USCA Case #20-1407 Document #1865352 Filed: 10/07/2020 Pagel of 2

~Jnitrb tati qoU rt of ppitt

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 20-1407 September Term, 2020

USTC-23105-18 W

Filed On: October 7, 2020 [1865352]

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk,

Appellant

V.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

Appellee

ORDER

The notice of appeal in this case, from a decision of the United States Tax Court,
was filed and docketed on October 7, 2020, and assigned the above number. It is, on
the court's own motion,

ORDERED that appellant submit the documents listed below by the dates
indicated.

Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and

November 6, 2020
Related Cases
Docketing Statement Form November 6, 2020
Entry of Appearance Form November 6, 2020
Procedural Motions, if any November 6, 2020
Statement of Intent to Utilize Deferred
November 6, 2020
Joint Appendix
Statement of Issues to be Raised November 6, 2020
Underlying Decision from Which Appeal
November 6, 2020
or Petition Arises
Dispositive Motions, if any (Original and 4
November 23, 2020
copies)

A request for appointment of counsel does not relieve appellant of the obligation
to file responses to any motion filed by appellee or to comply with any order issued by
the court, including a briefing schedule. Failure by appellant to respond to a dispositive
 Case #20-1407 Document #1865342 Filed: 10/07/2020 Page 1 of 29
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
- cz
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217
October 7, 2020

CLERK OF THE COURT

JAROSLAW JANIJZ WASZCZUK

Petitioner

V. Docket No. 23105-18W

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL

TO:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk of Court Michael J. Desmond Jaroslaw Janusz Waszezuk
U. S. Court of Appeals Chief Counsel 2216 Katzalcian Way
for the District of Columbia Internal Revenue Service Lodi, CA 95242
Circuit 1111 Constitution Ave, NW
E. Barrett Prettyman Washington, DC 20224
William B. Bryant Annex
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2866

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the parties are hereby notified that
on September 25, 2020 petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal from the order & decision and memorandum
of opinion of the Tax Court. A copy of that Notice of Appeal is herewith served upon you.

The parties are hereby notified that the papers constituting the record of the case in the United
States Tax Court include any transcripts of proceedings. The record on appeal will be sent to the United
States Court of Appeals on flash drive.

Counsel for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue are FRANCE SCA UGOLDfl, CHIEF,
APPELLATE SECTION, TAX DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
P.O. BOX 502, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044, UPON WHOM SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS AND
PAPERS IN PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS IS TO BE MADE, and Michael J.
Desmond, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.

(Signed) Stephanie A. Servoss

Clerk of the Court

Enclosures: Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket Entries.

Fee Paid: Yes_ No XX

SERVED Oct 07 2020

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2866

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk USCA No. 20-1407

Appellant U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 23105-18 W

V. Notice of Appeal Filed on October 7, 2020

Commissioner of Internal Revenue Appellant's Motion for Permission to Register

Services as Pro Se Filer Pursuant to D.C. Cir. Rule
25(b)(2)
Appellee

I , Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced Vashchook hereafter Appellant) in

the above-captioned case respectfully requesting permission from the Court of

Appeals to register Appellant as a NextGen CM/ECF pro se electronic documents filer

pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 25(b) (2).

Executed this 9th day of October 2020 at Lodi, California.

Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Appellant Pros Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
E-mail: jjw1980live.com
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing paper Appellant's Motion for Permission to

Register as Pro Se Filer Pursuant to D.C. Cir. Rule 25(b)(2)

was served on October 9, 2020 by Electronic Mail and U.S Mail to the following recipients:

Francesca Ugolini, Chief

Appellate Section, Tax Division -U. S Mail
United States Department of Justice,
P.O. Box 502,
Washington, D.C. 2004

Michael J. Desmond-U. S Mail

Chief Counsel
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20224

Dated: October 9, 2020 By:

Jaro slaw Janusz Waszczuk , Appellant Pros Se

206 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242

Phone : 209.663.2977
Fax: 209.787.3131
E-mail: jjw1980live.com

2
Docket No. 23105-18 W

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

Docket No. 23105–18W
Petitioner Filed Electronically

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICES
Respondent

THE PETITIONER, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’S, NOTICE OF

OBJECTION TO THE U.S. TAX COURT ORDER, DATED JULY 17, 2020,
.IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF
JUDGE JOSEPH GOEKE AND ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW JUDGE,
PREFERABLY THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. URDA, APPOINTED TO
THE U.S. TAX COURT ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2018, BY THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DONALD JOHN TRUMP.

Re: 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.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476773839/UTC-20200604-
MEMEORANDUM-AND-ORDER-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment

Re: The Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision of the

Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision (UTC Rule 162) in Waszczuk
Docket No. 23105-18 W -2-

v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), filed on June

29, 2020, denied by the U.S. Tax Court on June 30, 2020.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476774356/UTC-20200629-ORDER-
DENIED-Motion-to-Vacate

Re: The Petitioner’s 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), filed on July 15, 2020, denied by the
U.S. Tax Court on July 17, 2020.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476774772/UTC-20200717-ORDER-
DENIED-Motion-for-Reconsideration
CHAPTER ONE-NOTICE OF OBJECTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Hereby and for the record, and in support of the Motion or Recusal of Judge Joseph

Goeke and Assignment of a New Judge, Preferably the Honorable Patrick J. Urda to

review this case, Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced Yaroslav Vashchook), hereafter

referred to as "the Petitioner," submits this Notice of Objection to the July 17, 2020

U.S. Tax Court Order, issued and signed by Judge Goeke. For whatever reason that

Judge Goeke issued 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,

without administrative record, which granted the Respondent 's Motion for Partial

Summary Judgement, it was the wrong reason, and it was, and still is, a travesty of

justice. The decision in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75

Docket No. 23105-18 W -3-

(U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), served on June 4, 2020, constitutes 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. For whatever reason that

Judge Goeke denied the Petitioner’s 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), filed on June 29, 2020,

with one word of objection from the Respondent , it was the wrong reason and

showed unprecedented partiality in judgment on the parts of Judge Goeke and the U.S.

Tax Court.

For whatever reason that, on July 17, 2020, Judge Goeke denied the Petitioner’s

Motion for Reconsideration for Finding 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), filed on July 15, 2020, it was wrong reason, and it was politically-motivated,

dictated to the U.S. Tax Court by California's corrupted political oligarchy.

The Petitioner is a little late in submitting this Notice of Objection to the Judge

Goeke Court Order Dated July 17, 2020. This is lengthy objection which was required

lot of work , time and proof reading . Also, Petitioner was waiting for the outcome of

a report about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the issue
Docket No. 23105-18 W -4-

which is being investigated by John Durham , specially-assigned investigator by U.S.

Attorney General William Barr.

So far, only charges against an FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith were filed in the

U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, United States v. Kevin Clinesmith, Case

No. 1:20–cr–00165–JEB. Charges include false statements in violation of Title 18,

United States Code, Section 1001(a)(3)

(https://www.scribd.com/document/472526288/USA-v-Kevin-Clinesmith).

Clinesmith has degrees from Saginaw Valley State University, Michigan State

University College of Law, and the Georgetown University Law Center. He joined the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2013. Before that, from 2008–2013, he was

employed at the Department of Energy (DOE) in Washington D.C. Clinesmith’s

employment at the DOE caught the Petitioner’s attention for the following reasons.

First, on December 11, 2014, U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner from the U.S.

Attorney Office, Eastern District of California, announced that the Regents of the

University of California (UC) had agreed to pay to the U.S. DOE and the National

Science Foundation (NSF) $499,700, due to grants fraud.

Due to fraud, these agencies were approved duplicative grant funding that would not

have otherwise been awarded. The investigation of the fraud was conducted by U.S.

Attorney Wagner between 2008 and 2014. This is the same time frame that Clinesmith
Docket No. 23105-18 W -5-

was employed at the DOE. The UC Regents paid a token fine for the fraud and six

years investigation, involving the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI.

Prior to the 2014 conclusion of the investigation, former Secretary of Department of

Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, together with former FBI Director Robert Swan

Mueller III, arrived in California to take care of unfinished business.

Second, on April 11, 2016, following the March 23, 2016 submission of his IRS

WBO Application for Award, Form 211, Claim No. 2016–00748, to the IRS

Whistleblower Office (WBO), the Petitioners submitted an 11-page inquiry to

Attorney Wagner to bring criminal charges against the Regents of UC for a

multimillion-dollar tax fraud related to the unlawful generation and sale of power at

the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27-MW cogeneration plant, which had been

occurring since 1999. The Petitioner’s inquiry was entitled “Request to Bring Criminal

Charges Against the Regents of the University of California Due to Multimillion

Dollars of Federal Tax Fraud Relating to the Unlawful Generation and Power Sale in

1999–2003 and 2012–2013 by the UC Davis Medical Center 27-MW Cogeneration

Plant and for Destruction of My and My Family's Life and Gross Violations of My

Civil and Human Rights.” On April 20, 2016, nine days after the Petitioner sent his

inquiry, Wagner announced his resignation, effective in April 30, 2016

(https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/united-states-attorney-wagner-announces-
Docket No. 23105-18 W -6-

his-resignation), and became a partner of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in Palo Alto,

near to San Francisco (https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/wagner-benjamin/).

Third, in May 2016, UC President Napolitano traveled to Washington, D.C. to

meet with President Obama and Vice President Biden. A UC Newsroom article, dated

May 19, 2016, shows a photo of Napolitano meeting Biden in his West Wing office on

May 18, 2016 https://www.scribd.com/document/476775292/UTC-20160518-UC-

President-Janet-Napolitano-Meets-President-Obama-Vice-President-Biden-

BIDEN. In addition to meeting with President Obama and Vice President Biden,

Napolitano met with DOE cabinet secretaries from Department of Energy.

The Petitioner’s March 23, 2016 IRS whistleblower claim is about the unlawful

operation of power plants and the illegal generation and sale of power. Enforcement of

law in relation to the operation of power plants, power distribution, and sale is under

the jurisdiction of DOE Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The

Petitioner does not know whether Napolitano met with Clinesmith in May 2016. What

the Petitioner does know is that at the May 2016 meeting with President Obama, Vice

President Biden, and the DOE cabinet secretaries , Napolitano was armed with

$175,000,000, embezzled from UC public funds or provided to her by UC Regents

Conspiracy to derail a presidential campaign required dedication to the cause, as well

as millions of dollars to cover the cost of operation.

Docket No. 23105-18 W -7-

Fourth, in December 2019, while doing research for his Opposition to Respondent

Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on November 7, 2019 (U.S. Tax Court

Docket No. 0036)

https://www.scribd.com/document/476775659/UTC-20191213-Petitioner-

Objection-to-Respondent-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment-Objection, the

Petitioner discovered that shortly after Napolitano's May 2016 meeting, detailed above,

former UC Executive Associate Vice President Judith Boyette was appointed by the

Secretary of Treasury to a three-year term on the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax

Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE). Boyette's appointment to TEGE was not

coincidental. It is apparent from the case, Requa v. Regents of the University of

California, Al 32778 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2013), that the UC is a client of Hanson

Bridgett LLP. Boyette was employed by the UC from 1998–2008. Prior to that,

Boyette was employed by Pillsbury & Sutro Professional Law Corporation in San

Francisco, where former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California and FBI

Director Robert Swan Mueller III was employed. Boyette and the Petitioner’s attorney,

Mark Schlein, made the Petitioner’s March 23, 2016 IRS Whistleblower Claim, No.

2016–00748, vanish. Schlein was from the prestigious Los Angeles consumer
Docket No. 23105-18 W -8-

protection law firm, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman.

https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/attorneys/mark-h-schlein/

The charges against Clinesmith, filed in U.S. District Court for District of

Columbia, United States v. Kevin Clinesmith, Case No. 1:20–cr–00165–JEB, do not

provide many details about his alleged involvement in the Robert Mueller’s Russian

Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election or by different words " The 2016

Russian Collusion Witch Hunt Hoax," which was aimed at Donald Trump in an

attempt to derail his presidential campaign and remove him from office by a political

coup d'état after Donald Trump was elected President in November 2016.

However, witch-hunting people, prosecuting them, and incarcerating them

under false political pretenses is a horrible violation of human rights, and it destroys

their lives. This is especially true when it happens in the United States of America, a

country that preaches freedom, liberty, and the protection of civil and human rights;

this is worse than when it happens under totalitarian regimes. Unlike in democratic

societies, in totalitarian countries, people do not expect anything good.

Petitioner in his 24-page, July 29, 2019 Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order, served

on July 9, 2019 and signed by Special Trial Judge Hon. Robert N. Armen, Re:

Protective Order—Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure Section 6103(B)(L), (2),
Docket No. 23105-18 W -9-

and (3) (U.S. Tax Court Docket No.0019)

https://www.scribd.com/document/476775930/UTC-20190729-Judge-Armen-

Order-Petitioner-Objection-to-Motion-for-Protective-Order the Petitioner briefed

the court on the horrible experiences that he and others were subjected to by witch

hunters from the UC Office of the President (UCOP), FBI employees, U.S.

prosecutors, and judges from various U.S. courts. These experiences were not different

those in North Korea or during Stalin's era in the Soviet Union, in which people were

sentenced to 24 years in prison based on fabricated accusations, with an excuse to

release them from prison after 14 years, due to the fault of unexperienced defense

attorneys. This is what happened 19-year-old Hamid Hayat, a resident of Lodi,

California, where the Petitioner has lived since 1989 (United States v. Hayat, No.

2:05–cr–0240 GEB DB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019). Cal. Jan. 10, 2019)

https://www.scribd.com/document/476776215/UTC-20190730-HAMID-HAYAT-

JUDGMENT

II. JULY 17, 2020 U.S. TAX COURT ORDER THAT DENIED THE
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR FINDING
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)

A. Order
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 10 -

After the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision of the

Memorandum and Order and Decision, filed by the Petitioner on June 29, 2020,

was denied on June 30, 2020, the Petitioner spoke to the Respondent ’s counsel,

Darrick Sun, about the rubber-stamped court decision. Sun told the Petitioner that

there must be something wrong with the U.S. Tax Court server and that the court

does not deny motions the next day without objection from the opposite party. The

court repeated this action when they denied the Petitioner’s Motion for

Reconsideration on July 17, 2020, two days after it was filed by the Petitioner.

ORDER

On July 15, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of

our opinion and order granting summary judgment to Respondent
relating to his whistleblower claim. When we review a rejection of
a whistleblower claim, we review the Whistleblower Office (WBO)
administration record relating to its decision. Kasper v.
Commissioner, 150 T.C. 8, 20 (2018). Petitioner asserts, on the
basis of a past statement by Respondent, that the Court does not
have the WBO's administrative record. We have possession of the
administrative record from Petitioner’s claim dated August 3, 2018.
We reviewed the administrative record and found that it establishes
that the IRS reviewed Petitioner’s whistleblower information and
also IRS' internal records relating to the targets. After the IRS
review, the WBO found there was evidence that the targets reported
their unrelated business income tax and there was not sufficient
evidence of unreported business income.
Petitioner has made lengthy arguments with the Court about the
target's activities. We do not have authority to decide whether the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 11 -

IRS should have audited the targets; we cannot make a

whistleblower award or order the IRS to audit the targets. Cooper v.
Commissioner, 136 T.C. 597, 600-601 (2011). Our only role is to
make sure the WBO reviewed Petitioner’s claim. The
administration record shows that the WBO properly reviewed
Petitioner’s claim and decided not to audit the targets. Accordingly,
we will deny Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion
for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161,
filed July 15, 2020, is denied.
(Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge

Dated: Washington, D.C.

July 17, 2020

B. The Petitioner’s Objection to Judge Goeke’s July 17, 2020 Court Order

Instead of granting Motion for Reconsideration to Petitioner and condemning

IRS WBO conspiracy with Janet Napolitano’s special envoy Judith Boyette departed

in June 2016 to Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE)

by the Court Order dated July 17, 2020, a U.S. attorney from Judge Goeke’s U.S. Tax

Court Department falsely stated, “We have possession of the administrative record

from Petitioner’s claim dated August 3, 2018.” This false statement is contrary to the

Respondent ’s own admission in failing provide the administrative record in

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 12 -

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on November 7, 2019 (Docket No.

0023, Page No. 3, § 7).

"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)."
The U.S. Tax Court attorney’s false statement in the Court Order is no different

than Clinesmith's false statement outlined in the U.S. Attorney Criminals Charges

Punishable by Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(3), United States District

Court for District of Columbia, United States v. Kevin Clinesmith, Case No. 1:20–cr–

00165–JEB, in Violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(3).

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."
What the U.S. Tax Court did with this case is more than fraud upon the court,

impartiality, or bias. The U.S. Tax Court had full knowledge what happened to the

Petitioner’s Application for Award Form 211, Claim No. 2016–007481. Due to
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 13 -

conspiracy by UC President Janet Napolitano and her friends in federal government

agencies, the tax evasion crime committed by the UCOP administration was covered

up, and the Petitioner was deprived of his rights, which should be protected by the

Section 242 ofU. S Code Title 18.

The Section 242 ofU. S Code Title 18 makes it a crime for a

person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person
of a right or privilege “For the purpose of Section 242, acts under
"color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or
local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done
beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts
are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in
the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under
color of law within the meaning of this statute include police
officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as
well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and
others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that
the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color,
religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the
victim."

The Petitioner cannot consider the court-issued 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 Court Order dated June 30, 2020, denying the Petitioner’s

Motion to Vacate or Revise Order Decision; and the Court Order dated July 17, 2020,
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 14 -

denying the Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration as a valid and legitimate for the

following reasons

1. The Court failed to condemn IRS WBO officers , for not following its own

procedures and their conspiracy with UC President Janet Napolitano’s special

envoy Judith Boyette departed in June 2016 to Advisory Committee on Tax

Exempt and Government Entities who caused the Petitioner’s March 23,

2016 Application for Award, Form 211, Claim No. 2016–00748 disappeared

for more than two years. IRS WBO conspiracy and corruption caused tens

of millions of dollars of illegally made untaxed profit vanish. Tax evasion

is a crime under 26 U.S.C. § 7201.

2. The U.S Tax Court instead of condemning corruption and conspiracy in IRS

WBO office , deny Respondent ’s frivolous Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment and set the case for Court Trial , the Court issued 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) without the

Court Hearing , denied the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate or Revise Order

Decision on June 30, 2020 and issued the Court Order dated July 17, 2020,

denying the Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration which is final result of a

fraud conspiracy between the IRS WBO in Ogden, Utah; TEGE; and attorneys
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 15 -

from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel in San Diego, CA, supervised and

overlooked by TEGE's special advisor and former UC executive vice-

president, Boyette, a former UC executive who most likely benefited from this

enormous millions of dollars of fraud, and had no way to refuse Napolitano's

offer to take the special three-year assignment with TEGE. That how the

government mafia operates.

In Toscano v. C.I.R, 441 F.2d 930 (9th Cir. 1971) the court stated the following:

"Tampering with the administration of justice 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."
III. CONCLUSION OF THIS CHAPTER

Based on the provided facts , documents and law , Petitioner respectfully requesting

that the U.S. Tax Court vacate or modify the July 17, 2020 Judge Goeke’s Order,

which denied the Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration for Finding or Opinion and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 16 -

Order and Decision (UTC Rule 161) in Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), filed on July 15, 2020.

Base on the provided facts , documents and law ,Petitioner respectfully

requesting that the U.S. Tax Court vacate or modify the June 30, 2020 Judge Goeke’s

Order , which denied the Petitioner’s 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), filed on June 29, 2020

Base on the provided facts and documents, Petitioner respectfully requesting that

the U.S. Tax Court vacate or modify the Judge Goeke’s June 4, 2020 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) which granted Motion

for Partial Summary Judgement , thus denied Petitioner an reward for reported with the

IRS Whistleblower Office in March 2016 and August 2018 tens of millions of dollars

tax evasion by the Regents of California due to illegal production, distribution and sale

of electricity from 1999 to the present time in scheme of fraud and conspiracy with

three public, not-for-profit, tax-exempt under IRC Code 503(c)(3), entities closely

interconnected with the State of California's government and legislature. As Petitioner

clearly and with undisputed evidences never objected by Respondent , the U.S Court

decisions and orders which denied to reward to Petitioner are the fruits and result of
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 17 -

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 University of California executive vice-president, Judith

Boyette who and most likely TEGE’s staff benefited from this enormous millions dol

lars fraud .

Base on the provided facts and documents, Petitioner respectfully requesting that

the U.S. Tax Court reopen the case and set the case for Court Trial as soon as possible.

CHAPTER TWO-PETITIONER’S COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRES OF

2016–2018

I. MARCH 23, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, INTERNAL

REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) APPLICATION FOR AWARD FOR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION, FORM 211, TAX EVASION AND FRAUD,
VIOLATION OF SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE OF 1954 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA (UC), CLAIM NO. 2016–00748
On March 23, 2016, the Petitioner submitted the Application for Award for

Original Application, Form 2011, to the IRS Whistleblower Office (WBO), in Ogden,

Utah. The application included Form 2011, a 45-page letter addendum, and 35 exhibits

lodged by the IRS WBO, as Claim No. 2016–00748. The Petitioner’s IRS Application

for Award for Original Application demonstrated millions of dollars of tax evasion and

fraud, due to the illegal production of tax-free power at the UC Davis Medical Center
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 18 -

(UCDMC) 27-MW cogeneration plant, which the Petitioner directly witnessed when

he was employed as an operator there .

https://www.scribd.com/document/476776874/UTC-20160323-IRS-

WHISTLEBLOWER-Claim-No-2016-00748

Due to a conspiracy between the IRS WBO; the Tax Exempt and Government

Entities (TEGE) office; the IRS; the Office of Chief Counsel attorneys from San

Diego; the UC Office of the President (UCOP); the UCOP General Counsel via former

UCOP executive vice-president Judith Boyette, who was appointed by the Secretary of

the Treasury to a three-year term on the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and

Government Entities (TEGE) from June 2016–June 2019; and the Petitioner’s attorney,

Mark Schlein, from the prestigious California law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &

Goldman Law Corporation, the Petitioner’s March 23, 2016 IRS Application for

Award for Original Application was hidden or swept under the rug for over two years

and was denied on August 7, 2018, by the IRS WBO, without investigation and

review. The Petitioner addressed this conspiracy in his March 23, 2016 Application for

Award Disappearance; his December 13, 2019 Opposition to the Respondent’s Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0036); 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) (U.S. Tax
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 19 -

Court Docket No. 0047); and his July 15, 2020 Motion for Reconsideration (U.S. Tax

Court Docket No. 0049).

II. THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE U.S. PRESIDENT IN THE

PETITIONER’S MARCH 23, 2016 IRS APPLICATION FOR AWARD
FOR ORIGINAL APPLICATION FORMS 211

In his two IRS Application for Award for Original Application Forms 211 dated March

23, 2016, and August 3, 2018, Claim Number(s): 2018–012118, 2018–012139, and

2018–012141. the Petitioner provided information about millions of dollars of tax

evasion and fraud and the merciless and inhumane witch hunts aimed at those who

spoke out about the corruption of both the University of California Office of the

President (UCOP), led by the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet

Napolitano, and the Regents of the University of California (UC), led by Senator

Dianne Feinstein’s husband, banker and billionaire Richard Blum, since September

2013. Blum was appointed to the Board of Regents of UC in 2020 by California

Governor Gray Davis, who was bailed out from office in November 2003 by San

Diego U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa’s $1,700,000

On page 9 of the Addendum to the March 23, 2016 IRS Application for Award

for Original Application Form 211, the Petitioner pointed out the following:
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 20 -

"It is quite possible that, in the future, an impeached president of

the United States or recalled California governors would be
recruited as the next University of California president or as a
chancellor in one of the UC campuses. How much worse could it
get?"

When the Petitioner wrote about the impeached president of the United States of

America as the future president of UC in his March 2016 IRS Application for Award,

he did not have President Trump in mind, even though, on his election trail, Trump

declared war on corruption and promised to Make America Great Again and "drain

the swamp".

Trump’s fate was decided by President Obama, Vice President Biden, FBI

Director Robert Swan Mueller III, and Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano and

political swamp from California a long time before he officially announced his desire

to become the 45th President of the United States. The draft of a coup d'état against

President Trump was written and prepared in California before his presidency and was

funded by public money provided by the UC Regents. The money to pay conspirators

and plotters in the coup to do the dirty job of assaulting were given to UC President

Janet Napolitano. To do the job. The UC has around a $40 billion annual budget and is

funded by approximately $10 billion from the U.S. federal government. Obama, Biden,
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 21 -

Mueller, and Napolitano could not find a better place with better financial resources to

successfully attempt to derail Trump's presidential campaign, and, throw him in prison

or if it would not work than impeach him and take care of him after impeachment.

III. MARCH 23, 2016, COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE AGAINST
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG

On March 23, 2016, the Petitioner submitted a complaint against Judge Chang of

the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CCJP), a copy of which was

submitted to the IRS WBO with the Petitioner’s March 23, 2016 Application for

Award for Original Application, Form 2011.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476776874/UTC-20160323-IRS-

WHISTLEBLOWER-Claim-No-2016-00748 The Petitioner’s complaint against

Judge Chang was quickly swept under the rug on May 19, 2016, by CCJP Chairperson

Erica Yew, a judge from Santa Clara County Superior Court who was appointed to the

bench by Governor Gray Davis, who appointed Chang to the Sacramento County

Superior Court in 2002 and who was recalled from office.

After graduating from law school, Chang joined the Office of the Chief Counsel

for the IRS, where she initially served as a trial attorney, before being named a senior
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 22 -

trial attorney. During her time there, Chang represented the IRS in civil and criminal

tax cases. She also served as a special assistant U.S. Attorney, representing the IRS in

federal bankruptcy court. In 1993, Chang joined the California Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General, where she served as a deputy attorney general for the

next six years. In 1999, she became the senior deputy legal affairs secretary for then-

governor Gray Davis. During her three-year tenure there, she was promoted to chief

deputy legal affairs secretary to the governor. In that position, she advised state

officers and government agencies on matters of litigation and legislation involving

government ethics and other legal matters. She served in that capacity at the time of

her appointment to the Superior Court in 2003.

In March 2014, Judge Chang was assigned to the Petitioner’s case. The only

reason for this assignment was to quickly end the Petitioner litigations against state

and UC Regents which are deeply rooted in the sophisticated scheme of 40 billion

dollars fraud of 2001-2003 titled “California energy Crisis “ which resulted also in

fraud and tax evasion amounted in tens of millions of dollars. The committed by UC

Regents crime triggered b the Petitioner’s complaint against Judge Chang with the

CCJP beside the travesty of justice in Judge Chang's dealing with the Petitioner’s

stolen unemployment insurance benefits. Case No. 34–2013–80001699, Jaroslaw

Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 23 -

Party of Interest (RPii)—The Regents of the University of California (Regents), this

added more gravity to Judge Chang’s outrageous judicial misconduct

https://www.scribd.com/document/476777665/UTC-20190129-CALIFORNIA-

SUPREME-COURT-Petition-for-Review-Waszczuk-v-CUIAB

On October 10, 2019, the Petitioner sent the following correspondence to

Honorable Chang; Honorable Vance W. Raye, Presiding Justice Court of Appeal,

3rd Appellate District (3DCA); and Honorable Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief

Justice of California Supreme Court .

Subject: The January 7, 2019 Article in the Northern California Record

about the Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Unpublished
Opinion in Case No. C079254, Trial Case No. 34–2013–80001699, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v, California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUTAB)
and Real Party of Interest (RPI), the Regents of the University of California,
California Supreme Court Case Nos. S253713 and S245879.
In his letter, the Petitioner stated:
"For your review and consideration, enclosed is the copy of my 10/10/2019
letter to Deputy of California Attorney General Ms. Ashante Norton and
reporter Ms. Karen Kidd who authored an article in the Northern California
Record about the above captioned cases. I am still scratching my head as to
how it was possible that these litigations were allowed to be continued in the
Sacramento County Superior Court and Appellate Courts after the California
Employment Development Department (EDD) restored my unemployment
benefits in May 2014 and that the Defendants' legal counsels representing
the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and Real Party of
Interest were perfectly aware of.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 24 -

My unemployment benefits were most likely intercepted and stolen by my

attorney, Douglas Stein.
As I pointed out in my letter to Ashante Norton, the remittitur in this case
was issued on March 25, 2019 but no one wanted to claim the legal fees
awarded by the Court for this case, thus the case is not completely resolved
and disposed.

Mentioned attorney Stein was disbarred by the State Bar of California on

1/20/2020 (http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/131248), and the

Petitioner is still wondering what happened to his unemployment insurance benefits,

which vanished in May 2014—whether they were stolen by the Petitioner’s attorney or

the UCOP mafia.

IV. PETITIONER’S MARCH 23, 2016 COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE

BAR OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
INTAKE, IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

On March 22, 2016, the Petitioner submitted a complaint to the State Bar of

California, Office of the Chief Trail Counsel, in Los Angeles, against the following

twenty-three witch hunters and human rights violators, most of them employed by the

UC:

1. Charles Furlonge Robinson, SBN #113197

2. Steven Arnold Drown, SBN #119689
3. Karen Jensen Petrulakis, SBN #168732
4. Margaret Louisa Wu, SBN #184167
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 25 -

5. Cynthia Ann Vroom, SBN #139470

6. John Allen Lohse, SBN #195278
7. Stephen Edward Chilcott, SBN #196905
8. Daniel Morris Dooley, SBN #70674
9. Danesha Nicole Nichols, SBN #2227784
10.Brent John Seifert, SBN #249305
11.David Mark Levine, SBN #251523
12.Anna Orlowski, SBN #155577
13.Travis James Lindsey, SBN #220935
14.Wendi J. Delmendo, SBN #177389
15.Mia Belk, SBN #216890
16.Marilyn Elizabeth Tays, SBN #158370
17.Michael Allen, SBN #86871
18.Darrel Steinberg, SBN #114588
19.Michael William Pott – SBN #186156
20.Ismael A. Castro – SBN #85452
21.Ashante L. Norton – SBN #203836
22.Jacob Adam Applesmith – SBN #135850
23.Jill Noel Vandeviver – SBN #227901

https://www.scribd.com/document/476777665/UTC-20190129-CALIFORNIA-

SUPREME-COURT-Petition-for-Review-Waszczuk-v-CUIAB

The above witch hunters and violators of the civil and human rights of the were

licensed by State Bar of California. They had titles including but not limited to:

Regents of the UC, general counsels, executive directors, presidents and senior vice

presidents, chief compliance officers, principal investigators, chief executive officers

(CEOs), supervising deputy attorney generals, administrative law judges, CUIAB

members, human resource (HR) managers and supervisors, etc. Through their
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 26 -

despicable conspiracy and their disregard for rules, policies, and laws, they hunted

down Petitioner and others and attempted to kill Petitioner on May 31, 2012 in ill

orchestrated but unsuccessful provocation.

The complaint was swept under the rug without investigation shortly after it was

filed. This was done by Janet Napolitano's (UC President and former U.S. Secretary of

Homeland Security) friends from the State Bar of California, including State Bar of

California Director and CEO, Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former General Counsel

for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) and

the principal deputy legal adviser at the U.S. Department of State.

(http://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News/News-Releases/state-bar-names-new-

executive-director),

and by the State Bar of California Chief Trail Counsel Jayne Kim, former Assistant

U.S. Attorney for Central District of California, Los Angeles office, who handled cases

pertaining to cybercrime, mafia, and intellectual property

(http://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News/News-Releases/state-bar-announces-

resignation-of-chief-trial-counsel-jayne-kim).

In September 2017, Napolitano hired her friend and Kim’s former coworker

from the U.S. Attorney office in Los Angeles, Alexander Bustamante, to be the new
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 27 -

Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance and Audit Officer in the UCOP, with an

annual basic salary of $350,000. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-

room/uc-names-alexander-bustamante-chief-compliance-and-audit-officer

Bustamante served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles with Kim and Elana

Duarte, who today, is Justice for the Court of Appeals, 3DCA. Bustamante replaced

Napolitano’s old friend from Arizona and Robert Swan Mueller III's subordinate, John

Lohse, who was recruited by the UCOP mob in 2004, after serving as a Special Agent,

Associate Division Counsel, and Chief Division Counsel for the FBI’s San Francisco

Division.

3DCA Justice Duarte was the justice who delivered the final blow to the

petitioner, on January 17, 2019, in the form of an unpublished opinion, mentioned in

the previous chapter, about the Petitioner’s stolen unemployment benefits (Sacramento

County Superior Court Writ of Mandate Writ of Mandamus, Case No. 34–2013–

80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

(CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The Regents of the University of

California, 3DCA Case No. C079254, Waszczuk v CUIAB). It was no coincidence

that Justice Duarte was chosen for this dirty job.

At the end of September 2016, Napolitano, armed with $175,000,000 in

dirty cash, took a short vacation in San Diego to attend the annual State Bar of
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 28 -

California gathering to meet California Supreme Chief Justice, Honorable Cantil-

Sakauye, and State Bar of California Director and CEO, Rindskopf Parker. former

General Counsel for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security

Agency (NSA) and the principal deputy legal adviser at the U.S. Department of State.

See : The Petitioner July 29, 2019 Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order Served on July 9,

2019, Signed by Special Trial Judge Honorable Robert N. Armen

https://www.scribd.com/document/467560438/7-29-2020-UTC-PROTECTIVE-

ORDER-HON-ROBERT-N-ARMEN

Re: Protective Order, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure Section 6103(B)(L),

(2), and (3) (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0019), in which Petitioner addressed

Napolitano with the following words

“It is still a puzzle whether Assemblymen Phil Ting and Kevin

McCarty, by ordering the State Audit, prevented Napolitano from
using the $175,000,000 of dirty cash to possibly orchestrate a new
9/11 terrorist attack or to assassinate Donald Trump on the
Presidential campaign trail in 2016.”
Additionally, from August–September 2016, the Petitioner exchanged words

with State Bar of California CEO Parker about his January 2015 complaint against

his attorney, Douglas Stein, who stole the Petitioner’s $20,000 retainer money; in

October 2015, the Petitioner’s complaint vanished together with State Bar
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 29 -

investigator Amanda Gormley

https://www.scribd.com/document/476783204/UTC-20160901-State-Bar-of-

California-CEO-Elizbeth-R-Parker

IV. THE PETITIONER’S APRIL 11, 2016 INQUIRY WITH U.S. ATTORNEY
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Following his March 23, 2016 submission of the IRS WBO Application for

Award, Form 211, Claim No. 2016–00748, and complaints to the State Bar of

California against 23 licensed individuals and to the State of California Commission

on Judicial Performance against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Chang,

the Petitioner submitted an April 11, 2016 inquiry to U.S. Attorney Benjamin B.

Wagner to bring criminal charges against UC Regents for the multimillion-dollar tax

fraud related to the unlawful generation and sale of power at the UCDMC 27-MW

cogeneration plant, which had been occurring since 1999. A copy of the Petitioner’s

inquiry was provided by certified mail to the IRS WBO; the FBI Field Office in

Sacramento, with Special Agent in Charge, Monica Miller; the FBI Field Office in

San Francisco, with Special Agent in Charge, David Johnson; and the Department of

Justice Inspector General in the San Francisco Office The Petitioner’s 11-page

inquiry to Wagner was entitled “Request to Bring Criminal Charges Against the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 30 -

Regents of the University of California Due to Multimillion Dollars Federal Tax

Fraud Relating to Unlawful Generation and Power Sale in 1999–2003 and 2012–

2013 by the UC Davis Medical Center 27-MW Cogeneration Power Plant and for

Destruction of My and My Family's Life and Gross Violations of My Civil and

Human Rights” https://www.scribd.com/document/476783471/UTC-20160330-

Inquiry-with-U-S-Attorney-ECD-Benjamin-Wagner-Office

On April 20, 2016, nine days after the Petitioner sent his inquiry to Wagner,

Wagner announced his resignation, effective in April 30, 2016

(https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/united-states-attorney-wagner-

announces-his-resignation). Prior to 2016, the Petitioner did not know that from

2009–2014, U.S. Attorney Wagner had handled a fraud case against the Petitioner’s

employer, UC Davis.

On December 11, 2014, Wagner announced that the UC Regents of UC had

agreed to pay the United States $499,700 to resolve GRANTS fraud committed against

Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

The UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant was under U.S. DOE Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission's (FERC) jurisdiction, as are all power and cogeneration plants

in the U.S.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 31 -

On March 30, the Petitioner received a short notification from FBI Field Office

in Sacramento, which stated:

"This letter confirms receipt of a package of documents pertaining to the

unlawful sale of electricity generated by the 27 MW cogeneration power plant
at the UC Davis Medical Center. This office has reviewed your complaint and
determined that your concerns are more appropriately addressed by the
Department of Energy Office of the Inspector General (DOE-OIG). Contact
information for DOE-OIG may be found at energy.gov/ig/office-inspector-
general or at your local library.
To save you the time and expense of recreating the documents you sent to the
FBI, we are returning your documents with the exception of the flash drive, in
the event the FBI identifies additional information prompting us to revisit the
matter."

The letter was signed by Robert Tripp, FBI Supervisory Special Agent.

On April 30, 2016, the FBI called the Petitioner and talked to him for between

15 and 30 minutes about tax fraud of UC Regents at the UCDMC 27-MW

cogeneration plant.

On May 11, 2016 the Petitioner followed his April 11, 2016 inquiry with the

U.S. Attorney Office Eastern District of California with a document entitled "Re:

Assignment of the Former U.S. Attorney for Northern District of California, Melinda

Haag, by University of California President, Janet Napolitano, to Investigate UC Davis

Chancellor, Linda Katehi, in Relation to My April 11, 2016 Request to Bring Criminal

Charges Against the Regents of the University of California Due to Multimillion

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 32 -

Dollar Federal Tax Fraud and Violation of My Civil and Human Rights," in which the

Petitioner wrote:

Dear U.S. Attorney Talbert:

With this letter I am following up on my inquiry dated April 11,
2016, with regards to the alleged multimillion dollars' tax fraud
committed in 1999–2003 and 2012–2013 by the Regents of the
University of California through the unlawful sale of power from
the UC Davis Medical Center 27-MW's cogeneration facility.
I understand that the U.S. Attorney for the Northern California
Office covers a large area and is very busy enforcing the law and
prosecuting criminals, and I also understand that the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Sacramento is in a transition period due to the
resignation of the Hon. Benjamin Wagner.
The Regents' multimillion dollar fraud committed in 1999–2009, and repeated
in 2012–2013, is undisputable and the public documents of 2007, from the U.S.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the 2012–2013 UC Regents
power sale contracts with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District speak for
themselves; I have no need to elaborate more about them in this letter. On
April 11, 2016, I provided to the U.S. Attorney's Office all documents
available to me that were related to the UC Regents' fraud and to the violation
of my civil and human rights by the Regents.
In addition, in his inquiry, the Petitioner brought to the U.S. Attorney's Talbert

attention UC President Napolitano’s $ 1,000,000 witch hunt aimed at UC Davis

Chancellor Katehi, which involved of two former U.S. Attorneys, Melinda Haag and

McGregor Scott not knowing in 2016 that UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi was only
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 33 -

a smoke screen to pay Haag and Scott $ 1,000,000 for something completely different

than to change Katehi’s status and her job description .

The Petitioner also protested the prosecution and incarceration California's popular

senator, Leland Yee, commenting:

"It is sad that Leland Yee, a great legislator and public servant who had the
courage to stand up against the corrupted but very powerful University of
California administration, fell, shortly after SB 650 took effect in 2011.
The 67-year-old Yee pleaded guilty to racketeering charges in
connection with allegations that he had accepted bribes in exchange
for his political influence. So sad.
However, if I look at the crimes Leland Yee committed and for
which he was harshly punished, I would say that his crimes are not
comparable to those committed by the corrupted and rotten
University of California administration, and no one there was
sentenced to prison. The UC administrators could drive employees
to end their lives, commit Medicare and Medicaid fraud up to
$25,000,000, commit multimillion power sale and tax fraud,
conduct illegal medical experiments that resulted in several
patients' deaths at the UC Davis Medical Center, fund illegal
research on prisoners (Keyzer's case) or discharge machine oil via
storm drains into the Sacramento River from the UC Davis Medical
Center Cogeneration Power Plant for seven years, but I have not
heard that anybody responsible for these crimes faced the District
Attorney's office or criminal prosecution like Leland Yee faced for
his crime."
On June 6, 2016, the Petitioner received the following, generic response form

the U.S. Attorney Office, Eastern District of California:

Dear Mr. Waszczuk:

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 34 -

This letter acknowledges your letter/correspondence of 5/13/2016.

Our office represents the United States in federal criminal
prosecutions and in civil cases. However, we are not generally
authorized to represent or otherwise provide legal advice to private
individuals. We also do not have primary responsibility for
conducting investigations into the type of allegations made in your
letter. You may wish to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation
at: 4500 Orange Grove Ave, Sacramento, CA, 95841.
You may also wish to retain the services of a private attorney
regarding the matters discussed in your letter. The Sacramento
County Bar Association can assist you in identifying appropriate
counsel, and can be reached at: 425 University Ave #120,
Sacramento, CA 95825
Sincerely,
Citizen Correspondence Unit U.S. Attorney's

Philip Talbert from Davis, California, replaced Benjamin Wagner on May 1,

2016, and without appointment, became U.S. Attorney. Then-Attorney General,

Loretta Lynch, appointed Talbert to be the new Attorney of the Eastern District of

California until the president appointed a new U.S. Attorney.

V. THE PETITIONER’S APRIL 6, 2016 INQUIRY WITH SAN JOAQUIN

COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRISTINE REED

On April 6, 2016, the Petitioner sent to District Attorney Kristine Reed the

following correspondence concerning the UCOP mafia's witch hunt of the family

of his psychologist, Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D. from Lodi, CA

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 35 -

Kristine Reed
Deputy District Attorney
San Joaquin County, 222 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202
Re: The Dorothy and Franklin Bernhoft San Joaquin County
Superior Court Cases:
The San Joaquin Superior Court of California, County of San
Joaquin Lodi Branch, Complaint Case No. LM051206A LPD
CASE, DA Case CR–2012–4029037, The People the State of
California, Plaintiff v. Dorothy Bernhoft, Defendant, filed on
August 6, 2012.
The cross-connected case:
The San Joaquin Superior Court of California, County of San
Joaquin Civil Case No. 39–2012–00283391–CU–PO–STK, Chiari
Colarossi, through her Guardian ad Litem, Alison Colarossi; Alison
Colarossi, Robert Colarossi; Maia Nabholz, through her Guardian
ad Litem, Joanna Wlodawer; Joanna Wlodawer; and Trevor
Nabholz v. Dorothy Bernhoft; Franklin.Bernhoft.
Dear Ms. Reed:
Recently, I filed a complaint with the State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance against the Sacramento
County Superior Court Judge Hon. Shelleyanne Chang for
misconduct. In the mentioned complaint against Judge Chang, I
included the two San Joaquin County Superior Court cases filed
against the Bernhofts.
It is my understanding that you are the San Joaquin County District
Attorney who brought the criminal charges against Ms. Dorothy
Bernhoft in 2012.
I am bringing the two court cases involving the Bernhofts
(captioned above) to your attention because Defendant Franklin
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 36 -

Bernhoft, Ph.D., in the Civil Case No. 39–2012–00283391–CU–

PO–STK, was my retained psychologist from August 2011 to
January 2012.
It is not my intention by this letter to question the charges the
District Attorney's office brought against Ms. Dorothy Bernhoft.
However, I found both of the cases involving the Bernhofis very
odd and bizarre in relation to the service Franklin Bernhoft was
providing to me in 2012.
For the above reason, I am sending the part of my complaint against
the Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang to
your office for your review and consideration, plus a copy of the
complaint cover letter addressed to the State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance Chairperson, Honorable Erica
R. Yew.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at your
convenience.
CC: Maria Gross; Cori Dutra, Esq.; Mark Reese, Esq., California
Department of Social Services (
The Petitioner addressed the witch hunt aimed at Bernhoft's family in his

July 29, 2019 Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order, Served on July 9, 2019, Signed by

Special Trial Judge Honorable Robert N. Armen Re: Protective Order-Tax Court Rules

of Practice and Procedure, Section 6103(B)(L), (2), and (3) (U.S. Tax Court Docket

No. 0019) with the following words:

"The second severe example is the 2011–2012 UCOP mafia terror

that was the witch hunt aimed at the Petitioner’s psychologist in
Lodi, Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D., and his family, orchestrated by
Janet Napolitano's friend from Arizona, John Lohse, in a joint
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 37 -

venture with University of California Senior Vice President Daniel

Dooley and his wife, Diane Dooley, the last Chief of Staff for
California Governor Jerry Brown. In that witch hunt, California
government thugs from Social Services framed Dr. Bernhoft and
his 65-year-old wife, Dorothy Bernhoft, who narrowly escaped five
years in prison with a plea bargain.
The 65-year-old psychologist, Franklin O. Bernhoft, is a Vietnam
War veteran with the rank of Captain, like the former FBI Director
and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In February 2012, Dr.
Bernhoft's residence in Lodi was raided by government thugs and
his property was confiscated because he dared to protest the terror
and inhumane treatment that the Petitioner was subjected to at the
UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) in 2011. This was terror and
inhumane treatment beyond human decency, which included and
was not limited to canceling the Petitioner’s medical insurance
benefits and short-term disability benefits in the amount of $4,500.
The benefits were denied to the Petitioner in 2011, in an attempt to
force the Petitioner to quit his job. Those denied short-term
disability insurance benefits resurfaced EIGHT YEARS LATER on
March 20, 2019, as "UNCLAIMED PROPERTY" in the State of
California's Controller Office. On the same day, March 20, 2019,
the IRS Commissioner's attorney from San Diego IRS Chief
Counsel Division office sent an inquiry to the petitioner, asking him
to sign a stipulated Motion for Protective Order."

VI. THE PETITIONER’S JULY 26, 2016 COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION

The complaint the Petitioner submitted to the State Board of Equalization

against UC Regents was or is analogous to the complaint that he submitted to the U.S.

Department of Treasury, IRS WBO in March 2016. The encouragement to file the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 38 -

complaint with the State Board of Equalization, Investigation Division, in addition to

the complaint with IRS WBO was California Assembly Bill 576. California Assembly

Bill 576 facilitated the Tax Recovery and Criminal Enforcement (TRaCE) Task Force,

a pilot program to combat illegal business activities that rob the State of California of

public funds and its citizens of public services. TRaCE Task Force is comprised of

investigators and special agents from multiple agencies who work together to

investigate, prosecute, and recover revenue lost to the underground economy. The

Petitioner thought that the approximately $100,000,000 of revenue generated by the

illegal sale of power, in violation of the State of California Revenue And Taxation Code

in violation of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and in total

disregard for the California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, which

provides that "unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair, or

fraudulent business practice," by the owners of the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant

would accordingly be a great issue of concern to the State of California.

The date of the said letter, June 26, 2002, corresponds to the time of the ongoing

illegal sale of power from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant, which was

deliberately construed and commissioned under the UCDMC to make quick cash,

amounting to millions of tax-free dollars. Governor Gray Davis, along with other

Regents of UC, with reference to the deregulation of the California energy market and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 39 -

the creation of California Independent System Operator (CAISO), made the decision to

build the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant for the sole purpose of selling illegally

power, in violation of state and federal tax laws. For his second term re-election,

Governor Davis raised an unprecedented $13.2 million in 1999 and $14.2 million in

2000. These vast sums raise the question as to whether part of that money was generated

from the illegal sale of power from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant and whether

these funds were funneled to Davis's election campaign through CAISO. The UCDMC

plant illegally made approximately $100, 000,000 tax-free; then the money

disasppeared. This illegal sale of power was ceased in 2003, due to Governor Davis's

recall from office.

