9-26-2023 - USCA - No. 20-14-07 Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner - Reply To Commisioner Opposition-Re: Mandate Recall

USCA Case #20-1407 Document #2019046 Filed: 09/26/2023 Page 1 of 149
USCA No. 20-1407 USTC No. 23105–18 W
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2866
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk

Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

Defendant-Appellee
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
APPELLANT-PETITIONER’S REPLY TO APPELEE’S OPPOSITION -RE:

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE, REINSTATE THE
APPEAL, AND REOPEN THE CASE
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Email: [email protected]
Opposition to Appellee’s Response - Motion to Recall Mandate and Reinstate the Appeal
I.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced “Vashchook,” hereafter “Waszczuk”)
has moved to recall the mandate issued in the above-captioned appeal on September
19, 2022. The Commissioner opposed Waszczuk motion on September 20, 2023.
II.
ARGUMENT
A. The commissioner argued without reference to the court record that the IRS
Whistleblower Office issued threshold denials of the Appellant’s claims
without referring the matters for further investigation.
For clarity, the Commissioner stated in the opposition:
The Court dismissed this whistleblower appeal for lack of

jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4) and remanded for the Tax
Court to do the same because this appeal presented the same
situation as the one in Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C.
Cir. 2022). Waszczuk v. Commissioner, No. 20-1407, 2022 WL
4090848, at (D.C. Cir. June 1, 2022) (citing Li).
First, The Court wrongly dismissed Waszczuk’s case for lack of jurisdiction based
on the case Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The
Commissioner and the Court, based on a deceptive Commissioner’s Motion to
Dismiss, refused to recognize and distinguish the difference of the merits between
Waszczuk’s and Li’s case.

2
Second, Li’s case is a divorce matter and about reporting taxes unpaid by her former
husband.
Third, in contrast, Waszczuk’s case is about tens of millions of dollars in tax evasion
and fraud committed since 1998 by executives and their collaborators of an entity
with a $40 billion annual budget, the University of California. They acted in
violation of the university’s tax-exempt status under Internal Revenue Code (IRC
501(c)(3). The unlawful production and sale of electricity for tax-free profit for more
than two decades is quite different from unpaid taxes due to a divorce. The
Commissioner’s Office, and especially the US Attorney General Office’s Tax
Division, should not condone and cover up such a significant case of tax evasion and
fraud, which amounted to millions of dollars, because the former President of the
University of California, who is also the former US Secretary of Homeland Security,
Janet Napolitano, is attached to it.
B. The Commissioner’s argument that the IRS Whistleblower Office issued

threshold denials of the appellant’s claims without referring the matters
for further investigation is unfounded and completely lacking, as the
Court record shows.
The Commissioner, in the opposition, wrote:
As explained in our motions to dismiss, in both Li and in this case,
the IRS Whistleblower Office issued threshold denials of
appellant’s claims without referring the matters for further
3
investigation. (Mot. to Dismiss Case for Lack of Jurisdiction,

Waszczuk v. Commissioner, No. 20-1407 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 10,
2022)).
The Facts Shown in the Court Record
On November 20, 2018, Waszczuk filed a Petition in U.S. Tax Court appealing the
IRS WBO’s October 24, 2018 decision, which denied him a reward for reporting
tens of millions of dollars of TAX EVASION AND FRAUD due to a violation of
IRC 501(c)(3) by the University of California.
On February 5, 2019, the Commissioner filed an ANSWER to Waszczuk’s Petition
in which he claimed that the IRS WBO referred the matter to the TAX EXEMPT
AND GOVERNMENT ENTITIES (TEGE) for further investigation and an opinion
(EXHIBIT #1).
In the ANSWER, on Pages 2 and 3, under paragraph 8, the Commissioner wrote:
8. FURTHER ANSWERING the petition, and as an affirmative

defense that the proceeds in dispute do not exceed $2 million as
required by section 7623(b)(5)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code
(as amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Pub. L.115-
123, Div. D, Title II, § 41108(c), Feb. 9, 2018, 132 Stat.158),
respondent alleges:
g. On September 4, 2018, Marie Holt, Ogden Campus Classification,

prepared a memorandum recommending that petitioner’s claims be sent
to Tax Exempt and Government Entities (“TEGE”) for further review
and classification.
h. On September 26, 2018, petitioner’s claims were assigned to Karen

4
Foster, TEGE Classification, for further review.
k. On October 15, 2018, Karen Foster signed a Form 11369, Confidential

Evaluation Report on Claim for Award, with respect to petitioner’s
claims.
l. Karen Foster rejected petitioner’s claims, stating in the Form 11369,

“Claim rejected: Allegations are not specific, credible, or are speculative.”
Karen Foster determined, as set forth in Form 11369:
The narrative presented does not support a violation of tax laws. The entities named
appear to be filing and reporting unrelated business income appropriately on Form
990T. The statutes for years preceding 2016 are short or expired. Review of
BRTVU for 2016 & 2017 reflect amounts reported as unrelated business income
tax. There was no specific or credible documentation submitted to substantiate the
allegation of a violation of tax laws and that there was unreported unrelated
business income for 2016 tax years.
On May 3, 2019, following the ANSWER, the Commissioner filed the
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER THAT UNDENIED
ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C)
(EXHIBIT #2).
On May 14, 2019, the U.S. Tax Court ordered Waszczuk to file a reply to the
Commissioner’s February 5, 2019 ANSWER and MOTION FOR ENTRY OF

5
ORDER THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED
PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C) (EXIBIT #3).
On June 3, 2019, Waszczuk filed a very specific and detailed 24-page-long
PETITIONER’S REPLY/OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER
THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED PURSUANT TO
RULE 37(C) (EXHIBIT #4).
On June 4, 2019, the U.S. Tax Court ultimately denied the Commissioner’s
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE
DEEMED ADMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C) (EXHIBIT#5).
C. What is the University of California’s unrelated business income tax

stance, which was used by the WBO to deny Waszczuk’s Claim Form
2011?
As Waszczuk has pointed out many times in his pleadings, the WBO denied his
claim under false pretenses and for the reason that the entities named (The University
of California) appear to be filing and reporting unrelated business income
appropriately via Form 990T.
On December 13, 2019, Waszczuk, in his PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO THE
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- RULE
121 (pp. 33–34), which was filed in U.S. Tax Court, addressed for the first time the
6
University of California’s Policy BFB-A-61: UNRELATED BUSINESS
INCOME AND EXPENSES, which was attached to the motion as Exhibit #28
(here, EXHIBIT #6).
As Waszczuk explained in his motion to recall the mandate, the Court exploited the
completely irrelevant to the reported tax evasion and fraud the University of
California with the phrase “Unrelated Business Income” (see pp. 2, 3, 5, 12, 13;
U.S.T.C. Judge Goeke’s Decision):
For her recommendation, the TEGE classifier reviewed Waszczuk

whistleblower information and IRS internal records of the three
targets. The administrative record shows that the classifier evaluated
the whistleblower information and considered the allegations. She
found that the targets were filing and reporting unrelated business
income appropriately and the IRS records showed amounts
reported as unrelated business income tax. She did not forward the
2018 Form for further investigation or recommend that the IRS audit
the targets.
Furthermore, the Commissioner’s argument in the opposition that Waszczuk’s
claims were denied by the WBO without referring the matters for further
investigation is groundless. This argument was made without any reference to the
Court record.
On June 29, 2020, Waszczuk’s Motion to Vacate from the Order and Decision
dated June 4, 2020 addressed more specifically the University of California’s
unrelated business income. Waszczuk showed in his Motion to Vacate that the
WBO and Commissioner’s attorneys’ conduct was an unconscionable plan or
scheme of fraud designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.
Waszczuk addressed the University of California’s Policy BFB-A-61:
UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME AND EXPENSES as follows (pp.30-32 ):
For the record and for clarification for the Court, the University of
California activities pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Sections
511, 512, and 513
“Unrelated business activities generally involve providing services
or products to individuals or entities who are not affiliated with the
University (i.e., non-UC groups and corporations, and those who
are not University students, faculty and administrative personnel).
Unrelated business activities are revenue-producing and taxable
activities that are:
Not directly related to achieving the university’s educational and
research missions . Conducted for the primary purpose of earning a
profit
These activities may be subject to unrelated business income tax
(UBIT), which is imposed at the same tax rates applicable to for-
profit corporations.
The unlawful operation of the power plant and sale of power for a tax-free profit
worth tens of millions of dollars is in violation of the University of California's tax-
exempt status and IRC 501(c)(3). This is tax evasion and a serious crime under
federal law. The University of California, as a tax-exempt public entity, unlawfully
operated the power plants and sold power in violation of Federal Energy
Commission Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 292.20,
Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a). California Public Utilities Code Section
218.5 has nothing to do with the University’s Policy BFB-A-61: UNRELATED
BUSINESS INCOME AND EXPENSES and Internal Revenue Code Sections 511,
512, and 513. 26 U.S.C. § 511, 26 U.S.C. § 512; 26 U.S.C. § 513. This is a scheme
of sophisticated fraud and tax evasion under the umbrella of exempt from taxes
status.
On July, 2019, the Court’s Special Trial Judge, Hon. Robert N. Armen,
figured out from the Opposition to the Respondent’s Motion for Entry of Order
that the Undenied Allegations Be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to Rule 37(C),
and from the Petitioner’s Opposition to the Respondent’s Motion for
Protective Order pursuant to Rule 6103 (a), that this whistleblower case was not
about the University of California or any relationship to the university’s
business income, but instead a more serious crime. This enormous case of tax
evasion committed by the corrupted University of California administration is a
classic example of the underground economy.
After Judge Armen was replaced by the Hon. Joseph Robert Goeke, the exploited
by the Commissioner claim of “unrelated business income” became a key factor
to please The Regents with “deny , deny, deny” for all Court Orders. The Regents
are closely associated with the State of California and federal government
agencies; legislators; and powerful law firms around the country, including Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, based in San Francisco. These bodies are using their
powerful influence in the Courts to escape unpunished for their crimes. Waszczuk
is not delusional or making up a story. If the Court reads Waszczuk’s most recent
complaint to the State Bar of California’s Chief Trial Counsel Office against the
Chief and Director of the California Commission on Judicial Performance, it will
be clear how The Regents took care of the judge who presided over Waszczuk’s
wrongful termination case since 2014 in State Court, in his interconnected cases,
and in the Court of Appeal’s Third Appellate District. The treatment of the
Presiding Justice paints a picture that is very grim (EXHIBIT #7).
D. The Commissioner’s argument that this Court’s decisions in the Lissack

and Villa-Arce cases would not have saved the Appellant’s case from
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and they in no way warrant a recall of
the mandate, is a pure and disturbing case of demagoguery.
10
Waszczuk’s case is no different (with the exception of its merits) than those of the
Lissack or Villa-Arce cases, in which the Commissioner stated that, “In Villa-
Arce’s case, as in Lissack’s, the Whistleblower Office referred the submission to
the IRS, the IRS initiated an examination.” Waszczuk’s case was referred by the
WBO to TEGE for evaluation and examination. Then, TEGE came to the
conclusion that a review of BRTVU for 2016 & 2017 reflected amounts reported
as unrelated business income tax that had nothing to do with the unlawful
generation and sale of power worth tens of millions of dollars in illegal tax-free
profit. Waszczuk explained who was dispatched by Janet Napolitano to TEGE in
June 2016 for a three-year term to take care of his claim, ensuring it would not
surface and to guarantee it would be trashed or denied using any means necessary.
If the Commissioner and the Courts had not refused to acknowledge and recognize that
the University of California’s unrelated business income tax has nothing to do with
Waszczuk’s whistleblower claim and case, then the Commissioner would not have
written in his opposition that the decisions in Lissack and Villa-Arce would not have
saved the Appellant’s case from dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
The only issue in Waszczuk’s case for the WBO was whether his allegations met the
requirement that the proceeds in dispute exceeded $2 million. Sec. 7623(b)(5) to be
11
eligible for a reward (see Van Bemmelen v. Comm’r, 155 T.C. No. 4 (U.S.T.C. Aug.
27, 2020). Based on the documents and power production logs from the UC Davis
Medical Center’s 27-MW cogeneration plant, which Waszczuk provided to the WBO
in 2018, the threshold amount easily exceeded $10 million, not $2 million.
III.
CONCLUSION
It would have been a simple task for the WBO-ICE to make an inquiry of the
University of California Office of the President (UCOP) in 2016, or even in 2018,
and to ask the Vice President of Business and Finance, the Chief Operating
Officer of the UCOP, for documents showing that taxes were paid on the profit
made from the generation and sale of power by the UC Davis Medical Center’s
27-MW cogeneration plant, instead of denying Waszczuk’s claim under false
pretenses to cover up The Regents’ and their collaborators’ tax evasion and
fraud. If the Regents or owners of the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27
MW cogeneration plant would have pay taxes from power sale profit than the
27 MW cogeneration plant never would be build and commissioned in 1998 in
UCDMC where demand for power was less than 5 MWh . This is such simple
to understand.
12
Waszczuk prays that, based on the provided facts, documents, and authorities in
his motion and reply that the Court shall recall the mandate, reinstate the appeal,
and open the case. Waszczuk noticed that on June 28, 2023 Commissioner filed
the new ENTRY OF APPEARANCE in U.S Tax Court in Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue- Docket No. 23105-18W. (EXHIBIT # 8)
Respectfully submitted on September 26, 2023
______________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Per Se
13
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
APPELLANT-PETITIONER’S REPLY TO APPELEE’S OPPOSITION -RE:

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE, REINSTATE THE
APPEAL, AND REOPEN THE CASE
contains 2424 words (less than 2600 words, per D.C Cir. Rule 27(a)(4)(C)).
The number of lines of monospaced type in the motion is 332
Dated September 26, 2023 ________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Appellant Pro Se
2216 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-425-0512
E-mail: [email protected]
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper, APPELLANT-

PETITIONER’S REPLY TO APPELEE’S OPPOSITION -RE: APPELLANT’S
MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE, REINSTATE THE APPEAL, AND
REOPEN THE CASE
was served electronically on September 26, 2023, to the following recipients:
Richard L. Parker, [email protected]
Antony T. Sheehan, [email protected]
U.S. Department of Justice

Tax Division, Appellate Section
P.O. Box 502
Washington, DC 20044
Dated: September 26, 2023
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Appellant Pro Se

206 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.687.1180
Fax: 209.425.0512
E-mail: [email protected]
15
6
US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT
RECEIVED y % eFILED
DRC sU S
FEB 5 2019 * FEB 5 2019
2:50 PM
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK,

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

Respondent
RESPONDENT'S ANSWER
SERVED Feb 05 2019

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK, )

)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Docket No. 23105-18W
)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) Filed Electronically
)
Respondent. )
ANSWER
RESPONDENT, in answer to the petition filed in the above-
entitled case, admits, denies, and alleges as follows:
1. Denies. Alleges petitioner is appealing a Final
Decision Under Section 7623(a) (Final Decision Letter), dated
October 23, 2018, issued by respondent's Whistleblower Office,
which rejected petitioner's claim for an award pursuant to
I.R.C. § 7623.
2. Denies. Alleges the Final Decision Letter, dated
October 23, 208, was issued by respondent's Whistleblower Office
in Ogden, Utah to petitioner on October 23, 2018.
3. Denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
4. Admits.
5. First sentence, First clause. Denies. Alleges
respondent received a Form 211, Application for Award for
Original Information ("Form 211"), dated March 23, 2016, from
petitioner, which was assigned claim number 2016-007481. First
sentence, second Clause. Denies. Alleges respondent received

Docket No. 23105-18W - 2 -
another Form 211, dated August 3, 2018, which was assigned
master claim number 2018-012118 and claim numbers 2018-012139
and 2018-012141. First sentence, third clause. Denies.
Further alleges respondent's Final Decision Letter, dated
October 23, 2018, only addresses petitioner's Form 211, dated
August 3, 2018, not petitioner's Form 211, dated March 23, 2016.
First sentence, forth clause. Denies. Second sentence. Admits
an addendum is attached to petitioner's petition. Denies
remainder.
6. First sentence. Denies. Second and third sentence.
Denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information. Forth
sentence. Admits an addendum is attached to petitioner's
petition. Denies remainder.
7. Denies generally each and every allegation of the
petition not herein specifically admitted, qualified, or denied.
8. FURTHER ANSWERING the petition, and as an affirmative
defense that the proceeds in dispute do not exceed $2 million as
required by section 7623(b)(5) (B) of the Internal Revenue Code
(as amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Pub. L.
115-123, Div. D, Title II, § 41108(c), Feb. 9, 2018, 132 Stat.
158), respondent alleges:
a. Claim number 2016-007481 is the number assigned to
petitioner's Form 211, dated March 23, 2016.

Docket No. 23105-18W - 3 -
b. In a Final Decision Letter, dated August 7, 2018,
respondent's Whistleblower Office rejected claim number 2016-
007481.
c. The Final Decision Letter dated August 7, 2018 is
not in dispute in this case.
d. On August 10, 2018, respondent received another
Form 211, dated August 3, 2018, from petitioner.
e. By letter dated August 24, 2018, respondent's
Whistleblower Office notified petitioner that it received
petitioner's Form 211, dated August 3, 2018, which was assigned
master claim number 2018-012118 and claim numbers 2018-012139
and 2018-012141 ("petitioner's claims").
f. On August 24, 2018, petitioner's claims were sent
to respondent's Ogden Campus for classification.
g. On September 4, 2018, Marie Holt, Ogden Campus
Classification, prepared a memorandum recommending that
petitioner's claims be sent to Tax Exempt and Government
Entities ("TEGE") for further review and classification.
h. On September 26, 2018, petitioner's claims were
assigned to Karen Foster, TEGE Classification, for further
review.
Docket No. 23105-18W - 4 -
i. On October 11, 2018, respondent's Whistleblower
Office received a letter from petitioner, dated October 2, 2018,
wherein petitioner provided additional documents.
j. By letter dated October 15, 2018, respondent's
Whistleblower Office confirmed receipt of petitioner's October
2, 2018 letter and stated petitioner's claims were still under
consideration.
k. On October 15, 2018, Karen Foster signed a Form
11369, Confidential Evaluation Report on Claim for Award, with
respect to petitioner's claims.
1. Karen Foster rejected petitioner's claims, stating
in the Form 11369, "Claim rejected: Allegations are not
specific, credible, or are speculative."
m. Karen Foster determined, as set forth in the Form
11369:
The narrative presented does not support a violation

of tax laws. The entities named appear to be filing
and reporting unrelated business income appropriately
on Form 990T. The statutes for years preceding 2016
are short or expired. Review of BRTVU for 201606 &
201706 reflect amounts reported as unrelated business
income tax. There was no specific or credible
documentation submitted to substantiate the allegation
of a violation of tax laws and that there was
unreported unrelated business income for 2016 tax
years.
Docket No. 23105-18W - 5 -
n. In acknowledging the additional documents provided
in petitioner's October 2, 2018 letter, Karen Foster also
determined, as set forth in the Form 11369:
There was no documentation submitted by the

Whistleblower which clearly establishes that the
entities involved underreported income which would be
subject to unrelated business income tax.
o. On October 16, 2018, the Form 11369 was signed by
James St. Julien on behalf of Karen Foster's manager, Carla
Smith, and was provided to respondent's Whistleblower Office.
p. On October 23, 2018, Cindy Bracken, Whistleblower
Office's Initial Claim Evaluation ("ICE") Team, recommended in a
memorandum to Keith Dehart, Whistleblower Office's ICE Manager,
rejection of petitioner's claims based on TEGE Classification's
recommendation to reject the claims because the "Allegations are
not specific, credible, or are speculative."
q. In the Final Decision Letter, dated October 23,
2018, respondent's Whistleblower Office rejected petitioner's
claims.
r. The Final Decision Letter stated, in part:
The Whistleblower Office has considered your Form 211,

Application for Award for Original Information, dated
8/3/2018 Internal Revenue Code section 7623 provides
that an award may be paid only if the information
provided results in the collection of tax, penalties,
interest, additions to tax, or additional amounts.
The Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to
reject your claim for an award.
Docket No. 23105-18W - 6 -
The claim has been rejected because the information

provided was speculative and/or did not provide
specific or credible information regarding tax
underpayments or violations of internal revenue laws.
s. There was no administrative or judicial action
with which the Service proceeded based on the information
provided by petitioner.
t. The total proceeds in dispute (penalties,
interest, additions to tax, or additional amounts, plus any
criminal fines, civil forfeitures or violations of reporting
requirements resulting from action taken by the Service in this
case based on the information provided by the petitioner) is $0.

