US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT

RECEIVED y % eFILED
DRC sU S
JUN 29 2020 * JUN 29 2020
7:27 PM

JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK,

Petitioner,
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v- Docket No. 23105-18W

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE OR REVISE PURSUANT TO

RULE 162

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

US TAX COURT
D E N I E D

JUN 30 2020

SERVEDJun302020 JUDGE
 UNITED STATES TAX COURT

JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

Docket No. 23105-18 W
Petitioner Filed Electronically

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Respondent

THE PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE OR REVISE

THE U. S TAX COURT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND
DECISION IN WASZCZUK v. COMMISSIONER R. T.C. MEMO.2020-
75 (U.S.T.C. JUNE 4, 2020) SERVED ON JUNE 4, 2020 AND WHICH
GRANTED PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT

Re: Whether the Respondent abused his discretion in denying Petitioner's

claim and whistleblower award pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 7623.

I.
INTRODUCTION

PETITIONER pursuant to Rule 162 of the Tax Court's Rules of Practice and

Procedure is timely submitting this Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision of the
Docket No. 23105-18 W -2-

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.

By this motion, the Petitioner is requesting that the Court vacate, revise or make

the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision null and void because the

Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision constitutes fraud upon the Court,

which is the key subject of this Petitioner's Motion to Vacate the June 4, 2020

Order and Decision.

Not to be redundant with facts or arguments provided in his 12/13/2019 281

pages Oppposition (Docket # 36) to the 11/7/2019 Respondnet Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment the Petitioner will limit as much as possible 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) served on June 4, 2020 to the "Fraud on upon the Court" deception and

conspiracy committed by the Respondent's lead attorney's attorney, Darrick Sun,

and two officers from the Internal Revenue Services' Whistleblower Office (IRS

WBO) located in Ogden, Utah, and the author(s) of the Memorandum Opinion. The

misconduct of the IRS WBO officers and officers of the Court resulted in gross

miscarriage ofjustice, prejudicial, biased, and partial Memorandum Opinion and

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

June 4, 2020), which granted Partial Summary Judgment to the Respondent.

Docket No. 23105-18 W -3-

II.
THE MERIT OF THE CASE

The merit of this case is the tax fraud, amounting to millions of dollars,

committed by the owners of the 27 MW cogeneration power plant located at the

University of California Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) in Sacramento, California

resulting from the illegal production and sale of electrical power from 1998 to the

present.

The UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant was commissioned in 1998 and since that

time has been unlawfully operated to produce and sell electricity in violation of the

requirements of Federal Energy Commission Regulatory Commission (FERC)

regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 292.20, Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a), Califomia

Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, State of Califomia Unfair Business

Competition law, and Business and Professions Code § 17200 & California

Commodity Law of 1990 (Corp. Code, § 29500 et seq., "CCL") and 7 U.S. Code §

6 (b) in gross violation of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954

and the State of Califomia Revenue and Taxation Code.

On August 2, 2000, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, in a joint venture

with Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southem California Edison Company, the

People of the State of California Ex Rel. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, the

California Electricity Oversight Board, and the California Public Utilities

Docket No. 23105-18 W -4-

Commission, collectively named "The California Parties," filed a complaint with

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

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and California Power

Exchange (Cal-APX) (FERC Docket Nos. EL00-95-000; EL00-98-000).

San Diego Gas & Electric Company's complaint against the major energy

sellers, producers, and ancillary services included the UCDMC's 27 MW

cogeneration plant located in Sacramento, Califomia, which undoubtedly

committed state and federal tax fraud amounting to millions of dollars by illegally

generating and selling electrical energy in conspiracy with the California

Independent System Operator (ISO) and California Power Exchange (Cal-PX), both

created in 1996 by the California Legislature Assembly Bill 1890. The complaint

made by San Diego Gas & Electric Company also alleged that UCDMC's 27 MW

cogeneration plant, among other sellers, power producers, and ancillary services,

charged, collected, or were paid unjust, unreasonable, or otherwise unlawful rates,

terms, or conditions for energy, ancillary services, transmission, or congestion in

specified electricity markets.

Furthermore, San Diego Gas & Electric Company's complaint alleged that

the major energy sellers, producers, ancillary services, and financial institutions,

including the 27 MW cogeneration plant located at UCDMC and owned by

University of California (UC) Regents, manipulated western electricity markets in

Docket No. 23105-18 W -5-

all fashions (including, but not limited to, economic or physical withholding,

gaming, fraud or misrepresentation, or alleged forms of electricity market

manipulation, violation of any applicable tariff, regulation, law, rule, or order

relating to western electricity markets or entering into APX transactions when

western electricity markets were non-competitive).

From June 1999 to March 2007, the Petitioner was employed as an operator

of the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant, where they witnessed the ongoing fraud

described above. The Petitioner was unaware that the UCDMC cogeneration

facility, as a non-profit public State of California entity, was subject to the

requirements of FERC regulations and Federal Power Act regulations as were

private power producers. The Petitioner was unaware that the UCDMC 27 MW

cogeneration plant was subject to the complaint for fraud filed by San Diego Gas &

Electric Company with the FERC adjudicated from August 2000 to March 2007.

However, the owners of the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant

became aware that the Petitioner, prior his employment with UCDMC, had worked

for nine years for a private power producer and rival of Enron, Dynegy Power

Corporation (Dynegy), based in Houston, Texas, as an operator of a 50 MW

cogeneration facility located in Lathrop, Califomia. Dynegy's cogeneration plant

was similar in nature to the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant. From 1989 to

1997, Dynegy's 50 MW cogeneration plant defrauded Califomia Public Utilities,

Docket No. 23105-18 W -6-

Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) ratepayers, and California taxpayers of

$240,000,000 through the plant's violation of Federal Power Act, FERC

regulations, Federal Califomia Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, State of

California Unfair Business Competition law, and Business and Professions Code §

17200. Furthermore, Dynegy, during the period of May 2000 to November 2001,

acting as a major perpetrator together with Enron and UCDMC (i.e., UC Regents),

participated in a sophisticated fraudulent scheme referred to by white collar

criminals as the "California Energy Crisis" to mislead the public. In 2000-2001,

Dynegy defrauded California ratepayers and taxpayers of $281,000,000 and was

labeled by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer as one of "Four Horsemen of

the Apocalypse who rode in from Texas and ran roughshod over California

consumers, taxpayers and businesses along with Enron, Reliant and El Paso Corp."

The Petitioner estimates that between January 1998 and March 2007, the

UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant illegally produced taxable electricity services

worth approximately $500,000,000. This untaxed income vanished under the March

1, 2007 FERC Order approving the January 5, 2007 Settlement Agreement between

The California Parties led by A.G. Bill Lockyer, with California Power Exchange

(Cal-PX) and Automated Power Exchange Inc. (APX) as sponsoring and supporting

parties. FERC's Docket No. EL00-95-000, et al. The January 5, 2007 Settlement

Agreement approved by the FERC's Settlement-Agreement excluded the UC

Docket No. 23105-18 W -7-

Regents and UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant from the settlement and held

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

collaborators, harmless.

After the settlement was approved in March 2007, shortly thereafter, and

in the same month, the FERC's leadership changed.

The FERC's approval of the settlement on March 1, 2007 under the

pressure of an ultimatum and intimidation gave the green light to the owners of

the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant to continue the fraud. Thus, the

perpetrators of the fraud viewed the Petitioner's presence in the plant as a threat

to their plan to resume the full-scale gambling with illegal power generation and

sale.

After the multimillion-dollar fraud was swept under the rug by the

aforementioned FERC Order, the Petitioner became subject to a 14-year merciless

and ruthless witch hunt ordered by the owners of the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration

plant, which are legally are the Regents of the University of California, but in real

life m\most likely not. This ongoing witch hunt has devastated the Petitioner, his

family, and others (April 2020) and caused the owners of the UCDMC 27 MW

cogeneration plant losses of approximately $240,000,000 in surplus power sale

since the UC Regents signed the Settlement Agreement with the Petitioner on

January 31, 2009. After the 2009 Settlement -Agreement the owners of the
Docket No. 23105-18 W -8-

UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant did not sell any power, having signed annual

power purchase agreements with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District

(SMUD), and UC Regents did not sell any power after they became a Market

Participant under California Independent System Operators Congestion Revenue

Rights in December 2014. However , the owners of the plant still producing

illegally power worth millions of dollars not paying taxes and UC Regents

laundering earned tax free profit to real owners of the plant.

An amount of $240,000,000 to lose in tax-free money from power sale is not an

insignificant sum. However , IRS WBO office instead to investigate March 23,

2016 Petitioner Claim , Form 211 , IRS WBO apparently conspired with owners of

plant via established channel and condoned the crime .

III.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
RELATED TO MARCH 23, 2016 PETITIONER'S WHISTLEBLOWER
CLAIM No. 2016-007481 UPDATED ON AUGUST 3, 2018 AND
LODGED BY IRS WBO AS A MASTER CLAIM NO. 2018-012118

The Petitioner filed a Petition on November 21, 2018, seeking an appeal of

the IRS WOB's rejection of his updated expanded and detailed August 3, 2018

claim lodged in the IRS WBO office as the Master Claim No. 2018-012118 and

Sub Claims Numbers 2018-012139 2018-012141, by the IRS WBO on August 24,

2018. (EXHIBIT # 1)
Docket No. 23105-18 W -9-

The updated August 3, 2018 updated claim included March 23, 2016 claim

which was attached to the updated claim as the attachment # 1.

The Respondent filed his Answer on February 5, 2019, and, among other things,

stated on pages number 3 and 4 in paragraph 8 (a, b, & c) that: (Docket # 0006)

a. Claim number 2016-007481 was the number assigned to the Petitioner's

Form 211, dated March 23, 2016;

b. Regarding Docket No. 23105-18W, in a Final Decision Letter dated August

7, 2018, the Whistleblower Office rejected claim number 2016-007481; and

c. The Final Decision Letter dated August 7, 2018 was not in dispute.

The Respondent was wrong. Everything was in dispute because the Claim number

2016-007481 was part of the updated new claim number 2018-012118 and was

attached as the Exhibit # 1 to the updated claim with all exhibits on the Flash Drive

and DVD .

On May 3, 2019, the Respondent filed its Motion for Entry of Order that

Undenied Allegations in Answer to the Petition be Deemed Admitted.(Docket #

0007)

Pursuant to the Court's order dated May 13, 2019, the Petitioner filed his

Opposition to the Respondent's motion and the Reply to the Answer on June 3,

2019 . .(Docket # 0011) The Petitioner, in his Opposition to The Respondent's

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 10 -

Motion for Entry of Order that Undenied Allegations be Deemed Admitted

addressed the Petitioner's March 23, 2016 initial whistleblower claim number 2016-

007481 in Petitioner's Reply to Paragraph No. 8-a &. 8-b of the Respondent's

Answer (page nos. 4 & 5) as follows:

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[.]
and

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 August 7, 2018 one day after
Petitioner's submitted his 158-page-long update of the claim
2016-007481 with cover letter and 65 exhibits on August 6,
2018.

