UNITED STATES TAX COURT DRC

WASHINGTON, DC 20217

JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK, )

)
Petitioner(s), )
)
v. ) Docket No. 23105-18W.
)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )
)
Respondent )

ORDER

On July 15, 2020, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of our

opinion and order granting summary judgment to respondent relating to his
whistleblower claim. When we review a rejection of a whistleblower claim, we
review the Whistleblower Office (WBO) administration record relating to its
decision. Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. 8, 20 (2018). Petitioner asserts, on
the basis of a past statement by respondent, that the Court does not have the
WBO's administrative record. We have possession of the administrative record
from petitioner's claim dated August 3, 2018. We reviewed the administrative
record and found that it establishes that the IRS reviewed petitioner's
whistleblower information and also IRS' internal records relating to the targets.
After the IRS review, the WBO found there was evidence that the targets reported
their unrelated business income tax and there was not sufficient evidence of
unreported business income.

Petitioner has made lengthy arguments with the Court about the target's
activities. We do not have authority to decide whether the IRS should have audited
the targets; we cannot make a whistleblower award or order the IRS to audit the
targets. Cooper v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 597, 600-601 (2011). Our only role is
to make sure the WBO reviewed petitioner's claim. The administration record
shows that the WBO properly reviewed petitioner's claim and decided not to audit
the targets. Accordingly, we will deny petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Upon due consideration, it is

SERVED Jul 17 2020

 -2-

ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or

Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161, filed July 15, 2020, is denied.

(Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke

Judge

Dated: Washington, D.C.

July 17, 2020
 US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT
RECEIVED y % eFILED
DRC sU S
JUL 152020 * JUL 152020
9:10 PM

JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK,

Petitioner,
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v- Docket No. 23105-18W

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent

PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS

OR OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 161

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 UNITED STATES TAX COURT

JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

Docket No. 23105-18W
Petitioner Filed Electronically

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Respondent

THE PETITIONER 'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

FINDINGS OR OPINION FOR THE U.S. TAX COURT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND DECISION IN
WASZCZUK v. COMMISSIONER 'R, T.C. MEMO.2020-75 (U.S.T.C.
JUNE 4, 2020) PURSUANT TO RULE 161 OF THE TAX COURT'S
RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE,

Re: Whether the IRS Whistleblower Office (WBO) abused its own
discretion in denying the Petitioner 's submission to the WBO in 2018 for a
whistleblower award pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 7623

I. INTRODUCTION

The Petitioner, pursuant to Rule 161 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and

Procedure, is timely in submitting this motion of the Memorandum Opinion and

Docket No. 23105-18 W -2-

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

June 4, 2020), served on June 4, 2020. Along with a motion to vacate, the Petitioner

is submitting a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Rule 161 from the above-

captioned court ruling.

Through this submitted motion, the Petitioner requests that the court grant

him a motion for reconsideration by nullifying or modifying the June 4, 2020,

Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision and deny the Respondent Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment and set the case for trial or remand the case back to

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) WBO and Tax-Exempt Govemmental Entity

(TEGE), or refer the case to the IRS Criminal Investigation Department, to which it

belongs. It is the Petitioner 's understanding that the court commonly

simultaneously considers motions for reconsideration (Rule 161) and motions to

vacate, revise, change, or void an order or decision (Rule 162).

II.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On June 29, 2020, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate or Revise the

Decision of the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in Waszczuk v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), served on June 4,

2020 (U.S Tax Court Docket No. 0045)

(https://www.scribd.com/document/467408938/20200629-Motion-to-Vacate-
or-Revise-Filed-U-S-Tax-Court).
Docket No. 23105-18 W -3 -

The motion was denied by the court on the following day, June 30, 2020,

with a rubber stamp from the court with the Honorable Joseph Goeke's name on it.

(U.S Tax Court Docket No. 0046)

The Petitioner feels that the court served justice quickly by using a rubber

stamp to discourage the Petitioner to file motion for reconsideration, pursuant to

Rule 161. Not wishing to be redundant to the Motion to Vacate or Revise the

Decision, Rule 162, which has chapters entitled "Merit of the Case" and

"Procedural and Factual Background", the Petitioner is attaching a copy of the

Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision as (EXHIBIT # 1) as procedural and

factual background to this motion.

In addition to the Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision, the Petitioner

provided arguments as to why the court should vacate or modify and remand the

Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) back to the IRS WBO in Ogden, Utah, for

further investigation of tax fraud committed by the Regents of the University of

Califomia (UC), for illegally operating and producing electrical energy at the UC

Davis Medical Center's (UCDMC)27-megawatt (MW) cogeneration facility,

located in Sacramento, California.

In the discussion chapter of Seiffert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-61

(U.S.T.C. Apr. 7, 2014), the court provided a standard of review under Rules 161

and 162, to grant, or not, the motion for reconsideration or motion to vacate
Docket No. 23105-18 W -4-

As the Petitioner understands Seiffert v. Commissioner, the Court does not exercise

discretion to grant the motion of reconsideration without evidence of a substantial

error or unusual circumstances, citing Haft Trust v. Commissioner, 6_2_T_.C.

145 (1974), affd on this ground, 5_10_F_2d 43,_45 n.1 (1st Cir. 1975).

It is hard to point to substantial errors within the Memorandum Opinion and

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

June 4, 2020), because that memorandum is itself, as a whole, a substantial error,

that was issued without administrative record. The Respondent admitted to failing

to provide the administrative record in Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on

November 7, 2019 (Docket #0023 Page No. 3§ 7)

II.
UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PETITIONER AS A
WHISTLEBLOWER

To clarify for the respondent's attorney from the IRS Chief Counsel Office in

San Diego, CA, and for the court, the Petitioner does not consider himself a

whistleblower and does not like the term's "whistleblower" or "whistleblowing".

However, because such terminology is used by the government, the Petitioner will

use these terms.

In his more-than-30-year career in the U.S., the Petitioner has never

previously reported any of his employers for wrongdoing; he has always made

efforts to resolve problems intemally and without conflict. During his employment,
Docket No. 23105-18 W -5-

the Petitioner has never received a bad evaluation; his evaluations were always

perfect or near perfect.

https://www.scribd.com/document/468892196/UNIVERSITY-OF-
CALIFORNIA-1999-2010-PETITIONER-S-ANNUAL-EMPLOYEE-
EVALUATIONS

Due to second witch hunt of2011-2012 airned at Petitioner , UC did not

provide Petitioner with annual performance review for the evaluation periods 2010-

2011 and 2011-2012 violating it is own policy which mandates to evaluate

ernployees once a year.

The Petitioner 's problem with his employment began in 1996 in California at

the San Joaquin 50-MW cogeneration plant in Lathrop, CA, where the Petitioner

had happily worked since 1989, very often working 12-hour shifts for 20

consecutive days at $14 per hour. The Petitioner worked a lot of overtime, but he

was happy because as a hardworking new immigrant, he was able to provide a

decent life for his family, which was forced by communist regime to leave native

country of Poland in 1982 after Petitioner as political prisoner was released by

communists from the internment camp .

The San Joaquin 50-MW cogeneration plant was one nine plants of the same

capacity owned by Dynegy Inc., previously Destec Energy and Power System

Engineering (PSI), based in Houston, Texas. Dynegy's rival on the power market

was Enron Corporation, also based in Houston, Texas.

Docket No. 23105-18 W -6-

The Petitioner was earning $14 per hour and working lot of overtime when

his employer defrauded him of $27,000 overtime pay. To this day, for the Petitioner

, that is a lot of money; it was especially so in 1996. The dispute about unpaid

wages turned into vicious retaliation from Dynegy, including the termination of

Petitioner 's employment in 1998, litigations with Dynegy and Pacific Gas and

Electric Company (PG&E) resulted in fire at the Petitioner 's daughter's apartment

in San Carlos, CA, near San Francisco, in which perpetrators were targeting

Petitioner and in which the Petitioner 's daughter almost died. The Petitioner

finalized his litigations with his former employer, Dynegy Inc., on February 2,

2002, three years after he was hired by the UCDMC as an operator in their 27-MW

cogeneration plant, which is similar to Dynegy's San Joaquin 50-MW cogeneration

plant.

The Petitioner , representing himself, prevailed in this appeal for $27,000 in

unpaid overtime wages, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case No. CV

00737; The Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Waszczuk v. Destec

Energy Inc, Case Nos. C036253 and C03005. On October 19, 1999, the Petitioner

argued the above-captioned cases for himself as plaintiff in 3DCA. The case was

filed in the San Joaquin County Superior Court on March 17, 1997. On December

3, 1999, 3DCA issued an unpublished opinion in favor of the Petitioner . The 3DCA

opinion, although unpublished, nullified the California Division of Standard Labor

Enforcement's (DLSE) underground regulations entitled "Which Industrial Welfare

Docket No. 23105-18 W -7-

Commission (IWC) Order?" and restored proper overtime law for all non-exempt

employees working in California's privately-owned power plants. This was

implemented by the corrupt labor commissioner, Jose Millan, who earned a Juris

Doctorate (JD) degree at the Houston School of Law, to please Houston-based

private electric power companies that were doing business in State of California

after the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) was enacted by

the U.S Congress, following the energy crisis of the 1970s, to encourage

cogeneration and renewable resources and to promote competition for electric

generation. Ten days after the oral arguments in appellate Court , Dynegy Inc.

settled the wrongful termination lawsuit with the Petitioner in the San Joaquin

County Superior Court case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Dynegy Inc., Case No. CV

004940.