Docket No. 23105-18W - 7 -
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the relief sought in the
petition be denied.
WILLIAM M. PAUL
Acting Chief Counsel
Internal Revenue Service
(Signed) Terri L. Onorato

Date: By:
TERRI L. ONORATO
Attorney
(Large Business & International)
Tax Court Bar No. GT0257
701 B Street
Suite 901
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 744-7130
[email protected]
OF COUNSEL:
ROBIN GREENHOUSE
Division Counsel
EWAN D. PURKISS
Area Counsel
(Communications, Technology & Media: Oakland)
GORDON L. GIDLUND
Associate Area Counsel
US TAX COURT US TAX COURT
RECEIVED eFILED
DRC
MAY 3 2019 MAY 3 2019
7:32 PM

Petitioner,
V. Docket No. 23105-18W

Respondent
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER THAT

UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED PURSUANT TO
RULE 37(C)
US TAX COURT
D E N I E D
JUN 04 2019
1;�-
SERVED Jun 05 2019 JUDGE
11
USTAXCOURT USTAXCOURT
RECEIVED eFILED
DRC
JUN 3 2019 * JUN 3 2019
5:29 PM

Petitioner,
v- Docket No. 23105-18W

Respondent
PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER

THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED
PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C)
SERVED Jun 03 2019

JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

Docket No. 23105-18W
Petitioner Filed Electronically
v. -
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICES
Respondent, _
PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO THE RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR

ENTRY OF ORDER THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED
ADMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C)
REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S ANSWER FILED ON FEBRUARY 5, 2019

RE: WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIM
I. INTRODUCTION
By this reply, Petitioner entirely opposes Respondent's Motion for Entry
of Order that Undenied Allegations Be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to

Docket No. 23105-18 W -2-
Rule 37(C). The Respondent's Answer filed on February 5, 2019 and the
Motion filed on May 3, 2019 did not provide any remedy to the Court
which could justify relief for the Respondent.
Petitioner does not understand why Respondent is seeking relief instead
of properly investigating Petitioner's Whistleblower Claim submitted on
March 23, 2016. It seems that Respondent is representing the former
Petitioner's employer rather than the IRS's and tax payers interest.
However, per Court Order dated May 31, 2019, Petitioner is replying to
the Respondent's allegations outlined in paragraphs 8a through 8t of the
Respondent's February 5, 2019 Answer to the Petition filed by the
Petitioner on November 21, 2018.
The IRS's Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah issued a final decision
that denied, without any investigation, Petitioner's whistleblower claim
initially filed on March 23, 2016 and updated on August 3, 2018. The
Court correctly noticed in the May 13, 2019 Court Order that Petitioner
marked his November 21, 2019 Petition as a "Notice of Final
Determination Not to Abate Interest." The Petition Form has no box
titled "Final Decision Letter" or "Final Decision Under Section 7623(A)"
to be marked, thus the Petitioner marked the box that contained the words
"Notice of Final Determination Not to Abate Interest." Petitioner

Docket No. 23105-18 W -3-
apologizes to the Court and Respondent for creating confusion due the
wrong box marked.
Hopefully this Petitioner can resolve the confusion and make the Court
understand that the Petition is not about the Determination Not to Abate
Interest.
PETITIONER'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S ANSWERS,

PARAGRAPHS 8 and 8a-8t
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8
"FURTHER ANSWERING the petition, and as an affirmative defense
that the proceeds in dispute do not exceed $2 million as required by
section 7623 (b) (5) (B) of the Internal Revenue Code (as amended by the
Bipartisan Budget Act of2018, Pub. L. 115-123, Div. D,Title II, §
41108(c), Feb. 9, 2018, 132 Stat. 158), respondent alleges:"
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8
DENIED. Petitioner cannot understand from Respondent's answer how
Respondent calculated that the proceeds in dispute do not exceed $2
million and how much less than $2 million they are. Respondent's
answer is a clear admission that the crime was in the form of tax fraud
and that evasion was committed. Taking only the last statutory 10 years
(2006-2016) into consideration, the amount of taxable revenue from the
fraud due to illegal power generation easily exceeded $100 million, thus
Docket No. 23105-18 W -4-
Respondent's attorney's out-of-the blue number of less than $2 million is
simply a baseless number.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-a
"Claim number 2016-007481 is the number assigned to petitioner's Form
211, dated March 23, 2016.
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-a
ADMITTED. Respondent's Answer is a correct answer. The Petitioner's
March 23, 2016 claim, number 2016-007481, included Form 211, the 45-
page-long addendum with explanatory cover letter to the IRS
Whistleblower Office, and 35 exhibits as proof of the tax fraud.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-b
"In a Final Decision Letter, dated August 7, 2018, Respondent's
Whistleblower Office rejected claim number 2016-007481."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-b
DENIED.Respondent's Whistleblower Office should initially evaluate
and classify Petitioner's claim number 2016-007481 within 90 days in
August or September 2016 instead of rejecting it immediately without
investigation on Ausgust 7, 2018 after Respondent Petitioner's 158-
page-long update of the claim 2016-007481 with cover letter and 65

Docket No. 23105-18 W -5-
exhibits on August 6, 2018. The update should be incorporated into the
Initial Claim 2016-007481.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-c
"The Final Decision Letter dated August 7, 2018 is not in dispute in this
case."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-c
DENIED.Petitioner is not sure how Respondent's attorney, who crafted
the February 5, 2016 Respondent's Answer, which was filed on the same
day in the Court, was able to determine that the Final Decision Letter
dated August 7, 2018 is not in dispute in this case. Petitioner does not
know yet what Respondent's motivations were behind the issuance of the
August 7, 2018 Final Decision Letter for the claim, which was updated
on August 3, 2018 by Petitioner. Respondent's Whistleblower Office in
Ogden, Utah received Petitioner's update on August 6, 2018. If Petitioner
filed the Petition in U.S. Tax Court to appeal the Final Decision dated
August 7, 2018, then the Court would have to deal with two Petitions for
the same Petitioner's Whistleblower claim with different numbers
assigned by the Respondent's Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-d
"On August 10, 2018, respondent received another Form 211, dated
August 3, 2018, from petitioner."

Docket No. 23105-18 W -6-
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-d
DENIED. Respondent's Paragraph No. 8-d is a blunt lie. Respondent's
IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah received Petitioner's update of
Petitioner's March 23, 2016 Claim 2016-007481 on August 6, 2018 at
9:58 a.m not August 10, 2018. This is very important on which day in
August 2018 Whistleblower Office in Ogden , Utah received Petitioner's
update of the 2016 Claim 2016-00748.
Delivery was confirmed by Signature of Respondent's Recipient with
the name Mansley. USPS tracking number 9510 8138 1967 8215 206497.
Petitioner's August 3, 2018 update of his March 23, 2016 Whistleblower
claim caused unpreceded coordinated action against Petitioner in the
Whistleblower Office in Ogden, the State Bar of California, the three
California Courts (Sacramento County Superior Court, the Court of
Appeal, and Third Appellate District), and the Supreme Court of
California.
As Petitioner previously described, Respondent's IRS Whistleblower
office in Ogden received on August 6, 2018 Petitioner's update of the
March 23, 2016 claim, then on the next day on August 7, 2018, issued the
Final Decision Letter for Claim 2016-007481. Respondent kept
Petitioner's Claim 2016-007481 in a closet for over two years without

Docket No. 23105-18 W -7-
any investigation and then reopened the claim with four different
numbers.
Initial evaluation and classification of Petitioner's Claim 2016-007481
should have been completed within 90 days by the Whistleblower Office
in Ogden, Utah in 2016, and Petitioner's legal counsel, Mark Schlein, or
Petitioner, should have been directly informed about it.
Such a manipulative move by Respondent provided an escape route for
Mr. Schlein, who is from the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, & Goldman
Professional Law Corporation of Los Angeles, who for two years was
misleading and misrepresenting Petitioner and fed him lies about the IRS
Whistleblower Office investigation.
This was a well-established law firm headquartered in Los Angeles and
with another office in Washington, D.C. 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
assistance and evidence the government requests in order to
present the best possible case."
Docket No. 23105-18 W -8-
https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/whistleblower-claims/tax-
fraud/
Petitioner retained Mr. Schlein in May 2016 to do more research and to
professionally update his claim with the IRS and for representation in the
U.S. Tax Court.
On February 4, 2018, Petitioner sent a letter to Mr. Schlein by U.S. mail
and by e-mail reminding him that he represents me and that my claim
with the IRS needs to be updated due to Petitioner's new discovery,
which his legal representation should have taken care of.
Counsel Mark Schlein never responded to Petitioner's February 4, 2018 .
two-page inquiry and abruptly quit representing Petitioner on August 14,
2018 .
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-e
"By letter dated August 24, 2018, respondent's Whistleblower Office
notified petitioner that it received petitioner's Form 211, dated August 3,
2018, which was assigned master claim number 2018-012118 and claim
numbers 2018-012139 and 2018-012141 ("petitioner's claims")"
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-e
DENIED due Respondent manipulative answer statement. On August
24, 2018, Respondent assigned new numbers to Petitioner's update of the
March 23, 2016 claim instead of incorporating Petitioner's August 3,

Docket No. 23105-18 W -9-
2018 update into Claim 2016-007481 dated March 23, 2016 or vice
versa.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-f
"On August 24, 2018, petitioner's claims were sent to respondent's
Ogden Campus for classification."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-f
DENIED. Petitioner does not know what is the difference between
Respondent's IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden and the Ogden
Campus where Petitioner's claim update was supposedly sent for
classification.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-g
"On September 4, 2018, Marie Holt, Ogden Campus Classification,
prepared a memorandum recommending that petitioner's claims be sent
to Tax Exempt and Government Entities ("TEGE") for further review and
classification."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-g
DENIED. Petitioner knows nothing about Marie Holt's memorandum
and how Marie Holt addressed Petitioner's August 3, 2018 claim update
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 10 -
because Petitioner never received a copy of that memorandum from
Respondent's counsel.
Respondent's Answer to Paragraph No. 8-h
"On September 26, 2018, petitioner's claims were assigned to Karen
Foster, .TEGE Classification, for further review."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-h
DENIED. Petitioner knows nothing about TEGE classification. Petitioner
did not receive any documents relating to this matter from Respondent's
counsel, thus Petitioner cannot elaborate about Karen Foster's TEGE
classification.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-i
"On October 11, 2018, respondent's Whistleblower Office received a
letter from petitioner, dated October 2, 2018, wherein petitioner provided
additional documents."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-i
ADMITTED . On October 2, 2018, Petitioner sent additional documents
to the Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah which Respondent received
on October 5, 2018, according to USPS Tracking Number
9505513819668275263315.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 11 -
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-j
"By letter dated October 15, 2018, respondent's Whistleblower Office
confirmed receipt of petitioner's October 2, 2018 letter and stated
petitioner's claims were still under consideration."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-j
ADMITTED. That is correct.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-k
On October 15, 2018, Karen Foster signed a Form 11369, Confidential
Evaluation Report on Claim for Award, with respect -to petitioner's
claims."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-k
DENIED. Petitioner cannot elaborate about Karen Foster's October 15,
2018 Form 11369 Confidential Evaluation Report on Claim for Award
because Petitioner did not see this report. Besides the above, Karen
Foster's report should not be considered valid because it was generated
without including March 23, 2016 initial claim 2016-007481 report into
the evaluation process. The August 3, 2018 claim's update was an

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 12 -
integral part of Claim 2016-007481, which vanished for more than two
years.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8 -l
" Karen Foster rejected petitioner's claims, stating in the Form 11369,
"Claim rejected: Allegations are not specific, credible, or are
speculative."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-1
DENIED. Petitioner cannot elaborate about Karen Foster's October 15,
2018 Form 11369 Confidential Evaluation Report on Claim for Award
because Petitioner did not see or receive Karen Foster's report.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-m
"M. Karen Foster determined, as set forth in the Form 11369:
The narrative presented does not support a violation of tax

laws. The entities narned appear to be filing and reporting
unrelated business income appropriately on Form 990T.
The statutes for years preceding 2016 are short or expired.
Review of BRTVU for 201606 & 201706 reflect arnounts
reported as unrelated business incorne tax. There was no
specific or credible documentation submitted to
substantiate the allegation of a violation of tax laws and
that there was unreported unrelated business income for
2016 tax years."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-m

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 13 -
DENIED. Petitioner cannot elaborate about Keren Foster's Form 11369
because the copy of Form 11369 was not provided to Petitioner.
As Petitioner previously described, Petitioner's initial March 23, 2016
claim 2016-007481 was discarded by Respondent in August 2018
without any investigation. The August 3, 2018 update of the 2016 initial
claim instead had to be integrated into the 2016 claim, and the
Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah relabeled the update with new
numbers as a new claim. The unrelated business income, whether it was
reported or not in general by Petitioner's former employer and others,
was not so much of a concern to Petitioner. The initial March 23, 2016
claim 2016-007481 was the master claim, yet it was kept by
Respondent's IRS Whistleblower Office in a closet without investigation
and in violation of the Whistleblower Office's own 90-day initial claim
classification and evaluation of the claim. In his March 23, 2016 initial or
master claim 2016-007481, Petitioner focused on the unlawful operation
of the 27 MW cogeneration power plant located and operated in the
University of California's UC Davis Medical Center. The plant was built,
commissioned, and operated since 1998 in the same manner as the illegal
underground casino with hundreds of slot machines that was built and
operated by an organized crime network. The 27MW cogeneration power
plant could provide 24/7 non-stop electricity for a city populated with
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 14 -
20,000 people. This will give the Court an idea of how much untaxed
dirty money the owners of this plant cashed out since 1998.
This 27 MW cogeneration power plant triggered in May 2000 a more
sophisticated scheme of fraud titled the "California Energy Crisis," which
cost California tax payers and ratepayers $40 billion in losses.
In May 2016, Petitioner hired a professional law corporation that should
have gotten to the bottom of the fraud and learned who was the real
owner of the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration facility,
which was built and commissioned in 1998 at a cost of $65 million in a
place where the demand for power was less than 5 MW/h. The plant was
and is a total fraud and was built and operated in violation of every
possible state and federal law that applied to cogeneration facilities,
included and not limited to violation of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the requirements of 18 C.F.R. §§
292.203(b) and 292.205 on the operation, efficiency, and use of energy
output for certification as a QF pursuant to 18C.F.R. § 292.20; Federal
Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a); California Public Utilities Code Section
218.5; State of California Unfair Business Competition Law; Business
and Professions Code § 17200; Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954; and State of California Revenue and Taxation Code to
produce and sell illegal power.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 15 -
Petitioner's attorney, Mark Schlein, of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, &
Goldman Professional Law Corporation of Los Angeles, who resides in
the State of Florida, obviously collaborated with the IRS Whistleblower
Office to keep Petitioner in the dark for over two years knowing that
Petitioner was preoccupied with his two lawsuits against his employer in
the State of California Courts. Since December 2014, Petitioner has been
representing himself in his wrongful termination lawsuit and writ of
mandate against his former employer , the University of California .
Schlein misled and misrepresented Petitioner, thus forcing Petitioner to
update his March 23, 2016 claim 2016-007481 in August 2018.
Petitioner's update caused a panic with Petitioner's legal counsel from
Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, & Goldman and with Respondent's IRS
Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah, which reacted sharply after
receiving Petitioner's claim update. The violation by the Whistleblower
Office in Ogden of its own rules in regards to Petitioner's claim and
obvious collaboration against Petitioner has triggered Petitioner's
complaint against the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, and with the
Office of the Inspector General for Tax Administration Case No. TRN-1
901-0171(pending).
Respondent's statement that "The statutes for years preceding 2016
are short or expired." is total nonsense. The statutes did not expire for
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 16 -
the years preceding 2016. Petitioner filed the claim on March 23, 2016
and it is not Petitioner's fault that the IRS Whistleblower Office
obviously conspired with Petitioner's attorney Mark Schlein and kept
Petitioner's complaint in a closet for over two years instead of evaluating
and classifying the claim within 90 days and pursuing or denying the
claim.
By the August 3, 2018 update, Petitioner provided power generation data
from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant. In the
period 2006-2015, the plant produced 825,916.51 MW/h, which was
worth a retail price of approximately $156,923,756 gross, taking into
consideration an average retail price in California of $190 per MW/h
after energy market deregulation. The net profit would be between $100
million and $115 million from the illegally generated power.
Hypothetically, even if the IRS Whistleblower Office considered that
statutes for years preceding 2016 are short or expired, then the statutes
had not expired between 2008 and 2018, the illegal generation of power
by UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant did not stop,
and the owners of the plant still cashed millions of untaxable dollars.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-n

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 17 -
In acknowledging the additional documents provided in petitioner's
October 2, 2018 letter, Karen Foster also determined, as set forth in the
Form 11369:
There was no documentation submitted by the Whistleblower which
clearly establishes that the entities involved underreported income which
would be subject to unrelated business income tax."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-n
DENIED. Petitioner believes that Respondent's IRS Whistleblower
Office staff and Respondent's attorneys from the IRS Chief Counsel
Office know that white collar criminals do not report their white collars
crimes to the IRS, the FBI, or other law enforcement agencies, and they
do not pay taxes. Respondent received all necessary documents to pursue
the investigation in 2016 and discover how many millions of untaxed
dirty dollars are at stake. Petitioner showed in his August 3, 2018 update
and in his Answer No. 8-m that stakes are very high in this case.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-o
"On October 16, 2018, the Form 11369 was signed by James St. Julien on
behalf of Karen Foster's manager, Carla Smith, and was provided to
respondent's Whistleblower Office."

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 18 -
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-o
DENIED. Respondent's answer No.8-0 is confusing. From the previous
Respondent's answers, Petitioner understood that Karen Foster was in
charge of the investigation and the Form 11369 Confidential Evaluation
Report on the claim. It is a mystery why Karen Foster, who conducted
the investigation and wrote the report, did not signed it. Who is James St.
Julien, does he know anything about the case, and why did he sign the
report?
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-p
On October 23, 2018, Cindy Bracken, Whistleblower Office's Initial
Claim Evaluation ("ICE") Team, recommended in a memorandum to
Keith I . Dehart, Whistleblower Office's ICE Manager, rejection of
petitioner's claims based on TEGE Classification'-s recommendation to
reject the claims because the "Allegations are not specific, credible, or are
speculative."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-p
DENIED. Respondent in the Answer Paragraph No. 8-p stated facts
which shows further that Whistleblower Office did not nothing thus
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 19 -
Petitioner has nothing to admit. Petitioner in the previous section
explained why he totally disagrees with Respondent's answers and
Respondent's decision to swept the whole matter under the rug and
discard Petitioner's March 23, 2016 claim 2016-007481, after claim
vanished for over two years.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-q
"In the Final Decision Letter, dated October 23, 2018, respondent's
Whistleblower Office rejected petitioner's claims"
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-q
DENIED Petitioner on October 2018, he received Respondent's
Whistleblower's baseless groundless "Final Decision Letter" October
23, 2018 with which Petitioner disagreed and filed a Petition with the
U.S. Tax Court on November 21, 2018 to commence this case.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-r
"The Final Decision Letter stated, in part:
The Whistleblower Office has considered your Form 211,

Application for Award for Original Inforrnation, dated
8/3/2018 Internal Revenue Code section 7623 provides
that an award may be paid only if the information
provided results in the collection of tax, penalties, interest,
additions to tax, or additional amounts. The
Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to reject
your claim for an award.
The claim has been rejected because the information
provided was speculative and/or did not provide specific
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 20 -
or credible information regarding tax underpayments or

violations of internal revenue laws."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-r
DENIED. Petitioner admits only that in October 2018 he received
Respondent's Whistleblower's baseless "Final Decision Letter" dated
October 23, 2018 with which Petitioner disagreed and filed a Petition
with the U.S. Tax Court on November 21, 2018 to commence this case.
Nothing was speculative in the Petitioner's March 23, 2016 initial claim
and his claim updated on August 23, 2018. The initial March 23, 2016
claim and August 23, 2018 update were backed up by hundreds of pages
of documents and exhibits with credible information of white collar
crime activities in the University of California Office of the President
(UCOP) and collaboration in the fraud of other entities.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-s
"There was no administrative or judicial action with which the Service

proceeded based on the information provided by petitioner."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-s
DENIED. Obviously Respondent a different goal than judicial or
administrative action against white collar criminals from the University

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 21 -
of California and their collaborators from different state entities, and kept
Petitioner in the dark for over two years.
Respondent's Answer Paragraph No. 8-t
"The total proceeds in dispute (penalties, interest, additions to tax, or
additional amounts, plus any criminal fines, civil forfeitures or violations
of reporting requirements resulting from action taken by the Service in
this case based on the information provided by the petitioner) is $0."
Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-t
DENIED. Petitioner in his replies to 8a-8t shows clearly to the U.S. Tax
Court how Respondent's IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah,
pursued Petitioner's initial March 23, 2016 claim 2016-007481 and his
very detailed update dated August 3, 2018.
Petitioner prays that the relief sought in the Petition be granted by the
U.S. Tax Court to Petitioner.
Dated June 3, 2019
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Petitioner Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (833) 817-7080
E-mail: jjw_1980@livAcorn
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 22 -
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper PETITIONER'S

OPPOSITION TO THE RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
ORDER THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED
ADMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C) was served on June 3, 2019
by Electronic Mail to:
Darrick D. Sun
Gordon L. Gidlund
Terri L. Ornato
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES

Office of Chief Counsel
Large Business & International
701 B Street, Suite 901
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 : [email protected]
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 23 -
US TAX COURT US TAX COURT
RECEIVED eFILED
DRC
MAY 3 2019 MAY 3 2019
7:32 PM

Petitioner,
V. Docket No. 23105-18W

Respondent
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER THAT

UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED PURSUANT TO
RULE 37(C)
US TAX COURT
D E N I E D
JUN 04 2019
1;�-
SERVED Jun 05 2019 JUDGE
university of Califomia - Policy BFB-A-61
BFB-A-61: Unrelated Business Income and

Expenses
Responsible Officer: EVP - Chief Financial Officer
Responsible Office: FO - Financial Operations
issuance Date: 1/17/2012
Effective Date: 1/17/2012

This policy applies to the income and expenses of
unrelated business activities conducted by the University
of California campuses. This policy does not apply to the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), or to
campus entities which are separately incorporated or
exempt under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code (Code). Examples of such entities include:
Scope: • ASUC-operated enterprises;
• Foundations;
• Alumni associations; and
• Faculty clubs.
Those entities are responsible for filing their own annual
information and income tax retums with the IRS and the
Franchise Tax Board.
Contact: John Barrett

