09-19-2023 - Appellant' Motion To Recall The Mandate - Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner USCA Case No - 20-1407

USCA Case #20-1407 Document #2017907 Filed: 09/19/2023 Page 1 of 25
USCA No. 20-1407 USTC No. 23105–18 W
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

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

Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

Defendant-Appellee
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
APPELLANT-PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE,

REINSTATE THE APPEAL, AND REOPEN THE CASE
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Email: jjw1980@live.com
Motion to Recall Mandate and Reinstate the Appeal

I.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (a),(b)(3)(4)(6), Appellant-
Petitioner Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced “Vashchook,” hereafter “Waszczuk”),
moves this Court by this Motion to recall the Mandate issued on September 19, 2022
(EXHIBIT #1), reinstate the appeal, and reopen the case USCA No. 20-1407, which
was dismissed by the Court’s error in claiming that the Case lacks a subject matter
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4).
Waszczuk’s appeal was wrongfully dismissed based on the opinion in Mandy
Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), see
https://casetext.com/case/mandy-mobley-li-v-commr-of-internal-revenue, in which the
Court ruled for the dismissal of this appeal for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4) and remanded it to the Tax Court with instructions to do
the same. The Court dismissed the Li appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction after
reviewing the Cooper v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-72 (U.S.T.C. Apr. 8, 2015),
https://casetext.com/case/cooper-v-commr-19, and Lacey v. Comm’r, 153 T.C. No.
8 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 25, 2019), https://casetext.com/case/lacey-v-commr-1. The Court
concluded that Cooper and Lacey were wrongly decided by the Tax Court, which
held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals from threshold rejections of

whistleblower award requests; thus, the Li case decided the fate of the Waszczuk
appeal from the June 4, 2020 U.S. Tax Court decision, which granted the IRS
Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Waszczuk v. Comm’r, T.C.
Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), see
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-commr.
The Commissioner informed Waszczuk yesterday that will file opposition to the
Waszczuk’s motion
II.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY OF THE CASE JAROSLAW
WASZCZUK V. COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
CASE NO . USCA NO. 20-1407
A. Waszczuk’s Initial (IRS Form 2011) Claim Submitted to the IRS

Whistleblower-ICE Office
On March 23, 2016, Petitioner submitted his initial claim (No. 2016007481) for
award (IRS Form 2011) to the Whistleblower-ICE Office (WBO-ICE) in Ogden, Utah,
alleging that his former employer, the University of California’s UC Davis Medical
Center (UCDMC), located in Sacramento, California, committed tax evasion or fraud
in equaling millions of dollars due to the illegal generation and sale of electrical
energy. This was done in conspiracy with State of California government officials or
agencies, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), the California

Independent System Operator (CAISO), and the California Power Exchange (Cal-PX),
thus violating the Provisions of Section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476776874/UTC-20160323-IRS-
WHISTLEBLOWER-Claim-No-2016-00748
On August 3, 2018, Waszczuk submitted his update of the 2016 claim to the IRS
WBO. This update, instead of being included or combined with the March 23, 2016
claim, No. 2016-007481, was relabeled as Claims No. 2018-012118, 2018-012139,
2018-012141, and 2018-0121419 on August 24, 2018 which were then denied on
October 23, 2018 without any review or investigation by the WBO-ICE
B. U.S. Tax Court Petition Filed on November 21, 2018,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner - Docket No.23105-18W
On November 20, 2018, Waszczuk appealed the IRS WBO’s October 24, 2018
decision, which denied him a reward for reporting tens of millions of dollars of tax
EVASION AND FRAUD . In his petition, Waszczuk pointed out that he strongly
disagreed with the WBO in Ogden, Utah and that nothing was speculative in his claim.
Waszczuk was a direct witness to the unlawful generation and sale of electricity and
the millions of dollars’ worth of related tax evasion committed by the UC Regents
between June 1999 and 2012 by the unlawfully operated 27-MW cogeneration power
plant, which was built for the sole purpose of illegally selling power for millions of
dollars in tax-free profit. Waszczuk backed his claim with documents he discovered in
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other sources, including direct copies
4