Beside that Petitioner prevailed on the appeal in overtime dispute , the Petitioner

learned from the unpublished opinion issued by Third Appellate District t on

December 3, 1999 in the Case No. C030005 Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc. that

electricity is a commodity and that the production of electricity was regulated by

international treaty rather than by California law. Pierce v. Pacific Gas & Electric

C_o. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 68 and Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Superior

Court (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 803, 819

One of the 3DCA justices that heard this was Justice Vance Raye, the future 3DCA

presiding justice, who decided the Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc. case
Docket No. 23105-18 W -8-

(https://www.scribd.com/document/468227347/U-S-Tax-Court-12-03-1999-3DCA-
Unpublished-Opinion-Case-No-C030005-Waszczuk-y-Destec-Energy-Inc).

This opinion was provided to the IRS WBO as attachment #16 on the

Petitioner 's IRS WBO Supplemental Application for Award Form 211, on August

3, 201 8.

In February 2012, the perpetrators in the illegal operation of the UCDMC 27-

MW cogeneration plant had to decide what to do with the Petitioner , who was

permanently removed from UCDMC premises on August 31, 2011, but who was

still included on the UC payroll. The University of California Office of the

President (UCOP) mob had to decide whether to kill the Petitioner or to let him

live; they ordered their thugs from UC Davis to review the court file in the 1996-

2002 3DCA Case No. C030005 Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc.

On February 16, 2012, the UCOP perpetrator requested the case file from the

State Record Center, which they received on February 22, 2012, and returned three

months later, on May 22, 2012. After reviewing the case, the UCOP mob decided

that the Petitioner must die. The UCOP ordered them to provoke and kill on May

31, 2012; the Petitioner was lured to the UCDMC premises under false pretenses,

thinking that he was coming back to work.

The Petitioner was lucky that he returned home in one piece. On that day, a

special group, which the Petitioner later nicknamed "the UC Davis Death Squad,"

was bribed with a $35,000 pay raise, and UC Davis Police Officer Lt. James
Docket No. 23105-18 W -9-

Barbour was assigned to shoot the Petitioner , while UC Davis Medical Center

Trauma Unit #11 supervisor, Karen Kouertas, was waiting to receive the Petitioner

if provocation was successful and to finish the Petitioner off if he was still alive.

The UC Doctor of Psychology involved in the plot to kill Petitioner strongly

anticipated that Petitioner upon arrival on the UCDMC premises, will be provoked

and physically confront the department manager than assign cop will shoot

Petitioner . The Petitioner refused to end his employment with the university in the

UCDMC Trauma Unit # 11 or UCDMC Morgue , where he served for 12 years and

walked out of an ill-crafted provocation in attempt to kill him . As the Petitioner

found out later through the perpetrator's e-mail chat, the assigned UCOP thug who

was overseeing the operation to kill Petitioner was very disappointed that Petitioner

did not got violent after his department manager told him that he was not coming

back to work, almost one year after being removed from UCDMC premises and

instead to send him to his shop he sent Petitioner to Human Resources department

for Russia and Romania hoax collusion investigation .

The Petitioner did not know that on the day of "final solution" for the

Petitioner 's employment with UC, the UCOP mob signed on same day May 31,

2012 a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the Sacramento Municipal Utility

District (SMUD) to resume the illegal power sale from the cogeneration facility,

that had been previously ceased in January 2009. This PPA was signed by SMUD

on May 31, 2012, but it was never utilized, and the Petitioner is still alive, eight
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 10 -

years later. The Petitioner attached a copy of the PPA to the IRS WBO to his

Application for Award for Original Information on March 23, 2016, and to his

supplemental Application for Award Form 211, on August 3, 2018,

https://www.scribd.com/document/468242760/060-2012-CONTRACT-
WITH-SMUD-pdf

Eighteen years later, on October 10, 2017 after the Califomia Court of

Appel Third Appellate District Justice Vance Raye issued the unpublished opinion

in the previous 3DCA Case No. C030005 Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc. the

same Justice Vance as Presiding Justice Vance Raye and a member of the UC

Davis Medical School Leadership Council, was personally acquainted with two

executives from the UC Davis Medical Center who were defendants in the

Petitioner 's wrongful termination lawsuit, Sacramento County Superior Court Case

No. 34-2013-34-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University

of California, and same Justice Vance Raye affirmed in unpublished opinion the

3DCA Case No. C079524 Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California

e_t_al. Superior Court judgment granting the Special Motion to Strike (anti-Strategic

Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion) entered judgment in favor of

the five individual defendants, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, Section

425.16.

The highly discriminatory and fraudulent 3DCA opinion-decision in the anti-

SLAPP motion (C079524) is also undeniable evidence of partiality, and most likely
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 11 -

of 3DCA Presiding Justice Honorable Vance Raye's collusion with two defendants

in Case No. C079524, who were participants in a white-collar crime related to the

illegal sale of power from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration facility, as well as tax

fraud, due to violation of PURPA and the requirements set forth in 18 C.F.R. §§

292.203(b) and 292.205 for the operation, efficiency, and use of energy output,

needed to be certified as a qualified facility (QF) (pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 292.20

requirements; the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a); the California Public

Utilities Code Section 218.5; the Unfair Competition Law of California; Business

and Professions Code § 17200; Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code of 1954; and the

State of California Revenue and Taxation Code . Justice Vance Raye was appointed

to the bench in era of California electricity market deregulation which resulted in

May 2000-Novermber 2003 in 40 billion sophisticated scheme of fraud titled

"California Energy Crisis" .

(https://www.scribd.com/document/468229188/US-Tax-Court-2017-10-25-
2017-anti-SLAPP-Motion-Petition-for-Rehearing-Opinion-Waszczuk-y-UC-
Regents).
What a coincidence that two of the Petitioner 's former employers, one a

private power corporation from Texas and other a public university in California,

both violated the same law and defrauded Califomia ratepayers and taxpayers of

tens of millions of dollars due to their criminal activities. The same justice from the

3DCA court used a different approach justice standard to white collar criminals
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 12 -

University of California and UC Davis Medical Center exempted from taxes than

to private power corporation from Houston , Texas .

3DCA Justice Vance Raye noticed one of Petitioner 's exhibits from the court

transcript (CT) on appeal, a short excerpt of which was mentioned in the opinion.

The Petitioner 's inquiry of the letter sent was the UC General Counsel Charles

Robinson on January 5, 2015; in it the Petitioner stated,

"The stake in this lawsuit must be a lot bigger and more important than the
life of a 63-year-old Polish refugee who escaped communist oppression and
was promised protection from oppression in his new country by the U.S.
government. Instead of protection from oppression, the Polish refugee
received treatment from the University of California that has been much
worse than the treatment he received in the Polish communist prison, where
the communist's prison guard was more respectful to the political prisoners
than UC management to its own employees."

Charles Robinson's arrival as new general counsel and vice president at

California Independent System Operator (CAISO) in April 2000 drastically

changed the status of the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant from idling at 5

MW to the plant of the "Horseman of the Apocalypse," which stripped

California of 40 billion dollars. (Quote repeated after former California

Attorney General Bill Lockyer, key perpetrator to condone and cover up

university of California millions of dollars tax evasion and fraud).

The Petitioner was a direct witness to the attack on the California and

Western States Power Grid by power corporations BY tiny but very profitable
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 13 -

UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant. The Power Grid almost

collapsed in 2001

. On January 2, 2007, Charles Robinson was transferred from CAISO to

the UCOP headquarters in Oakland, CA, and the merciless witch hunt, aimed at

the Petitioner , began, resulting of his abrupt removal from the UCDMC 27-

MW cogeneration plant in March 2007.

The Petitioner 's employment at UCDMC since June 27, 1999, was secure

until California Attorney General the CAISO General Counsel, and the UC

General Counsel achieved their goals with Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission to cover up the UC illegal power production and sale worth tens

of millions of dollars illegally earned and untaxed profit. The January 5, 2007,

settlement agreement was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) on March 1, 2007; the Regents of UC and the UCDMC

27-MW cogeneration plant were excluded from the settlement and participants

in the fraud, including CAISO and Cal-PX executives and managers and their

collaborators, were unscathed. Shortly after the settlement was approved,

FERC's leadership changed.

The approval of the settlement, under the pressure of intimidation and

ultimatum, gave the green light to the owners of the UCDMC 27-MW

cogeneration plant to continue their fraudulent activity; thus, the perpetrators in

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 14 -

this fraud viewed the Petitioner 's presence in the plant as a threat to their plan

to resume illegal generation and sale of power. After at least $130,000,000 of

fraud was swept under the rug by FERC, the Petitioner became the subject of a

14-year ruthless witch hunt, ordered by owners of the UCDMC 27-MW

cogeneration plant. This witch hunt, which is ongoing, has devastated the

Petitioner, his family, and others. However, it has caused the owners of the

UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant to lose approximately $ 100,000,000-

$200,000,000 in surplus power sales. After the Regents of UC signed the

settlement agreement with the Petitioner on January 31, 2009, the owners of the

UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant apparently did not sell any power, having

signed annual power purchase agreements with SMUD. In December 2014 the

Regents of UC became market participants under the Califomia Independent

System Operators Congestion Revenue Rights but did not sell any power

illegally because Petitioner in December 2014 fired his attorney and did not

traveled to his native country Poland for Christmas thus placing him on non-fly

list by Janet Napolitano's friends from Homeland Security did not work as

anticipated by the UCOP organized white collar crime with Janet Napolitano's

supervision since September 2013.