Email: [email protected]
Phone #: (510) 987-0903
1. POLICY SUMMARY
lt is the policy of the University to comply with IRS regulations, which includes
filing the Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return (IRS Form 990-T)
for Unrelated Business Income Taxes (UBIT). Therefore, all unrelated business
income and expenses carried on by the University will be properly distributed and
recorded in the revenue and expense accounts assigned to the unrelated
business activity to determine federal UBIT.
1 of 11
BFB-A-61: Unrelated Business Income and Expenses
ll. POLICY TEXT
A. Income
1. Unrelated Business Income

Gross income (revenue) from an unrelated trade or business activity
regularly pursued by the University must be recorded in the revenue
account(s) assigned to the activity. If no unique revenue account is
assigned to the activity, the campus should maintain detailed records
that segregate the department's unrelated business income from all
other income. The department may use data or special sampling
studies to estimate income attributable to the unrelated business
activity.
2. Publication Activities
a. Advertising income
Under the Code, income received by the University from the sale
of commercial advertising in a campus newspaper, journal, or
other periodical is gross income from an unrelated trade or
business, and does not constitute an exempt activity (i.e., the
publication and distribution of the readership content of the
periodical). Accordingly, the allocation of depreciation and other
indirect costs to advertising activities is subject to more stringent
rules than for non-advertising unrelated business activities (see
Section ll.B.4.).
b. Circulation Income
Circulation income refers to all income (other than advertising
income) received by the University from the production,
distribution, or circulation of a periodical. Circulation income also
includes amounts realized from reprints of articles and the sale of
back issues. Circulation income is generally not taxable, provided
that the editorial content of the publication relates to the
accomplishment of the University's exempt purposes.
3. Mixed Lease Income

Rents from real property are not subject to the UBIT. In addition, the
Code provides that rents from personal property leased with real
property are excluded whereas the rents attributable to the personal
property are incidental (i.e., 10% or less of the total rents received
under the lease) as determined when the personal property is first
placed in service. The general exclusion does not apply if the real or
personal property rentals are based on net income or profits or if
substantial services are provided for the convenience of the occupant.
2 of 11
in a mixed lease where the rent attributable to personal property is

more than 50% of the total rent, none of the rent (including the rent
from real property) is excludable from tax. If the rent attributable to
personal property is 11% to 50% of the total rents, then only the
personal property rent is taxable.
B. Direct Costs
1. Nature and Extent
Costs (or expenses) directly connected with the conduct of an
unrelated business activity shall be charged to the activity. To qualify
as a deduction in computing unrelated business taxable income, an
item (1) must otherwise be an allowable deduction for income tax
purposes and (2) also must be directly connected with the carrying on
of the unrelated business activity. Under the Code, to be directly
connected with the conduct of an unrelated business, the item must
have a proximate and primary relationship to the carrying on of that
business.
Under Business and Finance Bulletin A-47, University Direct Costing
Procedures, examples of direct costs include salaries and wages
(when the effort devoted and the benefit derived are directly identifiable
with a specific activity); associated employee benefits costs; supplies
and other general expenditures (such as travel, storehouse purchases,
and garage and telephone charges); equipment purchases; and, for
self-sustaining operations, equipment, depreciation, operations and
maintenance of plant, and campus general administrative support
recharges.
The cost of interest paid to third parties associated with fixed assets
used in support of an unrelated business activity shall be charged to
the activity as a direct cost. However, any interest paid or incurred
during the production period of the fixed asset must be capitalized.
Such fixed assets include buildings acquired or constructed, major
reconstruction or remodeling of existing buildings, and the acquisition
or fabrication of capital equipment. The interest paid must pertain to a
debt of the University and must result from a debtor-creditor
relationship based on an enforceable obligation to pay a fixed or
determinable sum of money.
2. Expenses Attributable Solely to Unrelated Business Activities
Expenses attributable solely to the conduct of an unrelated business

activity must be charged in full to the activity. For example, the costs of
supplies used entirely in the conduct of an unrelated business activity
3 of 11
University of Califomia - Policy BFB-A-61
are directly connected with the activity and should be charged in full to
the activity.
3. Ex•enses Attributable to the Dual Use of Personnel or Facilities
When personnel or facilities are used to conduct both exempt activities
and unrelated business activities, the expenses and similar items
attributable to such personnel and facilities must be allocated between
the two uses on a reasonable basis. Depreciation, operation, and
maintenance costs associated with the use of a facility are allocated
either by the corporate Indirect Cost System (ICS) or by comparable
campus-based costing systems (see Section ll.C.). The distribution
method which most accurately reflects the actual costs associated with
conducting the unrelated business activity should be used to assign
expenses to the activity. The method selected may vary with the nature
of the cost item. However, the method adopted must be consistently
applied.
a. Dual Use of Personnel

The salaries, benefits, and related expenses of personnel used
both for exempt and unrelated business activities should be
allocated based on the percent of time or effort devoted to each
activity. The time or effort attributable to the unrelated activity may
be documented by time records or by an annual statement of
estimated effort signed by the employee.
b. Use of Facilities by the General Public
Athletic or parking facilities are examples of campus facilities.
Direct costs associated with the use of a campus facility by the
general public for a nonexempt purpose should be determined
based on the percent of time the facility is actually used for
exempt and nonexempt activities. For instance, if a facility is not
available for use by the public at certain times because of campus
events or activities, the costs attributable to these exempt
functions should not be included in the allocation of costs to the
unrelated activity. The remaining costs associated with the
period(s) of time when the facility is available for use by both
University members and the general public may be allocated
based on the relative amount of sales revenue attributable to
each user group. However, if the fee paid by the general public is
larger because of a surcharge, the surcharge must be deducted
from the unrelated revenue (and total revenue) before calculating
the percentage of unrelated use to total use.
4 of 11
4. Ex•enses Attributable to Publication Activities

The Code contains special rules for the allocation of direct expenses
attributable to the sale and publication of commercial advertising in a
campus periodical. First, the total costs of the periodical must be
established. Periodical costs consist of direct advertising costs and
readership (or circulation) costs. Costs associated with teaching,
research, or other exempt activities of the department may not be
allocated to the periodical. Any costs pertaining both to the periodical
and other exempt functions must be allocated on a reasonable and
consistent basis.
After the total periodical costs have been identified, the costs
benefiting advertising and readership activities must be determined.
a. Advertising Costs
Direct advertising costs consist of the following categories of
expenses:
i. Costs attributable solely to the selling and publishing of
advertising, such as salaries, commissions, transportation,
travel, promotion, research, telephone, postage, artwork, and
copy preparation may be charged in full to advertising.
ii. Salaries, benefits, and related expenses of personnel

performing both advertising and circulation activities should be
allocated based on the percent of time or effort devoted to
each activity as provided in Section ll.B.3.a.
iii. Mechanical and distribution costs and other shared expenses

benefiting both advertising and circulation activities may be
allocated on the basis of advertising lineage (or page space)
to total periodical lineage (or page space) if the departmental
records are insufficient to permit a more precise allocation of
such costs. Examples of mechanical and distribution costs
include composition, press work, binding, paper, mailing, and
bulk postage. Such expenses charged to advertising must not
include any costs attributable to producing or distributing the
periodical's readership content.
b. Readership Costs
Readership costs include those expenses directly connected with
the production and distribution of the readership content of the
periodical (to the extent not allocated to advertising under the
policies above).
5 of 11
5. Expenses Attributable to Mixed Leases
Expenses attributable to a mixed lease are allocable to the taxable

portion of the rental income, if any, depending on the percentage of
personal property rents to the total rents received under the
agreement. If the rents attributable to personal property are greater
than 50% of the total rents received, then all direct costs; associated
with the real and personal property rentals should be charged to the
activity. If the rents attributable to personal property are 11% to 50% of
the total rents received, then only those costs directly connected with
the personal property may be charged to the activity.
C. Indirect Costs
In addition to direct costs, indirect costs will also be charged to an unrelated
business activity in accordance with Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-21, Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Grants,
Contracts, and Other Agreements with Educational Institutions. The
principles are designed to ensure that the Federal government bears its fair
share of total accepted costs, determined in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, except where restricted by law.
Indirect costs are first allocated to the department conducting the unrelated
business activity by the ICS or comparable campus-based systems. Indirect
costs assigned to the department by the ICS are then allocated to the
unrelated business activity using the procedures set forth in Circular A-21.
1. Indirect Cost Allocations-Nonadvertising Activities
Allocations of indirect costs to nonadvertising activities will be made
from the following five cost pools (allocations from additional cost
pools, such as the student administration and library cost pools, may
be made, if appropriate, in conformance with Circular A-21):
a. Building Use Allowance
The building use allowance is calculated by applying the 2% use
allowance rate to the non-Federal acquisition cost of the building.
The building use allowance for each building is then distributed to
departments within the building based on the assignable square
feet (ASF) occupied by the department. The departmental share
of the building use allowance is allocated to the unrelated
business activity based on the salaries and wages of the
personnel charged to the activity.
b. Equipment Use Allowance and Depreciation
Equipment use allowance and depreciation costs are calculated
for each department's equipment inventory. Only one method of
6 of 11
cost recovery is used for each class of assets established in the
University's CALCODE system. Under the use allowance method,
the allowance is calculated at an annual rate of 6-2/3% of the
non-Federal acquisition cost of the equipment. The depreciation
method used is straight-line, less salvage value and any use
allowance previously taken on the item. The period of useful life
applicable to the asset is based on the CALCODE Equipment
Class Table. The sum of the departmental equipment use
allowance and depreciation costs is then allocated to the
unrelated business activity based on the salaries and wages of
the personnel charged to the activity.
c. Operations and Maintenance

The cost of operations and maintenance (OM) is allocated to
buildings based on various methods depending on the nature of
the cost item. For example, grounds maintenance costs are
allocated based on the linear feet associated with the outside
perimeter of the building; janitorial costs are allocated based on
the number of janitors permanently assigned to each building; and
utilities costs are allocated based on the building's consumption of
gas and electricity. The OM costs are then aggregated by building
and allocated to the departments within the building based on the
ASF assigned to the department. The departmental share of the
total building OM costs is allocated to the unrelated business
activity based on the salaries and wages of the personnel
charged to the activity.
d. General Administration
The costs of general administration (GA) incurred for each
campus (e.g., Chancellor's Office, Accounting Office, etc.) are
allocated to departments based on the modified total direct costs
(MTDC) of each department. Under Circular A-21, MTDC
consists of salaries and wages, fringe benefits, materials and
supplies, services, travel, and subgrants and subcontracts up to
$25,000 each. Then the departmental share of GA costs is
allocated to the unrelated business activity based on the MTDC of
the activity.
e. Departmental Administration
The costs of departmental administration (DA) consist of the
department's own administrative costs, plus its share of the
Dean's Office costs. The Dean's costs are allocated to
departments under the Dean's responsibility based on the MTDC
of each department. The department's allocation of the Dean's
costs is then aggregated with the department's own administrative
7 of 11
costs and distributed to the unrelated business activity based on
the MTDC of the activity.
2. Indirect Cost Allocations-Advertisin. Activities

The Code provides that indirect costs associated with a periodical must
first be allocated to the exempt function of the periodical. Accordingly,
allocations from the cost pools described in Section ll.C.1. will be
made initially to circulation or readership activities. The share of the
periodical's indirect costs attributable to advertising may be claimed
only as an expense under the following conditions:
a. The advertising activity is profitable (i.e., gross advertising income
of the periodical exceeds direct advertising costs); and
b. The circulation activity is not profitable (i.e., the total direct and
indirect costs attributable to producing and distributing the
readership content of the periodical exceed circulation income).
Thus, if the advertising activity is profitable, the excess, if any, of
readership expenses over circulation income may be distributed to the
unrelated activity. However, the allocation of the excess readership
expenses may not result in an advertising loss (i.e., the advertising
income can be reduced to zero but not less). Under these rules,
therefore, advertising income will be taxed only if the periodical
produces an overall profit.
D. Funding Tax Liability
Unrelated business taxable income reported by the University would be
subject to the normal corporate income tax rates. Unrelated business
taxable income is defined in the Code as the aggregate of gross income
from all of an organization's unrelated businesses, regularly carried on, less
the aggregate of deductions allowed with respect to all such unrelated
businesses. Any tax liability incurred by the University would be assessed
against the campuses with unrelated business taxable income. The
determination of each campus' unrelated business taxable income would be
net of any carry forward or carry back losses available to the campus.
8 of 11
University of California - Policy BFB-A-61
111. COMPLIANCE / RESPONSIBILITIES
Function Responsibilities
Executive Vice President-Chief Financial Officer • Establishing and updating the policies set forth
in this Bulletin.
Department Heads • Ensure that income and expenses are

distributed properly between the department's
exempt functions and unrelated functions.
Ensure that detailed records are maintained
that segregate the department's unrelated and
related income if a unique revenue account is
not assigned to the activity.
Ensure that costs associated with teaching,
research, or other exempt activities of the
department are not allocated to the publication
activities.
Ensure that indirect costs assigned to the
department by the ICS are then allocated to the
unrelated business activity using the
procedures set forth in Circular A-21.
Familiarize themselves with unrelated business
income guidelines.
Notify the campus tax coordinator (or
appropriate person) about activities which
generate over $10,000 of outside revenue.
Consult with the campus tax coordinator (or
appropriate person) when planning an activity
that has unrelated business income tax
potential.
UCOP Finance Department • Determines the tax status of each new activity
with a potential for generating unrelated
business income, based on the Nonfinancial
Questionnaire completed annually by the
campus.
IV. PROCEDURES
A. University's Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Retum (Form 990-T)
Any organization exempt under Section 501(c) of the Code must file Form 990-T if it has
gross income from an unrelated trade or business of $1,000 or more. The activities
included in the tax retum typically involve the sale of goods or services to the general
public or outside organizations or the sale of consumer advertising in University
9 of 11
publications. Since FY 1980-81, the University has filed a consolidated Form 990-T
reporting on the unrelated business activities operated by the campuses. The
University, however, is not subject to the State franchise or corporation income tax.
Because of its status as an instrumentality of the State of California, the University is not
required to file annual tax or information returns with the Franchise Tax Board.
In general, a commercial-type activity operated by the University will be subject to

Federal income tax if it is:
1. A trade or business,
2. Regularly carried on, and
3. Not substantially related to the University's exempt purposes (aside from the need
of the University to raise funds or the use it makes of the profits).
However, even if an activity meets all three criteria it may be exempt from taxation if it
satisfies one of several exceptions contained in the Code. For example, activities
performed by volunteers or for the convenience of University students, faculty, staff, or
patients are typically exempt. In most cases, income derived from royalties, research, or
rents from real property is also exempt from the unrelated business income tax.
B. Nonfinancial Questionnaire
The tax status of each new activity with a potential for generating unrelated business
income will be determined by the Finance Division, Office of the President, based on the
Nonfinancial Questionnaire completed annually by the campus. Completion of the
Questionnaire may also be required for an established activity if the activity has
changed its mode or scope of operations. Changes in the Code, Income Tax
Regulations, federal court decisions, or other circumstances may also require that the
Questionnaire be prepared for an activity. The income and direct expenses of the
activities determined to be taxable will be reported to the Finance Division on the
Financial Worksheet prepared for each activity. The Financial Worksheets and
Instructions establish the mechanism for distributing the income and expenses of a
department between its exempt and unrelated functions.
V. RELATED INFORMATION
• BFB-A-47, University Direct Costing Procedures
• BFB-A-56, Academic Support Unit Costing and Billing Guidelines
• BFB-BUS-72, Establishment of Auxiliary Enterprises

Intemal Revenue Code Sections:
• Section 501 Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.
10 of 11
University of California - Policy BFB-A-61
• Section 511 Imposition of tax on unrelated business income of charitable, etc.,

organizations
• Section 512 Unrelated business taxable income
• Section 513 Unrelated trade or business
• Section 514 Unrelated debt-financed income
• Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21, Principles for Determining Costs
Applicable to Grants, Contracts, and Other Agreements with Educational Institutions
VI. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

N/A
Vll. REVISION HISTORY
• March 15, 1990: Originally Published

• November 13, 2007: Revised
• January 17, 2012: Revised to conform to the official policy template, and to
update organizational titles.
11 of 11
. Section 4: Tax Laws and Regulations

To comply with tax regulations, each DA must ensure that appropriate personnel are
informed of the various tax authority requirements applicable to their operations. In
general, taxes applicable to University operations include:
1. Sales and use tax on certain sale and purchase transactions as required by the
California State Board of Equalization. Purchases made for resale are generally
exempt in cases where the seller obtains evidence from the purchaser such as a
certificate of resale. Otherwise:
1. Departments that conduct sales activities must charge sales tax and properly
account for sales tax collected by coding related deposits against sales tax
payable account numbers designated by UCOP Payroll and Tax Services; and
2. Departments making purchases must include a provision for such taxes when
making orders. Further, they must ensure these payments have been included on
their invoice payments or through other charging methods used by the UCLA
Office of Accounting Services, which is responsible for the actual filing and
remitting of sales and use tax payments.
2. Income tax on income-producing activities which constitute a regularly-carried-on
trade or business that is not related to the furtherance of educational activities.
Consequently, employees who are engaged in such activities must:
1. Maintain information that supports whether or not a particular activity is subject
to mcome tax;
2. Notify UCOP Payroll and Tax Services of any income taxable activities and
complete the various questionnaires and worksheets prescribed by UCOP
Payroll and Tax Services; and
3. Account for all taxable income earned in an income-producing fund approved
by Corporate Accounting, which is responsible for the actual completion of the
Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return.
3. Federal and State income taxes assessed on University employee base salary and
wages, supplemental pay, undocumented reimbursements, and various allowances
(such as car and housing) in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and
California Revenue and Taxation Code. In this process:
1. The UCLA Payroll Office is responsible for withholding taxes on compensation
based upon the individual's Form W-4, Employees' Withholding Allowance
Certificate on file. This office is also responsible for remitting the actual tax
1
payments to the Federal and State governments, completing the required

quarterly tax returns, and distributing Forms W-2 Wage and Tax Statements to
employees; and
2. Departments at UCOP are responsible for submitting accurate and timely data to
payroll for the completion of these forms, and determining whether individuals
are to be considered employees or contractors for tax purposes.
4. Income paid to payees outside the university (such as payment of fees, commission,
rents, and royalties) or University employees (such as prizes and awards) must be
accumulated and reported as taxable income. In this process:
1. Departments must provide tax identification numbers when processing these
types of payment transactions; and
2. The UCLA Office of Accounting Services is responsible for reporting this
information to the payees via annual reporting forms such as the Forms 1099,
W-2, or 1042S.
5. The University is generally exempt from paying property taxes. When necessary,
the UCOP Facilities Administration Department will file the exemption reports and
claims to receive refunds of such taxes paid on leased property for UCOP
departments.
13ack to top
• Section 5: Reporting Fraudulent or Illegal Acts

Any person who becomes aware of fraudulent or illegal business transactions
conducted in the name of the University shall properly report the fraudulent or illegal
act. This includes:
1. Any person who suspects that fraud or illegal activities are taking place in his or
her department must report that suspicion immediately to their immediate
supervisor. If the employee believes that the supervisor is involved, or is otherwise
uncomfortable reporting in this manner, he or she must immediately notify the
University Auditor. Supervisors to whom such reports are made must review them,
and if they have merit, report them to the next level of management or to the
University Auditor. For complete guidance on reporting irregularities, see Business
and Finance Bulletin G 29 - Procedures for Investigating Misuse of University
Resources.
2. Individuals conducting business on behalf of the University are personally
responsible for the consequences of any violations they commit.
2
3. Individuals conducting business on behalf of the University must do so for the

benefit of the University. Where a potential for personal gain exists, this potential
conflict of interest must be reported immediately, and be carefully evaluated before
any financial transactions are allowed to occur.
Back to top
Section 6: Response and Resolution of External Audit Findings from Regulatory

Agencies
Responding to external audit findings from regulatory agencies includes ensuring the
following:
1. The University Auditor is notified prior to commencement of any audit or review
by an external regulatory agency; and
2. A full investigation of the facts is conducted to ensure accuracy of any findings.
1. If a finding is in error, full documentation must be sent immediately to the
UCOP External Audit Coordinator.
2. If a finding is valid, corrective action must be taken immediately to correct the
deficiency and ensure the situation does not recur.
3. Where findings result in disallowances, departments must cover the
disallowances with other department funds. If a department does not take
prompt action, central accounting departments may step in to take action. Where
findings result in extrapolated disallowances, the Vice President - Financial
Management will review the circumstances and decide upon an appropriate
allocation of the disallowance.
3
Office of the Chief Financial Officer

. OVERVIEW
. STAFF
. STRATEGIC INVESTMENT
UCOP financial policy
1. Financial Accountability
o Section 1: Delegations of Responsibility
The Office of the President is structured along divisional lines and each
division head has programmatic and administrative responsibility for the areas
under their jurisdiction. Division heads report to the President. The Senior
Vice President - Business and Finance, as chief operating officer of the Office
of the President, is responsible for development of policy for, and oversight
of, the business practices and financial systems for the Office of the President.
Each division head has responsibility for assuring that business practices and
financial systems are in compliance with these policies. As part of the
oversight responsibility, each division head delegates responsibility and
accountability for the financial management of UCOP resources to functional
units (departments) at UCOP. Each UCOP department is responsible for
managing its own financial resources.
The head of each department, while responsible for managing the department's
financial resources, will normally delegate the overall financial management
administration to a Department Administrator (DA). The DA is responsible
for developing an appropriate structure for handling the department's financial
resources. This will involve delegating a variety of tasks to employees within
the department.
Each department head and DA shall be responsible for developing an

accountability structure that adheres to the following principles:
1. Accountability cannot be delegated.
2. A person cannot delegate greater responsibility than he or she has.
1
3. Tasks shall only be delegated to people who are qualified to perform them.
A qualified person must:
1. be actively involved in the tasks being performed;
2. have the appropriate knowledge and technical skills to perform those
tasks, including knowledge of relevant regulations and policies; and
3. have the authority to carry out the tasks.
4. A person delegating tasks is responsible for ensuring that those tasks are
being properly performed.
5. The DA must keep a complete, up-to-date record of the delegations, as
well as an audit trail of modifications to them. The DA must ensure that
delegations are appropriately decided and communicated, documented, and
periodically reviewed for accuracy, completeness and effectiveness.
6. The DA must designate an individual with responsibility for updating the
Distributed Administrative Computing Security System (DACSS) to grant
access to department employees to prepare, review, or inquire against on-
line systems.
Back to top
o Section 2: Preparing and Reviewing Budgetary and Financial Transactions

Two people will be required to process each financial transaction. The first
person (Preparer) enters information about the transaction, and the second
person (Reviewer) reviews each financial transaction to ensure that the
Preparer has properly fulfilled his or her function. Both a Preparer and
Reviewer must be involved in each budgetary or financial transaction.
1. A Preparer must:
1. understand all relevant regulatory requirements, the UCLA systems, the
UCOP policies, and the purpose of each transaction;
2. enter accurate data into all fields on a transaction document or
application system screen;
3. record an accurate and thorough explanation of each transaction;
4. ensure that the proper Full Accounting Units (FAUs) are entered;
5. ensure that any new account and fund linkages requested are
appropriate;
6. be aware of basic policy, regulatory, and other requirements;
7. resolve any questions which come to mind during the completion of the
transaction, or are raised via on-line edits and related messages; and
2
8. forward the completed transaction, with any supporting documents, to a

Reviewer.
2. A Reviewer must:
1. review all transactions within two working days of receipt;
2. inspect each transaction to ensure the Preparer properly fulfilled his or
her responsibilities;
3. ensure that each transaction complies with policy, regulatory, and other
requirements;
4. resolve all questions that arise concerning a transaction, or ensure the
transaction is reversed until the questions are resolved;
5. notify the DA if he or she will be absent from work for two or more
business days, so another Reviewer can be assigned; and
6. notify the DA when he or she is returning to work from an absence of
two or more business days.
Back to top
o Section 3: Signature Responsibility and Financial Stewardship

University management formally delegates signature responsibility to provide
a method to control who may approve financial transactions and to meet the
University's financial stewardship responsibilities. UCOP employees who
have been delegated signature authority should understand the University's
financial stewardship philosophy, applicable policies, regulations, rules and
laws.
Financial stewardship is defined as the responsibility for managing University

resources wisely and executing these responsibilities with integrity and ethical
conduct. These resources include time, money, people and property. When
UCOP employees manage public resources in an efficient, economical and
ethical manner, the result will be better achievement of the University's
overall missions of teaching, research and public service.
Stewardship responsibilities encompass total oversight of the resources

assigned to each employee as well as those resources available for use.
Financial stewardship responsibilities include:
1. Spending money wisely and monitoring expenditures as if they were your
own.
3
2. Purchasing goods and services wisely.