of reports on the unlawful power generation and sale by the UCDMC’s cogeneration
plant in violation of provisions of Section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954, in addition to violations of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA) and the requirements set in 18 C.F.R. for efficiency and the use of energy
output. The plant was also falsely certified as a Qualified Facility (QF), pursuant to 18
C.F.R. § 292.20 requirements, Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a), California
Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, State of California Unfair Business Competition
law, and Business and Professions Code § 17200.
On June 4, 2020, the Petitioner was served with a U.S. Tax Court Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Decision, Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75
(U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), which was based on false pretenses and reasoning and granted
the Respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without having an
administrative record on file, and sustaining the October 24, 2018 IRS WBO’s
decision, which denied the whistleblower award to Waszczuk.
On June 29, 2020, Waszczuk filed a Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision
of the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision (UTC Rule 162) in Waszczuk
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020). The Motion was
denied by the U.S. Tax Court on June 30, 2020, see
https://www.scribd.com/document/476774356/UTC-20200629-ORDER-DENIED-
Motion-to-Vacate.
5

On July 15, 2020, Waszczuk filed a Motion for Reconsideration for Findings
or Opinion and Order and Decision (UTC Rule 161) in Waszczuk v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020). The Motion was denied by the U.S.
Tax Court on July 17, 2020.
C. Waszczuk’s October 7, 2020 Appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit
On October 7, 2020, Waszczuk filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit a NOTICE OF APPEAL seeking a review of the
decision by the U.S. Tax Court in USTC-23105-18. The appeal was assigned USCA
Case Number: 20-1407. On June 18, 2021, the case was fully briefed.
On September 15 , 2021, the Court issued the PER CURIAM ORDER on the
court’s own motion, which informed Waszczuk that his case would be held in
abeyance pending the court’s disposition of Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.), which raised the issue of whether the court had jurisdiction
to review the Tax Court’s order sustaining a final determination made under I.R.C.
§ 7623(a). The parties were directed by the order to file motions to govern future
proceedings within 30 days of the court’s disposition of the case unrelated to
Waszczuk’s, Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 20-1245.

On September 22, 2021, the Appellee in the Li case, the Commissioner of
the Internal Commissioner Service, represented by attorneys Bruce R. Ellissen
and Matthew S. Johnshoy from the U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division
(DOJ) filed a reply to the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP attorneys’ amicus
curiae brief, repeating the conclusion from Amicus Curiae brief : “This Court
should dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on the Tax Court's
lack of jurisdiction under § 7623(b)(4)”
On October 1, 2021, Waszczuk filed a motion to vacate the September 15, 2020
Court PER CURIAM ORDER. Waszczuk’s motion was denied on December 8,
2021.
On January 11, 2022, the Court issued an opinion on Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r
of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), in which it dismissed Li based on
an amicus brief filed by two attorneys, Robbie Manhas and Robert M. Loeb, from
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Orrick) based in San Francisco, and Li v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service Case No. 20-1245 as amicus curiae. On
September 1, 2021, these attorneys filed their amicus curiae brief in the D.C. Circuit,
advising the court that it lacked jurisdiction in Li and the case must be dismissed.
The opinion in Li concluded with the words:

For the reasons set forth above, we dismiss this appeal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4). We
remand to the Tax Court with instructions to do the same.
So ordered.
On June 1, 2022, the Court PER CURIAM ORDER granted to the
Commissioner a motion to dismiss and Waszczuk’s appeal was dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4), contrary to the
September 15, 2021 Court PER CURIAM ORDER stating that Waszczuk’s case be
held in abeyance pending the court’s disposition of Li v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.).
On June 10, 2022, Waszczuk filed a PETITION FOR REHEARING, styled
as a notice of objection combined with a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of
the June 1, 2022 Order, followed by Waszczuk’s June 12, 2020 PETITION FOR
REHEARING en banc.
On August 30, 2022, the Court denied Waszczuk’s PETITION FOR
REHEARING, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION & PETITION FOR
REHEARING en banc.
Amicus Curiae Attorney from Orrick ‘s Loeb’s unusual activities in the Li
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.) case and his
simultaneous representation of the solar power producers Broadview Solar LLC and
Broad Reach Power in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and
8