The Petitioner addressed this subject in his Motion to Vacate or Revise the

Decision of the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in Waszczuk v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), filed on June 29,
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 15 -

2020 (Docket No. 0045). The above-mentioned anti-SLAPP motion was filed in

the Sacramento County Superior Court on December 1, 2014, by UC attorneys to

throw the Petitioner out of court (3DCA Case C079524, Waszczuk v. The Regents

of the University of California is still unresolved). This anti-SLAPP motion is

likely the most expensive and time-consuming anti-SLAPP motion for the Regents

of UC and their notorious advocates from Porter Scott Professional Law

Corporation, based in Sacramento, CA, since the Califomia Legislature enacted its

anti-SLAPP law, California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, in 1992. The UC

Regents and the real owners of the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration power plant

were stripped themselves of approximately $35,000,000 of tax-free cash since

their advocates from Porter Scott filed the anti-SLAPP motion on December 1,

2014, in an attempt to end the Petitioner 's litigations in Sacramento Courts;

$35,000,000 tax-free cash is lot of money to pay for an anti-SLAPP motion.

Former California attorney Bill Lockyer described Reliant Inc., El Paso Inc.,

Enron Inc., and former the Petitioner 's employer, Dynegy Inc., as the "Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse who rode in from Texas and ran roughshod over

California consumers, taxpayers and businesses," breaking rules and violating the

law. Lockyer forgot, however, that he did nothing to prevent such occurrences when

he was the California senate president pro tempore during the implementation of the

California Electricity Reconstructing Act (ABl 890) of 1996-1998. In contrast, other

corrupt California legislators and government cronies paired UC and California

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 16 -

State University with Enron Inc., and the UCDMC, UC Berkley, and UC San

Diego cogeneration plants became "Three Little Horsman of the Apocalypse," who

rode from the Califomia State Capitol and the UC headquarters in Oakland and ran

roughshod over California consumers, taxpayers, and businesses, and who together

with Enron Inc., El Paso Inc., and Miriam Inc., which participated in fraud worth

40 billion dollars, calling it the "California energy crisis".

Dynegy Power Corporation was the Petitioner 's former employer. From

1989-1997, its predecessor, Destec Energy Inc., defrauded Pacific Gas and Electric

(PG&E) ratepayers and California taxpayers $240,000,000; defrauded 119 of its

own employees over $3,000,000 in overtime pay; defrauded California businesses,

ratepayers, and taxpayers of $280,000,000; and participated in the sophisticated

fraud scheme of 40 billion dollars through the "Califomia energy crisis". In 2004,

Bill Lockyer, who crowned himself "Chief of California Parties," and the California

Energy Task Force raked in $20,000,000 of untaxed money as a kick-back from

settlements of $280,000,000 with Dynegy Power Corporation and, in 2005, of

$460,000,000 with Reliant Energy.

The Petitioner provided documents and detailed information about the

"Horsemen of the Apocalypse," which stripped California of 40 billion dollars, in

his supplemental IRS WBO 154-page Application for Award Form 211, submitted

to the IRS WBO on August 3, 2018, and lodged as a Claim Nos. 2018-012118,

2018-012139, and 2018-0121412018-012141.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 17 -

Full-Docurnent).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. The Administrative Record

The Petitioner noticed that the procedure and jurisdiction for petitions in the

U.S. Tax Court are similar to court procedure on the writs of mandamus in

California's State Courts, in which decisions for petitions and writs are based on

administrative records. Through writ of mandamus, the Petitioner had the occasion

and liberty to represent himself in the State of Califomia Sacramento County

Superior Court to appeal the California Employment Development Department

(EDD) decision that denied him unemployment benefits.

The administrative record lodged at the Califomia Unemployment Insurance

Appeal Board (CUIAB) in the relatively small case, monetary wise, included over

1,000 pages of documents. It was produced by CUIAB and transmitted to the

Sacramento County Superior Court. The writ of mandamus was filed by the

Petitioner on December 2, 2013, in Sacramento County Superior Court (No. 34-

2013-80001699-CUWMGDS, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Califomia Unemployment

Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) v. Regents of the University of Califomia as the

Real Party in Interest, 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS, The Court of Appeals,

Third Appellate District (3DCA) Waszczuk v. CUIAB Case No. C079254; and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 18 -

California Supreme Court Waszczuk v. CUIAB Case Nos. S253713 and S245879).

On March 21, 2014, in unusual circumstances, the case was assigned to Sacramento

County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, who had served as a judge

at the Sacramento County Superior Court since 2002. Before she was appointed to

the bench in Sacramento, Judge Chang worked for the U.S. Department of the

Treasury as an IRS attorney, most likely at the IRS Office of Chief Counsel in San

Diego, CA. In December 2002, Judge Chang was appointed to the bench by

California governor Gray Davis, special assistant U.S. attorney and former chief

deputy legal secretary. As an attorney, Davis handled cases involving tax fraud, and

he was recalled from office in November 2003. Davis was bailed out of office by

Darrel Issa, a U.S. congressman from San Diego, CA, using $1,700,000 from his

private account. This happened after Davis, together with California Independent

System Operator (CAISO), the Regents of the University of California (UC), and

Enron, accomplished his mission to defraud California taxpayers of 40 billion

dollars through a sophisticated scheme entitled the "California energy crisis". The

subject of this IRS whistleblowing case was the tiny, but very profitable, UC Davis

Medical Center (UCDMC) 27-megawatt (MW) cogeneration power plant, which

was commissioned in 1998.

In contrary to the Petitioner 's writ of mandamus case, the IRS WBO

administrative record was never produced by the respondent's attorneys and never

provided to the court to allow them to make a proper decision in the motion for
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 19 -

partial summary judgment, which was filed by the respondent on November 7,

2019. The most important parts of the IRS WBO administrative record, which were

never transmitted to the court, were the March 23, 2016, and August 3, 2018,

Forms 2011 with addendums and exhibits that are evidence of the tax fraud

committed by the UC administrators from the UC Office of the President (UCOP)

and the UC Regents Office, in relation to illegal operation of the UCDMC 27-MW

cogeneration plant, also named the Central Plant. In the above-mentioned

Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB)

v. Regents of the University of California as the Real Party in Interest, which is

related to this U.S Tax Court case, the record on appeal became a big issue.

The Petitioner had to file a motion to compel and for a sanction to transfer

the case record to the 3DCA. In his motion, the Petitioner cited as authorities a

criminals capital punishment case the People v. Grimes, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 787, 172

Cal.App.4th 121 (Cal-App. Dist.3 March 16, 2009). In People v. Grimes, the court

reminded the parties and clerks in lower courts of the grave consequences that could

result from the failure of a clerk to perform his/her duties:

https://www.scribd.com/document/468921478/April-5-2016-APPELLANT-
S-MOTION-FOR-SANCTION-TO-COMPEL

"In 1935, the mishandling of a timely notice of appeal

resulted in defendant Rush Griffin's execution before his
appeal could be heard. The ensuing furor led to the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 20 -

'automatic' appeal procedure now employed in capital cases."

(People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal.4th 550, 566567)

Rush Griffin's case demonstrates points that should not be repeated in real life (see

Exhibit No. 2).

In this case, the judge in this U.S. Tax Court case which is not a criminals a

criminal case without any administrative record, ignored the Petitioner 's

opposition to the respondent's frivolous motion issued out of the blue on June 4,

2020, the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in Waszczuk v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020). If it would a

criminal case instead of Petition for reward in U.S Tax Court and Petitioner would

the accused party that then imagine what the accused party's fate would be, with

such judge and justice served.

The above-mentioned Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-

2013-80001699-CUWMGDS, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Califomia Unemployment

Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) v. Regents of the University of Califomia as the

Real Party in Interest, was the case that enabled the Petitioner to find out why,

beginning in December 2006, he was hunted down by a UCOP mob, who

attempted to provoke and kill him on May 31, 2012, and attempted to portray the

Petitioner as a racist, a criminal, and a terrorist in apparent attempts to deport him

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 21 -

to his native country of Poland, taking into consideration that Janet Napolitano was

appointed as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security in January 2009 just before the

Regents of UC signed a settlement-agreement in January 2009.

V.
ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL PRODUCTION AND
SALE OF ELECTRICITY, TAX EVASION, AND CONCELAMENT
OF FRAUD BY THE REGENTS OF UC AND THEIR
COLLABORATORS

A. The Source of Tax Evasion and Fraud: The UCDMC 27-MW

Cogeneration Power Plant Located in Sacramento, California

The UCDMC plant was commissioned in 1998 and built for $65,000,000. It

was powered by a General Electric 23-MW LM 2500 gas turbine (GT) attached to

an exhaust heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). One 4-MW steam turbine, five

2-MW Caterpillar emergency diesel generators (EDGs), and four natural gas-fired

steam boilers provided a total steam generation capacity of 100,000 lb/hr. The

plant's total capacity was 37 MWh of electricity and 200,000 lb/hr of steam.