3. Helping others in their financial stewardship efforts.
4. Being accountable for your actions, equipment, funding and time.
5. Encouraging others to be good stewards of their resources.
Back to top
2. Financial Management
a Section 1: Budgeting Financial Resources
Each operating department at UCOP requires fmancial resources in order to
perform its role in the University's mission of research, teaching and public
service. Each DA is responsible for ensuring that the department manages
financial resources in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Each department head and DA shall adopt the following practices to ensure
sound financial management:
1. A budget must be established annually by the department, and reviewed
and approved by the department head. All budget augmentation requests
must be reviewed and approved by UCOP Budget Administration. The
budget provides a tool to project resources necessary to achieve a
department's goals and objectives.
2. Actual financial results must be compared to the budget on a regular basis
to detect changes in circumstances or the business environment, identify
and/or correct transaction errors and measure fmancial performance. When
actual financial results vary significantly fi-om the budget, a manager must
determine the cause, evaluate the activity, and take corrective action.
3. Departments must operate within their budget. When expenditures exceed
budget, justification for such excess must be provided to the department
head. The department head and DA must develop a formal plan to
eliminate deficits generated.
Back to top
o Section 2: Monitoring and Evaluating Financial Data

Each department head and DA must establish monitoring procedures to
provide assurance that financial transactions are appropriate and are accurately
4
recorded. Procedures for monitoring and evaluating financial data must

include:
1. Utilizing monthly financial reports that are clear and concise, provide
budget vs. actual comparisons, and identify trends and special areas of
concern.
2. Developing a method for reviewing revenue and expenses at the end of
each ledger cycle, including identification of the individual(s) responsible
for performing the reconciliation procedures.
3. Ensuring that staff reconcile transactions appearing on the general ledger in
a timely manner at the end of each accounting period. All transactions
must be verified for:
1. Amount;
2. Account classification (FAU);
3. Description; and
4. Proper accounting period.
4. A monthly sampling and review of individual financial transactions by a
supervisor to ensure transactions are appropriately approved, accurately
recorded and supported by proper documentation.
5. For each significant deviation, an exammation must be completed to
determine why the deviation occurred. A method for taking corrective
action must be established, including complete documentation of the
deviation and the corrective action.
Back to top
o Section 3: Safeguarding University Assets

University assets must be safeguarded from loss or unauthorized use.
Adequate safeguards include the following:
1. All cash, checks or cash equivalents collected at major and sub cashiering
stations, and all petty cash funds, are processed and managed in
compliance with the requirements of BUS-49 Cashiering Responsibilities
and Guidelines.
2. All department assets are properly described and accounted for in the
Financial System. Actual physical assets, as recorded in the equipment
inventory system, are compared to assets recorded in the Financial System
at least once per year. Discrepancies are resolved in a timely manner, and
adjustments to asset records must be documented and approved.
s
3. Access to any forms or on-line systems that can be used to alter financial
balances must be restricted to employees who require such access to
perform their University duties.
Back to top
3. Data Integrity
o Section 1: Managing University Data
Financial management decisions affect every aspect of the University, but
such decisions can only be as good as the data on which they are based.
Consequently, each department must establish and implement procedures to
ensure data integrity. These procedures must provide reasonable assurance
that transactions are in accordance with management's authorization and are
recorded in the University general ledger in an accurate and timely manner.
Each department head and DA shall be responsible for developing procedures

to ensure data integrity adhering to the following requirements:
1. An adequate data control system including independent checks and
balances must exist within and between operating units.
2. All employees engaged in financial management activities are responsible
for ensuring that adequate data controls are being employed. If problems
are identified, all employees must take an active role in developing and
implementing appropriate corrective actions.
3. All systems that are used to report financial data must be secure, reliable,
responsive and accessible. These systems must be designed, documented,
and maintained according to accepted development and implementation
standards.
4. All interfaces between financial systems and affecting any financial
information must contain controls to ensure the data is synchronized and
reconciled.
Back to top
a Section 2: Establishing Separation of Duties Controls for Data Integrity

No single individual shall have complete control over all processing functions
for any financial transaction. Such functions include:
6
1. Recording transactions into the Financial System directly or through an

interfacing system;
2. Authorizing transactions through pre-approval or post audit review;
3. Receiving or disbursing funds;
4. Reconciling financial system transactions; and
5. Recording corrections or adjustments.
If the number of employees in a department is limited, causing one person to

perform multiple functions, the department must assign a second person to
review the work for accuracy, completeness and timeliness, or combine these
functions with another unit.
o Section 3: Departmental Computing Responsibilities and Acquiring

Computing Equipment and Information Systems
1. Each department needs experienced and well-trained technical
professionals to support the department's computing needs. Such support
can be contracted for or provided by a department itself through a PC
Coordinator.
2. If a department is developing or acquiring information systems for their
use, the requirements in BFB IS-10 must be followed.
3. When significant hardware and software purchases costing over $7,500 are
being contemplated, the PC Center in IR&C should be contacted.
Back to top
4. Compliance
Every employee who conducts transactions that affect University funds must
comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and special restrictions. To ensure
compliance, each department head and DA shall adopt the following practices:
o Section 1: Financial Reporting

1. Departments will conduct transactions in compliance with applicable
financial reporting requirements, including Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP), Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) Statements, and Cost Accounting Standards Board (CASB)
7
Statements. The basic requirements of these standards as applied at UCOP

include the following:
1. Sources and uses of funds must be segregated by the type of activity
they support in accordance with any restrictions imposed on their use.
2. Revenues are reported when earned, and expenditures are reported
when goods or services are received.
1. In general, revenue is earned when the University provides goods or
services.
2. Likewise, expenses are incurred as the University uses goods or
services. For example, when supplies are received, the University
incurs the expense. Holding an invoice does not and must not
prevent the expense from being incurred.
2. Accounting principles must be applied consistently, both within fiscal
years and between fiscal years. Financial Management is charged with
ensuring consistent, University-wide application of these accounting
principles.
3. Reports to sponsoring entities will be made according to the specific
reporting requirements. In general, most sponsoring entities require
adherence to GAAP. Additionally, federal agencies and entities which
serve as conduits for federal funds require adherence to either Office of
Management and Budget Circulars (OMB) and/or Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR). Two primary OMB circulars are:
1. OMB Circular A-21, provides the cost principles for educational
institutions. These principles define allowable costs as those which are
reasonable, allocable, consistently treated and in conformance with any
special limitations. Circular A-21 also defines direct vs. indirect costs,
and provides guidelines for calculating indirect costs; and
2. OMB Circular A-110, provides uniform administrative requirements
for grants and other agreements with institutions of higher education,
including financial reportmg requirements.
Back to top
o Section 2: Records Retention

Each DA will maintain financial records in compliance with regulatory
requirements and University policy. This includes:
8
1. Maintaining records for a period of three years from the latter of the budget
period or the filing of all required reports.
See the UCOP Website http://www.policies.uci.edu/adm/records/721-
1 1 a.html for specific retention requirements.
2. In cases where there is pending litigation or audits, records must be
maintained until the action is concluded.
Back to top
o Section 3: Expenditures
All expenditures must comply with applicable regulatory and legal
requirements and University policy.
1. Federal and state restrictions must be followed.
2. When goods and services are purchased for the University, the following
requirements apply:
1. The Purchasing Director, authorized buyers or specified University
departments must execute the purchases of real estate and construction
projects, the services of independent consultants and legal services.
2. Any person who makes unauthorized purchases shall be responsible for
the payment of all charges incurred.
3. Purchases exceeding $2,500 must be conducted through the Purchasing
Department. The Purchasing Department must maintain documentation
of solicitations made to vendors, vendor responses, sole source
justifications, and the contracts awarded.
4. Goods and services for individuals or for non-University activities shall
not be made using University credit, purchasing power or facilities. If
purchased items appear to be of a personal nature, the University
purpose must be properly documented.
5. When pooled purchase orders or commodity agreements exist, goods
and services shall not be purchased from other sources, unless special
delivery dates or unusual specifications preclude the use of these
sources.
6. Unnecessary or redundant purchases must be avoided.
3. Actions affecting a person's compensation must adhere to the following
additional requirements:
1. providing the Payroll Office through input to the on-line system with all
the data needed to process that person's paycheck, including:
9
1. Name
2. Social Security number
3. Tax withholding forms
4. Pay rate
5. Terms of appointment
6. Title code
7. Hiring department code and name
8. Full Accounting Unit (FAU) to be charged
2. updating such information so that checks may be issued in a timely
manner;
3. ensuring that other payroll information is updated accurately and timely
that affects such items as:
1. Medicare
2. OASDI
3. Retirement plans
4. Voluntary withholdings such as insurance, various employee benefit
programs, and credit union payments.
4. adhering to all time keeping requirements whether for compensation or
allocating charges to federal awards; and
5. ensuring compliance when payments are made for unusual
circumstances, such as housing allowances, car allowances, foreign
subsistence when assigned to work in a foreign country, etc.
Back to top
o Section 4: Tax Laws and Regulations

To comply with tax regulations, each DA must ensure that appropriate
personnel are informed of the various tax authority requirements applicable to
their operations. In general, taxes applicable to University operations include:
1. Sales and use tax on certain sale and purchase transactions as required by
the California State Board of Equalization. Purchases made for resale are
generally exempt in cases where the seller obtains evidence from the
purchaser such as a certificate of resale. Otherwise:
1. Departments that conduct sales activities must charge sales tax and
properly account for sales tax collected by coding related deposits
against sales tax payable account numbers designated by UCOP Payroll
and Tax Services; and
10
2. Departments making purchases must include a provision for such taxes

when making orders. Further, they must ensure these payments have
been included on their invoice payments or through other charging
methods used by the UCLA Office of Accounting Services, which is
responsible for the actual filing and remitting of sales and use tax
payments.
2. Income tax on income-producing activities which constitute a regularly-
carried-on trade or business that is not related to the furtherance of
educational activities. Consequently, employees who are engaged in such
activities must:
1. Maintain information that supports whether or not a particular activity
is subject to income tax;
2. Notify UCOP Payroll and Tax Services of any income taxable activities
and complete the various questionnaires and worksheets prescribed by
UCOP Payroll and Tax Services; and
3. Account for all taxable income earned in an income-producing fund
approved by Corporate Accounting, which is responsible for the actual
completion of the Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income
Tax Return.
3. Federal and State income taxes assessed on University employee base
salary and wages, supplemental pay, undocumented reimbursements, and
various allowances (such as car and housing) in accordance with the
Internal Revenue Code and California Revenue and Taxation Code. In this
process:
1. The UCLA Payroll Office is responsible for withholding taxes on
compensation based upon the individual's Form W-4, Employees'
Withholding Allowance Certificate on file. This office is also
responsible for remitting the actual tax payments to the Federal and
State governments, completing the required quarterly tax returns, and
distributing Forms W-2 Wage and Tax Statements to employees; and
2. Departments at UCOP are responsible for submitting accurate and
timely data to payroll for the completion of these forms, and
determining whether individuals are to be considered employees or
contractors for tax purposes.
4. Income paid to payees outside the university (such as payment of fees,
commission, rents, and royalties) or University employees (such as prizes
11
and awards) must be accumulated and reported as taxable income. In this

process:
1. Departments must provide tax identification numbers when processing
these types of payment transactions; and
2. The UCLA Office of Accounting Services is responsible for reporting
this information to the payees via annual reporting forms such as the
Forms 1099, W-2, or 1042S.
5. The University is generally exempt from paying property taxes. When
necessary, the UCOP Facilities Administration Department will file the
exemption reports and claims to receive refunds of such taxes paid on
leased property for UCOP departments.
Back to top
o Section 5: Reporting Fraudulent or Illegal Acts

Any person who becomes aware of fraudulent or illegal business transactions
conducted in the name of the University shall properly report the fraudulent or
illegal act. This includes:
1. Any person who suspects that fraud or illegal activities are taking place in
his or her department must report that suspicion immediately to their
immediate supervisor. If the employee believes that the supervisor is
involved, or is otherwise uncomfortable reporting in this manner, he or she
must immediately notify the University Auditor. Supervisors to whom
such reports are made must review them, and if they have merit, report
them to the next level of management or to the University Auditor. For
complete guidance on reporting irregularities, see Business and Finance
Bulletin G 29 - Procedures for Investigating Misuse of University
Resources.
2. Individuals conducting business on behalf of the University are personally
responsible for the consequences of any violations they commit.
3. Individuals conducting business on behalf of the University must do so for
the benefit of the University. Where a potential for personal gain exists,
this potential conflict of interest must be reported immediately, and be
carefully evaluated before any financial transactions are allowed to occur.
Back to top
12
o Section 6: Response and Resolution of External Audit Findings from

Regulatory Agencies
Responding to external audit findings from regulatory agencies includes
ensuring the following:
1. The University Auditor is notified prior to commencement of any audit or
review by an external regulatory agency; and
2. A full investigation of the facts is conducted to ensure accuracy of any
findings.
1. If a finding is in error, full documentation must be sent immediately to
the UCOP External Audit Coordinator.
2. If a finding is valid, corrective action must be taken immediatelv to
correct the deficiency and ensure the situation does not recur.
3. Where findings result in disallowances, departments must cover the
disallowances with other department funds. If a department does not
take prompt action, central accounting departments may step in to take
action. Where findings result in extrapolated disallowances, the Vice
President - Financial Management will review the circumstances and
decide upon an appropriate allocation of the disallowance.
13
The State Bar OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

of California
180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
September 25, 2023
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
708 El Capitan Dr
Lodi CA 95242
RE: Case Number: 23-O-23272 Gregory Paul Dresser
Dear Jaroslaw Waszczuk:
We have received your complaint against one or more California attorney(s). We have assigned
the number shown above to this matter; please reference this number in your communications
with us.
Your complaint will first be reviewed by an attorney in the Intake Unit. If we need further
information, we will contact you. We will also advise you of any determination in this matter. If
you want to know the status of your complaint, you may contact us by calling the State Bar’s
toll-free complaint line at 800-843-9053.
Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL/INTAKE
San Francisco Office Los Angeles Office

180 Howard Street 845 S. Figueroa Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 www.calbar.ca.gov Los Angeles, CA 90017
The State Bar OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

of California
845 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017
September 25, 2023
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
708 El Capitan Dr
Lodi CA 95242
RE: Case Number: 23-O-23273 Laura Ann Huggins
Dear Jaroslaw Waszczuk:
We have received your complaint against one or more California attorney(s). We have assigned
the number shown above to this matter; please reference this number in your communications
with us.
Your complaint will first be reviewed by an attorney in the Intake Unit. If we need further
information, we will contact you. We will also advise you of any determination in this matter. If
you want to know the status of your complaint, you may contact us by calling the State Bar’s
toll-free complaint line at 800-843-9053.
Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL/INTAKE
San Francisco Office Los Angeles Office

180 Howard Street 845 S. Figueroa Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 www.calbar.ca.gov Los Angeles, CA 90017
https://www.scribd.com/document/673359264/09-25-2023-State-Bar-
Complaint-Against-California-Director-of-Commision-on-Judicial-
Performance-Gregory-Dresser
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL INTAKE
LOS ANGELES OFFICE
845 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE

180 HOWARD STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
ADDENDUM TO THE ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT

FORMS
TO THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
I.
INTRODUCTION
To Whom It May Concern:
With this complaint, I am respectfully requesting that the State Bar of California’s
Chief Trial Counsel’s Office open an investigation against former State Bar of California
Interim Chief Trial Counsel (April 2015–September 2017) Gregory Paul Dresser, SBN
136532, who is now Director-Chief Counsel at the State of California’s Commission on
Judicial Performance (Commission), and Laura Ann Huggins, SBN #136532, former State
Bar of California Deputy Trial Counsel, currently employed by Erin Joyce Law, PC in
-1-
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
Pasadena, California, and her former superior, State Bar of California Senior Trial Counsel
Robin Brune.
II.
COURT CASES RELATED TO THIS COMPLAINT
1. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO.15-0-10110- LMA; CALIFORNIA

SUPREME COURT CASE IN RE STEIN, NO. S245982 (CAL. MAR. 1, 2018)
The case involved : My former ATTORNEY DOUGLAS EDWARD STEIN , SBN

131248 , State Bar of California Supervising Senior Trial Counsel ROBERT A.
HENDERSON, Investigator AMANDA GORMLEY , Senior Trial Counsel ROBIN
BRUNE, Investigator Supervisor LAURA L. SHAREK , Deputy Trail Counsel
LAURA ANN HUGGINS , Assistant Chief Trial Counsel Deputy Chief Trial, Interim
Chief Trial Counsel , Acting Deputy Chief Trial Counsel., The Assistant Chief Trial
Counsel GREGORY PAUL DRESSER and State Bar Judge MARIA LUCY
ARMENDARIZ
https://www.scribd.com/document/621488012/01-28-2015-State-Bar-o-California-
Complaint-against-Douglas-E-Stein-Case-No-15-0-10110).
2. WRIT OF MANDAMUS - UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS CASE

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO.15-0-10110- LMA Sacramento County
Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (Rip)—The
Regents of the University of California (The Regents), filed in the Court of Appeal on
-2-
December 2, 2013. Third Appellate District Case No. C079254 Waszczuk v. CUIAB,
California Supreme Court Case No. S253713 & S245879 Waszczuk v. CUIAB
3. THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT WRONGFUL