Correspondingly, on July 27, 2016, Jennifer Spears, business tax specialist from

the Board of Equalization, Investigations Division, sent the Petitioner an email stating

that his complaint had been received and was being processed. Subsequently, on August

22, 2016, she informed the Petitioner through e-mail that his complaint (No. 28268) had

been assigned and forwarded to the TRaCE group for investigation. Following that, on

September 2, 2016, Spears sent the Petitioner the following email:

Dear Mr. Waszczuk,

Your complaint was forwarded to and reviewed by the TRaCE
Group. The TRaCE Group determined the complaint not to be a tax
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 40 -

issue within their jurisdiction to pursue. As your complaint letter

shows you have already filed the complaint with the appropriate
government agencies, the Board of Equalization will take no further
action and has closed our file.
Thank you,
Jennifer Spears

It was the Petitioner’s understanding that the TRaCE Task Force's purpose was to

combat illegal business activities that rob California of public funds and its citizens of

public services. By filing the complaint with the State Board of Equalization against the

white collar criminals from the UC, the Petitioner hope that the new TRaCE Task Force,

focalized by California Assembly Bill 576, would get to the bottom of this crime, which

had devastated the Petitioner’s and many others' lives. This was not the case. Evidently,

the state-sponsored white-collar criminals from the UC and the state government are

above the state law. They more powerful than California courts and California

legislature, as the Petitioner was advised by one of the California senators in 2016

VII. THE PETITIONER’S AUGUST 31, 2016 INQUIRY-INFORMATIONAL

LETTER ADDRESSED TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN JOHN GARAMENDI
FROM THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, DAVIS,
CALIFORNIA
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 41 -

On August 31, 2016, the Petitioner submitted an inquiry to Congressman John

Garamendi regarding his personal friend and former UC Davis Chancellor, Larry

Vanderhoef, who was euthanized by the UCOP mob at UCDMC on October 15, 2015,

while recovering from a stroke.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476783916/UTC-20160831-Inquiry-

with-U-S-Congressman-John-Garamendi-Office

The Petitioner addressed UC Davis Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vandehoef in

his July 29, 2019 Petitioner’s Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order, Served on July 9, 2019,

Signed by Special Trial Judge Honorable Robert N. Armen (U.S. Tax Court Docket No.

0019), as follows:

"UC Davis former Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vanderhoef was

euthanized on October 15, 2015, at the UCDMC, two days after the
Petitioner disclosed to the Sacramento County Superior Court the
fraud related to unlawful generation and sale from the UCDMC 27-
MW cogeneration plant. Vanderhoef was the key perpetrator and
witness in an ongoing white collar crime. Twelve days after
Vanderhoef died, U.S. Congressman John Garamendi glorified
Vanderhoef on the U.S. Congress floor."

VIII. THE PETITIONER’S OCTOBER 27, 2016 INQUIRY SENT TO U.S.

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 42 -

The inquiry dated October 27, 2016, that the Petitioner sent to U.S. Senator Dianne

Feinstein, constituted his follow-up on the intervention and independent investigation

request, dated September 25, 2015. In addition, it was also a response to Senator

Feinstein’s vague and ambiguous multiple correspondences that the Petitioner received

from Senator Feinstein’s office.

The Petitioner conducted research on the illegal power sale by UC Regents and

learned that Regent Richard Blum, a U.S. banker, investor, and husband of U.S.

Senator Feinstein, became Chairman of the Board of Regents of UC on January 1,

2007, and ordered UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef to erase the Petitioner from

the landscape of UCDMC, in an attempt to resume the illegal sale of power at the

UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant, where the Petitioner had been employed as an

operator since June 1999.

At the same time, in January 2007, Charles Robinson, CAISO General Counsel

and CAISO Vice President since the year 2000, was transferred to the UCOP as the

university’s new General Counsel and reported directly to UC Regents. The Petitioner

would like to highlight that Robinson was a key participant in the illegal sale of power,

and without his participation and approval, it would have been impossible for Blum

and others to illegally sell power via CAISO. Moreover, Robinson replaced Eric K.

Behrens, who handled the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant’s involvement in the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 43 -

illegal generation and sale of power and tax fraud, as well as the manipulation of the

power market, together with the major power producers, sellers, and distributors.

Robinson was awarded a $400,000-annual salary by UC Regents for his dedication to

the successful cover-up of the multimillion-dollar tax fraud committed by Blum, UC

Regents, and executives of CAISO during the California energy crisis of 1999–2003.

Awarding Robinson with the General Counsel position and $400,000 salary for his

conspiracy to illegally sell power in the amount of approximately $100,000,000, in

violation of Internal Revenue Code 1954, and for the cover-up of the tax evasion and

fraud, is considered racketeering committed by a public entity.

Also in January 2007, Edmund Jerry Brown became the State of California

Attorney General and John Garemendi, a close friend of the UC Davis Chancellor

Larry Vanderhoef, became the California Lieutenant Governor

The Petitioner’s October 2016 letter addressed to U.S. Senator Feinstein

contained all financial damages caused by her husband , UC Regent Richard Blum

and others to the Petitioner and his family .

https://www.scribd.com/document/476784452/UTC-10-2016-Inquiry-with-U-S-

Senator-Dianne-Feinstein-s-Office-Damages
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 44 -

The conclusion of his inquiry to Senator Feinstein, in which the Petitioner pointed to

the Franchise Tax Board, the 2010–2016 witch hunt, and the March 2016 federal

incarceration of California Senator Yee states the following:

"Maybe at the end of your career, you should do something good

and merciful. Besides restoration of my normal life by your
husband, I am asking your Democratic President to pardon Leland
Yee before President Obama leaves his office. I think it would be
the best thing you have ever done in your life if you make this
happen, and it will allow Senator Leland Yee to join his family,
especially his ill wife, who needs a lot of care. I believe that
President Obama will listen you and will sign the executive order to
release Senator Yee from Fort Worth Federal Correctional
Institution. Senator Leland Yee is a political prisoner and his
unlawful incarceration is not the way to cover up the white collar
crimes some of Regents, including but not limited to Richard Blum,
are listed in my specific September 25, 2015 inquiries I sent to you.
As I read recently, your husband has serious health problems, then
you know what Senator Leland Yee is is going through, being
locked up for five years far away from his family in Fort Worth,
Texas federal prison.
As a U.S. Senator for many years that participated in violation,
together with Janet Napolitano, of other people's civil and human
rights, by helping to cover up and to condone your husband and
other Regent’s white collars crimes is a crime itself. You should tell
your friend Napolitano to resign and advise her to go back to
Washington, D.C., to play her dirty power play games there.
How you can even sleep peacefully, knowing that your husband
destroyed so many people lives because of his greed, power and his
despicable disregard for the law and rights of others. Look at
climate surveys in UC campuses.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 45 -

24 percent of Respondents (n = 25,264) believed that they had

personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or
hostile conduct; 9 percent of Respondents (n = 8,903) said that the
conduct interfered with their ability to work or learn.
It is a shame that it came to this point and an immigrant from
Poland had to remind you about your responsibility as the Senator
of the United States of America."

IX. THE PETITIONER’S SEPTEMBER–NOVEMBER 2016 INQUIRES TO

CALIFORNIA SENATOR CATHLEEN GALGIANI, FIFTH
SENATORIAL DISTRICT, STOCKTON OFFICE

On September 15, 2016, the Petitioner sent a request for assistance to California

Senator Cathleen Galgiani regarding the California State Bar investigation against

attorney-at-law Douglas E. Stein and the complaint, Case No. 15–01011 0, which was

submitted to the California State Bar in December 2014 and still unresolved by them

against said attorney. In that inquiry, the Petitioner wrote:

"On September 14, 2016, at approximately 3 PM, the California State Bar
Senior Trail Counsel of Ms. Robin Brune called me and informed me that my
case needed additional time to be investigated. This information was contrary
to California State Bar Investigator Amanda Gormley, who informed me on
September 25, 2015, that she had concluded the investigation against attorney
Douglas Stein and that the case would be submitted to the California Bar
prosecutor by October 9, 2015.
This was almost one year ago, and today, Robin Brune, who supervised the
investigation, has no explanation of what happened to my case, which
disappeared together with investigator Amanda Gormley, in October 2015.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 46 -

I would appreciate it if you would intervene with Chief Trial Counsel Hon.
Jayne Kim and the California Chief Justice Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye to
help resolve the complaint one way or another. California Chief Justice Hon.
Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye was informed about the case by my August 21, 2016
letter (enclosed). What the State of California is doing is nothing but blunt
conspiracy with the University of California's rotten-by-corruption
administration's attempt to destroy my life, which is already devastated to the
point that Ms. Robin Brune's phone call yesterday sounded like a poor taste
Polish joke and hyena's laugh at the scene of the dying prey.
The systematic destruction of my life by the University of California mafia is
no different than the devastation and destruction of the former California
Senator Leland Yee's existence and life by the same entity's lead by the former
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano."
Two months later, on November 17, 2016, the Petitioner received the following

response from Senator Galigiani’s office:

Dear Mr. Waszezuk,

Thank you for contacting my Stockton District Office regarding your concerns
on the status of your complaint dated September 13 and 15, 2017.
I have asked Marian Norris, a member of my Stockton District Office, to look
into your concerns. Ms. Norris contacted Mrs. Parker, CEO of the California
State Bar, regarding your complaint against Attorney Douglas Stein to get a
status on your complaint. Ms. Parker advised Ms. Norris that your case was
referred to the Ms. Laura Sherick. When Ms. Norris spoke to Ms. Sherick, she
was advised that the person filing the complaint is considered the witness and
consequently is not entitled to any information as it is considered confidential.
Since the case is still open you will be contacted when and if the case requires
witness testimony. You will not be contacted by her office for any other reason
as witnesses need to remain uninfluenced by investigative finding as it could
taint testimony if needed in the future.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 47 -

To address your additional concerns: As per your phone conversation with

Mrs. Norris, ongoing litigation cannot be intervened by the Legislative Branch,
but we do wish you luck in your endeavors.

From Senator Galgiani's response, the Petitioner understood that the State Bar had

converted him from victim to witness, and then nothing further happened.

In 2016, Senator Galgiani was supposed to help the Petitioner find out what
happened to his complaint with State Bar of California against his dismissed
attorney, Douglas Stein. On June 26, 2018, the Petitioner sent the following
inquiry to Senator Galgiani and asked to schedule an appointment with her:

From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 2:27 PM
To: 'Erica.Myers@sen.ca.gov' <Erica.Myers@sen.ca.gov>
Cc: 'Senator Galgiani' <Senator.Galgiani@senate.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Thank You For Contacting Senator Galgiani

Dear Ms. Myers,

Would you please schedule for me a face-to-face appointment with Senator

Galgiani. I need to talk to Senator Galgiani if possible. She knows the
LGBT environment and I need to talk to her.

I appreciate it.

Thank you,
Jerry Waszczuk
209-663-2977

The Petitioner received the following reply:

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 48 -

From: Senator Galgiani <Senator.Galgiani@senate.ca.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:33 AM
To: Jaroslaw Waszczuk <JJW1980@LIVE.COM>
Subject: Thank You For Contacting Senator Galgiani

Thank you for your message.

I truly appreciate that you have taken time to communicate your concerns and
opinions regarding matters before the California State Legislature to me. As
your elected representative in the California State Senate, it is essential that I
know the views of my constituents. Due to the large volume of e-mails I
receive, I am unable to respond personally to each one. However, please be
assured that your concerns will be reviewed by my staff.
To schedule an appointment or invite me to attend an event, please email your
request to Erica.Myers@sen.ca.gov or by fax to 916-651-4905.
If you are seeking assistance resolving an issue with a state government
agency, please call my Stockton District Office at 209-948-7930 or Modesto
District Office 209-576-6273.

If you would like provide feedback on specific Legislation or issues click here
and fill out the form.

Again, thank you for your e-mail. It is an honor to represent you in the State
Senate.

Sincerely,
Cathleen Galgiani
Senator, 5th District

So far, the Petitioner has received no response from Senator Galgiani office about a
face-to-face appointment.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 49 -

X. THE PETITIONER’S JUNE 5, 2017 INQUIRY TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN

DARRELL ISSA'S OFFICE FROM THE 49TH DISTRICT, SAN DIEGO,
RIVERSIDE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

On June 5, 2017, the Petitioner sent a 17-page inquiry to U.S. Congressman Darrel Issa

from the 49th District in California. The inquiry was entitled “The leftovers from the

California’s energy market deregulation, the energy crisis of 1999–2001, and the State

of California recall election of Governor Gray Davis in 2003. August 2000 Complaint

with FERC, San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary

Services into Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator

Corporation and the California Power Exchange.”

In his letter to Congressman Issa, the Petitioner pointed out that, in 2003, Issa

contributed $1.7 million from his private account to replace California Governor Gray

Davis with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Davis was one of the key players behind the

sophisticated May 2000–November 2003 $40-billion fraud scheme, entitled by its

perpetrators as the “California energy crisis.” In addition to other issues, the Petitioner

addressed his concerns about recalled Governor Davis with the following words

https://www.scribd.com/document/476785397/UTC-20170605-Inquiry-
with-U-S-Congressman-from-San-Diego-CA-Darrel-Issa
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 50 -

“I am writing this letter to you because you were the person and the U.S.
Congressman who, in 2003, invested $1,700,000 of your own money and
changed the course of California’s history by replacing the California
Governor, Gray Davis, with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I understand that you contributed 1.7 million dollars in 2003 to replace
Governor Gray Davis because of his and his administration's mismanagement
of the 1999–2003 energy crisis. This maladministration caused California’s
economy to lose approximately 40 billion dollars, with a roughly-estimated
recovery of only 8. billion Not to mention the suffering that the residents of
California underwent due to the rolling blackouts and a shortage of energy that
caused electricity prices to skyrocket.
Further, you have probably noticed that Gray Davis never ran for any public
office again after he was recalled at the age of 61; he has kept a low profile
ever since.”

The sophisticated $40-billion fraud scheme is still unresolved.

In Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC), 464 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2006), United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Judge Honorable Clarence Thomas stated:

“In this case, we consider another piece of the California energy crisis puzzle.
Before us are petitions for review from the California Independent System
Operator (Cal-ISO) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), alleging
that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) committed various
errors in permitting Cal-ISO to re-run certain Settlement Statements. We
dismiss the petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude that
we lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider Cal-ISO's petition for review
because it implicates FERC's prosecutorial discretion. We conclude that we
lack subject matter jurisdiction to entertain PG&E's petition for review because
it is an impermissible collateral attack on a prior FERC order.”
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 51 -

The above case is interesting in the contexts of the Petitioner’s whistleblower

claim, submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Whistleblower Office (WBO)

in March 2016, and the updated claim in August 2018, and in the context of the

petition to the U.S. Tax Court in this case.

The parties in the above case, PG&E and CAISO, participated in the illegal

generation and sale of power at the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant during 2000–

2003. PG&E was the natural gas supplier that powered the plant, and CAISO was the

electricity distributor that sold the generated power on the open market. In this case,

CAISO was represented by CAISO General Counsel Charles Robinson and the

Swidler, Berlin, Shereff, Friedman law firm from Washington, D.C. Robinson was a

trojan horse and was considered the godfather of the California energy crisis. He was

delivered to CAISO by the corrupt establishment of the University of California Office

of the President (UCOP) and their friends from the California governor’s office. In

January 2007, Robinson was transferred from CAISO to the UCOP as the new Senior

Vice President and General Counsel. With the arrival of Robinson to the UCOP, the

petitioner, just after open heart surgery, was brutally witch-hunted. In March 2007,

Petitioner was removed from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant, where he had

been employed since June 1999. Swidler, Berlin, Shereff, Friedman represented the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 52 -

UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant with FERC to make sure that the illegally

generated power, sold at extremely gouged prices, would be legally sold via CAISO.

PG&E, who supplied natural gas to the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant to make

the fraud work, was represented in the above case by a law firm from Washington,

D.C., Heller, Ehrman, White, and McAuliffe. Prior his employment with CAISO,

Robinson was a partner of Heller, Ehrman, White, and McAuliffe.

In addition to PG&E; CAISO; Robinson; and Heller, Ehrman, White, and

McAuliffe, in the above case, the Petitioner found it interesting that Honorable A.

Wallace Tashima was on the appeal panel. In the Petitioner’s July 29, 2019 Reply to

U.S. Tax Court Order, served on July 9, 2019, and signed by Special Trial Judge

Honorable Robert N. Armen, the Petitioner addressed Honorable Tashima’s dissent

opinion in the case of United States v. Hayat, 710 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2013). That case

concerned Lodi (the Petitioner’s city of residence since 1989) resident, Hamid Hayat.

Hayat was accused of affiliation with terrorists, and, in 2007, he was prosecuted and

sentenced 24 years in federal prison. On July 29, 2019, the same day as the Petitioner’s

reply, which addressed Hamad, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California

Honorable Garland E. Burrell Jr., by signed court order, vacated Hamid Hayat’s 24-

year prison term (United States v. Hayat Case, 2:05-cr-00240-GEB, Document 752,

Filed July 30, 2019).

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 53 -

XI. PETITIONER’S FEBRUARY 3, 2018 LETTER TO HIS ATTORNEY,

MARK SCHLEIN, FROM BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN
PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, BASED IN LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA

At the end of May 2016, the Petitioner hired experienced attorney, Mark

Schlein, from the prestigious California consumer law firm, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &

Goldman, based in Los Angeles, to legally represent him with IRS Whistleblower

Office (WBO) and in Courts , if needed. The Petitioner was a little surprised that

Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman assigned Schlein, an out-of-state attorney from

Florida who was not licensed by the State Bar of California, to his case.

https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/attorneys/mark-h-schlein/

In May 2016, Schlein was retained by the Petitioner to do more research and to

professionally update his March 23, 2016 IRS Application for Award, Form 211, with

IRS WBO and to represent the Petitioner in the U.S. Tax Court, if needed. During the

Petitioner’s May 2016–August 2018 representation with WBO-ICE, Attorney Schlein

was also employed by another office in Washington, D.C., that specialized in

whistleblower tax fraud claims and advertised itself with the following statement:

"If you are thinking about becoming a tax fraud whistleblower, it is in your
best interest to hire an attorney with experience in preparing and filing these
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 54 -

types of cases. Thousands of tax whistleblower claims get filed each year, but
some are rejected because they are not properly prepared and submitted."

In 2017 or early 2018, the Petitioner obtained new information on the amount of

unlawful power generated by the UCDMC 27 MW-cogeneration power plant, worth at

least $100 million. On February 3, 2018, the Petitioner sent a letter to his attorney,

Schlein, by U.S. mail and by e-mail, reminding him that he was representing the

Petitioner and that the March 23, 2016 claim with the IRS needed to be professionally

updated due to the Petitioner’s new discovery (see the Petitioner’s Opposition to

Respondent Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, Page Nos. 6-12). This letter

included an attachment which showed specific power production and sale numbers

from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant from 1999–2015, which was a subject of

the Petitioner’s whistleblower claim dated March 23, 2016. Schlein never responded to

the Petitioner’s February 3, 2018 inquiry to update his whistleblower claim.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476786054/UTC-20180203-Attorney-Mark-

Schlein-Baum-Hedlund-Aristei-Goldman-PC

Thus, the Petitioner decided to update the claim on his own with the new information.

After almost two years of silence from the IRS WBO and from Schlein, the petitioner,

with his unusual experiences in the state courts in litigation against Dynegy Inc., based
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 55 -

in Houston, Texas; PG&E; and the UC, became quite suspicious that something was

wrong with his attorney's representation and with his whistleblower claim. The

Petitioner suspected that UC President Janet Napolitano and her powerful friends took

care of his IRS WBO whistleblower claim and his attorney.

The Petitioner was not wrong. In December 2019, while doing research for his

Opposition to Respondent Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on November

7, 2019 (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0036), the Petitioner discovered that shortly after

he retained Attorney Schlein in May 2016, UC President Napolitano used her

connections in President Obama’s administration. She enabled UC Executive

Associate Vice President Judith Boyette to be appointed by the Secretary of

Treasury to a three-year term on the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and

Government Entities (TEGE) to take care of the Petitioner’s IRS whistleblower claim

and his attorney, Schlein . The Boyette’s appointment to TEGE was not coincidental. It

is apparent from the case, Requa v. Regents of the University of California, Al 32778

(Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2013), that the UC is a client of Hanson Bridgett LLP. Boyette

was employed by the UC from 1998–2008, as Associate Vice President of Human

Resources for the entire UC system. She was directly responsible for all human

resource issues, including collective bargaining for UC campuses and medical centers,

as well as managing a $40-billion pension system that covered 100,000 members, three
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 56 -

large contribution plans, and the third largest health plan in California. Prior to joining

UC, Boyette was employed by Pillsbury & Sutro Professional Law Corporation in San

Francisco, where former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California and FBI

Director Robert Swan Mueller III was employed.

The Petitioner is quite familiar with Boyette's reputation and duties at the UC. In

2000, the Petitioner’s coworker at the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant, Eduardo

Espinosa, complained directly to Boyette about the plant manager's abusive and

unacceptable behavior. Complaints at the UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance

Department were not taking lightly by management, as the plant was unlawfully

generating and selling tax-free power at skyrocketing prices, as part of the California

energy crisis (see the Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent Motion for Partial

Summary Judgement, Page Nos. 28-131, U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0036)

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

012118-Full-Document).

XII. PETITIONER’S AUGUST 3, 2018 UPDATE OF THE MARCH 23, 2016

APPLICATION FOR AWARD, FORM 2011, CLAIM NO. 2016-007481,
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 57 -

On August 3, 2018, the Petitioner submitted his update of the 2016 claim directly

to IRS WBO- bypassing his attorney, Schlein, to prevent any interference (see August 3,

2018 Form 2011 and Cover Letter addressed to WBO-ICE Team Manager Charise

Wood). On August 6, 2018, the Petitioner received confirmation from the U.S. Postal

Service (USPS) that the update was delivered to WBO-ICE in Ogden, Utah, on that day,

August 6, 2018, at 8:58 AM; confirmation of delivery was signed by a person named

"Mansley."

The Petitioner’s August 3, 2018 update of the claim triggered unprecedented

action by WBO On August 7, 2018, just one day after WBO-ICE received the updated

claim, they issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s initial two-year-old March 23,

2016 claim, Claim No. 2016–00748. On August 14, 2018, following the WBO-ICE

decision denying the claim, the Petitioner’s lawyer, Schlein, abandoned the petitioner.

(see the Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent Motion for Partial Summary Judgement.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476775659/UTC-20191213-Petitioner-

Objection-to-Respondent-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment-Objection

XIII. THE PETITIONER’S SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 INQUIRY, SENT TO

DON FORT, CHIEF OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, IRS
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 58 -

On September 12, 2018, the Petitioner sent copies of his 2016 and 2018 IRS WBO

claims (Applications for Award, submitted to IRS Whistleblower Office, Ogden, Utah,

in March 2016, Claim No. 2016–007481, and August 2018, Claim No. 2018–012118.

Tax Evasion and Fraud, Violation of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1954) to the IRS Criminal Investigation Department Chief, Don Fort, with an

explanatory cover letter. Petition never received any response Chief Don Fort ‘s Office

https://www.scribd.com/document/476787953/UTC-20180912-Letter-To-Don-

Fort-IRS-Criminal-Division-Investigation-Request-for-Investigation

XIV. THE PETITIONER’S SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 OPEN LETTER

ENTITLED "IN DEFENSE OF JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH AND HIS
FAMILY," ADDRESSED TO CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. SENATE

If the Petitioner had known that former Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano

and former FBI Director Mueller arrived together in California in September 2013 to

carry out special mission, the Petitioner’s letter to Chairman Grassley would have been

different. Mueller arrived in California in September 2013, but he did not move there

permanently. He was welcomed by Senator Feinstein from San Francisco; Stanford

University alumna, Senator Barbara Boxer from San Francisco, who was replaced by

Kamala Harris in 2017; Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco;

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 59 -

Congressman Adam Schiff from Los Angeles; and his former assistant from 1999–

2001, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, Melinda Haag, who was

appointed as U.S. Attorney for same office in August 2010, by President Obama.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476625769/In-Defense-of-Judge-

Kavanaugh-and-His-Family

XV. PETITIONER’S APRIL 12, 2016 INQUIRY WITH THE DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, SAN
FRANCISCO DIVISION.

On April 12, 2016, the Petitioner sent an inquiry to the Department of Justice

(DOJ), Office of the Inspector General (OIG), San Francisco Division, with a copy of

the March 23, 2016 IRS Application for Award, Form 211, that he submitted in March

2016 to the IRS WBO to report the tens of millions of dollars of tax fraud committed

by the UC corrupted administrators .

On May 9, 2016, OIG responded to the Petitioner’s April 12, 2016 inquiry with

the following https://www.scribd.com/document/476789985/UTC-20160412-

Office-of-the-Inspector-General-Inquiry

The primary investigative responsibilities of this office are

• Allegations of misconduct committed by U.S. Department of Justice
employees and contractors; and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 60 -

• Waste and abuse by high ranking Department officials, or that affects

major programs and operations.
This office does not have jurisdiction in the matter you described. Therefore,
your complaint has been forwarded to the following office:
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 469
Washington, D.C. 20005
FBI - Los Angeles
11000 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90024

After the Petitioner received this response, he was curious as to why the OIG office
sent his Inquiry to FBI Office in Los Angeles instead of Sacramento . In 2017 FBI
Special Agent in Charge, Sean Ragan arrived from Los Angeles FBI Office to the
Sacramento FBI Field Office . He was appointed to the post by Acting FBI Director
Andrew McCabe and replaced. Monica Miller
(https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/sean-ragan-named-special-
agent-in-charge-of-the-sacramento-field-office).

Two years later, in August 2018, the Petitioner sent an inquiry to FBI Special

Agent in Charge, Sean Ragan, at the Sacramento FBI Field Office. The inquiry was

entitled “The Access to Justice and the Evil of Corruption in the Sacramento County

Superior Court, the Court of Appeal Third Appellate District, California Supreme

Court and the State Bar of California. Deprivation of my Rights Under the Color of
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 61 -

Law, Honest Services Fraud, Falsification and Withholding of Court Records,

Conspiracy, and possible Racketeering.”

XVI. THE PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THEFT

OR AN ACT EQUIVALENT TO THEFT, PERPETRATED BY
ATTORNEY DOUGLAS STEIN, SBN 131248, SUBMITTED TO THE
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ON AUGUST 30, 2018

Re: State Bar of California Case No. 15–O–10110–LMA [18–F–16299]

Re: California Supreme Court Case No. S245982, In Re: Douglas
Edward Stein on Discipline
Re: State Bar Court Case Nos. 18–0–16529 and 18–N–16452, In the
Matter of Douglas Edward Stein, SBN 131248

From 2013-2014, Douglas Stein represented the Petitioner in two State of

California Courts two cases, Writ of Mandamus Case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.

California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) with Real Party in

Interest (RPii) the Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34–2013–

800001699 and wrongful termination Case No. 34–2013–34–00155479, Jaroslaw

Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California.

Above mentioned two cases are related to this: U.S. Tax Court Case Jaroslaw Janusz
Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services - Docket No. 23105–18W
case filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court in December 2013,
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 62 -

On March 1, 2018, the California Supreme Court decided that Stein (State Bar

Number (SBN) 13124) be suspended from practicing law in California for two years;

he was placed on probation for three years and made restitution to the Petitioner in the

amount of $14,694.33, plus 10 percent interest per year, starting on June 2, 2014 (or

reimbursed the client's security fund, to the extent of any payment from the fund).

On August 30, 2018, the Petitioner applied to the State Bar of California

Security Fund to be reimbursed for the retainer that was stolen in 2014 by Stein. Seven

months later, on March 20, 2019, the Petitioner followed up this inquiry for

reimbursement of stolen money with Rachel S. Grunberg, Senior Trial Counsel of the

State Bar of California. On that same day, in coordinated action, the California

Supreme Court, with the rubber stamp of Supreme Court Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye,

denied the Petitioner is unemployment insurance benefits, which had been restored in

May 2014, by the California Employment Development Department (EDD), and

which later vanished. Most likely, the Petitioner’s unemployment benefits were

intercepted and stolen by Stein or were somehow blocked, as to not be paid by Ashante

Norton (SBN 203836) and Ismael Castro (SBN 85452), attorneys from the General

Office Counsel who represented the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board (CUIAB), together with four attorneys from the University of California Office

of the President (UCOP): Charles Furlonge Robinson (SBN 113197), Karen Jensen
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 63 -

Petrulakis (SBN 168732), Margaret Louisa Wu (SBN 184167), and Cynthia Ann

Vroom (SBN 139470). In 2012, Petrulakis on October 14, 2012, became a member of

the State Bar's Litigation Section Executive Committee. These attorneys represented

the Regents of the University of California (UC), as the Real Party of Interest (RPii)

(Petition for Review of the Petitioner in Writ of Mandamus Case Jaroslaw Waszczuk

v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) with Real Party in

Interest (RPii) The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34–2013–

800001699, the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Case No. C079254,

Supreme Court Case Nos. S253713 & S245879)

https://www.scribd.com/document/476777665/UTC-20190129-CALIFORNIA-

SUPREME-COURT-Petition-for-Review-Waszczuk-v-CUIAB

On March 20, 2019, the same day that the Petitioner sent his inquiry to State Bar of

California for reimbursement of his stolen money, an attorney representing UC

Regents in Sacramento County Superior Case No. 34–2013–34–00155479, Jaroslaw

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

California Supreme Court Case No. S245508, made an attempt to end the Petitioner’s

wrongful termination case by a Motion for Termination Sanctions

(https://www.scribd.com/document/468229188/US-Tax-Court-2017-10-25-2017-
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 64 -

anti-SLAPP-Motion-Petition-for-Rehearing-Opinion-Waszczuk-v-UC-Regents).

Also, on March 20, 2019, the Respondent’s attorney from the IRS Division Counsel

Office in the San Diego Office, Terri Ornate, sent the Petitioner Meet and Confer

Letter with Motion for Protective Order to sign. The Petitioner refused to sign the

proposed motion and replied to the IRS Counsel on April 9, 2019

https://www.scribd.com/document/476791160/UTC-20190409-Response-to-IRS-

Attorneys-Terri-Oronato-Gordon-Gidlund-Meet-and-ConferOn May 17, 2019, the

Respondent’s counsel filed a Motion for Protective Order per U.S. Tax Court Rule 103

anyway. The Respondent's motion was ultimately denied by U.S. Tax Court Judge,

Robert N. Armen, on July 31, 2019 (U.S. Tax Docket No. 0020)

https://www.scribd.com/document/476775930/UTC-20190729-Judge-Armen-

Order-Petitioner-Objection-to-Motion-for-Protective-Order

One day later, on March 21, 2019, the Petitioner was informed by a private

investigator (letter attached) that after eight years, his Short Term Disability Insurance

STDI benefits, Claim No. 4154074, had been found as unclaimed property in the

California State Controller's Office. The amount of benefits to be reclaimed was

$4,545.08. These were the Petitioner’s benefits that were denied to him in 2011 by

Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, in a conspiracy with UC Davis, UC Davis

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 65 -

Medical Center (UCDMC), and the UCOP's corrupt administration's human resource

attorneys. In response to being denied his benefits, the Petitioner also asked the private

investigator to help him find his unemployment insurance benefits, which had been

missing since May 2014. The Petitioner had no idea how his 2011 STDI benefits ended

up in the California State Controller's Office eight years later, and why they were

never paid to him in 2011 or 2012 when he was disabled and most needed the money

https://www.scribd.com/document/476791675/UTC-20190502-State-Controller-

Office-Unclaimed-Property

After the Petitioner sent his March 20, 2019 inquiry to the State Bar of

California, he became the subject of vicious attacks coordinated by attorneys

representing UC Regents in Sacramento County Superior Court and the Respondent’s

counsel, Darrick Sun, from the IRS Chief Counsel Division Office in San Diego.

Finally, on July 29, 2019, the State Bar of California Client Security Fund made

the final decision to send the Petitioner a check in the amount of $14,500 after the

petitioner, in his multiple correspondences with the State Bar of California executives,

pointed to the Chair of the State Bar of California Client Security Fund Commission,

Etan E. Rosen (SBN 258608) (https://bprlaw.net/etan-rosen/), who was involved in

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 66 -

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California Case No. 2:14–cv–02187–WBS–DB,

Lamont Williams, Plaintiff v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District a.k.a. SMUD

“Etan Rosen was born and raised in Haifa, Israel. He was a Staff Sergeant in
the Airborne Division of the Israeli Army. In 1980, after his military service,
he came to Texas to attend classes. Mr. Rosen received a B.B.A. in Finance
and an M.B.A. in Finance and Marketing from the University of Texas at
Austin. After graduating in 1985, he worked as a Loan Analyst at Liberty
National Bank in Oklahoma City and afterward, as an Assistant Controller for
Lexus Pharmaceuticals in Austin, Texas.
Mr. Rosen graduated from the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and
received his license to practice law in 1994. He joined Beyer and Pongratz as
the first law clerk just before taking the bar exam and has served as an
associate and a partner. Mr. Rosen has served as the Managing Partner of the
firm for the last seven years. His areas of expertise include mediation, trust
litigation, will disputes, business law, business/commercial litigation, contract
disputes, employment litigation, discrimination, and administrative law. In
2000, Mr. Rosen tried a wrongful termination lawsuit in El Dorado County,
winning a seven-million-dollar judgment for his client. Mr. Rosen has tried
numerous jury and bench trials and is an experienced litigator.
Mr. Rosen is currently the Chairman and Commissioner of the California State
Bar Client Security Fund Commission. He has been married for 32 years and
has two daughters. He is fluent in Hebrew. In his spare time, he enjoys
international travel and reading.”

The above captioned wrongful termination case against SMUD was filed on

behalf of plaintiff Lamont Williams in Federal Court on September 22, 2014, by

Attorney Rosen. SMUD was a co-conspirator with UC Regents in tax evasion and
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 67 -

fraud worth tens of millions of dollars. From 1999–2009, they bought illegally

produced electricity from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant, and on May

31, 2012, they signed another unlawful power purchase agreement with UC

Regents. SMUD was represented in the above case by Sacramento-based Porter

Scott Law Corporation's David Burkett, who also represented UC Regents against

the Petitioner in his wrongful termination case, which was still pending

(Sacramento County Superior Case No. 34–2013–34–00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk

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

Supreme Court Case No. S245508)

After the Petitioner pointed out Chairman Rosen's connections, his stolen money

was reimbursed, and Rosen was no longer listed as the Chairman of the State Bar of

California Client Security Fund. Rosen was replaced by Carol A. Klauschie. It took the

Petitioner four years and the help of the State Bar of California to recover his stolen

money.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476792099/UTC-20180830-Reimbursement-of-

Stolen-Money-State-Bar

XVII. NOVEMBER 20, 2018 PETITION WITH U.S. TAX COURT

On November 20, 2018, the Petitioner appealed the Internal Revenue Service
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 68 -

(IRS) Whistleblower Office's (WBO) October 24, 2018 decision, which denied him a

reward for reporting tens of millions of dollars of tax fraud. In his petition, he pointed

out that he strongly disagreed with the IRS WBO in Ogden, Utah, and that nothing was

speculative in his claim. The Petitioner was a direct witness to the unlawful generation

and sale of electricity and the millions of dollars’ worth of related tax evasion

committed by UC Regents from June 1999 to February 2009. The Petitioner backed

his claim with documents he discovered in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) e-library in 2015, as well as other sources. Furthermore, the Petitioner noted

that in April 2016, he had received confirmation from the IRS WBO that his

Application for Award had been accepted and was being reviewed. He hired legal

counsel Mark Schlein from Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Professional Law

Corporation of Los Angeles to represent him regarding the claim in U.S. Tax Court.

The Petitioner sent a courtesy copy of his November 20, 2018 Petition with

Explanatory Addendum to the IRS WBO in Ogden. Utah. On November 30, 2018, the

IRS WBO responded, stating:

"Dear Jaroslaw Waszczuk:

Claim Number(s): 2018–012118, 2018–012139 and 2018–012141

We received your request for reconsideration dated November

20, 2018. Your claim was previously rejected. A copy of that
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 69 -

decision is enclosed. If you have any questions about this letter,

please contact the Whistleblower Office."

Apparently, the Petitioner’s Addendum with the Petition of U.S. Tax Court got

the IRS WBO's attention. Guided by former UC Vice President Judith Boyette, who in

June 2016 was placed by UC President Janet Napolitano as an advisor in the

Department of Treasury IRS Tax-Exempt Governmental Entity Division (TEGE), the

IRS WBO swept the Petitioner’s March 23, 2016 Application for Award Form 2011

under the rug. On December 6, 2018, the Petitioner replied to the IRS WBO

notification, stating:

"For the record, I did not send to your office a request for reconsideration on
November 20, 2018. Therefore, you had nothing to reject in this matter.
What I sent to your office was a copy of the Petition with the United States Tax
Court with Proof of Service, understanding that I should send you this copy if I
appealed the IRS Whistleblower Office decision, dated October 23, 2018.
Your letter makes me believe that you or your staff did not even bother to read
what I sent to your office on November 18, 2018, but responded very quickly
to the received Petition with the United States Tax Court for an unknown
reason.
Furthermore, the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden has kept my initial Match
23, 2016 claim for more than two years and has not bothered to inform me
about what is going on with my claim and whether a decision is being made
one way or another."
The Petitioner sent a copy of his reply and IRS notification to the U.S. Treasury

Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The Petitioner’s reply to the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 70 -

IRS WBO was lodged by TIGTA as Complaint No. TRN–1901–0171 on

January 29, 2019

https://www.scribd.com/document/476793270/UTC-20190128-Treasury-

Inspector-General-for-Tax-Administration-TIGTA-Response

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), granting 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 the

Petitioner(Docket Nos. 0043 and 0044)

https://www.scribd.com/document/476773839/UTC-20200604-

MEMEORANDUM-AND-ORDER-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment

CHAPTER THREE-CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY MARKET

DEREGULATION OF 1996-2003

I. ARSON IN THE PETITIONER’S DAUGHTER’S APARTMENT AT 351

TORINO, SAN CARLOS, SAN MATEO COUNTY

In March 1997 Petitioner was interviewed with Lodi News-Sentinel about his

former employer, Destec Energy Inc., based in Houston, Texas, In that interview, the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 71 -

Petitioner disclosed the $240,000,000 fraud committed by Destec Energy Inc. against

Public Utilities company San Francisco-based Pacific Gas and Electric Company

(PG&E), PG&E’s ratepayers, and California taxpayers due to a violation of FERC’s

regulations and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA).

Additionally, Destec Energy Inc. defrauded the Petitioner of $27,000 of overtime wages

and 119 other employees of a total amount exceeding $3,000,000.

In looking back at that interview, the Petitioner recalled more specifically what

had happened to him. On April 1, 2007, based on the Petitioner’s disclosure, PG&E

filed a lawsuit against Destec Energy Inc. in the San Francisco County Superior

Court and promised to pay a whistleblower award to the Petitioner from the

damages recovered from Destec. Initially, PG&E estimated the damages to be

approximately $1,000,000 and paying the whistleblower award from that amount

was not a problem. However, the calculated recovery amounted to $240,000,000

and 25 % whistleblower award from $ 240,000,000 became a problem for PG&E .

On top of this Destec faced closure of its 9 plants in the State of California. This

meant that PG&E would be lose their inexpensive power from Destec under the 30-

year contract that allowed them to resell the energy with big profit margins, due to

the ongoing deregulation of the California electricity market, known as the

California Electricity Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill B 1890), which was signed
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 72 -

into law in September 1996, by Governor Pete Wilson. From January 1996 to May

2000, the Petitioner did not know anything about the ongoing deregulation of the

electricity market in California and had no understanding of what he was facing,

finding himself between two giant corporations ready to compete in an open power

market.

After Destec Energy Inc., which became Dynegy Inc. terminated the

Petitioner’s employment ,he found a job as a utility operator at the Genentech

Corporation, a pharmaceutical company located in South San Francisco, 90 miles

from Lodi, CA, where the Petitioner had resided since 1989. Due to the distance

between Lodi and San Francisco, the Petitioner occasionally slept at his daughter’s

apartment in San Carlos, near San Francisco. The Petitioner’s daughter worked in

the San Francisco area as a researcher for a pharmaceutical company after she

graduated from the University of California.

The Petitioner’s adversaries, competitors in the power market, did not welcome

the Petitioner’s requests for the full whistleblowing award and compensation for

wrongful termination and did not appreciate his interference with their business. The

stakes were too high to let the Petitioner continue his demands.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 73 -

On February 5, 1999, at 2 a.m., unidentified perpetrators set fire to Petitioner’s 27-

year-old daughter, Joanna's, apartment at 351 Torino, San Carlos, San Mateo County,

near San Francisco, in an attempt to kill the Petitioner and his daughter. The Petitioner

was not there. The perpetrators disabled the fire alarm to create maximum devastation.

It was by luck that the Petitioner’s daughter and many other residents in the apartment

complex survived, because the Petitioner’s daughter’s pet birds screeched before they

died, alerting her, so she was able to wake the other residents, who were then able to

escape, some jumping from windows. On the next day, February 6, 1999, after the

Petitioner’s traumatized daughter lost everything in this undoubted arson, the

Petitioner sent a letter, incorrectly dated February 6, 1998, instead of February 6, 1999,

about the crime, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Field Office in

Sacramento. Nobody ever responded to the Petitioner’s inquiry.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476807173/UTC-February-5-1999-San-Carlos-

Fire-Letter-to-FBI

Shortly after the fire in Petitioner’s daughter apartment the Littler Mendelson P.C.

law corporation from San Francisco https://www.littler.com/ representing Dynegy

Inc. against Petitioner in wrongful termination lawsuit aggressively for some reason
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 74 -

questioned Petitioner about the fire in the Petitioner’s daughter, Joanna's, apartment,

in which the Petitioner’s daughter almost died.

Littler Mendelson P.C. represented Dynegy against the Petitioner in his wrongful

termination lawsuit, filed on April 29, 1998 (San Joaquin County Superior Court Case

No. CV 04940, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Destec/NGC). In this lawsuit, Kerosky and

Bradley Law Firm of San Francisco represented the Petitioner. In 2004, Christopher

Kerosky resurfaced as an honorary consul for the Republic of Poland, representing and

advising Polish consulate staff from Los Angeles. Kerosky is also a member of the San

Francisco Consular Corps.

The attorney representing the Petitioner did not disclose to him that he had a

conflict of interest since his law firm also represented PG&E. He failed to secure

written agreement with PG&E for 25 percent of the whistleblower award, which had

been verbally promised to the Petitioner by PG&E’s representative at the meeting were

PG&E between Petitioner , Petitioner Attorney and PG&E Executives . Due to gross

attorney misrepresentation, the Petitioner and his attorney lost 25 percent of

$100,000,000, which PG&E recovered from Destec in a settlement. Instead of

$25,000,000, the Petitioner later received $100,000 from PG&E, due to a lawsuit

against them, which was settled out of court in May 2000

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 75 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/468927857/April-8-1999-PG-E-Application-of-

Termination-for-Power-Purchase-Agreement-with-the-Dynegy-Inc

At the same time in February 1999, future FBI Director Mueller was in charge

of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California with his assistant,

Melinda Haag and their U.S Attorney Office has jurisdiction over the San Carlos ,

nearby San Francisco where Petitioner’s daughter almost died due to arson in her

apartment .

Haag resurfaced in August 2010, as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of

California; she was recommended for this job by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer and

appointed by President Barak Obama and again

II. THE PETITIONER’S CLOSER LOOK AT THE STATE OF

EMERGENCY, DECLARED ON JANUARY 17, 2001 BY CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS IN RELATION TO 9/11 TERRORIST
ATTACK

After Petitioner submitted his petition to the U.S. Tax Court in November 2018 ,

he took a closer look at some known and unknown facts and events related to his

claims submitted to the Whistleblower Office in 2016 and 2018.

Before taking office as Governor of California in January 1999, Gray Davis

served as the state’s Lieutenant Governor under Pete Wilson. By law, the Lt. Governor
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 76 -

is also a member of the UC Board of Regents. As a member of the UC Board of

Regents, Davis was one of the regents responsible for the decision to construct three

cogeneration power plants in UC Davis , UC Berkeley and UC San Diego between

1995 and 1998 at the price of approximately 200,000,000 dollars. The UCDMC plant

where Petitioner was employed had the total capacity of 37 megawatts (MW) of

electric power. Petitioner was intrigued by the presence of five Caterpillar Emergency

Diesel Generators, sized 2 MW each, at the UCDMC plant, where demand for power

was less than 5MW/h.

In May 2000, the cyber-attack on the California and Western States Power Grid

began and this sophisticated attack and scheme of the California Energy Crisis causing

$40 billion in losses for California ratepayers and taxpayers almost caused the collapse

of the power grid.

At the same time in May 2000, a group of foreigner terrorists arrived in San

Diego, and their lifestyle and who was supporting them for over one year until they

delivered the most deadly attack on American soil are not very well known. However,

Petitioner found by accident that “uninvited” guests from the Middle East converted

their Camaros and Firebirds to Hot Rods in San Diego shop to cruise freely for one

year around UC San Diego and in Arizona, which is the home state of Janet
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 77 -

Napolitano, until they delivered their terrorist attack killing over 3,000 innocent people

on September 11, 2001.

The former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who had the

highest security clearance during her tenure in President Obama’s administration,

most likely knows more than anybody else about the ownership of the three

cogeneration plants on UC campuses, the cyber-attack on California and Western

States Power Grid from May 2000 to September 2001 by the sophisticated equipment

and software produced by Perot System Corporation, and these Camaros and Firebirds

converted to Hot Rods in a San Diego Shop by group of foreigners from the Middle

East .

On February 14, 2001 in middle of cyber-attack on the Western States Power

Grid , California Governor Davis toured the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW

cogeneration plant where Petitioner was employed as an operator .In 1995 Davis as as

Lt Governor and UC regents approved to be built the UCDMC 27 MW plant to

illegally produce and sell power worth tens of millions of tax free dollars due planned

fraud scheme, and cyber-attack on California’s power grid. The plant tour took place

shortly after Gray Davis declared a State of Emergency. Please note the wording of

the State of Emergency EXECUTIVE ORDER D-40-01 issued on January 17, 2001:
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 78 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that during the time a power plant

is operating under any of the above conditions, the facility shall not
be subject to any provision limiting its hours of operation or
generation capability, or imposing conditions or penalties related to
its additional hours of operation or power generation, whether
imposed by the California Health and Safety Code, the California
Code of Regulations, a local air pollution control or air quality
management district rule or regulation, or any permit.
Petitioner as a UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27 MW cogeneration plant

operator in 2001-2003 he was a direct witness how the above part of the Gov. Davis’

Executive Order was executed .