From 1999 to 2003, the total power demand of UCDMC was around 6 MWh

during the day and 4 to 4.5 MWh at night. The plant was required to dump 2 MW

into the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) grid to keep its 23-MW GT

operational and to properly control its nitric oxide (NOx) air pollution. The steam

demand of UCDMC in 1999 was around 25,000 lb/hr, and a GT with a 5-MW load

could not generate enough exhaust heat to produce this in the HRSG. The
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 22 -

absorption chillers were required to run axillary steam boilers, which were

originally intended to be used only when the GT was shut down.

The plant was commissioned in 1998 and should have supplied electricity and

steam to the campus, but the steam and hot water lines were not finished, and the

old boiler plant remained in use. The plant was mechanically unfinished and unsafe,

and intervention from the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA)

was needed to fix several problems that endangered personnel. By contrast, in 1999,

the UC Davis main campus had a power demand of about 100 MWh and a steam

demand of 150,000 lb/hr. The main campus could have built a 60-MW cogeneration

facility powered by one LM 6000 GT and one LM 2500 GT without violating the

Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) regulations, or environmental laws, but instead, the 37-MWh

plant (including five EDGs of2MW each) was built on the relatively small

UCDMC campus, where power and steam demand was only one fifth of what the

plant could produce.

From the above description, it is not difficult to conclude that the owners of

the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant, which had five EDGs and a total output

10 MWh, had a different goal than what was needed for UCDMC, which could

have been fulfilled by purchasing 5 MWh of electricity from SMUD, and by using

one automatic gas fire steam boiler and two or three centrifugal chillers, which were

already in place.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 23 -

In January 2016, the Petitioner was preparing his IRS Whistleblower Award

application ( Form 211) when he came across the article "Campus Maintenance

Backlog Is in the Billions". The original article was written by Mihir Zaveri at

Mazaver from the San Francisco Chronicle

b_acklog-is-in-the-billions/).

Several of the article's statements, presented below, are very interesting, in

relation to UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant (see Attachment 17, Page 57, Form

211, dated August 3, 2018). The article stated, "For years, a dark stairwell inside a

UC Berkeley science building posed a potentially deadly threat as leaking water

pooled next to the 12,000-volt transformers and switchgears." The UCDMC 27-

MW cogeneration power plant's 12,000-volt high voltage switch gear room and

control room which have computers were equipped with a water sprinkler system

type fire extinguisher, instead of a dry CO2 fire protection system.

"Lacking money to repair the leak, maintenance workers

attempted to configure a temporary solution. They rigged the
sheet metal to divert the leak so that it wouldn't drip on the
electrical equipment and blow out the power that runs
laboratories where scientists are conducting some of the world's
most advanced biological research. Yet that solution posed a
new danger: that someone could be electrocuted if he or she
stepped into the growing puddle."
UC supposedly spent $65,000,000 to build the 27-MW cogeneration power plant at

UCDMC in 1998, but they did not have a few thousand dollars more to install a dry
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 24 -

CO2 fire protection system. If the water sprinkler pipe corroded or the roof leaked,

the water would enter the 12,000-volt equipment in the high voltage room, and then

it would cause an enormous explosion. With the presence of fire and a large

quantity of natural gas and diesel, it could destroy the whole plant and kill operating

personnel and nearby properties.

UC built the $65,000,000 plant at UCDMC, where the demand for power was

less than 5 MWh, instead of building it with a bigger jet turbine LM 6000 (60 MW)

and a bigger heat recovery steam generator, to meet the UC Davis main campus's

demand for power in 1998, which was around 100 MWh, and demand for steam,

which was around 180,000 lb/hr. It would most likely have saved the university

$1,000,000,000 in energy costs within 20 years. It also would have eliminated the

unnecessary tax fraud and evasion related to the unlawful operation and power sale

by the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant. That $1,000,000,000 could have been

used to support underrepresented African-American students' education who are

tiny fraction of University of California system but the UC has new African -

American President , African -American General Counsel , UC Davis has African -

American Chancellor and big statue of Dr. Martin Luther Jr. standing inside UC

Davis School of Law named after civil and human rights activist Dr. Martin Luther

King, Jr. as a "King Hall "

had a different dream than black and white UCOP white collar criminals .

https://law.ucdavis.edu/about/history-of-king-hall.html
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 25 -

The 2013 UC Davis Climate Survey conducted by Rankin & Associates

showed that 24% of UC Davis-surveyed employees (4,000 of 11,500) suffered

while working in UC Davis's hostile and discriminatory work environment. The

most recent survey conducted in all UC campuses shows that situation in not better

in other in campuses and percentage of suffering, hostile and discriminatory work

environment among employees is very high.

The October 2013 investigation report issued by former State of California Supreme

Court Justice Carlos Moreno stated that several high-profile incidents of racial and

ethnic bias and/or discrimination have occurred on the University of California Los

Angeles campus in recent years.

https://www.ucop.edu/moreno-report/external-review-team-report-10-15-13.pdf

The University of California climate and culture of sustained abuse, bullying,

discrimination, retaliation for whistleblowing, harassment of all kinds, intimidation,

retaliation, favoritism, nepotism, health, and safety violations backed up by the 8. 5

billion annually of Federal Funds on the taxpayer's expenses. Judges from U.S Tax

court are not exempted from taxes to cover up UCOP criminals activities . UCOP

Judges are taxpayers as same as Petitioner and Attorneys from the IRS Chief

Counsel Office in San Diego , Califomia or staff from IRS WBO in Ogden , Utah.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 26 -

A few years back after Petitioner got almost killed by UCOP and UC Davis mob,

Petitioner advised UC Davis Chancellor to rename the Dr. Martin Luther King Hall

to "Martin Borman Hall"¹ with his statue inside.

B. ATTACHMENT NUMBER FIVE (5): The Petitioner 's IRS Form 211
Application for Award for Original Information, Dated August 3, 2018,
Supplemental Submission (Page 26)

Attachment number five was the UC Office of the General Counsel memo to

the Finance Department, which addressed the February 1998 services agreement

between Enron, UC, California State University (CSU) Services, and CAISO. This

interesting memo stated that on February 1, 2001, Enron unilaterally notified

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Southern Califomia Edison (SCE) that it was

no longer a direct services provider for the universities, and that PG&E and SCE

should resume providing bundled electrical services to them. California universities

had previously relied on PG&E and SCE for more than a century, but that was

before the deregulation of the Califomia energy market; then the universities

switched to Enron, who did have any power plants in Califomia. This memo also

shows university general counsel disappointment in the judge from the U.S. District

Court in San Francisco and the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Appeal.

1 Martin Ludwig Bonnann was a Gerrnan Nazi Party official and head of the Nazi Party
Chancellery. He gained immense power by using his position as Adolf Hitler's private
secretary to control the flow of inforrnation and access to Hitler.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 27 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/468918787/March-1998-UC-CSU-CAISO-
ENRON-Joint-Venture
The greedy white-collar criminals from the California Public Utility

Commission (CPUC), UC, CSU, and the California government, knew what they

were doing when they paired UC, CSU, and CAISO with Enron, who was already

inflated and on the verge of collapsing. They were setting the stage for a billion-

dollar fraud scheme and millions of tax-free dollars for themselves, laundered from

plants like the UCDMC 27-MW . UC Berkeley , UC San Diego and CUC plants via

CAISO . The energy experts from UC had all the necessary resources and found

the perfect candidate, the Enron Corporation from Texas, to do the job for the

UCOP; they were privileged by Governor Davis to share millions of dollars of

quick tax-free cash. Enron collapsed very quickly, having no power plants in

California and no way to produce power for California universities. It was

dismembered by the three horsemen of the apocalypse: Reliant, Dynegy Inc. (the

Petitioner 's former employer), and the El Paso Corporation. California attorney

General Bill Lockyer described these companies as the horsemen of apocalypse

because they rode in from Texas and ran roughshod over California consumers,

taxpayers, and businesses. Lockyer was no better than them, because he covered up

the fraud of the white-collar criminals from UC and the other participants, as he

crowned himself the "Chief of Energy Task Forces". Over the next two decades, the

billion-dollar fraud scheme became El Dorado's gold for Lockyer, Jerry Brown, and

Kamala Harris.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 28 -

The software that made the fraud possible was provided by Perot System

Corporation and invented by Perot's engineer, Paul Gribik (see June 6, 2002, San

Diego County Superior Court complaint Art Madrid v. Perot System Corporation et

a_1. Case No. GIC790009; Superior Court of Sacramento County Case No.

03AS04763; and 3DCA Case No. C046683).