TERMINATION CASE
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-
00155479, filed on December 4, 2013, and 3DCA Cases C079524 & C095488 Waszczuk v.
The Regents of the University of California et.al . California Supreme Court Case No.
S245508 , S281719 involved judges from the County of Sacramento Superior Court DAVID
I. BROWN, Law & Motion Department 53; CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER, Law &
Motion Department 53; JENNIFER K. ROCKWELL, Order of Examination (OX)
Department 37; STEVEN H. RODDA, Law & Motion Departments 53 & 54 (a Retired
Judge on call) ; THADD A. BLIZZARD, Order of Examination (OX), Department 37;
SHAMA HAKIM MESIWALA, Law & Motion Department 53; and GEORGE A.
ACERO, Law & Motion Departments 53 & 54 backup. This wrongful termination case
involved my former attorney, STEIN, SBN 131248, who was disbarred in January 2020 for
professional misconduct; 14 Porter Scott attorneys; and two Horvitz & Levitz LLP attorneys
-3-
(listed below) in addition to myself as a pro per litigant. The following have been involved
since December 16, 2014:
1. MICHAEL WILLIAM POTT, SBN 186156, Porter Scott attorney & shareholder
2. DOUGLAS LEE ROPEL, SBN 300486, Pott and Burkett’s assistant
3. DAVID P.E. BURKETT, SBN 300933, Porter Scott attorney & shareholder
4. CECILIA GUEVARA, SBN 307159, Burkett’s assistant
5. DANIEL J. BARDZELL, SBN 313993, Burkett’s assistant
6. NASIM SAHAR TOURKAMAN, SBN 300933, Burkett’s assistant
7. CHAMBORD V. BENTON-HAYES , SBN 278970, Burkett’s assistant
8. COURTNEY DE GROOF, SBN 319334, Burkett’s assistant
9. NANCY J. SHEEHAN, SBN 109419, Porter Scott attorney & shareholder
10. AMANDA I. ILER, SBN 300268, Porter Scott senior attorney
11. DEREK J. HAYNES, SBN 264621, Porter Scott attorney & shareholder
12. LINDSAY A. GOULDING, SBN 227195, Porter Scott attorney& shareholder
13. OLATOMIWA T. AINA, SBN 325566, Goulding’s assistant
14. THOMAS L. RIORDAN, SBN 104827, Porter Scott attorney & shareholder
15. KAREN M. BRAY, SBN 175501, Horvitz & Levy LLP attorney & shareholder
16. H. THOMAS WATSON, SBN 16277, Horvitz & Levy LLP attorney & shareholder
III.
AGE AND IMMIGRATION STATUS
I noticed that the new State Bar of California’s Attorney Misconduct Complaint Form
contains three questions that apply to me and my wife.
Question No. 1: Does this complaint involve allegations of attorney misconduct where a
person 65 years of age or older was victimized?
As of today, I am 72 years old; my wife of 50 years, Irena Waszczuk, is also 72
years old.
Eight years ago, on February 27, 2015, Porter Scott attorney and shareholder David Burkett
sent his associate, Douglas Ropel, to a hearing before Judge Shelleyanne Chang in
Jaroslaw Jerry Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
(CUIAB)(ROA #28), Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CU-WM-GDS with the UC Regents as a
Real Party of Interest. Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., C079254 (Cal. Ct.
App. Dec. 27, 2018). Neither Ropel nor Burkett was counsel of record for this case in
-4-
February 2015. Burkett sent Ropel to the court for the sole purpose of confronting and
attacking me prior to the hearing. Ropel made vile, despicable threats to go after my (then)
65-year-old wife if I did not agree to drop the litigation against the Defendants in exchange
for legal fees in connection to the anti-SLAPP motion. The legal fees never should be
awarded to The Regents because the anti-SLAPP motion filed on December 1, 2014 by
Porter Scott attorney Michael Pott was a result of the my former attorney Stein crime and
conspiracy between him and Stein and collusion with Sacramento County Superior Court
Judge David I Brown
On August 8, 2017, after oral arguments, Defendants’ attorney Burkett, infuriated by
statements made by the Court of Appeals Justice Vance W. Raye during the oral argument
hearing and anticipating the Court’s decision, snapped and unloaded his anger on me and my
wife making vile threats against us. I thought that Burkett’s unwarranted attack in the 3DCA
building would lead to fisticuffs. Burkett instead became angered to the brink of beating up a
66-year-old old man right there in the halls of justice. Fortunately for me, I was accompanied
by a friend.
My wife became a soft target for the attorneys from Porter Scott who were representing The
Regents and, from April–July 2021, she was traumatized and victimized by Porter Scott
attorney Lindsay Goulding and forced to pay a ransom of $22,284 before Judge Thadd
Blizzard and his clerk in an unsuccessful attempt to frame her for criminal prosecution and
clean out her accounts to convince me to drop the litigations against The Regents
Question No. 2: Does this complaint involve allegations of attorney misconduct

where a person who is incapacitated, infirm, disabled, incarcerated, an immigrant,
or a minor was victimized?
Yes. My wife, Irena Waszczuk, and I are immigrants from Poland. I am political refugee
who was forced by communist government along with my family, to leave Poland in 1982
due to my political activities against the communist regime.
-5-
https://www.scribd.com/document/494446114/Solidarity-Anti-Communist-Movement-
Poland-1980-1982).
IV.
THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LAURA ANN HUGGINS SBN #136532 AND
GREGORY PAUL DRESSER SBN 136532
A. The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Rigged and Fraudulent
Unpublished Opinion Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017) Caused By Gregory Dresser’ and Laura Huggins’ Professional and
Criminal Misconduct .
With this complaint, I am alleging that , between September 2015 and October 2017 Dresser,
Huggins, and their collaborators’ professional misconduct, and criminal misconduct including
and not limited to bribery , racketeering and conspiracy with my former employer The
University of California (hereafter The Regents ) or The Regents agents ,or attorneys and
Sacramento Courts staff led to issuance by the 3DCA totally fraudulent and rigged by rubber
stamp justice unpublished opinion Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal.
Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal
(Attachment No.1 on Flash Drive & DVD ) The 3DCA opinion was due to my appeal from
the the Sacramento County Superior Court judgment in anti-SLAPP motion (California
Code of Civil Procedure( C.C.P section 425.16) in my wrongful termination case against the
Regents filed on December 4, 2013 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479
The compromised of 3DCA justices Vance Raye, Ronald B. Robie, and George Nicholson
unpublished opinion instead of condemning my former attorney the Unpublished Opinion
shamelessly commended my former attorney Douglas Stein—who was dismissed for gross
-6-
criminal misconduct after misrepresenting me in two cases stealing my money and colluded
with The Regents legal counsel Michael Pott and Judge of Superior Court David Brown.
To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making

an ex parte application to assure the integrity of the document he
inadvertently filed during the briefest of suspensions for a minor
transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He should
be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of
plaintiff’s interests.
After such heinous offenses, Stein proceeded to steal the entire retainer paid to him by in
June 2014. Stein’s crimes and criminal misconduct behavior would not have been possible to
condone from October 2015 to October 2017 without Gregory Dresser’s decision to do so
who as the employee and decision making State bar of California Chief Trial Counsel Office
executive apparently had his personal interest to condone the Stein’s crime and rigg the
3DCA opinion .
B. The Gregory Dresser’ , Laura Huggins and State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Investigator
Laura Sharek Conspiracy Against Waszczuk in October 2015-October 2017 .
This complaint would not be needed if Dresser and Huggins, given all of the resources
and information available to them, which they received from Wells Fargo Bank in 2015, had
properly prosecuted my former attorney, Stein, or turned him to state or federal law
enforcement authorities for prosecution due to theft of money instead of conspiring with The
Regents or their agents or attorneys and with Courts staff to condone Stein’s criminal
misconduct from October 2015 to October 2017 until 3DCA issued on October 10, 2017
-7-
rigged and fraudulent opinion in the anti-SLAPP motion in 3DCA Case C079524 Waszczuk
v. The Regents of the University of California.
The 10/101/ 3DCA opinion led to another two 3DCA rigged and fraudulent opinions and
travesty of justice served to me for another six years and another crime that resulted in The
Regents’ attorney from Porter Scott attacking my 70 years old wife and stealing $22,284
from her in July 2021.
C. The Further Allegations Against Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins
1. Base on documents, facts, and events, I allege that LAURA ANN HUGGINS and
GREGORY PAUL DRESSER, who as State Bar of California employees and officials
participated in the investigation and prosecution of Stein, violated the California State Bar
Rules of Professional Conduct and knowingly assisted or induced another to do so through
the acts of another person. This caused irreparable harm to my litigations in two complaints
filed in Sacramento Superior Court in December 2013 , enormous financial harm to myself ,
and the devastation of my and my family’s lives beside the Cost the Sacramento County
Superior Court , 3DCA and Supreme Court of California incurred because Dresser and
Huggin criminal misconduct .
2. The Dresser’s work history (1997-to Present) with the Morrison Foerster LLP, State Bar
of California and the California Commission on Judicial Performance, disclosed on
LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/gdresser) and other online sources left me no doubts
that Dresser was the one who, from April 2015 through October 2017, made or was involved
in the decisions in the State Bar investigation of my former attorney Stein, SBN 131248 to
condone Steins’s and other attorneys crimes and misconduct I reported to State Bar in the
time period of December 2014 through October 2017 .
3. The Dresser’s work history with State Bar of California and the California Commission on
Judicial Performance and other undisputed facts lead me to conclusion that Dresser was the
-8-
one who in September 2015 with evil intention to harm me caused that State Bar
Investigator Amanda Gormley and her supervisor Senior Trial Counsel Robin Brune were
removed from handling my complaint against Stein docked in the State Bar as a Case
Number: 15-O-10110-LMA.
4. In September 2015 Dresser in conspiracy with others caused that my complaint against my
former attorney Stein vanished together with assigned to the complaint State Bar Investigator
Amanda Gormley and her supervisor Senior Trial Counsel Robin Brune who already
concluded the investigation against Stein and the case was ready to be submitted to the State
Bar prosecutor in October 2015. Gormley and Brune were assigned by then Supervising
Senior Trial Counsel Robert A. Henderson to the Stein’s case on January 14, 2015 three
month before Dresser was hired in April 2015 by the State Bar .
5. From September 2015 to October 2017 Dresser to harm me and my litigations conspired
and collaborated with others included and not limited to Deputy Trial Counsel Huggins and
Investigator Supervisor Laura L. Sharek (Sharek) and State Bar Court Judge Maria Lucy
Armendariz (Armendariz) openly interfered and meddled in the judicial process pending in
the Court of Appel Third Appellate District (3DCA ) and tampered with the administration
of justice.
6. Gregory Dresser’ and his collaborators indisputably involved far more than severe financial
damages caused to me and my family and irreparable harm to my litigations in the two
Sacramento County Superior Court cases against The Regents of the University of California
in the San Joaquin County Superior Court writ of mandamus case (unemployment insurance
benefits case ) Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
(CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The Regents of the University of California (The
Regents), filed in the Court of Appeal on December 2, 2013 and ther wrongful termination
-9-
case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-
00155479, filed on December 4, 2013
7. The Dresser’s , Huggins and their collaborators conspiracy against me , which involved
interference and meddle in judicial process , caused and led to abuse of court system by the
The Regents of the University of California and California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board and their attorneys of record , corruption in the in the courts and abuse of power by
judges and justices in the Sacramento County Superior Court , The Court of Appeal Third
Appellate District and the California Supreme Court which resulted in three totally
fraudulent and rigged unpublished opinions issued by 3DCA Waszczuk v. Cal.
Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) California
Supreme Court Case No. S253713 & S245879 Waszczuk v. CUIAB and Waszczuk v. Regents
of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017),
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal California Supreme Court
Case No. S245508 , Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., S245508 (Cal. Jan. 10, 2018)
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-univ-of-cal, Waszczuk v. Regents of the
Univ. of Cal., No. C095488 (Cal. Ct. App. July 28, 2023)
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal-1
V.
OCTOBER 2015–OCTOBER 2017, DRESSER’S INTERFERENCE IN THE
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA COMPLAINT AGAINST MY FORMER
ATTORNEY DOUGLAS STEIN, CASE NO.15-0-10110- LMA
A. Notice of Appeal in Waszczuk v. The Regents of The University of California,

3DCA Case No. C079524
Gregory Dresser was deployed from Morrison Foerster LLP to the State of
California Chief Trial Counsel in April 2015, at relatively the same time two unlawful
judgments were filed against me in Sacramento County Superior Court; one was a Writ
of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
- 10 -
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The
Regents of the University of California (UC Regents), which legitimized the theft of my
unemployment insurance benefits. This was issued by Judge Shelleyanne Chang from
Department 23. The other unlawful judgement was in the Sacramento Superior Court
wrongful termination case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479, filed December 4. This was an anti-SLAPP
motion orchestrated by my former attorney, Stein, and involved conspiracy, collusion, the
theft of my $20,000 retainer, and—most likely—bribery and racketeering. Judge David I.
Brown, of Dept. 53, was its author (Attachment #2 on the flash drive and DVD).
On May 7, 2015 and June 14, 2015, I filed in 3DCA Notices of Appeal of both judgments
(Attachment #3 on the flash drive and DVD).
B. Proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC) in Sacramento Superior Court

wrongful termination case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University
of California, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479, filed December 4,2013
My September 2015 300 Proposed THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT(Attachment #4 on the flash drive and DVD)
became a sole reason that State Bar of California Investigator Amanda Gormley and Senior
Trial Counsel Robin Brune vanished for two years in October 2015 together with my State
Bar complaint against my former attorney Douglas Stein Case.15-0-10110- LMA
In June and July 2015, I discovered why, in 2011, I was hunted down and why my
employment with UCDMC was terminated by The Regents in 2012, before which I was
portrayed by my employer like most wanted terrorist or criminal after 13 years of service. In
June and July, I reviewed my entire court file, work history, and my previous file related to
my past employer, Destec Energy/Dynegy in relation to the $240 million fraud that firm
committed against Pacific Gas and Electric Company in 1989–1997 and the $280 million
fraud perpetrated against the California taxpayers in May 2000–September 2001 due to the
- 11 -
sophisticated $40 billion fraud known as the “California Energy Crisis.” I checked the
United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission e-Library and found why I was
targeted, victimized, and eliminated by the UC Regents in a six-year-long vendetta, between
December 2006 and December 2012 at UCDMC and thereafter in the State of California
unemployment insurance benefits office and Sacramento County Superior Court. I decided to
amend the SAC that had been filed on September 30, 2014 by Stein for the sole purposes of
destroying my lawsuit and stealing my money.
In August 2015, I informed The Regents’ counsels of record, Douglas Ropel and
David Burkett, that I intended to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC).
On September 15, 2015, Burket responded to my notice of intention to file the
TAC by saying that, if I would provide him with a copy of the proposed TAC for
approval, he would help and arrange to prepare the stipulation to get the court’s approval
of the agreement to file.
On September 16, 2015, The Regents’ counsel repeated his offer for TAC
stipulation via email correspondence, dated September 15 and September 16, 2015
On September 22, 2015, I sent the TAC draft to The Regents’ counsels. I
intended to file the TAC to replace the defective SAC that Stein had filed on September
30, 2014
C. Disappearance of My State Bar Complaint against My Former Attorney
Douglas Stein, Investigator Amanda Gormley and Senior Trial Counsel
Robin Brune -State Bar Case.15-0-10110- LMA-Attorney Douglas Stein’s
Criminal Misconduct and Theft of the $ 20,000
On September 25, 2015, sent an e-mail to State Bar Investigator Gormley asking her about
- 12 -
the status of his complaint against Stein. That same day, she replied as follows:
Mr. Waszczuk:
Your file with be submitted to the prosecutor by October 9.
Please communicate with me via regular mail or via fax.
You will receive a letter from our office when the case is
submitted to the prosecutor.
You will be contacted by the prosecutor if she needs
additional information.
In reply, I sent to Gormley a draft of my 295-page-long TAC, which detailed and

described The Regents’ actions in 2005–2008 and 2011–2012. In the TAC, I focused on
the 2009 Settlement Agreement violation and calculated the resulting damages
After September 25, 2015, I never received an official letter from the State Bar stating
that Stein’s case had been submitted to the prosecutor. Gormley and Brune, who
directly supervised Gormley’s investigation against Stein, and Supervising Senior
Trial Counsel Robert A. Henderson vanished and disappeared together with my
complaints against Stein for another two years, just like my unemployment insurance
benefits, which were reinstated by the EDD on May 14, 2014. After I sent the TAC
draft to Gormley, I received on that same day an e-mail from Sacramento County
Superior Court that notified me that The Regents had filed a motion to block my TAC
from being filed.
On October 28, 2015 Judge Brown granted the motion to The Regents and the TAC,
which was never submitted to the Court, was blocked from filing.
- 13 -
Since September 2015, for the next eight years, DRESSER became a TROJAN
HORSE in my litigation against The Regents, and my 2015 proposed 300-page-long
TAC became taboo in the courts and was never filed.
VI.
THE OCTOBER 12, 2017 CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE ANNOUNCEMENT
A. Dresser’s Move from The State Bar to the Commission on Judicial Performance
On October 12, 2017, THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL

PERFORMANCE announced that DRESSER had moved from the prosecution of
California attorneys’ misconduct as the State Bar Chief Trial Counsel to the
prosecution of California judges and justices’ misconduct, serving as its new
Director-Chief Counsel for the Commission on Judicial Performance (Attachment #6 on
the flash drive and DVD).
This happened after Dresser and his subordinates, Investigators Laura Sharek and Laura
Huggins, collaborated for two years with The Regents’ attorneys or the Office of the UC
General Counsel and Court staff to condone Stein’s criminal misconduct to derail my 3DCA
Appeal in Case C097488, Waszczuk v. The Regents of The University of California. Their
meddling in the judicial process to harm me falls into the category of criminal misconduct
and, perhaps, conspiracy, bribery, and racketeering. The statement in the unlawful 3DCA
unpublished opinion on Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017) praising Stein speaks for itself. Instead of condemning Stein, The Regents’
attorneys Pott (SBN 186156) and Burkett (SBN 300933), and Judge Brown who engaged
himself in misconduct by covering up or participating in Stein’s crimes, conspiracy, and
collusion, the 3DCA opinion praised Stein as if he was some kind of icon and hero:
To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making

an ex parte application to assure the integrity of the document he
- 14 -
inadvertently filed during the briefest of suspensions for a minor

transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He should
be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of
plaintiff’s interests.
Stealing $20,000 from a client was a minor transgression for the authors of the
opinion.
Since The Regents signed a Settlement Agreement with me on January 30, 2009, the owners
or co-owners of the 27-MW cogeneration plant located at the UCDMC lost approximately
200 million tax-free dollars, or perhaps more, due to the lack of contract to sell power for
tax free profit .
On September 25, 2015, when I sent a copy of the proposed TAC to Gormley. The question
must be asked, why was it Dresser’s business to insert himself into my litigation against The
Regents by interfering and meddling in the judicial process? Dresser’s interference did not
end with Huggins’ October 10 , 2017 deceptive stipulation
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/15-O-10110-2.pdf with Stein signed on the same day
the 3DCA unlawful opinion in anti -SLAPP motion was issued by 3DCA Waszczuk v. Regents
of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)
I do not believe that 3DCA Presiding Justice Raye had anything to do with the
unpublished opinion in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017) (anti-SLAPP motion). The opinion was unlawfully fabricated by the friends of
the Porter Scott attorneys employed by 3DCA and stamped .
A year earlier, on July 29, 2016, 3DCA issued a certified opinion for publication in the
ant-SLAPP motion Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (Cal. Ct.
App. 2016), by Justices Vance Raye, George Nicholson, and Kathleen Butz. That Opinion
was delivered saying:
The California anti-SLAPP statute was intended to counter the

“disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid
- 15 -
exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for

the redress of grievances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (a).) It has
been suggested that “[t]he cure has become the disease—SLAPP
motions are now just the latest form of abusive litigation.” (Navellier
v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 96 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.) (Navellier).)
And the disease would become fatal for most harassment, discrimination,
and retaliation actions against public employers if we were to accept the
Regents of the University of California’s (University) misguided reading
of the anti-SLAPP law and reverse the trial court’s denial of its motion
to strike. We agree with plaintiff Un Hui Nam that defendant did not
sustain its burden to demonstrate that the gravamen of her claims for
sexual harassment and retaliation arose from defendant’s protected First
Amendment activity. The trial court’s order therefore is affirmed.”
I was also unaware in August and September 2016 that, after the 3DCA
issued its opinion in Nam, The UC Regents, on September 27, 2016, filed a request
with the California Supreme Court to rescind its publication. The request was denied
on November 22, 2016.
The Nam case is from same UCDMC, and Ms. Nam was terrorized and sexually
harassed by the order of the same gangsters in its human resources department who were
the Defendants in my wrongful termination case and 3DCA anti-SLAPP motion appeal.
After Justice Raye, on October 10, 2017, delivered to me his unpublished opinion that
was the opposite of the opinion in Nam’s anti-SLAPP motion, now way I can see how
Raye could praise the theft of $20,000 and describe it as a minor transgression. None
of the justices who delivered the opinion in Nam are working in 3DCA any longer.
- 16 -
VII.
THE AFTERMATH OF THE REMITTITUR ISSUED ON JANUARY 18,
2018 IN WASZCZUK V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL., NO. C079524 (CAL. CT.
APP. OCT. 10, 2017) (ANTI- SLAPP MOTION )
A. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Christopher Krueger, from Dept.

