing all upstream owners of the facility (and identifying those that
are electric utilities or electric utility holding companies ), and evidence showing that any
reported transfers of ownership have occurred. The explanations and charts should
Please indicate how control of the QF is shared between any utility and non-
-9-
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
utility owners. CMS Midland, Inc, 39 FERC 161,244 at 61.827(1987).
Following the FERC audit, UC San Diego became the target of an IRS audit of its payroll and
accounting systems. The IRS was checking whether business income or employment taxes were
appropriately reported or paid. IRS and FERC in the UC San Diego case rose a red flag at
UCDMC and UC Berkeley, which were other examples of the UCOP mafia’s joint venture with
Enron and I became a subject of ruthless , merciless and inhumane 14 years long witch hunt .
(ATTACHMENT #10).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I have become concerned whether FERC and IRS audits of 2004–2005 are the
reason that the San Diego IRS Chief Counsel Office is representing the IRS Commissioner
instead of the San Francisco Chief Counsel Office.
I am asking because San Diego and San Francisco are two very special places related to the
enormous sophisticated fraud of 2000–2003 known as the California Energy Crisis. The fraud
caused the departure in September 2013 of U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet
Napolitano to the University of California to shield involved in massive fraud and tax evasion
The $175,000,000 of dirty cash (taxable) Madam Janet Napolitano was ready to distributed in
2016 in lieu of the unlawful revenue from the surplus power sale which was ceased in
February 2009. In 2016 her two colleagues—the former U.S. attorneys McGregor Scott and
Melinda Haag—cased out $ 1,000,000 for r taking care of California Senator Leland Yee and
to convert UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi to Chancellor Emerita (briefed in Attachment
#2).
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Petitioner
Enclosure :
- 10 -
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone:209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
E-Mail: jjwl980@live.com
March 23, 2016

Whistleblower Office - ICE
1973 N. Rulon White Blvd.
MIS4110
Ogden, UT 84404
Re: Application for Award and Addendum to the Application for Award
Violation of the Provision of Section 501 c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 by the
Regents of the University of California due to Unrelated Business Income
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed is the Application for Award and Addendum to the Application for Award with
exhibits in which I am describing the suspected tax evasion or fraud in the amount of millions of
dollars due to illegal generation and sale of electrical energy by the Regents of the University of
California in conspiracy with State of California government officials or agencies, the
Sacramento Municipal Utility Oistrict (SMUO), California Independent System Operator
(CAISO) and California Power Exchange (Cal-PX)
The crux of this tax fraud scheme is that almost twenty years ago a group of decision makers
from the University of California got the idea to build a 27-megawatt cogeneration power plant
on one of the university campuses, the UC-Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, CA, which
needed only 5 megawatts of electrical energy and 30,000 pounds per hour of steam.
The UC-Davis Medical Center in Sacramento is an integrated part of the University of
California, Davis, located in the city of Davis twenty miles west of Sacramento.
In contrast to the UC-Davis Medical Center, the UC-Davis campus's demand for electric
power twenty years ago was around 100 megawatts and demand for steam was around 150,000
pounds per hour. However, the 27-megawatt cogeneration facility was built in UC-Davis
Medical Center instead of being built at the UC-Davis Campus. This fact itself shows that
somebody had an idea to make millions of dollars in short time under the umbrella of providing
utilities for the UC-Davis Medical Center.
The 27-megawatt plant is a money-making machine, and the UC-Davis Medical Center
cogeneration facility made between $70,000,000 and 80,000,000 free of tax in the years 1999-
2003 by illegally selling electrical energy to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District was
gauging electricity prices selling power on spot market via CATSO. Unfortunately, the wheel of
fortune for illegal power merchants was stopped for nine years, most likely because the San
1
Complaint Against UC Regents - Tax Fraud
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 833-817-7080
August 3, 2018
Charise Wood, Team Manager

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

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

California’s energy market deregulation, energy crisis of 1999–2001,” I requested
information regarding the 2003 Davis recall election, which was accomplished in large
part due to Congressmen Issa’s $1.7 million contribution. Today, I still view the Davis
recall as a very strange and unsolved mystery—especially because it was orchestrated by
the same white-collar criminals responsible for the California energy crisis. However, my
attempt to gather relevant information from Issa was fruitless (see enclosed copy of the
letter).
According to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Judge Hon. Clarence
Thomas, who reviewed CAISO’s petition in 464 F.3d 861 (2006), No. 04-70635 and No.
04-71613,
IN THIS CASE, WE CONSIDER ANOTHER PIECE OF THE

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

Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC
12100 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90025
MSchlein@BaumHedlundLaw.com
Office: 310-207-3233
Cell: 850-322-7941
Fax: 310-820-7444
I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California and
federal law that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
that we lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider Cal-ISO's petition for

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

during the California electricity market deregulation, I reported one of the major players
in the scheme concocted by Lockyer, CAISO executives, and others. Dynegy Power
Corporation, formerly Destec Energy, committed $240 million of fraud against PG&E
ratepayers and California taxpayers (see Attachments #27–29). PG&E did not need
Lockyer, the Attorney General’s Energy Task Force, or other California parties to settle
the $240 million of fraud. This amount was massive. After the PG&E settled the fraud
with Dynegy , the settlement hunted me down at the UC Davis Medical Center
(UCDMC), and my life and my livelihood were completely destroyed by the white-collar
criminals from the University of California Office of the President and their UC Davis
and UCDMC thugs. The PG&E settlement is still haunting me throughout the California
courts including the California Supreme Court. However, I lost everything; I have
nothing left but my life for these criminals to take.
If your office examines the documents enclosed with this letter, you will see that the
California Attorney General’s Energy Task Force Enforcement Recoveries retrieved
settlements as low as $300,000, $224,000, and $50,000 from some listed energy
producers; these lowest three came from listed power producers or public utilities. The
list is also included under Chapter XXV.
In addition, I have enclosed the 1999–2018 power sales chart from the UCDMC 27 MW
cogeneration plant (Chapter I of the Addendum). This chart shows numbers that are
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
on August 3 , 2018.
CC: FBI, Sacramento Office, Special Agent in Charge Sean Ragan
Mark H. Schlein, Senior Counsel -Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC
ENCLOSED :
• SUPPLEMENT AL SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD CLAIM
NO. 2016-00748 1 WITH A NEW 153 PAGES ADDENDUM TO THE
SUPPLEMENT AL SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD
• Attachments -Documents on Flash Drive
• August 3, 2018 Inquiry with FBI IN RE: Violation of my Civil and Human
Rights , Request for Assistance , Cover Letter to FBI Special Agent In Charge
Sean Ragan plus Addendum (Hard Copy and on Flash Drive )
• 6/25/2016 -95 pages long Disapproval of the Proposed Order -Sacramento County
Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS Jaros/aw Waszczukv.
The Regents ofthe University ofCalifornia (Hard Copy and On Flash Drive)
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADDENDUM OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION TO THE