Art Madrid, the former mayor of La Mesa, California, almost solved the 40-

billion-dollar fraud case, but he fell short because his lawsuit was somehow moved

from the San Diego County Superior Court to the Sacramento County Superior

Court, where it ended with a well-known result by the former chief of staff or legal

secretary for former Governor Davis, Judge Chang, (former IRS lawyer) who was

appointed to the Sacramento County Superior Court by Davis in 2002. Judge Chang

resurfaced in March 2014, in the Petitioner 's related to this case , the Superior

Court Case No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California

Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) v. Regents of the University of

California as the Real Party in Interest; 3DCA Case No. C079254; and Supreme

Court Case Nos. S253713 and S245879.

https://www.scribd.com/document/399458339/01-29-2019-Supreme-Court-
Case-No-S253713-Waszczuk-y-CUIAB-Petition-for-Review-Unemployment-
Benefits
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 29 -

C. EXHIBIT NO. FIVE (6): The Petitioner 's IRS Form 211 Application for
Award for Original Information Dated March 23, 2016, Supplemental
Submission (Page 26), IRS Form 211 Dated August 3, 2018, Attachment
No. 20

Exhibit No. 6 attached to Form 211 (here Exhibit No. 4) is the August 6,

1999, CAISO memo to wave the 60-day waiting period for UCDMC to begin

functioning as a participant in the California power market.

On August 6, 1999, the Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman LLP law firm

from Washington D.C., representing CAISO, sent a memo to FERC secretary

David P. Boergers on behalf of the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant's

(Docket No. ER 99-4011-000). Anybody who is unfamiliar with UCDMC's 27-

MW natural gas cogeneration facility and FERC and PURPA regulations and

has read § I-Purpose of the Participating Generator Agreement and § II-Request

for Waiver would think that UCDMC is not the part of the UC higher education

system, but is instead, an independent power generator company that builds and

operates cogeneration power plants in the State of California with an unusual

name of UCDMC. Furthermore, the CAISO memo indicates that the UCDMC

27-MW cogeneration plant was certified by FERC as a qualified cogeneration

facility (QF) but was not on August 6, 1999 one year after has been

commissioned.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 30 -

CAISO's urgency to make UCDMC a major producer and seller of electrical

energy in the deregulated power market is unbelievable and clearly shows a scheme

of conspiracy and fraud committed by three public, not-for-profit, tax-exempt under

IRC Code 503(c)(3), entities closely interconnected with the State of California's

government and legislature. The order to file, with the FERC request to wave the

60-day waiting period and begin to function as a participant in the California power

market, must have come from somebody important in California's government who

waited for a fat check from the illegal power sale scheme coordinated between the

Regents of UC and the CAISO Board of Directors, appointed by California's

governor.

The § II of the CAISO memo stated:

"The ISO respectfully requests a waiver of FPA Section 205(d), which

would require this Participating Generator Agreement to go into effect no
earlier than 60 days after it is filed. Granting the waiver will permit The
Regents of the University of California on behalf of its Davis Campus
Medical Center to begin to function as a participant in the California market
in its capacity as a Generator as quickly as possible, which will enhance the
competitiveness and efficiency of the market. Granting the requested
waiver, therefore, is appropriate."
https://www.scribd.com/document/468920902/August-6-1999-Participating-
Generator-Agreement-Waver-CAISO-UCDMC
In August 1999, the Petitioner was already working as an operator. He found

it strange to see the 27-MW cogeneration plant with an LM 2500 General Electric

GT operating at only 5 MW more than a year after it was commissioned in 1998. It

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 31 -

was like seeing millions of dollars of tax-free cash being flushed down the drain.

This plant was a crime from the beginning. The Petitioner was previously working

for Dynegy Power Corporation, which had a similar plant equipped with a larger

size LM 5000 GT that operated at maximum capacity, 24 hours a day. If the

Dynegy plant idled at 5 MW for one year, it would be have gone bankrupt and been

shut down. Instead of hiding the Petitioner 's claim for two years, the IRS WBO

should turn IRS Form 211, with exhibits in March 2011, to the U.S. Department of

the Treasury IRS Criminal Investigation Department. Tens of millions of dollars of

illegally made untaxed profit vanished. Tax evasion is a crime under 26 U.S.C. §

7201.

The certificate of service for the document sent by CAISO's attorney's to

FERC on August 6, 1999, was served upon the Regents of UC on behalf of the

UCDMC and the CPUC, in accordance with the requirements of Rule 2010 of the

Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 C.F.R. § 385, 2010). This

document, which was docketed a FERC document (ER99-4011-000), is clear

evidence that CPUC corrupted officials were involved in this scheme of tens of

millions of dollars of fraud. In 1999, the Chancellor of UC Davis was Larry

Vanderhoef Chancellor Vanderhoef was appointed to the post by the Regents of

UC in 1995. The Petitioner addressed what happened to Vanderhoef and others in

THE PETITIONER 'S JULY 29, 2019 REPLY TO U.S. TAX COURT ORDER

SERVED ON JULY 9, 2019 SIGNED BY SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE HON.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 32 -

ROBERT N. ARMEN RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER TAX COURT RULES OF

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE SECTION 6103(B)(L), (2), AND (3) (U.S. Tax

Court Docket No. 0019)

for-Protective-Order
and in his August 31, 2016, inquiry to U.S. Congressman John Garamendi from

Davis, California, who was a friend of Vanderhoef.

D f).

D. EXHIBIT NUMBER SEVEN (7): The Petitioner 's IRS Form 211
Application for Award for Original Information Dated March 23, 2016,
Supplemental Submission (Page 26), IRS Form 211 Dated August 3,
2018, Attachment No. 21

Exhibit No. 6 (here Exhibit No. 5) is the August 18, 1999, Notice of Self

Certification for the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration facility, FERC Docket No.

OF99-99-000. On July 26, 1999, the Regents of UC signed a participating

generator agreement (PGA) with CAISO. Then, on August 6, 1999, CAISO

submitted a request to FERC to wave the 60-day waiting period for UCDMC to

begin functioning as a participant in the California power market. On August 18,

1999, UCDMC sent a notice of self-certification (FERC Form 556) to FERC to

certify the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant as a qualified facility (QF) to

generate electric power. The first page of this notice of self-certification states:
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 33 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/468922458/8-1 8-1999-FERC-UCDMC-OF-
NOTICE-OF-SELF-CERTIFICATION
"The UC Regents (governing body for the University of
California (UC) system) are 100 percent owners and operate the
UCDMC facility. The UC system is not an electric utility or
electric utility holding company. To the applicant's knowledge,
the UC system does not own any electric facilities, other than
OF facilities, that are used to generate electric power for sale."

The UCDMC principal engineer, Michael Lewis, who signed the notice of

self-certification, provided a false statement to FERC, stating that the UC system

has QF facilities used to generate electric power for sale. While some UC campuses

have QF facilities to provide needed utilities, including electrical energy for

campuses, their primary purpose is not to generate electric power for sale. The

underlined statement above clearly shows that by constructing the UCDMC 27-MW

cogeneration plant, which only needed 5 MW of power, the Regents of UC got

themselves into piracy by illegally generating and selling power in order to make

millions of dollars in quick cash for themselves and their collaborators in a fraud

scheme and unpreceded violation of exempt from taxes status IRC 501 ( c ) (3)

Exhibit A, attached to the notice of self-certification states:

"The cogeneration facility was sized for the full build-out of the
UCDMC campus for the year 2020. In the interim, it was
planned to operate the facility at its design maximum power
output ('max. power') with surplus electricity being sold to the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). However, due
to the low electricity prices for the sale of surplus power, the
UCDMC cogeneration facility has so far been operating only to
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 34 -

meet the in-house's team/electricity demands. The UCDMC

would like the option to run the system at 'max. power,' if and
when it is economically attractive."

The UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant, which was built in 1998, was

sized to produce electricity for the year 2020, although energy is a

commodity that cannot be stored. In other words, the fraud scheme was

well planned for 20 years in the future. The plant's load could be

compared to that of a bus company that sends out the maximum number

of buses needed during rush hour all throughout the day. It gives great

service to travelers at rush hour, but for much of the day, every bus will

be nearly empty; it is clearly not a very efficient way to operate.

The whole document is a fraud. It is mystery as to who at FERC approved

this document, and for how much. It is not a trivial matter to approve such a

document that is worth millions of tax-free dollars. The signature on this document

is of the UCDMC principal engineer, Michael Lewis, who the Petitioner knew

personally, and who sadly died on May 5, 2020, when the Regents of UC and the

IRS Chief Counsel Office, in coordinated actions with the Califomia State Court

and U.S. Tax Court, attacked the Petitioner with their motions to end his battle with

the perpetrators of this enormous fraud and crime, causing unimaginable suffering

and damage to many people and claiming many human lives. The Petitioner

informed the respondent's counsel, Darrick Sun, about Lewis's death. Lewis took
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 35 -

with him to his grave the secret of who ordered him to authorize the false August

18, 1999, notice of self-certification for the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant,

just as UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoof took to his grave the secret of who

was behind the September 9, 2010, natural gas pipeline explosion in Senator Leland

Yee's district in the San Bruno Crestmoor neighborhood, San Mateo County, near

San Francisco. In this blast, eight people were killed and more than 50 were injured;

thirty-eight homes were destroyed and 17 more were damaged.