On June 4, 2019, the U.S. Tax Court ultimately denied the Respondent's

Motion for Order that Undenied Allegations be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to Rule

37 (C). (Docket # 0007)

Following the Motion for Order that Undenied Allegations be Deemed Admitted

Pursuant to Rule 37 (C), the Respondent, on May 15, 2019, filed a Motion for

Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 103. (Docket # 0007)

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 11 -

The Hon. Robert N. Armen ultimately denied the Respondent's Motion for

Protective Order on July 31, 2019.

Following the denial of two of the Respondent's motions, the Respondent, in

a desperate attempt to control damages, filed on November 7, 2019 a fraudulent

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that again referred to the Petitioner's initial

IRS Whistleblower Claim number 2016-007481.(Docket # 0023)

On December 13, 2019, the Petitioner filed his opposition to the

Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. .(Docket # 0036)

On March 13, 2020, the Petitioner submitted a request to ascertain whether

the Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on November 7,

2019, had been placed on the Court Calendar (Docket) to render a decision in the

above captioned case, either with or without hearing the oral arguments. .(Docket #

0037)

Two weeks after the Petitioner submitted Case Status inquiry, the

Respondent, on April 2, 2020, filed the Motion for Leave to File First Amendment

to Answer together the two-page long Respondent's First Amendment to Answer,

in which on page number 2, Paragraph 9 (c & d) in its First Amendment to Answer

Petitioner filed November 21, 2018 Petition, it states: (Docket # 0038 & 0039)
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 12 -

a. Petitioner filed his Petition in the instant action on November 21, 2018,

more than 30 days after mailing by the Whistleblower Office and receipt

by Petitioner of the Final Decision Letter dated August 7, 2018.

b. Petitioner failed to timely appeal The Final Decision Letter dated August

7, 2018, to the Tax Court as required under Internal Revenue Code

Section 7623(b)(4)

To support his lie in the First Amendment to Answer, the Respondent's

attorney from the IRS Chief Counsel Office in San Diego Darrick Sun (Tax Court

Bar No. SD 108); (The State Bar of California No. #223846) attached to his First

Amendment to Answer the IRS WBO's Decision dated August 7, 2018, which has

nothing to do with the appeal that the Petitioner had filed on November 21, 2018 in

the U.S Tax Court.

On April 13, 2020, the Petitioner filed his opposition to the Respondent's

Motion for Leave to File First Amendment to Answer and clearly demonstrated to

the Court the IRS Chief Counsel Office attorney's gross misconduct in an attempt

to obtain a favorable decision based on his lies stated that Petiotioner filed his

Pettition too late: (Docket # 0042)

On June 4, 2020, the Petitioner was served with a U.S Tax Court

Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision, and in fact, the U.S Tax Court

attorney who wrote the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision provided
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 13 -

Respondent's counsel what he requested founded on his lies. The author of the

rubber-stamped Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision with Judge Joseph

Robert Goeke name on denied the outrageously deceptive Respondent Motion for

Leave to File with First Amendment to Answer as moot but closed the case by

granting the Respondent Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without having an

administrative Record on file and sustained the October 24, 2018 IRS WBO's

Decision which denied the whistleblower award to the Petitioner. (Docket # 0043

& 0044)

The Petitioner found the IRS Chief Counsel office Attorney Darrick Sun's

misconduct in this proceeding and misconduct of the U.S Tax Court person who

wrote the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision and authored it in The

Hon. Goeke's name is egregious, partial prejudicial toward Petitioner and

constitutes itself fraud upon the Court .

Thus, the Petitioner is compelled to urge the U.S Tax Court Chief Judge, The Hon.

Maurice Foley, to void the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision in this

case and take action to reduce comparable misconduct by IRS Chief Counsel

attorneys and U.S Tax Court attorneys in future cases.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 14 -

IV.
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) SERVED ON JUNE 4, 2020 AND WHICH
GRANTED PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT

A. Memorandum Opinion and Respondent Motion for Partial Sumary

Judgment

Petitioner noticed that the Court 6/4/2020 Memorandum Opinion, which is

in most parts is a copy-and-paste version of the Respondent's 11/7/2019 Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment and the Respondent Motion did not provide any legal
ground in the Motion and circulate around the Petitioner's initial March 23, 2016
Claim No.2016-007481 submitted to IRS WBO Office in Ogden, Utah. The Claim
No.2016-007481 was not the subject of the Petition filed on November 21, 2018 in
the U.S Tax Court.

B. The Claim No. 2016-007481 Form 211.

For clarification, the Petitioner is compelled to explain to the Court why the
Petitioner did not file at all an appeal (Petition) after the August 7, 2018 IRS WBO
decision with regard to Claim No. 2016-007481 Form 211.

After the Petitioner submitted, on August 3, 2018, his update for the Claim
No. 2016-007481 and received, on around August 10, 2018, an adverse decision
from the IRS WBO dated August 7, 2018 for Claim No. 2016-007481, the
Petitioner logically thought that the IRS WBO denied his claim entirely by
disregarding his August 3, 2018 update that the IRS WBO received on August 6,
2018.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 15 -

The Petitioner had 30 days to file an appeal by Petition with the U.S Tax
Court, which was due on or about September 7, 2018.

However, on August 24, 2018, the Petitioner received another letter from the
IRS WBO stating that the IRS WBO received information from the Petitioner,
without making any reference to the date on which the IRS WBO received the
information and which information assigning to the received information three
claims numbers, Master Claim No. 2018-012118 and Sub Claims Numbers 2018-
012139 2018-012141.

The Petitioner's update of the March 23, 2016 Claim No. 2016-007481
submitted to the IRS Office on August 3, 2018 included the following:

1. Form 2011 clearly marked as supplemental submission, with a 154-page long

Addendum and 65 exhibits on Flash Drive and DVD.

2. Explanatory 16-page long cover letter for supplemental submission of Form

2011 addressed to IRS WBO Team Manager Charise Wood. The letter

included a Table of Contest and Index of Exhibits. (EXHIBIT No. 2)

https://www.scribd.com/document/467400375/IRS-WBO-Claim-No-2018-

012118-Full-Document

If the Petitioner would not have received the confirmation letter from the IRS

WBO on August 24, 2018 about the updated claim, then the Petitioner undoubtedly

would have appealed to the IRS WBO regarding the decision dated August 7, 2018.

Exhibit No. 1 attached to the August 3, 2018 supplemental submission Form 211

was the March 23, 2016 Original Application for Award (Claim No. 2016-007481)
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 16 -

(EXHIBIT No. 3) https://www.scribd.com/document/4674031 86/IRS-WBO-

Claim-No-2016-007481-Full-Document with 34 Exhibits which were important

documents obtained from the e-Library of the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission about the participation of the UC Regents together with the Enron

Corporation in the sophisticated scheme of 40 billion dollars fraud during 2000-

2001, titled by white collar criminals from different entities as the "California

Energy Crisis." In addition to the documents in Exhibit #1 s portraited illegal

operation and illegal production of power tax free by UC Davis Medical Center 27

MW cogeneration plant in which Petitioner was employed as an operator for many

years.

Regardless of the IRS WBO denying hidden for more than two years Claim No.

2016-007481, Exhibit # 1 became the integral part of the August 24, 2018 Master

Claim No. Master Claim No. 2018-012118 and Sub Claims Numbers 2018-012139

2018-012141, which was, without investigation, denied by the IRS WBO Office on

October 24, 2018 and thereafter timely appealed by the Petitioner on November 21,

2018.

It would be an absurd for the Petitioner and for the Court to have a two different

Petitions for the same case .

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 17 -

V.
ARGUMENT

A. The June 4, 2020, Memorandum Opinion and November 7, 2019,

Respondent Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, Filed on November
7, 2019, Constitutes Fraud upon the Court
The Memorandum Opinion, Order and Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner,

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

discriminatory, biased, partial and grossly prejudicial toward the Petitioner,

undoubtedly constitutes fraud upon the Court.

The U.S. Tax Court, by the June 4, 2020, Order and Decision to harm the

Petitioner, further granted the Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

and unjustly sustained the October 24, 2018, IRS WBO Decision, which denied the

whistleblower award to the Petitioner

In order to further cover up the enormous tax fraud, worth millions of dollars,

committed by corrupted University of California Office of the President (UCOP)

executives and to harm further the Petitioner on UCOP's behalf, the U.S Tax Court,

by the June 4, 2020, Memorandum Opinion, legitimized the conspiracy between

Internal Revenue Services' Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah, the Tax Exempt

and Govemment Entities (TEGE) office, the IRS, the Office of Chief Counsel

attorneys from San Diego, CA, UCOP and UCOP General Counsel via former

UCOP executive vice-president Judith Boyette. Boyette was appointed by the

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 18 -

Secretary of the Treasury to a three-year term from June 2016 - June 2019 on the

IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE), most

likely with the Petitioner's attomey, Mark Schlein, from the prestigious Califomia

law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Corporation. Mark Schlein

abounded the Petitioner in panic in August 2018 not without a reason.

In Toscano v. C.I.R, 441 F.2d 930 (9th Cir. 1971) the Court noticed the

following:

"Tampering with the administration ofjustice in the manner

indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a
single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to
protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud
cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good
order of society. Surely it cannot be that preservation of the
integrity of the judicial process must always wait upon the
diligence of litigants. The public welfare demands that the
agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must
always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud."
"FRAUD UPON THE COURT" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of

Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the

court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial

machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases

that are presented for adjudication" (Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7

Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23). The 7th Circuit further stated, "a
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 19 -

decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and

never becomes final."

A litigant commits "FRAUD UPON THE COURT" when the litigant and the

attorney concoct some unconscionable scheme that is expected to impair the

Court's ability to adjudicate the dispute in a fair and impartial manner (Sandstrom

v. ChemLawn Corp., 904 F.2d 83.-Fed Civ Proc 1741).

The entire proceedings became corrupted in this case since the IRS WBO

Office in Ogden, Utah, received in March 2016 the Petitioner's Application for

Award and UCOP organized a white-collar planting of UCOP's former

executive vice-president Judith Boyette on the IRS Advisory Committee on

Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE) for three years in June 2016

(June 2016 - June 2019). Consequently, the Petitioner's rights to equal access to

justice have been usurped not only by the IRS WBO and TEGE offices but also

by the outrageous misconduct of the IRS Office of Chief Counsel attomeys

from San Diego, CA, and Petitioner's his own attomey, Mark Schlein, from

Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Corporation. They worked hand in

hand to ensure that the Petitioner's 2016 whistleblower claim would never

surface again after it was submitted to the IRS WBO on March 23, 2016.