FULL FEXECUTIVE ORDER D-40-01

WHEREAS, on January 17, 2001, I proclaimed a State of

Emergency to exist due to the energy shortage in the State of
California; and
WHEREAS, there is a high probability that the electricity supply
shortage will continue through at least October 31, 2001, causing
rolling blackouts throughout California, which endanger public
health and safety, threaten property, the environment and economic
disruption, and affect millions of Californians;
WHEREAS, during this period, all reasonable conservation,
allocation and service restriction measures will not alleviate this
energy supply emergency; and
WHEREAS, to alleviate this energy supply emergency, power
generators must be encouraged to utilize their maximum generation
capacity.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 79 -

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GRAY DAVIS, Governor of the State of

California, by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the
Constitution and statutes of the State of California, including the
Emergency Services Act, do hereby issue this order to become
effective immediately:
IT IS ORDERED that, in order to avoid blackouts and minimize
operation of backup diesel-fired generators, local air districts are
directed to allow natural gas-fired power plants to operate in excess
of their hourly, daily, quarterly and/or annual emission limitations
if operated: (a) to sell power to the California Department of Water
Resources or to a utility located in California; (b) to serve an
operating utility's own load; or (c) as dispatched by the California
Independent System Operator (ISO). The term "utility" includes
investor owned utilities,
municipally owned utilities and municipal utility districts.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hours operated under such
conditions shall not be counted toward the hourly, daily, quarterly
and/or annual operating limits or hourly, daily, quarterly and/or
annual emission limits of the plant’s permit for this or any other
year if the plant's operator pays mitigation fees to the local air
pollution control district or air quality management district of $7.50
per pound of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and $1.10 per pound of
carbon monoxide emitted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that during the time a power plant
is operating under any of the above conditions, the facility shall not
be subject to any provision limiting its hours of operation or
generation capability, or imposing conditions or penalties related to
its additional hours of operation or power generation, whether
imposed by the California Health and Safety Code, the California
Code of Regulations, a local air pollution control or air quality
management district rule or regulation, or any permit.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 80 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that emissions resulting from the

operation of a power plant in accordance with this order shall not
be considered in determining whether the facility has exceeded its
daily, quarterly or annual emissions allocation in this or any other
year, to the extent any such limit applies.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the California Air Resources
Board is directed to work with USEPA to ensure that power plants
desirous of operating under this order obtain the necessary
approvals from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall expire on
October 31, 2001, unless revoked, modified or extended by further
executive order responding to the continued need for emergency
action to deal with the electricity emergency or unless terminated
by proclamation of the Governor or concurrent resolution of the
Legislature that the state of emergency has ended.
The activities herein are authorized to be carried out pursuant to the
Emergency Services Act, Government Code section 8550 et seq., as
necessary to mitigate the effects of the emergency

How did Governor Gray Davis know that artificially created energy shortages

and blackouts would end in October 2001? It is exactly what happened, and UCDMC

cogeneration plant owners got richer by approximately 130,000,000 tax-free dollars

from illegal and extremely gouged megawatt prices. California’s economy lost 40

billion dollars due this sophisticated scheme of 40 billion fraud.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 81 -

CHAPTER FOUR- 9/11 THEORY

I. THE PETITIONER’S THEORY ABOUT THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

TERRORIST ATTACK

The shortage of electricity and seemingly never ending blackouts magically and

miraculously disappeared in California in October 2001 just after Robert Swan Mueller

III was appointed as the FBI Director by President George W. Bush and just after

the Al-Qaeda terrorist groups finished their training in San Diego, California, and in

Florida to deliver their most deadly attacks on U.S. soil which killed over 3000

innocent people , triggering costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking innumerable

lives in the name of freedom and democracy.

Just a few days before September 11, 2001, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern

District of California Robert Swan Mueller III was appointed FBI . In September 2011,

Rahim Reed also arrived in California from the University of Florida where he held the

position of Director of the Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations.

The declared State of Emergency by Gov. Gray Davis should end in October

2001 just after three weeks after September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. However, the

State of Emergency last until November 2003 and Davis left office in November 2003
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 82 -

just before California Governor Gray Davis was recalled from office with the help of

U.S. San Diego Congressman Darrell Issa’s 1.7 million dollars from his private

account. In 2017, Petitioner sent an inquiry to Senator Issa asking why he bailed out

Gray Davis with his private money, knowing that Gray Davis was one of the “smartest

guys in the room,” together with Enron’s CEO Kenneth Lay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room

Petitioner sent an inquiry to Senator Issa because he was from San Diego where,

in May 2000, a terrorist group arrived in San Diego where also the University of

California San Diego campus is located and because Senator Issa was accused by

Jewish extremists of collaborating with Hezbollah branded by American Government

as a terrorist organization . Furthermore, the senator’s office was targeted by an

aborted bombing plot orchestrated by a Jewish defense league leader in 2001 for his

alleged collaboration with Hezbollah .

One month after the 9/11 terrorist attack, FBI director Robert Swan Mueller III

ordered in October 2001 to frame and prosecute Hamid Hayat—a completely innocent

19-year-old Lodi resident and U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent who was wrongly

accused that he was an Al-Qaeda terrorist. The FBI paid 250,000 dollars to assign an

informer to help frame Hamid Hayat.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 83 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/476776215/UTC-20190730-HAMID-HAYAT-

JUDGMENT

However, Mueller did not bother to find out who was behind the 40-billion-

dollar fraud scheme titled California Energy Crisis . Enron was used as bait in the

cyber-attack on California’s power grid, and shortly after collapsed as it was

anticipated by conspirators in the fraud. Hamid Hayat was prosecuted by U.S. Attorney

MacGregor Scott from Sacramento, a friend of UC President Janet Napolitano. Hamid

Hayat was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison in 2007 and after spending 14 years

in prison, he was found innocent by the same federal judge that sentenced him in the

first place. (See United States v. Hayat, No. 2:05-cr-0240 GEB DB [E.D. Cal. Jan. 10,

2019]

https://youtu.be/O9sUJ0TkPPw

Petitioner made this YouTube slideshow about Hamid Hayat’s arrest in 2005).

Why the FBI Director Robert Mueller pick Lodi, California, where Petitioner

lived with his family since 1989? Why not for example Dearborn, Michigan densely

populated by people from Middle East by or San Diego, California, where Al-Qaeda

terrorists were trained themselves to fly jumbo jets in preparation for their evil mission

and 2001 terror attacks?

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 84 -

By reviewing the DOJ Office of Inspector General reports related to September

2011 terrorist attack FBI’s Investigation , Petitioner found in the June 2003 Review

of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the

Investigation of the September 11 Attacks within the DOJ Inspector General Reports

on 9/11, which showed that FBI Director Robert Mueller ordered to round up 762

immigrants, classified as September 11 detainees, to be arrested by the FBI in New

York City and New Jersey

Nobody was arrested in San Diego or in California in September or October

2001 where terrorists were able to perfectly synchronize their attack with sophisticated

billion-dollar-fraud scheme, titled by white collar criminals as “California’s Energy

Crisis” and State of Emergency in California declared on January 17, 2001 by

Governor Gray Davis . The fraud scheme coordinated with 9/11 terrorists attack almost

led to the collapse of the entire Western State Power Grid. Such a scenario would have

unimaginable consequences for the whole United States, even worse than those of the

9/11 terrorist attack.

The Petitioner is not theorizing or speculating about the deadly terrorist attack on

September 11, 2001. However, the Petitioner became the subject of a vicious witch

hunt by two of his two former employers, Destec Energy, Inc., based in Houston,
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 85 -

Texas, which changed its name to Dynegy Inc. in 1998, and the University of

California (UC). At both locations, the Petitioner was employed in similar facilities as

a cogeneration plant operator. The Petitioner worked for Destec Energy/Dynegy, a

rival of the Enron Corporation, as an operator in the 50-MW natural gas fired plant in

Lathrop, California, from January 1989–February 1998. He then worked at the UC

Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27-MW cogeneration plant in Sacramento,

California, first as an operator from June 1999–February 2009, and then as an

associate development engineer from February 2009–December 2012. Owners of the

UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW whoever they are sacrificed approximate $

250,000,000 to witch hunt and destroy Petitioner’s life . 250 million dollars is a lot of

money to witch hunt power plant operator.

Both of the Petitioner’s employers, Dynegy Inc. and the UC, unlawfully

built and operated cogeneration plants in California in violation of the Federal

Energy Commission Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations, 18 C.F.R. §

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

Code (CPUC), Section 218.5; the State of California Unfair Business

Competition Law, Business and Professions Code, § 17200; the California

Commodity Law of 1990 (CCL), Corporation Code, § 29500 et seq.; and 7

U.S. Code § 6 (b), in gross violation of section 50l(c)(3) of the Internal

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 86 -

Revenue Code of 1954 and the State of California Revenue and Taxation

Code. These plants also violated state and federal every possible

environmental law applicable to cogeneration power plant facilities. Both of

the Petitioner’s former employers willfully participated in the sophisticated $40-

billion fraud scheme fraud of 2001–2003, entitled the "California energy crisis,"

to misled California ratepayers and tax payers by implying that it was a crisis.

All facts lead Petitioner to the conclusion that the 2001–2003 sophisticated fraud

scheme was precisely coordinated with the attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda’s

terrorists, who, without any obstruction, trained themselves in the San Diego area

to kill over 3,000 people in New York City, Washington, D.C., and other places,

on September 11, 2001.

The mentioned Dynegy's witch hunt of 1996–1998 resulted in a confidential

financial settlement for the Petitioner in October 1999, after unknown perpetrators

attempted to kill him and his 27-year-old daughter by setting her apartment on

February 5, 1999, at 2:00 a.m., in San Carlos, San Mateo County, near San

Francisco.

II. THE PHILIP JAY BERG’S 9/11 THEORY.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 87 -

An attorney from Pennsylvania, Philip Jay Berg, presented a more serious theory

regarding President George W. Bush's involvement in the September 11, 2001 terrorist

attacks. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip J. Berg).

“In October 2004, Berg filed Rodriguez v. Bush, accusing the President of the
United States and 155 other parties of complicity in the September 11 attacks.
This 237-page civil lawsuit included allegations pursuant to
the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) against the
United States, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
the Department of Homeland Security, George H. W. Bush, George W.
Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and numerous others, totaling 156
defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This lawsuit made hundreds of allegations including allegations that the Twin
Towers were destroyed by means of 'controlled demolitions;' that members of
the FDNY were ordered, on instructions of the CIA, not to talk about it; that
the FDNY conspired with Larry Silverstein to deliberately destroy 7WTC;
that projectiles were fired at the Twin Towers from 'pods' affixed to the
underside of the planes that struck them; that FEMA is working with the US
government to create 'American Gulag' concentration camps which FEMA will
run once the federal government's plan to impose martial law is in place; that
phone calls made by some of the victims, as reported by their family members,
were not actually made but were 'faked' by the government using 'voice
morphing' technology; that a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck
the Pentagon; that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the U.S.
military; that the defendants had foreknowledge of the attacks and actively
conspired to bring them about; that the defendants engaged in kidnapping,
arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficking in narcotics, embezzlement,
securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credit card theft, blackmail,
trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of women and children for
sex.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 88 -

The matter was transferred to the Southern District of New York on May 2,
2005. On June 26, 2006, the court dismissed the claims against the US, DHS,
and FEMA, and gave the plaintiff until July 7, 2006, to show cause why his
lawsuit should not be dismissed with respect to the other 153 defendants.
The plaintiff failed to do so, and the court dismissed all of the claims against all
of the remaining 153 defendants on July 17, 2006.”

William Rodriguez was a janitor in the North Tower of the World Trade Center

for 19 years, until it was destroyed on September 11, 2001. He was present in the

North Tower on the morning of September 11 and is alleged to have saved the lives of

15 people by assisting in their evacuation from the tower. The Rodriguez's complaints

(Rodriguez v. Bush, 367 F. Supp. 2d 765 (E.D. Pa. 2005) and Rodriguez v. Bush, 05

CIV. 5402 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2006)), detail a dramatic conspiracy between

President George W. Bush and other high-level government officials to bring about the

September 11 attacks. The conspiracy included a plan to have the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) take control of the economy and infrastructure of the

United States after the President made a declaration of martial law.

At approximately the same time as Berg sued President George W. Bush on

Rodriguez's behalf for conspiracy in the September 11 terrorist attacks, in California,

the mayor of La Mesa, Art Madrid, sued Perot Systems Corporation, California

Independent System Operator (CAISO), and Perot System Corporation's software

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 89 -

engineer, Paul Gribik, who invented sophisticated software for the key players in the

2000-2001 $40-billion fraud scheme involving CAISO, Duke Energy , Reliant Energy,

Dynegy Inc., Mirant, and Williams/AES, which almost collapsed the Western Power

Grid in 2001 (June 6, 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

(3DCA) No. C046683).

In his complaint's introduction (Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp., 130 Cal.App.4th 440

(Cal. Ct. App. 2005)), Madrid alleged:

"This action is brought under California's criminal antitrust and unfair

competition laws. It seeks recovery of damages, and other monetary, equitable
and injunctive relief arising from [Perot's] aiding and abetting in the
manipulation, distortion, and corruption of California's electricity market
including derivatives. Defendants' unfair and unlawful business practices
include conspiring to establish phony strategies designed to 'game' the
California markets. Those strategies [130 Cal.App.4th 446] were designed by
PEROT and sold [fn. 3] to various market participants for the purpose of
cheating Californians out of billions of dollars. It is estimated that defendants'
anti-competitive conduct and illegal, unfair and deceptive business practices
exploited the general public and caused damage well in excess of $10 billion."

Due to lack of access to the San Diego and Sacramento Superior Court files in

Madrid’s complaint against Perot System Corporation and CAISO, the Petitioner could

not determine how, in 2002, Madrid and his legal team found details that CAISO and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 90 -

its employees acquiesced and facilitated Perot's wrongful conduct by combining with

other market participants to manipulate and destabilize the electricity market.

Perot Systems Corporation was a software firm that, in 2000-2003, was owned

by Dallas millionaire Ross Perot. They designed the computer software for CAISO and

for California Power Exchange (CalAPX), both of which controlled the flow of

electricity through California’s enormous power grid in the. In 2002, one of CAISO's

collaborators in the California energy crisis fraud, Reliant Energy, provided the

California Energy Senate Committee with a 44-page step-by-step guide, crafted by

Perot Systems Corporation ., to destabilize the California electricity market and the

Western States Power Grid.

Somehow Madrid’s lawsuit against the Perot System Corporation and CAISO

found its way from the San Diego County Superior Court to the Sacramento County

Superior Court and the Court of Appeal , Third Appellate District 3DCA staffed with

corrupt officials from the California attorney general's office and the California

governor's office who were appointed as a judges and justices. Thus, Madrid’s lawsuit

was quickly taken care of and ended in same manner as the Petitioner’s 2016–2018

whistleblower complaint in the IRS WBO - IRS Claims Nos. 2016–

00748,https://www.scribd.com/document/476776874/UTC-20160323-IRS-
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 91 -

WHISTLEBLOWER-Claim-No-2016-00748 2018–012118, 2018–012139, and

2018–012141, in U.S. Tax Court, Waszczuk v. Commissioner, Memo. 2020-75 (U.S

June 4, 2020) The Petitioner addressed Madrid's 2002–2005 lawsuit against Perot

System Corporation and CAISO in his August 3, 2018 IRS Application for Award for

Original Application Form 211

https://www.scribd.com/document/476787351/20180803-UTC-20180803-IRS-

New-Application-for-Award-WBO-Claim-No-2018-012118-full-document

Also at the same time that Berg was suing President George W. Bush and the

Bush administration on Twin Towers janitor Rodriguez's behalf for conspiracy in

relation to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in January 2004, the UCOP recruited

John Lohse, former Special Agent, Associate Division Counsel, and Chief Division

Counsel for the FBI’s San Francisco division. Lohse was Napolitano’s old friend from

Arizona, where he served as a criminal prosecutor with the Maricopa County

Attorney’s Office in Phoenix. He was recruited as Director of Investigation for the

UCOP of Ethics, Compliance, and Audit Services to keep eye on the adversaries of the

extremely corrupt UCOP executives, especially the raising star in California

legislature, Member of California Assembly, Yee, a democrat from San Francisco who

was elected on December 2, 2002, and who became arch enemy for the corrupt
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 92 -

UCOP establishment

(http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/ca/state/vote/yee l/bio.html).

While Berg was suing President Bush on Rodriguez's behalf and Madrid was

suing Perot System Corporation and CAISO, Napolitano, Scott, and Mueller were

waiting for framed Hamid Hayat, a 19-year old cherry picker and resident of Lodi,

California. In 2003, Hayat had traveled to Pakistan to get married and to visit his

family; upon his return to the U.S. in May 2005, was arrested with his father, Umer

Hayat. Hayat had been framed by Mueller's October 2001 order; he was arrested and

prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Scott from the Eastern District of California. Scott was

brought to Sacramento from northern California's rural Shasta County and by

somebody's recommendation was appointed to the post of U.S. Attorney for Eastern

District of California by President George W. Bush in 2003. The completely innocent

Hayat was prosecuted U.S Attorney McGregor Scott and tried by U.S District Court

Judge in t Soviet Union Stalin-era style prosecution. He was sentenced to 24 years in

federal prison but was released from the prison after 14 years, in August 2019

https://www.scribd.com/document/476776215/UTC-20190730-HAMID-HAYAT-

JUDGMENT
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 93 -

As all this was happening, the Petitioner was not aware that his employer,

University of California since 2001 was the subject of a complaint with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (FERC Docket Nos. EL00–95–000 and

EL00–98–000). On August 2, 2000, the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDGE),

in a joint venture with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E); the Southern

California Edison Company; the people of the State of California; Bill Lockyer,

Attorney General; the California Electricity Oversight Board; and the California Public

Utilities Commission, known collectively as the "California Parties,” filed a complaint

with FERC against the Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services Into Markets

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

000). SDGE’s complaint against the major energy sellers, producers, and ancillary

services included the UC Davis Medical Center's (UCDMC) 27-MW cogeneration

plant, located in Sacramento, California, which was created in 1996 by California

Legislature Assembly Bill 1890 and which was undoubtedly used to commit state and

federal tax fraud amounting to multiple millions of dollars through the illegal

generation and sale of electrical energy, in conjunction with CAISO and CalAPX. The

complaint made by SDGE also alleged that UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant,

among other sellers, power producers, and ancillary services, charged, collected, and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 94 -

were paid unjust, unreasonable, or otherwise unlawful rates, terms, or conditions for

energy, ancillary services, transmission, or congestion in western electricity markets.

Before the 2008 presidential election Philp Jay Berg also sued Barack Obama ,

the Democratic National Committee, and the Federal Election Commission, among

others, alleging that Obama was ineligible to run for and serve as President because he

was born in Kenya and therefore is not a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution. Berg sought, in

relevant part, a declaratory judgment that Obama was ineligible, an injunction

barring Obama from running for that office, and an injunction barring the Democratic

National Committee from nominating him. Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234 (3d Cir.

2009)

III. PETITIONER’S 2018 INQUIRY WITH FBI SPECIAL AGENT IN

CHARGE SEAN RAGAN , SACRAMENTO’S FBI FIELD OFFICE

The Petitioner’s attorney, Schlein, left the Petitioner in panic in August 2018, after he

and IRS WBO in Ogden, Utah, unexpectedly received the Petitioner’s August 3, 2018

Update of the March 23, 2016 IRS Whistleblower Claim, Form 211, which included a

158-page Addendum of Claim 2016–007481, with a cover letter and 65 exhibits. The
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 95 -

IRS WBO and the Petitioner’s attorney received that update on August 6, 2018. After

Schlein read the Petitioner’s update, which also included a draft of the Petitioner’s

inquiry addressed to Sean Ragan, FBI Special Agent in Charge from the Sacramento

office, he realized that the claim was part of more a broader issue than just tax fraud

and evasion . Schlein knew that if it had only been a tax evasion crime, then it would

have been quickly resolved on way or another by the IRS WBO in Ogden Utah or

would be referred to Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service, Criminal

Investigation Department.”

The Petitioner learned that Ragan was appointed in 2017 to FBI Sacramento office

by Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. President Trump fired McCabe two days

before his eligibility for retirement. FBI Special Agent in Charge Ragan began his

career in the FBI San Francisco Division in 1996; as a result, he most likely

remembers the California electricity market deregulation of 1966–1998 and the

California energy crisis of 2000–2001. Ragan also most likely remembers the rolling

blackouts in the San Francisco area from 2000–2001. These events destabilized

California’s electricity market and cost the California economy and California

ratepayers and taxpayers approximately $40 billion that was never recovered.

Petitioner in his August 2018 inquiry with FBI Special Agent in Charge Ragan

pointed that in December 2000 working in UC Davis Medical Center as an

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 96 -

cogeneration operator in 27 MW cogeneration plant Petitioner found himself in the

middle of something which was rather unthinkable to happen in the United States of

America or California . Rolling blackouts and shortage of electricity was a total havoc

associated like a war hysteria. As a plant crew member, Petitioner was informed by

CAISO via computers about all ongoing crisis and rolling blackouts. Petitioner had his

own past experiences with the rolling blackouts and shortages of power as well as

shortages of other good in his native country of Poland—when it was ruled by a

communist government. Petitioner remember December 2000 because of his own

experiences after the mass protests in Poland in December 1970, August 1980 -

December 1981 against the communist dictatorship government. After communism

fell Poland was under transition from communist economy to free market economy.

This was a much more difficult transition than electricity market deregulation in the

State of California was. During the difficult transition Poland and other post-

communist countries liberated from Soviet domination no longer experienced rolling

blackouts or electricity shortages. This fact is the best evidence that the California

energy crisis was fruit of the uncontrolled corruption in the California legislature and

government as well as in state agencies and their “deep state” shadow the University of

California Office of the President and UC Regents office with their Headquarters in

Oakland California connected by Bay Bridge with San Francisco.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 97 -

Petitioner wrote to Ragan in 2018 that the sophisticated scheme 40 billion fraud

perhaps was sophisticated act of terror to destabilize the country by collapsing the

large Western States Power Grid by utilizing California electricity marked

deregulation by USA enemies and adversaries.

In December 2000, Petitioner listened to the TV news about the situation in

California, and he thought that Governor Gray Davis would declare a State of

Emergency and will send the National Guard to take over all power plants on the

California power grid. This did not happen.

It is still unknow today and it is still a puzzle whether 2000-2003 sophisticated

scheme of fraud and deception which was labeled “California Energy Crisis” and

which caused California economy 40 billion dollars losses was deliberate sabotage by

greedy power corporations to make billions of dollar by laundering megawatts or

whether man made” “energy crisis was coordinated act of terror synchronized with

September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on US soil with intensified terrorists attacks against

United States abroad during the time of the California electricity deregulations and

cyber-attack on the California Power Grid by greedy power corporation which used

Perot Corporation software to make sophisticate scheme 40 billion dollars fraud works.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 98 -

Whether foreigner terrorist network or foreign power penetrated or infiltrated the

California Independent System Operator (CAISO ) California Power Exchange

(CalPX), University of California and California government during the process

California electricity market deregulation of 1996-1998 to destabilize the California

and US economy by manipulating the electricity market in Western states power grid

is the question which should be asked and answered by FBI . The attack on the

California power grid never was never investigated by FBI which was led by Director

Robert Swan Mueller III in his tenure with FBI of September 2001- September 2013.

A 40 billion dollars loss by California economy and California rate payers and

taxpayers is not a small change but enormous amount of money which were

disappeared and were never recovered.

It is hard to find out whether the CAISO personnel which was given to maintain

75 % of the California electric grid went through the criminal background check in

1996-1998.

If the FBI would read my Application for Award with IRS than will find out

that the artificially created “California Energy Crisis “ became a ‘Gold mine “ for

California Attorney General staff “ for over two decades, so far for AG Bill Lockyer ,

Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris and today Xavier Becerra . Millions of dollars of
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 99 -

kickbacks tax free were funneled to nobody knows where and who got the money

from settlements which were signed by California Parties with California Attorney

General in charge of the money .When in 1997 during the labor dispute about unpaid

overtime Petitioner reported the Destec Energy Inc. $240, 000, 0000 fraud against

PG&E ratepayers and California taxpayers , PG&E no needed AG Bill Lockyer’s

Energy Task Force to recover millions of dollars from the Destec Energy .

From the Petitioner’s update of his IRS whistleblower claim , attached exhibits,

and the draft of the inquiry to FBI Special Agent in Charge Ragan , Petitioner’s

attorney from https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/ Mark Schlein most likely

quickly figured out that the State of Emergency declared on January 17, 2001

California Governor Gray Davis and which last almost three full years was

closely linked with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, launched by terrorists

who had been harbored in the San Diego area in California since May 2000. In

May 2000 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) the largest public utilities

company in California signed with Petitioner confidential Settlement -Agreement

which was breached by PG&E shortly after was executed . PG & E was a key

player in the sophisticated scheme 40 billion dollars fraud of 2001-2003 and

thereafter as part of extorsion money group led by California Attorneys General ,

 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 100 -

Bill Lockyer , Jerry Brow, Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra . The group was

named “California Parties “

CHAPTER FIVE

FROM THE SOPHISTICATED SCHEME OF FORTY BILLION FRAUD

TITLED ‘CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS OF 2001-2003”, WITCH HUNT AND
PROSECUTION OF LODI RESIDENT HAMID HAYAT AND THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA SENATOR LELAND YEE TO WITCH HUNT AND THE
IMPEACHEMENT OF THE 45TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA DONALD JOHN TRUMP

I. WITCH HUNT, PROSECUTION AND INCARCARATION OF LODI

RESIDENT HAMID HAYAT
Lodi resident 19-year-old Hamid Hayat is the most severe case in this chain of

events beside the Raymond Chow from San Francisco who was not a target but a

collateral damage in political prosecution of Senator Leland Yee. Raymond Chow was

sentenced to life in prison due to conspiracy between Robert Mueller , U.S Attorney

from Northern District of California Melinda Haag and U.S District Court Judge from

San Francisco , Charles Breyer who is brother of U.S Supreme Court Justice Stephen

Breyer . United States Of America v. Kwok Cheung Chow, A.K.A. Raymond Chow,

A.K.A. Shrimp Boy, A.K.A. Ha Jai., Case No. 3:14–Cr–00196–CRB.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 101 -

Hayat is from Lodi, California, where the Petitioner has lived with his

family since 1989. In October 2001, just one month after 9/11 terrorist attack

Hayat was framed by FBI Director Robert Swan Mueller III order; he was arrested

and prosecuted by Napolitano’s friend U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott from

Eastern district of California The completely innocent Hayat was prosecuted and

tried using a Soviet Union Stalin-era style show trial for political opponents

.Hayat was sentenced in 2007 to 24 years in federal prison but was released after

14 years, in August 2019 by the same Federal Court District Judge Garland E.

Burrell , Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garland E. Burrell Jr.who

sentenced 19 years old Hayat to 24 years in Federal prison .

Judge Burrell was appointed to the bench by President George H.W Bush in

March 1992 , relatively at same time as President Bill Clinton appointed Judge

Emmet G. Sullivan https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/content/district-judge-

emmet-g-sullivan to the bench in U.S District Court for District of Columbia

(Washington D.C ) where the General Michael T. Flynn case is still pending .

General Flynn was prosecuted by DAG Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel

Robert Swan Mueller III hit squad .

https://www.scribd.com/document/464100833/01-29-2020-Gen-Flynn-s-

Motion-to-Dismiss-for-Egregious-Government-Misconduct
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 102 -

Hayat's 24-year prison sentence destroyed him and his family. This was

described perfectly by Honorable A. Wallace Tashima in his dissent opinion, which

documented in a United States Court of Appeals Opinion, filed on March 13, 2013

(Case No. D.C. CR–05–00240–GEB, USA v. Hamid Hayat, Opinion No. 07–10457).

Judge Tashima understood that Hayat was sent to prison for 24 years for the same

reason that, as a child, he, his family, and thousands of other Japanese-Americans were

forced into internment camps during World War II by the U.S. government. Because

the petitioner, too, was forced into an internment camp by the communist Polish

government in 1981, the Petitioner shares his feelings for Judge Tashima's dissent

opinion, which viewed the brutal punishment of Hayat and the destruction of his

family as a show trial, similar to Soviet Union Stalin -era prosecution.

The Petitioner noticed that the opinion was filed almost four years after the case

was argued on appeal on June 10, 2009. Tashima sharply disagreed with two other

circuit judges and with Napolitano's old friend from Arizona, Judge Mary M.

Schroeder, as well as with Judge Berzon from San Francisco, who denied Hayat his

freedom. Judge Tashima expressed his feeling about Hayat's prosecution and

incarceration with the following words:

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 103 -

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

consequences of the government's use of anticipatory prosecution as a weapon
in the 'war on terrorism'."
On appeal, Judge Tashima recognized the problem in Hayat's case and basically

stated in his dissent opinion that the case was a total hoax, fabricated by government

agents. Judge Tashima recognized that Hayat became a sacrificial lamb and that his

24-year prison term, delivered by Judge Garland E. Burrell on Hayat's 25th birthday on

September 10, 2007, had a different purpose other than to serve justice.

From 2001–2007, Hayat was the most vulnerable subject that the FBI could find

in the western Hemisphere; he was preyed on by U.S. Attorney Scott. In the aftermath

of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Mueller, Scott turned Hayat into a scarecrow and

a sacrificial lamb in order to divert public attention from the resurfacing white collar

crimes in the state and federal courts and in relation to the very sophisticated fraud

scheme entitled the "California energy crisis" precisely coordinated with the

September 11, 2001 terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda’s thugs trained for over one years for

attack in San Diego , California . (May 2000- September 2001)

Is was no Al-Qaeda’s terrorist network of sleeper cells in Lodi communities and

neighborhoods. The prosecution and destruction of a 19-year-old cherry picker Hamid

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 104 -

Hayat’s life and other people lives was part of Mueller ‘s combative military mentality

he acquired during Vietnam War.

“ Mueller had originally considered making the Marines his career,

but he explained later that he found non-combat life in the Corps to
be unexciting” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert Mueller
If any Al-Qaeda terrorist network sleeper cells could be found in California, they

would be at the UCOP Headquarter in Oakland, CA and at the UC Davis and UC San

Diego campuses which most likely helped Al-Qaeda terrorists from May 2000 to

September 11, 2001

Hamid Hayat was released after 14 years of incarceration in federal prison in

August 2019, by the same judge who sentenced him (United States v. Hayat, Case No.

2:05–CR–240–GEB (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2019

https://www.scribd.com/document/476776215/UTC-20190730-HAMID-HAYAT-

JUDGMENT

II. THE WHISTLE BLOWER DONALD TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT

OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

According to Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories),
"Trump was the most prominent promoter of birther conspiracy
theories. This elevated Trump's political profile in the years leading
up to his successful 2016 presidential campaign. According to
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 105 -

political scientists John Sides, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck,

Trump 'became a virtual spokesperson for the 'birther' movement.
The strategy worked: when Trump flirted with running for
president in 2011, his popularity was concentrated among the
sizable share of Republicans who thought that President Obama
was foreign born or a Muslim or both.'
In 2010, at the urging of Donald Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen,
the National Enquirer began promoting a potential Trump
presidential campaign, and with Cohen's involvement, the tabloid
began questioning Obama's birthplace and citizenship.[144]
In March 2011, during an interview on Good Morning America,
Donald Trump said he was seriously considering running for
president, that he was a 'little' skeptical of Obama's citizenship, and
that someone who shares this view should not be so quickly
dismissed as an 'idiot' (as Trump considers the term 'birther' to be
'derogatory'. Trump added, 'Growing up no one knew him', a claim
ranked Pants-on-Fire by Politifact. Later, Trump appeared on The
View repeating several times that 'I want him [Obama] to show his
birth certificate.' He speculated that 'there [was] something on that
birth certificate that [Obama] doesn't like'."

(For further information, see Donald Trump § Political career up to 2015).

Trump's allegation about President Obama’s birth certificate and his eligibility

to be President of the United States was a problem for President Obama, Vice

President Biden, or others serving in the Obama administration. The concern for

Obama, Biden, and others, was Trump’s 2010 announcement of his desire to become

President of the United States and worries about what else he would be look for, in
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 106 -

addition to Obama's birthplace, with his In 2010–2011, Trump, with enormous wealth

and popularity and his desire to be President, by looking into Obama's birth certificate,

fell into completely different category of whistleblower than Rodriguez and his

attorney, Berg, who sued President George W. Bush and his administration for

conspiracy in relation to the September 11 terrorist attacks. These attacks took place at

the same time as a cyber-attack by greedy power corporations, including CAISO and

Enron and the California government and the UCOP, on the California and Western

States Power Grid from May 2001–November 2003, using the sophisticated software

produced by Perot System Corporation. Trump also differed from whistleblowers like

La Mesa mayor, Art Madrid, who was on track to uncover the secrets of the

sophisticated $40-billion fraud scheme by suing Perot System Corporation and

CAISO. The corrupt judges, justices, and courts prevailed in Art Madrid v. Perot

System Corporation and the truth was covered up. Finally, Trump fell into different

category of whistleblower than Senator Yee, who had similar ideas to Trump to drain

the swamp in the UCOP and the California government, and, at the same time, had a

desire to become mayor of San Francisco. Instead, Yee was framed by the unofficially

appointed in August 2010 Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III in 2010. Senator

Yee with others were rounded up by Mueller’ s FBI subordinates from California and

they were prosecuted by Mueller’s friend and his former assistant U.S Attorney
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 107 -

Malinda Haag from Northern District of California , San Francisco Division . Leland

Yee in February 2016 was sentenced to five years in federal prison by U.S District

Court Judge Charles Breyer in Soviet Union Stalin era show trial. Judge Charles

Breyer is a brother of Justice of the Supreme Court Stephen Breyer.

III. HOW THE PETITIONER VIEWS DONALD TRUMP

The Petitioner has lived in the U.S. since November 1982. Throughout that time

Trump has been quite popular in pop culture and was even awarded a star on the

Hollywood Walk of Fame

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald Trump filmography). Bill and Hillary

Clinton attended Trump’s wedding with Slovenian beauty Melania Knauss at the Mar-

a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Jan. 22, 2005. To the Petitioner, Trump was

an example of the American dream (https://www.whitehouse.gov/people/donald-j-

trump/). He was the owner of the Miss Universe and Miss U.S.A. pageants and a

frequent guest on David Letterman's and Regis Philbin's shows. He even sang

“Rudolph” with his friend for life, Regis,

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usyHpndfF9Y). The Petitioner is an ordinary

person who worked his whole life operating powerplants in his native country of

Poland, as well in four different states: Texas, Washington, Florida, and California. He
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 108 -

would never have imagined that, at the age of 70, Trump would be a major contender

in the presidential race, given such a glamorous past. He also could not imagine that

Trump would be maliciously labeled a fascist, racist, Nazi, KKK member, white

supremacist supporter, Russian spy, Jew-hater, anti-black, or anti-Semite, given that he

had a Jewish daughter and son-in-law, Jewish grandchildren, and many Jewish friends

and employees in his corporation, to whom he provides good wages and a good

standard of living. Nazi Third Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels’s style Soviet

“Pravda” propaganda aimed at Trump was at an unprecedented level in all forms of

mass and social media, with a few exceptions. The hosts of late-night TV shows

competed daily to see who could be more disgusting in dehumanizing Trump. The

mentally unstable Kathy Griffin s holding Trump's severed head, and Speaker of the

House Nancy Pelosi tore up Trump's State of the Union speech. Such hateful Griffin’s

and Pelosi behavior and their interpretation of the First Amendment was like a Speaker

of the House Nancy Pelosi’s invitation to others to destroy Trump his family and their

wealth and any and all means.

IV. DONALD TRUMP VERSA WITCH HUNT AIMED AT

CALIFORNIA SENATOR LELAND YEE

President Obama, as well as appointees in his administration by former Presidents

Clinton and Gorge W. Bush, took very seriously Donald Trump’s 2010
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 109 -

relationship with National Enquirer, which began promoting Trump’s desire to

became U.S. President. With Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen's, involvement, the

tabloid began questioning Obama's birthplace and citizenship. It is not difficult to

notice that that before 2015 nobody, especially leftist mass media or social media,

called Trump a racist, white supremacist, KKK supporter, Nazi, fascist, Jew-hater,

anti-Semite, or anti-black. That Trump was a most prominent promoter of

conspiracy theories regarding President Obama's birthplace and birth certificate

was not big deal during his multiple interviews with shows like Good Morning

America or The View.

In 2010, on other side of United States, in San Francisco, California, there

was an obstruction to former President George W. Bush’s appointee FBI Director,

Robert Swan Mueller III , in his preparations for an FBI operation to quash

permanently Trump’s desire to enter the political arena. One of the most popular

California democratic legislators, Chinese-born Senator Leland Yee, who endorsed

Obama on February 1, 2008 (https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2008/02/01/with-

edwards-out-yee-backs-obama/), became the main obstruction to FBI Director

Mueller’s a witch hunt aimed at Trump and his family. Although California was a

best place for Mueller’s witch hunt against Trump, Yee’s activities would

eventually negatively impact Mueller’s efforts.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 110 -

Senator Yee was elected to the California Assembly in 2002 and to the California

Senate in December 2006. His desire was to become mayor of San Francisco in

2010. He was also a whistleblower senator who targeted the political swamp in the

State of California. In his senatorial whistleblowing, Yee’s agenda focused on the

corruption of the UC Regents and the University of California Office the President

(UCOP), which were directly interconnected with California and federal

government agencies (https://archive.senate.ca.gov/member-archives/2013-

14/leland-y-yee-d-district-8). Senator Yee’s utmost goal was to root out

uncontrolled corruption in the UC administration and put the break on the

uncontrolled business of UC executives that was unrelated to education as well as

on the executives’ lavish spending of public funds. Billionaire banker Richard

Blum, who was U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s husband, was one of the members

Board of UC Regents He was appointed to the Board of Regents of UC in 2002,

by California Governor, Gray Davis, who was recalled from office and was

directly responsible, with others, including but not limited to Enron Corporation,

California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and UC Regents, for instigating

personal gain in the May 2000, sophisticated $40-billion fraud scheme, known as

the “California energy crisis.”

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 111 -

Trumps’ fate was decided by President Barak Obama, Vice President Biden,

FBI Director Robert Mueller, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano,

Congresswoman Pelosi, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein her husband Richard Blum

(billionaire and UC Regent) U.S Senator Barbara Boxer, California Lt. Governor

Gavin Newsom, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris and Mayor of San

Francisco Gavin Newsom most likely in May 2010 . The orchestrated witch hunt

aimed at Trump coincided with the 2010–2016 witch hunt aimed at California's

most popular legislator, democratic Senator Leland Yee from San Francisco.

In Plan A to destroy 67-year old Senator Yee, perpetrators in the witch hunt

devised the heinous plan to kill him in order to end his anti-corruption mission and

crusade aimed at UCOP cronies and for his desire to became Mayor of San Francisco

and later Secretary of State Yee ‘s ideas MAKE CALIFORNIA GREAT AGAIN cost

him five years in federal prison and incarceration of other 25 people rounded up by

Robert Mueller and Melinda Haag and attached to legitimize witch hunt .

V. THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2010, PG&E NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

EXPLOSION IN SENATOR YEE’S SENATORIAL DISTRICT, SAN
BRUNO’S CRESTMOOR NEIGHBORHOOD, IN WHICH EIGHT
PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND MORE THAN 50 OTHERS WERE
INJURED
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 112 -

On September 9, 2010, just after Robert Mueller’s friend Melinda Haag

was appointed U.S Attorney for Northern District of California perpetrators

orchestrated an explosion in a natural gas pipeline that was maintained by Pacific

Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in Senator Yee’s senatorial district, San

Bruno’s Crestmoor neighborhood. In this blast, eight people were killed and more

than 50 were injured. Thirty-eight homes were destroyed and 17 more were

damaged. Senator Yee survived the blast because he was not there, but he did not

survive the witch hunt ordered by Mueller and most likely approved by President

Obama, who had been endorsed by Senator Yee in February 2008. During this San

Bruno Explosion the fire chief in San Bruno was Dennis Haag, the person with the

same name as a U.S Attorney Melinda Haag who witch hunted and prosecuted

Yee together with Mueller . Petitioner mentioning this fact but he does not does

not know whether Dennis Haag is related to Melinda Haag. On October 14, 2010,

it was announced that members of an independent review panel would investigate

the explosion. The five panel members convened in person for the first time on

November 18, 2010. Former UC Davis Chancellor, Larry Vanderhoof who was

indirect Petitioner’s superior and who had resigned in 2009 or removed from the

post by Senator Feinstein’s husband became a chairman of the explosion review

panel assigned by California Public Utilities Commission . Since 1998, in addition

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 113 -

to his duties as chancellor, Vanderhoef oversaw the illegal production and sale of

electricity at the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant and laundering of millions of

dollars tax free cash made by illegal electricity production.

Petitioner was employed as an operator in the above mentioned plant from

June 1999 until his abrupt removal from the plant in March 2007 by the order of

Senator Feinstein’s husband and UC Regent Richard Blum. It is well documented

that California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) executives covered up this

illegal power production and sale and the related tax fraud. Vanderhoef was a close

friend of long time California and U.S politician , U.S. Congressman John

Garamendi from Davis , https://www.scribd.com/document/476783916/UTC-

20160831-Inquiry-with-U-S-Congressman-John-Garamendi-Office

Another three members of Independent Review Panel in the deadly explosion

in San Bruno also caught the Petitioner’s

attention:https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC Public Website/Content

/Safety/Natural Gas Pipeline/News/Final%20Report.pdf

Karl S. Pister, Chair of the Governing Board of the California Council on

Science and Technology; Chancellor Emeritus, University of California (UC) Santa

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 114 -

Cruz; Dean and Professor of Engineering Emeritus, UC Berkeley. Pister was a long-

time employee of UC.

On its property, UC Berkley has a cogeneration plant, similar to the UC Davis

Medical Center (UCDMC) 27-MW cogeneration plant, powered by an identical

General Electric 23-MW LM2500 gas turbine. It was commissioned in 1998, at about

the same time as the UCDMC plant. The Petitioner toured Berkeley Plant in 1998 or

early 1999, after a job interview there., the facility building itself is owned by UC,

but the newer equipment, including the gas turbine and heat recovery system, is

owned by Delta Power. The plant is operated by General Electric and sells steam

directly to the UC Berkeley campus. The electricity should power the campus

directly, but in actuality, it is sold to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). This

is very unusual business for a university.

Paula Rosput Reynolds, President and Chief Executive Officer, Prefer West,

LLC; former Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of AGL Resources.

Reynolds was the former chair of a Fortune-500 energy company, AGL Resources,

whose holdings included natural gas lines on the eastern seaboard. Seventeen years

ago, she was an officer of an affiliate of PG&E called the PG&E Gas Transmission
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 115 -

Company. The natural gas pipe that exploded in San Bruno on September 9, 2010,

was maintained by PG&E.

Jan Schori, Counsel to the law firm Downey Brand LLP; former General

Manager for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and. During her tenure with

the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD), the UCDMC 27-MW

cogeneration plant illegally sold power from October 1999–November 2008. On May

31, 2012, SMUD signed a power sale agreement with UC Regents to resume the

illegal sale of power from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant. The power sale

agreement, which was worth millions of tax-free dollars, was never utilized, because

on May 31, 2012, a group of thugs, who were appointed by the UCOP and UC

Regents mafia , failed to kill the Petitioner in an ill-orchestrated provocation

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

SMUD-pdf.

On behalf of SMUD, Schori signed a January 5, 2007 settlement-agreement

that was submitted by the Automated Power Exchange (APX) to the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) on that same date. The settlement-agreement was

approved by FERC on March 1, 2007; UC Regents and the UCDMC 27-MW

cogeneration plant were excluded from the settlement, and participants in the fraud,
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 116 -

including California Independent System Operators (CAISO) executives and

managers and their collaborators, were unscathed. Shortly after the settlement was

approved, FERC's leadership changed (FERC Docket Nos. EL00–95–000 and EL00–

98–000). The approval of the settlement, under the pressure of intimidation and

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

plant to continue their fraudulent activity; thus, the perpetrators in this fraud viewed

the Petitioner’s presence in the plant as a threat to their plan to resume the illegal

generation and sale of power in full scale . After at least $130,000,000 of fraud was

swept under the rug by FERC, the Petitioner became the subject of a 14-year ruthless

witch hunt, ordered by the owners of the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant. This

witch hunt, which is ongoing, has devastated the Petitioner, his family, and others. It

has also caused the owners of the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant to lose

approximately $ 100,000,00–$200,000,000 in surplus power sales.

On December 22, 2010, just three months after the September 9, 2010 deadly

natural gas pipeline explosion Senator Leland Yee’s senatorial district, San Bruno’s

Crestmoor neighborhood, which should take of Senator Leland Yee but instead eight

people were killed and more than 50 others were injured, UCDMC plant operator, 41-

year-old Todd Goerlich, was found dead, hanging from a tree in Rancho Cordova Park

near Sacramento. Goerlich was the Petitioner’s replacement after he was subjected to a
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 117 -

witch hunt and abruptly removed from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant in

April 2007. At the time of the explosion, Gorelich became too curious as to why the

Petitioner was removed from the UCDMC cogeneration plant, how much money he

received by the January 31, 2009 settlement-agreement, and why he was being witch

hunted. Two days before Goerlich was hung, the Petitioner spoke with him by phone.

On the day he was hung, his two coworkers waited for him to at ARCO Arena in

Sacramento, where they were planning to watch a Kings basketball game. Although he

had tickets for the game, he never showed up. A few days after his death, his

coworkers from the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration power plant received a 14% pay

raise. This occurred in the middle of the financial crisis, during a time when there were

riots on UC campuses, when employees were being furloughed, and when there were

no other pay raises in the entire UC system. Georlich left behind his girlfriend and one-

year-old daughter, Olivia, who never got chance to know her father. That same year,

Kamala Harris from San Francisco was elected (appointed by her sponsors )

California Attorney General and Melinda Haag was appointed U.S. Attorney for the

Northern District of California, in order to witch hunt and prosecute Senator Yee and

later to hunt down Donald Trump.

VI. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA -SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION CRIMINAL CASE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, A.K.A.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 118 -

RAYMOND CHOW, A.K.A. SHRIMP BOY, A.K.A. HA JAI, CASE NO.

3:14–CR–00196–CRB

On March 24,, 2014, two weeks after the Petitioner informed University of

California Office of the President (UCOP) Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg

about University of California (UC) Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Duruisseau’s

interview with Sac Cultural Hub, in relation to unlawful operation of UC Davis

Medical Center (UCDMC) 27-MW cogeneration plant, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag

from the Northern District of California (NC), San Francisco Division, filed a criminal

complaint in that district's court against California Senator Leland Yee and twenty 25

other people rounded up by FBI . Senator Leland Yee who was from the 8th Senatorial

District, which includes San Francisco and San Mateo County, had served as senator

from December 4, 2006–March 28, 2014. The 241-page complaint included a 137-

page affidavit from Special FBI Agent Emmanuel V. Pascua in support of the

complaint. The complaint was initially sealed on the same day that it was filed, but it

was unsealed two days later, on March 26, 2014, by District Court Judge Nathanael

Cousins, who was initially assigned to the case

The Petitioner learned that Judge Cousins studied abroad in Novosibirsk,

Russia, and at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, in addition to his

education in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathanael Cousins).

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 119 -

The Petitioner also learned that prior to his appointment to the bench in the Federal

District Court in San Francisco on July 5, 2011, Cousins was a partner at Kirkland and

Ellis, a Chicago-based professional law corporation; other prominent attorneys of that

firm include Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh; former White House

counsel, Neil Eggleston; former appellate court judge, Robert Bork; Clinton-era

special counsel, Ken Starr; and various administration officials of President Donald

Trump, including former National Security Adviser, John R. Bolton; Attorney

General, William Barr; former Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta; and Secretary of

Health and Human Services, Alex Azar

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkland %26 Ellis). From 2008 until just prior to

his appointment to the Federal District Court on July 5, Cousins was employed as

an assistant U.S. attorney in the San Jose and San Francisco divisions. This means that

from August 2010 to July 2011, Judge Cousins was a subordinate of Melinda Haag,

who filed criminal charges against Senator Yee on March 24, 2014, in the U.S. NC

District Court in San Francisco. The Petitioner would like to emphasize that in August

2010, Haag was appointed as a U.S. Attorney for NC in San Francisco, where she had

previously worked with Robert Swan Mueller III from 1999 to 2001. Mueller was

appointed FBI Director by President George W. Bush in September 2001, just a few

days before the deadly terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, which claimed more
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 120 -

than 3,000 innocent lives. In May 2011, President Obama extended Mueller’s ten-year

statutory term as FBI Director for another two years, to coincide with Janet

Napolitano’s planned arrival at UC in September and Mueller’s at Stanford University

in September 2013. In May 2011, the Petitioner, an employee of UCDMC, became the

subject of a malicious witch hunt, which took place during 2011–2012; also in May

2011, Senator Yee became the target of a witch hunt, organized by a gang appointed

by Mueller, Napolitano, Haag, and Senator Feinstein husband, Richard Blum.