The plaque in the front entry of the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration

plant, also named the Central Plant, proudly displayed the names of

Vanderhoef and other participants in the fraud with the following statement:

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS MEDICAL

CENTER
"A mission to teach, discover, heal and serve"
CENTRAL PLANT PROJECT
1995-1998
"Conceived, designed and constructed to support the
Medical Center's mission to providing clean and reliable
utilities in the next millenniurn"

(See August 3, 2018, Form 211 Attachment No. 30 Page 87 (here Exhibit No. 6))

https://www.scribd.com/document/468924283/UC-DAVIS-MEDICAL-CENTER-
27-MW-COGENRATION-PLANT-PHOTO

E. EXHIBIT NUMBER SEVEN (12 & 13): The Petitioner 's IRS Form 211
Application for Award for Original Information, Dated March 23, 2016,
Pages 14-16
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 36 -

The Exhibits Nos. 12 and 13 (here Exhibit No. 7) are the May 12, 2003,

UCDMC Fuel Allowance Compliance Filing with FERC, Docket No. EL00-95-

045, which included 265 pages of power production reports from the UCDMC 27-

MW cogeneration plant and a cover letter from the chief financial officer of the

UCDMC Associate Director of Hospital & Clinics, William McGovan, addressed to

FERC Secretary Sales on May 12, 2003.

Since July 26, 1999, the university has unlawfully sold its energy through

CAISO using scheduling coordinator services provided by Automated Power

Exchange (APX), as per an agreement between CAISO, the Regents of UC, and

UCDMC (FERC Docket No. 99-1005-0141-1). In May 2003, FERC requested

UCDMC's power generation records in relation to the university's liability for fuel

cost refunds. As the Petitioner recalls, PG&E was the natural gas supplier for the

LM 2500 aero-derivative GT at the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant. On May

12, 2003, McGowan submitted approximately 270 pages to FERC that showed

electrical energy exports from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant via CAISO

and APX. According to McGowan in the above-mentioned letter, 90 pages of

random production reports over 90 days, from October 2000 to June 2001, were

obtained from the APX website (see Exhibit No. 12). An additional 175 pages of

power production reports over 175 days, from October 1, 2000, to April 14, 2001,

were generated from the UCDMC cogeneration plant's computer. The recording and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 37 -

power metering system was installed, programmed, and is maintained by ASEA

Brown Boveri (ABB) (see Exhibit No. 13). The FERC inquiry for power production

records from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant was undoubtedly related to

an August 2, 2000, San Diego Gas and Electric Company complaint with FERC

against the Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated,

CAISO, and Cal-APX (FERC Docket Nos. EL00-95-000 and EL00-98-000)

(Form 211 August 3, 2018, Exhibit Nos. 25 & 26 Pages 76-79, here Exhibit No. 7).

https://www.scribd.com/document/468923665/2000-San-Diego-Gas-Electric-
Company-SDG-E-petitions-to-FERC

F. EXHIBIT NUMBERS TWENTY FIVE AND TWENTY SIX (25 &

26): Petitioner 's IRS Form 211 Application for Award for Original
Information (Supplemental), Dated August 3, 2018, Page Nos. 76 & 79

Exhibit No. 25 (here Exhibit No. 7) is the San Diego Gas & Electric

Company's (SDG&E) August 2, 2000, complaint against major energy sellers,

producers, and ancillary services.

https://www.scribd.com/document/468923665/2000-San-Diego-Gas-Electric-
Company-SDG-E-petitions-to-FERC

On August 2, 2000, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 C.F.R. § 385.206, 2000), SDG&E filed a complaint with

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against the sellers of energy
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 38 -

and ancillary services into markets operated by California Independent System

Operator (CAISO) and CalPX, FERC Docket Nos. EL00-95-000 and EL00-98-

000. The SDG&E complaint was submitted to FERC just one and half months after

the Petitioner settled his lawsuit against PG&E, in relation to the Public Utility

Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) violation by Dynegy Inc. (filed April

1999 in San Joaquin County Superior Court, Jaroslaw Waszczuk. Pacific Gas &

Electric (PG&E) Case No. CV 007392), out of court. This also took place just one

week after CAISO's attorney from Swindler, Berlin, Sheriff, Friedman LLP

submitted the FERC second amendment to the interim agreement between PG&E,

the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), and CAISO, on behalf of the

University of California Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27-MW cogeneration

plant, where the Petitioner had been employed since June 27, 1999. The SDG&E

complaint criticized the chaos in the recently de-centralized California electricity

market, which was created by AB1890 and enacted as a law in September 1996.

Furthermore, in the complaint, SDG&E alleged that the energy and ancillary

services markets in California were not workably competitive, and that the CAISO

and CalPX management systems needed to be overhauled or replaced. The SDG&E

complaint requested that FERC cap electricity prices at $250 per MWh.

SDG&E was right about CAISO and CalPX. However, this complaint failed

to point out that the electricity market was quite stable after AB1890 took effect in

1998. CalPX and CAISO escalated electricity prices, which further skyrocketed two
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 39 -

years after ABl 890 took effect. This occurred just one month after CAISO hired

General Counsel and Vice President Charles Robinson, who was a key player in

unbalancing the Califomia electricity market on behalf of his sponsors from the

University of California Office of the President (UCOP), the California Public

Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and

California Governor Gray Davis. These not-for-profit sponsors deployed Robinson

to CAISO because they had invested millions of dollars in deregulated power sales,

wanted to make millions of dollars in quick tax-free cash, and wanted to preserve

the steady sources of untaxed income; after the California Governor Gray Davis

declare the sophisticated scheme 40 billion dollars fraud titled "California Energy

Crisis " resolved what took place on November 13, 2003.

Exhibit No. 26 (here Exhibit No. 7) is the FERC order, issued on August

23, 2000. In response to the SDG&E complaint, FERC issued this order,

denying SDG&E and its supporting parties of their request to cap the electricity

prices at $250 per MWh (FERC Dockets Nos. EL00-95-000 and EL00-98-

000).

Furthermore, the commission's order initiated hearing proceedings to

investigate the justness and reasonableness of the rates of public utility sellers,

CAISO and CalPX, and to investigate CAISO and CalPX's tariffs, contracts,
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 40 -

institutional structures, and bylaws. The goal of the order was to provide further

guidance to California entities.

SDG&E's August 2, 2000, complaint with FERC against CAISO and

sellers of energy was quickly hijacked by collaborators in the fraud scheme

PG&E, Cal . AG Bill Lockyer's office, and CPUC attorneys; these were

collectively named "The Califomia Parties".

G. ATTACHMENT NUMBERS TWENTY SEVEN. TWENTY EIGHT

AND TWENTY NINE (27, 28, & 29): Petitioner 's IRS Form 211
Application for Award for Original Information (Supplemental),
Dated August 3, 2018, Page Nos. 82 & 83

Attachment No. 27 is the April 8, 1999, PG&E Application of

Termination for Power Purchase Agreement with the Dynegy Inc. 50-MW

natural gas powered General Electric LM5000 gas turbine (GT), located at the

San Joaquin cogeneration plant in Lathrop, California, where the Petitioner was

employed from October 1989 to January 1998.

https://www.scribd.com/document/468927857/April-8-1999-PG-E-
Application-of-Termination-for-Power-Purchase-Agreement-with-the-Dynegy-
Inc

On April 8, 1999, pursuant to § 701 and § 2821 of the Public Utilities

Code and rules 15 and 42, PG&E filed Application No. 99-04-009 with the

CPUC to terminate its power purchase agreement with Dynegy's San Joaquin
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 41 -

50-MW cogeneration plant, which was violated by Dynegy predecessor, Destec

Energy Inc., based in Houston, Texas. The application stated that the

termination with Dynegy would result in PG&E ratepayers recovering

approximately $240,000,000 ($100,000,000 net value at the relevant time), due

to Dynegy's violation of PURPA and of CPUC code § 454.4 and § 218.5, which

describe the cogeneration plants that qualify for discounted natural gas rates.

https://www.scribd.com/document/468927857/April-8-1999-PG-E-
Application-of-Termination-for-Power-Purchase-Agreement-with-the-Dynegy-
Inc

Attachment No. 28 is the confidential settlement-agreement between

PG&E and the Petitioner for the amount of $150,000. The lawsuit was filed by

the Petitioner on April 1999, in San Joaquin County Superior Court (Jaroslaw

Waszczuk v. PG&E, Case No. CV 007392 and was settled May 9-June 14,

2000)t through a strictly confidential settlement-agreement. The PG&E filed

Application 00-09-001(U39 E) with the CPUC in the 2000 Annual Proceeding.

Information about the Petitioner 's confidential settlement with PG&E appeared

in PG&E's six-page application. The Petitioner 's name was subject to

disclosure at the Office of Ratepayer Advocates' (ORA) questioning PG&E

about the settlement, when they asked whether PG&E could recover the

$150,000 paid to the Petitioner from all customers, including direct access

customers, through the transition cost balancing account (TCBA).

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 42 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/468927857/April-8-1999-PG-E-
Application-of-Termination-for-Power-Purchase-Agreement-with-the-Dynegy-
Inc

In September 2000, the Petitioner had already been employed for more

than one year by the University of California (UC) as an operator at the

UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant. The Regents of UC, the UCOP, and the

UC Davis Administration and Management Department directly supervised the

plant, also named the Central Plant. The Petitioner 's previous employer,

Dynegy Inc., had PURPA and CPUC code section 218.5 violations worth

$240,000,000; these violations were minor, in comparison to the crimes of the

Regents of UC and the UCOP administration related to illegal operation of the

UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant, and most likely also to the operation of

the sister-plants at UC Berkley and UC San Diego

If the Petitioner had known in 1999 or 2000 what he knows today, then

most likely the settlement-agreement with PG&E would have had a completely

different outcome. Attachment No. 29 On February 27, 2003, the CPUC issued

its decision on PG&E's application and further publicized the confidential

settlement-agreement between PG&E and Waszczuk. This disclosure of

information by PG&E and the CPUC most likely caused the Petitioner to be

hunted down like an animal by white-collar criminals at the UCOP and their

assigned thugs from UC Davis and the UCDMC, from January 2007 through
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 43 -

January 2009, again from April 2011 through December 2012, and thereafter,

by the corrupted or terrorized judges and justices in state Courts by Janet

Napolitano and Robert Mueller's gang.