The U.S. Tax Court's prejudicial, partial, and biased June 4, 2020, Memorandum

Opinion is merely a redacted 18-page Respondent's November 7, 2019, Motion for

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 20 -

Partial Summary Judgment, which was condensed down to a 15-page length and

copied-and-pasted. The document constitutes fraud upon the Court and corruption

and should be entirely disregarded as a whole and nullified.

B. The Court's June 4, 2020, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Decision,

Issued without any Administrative Record or Base or a False
Administrative Record Constitute Fraud Upon the Court and
Corruption.

The Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. 8, 22 (2018), cited by the Court in the

Memorandum Opinion as authority of U.S. Tax jurisdiction and limitation to

decide on the Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, based on the

administrative record, would eventually justify the ruling if the Respondent's

attorney from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel attomeys from San Diego, CA,

Darrick Sun, would provide to the Court any administrative record.

On the contrary, the page 3 of the Respondent's November 7, 2019, Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment clearly informs the Court by his lie in § 7:

(Docket # 0023)

"Respondent's Motion for Protective Order was denied on July

31, 2019. Because of the absence of a protective order,
Respondent has not provided to Petitioner a copy of the WBO
administrative record in order to continue protecting confidential
taxpayer return and return information pursuant to I.R.C. §
6103(a)."

This fact alone establishes that the Court Memorandum Opinion, Order and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 21 -

Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4,

2020), served on June 4, 2020, constitutes a fraud committed by the U.S. Tax Court

research attorney, who crafted the ill-spirited Memorandum Opinion based on

nothing, in order to deceive, show prejudice against and harm the Petitioner. This

fact alone constitutes corruption too.

The author of the ill-crafted Memorandum Opinion acted with corrupt intent

to defraud the Petitioner out of obtaining his rights to relief that would be offered

through the due process of law, thereby constituting corruption and fraud upon the

court, constituent elements of malfeasance and misfeasance conduct, dedicated to

be averse to the Petitioner's legal position while beneficial to the position of the IRS

Commissioner and the corrupt University of California administrators from UCOP

in Oakland, CA, protected by the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security,

Janet Napolitano.

In Bulloch v. The United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the

court stated, "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial

machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false

statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or

influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his

judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been

directly corrupted."
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 22 -

The Memorandum Opinion, Order and Decision in Waszczuk v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) is a classic example

of "FRAUD UPON THE COURT" as per the description presented in Bulloch v.

The United States.

C. Why Did the Respondent's Attorney Lie to the Court in His Motion for
Partial Summary Judgement, Stating that He Had Not Provided To
Petitioner a Copy of the WBO Administrative Record in order to
Continue Protecting Confidential Taxpayer Return And Return
Information Pursuant to I.R.C. § 6103(A).?

The Respondent has not provided to the Petitioner a copy of the WBO

administrative record because the IRS WBO did not have any record that could

show the taxpayers the University of California returns and the return information

related to illegal power generation by the 27 MW cogeneration power plant located

in the UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA.

In July, 2019, the Court's Special Trial Judge, Hon. Robert N. Armen, figured

out from the Petitioner's Opposition to the Respondent's Motion for Entry of Order

that 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 is not about the University of

California sans any relation to the university business income but a more serious

crime. Both defendant motions were accordingly denied by the Court.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 23 -

The Petitioner's former employer, the University of California (UC), with its

11 campuses, is exempt from taxes under 501(c)(3), I.R.C. 1954, and the production

or sale of electricity is not subject to state or federal taxes if the cogeneration power

plant is built and operated lawfully to produce and sell electricity according to the

requirements of the 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, in order to provide the needed utilities to the

university campus.

The white-collar criminals from the UCOP do not pay taxes regardless of

whether they have built cogeneration power plants producing electricity and other

utilities legally or illegally. Building an illegal casino with hundreds of slot

machines and reporting the profit to the IRS would end in criminal prosecution by

the U.S. Attorney's Office, casino closure, and seizure of the criminals' assets by

the government. That is exactly what the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW

cogeneration power plant is. It was built and commissioned under the umbrella of

the UC exemption from taxes under 501(c) IRS 1954. The Petitioner provided all

necessary information to the WBO in March 2016 and August 2018, with clear

evidence that the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration plant is an illegal

production of commodities (electricity) and underground economy under the

umbrella of University of California and 501 (c) (3) I.R.C 1954.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 24 -

In 2002, Michael O'Neil, UCOP Manager of Payroll and Tax Services and

20-year university employee, apparently became concerned about the

university's tax exempt status under 501(c)(3) due to profits amounting to

hundreds of millions of dollars that were coming into the UC General Fund from

the UC Davis Medical Center. As a result, he sent a letter voicing his concerns to

the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB), which responded to his inquiry in a

letter dated June 26, 2002. The FTB basically advised him not to be concerned

about UC's tax exempt status:

"The University of California and its affiliated organizations are considered

to be part of the State of California and its instrumentalities. As such, it is
not subject to income tax, and, therefore, payments made to the UC System
are not reportable.
As a public body, the University of California is not subject to the Revenue
and Taxation Code. Therefore, it is not classified as a tax-exempt
organization and does not apply for, or receive, tax exempt status. Such a
classification would be unnecessary. The UC System and its affiliates are
government organizations, not subject to income taxes. Therefore, payments
made to them by businesses will not be reported on information returns."
The FTB letter to O'Neal was sent with an appendix dated September 8,

1982, which confirmed that since 1939, the University of California had had

Exempt Status under Section 501(c)(3), which the Internal Revenue Code of 1954

did not change . The letter was provide to IRS WBO in March 2016 and again in

August 2018 with Petitioner's updated claim Form 211(EXHIBIT #4)

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 25 -

In July 2002, the Petitioner was employed as an operator in the UC Davis

Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant and was a direct witness to the

unlawful operations occurring in the plant and illegal production of electricity worth

hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Petitioner addressed this issue in his updated application to the IRS

WBO office for Award Form 2011 on August 3, 2018, on page 126-127 with

attachment #54. Not reviewing the administrative record is a serious legal matter.

In July 2011, UCOP Manager O'Neil retired from the UC System, and the

Petitioner became the subject of an unbelievably inhumane and merciless second

witch hunt carried out by UCOP mafia thugs, which resulted in the Petitioner's

permanent removal from the UC Davis Medical Center premises on August 31,

2011, as the Petitioner's employment was abruptly terminated at his retirement age

on December 7, 2012. For the next three years, the Practitioner did not know why

he had become a target until Shelleyanne Chang, former Chief of Staff or Legal

Secretary for the former Governor of California ,Grey Davis, and Judge of

Sacramento County Superior Court, tipped the Petitioner off about the Court

decision in the case of Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance

Appeal Board (CUIAB), v. Regents of the University of California as the Real Party

in Interest 34-2013-80001699-CUWMGDS (See Exhibit #A in the Petitioner's

Opposition to the Respondent's Motion for Protective Order, filed on June 3, 2019).
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 26 -

Prior to her service in Governor Davis's Office, Chang was employed by the

IRS as a trial attorney (and later as a senior trial attorney) in the Office of Chief

Counsel, most likely in San Diego, representing the IRS in civil and criminal

tax matters before federal and district courts as well as before the U.S. Tax

Court. She was also appointed as a special assistant U.S. attorney, representing

the IRS before federal bankruptcy courts. Chang was appointed as a Sacramento

Superior Court Judge by Governor Davis in December 2002, shortly after the

California Franchise Tax Board responded to the above-mentioned concern by

UCOP Manager O'Neil, who questioned the university's tax exempt status under

501(c)(3). Governor Grey Davis visited the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW

cogeneration plant with his dignitaries on February 14, 2001, one month after he

declared a state of emergency in Califomia, which lasted two and half years.

D. The Respondent, in the Motion in Partial Summary Judgment, or the

Court, in the Memorandum Opinion, Did Not Provide any Explanation
on What Constitutes the Administrative Record.

In the 1978 U.S. Tax Court Case Opinion, Houston Lawyer Referral Serv.,

Inc. v. Comm'r of Intemal Revenue, 69 T.C. 570 (U.S.T.C. 1978), related to the

Petitioner's application regarding exempt status under sec. 501(c)(3), I.R.C. 1954,

the Court provided information regarding what constitutes the administrative

record:

Rule 210(b)(10) provides, in part, the following:

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 27 -

(b) Definitions: As used in the rules in this title-

(10) "Administrative record" includes the request for determination, all
documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service by the applicant in
respect of the request for determination, all protests and related papers
submitted to the Internal Revenue Service, all written correspondence
between the Internal Revenue Service and the applicant in respect of the
request for determination or such protests, all pertinent returns filed with the
Internal Revenue Service, and the notice of determination by the
Commissioner. In addition,
(ii) In the case of a determination relating to an exempt organization or a
private foundation or a private operating foundation, the administrative
record shall include the charter or articles of incorporation or association, or
trust indenture or agreement, and any similar or related documents of the
organization and any modifications thereof.
Contrary to this, the Respondent failed to produce any administrative record

for the Court, which pursuant to Rule 210(b)(10) Tax Court's Rules could justify

the June 4, 2020, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Decision in Waszczuk v.

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

The administrative record that was not provided to the Court by should have

at least included but not been limited to the following:

1. Original Application for Award Form 2011 - Claim No: 2016-007481, with

the Cover Letter that the Addendum Petitioner sent with the Original

Application for the Award

2. The Petitioner's 154-page update of the Original Application for the Award,

with the Cover Letter and all 65 attachments or exhibits sent to IRS WBO on
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 28 -

August 3, 2018; the update was relabeled as Claim No(s): 2018-012118,

2018-012139, and 2018-012141.

3. Copies of all the Petitioner or his attorney's correspondence, including faxes

and emails to and from the IRS WBO, between April 30, 2016, and August

24, 2018

4. Copies of all the Petitioner's correspondence to and from the IRS WBO

office between August 6, 2019, and December 15, 2019

5. Copies of all the Petitioner's correspondence to and from the Respondent's

legal counsel between February 1, 2019, and November 7, 2019

The Respondent's excuse for not providing the Petitioner with a copy of the

WBO administrative record was the need to protect confidential taxpayer returns

and return information pursuant to I.R.C. § 6103(a), and that it generates and

illegally sells power is something else and underhanded .