D.C. Circuit Court case Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission Case USCA #21-112, led me to the submission on
September 3, 2022 of the New Application for Award for Original Information
(IRS Form 211 whistleblower claim Tax Evasion and Fraud aimed at my former
employer , the University of California due to violation of exempt status IRC 501
(c) ( 3) . Purchase and resale of solar power .
https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-ICE-
FORM-211-APPLICATION-FOR-AWARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-
California-White-Collar-Crime
On September 5, 2022, Waszczuk filed a MOTION TO STAY MANDATE.
On September 19, 2022, the Court denied Waszczuk’s MOTION TO STAY
MANDATE and issued a MANDATE dismissing Waszczuk’s APPEAL.
On February 1, 2023, U.S. Tax Court Chief Judge Kathleen Kerrigan issued the
following Court Order:
ORDER
In accordance with the mandate of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, issued September 19,
2022, it is ORDERED that this case is assigned to Judge Joseph
Robert Goeke for the purpose of conducting any further
proceedings pursuant to the above-referenced appellate mandate.
On February 2, 2023, in response the U.S. Tax Court order, Waszczuk filed a
Motion to Stay Proceedings -Re: Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit, (USCA) Issued September 19, 2022. The motion
was denied by the U.S. Tax Court that same day. A copy of the motion was also filed
that day in the USCA.
https://www.scribd.com/document/672270388/02-02-2023-USTC-Petitioners-
Motion-to-Stay-Proceeding-Stay-of-Mandate-Case-No-23105-18-W
The Whistleblower Office in Ogden , Utah is silent and did not respond to Waszczuk
IRS 211 Form submission .
III.
ARGUMENT
A. The Court improperly and with bias and prejudice dismissed

Waszczuk’s appeal solely on the Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal
Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) Opinion, without reviewing
Waszczuk’s case.
As Waszczuk pointed out to the Court in his briefs and pleadings, this case
was dismissed based on a misleading and deceptive amicus curiae brief filed on
September 1, 2021 by Manhas and Loeb, who were serving as amicus curiae. The
brief was nothing but interference and meddling in the judicial process, which led
to the January 11, 2022 issuance by the Court an opinion in Mandy Mobley Li v.
Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) that never should
have been issued and which caused the blunt dismissal under false pretenses of
Waszczuk’s case, by the June 1, 2022 Court Order which stated:
10

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be granted and the

appeal be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4). See Li v. Comm’r of Internal
Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014, 1017 (D.C. Cii. 2022). The case is
hereby remanded to the Tax Court with instructions to do the
same.
Waszczuk’s Case, 20-1407, was dismissed when the two USCA appeals were
pending with same subject matter jurisdiction as Waszczuk’s case under 26 U.S.C.
§ 7623(b)(4). Waszczuk was consequently urging and begging the Court in his June
1, 2022 PETITION FOR REHEARING, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of
his June 12, 2020 PETITION FOR REHEARING en banc and MOTION TO STAY
MANDATE filed on September 5, 2022 not to dismiss his appeal and to place it in
abeyance until Lissack v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 21-1268 and Villa-Arce
v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 22-1006 were decided.
B. Lissack v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 21-1268 (D.C. Cir. May 26,
2023) and Villa-Arce v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 22-1006 (D.C.
Cir. May 26, 2023), issued on May 26, 2023
Contrary to Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014, 1017 (D.C. Cii.
2022), in the Lissack v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 21-1268 (D.C. Cir. May
26, 2023) opinion, the Court ruled in Discussion “A. The Tax Court had
jurisdiction” that U.S. Tax Court had and has the power to review appeals of WBO
decisions by de novo jurisdiction over the subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.
11