Following Haag's March 24, 2014 criminal complaint, on March 26, 2014,

Senator Yee’s office in the Sacramento Capitol was raided by FBI agents.

FBI arrested Yee to derail his 2014 bid for the California Secretary of State . Senator

Yee was arrested to and charged with six counts of depriving the public of honest

services and one count of conspiracy of traffic guns without license. Senator Yee was

released on $500,000 bail. Haag's 241-page criminal complaint included the 137-page

affidavit of Special FBI agent Emmanuel V. Pascua in support of the complaint. It was

lodged in San Francisco's U.S. NC District Court as United States of America v. Kwok

Cheung Chow, a.k.a. Raymond Chow, a.k.a. Shrimp Boy, a.k.a. Ha Jai, Case No.

3:14–cr–00196-CRB. It is noted that Senator Yee's name does not appear in this title,

but Yee is included as a defendant, together with:

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 121 -

1. KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, a.k.a. Raymond Chow, a.k.a. Shrimp Boy,

a.k.a. Ha Jai. Chow is a 54-year-old Chinese citizen from San Francisco,

California. Chow was former gang member, felon former offender who

turned his life around. Chow could be compared to Jon Ponder, a

convicted bank robber who was fully pardoned President Donald Trump

during the Republican National Convention which took place in August

2020.

Chow has o been portrayed in many Chinese newspapers as being

involved in community affairs, and he has been photographed posing with

local politicians and other community leaders including and not limited to

Senator Leland Yee and present California Governor Gavin Newsom .

For example, in August of 2006, Chow was photographed holding a

certificate of honor from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for the

community service of the CKT. In 2012, Senator Dianne Feinstein

recognized Chow as a former offender who had become an asset to the

community. Also, in 2012, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano honored Chow

with a change agent award. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee recognized

Chow’s willingness to give back to the community. Chow had been

speaking with children, warning them of the dangers of alcohol and drugs
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 122 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/476811596/UTC-U-S-Senator-

Dianne-Feinstein-and-Raymond-Chow

2. GEORGE NIEH. Chow’s driver Conspiracy to Traffic and Trafficking

in Contraband Cigarettes

3. LELAND YIN YEE, California State senator. Senator Yee from San

Francisco, California. Senator Yee represented California legislative

District 8, which encompasses San Mateo County and part of San

Francisco County. Yee had no criminal history. Conspiracy to Deal

Firearms Without a License and to Illegally Import Firearms.

4. KEITH JACKSON. Keith Jackson works as a political consultant for

Senator Leland Yee and had no known criminal convictions. Charges:

Wire Fraud of Honest Services Conspiracy to Deal Firearms Without a

License and to Illegally Import Firearms) Murder for Hire.

5. KEVIN SIU, a.k.a. Dragon Tin Loong Siu from Daly City, California.

Siu had two prior arrests; one for prostitution and another related to

loitering to commit prostitution.

6. ALAN CHIU. Chiu had no known criminal history .Close associate of

Chow. Charges: Money Laundering.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 123 -

7. KONGPHET CHANTHAVONG, a.k.a. Joe Chanthavong. Chanthavong

is a Thai citizen who resides in San Francisco, California. U.S.

Immigration records show that Chanthavong has an outstanding

warrant of deportation; however, country conditions preclude

deportation. Charges: Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a

Drug Trafficking Crime.

8. XIAO CHENG MEI. MEI has no known criminal history. Mei was a

close associate of Chow and Nieh. Charges: Potential business associate

regarding marijuana cultivation and distribution.

9. BRANDON JAMELLE JACKSON. Brandon Jackson is a 28-year-old

U.S. citizen from San Francisco, California. Brandon Jackson had no

criminal convictions. Associate of Keith Jackson and the associate of

Marlon Sullivan. Charges: Involved in a murder for hire conspiracy,

gun trafficking, and a drug trafficking conspiracy.

10.MARION DARRELL SULLIVAN. Sullivan is a 29-year-old U.S.

citizen from Oakland, California. Sullivan worked as a sports agent. He

had no known criminal convictions. Associate of Keith and Brandon

Jackson. Charges: Murder for hire conspiracy, gun trafficking, a drug

trafficking conspiracy, and the sale of fraudulent credit cards.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 124 -

11.RINN ROEUN. Roeun is a 30-year-old U.S. legal resident from San

Francisco, California. Roeun's criminal history includes multiple state

felony arrests as a juvenile with no disposition on record. Charges: Roeun

was involved in selling multiple firearms to a Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) UCE and conspired to commit a murder for hire

for an FBI UCE.

12.ANDY LI. Li is a 60-year-old U.S. citizen from Daly City, California.

Lim had no known criminal record. Lim was an associate of Senator

Yee and Keith Jackson. Charges: Conspiracy to Deal Firearms

Without a License and to Illegally Import Firearms).

13.LESLIE YUN. Yun is a 42-year-old U.S. citizen from Oakland,

California. Yun was federally convicted on three counts of forgery in

January 1996. Close associate of Chow and was a director of the CKT in

a 2012 tax filing. Charges: Involved in conducting money laundering

transactions, purchasing purportedly stolen cigarettes, and is known to

traffic marijuana.

14.YAT WAH PAU. Pau is a 55-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from

Oakland, California. Pau has no known criminal convictions. Pau was a

director of the CKT in a 2012 tax filing. Pau is a long-time CKT member
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 125 -

and an associate of Chow. Charges :Involved in conducting money

laundering transactions and purchasing purportedly stolen cigarettes.

15.JANE MIAO XHEN LIANG. Jane Liang is a 35-year-old U.S. citizen,

from Daly City, California. Jane Liang had no criminal history.

Charges: Jane Liang has facilitated a purported stolen liquor

transaction with an FBI UCE.

16.TINA YAO GUI LIANG. Tina Liang is a 39-year-old U.S. citizen, from

Concord, California. Tina Liang has no known criminal history. She

was an associate of Chow. Chow directly introduced Tina Liang to an

FBI UCE to conduct criminal activity. Charges: Participated in a

purportedly stolen liquor transaction with an FBI UCE and is

believed to be involved in cultivating and distributing marijuana.

17. BRYAN TILTON. Tilton is a 37-year-old U.S. citizen from Daly City,

California. Tilton has no known criminal convictions. He was an

associate of Tina and Jane Liang. Charges: Tilton participated in a

purportedly stolen liquor transaction with an FBI UCE and is believed to

be involved in cultivating and distributing marijuana.

18.HUAN MING MA. Ma is a 29-year-old U.S. legal resident from San

Francisco, California. Ma has no known criminal convictions. Charges:.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 126 -

Ma facilitated the purchase of purportedly stolen liquor with an FBI

UCE

19.HON KEUNG SO, 55-year-old U.S. legal resident from Alameda,

California, own the New Asian Restaurant in San Francisco, California.

So was convicted by the state of driving under the influence (DUI) in

February 2003. Charges: He is known to host many CKT events at the

New Asia Restaurant and has purchased purportedly stolen liquor from

an FBI UCE.

20.NORGE RONALD MASTRANGELO. Mastrangelo is a 37-year-old

U.S. citizen from San Francisco, California. Mastrangelo's criminal

history includes a state misdemeanor conviction for criminal

possession of a controlled substance Charges : Involved in money

laundering with an FBI UCE.

21.ALBERT NHINGSAVATH. Nhingsavath is a 32-year-old U.S. citizen,

from San Francisco, California. Nhingsavath is a close associate of Li and

Chanthavong. Charges; Engaged in money laundering, the proceeds of

which are believed to be from illegal drug trafficking, and conspired

to distribute controlled substances with an FBI UCE.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 127 -

22. SERGE GEE. Gee is a 28-year-old U.S. citizen from Cupertino,

California. Gee's criminal history includes battery as a juvenile with

no disposition. Charges : Involved in money laundering with an FBI

UCE and in the distribution of illegal drugs.

23.ELAINE XIU YING LING LIANG. Elaine Liang is a 51-year-old U.S.

legal resident, from Cupertino, California. Elaine Liang's criminal

history is a DUI state misdemeanor. Charges : Elaine Liang was

involved in money laundering with an FBI UCE.

24.GARY KWONG YIU CHEN. Chen is a 25-year-old U.S. citizen, from

San Francisco, California. Chen has no criminal convictions. Chen is an

associate of Gee and Elaine Liang. Charges: Chen was involved with

money laundering with an FBI UCE, believed to be from illegal drug

trafficking, and a conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs.

25.ANTHONY JOHN LAI. Lai is a 26-year-old U.S. citizen, believed to

reside in Daly City, California. Lai is an associate of Gee and Elaine

Liang. Lai has no known criminal convictions. As detailed further

below, Lai was involved in money laundering with an FBI UCE, the

proceeds of which are believed to be from illegal drug trafficking, and in

conspiring to distribute illegal drugs.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 128 -

26.WILSON SY LIM. Lim is a 26-year-old U.S. citizen from Daly City,

California. Lim is an associate of Gee and Elaine Liang. Lim has no

known criminal convictions. Charges Lim was involved in money

laundering with an FBI UCE, the proceeds of which are believed to be

from illegal drug trafficking, and in conspiring to distribute illegal drugs.

The described above criminal complaint filed by U.S. Attorney Haag in the U.S.

NC District Court in San Francisco shows 26 people, mostly Chinese immigrants or

U.S. citizens of Chinese descent without previous any law violations or criminal

convictions, including popular California legislator, Senator Yee. These people were

rounded up by the FBI and prosecuted, like people in the Soviet Union during Stalin's

era or like Jews in Nazi’s -occupied Europe.

The FBI and the UCOP gang, backed by the U.S. Attorney Office with Haag in

charge could not label Senator Yee as a Nazi, a fascist, a KKK sympathizer,

Islamophobic, a Jew hater, etc., because he is a Chinese-born naturalized U.S. citizen.

Senator Yee was attached to other people of Chinese descent, most of them without

criminal history or law violations, to make him looks and others like a Chinese

gangster from the movie about San Francisco's Chinatown.

 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 129 -

Furthermore, the above-described prosecution of Senator Yee and 25 others was

repeated in a similar scenario, to prosecute and throw Donald Trump into prison. The

only difference is that, in that merciless witch hunt, aimed at Trump, the Chinese

immigrants and American citizens of Chinese descent or Senator Assistants and

staffers were replaced by George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign

policy adviser; Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair; Rick Gates, a former

Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner; Roger Stone;

U.S. General Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser; 13 Russian

nationals and three Russian companies; Richard Pinedo, a Californian with a theft

charge; Alex van der Zwaan , attorney associated with Paul Manafort ; Rick Gates,

who was charged with making false statements to the FBI; Konstantin Kilimnik,

longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates; 12 Russian GRU officers charged

with the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016; Michael Cohen,

Trump’s former lawyer; Roger Stone, Trump's longtime advisor; and Sam Patten,

Republican operative and lobbyist.

VII. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC

COMPANY, CASE NO. 3:14–CR–00175–WHA, FILED APRIL 1, 2014,
INDICTMENT COUNTS 1–12: 49 U.S.C. § 60123—NATURAL GAS
PIPELINE SAFETY ACT
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 130 -

Re: The September 9, 2010, PG&E natural gas pipeline explosion in Senator
Yee’s senatorial district, San Bruno’s Crestmoor neighborhood, in which eight
people were killed and more than 50 others were injured

In 2010–2011, Janet Napolitano, Robert Mueller and Melinda Haag on behalf

of the California political swamp and UCOP white collar criminals, wanted to make

sure that Yee, the most popular senator in California, especially in San Francisco and

in Senatorial District 8, would lose the 2011 San Francisco Mayoral Election and

would not became a Mayor of San Francisco and he would be substituted by Ed Lee.

Lee was the guy who chosen to be Mayor of San Francisco by U.S. Senator Feinstein ,

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris and

Mayor of San Francisco than California Lt. Governor (today Governor) Gavin

Newsom. All from San Francisco.

Speaker Pelosi and Senator Feinstein together with Congressman Adam Schiff

led the effort to impeach President Trump's in 2019–2020 impeachment after ill

orchestrated unsuccessful Russia collusion witch hunt hoax to remove Donald Trump

from office and prosecute him. Witch Hunt was led and conducted by the Deputy

Attorney General (DAG) Rod Jay Rosenstein and Special Counsel Robert Mueller hit

squad .
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 131 -

Senator Yee focused on consumer protection, child safety, government

transparency, and domestic violence prevention. As the record shows, in 2010, Yee

was active in his Senatorial District of San Francisco and San Mateo County, including

San Bruno, and he commuted daily from his office at the State Capitol in Sacramento

to meet his constituencies at daily and evening meetings around San Francisco and San

Mateo County. In 2010 Senator Yee spent $5,314.66 on gas commuting to his

senatorial district from the State Capitol in Sacramento. On September 9, 2010, at

approximately 6:11 p.m., a deadly natural gas pipeline explosion in Senator Yee’s

senatorial district, San Bruno’s Crestmoor neighborhood, killed eight people and

injured 58. Senator Yee was not in San Bruno on that day.

On April 1, 2014, one week after Senator Leland Yee was indicted and arrested

, U.S. Attorney Haag filed a 22-page criminal complaint against California Public

Utilities Company (CPUC) and PG&E in U.S. District Court in relation to the

explosion of the PG&E-maintained natural gas pipeline in San Bruno California,

nearby San Francisco, United States v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 178 F. Supp. 3d 927

(N.D. Cal. 2016) The April 1, 2014 Indictment in Introductory Allegations stated that:
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 132 -

1. PG&E was a California corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California,

that provided natural gas and electric services to approximately 15 million

customers in northern and central California.

2. PG&E was a pipeline operator that provided natural gas to customers through

the use of over 6,000 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines and over

40,000 miles of distribution pipelines. Gas transmission pipelines are highly

pressurized, large-diameter lines that carry natural gas to smaller, less

pressurized distribution pipelines that bring natural gas into homes, commercial

buildings, and other facilities.

3. Line 132 was a high-pressure gas transmission pipeline that was owned and

operated by PG&E in the Northern District of California. Line 132 ran

underground from Milpitas, California, to San Francisco, California, passing

through the City of San Bruno, California.

4. Line 132 was originally installed between about 1944 and 1948, and consisted

of hundreds of individual segments, the majority of which were in suburban or

urban areas.

5. On September 9, 2010, at approximately 6:11 p.m., a portion of Line 132

(Segment 180) ruptured in a residential neighborhood of the City of San Bruno

(the "San Bruno explosion"). Gas escaping from the rupture ignited, causing a
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 133 -

fire that killed eight people and injured 58 others. The fire also damaged 108

homes, 38 of which were completely destroyed.

Nothing would be unusual about the above indictment if U.S. Attorney Haag had

filed it within one or two years the explosion. However it was filed almost three and a

half years after perpetrators orchestrated that explosion, in an attempt to kill Senator

Yee to convince him not to request more state audits, aimed at the corrupt UC

administration, including the UCOP and the Board of Regents of UC, of which Senator

Feinstein's husband, Blum, was in charge, and to discourage Senator Yee from

introducing more Senate bills aimed at the UCOP and UC Regents. A few days after

the filling of the complaint against PG&E, a company that was allegedly responsible

for killing eight people, injuring 58 others, and wiping out a whole neighborhood,

destroying 108 homes, without any arrests of those responsible, the FBI raided Senator

Yee, together with 25 others labeled as a Chinese gangsters who lived in and around

San Francisco, a city that had been declared a "sanctuary city" for immigrants. The 22-

page criminal complaint against PG&E versa 241-page criminal complaints against

Senator Yee and 25 others, in which nobody was harmed or killed, clearly shows that

PG&E was not responsible for the explosion in San Bruno on September 9, 2010, one

month after Haag was appointed to the U.S. Attorney office in San Francisco by

President Barack Obama, with recommendation from Senator Barbara Boxer.

 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 134 -

Furthermore, there is a serious question as to why U.S. Attorney Haag did not

first file the indictment against PG&E and then file the criminal complaint against

Senator Yee and others. Another question is why U.S. Attorney Haag and the FBI,

with their supporting 137-page affidavit, waited until 2014 to charge Senator Yee; this

was his final year in his senate term, and he was running for California Secretary of

State in an election to be held in November 2014.

VIII. SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT BY U.S. ATTORNEY OF NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA (NC), MELINDA HAAG, FILED IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA ON JULY 24, 2014, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V.
KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, A.K.A. RAYMOND CHOW, A.K.A. SHRIMP
BOY, A.K.A. HA JAI., CASE NO. 3:14–CR–00196–CRB (U.SA. V.
CHOW)

On July 24, 2014, U.S. Attorney of NC, Melinda Haag, filed a 150-page

superseding indictment against the witch-hunted and framed California Senator Leland

Yee and 25 other individuals which most of them had never violated any law and who

the Petitioner listed and described in previous chapter with the following charges: 18

U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Conspiracy to Conduct the Affairs of an Enterprise Through a

Pattern of Racketeering Activity), 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Money Laundering), 18U.S.C. §

922(a) (Dealing Firearms Without a License), 18 U.S.C. § 922(1) (Illegal Importation

of Firearms), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (Felon in Possession of Firearm), 18 U.S.C. § 1958

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 135 -

(Murder for Hire); 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Conspiracy to

Obtain Property Under Color of Official Right), 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Honest Services

Conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346 (Honest Services Fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 2

(Aiding And Abetting), 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Manufacture and Possession with Intent to

Distribute Narcotics), 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Narcotics Conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

(Possession of Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking Crime), and 18 U.S.C. § §

2342 and 2344 (Trafficking in Contraband Cigarettes). Initially after the April 26,

2014 arrest of Senator Yee and others, Yee was represented by Paul Francois

DeMeester an attorney from San Francisco.

The superseding indictment is a terrifying tool, not different than superseding

indictments from the Soviet Union's Stalin-era prosecutions of political prisoners.

DeMeester was on right track in determining what was wrong with the whole picture.

"What took three years?" DeMeester asked, referring to an FBI affidavit that

indicated the investigation of Senator Yee had started in 2011 and lasted until shortly

before his arrest in March 2014. In a March 26, 2014 affidavit, DeMeester made the

following statement to the media:

"'It raises questions about the allocation of scarce federal resources, and it raises
questions about fairness to Leland Yee and to the public,' the defense lawyer said.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 136 -

The length of the investigation, he said, also prompts him to ask 'whether the
government did not think that they had a case they could make until toward the
end, when the government started pushing this case of the arms dealing.'"

DeMeester’s question and statement about Senator Yee’s case also perfectly fits

the scenario of indictment that U.S. Attorney Haag filed in court against Pacific Gas

and Electric (PG&E) almost four years after the San Bruno gas line explosion, which

killed 8 people, injured 50 people, destroyed 37 homes, and devastated the surrounding

area; this was filed only a few days after she filed the FBI affidavit against Senator

Yee. On April 3, 2014, just a few days after Senator Yee was arrested, DeMeester was

replaced with lead attorney James Antone Lassart and attorney Nicholas C. Larson,

from the San Francisco-based law corporation, Murphy Pearson Bradley Feeney

(http://mpbf.com/attorneys/lassart_james.php). The case was assigned to U.S. District

Court Judge Charles R. Breyer from the Northern District of California (Case No.

3:14–cr–00196–CRB, Magistrate Judge Case No. 3:14–mj–70421–MAG).

Judge Charles R. Breyer is brother of U.S Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

IX. SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT BY U.S. ATTORNEY OF NC, MELINDA

HAAG, FILED IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ON JULY 30, 2014, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA V. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, CASE NO.
3:14–CR–00175–WHA (U.S.A. V. PG&E)
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 137 -

Re: The September 9, 2010 PG&E natural gas pipeline explosion in Senator
Yee’s senatorial district, San Bruno’s Crestmoor neighborhood, in which eight
people were killed and more than 50 others were injured.

Six days after the superseding indictment against witch-hunted and framed

Senator Yee and 23 others individuals, filed on July 24, 2014, (U.S.A. v. Chow, Case

No. 3:14–cr–00196–CRB), U.S. Attorney Haag filed a 22-page superseding

indictment in U.S.A. v. PG&E, Case No. 3:14–CR–00175–WHA with count one: 18

U.S.C. § 1505 (Obstruction of an Agency Proceeding) and counts 2–28: 49 U.S.C. §

60123 (Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act). The case was assigned to the Federal

District Court Judge Thelton H. Henderson U.S. Attorney Haag filed both the

superseding indictment against Senator Yee and 23 others and the superseding

indictment against PG&E within a few days of each other. This clearly indicates that

both criminal cases were related to each other and that both were important in Senator

Leland Yee and others prosecution.

X. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION, CRIMINAL COURT
TRIAL, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. PACIFIC GAS &
ELECTRIC COMPANY, CASE NO. 3:14–CR–00175–WHA

Re: The September 9, 2010, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) natural gas pipeline
explosion in Senator Yee’s senatorial district, San Bruno’s Crestmoor
neighborhood, in which eight people were killed and more than 50 others were
injured
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 138 -

The trial was set for August 2, 2016. Two months before that, on May 26, 2016,

PG&E filed a Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions and Other Relief, based on

prosecutorial misconduct, alleging, amongst other things, that the U.S. Attorney office

misled the grand jury.

At stake for the victims of the explosion was $500 million dollars, but this

disappeared with U.S. Attorney and Acting Chief of the Criminal Division, Philip A.

Guentert’s, Notice of Dismissal of Alternative Fines Act Sentencing Allegations CR,

which was filed in the court on August 8, 2016, and included the statement:

"With leave of the Court, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
48(a), the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California
dismisses the Alternative Fines Act sentencing allegations in the Superseding
Indictment in the above-captioned case."

The federal judge automatically dismissed the alternative fines without any objection,

and the court jury found PG&E guilty of six of the 12 charges. PG&E was charged

with $3,000,000 in fines, instead of the approximated $500,000,000, and the San

Mateo District Attorney supported the prosecution of PG&E’s executives for the San

Bruno disaster. After PG&E escaped potential monetary punishment of approximately

$500,000,000 and the prosecution of their executives, on August 16, 2016, PG&E
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 139 -

urged a California federal judge to throw out the jury's verdict, reached a week earlier,

that convicted the company of criminal safety violations that led to a deadly gas line

explosion in San Bruno.

On October 11, 2016, the Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal Under Rule 29

(3:14–CR–00175–TEH, USA v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company) hearing was

scheduled to take place in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San

Francisco Division, with Judge Thelton E. Henderson presiding. The court had already

dismissed the request for alternative fines of approximately $500,000,000, and it seems

to the Petitioner that the Motion for a Judgement of Acquittal Under Rule 29 was a

second step that PG&E took to erase any responsibility of the explosion. The Petitioner

found the court's dismissal of the huge amount of the alternative fines very odd.

The PG&E Evidentiary Sanctions and Other Relief Based on Prosecutorial

Misconduct alleged other things: that the U.S. Attorney office misled the grand jury

and the successful Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Under Rule 29, which is

equivalent to winning a not guilty verdict and which generally bars the government

from retrying defendants, is proof that PG&E suspected that not everything was

disclosed by the U.S. Attorney office to PG&E about the San Bruno explosion.

UC Davis Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vanderhoef would undoubtedly be an

interesting witness in the criminal case against PG&E. In September 2010, Vandehoef
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 140 -

was handpicked by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) as the Chairman

of the Independent Review Panel to investigate the September 9, 2010 San Bruno

explosion. However, Vanderhoef was euthanized on October 15, 2015, while

recovering from a stroke. He took to his grave the secret of how the deadly San

Bruno explosion occurred. The trial and its preparation took place after his death. The

Petitioner does not know if other CPUC Independent Review Panel members were

questioned by U.S. attorneys or whether they appeared as the witnesses in the court

trail.

In the Petitioner’s August 31, 2016 letter, addressed to Vanderhoef's personal

friend, U.S. Congressman John Garmendi, he wrote:

https://www.scribd.com/document/476783916/UTC-20160831-Inquiry-with-U-S-

Congressman-John-Garamendi-Office

"In 2010, Vanderhoef’s participation in the investigation related to the Pacific

Gas and Electric (PG&E)-maintained natural gas pipeline explosion, where eight
people were killed, would be a last place where I would expect to see
Vanderhoef taking into consideration PG&E’s participation in his $65,000,000-
worth of illegal power sale in 1999–2003 (See the enclosed complaint to Tax
Recovery and Criminal Enforcement [TRaCE] and the complaint against
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang to the former
Governor Grey Davis’s deputy chief secretary)."
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 141 -

Former Senator Yee’s prosecution by former U.S. Attorney Haag is unabatedly

connected to the San Bruno explosion and to the March –August 2016 witch hunt hoax

phony investigation involved the UC Davis Chancellor Katehi to pay $ 1,000, 000 to

Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott .

XI. PLEA AGREEMENT BETWEEN U.S. ATTORNEY MELINDA HAAG

FROM THE U.S. ATTORNEY OFFICE, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION, AND CALIFORNIA
SENATOR LELAND YEE

On May 26, 2015, an attorney from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) filed the

following Notice of Removal of Counsel in U.S.A v. PG&E, Case No. 3:14–cr–

00175–WHA. The notice reads as follows:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the following attorneys are no longer

counsel of record in this action for Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric
Company:
Walter F. Brown, Jr.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2669
Telephone: +1.415.773.5700
Facsimile: +1.415.773.5759 wbrown@orrick.com

Eric M. Hairston
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 142 -

San Francisco, California 94105-2669

Telephone: +1.415.773.5700
Facsimile: +1.415.773.5759 ehairston@orrick.com

Pacific Gas and Electric Company remains represented by the following

counsel of record:

Steven M. Bauer
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: +1.415.391.0600 Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
steven.bauer@lw.com

Kate Dyer
CLARENCE, DYER & COHEN LLP
899 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94109-7807
Tel: + 1.415.749.1800 Facsimile: +1.415.749.1694
kdyer@clarencedyer.com

Margaret A. Tough
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: +1.415.391.0600 Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
margaret.tough@lw.com

Signed : WALTER F. BROWN, JR.

Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Apparently and most likely, as early as May 2015, U.S. Attorney Haag cut a deal with

Senator Yee’s attorney to secure a plea agreement to make sure that Senator Yee
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 143 -

will not obstruct her new $ 500,000 deal she cut with UC President Janet Napolitano.

After July 2014, two superseding indictments aimed at Yee and 23 others and at

indictments against PG&E did not work as Haag and her gang had anticipated. In May

2015, Haag was ready to quit her post as U.S. Attorney and move to Orrick Herrington

& Sutcliffe LLP. (https://www.orrick.com/en/People/E/8/F/Melinda-Haag) to work

as partner of the firm and to do a more important job for UC President Janet

Napolitano and for her former boss from 1999–2001, former Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Swan Mueller III. Most likely, Napolitano’s spies

in Washington D.C. and New York received information that Donald Trump was ready

to officially announce his candidacy for President of the United States of America. For

Haag, the disposal of Senator Yee's case became an urgent problem thus, Orrick’s

Management pulled their attorneys from the PG&E case, due conflicts of interest for

Haag, who was ready to change her employment status.

On June 16, 2015, Trump formally announced his candidacy for U.S. President

with a campaign rally and speech at Trump Tower in New York City. In his speech,

he drew attention to domestic issues such as illegal immigration, offshoring of

American jobs, the U.S. national debt, and Islamic terrorism. He did not have any idea

of what he was getting himself into to win the battle with the enormously powerful

political oligarchy, especially that from California.

 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 144 -

XII. PLEA AGREEMENT BETWEEN SENATOR LELAND YEE AND

U.S. ATTORNEY MELINDA HAAG, U.S.A V. LELAND YEE, CASE
NO. 3:14–CR–00196–CRB:

One year after U.S. Attorney Haag simultaneously filed superseding

indictments, United States of America v. Kwok Cheung Chow, a.k.a. Raymond Chow,

a.k.a. Shrimp Boy, a.k.a. Ha Jai, Case No. 3:14–cr–00196–CRB, and United States of

America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Case No. 3:14–CR–00175–WHA,

California's most popular democratic senator, 67-year-old Yee, was blackmailed and

forced to sign a plea agreement. What the Petitioner noticed about the first plea

agreement was that the title, United States of America v. Kwok Cheung Chow, a.k.a.

Raymond Chow, a.k.a. Shrimp Boy, a.k.a. Ha Jai, Case No. 3:14–cr–00196–CRB

(U.S.A v. Chow), did not mention Yee's name.

The U.S. government's neo-Stalinist, corrupt prosecutor, Haag, forced Yee to

agree to be incarcerated in federal prison for not more than 20 years, in exchange

for not being sentenced by Federal District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer (brother

of U.S Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer ) to 100 years in prison. Part of that

plea agreement states the following:

"I, Leland Yee, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern
District of California (hereafter 'the government') enter into this written
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 145 -

plea agreement (the 'Agreement') pursuant to Rule 1 I(c)(l)(A) and I

1(c)(I)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:
The Defendant's Promises
I agree to plead guilty to Count Two of the captioned Second
Superseding Indictment, charging me with conspiracy to conduct and
participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). I agree that the elements of
the offense are as follows:
Maximum prison term: 20 years
Maximum fine: $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is
greater
The government agrees to move to dismiss any open charges pending
against the defendant in the captioned Second Superseding Indictment at
the time of sentencing.
The government agrees not to file any additional charges against the
defendant that could be filed as a result of the investigation that led to the
captioned Second Superseding Indictment."

The plea agreement was signed by Yee and his lawyer, James A. Lassart.

XIII. AFTER THE PLEA AGREEMENT BETWEEN SENATOR LELAND

YEE AND U.S. ATTORNEY MELINDA HAAG, U.S.A V. LELAND YEE,
CASE NO. 3:14–CR–00196–CRB:
On July 7, 2015, in his response to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein's letter, the

Petitioner wrote:

"It looks like there is nowhere to turn for help.

I perfectly understand that the University of California has autonomy in
self-governance I perfectly understand universities. Even in communist
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 146 -

Poland, where I lived for 30 years, the universities had greater

independence and autonomy than did any other entities given by the Polish
communist government.
From what I see so far, the University of California absolutely infiltrated
the State of California government agencies, and any complaints with any
state agency in relation to employment with the university is futile.
I intended to go to Poland because of the illness of someone close to my
family, and I got continuance for one motion in the court for this purpose.
However, I had a second thought about it after what I had experienced
already: the provocation to be physically harmed or killed. I am not
paranoid, but my second thought was that University of California
President Janet Napolitano, who was the chief of the Homeland Security
Department, could make one call to her friends and I could 'mistakenly' be
placed on the no-fly list as a suspected terrorist and could thus get stranded
in Poland or Germany for a month and not be allowed to come back to the
U.S.A. until my cases were thrown out of the court due to self-
representation without attorney. My life has been destroyed, and the
University of California president knows why and who destroyed me and
my family life at age 61, leaving me without health insurance and the
possibility of getting a new job. I sent many pieces of correspondence by e-
mail, fax and certified mail to Ms. Janet Napolitano's Office before the
lawsuit was filed in the court and thereafter. I thought of Ms. Napolitano
because in addition to being a UC President, she was hired by the Regents
to fight corruption and waste in the UC System due to her previous position
and experience as the #1 COP in U.S.A.
Furthermore, I believe that it is also your moral obligation to help me and
prevent further oppression and violation of my civil and human rights by
thugs and their lawyers from the University of California when I am almost
65 years after heart surgery and on nine different medications to survive
day by day. You are a senator of the country that gave me political asylum
and protection from oppression due to my struggle against communism.
My life and my family's live being destroyed in the country which
supposedly should protect me from the oppression. It has been done by the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 147 -

governmental entity, the University of California with the former United

States Secretary of Homeland Security in charge. How much worse it could
get?"
On July 29, 2015, Haag announced her resignation from her post as U.S.

Attorney for the Northern District of California, effective September 1, 2015. She

ended a five-year tenure that included the prosecution of California Senator Yee and

PG&E.

On October 15, 2015, UC Davis former Chancellor Emeritus, Larry Vanderhoef,

was euthanized at the UCDMC. This occurred two days after the Petitioner disclosed

the fraud related to the unlawful generation and sale of power from the UCDMC 27-

MW cogeneration plant to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Vanderhoof took to

his grave the secret about the September 9, 2010 PG&E natural gas pipeline explosion

in Senator Yee’s senatorial district, San Bruno’s Crestmoor neighborhood, in which

eight people were killed and more than 50 others were injured. In October 2010,

Vanderhoef was appointed Chairman of the Independent Review Panel to investigate

the explosion. He was the key perpetrator in and witness of the ongoing UCOP white-

collar crime, and he was responsible for overseeing the illegal sale of power from the

UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant. Twelve days after Vanderhoef died, U.S.

Congressman John Garamendi glorified Vanderhoef on the U.S. Congress floor.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 148 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/476783916/UTC-20160831-Inquiry-with-U-S-

Congressman-John-Garamendi-Office

XIV. SENTENCING CALIFORNIA SENATOR LELAND YEE

Senator Leland Yee’s sentencing was scheduled for February 24, 2016.

University of California (UC) President Janet Napolitano, Robert Swan Mueller III,

and Melinda Haag (who had resigned from the U.S. Attorney office in September

2015, after she secured a plea agreement from Yee on July 1, 2015) did not want

any surprises when framed and entrapped Senator Yee was sentenced on that date

and had to prepare, at the age of 67, to serve five years in the Fort Worth

Federal Correctional Institution.

The stakes were a lot bigger. U.S. Presidential candidate, billionaire and

populist from New York City, Donald Trump, was promising to drain the

political swamp in Washington, D.C., and around the country; he had already

hit the presidential election trail and was quickly becoming the leading

republican candidate in the primary elections.

On February 17, 2016, when sentencing Senator Yee (Memorandum Case No.

3:14–CR–00196–CRB), acting U.S. Attorney, Brian J. Stretch, recommended that the

court impose a sentence of two counts of the second superseding indictment,

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 149 -

amounting to 96 months in the custody of the Attorney General, a three-year term of

supervised release, a fine of $25,000, and a $100 special assessment. According to the

New York Times, on the day of the sentencing, Federal District Court Judge Charles

R. Breyer told Yee,

“It must be that the public has trust in the integrity of the
institution, and Mr. Yee, you abused that trust.”

He called Yee’s actions “vile” and called the arms dealings particularly

“hypocritical,” given the politician’s history of gun control advocacy.

In 2006, Yee was named to the Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll by

the Brady Campaign for his efforts that included co-authoring a first-in-the-nation bill

to require that new semiautomatic handguns be equipped with ballistics identification

technology, known as micro-stamping. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun

Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence are American nonprofit

organizations that advocate for gun control and against gun violence. They are named

after James "Jim" Brady, who was permanently disabled as a result of the attempted

assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, and Sarah Brady, who was a leader within

the organization from 1989 until 2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady Campaign).
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 150 -

After his sentencing, the mass media smeared Yee and attached him, his arrest,

and his associate, Keith Jackson, 51, to Raymond Chow, who was labeled alongside

some of the city’s most notorious characters as a notable San Francisco Chinatown

gangster (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-

mix/wp/2015/11/09/the-wild-tale-of-two-shrimp-boy-chows-alleged-criminal-

overlord-or-victim-of-outrageous-government-conduct/).

The July 24, 2014 second superseding indictment stemmed from allegations that

former Senator Yee, along with 25 other defendants, was involved in a broad array of

criminal activity. In fact, Yee was framed and ensnared with the others for political

reasons and to divert attention from the bigger crimes committed by UC

administrators and UC Regents in the UC Office of the President (UCOP) in Oakland

and among the corrupt political oligarchy in California, led by Speaker of House

Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, Congressman

Adam Schiff, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and California Attorney General

Xavier Becerra; they were advised by scholars and political scientists from UC and

led by former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano. The sentences that

were handed down on February 24, 2016, by Judge Breyer, disabled Yee's anti-

corruption crusade aimed at the UCOP and California's political swamp and included

the following:
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 151 -

Leland Yee: 60 months, to begin within the next 30 days, a $20,000 fine, three
years of supervised release, and forfeiture of certain property.
Keith Jackson: 108 months, to begin within the next 30 days, three years of
supervised release, and forfeiture of certain property

Marlon Sullivan: 66 months (including time already served), three years of

supervised release, and forfeiture of certain property
Brandon Jackson: 54 months (including time already served), three years of
supervised release, and forfeiture of certain property.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys William Frentzen, Susan Badger, and S. Waqar Hasib

prosecuted the case, with the assistance of Rosario Calderon, Kurk Kosek, Ana Guerra,

Marina Ponomarchuk, Victoria Etterer, and Lance Libatique. The prosecution was the

result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS), the San Francisco Police Department Gang Task Force, the

Oakland Police Department, the New York Police Department, and the Mercer County

New Jersey sheriff's office (https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-state-

senator-leland-yee-sentenced-five-years-imprisonment-racketeering). Melinda

Haag the key player in Senator Yee and others prosecution, who forced the July 1,

2015 plea agreement on Senator Yee, is not listed among the Assistant U.S. Attorneys

to prosecute the case.

It is unbelievable that Senator Yee, who was named the California Legislator of

the Year by the San Francisco Women's Political Committee; the American Federation
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 152 -

of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME Local 3299); the California

Society of Certified Public Accountants; the Associated Students of the University of

California (Davis); and the California Faculty Association; among others, was framed

in such a way and sent to prison for five years at the age of 67. It is outside of legal

norms that Federal District Court Judge Breyer did not even consider probation in lieu

of the five-year prison term for the most popular Senator Yee, who had also been given

the following awards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland Yee):

• Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll by the Brady Campaign,

• Freedom of Information Award by the California Newspaper Publishers
Association,
• Modern Day Abolitionist Award by the San Francisco Collaborative Against
Human Trafficking,
• Building a State of Equality by Equality California,
• Distinguished Service to Journalism Education Award by the Journalism
Association of Community Colleges,
• Service Award by Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse of San
Mateo County,
• Scholastic Journalism Award by the Journalism Education Association,
• Beacon Award by the First Amendment Coalition,
• Leadership Award from the California Animal Association,
• Special Friend of Children Award by the National Association of School
Psychologists, and
• Public Official Award by the Society of Professional Journalists.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 153 -

XV. WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE CASE KWOK CHEUNG CHOW,

A.K.A. RAYMOND CHOW, A.K.A. HA JAI V. UNITED STATES CASE
NO. 3:14–CR–00196–CRB (U.S.A. V. CHOW)

In June 2020, at relatively the same time as when the U.S. Tax Court issued 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) (U.S. Tax Court Docket

No. 0047), the Petitioner checked out the docket for the case U.S.A. v. Chow on

PACER to find out whether former California senator, 71-year-old Leland Yee, had

been released from Sacramento Half House, where he had been confined due to

COVID-19. Yee was a political prisoner and a victim of the organized white collar

crime conducted by the corrupt California political swamp and the University of

California (UC) Office of the President (UCOP), which had been led by former U.S.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano since September 2013, who had

resigned from her post as President of UC in September 2019, effective August 2020.

The Petitioner did not find any court order related to Senator Yee's release.

However, what caught the Petitioner’s attention were two documents filed in the court.

The first, Document No. 2162, filed on November 26, 2019, was a letter from the clerk

of the U.S. Supreme Court informing the clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 154 -

Circuit that a petition had been made for a writ of certiorari in the case Kwok Cheung

Chow, a.k.a. Raymond Chow, a.k.a. Ha Jai v. United States (filed on November 18,

2019, and placed on the docket on November 22, 2019, as No. 19-6735). The other,

Document No. 2169, filed on January 19, 2020, was also from the clerk of U.S. Supreme

Court. It informed the clerk in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the

petition for a writ of certiorari in the Kwok Cheung Chow, a.k.a. Raymond Chow, a.k.a.

Ha Jai v. United States case was denied, as follows: (0020-INSERT LINK)

Dear Clerk:
The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Breyer took no part in
the consideration or decision of this petition.
Sincerely,
Scott S. Harris, Clerk
This denial and especially Justice Bryer's name caught the Petitioner’s attention

because it was same last name as that of Judge Charles R. Breyer from the U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, who was

assigned to and presided over the case United States of America v. Kwok Cheung

Chow, a.k.a. Raymond Chow, a.k.a. Shrimp Boy, a.k.a. Ha Jai., Case No. 3:14–cr–

00196–CRB (U.S.A. v. Chow), concerning the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI)

round up of Senator Yee (https://archive.senate.ca.gov/member-archives/2013-

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 155 -

14/leland-y-yee-d-district-8), Chow, and other 23 people, in an attempt to frame and

entrap Yee, by the order unofficially appointed Special Counsel to witch hunt Senator

Leland Yee m FBI Director Robert Swan Mueller III and his first hand in the witch

hunt, U.S Attorney from Northern District of California Melinda Haag. After

Mueller's former assistant, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag, forced a plea agreement on

Yee in July 2015, Judge Charles R. Breyer sent Yee to federal prison for five years in

February 2016.

The Petitioner did not follow the case to find out what happened to the other

people rounded up by the FBI with Senator Leland Yee . As a former political prisoner

in communist Poland, the Petitioner felt that something was wrong with the Soviet

Union, Stalin-era style of prosecution inflicted on Yee. The Petitioner did not know all

of the details of Yee's prosecution, but he protested the punishment imposed on Yee by

Melinda Haag and the court in his April 11, 2016 inquiry, entitled "Request to Bring

Criminal Charges Against the Regents of the University Of California due to

Multimillion Dollars Federal Tax Fraud Relating to Unlawful Generation And Power

Sale in 1999–2003 and 2012–2013 from the UC Davis Medical Center 27-MW

Cogeneration Power Plant and for Destruction of Me and My Family's Life and Gross

Violations of My Civil and Human Rights," sent to U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner

from Eastern District of California, with the following words:

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 156 -

"It is sad that Leland Yee, a great legislator and public servant who had the
courage to stand up against the corrupted but very powerful University of
California administration, fell, shortly after SB 650 took effect in 2011.
The 67-year-old Yee pleaded guilty to racketeering charges in connection with
allegations that he had accepted bribes in exchange for his political influence.
So sad.
However, if I look at the crimes Leland Yee committed and for which he was
harshly punished, I would say that his crimes are not comparable to those
committed by the corrupted and rotten University of California administration,
and no one there was sentenced to prison. The UC administrators could drive
employees to end their lives, commit Medicare and Medicaid fraud up to
$25,000,000, commit multimillion power sale and tax fraud, conduct illegal
medical experiments that resulted in several patients' deaths at the UC Davis
Medical Center, fund illegal research on prisoners (Keyzer's case) or discharge
machine oil via storm drains into the Sacramento River from the UC Davis
Medical Center Cogeneration Power Plant for seven years, but I have not heard
that anybody responsible for these crimes faced the District Attorney's office or
criminal prosecution like Leland Yee faced for his crime."

Nine days after the Petitioner’s inquiry, on April 20, 2016, U.S. Attorney

Wagner announced his resignation from the post. From 2011–2015, Wagner had to

collaborate with Haag to frame and entrap Senator Yee and perpetrate his

incarceration.

In October 2016, the Petitioner sent a letter to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein that

contained all of financial damages caused to him and his family by Feinstein’s

husband, Richard Blum, and other UC Regents .In that letter, the Petitioner pointed at

California Yee's prosecution with following words:

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 157 -

"Maybe at the end of your career, you should do something good and merciful.
Besides restoration of my normal life by your husband, I am asking your
Democratic President to pardon Leland Yee before President Obama leaves his
office. I think it would be the best thing you have ever done in your life if you
make this happen, and it will allow Senator Leland Yee to join his family,
especially his ill wife, who needs a lot of care. I believe that President Obama
will listen to you and will sign the executive order to release Senator Yee from
Fort Worth Federal Correctional Institution. Senator Leland Yee is a political
prisoner and his unlawful incarceration is not the way to cover up the white
collar crimes of some of the Regents, including but not limited to Richard
Blum, listed in the specific September 25, 2015 inquiries I sent to you. As I
read recently, your husband has serious health problems, then you know what
is Senator Leland Yee is going through, being locked up for five years far away
from his family in Fort Worth, Texas, federal prison.
As a U.S. Senator for many years that participated in violations, together with
Janet Napolitano, of other people's civil and human rights, by helping to cover
up and to condone your husband and other Regents' white collars crimes is a
crime itself. You should tell your friend Napolitano to resign and advise her to
go back to Washington, D.C., to play her dirty power and play dirty games
there.
How you can even sleep peacefully, knowing that your husband destroyed so
many people's lives because of his greed, power, and his despicable disregard
for the law and rights of others. Look at climate surveys in UC campuses.
24 percent of Respondents (n = 25,264) believed that they had personally
experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct; 9
percent of Respondents (n = 8,903) said that the conduct interfered with their
ability to work or learn."
From 2016 until the Petitioner came across the U.S. Supreme Court notification

that the writ for certiorari was denied to Chow, Petitioner did not know that U.S.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer, who had been appointed to the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 158 -

Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1994, was the brother of Judge Charles R.

Breyer. Furthermore, the Petitioner was not aware that Raymond Chow had been tried

in the same case as that in which Senator Yee was sentenced to 5 years in prison by

Judge Charles R. Breyer in 2016. Life in prison without possibility of parole is

basically a death penalty for Raymond Chow .

This fact encouraged the Petitioner to read the pleadings and documents from

the case United States of America v. Kwok Cheung Chow, a.k.a. Raymond Chow,

a.k.a. Shrimp Boy, a.k.a. Ha Jai., Case No. 3:14–cr–00196–CRB (U.S.A. v. Chow).

The Petitioner spent over $300 from his $1500 Social Security pension to pay to read

the documents via PACER because he wanted to ensure that he was not making false

allegations about Senator Yee's prosecution and incarceration. By reading the court

file, the Petitioner learned that Chow’s court-appointed attorney, Karen L. Landau, was

unsuccessful in reversing the life-in-prison conviction imposed on Chow by Judge

Charles R. Breyer. When reading the criminal dockets related to Yee’s prosecution, the

Petitioner noted that it is very unfortunate that the Appeal and Petition for Rehearing in

the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Petition for Writ of

Certiorari in U.S. Supreme Court were denied. The Petitioner was shocked when

reading the Court file and pleading of Chow’s defense team attorneys Tony Serra,

Curtis Briggs, and Tyler Smith. As Petitioner previously pointed Raymond Chow was
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 159 -

a former gang member , felon former offender who turned his life around. Chow could

be compared to Jon Ponder, a convicted bank robber who was fully pardoned

President Donald Trump during the Republican National Convention which took place

in August 2020.

Chow has been portrayed in many Chinese newspapers as being involved in

community affairs, and he has been photographed posing with local politicians and

other community leaders including and not limited to Senator Leland Yee and present

California Governor Gavin Newsom.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476811596/UTC-U-S-Senator-Dianne-

Feinstein-and-Raymond-Chow

XVI. DEFENDANT CHOW'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR OUTRAGEOUS

GOVERNMENT CONDUCT AND/OR PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S
SUPERVISORY POWERS (EVIDENTIARY HEARING REQUESTED),
FILED ON NOVEMBER 4, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V.
KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, A.K.A. RAYMOND CHOW, A.K.A. SHRIMP
BOY, A.K.A. HA JAI., CASE NO. 3:14–CR–00196–CRB

The introduction of the Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government

Misconduct, filed by Chow’s defense attorney Curtis Briggs on November 4, 2015,

was so shocking, convincing, and encouraging to read because it was for Petitioner

like he would read the pages of history book about the Soviet Union Stalin-era
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 160 -

(1945-1956) political prisoners prosecution in his native country Poland dominated

by terror of Soviet Secret Police NKWD which executed thousands of Polish patriots

to force communist rules on Polish people.

"INTRODUCTION
History will show that this prosecution was the most shocking of all
time. The FBI attacked democracy, the right to vote, the People's
voice, and spat in the eye of the legislature, all in one swift blow
leading up to the April 3, 2014 Indictment [Dkt. ECF 113]. They
forced the taxpayer to compete against the FBI to support elected
officials and they used taxpayer money to do it. The FBI lied,
cheated, and stole. The United States Attorney's Office protected
political criminals and, at the same time, sought to credit itself with
interfering with crime the Government created. They knowingly
imprisoned and prosecuted an innocent man. The Government has
shown a lack of regard for human life, even using it as collateral at
times. This conduct is both extreme and outrageous, and it
constitutes a denial of Due Process, regardless of when the issue is
raised. The only way to maintain the integrity of the federal
judiciary in the Northern District is to acknowledge the severity of
the Government's misconduct and dismiss the indictment against
Raymond Chow."
Furthermore, on the page 46, Attorney Briggs wrote,
"This operation was always about the end goal and every single
agent and prosecutor went blind while staring at it for so long.
THIS IS HOW THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENED. EVIL
PREVAILS WHEN GOOD MEN AND WOMEN DO NOTHING.
The ultimate blow to their own dignity and the move that says the
most about the character and quality of federal prosecutions is that
they lied to the public and expected to get away with it."
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 161 -

Attorney Briggs concluded the Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government

Misconduct with the following:

“CONCLUSION
The United States of America has, within its borders, some of the
most intelligent, finest, and courageous people in its ranks of
federal law enforcement and prosecution. Our federal ranks are not
immune in The Battle of Good and Evil. A cancer has formed, and
it must be removed.
Dated: November 4, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
CURTIS BRIGGS
J. TONY SERRA
TYLER SMITH
Attorneys for Defendant KWOK CHEUNG CHOW
This Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government Conduct is so shocking and

self-explanatory that no further comments on it are needed.

XVII. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER,

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1), (b)(4)–(5)(iii), (c); MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OF EX PARTE
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN JUDGE BREYER AND THE U.S.
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND OTHER THIRD PARTIES;
EVIDENTIARY HEARING REQUESTED FILED ON JUNE 2, 2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, A.K.A.
RAYMOND CHOW, A.K.A. SHRIMP BOY, A.K.A. HA JAI., CASE NO.
3:14–CR–00196–CRB
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 162 -

These motions are about Senior Judge Charles R. Breyer from the U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, and his brother

Stephen Gerald Breyer, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United

States.

As the Petitioner wrote in the previous chapter, Justice of the Supreme Court

Stephen Breyer took no part in the consideration of or decision in the petition for

writ of certiorari, filed on January 20, 2020. That Supreme Court decision denied

freedom to Raymond Chow and sentenced him to life in prison in Soviet Union

Stalin-era style show trials in the case of United States of America v. Kwok

Cheung Chow, a.k.a. Raymond Chow, a.k.a. Shrimp Boy, a.k.a. Ha Jai., Case No.

3:14–cr–00196–CRB. In that case, Judge Charles Breyer presided. His brother,

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, tellingly wrote in his book:

Making Our Democracy Work (Motion Page 22, 22–24), "The

Court itself must help maintain the public's trust in the Court, the
public's confidence in the Constitution, and the public's
commitment to the rule of law." Justice Stephen Breyer also wrote,
"(A) court that acts politically plays with fire" (Motion Page 11,
27).

In the Ex Parte Motion for Ordering the Issuance of Rule 17(C) Subpoena Via

Form Cand 89b for Documents and Records Pertaining to Judge Breyer filed on June
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 163 -

6, 2016 Chow’s attorney Briggs disclosed that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Director Robert Swan Mueller III and Judge Charles Breyer knew each other and

communicated with each other .https://www.scribd.com/document/476815423/UTC-

20160606-EX-PARTE-MOTION-RAYMOND-CHOW-CASE

He further alleged that Mueller likely reached out to Charles Breyer to convince him to

steer the investigation away from people who could harm his interest in the San

Francisco's Nourse Theater. Attorney Briggs requested that the record all

communications between Judge Charles Breyer and then-FBI Director Mueller, from

July 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012 must be produced. No avail .

According to Motion To Disqualify Honorable Charles R. Breyer, Pursuant To

28 U.S.C. § 455(A), (B)(1), (B)(4)–(5)(Iii),

https://www.scribd.com/document/476817843/UTC-201606002-Motion-to-

Disqualify-Judge-Evidentiary-Hearing-Raymond-Chow-Case

(0024-INSERT LINK) filed on June 2, 201FBI funds were used to influence the

strength and position of two political opponents in the 2011 San Francisco mayoral

election. Candidate Ed Lee and his crew were spared further investigation and Lee

went on to cultivate his public image with Melinda Haag, U.S. Attorney for the

Northern District. In 2016, Haag cashed out $500,000 from University of California
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 164 -

(UC) President Janet Napolitano for coauthoring an indictment draft that Mueller could

use to prosecute presidential candidate Donald Trump and the advisors of his

presidential campaign. The second candidate, California Senator Leland Yee was

running for Secretary of State. He and his primary fundraiser, Keith Jackson, were

targeted by the FBI to be framed, entrapped, and thrown into prison, where Judge

Charles Breyer was waiting for them. Those connected to Yee were either indicted or

forced to cooperate. This scenario was similar to that of Trump's presidential

campaign.

In July 2012, Judge Charles Breyer was nominated to the U.S. Sentencing

Commission by President Obama and was endorsed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, a

member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Charles Breyer was not confirmed by

the Senate until about one year later. During his nomination hearing, while under

oath, Charles Breyer engaged in the following dialogue with Senator Feinstein

regarding judicial recusal:

FEINSTEIN: Let me talk a moment about judicial ethics because we

are very proud of our Federal courts. They are the highest courts of
our land. They should be. And if a judge's impartiality can
reasonably be questioned, it is really essential that the judge
recuse himself or herself. Now, Federal judges have great discretion
in determining when they will recuse themselves. I think this is an
important question to consider, so here is the question: How do you
interpret the recusal standard for Federal judges? And in what
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 165 -

situations do you expect you will have to recuse yourself? [emphasis

added]
C. BREYER: There is always the issue of the appearance of an
impropriety, not that impropriety exists but that there is an appearance
of bias or an impropriety. And the Canon of ethics requires that,
where there is a reasonable appearance of an impropriety, a judge
recuses himself. So the first question you have is if any judge starts to
think about it, that is a problem. That is an indication right there that
the judge may have a problem. And what I have followed in my
practice is disclosure--not just a question of whether I think I can
be fair, but will the litigants think I am fair. And so my practice has
been to disclose any potential conflict that I may have, and indeed, I
think that that is a fairly good practice. [emphasis added]

Judge Charles Breyer was not assigned to the witch hunt case aimed at Senator

Yee and others in order to serve justice or to recuse himself from the task assigned to

him by Mueller, Haag, and their powerful sponsors from California's political swamp

and oligarchy. He was assigned to the case in order to conduct the Soviet Union Stalin-

era style show trial, a travesty of justice, to take care of business and take Senator Yee

out of the political arena. Other victims, including Chow, George Nieh, Keith Jackson,

Kevin Sin, Alan Chiu, Kongphet Chanthavong, Xiao Cheng Mei, Brandon Jamelle

Jackson, Marlon Sullivan, Rinn Roeun, Andy Li, Leslie W. Yun, Yat Wa Pan, Jane

Miao Xhen Liang, Tina Yao Gui Liang, Bryan Tilton, Huan Ming Ma, Hon Keung So,

Norge Ronald Mastrangelo, Albert Nhingsavath, Serge Gee, Xiu Ying Ling Liang, Gary

Kwong Yiu Chen, Anthony John Lai, Tong Zhao Zhang, Zhanghao Wu, Barry
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 166 -

Blackwell House, and Wilson Sy Lim, were mercilessly used by the perpetrators in the

witch hunt as background and collateral damage in the process to eliminate Yee from

California politics. Judge Charles Breyer’s actions, which destroyed many lives and

produced many political prisoners, were blessed by his brother, Supreme Court Justice

Stephen Breyer, who was perfectly aware of what his brother was doing in San

Francisco. Instead of advising him not to participate in political witch hunts, Justice

Stephen Breyer looked on from Washington, D.C., as his brother was throwing people

to prison for political reason destroying their lives and livelihoods. Justice Breyer took

no part in the consideration or decision of the petition for writ of certiorari, filed on

January 20, 2020. He knew what his brother did to Raymond Chow and others and why.

The Supreme Court's decision denied freedom to Defendant Chow, who was sentenced

to life in prison was a political decision to make sure that Raymond Chow never get out

prison and will never talk to Senator Leland and others rounded up by FBI Director

Robert Mueller order .

The Raymond Chow’s defense dream team effort to successfully defend Chow was a

mission impossible from the beginning. Raymond Chow was not a target but a

collateral damage in political prosecution of Senator Leland Yee an his fate was

decided before he was arrested by FBI per order from the unofficially assigned Special

Counsel Robert Swan Mueller to the witch hunt hoax aimed at Senator Leland Yee .
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 167 -

XVIII. DECLARATION OF DENNIS P. RIORDAN

In 2016, Attorney Dennis P. Riordan was appointed court attorney to represent

Leslie Yun, one of the defendants in case United States of America v. Kwok Cheung

Chow, a.k.a. Raymond Chow, a.k.a. Shrimp Boy, a.k.a. Ha Jai., Case No. 3:14–cr–

00196–CRB.

Briggs, Chow's defense attorney and close friend, asked Attorney Riordan for

help with Chow's appeal, but Riordan's June 15, 2015 declaration showed his refusal to

represent the sentenced Chow https://www.scribd.com/document/476818229/UTC-

20160615-Dennis-Riordan-Declaration-Raymond-Chow-Case The Petitioner does

not understand why Riordan filed a declaration informing the court about his intentions

not to represent Chow.

However, the cases United States of America v. Kwok Cheung Chow, a.k.a.

Raymond Chow, a.k.a. Shrimp Boy, a.k.a. Ha Jai., Case No. 3:14–cr–00196–CRB

from U.S. District Court Northern District of California, and The United States of

America v. Hamid Hayat, Case No. 2:05–cr–00240–GEB–DB, must be considered.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 168 -

Theoretically, these two cases are not interconnected, but actually they are connected

through UC President Napolitano and her friends, U.S. Attorneys Haag and McGregor

Scott. Haag and Scott shared the $1,000,000 that Napolitano paid them to draft the

indictment to prosecute 2015–2016 presidential candidate Trump and his presidential

campaign associates and managers.

The Petitioner came across Attorney Riordan’s name in January 2019, in the

news on TV and in mass media about the case United States v. Hamid Hayat, No.

2:05-cr-0240 GEB DB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019). Hayat was a 19-year-old cherry

picker of Pakistani descent from Lodi, California, where the Petitioner has resided

since 1989. He was accused of associating with terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and

was jailed upon his return from Pakistan in May 2005. Hayat had been singled out and

framed by an October 2001 order given by Mueller to his subordinates. He was

accused of affiliation with terrorists, and, in 2007, he was prosecuted is same manner

as Leland Yee , Raymond Chow by Janet Napolitano’s and Melinda Haag ‘s friend ,

neo-Stalinist prosecutor , U.S Attorney from Eastern District of California McGregor

Scott and sentenced in 24 years in federal prison by District Court Judge Garland E.

Burrell Jr. in 2007.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 169 -

On January 10, 2019, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California,

Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes's findings and recommendations were filed to vacate

the 24-year prison sentence imposed on Hayat, who was from Lodi, CA, where the

Petitioner has lived since 1989. Attorney Riordan represented Hayat in appellate court

and moved to vacate Hayat’s sentence by a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255.

In the Petitioner’s July 29, 2019 Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order, served on July

9, 2019, and signed by Special Trial Judge Honorable Robert N. Armen, the Petitioner

addressed Honorable Tashima’s dissent opinion in the case of United States v. Hayat,

710 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2013). On that same day, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of

California, Honorable Garland E. Burrell Jr., by signed court order, vacated Hayat’s

24-year prison term (United States v. Hayat Case, 2:05-cr-00240-GEB, Document 752,

Filed July 30, 2019). Hayat was prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys Scott and Haag.

The above-mentioned Barnes, who had been appointed as a federal magistrate

judge to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, on August 1, 2016, was

a subordinate to California Attorney General Kamala Harris. It was not coincidental

that, in June 2016, former UCOP Vice President Judith Boyette was appointed by the

Secretary of the Treasury to a three-year term on the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax

Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE), from June 2016–June 2019, in order to
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 170 -

make the Petitioner’s IRS Application for Reward Form 211 disappear. That

application for award had been submitted to IRS Whistleblower Office (WBO) in

Ogden, Utah, on March 23, 2016. It reported tens of millions of dollars of tax fraud

committed by UCOP administration in relation to unlawful generation and sale of

electricity from the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) 27-MW cogeneration plant

(IRS WBO Claim No. 2016–00748).

Attorney General Harris sent Barnes to serve as a federal magistrate judge

on August 1, 2016. On August 3, 2016, Barnes was assigned to the case Lamont

Williams v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), in which the parties

were respectively represented by Etan R. Rosen (SBN 258608) from Beyer,

Pongratz & Rosen, and David Burkett (SBN 241896) from Porter Scott Law

Corporation. Porter Scott Law Corporation's attorneys were and are still

representing the UC Regents in wrongful termination Case No. 34–2013–34–

00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California,

which is interconnected with the Petitioner’s IRS Whistleblower Claim, submitted

to IRS WBO on March 23, 2016, and updated on August 3, 2018, which alleged

that tens of millions of dollars of tax fraud was committed by the UCOP

administration.
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 171 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/476787351/20180803-UTC-20180803-IRS-

New-Application-for-Award-WBO-Claim-No-2018-012118-full-document

Attorney General Harris’s other subordinate, Attorney Ashante Norton,

represented California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) against

the Petitioner in Sacramento County Superior Court, writ of mandamus, Case No.

34–2013–80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance

Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The Regents of the

University of California (Regents). This case was also interconnected with the

Petitioner’s IRS Whistleblower Claim.

XIX. RUSSIAN COLUSION, UKRAINE QUID PRO QUO WITCH HUNT

HOAX, FOUND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. KWOK CHEUNG
CHOW, A.K.A. RAYMOND CHOW, A.K.A. SHRIMP BOY, A.K.A. HA
JAI., CASE NO. 3:14–CR–00196–CRB, WITH PRESIDING JUDGE
CHARLES R. BREYER

As the Petitioner previously explained, after Senator Yee was sentenced on

February 24, 2016, mass media hysterically implied that he bought automatic firearms

and shoulder-launched missiles from the MILF, an Islamic extremist group located in

the southern Philippines. It was strange to the Petitioner that he had never heard of

anybody buying guns from terrorist groups. Rather terrorist networks and insurgents in
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 172 -

war-ravaged countries bought guns from governments that supported their causes,

including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who sold sophisticated shoulder-

launched missiles to Al-Qaeda when Osama Bin Laden and his mujahideen’s were

fighting Soviet Union troops in a war in Afghanistan from 1979–1989, or President

Ronald Reagan’s senior administration officials who, from 1985–1989, secretly

approved arms sales to Iran, which was ruled by Islamic Ayatollah Khomeini and was

subject to an arms embargo, and which was approved to fund Contras insurgency

against socialist Daniel Ortega's government in Nicaragua

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra affair). However, the

idea of Senator Yee buying shoulder-launched missiles from the Islamic Liberation

Front in the Philippines was so unbelievable and such reasons provided to court by FBI

were so unconvincing that the whole legal proceeding in this case was a fraud from the

very beginning . Records show that presiding Judge Charles conspired with FBI

Director Mueller and U.S. Attorney Haag to brutally remove California Senator Yee

from the political arena.

After Senator Yee was released from federal prison in June 2020, the Petitioner

read the February 24, 2016 transcript of the Proceeding and Sentencing Memorandum,

dated February 17, 2016. In the 38-page transcript, the Petitioner noted that on page

12, Senator Yee was once in the Philippines setting up a dialysis facility, which was
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 173 -

guarded by armed guards. This how the FBI created the image of Yee as an arms

dealer who bought automatic firearms and shoulder-launched missiles from the MILF.

The transcript does not contain words "Islamic," "Moro," or any sentence which makes

reference to the MILF. https://www.scribd.com/document/476821613/UTC-

20160224-California-Senator-Leland-Yee-Case-Sentencing-Transcript

XX. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE QUID PRO QUO IN THE FEBRUARY 17,
2016 SENTENCING MEMEORANDUM, SUBMITTED TO THE
COURT BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY OFFICE, NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V.
KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, A.K.A. RAYMOND CHOW, A.K.A.
SHRIMP BOY, A.K.A. HA JAI., CASE NO. 3:14–CR–00196–CRB,
WITH PRESIDING JUDGE CHARLES R. BREYER

According to the Sentencing Memorandum, after U.S. Attorney Haag forced

California Senator Leland Yee into a plea agreement on July 1, 2015, the U.S.

government sentenced him to 5 years in prison, a three-year term of supervised

release, a fine of $25,000, and a $100 special assessment. When the Petitioner

read the Sentencing Memorandum, he noticed that on six different pages, Haag

elaborated about Russian guns dealers in Russia, Boston, the Ukraine, and

Southern California, and on other pages the quid pro quo was used to incarcerate

Senator Yee .
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 174 -

The Petitioner became suspicious that the indictments for Trump’s 2015–2016

presidential campaign advisers and managers were drafted by same authors who

wrote the indictments for Senator Yee and the 25 others attached to him by the FBI

in an attempt to derail his 2011 San Francisco mayoral election bid and 2014

California Secretary of State campaign. However, after Petitioner read the court’s file

in case United States Of America V. Kwok Cheung Chow, A.K.A. Raymond Chow,

A.K.A. Shrimp Boy, A.K.A. Ha Jai., Case No. 3:14–Cr–00196–CRB , the Sentencing

Memorandum filed on February 17. 2016

https://www.scribd.com/document/476822278/UTC-2016026217-Senator-Leland-

Yee-Sentencing-Memorandum and Court Transcript of Proceeding dated February

24, 2016 https://www.scribd.com/document/476821613/UTC-20160224-

California-Senator-Leland-Yee-Case-Sentencing-Transcript Petitioner became

convinced that the draft or frames of indictments for the witch hunt aimed at Senator

Leland Yee and indictments aimed at Donald Trump’s presidential campaign staff

were most likely authored by former U.S. Attorneys Haag and McGregor Scott,

who had been reappointed on December 29, 2017 (https://www.justice.gov/usao-

edca/pr/mcgregor-w-scott-sworn-united-states-attorney-eastern-district-

california); former US Attorney from Eastern District of California Benjamin

Wagner; and Rod Rosenstein, the former U.S Attorney for District of Maryland
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 175 -

based on information provided to them directly by former FBI Director Mueller and

former Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Napolitano, who, in August

2016, used UC funds to pay Haag and Scott $1,000,000 for their dedication to the

cause.

XXI. UC PRESIDENT JANET NAPOLITANO'S 2016 WITCH HUNT

HOAX INVOLVING UC DAVIS GREEK-BORN CHANCELLOR,
LINDA KATEHI, AND TWO OF NAPOLITANOS’ FRIENDS
FORMER U.S. ATTORNEYS, MELINDA HAAG AND MCGREGOR
WILLIAM SCOTT.

Shortly after March 25, 2016, when Yee turned himself in to serve his five-year

federal prison sentence, former U.S. Attorney and Prosecutor from the Northern

District of California, Haag, resurfaced as a witch hunter in a phony investigation

aimed at UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi

(https://faculty.engineering.ucdavis.edu/katehi/). The orchestrated by UC President

witch hunt hoax lasted for four months, from March–August 2016, and was carried

out by Haag and her colleague from Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, McGregor

Scott, former U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of California from 2003–2009.

Katehi was used as prey to pay Haag and Scott $1,000,000. In and beyond 2016,

Napolitano paid $1,000,000 . Napolitano and Haag enlisted two Sacramento Bee
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 176 -

reporters, Diana Lambert and Sam Stanton, to publish despicable articles about Katehi.

By joining the board of the for-profit education group and textbook publisher, DeVry,

which allegedly violated university policies, Katehi ignited the flames of distraction

and disorientation, and several other state legislators took the bait. The attacks against

the chancellor escalated to the point that student protestors occupied UC Davis’s Mark

Hall and demanded her resignation. One state lawmaker, apparently alluding to the

prosecution of Senator Yee, told reporters that if he had done the same as Chancellor

Katehi, he would have ended up in federal prison.

Haag and Scott's witch hunt and prosecution of framed and entrapped

Senator Yee and Lodi, CA, and resident Hamid Hayat, included accusations that

they were involved with Jihadist terror groups, including the Moro Islamic

Liberation Front (Yee) and Al Qaeda (Hayat). This encouraged the Petitioner to

pray for Chancellor Katehi and her family, especially after discovering that she,

herself, had served as a board member of the Saudi Arabian University of King

Abdulaziz in Jeddah. Fifteen of the 19 participants in the September 11 terrorist

attacks were from Saudi Arabia. The Petitioner thought that Haag and Scott, who

were paid $1,000,000 by Napolitano, would make Katehi an enemy combatant and

that Napolitano would send Katehi to Guantanamo Bay. A million dollars is a lot

of money to spend in three months to convert Katehi from UC Davis chancellor to

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 177 -

UC Davis chancellor emerita base on petty accusations and allegations In 2016,

the Petitioner viewed Napolitano as a reckless, dangerous, and merciless

individual, and her methods of using public funds to deal with her personal or

political adversaries resembles the tactics used by the secret police in totalitarian

countries. The Petitioner was baffled as to why two former U.S. prosecutors agreed

to participate in Napolitano's witch hunt against Katehi. Even a million-dollar

reward for Katehi's head should not have motivated decent people to commit such

underhanded crimes, especially former U.S Attorneys .

On August 9, 2016, Katehi was forced by Napolitano or they cut deal and she

resign from her post as chancellor. Since March 2019, Katehi has been employed at

Texas A&M University, College Station, as a professor in the Department of Electrical

and Computer Engineering (https://engineering.tamu.edu/electrical/profiles/katehi-

linda.html). The Petitioner was employed by Texas A&M University from 1982–

1986, as a cogeneration power plant operator. The Petitioner was also mercilessly and

brutally witch hunted from 2011–2012, at the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) by

UCOP thugs when Katehi was chancellor at UC Davis.

 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 178 -

XXII. MAY 18, 2016 MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE BETWEEN U.S.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN,
SECRETARIES FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, AND
JANET NAPOLITANO, FORMER U.S. DEPARTMENT SECRETARY
OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA (UC)

In May 2016, UC President Napolitano traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet

President Obama and Vice President Biden. The UC Newsroom article, dated May 19,

2016, shows a photo of Napolitano meeting Biden in his West Wing office on May 18,

2016. The article stated that https://www.scribd.com/document/476775292/UTC-

20160518-UC-President-Janet-Napolitano-Meets-President-Obama-Vice-

President-Biden-BIDEN

"University of California President Janet Napolitano met with

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and the cabinet
secretaries for energy, education, and agriculture this week to
highlight how UC is helping to drive solutions to some of world's
most pressing challenges.
UC is an active partner with the federal government in pursuing
groundbreaking research to address some of the most important
scientific and technological questions facing our nation and the
world. The university receives approximately $8.5 billion in federal
support each year, including about 3 billion for research."
The unprecedented UC President Janet Napoitano’s May 2016 meeting took

place during the ongoing turmoil in UC Davis campus orchestrated by Napolitano and

had been going on since March 2016. aimed at UC Davis Greek-born Chancellor,
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 179 -

Linda Katehi. Phony investigation and witch hunt hoax involved UC Davis Chancellor

Linda Katehi was used as smoke screen to pay to Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott

$ 1,000,000 Turmoil and witch hunt was televised and publicized in mass and social

media around the country. The former U.S. Attorney McGregor “Greg” Scott, from the

Eastern District of California in Sacramento, earned his fame in the 2003–2007

prosecution of Hamid Hayat, a 19-year-old cherry picker from Lodi, California, which

is the same city in which the Petitioner has lived with family since 1989. Hayat was

singled out and framed by an order given in October 2001 by Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Swan Mueller III to his subordinates. Hayat was

accused of affiliation with terrorists, and, in 2007, he was prosecuted and sentenced 24

years in federal prison. In his July 29, 2019 Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order, served on

July 9, 2019, and signed by Special Trial Judge Honorable Robert N. Armen, the

Petitioner addressed Honorable Wallace Tashima’s dissent opinion in the case of

United States v. Hayat, 710 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2013). On July 29, 2019, the same day

as the Petitioner’s reply addressing Hayat, Honorable Garland E. Burrell Jr. of the U.S.

District Court, Eastern District of California, by signed court order, vacated Hayat’s

24-year prison term (United States v. Hayat Case, 2:05–cr–00240–GEB, Document

752, Filed July 30, 2019). (U.S Tax Court Docket No. 0019)
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 180 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/476776215/UTC-20190730-HAMID-HAYAT-

JUDGMENT

In May 2016, the most pressing challenge for UC President Napolitano, President

Obama, Vice President Biden, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Dianne

Feinstein and California AG Kamala Harris were the presidential candidates, Donald

Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton, but especially Trump.

In looking for clues as to why Petitioner became subject to 14 years of a

merciless and ruthless witch hunt carried out by the UCOP mob and their collaborators

in the courts and in state and federal agencies, the Petitioner reviewed thousands of

pages of documents filed in different courts and from state and federal agencies. He

came to the conclusion that the reason that Napolitano met with President Obama and

Vice President Biden in May 2016 was to deliver a draft of the indictment for criminal

prosecution of "Drain the Swamp" and "Make America Great Again" (MAGA)

presidential candidate Trump, his family members, his aids, and his managers. Their

goal was to prevent Trump from becoming President of the United States of America

in way similar to that which was done to Senator Yee in his desire to became Mayor of

San Francisco and Secretary of State. Based on documents in the U.S. District Court

for the Northern District of California on July 24, 2014, United States of America v.

Kwok Cheung Chow, a.k.a. Raymond Chow, a.k.a. Shrimp Boy, a.k.a. Ha Jai., Case
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 181 -

No. 3:14–cr–00196–CRB (U.S.A. v. Chow); U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of California (Sacramento) United States v. Hayat, No. 2:05–cr–0240 GEB DB

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019); and other publications, and the fact that Napolitano paid

Haag and McGregor $1,000,000 in 2016, Petitioner came to conclusion that Haag and

Scott most likely were authors or coauthors of the draft of the indictments to

prosecute Trump, his family, and his election campaign team.

As the Petitioner pointed out in his July 24, 2018 inquiry addressed to FBI

Special Agent in Charge at the Sacramento field office, Sean Ragan, and in the cover

letter to the August 3, 2018 update of his 2016 IRS Application for Award Form 211,

the Petitioner did not have $1,000,000 of public money to hire somebody like Haag

or Scott to conduct deeper investigations into the sophisticated scheme 40 billion fraud

titled “California Energy Crisis” linked to 9/11 terrorist attack, tax evasion and the

accompanying tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks from power corporations that

were distributed to kickback receivers by the California Attorney General's Energy

Task Force and other California parties under the umbrella of the California attorney

general office.

XXIII. THE JULY 2016, FBI “WITCH HUNT AND RUSSIAN COLLUSION
HOAX” COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION AIMED AT
DONALD TRUMP AND HIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
CAMPAIGN TEAM
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 182 -

On July 19, 2016, Donald Trump and his running mate, Indiana Governor Mike

Pence, were officially nominated as the Republican presidential and vice-presidential

candidates at the Republican National Convention. Almost instantly after Trump and

Pence were nominated, mass and social media launched orchestrated nonstop attacks

aimed at Trump, his family, and his election campaign team. These attacks were in the

style of the Third Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. On July 31, 2016,

shortly after Trump and Pence were nominated, the FBI gave an order to officially

launch a counterintelligence investigation into links between Trump campaign officials

and the Russian government. The Petitioner had a hard time understanding why

President Obama's administration chose Russia, which is no longer a communist

country, over communist China, to derail Trump’s presidential campaign. Russia

became a boogey man as a common enemy after Soviet Union collapsed.

On November 8, 2016, Trump and Pence defeated Rodham Clinton and Tim

Kaine. On January 13, 2017, seven days before newly elected President Trump took

office, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence announced a probe of Russian

meddling in the 2016 presidential election

(https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/joint-statement-committee-inquiry-

russian-intelligence-activities). This was followed by a similar announcement by the

 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 183 -

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, led by Republican Devin Nunes

and Democrat Adam Schiff, both from California.

XXIV. ROD JAY ROSENSTEIN’S NOMINATION TO SERVE AS THE 37TH

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL (DAG) FOR THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

On March 10, 2017, U.S. Attorney General (AG) Jeff Session, who was newly

appointed by President Trump, requested the resignation of 46 U.S. Attorneys around

the country. One of them was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, Rod

Jay Rosenstein, who had served in that position since 2005. President Trump declined

to accept the resignation of Rosenstein, whom he had chosen to become Deputy

Attorney General for the U.S. Attorney General. It is unknown for Petitioner who

made the recommendation to President Trump to appoint Rosenstein as deputy for AG

Jeff Session. AG Session who did not want Rosenstein as his deputy and he was one

who wanted to eliminate Rosenstein from U.S Department of Justice and requested his

resignation. If President Trump did not decline Session's request to let Rosenstein go,

President Trump most likely would have severely disrupted the plot to be removed

from office. Session knew what he was doing; he knew a lot about the political swamp

in Washington, D.C., and around the country, which President Trump wanted to drain.
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 184 -

XXV. THE MARCH 6, 2017 LETTER ADDRESSED TO CHARLES

GRASSLEY, CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY, AND DIANNE FEINSTEIN, RANKING MEMBER, U.S.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Re: “Confirmation of Rod J. Rosenstein for Deputy Attorney General of the
United States”
On March 6, 2016, a recommendation letter was sent to Senators Charles

Grassley from Iowa and Feinstein from California by 127 former U.S. Attorneys. The

letter recommended that Rosenstein be confirmed as Deputy Attorney General of the

U.S. with the following statement

https://www.scribd.com/document/476823807/UTC-20170306-Rosenstein-

Recommendation-Letter-To-Appoint-Rod-Rosenstein-As-A-Deputy-Attorney-

General

"We, the signatories below, are 127 former United States Attorneys who
served under every President from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. We
write today in support of the nomination of U.S. Attorney Rod J.
Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
As former U.S. Attorneys, we offer our unqualified and enthusiastic
support for Rod Rosenstein's nomination as Deputy Attorney General. We
respectfully request that you support his confirmation."

Rosenstein graduated from Harvard Law School in 1989. Some of the signatories

served as U.S. Attorneys before he had graduated. It is worth mentioning that while in
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 185 -

law school, Rosenstein was an intern for Mueller, who served as acting U.S. Attorney

for the District of Massachusetts.

The Petitioner reviewed the U.S. Attorneys' names listed in the attachment to the

letter and found that the following former U.S. Attorneys served the State of California

in various districts:

LAURA DUFFY, Appointed by President Barack Obama

United States Attorney, Southern District of California, 2010–2017;

MELINDA HAAG, Appointed by President Barack Obama

United States Attorney, Northern District of California, 2010–2016;

PETER NUNEZ, Appointed by President Ronald Reagan

United States Attorney, Southern District of California, 1982–1988;

THOMAS P. O'BRIEN, Appointed by President Barack Obama

United States Attorney, Central District of California, 2007–2009;

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO, Appointed by President Ronald Reagan

and reappointed in 2007 by President George W. Bush
United States Attorney, Northern District of California, 1982–1990 and
2008–2010;

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT, Appointed by President George W. Bush

United States Attorney, Eastern District of California 2003–2009;

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, Appointed by President Barack Obama

United States Attorney, Eastern District of California, 2009–2016;

DEBRA WONG YANG, Appointed by President George W. Bush

United States Attorney, Central District of California 2002–2006; and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 186 -

STEPHANIE YONEKURA, Appointed by President Barack Obama

United States Attorney, Central District of California 2014–2015.
Given the unbelievable conspiracy aimed at Trump before and after he was

elected, it was important to find out how such support for Rosenstein was assembled

and how such an action was initiated, whether it was by former FBI Director Mueller,

former Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security Napolitano, former U.S.

Attorneys Haag and Scott, or former U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner, who quit his

post shortly after he received the Petitioner’s April 2016 inquiry to investigate the tens

of millions of dollars of tax fraud committed by UC Regents, by Rosenstein himself,

by FBI Director James Comey, or by any other perpetrator not listed in the love letter

on Rosenstein's behalf who participated in the coup against the President

https://www.scribd.com/document/476783471/UTC-20160330-Inquiry-with-U-S-

Attorney-ECD-Benjamin-Wagner-Office

Rosenstein’s nomination as Deputy U.S. Attorney General was confirmed by the

U.S. Senate on April 25, 2017.

On May 9, 2017, President Trump fired FBI Director Comey in the following

statement (https://www.scribd.com/document/347869366/white-house-fires-james-

comey#from embed):
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 187 -

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—May 9, 2017

Statement from the Press Secretary

Today, President Donald J. Trump informed FBI Director James Comey

that he has been terminated and removed from office. President Trump
acted based on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

"The FBI is one of our Nation's most cherished and respected institutions
and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law
enforcement," said President Trump.

A search for a new permanent FBI Director will begin immediately.

On May 17, 2014, Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rosenstein, by the following

Order No. 3915–2017, appointed Mueller as U.S. Department of Justice Special

Counsel:

ORDER NO. 3915–2017 OF APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL

COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General,

including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, to discharge my responsibility to
provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice and to
ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts
to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
a. Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the
United States Department of Justice.
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 188 -

b. The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation

continued by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20,
2017, including: any links and/or coordination between the Russian
government and individuals associated with the campaign of President
Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from
the investigation; and any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R.
§ 600.4(a).
c. If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the
Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from
the investigation of these matters.
d. Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

FBI Director Comey could became a problem and obstruction for Mueller and

Rosenstein's hit squad to complete the Russian collusion witch hunt hoax's mission to

remove Trump from office. Along with Andrew McCabe, Comey operated a different

anti-Trump circle in the Russian collusion witch hunt hoax and was no needed

anymore. Comey could flip to save his job.

XXVIII. STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUDIT 2016–130

In May 2017, at approximately the same time that President Donald Trump fired

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey and that Deputy

Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Swan Mueller III as Special

Counsel to investigate Trump’s collusion with Russia, on the other side of the country,

in California, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 189 -

University of California (UC) President Janet Napolitano became national headline

news.

In September 2013, Napolitano and Mueller were sent by President Obama to

California to finish California Senator Leland Yee and carry out an evil mission to

frame and destroy Trump, a well-known New York City businessman and billionaire

and a potential presidential candidate.

On April 25, 2017, Certified Public Accountant (CPA) State Auditor, Elaine M.

Howle, wrote a letter to the Governor of California and to other legislative leaders

entitled "Audit 2016–130." In it, she disclosed that in 2015–2016, UC President

Napolitano stashed away $175,000,000. Howle also disclosed that, in 2016, Napolitano

most likely used federal funds to pay $1,000,000 to two former U.S. Attorneys,

Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, for their participation in the phony March–August

2016 witch hunt hoax aimed at UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi. Both Haag and

Scott were listed, among 125 other individuals, in the March 6, 2017 recommendation

letter that was sent to the U.S. Senate in support of Rod Rosenstein’s nomination to the

post of U.S. Attorney General.

The Audit 2016–130 was requested by California Assemblymen Phil Ting

and Kevin McCarthy and was approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee in

August 2016. Ting and McCarthy were two colleagues of California Senator Leland
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 190 -

Yee, who was witch-hunted, framed, entrapped FBI Director Robert Swan Mueller III

subordinated from San Francisco and Sacramento and prosecuted by Mueller and

Napolitano’s friends Melinda Haag . Ting and McCarthy apparently did not bend to

the terror of Napolitano and the UC Office of the President (UCOP). They ordered the

audit after Robert Mueller Melinda Haag and U.S District Court Judge Charles Breyer

sent Senator Yee to federal prison for five years sentenced in the Soviet Union Stalin

era show trial . District Court Judge Charles Breyer from Northern District of

California is a brother of Justice of the Supreme Court Stephen Breyer.

Ting was elected to the State Assembly in 2012, representing the 19th Assembly

District, which spans the west side of San Francisco, as well as the communities of

Broadmoor, Colma, Daly City, and South San Francisco. He was appointed as San

Francisco's assessor-recorder in 2005 by then-mayor Gavin Newsom, becoming San

Francisco’s highest-ranking Chinese-American official at the time. He was then

elected to the State Assembly post in November 2005. He served as Chair of the

Assembly Budget Committee after having served as Chair of the Assembly Committee

on Revenue and Taxation (https://a19.asmdc.org/article/biography).

McCarty was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014 to represent the

7th Assembly District, which includes Sacramento, West Sacramento and parts of

unincorporated Sacramento County. He served as Chair of the Assembly Budget

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 191 -

Subcommittee on Education Finance, which oversees the largest component of

California’s multi-billion dollar budget (https://a07.asmdc.org/article/biography).

Ting and McCarty’s requested state audit disclosure showed that in May 2016,

when Napolitano traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet President Obama, Vice

President Biden, and other dignitaries, she was already armed with $175,000,000. This

meeting took place two months before Republican presidential and vice-presidential

candidates, Trump and Mike Pence, were nominated at the Republican National

Convention on July 19, 2016. Also the Napolitano’s meeting with President Obama

and Vice President Biden took place two months before the FBI gave the order on

July 31, 2016 to officially launch a counterintelligence investigation into Trump

campaign officials' which were supposedly linked with the Russian government. The

question remains as to whether, in May 2016, Napolitano also met with FBI Director

James Comey, Andrew McCabe, or Trump’s other adversaries in order to remove

Trump, from the political arena.

At the end of September 2016, Napolitano, still armed with $175,000,000,

traveled to San Diego to meet California Supreme Chief Justice, Cantil-Sakauye,

and State Bar of California Director and CEO, Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, who

was the former General Counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 192 -

National Security Agency (NSA) and the former principal deputy legal adviser at the

U.S. Department of State.

After the San Diego trip, Napolitano having $ 175, 000,000 in her pocket

campaigned in her home state of Arizona for Hillary Rodham Clinton. She had high

expectations of becoming a U.S. Attorney General, as long as she, Mueller, and others

could complete the ongoing evil mission to eliminate Trump using the $175,000,000,

which was most likely provided to the UC by federal government agencies for

purposes other than to hunt down Trump.

After the $175,000,000 of dirty cash that Napolitano had was disclosed in the

state audit, she tried to control damages by hiring former state Supreme Court Justice

Carlos Moreno, who in joined in the phony investigation with Hueston Hennigan LLP

(https://www.hueston.com/). This investigation produced over fifty pages of damage

control in a meaningless report entitled “Independent Fact-Finding Review for the

Board of Regents of the University of California: Summary of Findings”

(https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov17/b2attach3.pdf). Moreno

got Napolitano off the hook and diverted attention from UC Regents by singling out

Napolitano’s top two aides, Seth Grossman and Bernie Jones, for interference with the

state audit.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 193 -

After being mentioned in Moreno’s report, Sheryl Vacca, Chief Compliance and

Audit Officer and Senior Vice President, and Karen Petrulakis, UC Deputy General

Counsel, resigned from their posts. Prior to that, shortly after he issued a decision in

the Petitioner’s Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint, Daniel Dooley, UC Senior Vice

President and locally designated officer, resigned from his post. Dooley is the husband

of Diana Dooley, the Chief of Staff for the last former California governor, Jerry

Brown. Vacca and Dooley directly oversaw the Petitioner’s Whistleblowing

Retaliation Complaint in 2013–2014.

Napolitano replaced Vacca and Dooley with her friend, former U.S. attorney,

Alexander Bustamante. Bustamante was employed in same U.S. Attorney Office in

Los Angeles as Justice Elana Duarte of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District

(3DCA) (see Petition for Review Supreme Court Case No. S253713, Waszczuk v.

California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and The Regents of the

University of California, filed in the Supreme Court on January 29, 2019.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476827015/UTC-20190129-California-

Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Review-Case-No-S253713

When Locally Designated Officer and Senior Vice-President (SVP) Dan Dooley was

deposed or quit in 2014 and UCOP Chief Compliance and Audit Officer SVP Sheryl
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 194 -

Vacca left the UCOP in 2016, Napolitano, in her distrust of replacing Vacca with an

outsider, brought her friend John Lohse back from retirement as an interim

replacement, than hired Bustamante, former U.S. attorney for the Central District of

California, 2002–2011 when he became available .

The Petitioner alerted the U.S. Tax Court of Napolitano’s possession of the

$175,000,000 of dirty cash in his July 29, 2019 Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order

Served on July 9, 2019, Signed by Special Trial Judge Honorable Robert N. Armen,

Re: Protective Order, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure Section 6103(B)(L),

(2), and (3) (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0019), with the following words):

https://www.scribd.com/document/476775930/UTC-20190729-Judge-Armen-

Order-Petitioner-Objection-to-Motion-for-Protective-Order

“It is still a puzzle whether Assemblymen Phil Ting and Kevin

McCarty, by ordering the State Audit, prevented Napolitano from
using the $175,000,000 of dirty cash to possibly orchestrate a new
9/11 terrorist attack or to assassinate Donald Trump on the
Presidential campaign trail in 2016.”
In September 2019, shortly after the Petitioner submitted his reply to U.S. Tax

Court Order and Judge Armen denied the Motion for Protective Order to the

Respondent, Napolitano announced her resignation from the post of UC President,

effective August 2020. Between 2013–2017, Napolitano's activities in California and

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 195 -

abroad, especially those related to the May 2016 meeting with President Obama and

Vice President Biden, the $175,000,000 cash, and the State Audit 2016-130, most

likely prevented the FBI raid on Trump and his aids at his residence and presidential

campaign headquarters, which would have resulted in arrests and indictments similar

to those of framed California Yee in March 2014. The other reason that Trump ‘s aids

at his residence and presidential campaign headquarters were not raided by FBI in

2016 was the August 14, 2016 New York Times premature disclosure that $12.7

million in illegal cash payments to Donald Trump presidential campaign chairman

Paul Manafort were listed in the 2014 secret ledger linked to former pro Russian

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Manafort had worked as an adviser to

Yanukovych and his associates since 2005. Manafort resigned as Trump’s campaign

chairman on August 19, 2016. The New York disclosure about Manafort’s business in

Ukraine opened new can with worms about Vice President Jo Biden’s son Hunter

Biden about his business in Ukraine . These two events, the Assemblymen Phil Ting

and Kevin McCarty, August 2016 State Audit and New York Times disclosure most

likely temporally vacated the FBI raid to end Trump’s presidential campaign .

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra did not open an investigation into

the millions of dollars hidden by Napolitano. In 2017 AG Becerra was too busy with

lawsuit against Donald Trump he was filing as a distraction from the coup aimed at
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 196 -

Donald Trump. Any formal investigation by the U.S. Attorney General Office aimed at

Napolitano in relation to her laundering of $175,000,000 of cash would have

eventually led President Barak Obama , Vice President Biden , Robert Mueller's , Rod

Rosenstein , Kamala Harris ,Melinda Haag , Benjamin Wagner , Dianne Feinstein ,

Adam Schiff , Nancy Pelosi , Gavin Newsom and many others in their evil mission to

eliminate and erase Donald Trump from political arena and throw him into prison .

The California State Auditor’s Office is a creature of statute. It has the

duty to perform, among other things, financial and performance audits of state
entities, as required by statute. Pursuant to California Government Code
sections 8546 and 8546.1(c), the State Auditor conducts audits in conformity
with the “Government Auditing Standards” published by the United States
Comptroller statute, commonly known as the “Yellow Book,” and the
standards published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(AICPA). https://www.auditor.ca.gov/aboutus

XXIX. EXCERPT FROM THE PETITIONER’S JUNE 14, 2017 OPEN LETTER
TO SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS ENTITLED “THE LEFT OVER
FROM THE CALIFORNIA'S ENERGY MARKET DEREGULATION,
ENERGY CRISIS OF 1999–2001 AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RECALL ELECTION OF THE GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS IN 2003.

I assume that regardless of your duties in Washington D.C you have a great
knowledge of what is going on in the State of California, especially regarding
headlines containing names like Janet Napolitano, Dianne Feinstein, Jerry
Brown, Nancy Pelosi or the Regents of the University of California because of
misappropriations of taxpayer funds or violence in the University of California
campuses. If you take time and read my letter to FTB or 20 pages long letter
dated October 27, 2016 to the U.S Senator Dianne Feinstein you will find out
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 197 -

that beside my devastation of my life by gangsters from the UC Office of the

President (UCOP), I am very concerned about other victims of the uncontrolled
corruption in UCOP and state agencies. I am especially concerned about the
almost 70 years old former Democratic California Senator Leland Yee's
wellbeing who was thrown into federal prison for five years by the fellow
democrats. Federal Correctional Institution, Forth Worth. Texas. Register
Number: 19629-111.
Regardless of Senator Leland Yee's political views, I view Leland
Yee as political prisoner and 1 believe, based on the court's
documents, events and facts, that he was framed in a Robert
Mueller’s FBI sting operation formulated by Senator Dianne
Feinstein, her husband Richard Blum, former US Secretary of
Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, California Governor, Jerry
Brown and/or his Chief Deputy, Jacob Applesmith, former
California Senate President pro tempore Darrell Steinberg (today's
Mayor of City of Sacramento) and former Speaker of the Assembly
John Perez (today UC Regents) and many others who wanted to see
Senator Leland Yee go.
Yesterday I had a liberty to watch on TV your performance and you
attorney skill during the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee
hearing. I don't know what your intention was and what you were
trying to achieve by attacking Mr. Sessions in way Joseph Stalin's
prosecutors were sending the witch hunted people to Siberia's
gulags or sentenced them to death by the death squads. The
scenario to dispose President Trump is closely akin how

California Senator Leland Yee was disposed by Janet Napolitano

and Senator Dianne Feinstein. The different is only that the United
States President Donald Trump or U.S Attorney General Mr. Jeff
Sessions is not Senator Leland Yee from California who was
disposed by Janet Napolitano and U.S Senator Dianne Feinstein or
poor worker from the UC Davis Medical Center who was disposed
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 198 -

by Senator Feinstein's husband Richard Blum and his thugs. By

attaching President Trump or Attorney General Jeff Sessions to
Russia and Russian is more outrageous and ridicules plot I have
seen and observed since "Weapons of Mass Destruction "which led
to the invasion of Iraq by President Bush administration to dispose
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
In conclusion, I would like to say that base of the fraud and
corruption is related to my employment. I am not surprised that the
new President of the United States and his staff is under constant
siege by the unbelievably vicious and vocal contenders not to
mention some performers like Kathy Griffin.
Similar to the way in which she attacked U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session on

June 13, 2017, Kamala Harris attacked President Donald Trump’s nominee to the U.S.

Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in an even nastier way, during the September

27, 2018 hearing about allegations that he assaulted Christine Blasey- Ford while the

two were teenagers.

Judge Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misconduct was aimed at Donald Senator

Dianne Feinstein’s using professor and psychologist from Palo Alto University, Dr.

Christine Blasey Ford (https://www.c-span.org/video/?451895-2/supreme-court-

nominee-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-hearing-judge-kavanaugh-testimony)

This political stunt was an attempt to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination was aimed

at President Donald Trump and was a prelude to President Trump's 2019

impeachment, led by the political oligarchy from California, Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 199 -

Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi , Senator Kamala Harris , Congressman Adam Schiff

and their collaborators from the East Coast led by Congressman Jerrold Nadler .

https://www.scribd.com/document/476625769/In-Defense-of-Judge-Kavanaugh-

and-His-Family

The reason of Harris's vicious attack aimed at AG Jeff Session was quite simple

to understand. Harris was pitting President Donald Trump against AG Session who

did not want Rod Rosenstein in his AG DOJ Office. As the Petitioner previously

pointed out, Session requested the resignation of 46 U.S. Attorneys in March 2017.

One of them was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, Rod Jay Rosenstein,

who had served in that position since 2005. President Trump declined to accept the

resignation of Rosenstein, who he had chosen by Donald Trump’s enemies to appoint

him Deputy Attorney General to Attorney General Session. It is unknown for

Petitioner who made the recommendation to President Trump to appoint Rosenstein as

deputy to Session but this individual who made recommendation to appoint Rosenstein

was not Donald Trump’s friend or ally.

Attorney General Session recused himself from the Russia witch hunt hoax

investigation because President Trump did not let him the eliminate Rosenstein from

the U.S. Department of Justice in March 2017. Rosenstein was a key perpetrator in the
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 200 -

conspiracy to remove President Trump from office. Had Rosenstein been eliminated

from the U.S. Department of Justice, the coup against President Trump most likely

would have ended, and Mueller would never have been appointed as special counsel to

prosecute Trump and most likely no any other special counsel would be appointed if

President would not appoint Rosenstein or he would fire him .

Harris together with Feinstein, Schiff and Pelosi was a key player in the coup

against Trump. She was most likely advised by the best experts in criminal psychology

from Palo Alto and Stanford Universities on how apply psychological warfare to attack

President Trump's nominees and staff during Senate or House investigative and

nomination hearings. In September 2013, Mueller arrived at Stanford University, He

was welcomed by Blasey Ford, a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and

a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Since 2011, Dr.

Blasely-Ford had been a professor of psychology in the Stanford-PGSP Consortium for

Clinical Psychology, a collaborative program between Palo Alto University and

Stanford University (https://www.paloaltou.edu/about/partnership-stanford-

university).

On May 17, 2017, Mueller resurfaced as U.S. Department of Justice Special

Counsel. He was appointed by Trump's appointee, Deputy Attorney General

 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 201 -

Rosenstein, who had nearly been fired from the U.S. Department of Justice, and who

was a key player in the conspiracy to remove Trump from office. What a twist in U.S.

history.

XXX. JULY 26, 2017 PREDAWN RAID ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FORMER

CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN, PAUL MANAFORT

On May 17, 2017, Deputy of the U.S. Attorney General Rosenstein appointed Mueller as

U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel by Order No. 3915–2017, Exactly two months

later on July 17, FBI agents raided the home of President Trump's former campaign

chairman, Paul Manafort. This happened also just two months after the disclosure

California State Auditor that U.C President Janet Napolitano laundered $175,000,000 for

unspecified reason . Mueller's quickly-orchestrated pre-dawn raid on Manafort's residence

and the seizure of documents occurred just days after Manafort met with investigators

from the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was part of the psychological warfare to

terrorize President Trump, his family, and his administration, which aimed to give

President Trump a chilling message from Mueller’s FBI hit squad, that, like Manafort, the

President and his family members were also on the list to be hit. Furthermore, the time

period from May 17, 2017 to July 26, 2017, was too short to conduct any investigation

detailed enough to justify a raid on Manafort's home. The hoax investigation was merely a
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 202 -

formality; Mueller had a already list prepared in California of who to hit in the ongoing

witch hunt aimed at President Trump and anybody who was closely associated with him

XXXI. MAY 17, 2018 INQUIRY SENT BY CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,

CHAIRMAN OF THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY, TO DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN

A. Re: Rod Rosenstein’s May 17, 2017 Order Appointing Robert Swan
Mueller III as Special Counsel

On May 17, 2017 Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert

Swan Mueller III as Special Counsel to hunt down and destroy Donald Trump’s

presidency through a ruthless, merciless witch hunt aimed at anybody associated with

Trump and his family.

Exactly one year later, on May 17, 2018, Chairman Charles E. Grassley wrote a

seven-page letter to Rosenstein, outlining his serious concerns about the jurisdiction

and authority of Special Counsel Mueller. On page 3 of the letter, Grassley noted that

Rosenstein’s appointment order omitted sections 600.1–600.3 of the Attorney General

department regulations. The omitted sections included: (1) grounds for appointing a

Special Counsel, (2) alternatives available to the Attorney General, and (3)

qualifications of the Special Counsel, including the requirement that the Assistant

Attorney General for Administration ensure a detailed review of conflicts of interest

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 203 -

issues. More specifically, section 600.1 states the Attorney General “will appoint a

Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or

matter is warranted.” The omitted regulations do not authorize counterintelligence

investigations. However, the Appointment Order did not otherwise specify whether, to

what extent, or on what basis Mueller had been granted counterintelligence authority.

These omissions, and the Department’s decision to withhold a precise description of

the scope of the special counsel investigation, obscured how the department was

spending very significant amounts of taxpayer dollars and left murky the actual

jurisdictional limits on Mueller’s authority, as well as how those limits were

determined.

Furthermore, on page 4 of his letter, Chairman Grassley made reference to

Rosenstein’s August 2017 Memorandum. Chairman Grassley requested that

Rosenstein provide an unredacted copy of that memorandum and any other

documents that delineated, described, or supported the jurisdiction and authority of

the special counsel and that he respond in writing to the following questions by

May 31, 2018: https://www.scribd.com/document/476828601/UTC-20180517-

Chairman-Grassley-to-Rod-Rosenstein-Letter The August Memorandum states

that it addresses the special counsel’s authorization as of the date he was

appointed. Why was this memorandum not drafted until August 2017?
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 204 -

1. The regulations authorizing the appointment of a special counsel state that the
Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) may appoint a special counsel
“when he or she determinations that criminal investigation of a person or matter
is warranted.”18 The Appointment Order proscribes the Special Counsel’s
jurisdiction by citing specifically “the investigation confirmed by then-FBI
Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017.”19 In his March 20 testimony,
former Director Comey referred to “the investigation” as a counterintelligence
investigation—not a criminal investigation.20

2. Please explain which portion of which regulation authorizes the appointment of

a Special Counsel to conduct a counterintelligence investigation.

3. The Appointment Order does not cite to 28 C.F.R. § 600.1 through § 600.3.
However, section 600.1 is the section that describes the grounds necessary to
appoint a special counsel. It requires (1) a criminal predicate, and (2) that
investigation or prosecution by a U.S. Attorney’s office or litigating unit of DOJ
would present a conflict of interest or other extraordinary circumstance.

4. Why does the Order not cite to or rely on section 600.1? Does the August
Memorandum reference section 600.1? If not, why not?

5. What “criminal investigation of a person or matter” did you determine was

warranted?

6. Why did your Appointment Order not identify specific crimes to be

investigated?

7. What conflict of interest or extraordinary circumstance would have

prevented a disinterested U.S. Attorney’s office or litigating unit of the
Department from investigating or prosecuting the matter(s) referred to in the
Appoint Order and August Memorandum under your supervision?

8. Did you exercise your authority, or consider exercising your authority under
section 600.2(b) to “direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 205 -

factual inquiry or legal research . . . be conducted in order to better inform

the decision?” If not, why not? If so, please describe in detail the scope,
methodology, and results of the initial investigation.

9. Did you exercise your authority, or consider exercising your authority under
section 600.2(c) to have “the appropriate component of the Department . . .
handle the matter” and “mitigate any conflicts of interest [through] recusal
of particular officials?” If not, why not? If so, please describe in detail why
that option was not considered or exercised.

10.Did you comply with the requirements of section 600.3(b) that require the
Attorney General to “consult with the Assistant Attorney General for
Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to
ensure
. . . a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues?” If not, why
not? If so, please describe in detail the Assistant Attorney General for
Administration’s involvement and the results of the ethics and conflicts of
interest review.

11.The Appointment Order explicitly states that sections 600.4-600.10 apply to

this Special Counsel despite the apparent failure to follow the appointment
requirements in sections 600.1-600.3. The Order also cites section 600.4(a)
which requires that “[t]he Special Counsel . . . be provided with a specific
factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” Again, under section
600.1 the “matter” is that which the Attorney General or Acting Attorney
General determines “warrant[s]” a “criminal investigation.” Is there a
“specific factual statement of the matter” that warrants a criminal
investigation described in the May 17 Order? In the August Memorandum?
What is it?

12.The regulations cited in the Appointment Order authorize the Acting

Attorney General to grant to a Special Counsel the powers of a U.S.
Attorney.21 To what extent have you considered whether that includes the
authority to initiate, supervise, or participate in counterintelligence
investigations?
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 206 -

13.Rather than the regulations, the Appointment Order appears to rely instead
on general statutory authority of the Attorney General. The statute permits
the Attorney General to exercise “all functions of other officers of the
Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the
Department of Justice,”22 and the authority to delegate “any function of the
Attorney General,”23 and/or the authority to “conduct any kind of legal
proceeding, civil or criminal.”24 Are those statutes, alone or in combination,
in your opinion sufficient to authorize a counterintelligence investigation by
a Special Counsel? Why or why not?

14.During an all-Senators briefing on May 18, 2017, you were asked by Senator
Collins and Judiciary Committee staff whether you had delegated the
Attorney General’s FISA approval authority to Special Counsel Mueller.
Have you delegated FISA approval authority to the Special Counsel? If so,
on what date, and was the delegation done in writing? If it was in writing,
please provide a copy to the Committee.

15.What limits apply, if any, to the authority or jurisdiction of a Special

Counsel whose appointment relies on general grants of authority to the
Attorney General under the statutes, rather than on the regulations?

16.What restrictions generally apply to the use of counterintelligence

investigative tools and techniques for the purpose of gathering information
for use in a criminal investigation? To the extent that senior official approval
is required, who is the senior official authorized to provide such approval for
matters related to the Special Counsel’s work, in light of the Attorney
General’s recusal?

17.Please explain whether and to what extent the Special Counsel has the
ability to access information gathered by the Intelligence Community under
national security authorities and to use that information in furtherance of his
criminal investigation or in a criminal proceeding. What level of supervision
or approval is required?

18.What jurisdictional limits apply to a counterintelligence investigation?

19.What jurisdictional limits apply to Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation?

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 207 -

20.How were those jurisdictional limits determined?

21.Have the jurisdictional limits of the Special Counsel’s investigation changed

or expanded? If so, on what date(s) and what was the scope and basis for the
expansion?

22.If so, what process or procedure was followed to ensure compliance with 28
C.F.R.§ 600.4(b)?

23.What processes or procedures are in place to ensure appropriate

accountability for the Special Counsel and his staff, as required by 28 C.F.R.
§ 600.7?
Please direct any questions you may have to DeLisa Lay of my committee
staff at (202) 224-5225. Thank you for your cooperation in this important
matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member

B. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s June 27, 2018 Reply to Charles
E. Grassley's Judiciary Inquiry, Dated May 17, 2018.
Rosenstein’s June 27, 2018, 12-page reply to Chairman Grassley did not answer

any of the 16 questions about Mueller's authority and jurisdiction in the ongoing witch

hunt that was orchestrated and crafted in California and aimed at President Trump, his

family and his administration .

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 208 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/476829539/UTC-DAG-Rosenstein-s-June-27-

2018-reply-to-Chairman-Grassley

This should be end of the story. President Trump should have fired Rosenstein

and Mueller and ordered an investigation against them for conspiracy to overthrow the

President of the United States. By reading Rosenstein’s reply to Chairman Grassley’s

specific demands, it is not difficult to figure out that Rosenstein was caught off guard

by Grassley’s letter and that Chairman Grassley should entirely disregard Rosenstein's

June 27, 2018 reply.

In his May 17, 2017 inquiry, Chairman Grassley brought to Rosenstein's

attention FBI Director James B. Comey’s March 20, 2017 testimony before the House

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In that testimony, Comey referred to the

investigation as a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation.

Chairman Grassley requested an explanation from Rosenstein as to which portion of

which regulation authorized the appointment of a special counsel to conduct a

counterintelligence investigation.

Grassley was perfectly aware that FBI Director James Comey and his

assistants, Chief of FBI Counterespionage Section and FBI Deputy Director Andrew

McCabe, were current U.S. Department of Justice employees whose agendas in

President Trump's Russian collusion witch hunt investigation differed from Mueller's
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 209 -

and Rosenstein's. Mueller, who retired from service in 2013, at the age of 69, was

brought in from outside in 2017, together with Rosenstein. Rosenstein was nominated

as Deputy Attorney General by President Trump, against the will and advice of

Attorney General Jeff Session. Session wanted to eliminate Rosenstein from the

Department of Justice when he served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland.

Rosenstein's nomination was supported by two former U.S. Attorneys from California,

Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott, to whom former U.S. Secretary of Homeland

Security Janet Napolitano paid $1,000,000 in 2016, to draft indictments for Mueller in

the witch hunt against Trump and his associates and aids in his presidential campaign.

XXXII. THE JULY 25, 2018 RESOLUTION IMPEACHING ROD

ROSENSTEIN, THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

Following the May 17, 2018 inquiry sent by Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,

on July 25, 2018, during the second session of the 115th Congress, 13 Republican

House representatives submitted the Second Session Resolution, H. Res. 1028, to

impeach Rosenstein for high crimes and misdemeanors, as follows:

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 25, 2018
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 210 -

Mr. MEADOWS (for himself, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia, Mr.
DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GAETZ, Mr.
DESJARLAIS, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. POSEY, and Mr. PERRY) submitted the
following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION
“Impeaching Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States,
for high crimes and misdemeanors. Resolved that Rod Rosenstein, Deputy
Attorney General of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and
misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the
Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United

States of America in the name of itself and all of the people of the United States of
America, against Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General of the United States,
in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and
mis-demeanors.”

https://www.scribd.com/document/476830488/UTC-20180725-
RESOLUTION-impeaching-DAG-Rod-Rosenstein

Although, Rosenstein was not impeached, Grassley's May 17, 2018 inquiry and

the Impeachment Resolution sent a strong message to Rosenstein and Robert Swan

Mueller III that they and their assembled hit squad were being closely watched. The

Petitioner does not understand why President Trump did not go along with the action

of Chairman Grassley and the House of Representatives and why he did not at least
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 211 -

fire Rosenstein in July 2018, given his accusations of ill-orchestrated collusion with

Russian, the witch hunt circus, and the political coup.

It is still a mystery why, at the beginning of his presidency, Trump even

appointed Rosenstein as deputy of Attorney General Jeff Session, who wanted to

dismiss Rosenstein from the District of Maryland U.S. Attorney post and eliminate

him entirely from the U.S. Department of Justice. The crux in this saga of conspiracy

against President Trump is to find out who told him to appoint Rosenstein, who,

together with Mueller, was a key player in attempting to overthrow President Trump;

prosecuting him for conspiracy with Russians; changing the result of the outcome of

the 2016 election; and framing, entrapping, and prosecuting him for criminal for

crimes that he never committed.

Mueller and Rosenstein’s tactic was to arrest people associated with Trump's

2015–2016 election campaign and to prosecute and threaten them until they made plea

agreements that incriminate President Trump, in exchange for lesser punishment. This

tactic did not work well for Mueller's hit squad of prosecutors and FBI agents or for

Rosenstein in his attempts to overthrow the President through an ill-drafted indictment

with a $1,000,000 price tag, which was paid by University of California (UC)

President Janet Napolitano to the authors of the indictment draft before Mueller ,
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 212 -

Rosenstein and their powerful sponsors from California began their quest to dispose of

the President of the United States of America.

XXXIII. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL (DAG) ROD ROSENSTEIN AND

FORMER FBI ACTING DIRECTOR ANDREW MCCABE IN
SEPTEMBER 2018.

In September 2018, DAG Rod Rosenstein and former FBI Acting Director

Andrew McCabe became headline news in all media around the country. FBI Acting

Director McCabe was fired by AG Jeff Session on March 16, 2018 two days before his

scheduled retirement after 20 years of service. The Petitioner’s own life was decimated

by a mob orchestrated by the University of California Office of the President (UCOP)

and their collaborators six years before his scheduled retirement after 13 years of

service at the university. McCabe was the third high-ranking FBI officer to be fired,

along with FBI Director James Comey (fired on May 9, 2017) and Peter Strzok, FBI

Chief of Counterespionage (fired on August 10, 2018).

The dismissal of three key players in the plot against President Donald Trump—

who wanted to make Donald Trump r a Russian spy or Putin’s collaborator to rig the

U.S. 2016 Presidential election Robert Mueller’s led witch-hunt in major disarray.

On September 20, 2018, Adam Goldman, a reporter from the New York Times,

sent the following email to Sarah Isgur Flores of the US Department of Justice (DOJ).
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 213 -

She forwarded the email to DAG Rod Rosenstein. The email correspondence

exchanged between Rosenstein and Flores showed that Rosenstein’s employment in

the DOJ was under imminent threat. Rosenstein denied the allegations in Sarah Flores’

email and claimed they were made-up news out of blue.

From: "Goldman, Adam"

<adam.goidmannytimes.com>
Date: September 20, 2018 at 3:47:54 PM EDT
To: "Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)" <Sarah.Isgur.flores usdoj.gov> Cc:
Michael Schmidt <schmidtm@nytimes.com> Subject: Story
response
Sarah:

Mike Schmidt and I are preparing a story on deputy attorney general Rod
Rosenstein. We have learned the follow things below. We'd like a response
later this afternoon. Please give a shout if you have any questions. Many thanks,
Adam and Mike

In a meeting on May 16, 2017 with senior federal law enforcement officials in
Rosenstein's office, Rosenstein raised the idea of wearing a device to record
his conversation with the president. He specifically used the word 'wire." He
also said McCabe could wear a wire.

-In a separate conversation around that time, Rosenstein and acting FBI
director Andrew McCabe discussed using the 25th amendment to remove
President Trump. Rosenstein said that he may be able to get Sessions and
Kelly to go along with the plan.
-In a conversation on May 12, 2017 in the command center of the Justice
Department Rosenstein appeared "upset" and "emotional" over the Comey
firing.
-In a conversation on May 14, 2017 Rosenstein asked McCabe to reach out to
Comey to seek advice about appointing a special counsel. McCabe believed
that was a bad idea.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 215 -

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/01/26/fbis-roger-stone-raid-sends-chilling-
message/
On December 13, 1981, a secret communist police agent put the Petition against

the wall, stuck a pistol against his head and demanded that he sign a piece of paper

without letting him read it. The Petitioner refused, cursed him, and told him to shoot if

he had the guts to do it. He did not. The Petitioner was taken to a police station, and

before sunrise an armored police vehicle, escorted by two other vehicles, took the

Petitioner west. The Petitioner was happy that he was going west because if the

armored vehicle had gone east then the Petitioner would have been going to the Soviet

Union, whose border was only five miles away. Although everybody knew the Soviet

Union was there, nobody wanted to go there and neither did the Petitioner. However,

the Petitioner did not know if the perpetrators were driving him to a secret place of

execution or to prison.

Around 4 a.m., the Petitioner was thrown into a prison cell with his co-workers

from the Solidarity movement. He was still in his pajamas and the cell was at –5°C.

The communists called the prison an internment camp to mislead the public.

In the same way as the Petitioner’s home was raided by communist secret

police, so the South Florida home of Roger Stone, a former associate of President

Trump, was raided by the FBI for political reasons and to legitimize the unlawful
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 216 -

witch-hunt aimed at the President in an attempt to terrorize him and millions of his

supporters.

The FBI raid included about a half a dozen police vehicles, a dozen officers and

agents in tactical vests with large numbers of weapons. Stone appeared in his doorway

in sleepwear, with his glasses on. An agent asked, "Are you Roger Stone?" and he

replied "Yes." Stone was then led away. Stone, who was 68 years old, was no violent

criminal or terrorist yet was treated in the same way as communists treat their political

opponents.

The Petitioner’s daughter, Joanna, who was nine years old in December 1981,

remembered every detail of her father’s kidnapping and wrote about it in a school

essay in 1993.

Joanna Waszczuk

Essay
1993
One of my most vividly remembered experiences, which has also
affected me greatly, is when my father went to prison.
I was nine years old, and Poland was undergoing a political
upheaval and struggling for democracy. I knew that my father was
involved with some sort of underground organization and that he
was being followed as well. One night, a man came to our home at
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 217 -

two o'clock in the morning and just took my father away, only
allowing him to put on his boots and jacket over his pajamas.
Two weeks after that night, my family learned that my father was
taken by a secret government agent to a prison for political activists
who were trying to overthrow communism.
After a few more weeks, my father was allowed to write
letters, but they were censored to the point that half the words were
cut out with a razor or completely blacked out. After five months,
as I later found out, of being guarded by attack dogs, guards armed
with machine guns, being brainwashed, having been fed rotten food
and having had no rights, my father was released on the condition
that be either leave the country quickly or go back to prison risking
never being able to get a good job again. So, within two weeks my
parents, brother and I received passports, sold or gave away
everything and came to the United States.
Although I was angry with my father for bringing our family into
this country and severing ties with the only type of life I had
known, coming here has also taught me that with hard work,
challenges can be overcome, and that being able to express oneself
is very important. I especially had the latter instilled in me, because
for the first six months in the United States, due to a language
barrier, I could barely express myself or not at I am now inspired
by my father's standing up for his cause as I am by Freud, Darwin
and Pasteur, because despite challenges, hardships and the
opposition of society, they all struggled for then causes and beliefs
for the benefit of humanity

In 1996, Joanna graduated from the University of California, Santa Cruz, as a

molecular biologist. Joanna was severely traumatized again in 1999 when she was 27.

On February 5 that year, at 2 a.m., a white-collar organized crime ring set fire to her
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 218 -

apartment at 351 Torino Drive, San Carlos, San Mateo County, near San Francisco, in

an attempt to kill both her and her father, the petitioner. Fortunately, the Petitioner was

not there. The perpetrators disabled the fire alarm to create maximum devastation. It

was by pure chance that the Petitioner’s daughter—and many other residents in the

apartment complex—survived because her pet birds screeched before being killed, and

she was able to wake the other residents who escaped, some jumping from windows.

The next day, February 6, 1999, after the Petitioner’s traumatized daughter lost

everything in this undoubted arson attack, the Petitioner sent a letter (incorrectly dated

February 6, 1998) about the crime to the FBI field office in Sacramento. Nobody

responded to his letter

https://www.scribd.com/document/476807173/UTC-February-5-1999-San-Carlos-

Fire-Letter-to-FBI

XXXV. SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT S. MUELLER, III MARCH 2019

WITCH-HUNT REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(C)
The Petitioner is all too familiar with witch-hunt reports. Richard Blum is the

billionaire banker husband of US Senator Dianne Feinstein and is the incoming

Chairman of the University of California Board of Regents. In December 2006, he

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 219 -

gave orders to his thugs with J.D degrees (like Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein) to

pursue a witch-hunt against the Petitioner and destroy his livelihood. The merciless

witch-hunts lasted five years until December 2012. Richard Blum’s assigned witch-

hunters produced six different reports and assembled the UC Davis Death Squad to

provoke and assassinate the Petitioner on May 31, 2012. During this time, the

Petitioner was also portrayed as a terrorist and the UC Davis police produced a poster

similar to FBI posters for most-wanted terrorists. The witch-hunt is being continued by

Janet Napolitano’s UCOP mob friends in state court after the six-year nightmare in the

University of California

Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein’s conspiracy to destroy the Trump

presidency, his family, his wealth, and his associates, cost taxpayers approximately

$20 million. In contrast, Richard Blum and his collaborators lost $250 million by

hunting down the Petitioner since December 2006. President Trump and his family

members, who have a lot of financial resources, must conduct their own investigation

into the real reason behind the destructive witch-hunt aimed at erasing them from the

New York and Washington D.C landscape.

It was not down to Russian collusion, the Ukraine quid pro quo witch-hunts

hoax, that Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump, or her lost or deleted

emails.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 220 -

As the Petitioner has previously pointed out, the idea to launch a witch-hunt to destroy

Donald Trump was probably invented by President Obama and Vice President Biden

as early as 2010. They used FBI Director Robert Mueller and Secretary of Homeland

Security Janet Napolitano, together with Senator Diane Feinstein and her husband

Richard Blum who has been a member of the Board of Regents since 2002. Feinstein

and Blum surreptitiously made Napolitano president of the University of California in

September 2013 to work on Trump with Robert Mueller and their friends and co-

conspirators in California.

The Petitioner has read Mueller’s Stalin-esque product of investigation which

was created to please his sponsors, and which opened the door for further witch-hunts

and prosecution of innocents in order to remove Donald Trump from office.

The Mueller and Rosenstein witch-hunt produced eight political prisoners:

• Trump’s former 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who was sentenced

to 7.5 years in prison.

• Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who received a three-year

prison sentence in December 2018.

• Trump’s former campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, who served 12 days

in prison.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 221 -

• Richard Pinedo, who was sentenced to six months in prison in October 2018,

for allegedly selling bank account numbers to Russians who were engaged in

electoral interference. He has no known connection to Trump.

• Dutch attorney, Alex van der Zwaan, who was sentenced to 30 days in prison

and a $20,000 fine.

• Trump’s former campaign deputy chairman, Rick Gates, who pleaded guilty to

lying to FBI and in December was sentenced to 45 days in jail, three years of

probation, and 300 hours of community service.

• Trump’s consultant, Roger Stone, who was sentenced to 40 months in prison,

which was commuted by Trump on July 10, 2020. Stone helped organize

Trump’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2011, and he

helped with Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

• Former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, a retired three-star general

who is still being held hostage by and is serving as a sacrificial lamb for U.S.

District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan.

• Reality Winner a contractor with Pluribus International Corporation assigned to

a U.S. Government Agency facility in Georgia. Between February and May

2017 Reality Winner was framed, entrapped by FBI , prosecuted and sentenced

to 63 months in Federal prison for leaking fabricated by FBI via NSA

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 222 -

information about Russia interference in U.S presidential election

.https://www.scribd.com/document/478323074/UNITED-STATES-OF-

AMERICA-v-REALITY-LEIGH-WINNER-April-2010-Motion-for-

Compasionate-Release

• Stephen Bannon, former White House Strategist for President Trump from

January 20, 2017–August 18, 2017 – was charged with others for defrauding

donors to a private fund-raising effort called We Build the Wall . See the Grand

Jury Indictment filed in the United States District Court Southern District of

New York on 08/17/2020 Case 1:20-CR-00412-AT ,United States of America v.

Brian Kolfage, Stephen Bannon, Andrew Badouto, and Timothy Shea

https://www.scribd.com/document/478426285/August-2020-United-States-of-

America-v-Brian-Kolfage-Stephen-Bannon-Andrew-Badouto-And-Timothy-

Shea

It is President Trump’s duty and moral obligation to set these people free, as he set

Roger Stone regardless of his feelings towards some of them. The President must not

bend to the political swamp that he wants to drain. The campaign motto of 2016,

"Make America Great Again" (MAGA), must ne meaningful and without political

prisoners in United States of America . These people were prosecuted only because
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 223 -

they or their actions were associated with Trump’s presidency Most of them were

singled out for prosecution by the indictment drafted in 2015–2016, at a cost of

$1,000,000 million dollars, by two of Napolitano and Mueller’s friends, former U.S.

Prosecutors, Haag and Scott. In 2015–2016, the Regents of the University of California

(UC) provided Napolitano with $175,000,000 to witch hunt Trump. Senator Dianne

Feinstein’s husband, billionaire and banker Richard Blum, was appointed as the Chief

of the UC Regents for life in 2002 by recalled-from-office California Governor, Grey

Davis and he was most likely behind unlimited financial resources provided to

Napolitano and Robert Mueller to derail Donald Trump ‘s presidency in 2016.

XXXVI. DAG ROD JAY ROSNSTEIN AND SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT

SWAN MUELLER’S III RESIGNATIONS

As planned, DAG Rod Rosenstein (who appointed Robert Mueller as a special

counsel to overthrow President Trump) submitted his resignation on April 29, 2019,

effective from May 11, 2019. This was one month after Mueller’s Russia collusion

witch-hunt hoax report was released. President Trump replaced Rod Rosenstein with

Jefferey Rosen, https://www.justice.gov/dag/staff-profile/meet-deputy-attorney-

general, an attorney from Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Chicago.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 224 -

Robert Swan Mueller III followed Rosenstein and submitted his resignation on May

29, 2019 meaning the Special Counsel office was effectively closed.

Jim Jordan and Louie Gohmert are two members of the House of Representatives

and co-authors of the July 25, 2018 resolution H.Res. 10208 impeaching Rod

Rosenstein during the House Judiciary hearing. On July 24, 2019, they trashed Robert

Mueller and his Russian collusion witch-hunt hoax aimed at President Trump .

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4809861/user-clip-jim-jordan-trashes-
mueller-house-judiciary-hearing
EXCERPT FROM TRANSCRIPT
“ YOU CAN CHARGE 13 RUSSIANS NO ONE HAS EVER
HEARD OF, NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN, NO ONE IS EVER
GOING TO HEAR OF THEM OR SEE THEM. YOU CAN
CHARGE THEM AND ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE
AROUND THE PRESIDENT WITH FALSE STATEMENTS.
BUT THE GUY WHO LAUNCHES EVERYTHING, THE GUY
WHO PUTS THIS WHOLE STORY IN MOTION, YOU CAN'T
CHARGE HIM. I THINK THAT'S AMAZING. >> I'M NOT
CERTAIN I AGREE WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATIONS. >>
WELL, I'M READING FROM YOUR REPORT. MIFSON TOLD
PAPADOPOULOS, PAPADOPOULOS TELLS THE DIPLOMAT
WHO TELLS THE FBI, THE FBI OPENS THE
INVESTIGATION JULY 31ST, 2016, AND HERE WE ARE
THREE YEARS LATER, JULY OF 2019. THE COUNTRY HAS
BEEN PUT THROUGH THIS AND THE CENTRAL FIGURE
WHO LAUNCHES IT ALL LIES TO US AND YOU GUYS
DON'T HUNT HIM DOWN AND INTERVIEW HIM AGAIN,
AND YOU DON'T CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME. NOW,
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 225 -

HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS. HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS. THE

PRESIDENT WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF CONSPIRACY,
THE FBI DOES A TEN-MONTH INVESTIGATION AND
JAMES COMEY WHEN WE DEPOSED HIM A YEAR AGO
TOLD US AT THAT POINT THEY HAD NOTHING. YOU DO
A 22-MONTH INVESTIGATION. AT THE END OF THAT 22
MONTHS, YOU FIND NO CONSPIRACY. AND WHAT DO
THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO DO? THEY WANT TO KEEP
INVESTIGATING. THEY WANT TO KEEP GOING. MAYBE A
BETTER COURSE OF ACTION, MAYBE A BETTER COURSE
OF ACTION IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE FALSE
ACCUSATIONS STARTED. MAYBE IT'S TO GO BACK AND
ACTUALLY FIGURE OUT WHY JOSEPH MIFSON WAS
LYING TO THE FBI. AND HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS. HERE'S
THE GOOD NEWS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BILL BARR IS
DOING. AND THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT. THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS DOING.
THEY'RE GOING TO FIND OUT WHY WE WENT THROUGH
THIS THREE-YEAR SAGA AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
IT.

XXXVII. WHY ROBERT MUELLER’S APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL

COUNSEL WAS UNLAWFUL

By

Gary Lawson Boston University School of Law and Steven Calabresi Northwestern

University - Pritzker School of Law/

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 226 -

2019 Steven G. Calabresi & Gary Lawson. Individuals and nonprofit institutions may

reproduce and distribute copies of this Article in any format at or below cost, for

educational purposes, so long as each copy identifies the author, provides a citation to

the Notre Dame Law Review, and includes this provision in the copyright notice.

Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law;

Visiting Professor of Law, Fall 2013–18, Yale Law School; Co-Founder and Chairman

of the Board of Directors of the Federalist Society. The views expressed herein are

solely my own and not those of the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Yale Law

School, or the Federalist Society.

Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law. We are grateful to

Josh Blackman, Paul Kamenar, and Seth Barrett Tillman for helpful comments, though

they bear no responsibility for our analysis or conclusions.

Gary Lawson & Steven Calabresi, Why Robert Mueller’s Appointment As Special

Counsel Was Unlawful, 95 Notre Dame Law Review 87 (2019).

Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty scholarship/583

Since 1999, when the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics
in Government Act expired, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has
had in place regulations providing for the appointment of "special
counsels" who possess "the full power and independent authority to
exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 227 -

States Attorney." Appointments under these regulations, such as the

May 17, 2017 appointment of Robert S. Mueller to investigate the
Trump campaign, are patently unlawful, for three distinct reasons.
First, all federal offices must be "established by Law," and
there is no statute authorizing such an office in the DOJ We
conduct what we think is the first thorough examination of the
statutes structuring the DOJ to show that the statutory provisions
relied upon by the DOJ and lower courts for the appointment of
special counsels over the past two decades do not—and even
obviously do not—authorize the creation and appointment of
special counsels at the level of United States Attorneys. They
authorize the creation and appointment of special counsels to
"assist" United States Attorneys, and they allow existing Senate-
confirmed United States Attorneys to serve also as special counsels,
but they do not remotely authorize the creation of the kind of
special counsels represented by Robert Mueller who replace rather
than assist United States Attorneys. United States v. Nixon, 418
U.S. 683 (1974), does not hold to the contrary, because no question
was raised in that case about the validity of the independent
counsel's appointment.
Second, even one chooses to overlook the absence of statutory
authority for the position, there is no statute specifically authorizing
the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a special counsel.
Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed
by department heads only f Congress so directs by statute—and so
directs specifically enough to overcome a clear-statement
presumption in favor of presidential appointment and senatorial
confirmation. No such statute exists for the special counsel.
Third, the special counsel is, in all events, a superior rather than
inferior officer, and thus cannot be appointed by any means other
than presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation
regardless of what any statutes purport to say. This is obviously
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 228 -

true as a matter of original meaning, and it is even true as a matter

of case law once one understands that neither Morrison v. Olson,
487 U.S. 654 (1988), nor Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651
(1997), can plausibly be read to say that any person who is in any
fashion subordinate to another executive official is an "inferior"
officer. Such a reading of those decisions leads to the ludicrous
result that there is only one noninferior officer in every federal
department, which is a good reason not to read them that way.
There are surely times when special counsels are appropriate. Both
statutes and the Constitution provide ample means for such
appointments through the use of existing United States Attorneys
with unimpeachable credentials and reputations for standing above
politics. Any number of United States Attorneys have performed
these functions with distinction. Statutes and the Constitution do
not, however, permit the Attorney General to appoint a private
citizen as a substitute United States Attorney under the title "special
counsel." That is what happened on May 17, 2017. That
appointment was unlawful, as are all of the legal actions that have
flowed from it.
The D. C. Circuit's unreasoned February 26, 2019 opinion in In re
Grand Jury Investigation upholding Mueller's appointment does not
come to grips with any of these arguments. The panel decision
asserts (falsely) that the issues were either waived by the party
challenging the appointment or are readily resolved by Supreme
Court precedent. If the latter claim was true, those precedents
would cry out for clarification or reconsideration by the Court. But
that latter claim is only even minimally plausible based on the most
superficial skimming of the applicable Precedents.
The statutory and constitutional structure of federal law
enforcement is a serious matter, and one might have hoped that the
federal courts—and the Department of justice—would devote a bit
more mental energy to that matter than they have thus far
expended.
 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 229 -

Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein were thugs appointed to U.S Department of

Justice by conspiracy to carry out their evil mission on their sponsors behalf

described before which are included and not limited to Californians’ Speaker of

the House , Nancy Pelosi , Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris ,

Congressman Adam Schiff and their partners in crime from the East Coast led by

Congressman Jerrold Nadler.

Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty scholarship/583

XXXVIII. THE DECEMBER 2019 UKRAINE QUID QUO PRO HOAX

IMPEACHMENT OF THE 45THPRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, DONALD JOHN TRUMP

The perpetrators of plot to remove President Trump from office did not wait long

after Mueller’s -Rosenstein’s hit squad failed to deliver what they got paid for and

what they promised to deliver to to Pelosi , Feinstein, Schumer , Harris , Nadler ,

Napolitano , Becerra ,Newsom and to many others less noble.

The “Russia Collusion Witch Hunt Hoax “drafted in California in 2015-2016 as Plan A

failed. The Ukraine became a Plan B . The perpetrator in the coup to remove President

from Office simply redacted lies about some alleged quid pro quo the President

supposedly committed and this became the witch-hunt tool for impeachment. The

President, with wounds inflicted by the Mueller–Rosenstein hit squad got no slack
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 230 -

from the witch-hunters. Impeachment was initiated on December 18, 2019, when the

House of Representative approved articles of impeachment on charges of abuse of

power and obstruction of Congress. In this witch-hunt, where the Geneva Convention

was ignored and no prisoners were taken, a besieged President Trump miraculously,

but barely, survived Senate acquittal on February 5, 2020.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf
https://intelligence.house.gov/report/;
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203 -
full report hpsci impeachment inquiry.pdf
The Petitioner has, himself, been the victim of a witch-hunt by Janet Napolitano’s and

Robert Mueller’s friends for almost 14 years. Since 2016, he has been watching with

growing disbelief the unfolding ruthless witch-hunt and merciless attacks 24/7 on the

duly elected 45th President of the United States of America, Donald John Trump.

The Petitioner, who has had his life decimated by the UCOP mafia, never imagined, in

his struggle to survive, that something similar could happen to Donald Trump, simply

because he got the idea to became the President of the United States of America.

“Drain the Swamp” and “MAGA” do not fit the frame for those who want to see the

United States ruled like the former Soviet Union by the Patriot Act and the U.S

Department of Homeland Security/Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti

 Docket No. 23105-18 W - 231 -

XXXIX. MELINDA L. HAAG, U.S. ATTORNEY FROM THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

One of the most intriguing facts about the Petitioner’s struggle against the

University of California (UC) Office of the President (UCOP) mob, that, since

September 2013, was led by UC President Janet Napolitano, was the fact that

Napolitano paid $1,000,000 to two former U.S. Attorneys, Melinda Haag from the

Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, and McGregor Scott from the

Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. In 2016, both Haag and Scott were

partner attorneys at the prestigious San Francisco law firm Orrick

(https://www.orrick.com/en/People/E/8/F/Melinda-Haag). The Petitioner could not

comprehend how they were paid $1,000,000 for a hoax investigation and three-month

fake witch hunt hoax orchestrated by Napolitano using UC Davis Chancellor, Greek-

born Linda Katehi. Orrick attorneys are expensive, but not so expensive as to be paid

$1,000,000 for three months of fake investigation to convert Katehi to Chancellor

Emerita .

U.S. Attorney Haag resigned from her post in September 2015, vanished for

seven months, and then resurfaced again in March 2016, as a partner in Orrick, where
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 232 -

she had worked previously, prior her appointment by President Obama to the San

Francisco U.S. Attorney Office in August 2010

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda Haag):

"In August 2010, Haag was appointed to the Northern District of California
U.S. Attorney's Office by President Barack Obama and unanimously confirmed
without debate by the United States Senate. Her appointment marked the first
time in 90 years that a female U.S. Attorney represented the district. She served
in that position for five years, stepping down in September 2015
On January 13, 2016, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe announced that
Melinda Haag would be rejoining the firm as head of its Global Litigation
Practice beginning on March 1, 2016."
The question is where Haag was and what she was doing between September 2015 and

March 2016, before she and Scott were hired by Napolitano to conduct the fake witch

hunt of Katehi.

On May 11, 2017, Haag gave an interview to San Francisco-based radio station

KQED (https://www.kqed.org/news/11452058/after-comey-former-top-sf-federal-

prosecutor-calls-on-keeping-politics-out-of-the-fbi). In it, she stated that she worked

with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein when he served as a U.S. Attorney in

Maryland. This must be during the period from September 2015–March 2016, before

she rejoined Orrick on March 1, 2016. Furthermore, in that interview, Haag said that

Rosenstein needed to persuade the public that he was dedicated to shielding federal
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 233 -

law enforcement officials and lawyers from politics. “If he can't, he needs to appoint a

special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation,” she said.

Six days after Haag's interview, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein

appointed special prosecutor and former FBI Director Robert Swan Mueller III as U.S.

Special Counsel, in order to hunt down President Trump and members of his 2015–

2016 presidential campaign, in same way that Haag and her hit team hunted down and

prosecuted California Senator Leland Yee. Everything was working in the evil plan,

crafted by Napolitano, Mueller, Haag, Rosenstein, Scott, U.S. Attorney Benjamin

Wagner, and their sponsors, to derail Donald Trump 2015-2016 presidential campaign

and later to remove President Trump from office .

After Mueller was appointed to the post of Special Counsel, Haag kept a close

eye on his investigation of the Trump administration and the Russian collusion hoax.

In 2017 and 2018, Haag was tapped as an expert of Mueller’s investigation. In October

2017, she told a reporter from Law360 that the indictment of Trump's campaign

manager, Paul Manafort, and the guilty plea of his campaign aide, George

Papadopoulos, meant that Mueller was "one step from the question of whether there

was collusion" between Trump campaign administrators and Russian agents. Haag

knew everything because she, together with Scott, Wagner, and Rosenstein, had
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 234 -

drafted the indictment for Manafort, Papadopoulos, Stone, and others, at a price tag of

$1,000,000, which was paid by Napolitano.

Haag constantly attacked and criticized President Trump and his administration

and alleged that he meddled with the Department of Justice and the FBI, especially

following the firing of FBI Director James Comey. In May 2017, Haag told KQED

that Comey's firing had "a strong smell of political interference" from Trump and his

associates, who feared where the Russia investigation might lead

(https://www.kqed.org/news/11452058/after-comey-former-top-sf-federal-

prosecutor-calls-on-keeping-politics-out-of-the-fbi). Furthermore, during Haag's

2010–2015 tenure as U.S. Attorney, she, together with U.S. Attorney Wagner, co-

chaired the White Collar/Fraud Subcommittee in the U.S. Department of Justice from

the Eastern District of California (https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/attorney-

general-loretta-e-lynch-appoints-us-attorney-wagner-co-chair-white-collarfraud).

In the KQED interview, Haag elaborated about Comey's firing. She agreed that Comey

did not handle that case well, but she said that he should not have lost his job over it. "I

don't believe it was a firing offense," she stated.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 235 -

Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from all matters related

to the Russia probes, Rod Rosenstein took the lead and played a key role in firing

Comey.

Haag did not disclose to KQED that she, together with Benjamin Wagner and

McGregor Scott, was among 127 former U.S. attorneys who, on March 6, 2017, signed

the letter that was sent to Senators Charles Grassley from Iowa and Dianne Feinstein

from California, recommending that Rosenstein be confirmed as Deputy Attorney

General for U.S. Department of Justice.

It was part of the game to eliminate Comey, who had a completely different goal

in the anti-Trump crusade than Rosenstein-Mueller hit squad; thus, Comey became an

obstruction for Mueller and Rosenstein, and his fate was decided very quickly. Comey

became collateral damage in Rosenstein and Mueller's joint plan to remove Trump

from office.

On March 6, 2017, Wagner, Haag, and Scott’s names resurfaced in the

recommendation letter that was sent by 127 former U.S. Attorneys to Senator Charles

Grassley from Iowa and Senator Dianne Feinstein from California. The letter

recommended that Rosenstein, a key perpetrator in the plot to remove President Trump

from office, be confirmed as Deputy Attorney General for U.S. Department of Justice.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 236 -

The perpetrators, who were led by former FBI Director Mueller and Deputy

Attorney General Rosenstein, were not able to remove President Trump from office

through their failed evil plan, the Russia collusion witch hunt hoax or Mueller's

pseudo-investigation. In early July 2017, just two months after Mueller was appointed

as U.S. Special Counsel, the New York Times published negative stories about

Manafort and other Trump associates. On July 26, 2017, FBI agents raided the

Virginia home of Manafort. This shows that Mueller had all the information necessary

to attack Trump and his associates before he was appointed as Special Counsel. The

time from May–July 2017, was too short to conduct investigation of such scale.

CHAPTER SIX
THE PETITIONER’S U.S. TAX COURT CASE, JAROSLAW JANUSZ
WASZCZUK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES
IN LIGHT OF CRIMINAL CASE UNITED STATES V. PAUL J.
MANAFORT, JR., CASE NO. 1:17–CR–00201–ABJ–1, FILED ON
OCTOBER 27, 2017, IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

I. STATEMENT OF THE OFFENSES AND OTHER ACTS—

VIOLATIONS: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES AND CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE), FILED ON
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018, USA V. MANAFORT ET AL.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 237 -

On February 5, 2020, Republicans in the U.S. Senate rescued President Donald

Trump from the Ukrainian quid pro quo impeachment witch hunt that was by the

California political swamp, led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senators

Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, Congressman Adam Schiff, and their

collaborators from the East Coast, led by Congressman Jerrold Nadler.

Shortly after President Donald Trump was acquitted by the U.S. Senate in

February 2020, the Petitioner came across the Statement of The Offenses and Other

Acts—Violations: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy Against the United States and

Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice), filed on September 14, 2018, in USA v. Manafort et

al., in the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, Washington, DC. The plea

agreement entitled "Offenses and Other Acts" was signed by Paul Manafort and

Andrew Weissmann, Senior Assistant for Special Counsel Mueller. Special Counsel

Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Rod Rosenstein in May

2017, to witch hunt and prosecute President Trump and his presidential campaign

associates and managers, with Manafort as the main target, in order to derail Trump’s

presidency.

This plea agreement sounds more like some kind of draft of a novel about an

international mafia formed by former high-ranking politicians from different countries

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 238 -

operating in the developing country of Ukraine, which borders Russia and Poland. The

Petitioner is originally from Poland; he lived there until November 1982. Five years

before he was forced by Polish communist government to leave the country, the

Petitioner lived in southeast Poland, three miles from the Ukrainian border. The

Petitioner is very familiar with Ukraine's history, which is interconnected with the

history of Poland. The large part of what is today western Ukraine was part of Poland

before World War II. Poland was the first country to recognize Ukraine's independence

from the Soviet Union in 1991.

The Petitioner was not surprised to find out that the former Polish president was

involved in Manafort's shady business in Ukraine, after reading the following

paragraph on pages 3–4 in the Statement of The Offenses and Other Acts:

The Hapsburg Group and Company D

As part of the lobbying scheme, starting in 2011, MANAFORT secretly

retained Company D and a group of four former European heads of state and
senior officials (INCLUDING A FORMER AUSTRIAN CHANCELLOR, AN
ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER, AND A POLISH PRESIDENT) to lobby in the
United States and Europe on behalf of Ukraine. The former politicians, called
the Hapsburg Group by MANAFORT, appeared to be providing solely their
independent assessments of policies of the Government of Ukraine, when in
fact, they were paid by Ukraine. MANAFORT explained in an "EYES ONLY"
memorandum in or around June 2012, that his purpose was to "assemble a
small group of high-level European influential [sic] champions and politically
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 239 -

credible friends who can act informally and without any visible relationship
with the Government of Ukraine."
Furthermore, on page 5, the plea agreement addressed the Polish president:
MANAFORT also used this Hapsburg Group member's current
European Parliament position to Ukraine's advantage in his
lobbying efforts in the United States. In the fall of 2012, the United
States Senate was considering and ultimately passed a resolution
critical of President Yanukovych's treatment of former Prime
Minister Tymoshenko. MANAFORT engaged in an all-out
campaign to try to kill or delay the passage of this resolution.
Among the steps he took was having the Hapsburg Group members
reach out to United States Senators, as well as directing Companies
A and B to have private conversations with Senators to lobby them
to place a "hold" on the resolution. MANAFORT told his lobbyists
to stress to the Senators that the FORMER POLISH PRESIDENT
WHO WAS ADVOCATING AGAINST THE RESOLUTION
WAS CURRENTLY A DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, to give
extra clout to his supposedly independent judgment against the
Senate resolution. MANAFORT never revealed to the Senators or
to the American public that any of these lobbyists or Hapsburg
Group members were paid by Ukraine.
In addition to involvement of the presidents of Poland and other countries in

Manafort's business in Ukraine, the tax evasion issue was addressed in the plea

agreement. This got the Petitioner’s attention because his case in the U.S. Tax

Court is regarding tens of millions of dollars of tax fraud evasion that the U.S.

Tax Court made taboo; it is not talked about in Memorandum Opinion and Order

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

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 240 -

4, 2020), served on June 4, 2020.

Paragraph C, Tax and Foreign Bank Account Conspiracy, 26 U.S.C. §

7206(1) and 31 U.S.C. §§ 5314 and 5322(a) of the plea agreement addressed to

Manafort’s tax evasion states the following:

From 2008 through 2014, MANAFORT caused millions of dollars

of wire transfers to be made from offshore nominee accounts,
without paying taxes on that income. The payments were made for
goods, services, and real estate. MANAFORT also hid income by
denominating various overseas payments as " loans," thereby
evading payment of any taxes on that income by MANAFORT.
MANAFORT directly and through Gates repeatedly misled his
bookkeeper and tax accountants, including by not disclosing
Manafort's overseas accounts and income. Further, MANAFORT
and Gates, acting at Manafort's instruction, classified overseas
payments made to MANAFORT falsely as "loans" to avoid
incurring additional taxes on the income.
MANAFORT owned and controlled a range of foreign bank
accounts in Cyprus, the Grenadines, and the United Kingdom.
MANAFORT directly and through Gates maintained these
accounts, including by managing them and by making substantial
transfers from the accounts to both himself and vendors for
personal items for him and his family. MANAFORT was aware
that many of these accounts held well in excess of $10,000 in the
aggregate at some point during each year in which they existed .
MANAFORT did not report the accounts' existence to his
bookkeeper he following assets constitute or were derived from
proceeds of MANAFORT's conspiracy to violate the Foreign
Agents Registration Act and/or they constitute property involved in
MANAFORT's conspiracy to launder money in violation of 18 U.S
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 241 -

.C. § 1956 or are traceable thereto and/or they represent substitute

assets for such property which has been made unavailable for
forfeiture by the acts or omissions of MANAFORT:
MANAFORT was aware at the time that it was illegal to hide
income from the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) by failing to account for reportable income
on his income tax returns. MANAFORT was also aware that it was
illegal to fail to report information to the IRS regarding the
existence of foreign bank accounts, as required by Schedule B of
the IRS Form 1040. MANAFORT also understood at the time that
a U.S. person who had a financial interest in, or signature or other
authority over, a bank account or other financial account in a
foreign country, which exceeded $10,000 in any one year (at any
time during that year), was required to report the account to the
Department of the Treasury. MANAFORT also understood, after
2010, that the failure to make such a report constituted a crime.
Knowing the existence of his reportable foreign accounts and
hidden income, MANAFORT knowingly, intentionally, and
willfully filed and conspired to file false tax returns from 2006-
2015 in that he said he did not have reportable foreign bank
accounts when he knew that he did, he did not report income that
he knew he in fact had earned, and he did not file Foreign Bank
Account Reports. MANAFORT failed to report over $15 million in
income during the period 2010-2014.
Petitioner understand that Manafort filed false tax return in 2006-2015 and failed to

report over $15 million in income tax during the period 2010-2014. However,

Petitioner failed to understand how the Manafort ‘s crimes of 2006 -2014 and 2010-

2014 are related to President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign of 2015-2016 and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 242 -

2019 Ukrainian Quid Pro Quo witch hunt resulted in impeachment of President Donald

Trump in December 2019.

How it is happened that during period in which Robert Mueller was

appointed FBI Director 2011-2013 he did not know anything about Manafort’s

international business with the Hapsburg Group, which INCLUDED A FORMER

AUSTRIAN CHANCELLOR, AN ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER, AND A

POLISH PRESIDENT, European Union officials, and a senior Israeli government

officials. However, on July 26, 2017, two months after he was appointed as

U.S. Special Counsel, Mueller ordered the FBI to raid Manafort's residence in

Virginia. This is unbelievable. This fact alone shows that Manafort ‘s and others

were prosecuted and sentenced long time before they faced District Court Judge

Amy Berman Jackson as it happened in California Senator Leland Yee prosecution

United States of America v. Kwok Cheung Chow, a.k.a. Raymond Chow, a.k.a.

Shrimp Boy, a.k.a. Ha Jai., Case No. 3:14–cr–00196–CRB with unofficially or

self-appointed appointed Robert Mueller as a Special Counsel and District Court

Judge Charles Breyer from Northern District of California .

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 243 -

II. SCRIBD’S BOOK ID COPYRIGHT PROTECTION SYSTEM

DISABLED ACCESS TO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. PAUL J.
MANAFORT, JR. (ID: 388651502), STATEMENT OF THE OFFENSES
AND OTHER ACTS—VIOLATIONS: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (CONSPIRACY
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND CONSPIRACY TO
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE), FILED ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2018

On April 13, 2020, the Petitioner filed his Petitioner’s Opposition to the April 2,

2020 Respondent's (the IRS Commissioner) Motion for Leave to File First

Amendment to Answer Rule 41 of the Tax Court's Rules and Request to Dismiss

Respondent's Motion with Prejudice. At the same, he posted the Plea Agreement

Statement of The Offenses and Other Acts, signed by Manafort, and other court

documents related to the witch hunt aimed at President Trump on Scribd.

On April 23, 2020, the Petitioner received an e-mail with the following

notification from Scribd:

Dear Jaroslaw,
This is a notification that Scribd’s Book ID copyright protection system has
disabled access to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL J.
MANAFORT, JR. (id: 388651502). This does not necessarily mean that an
infringement has occurred, or that you have done anything wrong.
If you believe that this removal is an error, please forward a copy of this
notification to copyright@scribd.com along with a clear explanation of your
issue. Our team will review your request and will restore content as deemed
appropriate.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 244 -

Best regards,
Scribd Legal Operations
On April 22, 2020, the Petitioner replied to Scribd Legal Operations, stating that

the posted United States of America v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., (id: 388651502)

document is an official court document, accessible to anybody on Pacer, and that

Scribd should restore the document. In response, Scribd restored the document, but on

May 12, 2020, the Petitioner again received a similar notification from Scribd

regarding the case. On May 20, 2020, the Petitioner replied to Scribd with the

following:

Hi,
I am not sure why the Scribd again disabled access to USA v. Manafort (Id:
458054717). In my 4/22/2020 response to Scribd, I wrote: "The removed
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., (id:
388651502) is the official Court document accessible to the public on Pacer.
Document was filed on 09/14/18 in IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."
After this second response, the document, which was linked to the Petitioner’s

Twitter account, was removed by Scribd, and the Petitioner concluded that somebody

was seeing the document on Scribd and Twitter, and that most likely, it was somebody

from Poland, due to the former Polish president's business involvement with Manafort.

The Petitioner did not make a big deal about Sribd’s action, but he reviewed
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 245 -

Manafort’s case to determine why the posted plea agreement in Manafort’s case had

become a subject of interest and why was removed by Scribd.

The Petitioner closely monitored the vicious attacks aimed at Presidential

candidate Trump, which in 2016, turned into an endless and merciless hunt to destroy

Trump's presidency before and after he was elected. After the unsuccessful Russia

collusion witch hunt hoax, conducted by Mueller-Rosentein’s hit squad, the Ukraine

quid pro quo witch hunt hoax became Plan B. It was derived from the USA v.

Manafort et al. case and was used as a tool to remove President Trump from office.

By following the Offenses and Other Acts and other documents pertaining to

USA v. Manafort et al. filed in the court, the Petitioner eventually learned that the

former Polish president participated in Manafort’s business in Ukraine from 2006–

2014. It was not difficult for the petitioner, who is very familiar with Ukraine's break

from the Soviet Union, to determine that it was former Polish President Alexander

Kwasniewski, who served for two terms, from December 1995–December 2005.

Wikipedia provides a good description of Kwasniewski’s participation and

involvement in Ukraine's affairs and Manafort's business

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksander Kwa%C5%9Bniewski).

Post-presidency
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 246 -

On 7 March 2006, Kwaśniewski was appointed Distinguished Scholar in the

Practice of Global Leadership at Georgetown University, where he teaches
students in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service about
contemporary European politics, the trans-Atlantic relationship, and
democratization in Central and Eastern Europe. He also teaches a course on
political leadership, convened by Professor Carol Lancaster, with former
Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar.[14] He is also Chairman of the
supervisory board of the International Centre for Policy Studies in Kiev,
Ukraine and a member of the International Honorary Council[15] of the
European Academy of Diplomacy.
In 2008 Aleksander Kwaśniewski became Chairman of the European Council
on Tolerance and Reconciliation, a not-for-profit organization established to
monitor tolerance in Europe, prepare practical recommendations to
governments and international organisations on improving interreligious and
interethnic relations on the continent. The organization is co-chaired
by European Jewish Fund President Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor.
Since June 2012 Kwaśniewski and Pat Cox lead a European
Parliament monitoring mission in Ukraine to monitor the criminal cases
against Yulia Tymoshenko, Yuriy Lutsenko and Valeriy Ivaschenko.[16]
Since 2011, Kwaśniewski has served on the Leadership Council for
Concordia, a nonpartisan, nonprofit based in New York City focused on
promoting effective public-private collaboration to create a more prosperous
and sustainable future.
Kwaśniewski was also involved with the EU talks with the Ukrainian
government about the association agreement with the EU that the Ukrainian
parliament failed to ratify in November 2013.[17] After the Maidan unrest had
installed the transitional government under Yatsenyuk, who signed the EU
association agreement for Ukraine in 2014, Kwaśniewski took up in a director's
post in the gas company ″Burisma Holdings Limited″ which owns licenses for
the major Ukrainian gas fields.[18]
Possible illegal lobbying on behalf of Paul Manafort
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 247 -

In a plea agreement filed in United States Federal court on 14 September 2018,

former Donald Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort admitted to organizing a
group of former European heads of state to illegally lobby, starting in 2011, on
behalf of then-Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. The plea agreement
describes one of the heads of state involved in this secret lobbying as a "former
Polish President" who "was also a representative of the European Parliament
with oversight responsibility for Ukraine."[19] At least one press report
claimed that Kwaśniewski was this former Polish President.

The Petitioner learned from an article entitled "Former Polish President and the

Ukrainian investigation into Biden" from the Polish newspaper Poland In

(https://polandin.com/44767911/former-polish-president-and-the-ukrainian-

investigation-into-biden), that Kwasniewski was paid a million euro by a company

that is reported to be under investigation by Ukrainian prosecutors. However, the

investigation into former U.S Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter's Ukrainian

company affairs began prior to Trump's call with President Zelensky, before he was

even elected. Furthermore, the article in Poland In stated that:

President Trump wanted an investigation into whether Joe Biden

attempted to pressure the Ukrainian authorities into dismissing the
chief public prosecutor Viktor Shakin after he began an
investigation into the company which was employing Hunter
Biden.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 248 -

According to reports in independent Russian media, the company in

question is already being investigated for money laundering by
Ukrainian oligarchs connected to former Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych. "Novaya Gazeta" in early October published
materials on the investigation into one of the oligarchs, Sergey
Kurchenko, which conclude that money which had been generated
from illegal activities was laundered through the company and
found its way into the private accounts of both Hunter Biden and
Aleksander Kwasniewski.
"Novaya Gazeta" reports that Burisma Holdings paid 3.4 million
USO to a company representing Hunter Biden, and a million Euro
to Aleksander Kwasniewski as consultancy fees. Burisma was
owned by Mikolyi Zlochevsky who was appointed environment
minister by President Yanukovych. That ministry is responsible for
granting licenses for gas and oil exploration. The company owned
by the oligarch come minister soon became the second biggest such
company on the Ukrainian market. After the Maidan revolution in
2014, Mr Zlochevsky offered Mr Kwasniewski and Hunter Biden
seats on the Board of his company. This helped the company to
survive in the radically changed business climate.
Aleksander Kwasniewski has acknowledged that he has been on the
Board of the company in question since January 2014. His tasks
include writing political forecasts and analysis. He assured
journalists questioning him that he pays taxes on his income from
Ukraine in Poland.

It worth mentioning that in September 2014, Donald Tusk, the 14th Prime

Minister of the Republic of Poland in the post-Soviet Union era (November 2007–

September 2014) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald Tusk), was elected

President of the European Union or President of the European Council. He was

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 249 -

close political ally of Alexander Kwasniewski.

The Petitioner lived in Poland when he was young on the outskirts of the city of

Bialogard (German: Belgard) in northwest Poland. This was formerly the German

territory of West Prussia-Pomerania before World War II. This is also where

Kwasniewski born and lived and where Mueller's ancestors came from before

immigrating to the United States. After World War II, Bialogard was also the

location of a large Soviet military base, Berman Wehrmacht Military Base.

Kwasniewski’s father, Zdzislaw Kwasniewski, was the physician-doctor for the

Petitioner’s family after World War II

As one of the organizers and leaders of the anti-communist labor movement,

Solidarity, in February 1981, the petitioner, together with the Chairman of Solidarity,

Lech Walesa, signed an agreement with the Polish communist government. On

December 13, 1981, the Petitioner was kidnapped in his pajamas by communist secret

police and was thrown into prison, which was labeled as an internment camp. The

Petitioner was arrested in same manner that Trump’s adviser, 67-year-old Roger Stone,

was arrested in his pajamas when his Fort Lauderdale home was raided by the FBI in a

pre-dawn raid involving 29 FBI agents in armored vehicles. On December 13, 1981,

Walesa was imprisoned by communists 50 miles from where the Petitioner was

imprisoned. At the same time, in 1981, future president of Poland Kwasniewski was
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 250 -

the editor-in-chief of the communist-controlled student weekly ITD; he later served as

editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper communist youth Sztandar Młodych from

1984–1985. Walesa was elected as the first President of Republic of Poland in the

post-communist era.

It appears that former Polish President Kwasniewski's joint venture with Biden

and the Board of Directors of Ukrainian Burisma Holding Company and their

involvement in Ukraine's internal affairs with other former European countries'

presidents and prime ministers was an important factor that intensified the 2015

merciless witch hunt aimed at Trump and that the Russian collusion hoax was a smoke

screen to divert attention from the Obama-Biden administration's murky involvement

in Ukraine's internal affairs.

III. PETITION AND REQUEST FOR ANCILLARY HEARING AND

RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO 21 U.S.C. § 853(N), FILED ON
NOVEMBER 2, 2018, USA V. MANAFORT ET AL., ASSIGNED TO
JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON

On November 2, 2018, three days after the Motion to Unseal Indictment in USA v.

Manafort et al., Stephanie Lauren Brooker, an attorney from Gibson, Dunn &

Crutcher, LLP, who represented Bank USA (BUSA), filed the Petition and Request for
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 251 -

Ancillary Hearing and Related Relief Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). Brooker

petitioned the court for an ancillary hearing to adjudicate interest in the forfeited

property and to amend the October 10, 2018 Preliminary Order of Forfeiture of Paul

Manafort’s property, located at 721 Fifth Avenue, #43G, New York, NY 10022. The

fortified property was described as the residential unit (the Unit) 43-G in Trump Tower

Condominium at street numbers 721–725 Fifth Avenue, Borough of Manhattan, City,

County and State of New York.

What caught the Petitioner’s attention in this proceeding was the name of the

law firm representing BUSA and Brooker's professional career, in relation to the

Petitioner’s IRS Whistleblower Claim, Application for Award Form 2011, which the

Petitioner submitted to the IRS Whistleblower Office (WBO) in Ogden, Utah, on

March 23, 2016, Claim No. 2016–00748, which, in November 2018, became U.S. Tax

Court Case No. 23105–18W, Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue Services. This case is about the tax fraud worth tens of millions of dollars

committed by the corrupt administration of the University of California (UC), which is

deeply rooted in the sophisticated $40 billion fraud scheme entitled the "California

energy crisis of 2001–2003." The Petitioner’s case is also about the 14-year long

merciless and inhumane witch hunt that destroyed his and his family's normal

existence.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 252 -

Following the March 23, 2016 submission of his IRS WBO Application for

Award, Form 211, Claim No. 2016–00748, on April 11, 2016, the Petitioner submitted

an 11-page inquiry to Benjamin B. Wagner, U.S. Attorney from Eastern District of

California, to bring criminal charges against UC Regents for the multimillion-dollar tax

fraud related to the unlawful generation and sale of power at the UC Davis Medical

Center (UCDMC) 27-MW cogeneration plant, which had been occurring since 1999.

The Petitioner’s inquiry was entitled “Request to Bring Criminal Charges Against the

Regents of the University of California Due to Multimillion Dollars Federal Tax Fraud

Relating to Unlawful Generation and Power Sale in 1999–2003 and 2012–2013 by the

UC Davis Medical Center 27-MW Cogeneration Power Plant and for Destruction of My

and My Family's Life and Gross Violations of My Civil and Human Rights.”

On April 20, 2016, nine days after the Petitioner sent his inquiry to Wagner,

Wagner announced his resignation, effective in April 30, 2016

(https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/united-states-attorney-wagner-announces-

his-resignation), and became a partner of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, in Palo

Alto, near to San Francisco (https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/wagner-

benjamin/). This is also the law firm that Brooker works at

(https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/brooker-stephanie/). Both Wagner and

Brooker worked as a prosecutor for the U.S. Department Justice. Prior to his
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 253 -

government service, Wagner was an associate at the New York office of a national law

firm for more than five years, where his practice involved both civil litigation and

corporate finance transactions. He earned his Juris Doctor from New York University

School of Law in 1986, where he was managing editor of the Journal of International

Law and Politics. He received his undergraduate degree from Dartmouth College in

1982.

From 2011–2015, U.S. Attorney Wagner collaborated with U.S. Attorney

Melinda Haag and FBI chiefs in order to frame and entrap California Senator Yee and

perpetrate his incarceration. On March 6, 2017, Wagner, Haag, and McGregor Scott’s

names resurfaced in the recommendation letter that was sent to Senators Charles

Grassley and Dianne Feinstein by 127 former U.S. Attorneys, recommending that U.S.

Attorney Rod Rosenstein from the District of Maryland, a key perpetrator in the plot to

remove President Trump from office, be confirmed as Deputy Attorney General

(DAG) for U.S. Department of Justice. DAG Rosenstein then appointed Mueller to the

post of U.S. Special Counsel on May 17, 2017.

Mueller served as a consulting professor and the Frank E. and Arthur W. Payne

Distinguished Lecturer at Stanford University in Stanford, California, where he

focused on issues related to cybersecurity.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 254 -

(https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/news/former fbi director to bolster security rese

arch at stanford 20131105). At Stanford University, Mueller was welcomed by

Christine Blasey Ford, a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a

research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Since 2011,

Blasely Ford has been a professor of psychology in the Stanford-PGSP Consortium for

Clinical Psychology, a collaborative program between Palo Alto University and

Stanford University (https://www.paloaltou.edu/about/partnership-stanford-

university).

U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, supposedly sexually

brutalized and attempted to rape Blasey Ford. The attempt to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s

nomination by bringing out Blasey Ford’s story was an ill crafted, planned and

premeditated attack against Kavanaugh that was only used when other attempts to stop

the nomination failed. The Petitioner is not excluding Wagner, together with Mueller,

Feinstein, and Harris, in the plot against Judge Kavanaugh

https://www.scribd.com/document/476625769/In-Defense-of-Judge-

Kavanaugh-and-His-Family

It is not a coincidence that two attorneys from the same law firm, Gibson,

Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Wagner and Brooker, became indirect participants in

Mueller and Rosenstein’s hit squad to witch hunt and derail Trump’s presidency in
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 255 -

an ill-planned coup and to prosecute his associates, managers, family, and Trump

himself. The Petitioner would like reiterate from previous parts that, in May 2016,

shortly after Wagner became a partner of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP,

Napolitano, former Secretary of Homeland Security and President of UC, armed

with $175,000,000, met with President Barack Obama and Vice President Biden to

deliver a draft of "Russian interreference in 2016 presidential campaign Collusion

Witch Hunt Hoax," which was drafted for them for $1,000,000 by Napolitano’s

friends , former U.S. Prosecutors Haag and Scott.

At the end of May 2016, the Petitioner hired experienced attorney, Mark

Schlein, from the prestigious California consumer law firm, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &

Goldman, based in Los Angeles, to legally represent him in court in his whistleblower

case about tens of millions of dollars of tax fraud. Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman

assigned Schlein, an out-of-state attorney from Florida. Schlein was a former

lieutenant colonel and the Director of the Department of Law Enforcement

(https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/attorneys/mark-h-schlein/). In May 2016,

shortly after he retained Attorney Schlein, the Petitioner discovered that UC President

Napolitano used her connections with President Obama’s administration to enable

former UC Executive Associate Vice President Judith Boyette to be appointed by

the Secretary of Treasury for a three-year term on the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 256 -

Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE), to take care of the Petitioner’s IRS

whistleblower claim.

The Petitioner alerted the U.S. Tax Court to Napolitano’s possession of

$175,000,000 of dirty cash in his July 29, 2019 Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order

Served on July 9, 2019, Signed by Special Trial Judge Honorable Robert N. Armen,

Re: Protective Order, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure Section 6103(B)(L),

(2), and (3) (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0019), with the following words:

"It is still a puzzle whether Assemblymen Phil Ting and Kevin McCarty, by
ordering the State Audit, prevented Napolitano from using the $175,000,000 of
dirty cash to possibly orchestrate a new 9/11 terrorist attack or to assassinate
Donald Trump on the Presidential campaign trail in 2016."
On August 14, 2016, the New York Times reported that that $12.7 million in cash

payments to Manafort were listed in a secret ledger linked to former Ukrainian

President Viktor Yanukovych, for whom Manafort had worked as an adviser since

2006.

From the big picture of all facts and events, it appears that Napolitano, with her

$175, 0000,0000 of dirty cash, and Manafort were the key asset perpetrators were

counting on in eliminating Trump from the political arena, in a similar way that

California Senator Yee was eliminated by Mueller and Napolitano; but something
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 257 -

happened in middle of 2016, that made them take more aggressive action against

Trump and his associates in an attempt to overthrow Trump in political coup.

IV. THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING

INDICTMENT, FILED ON MARCH 14, 2018, IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA V. PAUL MANAFORT JR., CRIMINAL CASE
NO. 1:17–CR–00201–ABJ, JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON

On February 22, 2018, the Superseding Indictment with additional criminal charges

against Paul Manafort Jr. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia by Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III’s hit squad; the indictment was

unsealed on February 23, 2018

https://www.scribd.com/document/476832433/UTC-Case-1-18-cr-00083-TSE-

USA-v-Manafort-Grand-Jury-Inducement-Filed-02-26-18

The 48-page Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment, filed by Manafort’s

defense team on March 14, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia, outlined perfectly why the Superseding Indictment was a total fraud

https://www.scribd.com/document/476833194/UTC-Case-1-17-cr-00201-ABJ-

DEFENDANT-S-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-THE-SUPERSEDING-

INDICTMENT-Filed-03-14-18
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 258 -

By simply reading the titles of the "Argument" paragraphs (listed below) of the

Superseding Indictment, it is obvious that Deputy Attorney General Rod Jay

Rosenstein's appointment of Mueller as Special Counsel was unlawful and that

Mueller's prosecution of Manafort for the crimes allegedly committed by him years

before the 2016 presidential election was an integral part of a witch hunt and political

coup that was aimed at President Donald Trump, who, surprisingly, won the 2016

election, despite merciless attacks by mass and social media that had been going on

since he announced his run for presidency in July 2015.

ARGUMENT
1. The Superseding Indictment Must Be Dismissed Because the Special Counsel's
Appointment Was Ultra Vires
2. The Acting Attorney General's Power to Grant Jurisdiction Is Limited to
Specifically Identified Matters and Related Obstruction Efforts
3. The Appointment Order Exceeds the Acting Attorney General's Authority under
the Special Counsel Regulations
4. The Superseding Indictment Must Be Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
5. The Superseding Indictment Must Be Dismissed under Rules 6(d) and 7(c)
Because the Special Counsel Lacked Authority to Participate in the Grand Jury
Proceedings and to Sign the Superseding Indictment
6. The Superseding Indictment Exceeds even the Authority the Appointment Order
Purports to Grant
7. The Appointment Order Purports to Grant Authority Only over Matters that
"Arise Directly from" the Special Counsel's Investigation
8. The Charges against Mr. Manafort Do Not "Arise Directly from" the Special
Counsel's Investigation
9. The Superseding Indictment Violates Rules 6(d) and 7(c) Because It Exceeds
the Scope of the Appointment Order
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 259 -

10.This Court Lacks Jurisdiction and Dismissal is Otherwise Warranted

In addition to the Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment, Manafort’s legal

defense team filed an additional motion, Paul J. Manafort Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss

Count Two and to Strike the Forfeiture Allegation, on the same day, March 14, 2018,

in the U.S. for the District of Columbia (0033-INSERT LINK).

The Superseding Indictment alleged that Manafort failed to submit a foreign agent

registration form with the U.S. Department of Justice in a timely manner, and that he

failed to report foreign bank accounts and income to the U.S. Department of Treasury.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), 22 U.S.C. §§ 611–621, was enacted in

1938.

Count Two of the indictment charged Manafort with conspiring to launder money in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). In the introduction of the Motion to Dismiss the

Superseding Indictment, Manafort’s attorney explained why Count Two of the

Superseded Indictment had to be dismissed. Basically, Manafort's attorney told the

court that conspiracy to launder money has nothing to do with FARA, and that, as a

matter of law, violations of FARA cannot generate unlawful proceeds. For that reason,

he said that Count Two must be dismissed. Manafort's attorney also demanded that the

Superseding Indictment's forfeiture allegation, which was based upon the money
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 260 -

laundering conspiracy and the FARA violations, were unsupported by any law and

must be stricken from the Superseding Indictment.

The office of Special Counsel Mueller responded to Manafort’s two motions with

the 52-page, Government's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, filed on

April 2, 2018

https://www.scribd.com/document/476833842/UTC-Government-s-Response-in-

Opposition-to-Manafort-Motion-to-Dismiss-filed-on-April-2-2018

This was followed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge

Amy Berman Jackson’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, which denied Manafort's

Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment and Motion to Dismiss Count Two and

to Strike the Forfeiture Allegation.

V. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON’S MAY 15, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, WHICH DENIED PAUL
MANAFORT JR.'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING
INDICTMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT TWO AND TO
STRIKE THE FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

Judge Berman Jackson’s May 15, 2018, 21-page Memorandum Opinion and Order,

which denied Manafort's Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment and Motion to

Dismiss Count Two and to Strike the Forfeiture Allegation, was a formality. The fate
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 261 -

of Manafort and Trump's campaign advisors, managers, and staff was decided in 2016.

Berman Jackson's memorandum was basically a shortened and redacted version of

Mueller’s Government's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, which was

filed by Mueller on April 2, 2018, in opposition of Manafort’s motions. Furthermore,

Berman Jackson's memorandum made frequent references to Manafort's business in

Ukraine. Those references came from the New York Times , Washington Post and other

media; thus, the whole Memorandum Opinion and Order was not credible and sounded

more like an article written by a very knowledgeable writer from an anti-Trump about

Ukraine and Russia's internal affairs.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476835429/UTC-20180515-United-States-v-

Manafort-Memorandum-Opinion-AMY-BERMAN-JACKSON-United-States-

District-Judge

It is possible that Judge Berman Jackson's had an unofficial direct communication

with Mueller as it took place in the U.S District Court Northern District of California ,

United States of America v. Kwok Cheung Chow, a.k.a. Raymond Chow, a.k.a.

Shrimp Boy, a.k.a. Ha Jai, Case No. 3:14–cr–00196–CRB in which Mueller

communicated unofficially with District Judge Charles Brewer San Francisco. Perhaps
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 262 -

Judge Berman Jackson was advised by U.S Senator Kamala Harris husband Douglas

Emhoff on Kamala Harris behalf .

The key target in the above case was California Senator Leland Yee. Mueller was

unofficially or he assigned himself as Special Counsel, with the unofficial purpose of

taking Senator Yee out of the political arena after the September 9, 2010 Pacific Gas

and Electric (PG&E) natural gas pipeline explosion in Senator Yee’s senatorial district,

San Bruno’s Crestmoor neighborhood, in which eight people were killed and more

than 50 others were injured. The blast failed to remove Senator Yee from political

activities. In this particular case, Senator Yee and 25 others were rounded up by

Mueller’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) subordinates from California. They

were prosecuted by Mueller’s friend and former assistant, U.S. Attorney Malinda

Haag, from the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. In February

2016, in a Soviet Union Stalin-era-style show trial, U.S. District Court Judge Charles

Breyer sentenced Yee to five years in federal prison. Judge Charles Breyer is the

brother of Justice of the Supreme Court Stephen Breyer. As the court record shows,

Mueller communicated directly with Judge Charles Breyer about what he expected

from the court, in regard to Senator Yee's political activities. Mueller, together with

Haag and Benjamin Wagner, on behalf of the California political oligarchy, Senator

Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard Blum, a Regent of the University of
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 263 -

California (UC); U.S Senator Barbara Boxer, San Francisco District Attorney;

California Attorney General Kamala Harris; Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, who is now

the governor of California; and other less-noble people, rigged and derailed Senator

Yee's San Francisco mayoral election in 2011. In March 2014, Mueller, Haag, Harris

and Wagner tarnished Senator Yee's attempt to became Secretary of State for

California and rounded up and arrested him and 25 other people to makes looks witch

hunt legitimate operation and portrait Senator Yee as an ordinary criminal and gun

dealer who buying guns from terrorists.

In in copycat scenario, as Yee was taken out of California's political arena,

Donald Trump and his associates and family members' fates were decided by a

plan to take him out of the political arena. This plan was delivered to President

Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in 2016 by the UC President Janet

Napolitano, who, in order to make the conspiracy work, was armed with

$175,000,000. The conspiracy did not work as anticipated. Petitioner in his July

29, 2019 Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order, Served on July 9, 2019, Signed by

Special Trial Judge Honorable Robert N. Armen, Re: Protective Order, Tax Court

Rules of Practice and Procedure Section 6103 (B) (L), (2), and (3) (U.S. Tax Court

Docket No. 0019), described the Janet Napolitano ‘s dedication to the cause to

take care of Donald Trump with the following words:

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 264 -

"It is still a puzzle whether Assemblymen Phil Ting and Kevin McCarty, by
ordering the State Audit, prevented Napolitano from using the $175,000,000 of
dirty cash to possibly orchestrate a new 9/11 terrorist attack or to assassinate
Donald Trump on the presidential campaign trail in 2016."
State Audit 2016–130 was requested by Assemblyman Phil Ting and approved

by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee in August 2016. It took place after Yee

turned himself in to the U.S. Marshals Service on March 25, 2016, to serve a five-year

federal prison sentence, after an almost-six-year witch hunt, orchestrated by Senator

Feinstein husband Richard Blum (UC Regent) with the blessing and participation of

Kamala Harris; Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi; Boxer; California Governor Jerry

Brown; Newsom; California Senate President Pro Tempore Darrel Steinberg, who is

now the mayor of Sacramento; and California Assembly Speaker John Perez, who is

now a Regent of UC. Given his professional background, Ting knew exactly what he

was looking for when he requested the audit to target Napolitano and the corrupt UC

Office of the President (UCOP).

California Assembly Member Phil Ting

Phil Ting, Chinese-American, was elected to the State Assembly in 2012, representing

the 19th Assembly District, which spans the west side of San Francisco, as well as the

communities of Broadmoor, Colma, Daly City, and south San Francisco. Ting was
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 265 -

appointed San Francisco Assessor-Recorder in 2005 by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom,

becoming San Francisco’s highest-ranking Chinese-American official at the time.

November 2005. He now serves as Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, after

having served as Chair of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation

(https://a19.asmdc.org/article/biography). However, it appears that Assemblyman

Ting and the State Auditor did not follow up on what happened to the $175,000,000, or

on who was on the distribution list for this tax free cash.

On August 14, 2016, at the same time that the State Audit 2016–130 was

approved by the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the New York Times

reported that $12.7 million in cash payments to Manafort were listed in a secret ledger

linked to former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, for whom Manafort had

worked as an adviser since 2006. Most likely, California State Audit 2016–130's

approval by the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee in August 2016, derailed

the perpetrators' plan to take Trump out of the political arena with help of

$175,000,000 provided to conspirators by UC Regent.

As the Petitioner pointed out previously, the only difference between the witch

hunt aimed at Yee and that aimed at Trump is that the in witch hunt aimed at Donald

Trump George Papadopoulos, Trump's former campaign foreign policy adviser;

Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair; Rick Gates, Trump's former
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 266 -

campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner; U.S. General Michael

T. Flynn, Trump’s former National Security Advisor; 13 Russian nationals

and three Russian companies; Richard Pinedo, a Californian with a theft charge;

Alex van der Zwaan, an attorney associated with Paul Manafort; Rick Gates, who

was charged with making false statements to the FBI; Konstantin Kilimnik, a

longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates; 12 Russian GRU officers charged

with the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016; Michael Cohen,

Trump’s former lawyer; Roger Stone, Trump's longtime advisor; and Sam Patten, a

Republican operative and lobbyist were used for same purpose as 25 people rounded

up by FBI in executed by Robert Mueller witch hunt in 2010-2016 aimed at

California Senator Leland Yee

The judges from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Berman Jackson

and Emmet Sullivan, are no different than Judge Charles Breyer, who, during Yee's

prosecution case from 2014–2016, threw 26 people into prison for political reasons,

with the blessing of his brother, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Judge

Sullivan still prosecuting retired U.S. Army General Michel T. Flynn for political

reason , even though the U.S. Attorney General Office wanted to dismiss the case

against him . https://www.scribd.com/document/464100833/01-29-2020-Gen-Flynn-s-

Motion-to-Dismiss-for-Egregious-Government-Misconduct
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 267 -

District Court Judges Berman Jackson, Sullivan, and Charles Breyer are no

different than District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. from the Eastern District of

California, who, in 2007, sentenced Hamid Hayat, a cherry picker from Lodi,

California, to 24 years in prison (United States v. Hayat, No. 2:05–cr–0240 GEB DB

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019)). Hayat was framed and entrapped by FBI Director Mueller's

October 2001 order and was prosecuted by Napolitano’s friend, U.S. Attorney from

Eastern District Court McGregor William Scott. In August 2019, Burrell Jr. released

Hayat, a completely innocent man, after he spent 14 years in federal prison

https://www.scribd.com/document/476776215/UTC-20190730-HAMID-

HAYAT-JUDGMENT

In 2016 McGregor Scott who prosecuted Hayat shared with Melinda Haag $

1,000,000 they received from Janet Napolitano . Melinda Haag with Robert Mueller

witch hunted and prosecuted California Senator Leland Yee in 2010-2016.

The District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued her May 15, 2018,

Memorandum Opinion and Order just two days before Chairman Charles E. Grassley

wrote a seven-page letter to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, outlining his serious

concerns about the jurisdiction and authority of Special Counsel Mueller. On page 3 of

the letter, Grassley noted that Rosenstein’s appointment order omitted sections 600.1–

600.3 of the Attorney General department regulations. The omitted sections included:
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 268 -

(1) grounds for appointing a Special Counsel, (2) alternatives available to the Attorney

General, and (3) qualifications of the Special Counsel, including the requirement that

the Assistant Attorney General for Administration ensure a detailed review of conflicts

of interest issues. More specifically, section 600.1 states the Attorney General “will

appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a

person or matter is warranted.” The omitted regulations do not authorize

counterintelligence investigations. However, the Appointment Order did not otherwise

specify whether, to what extent, or on what basis Mueller had been granted

counterintelligence authority. These omissions and the department’s decision to

withhold a precise description of the scope of the special counsel investigation

obscured how the department was spending very significant amounts of taxpayer

dollars and left the actual jurisdictional limits on Mueller’s authority, as well as how

those limits were determined.

https://www.scribd.com/document/476828601/UTC-20180517-Chairman-

Grassley-to-Rod-Rosenstein-Letter

Following the May 17, 2018 inquiry sent by Grassley to Rosenstein, on July 25,

2018, during the second session of the 115th Congress, 13 Republican House

representatives submitted the Second Session Resolution, H. Res. 1028, to impeach

Rosenstein for high crimes and misdemeanors

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 269 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/476830488/UTC-20180725-RESOLUTION-

impeaching-DAG-Rod-Rosenstein

Neither Grassley's May 17, 2018, inquiry into Rosenstein, nor the resolution to

impeach Rosenstein, discouraged District Court Judges Berman Jackson and Sullivan

from continuing with their Soviet Union Stalin-era-style prosecution as part of the

witch hunt aimed at dually-elected President Trump. This raises the question of what

Berman Jackson and Sullivan's motivations were to act as Soviet Union Stalin-era-

style judges

It is unknown whether it was the $175,000,000 brought by Napolitano to the

White House for the meeting with President Obama and Vice President Biden or

something else pushed them to prosecute political opponents using criminal law.

Napolitano’s $175,000,000 is still an unresolved puzzle because California Attorney

General Xavier Becerra, a former Congressman from 2013–2017, refused to open a

probe to find out what Napolitano wanted to use that money for in 2016. Instead, at the

expense of taxpayers, Becerra filed over 60 frivolous lawsuits against President Trump

and Trump’s administration.

Special Counsel Mueller, for his ill orchestrated investigation of the Russian

interference in the 2016 presidential election witch hunt hoax, aimed at President

Trump and his family and his staff employed 19 lawyers, 40 personnel (FBI agents,
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 270 -

intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and others), entrapped and charged 34

people, executed 500 search warrants, interviewed 500 witnesses, and issued 2800

subpoenas, all at a taxpayer expense of over $30,000,000. Miller emerged empty

handed from his witch hunt aimed at Donald Trump New York City and Washington,

D.C. (see: Robert Mueller's March 2019 Report on the Investigation into Russian

Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election,

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf).

It appears that Flynn, who was besieged by Judge Sullivan, was the last chance

for the conspirators against President Trump to achieve their ill-minded and dangerous

goal to remove Trump from office by coup, blackmail, and fabrication of false

evidence of wrongdoing.

CHAPTER SEVEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. DUNCAN D.
HUNTER AND MARGARET DUNCAN, CASE NO. 3:18–CR–03677–W

I. SEPTEMBER 2016 GRAND JURY INDICTMENT, FILED ON AUGUST

21, 2018, BY U.S. ATTORNEY ROBERT S. BREWER IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. DUNCAN D. HUNTER AND
MARGARET HUNTER, CASE NO. 3:18–CR–03677–W
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 271 -

On August 21, 2018, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California,

Robert S. Brewer, filed the September 2016 Grand Jury Indictment against U.S.

Congressman Duncan D. Hunter (Republican), from California's 50th (2009–2013) and

52nd (2013–2020) congressional districts, and his wife, Margaret Hunter (Margaret

Jankowski)

https://www.scribd.com/document/476837631/UTC-20180821-September-

2016-Grand-Jury-Indictment-USA-v-Duncan-Hunter-Margaret-Hunter-Case-3-

18-cr-03677-Filed-08-21-18

In the filed indictment, the September 2016 grand jury charged Congressman Hunter

and his wife with violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Sec: 371—Conspiracy to Commit

Offenses; Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1343—Wire Fraud; Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1519—

Falsification of Records; Title 52, U.S.C., Secs. 30109(d) and 30114(b)(1)—Prohibited

Use of Campaign Contributions; Title 18, U.S.C., Sec.1344—Bank Fraud; and Title

18, U.S.C., Sec. 2—Aiding and Abetting. The indictment included but was not limited

to alleged charges that, from 2009–2016, the Hunters illegally converted more than

$250,000 in campaign funds to purchase goods and services for their personal use and

enjoyment, in violation of Title 52, U.S.C., Secs. 30109(d) and 30114(b). On March 17,

2020, Duncan Hunter was found guilty of violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Sec: 371—

Conspiracy to Commit Offenses, and was sentenced to 11 months in federal prison by

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 272 -

District Court Judge Thomas J Whelan. On August 24, 2020, his wife was found guilty

of the same offense and was sentenced to probation for a term of three years by Judge

Whelan.

II. WHAT THE PETITIONER FOUND SIGNIFICANT IN THE

PROSECUTION OF U.S. CONGRESSMAN HUNTER AND HIS WIFE,
IN RELATION TO THE PETITIONER’S IRS WHISTLEBLOWER
CLAIMS ADDRESSED IN THE PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF
OBJECTION TO THE U.S. TAX COURT ORDER, DATED JULY 17,
2020

The Petitioner’s lengthy Notice of Objection to the U.S. Tax Court provided

information about witch hunts and Soviet Union Stalin-era prosecutions of people for

political reasons, in order to eliminate political opponents from the political arena or to

use them as scapegoats to cover up much bigger crimes.

Coincidentally, but most likely not, the 2016 Grand Jury Indictment against U.S.

Congressman Hunter and his wife was filed two weeks after the Petitioner submitted

his updated and detailed August 3, 2018 Whistleblower Claim to the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) Whistleblower Office (WBO) in Ogden, Utah, as Master

Claim No. 2018–012118 and Sub Claim Nos. 2018–012139 and 2018–012141.

Duncan Hunter was born and lives with his family in San Diego, California. He

is the son of Lola Lee and Duncan Lee Hunter of San Diego, California. Duncan Lee
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 273 -

Hunter is a U.S. politician and was a Republican member of the House of

Representatives from California's 52nd, 45th and 42nd districts from 1981–2009

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan L. Hunter).

San Diego played a big part in the Petitioner’s IRS Whistleblower Claims,

which were deeply rooted in a sophisticated $40-billion fraud scheme entitled the

"California energy crisis." The Petitioner’s claims were aimed at the rotten and corrupt

administration of the University of California (UC) Office of the President (UCOP)

and UC Regents, led from September 2013–August 2020, by UC President and former

Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, and since 2002, by

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum. Blum and Feinstein brought

Napolitano to the UC headquarters in Oakland through the back door in September

2013. Prior to Napolitano and Mark Yudof, the two UC presidents were from UC San

Diego: President and former Fifth Chancellor, Richard C. Atkinson, and Chancellor

Robert C. Dynes. Dynes and his UC cronies' spending of public money became

visible and caught the attention of California Senator Leland Yee. Yee's crusade

against corruption in the UC system resulted in him being witch-hunted and

incarcerated in federal prison for five years.

Napolitano announced her resignation from the post of President of UC in September

2019, one and half months after the Petitioner submitted his Petitioner’s July 29,
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 274 -

2019 Reply to U.S. Tax Court Order, Served on July 9, 2019, Signed by Special

Trial Judge Hon. Robert N. Armen, Re: Protective Order Tax Court Rules of Practice

and Procedure, Sections 6103(B)(L), (2), AND (3) (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0019),

with following words: (INSERT LINK

“In 2009-2014 U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner from Eastern District of

California was conducting an investigation of the grants provided to UC
Davis by the Department of Energy (DOE). He was familiar with DOE
jurisdiction and DOE Division Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which
has jurisdiction over electricity production and distribution in the United
States. Petitioner’s inquiry with the U.S. Attorney's Office was swept under the
rug by Benjamin Wagner's replacement, Phillip Talbert. Petitioner’s reported
fraud was bigger than the DOE grants provided to UC Davis. At the same time,
UC President and former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet
Napolitano became the subject of a State Audit request by California
Assemblyman Phil Ting and Kevin McCarty (Audit 2016-130). The Audit
disclosed that Napolitano had embezzled $175,000,000 of University of
California reserve funds. It is still a puzzle whether Assemblymen Phil Ting
and Kevin McCarty, by ordering the State Audit, prevented Napolitano from
using the $175,000,000 of dirty cash to possibly orchestrate a new 9/11
terrorist attack or to assassinate Donald Trump on the Presidential campaign
trail in 2016. Janet Napolitano's appointment as U.S. Secretary of Homeland
Security in January 2009 and her appointment to UC President Post in
September 2013 emboldened the UC white collar criminals to intensify their
terror aimed at their adversaries without any hesitation to kill people if needed.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476827015/UTC-20190129-California-

Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Review-Case-No-S253713
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 275 -

Duncan Hunter , as an American patriot, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist

attack, he joined the U.S. Marines Corps. As the Petitioner described in previous

chapters, in May 2000, the cyber-attack on the California and Western States Power

Grid began. This sophisticated attack and fraud scheme, entitled the "California energy

crisis," caused $40 billion in losses for California ratepayers and taxpayers and almost

caused the collapse of the power grid. At the same time, in May 2000, a group of

foreign terrorists arrived in San Diego. Their lifestyle and sources of support were not

well known for more than one year, until they delivered the deadliest attack on U.S.

soil. However, by accident, the Petitioner found that these “uninvited” guests from the

Middle East converted their Camaros and Firebirds into hot rods in San Diego Shop in

order to cruise freely around UC San Diego and Arizona (the home state of

Napolitano) for one year, until they conducted their terrorist attack, which killed over

3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001. Somehow, the presence of Al-Qaeda

terrorists in the San Diego area went unnoticed. It was precisely coordinated with the

ongoing attack on the Western States Power Grid and synchronized with the state of

emergency declared by Governor Gray Davis on January 17, 2001. The state of

emergency should have ended in October 2001, but it lasted almost three years, until

Davis was bailed out from his post by U.S. Congressman Darrel Issa from San Diego

using $1,700,000 from his private account.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 276 -

On August 2, 2000, the San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E)

filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against

key players about the California energy crisis—the Sellers of Energy and Ancillary

Services into Markets Operated, California Independent System Operator (CAISO),

and the California Power Exchange (CalPX) (FERC Docket Nos. EL00–95–000

and EL00–98–000). Shortly after SDG&E's complaint was submitted, it was hijacked

by Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who added the Pacific Gas and Electric Company

(PG&E) and Southern California Edison to the complaint. Lockyer crowned himself

"Chief of California Parties" and became chief of the money-extortion team, named the

"California Energy Task Force." For next two decades, the California energy crisis

became a gold mine for California Attorney Generals Lockyer, Jerry Brown, and

Kamala Harris. In 2004, Lockyer’s California Parties and California Energy Task

Force received a kickback from Dynegy Inc., amounting to $280,000,000, and in 2005,

they received $460,000,000 from Reliant Energy. Lockyer cashed out approximately

$20,000,000 for his office in California. Nobody knows what happened to the millions

of dollars cashed out by Lockyer, Brown, and Harris.

On August 16, 2013 California Attorney General Harris, who is currently a U.S.

Senator, announced a $750-million settlement with Powerex over claims arising

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 277 -

from the 2000–2001 California energy crisis. According to her testimony, Powerex

gamed the market by purchasing and exporting huge quantities of electricity which

California needed, to Canada, and then selling it back to California at exorbitant

prices. Contrary to Lockyer’s announcements about kickbacks, Harris's

announcement did not say how much she got in kickbacks from Powerex, a

company that Lockyer, Brown, and Harris chased for 13 years. Because the

Petitioner had, on multiple occasions, informed Harris about CAISO's joint venture

in white collar crime with the UC mob, he followed Harris's announcement about

the California Parties' settlements with Powerex.

Duncan Hunter was a veteran of two wars: the Iraq War, where he participated in

the bloody Battle of Fallujah, and the Afghanistan War. He ended his military

career with honorary discharge and with the rank of captain. He began his political

career as a U.S. Congressman in La Mesa, California, near to San Diego. In 2007,

he established his headquarters at 9340 Fuerte Drive, Suite 302, La Mesa,

California. This was closed at the end of December 2012. On June 3, 2008, he won

the Republican primary to replace his father, former Congressman Duncan L.

Hunter, who, at the time, represented California's 52nd congressional district. On

November 4, 2008, Duncan Hunter was elected to Congress in the general election.

He was re-elected to the same seat in 2010. As a result of redistricting, he ran for
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 278 -

re-election in 2012, in the neighboring 50th congressional district. He was elected

to the new seat in 2012, and re-elected in 2014 and 2016. When Duncan Hunter

served in the military, Art Madrid, the mayor of city of La Mesa, whom Duncan

Hunter had most likely met, attempted to solve the puzzle of the 2000–2003

sophisticated scheme of 40 billion fraud titled by white collar criminals

“California Energy Crisis “ which was basically cyber-attack on the California

Power Grid . La Mesa Mayor Art Madrid effort if successful would most likely

uncover more facts about the terrorist preparation in San Diego area to September

11, 2001 terrorist attack.

Al Madrid sued Perot Systems Corporation, California Independent System

Operator (CAISO), and Perot System Corporation's software engineer, Paul Gribik,

who invented sophisticated software for the key players in the 2000-2001 $40-billion

fraud. Scheme of fraud involving CAISO, Duke Energy , Reliant Energy, Dynegy Inc.,

Mirant, and Williams/AES, which almost collapsed the Western Power Grid in 2001

(June 6, 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 (3DCA) No.

C046683).

In his complaint's introduction (Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp., 130 Cal.App.4th 440
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 279 -

(Cal. Ct. App. 2005)), Madrid alleged:

"This action is brought under California's criminal antitrust and unfair

competition laws. It seeks recovery of damages, and other monetary, equitable
and injunctive relief arising from [Perot's] aiding and abetting in the
manipulation, distortion, and corruption of California's electricity market
including derivatives. Defendants' unfair and unlawful business practices
include conspiring to establish phony strategies designed to 'game' the
California markets. Those strategies [130 Cal.App.4th 446] were designed by
PEROT and sold [fn. 3] to various market participants for the purpose of
cheating Californians out of billions of dollars. It is estimated that defendants'
anti-competitive conduct and illegal, unfair and deceptive business practices
exploited the general public and caused damage well in excess of $10 billion."
Due to lack of access to the San Diego and Sacramento Superior Court files in

Madrid’s complaint against Perot System Corporation and CAISO, the Petitioner could

not determine how, in 2002, Madrid and his legal team found details that CAISO and

its employees acquiesced and facilitated Perot's wrongful conduct by combining with

other market participants to manipulate and destabilize the electricity market.

Perot Systems Corporation was a software firm that, in 2000-2003, was owned

by Dallas millionaire Ross Perot. They designed the computer software for CAISO and

for California Power Exchange (CalAPX), both of which controlled the flow of

electricity through California’s enormous power grid in the. In 2002, one of CAISO's

collaborators in the California energy crisis fraud, Reliant Energy, provided the

California Energy Senate Committee with a 44-page step-by-step guide, crafted by

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 280 -

Perot Systems Corporation ., to destabilize the California electricity market and the

Western States Power Grid.

Somehow Madrid’s lawsuit against the Perot System Corporation and CAISO

found its way from the San Diego County Superior Court to the Sacramento County

Superior Court and the Court of Appeal , Third Appellate District 3DCA staffed with

corrupt officials from the California attorney general's office and the California

governor's office who were appointed as a judges and justices. Thus, Madrid’s lawsuit

was quickly taken care of and ended in same manner as the Petitioner’s 2016–2018

whistleblower complaint in the IRS WBO - IRS Claims Nos. 2016–00748

https://www.scribd.com/document/476776874/UTC-20160323-IRS-

WHISTLEBLOWER-Claim-No-2016-00748 2018–012118, 2018–012139, and

2018–012141

, in U.S. Tax Court, Waszczuk v. Commissioner, Memo. 2020-75 (U.S June 4,

2020) The Petitioner addressed Madrid's 2002–2005 lawsuit against Perot System

Corporation and CAISO in his August 3, 2018 IRS Application for Award for Original

Application Form 211 (supplemental submission) on pages 107–119

https://www.scribd.com/document/476787351/20180803-UTC-20180803-IRS-

New-Application-for-Award-WBO-Claim-No-2018-012118-full-document
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 281 -

On May 27, 2004, when Duncan Hunter was fighting the Battle of Fallujah, FERC sent

the following inquiry to the administration of UC San Diego:

May 27. 2004

Gerry W. White,P.E,
Assistant Director, Engineering Services University of California, San Diego 9500
Gilman Drive
La Jolla. CA 92093 Dear Mr. While:
Commission staff is reviewing its files to verify the accuracy of ownership information
contained in notices of self-cetificition and self-recertification of qualifying facility
(QF) status under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 197$ (PURPA) (. LIL,
Investigation of Certain Enron-Affiliated QEs, 101 FERC 161,076 (2002)). The
ownership requirements for QF status we set forth in 18 C.F.R. * 292.206 of the
Commission's Regulations, We are currently reviewing the accuracy of information
previously filed with the Commission associated with the facility referenced above.
The May 24, 2000 filing for this facility in Docket No. QFU-63-000 states that the
facility meets the QF ownership requirements. Please have an officer of your company
sign sworn affidavit confirming. (I) the current accuracy of ownership information
contained in the May 24, 2000 filing; (2) that the facility is still not controlled' or
owned more than 50 percent by an electric utility, or electric utility holding company,
or a combination thereof, (3) that the facility meets the ownership requirements of 18
C.F.R *
292.206 of the Commissions Regulations with the enabling states, and (4) that
any transfers of ownership referred to in the above-referenced filing did in fact
occur as described in that filing. Please document these representations with
narrative explanations of the current control over and ownership of the facility,
a corporate ownership chart(s) showing all upstream owners of the facility (and
identifying those that are electric utilities or electric utility holding companies
), and evidence showing that any reported transfers of utility owners. CMS
Midland, Inc, 39 FERC 161,244 at 61.827(1987).
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 282 -

Following the FERC audit, UC San Diego became the target of an IRS audit of its

payroll and accounting systems. The IRS was checking whether business income

and employment taxes were appropriately reported and paid. The IRS and FERC

audits raised red flags at the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) and UC

Berkeley, which were other examples of the UCOP corrupt administration's joint

venture with Enron.

The attorney from the IRS Chief Counsel Office in San Diego, Darrick Sun,

represented the IRS Commissioner against the Petitioner in Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.

IRS Commissioner, Docket No. 23105–18W. Sun graduated from Rutgers

University School of Law and arrived in San Diego in 2002.

III. ROBERT S. BREWER JR., U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Robert S. Brewer Jr., decorated Vietnam War veteran, former prosecutor, and

prominent San Diego litigator, was nominated by President Trump to serve as U.S.

Attorney for the Southern District of California on June 25, 2018, upon the

recommendation of U.S. Senators Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein. The Senate

unanimously confirmed his appointment on January 2, 2019

(https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/robert-s-brewer-jr-sworn-united-states-
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 283 -

attorney-southern-district-california). The strangest thing that the Petitioner read on

the U.S. Department of Justice website was that, in 2018, President Trump nominated

and appointed somebody based on the recommendation of Harris and Feinstein. In

2018, Feinstein and Harris’s goal was to see President Trump, campaign staff , his

family members prosecuted and removed from office as part of a witch hunt hoax

entitled “Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.” Harris also viciously

attacked U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session on June 13, 2017, and she attacked

President Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in an

even nastier way, during the September 27, 2018 hearing about allegations that he

sexually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a psychologist from Stanford University,

when the two were teenagers .

https://www.scribd.com/document/476625769/In-Defense-of-Judge-Kavanaugh-

and-His-Family

With all respect to U.S. Attorney Brewer, Feinstein and Harris's

recommendation caused President Trump to lose a staunch supporter in Congress, who

he so desperately needed. Additionally, Duncan Hunter's professional and political

career and his family's life were tarnished and destroyed because of the alleged

missteps that could have been resolved without using prosecutors and prison-
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 284 -

sentences. Harris and Feinstein’s involvement in the nomination raised questions as to

whether President Trump knew who was behind the Brewer's nomination.

Furthermore, Harris and Feinstein’s recommendation raised the question as to

who was behind the appointment of Rod Jay Rosenstein to the post of Deputy Attorney

General in the Department of Justice, after Attorney General Jeff Sessions requested

the resignation of 46 U.S. attorneys in March 2017. One of them was Rosenstein, who

had been serving as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland since 2005.

President Trump declined to accept Rosenstein's resignation, who had been chosen by

Trump’s enemies to serve as Deputy Attorney General to Attorney General Sessions. It

is unknown to the Petitioner who made the recommendation to President Trump to

appoint Rosenstein as deputy to Sessions, but whoever made this recommendation was

not an ally to Trump or his supporter. Rosenstein was a key conspirator in the coup

against Trump, and his appointment to the Deputy Attorney General post was key

factor in the appointment of Robert Mueller Swan III as Special Counsel, in order to

deliver Trump, his family members, and his associates to District Court Judges Amy

Berman Jackson or Emmet Sullivan from the U.S. District Court For the District of

Columbia. Rosenstein’s appointment was a crux to successful witch hunt.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 285 -

The next question is whether Feinstein and Harris where behind the

reappointment of McGregor William Scott to the post of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern

District of California. In 2003, Scott was appointed as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern

District of California by President George W. Bush. Scott was reappointed on

December 29, 2017, by President Trump. Scott was responsible for the Soviet Union

Stalin-era prosecution of Lodi, CA, resident Hamid Hayat, a completely innocent man,

who was framed and entrapped by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in

October 2001, by newly-appointed FBI Director Mueller. In 2007, 19-year-old Hayat

was sentenced to 24 years in prison. He was released on July 29, 2019, after serving 14

years .

https://www.scribd.com/document/476776215/UTC-20190730-HAMID-HAYAT-

JUDGMENT

Prior to his December 2017 reappointment, in 2016, Scott shared $1,000,000

with Melinda Haag, former U.S. Attorney for Northern District of California. They

received this money from former Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, who,

together with Mueller, arrived in California in September 2013, to take care of

unfinished business. Haag and Mueller, together with U.S. Attorney from the Eastern

District of California, Benjamin Wagner; Napolitano; Harris; Feinstein and Regent of

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 286 -

UC, Blum; former Mayor of San Francisco and Lt. Governor (currently Governor),

Gavin Newsom; former California Senate President pro tempore, Darrel Steinberg;

former California Speaker of the Assembly, John Perez, who is currently a Regent of

UC and District Court Judge from the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of

California; and Judge Charles Breyer, brother of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen

Breyer were responsible for framing, entrapping, and prosecuting California Senator

Yee and 25 other people from 2010–2016. Yee and the others were rounded up by the

FBI to legitimize Yee's prosecution after the September 9, 2010 natural gas pipeline

explosion in his senatorial district in the San Bruno Crestmoor neighborhood, San

Mateo County, near San Francisco, in which eight people were killed and more

than 50 were injured; 38 homes were destroyed, and 17 more were damaged failed

to end Leland Yee political career in State of California . Senator Yee was not in

San Bruno on that day.

On May 17, 2017, Mueller resurfaced as US Department of Justice Special

Counsel to prosecute President Trump, his family members, and his staff and to

remove President from office in the same style of witch hunt and prosecution as

Muller, Haag and Charles Breyer did to California Senator Yee and 25 others in 2010-

2016 The witch hunt aimed at President Trump did not work as well as it worked on

Senator Yee, who did not have the same power as the besieged President had , to
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 287 -

dismiss the FBI Director, U.S. attorneys, and other witch hunters left over from

Obama’s administration.

After September 11, 2001, when young Duncan Hunter volunteered to join the

U.S. Marines and was ready to sacrifice his life fighting in the Battle of Fallujah,

Senator Dianne Feinstein Husband Richard Blum won multimillion-dollar defense

contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. On April 18, 2006, a different "Blum," businessman

Philip Bloom, pleaded guilty to conspiracy, bribery, and money laundering in

connection with a scheme to defraud the Coalition Provisional Authority-South Central

Region (CPA-SC) during the occupation of Iraq. According to the Sydney Morning

Herald, Bloom used CPA funds to pay out over $2 million in bribes of cash, real

estate, designer cars, watches, and the services of prostitutes that he brought to

Baghdad. Bloom accepted at least $1 million in bribes and stole a further $600,000 in

cash and goods from the CPA

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip Bloom (businessman)).

Feinstein, Harris, Mueller, Haag, Newsom, and others did not care about people like

Duncan Hunter, nor did they care about how many people died in the September 11,

2001 terrorist attack or about how many young man and women would die in Iraq and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 288 -

Afghanistan. Their worries were the millions and billions of dollars of profit in their

bank accounts from the terrorist attacks and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On December 19, 2003, Beverly Eckert, whose husband Sean Rooney died in the

September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, published her famous manifesto, "My Silence

Cannot Be Bought:"

"I've chosen to go to court rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims
compensation fund. Instead, I want to know what went so wrong with our
intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to
turn four U.S. passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities and kill
3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story
skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue
options were so limited.... The victims fund was not created in a spirit of
compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgement by Congress that it
tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way.... So I say to
Congress, big business and everyone who conspired to divert attention from
government and private-sector failures: My husband's life was priceless, and I
will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought."
One week after meeting with President Obama, on February 12, 2009,

Eckert was killed in the crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 outside of Buffalo, New

York. She was traveling to Buffalo for a family gathering to mark what would have

been her husband's 58th birthday. This took place less than a month after Janet

Napolitano was appointed Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

in January 2009.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 289 -

IV. MARCH 3, 2020 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO RECUSE THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA V. DUNCAN D. HUNTER AND MARGARET HUNTER,
CASE NO. 3:18–CR–03677–W

Duncan Hunter’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Recuse the United

States Attorney's Office, filed on March 3, 2016, is interesting, because it brings up the

issue of U.S. Attorney Office’s (the prosecutors in Hunter’s case) participation in

Hillary Clinton’s 2015–2016 presidential campaign, of thus, of the partiality of the

legal process. If Duncan Hunter had been a thief who stole candy or petty things, then

his argument about the U.S. Attorney Office's conflict of interest and court partiality

might work. However, for Duncan Hunter, a Republican congressman, who was a

supporter of Trump during his struggle to survive the merciless witch hunt orchestrated

by Feinstein, Harris, Napolitano, Schiff, Rosenstein, Nadler, Mueller, and their

collaborator. Hunter had no chance to survive, after he was singled out to be taken out

from political arena by the political mob, especially after Brewer was appointed as

U.S Attorney for Southern District of California by Harris and Feinstein’s

recommendation.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 290 -

In 2016, Napolitano embezzled or was given $175,000,000 to take care of

Trump and his presidential campaign. c In September 2016, she traveled with that

amount of money to San Diego to meet State Bar Director Elizabeth Rindskopf

Parker, former General Counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the

National Security Agency (NSA), and the principal deputy legal adviser at the U.S.

Department of State and California Chief Justice Tani-Sakauye. Napolitano then went

to Arizona to campaign for Clinton. $175,000,000 is lot of money to support

presidential election. Nobody witch-hunted or prosecuted Clinton or Napolitano.

Duncan Hunter's wife, Margaret, became a collateral damage in the legal process and

was served with three years' probation. Margaret Duncan's situation reminds the

Petitioner of his psychologist wife, Dorothy Bernhoft, who was given five years’

probation. The witch hunt aimed at the Petitioner’s psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft,

Ph.D., and his family, was orchestrated by Napolitano's friend from Arizona, John

Lohse, in a joint venture with UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley and his wife,

Diane Dooley, the last Chief of Staff for California Governor Jerry Brown. In that

witch hunt, California government thugs from Social Services framed Dr. and Dorothy

Bernhoft, who narrowly escaped five years in prison with a plea bargain. Dr. Bernhoft

is a Vietnam War veteran with the rank of captain. His residence in Lodi was raided by
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 291 -

government thugs and his property was confiscated because he dared to protest the

terror and inhumane treatment that the Petitioner was subjected to at UCDMC in 2011-

2012.

CHAPTER EIGHT- ANNE APPLEBAUM -SIKORSKA

I. TWO ARTICLES IN THE ATLANTIC: THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2020

ARTICLE, "TRUMP: AMERICANS WHO DIED IN WAR ARE
'LOSERS' AND 'SUCKERS'," AUTHORED BY JEFFERY GOLDBERG,
FOLLOWED BY THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 ARTICLE, "WHO’S
PUTTING THESE IDEAS IN HIS HEAD?," AUTHORED BY THE
ATLANTIC STAFF WRITER, ANNE APPLEBAUM, IN LIGHT OF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. PAUL MANAFORT JR.,
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:17–CR–00201–ABJ, TRIED BY JUDGE AMY
BERMAN JACKSON

A. The Atlantic Articles.

It was not a coincidence that on September 3, 2020, The Atlantic published an

article by Jefferey Goldberg that was very disparaging to President Trump's, entitled

"Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers'."

(https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-americans-who-

died-at-war-are-losers-and-suckers/615997/). This was followed by Anne

Applebaum’s September 4, 2020 interview with former FBI Chief of

Counterespionage Peter Strzok, who was fired from the job on August 10, 2018, by
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 292 -

FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich. Applebaum’s interview was entitled "Who’s

Putting These Ideas in His Head?" and was subtitled “The former FBI agent Peter

Strzok worries that Americans will never learn the full story about Trump’s

relationship with Russia” (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/anne-

applebaum-interviews-peter-strzok/616003/). Applebaum’s interview with Strzok

should have been titled "Who’s Putting These Ideas about Trump’s Relationship

with Russia into Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s Head?" Trump’s course of

business in Russia before he became a presidential candidate was later used to derail

his presidential campaign and to attempt to remove him from office after he was

elected.

The witch hunt aimed at Trump caused Strzok to lose his job after 20 years

of service with the FBI because he overestimated his ability as a witch hunter and

underestimated Trump. Goldberg’s article caught the Petitioner’s attention because

in it, Goldberg smeared President Trump with disgusting accusations that were

unsupported by any witnesses or evidences. These Goldberg’s despicable

accusations and smear included that, during his 2018 visit to France, President

Trump allegedly publicly disparaged 1,800 American Marines who died in World

War I in the 20-day Battle of Belleau Wood, that he refused to go to Aisne-Marne

American Cemetery near Paris, and that he called dead soldiers “losers” and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 293 -

“suckers.” President Trump responded firmly to Goldberg’s smear saying that only

“animals” could come up with such low, unfounded accusations. The day after

they published Goldberg's article, The Atlantic published Applebaum’s interview

with Strzok.

From these two articles, which were published only one day apart, the Petitioner

determined that Goldberg's disgusting smear originated from Applebaum, who lives in

Poland. Since at least March 2016, Applebaum had fed wrong information about

Trump’s relation with Russia and Putin and Ukraine to President Obama’s

administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) via The New York Times,

the Washington Post, and The Atlantic. In February 2016, retired army general and

former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Michael T. Flynn, became

Trump’s advisor on foreign policy matters. Flynn had been a prominent critic of the

Obama administration since 2014, when he was ousted from the DIA.

On March 29, 2016, Paul Manafort, a veteran Republican consultant, joined the Trump

campaign as a strategist to help prepare for the Republican National Convention.

According to Wikipedia

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne Applebaum#Personal life). In March 2016,

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 294 -

eight months before the presidential election, Applebaum wrote the following in

a Washington Post in reference to candidate Donald Trump:

"'Is this the end of the West as we know it?', which argued that
"we are two or three bad elections away from the end of NATO, the
end of the European Union and maybe the end of the liberal world
order." Applebaum endorsed Hillary Clinton's campaign for
president in July 2016, on the grounds that Trump is 'a man who
appears bent on destroying the alliances that preserve international
peace and American power.'
Applebaum's March 2016 Washington Post column inspired the
Swiss magazine, Tagesanzeiger, and the German magazine, Der
Spiegel, to interview her, the articles appearing in December 2016
and January 2017. She argued very early on that the movement had
an international dimension, that populist groups in Europe share
'ideas and ideology, friends and founders,' and that,
unlike Burkean conservatives, they seek to 'overthrow the
institutions of the present to bring back things that existed in the
past—or that they believe existed in the past—by force.'
Applebaum has underlined the danger of a new 'Nationalist
International,' a union of xenophobic, nationalist parties such
as Law and Justice in Poland, the Northern League in Italy, and
the Freedom Party in Austria.”
The above fragment is self-explanatory and demonstrates Applebaum's political

orientation and her feelings about Trump and Trump’s movement to "Make America

Great Again" (MAGA).

However, in March 2016, Trump’s populism and nationalism were a not key concern to

Applebaum. Her concern was Manafort, who joined Trump's presidential campaign at
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 295 -

that time. The Petitioner’s briefed t the U.S. Tax Court in his Notice of Objection

provided information about Manafort's business in Ukraine with the former President of

the Republic of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski, and other European Union (EU)

countries' leaders, who are linked and politically connected to Applebaum's husband,

Radoslaw Sikorski.

B. Who is Anne Applebaum?

The Anne Applebaum’s legal name is Anne Elizabeth Sikorska. She was born in

Washington, D.C. in 1964. She is an American Marxist by heart, and a journalist and

historian by profession. She has written many books and publications about the Soviet

Union, Russia, Ukraine, and Poland. Her ancestors immigrated to the U.S. from

eastern Poland (what is today Belarus), where the Petitioner’s parents lived before

World War II. She has written extensively about Marxism and Leninism. Educated in

history and literature, she graduated from Yale University in 1986. There, in 1982, she

attended a Soviet history course taught by the former hard-core German communist,

Wolfgang Leonhard. One of Leonhard's students at Yale was former U.S. President

George W. Bush, who wrote that Leonhard's History of the Soviet Union was "one of

my most memorable courses." Applebaum spent the summer of 1985, in Leningrad,

the Soviet Union. She was a Marshall Scholar

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall Scholarship), and in 1987, she graduated

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 296 -

with a Master’s degree from the London School of Economics, where she met her

Polish-born husband, Radoslaw Sikorski. In 1988, Appelbaum moved to Poland,

which, at that time, was dominated by the Soviet Union and ruled by the communist

regime that was the verge to collapse, which finally happened in 1989. There are over

1,900 Marshall Scholar alumni, including two of the nine current Associate Justices of

the U.S. Supreme Court. One of these is Justice Stephen Breyer, brother of Charles

Breyer, judge from the District Court of the Northern District of California, who, in

conspiracy with former FBI Director, Robert Swan Mueller III, and U.S. Attorney

from the Northern District of California, Melinda Haag, threw California Senator

Leland Yee and 25 other people into prison in a despicable witch hunt aimed at

Senator Yee from 2010–2016.

In September 2018, during the ongoing vicious witch hunt aimed at President

Trump and his nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was

accused of sexual misconduct when he was in high school, Applebaum badmouthed

Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch on Twitter because they are Catholics and

because they both graduated from Georgetown Preparatory School (also known

as Georgetown Prep), a Catholic school in North Bethesda, Maryland

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgetown Preparatory School). The Petitioner

knew of Applebaum because she had previously lectured him through e-mail about one
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 297 -

of her articles. In response to her tweets about Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch,

the Petitioner tweeted, "Small world, Ms. Sikorska." To this tweet, the Petitioner

attached a link to the open letter that the Petitioner wrote on to Charles Grassley,

Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, on September 19, 2018, entitled "In

Defense of Judge Kavanaugh and His Family"

(https://www.scribd.com/document/398421315/In-Defense-of-Judge-Kavanaugh-

and-his-Family). After receiving the Petitioner’s response, Applebaum instantly

blocked the Petitioner on Twitter.

C. How Appelbaum and Her Husband, Radoslaw Sikorski, Are Connected

to Manafort, Who Was Chairman of Trump’s Presidential Campaign
for a Short Time in 2016

In liberated Poland from Soviet’s an communists liberation , Applebaum’s

husband, Radoslaw Sikorski, became a very well-known Polish and EU politician and

a member of the European Parliament

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rados%C5%82aw Sikorski). Sikorski held the post of

Poland Minster of National Defense from 2005–2007, under Presidents Aleksander

Kwasniewski and Lech Kaczynski. President Kwasniewski later did business with

Manafort and with U.S. Vice President’s Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. Both were
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 298 -

members of the board of directors for the Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma

Holding Limited, which owns licenses for the major Ukrainian gas fields. From

November 2007 to September 2014, Sikorski held the post of Minister of Foreign

Affairs under the prime minster of Republic of Poland, Donald Tusk. In 2014, Tusk

was elected to a five-year term as President of European Union Council. On August

25, 2019, President Trump met Tusk at the G7 Summit in Biarritz, France.

Reading about Sikorski and his involvement in Ukrainian and Russian political

affairs, it is not difficult to determine that Applebaum, had first-hand information

about these affairs, about former Polish president Kwasniewski’s former EU

officials, or about Hunter Biden and Manafort's business in Ukraine and in general

Anne Applebaum had access to information regular people can’t access or read

anywhere . Applebaum would have needed this first-hand knowledge to write a

credibly sound fake and disparaging story about Trump, whom she hates and

about Trump’s administration .

D. Anne Applebaum-Sikorska ; Aleksander Kwasniewski-Former

President of Poland; Hunter Biden -Son of Former U.S. Vice President
Joe Biden; Manafort- Former Chairman of Trump's Presidential
Campaign and
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 299 -

The following excerpt, especially the last sentence, from Applebaum's interview with

Strzok is interesting in relation to the events that occurred in the middle of the 2016

presidential campaign:

"A counterintelligence investigation looks beyond whether laws

have been broken, to how people can be pressured. With Trump,
the immediate thing that leaps out are his financial entanglements.
Are some of them improper? Does somebody therefore hold
leverage over him? But Trump, at the very beginning of the
Mueller investigation, had already drawn a red line, saying, 'My
and my family’s financial dealings are off-limits. And if you go
there,' he implied, 'I’m going to fire you.'"
On June 20, 2016, when Trump dismissed campaign manager Corey

Lewandowski, who had worked for him for more than a year, and appointed Manafort

as his campaign chairman, Manafort became a family financial dealing problem, not

for Trump, but for Vice President Biden, whose son Hunter Binder, together with the

former president of Poland, Kwasniewski, raked in millions of dollars from Burisma

Holdings Limited, which owns licenses for the major Ukrainian gas fields. As court

documents show, Manafort did business with Kwasniewski and other former officials

from EU countries, most likely many from President Obama's administration were

involved in this murky business in Ukraine during Obama's presidency from 2008–

2016.
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 300 -

Manafort’s appointment of as Trump’s campaign chairman changed

perpetrators plan to take Trump out of the political arena before election day. A

draft of the coup plan, for which Janet Napolitano paid $1,000,000 to her friends,

two former U.S. Attorneys, McGregor Scott and Melinda Haag, was delivered to

Vice President Biden and President Obama by Napolitano in May 2016.

Napolitano traveled to Washington, D.C. in May 2016 with $175,000,000; this

money was provided to her by the Regents of the University of California (UC) to

take Trump out of the running for U.S. President.

To control damages due to Manafort's appointment as campaign chairman,

President Obama's administration, which was still in power in June 2016 caused

20,000 e-mails to be hacked from the Democratic National Convention server. The

FBI launched an investigation. Thereafter, on August 1, 2016, The New York Times

reported that that $12.7 million in illegal cash payments to Manafort were listed in

a secret ledger linked to former President Viktor Yanukovych. Manafort had

worked with former Polish President Kwasniewski and other EU cronies as an

adviser to Yanukovych. The August 16, 201 New York Times article did the job

and resulted in Manafort quitting Trump’s campaign. He became in 2017 a major

target of Mueller and Rod Rosenstein's hit squad in their conspiracy goal to

prosecute and remove President Donald Trump from office .

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 301 -

It is very likely that Kwasniewski or Sikorski helped Hunter Biden get the lucrative

million-dollar contract in Ukraine. Burisma Holdings Limited's board became a

personal problem and family matter for vice President Joe Biden, Applebaum’s

husband Radoslaw Sikorski, and EU leaders closely affiliated with President

Obama's administration.

Applebaum was the recipient of a Doctor Honoris Causa from Georgtown

University, where, in March 2006, former President of Poland Aleksander

Kwasniewski was appointed as a Distinguished Scholar in the Practice of Global

Leadership.

District Court Judge Barman Jackson Berman’s Memorandums and Orders in the

United States Of America v. Paul Manafort Jr., Criminal Case No. 1:17–Cr–00201–

ABJ, U.S. District Court District of Columbia, sounds, in part, like Applebaum's

articles in the Washington Post and The Atlantic about Ukraine, Russia, and Trump. In

the September 4, 2020 article, Strzok noted that he worries that Americans will never

learn the full story about Trump’s relationship with Russia. This basically shows

Strzok and Applebaum's nostalgia about the Soviet Union. Strzok stated that his job

was a lot easier during the era of the Soviet Union.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 302 -

It the Russia and Ukraine hoax witch hunt could be concluded than if anybody or

anyone meddled in 2016 Trump's U.S. presidential campaign, it was people from EU

countries who did business in Ukraine with U.S. Vice President Biden's son, Hunter

Biden, and others connected to President Obama’s administration from 2008–2016.

Manafort’s prosecution by Mueller’s Rosenstein Hit Squad became a key asset to

divert attention from Biden's activities in Ukraine, and from the endless witch hunt

aimed at Trump for the various reasons outlined in this Notice of Objection

CHAPTER NINE -CONCLUSION

Base on the provided facts and documents, Petitioner respectfully requesting

that the U.S. Tax Court reopen the case and set the case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services, Docket No. 23105–18W for Court

Trial as soon as possible. It was initially done by the U.S Tax Court Judge Goeke’s

Standing Pretrial Order Dated August 16, 2016.

Dated September 21 ,2020 _______________________________

Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Petitioner Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (833) 787-3131
Email: jjw1980@live.comBUSSBUSI
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 303 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK’S, NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO THE U.S. TAX
COURT ORDER, DATED JULY 17, 2020, .IN SUPPORT OF THE
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE JOSEPH GOEKE AND
ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW JUDGE, PREFERABLY THE HONORABLE
PATRICK J. URDA, APPOINTED TO THE U.S. TAX COURT ON
SEPTEMBER 21, 2020, BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, DONALD JOHN TRUMP.

was served on September 21, 2020 by Electronic Mail and U.S Priority Mail to:

Trial Judge: Judge Joseph Robert Goeke - U.S Priority Mail

United States Tax Court, Room 331
400 Second Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20217

Darrick D. Sun Darrick.D.Sun@irscounsel,treas.gov , Electronic and U.S Mail

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

Don Fort, Chief- U.S Priority Mail

U.S. Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service,
Criminal Investigation Department
1111Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20224
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 304 -

William Barr - U.S Priority Mail

U.S Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration- U.S Priority Mail

Tracey V. Giannakoulias
Assistant Special Agent in Charge Complaint
Management Team
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 469
Washington, DC 20005

Dated: September 21, 2020 By:

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Petitioner
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi,Ca 95242
Phone : 209.663.2977
Fax: 209.787.3131
E-mail : jjw1980@live.com
Docket No. 23105-18 W

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

JAROSLAW JANUSZ WASZCZUK

Docket No. 23105–18 W
Petitioner Filed Electronically

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICES
Respondent

THE PETITIONER ’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE JOSEPH

ROBERT GOEKE AND FOR REVIEW THE POLITICALLY
MOTIVATED PARTIAL AND BIASED JUDGE GOEKE’S DECISIONS
IN THIS CASE .
FOR ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW JUDGE APPOINTED TO THE U.S.
TAX COURT BY PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, PREFERABLY
HONORABLE PATRICK J. URDA

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner respectfully requests that the U.S. Tax Court or Chief Judge Maurice

B. Foley, by his executive power, assign a new judge to this case. The Petitioner

would prefer Judge Patrick J. Urda, who was appointed by President Donald

Trump, and who assumed office in the Tax Division on September 27, 2018.
Docket No. 23105-18 W -2-

This case requires a different Judge and another look at the Petitioner

whistleblower claims that the Petitioner submitted to the Whistleblower Office

(WBO) in Ogden, Utah, on March 23, 2016 (Claim No. 2016–007481), and updated

August 3, 2018 (Claim No. 2018–012118), the Petition submitted to the U.S. Tax

Court on November 20, 2018 and politically motivated partial , prejudicial and

discriminatory Judge Goeke’s decisions which includes :

1. The Judge Goeke’s December 3, 2019, Order which granted Petitioner

motion for trial continuance did not set a new approximate trial date. (U.S

Tax Court Docket No. 0035)

2. The Judge Goeke’s 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 which granted Respondent Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment and denied Petitioner Reward. (U.S Tax Court Docket

No. 0044)

3. The Judge Goeks’s Order dated June 30, 2020 which denied Petitioner’s

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), filed on June 29, 2020(U.S Tax

Court Docket No. 0046)

4. The Judge Goeke’s Order dated July 17, 2020 which denied Petitioner’s
Docket No. 23105-18 W -3-

Motion for Reconsideration for Finding 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), filed on July 15, 2020(U.S Tax Court Docket No.

According to U.S. Tax Court documentation

(https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/judges/urda.htm), Judge Urda held several
positions with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Tax Division, including counsel
to the deputy assistant attorney general for appellate and review, counsel to the
Criminal Division’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance
and Training, and former adjunct professor of law at American University
Washington College of Law. Appointed by President Trump as judge of the
U.S. Tax Court and sworn in on September 27, 2018, for a term ending
September 26, 2033, Judge Urda is four years younger than the Petitioner 's
daughter and will not retire right after signing an order or issuing an opinion, as
happened with Special Trial Judge Robert N. Armen. The Petitioner believes
that this appointment by President Trump is meaningful for Judge Urda.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The first judge assigned to this case was Judge Armen, who was appointed to

the U.S. Tax Court by President Clinton on August 27, 1993. Judge Armen was

assigned to this case with the purpose of disposing of the respondent’s Motion for

Protective Order pursuant to Rule 103, which was filed on May 15, 2019 (U.S. Tax

Court Docket No. 0017). Judge Armen denied the respondent’s motion on July 31,

2019 (U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 0017). He then retired one month later, on August

31, 2019. In the meantime, 16 days after Judge Armen denied the respondent’s

motion, on August 16, 2019, Judge Goeke was assigned to the case by the court and
Docket No. 23105-18 W -4-

set the pretrial order and the trial date was set in San Francisco for January 6, 2020

(U.S. Tax Court Docket Nos. 0021 and 0022).

Judge Goeke was appointed to the bench of the U.S. Tax Court by President

George W. Bush in April 2003. He was the second retired senior trial judge assigned

to this case. Judge Goeke retired at age 68, on April 21, 2018, but he continues to

perform judicial duties as the senior judge on recall. The Petitioner ’s whistleblower

claims are deeply rooted during and after President Clinton and President George W.

Bush’s era, from 1996–2003.

Following Judge Goeke’s August 16, 2019 pretrial order and when Judge

Armen retired on August 31, 2019, Janet Napolitano, President of the University of

California (UC) and former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security (2009–2013)

announced her resignation from her post as UC President effective August 1, 2020.

Napolitano arrived in California in September 2013, along with former FBI Director

Robert Mueller (2001–2013), to take care of unfinished and new business they had in

California.

In September 2013 Napolitano positioned herself as UC President and Mueller

positioned himself as a supposedly distinguished lecturer at Stanford University, not

far from Napolitano’s headquarters in Oakland, California.

On November 7, 2019, the respondent’s counsel, Darrick Sun, from the IRS

Chief Counsel Regional Office in San Diego, California, filed a motion for partial
Docket No. 23105-18 W -5-

summary judgment without producing any administrative record. The respondent did

not summarize anything, and this motion was pure fraud upon the court (U.S. Tax

Court Docket No. 0023). The respondent’s motion was supported by two pseudo-

declarations that were produced by two corrupt managing officers from the WBO

and WBO-ICE, Keith Dehart and Karen M. Foster, who affirmed by their deceit in

their declarations on Judith Boyette's special mission in Tax Exempt and

Government Entities (TEGE) from 2016–2019 (U.S. Tax Court Docket Nos. 0025

and 0026). Boyette, who once worked for Pillsbury and Sutro Law Corporation in

San Francisco, where Mueller had also been employed, was appointed to a three-year

term on the IRS Advisory Committee on TEGE, from June 2016 through June 2019,

with undoubted help from Napolitano’s influence in President Obama’s

administration. The Petitioner addressed Boyette’s presence in TEGE and Dehart

and Foster's deceptive and fraudulent declarations in his December 13, 2019

Opposition to Respondent Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, which was

ignored by Judge Goeke.

On November 8, 2019, due to exceptional circumstances (Rule 133), the

Petitioner requested that the court issue an order granting his trial continuance on

any court working day between January 6, 2020, and September 2020. The

Petitioner explained the exceptional circumstances that necessitated the

continuation of his trial in Exhibit No. 3, attached to the Motion for Trial

Continuance (November 7, 2019 meet-and-confer letter addressed to the Petitioner

Docket No. 23105-18 W -6-

’s counsel, Sun, Exhibit No. 3). On December 3, 2019, Judge Goeke ordered this

motion for continuance be granted but did not set a new trial date

https://www.scribd.com/document/468961625/11-08-2019-US-Tax-
Court-Motion-to-Continue-Trial-PETITIONER .

In March 2020, four months after the respondent’s counsel filed this, the

Petitioner became concerned about the fate of his petition, which was submitted

to the U.S. Tax Court on November 20, 2018. The Petitioner believed that

Judge Goeke did not set a new trial date because in December 2019, the U.S.

Tax Court already knew about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak,

and Judge Goeke was advised not to set a new trial date or to rule on the

November 7, 2019 respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

On March 13, 2020, the Petitioner submitted a request to the U.S. Tax Court

for an update on the case. The respondent's counsel, Sun, reacted to the Petitioner ’s

inquiry, and April 2, 2020, he filed a motion for leave to file a first amended

answer. IRS Counsel Darrick Sun blatantly lied to the court to control damages, as

demonstrated on Page 2 of this motion, which untruthfully stated that the November

21, 2018 petition was submitted to the U.S. Tax Court too late (U.S. Tax Court

Docket Nos. 0039 and 0040)

On April 13, 2020, the Petitioner filed an opposition to the respondent’s

Docket No. 23105-18 W -7-

Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer (U.S. Tax Court Docket

No.0042)

Petitioner provided to the court a copy of the March 23, 2016 Claim

Form 211 with a 45-page addendum; thus, the court had liberty to find out that

the Petitioner 's claim is not about IRC 511, 512 or 513 but is, instead, about the

Regents of UC's violation of UC's tax-exempt status by illegally producing and

selling electric power at the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) in

Sacramento.

However, Judge Goeke disregarded the information in the Petitioner 's filed

documents, especially the information in his opposition to the respondent's Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment, and, in bad faith, issued Memorandum Opinion and

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

June 4, 2020), based on the respondent’s deceit.

Through this memorandum, Judge Goeke denied the respondent’s Motion for

Leave to File a First Amended Answer on April 2, 2020, but he granted the

respondent’s November 7, 2019 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and closed

the case, sustaining the IRS WBO's decision, dated October 23, 2018, which denied

the Petitioner any reward for reporting the tens of millions of dollars of tax evasion

and fraud committed by the corrupt UC administration, which was connected with

the California government.

Docket No. 23105-18 W -8-

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

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

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

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

https://www.scribd.com/document/467408938/20200629-Motion-to-Vacate-
or-Revise-Filed-U-S-Tax-Court.

This motion was denied by Judge Goeke on the following day, June 30, 2020,

with a rubber stamp from the court with the Judge Goeke's name on it (U.S. Tax

Court Docket No. 0046).

The Petitioner is left with no choice but to file this motion for Judge Goeke

recusal and the request to replace Judge Goeke with a judge appointed by

President Trump, preferably Judge Urda.

III.

ARGUMENT

The Petitioner is perfectly aware and understands that adverse rulings are not

grounds for disqualification or Judge recusal. See United States v. Conforte, 624

F.2d 869, 882 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Carroll, 567 F.2d 955, 958 (10th Cir.

1977); United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 136 (D.C. Cir. 1976); United States

v. Ming, 466 F.2d 1000, 1003-1004 (7th Cir. 1972).

However, in this proceeding, the impartiality of Judge Goeke has to be questioned

after all the Respondent’s motions filed in the U.S. Tax Court were
Docket No. 23105-18 W -9-

denied by the Court but Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with exception to

the politically motivated 11/7/2019 Respondent Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment which was granted to Respondent on 6/4/2020 by Judge Goeke with

gross bias prejudice and double standard against Petitioner.

The partial and politically motivated Judge Goeke Memorandum Opinion and

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

June 4, 2020) Petitioner, sustained the October 24, 2018 WBO Final Decision

Under Section 7623(a). The Court Order & Decision dated June 4, 2020, basically

nullified all previous Court decisions, erased the Petitioner’s whistleblower claims,

and his November 21, 2020, petition with the U.S. Tax Court, thus giving the green

light for uncontrolled corruption to white-collar criminals from the University of

California Office of the President lead by Napolitano and the political swamp in the

State of Californian and federal government agencies like Internal Revenue Service

Whisteblower Office in Ogden Utah or IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt

and Government Entities (TEGE)

In fact the Respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on

November 7, 2019 without producing by Respondent any administrative record or

evidence to the Court does not constitute the Respondent’s motion valid or

legitimate court documents . Petitioner addressed the Respondent’s administrative

record in his 6/29/2020 Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision or Opinion. The
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 10 -

motion was rubber stamped “ Denied “ next day with Judge Goeke’s name on the

rubber stamp. .

28 U.S.C. § 455(a) warrants Judge Goeke’s recusal or replacement because a

reasonable person would not believe the judge to be impartial under the

circumstances based on the facts and arguments provided above.

28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is similar to, but somewhat broader than, section 455(b).

Any circumstance in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,

whether or not touched on in section 455(b), requires recusal under section 455(a).

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 553 (1994). Disqualification is warranted

under section 455(a) when a reasonable person would question a judge’s

impartiality. 28 U.S.C. 455(a) requires: Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the

United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality

might reasonably be questioned.

The test for sufficiency of grounds for disqualification hinges on whether the

judge’s "impartiality might be reasonably questioned." United States v. Ritter, 540

F.2d 459, 462 (10 Cir. 1976). The latter test was further affirmed in United States v.

Hines 696 F.2d 722,729 (10 Cir. 1982), which states:

“Under Section 455(a), the judge is under a continuing duty to

ask himself what a reasonable person knowing all the relevant
facts would think about his impartiality.”

The broader of the two provisions, § 455(a), is designed to prevent even the

appearance of partiality. Liljeberq v. Health Services. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S.

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 11 -

847, 860 (1988). Therefore, the judge must recuse himself where there is the

appearance of bias, regardless of whether any actual bias exists. Caperton v. A.T.

Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009) (when impartiality is in doubt, the

appropriate remedy is to disqualify the judge from further proceedings); see also

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994).

In the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIRCUIT Aug 31, 2020 Opinion denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus to

Michael Flynn , In re Flynn, No. 20-5143 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 31, 2020) Court

pointed in contrary to it is own politically motivated opinion ‘

The "standard for disqualification under § 455(a) is . . .

objective" and "[t]he question is whether a reasonable and
informed observer would question the judge's
impartiality." United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34,
114 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (en banc) (per curiam). "The very purpose
of § 455(a) is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding
even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible," id.
(quoting Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S.
847, 865 (1988)), because "[d]eference to the judgments and
rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity
and independence of judges." In re Al-Nashiri, 921 F.3d 224,
234 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Microsoft
Corp., 253 F.3d at 115). Strict adherence to § 455(a)'s command
is required to ensure that every federal judge performs his duties
so that "justice . . . satisf[ies] the appearance of
justice." Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 864 (quoting In re
Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)). Such adherence is all the
more vital in a high-profile case like this one, in which public
interest is nationwide. See United States v. Tucker, 78 F.3d
1313, 1325 (8th Cir. 1996) (reassigning case to different trial
judge, in part, "[g]iven the high profile . . . of [the] case in
particular"); In re Bos.'s Children First, 244 F.3d at 169-
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 12 -

70; United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 995 (10th Cir. 1993).
"Congress enacted subsection 455(a) precisely because 'people
who have not served on the bench are often all too willing to
indulge suspicions and doubts concerning the integrity of
judges,'" and "[i]n high profile cases such as this one . . . , such
suspicions are especially likely and untoward." In re
Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 781-82 (3d Cir. 1992)
(quoting Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 864-65). A judge must proceed
with the utmost care, then, to ensure that the parties are treated
with the same fairness as those in any other case, that the
administration of the case is handled judiciously and
expeditiously and that he, at all times, maintains seamless
impartiality both in fact and in appearance.

The Petitioner is very hesitant to write this motion for Judge Goeke’s recusal

suspecting that the Memorandum – Opinion and the Order & Decision issued on

June 4, 2020 However is a fruit and result of ex-parte communication of the

Respondent’s attorney with Judge Goeke’s department attorneys, taking into

consideration the Petitioner’s similar experiences related to this proceeding in the

corrupted State of California court system.

However, the Petitioner was left with no other option, because whether

Judge Goeke personally participated in writing the Memorandum – Opinion and the

Order & Decision or not, his robber-stamped name justified and legitimized bias

and prejudice, which could impact the Petitioner’s wrongful termination cases in the

State Court. Also, Judge Goeke is the Petitioner’s age and can quit his job and not
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 13 -

serve in the U.S. Tax Court at any time he decides, thus the Petitioner is submitting

this Motion for Assignment of new Judge .

IV.
CONCLUSION

The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, tellingly wrote in his book,

Making Our Democracy Work (Motion Page 22, 22–24), "The Court itself must

help maintain the public's trust in the Court, the public's confidence in the

Constitution, and the public's commitment to the rule of law." Justice Stephen

Breyer also wrote, "(A) court that acts politically plays with fire"

Personally, the Petitioner has nothing against Judge Goeke or any judge in the U.S.

Tax Court or any other court. However , Petitioner can’t not accept and will not

accept the politically motivated Court decisions which have nothing to do with

serving justice in the Court of law which should be impartial and shall not protect

corruption and white collar criminals from state or federal government agencies .

On the contrary, in September 2018, the Petitioner was outraged by the witch hunt

aimed at Judge Brett Kavanaugh, which was carried out by the California political

mob and Napolitano’s and Robert Mueller’s friends in California.

The Petitioner sent his Open Letter, “In Defense of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and His

Family,” to U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the Committee on the

Judiciary (EXHIBIT # 1)
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 14 -

https://www.scribd.com/document/476625769/In-Defense-of-Judge-

Kavanaugh-and-His-Family

Chairman Grassley authored the Brief of United States Senator Charles E. Grassley

as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellee and Affirmance On Appeal

From The United States Tax Court, T.C. No. 21276-13W filed on 10/24/2017

https://www.scribd.com/document/469320009/10-24-2017-US-Tax-Court-T-C-

NO-21276-13W-Amicus-Curiae-Brief-Grassley

The Petitioner being witch hunted for 14 years by friends of same political mob

which pursuing ruthless and unpreceded witch hunt aimed President Trump and

associates or appointees thus Petitioner understands very well the meaning of the

“witch hunt” words.

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

authorities in the Petitioner’s Motion that his motion should be granted and

Judge Goeke should be replaced or recuse himself from this case; that the

Judge Goeke order in part that granted the Respondent Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment should be vacated; and that the U.S Tax Court should open

the case and assign a new judge to this case who was appointed to the U.S. Tax

Court by President Donald Trump, preferably the Honorable Patrick J. Urda

Docket No. 23105-18 W - 15 -

Dated September 21, 2020 _______________________________

Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Petitioner Per Se

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: (209) 663-2977
Fax: (833) 787-3131
Email: jjw1980@live.com
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 16 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE JOSEPH ROBERT GOEKE AND
FOR ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW JUDGE APPOINTED TO THE U.S.
TAX COURT BY PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, PREFERABLY
HONORABLE PATRICK J. URDA
was served on September 21, 2020 by Electronic Mail to the following recipients:

Trial Judge: Judge Joseph Robert Goeke - U.S Priority Mail

United States Tax Court, Room 331
400 Second Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20217

Darrick D. Sun Darrick.D.Sun@irscounsel,treas.gov , -Via electronic -U.S Priority

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

Don Fort, Chief- U.S Priority Mail

U.S. Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service,
Criminal Investigation Department
1111Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20224

William Barr - U.S Priority Mail

U.S Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Docket No. 23105-18 W - 17 -

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration- U.S Priority Mail

Tracey V. Giannakoulias
Assistant Special Agent in Charge Complaint
Management Team
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 469
Washington, DC 20005

Dated: September 21, 2020 By:

Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk , Petitioner
206 Katzakian Way Lodi , CA 95242
Phone : 209.663.2977
Fax: 209.787.3131
E-mail : jjw1980@live.com