The Court that knows the law and serves the law should have dismissed the

Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and ordered the Respondent to

work further with the Petitioner on this complex case, as in Kasper v. Comm's 150

T.C. No. 2 (U.S.T.C. Jan. 9, 2018), where the Court, IN SCOPE OF REVIEW,

affirmed that it would limit the scope of review to the administrative record. But the

Court also pointed out that record rule does not always tell the Court to stop with

the record. Furthermore, the Court provided exceptions to the record limitation to
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 29 -

review the case and listed the exceptions posited by the D.C. Circuit court, which

are the following:

• when the agency's actions are not adequately explained in the record;
• when the agency failed to consider relevant factors;
• when the agency considered evidence that it failed to include in the record;
• when a case is so complex that a court needs more evidence to understand the
issues clearly;
• where there is evidence that arose after the agency's actions, showing whether the
decision was correct or not; and
• where the agency's failure to take action is under review.
The Court in Kasper relayed on citing the following:

Esch v. Yeutter, 876 F.2d 976, 991 (D.C. Cir. 1989); see also Wilson, 705 F.3d

at 991 [acknowledging that a "reviewing court may require supplementation of

the administrative record if it is incomplete" (quoting Lands Council v. Powell,

395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005))] Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107,

117 (2007) (Wherry, J., concurring) (stating that it is up to the Court to determine

the accuracy and completeness of the administrative record, which may require

an evidentiary hearing). The gist of these cases is that an agency cannot

determine all by itself what constitutes the administrative record. And the same is

true for whistleblower cases; the trial remains available when the parties disagree

about the contents of the record, as the commissioner "cannot unilaterally decide

what constitutes an administrative record." Whistleblower One 10683-13W v.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 30 -

Commissioner, 145 T.C. 204, 206 (2015) [citing Thompson v. DOL, 885 F.2d

551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989), and Tenneco Oil Co. v. DOE, 475 F. Supp. 199, 317

(D. Del. 1979)].

VI.
CONCLUSION

It is difficult to argue with the Court's Opinion that unusual circumstances or

substantial error of law or fact must be pointed out, as the entire Memorandum

Opinion and Order and Decision is a fruit of fraud and the conspiracy between IRS

WBO, TEGE and attorneys from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel from San Diego,

CA, supervised and overlooked by the TEGE's special advisor, former UC

executive vice-president, Judith Boyette. TEGE most likely benefited from this

enormous millions dollars fraud, and she could not refuse Janet Napolitano's offer

to take the special assignment with TEGE for three years. That how the corrupt and

fraudulent UCOP operates.

However, for the record, the Petitioner is compelled to address the Court's

error, misstatements or false statements in the Memorandum Opinion, which were

copied-and-pasted from the Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 31 -

In Part II of the Memorandum Opinion, titled Summary Judgment (which should be

Partial Summary Judgment per Rule 121[(a]), on page 12, the Court stated the

following:

For her recommendation the TEGE classifier reviewed petitioner's

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. She recommended rejection of the 2018 Form and
submitted her recommendation to the WBO. The WBO followed the
classifier's recommendation to reject the 2018 Form.
On the basis of this record, we find that the WBO did not abuse its
discretion in rejecting petitioner's claim. The WBO followed the TEGE.
The IRS did not initiate an administrative action against the targets and did
not collect proceeds, the two requirements for a whistleblower award.
Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to an award.

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.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 32 -

For a complete explanation of unrelated business activities, see BFB A-61;

Unrelated Business Income and Expenses."
Petitioner on April 13, 2020 with his Opposition to the Respondent's

Motion for Leave to File First Amedment to Answer (Docket # 0042) provided

to the Court the copy of the March 23, 2016 Claim Form 211 with the 45 pages

long addendnum thus the Court had a liberty to findout that Petitioner claim is

not about IRC 511, 512 or 513 but is about violation of exempt from taxes

status by the UC Regents or Univesrity of California due producing illegally

electric power in UC Davis Medical Center , Sacremento. However , the Court

disregarded Petitioner's information in his filed documents and anyway issued

iil spirited and based on lies and deceit Memorandum Opinion and Order and

Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4,

2020)

The UC Regents are sole owner and operator of the UC Davis Medical Center

27 MW cogeneration plant, which is key subject of this proceeding and helps pull

off millions of dollars of tax fraud due to its illegal operation since 1998. It is the

IRS' job to find out who the real owner or co-owner of the plant are and to recover

millions of dollars of unpaid taxes.

The DECLARATION OF KEITH DEHART, the Frontline Manager overseeing the

IRS Whistleblower Office's Initial Claims; DECLARATION OF KAREN M.

FOSTER, who, since March 31, 2019, has been employed by the IRS as an agent in
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 33 -

the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division ("TEGE"), CERTIFICATE OF

AUTHENTICITY OF DOMESTIC BUSINESS RECORDS PURSUANT TO

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 902(1 1) attested, certified, and declared by the

IRS WBO-ICE Frontline Manager Keith DeHart, with Exhibit "A," the seven-page

Confidential Evaluation Report on Claim for Award, labeled as Claim No. 2018-

012118(M), presented to the Court with the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

by IRS Chief Counsel office attomey on November 7, 2019, is the egregious

misconduct of Keith DeHart Karen Foster and attorney Darrick, which further

constitutes fraud upon the court, deceit, conspiracy, corruption and a further attempt

to cover up millions of dollars' worth of fraud committed by the white-collar

criminals from the UCOP with collaboration with different governmental and non-

governmental entities from California. The Court bluntly repeated in the Petitioner

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

Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) Keith Dehart and Karen Foster's deceit

and perjury from their declaration and bluntly harmed the Petitioner and the U.S.

taxpayers by granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to the Respondent and

sustaining IRS WBO's unjust decision of October 24, 2018, which denied the

whistleblower award to the Petitioner

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 34 -

In the Byers v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2019-76 (U.S.T.C. June 18, 2019), the

Tax Court ruled that it has jurisdiction after a decision is final to decide whether a

party committed Fraud upon the Court as follows:

"Generally, the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to vacate a decision once it becomes

final. Lasky v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 97 (9th Cir. 1956), affd, 352 U.S. 1027

(1957); Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 15, 28 (2004), vacated, 429 F.3d

5_33 (5th Cir. 2005); Abatti v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1319, 1323 (1986), affd, 859

F.2d 115 (9th Cir. 1988). However, the Tax Court and some Courts of Appeals

recognize an exception to the finality rule if there has been fraud on the court. See,

e.g., Drobny v. Commissioner, 113 F.3d 670, 677 (7th Cir. 1997), affg T.C. Memo.

1995-209; Snow v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. 413, 422 (2014). To establish that this

exception applies, a party must show that the other party engaged in fraudulent

conduct that was intended to mislead the Court and that the fraudulent conduct

materially affected the outcome of the case. Drobny v. Commissioner, 113 F.3d at

6_78; see also Pasternack v. Commissioner, 478 F.2d 588, 593 (D.C. Cir. 1973),

although courts must normally adhere to statutory commands of finality, such

commands, that are normally read in the light of an overriding interest of correcting

injustice whenever there is fraud on the court or the integrity of the judicial process

or functioning has been undercut" (fn. refs. omitted) (citing Denholm & McKay Co.

v. Commissioner, 132 F.2d 243 (1st. Cir. 1942), Kenner v. Commissioner, 387 F.2d
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 35 -

689, 691 (7th Cir. 1968), and Greater Bos. Television Corp. v. FCC, 463 F.2d 268,

2_78 (D.C. Cir. 1971)). In order to find fraud upon the court, the party alleging fraud

must show that the alleged improper conduct was an "unconscionable plan or

scheme" that was "designed to improperly influence the court in its

decision". Drobny v. Commissioner, 113 F.3d at 677 (quoting Kenner v.

Commissioner, 387 F.2d at 691).

For example of a case reopened because of fraud upon the Court, see Merriam v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-17, supplementing T.C. Memo. 1995-432.

The Petitioner has shown in his Motion to Vacate that the alleged improper conduct

of adverse parties was an "unconscionable plan or scheme" that was "designed

to improperly influence the court in its decision". Thus, the Petitioner respectfully

requests that the Court vacate or nullify the Memorandum Opinion, Order and

Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4,

2020) due to fraud upon the court, deceit and the Respondent's conspiracy and

remand the case back to IRS WBO with order to recover tens of millions of dollars

of unpaid taxes from profit earned in illegal production of electricity under umbrella

of the Univesrity of California and IRC Code 501 ( c) (3).

The Petitioner prays that based on the provided facts, documents, and authorities

that the Petitioner Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision of the Memorandum

Opinion and Order and Decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 36 -

75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) served on June 4, 2020 should be granted and case

should remanded to IRS WBO for further investigation to determine exact amount

of tax fraud base on detailed information provided by Patitioner in his updated

claim submitted to IRS WBO on August 3, 2018. The stake is very hight in this case

and shall be not ignored by the U.S Tax Court , Internal Revenue Services or U.S

Attorney Office .

Dated June 29, 2020

Jaroslaw W zczuk, Petitioner Per Se

2216 Katzak an Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (833) 787-3131
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 37 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper THE PETITIONER'S

MOTION TO VACATE OR REVISETHE 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) SERVED ON JUNE 4, 2020 was served on June 29, 2020 by
Electronic Mail
Darrick D. Sun Darrick.D.Sun@irscounsettreas.gov , ELECTRONIC MAIL

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES

Office of Chief Counsel
Large Business & International
701 B Street, Suite 901
San Diego, CA 92101

Jaroslaw M/aszczuk, Petitioner Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (833) 787-3131
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
EXHIBIT # 1
 * * DEPARTMENTOFTHETREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224

WHISTLEBLOWER OFFICE

August 24, 2018

Claim Number: 2018412118

RE: THER
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK Contact Representative Number: 801-620-2169
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY (This is not a toll-free number)
LODI, CA 95242 Contact Address: Intemal Revenue Service
1973 N Rulon White Blvd, MS 4110
Ogden, UT 84404

Dear Jaroslaw Waszczuk:

We received your Form 211 with the information you fumished and have assigned the above
claim number(s). We will evaluate the information you provided to determine if an investigation is
warranted and an award is appropriate. Please retain this notice for future reference.
If we initiate an investigation as a result of your information, it is important to understand that it
could take several years until final resolution of all tax matters. This is especially true if the
taxpayer exercises all administrative and judicial appeal rights. In addition, before we can pay an
award, we must collect any additional taxes, penalties, or fines, assessed by reason of your
information. Collection action could also take several years.
At the conclusion of our review and/or investigation, we will only be able to tell you whether or not
the information you provided met our criteria for paying an award. Unfortunately, we cannot tell
you specific details about what actions we took, if any, using the information you gave us. Internal
Revenue Code Section 6103 protects the tax information of all taxpayers and prevents us from
making these disclosures.
We will notify you as soon as all actions relating to your claim have been completed. Please note
that we will be sending all correspondence from this office regarding this claim to you at the
address you provided. If you move or change the address to which you want correspondence
directed, you must inform this office in writing of the change of address. Failure to notify this
office of a change of address regarding this claim could result in you not receiving time-sensitive
correspondence.
Additional information about the whistleblower claim process can be found in Publication 5251,
The Whistleblower Claim Process. Publication 5251 can be found online at IRS.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/ Layne Carver for
Joseph Hebb, Program Manager
Whistleblower Office, SPPA
 Master Claim Number 2018-012118

Taxpayer Name
Assigned Claim Number Control
2018-012139 CALIF
2018-012141 CAllF
EXHIBIT # 2
Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
E-Mail: jjwl980@live.com

March 23, 2016

Internal Revenue Service

Whistleblower Office - ICE
1973 N. Rulon White Blvd.
MIS 4110
Ogden, UT 84404

Re: Application for Award and Addendum to the Application for Award
Violation of the Provision of Section 50le(3) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1954 by the
Regents of the University of Califomia due to Unrelated Business Income

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed is the Application for Award and Addendum to the Application for Award with
exhibits in which I am describing the suspected tax evasion or fraud in the amount of millions of
dollars due to illegal generation and sale of electrical energy by the Regents ofthe University of
California in conspiracy with State of Califomia govemment officials or agencies, the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), California Independent System Operator
(CAISO) and Califomia Power Exchange (Cal-PX)

The crux of this tax fraud scheme is that almost twenty years ago a group of decision makers
from the University of Califomia got the idea to build a 27-megawatt cogeneration power plant
on one of the university campuses, the UC-Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, CA, which
needed only 5 megawatts of electrical energy and 30,000 pounds per hour of steam.
The UC-Davis Medical Center in Sacramento is an integrated part ofthe University of
Califomia, Davis, located in the city of Davis twenty miles west of Sacramento.
In contrast to the UC-Davis Medical Center, the UC-Davis campus's demand for electric
power twenty years ago was around 100 megawatts and demand for steam was around 150,000
pounds per hour. However, the 27-megawatt cogeneration facility was built in UC-Davis
Medical Center instead of being built at the UC-Davis Campus. This fact itself shows that
somebody had an idea to make millions ofdollars in short time under the umbrella ofproviding
utilities for the UC-Davis Medical Center.