54, and Judge Jennifer Rockwell, from Dept. 37
For known reasons, two of The Regents’ attorneys, David Burkett and Daniel
Bardzell, bypassed Judge Brown from Department 53 to employ Judge Christopher
Krueger, from Dept. 54, and Judge Jennifer Rockwell, from Dept. 37, to end my
lawsuit against The Regents via motion for termination sanctions in October 2018.
On October 3, 2018, Burket and Bardzell a filed motion for termination sanction
in Dept. 54 (Attachment #7 on the flash drive and DVD) and simultaneously filed an
Application and Order for Appearance and Examination on October 11, 2018 in Dept 37,
to frame me for a bench warrant and extract information about my wife’s bank and
401(K) retirement accounts.
Judges Rockwell and Krueger are friends who knew each other before they were
appointed to the bench; they worked for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in the
same office on State v. All Persons, 152 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Cal. Ct.App. 2007). Judge
Krueger’s wife, Kris Burks, is employed in 3DCA as a senior research attorney,
On November 7, 2018, Judge Rockwell, from Department 37, signed an
Application and Order for Appearance and Examination in violation of the 45-day
- 17 -
requirement (Civil Code of Procedure§§ 491.110, 708.110, 708.120, & Sacramento

Superior Court Local Rule 2.1, (Attachment #8 on the flash drive and DVD).
On October 14, 2018, I alerted Court Clerk by the letter in Department 53 about
The Regents evil intention to obtain termination sanctions from Judge Krueger
B. The Regents’ Attorneys Bullying Tactics Aimed at Judge David Brown from
Department 53 to Obtain Termination Sanctions November 2018- December
2019
After Burkett and Bardzell failed to eliminate my wrongful termination lawsuit by

termination sanctions by the Judge Krueger’s involvement and with a bench warrant from
Judge Rockwell, they launched unprecedented bullying tactics aimed at Judge Brown to
eliminate my wrongful termination lawsuit against The Regents, which had been pending
since December 4, 2013. They recklessly bullied Judge Brown with endless motions for
termination sanctions for 1 year and 1 months, until December 2019. Burkett resigned or
was fired by Porter Scott in October 2019. He was replaced by Nancy Sheehan, who had
been at Porter Scott for 34 years. Burkett had been a lead attorney in the case Waszczuk v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) since January 23, 2015.
Sheehan’s name was added to the pleadings at a time when she was gravely ill with
metastatic breast cancer; she died on November 23, 2019, exactly one month after another
motion was filed by Bardzell (see
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=nancy-joan-
sheehanandpid=194994093).
In November 2019, two new attorneys, Amanda Iler and Derek Hayes, joined
the six-years-long battle. Iler and Bardzel left Porter Scott shortly after Judge Brown
ordered them to repay the sanctions they collected from me on The Regents’ behalf. From
October 2018 through December 2019, I attended many court hearings with Judge Brown
- 18 -
and saw that he did not like what the attorneys representing The Regents were doing to me
and how they tried to force him to give them what they wanted.
The Regents attorneys’ over one year long multiple attempts to eliminate me from
court through bullying tactics aimed at Judge Brown clearly show that The Regents had
no chance to prevail with Judge Brown in any Summary Judgement Motion they might
have filed. Apparently, Brown realized that he had been drawn into a dirty game against
me in 2014 by a Porter Scott attorney and my former attorney Stein’s old friendship to
end my wrongful termination lawsuit. If The Regents had lost a summary judgment
motion and filed an appeal, they would have had a slim chance to prevail in 3DCA before
Presiding Justice Raye after Raye ruled against them in Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the
Univ. of Cal., 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016, https://casetext.com/case/un-hui-
nam-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal).
A. Trial Date and Mandatory Settlement Conference Date Submission Form

On February 18, 2020, I acted on the Meet and Confer letter to The Regents’ new
attorneys, Haynes and Iler, and proposed September 1, 8, or 15, 2020 as court trial dates,
and July 1, 2, or 6, 2020 as Mandatory Settlement Conference dates to bring this case to
trial and resolve it.
Due to a disagreement on dates with Iler, on March 3, 2020, I submitted to the
Court a Submission Form to set Trial Date on August 11 or 18, 2020 or September 28,
2020 and July 1, 2, or 6, 2020 as Mandatory Settlement Conference dates to resolve this
case. I never received any response from the Court.
VIII.
THE REGENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN THE
SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT WRONGFUL TERMINATION CASE
- 19 -
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 34-2013- 00155479, FILED DECEMBER 4, 2013
A. After the Regents Attorneys’ Multiple Unsuccessful Attempts to end my

Wrongful Termination by Bullying Judge David I. Brown to Obtain Termination
Sanctions
After Judge David I. Brown ordered attorney Daniel Bardzell to return a $1300
sanction check (returned on January 8, 2020), and after I submitted on March 3, 2020 a
Trial Date and Mandatory Settlement Conference Date Submission Form Attachment
#10 on the flash drive and DVD), everything became very quiet. There were no
motions, court hearings, ex-parte communications, or attorneys seemingly active in my
case. The silence lasted for one full year after The Regents’ attorney failed to remove my
wrongful termination case from the Courts by bullying Judge Brown with non-stop
termination sanctions motions for more than one year. It was unthinkable that they would
lose the case to a Polish immigrant who relayed every pleading he wrote to a proofreader
and who has resisted them for seven years, since the wrongful termination case was filed
on December 4, 2013. With basically no financial resources apart from my $1800
monthly Social Security check, it was a mission impossible to survive against a public
entity with a $40 billion annual budget. The Regents’ former attorneys’ egregious
misconduct in the Court of law, malice, and bullying tactics aimed at my wife and
Judges Brown and Rodda in October 2018–December 2019 did not work as they had
anticipated. Then, they sought help from the Director and Chief Counsel of the
Commission on Judicial Performance, GREGORY PAUL DRESSER.
B. The Regents’ Attorneys Attack on my Wife in an Attempt to Break into her

Bank and 401(K) Accounts and to Frame Her for Criminal Prosecution
On April 22, 2021, I was served, at my residence in Lodi, CA, the following hand-
delivered Court documents:
- 20 -
• CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) for Personal Appearance and Production

of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things and Trial or
Hearing and Declaration Issued to IRINA WASZCZUK by Olatomiwa T. Aina
on April 22, 2021 (Attachment #11 on the flash drive and DVD)
• An unsigned by a judge APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE
AND EXAMINATION with a court hearing date of May 7, 2021 at 9:00 A.M. in
Department 43 (Attachment #12 on the flash drive and DVD)
• DECLARATION BY OLATOMIWA T. AINA IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT

CREDITOR’S APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF
IRINA WASZCZUK
The above documents were served to me on April 22, 2021 with the name IRINA
WASZCZUK, of 95242, in relation to unlawful legal fees awarded in an anti-SLAPP
motion by Judge Brown in 2015. This was granted to The Regents after my former
attorney Stein conspired with The Regents’ attorney to end my litigation in December
2014. I have already provided information about what Dresser did in this matter, together
with Investigator Laura Sharek and Deputy Trial Counsel Laura Huggins in 2015–
2017. I responded to Aina’s request, which violated the 45 days rule, and sent a copy of
the response to Court Department 43. Aina resigned from her position at Porter Scott a
few days later (Attachment #13 on the flash drive and DVD).
After receiving a copy of my response to Aina, the Court Clerk altered the date on the
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE by hand and filed the stamped
application with Judge Thadd Blizzard on May 7, 2021 showing a new examination date of
July 2, 2021. The attorney could have simply written to my wife, Irena, and asked her to pay
the unlawfully awarded legal fees for the 2014 anti-SLAPP motion. In 2019, my wife gave
me $25,000 to pay these fees, but the attorneys did not want the money. They wanted
termination sanctions and to clean out her bank and 401(K) accounts. The attorneys had
already been paid the anti-SLAPP motion fees by The Regents’ insurance company,
- 21 -
Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., but the eight years of litigation involved more
than fraudulent anti-SLAPP motion fees.
C. April 26, 2021 The Regents’ Ex-Parte Application for Leave to Extend Page
Limit for Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment or, in The Alternative,
Summary Adjudication
On April 26, 2021, simultaneous to the attack on my wife and in a scenario similar to
October–November 2018, The Regents’ two new attorneys, Goulding and her assistant Aina,
submitted to the Court an ex parte application for leave to extend the page limit. I noticed that
Goulding did not provide the number of the court department or judge’s name on the
application. This immediately suggested to me that something unusual was going on. I
quickly found that Judge Brown, who had presided over my cases since September 2014,
had left Department 53 at the end of December 2020, three years before his term was to end,
and he had been replaced by Judge Shama Hakim Mesiwala. I responded to Goulding’s
letter reminding her what her colleagues Burkett and Bardzel did in October 2018, bypassing
Judge Brown in an attempt to obtain termination sanctions from Judge Christopher Kreuger
I did not at that time realize that Dresser had launched a witch hunt investigation aimed at
3DCA Presiding Justice Vance Raye and caused Brown’s resignation.
D. Judge Shama Hakim Mesiwala
The Judge Shama H. Mesiwala was a central staff attorney at 3DCA for 1.5 years, followed
by serving as a chambers attorney for Justice Robie for 11 years. She was appointed
commissioner in 2017 and, 10 months later, a judge in Sacramento County Superior Court
(January 2021) (https://www.courts.ca.gov/75426.htm).
On February 14, 2023, Judge Mesiwala was unanimously confirmed as an associate

justice of the 3DCA in Sacramento by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, which
- 22 -
included Chief Justice Guerrero (Chair), Attorney General Rob Bonta, and Acting Presiding
Justice Ronald B. Robie (see https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/commission-confirms-
appointment-third-district-court-appeal).
E. The Regents’ May 14, 2021 Motion for Summary Judgment or, in The
Alternative, Summary Adjudication In the Wrongful Termination Case Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California
On May 14 , 2021, with the arrival of a new Judge Shama Mesiwala in Department 53,
Goulding filed a massive amount of papers that were supposed to be a motion for summary
judgment (MSJ). This was coordinated with an ambush aimed at my wife’s bank and 401(K)
accounts. The MSJ was filed for the SAC and remined me of the COAs crafted by my former
attorney to steal my money and end my lawsuit in December 2014 (Attachment #15 on the
flash drive and DVD).
F. June 18, 2021 Motion to Recall the Remittitur and Request for Judicial Notice in
Support in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10,
2017)
In response to Goulding’s MSJ and attack on my wife, on June 18, 2021 I filed a Motion to
Recall Remittitur (Attachment #16 on the flash drive and DVD) and Request for Judicial
Notice in Support (Attachment #17 on the flash drive and DVD) to modify the October 10,
2017 3DCA fraudulent and unlawful unpublished opinion in the anti-SLAPP motion
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017), which was
filed on December 1, 2014. As noted previously, this opinion never should have been issued.
However, Dresser’s interference and meddling in the judicial process in 2015–2017 made
it happen.
I forwarded a copy of the motion to recall remittitur and judicial notice with a cover letter to
the Clerk in Department 53 (Judge Mesiwala) with a request to file the copy (Attachment
#18 on the flash drive and DVD).
- 23 -
G. Judge Shama H. Mesiwala’s Disqualification
On June 29, 2021, I filed a PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE (Code of Civil Procedure §

170.6) motion against Judge Mesiwala (Attachment #19 on the flash drive and DVD).
On June 18, 2021, I provided a copy of the motion to recall remittitur with an
explanatory cover letter to Judge Mesiwala, with the expectation that she would react and
look into Goulding’s deceptive MSJ. This did not happen, and I waited for the motion to
be filed by the 3DCA. My previous experiences in the Courts, including physical threats
against my wife by The Regents attorneys’, triggered the motion of the PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE (Code of Civil Procedure § 170.6) against Judge Mesiwala.It was my
response to the lack of any news from 3DCA or Department 53 and my previous
experiences. The other factor to disqualify Judge Mesiwala was that she had been
employed in 3DCA as a senior research attorney during the time when my anti-SLAPP
motion appeal was pending there, in 2015–2017.
H. My and My Wife Irena Waszczuk’s Appearance on July 2, 2021 in

Sacramento County Superior Court Department 43, Per Court Order Dated
May 7, 2021
The terror aimed at my wife from April through July 2018 by the UC Regents’ attorneys
resulted in her literally being robbed of $22,284 by Goulding in Court Department 43.
This happened while appearing before the Hon. Thadd Blizzard and the Court Clerk,
after an unsuccessful attempt to set her up for an interrogation to break into her bank and
401(K) accounts. This was aimed to convince me to end my litigation against the
Regents, but did not work.
When I attended on July 2, 2021 in the Sacramento County Superior Court
Department 43 (Judge Thadd Blizzard, ) the Dept. 43 clerk in rude way tried to force my
wife into an interrogation per Judge Thadd Blizzard’s altered and redacted Order dated May
7, 2021.
- 24 -
My wife, IRENA WASZCZUK, who has been the target of the Porter Scott attorneys’
criminal activities since February 2015, arrived with me and my good friend and former co-
worker from the UC Davis Medical Center, WILLIAM BUCKANS, who has been a witness
to Goulding’s set attack aimed at my wife. Buckans has always attended the court hearings in
Sacramento Court with me, due to the previous vile threats by Porter Scott’s attorneys in the
Court against me and my wife. The threats have been reported to the Court and the State Bar.
Upon arrival in Dept. 43, I noticed on the information board that Porter Scott attorney
Derek Hayes was listed in this attack aimed at my 70 years old wife.. However, Hayes was
not present. The Regents Attorney Lindsay Goulding appeared at the hearing and said she
was the one who was set and running whole interrogation . After the bailiff checked the
names the court clerk or judge’s assistant whose name I do not know became very rude and
pushy to get my wife interrogated. Then, I asked her what happened to my June 30, 2021 Ex
Parte Application for a continuance of this interrogation. She rudely responded that she did
not get the document and tried to begin my wife’s interrogation. The Court received my Ex-
Parte application on June 30, 2021 a same day it was filed in the Court by Rapid Legal
Services https://rapidlegal.com/ Sacramento Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case No.
34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California)
Goulding was sitting there, but said nothing. Finally, I told the clerk that there would be
no interrogation of my wife in this courtroom, and I informed her that I had a check in the
amount of $22,284 to pay whatever should be paid. The court clerk did not like this and tried
to force my wife to be interrogated by Goulding anyway .She tried to cut me out, stating that
I was not a party of this proceeding . I told her again that there would be no interrogation of
my wife, and I asked Goulding to whom I should write the check. The clerk interfered and
said that she does not know how to proceed. She then went to the judge’s chambers to get the
judge. After 10 minutes, Judge Blizzard appeared on the bench completely disoriented and
unprepared for the hearing and not knowing what the interrogation was to be about. He
started looking with the clerk for a Polish translator for my wife, even though I had written a
- 25 -
check for $22,284.in my hand. Finally, I forced Goulding to look at the check, which I
issued to the UC Regents and showed her my wife’s most recent Bank of America statement,
which verified that there were more than enough funds to cover the $22,284 .. Goulding did
not expect such an outcome when trying to set up my wife for the Bench Warrant to frame
her for criminal prosecution and to break into her bank account and her 401(K) life savings.
Judge Blizzard had no idea about these events because, apparently his clerk did not give
him to read my June 30, 2021 Ex Parte Application for a continuance of the hearing, which
included a copy of the Motion to Recall Remittitur, a copy for Judicial Notice (without
exhibits), and other attachments relevant to the ant-SLAPP motion legal fees. Goulding left
the court with the $22,284 bluntly stolen from wife’s account. I warned her not to harass
my wife anymore. Judge Blizzard issued a Court order to further intimidate my wife by
ordering her to return on August 6, 2021 if the case is not settled. The return hearing was set
just two days after the scheduled Court Hearing in Dept. 54 for Motion for Summary
Judgment before Judge Krueger
After this ambush - appearance in Dept. 43 on July 2, 2021 at 9:00 A.M., where
my wife paid a $22,284 ransom to Goulding, I noticed that the Court Dept . 43 issued an
order which filed together with a court order stating that Judge Sharma H. Mesiwala had
been disqualified, pursuant to CCP Section 170.6.
The Court Order dated July 2, 2021 stated :
Requested Examinee, Irma Waszczuk, was present with the Plaintiff, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk. The Plaintiff provided a check to Defendant's counsel in court.
Counsel accepted the check.
This matter is continued to August 6, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 43, all
parties are ordered to return. If the matter is settled by that date, Defendant's
counsel will contact the Court to drop the hearing.
It was not coincident that The Regents friends in 3DCA waited 19 days to file
on July 7, 2021, my Motion to Recall Remittitur submitted to 3DCA on June 18, 2021 to stop
Regents attorneys uncontrolled criminals activities in the Sacramento Courts and to prevent
- 26 -
money theft from my wife .

I am quite confident that I and my wife are not the only victims of criminals activities who
infiltrated the Sacramento courts .
Also on July 2, 2021, my wrongful termination case and the MSJ previously set for
8/4/2021 in Department 53 at 1:30 pm was reset for 8/4/2021 in Department 54 at 9:00 a.m.
(before Judge Krueger). Krueger and Judge Rockwell, in October –November 2018, were
employed by The Regents’ attorney to eliminate my wrongful termination lawsuit by
termination sanctions and to frame me for criminal prosecution in the same scenario as they
attempted with my wife in April–July 2021.
IX.
JULY 26, 2021 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY
FILED BY THE REGENTS’ ATTORNEY LINDSAY GOULDING
On July 26, 2021, Goulding filed a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING
ATTORNEY stating:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective immediately Lindsay A.

Goulding will become the handling attorney of this matter and David
P.E. Burkett, Esq., Michael W. Pott, Esq. and Derek J. Haynes, Esq.,
are to be removed from this matter. Please update your service lists
accordingly and direct all further pleadings, correspondence and any
inquiries regarding defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA to Lindsay A. Goulding as follows:
It was quite surprising for me to see Burkett and Pott mentioned in this note. Burkett
replaced Pott on January 23, 2015 and represented The Regents until October 2019. He and
Bardzell were the ones who bullied Judge Brown for more than one year, in 2018–2019,
trying to force him to award them termination sanctions and remove me from the court. To
- 27 -
my knowledge, Burkett has been employed by Knox, Lemmon & Anapolsky, LLP since
October 2019.
Pott previously cut a deal with my former attorney Stein to decimate my original complaint. I
fired Stein in December 2017, and Pott left his firm one month later. Since then, Pott has been
employed by PRISM, in Folsom, CA. I had no clue what he was doing listed in a filing on my
case in 2021 along with Burkett.
Derek J. Haynes was a Porter Scott attorney who briefly appeared in my case in 2019 along
with Amanda Iler. He still works for Porter Scott.
X.
THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE GEORGE A. ACERO
A. August 4, 2021 Minute Court Order
DATE: 08/04/2021 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 54

JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: GEORGE ACERO
CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT. DATE: 12/04/2013
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California CASE
CATEGORY: Civil – Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication - Civil Law
and Motion - MSA/MSJ/SLAPP
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication - Civil Law and Motion –
MSA/MSJ/SLAPP continued to 09/01/2021 at 09:00 in this department.
It was even more surprising for me to see former Porter Scott attorney GEORGE
ACERO’s name on the Court Order from Department 54 as a County of Sacramento
Superior Court Judge. I still do not know why in this order the SLAPP was attached to an
- 28 -
MSA/MSJ Anti-SLAPP motion in this case, when it ended with a fraudulent unpublished
opinion praising my former attorney’s criminal misconduct and the theft of my money
(see Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)).
A. Judge George Acero
After I saw Acero’s name on the Court Order as a judge, I learned that he had been
appointed to the bench by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 25, 2021. This is why
Porter Scott’s attorneys ceased all activities in my litigation and attacks in my case. They
knew that The Regents were working very hard with Governor Newsom and Chief of
Commission on Judicial Performance Dresser to replace inconvenient for them Judge
Brown with Judge Mesiwala, adding Acero as a Law & Motion Backup, in Departments
53 & 54, and to reorganize the 3DCA & Supreme Court by saying good bye to 3DCA
Presiding Justice Vance Raye and Supreme Chief Justice Tani-Cantil Sakauye .
B. George Acero’s Interference in Waszczuk’s Employment with The University

of California, Prior to his Appointment to the Bench in Sacramento County
Superior Court
George Acero, from West Sacramento, is a former intern in the UC Office of General
Counsel and worked for the Porter Scott law firm from 2003–2008. In August 2005, in
preparation for litigation after the ill-planned termination of my employment with the
UCDMC, Acero and another Porter Scott attorney, Michael Pott, fabricated the most
fraudulent anti-SLAPP motion ever drafted since the California Code of Civil Procedure §
425.16 was enacted into law and came to be known as an “anti-SLAPP law.”
Acero and Pott’s anti-SLAPP motion appeared as Vergos v. McNeal, 146
Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). After the opinion in Vergos was issued, I was
witch-hunted and narrowly escaped termination. I was removed from the UCDMC’s 27-
MW cogeneration power plant, which was commissioned in 1998 for the sole purpose of
producing and selling power worth millions of tax-free dollars illegally, in violation of
- 29 -
the university’s tax-exempt status, Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 501(c)(3), and the State
of California Revenue and Taxation Code. From 2005–2008, a witch hunt was instigated
by UC Vice President Judith Boyette, an attorney who specializes in litigation regarding
tax-exempt entities. In 2008, Boyette left the University of California, but she resurfaced
in 2016 after being appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to a three-year term, from
June 2016–June 2019, https://www.hansonbridgett.com/Our-Attorneys/judith-w-boyette,
to the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities. She made sure
that my whistleblower claim would not surface; please see my September 19, 2023
Motion to Recall the Mandate in the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Services Case No. No. 20-1407 (Attachment #20 on the flash drive
and DVD).
Acero resigned from Porter Scott in 2008, at relatively the same time that I defeated The
Regents in arbitration to restore my employment and position at the UCDMC’s 27-MW
cogeneration plant. Even though Acero was no longer affiliated with Porter Scott, he did not
stop representing the University of California’s administrators in the lawsuits brought against
them by aggravated employees who had been subject to wrongful termination.
Acero resurfaced in 2013, after my employment with UCDMC was terminated due to a
second witch hunt orchestrated by The Regents or, more precisely, by the white collar
criminals from the UC Office of the President (UCOP), in Oakland, CA.
On May 14, 2013, six months after my employment was terminated, Acero’s
friend from the UCDMC Risk Management Department, Analyst Maria Garcia,
forwarded to UCDMC Human Resources Labor Relations Department (HRLR) manager
Travis Lindsay some of my old writings on the Davis Vanguard blog about the UC
Davis’s unconstitutional pamphlet titled “UC Davis Principles of Community.” It has
notoriously been used to punish complaining employees or whistleblowers. Garcia was
heavily involved in my employment termination as early as March 2007, when she served
- 30 -
as a communicator between attorneys and management from Human Resources, the