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

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

PERSPECTIVE OF THE TAX FRAUD SCHEME IN RELATION TO
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY MARKET DEREGULATION AND
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS.
I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..………6
A. About myself ……………………………………...……………………………….6
II. THE CRUX OF THE TAX EVASION AND FRAUD DUE TO VIOLATION
OF SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 19546
A. The main components of the Tax Evasion and Scam……………………….……..6
B. The Parties in the scheme of fraud……………………………………………...….7
III. PRIOR THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKET DEREGULATION……12
A. The 1986-1989 Corruption scandal in State of California legislature……………12
B. Noticable and relevant names from the time period of 1986-1988…………...….12
C. California Senate anti -SLAPP Bill (SB 1264)-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation ……………………………………………………………..……….14
D. The key players in the California Electricity Market deregulation ……...………14
E. The Noticable names from that period ………………………………………..…16
F. The Noticable names from that period ………………………………...………..16
IV. AB 1890 OR “ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING ACT” AB 1890…...…..17
A. “Electricity Restructuring Act”……………………………………………….…..17
B. The AB 1890 addressed California Power Exchange in the Article 4. ….……….17
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
C. The AB1890 addressed CAISO in the Article No. 3…………………………..…18

D. The AB1890 addressed Electricity Oversight Board in the Article No. 2 …….....20
E. California privately held Public Utilities companies in AB 1890………………..21
V. THE TAX FRAUD AND THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY
RESTRUCTURING ACT (AB 1890)…………………………………….…….23
A. University of California campus situated in Yolo County…………………...…..23
B. Demand for power in UC Davis Medical Center ……………………………..…25
VI. THE JOIN VENTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UC) ,
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY (CSU) ENRON
CORPORATION ENERGY SERVICES AND THE CALIFORNIA’S
INDEPENDENT SERVICES OPERATOR (CAISO)…………………..……25
A. One month before CAISO and CalPX commenced operation in March 1998.…26
VII. DIVESTITURE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES AFTER THE
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY MARKET WAS DEREGULATED…….…26
A. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE)………………………………………………..26
B. Southern California Edison’s Application No. 96-11-046)………………..……..27
C. SDG&E filed an Application No. A.97-12-039 ……………………………...…27
D. PG&E Application No. 98-01-008………………………………………….……27
VIII. HUMBERTO JOSE MILAN - PROGRAM COORDINATOR FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONER AND
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER………………28
A. Jose Milan’s relation to Destec Energy/Dynegy Power Corporation ………...…28
B. $281.5 Million Settlement with Dynegy in Energy Refund Case……..…………29
C. General Information…………………………………………………...………….31
D. The Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) of 1978 & Jose Milan ……31
E. Changes in the California Wages and Hour Laws in 1989 …………………...….32
F. Waszczuk’s employment a Power System Engineering Inc………...…………..33
G. The new owner of the Power Operating Company…………...…………………..34
H. Alternative Work Schedule in Destec’s San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant.
Lathrop , CA ……………………………………………………………………..34
I. Fraud of the employees 401K retirement plan by Destec …………….…………35
J. Waszczuk’s February 15, 1996 meeting with California Area Destec’s
Management …………………………………………………………………...…35
K. Waszczuk claim with the Labor Commissioner’s Office…………….…………..37
L. The Hearing and the Labor Commissioner Decision …………………………….37
M. Destec’s retaliation against Waszczuk after Labor Commissioner’s ruling ...…38
N. Termination of Waszczuk’s employment by Destec Energy Inc. /NGC and
Waszczuk’s and PG&E litigations against Destec Energy Inc. ……………..…..39
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
O. December 1999 3DCA Unpublished Opinion 3DCA Case No. C030005 San
Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. CV 000737……..……………………40
IX. CALIFORNIA ELECTION OF 1998………………...………………………..41
A. The 1998 California election had the following results:………………………….41

X. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER 27-MW COGNERATION POWER
PLANT…………………………………………………………………….……..42
A. 1999: UC Davis Medical Center’s 27-MW cogeneration power plant named
central plant ………………………………………………………………………42
XI. THE VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC UTILITY
REGULATORY ACT (PURPA) AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS….…....42
A. The California Senate and Assembly environmental Bills………………………42
B. Misrepresentations of the law and unlawful conduct of Destec/Dynegy………47
C. The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant versus Destec’s
San Joaquin 50 MW cogeneration power plant …………………………….……49
D. Gross pollution of the Sacramento River by UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogeneration plant ………………………………..………………………………52
E. The UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento versus the main campus in Davis in
1999 ………………………………………………………………….…………..56
XII. THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS, ILLEGAL POWER RESALE, AND
MEGAWATTS LAUNDERING BY THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT POWER
OPERATOR, AND CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE…………………58
A. Frozen investment of $65,000,000 in the UCDMC 27-MW plant ………...…….58
B. $100,000,000 PG&E Settlement-Agreement with Dynegy Inc., and Waszczuk’s
lawsuit against PG&E and his attorney Scott Malm. …………….………………59
C. April 8, 1999 PG&E Application of Termination for Power Purchase Agreement
with Dynegy’s San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant………………………………….59
D. SDG&E lifts consumer price caps in summer of 1999……………………...……60
XIII. ROAD TO ILLEGAL POWER SALE, POWER LAUNDERING, AND TENS
OF MILLIONS IN TAX FRAUD………………………………………………60
A. Illegal power sale and resale, and power-laundering collaborators …………..….60
B. Participating Generator Agreement and Meter Agreement between the University
of California and CAISO …………………………………………………...……61
C. Notice of Self-Certification………………………..……………………………..62
XIV. WASZCZUK’S LITIGATIONS AGAINST DESTEC INC/NGC/DYNEGY
IN 1999………………………………………………………………………..….63
A. Dynegy’s subpoena of Waszczuk’ employment record from UCDMC, Case No.
CV 04940 ………………………………………………………………..……….63
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
XV. STATE OF CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1298(SB 1298)……………...…..64