§ 7623(b)(4), or in general 26 U.S.C. § 7623. The Court basically ruled that the
amicus curiae brief filed on September 1, 2021 by Manhas and Loeb and Li v.
Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014, 1017 (D.C. Cii. 2022) were frauds
created for the sole purpose of dismissing Waszczuk’s case, which has merits quite
different the Li, Lissack, and Villa-Arce cases. Waszczuk’s case is about an
enormous multi-million-dollar tax evasion and fraud committed by a public entity
with a $40 billion annual budget, the University of California (The Regents), acting
in conspiracy and collaboration with SMUD and CAISO. Further, they disregarded
and violated the university’s tax-exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3) and the State of
California Taxation Code. The Regents, since 1998, have violated every possible
state and federal law applicable to the operation of the cogeneration plant facilities,
including but not limited to PURPA requirements set forth in 18 C.F.R.
§§292.203(b) and 292.205 for the operation, efficiency, and use of energy output,
which mandated QF status, (pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §292.20 requirements; the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §824d(a); the California Public Utilities Code
Section 218.5; the Unfair Competition Law of California; and Business and
Professions Code §17200.
C. Why the Mandate Issued by USCA on September 19, 2022 Must be

Recalled and Waszczuk’s Appeal Must Reinstated
12

The First most important reason why the Court shall and must recall the
mandate and reinstate Waszczuk’s appeal are the opinions in Lissack v. Comm’r
of Internal Revenue, No. 21-1268 (D.C. Cir. May 26, 2023) and Villa-Arce v.
Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 22-1006 (D.C. Cir. May 26, 2023), issued on May
26, 2023.
Both opinions affirmed that the U.S. Tax Court had and has jurisdiction to
review WBO decisions in de novo subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. §
7623(b)(4).; thus, USCA also has the power to do the same.
In Sargent v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc., 75 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1996) the
Court held:
Our power to recall a mandate is unquestioned. See generally 16

Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure Section(s)
3938 (1977). The power "apparently originated in the inherent
power of all federal courts to set aside any judgment during the
term of court at which it was entered." Id. at 276. It "exists as part
of the court's power to protect the integrity of its own
processes," Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.
1988), and is analogous to the power conferred on district courts
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Furthermore , same opinion held :
One circumstance that may justify recall of a mandate is "[a]

supervening change in governing law that calls into serious
question the correctness of the court's judgment." McGeshick v.
Choucair, No. 92-3445, 1995 WL 738986, at *1 (7th Cir. Dec. 14,
1995); see also Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 886 F.2d 1526 (9th Cir.
13

1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1076 (1990); Zipfel, 861 F.2d at 567-
68; Davis v. Lawrence-Cedarhurst Bank, 206 F.2d 388, 389 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 877 (1953).
In this case the law did not change . Only Amicus Curiae Brief Attorneys from
Orick’s wanted to change law because the Orick law firm notoriously represents
Waszczuk’ former employer, the University of California against the whistleblowers
. Waszczuk is curious how much The Regents paid to these two Amicus Curiae brief
attorneys Robbie Manhas and Robert M. Loeb for their criminal misconduct to
eliminate Waszczuk’ whistleblower case from USCA. Attorney Loeb involvement
in the Li case and same time his involvement in the
The Second most important reason why the Court shall and must recall the
mandate and reinstate Waszczuk’s appeal is that the June 4, 2020 U.S. Tax Court
decision that granted the IRS Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment in
Waszczuk v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) was issued
under false pretenses and for the wrong reason, so it must be reviewed without bias
and prejudice against Waszczuk by the U.S.C.A, as any other appeal in U.S. Tax
Court would be. As Waszczuk explained to the Court in his pleadings, the Court
exploited the completely irrelevant to the reported tax evasion and fraud the
University of California with the phrase “Unrelated Bussiness Income” (see pp. 2,
3, 5, 12, 13; U.S.T.C. Judge Goeke’s Decision):
14