UCOP, and the UC Office of the General Counsel regarding the progress of termination
of employment and, thereafter, the resulting litigation (Attachment #21 on the flash
drive and DVD).
Pott’s name resurfaced on April 2, 2013, in e-mail correspondence between UC Davis
Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo and HRLR manager Travis Lindsay.
Lindsay’s email stated (Attachment #22 on the flash drive and DVD):
I just left you a voice message. Jerry’s step 2 meeting is today at 1:00 at Davis
campus. Mike Boyd is the step 2 officer and Gina Harwood is attending on behalf
of HR.
I think we need to avoid giving Jerry the impression that we expect him to be
unsuccessful at step 2. Also, we have no guarantee that he will appeal to step 3. I
expect him to, but he didn’t appeal his previous suspension past step 2. Could you
say that the University is holding his whistle blower complaint in abeyance
pending the outcome of his PPSM 70 complaint, and if that complaint ends up at
step 3 the whistle blower complaint will we reviewed by the arbitrator?
Travis
P.S. If we end up at step 3 Michael Pott from Porter Scott will be the
University’s advocate. We expect Jerry to sue us at some point and thought it
would be a good idea to involve outside counsel prior to that point to put us in as
good of a position as possible.
Pott and Acero, working as the University’s advocates in 2005–2008, lost the arbitration in
2008 that Delmendo was worried about. The witch hunt of 2005–2008, especially in 2005–
2007, was almost identical to the one of 2011–2012, including but not limited to fabricated
accusations. Acero’s and Pott’s fingerprints were very visible in both efforts. In May 2013,
when Acero sent his e-mail to Garcia, he was representing The Regents in the wrongful
- 31 -
termination lawsuit filed by a UCDMC employee in Sacramento County Superior Court, Um

Hui Nam v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00138396-
CUWTGDS; see also Acero’s anti-SLAPP motion in this case (Attachment #23 on the flash
drive and DVD). Acero’s anti -SLAPP motion became a subject of 3DCA Presiding
Justice Vance Raye’s comments in the Un Hui Nam opinion, in which he said:
It has been suggested that “[t]he cure has become the disease—
SLAPP motions are now just the latest form of abusive litigation.”
(Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 96, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530, 52
P.3d 703 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.) (Navellier ).) And the disease would
become fatal for most harassment, discrimination, and retaliation actions
against public employers if we were to accept the Regents of the
University of California’s (University) misguided reading of the anti-
SLAPP law and reverse the trial court’s denial of its motion to strike.
This opinion was somehow forgotten by 3DCA in my appeal and in the 3DCA opinion
on Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017),
which was fabricated by Michael Pott in conspiracy with my former attorney Stein and in
collusion with Judge Brown.
The anti-SLAPP motion concerning Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524
(Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) was the second-most fraudulent and fabricated anti-SLAPP
motion The Regents’ attorneys filed. It was also the most expensive. My estimate is that,
from December 1, 2014, when Pott filed the motion, to July 2, 2021, when Lindsay
Goulding robbed my wife of $22,284 from her savings, The Regents or owners/co-
owners of the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant lost approximately $100 million
in tax-free money, perhaps more. This all could have been avoided if The Regents or
University administrators in Oakland had not listened to Acero, Pott, Goulding, and
other criminally minded advocates like Gregory Dresser and allowed me to retire from
the university in 2017 as I had planned. Evidence of my plans can be found with my
- 32 -
signing with the Regents a Settlement Agreement on January 30, 2009, as it guaranteed
me a job with the university until my retirement.
After I addressed Acero in my August 13, 2021 Opposition to the Motion For Summary
Judgment (p. 21) (Attachment #24 on the flash drive and DVD), and in Declaration in
Support of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities Motion for Reconsideration (pp.
5–9) on September 22, 2021 (Attachment #25 on the flash drive and DVD). Acero’s
name never re-appeared in my wrongful termination case, which has now gone on for 10
years.
XI.
THE COURT HEARING HELD VIA ZOOM, SEPTEMBER 1, 2021, IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR DEPARTMENT 54 BEFORE HON.
CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A. The court hearing

On August 31, 2021, Judge Christopher Krueger, from Department 54, issued a Tentative
Decision granting a Motion for Summary Judgment to The Regents. That same day, I
requested a Court hearing via Zoom with Judge Krueger for September 1, 2021. I expected
at least a one- or two-hour hearing for the case, which had been pending in three different
courts since December 4, 2013. Judge Krueger had just been appointed to the case, taking
over from Judge David Brown, who had presided over it since September 2014.
In an unprecedented way of serving justice, Judge Krueger denied my right to be heard
and to present and argue The Regents’ and my submitted documents with an MSJ/MSA. He
abruptly ended the hearing after 5–10 minutes, affirming in that way his August 31, 2021
tentative ruling, which was based on nothing, or more precisely on the remaining causes from
the SAC, which had been filed on September 30, 2014 by my former attorney, Stein, in
- 33 -
conspiracy with The Regents’ attorney.
B. The Regents’ attorney from Porter Scott, Thomas Riordan
The Regents’ attorney Lindsay Goulding, who fabricated and filed the MSJ on May 14, 2014
and robbed my 70 years old wife of $22,284 did not appear at the September 1, 2021 MSJ
hearing. Another Porter Scott attorney, Thomas Riordan, appeared for her, despite not being a
legal counsel of record in the case. Throwing Riordan into the game was no coincidence.
During the short hearing, Judge Krueger and Riordan acted like old friends. Riordan’s
(https://www.porterscott.com/person/thomas-l-riordan/) record in the State Bar database
(http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/104827) shows that he has quite a history
of professional misconduct, including multiple acts of violating court orders and findings of
contempt and harming the administration of justice (see
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/02-O-11078.pdf). Riordan worked for three years as
a research attorney with the 3DCA in Sacramento, where Judge Krueger’s wife, Kristine L.
Burks, is employed as a senior research attorney.
C. The Reason I was cut off after 10 minutes and denied being heard by Judge
Krueger -Re: The Regents Power Purchase Agreement with Sacramento
Municipal Utility District
I was cut off short during the hearing because I was ready to present exhibits about May 11–
31, 2012 events related to why someone from the UCOP had, at the last minute, made the
decision to keep me from returning to work on May 31, 2012, after a forced 10-month
absence. My return had been planned, and I had been ordered in a letter from my department
manager to report to work on May 31, 2012.
On May 31, 2012, The Regents finalized a power purchase agreement (PPA) with
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) to resume the sale of surplus power from the
- 34 -
UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration, which had ceased after The Regents signed a Settlement
Agreement with me on January 30, 2009 (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/622460131/2012-UCDMC-27-MW-Cogenaration-Plant-
Power-Purchase-Agreement-with-SMUD). This cost them, or the co-owners of the plant,
millions of tax-free dollars. Just before Judge Krueger cut me off and ended the hearing, I had
in my hand a copy of the PPA, which I wanted to discuss in relation to the termination of my
employment. Most likely, if the hearing had been taking place in a courtroom, perhaps it
would have been a different story, but via Zoom and visible on YouTube, it was inconvenient
for Judge Krueger to listen to my testimony about violations of the university’s tax-exempt
status, millions of dollars tax evasion, and fraud due to violation of IRC 501(c)(3).
D. The Court hearing on September 1, 2021 with Judge Christopher Krueger Never
Should Have Taken Place
First, as I have pointed out many times before, I never had any intention of dealing with The
Regents’ tax evasion and fraud. During the course of my employment with the UCDMC as an
operator of the 27-MW cogeneration power plant (June 1999–April 2007), as an Associate
Development Engineer (February 2009–December 2012), and for three years thereafter, it
never crossed my mind that I would be hunted down because of a power sale worth millions
of tax-free dollars (see https://www.scribd.com/document/666103401/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-s-
Work-History-With-UC-Davis-Medical-Center-1999-2012).
The Court records show that, from June 1999 through September 2015, the power sale by the
UCDMC’s cogeneration plant was never mentioned until I wrote my 300-page-long Third
Amended Complaint (TAC) and forwarded a copy of it to State Bar Chief Trial Counsel’s
Office Investigator Amanda Gormley, on September 25, 2015. Then, Interim Chief Counsel
Gregory Dresser removed her from the complaint against my former attorney, Douglas
Stein. She and my complaint vanished together for another two years. From June 1999
through June 2015, I thought that the Public Utility Regulatory Power Act of 1978, known as
- 35 -
PURPA, did not apply to public entities like the University of California. I never thought, or
cared, about this. Most likely, even if I had known, I would have kept my mouth shut, due my
experiences with my previous employer, Destec Energy Inc. (1989–1998), see
https://www.scribd.com/document/489028741/February-1999-Fire-in-My-Daughter-s-
Apartment-San-Carlos-California.
Second, Dresser’s conspiracy against me on The Regents’ behalf in October 2015 might
have made sense, because the PPA signed on May 31, 2012 between The Regents and SMUD
was not used, and on March 27, 2014, The Regents registered themselves with the California
Public Utilities Commission as an Electric Service Provider (ESP). On December 22, 2014,
The Regents successfully completed the Congestion Revenue Rights registration process with
California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The full story is in my addendum to IRS
FORM 2011, which I submitted to the IRS Whistleblower Office on September 3, 2022
(Attachment #27 on flash drive and DVD,see
https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-ICE-FORM-211-
APPLICATION-FOR-AWARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-California-White-Collar-
Crime).
Third, tax evasion amounting to millions of dollars is a serious crime. Dresser’s meddling in
and tampering with the judicial process by holding the executive position with the State Bar’s
Chief Trial Counsel office and serving as the Director and Chief Counsel of the Commission
on Judicial Performance is very troubling. Taking into consideration that Sacramento
Superior Court Judge David I. Brown was bullied for more than a full year (November 2018–
December 2019) by The Regents’ attorneys and then forced by Dresser to resign in 2020
because he refused to meet their demand to serve me with termination sanctions to end my
litigation against them, it is safe to say that summary judgments would never have been
granted to The Regents if Judge Brown had remained in Department 53. Furthermore, The
Regents’ attorneys would never have filed the motion for summary judgement if Brown had
- 36 -
been in charge of Department 53 in 2021. They waited for several years, until The Regents,
with Dresser’s help, installed two new judges in Sacramento County Superior Court, Shama
Hakim Mesiwala, who replaced Judge Brown, and George A. Acero, who as an attorney
specialized in destroying University of California employees’ lives if they dared to complain
about the university’s management. Acero was installed as a back-up judge in Law and
Motion Departments 53 and 54.
Fourth, the September 1, 2021 Zoom hearing would not have taken place if the June 18, 2021
Motion to Recall the Remittitur issued on January 18, 2018 and the Request for Judicial Notice
of the rigged and totally unlawful October 10, 2017 opinion in anti-SLAPP motion Waszczuk
v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) had not been filed. The
Motion was denied on July 15, 2021 by 3DCA Presiding Justice Vance Raye’s rubber stamp. I
did not know in July 2021 that Raye was under siege from Dresser and The Regents for removal
from his post in 3DCA. I found about that when my appeal of Judge Krueger’s August 31, 2021
MSJ, fabricated by a Porter Scott attorney’s order and October 10, 202 judgment was pending
in 3DCA. The appeal was rigged in 2022 by manipulation of the record on appeal.
XII.
MY INQUIRES WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE IN 2021
In July 2021 after Porter Scott\s Attorney Lindsay Goulding who represents The Regents
ambushed my 70 years old wife and stole from her $22,284 in Sacramento County Superior
Court Department 43 in attempt to frame her for criminal prosecution and clean out her
accounts to convince me to drop the litigations against The Regents than I alerted
Commission on Judicial (Commission) performance about the crime because of involvement
- 37 -
in the crime Judge from Department 43 Thadd Blizzard and his clerk . My inquiry was not a
official complaint against Judge .
On September 16, 2021 I received a response to my worries from the Commission Secretary
to the Trial Counsel Ms. Michelle Kem.(Kem) . (Attachment # 28 on Flash Drive and
DVD). I replayed to Kem on October 8, 2021 (Attachment # 29 on Flash Drive and DVD).
In my reply to Kem I stated:
My inquiry with the CJP was triggered in the defense of my 70-year-old

wife who has nothing to do with my litigation against the University of
California, but who has nevertheless been threatened by gangsters with J.D.
degrees from the Porter Scott law firm since February 2015. On July 2, 2021, my
wife was literally robbed of $22,284 from her savings by Porter Scott attorney
Lindsay Goulding in Court Department 43. This happened while appearing
before Judge Thadd Blizzard and the Court Clerk, and after an unsuccessful
attempt to set up my wife for an interrogation to break into her bank and 401(K)
accounts. Judge Blizzard, the Clerk, and Goulding did not want to accept the
$22,284 check from my wife. I literally had to force Goulding to take the check,
which she had no right to cash, and I told her in front of this judge and clerk to
stop harassing my wife. I had a witness with me during this event in court. I
believe this was a coordinated criminal act by the two Court departments (Depts.
43 and 53 or 54 ) to extort money. These departments should be audited by
the State Auditor and the FBI.
I never received any response from Michelle Kem, but shortly after I found out
that the former Porter Scott Attorney Katherine Mola is new Senior Counsel in the
California State Auditor’s office.
In 2012 the timing of my employment termination with UCDMC by the UCOP was
precisely coordinated with the lawsuit Baker v. Katehi et al., Case No. No. 12-cv-
00450-JAM-EFB, which was filed on February 22, 2012 in the US District Court’s
Eastern District of California. (Attachment # 30 on Flash Drive and DVD).
https://www.scribd.com/document/673122794/09-26-2012-Most-Unwanted-Poster-
and-Pepper-Spray-Settlement-Agreement
- 38 -
The lawsuit was filed in relation to the 2011 student protest on the UC Davis campus, which
was used for an ill-crafted paper spray provocation to remove UC Davis Chancellor Linda
Katehi, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, Lt. John Pike, and Captain Joyce Souza
from their posts. The Baker case was filed three weeks after the January 31, 2012 raid on my
psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft’s home in Lodi by the California Department of Social
Services in a witch hunt orchestrated by Dooley and his wife Diana Dooley, who was the
Secretary of California Health and Human Services.
(Attachment # 31 on Flash Drive and DVD).
Two weeks after I received the Letter of Termination, the parties in Baker v. Katehi et al.
filed a final proposed order to settle the case after a settlement agreement was stipulated on
September 26, 2012. The order had been signed by US District Court Eastern District of
California Judge John A. Mendez. My termination with UC Davis Medical Center was
precisely coordinated with the Baker case and settlement agreement by the UC General
Counsel’s office and three Porter Scott attorneys, Nancy J. Sheehan,
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sacbee/name/nancy-sheehan-
obituary?id=2059585Terence J. Cassidy,
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sacbee/name/terence-cassidy-
obituary?id=30483812 and Katherine Mola
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/264625 who represented the
Defendants in a lawsuit related to the November 18, 2011 pepper spray provocation to oust
Katehi and the three UC Davis police officers. At the UCDMC, the coordinators were Porter
Scott attorney Michael Pott https://www.prismrisk.gov/about-prism/news/new-prism-coo-
mike-pott/ and former Porter Scott attorney George Acero. https://law.ucdavis.edu/deans-
blog/george-acero-friend-king-hall-sworn-sacramento-superior-court-judge. . Both were
- 39 -
advising the UCDMC human resources department on how to proceed with the termination of
my employment.
XIII.
NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RECORD ON APPEAL IN THE 3DCA CASE
WASZCZUK V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, NO.
C095488 - IN RELATION TO GREGORY DRESSER’S WITCH HUNT AIMED AT
3DCA PRESIDING JUSTICE VANCE RAYE AND RAYE’S REMOVAL FROM HIS
POST ON JUNE 1, 2022
A. Notice of Appeal
On December 23, 2021, I filed a Notice of Appeal concerning the October 28, 2021
Motion of Summary Judgment signed by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge
Christopher E. Krueger, from Department 54, which was docketed in 3DCA on
December 29, 2021 (Attachment #32 on flash drive and DVD).
B. Appellant’s Notice Designating Record on Appeal, Filed January 31, 2022
On January 31, 2022, I filed a Notice Designating Record on Appeal that requested the
production and transmittal to 3DCA 147 listed and described Court documents from the case
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-
00155479, filed on December 4, 2013, and the cross-connected case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest
(RPii)—The Regents of the University of California (The Regents), Case No. 34-2013-
80001699. The notice also requested the production of the Court Reporter’s Transcript
from the September 1, 2021 Court hearing VIA Zoom before Judge Krueger, which lasted
- 40 -
only 10 minutes (Court hearing for Motion for Summary Judgment, Attachment #33 on
flash drive and DVD).
C. The Incomplete Record on Appeal and Wrongly Labeled Clerk’s Transcript

(CT) on Appeal I Received on June 28, 2022 from the Sacramento County
Superior Court’s Appellate Department
The incomplete, or more precisely decimated, record on appeal with a wrongly labeled
CT was sent to me on June 28, 2022, more than two months after it was certified by
Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department Clerk Kevin Michaud.
I took a closer look at the record and wrongly labeled CT to find that:
1) After I received on June 28, 2022 the 13 volumes of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT
ON APPEAL (CT), I noticed that the CT had the wrong judge’s name and wrong
attorney It said “CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO HON. DAVID BROWN DOUGLAS ROPEL
#300486, 350 UNIVERSITY AVE., STE 200 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 Attorney
Defendant/Respondent,” instead of HON. CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER and
Defendant’s Attorneys LINDSAY GOULDING, who is the Defendants’ Attorney of
Record on Appeal, or THOMAS RIORDAN, who attended the Motion for Summary
Judgment Court Hearing with Judge Krueger via Zoom on September 1, 2021.
2) The CT was certified on April 22, 2022 by Sacramento County Superior Court
Appellate Department CLERK KEVIN MICHAUD with his initials KM .
3) The DECLARATION OF MAILING, which should be dated and signed under penalty
of perjury by the Sacramento County Superior Court Clerk, most likely by KEVIN
MICHOUD, was left blank (undated and unsigned), rendering it basically invalid, and it
contained the wrong name of the Defendants’ attorney, Douglas Ropel, who does not
work for Porter Scott and has not represented the UC Regents since March 2016
- 41 -
(https://www.littler.com/lawyer-search?lawyer_auto=ropel,
4) The CRT from the September 1, 2021 Court Hearing with Judge Krueger, which was
due to be produced and transmitted to 3DCA by May 9, 2022, was not produced and
transmitted to 3DCA at all. The NOTICE to prepare CRT by the Court Reporter stated as
follows :
Appeal from the Honorable Judge DAVID BROWN instead of Judge
CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you and each of you are hereby directed to
commence preparation of the REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT on Appeal in the
above-entitled action. The Appeal is to the THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL and the transcript is to contain the following dates, as designated by the
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
COURT DATES (CSR) NUMBE COURT REPORTER'S NAM
09/01/ 89 T. Tavale
TRANSCRIPTS ARE DUE: 05/09/22
Please read all designations as Computer-Readable format may have been

requested.
Please notify the Appeals Unit in writing before the due date if no transcript
will be filed. Requests for an extension of time from the Third District Court of
Appeal should be filed prior to the due date.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this notice was sent to the aforementioned reporters
and the Court Reporter Supervisor via interoffice Email.
Executed on: April 8, 20 B Kevin M