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

DECEMBER 2000………………………………………………………..……..85
A. Profit generated by the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant …………...………85
B. The Stage 3 Power Alert in the State of California …………………….………..85
XXIII. CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 1127 (AB 1127) AND THE UCDMC 27
MW COGENERATION PLANT IN JANUARY 2001………………...……..87
A. AB 1127……….………………………………………………………………….87
B. The UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant in January 2001 in light of AB 1127…87
XXIV. VIOLATION OF SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE OF 1954 AND CALIFORNIA TAXATION CODE AND TAX
EVASION BY THE CALIFORNIA INEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR
AND CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE …………………………………90
A. California Independent System Operator and California Power Exchange…...…90
B. State of State Governor Grey Davis’s speech on January 8, 2001……………….91
C. The State of Emergency -EXECUTIVE ORDER D-40-01……………...……….94
D. February 14, 2001, Governor Gray Davis tour the UC Davis Medical Center’s
27 MW cogeneration plan……………………………………………………...…97
E. CalPX and PG&E Bankruptcy …………………………………………….……100
F. The Witch Hunt………………………………………………………………....101
G. The March 2002 California Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s lawsuits against
power corporations ………………………………………………………..……102
H. Fat Boy", "Death Star", "Forney Perpetual Loop", "Ricochet", "Ping Pong",
"Black Widow", "Big Foot", "Red Congo", "Cong Catcher"……………...……105
I. June 06/06/2002 San Diego County Superior Court complaint Art Madrid v.
Perot System Corporation et al. -Case No. GIC790009; Superior Court of
Sacramento County Case No. 03AS04763; The Court of Appeal , Third Appellate
District Case No. C046683……………………………..………………………107
J. The October 10, 2017 Court of Appeal , Third Appellate District Unpublished
opinion in case Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et, al
Case No. C0524…………………………………………………………...…….120
K. The July 26, 2016, Tax Evasion And Fraud in Violation of the State of California
Revenue and Taxation Code Complaint against University of California with the
State Board of Equalization -Investigations Division ……….………………….126
XXV. THE SETTLEMENTS-AGREEMENTS WHICH HELD CAISO’s AND
CalPX’s EXECUTIVES ,DIRECTORS AND MANAGERS HARMLESS.130
A. Getting Our Money Back-Attorney General’s Energy Task Force Enforcement
Recoveries……………………………………………………………………….130
B. The January 5, 2007, Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited
Consideration Submitted to the United States of America Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission……………………………………………….………..138
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
C. The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility “Central Plant” in

the Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited Consideration submitted
by the Respondents to the FERC on January 5, 2007……………..…………….139
D. The CAISO in the January 5, 2007 Settlement -Agreement ……………...…….140
E. Ultimatum and United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Order Approving the Joint Offer of Settlement…………………………………143
XXVI. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ILLEGAL POWER SALE AND
TAX EVASION IN THE SECOND DECADE OF THE NEW
MILLENIUM……………………………………………………..……………144
A. University of California and CAISO’s executives conspiracy and collaboration
with the University of California white collar criminals in illegal power sale and
tax evasion …………………………………...…………………………………144
B. Amendment No. 1 of the Agreement …………………………………………..145
C. May 2012 Power Purchase Agreement between Regents of the University of
California and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)………...… 147
D. The Regents of the University of California successfully completed the CAISO
Congestion Revenue Rights registration process”……………………………... 150
E. 2013 California Parties settlement with Powerex over claims arising from the
2000-2001 California energy crisis and CA-ISO’s non for profit status …….…150
F. Joint Motion to Intervene of the California Parties……………………………..151
XXVII. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….…..152
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
ATTACHMENTS -EXHIBITS ON FLASH DRIVE AND DVD

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

DAVID FLEISIG………………………………………………………………..59
19. CASE NO. CV 0077112 WASZCZUK vs. MALM AND CASE NO. CV 007392
WASZCZUK vs. PG&E…………………………………………….………………….59
20. THE REQUEST TO WAVE THE 60-DAY WAITING PETRIOD AND METER
AGREEMENT BETWEEN UC AND CAISO FILED BY FERC ON AUGUST
13, 1999 NO. ER 99-4011-000…………………………………………….……61
21. AUGUST 18, 1999, THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER (UCDMC) NOTICE
OF SELF-CERTIFICATION (FERC FORM 556)…………………….....…….62
22. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER PRODUCTION REPORT DATED
DECEMBER 20, 2000, WHICH WAS SENT TO FERC-DOCKET NO. EL00-
95-045…………………………..……………………………………………….63
23. UC BERKELEY COGENERATION FACILITY”…………………….……….72
24. JULY 27, 2000 INTERIM AGREEMENT BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E), SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY
DISTRICT (SMUD) AND CAISO……………………………………….……..73
25. August 2, 2000 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC COMPLAINT WITH THE
FERC AGAINST THE SELLERS OF ENERGY AND ANCILLARY
SERVICES………………………………………………...…………………….76
26. FERC ORDER DATED AUGUST 23, 2000……………………………...……79
27. 1999 $240,000,000 PG&E RECOVERY FROM DYNEGY’S FRAUD OF
($100,000,000 NET VALUE AT THE RELEVANT TIME)…………………..82
28. SEPTEMBER 1, 2000- PG&E FILED APPLICATION 00-09-001(U39 E)
WITH THE CPUC IN THE 2000 ANNUAL PROCEEDING……………..83
29. CPUC decision on PG&E’s application 00-09-001(U39 E)………….…….83
30. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER (UCDMC) “CENTRAL PLANT.” THE
PLAQUE IN THE BUILDING’S FRONT ENTRY……………………..……..87
31. DECEMBER 2000BRIEF SUBMITTED TO CAL/OSHA DISTRICT
MANAGER WILLIAM ESTAHRI……………………………………….…….88
32. THE GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS STATE OF STATE SPEECH OF 2001-
“CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS “………………………………………..….91
33. DECEMBER 13, 1981 POLISH COMMUNIST SECRET POLICE ARREST
WARRANT………………………………………………………………….….93
34. THE COPY OF THE FAX TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS
DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2001 ………………………..………………….……99
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
35. MARCH 2002 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER’S

LAWSUITS AGAINST POWER PRODUCERS IN SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERIOR COURT………………………………………………….………..103
36. 2001 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER’S LAWSUIT
AGAINST PG&E ……………………………………………………………..104
AGAINST ENRON …………………………………………………….……..105
AGAINST MIRANT…………………………….…………………………….105
39. ATTORNEY GENERAL’S BILL LOCKYER’S ENERGY WHITE PAPER
PAMHLET …………………………………………………………………….105
40. THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (3DCA) OPINION CERTIFIED FOR
PUBLICATION OPINION IN THE CASE : ART MADRID vs.. PEROT
SYSTEM CORPORATION et, al. CASE NO. C046683, CITED AS 3DCA
CASE:[ 130 CAL.APP.4TH 440, 30 CAL.RPTR.3D 210 ]………………107
41. CALIFORNIA SUPREME CASE NO: S245982- RE: STEIN ON DISCIPLINE
DECISION DATED MARCH 1, 2018………………………………………….……120
42. OCTOBER 10,2017 3DCA OPINION IN CASE NO . C079524 WASZCZUK vs.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA …….………….…120
43. OCTOBER 25 ,2017 3DCA PETITION FOR REAHEARING CASE NO .
C079524 WASZCZUK vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA………………………..…………………………………………………121
44. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT -PETITION FOR REVIEW CASE NO.
S245508 WASZCZUK vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA……………………………………………………………………….….121
45. WASZCZUK’S DECEMBER 1, 2017 FILED MOTION IN THE SUPREME
COURT TO TRANSFER WASZCZUK’S OTHER 3DCA APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME COURT OR OTHER CALIFORNIA APPELLATE DUE TO
CORRUPTION IN 3DCA CASE NO. C079254 WASZCZUK vs.
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD (CUIAB )
…………….……………………………………...……………………………121
46. APPELLANT REPLAY BRIEF FILED IN 3DCA ON 10/17/2016 IN CASE
C079254……………………………………………………………………… 122
47. AUGUST 20, 2016 WASZCZUK’S INQUIRY WITH CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN OFFICE………………………..…………125
48. AUGUST 21, 2016 WASZCZUK’S INQUIRY WITH CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE HON, CANTIL- SAKAUYE-RE: EVIL
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
OF CORRUPTION IN THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR

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

CAISO………………………………………………………………………....144
60. MAY 31, 2012 UC REGENTS UNLAWFUL POWER PURCHASE
AGREEMENT WITH SACRAEMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILTY DISTRICT
(SMUD)…………………………………..……………………………………148
61. ANNUAL EMISSION TEST FOR JET LM2500 GAS TURBINE AND
FOUR AUXILIARY NATURAL GAS FIRE BOILERS IN UCDMC
COGENRATION PLANT ……………………………….……………………148
62. 2013 UCDMC 27 MW COGENERATION PLANT POWER SALE TO
SMUD LOG -ILLEGAL AND TAXABLE…………………………………149
63. DECEMBER 22, 2014 WITCH STATED THAT: “ THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE
CAISO CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHTS REGISTRATION PROCESS”
TO LAUNDER MEGAWATT OUT OF UC CAMPUSES …………………..149
64. “ MOTION TO INTERVENE OF THE CALIFORNIA PARTIES” THE
MOTION WAS FILED IN BY CALIFORNIA PARTIES IN THE IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ON
FEBRUARY 4, 2014 CASE NO: 14-70326…………………………….……..151
65. DECEMBER 4, 2013,FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
(FERC) APPROVED CONTESTED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN POWEREX
CORP. (POWEREX) AND THE CALIFORNIA PARTIES FILED ON
AUGUST 16, 2013……………………………………………………….……151
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-817-7080
September 12, 2018
U.S Priority Mail .
Don Fort, Chief

U.S. Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service,
Criminal Investigation Department
1111Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20224
Re: Applications for Award submitted to IRS Whistleblower Office, Ogden, Utah in March
2016, Claim Number 2016-007481, and August 2018, Claim Number 2018-012118. Tax
Evasion and Fraud, Violation of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
I. INTRODUCTION
Dear Chief Fort,
I am submitting to your office a copy of the above-captioned Applications for Awards,

which I previously submitted to the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah (on Flash
Drive) in March 2016 and updated with the Supplemental Application for Award in
August 2018. My tax fraud and rt tax evasion claim are quite complicated, and I decided to
forward copies of all the documents portraying the sophisticated scheme of fraud or tax
evasion for your review and determination of whether my claim portrays serious crime and
coverups by the State of California Attorney General’s office and other law enforcement
agencies, or just innocent and unintentional discrepancies that cost California residents and
the California economy 40 billion dollars.
I understand that:
“Criminal Investigation special agents fill a unique niche in the federal law
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
enforcement community. Today's sophisticated schemes to defraud the

government demand the analytical ability of financial investigators to wade
through complex paper and computerized financial records. Due to the increased
use of automation for financial records, Cl special agents are trained to recover
computer evidence. Along with their financial investigative skills, special agents
use specialized forensic technology to recover financial data that may have been
encrypted, password protected, or hidden by other electronic means.
Criminal Investigation's conviction rate is one of the highest in federal law

enforcement. Not only do the courts hand down substantial prison sentences, but
those convicted must also pay fines, civil taxes and penalties.”
Shortly after I submitted my Supplemental Application for Award to the IRS on August 3,
2018 , I received a response from IRS Whistleblower Office stating that my March 23,
2016 claim had been rejected because my information was speculative. Nothing was
speculative in my claim. I was a direct witness to the unlawful generation and sale of
electricity and millions of dollars of related tax evasion committed by the Regents of the
University of California from June 1999 to February 2009, and I backed up my claim with
documents I discovered in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission e-library in 2015
and other sources.
II. ATTORNEY MARK SCHLEIN’S REPRESENTATION
After I received confirmation from IRS Whistleblower Office in April 2016 that my
Application for Award had been accepted and was being reviewed, I hired legal consul
Mark Schlein from Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, & Goldman Professional Law Corporation of
Los Angeles to represent me regarding the claim. This was a well-established law firm that
specialized in whistleblower tax fraud claims and advertised itself with this statement:
“If you are thinking about becoming a tax fraud whistleblower, it is in your best
interest to hire an attorney with experience in preparing and filing these types of
cases. Thousands of tax whistleblower claims get filed each year, but some are
rejected because they are not properly prepared and submitted.
The IRS whistleblower attorneys at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman work
with you to evaluate and prepare all of the evidence necessary for your claim. As
your advocate, our attorneys work with the IRS and provide whatever additional
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
assistance and evidence the government requests in order to present the best
possible case.”
https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/whistleblower-claims/tax-fraud/
After I retained Mr. Schlein, I thought his firm would do more research and professionally
update my claim with the IRS, because English is my second language and I have to use
professional proofreaders to correct my awkwardly written inquires and letters. However, I
do not always do so, because I have been forced by my employer, the University of
California, to live on $1500 social security income since June 2013, and proofreading is
costly and sometimes unaffordable to me. Some my letters or document that your staff will
read are not professional edited and could create confusion, which I can clarify if needed.
I am representing myself in state courts in two cases against the University of California in
relation to megawatt laundering and tax fraud, which has required a lot a research. Due to
the silence of my legal counsel and the IRS Whistleblower Office for more than a year and
a half, I decided to update my whistleblower claim on my own.
On February 4, 2018, I sent a letter to Mr. Schlein by U.S. mail and e-mail reminding him
that he represents me and my claim with the IRS needs to be updated. (ATTACHMENT
#1). In my letter, I pointed out
“I am writing because I am working on the supplemental submission of the

application for award in or amendment regarding California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) and California Power Exchange (CalPX), which raked in tens
of million, if not billions, of dollars by deliberately destabilizing the California
power market in 2000 and 2003. I have to do it because of heavy involvement of
the UC General Counsel Charles Robinson in my court cases and a systematic
destruction of my normal life since January 2007.
Robinson was transferred from CAISO in January 2007 to UCOP. He is a “God

Father “ of California Energy Crisis . I don’t know how much you know about
the California Energy Crisis. In 1998 University of California paired itself with
Enron to make million free of tax money from the manipulation of the electricity
market.”
I am also preparing the motion to intervene with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) under Rule 716 of its Rules of Practice, 18 CFR §385.716,
to reopen the record and re-investigate and modify or nullify the January 5, 2007
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
settlement agreement between CalPX, Automated Power Exchange Inc. (APX),

and APX Sponsoring Parties Dockets No. EL00-95-000 et al. and el00-98-000 et
al. This agreement was approved in an FERC order dated March 1, 2007, and
triggered the Regents’ attacks against me in 2007-2012 .”
Furthermore , I wrote:
Let me know what you think about updating the application for award with the
IRS and the motion with FERC to nullify the January 5, 2007 settlement
agreement between CalPX and APX sponsoring parties which caused the
devastation of my life.
Look at the years of powers sale. The UC Regents signed a new power purchase
agreement with SMUD on May 31, 2012, and they basically did not sell any
power from June 2012 to the present. As I am writing, they have 12 MWh
available to sell nonstop, 24 hours a day. What a waste.
I know everything about this, but I can’t find out who had the idea to mess with
me because of the power export, or why. I never said a word about this when I
was UCDMC employee. Maybe this is why my life was devastated because I
did not say anything about in my 13 years of employment with UC.
I think that you are aware that in 2016 UC President Janet Napolitano hired two
former US attorneys from Orrick’s law firm Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott
and conducted internal audit of damages caused by the regent’s power sale free
of tax. It was done under smoke screen to investigated Katehi. Audit cost UC 1
million dollars. Thereafter, Napolitano stashed away $170,000,0000 to pay
damages but it was surfaced. McGregor Scott was appointed last year by
President Trump as a U.S attorney for 9th District. He was there before under the
President Bush. Most likely McGregor Scott was recommended by Senator
Feinstein and Janet Napolitano to reclaim his title and position . Good to have
back up with President Trump ‘s appointee. In 2005 McGregor Scott prosecuted
alleged terrorist from Lodi , where I live since 1989 and threw him into prison
for 25 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9sUJ0TkPPw
Melinda Haag threw into prison California Senator Leland Yee in 2016 after Yee
got idea to amend in 2010 the California Whistleblower Protection Act by
SB650 to go after UC cronies. The 2010 SB 650 was followed by 2011 Audit
instigated by Yee against UC corrupted executives. UC is a very “Deep State “in
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
the Sanctuary State
Please let me know what yours thoughts to amend the Application for Award .
Lot of money in play and I hate to live and die poor .
In addition, I stated in the e-mail, “I need you as a lawyer because IRS eventually will deny
the award and I have to deal with IRS Tax Court.”
Mr. Schlein confirmed that day that he had read my e-mail, but he never responded to my
concerns and never stated his position on amending the Application for Award. After that, I
became concerned about my claim with the IRS and about Mark Schlein and his firm’s
representation of me.
III. 2018 SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR AWARD
On August 3, 2018, I sent a 153-page updated Supplemental Application for Award with a
cover letter and supporting documents to the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden. These
showed the scheme behind the enormously sophisticated fraud called the “California
Energy Crisis,” which became a gold mine for the California Attorney General’s Office
and other participants who named themselves the “California Party.” This endless source of
untaxed millions of dollars in the form kickbacks from power corporations to the Attorney
General’s Office and other “California Party” participants is still going on, almost two
decades after the energy crisis was invented by white-collar organized crime and carried
out by California Independent System Operator (CAISO) executives and collaborators.
(Application with exhibits enclosed on the flash drive.)
In addition to the application, I sent the IRS a draft of the inquiry I wrote to the FBI
Sacramento office regarding the tax fraud and the violation of my civil and human rights
by the white-collar criminals from the University of California’s Office of the President
and their thugs from UC Davis and UC Davis Medical Center, where I worked for 13
years, and other public entities.
I intended to send these inquiries to the FBI office together with the Application for
Award, but I put it on hold because they were poorly edited and I did not have the funds to
send them to professional proofreaders. (Draft of the Inquiry with FBI and attachments
enclosed on the flash drive.)
IV. THE IRS WHISTLEBLOWER OFFICE’S FIRST RESPONSE,

DATED AUGUST 7, 2018
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
On August 6, 2018, the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah, received my

Supplemental Application for Award by U.S. priority mail with recipient signature request.
After I knew this, on August 8, I sent a copy of the application to my counsel of record,
Mr. Schlein. (ATTACHMENT# 2) He criticized me in a phone conversation that day,
pointing out that the Supplemental Application was poorly edited, but he never offered me
help from the time I hired him, even after I sent him a letter on February 3 asking him
about updating the Application. On August 7, however, he emailed me that he was sending
a letter to the IRS requesting an update on the case. He never sent any such letter, however,
because I never got a copy of it from him or any news on the IRS.
On August 13, I received a letter from the IRS Whistleblower Office stating that my Claim
2016-007461, dated March 23, 2016, had been rejected under Section 7623(a). The letter
was dated August 7, 2018, one day after the office received my Supplemental Application .
The same day, I sent the IRS rejection letter by email to Mr. Schlein with the words,
From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk

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

DATED AUGUST 24 , 2018
After I received the August 7 letter and my legal counsel abruptly terminated his retainer
fee agreement on August 14, I had no choice but to deal with the appeal in the U.S. Tax
Court on my own. However, I thought that the IRS had rejected both my March 23, 2016
Application for Award and its August 3, 2018 update together. I was thus surprised when
on August 30,2018, I received a second letter from the IRS Whistleblower Office dated
8/24, 2018 from Ogden confirming that that my updated Application for Award had been
received and three claims numbers assigned to it: the master number 2018 -012118 and two
other claim numbers, 2018-012139 and 2018 -012141. (ATTACHMENT #4)
I dropped the idea of filing an appeal of the August 7 decision (rejecting the claim no.
2016-007491), assuming the IRS had updated its records and assigned the new numbers to
my initial 2016 claim and 2018 updated claim together.
However, Mr. Schein’s reaction after I submitted the updated application on August 3, and
the fact that the participants in the fraud included the University of California, CAISO,
Pacific Gas and Electric, and California government officials and state agencies including
the Attorney General’s Office and the California Public Utilities Commission, convinced
me that it would be helpful for the IRS Whistleblower Office if I also submitted copies of
my Application for Award directly to the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Office.
I. SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR SUPREME

COURT NOMINEE BRETT KAVANAUGH
On September 6, 2018, during Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation
hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California raised out of the blue questions about the
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
2000–03 California Energy Crisis, Enron Corporation, and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission as follows:
TRANSCRIPT
01:40:12 THE LIMITED SET OF DOCUMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED INDICATES YOU

WERE HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE'S RESPONSE TO
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS AFTER THE ENRON SCANDAL. IS THAT
ACCURATE?
01:40:34 RIGHT, SO YOU KNOW ENRON WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST CORPORATE
SCANDALS IN AMERICAN HISTORY. AND I CAN TELL YOU AS A SENATOR FROM
CALIFORNIA, NOT ONLY DID MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS LOSE EVERYTHING
FINANCIALLY WHEN ENRON COLLAPSED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF ITS
ACCOUNTING FRAUD, BUT THE FRAUD AND MARKET MANIPULATION
CONTRIBUTED TO AN ENERGY CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA. WHITE HOUSE E-MAILS
SHOW YOU WERE ASKED TO REVIEW A SET OF DRAFT TALKING POINTS FOR
PRESS SECRETARY ARI FLEISCHER THAT ADDRESS THE ROLE OF ENRON'S
MARKET MANIPULATION IN THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS. ESSENTIALLY,
THE TALKING POINT SAID, IF THERE WAS ANY MISCONDUCT BY ENRON, IT WAS
UP TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE AND
PUNISH THE COMPANY. I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU REMEMBER THE
SPECIFIC DOCUMENT, BUT WAS THAT YOUR VIEW THAT FERC (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission) WAS THE REGULATORY BODY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO
STOP THIS SORT OF MISCONDUCT?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?449706-1/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-
confirmation-hearing-day-3-part-1
It was just prior to the hearings that I had submitted copies of my Application for Award to
the Whistleblower Office of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Senator Chuck
Grassley is chair and the two Senators from California, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala
Harris, are members.
In my August 21 e-mail to Senator Grassley, I had addressed process of deportation of an

Iraqi refugee who was arrested in Sacramento by the FBI. This deportation was carried out
by U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott. (ATTACHMENT #5)
The widely publicized arrest of this refugee had taken place on August 15, a few days after
my Application for Award was received by IRS Whistleblower Office and the day after
Mr. Schlein quit my IRS case. This was also not long after I addressed UC Davis Medical
Center employee Todd Georlich’s December 2010 suicide, or more likely homicide, to the
California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District on August 5, 2018 (ATTACHMENT
#6, full document on flash drive). I still wonder why my counsel abruptly abandoned me
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
without waiting for a response from the IRS. Maybe Ronald L. M. Goldman, senior trial
attorney and senior partner at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, and Goldman, is related to Senator
Feinstein, who was born Dianne Emiel Goldman.
In 2016, Mr. McGregor Scott, a private attorney, and former U.S. attorney Melinda Haag
of San Francisco, participated in an unbelievably vindictive and ruthless $1,000,000 witch
hunt orchestrated by UC president Janet Napolitano and aimed at UC Davis’s Greek-born
chancellor Linda Katehi and her family, just after I submitted my first Application for
Award to the IRS Whistleblower Office on March 23, 2016. Former Haag prosecuted and
imprisoned California Senator Leland Yee, who was an archenemy of the corrupt officers
of the University of California Office of the President (UCOP). (Read my May 17, 2017
inquiry to U.S. Senator Darrel Issa, entitled “The left over from the California’s energy
market deregulation, energy crisis of 1999–2001 and State of California recall election of
Governor Grey Davis in 2003, ATTACHMENT #7.)
As I stated in my above-mentioned draft letter, McGregor Scott, who was again appointed
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District in California in 2017 , earned his fame through the
2003–05 prosecution of Hamid Hayat, a Pakistani ice cream truck driver from Lodi, CA
supposedly working to support Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.
Hayat also allegedly attended an Al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan. He was punished
with 24 years in prison.
Instead to look after the perpetrators and terrorist who with a sophisticated equipment were
destabilizing the Western Power Grid which almost collapsed in 2000-2001 , FBI and U.S
Attorney Mr. McGregor grabbed Pakistani cherry picker and ice cream truck driver from
small town Lodi, CA where I lived since 1989 and show for whole world how they
fighting terrorism on UCOP mafia and corrupted Sanctuary State government behalf .
(ATTACHMENT # 8 )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9sUJ0TkPPw
Hayat became a target before or just after former San Francisco FBI Chief John Lohse
(most likely a friend of UC President Janet Napolitano, as they are both from Arizona and
attended the same college in California) was recruited by the UCOP as Director of
Investigation , California governor Grey Davis was recalled from office and replaced by
Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the California Public Utilities Commission publicized my
name, in 2003, in relation to my confidential settlement agreement with Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E). This agreement was related to the Dynegy Power Corporation and a
$240,000,000 fraud committed by Dynegy’s predecessor, Destem Energy Inc., against
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
PG&E ratepayers and California taxpayers. (ATTACHMENT #9). Later in the so-called
California Energy Crisis, Dynegy again defrauded California ratepayers of $280,000,000,
and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s office received millions of dollars of
untaxable profit from this deal through a kickback from Dynegy. Senator Kamala Harris
knows all details of this.
With the above fragment, I wanted to show IRS investigators the pattern in the way
attention was being deflected from the real crimes, those by UCOP and the California
government’s white-collar criminals, by witch hunts and prosecuting and imprisoning
alleged terrorists, including and limited to California Senator Leland Yee and UC Davis
Chancellor Greek born Linda Katehi under heavy TV and press coverage.
Hayat was from Lodi, where I have lived since 1989. In September 2007 he was sentenced
to 24 years in federal prison. In January 2007, Senator Feinstein’s husband, then a chief of
the UC Regents Richard Blum , was ordered to hunt me down and fire me in an
unbelievably ruthless and indecent but ultimately unsuccessful witch hunt just after I had
open-heart surgery. See the October 27, 2016 inquiry I sent to Senator Feinstein, in which I
demanded the restoration of my life, which had been destroyed by the UCOP mafia and her
husband, Richard Blum (ATTACHMENT #10), with the words,
As I asked you in my previous inquiry for help, I am respectfully asking you to

intervene directly in this case with your husband, UC Regent Richard Blum, who
is solely responsible for the devastation of my employment and my life through
severe violations of my civil and human rights.
As I wrote in my previous inquiry, it is your obligation as U.S. senator to prevent

any further oppression and violation of my civil and human rights by the regents
and State of California agencies and judges. This not a state issue; this is a
federal issue. I am a legal resident of this country, and political asylum was
given me by President Reagan.
When I listen to the election campaign and your party propaganda about
immigrants— how you will protect them, and how Republican candidate Donald
Trump hates immigrants—I wish that you would look at what your fellow
Democrats and friends Janet Napolitano and Melinda Haag (most likely with
involvement of Darrel Steinberg) did to fellow Democrat Leland Yee, who
endorsed President Barak Obama and who never broke the law in this country.
He immigrated from China when he was three years old, and look at what your
husband along with Napolitano and Haag did to him at the age of 67, not to
mention what they did to me.
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
Is this is what immigrants can expect from a Hillary Clinton administration if she
wins? Prisons and witch hunts against immigrants to cover up corruption and
crimes in our own political establishment?
Your husband, with other perpetrators employing Napolitano and Haag and with
your full knowledge, hunted down Senator Yee and myself like animals. These
actions do not look like behavior one would expect from the Democratic Party.
They look like actions taken in the Stalin’s era by the People’s Commissariat for
Internal Affairs (NKWD).
I don’t know if you believe in God or if you are atheist, but from what I see, you
surely have forgotten what you have learned in the Catholic School you attended
when you were young.
Frankly, I was surprised that Senator Feinstein brought up the irrelevant, two-decade-old
California Energy Crisis and Enron matters at the Kavanaugh hearing. She and her younger
colleague, Senator Harris—who was previously California Attorney General—are perfectly
aware and were informed many times of how the multi-billion-dollar fraud and tax-evasion
scam called the “California Energy Crisis” was invented by white-collar organized crime,
and of how the California Attorney General’s Office participated in and covered up the
crime.
I watched Senator Harris’s uncontrolled aggression during nomination hearings in 2017

and 2018, toward both the chair of the hearings and the nominees, in her unhinged attempts
to derail the process and deflect attention from questions of merit. It was a disturbing and
unprecedented show of vicious lack of personal culture in a public forum. When I saw her
attack Jeff Sessions in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh on September 6, 2018, to depose and
dispose of them, I felt like I was watching a movie about Stalin-era Soviet prosecutors
sending the victims of witch hunts to Siberian gulags or to immediate death by the firing
squads. The scenario of disposing of President Trump and his nominees in the nonstop
show illustrates the dangerous extremism of the Democratic Party’s evil forces, who are
willing to delegitimize and remove President Trump from office by any means and without
a pardon.
I don’t write this because I support, or I like President Trump, but because I experienced
and witnessed merciless witch hunts at the University of California which ended in
suicides. I defended some of the people involved from UCOP’s criminally minded and
unwarranted attacks. I know perfectly well why and how people are being persecuted by
people like Senator Harris or U.S Attorney McGregor Scott . I lost everything at the age of
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
62 and my life was destroyed by the ‘DEEP STATE “ after I had worked hard and lived
lawfully in this country for more than thirty years.
I. CONCLUSION
I hope that the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, the Criminal Investigation Office, and
other federal law enforcement agencies will get to the bottom of this, California’s biggest
scheme of fraud in the new millennium, which was committed by corrupt state legislature
created agencies , CAISO and California Power Exchange (CalPX) in collaboration with
the UCOP mafia , greedy power corporations and the “California Parties “ lead by
California Attorney General
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
CC :
• U.S Department of Treasury , IRS Whistleblower office , Ogden UT
Enclosed:
• 10 Attachments, some hard copies and all on flash drive

• All documents sent to IRS Whistleblower office, Ogden UT on August 3, 2018
See enclosed 8/3/2018 cover letter to Application which includes list of all
documents (ON FLASH DRIVE)
• Self-addressed and stamped return envelope for the enclosed copy endorsement
EXHIBIT G
US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT
RECEIVED y % eFILED
PA sU S
MAY 15 2019 * MAY 15 2019
7:22 PM
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK,

Petitioner,
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
v- Docket No. 23105-18W
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT

TO RULE 103

)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Docket No. 23105-18W
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) Filed Electronically
Respondent.
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
RESPONDENT MOVES the Court, pursuant to Tax Court Rule
103(a), to issue a protective order concerning the return, return
information, and taxpayer return information as defined by
Internal Revenue Code § 6103(b)(1), (2) & (3) (hereinafter
"Section 6103 information") of the third party taxpayer
identified in Petitioner's whistleblower claim that Respondent
provides to Petitioner in connection with this proceeding.
Respondent seeks a protective order that: (1) would allow
Respondent to mark section 6103 information as "Confidential -
Section 6103 Information Subject to Protective Order"; (2) would
prohibit Petitioner from disclosing the section 6103 information
for any purpose other than in connection with this proceeding,
and upon such disclosure would require Petitioner to inform any
person receiving the section 6103 information that he/she must
comply with the terms of the protective order; and, (3) would
cause Petitioner to return or destroy the section 6103
information upon the final resolution of this case. Attached as
Exhibit A is Respondent's proposed protective order.

Docket No. 23105-18W - 2 -
IN SUPPORT THEREOF, Respondent respectfully states:
1. Tax Court Rule 103(a) provides "[u]pon motion by a
party or any other affected person, and for good cause shown, the
Court may make any order which justice requires to protect a
party or other person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression,
or undue burden or expense." See also T.C. Rule 345(c) regarding
privacy protections in Whistleblower actions. A party seeking a
protective order under Rule 103(a) must show: (1) the material is
the type of information protected by the courts, and (2) there is
good cause for protection, i.e., specific harm will result if the
order is not granted. Willie Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner, 85
T.C. 914, 917-20 (1985).
2. In evaluating a motion for a protective order, the
Court balances the public's interest in access against the
countervailing interests needing protection. Id. at 919. Good
cause has been shown and protective orders issued when patents,
trade secrets or other confidential business information is
involved. Id. at 922; see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co., 529 F. Supp. 866, 891 (E.D. Pa.
1981)("Frequently the injury that would flow from disclosure is
patent, either from consideration of the documents alone or
against the court's understanding of the background facts.").
3. The confidentiality of return information and taxpayer
return information is established as a matter of law by Section

Docket No. 23105-18W - 3 -
6103 which provides that "[r]eturns and return information shall
be confidential" and may only be disclosed as authorized therein.
Section 6103(a). The subject taxpayers' section 6103 information
may be disclosed to Petitioner for purposes of this litigation to
the extent authorized by Section 6103(h)(4). However, the
taxpayers are not parties to this litigation and lack the ability
to control the disclosure of such confidential Section 6103
information.
4. Respondent anticipates that documents disclosed under
the terms of the proposed protective order could be used in a
hearing or trial. If admitted into evidence, the marked
documents will be available to the public as any other document
in the record would be to the extent permitted by the Court's
rules, in particular Rules 27 and 345(b), and/or any Court
orders. Any further protections that may be appropriate as to
documents that are eventually entered into evidence at the
hearing will be requested by respondent at a later time.
5. Petitioner objects to the granting of this motion due
to his concerns with other, unrelated litigation involving the
third party taxpayers.

Docket No. 23105-18W - 4 -
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this motion be granted.
MICHAEL J. DESMOND
Chief Counsel
Date: By:
D RICK D. SUd
S 1081
Large Business &
International
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 744-7148
Darrick.D.Sun@irscounsel.trea
s.gov
OF COUNSEL:
ROBIN GREENHOUSE
Division Counsel
(Large Business &
International)
EWAN D. PURKISS
Area Counsel
(Communications, Technology &
Media.: Oakland)
GORDON L. GIDLUND
Associate Area Counsel
(Large Business &
International)
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A

)
Petitioner,
v. ) Docket No. 23105-18W
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) Filed Electronically
Respondent.
PROTECTIVE ORDER
ORDERED that Respondent's motion is granted. It is further
ORDERED that Respondent shall designate and mark as
"CONFIDENTIAL-Section 6103 Information Subject to Protective
Order" any documents containing section 6103 information of third
party taxpayers that Respondent provides to Petitioner. It is
further
ORDERED that any documents containing section 6103
information of third party taxpayers identified in Petitioner's
Form 211 and provided by Respondent to Petitioner shall not be
provided directly or indirectly by Petitioner to any person
except for the sole böna fide purpose of trial or hearing
preparation and in accordance with the provisions of this Order.
It is further
ORDERED that, whenever Petitioner intends to provide to any
person(s) any document(s) containing Section 6103 information of
third party taxpayers provided by Respondent,. Petitioner must
first (1) provide a copy of this Order to any such persons; (2)
inform such person(s) that he or she must comply with the terms
EXHIBIT A
Docket No. 23105-18W - 2 -
of this Order; and (3) obtain such person's signature on a copy
of this Order, followed by a business or home address of that
person of which service of process can generally be made during
business hours. Petitioner shall retain the signed copy of this
Order until one year after the decision in this case becomes
final within the meaning of Section 7481(a). After Petitioner
has complied with the first sentence of this ordered paragraph,
Petitioner may provide for trial or hearing preparation to any
person(s) described in the first sentence any documents
containing Section 6103 information of third party taxpayers that
Respondent has designated and marked as ordered in the first
ordered paragraph and provided to Petitioner. It is further
ORDERED that, no later than 14 days after the decision in
this case becomes final within the meaning of Section 7481(a),
Petitioner or any person(s) who receives any documents containing
Section 6103 information subject to this Order (1) shall return
such document(s) and any copies of such documents to Respondent
or (2) certify in writing to Respondent that any such documents
and any such copies of any such documents have been destroyed.
Judge
Entered:
* * * * *
EXHIBIT A

07-30-2019 U.S Tax Court - Motion For Protective Order

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

07-30-2019 U.S Tax Court - Motion For Protective Order

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT

JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK,

v- Docket No. 23105-18W

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

PETITIONER'S REPLY TO ORDER DATED 07/09/2019

SERVED Jul 29 2019

JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

PETITIONER'S REPLY TO U.S. TAX COURT ORDER SERVED ON

Vashchook), hereafter Petitioner, is replying timely to the captioned July 9, 2019

Protective Order Pursuant To Rule 103. What especially caught Petitioner's

attention in the Court Order is the following Court statement on page 2:

Section 6103(a) provides as a general rule that Section 6103 information

Section 6103(a) in light of Petitioner's litigations against the University of

Superior Court in relation to this proceeding. The Respondent's coordinated actions

University of California General Counsel Charles Robinson, former California

Independent System Operator and the "Godfather" of the sophisticated scheme of

Mr. Sun knows UC Davis executives , educated and employed by Rutgers

PETITIONER'S DECISION NOT TO WITHDRAW HIS OPPOSITION TO

By this Reply, Petitioner respectfully informs the Court that he is unwilling to

the Court should deny Respondent's aforementioned motion.

While former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is still in

attorney McGregor Scott, re-appointed by Napolitano, is still in charge of the

Eastern District of California U.S. Attorney's office, the withdrawal of my

opposition to the Motion For Protective Order is out of the question.

Petitioner's situation is very complicated and Petitioner's adversaries from the

University of California, led by former Governor of Arizona and U.S. Secretary of

crafted desperate UCOP mob attempts to frame Petitioner in Sacramento Courts on

his whistleblower claim.

THE BACKGROUND OF PETITIONER'S REPLY

The Climate Surrounding Petitioner's Whistleblower Claim

Section 6103, information to a whistleblower by respondent pursuant to an order

for Petitioner's claim for reward under Section 7623(b).

response would be inappropriate and may be regarded by the Court as tantamount to

Petitioner choosing option (2) of the above ORDERED paragraph.

seeking in his whistleblower complaint is very important, but so too is Petitioner's

from the University of California President, led by Janet Napolitano since

September 2013 and terrorized by Napolitano judges and justices in Sacramento's

The climate surrounding Petitioner's whistleblower claim is not promising, and

submitted this question in September 2018 to U.S. Senate Chairman of the

titled "In Defense of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and His Family."

The Lodi Resident Hamid Hayat Prosecuted by Janet Napolitano's Friend,

terrorist attack, Hayat was chosen by someone to be converted into a terrorist by

Eastern District of California, McGregor William Scott, who prosecuted Hayat

and cashed a $500,000 check from Janet Napolitano in 2016.

Janet Napolitano's Friend John Lohse

John Lohse is Napolitano's old friend from Arizona. He served as a FBI

FBI's San Francisco Division, Lohse was recruited by the University of

California Office of the President (UCOP) organized crime in January 2004 to

prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Phoenix, Arizona.

unsuccessful provocation to end my employment in UC Davis Medical Center

Trauma Unit # 11 on May 31, 2012 .

Hamid Hayat's Incarceration and Judge Tashima's Dissent Opinion

CR-05-00240-GEB, USA v. Hamid Hayat, Opinion No. 07-10457.

thousands of other Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps during

into an internment camp by the communist Polish government in 1981, I am sharing

and "Show Trial."

Hayat's prosecution and incarceration with words:

"This case is a stark demonstration of the unsettling and untoward

sleeper cells in our Lodi communities and neighborhoods. It was a completely

California that it would be the UC Office of the President in Oakland , CA , UC

Davis and UC San Diego campus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v-09sUJ0Tld)Pw ( Lodi 2005)