The 27-megawatt plant is a money-making machine, and the UC-Davis Medical Center
cogeneration facility made between $70,000,000 and 80,000,000 free of tax in the years 1999-
2003 by illegally selling electrical energy to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District was
ganging electricity prices selling power on spot market via CATSO. Unfortunately, the wheel of
fortune for illegal power merchants was stopped for nine years, most likely because the San
1
Complaint Against UC Regents - Tax Fraud
Diego Gas and Electric Company unexpectedly filed a complaint in 2000 with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission against the Califomia Independent System Operator (CAISO)
and the California Power Exchange (Cal-PX). The CAISO and Cal-PX collaborated in an illegal
power sale from the UC-Davis Medical Center's 27-megawatt cogeneration facility. The
unlawful sale of power by the UC-Davis Medical Center facility was resumed for in June 2012
but ended in December 2013 a few days after I filed wrongful termination lawsuit .

In the same time period of 1999-2000 UC Regents defrauded Medical and Medicare and
penalties against university were $ 22, 500,0000.

The fraud probably would be going on until today if State California Governor Gray Davis
would be not recalled from his office in 2003 and he would bail out Pacific Gas and Electric
from filing Bankmptcy as he promised visiting the Plant on February 14, 2001.

Building the 27-megawit power plant was not the same as building a storage shed in the
backyard, which does not require as many permits as building a 27-megawatt power plant in the
wrong place.
It was most likely the decision of a narrow group of criminally minded individuals from the
university and beyond to build this cogeneration power plant as a money-making machine for
their personal gain. The University of Califomia system has many ways and forms to distribute
money to personal bank accounts which can't be detected by any audit, especially the
university's internal audit. An auditor would be fired from the job if he tried to disclose the
fraud. As an example, consider the case of credit card embezzlement at the UC-Davis Medical
Center in which three employees who reported the fraud and the UC-Davis Medical Center
auditor who confinned the fraud lost theirjobs. The case, William Prindible v. The Regents of
the University ofCahfornia U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of California Case No. No. 2:13-
cv-02256-KJM-EFB, was settled in January 2015. (Please see the attached June 14, 2014 letter
addressed to the University of California Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg )

I apologize that in my Addendum to the Application for Award I have to mix apples with
oranges to chronologically describe the suspected tax fraud committed by the Regents of the
University of California

S rely,

Jar aw W

As a supporting document I am enclosing the complaint with State Bar of California against
several present and former University of California attorneys, two attorneys of the State of
California Attorney General Office and one former attorney from Porter Scott Law Firm in
Sacramento plus exhibits on the Flash Drive.
Also enclosed is a copy of the complaint against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge
Sheilayanne Chang, the former Deputy Chief Secretary for California Governor Grey Davis .
CC: The United States of America
Federal Bureau of Investigation
2
Complaint Against UC Regents - Tax Fraud
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION FOR AWARD

I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................# 1
II. THE BACKGROUD OF THE FRAUD SCHEME....................................# 1
Electricity Market Deregulation............................................. ................# 1

The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility "Central Plant"........# 3

The UC Davis Medical Center Versus UC Davis Campus...............................# 4

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND EVENTS IN LIGHT OF THE FEDERAL

ENEGRGY REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCUMENTS......................#6

The UC Davis Medical Center Power Sale Agreement with California Independent
System Operator................................................................................#6
The San Diego Gas and Electric Complaint Filed with FERC against Major Energy
Sellers, Producers, and Ancillary Services on August 2, 2000, with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.......................................................................#6

The August 6, 1999, California Independent System Operator Memo to Wave the 60-
Day Waiting Period for UC Davis Medical Center to Begin Functioning as a Participant
in the California Power Market....................................................................#8

August 18, 1999, Notice of Self-Certification for the University of California, Davis
Medical Center's 27 MW Cogeneration Facility, FERC Docket No. QF99-99-000.#10

The September 12, 2014, Deep Energy Efficiency and Cogeneration Study Findings
Report.................................................................-.........................#11

The September 12, 2014, Deep Energy Efficiency and Cogeneration Study Findings
Report..........................................................................................#13
The May 12, 2003 UC Davis Medical Center Fuel Allowance Compliance Filing with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. EL00-95-045............#.15

The January 5, 2007, Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited
Consideration Submitted to the United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission........................................................................... ......#17
 The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility "Central Plant" in the
Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited Consideration submitted by the
Respondents to the FERC on January 5, 2007...........................................#19
The United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order
Approving the Joint Offer of Settlement.................................................# 21

IV. THE NEW MAY 2012 POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND THE
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT...............................#22
The February 2009 Settlement Agreement with the Regents of the University of
California.......................................................................................#22
April 2011 Provocation to Terminate My Employment..................................#23

Litigations Against the Regents of the University of California and the California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ............ ...... ..........#23

The August 6, 2012, Interview of UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) Associate

Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion Dr. Shelton Duruisseau with the
Sacramento-based African-American Magazine Sac Cultural Hub....................#25

The March 11, 2014, letter to the University of California Office ofthe President
(UCOP) Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg........................................#26
Afterrnath of the March 11, 2014, Letter Addressed to UCOP Principal Investigator
Judith Rosenberg..............................................................................#29

V. THE VICTIMS AND COLABORATORS IN UC REGENTS POWER SALE

FRAUD SCHEME...........................................................................#31
The Victims List ..............................................................................#31
The UC Regents Collaborators- Cover up and Condone the Illegal Power Sale and the
Tax Fraud Scheme............................................................................# 37

VI. CONCLUSION..............................................................................f/45

11
 EXHIBITS

ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION FOR AWARD

Exhibit Number: Description Page No.

1. The 295 Pages Draft of the Third Amended Complaint in the Wrongful Termination Case
No: 34-2013-0015 5479 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents ofthe University of
California...........................................................................................................................1
2. The UC Regents Motion for Automatic Stay filed September 25, 2015 ......................1
3. Waszczu1C Opposition to the UC Regents Motion for Automatic Stay filed on October
13, 2015 ................................................................................................1
4. The Regents ofthe University of California Participating Generator Agreement (PGA)
with California Independent System Operator (CAISO) signed on July 26, 1999 ..........6
5. The Regents ofthe University of California Meter Service Agreement with CAISO
signed on August 13, 1999 ................................................... ....................6

6. The August 6, 1999, California Independent System Operator Memo to Wave the 60-Day
Waiting Period for UC Davis Medical Center to Begin Functioning as a Participant in the
California Power Market.............................................................................8
7. August 18, 1999, Notice of Self-Certification for the University of California, Davis
Medical Center's 27 MW Cogeneration Facility, FERC Docket No. QF99-99-000.......10
8. The UC Davis Medical Center Production Report dated February 11, 2001................11
9. The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility Production Report dated ,
November 11, 2015..................................................................................12

10. Improper Activities Report dated August 7, 2005...............................................13

11. Fax to the California Governor Gray Davis office dated February 14, 2001...............14
12. The May 12, 2003 UC Davis Medical Center Fuel Allowance Compliance Filing with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. ELOO-95-045 (90 Pages Production
Reports)..............................................................................................15
13. The May 12, 2003 UC Davis Medical Center Fuel Allowance Compliance Filing with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. ELOO-95-045(175 Pages Production
Reports)...............................................................................................15
14. The UC Davis Med Center Production Report dated May 6, 2003..........................16
15. The January 5, 2007, Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited Consideration
Submitted to the United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission......17
16. September 2006 Rick Tunello's Suspension ....................................................18
17. Machine Oil Discharge the Sacramento River from UC Davis Medical Center
Cogeneration Plant ..................................................................................19
18. The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility "Central Plant" in the Joint
Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited Consideration submitted by the
Respondents to the FERC on January 5, 2007...................................................19
19. March 1, 2007,the United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Order Approving the Joint Offer of Settlement.................................................21

1
20. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District Power Purchase Agreement for the UC Davis
Medical Center 27 MW Central Plant signed with the Regents of University of California
on May 29, 2012.....................................................................................22
21. The March 13, 2011 letter to UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance
Department Head Charles Witcher................................................................23
22. The UC Davis November 18, 2011, Pepper Spray Task Force Report................ ...24
23. The UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley's decision in my whistleblowing retaliation
complaint dated September 10, 2014 ............................................................24
24. June 25, 2013 letter to the California Senate President Pro Tempore Darrel Steinberg;
Assembly- member and the Chair of the Higher Education Committee Das Williams; and
Chair of the Labor and Employment Committee Roger Hernandez..........................24
25. The May 30, 2013 complaint with the California State Bar against six of the University of
California's employees who were licensed by California State Bar as attorneys at law. .25
26. Inquires sent to various state agencies ...........................................................25
27. UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Duruisseau................................26
28. The March 11, 2014, letter to the University of California Office ofthe President (UCOP)
Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg.........................................................26
29. Letter to the UC Davis Health System Human Resource (HR) Labor Relations Manager
Travis Lindsey dated March 27, 2014.............................................................29
30. The Peremptory Challenge (CCP § 170.6) against Judge Shelleyanne Chang............ 30
31. May 25, 2015 letter to State of California Attorney General deputy Ashante Norton... .30
32. Stipulation for November 18, 2011 Pepper Spray Settlement in United States District
Court Eastern District Of California Case No. Case No. 2:12-cv-00450 JAMEFB........33
33. October 2011 correspondence with UC Davis Police Department ..........................34
34. LT. JAMES BARBOUR, UC Davis Police Department officer............................ 40
35. Inquiry for independent investigation in the case I sent to United States Senator Hon.
Dianne Feinstein on September 26, 2015....................................................... 45

11
EXHIBIT # 3
Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 833-817-7080
E-mail: jjwl980@live.com

August 3, 2018

Charise Wood, Team Manager

U.S. Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Whisteblower Office, ICE Team
1973 N. Rulon White Blvd., MS 4110
Ogden, UT 84404

Re: The Original and Supplemental Submission of Application for Award Claim
No. 2016-007481

Presently, I do not know the status of my original claim (No. 2016-007481) which I
submitted to your office in March 2016 The last information that I received from the
Internal Revenue Service's Whistleblower Office was a letter dated October 31, 2016; the
letter informed me that my claim was still open. Also , I did not receive any information
about from my attorney Mark Schlein who suppose to assist me with this complaint .
Along with a summary of my original Application for Award submitted to your office in
March 2016; a review of my litigation against the University of California and the
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; and a review of my complaint with
the State Bar of California against my former attorney Douglas Stein, I have enclosed the
Supplemental Submission for the Application for Award regarding Claim No. 2016-
007481.