For her recommendation, the TEGE classifier (University of

California former Executive Vice President Judith Boyette)
reviewed Waszczuk whistleblower information and IRS internal
records of the three targets. The administrative record shows that
the classifier evaluated the whistleblower information and
considered the allegations. She found that the targets were filing
and reporting unrelated business income appropriately and the
IRS records showed amounts reported as unrelated business income
tax. She did not forward the 2018 Form for further investigation or
recommend that the IRS audit the targets.
In Waszczuk’s Motion to Vacate the June 4, 2020 U.S.T.C Order and
Decision, filed on June 29, 2020, he addressed more specifically the University of
California’s unrelated business income. Waszczuk has shown in his Motion to
Vacate that the WBO and Commissioner’s attorneys’ conduct was an
unconscionable plan or scheme of fraud designed to improperly influence the
court in its decision. It was similar to the conduct of Loeb and Manhas, in their
amicus curiae brief filed on September 1, 2021.
The Third most important reason why the Court shall and must recall the
mandate and reinstate Waszczuk’s appeal is that the WBO kept Waszczuk’s
whistleblower case for over two years, hidden and swept under the rug because the
Vice President of the University of California (Waszczuk’s former employer),
Judith Boyette, was appointed Secretary of the Treasury to a three-year term, from
June 2016–June 2019, https://www.hansonbridgett.com/Our-Attorneys/judith-w-
boyette to serve on the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government
15

Entities (TEGE), and she made sure that Waszczuk’s whistleblower claim would not
surface. When it did surface after two 2 years and 5 months, it was instantly denied
without any review. The Commissioner’s attorneys were perfectly aware of and this
the U.S. Attorney General’s attorneys from the Tax Division and the two amicus
curiae brief attorneys knew how Waszczuk’s WBO claim had been handled and by
whom.
IV
CONCLUSION
In light of the provided facts and arguments outlined in the motion, and after viewing
the attached exhibits, the Court should grant Waszczuk’s motion to recall the
mandate and reinstate the appeal that was wrongfully dismissed with unprecedented
bias and prejudice against him.
Not so long ago Waszczuk concluded as follow his Appellant’s Reply Brief filed
on March 22, 2023 in the State of California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
District (3DCA) in the cross- connected wrongful termination case Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California Case No. C095488 :
In this, there are no winners. Waszczuk, due to The Regents’

reckless, unlawful, and merciless witch hunts, which resulted in the
termination of his employment on December 5 , 2012 at his
retirement age, has suffered enormous losses exceeding $1 million
in wages and benefits and the devastation of his life. By contrast,
The Regents, since the second witch hunt action aimed at
16

Waszczuk, from March 2011–December 2012, have lost

approximately $200 million in tax-free revenue by not selling to
SMUD surplus power from the UC Davis Medical Center’s
cogeneration plant, after being advised by some unknown
person that Waszczuk would blow the whistle on their shady
power-generation business, a topic about which Waszczuk did
not care at all or have a clue concerning in 2011–2012 when the
witch hunt began.
https://www.scribd.com/document/665932573/03-22-2023-Appellant-s-Reply-
Brief-Waszczuk-v-The-Regents-of-The-University-of-California-3DCA-Case-No-
C095488
The mentioned cross connected case is pending for 10 years and Waszczuk is not
the one who committed the crime by evading taxes. Waszczuk is a victim in this case
who got caught in the white-collar criminal’s crossfire who were fighting for
millions of tax free dollars. The Court should take this fact into consideration.
Respectfully submitted on September 19, 2023.
______________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Per Se.
17

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE
contains 3446 words ( less than 5200 word D.C Cir. Rule 27 (a )(2) (B)
The number of lines of monospaced type in the motion is 443
Type text here

Dated September 19, 2023 ________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Appellant Pro Se
2216 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1180
Fax: 209-425-0512
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper APPELLANT’S MOTION

TO RECALL THE MANDATE was served electronically on September 19, 2023,
to the following recipients:
Richard L. Parker Richard.L.Parker@usdoj.gov
Antony T. Sheehan Anthony.T.Sheehan@usdoj.gov
U.S. Department of Justice

Tax Division, Appellate Section
P.O. Box 502
Washington, DC 20044
United State Tax Court

400 Second Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20217-0002
Dated: September 19, 2023
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Appellant Pro Se

206 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.687.1180
Fax: 209.425.0512
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
19

USCA Case #20-1407 Document #2017907 Filed: 09/19/2023
Filed Page 21 of 25
09/19/22
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk,

Petitioner
v. Docket No. 23105-18W
Document No. 63
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Respondent
U.S.C.A for the D.C. Circuit mandate issued September 19, 2022
appeal dismissed
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#2017907
#1964780 Filed:
Filed:09/19/2023
09/19/2022 Page
Page22
1 of 1
25
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 20-1407 September Term, 2022

USTC-23105-18 W
Filed On: September 19, 2022 [1964780]
Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk,
Appellant
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
Appellee
MANDATE
In accordance with the order of June 1, 2022, and pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 41, this constitutes the formal mandate of this court.
FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk
Link to the order filed June 1, 2022

vwxyÿx{|}ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿDocument
USCA Case #20-1407 ÿ}#2017907
ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿFiled:
ÿ}09/19/2023
ÿÿÿÿÿÿPage
ÿ{}23ÿÿofÿ25
012345ÿ7383

4
9ÿ
3
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ

48
9
ÿ ÿ ÿÿ !
""""""""""""
#$%ÿ&'()*'+ÿ ,-.,/0,1ÿ,1/2ÿ&'&)
(&3)'4()5ÿ6
78,9ÿ:;ÿ<=>?ÿABÿCDCC
<EFGHIEJÿ<E>=HKÿLEHKMK=NB
OPP?IIE>Q
RS
TGUUVHHVG>?FÿGWÿX>Q?F>EIÿY?R?>=?B
OPP?II??
; ZEQHEHBÿYEGBÿE>[ÿLEIN?FBÿTVFM=VQÿ<=[\?H
ÿÿÿÿ
]PG>ÿMG>HV[?FEQVG>ÿGWÿQ^?ÿUGQVG>ÿQGÿ[VHUVHHBÿQ^?ÿGPPGHVQVG>ÿQ^?F?QGBÿE>[ÿQ^?
UGQVG>HÿQGÿ\GR?F>ÿW=Q=F?ÿPFGM??[V>\HBÿVQÿVHÿ
ÿQÊQÿQ^?ÿUGQVG>ÿQGÿ[VHUVHHÿ_?ÿ\FE>Q?[ÿE>[ÿQ^?ÿEPP?EIÿ_?ÿ[VHUVHH?[
WGFÿIEMNÿGWÿH=_`?MQÿUEQQ?Fÿ̀=FVH[VMQVG>ÿ=>[?FÿCaÿ]SbSTSÿcÿdaCef_gfhgSÿÿb??ÿiVÿRSÿTGUUjFÿGW
X>Q?F>EIÿY?R?>=?BÿCCÿkShQ^ÿADAhBÿADAdÿflSTSÿTVFSÿCDCCgSÿÿm^?ÿMEH?ÿVHÿ^?F?_nÿF?UE>[?[
QGÿQ^?ÿmEoÿTG=FQÿJVQ^ÿV>HQF=MQVG>HÿQGÿ[GÿQ^?ÿHEU?SÿÿXQÿVHÿ
ÿÿQÊQÿQ^?ÿUGQVG>HÿQGÿ\GR?F>ÿW=Q=F?ÿPFGM??[V>\Hÿ_?
[VHUVHH?[ÿEHÿUGGQSÿÿmGÿQ^?ÿ?oQ?>QÿQ^?ÿUGQVG>HÿV>MI=[?ÿEÿF?p=?HQÿQÊQÿQ^?ÿMG=FQÿEPPGV>Q
EUVM=HÿM=FVE?BÿQÊQÿF?p=?HQÿVHÿ[?>V?[Sÿ
q=FH=E>QÿQGÿlSTSÿTVFM=VQÿY=I?ÿeaBÿQ^VHÿ[VHPGHVQVG>ÿJVIIÿ>GQÿ_?ÿP=_IVH^?[Sÿÿm^?ÿTI?FN
VHÿ[VF?MQ?[ÿQGÿJVQ^^GI[ÿVHH=E>M?ÿGWÿQ^?ÿUE>[EQ?ÿ^?F?V>ÿ=>QVIÿH?R?>ÿ[EnHÿEWQ?FÿF?HGI=QVG>
GWÿE>nÿQVU?InÿP?QVQVG>ÿWGFÿF?^?EFV>\ÿGFÿP?QVQVG>ÿWGFÿF?^?EFV>\ÿ?>ÿ_E>MSÿÿb??ÿk?[SÿYSÿOPPS
qSÿhAf_grÿlSTSÿTVFSÿY=I?ÿhAS
s,1ÿt17u/

09-19-2023 - Appellant' Motion To Recall The Mandate - Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner USCA Case No - 20-1407

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

09-19-2023 - Appellant' Motion To Recall The Mandate - Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. IRS Commissioner USCA Case No - 20-1407

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USCA Case #20-1407 Document #2017907 Filed: 09/19/2023 Page 1 of 25

USCA No. 20-1407 USTC No. 23105–18 W

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk

Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT

APPELLANT-PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE,

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Per Se

Motion to Recall Mandate and Reinstate the Appeal

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (a),(b)(3)(4)(6), Appellant-

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

jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4).

Waszczuk’s appeal was wrongfully dismissed based on the opinion in Mandy

https://casetext.com/case/mandy-mobley-li-v-commr-of-internal-revenue, in which the

https://casetext.com/case/cooper-v-commr-19, and Lacey v. Comm’r, 153 T.C. No.

8 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 25, 2019), https://casetext.com/case/lacey-v-commr-1. The Court

held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals from threshold rejections of

Motion to Recall Mandate and Reinstate the Appeal

Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Waszczuk v. Comm’r, T.C.

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

A. Waszczuk’s Initial (IRS Form 2011) Claim Submitted to the IRS

Center (UCDMC), located in Sacramento, California, committed tax evasion or fraud

agencies, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), the California

Motion to Recall Mandate and Reinstate the Appeal

claim, No. 2016-007481, was relabeled as Claims No. 2018-012118, 2018-012139,

October 23, 2018 without any review or investigation by the WBO-ICE

B. U.S. Tax Court Petition Filed on November 21, 2018,

Motion to Recall Mandate and Reinstate the Appeal

plant in violation of provisions of Section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of

C.F.R. § 292.20 requirements, Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a), California

law, and Business and Professions Code § 17200.

the Respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without having an

decision, which denied the whistleblower award to Waszczuk.

denied by the U.S. Tax Court on June 30, 2020, see

Motion to Recall Mandate and Reinstate the Appeal

Tax Court on July 17, 2020.

C. Waszczuk’s October 7, 2020 Appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals

District of Columbia Circuit a NOTICE OF APPEAL seeking a review of the

abeyance pending the court’s disposition of Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

proceedings within 30 days of the court’s disposition of the case unrelated to

Waszczuk’s, Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 20-1245.

Motion to Recall Mandate and Reinstate the Appeal

On September 22, 2021, the Appellee in the Li case, the Commissioner of

the Internal Commissioner Service, represented by attorneys Bruce R. Ellissen

lack of jurisdiction under § 7623(b)(4)”

Court PER CURIAM ORDER. Waszczuk’s motion was denied on December 8,

Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service Case No. 20-1245 as amicus curiae. On

The opinion in Li concluded with the words:

Motion to Recall Mandate and Reinstate the Appeal

of subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4), contrary to the

held in abeyance pending the court’s disposition of Li v. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.).

On June 10, 2022, Waszczuk filed a PETITION FOR REHEARING, styled

as a notice of objection combined with a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of

On August 30, 2022, the Court denied Waszczuk’s PETITION FOR

REHEARING, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION & PETITION FOR

Amicus Curiae Attorney from Orrick ‘s Loeb’s unusual activities in the Li

Motion to Recall Mandate and Reinstate the Appeal

Energy Regulatory Commission Case USCA #21-112, led me to the submission on

(c) ( 3) . Purchase and resale of solar power .

On September 5, 2022, Waszczuk filed a MOTION TO STAY MANDATE.

On September 19, 2022, the Court denied Waszczuk’s MOTION TO STAY

MANDATE and issued a MANDATE dismissing Waszczuk’s APPEAL.