Shortly after the CPUC issued its February 27, 2003, decision on the

PG&E application, fuel allowance compliance at the UCDMC 27-MW

cogeneration plant became a problem amid pending complaints by SDG&E and

FERC against CAISO and other participants in a monstrous and sophisticated

40 billion dollar fraud scheme. This scheme was called the "California energy

crisis". It was instigated by California Government , Governor Pete Wilson and

Lt. Governor Gray Davis . UC Office of the President , UC Regents , California

State University (CSU) Board of Trustees who paired University of Califomia

and California State University campuses with Enron Power Corporation and

California Independent System Operator. The fraud was backed up by

California Public Utilities Commission corrupted officials and the other corrupt

government agencies, white collar criminals, and the California Attorney

General Energy Task Force gang, led by Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Normally, according to California state law, cogeneration facilities are

entitled to special discounted rates for natural gas transportation (California

Public Utilities Code 544.4). These special rates are published in PG&E's gas

cogeneration (G-CGS, originally called G-COG) tariff and are approved by the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 44 -

CPUC. To qualify for G-COG/G-CGS rates, an entity must be a co-generator,

as defined by CPUC section 218.5. "Cogeneration" means the sequential use of

energy to produce electrical and useful thermal energy. The sequence can be

thermal energy, followed by power production, or the reverse, subject to the

following standards:

• At least five percent of the facility's total annual energy output must be

in the form of useful thermal energy.

• Where useful thermal energy follows power production, the useful

annual power output plus one half of the useful annual thermal energy

output must equal not less than 42.5 percent of any natural gas and oil

energy mput.

Based on this data and his employment with Dynegy Inc. and UCDMC,

the Petitioner roughly calculated that the predecessor of Dynegy Inc., Destem

Energy Inc., based in Houston, Texas, produced or generated approximately

2,520,000 MW of electricity in the San Joaquin 50-MW cogeneration plant in

Lathrop, California, from 1990-1996 in violation of PURPA and CPUC § 454.4

and 218.5. This production of 2,5020,000 MW. It resulted in six years of plant

operation in $240,000,000 of fraud against PG&E ratepayers and California

taxpayers. From 1998 to July 2020, the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant

illegally produced approximately 3,000,000 MW with false FERC certification.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 45 -

If the legal owners of the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant, the Regents of

UC, received a 25 percent discount from natural gas suppliers or claimed tax

deductions for the cost of fuel or the cost of operating the plant illegally by

producing millions of extra MW, then the amount of tax evasion and fraud is

beyond the $240,000,000 fraud of Dynegy against PG&E and is beyond

imagination. Contrary to the Petitioner 's former employer, Dynegy Inc., the

UC is exempt from federal taxes because of its status as an agency of the State

of California under Article IX, Section 9, of the Califomia State Constitution,

and is an exempt organization under Internal Revenue Code (IRC), section

501(c)(3). However, in this tax evasion and tax fraud for over two decades, the

UC committed crime not be exempt from taxes under any circumstances. The

illegal operation of the cogeneration facility is a crime itself.

H. The September 12, 2014, Deep Energy Efficiency and Cogeneration

Study Findings Report the Petitioner 's IRS Form 211 Application for
Award for Original Information, Dated March 23, 2011, Page Nos.
11-13
https://www.scribd.com/document/468933999/UC-Davis-Medical-Center-27-
MW-Co-Genration-Plant-Deep-Efficiency-Report
The findings report, prepared for the UCOP by clean energy consulting

company ARC Altematives (www.arcalternatives.com), provided the following

recommendation about the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant: "It is

recommended that the plant perform a retro-commissioning study to improve

efficiency and identify capital projects." "Retro-commissioning" means to

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 46 -

retrofit the plant with smaller GTs and heat recovery steam generators (HRSG)

and to recertify the plant with FERC to bring it into compliance with PURPA,

in other words, to make this plant legal. For some reason, this did not happen.

https://www.ucop.edu/sustainability/ files/energy/Deep Efficiency Cogen.pdf

VI. ARGUMENT

If the court read the Automated Power Exchange Inc. (APX) Settlement

and Release of Claims Agreement, entered into on January 5, 2007, by a range

of organizations2 and sent to FERC for approval (Exhibit No. 18 in the

Petitioner 's Form 211, dated March 23, 2016 (here Exhibit No. 10)), then the

court would find the following disclosure under § 5.2, entitled Non-Monetary

2 APX, Inc. (APX); American Electric Power Service Corp.; Avista Energy, Inc. (Avista);
Calpine Energy Services, L.P. (Calpine); El Paso Marketing, LP (f/k/a El Paso Merchant
Energy, LP); UC Davis Medical Center, owned and operated by the Regents of the University
of California; Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc.; BP Energy Company; Tractebel Energy
Marketing Inc. (n/k/a Suez Energy Marketing NA, Inc.); Aquila Merchant Services, Inc.; Salt
River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District: Allegheny Energy Supply
Company, LLC; TransAlta Energy Marketing (US) Inc.; Sempra Energy Solutions LLC;
Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. (Constellation NewEnergy); Commonwealth Energy
Corporation (n/k/a Commerce Energy, Inc.); Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Morgan
Stanley Capital Group Inc.; Enron Energy Services, Inc. (EEST) and Enron Power
Marketing, Inc. (EMPI, and together with EESI, Enron or Enron Parties); and Sierra Pacific
Industries (collectively, Sponsoring Parties, as discussed infra at P 12). Coral Power, L.L.C.
(Coral Power), Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget Sound), and Avista are Supporting Parties,
as discussed infra at P 8.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 47 -

Consideration (FERC Docket Nos. EL00-95-000 and EL00-98-000), which

stated:

"UC Davis Medical Center. The UC Davis Medical Center represents

that the generation unit at the University of California Davis Medical
Center only sold ancillary services to the ISO during the Refund Period.
APX submitted unit-specific bids and schedules on behalf of the
Regents of the University of California ("Regents') to the ISO and APX
received unit-specific dispatch instructions and ancillary service awards
from the ISO. Settlement statements from the ISO clearly identify all
UC Davis Medical Center schedules and transactions by unit
designation for instructed energy, deviations and ancillary service
awards. If the Regents and the California Parties reach a settlement of
refund issues related to APX Transactions prior to the Settlement
Effective Date, the Regents shall be excluded from this Agreement. The
APX Participants will not impede the Regents from settling issues
directly related to the APX Transactions with the California Parties."
This settlement-agreement, which was approved by FERC on March 1, 2007, and

caused approximately $130,000,000 of illegal untaxed profit from the sale of

electricity via CAISO, a collaborator in the crime, disappeared from public view.

Also on March 1, 2007, by FERC-approved settlement-agreement caused the

Petitioner to be abruptly removed from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant in

a merciless three-month witch hunt, in which it was clear that the perpetrators

intended to erase the Petitioner from the UCDMC landscape and the UC payroll,

which finally happened on December 7, 2012.

The APX settlement-agreement portrayed the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration

plant as a generation unit at the UCDMC, which only sold ancillary services to the

CAISO during the refund period. The Petitioner worked as an operator during the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 48 -

2000-2001 refund period and knows the kind of ancillary services the plant was

selling by withholding power to make $3,000 per MW, like the UC Regents partner

in crime, Enron, and others. UCOP white collar criminals applied 26 U.S.C. § 501

to evade millions of dollars of taxes through the illegal production and sale of

power. On February 14, 2001, the underground operation was approved by CPUC

and blessed by California Governor Gray Davis, who toured the UCDMC 27-MW

cogeneration plant with his dignitaries during the mentioned APX settlement-

agreement refund period.

The 26 U.S.C. § 501 rules used to evade taxes are as follows:

Exemption from taxation

Exemption from taxation
An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) or section 401(a) shall
be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such exemption is
denied under section 502 or 503.
(a) Tax on unrelated business income and certain other activities
A regulation exempt from taxation under subsection (a) shall be subject
to tax to the extent provided in parts II, III, and IV of this subchapter,
but (notwithstanding parts II, III, and IV of this subchapter) shall be
considered an organization exempt from income taxes for the purpose of
any law which refers to organizations exempt from income taxes.
(a) List of exempt organizations
The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):
(1) Any corporation organized under Act of Congress which is an
instrumentality of the United States but only if such corporation
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 49 -

(A) is exempt from federal income taxes under such act as amended and
supplemented before July 18, 1984, or in the case of a mutual or
cooperative electric company, subparagraph (A) shall be applied without
taking into account any income received or accrued from any provision
or sale of electric energy transmission services or ancillary services if
such services are provided on a nondiscriminatory open access basis
under an open access transmission tariff approved or accepted by FERC
or under an independent transmission provider agreement approved or
accepted by FERC (other than income received or accrued directly or
indirectly from a member), from the provision or sale of electric energy
distribution services or ancillary services if such services are provided
on a nondiscriminatory open access basis to distribute electric energy
not owned by the mutual or electric cooperative company
(I) to end-users who are served by distribution facilities not owned by
such company or any of its members (other than income received or
accrued directly or indirectly from a member), or
(II) generated by a generation facility not owned or leased by such
company or any of its members and which is directly connected to
distribution facilities owned by such company or any of its members
(other than income received or accrued directly or indirectly from a
member).

In the 1994 case, Independent Energy Producers Ass'n v. California Public

Utilities Commission, 36 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit perfectly explained to the CPUC what the Federal Power Act

stands for and what the requirements are to be a qualifying cogeneration facility

(QF). In that 1994 case, the Independent Energy Producers Association, Inc., Sithe

Energies, Inc., and the Petitioner 's former employer, Destec Energy Inc.

(collectively called "Independent Energy"), appealed the district court's summary

judgment in favor of the CPUC PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 50 -

Co. (collectively called "the Utilities"). Independent Energy brought this action to

federal district court in order to seek a temporary restraining order to prevent the

CPUC from implementing an order to delegate the authority to enforce the federal

operating and efficiency requirements, set out in the PURPA and in regulations

promulgated by FERC, to the Utilities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit further explained that

FERC regulations carry out a statutory regime, reposing the commission's

exclusive authority to make QF status determinations. Subpart B of the

regulations, which implements section 201 of PURPA, provides specific

standards that cogenerate plants must meet to be QFs (18 C.F.R. § 292.205).

These regulations also provide two specific procedures by which a QF's status is

acknowledged: self-certification and optional certification (l_8££R._§

292.207). Finally, these regulations allow the commission to revoke a QF's

status (18 C.F.R. § 292.207(d)) or waive compliance with QF standards for a

facility that it determines produces significant energy savings (18 C.F.R. §

292.205(c)). Nowhere do these regulations consider a role for the state in setting

QF standards or determining QF status.

The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the order of the district

court granting summary judgment for appellees. Apparently CPUC

misunderstood the U.S. Court of Appeals' opinion in the Independent Energy

Producers Ass'n v. Califomia Public Utilities Commission, 36 F.3d 848 (9th

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 51 -

Cir. 1994) and applied a special law to UC Regents and UC Davis Medical

Canter when construing and commissioning the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration

plant, which had five emergency generators of2 MW each with total plant

capacity of 37 MW, in a place that had a demand for power of less than 5 MW.

Apparently CPUC also misunderstood the U.S. Court of Appeals' opinion

when applying different standards to the Petitioner 's former employer, Destec

Energy Inc. (today Dynegy Inc.), and different standards to the almighty UCOP and

the UC Regents , CPUC, together with PG&E and the California Attomey General

Office, did not show any remorse about excluding the Regents of UC from the

January 5, 2007, APX settlement-agreement to cover up and condone the UC

Regents and UCOP tax evasion and fraud of tens of millions of dollars and the

disappearance of approximately $130,000,000 of dirty tax-free cash, not to mention

other key players in the UC Regents fraud scheme, the CAISO executives who

escaped liability by the being held harmless in the APX settlement-agreement.

What would be better for the Petitioner 's argument that the court modify or

nullify the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in Waszczuk v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), deny the

respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and set the case for trial, than

reviewing the undisputed and well-documented following facts and events:

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 52 -

a) In November 2008, the Regents of UC ceased selling surplus power from the

UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant after they were defeated by the

Petitioner in an arbitration process, following the 2007 ruthless witch hunt

that resulted in the Petitioner 's abrupt removal from the cogeneration facility

and unlawful reassignment to a different location. The Regents, in their

paranoia that the Petitioner will turn regents to FERC for PURPA violations

they hunted Petitioner and anybody associated with Petitioner like a Nazis

were hunted Jews during the Holocaust in his native Country Poland . The

Petitioner did not have such intentions because he thought that PURPA did

not apply to UC, a governmental entity that is heavily subsidized by eight

billions federal funds annually.

b) With Janet Napolitano's appointment as the U.S. Secretary of the Department

of Homeland Security in January 2009, the Regents of UC signed the

Petitioner 's settlement-agreement and promoted him from non-exempt

cogeneration plant operator to associate engineer.

c) In April 2011, the Petitioner was subjected to a second merciless witch hunt

and was removed from the UCDMC premises on August 31, 2011.

d) On May 31, 2012, the Regents of UC signed a power purchase agreement

with SMUD to resume the sale of surplus power. On that same day, the

Regents of UC attempted to kill Petitioner.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 53 -

e) The UCOP-assigned group of thugs lured the Petitioner to UCDMC

premises after his one-year absence and unsuccessfully attempted to kill him

in an ill-crafted provocation. The Petitioner did not fall into their trap and

returned home in one piece, but he was never allowed to return to work. The

Regents of UC and the owners of the UCDMC cogeneration plant never

utilized the May 31, 2012, power purchase agreement with SMUD because

they were not able to provoke and kill the Petitioner.

f) Since November 2008, the owners of the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration

plant failed to sell at least 1,000,000 MWh of surplus power, which translates

to at least $100,000,000 tax-free cash. This is a lot money. For $

100,000,000 UC Regents could build brand new 60 MW cogeneration power

plant in Main UC Davis campus which has no cogeneration facility with

demand for power over 100 MWh and retrofit and recommission the UC

Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant not to have PURPA and

FERC violations and tax evasion and fraud under umbrella of exempt from

taxes IRC 501 (c ) (3) . What the better argument would be for the U.S Tax

Court to modify than $ 100, 000,000 flushed to the drain by rotten to the

bones by corruption UCOP administration led by Janet Napolitano since

September 2013.

More than eight years ago, in February 2012, the UC Davis Human

Resources Department (HR) called the Petitioner 's residence to arrange an

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 54 -

informal conflict-resolution meeting with HR Labor Relation Manager Mike

Garcia. The Petitioner , in good faith, attended the meeting with Garcia and

presented his proposition to resolve the conflict. The Petitioner proposed that he

would quit his job if the university would pay him his annual wages in a lump sum

until he is eligible for full Social Security benefits at age 66; the plaintiff would turn

61 on May 30, 2012. Instead of a counter offer or a resolution proposition, the

Petitioner was lured onto UCDMC premises and almost killed in an ill-crafted but

unsuccessful provocation. Garcia and his assistant Jill Vandiver were fired from

their jobs. The court can only imagine how much tax-free money the owners of the

UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant would have made by selling the surplus power

for eight years, if they had settled the dispute with the Petitioner in February 2012,

for $300,000, instead of trying to kill him on May 31, 2012.

The Petitioner is now 69 years old and is trying to recover damages, in the

amount of at least $1,000,000, inflicted on him by the UC witch hunters. The

Petitioner provided the calculated damages to the Regents of UC in 2015 to settle

the dispute, but apparently the owners of the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant

are waiting for Petitioner to disappear or die.

https://www.scribd.com/document/468937460/Damages-Caused-by-UCOP-
Mafia-s-Witch-Hunts-to-Petitioner-and-his-family
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 55 -

This is sad, but the Petitioner cannot to do anything about it. Polish people's

lives do not matter to Janet Napolitano and her UCOP gang.

VII. CONCLUSION

The Petitioner 's motion for reconsideration is based on information the

Petitioner provided to the IRS WBO in Ogden, Utah, in his two Application for

Award Forms 211, dated March 23, 2016, and August 3, 2018. Through this

motion, the Petitioner showed the court that nothing was speculative in his

whistleblower claims. Since November 2008, the owners of the UCDMC 27-MW

cogeneration plant basically at least $100,000,000 flushed down the drain. This lot

of money to waste, and the IRS must investigate who the real owners of this plant

are and who can afford to throw away $100,000,000.

In light of above-presented facts and unusual circumstances, the

Petitioner prays that the Motion for Reconsideration be granted and the court

modify the Decision of the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in

Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), served

on June 4, 2020, and deny the respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

The case should set for trial or be remanded to the IRS WBO for further

investigation, to determine exact amount of tax evasion and fraud based on the

detailed information provided by the Petitioner in his updated claim, submitted to

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 56 -

the IRS WBO on August 3, 2018. The stake is very high in this case and should be

not ignored by the U.S. Tax Court, the IRS or the Offices of the U.S. Attorneys.

Dated: July 15, 2020 By:

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk , Petitioner
206 Katzakian Way Lodi , CA 95242
Phone : 209.663.2977
Fax: 209.787.3131
E-mail : [email protected]
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 57 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper THE PETITIONER 'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OFFINDINGS OR OPINION FOR
THE U.S. TAX COURT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND
DECISION IN WASZCZUK v. COMMISSIONER 'R, T.C. MEMO. 2020-
75 (U.S.T.C. JUNE 4, 2020) PURSUANT TO RULE 161 OF THE TAX
COURT'S RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE,

was served on July 15, 2020 by Electronic Mail to the following recipients:

Darrick D. Sun , -Via electronic -mail

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES

Office of Chief Counsel
Large Business & International
701 B Street, Suite 901
San Diego, CA 92101

Dated: July 15, 2020 By:

Jaroslaw Jadsz Waszczuk , Petitioner
206 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242
Phone : 209.663.2977
Fax: 209.787.3131
E-mail : [email protected]