An enormous tax-fraud scheme played an integral part in the 1999-2003 energy crisis,
which was invented by the authors of the California Electricity Restructuring Act (AB
1890) in collaboration with University of California scholars, professors, and experts; the
California governor's office; and the Enron Power Corporation.

This power-laundering scheme gouged prices and committed enormous tax fraud, all of
which benefited the scheme's key players: the University of California; attorneys
working with the California attorney general's office; California attorneys general Bill
Lockyer (01/04/1999-01/08/2007), Jerry Brown (01/07/2007-01/03/2011), and Kamala
Harris (01/03/2011-01/03/2017); and the supposedly "nonprofit" California Independent
System Operator (CAISO). Throughout the energy crisis engineered by these corrupt
organizations, CAISO alone managed to pilfer millions-if not billions-of taxpayer
dollars in the process of purposely destabilizing the California and western U.S.
electricity markets and power grids.

All facts point to AG Lockyer as one of the one main inventors of the fraud scheme,
which was initiated during California's electricity market deregulation. As a legislator
and then a beneficiary of the fraud, he and other key players collaborated to profit greatly
from this ruinous scam. After Governor Gray Davis was removed from his post by $1.7
million dollars from Congressman Darrell Issa's private account, Lockyer became
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's shadow. Governor Schwarzenegger was well loved
because of his role as the Terminator and was a perfect candidate for Lockyer and his
energy crisis collaborators. They wanted Schwarzenegger to replace Davis because Davis
was not involved in but eventually would have discovered the sophisticatedly designed
energy crisis. With his fame, Austrian mentality, admiration for the Third Reich, and lack
of any clue or knowledge about the California legislature and government, the
Terminator was practically a golden goose for Lockyer. Schwarzenegger and Lockyer
had been casual friends since Lockyer's state senate years; the actor chaired the
Governor's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, and the two men toured together
through charter schools in southern California.

In my June 5, 2017, correspondence to Congressman Issa titled "The leftover from

California's energy market deregulation, energy crisis of 1999-2001," I requested
information regarding the 2003 Davis recall election, which was accomplished in large
part due to Congressmen Issa's $1.7 million contribution. Today, I still view the Davis
recall as a very strange and unsolved mystery-especially because it was orchestrated by
the same white-collar criminals responsible for the California energy crisis. However, my
attempt to gather relevant information from Issa was fruitless (see enclosed copy of the
letter).

According to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Judge Hon. Clarence
Thomas, who reviewed CAISO's petition in 464 F.3d 861 (2006), No. 04-70635 and No.
04-71613,

IN THIS CASE, WE CONSIDER ANOTHER PIECE OF THE

CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS PUZZLE. Before us are petitions for
review from the California Independent Systern Operator ("Cal-ISO")
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG & E"), alleging that the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") committed various
errors in perrnitting Cal-ISO to re-run certain Settlernent Staternents. We
dismiss the petitions for lack of subject rnatter jurisdiction. We conclude

2
worth a lot more than $300,000, $224,000, or $50,000. Your office will not find the
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant or CAISO on the California Energy Task Force
Enforcement Recoveries. The other issue is lack of surplus powers sales from the
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant since 2009 (see Addendum). Monetary losses due to
the lack of surplus power sales since 2009 are approximately $80 million. However, no
one seems to care. Even UC President Janet Napolitano does not care about $80 million.
In 2016, she was too busy spending $1 million to pay her two friends, former U.S.
Attorneys Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, to conduct a witch hunt directed at Greek-
born UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi. California attorneys general, state auditors, and
even UC Davis chancellors do not care about $80 million that should have been
generated.
As I pointed out in my July 24, , 2018, inquiry addressed to FBI Special Agent in Charge
Sean Ragan at the Sacramento field office (attached), I don't have $1 million to hire
Melinda Haag or McGregor Scott to conduct deeper investigations related to the
California energy crisis tax evasion and the accompanying tens of millions in kickbacks
from power corporations distributed or laundered by the California Attorney General's
Energy Task Force and other California parties under the direction of the California
attorney general. In fact, my life has been decimated by people like Napolitano and her
white-collar criminal subordinates. I lost my home and $1 million of my income,
benefits, and retirement.

In 2016, I hired Mr. Mark H. Schlein-Senior Counsel at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman, PC Law Corporation. Although he is assisting me with my original claim
with the IRS, Mr. Schlein does not represent me in my litigations against the
University of California or the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
represented by the California Attorney General office Therefore, I am seeking an
update on my Application for Award on my own behalf.

However, if your office has any questions about Mr. Schlein' s representation in the
Application for Award, you are welcome to contact him directly:

Mark H. Schlein, Senior Counsel

Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC
12100 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90025
MSchlein@BaumHedlundLaw.com
Office: 310-207-3233
Cell: 850-322-7941
Fax: 310-820-7444

I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California and
federal law that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

4
 that we lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider Cal-ISO's petition for
review because it implicates FERC's prosecutorial discretion.

Fully understanding the puzzle behind the fraud invented by the white-collar crime
syndicate was impossible for any federal judge. The illegal billion-dollar enterprise that
came to be known as the California energy crisis involved California attorneys general,
CAISO, the Franchise Tax Board, the California Public Utilities Commission, the
University of California Office of the President, the UC Regents, the California
governor's office, and the Enron Corporation.

Lockyer was a key California legislator, attorney general, energy task force chief, party
chief, and treasurer from January 8, 2007, to January 5, 2015. Being in charge of the
settlements put him in a perfect position to maintain and cover up the distribution of tens
of millions in kickbacks stolen by the bullying and greedy power corporations. The
California Energy Task Force led by him and his successors, Jerry Brown and Kamala
Harris, "assembled a group of entities" including the California parties that perfectly
legitimized the artificially engineered energy crisis. Lockyer received hundreds of
millions of dollars in settlements and kickbacks from the power corporations, and no one
initially detected the hoax. The California energy crisis scheme was perpetrated in clever
and underhanded ways.

As I explained in the enclosed inquiry submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

during the Califomia electricity market deregulation, I reported one of the major players
in the scheme concocted by Lockyer, CAISO executives, and others. Dynegy Power
Corporation, formerly Destec Energy, committed $240 million of fraud against PG&E
ratepayers and California taxpayers (see Attachments #27-29). PG&E did not need
Lockyer, the Attorney General's Energy Task Force, or other California parties to settle
the $240 million of fraud. This amount was massive. After the PG&E settled the fraud
with Dynegy , the settlement hunted me down at the UC Davis Medical Center
(UCDMC), and my life and my livelihood were completely destroyed by the white-collar
criminals from the University of California Office of the President and their UC Davis
and UCDMC thugs. The PG&E settlement is still haunting me throughout the California
courts including the California Supreme Court. However, I lost everything; I have
nothing left but my life for these criminals to take.

If your office examines the documents enclosed with this letter, you will see that the
California Attorney General's Energy Task Force Enforcement Recoveries retrieved
settlements as low as $300,000, $224,000, and $50,000 from some listed energy
producers; these lowest three came from listed power producers or public utilities. The
list is also included under Chapter XXV.

In addition, I have enclosed the 1999-2018 power sales chart from the UCDMC 27 MW
cogeneration plant (Chapter I of the Addendum). This chart shows numbers that are

3
 espectfully sub on August 3 , 2018.

Ja slaw Waszczuk

CC: FBI, Sacramento Office, Special Agent in Charge Sean Ragan

Mark H. Schlein, Senior Counsel -Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC

ENCLOSED :
. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD CLAIM
NO. 2016-007481 WITH A NEW 153 PAGES ADDENDUM TO THE
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR AWARD
. Attachments -Documents on Flash Drive
. August 3, 2018 Inquiry with FBI IN RE: Violation of my Civil and Human
Rights , Request for Assistance , Cover Letter to FBI Special Agent In Charge
Sean Ragan plus Addendum (Hard Copy and on Flash Drive )
. 6/25/2016 -95 pages long Disapproval of the Proposed Order -Sacramento County
Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
The Regents ofthe University ofCahfornia (Hard Copy and On Flash Drive )

5
 TABLEOFCONTENTS

ADDENDUM OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION TO THE

APPLICATION FOR AWARD FOR CLAIM NUMBER : 2016-007481

TITLE: PAGE:

I. MARCH 2016 ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR AWARD .....................1

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

THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR AWARD WITH A DIFFERENT

PERSPECTIVE OF THE TAX FRAUD SCHEME IN RELATION TO
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY MARKET DEREGULATION AND
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS.
I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................6
A. About myself ..................................................................................6
II. THE CRUX OF THE TAX EVASION AND FRAUD DUE TO VIOLATION
OF SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 19546
A. The main components of the Tax Evasion and Scam....................................6
B. The Parties in the scheme of fraud..........................................................7
III. PRIOR THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKET DEREGULATION......12
A. The 1986-1989 Corruption scandal in State of California legislature...............12
B. Noticable and relevant names from the time period of 1986-1988...................12
C. California Senate anti -SLAPP Bill (SB 1264)-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation .................................................................................14
D. The key players in the California Electricity Market deregulation ..................14
E. The Noticable names from that period ..................................................16
F. The Noticable names from that period ..................................................16
IV. AB 1890 OR "ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING ACT" AB 1890...........17
A. "Electricity Restructuring Act"............................................................17
B. The AB 1890 addressed California Power Exchange in the Article 4. ..............17

6
 C. The AB1890 addressed CAISO in the Article No. 3...................................18
D. The AB1890 addressed Electricity Oversight Board in the Article No. 2 ...........20
E. Califomia privately held Public Utilities companies in AB 1890....................21
V. THE TAX FRAUD AND THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY
RESTRUCTURING ACT (AB 1890)..................................................23
A. University of California campus situated in Yolo County.............................23
B. Demand for power in UC Davis Medical Center ......................................25
VI. THE JOIN VENTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UC),
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY (CSU) ENRON
CORPORATION ENERGY SERVICES AND THE CALIFORNIA'S
INDEPENDENT SERVICES OPERATOR (CAISO).............................25
A. One month before CAISO and CalPX commenced operation in March 1998....26
VII. DIVESTITURE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES AFTER THE
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY MARKET WAS DEREGULATED..........26
A. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE)........................................................26
B. Southern Califomia Edison's Application No. 96-11-046)............................27
C. SDG&E filed an Application No. A.97-12-039 .......................................27
D. PG&E Application No. 98-01-008.......................................................27
VIII. HUMBERTO JOSE MILAN - PROGRAM COORDINATOR FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONER AND
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER..................28
A. Jose Milan's relation to Destec Energy/Dynegy Power Corporation ...............28
B. $281.5 Million Settlement with Dynegy in Energy Refund Case....................29
C. General Information.........................................................................31
D. The Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) of 1978 & Jose Milan ......31
E. Changes in the California Wages and Hour Laws in 1989 ............................32
F. Waszczuk's employment a Power System Engineering Inc..........................33
G. The new owner of the Power Operating Company......................................34
H. Alternative Work Schedule in Destec's San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant.
Lathrop , CA ................................................................................34
I. Fraud of the employees 40lK retirement plan by Destec ............................35
J. Waszczuk's February 15, 1996 meeting with California Area Destec's
Management .................................................................................35
K. Waszczuk claim with the Labor Commissioner's Office..............................37
L. The Hearing and the Labor Commissioner Decision ..................................37
M. Destec's retaliation against Waszczuk after Labor Commissioner's ruling ......38
N. Termination of Waszczuk's employment by Destec Energy Inc. /NGC and
Waszczuk's and PG&E litigations against Destec Energy Inc. ......................39

7
 O. December 1999 3DCA Unpublished Opinion 3DCA Case No. C030005 San
Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. CV 000737................................40
IX. CALIFORNIA ELECTION OF 1998..................................................41

A. The 1998 California election had the following results:...............................41

X. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER 27-MW COGNERATION POWER
PLANT.......................................................................................42
A. 1999: UC Davis Medical Center's 27-MW cogeneration power plant named
central plant .................................................................................42
XI. THE VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC UTILITY
REGULATORY ACT (PURPA) AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS...........42
A. The California Senate and Assembly environmental Bills...........................42
B. Misrepresentations of the law and unlawful conduct of Destec/Dynegy.........47
C. The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant versus Destec's
San Joaquin 50 MW cogeneration power plant ........................................49
D. Gross pollution of the Sacramento River by UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogeneration plant ..........................................................................52
E. The UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento versus the main campus in Davis in
1999 ..........................................................................................56
XII. THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS, ILLEGAL POWER RESALE, AND
MEGAWATTS LAUNDERING BY THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT POWER
OPERATOR, AND CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE.....................58
A. Frozen investment of $65,000,000 in the UCDMC 27-MW plant ...................58
B. $100,000,000 PG&E Settlement-Agreement with Dynegy Inc., and Waszczuk's
lawsuit against PG&E and his attorney Scott Malm. ..................................59
C. April 8, 1999 PG&E Application of Termination for Power Purchase Agreement
with Dynegy's San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant........................................59
D. SDG&E lifts consumer price caps in summer of 1999.................................60
XIII. ROAD TO ILLEGAL POWER SALE, POWER LAUNDERING, AND TENS
OF MILLIONS IN TAX FRAUD......................................................60
A. Illegal power sale and resale, and power-laundering collaborators ..................60
B. Participating Generator Agreement and Meter Agreement between the University
of California and CAISO ..................................................................61
C. Notice of Self-Certification................................................................62
XIV. WASZCZUK'S LITIGATIONS AGAINST DESTEC INC/NGC/DYNEGY
IN 1999.......................................................................................63
A. Dynegy's subpoena of Waszczuk' employment record from UCDMC, Case No.
CV 04940 ....................................................................................63
8
 XV. STATE OF CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1298(SB 1298).......................64
A. Introduction of SB 1298....................................................................64
B. The UCDMC 27-MW plant as a cogeneration (combined heat and power) system
in light of SB 1298..........................................................................64
C. The People of the State of California Do Enact as Follows:..........................65
XVI. THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERTOR AND NEW
CAISO GENERAL COUNSEL CHARLES ROBINSON........................67
A. Charles F. Robinson, new general counsel and senior vice president of CAISO...67
B. Deregulation of California electricity market before and after Robinson's hiring.68
XVII. THE MAN-MADE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS............................70
A. The upward escalation of California electricity prices in May 2000.................70
B. The UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant and the UC San Diego and UC Berkley
cogeneration plants in May and June 2000..............................................71
C. The UC San Diego cogeneration plant in May and June 2000........................72
D. The UC Berkeley cogeneration plant in May and June of 2000......................72
XVIII. THE JULY 27, 2000, AMENDMENT TO THE INTERIM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC AND THE SACRAMENTO
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT...................................................73
A. The subject of the Amendment ...........................................................73
B. Amendment No. 1 of the Agreement ...............................................73
XIX. THE SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPLAINT FILED WITH
THE FERC AGAINST MAJOR ENERGY SELLERS, PRODUCERS, AND
ANCILLARY SERVICES ON AUGUST 2, 2000...................................76
A. The SDG&E Complaint ...................................................................76
B. The parties that supported the SDG&E complaint filed with the FERC in August
2000 to cap electricity prices .............................................................77
C. The opposing parties to the August 2000 SDG&E complaint ........................79
D. FERC Order issued on August 23, 2000.......................................79
XX. THE CALIFORNA ATTORNEY GENERAL's "ENERGY TASK
FORCE".....................................................................................80
A. The California Attorney General's Office...............................................80
B. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's "Energy Task Force"...................81
C. AB-265.......................................................................................83
XXI. THE SEPTEMBER 1, 2000, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
APPLICATION 00-09-001...............................................................83
A. April 8, 1999, PG&E Application of Termination for Power Purchase Agreement
with Dynegy's San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant ........................................83
B. PG&E's September 1, 2000, Application 00-09-001..................................83
XXII. THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER 27 MW COGENERATION PLANT

9
 AT THE END OF 2000 AND STATE-WIDE ALERT IN
DECEMBER 2000.........................................................................85
A. Profit generated by the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant ........................85
B. The Stage 3 Power Alert in the State of California ....................................85
XXIII. CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 1127 (AB 1127) AND THE UCDMC 27
MW COGENERATION PLANT IN JANUARY 2001.............................87
A. AB 1127......................................................................................87
B. The UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant in January 2001 in light of AB 1127...87
XXIV. VIOLATION OF SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE OF 1954 AND CALIFORNIA TAXATION CODE AND TAX
EVASION BY THE CALIFORNIA INEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR
AND CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE .......................................90
A. California Independent System Operator and California Power Exchange.........90
B. State of State Governor Grey Davis's speech on January 8, 2001...................91
C. The State of Emergency -EXECUTIVE ORDER D-40-01............................94
D. February 14, 2001, Governor Gray Davis tour the UC Davis Medical Center's
27 MW cogeneration plan..................................................................97
E. CalPX and PG&E Bankruptcy ..........................................................100
F. The Witch Hunt............................................................................101
G. The March 2002 California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's lawsuits against
power corporations .......................................................................102
H. Fat Boy", "Death Star", "Forney Perpetual Loop", "Ricochet", "Ping Pong",
"Black Widow", "Big Foot", "Red Congo", "Cong Catcher"........................105
I. June 06/06/2002 San Diego County Superior Court complaint Art Madrid v.
Perot System Corporation et al. -Case No. GIC790009; Superior Court of
Sacramento County Case No. 03AS04763; The Court of Appeal , Third Appellate
District Case No. C046683..............................................................107
J. The October 10, 2017 Court of Appeal , Third Appellate District Unpublished
opinion in case Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et, al
Case No. C0524............................................................................120
K. The July 26, 2016, Tax Evasion And Fraud in Violation of the State of California
Revenue and Taxation Code Complaint against University of California with the
State Board of Equalization -Investigations Division ................................126
XXV. THE SETTLEMENTS-AGREEMENTS WHICH HELD CAISO's AND
CalPX's EXECUTIVES ,DIRECTORS AND MANAGERS HARMLESS.130
A. Getting Our Money Back-Attorney General's Energy Task Force Enforcement
Recoveries..................................................................................130
B. The January 5, 2007, Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited
Consideration Submitted to the United States of America Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission..................................................................138
10
 C. The UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW Cogeneration Facility "Central Plant" in
the Joint Offer of Settlement and Motion for Expedited Consideration submitted
by the Respondents to the FERC on January 5, 2007.................................139
D. The CAISO in the January 5, 2007 Settlement -Agreement .........................140
E. Ultimatum and United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Order Approving the Joint Offer of Settlement.......................................143
XXVI. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ILLEGAL POWER SALE AND
TAX EVASION IN THE SECOND DECADE OF THE NEW
MILLENIUM.............................................................................144
A. University of California and CAISO's executives conspiracy and collaboration
with the University of California white collar criminals in illegal power sale and
tax evasion .................................................................................144
B. Amendment No. 1 of the Agreement ..................................................145
C. May 2012 Power Purchase Agreement between Regents of the University of
California and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)............... 147
D. The Regents of the University of California successfully completed the CAISO
Congestion Revenue Rights registration process".................................... 150
E. 2013 California Parties settlement with Powerex over claims arising from the
2000-2001 California energy crisis and CA-ISO's non for profit status ..........150
F. Joint Motion to Intervene of the California Parties...................................151
XXVII. CONCLUSION...........................................................................152

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

12
18. WASZCZUK'S MARCH 27, 1999 LETTER TO PG&E CHIEF COUNSEL
DAVID FLEISIG..........................................................................59
19. CASE NO. CV 0077112 WASZCZUK vs. MALM AND CASE NO. CV 007392
WASZCZUK vs. PG&E... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....59
20.THE REQUEST TO WAVE THE 60-DAY WAITING PETRIOD AND METER
AGREEMENT BETWEEN UC AND CAISO FILED BY FERC ON AUGUST
13, 1999 NO. ER 99-4011-000..........................................................61
21.AUGUST 18, 1999, THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER (UCDMC) NOTICE
OF SELF-CERTIFICATION (FERC FORM 556)....................................62
22.UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER PRODUCTION REPORT DATED
DECEMBER 20, 2000, WHICH WAS SENT TO FERC-DOCKET NO. ELOO-
95-045.......................................................................................63
23. UC BERKELEY COGENERATION FACILITY"...................................72
24. JULY 27, 2000 INTERIM AGREEMENT BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E), SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY
DISTRICT (SMUD) AND CAISO......................................................73
25.August 2, 2000 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC COMPLAINT WITH THE
FERC AGAINST THE SELLERS OF ENERGY AND ANCILLARY
SERVICES..................................................................................76
26. FERC ORDER DATED AUGUST 23, 2000..........................................79
27.1999 $240,000,000 PG&E RECOVERY FROM DYNEGY'S FRAUD OF
($100,000,000 NET VALUE AT THE RELEVANT TIME).......................82
28.SEPTEMBER 1, 2000- PG&E FILED APPLICATION 00-09-001(U39 E)
WITH THE CPUC IN THE 2000 ANNUAL PROCEEDING.................83
29. CPUC decision on PG&E's application 00-09-001(U39 E)....................83
30.UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER (UCDMC) "CENTRAL PLANT." THE
PLAQUE IN THE BUILDING'S FRONT ENTRY..................................87
31.DECEMBER 2000BRIEF SUBMITTED TO CAL/OSHA DISTRICT
MANAGER WILLIAM ESTAHRI.....................................................88
32. THE GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS STATE OF STATE SPEECH OF 2001-
"CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS "...................................................91
33. DECEMBER 13, 1981 POLISH COMMUNIST SECRET POLICE ARREST
WARRANT................................................................................93
34.THE COPY OF THE FAX TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS
DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2001 .........................................................99

13
35. MARCH 2002 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'S
LAWSUITS AGAINST POWER PRODUCERS IN SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERIOR COURT.....................................................................103
36.2001 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'S LAWSUIT
AGAINST PG&E .......................................................................104
37.2004 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'S LAWSUIT
AGAINST ENRON .....................................................................105
38.2004 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'S LAWSUIT
AGAINST MIRANT....................................................................105
39.ATTORNEY GENERAL'S BILL LOCKYER'S ENERGY WHITE PAPER
PAMHLET ...............................................................................105
40.THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (3DCA) OPINION CERTIFIED FOR
PUBLICATION OPINION IN THE CASE : ARTMADRID vs.. PEROT
SYSTEM CORPORA TION et, al CASE NO. C046683, CITED AS 3DCA
CASE:[ 130 CAL.APP.4TH 440, 30 CAL.RPTR.3D 210 ]..................107
41. CALIFORNIA SUPREME CASE NO: S245982- RE: STEIN ON DISCIPLINE
DECISION DATED MARCH 1, 2018.......................................................120
42.OCTOBER 10,2017 3DCA OPINION IN CASE NO . C079524 WASZCZUK vs.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA .......................120
43.OCTOBER 25 ,2017 3DCA PETITION FOR REAHEARING CASE NO .
C079524 WASZCZUK vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 2 1
44. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT -PETITION FOR REVIEW CASE NO.
S245508 WASZCZUK vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... .... 1 2 1
45. WASZCZUK'S DECEMBER 1, 2017 FILED MOTION IN THE SUPREME
COURT TO TRANSFER WASZCZUK'S OTHER 3DCA APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME COURT OR OTHER CALIFORNIA APPELLATE DUE TO
CORRUPTION IN 3DCA CASE NO. C079254 WASZCZUK vs.
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD (CUIAB )
..............................................................................................121
46.APPELLANT REPLAY BRIEF FILED IN 3DCA ON 10/17/2016 IN CASE
C079254................................................................................. 122
47. AUGUST 20, 2016 WASZCZUK'S INQUIRY WITH CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN OFFICE.........................................125
48. AUGUST 21, 2016 WASZCZUK'S INQUIRY WITH CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE HON, CANTIL- SAKAUYE-RE: EVIL

14
 OF CORRUPTION IN THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT, THE COURT OF APPEAL THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR...........................................125
49. AUGUST 24, 2016 COMPLAINT WITH SACRAMENTO COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT PRESIDENING JUDGE KEVIN CULHANE ............125
50. AUGUST 31, 2016 INQUIRY SENT TO US CONGRESSMAN JOHN
GARAMENDI ABOUT UC DAVIS CHANCELLOR LARRY
VANDEROEF'S RECOGNITION ON THE U.S CONGRESS FLOOR.....125
51.SEPTEMBER 2016 CORRESPONDENCE WITH CALIFORNIA SENATOR
CATHLEEN GALGIANI.............................................................125
52.MARCH 2018 WASZCZUK CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE CLERKS
FROM THE 3DCA.....................................................................125
53. AUGUST 2016 WASZCZU'K COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AGAINST UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS ANALOGOUS TO THE
COMPLAINT, WHICH WASZCZUK SUBMITTED TO U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES IN
MARCH 2016........................................................................126
54. JUNE 26, 2002, MEMO SENT TO UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (UCOP) BY. DENISE HUBBARD, A
REPORTING SPECIALIST FROM THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD.. .................................................................126
55."THE PERFECT IMAGE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA".................................................................127
56. JANUARY 5, 2007 JOINT OFFER OF SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION, WITH ACCOMPANYING JOINT
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT AND AUTOMATED POWER EXCHANGE
(APX)......................................................................................138
57.JANUARY 19,2007 COMMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT
SYSTEM OPERATOR CORPORATION CONCERNING JOINT OFFER OF
SETTLEMENT INVOLVING THE AUTOMATED POWER EXCHANGE.140
58. MARCH 1, 2007, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE APX JOINT OFFER
OF SETTLEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
AGREEMENT..........................................................................143
59. JULY 27, 2000 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE INTERIM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E),

15
 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (SMUD), AND
CAISO.....................................................................................144
60.MAY 31, 2012 UC REGENTS UNLAWFUL POWER PURCHASE
AGREEMENT WITH SACRAEMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILTY DISTRICT
(SMUD)...................................................................................148
61. ANNUAL EMISSION TEST FOR JET LM2500 GAS TURBINE AND
FOUR AUXILIARY NATURAL GAS FIRE BOILERS IN UCDMC
COGENRATION PLANT .............................................................148
62.2013 UCDMC 27 MW COGENERATION PLANT POWER SALE TO
SMUD LOG -ILLEGAL AND TAXABLE.......................................149
63. DECEMBER 22, 2014 WITCH STATED THAT: " THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE
CAISO CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHTS REGISTRATION PROCESS"
TO LAUNDER MEGAWATT OUT OF UC CAMPUSES .......................149
64." MOTION TO INTERVENE OF THE CALIFORNIA PARTIES" THE
MOTION WAS FILED IN BY CALIFORNIA PARTIES IN THE IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ON
FEBRUARY 4, 2014 CASE NO: 14-70326..........................................151
65. DECEMBER 4, 2013,FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
(FERC) APPROVED CONTESTED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN POWEREX
CORP. (POWEREX) AND THE CALIFORNIA PARTIES FILED ON
AUGUST 16, 2013......................................................................151

16
EXHIBIT # 4
 TAXES: TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS
T-182-735
Page lo ACCOUNTING MANUAL

**APPENDIX B: FRANCHISE TAX BOARD TAX EXEMPTION LETTER

S STATE oF CAIMORNIA KATHLEEN CONNELL

FRANCHISE TAX BOARD chair
PO Box 942840 CLAUDE PARRISH
Sacramento CA 94240-2000 Member
Telephone (916) 845-6304 Fax (916) 845-0412 B. TD40THY oAGE
Member

June 26, 2002

Mr. Michael O'Neill, Manager

Payroll Coordination & Tax Services
University of Califomia, Office of the President
11]I Franidin Street, 10* Floor
Oakland, Califomia 94607-5200

Re: Are payments made to the University of California subject to information retum reporting?
The University of Califomia and its affiliated organizations are considered to be part ofthe State of
California and its instrumentalities, As such, it is not subject to income tax, and, therefore, payments
made to the UC System are not reportable.
As a public body, the University of Califomia is not subject to the Revenue and Taxation Code.
Therefore, it is not classified as a tax exempt organization and does not apply for, or receive, tax
exempt status. Such a classification would be unnecessary. The UC System and its affiliates are
govemment organizations, not subject to income taxes. Therefore, payments made to them by
businesses will not be reported on information returns.

Sincerely,

Denise Hubbard
Information Retum Reporting Specialist
Califomia Franchise Tax Board

++Addition 6/30/02 TL 88
TAXES: TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS
T-182-735
Page 8 ACCOUNTING MANUAL

APPENDIX A: UNIVERSITY RULING LETTER

District 450 Golden Gate Ave.

Director San Francisco, Calif. 94102

Person to contact:
* The Regents of the University Desk Officer
of Cal ifornia Jelephone Nurnber; SEP 10 nn
e/o The Office of the General (415) 556-3353 0914 0F
Counsel Refer Reply to:
EEGL
590 University Hall EP/EO:1 ccWSR
2200 University Avenue Date:
Berkeley, CA 94720
8 SEP 1982
Re: Request for Confirnation of Exempt
Status under Section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954

Dear Regents:
This is in reference to your letter of July 13, 1982 requesting confirmation
of the exempt status of The Regents of the University of Califorula under
section SOl(c)(3) of tha Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

In our letter of September 14, 1939, Code IT:P:T:1 CQ, it was held that
you were entitled to exemption under the provisions of section 101(6) of
the Revenue Act of 1938.
A determination or ruling letter issued to an organization granting
exemption under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or under a prior or
subsequent Revenue Act remains in effect until exempt status has been
terminated, revoked or modified.
Our records indicaca that you are the regularly-constituted state university-
of the State of California originally created by a state legislature act of
1868; that you. are engaged in educational activities; that your income is
derived from investments, endowments, tuition, and miscellaneous sources;
and that your income is used in furtherance of your educaetonal activities.
In addition, it appears from our records (inplud.ing tha. information submitted
with your letter of July 13, 1982), that there hes been no change in your
organization's exempt status. Accordingly, dar letcer of september 14, 1939
is still in effect. Ihis letter does not constitute -a no change examination
le t ter .

Because section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenua Code of 1954 was derived
from and continues, without substantive change, the language of section
101(6) of the Revenue Act of 1938 ("1939 Code") and because our letter of
september 14, 1939 is still in effect, it appears that you and your
constituent units are entitled to exemption as an ·organization described
in seccion 501(c)(3) of the 1954 Code.
Donors may deduce contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (formerly section 23(0) of the Internal

6/30/02 TL 88
 TAXES: TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS
T-182-735
ACCOUNTING MANUAL Page 9

APPENDIX A: (Cont.)

The Regents of the University of California

Ravenue Code of 1938). Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts

to you or for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax
purposes as provided in the applicable provisions of seerions 2055, 2106,
and 2522 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
You are not required to file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax, because you are a State institution, the income of which is
excluded from gross income under section ll5(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954.

You are not required to file Federal income tax returns unless you are
subject to the tax on unrelated business income under section 511 of the
Code. If you are subject to this tax, you must file an income tax return
ett Form 990-T. This office has not been asked to consider and therefore,
in this letter, we are not determining whether any of your present or
proposed activities are unrelated trade or business as defined in section
513 of the Internal Ravenue Code of 1954.
Because this letter could-help resolve any questions about your exempt
status, you should keep it in your permanent records.

If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and
telephone are shown in the heading of this letter.

Sincerely,

District Director

TL 88 6/30/02