Deputy Clerk
The above Notice to Prepare Court Reporter Transcript was supposedly sent by Clerk
- 42 -
KEVIN MICHAUD to Court Reporter TINA TAVALERO via interoffice mail with the
misleading statement that the Appeal was from Judge Brown, who resigned from
Department 53 in December 2020, and the CRT was from the September 1, 2021 hearing
with JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER from Department 54.
On June 27–28, 2022 I learned via an e-mail chat between Executive Analyst from
the Court Reporter’s Board of California, Paula Bruning, and Sacramento County Superior
Court Reporters Valerie Haley and Tina Tavalero that Ms. Halley had not received any
appeal notice in Waszczuk v. the Regents of the University of California for the 9/1/2022
Court Hearing with Judge Krueger, but she produced the CRT for the Porter Scott
attorneys representing the UC Regents.
I examined again the April 8, 2022 Notice of Filing of Designation and Notice to
Reporters to Prepare Transcripts, which was sent by Deputy Clerk Kevin Michaud, from
Appeals Unit Room 102, under penalty of perjury, and discovered that a Notice was sent to
Ms. Tavalero with a due date to produce transcripts on appeal.
I forwarded Ms. Bruning’s e-mail to Ms. Tavalero, and Ms. Tavalero responded that she
had nothing to do with the CRT from the September 1, 2022 Court Hearing with Judge
Krueger. She stated in her email response:
I was not the court reporter for this case. My name was put on the appeal notice
by mistake. It had another court reporter's CSR No. and my name. I checked all
my notes and I was not the reporter on this. I sent a declaration to the 3DCA
stating that I was listed by mistake and I have no notes for any of the proceedings.
( See: Tina Tavalero Declaration in the case C095488 docket)
However, in her June 28, 2012 e-mail response, Ms. Tavalero did not state whether
she ever received the April 8, 2022 Notice of Filing of Designation and Notice to Reporters
to Prepare Transcripts, sent supposedly by Deputy Clerk Kevin Michaud, nor did she
comment on whether she had informed Michaud that she had nothing to do with the
September 1, 2021 hearing, or whether she advised Michaud that the notice had the wrong
Judge’s name on it.
- 43 -
How it is even possible for a Court Reporter to prepare a transcript on appeal per
notice from the Appellate Department with the wrong Judge on the notice? The above facts
of misconduct and raise serious questions that should be investigated and answered by
Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department Clerk KEVIN MICHAUD. This
is not a trivial matter. This is an obstruction of justice and unlawful interference with the
reviewing court’s proceedings.
Who FORCED OR COERCED the preparer of the CLERK TRANSCRIPT ON
APPEAL to deliberately and with malice and premeditation mislabel the CT with the wrong
judge’s name?
More precisely, who forced the CT preparer to replace JUDGE CHRISTOPHER
KRUEGER’S name with JUDGE DAVID BROWN from Department 53, and why? Judge
David Brown resigned in December 2020 two month after Commission on Judicial
Performance Director and chief Counsel Gregory Dresser launched witch hunt pseudo -
investigation against 3DCA Presiding Justice Vance Raye. Judge Brown had nothing to do
with The Regents Motion for Summary Judgment filed on May 14, 2021, which was
decided by JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER on September 1, 2021 who to make
decision used the defective Second Amended Complaint which was filed on September
30,2014 in conspiracy of my former attorney Douglas stein with The Regents Attorney from
Porter Scott and to steal from me $ 20,000 and set me up for anti-SLAPP motion
Who forced KEVIN MICHAUD to certify the deliberately mislabeled and incomplete
CLERK TRANSCRIPT on appeal?
Who ordered KEVIN MICHAUD to withhold sending the CLERK TRANSCRIPT on
appeal to 3DCA for the next 68 days after its certification on April 22, 2022? The undated
and unsigned DECLARATION OF MAILING, which should have been signed by Michaud,
indicates that he perhaps did not want to deal with the orchestrated fraud, deception, and
unlawful interference with the reviewing court’s proceedings, and it needs to be investigated
who is behind this crime to derail the appeal process.
- 44 -
The superior court clerk must "promptly mail" to the Court of Appeal notification
of the filing of a notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(c)(1).) "The
failure of a court reporter or clerk to perform any duty imposed by statute or these
rules that delays the filing of the appellate record is an unlawful interference with
the reviewing court's proceedings. . . ." ( Id., rule 8.23.) People v. Grimes, 172
Cal.App.4th 121 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)
Each item in the rules has the force of law (Carlson v. Department of Fish &
Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1272).
I outlined the details concerning how my appeal to 3DCA in Case C095488 was rigged by the
corrupted Court staff by manipulating and altering the record on appeal in my August 29,
2023 Inquiry/Request titled “Request for the 3DCA Clerk’s Office to transmit the
Supplemental Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal and Clerk’s Transcript Volume 1 to the Supreme
Court of California in the above-captioned Case No. C095488,” which I submitted to 3DCA
Clerk/Executive Officer Colette M. Bruggman on August 29, 202. and to California Supreme
Court Senior Deputy Robert Troy on September 7, 2023, together with a Petition for Review
(Attachment #34 on flash drive and DVD). Copies of my inquires to 3DCA and the
Supreme Court were also provided to Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge
Michael G. Bowman.
It is not difficult to conclude that, in Sacramento County Superior Court, the Appellate
Department Clerk Kevin Michaud by in April–June 2022, acted with malice to rig my
3DCA appeal by the orders of someone above him. Michaud was ordered to withhold the
incomplete and deceptively mislabeled record on appeal until the Director and Chief Counsel
of the Commission of Judicial Performance, Gregory Dresser, conclude his witch hunt
aimed at 3DCA Chief Justice Vance Raye. This finally happened on June 1, 2022 when
Raye was removed from office (Attachment #35 on flash drive and DVD,
- 45 -
https://cjp.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/40/2022/06/Raye_DO_Pub_Admon_6-1-
22.pdf).
It is also not difficult to conclude that Dresser, or his office, communicated the progress of
the witch hunt aimed at Vance to the UCOP; UC Office of General Counsel; or Porter Scott
attorneys who are well connected with the staff, judges, and justices in the Sacramento
Courts.
After Raye was removed by Dresser, 3DCA Justice Ronald Robie was appointed, or
appointed himself, the 3DCA’s Acting Administrative Presiding Justice. He attached
himself to my appeal case C095488. Robie was on the panel of 3DCA Justices who
decided the anti-SLAPP motion appeal with the totally unlawfully issued opinion on
October 10, 2017 in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct.
10, 2017), https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal. This anti-
SLAPP motion, which never should have been issued, was the result of Dresser and Laura
Huggins tampering with and meddling in 3DCA’s judicial process between October 2015
and October 2017. This was repeated by Dresser in 2020–2023, and his interference in the
judicial process took a much more drastic form that included the removal Judge David I.
Brown from the Sacramento Superior Court, Justice Vance Raye from 3DCA, and the
resignation of Supreme Court of California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye shortly after
Raye was removed on June 1, 2022.
XIV.
MY OCTOBER 2022–MARCH 2023 INQUIRES WITH THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA’S COMMISSION (COMMISSION) ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE SECRETARY TO TRIAL COUNSEL MICHELLE KEM
A. October 14, 2022 Inquiry with 3DCA Acting Administrative Presiding Justice
Ronald Robie
- 46 -
As previously noted, after my wife was ambushed by The Regents’ attorneys in July
2021, when they stole $22,284 from her, I sporadically sent information to the
Commission’s Trial Counsel, Michelle Kem, informing her of what the Sacramento
Court and The Regents’ attorneys were doing in my wrongful termination case, which
has been pending for almost 10 years three different state Courts. If I had received the
information from Wells Fargo in January 2015 that I received in October–
December 2022, it would be a very different story.
After I learned in October 2022 what the Gold Business Services Package account was about,
I sent more specific inquiries to Ms. Kem requesting intervention in my case. What the two
Courts’ staff members and judges and justices were doing in my appeal of 3DCA Case
C095488 in 2022 and 2023 to derail it before a decision was issued was both troubling and
unprecedented.
On October 14, 2022, I faxed to the Commission my inquiry to the 3DCA Acting
Administrative Presiding Justice Ronald Robie, who replaced Justice Vance Raye on June 1,
2022. The issue was my Appellant’s Opening Brief. I titled the fax: “Nothing got better in
3DCA since Chief Justice Vance Raye left 3DCA. The enclosed documents are for your
review and serious consideration.”
On November 1, 2022, I received a short response from the Commission’s Secretary to Staff
Counsel, Mary Harvey, stating:
We have read your communication. It does not pertain to the work of the Commission
on Judicial Performance, which is responsible for handling complaints against
California state court judges for judicial misconduct. Your complaint concerns court
personnel. This commission has no jurisdiction over court personnel. (Attachment #
36 on the flash drive and DVD)
- 47 -
B. November 10, 2022 Letter Addressed to Kem addressing Harvey’s Response,

Dated November 1, 2022
I addressed Harvey’s letter in same manner that, in 2016, I addressed my complaint against
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang. In 2015, a judgement by Judge
Chang legitimized the theft of my stolen unemployment insurance benefits, which were
reinstated on May 14, 2014, when I was still being represented by Douglas Stein
C. November 10, 2022 Inquiry Addressed to Kem Titled “REQUEST FOR
INTERVENTION”
In this 54-page-long inquiry with attachments, I detailed the events surrounding the 3DCA
Appeal Case No. C095488 and my cases in general, which have been pending for almost nine
years. My litigation in State of California Courts is an unprecedented example of denying
equal access to justice, the promotion of discrimination and bias, and extreme beyond
imagination prejudice toward self-represented litigants. It led to ill-orchestrated and
criminally minded attacks aimed at my wife. Since 2016, 1 have alerted the Commission
about these crimes on many occasions, as they involve the University of California
administrators’ attorneys from Porter Scott, and judges and clerks from Sacramento County
Superior Court Dept. 43, who are working in coordinated efforts with Departments 53 and 54
and 3DCA justices and staff. In my inquiries, I have asked the Commission to intervene and
send my complaints to directly to Robie and to Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding
Judge Michael Bowman (Attachment #38 on the flash drive and DVD).
D. November 18 , 2022 Inquiry Addressed to Kem Addressing the Augmented
Record Appeal
In this inquiry, I addressed 3DCA’s November 14, 2022 Court Order, which granted the
Appellant’s motion to augment the record on appeal in part and denied it in part. The
manipulated record on appeal clearly shows that the whole appeal was rigged and the results
- 48 -
of the appeal were known to The Regents’ attorneys long before the unpublished opinion was
issued on July 28, 2023 as Waszczuk v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., No. C095488 (Cal. Ct.
App. July 28, 2023, Attachment #39 on the flash drive and DVD).
F. November 29 , 2022 Follow Up Inquiry Regarding my Request for Intervention
Addressed to Kem
This letter contained additional information following up on my Request for
Intervention and my response to the November 1, 2022 letter from Harvey, which was
submitted to Kem’s office on November 10, 2022 and November 18, 2002. I also enclosed a
copy of my request to open the 2011–2012 State of California Department of Insurance
Investigation (Claim CS13-6707505) into Liberty Assurance Company of Boston (acquired
by Lincoln National Life Insurance company on May 1, 2018), which wrongly denied my
2011 short-term/supplement disability claim #4154074. I provided an explanation in the letter
detailing why I had submitted a copy of my request to the State of California’s Department of
Insurance (Attachment #40 on the flash drive and DVD).
G. My January 10, 2023 Inquiry Addressed to Kem Regarding The Regents’

Attorney Karen Bray’s Request for an Extension of Time to File Respondent
Brief
In this informational letter, I addressed The Regents’ attorney Karen Bray’s request
for an extension of time to file a Respondent Brief in 3DCA Case C095488 (Appeal),
beyond an already granted 60-day extension of time. The case has been unlawfully
dragged out in the courts for more than nine years without resolution, perhaps with the
expectation that I will eventually die.I addition, I again addressed in the letter The
Regents’ attorneys actions against my wife and provided detailed information about
how she was terrorized and traumatized before $22,284 was stolen from her
- 49 -
H. My March 3, 2023 Follow Up Inquiry Addressed to Kem Further Addressing

Bray’s Respondent Brief
My letter, in which I commented, “This is How the Holocaust Happened. Evil
Prevails when Good Men and Women Do Nothing,” addressed Bray’s behavior
further.
On March 1, 2023, I sent a letter to Bray about the Respondent Brief that was due
to be filed on February 16, 2023, after an extra 30 days’ extension had been granted
above the 60-day extension she had already been granted. Bray used her mother’s
death as an excuse for her failure to file (Attachment #42 on the flash drive and DVD,
https://www.scribd.com/document/629 1 79226/03-01-2023-Letter-to-Karen-Bray-
Failure-to-File-Respondents-Brief).
On February 17, 2023, 3DCA should have sent her a notification about her failure to file
the brief in a timely manner. On February 22, 2023, 1 sent a reminder to the 3DCA clerk
about the Brief not being filed. That same day, the clerk reminded Bray about her failure
to file.
I. March 14 , 2023 Inquiry Submitted to Kem Addressing the Wells Fargo

Gold Business Services Package Account Opened June 2, 2014 by my
Former Attorney Douglas Stein for the Sole Purpose of Stealing my
Money
My March 14, 2023 inquiry was entitled “Irreparable Damage to my Litigation from 2014-
2023 Against The Regents of the University of California ( Regents), the California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB), and to my Life and Wellbeing at
Retirement Age, Caused by Wells Fargo Bank’s Unfair Business Practices and Misconduct.”
My letter addressed the copies of the 2014 Wells Fargo Bank documents and statements that
a Wells Fargo representative provided to me about the account my former attorney, Douglas
Stein, opened on June 2, 2014 under false pretenses with my $19,500. I gave Stein this money
as a retainer to represent me in my wrongful termination case against The Regents of the
University of California. The inquiry was similar in part to my complaint against former State
- 50 -
Bar Interim Chief Trial Counsel Gregory Dresser and Deputy Trial Counsel Laura Huggins.
In addition to faxing and mailing the letter with attachments to Kem, I e-mailed it
directly to the members of the Commission on Judicial Performance, due to lack of any
response from Kem since I responded to a letter from him in October 2021 (Attachment
#43 on the flash drive and DVD).
XV.
THE MARCH 15, 2023 LETTER FROM GREGORY PAUL DRESSER,
DIRECTOR-CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE
A. Dresser’s Letter
Dresser’s short letter was a response to my March inquiry sent to Kem and the
members of the Commission on March 14, 2023. It stated (Attachment #44 on the flash
drive and DVD):
This is in response to your March 14, 2023 email to members of

the Commission on Judicial Performance. Members of the commission do
not correspond individually with people who have filed complaints with
the commission but have authorized me to do so on their behalf.
I have reviewed your original submission and all of your

subsequent submissions. You have asked for this office’s assistance in
intervening with the Third District Court of Appeal and the Sacramento
County Superior Court to provide them with the complaint attached to the
email. Please be advised that the commission is unable to assist you with
your request.
The commission’s jurisdiction is limited to investigating and, when

appropriate, imposing discipline for judicial misconduct. Your complaint
concerns legal rulings made by a judicial officer. Ordinarily, individual
legal rulings are not a basis for review, by this commission. Even a judicial
- 51 -
decision or administrative act later determined to be incorrect is not itself

a violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics and is not misconduct.
Very truly yours

It is was no secret for the Courts that I submitted multiple inquiries to Kem asking for
intervention in Sacramento County Superior Court and 3DCA to invalidate the
corrupted court proceedings , including Court orders and opinions in my
wrongful termination and unemployment benefits insurance cases. This
happened after The Regents’ attorney, Goulding, in a desperate move, ambushed my wife in
Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 43 on July 2, 2021, stealing $22,284 from her
savings in an attempt to break into her bank and 401(K) plan accounts and frame her
for criminal prosecution, in the desperate attempt of convincing me to drop his
litigation against. Dresser’s response to my multiple inquires of the Commission
requesting nullification of two 3DCA opinions, Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins.
Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) and Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ.
of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017), was a surprise and unexpected.
Dresser’s name sounded familiar to me. I came across it in lawsuits that were pending in
Sacramento County Superior Court at relatively the same time as my wrongful termination
case with same judge, David Brown, presiding. Those cases were Dina Padilla vs.
Commission on Judicial Performance, Case No. 34-2018-00242031-CU-MC-GDS, and
3DCA case Chodosh v. Comm’n on Judicial Performance, Case No. C091221, in which
Dresser was an individual defendant.
In the January 10, 2023 inquiry to Kem, I addressed Chodosh v. Commission
on Judicial Performance et al., Number C091221, in relation to my Appellant’s
motion to recall the remittitur and request for judicial notice filed on June 18, 2021 in
3DCA case No. C079524, Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California.
The motion to recall the remittitur and request for judicial notice was denied on July
- 52 -
15, 2021 by 3DCA Presiding Justice Raye, who was under investigation by Dresser
for alleged judicial misconduct. This happened two weeks after my wife was
ambushed Goulding as detailed above.
B. SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE dated September 8, 2017
After I received the March 15, 2022 letter from Dresser, I searched my computer for
Dresser’s name. Surprisingly, it appeared in a State Bar of California Office of Chief Trial
Counsel SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE dated September 8, 2017
The front page of the Acknowledgement of Receipt of Receipt of Subpoena, contained the
following senders names
• STEVEN J. MOAWAD, SBN 190358– CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
• GREGORY DRESSER, SBN 136532-DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
• SUSAN CHAN, SBN 233229 -ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
• ROBERT A. HENDERSON, SBN 173205 -SUPERVISING ATTORNEY
• LAURA HUGGINS , SBN 294148– DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
In September 2017 I was unfamiliar with Steven J. Moawad . Susan Chan , Laura Huggins &
Gregory Dresser’s names . Only Robert A. Henderson’s name sounded familiar because he
on January 14, 2015 informed me that that Gormley had been assigned to investigate my
complaint under the direct supervision of Senior Trial Counsel Robin Brune
I looked at the subpoena and noticed Dresser’s name next to Chief Trial Counsel Steven J.
Moawad and Laura Huggins. What first came to mind were Gormley and Brune, who were
removed from Stein’s case in September 2015. The silence and lack of response from Kem
since October 2021, summarized by a meaningless half- page letter from Dresser on March
15, 2023, was nothing but repentance for the removal of Gormley and Brune in 2015 from
Stein’s case to cover up The Regents crimes amounted in the millions of dollars tax evasion
- 53 -
and fraud due to violation of the university exempt status IRC 501 ( c ) ( 3) and other state
and federal law .
I.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above facts and evidence, I am respectfully requesting that the State Bar
of California Chief Trial Counsel fully investigate the actions of October 2015–October
2017 by former Deputy Chief Trial Counsel Laura Huggins and her collaborators’
misconduct in relation to my complaint against my former attorney, Douglas Edward
Stein, and the crimes he committed, including but not limited to the theft of my retainer
money and the theft of unemployment insurance benefits.
In light of the above facts and evidence, I am respectfully requesting that the State Bar
of California Chief Trial Counsel fully investigate Gregory Dresser’s alleged criminal
misconduct, which includes and is not limited to tampering with and meddling in the
judicial process in my wrongful termination lawsuit of 2015–2018 and again in 2020–
2023, on behalf of The Regents of the University of California or executives from the
UCOP, as described in my complaint. Dresser’s actions have caused financial
devastation and a diminished quality of life in general for me and my family.
A complaint against several attorneys from the Porter Scott and Horvitz and Levy LLP
law firms will shortly follow this complaint.
Respectfully submitted on September 25, 2023.
_____________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
- 54 -
Evidence in the form of the attachments on the flash drive and DVD. Hard paper
copies are available upon request.
https://www.scribd.com/document/673359264/09-25-2023-State-Bar-Complaint-
Against-California-Director-of-Commision-on-Judicial-Performance-Gregory-
Dresser
CC:
State Bar of California Executives
Supreme Court of California –Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California, Case No. S281719
- 55 -
USCA Case #20-1407 Received
Document #2019046 Filed: 09/26/2023
Filed Page 147 of 149
06/28/23 09:01 pm 06/28/23
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk,

Petitioner
v. Electronically Filed
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Document No. 68
Respondent
Entry of Appearance for Respondent
SERVED 06/28/23
)
)
JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Docket No. 23105-18W
)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL )
REVENUE, ) Filed Electronically
)
Respondent. )
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
The undersigned, being duly admitted to practice before the United States
Tax Court, hereby enters an appearance for Respondent in the above-titled case.
DRITA TONUZI
Deputy Chief Counsel (Operations)
Internal Revenue Service
Date: June 28, 2023 By:

SOPHIA L. WANG
Attorney
Tax Court Bar No. WS23086
100 First Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 547-3827
[email protected]
OF COUNSEL:
ROBIN L. GREENHOUSE
Division Counsel
EWAN D. PURKISS
Area Counsel
(Large Business & International: Area 5)
AIMEE LOBO-BERG
Associate Area Counsel

9-26-2023 - USCA - No. 20-14-07 Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner - Reply To Commisioner Opposition-Re: Mandate Recall

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9-26-2023 - USCA - No. 20-14-07 Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner - Reply To Commisioner Opposition-Re: Mandate Recall

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9-26-2023 - USCA - No. 20-14-07 Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner - Reply To Commisioner Opposition-Re: Mandate Recall

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USCA Case #20-1407 Document #2019046 Filed: 09/26/2023 Page 1 of 149

USCA No. 20-1407 USTC No. 23105–18 W

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk

Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT

APPELLANT-PETITIONER’S REPLY TO APPELEE’S OPPOSITION -RE:

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Per Se

Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced “Vashchook,” hereafter “Waszczuk”)

For clarity, the Commissioner stated in the opposition:

The Court dismissed this whistleblower appeal for lack of

on the case Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The

Commissioner and the Court, based on a deceptive Commissioner’s Motion to

Waszczuk’s and Li’s case.

Commissioner’s Office, and especially the US Attorney General Office’s Tax

University of California, who is also the former US Secretary of Homeland Security,

Janet Napolitano, is attached to it.

B. The Commissioner’s argument that the IRS Whistleblower Office issued

investigation. (Mot. to Dismiss Case for Lack of Jurisdiction,

tens of millions of dollars of TAX EVASION AND FRAUD due to a violation of

IRC 501(c)(3) by the University of California.

On February 5, 2019, the Commissioner filed an ANSWER to Waszczuk’s Petition

AND GOVERNMENT ENTITIES (TEGE) for further investigation and an opinion

In the ANSWER, on Pages 2 and 3, under paragraph 8, the Commissioner wrote:

8. FURTHER ANSWERING the petition, and as an affirmative

g. On September 4, 2018, Marie Holt, Ogden Campus Classification,

h. On September 26, 2018, petitioner’s claims were assigned to Karen

Foster, TEGE Classification, for further review.

k. On October 15, 2018, Karen Foster signed a Form 11369, Confidential

l. Karen Foster rejected petitioner’s claims, stating in the Form 11369,

appear to be filing and reporting unrelated business income appropriately on Form

tax. There was no specific or credible documentation submitted to substantiate the

business income for 2016 tax years.

On May 3, 2019, following the ANSWER, the Commissioner filed the

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER THAT UNDENIED

ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C)

Commissioner’s February 5, 2019 ANSWER and MOTION FOR ENTRY OF

ORDER THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED

PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C) (EXIBIT #3).

On June 3, 2019, Waszczuk filed a very specific and detailed 24-page-long

PETITIONER’S REPLY/OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER

THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED PURSUANT TO

RULE 37(C) (EXHIBIT #4).

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE

DEEMED ADMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C) (EXHIBIT#5).

C. What is the University of California’s unrelated business income tax

of California) appear to be filing and reporting unrelated business income

appropriately via Form 990T.

On December 13, 2019, Waszczuk, in his PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO THE

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- RULE

University of California’s Policy BFB-A-61: UNRELATED BUSINESS

(here, EXHIBIT #6).

U.S.T.C. Judge Goeke’s Decision):

For her recommendation, the TEGE classifier reviewed Waszczuk

Furthermore, the Commissioner’s argument in the opposition that Waszczuk’s

dated June 4, 2020 addressed more specifically the University of California’s

WBO and Commissioner’s attorneys’ conduct was an unconscionable plan or

scheme of fraud designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.

Waszczuk addressed the University of California’s Policy BFB-A-61: