WWTP CERTIFICATION REVIEW: ORDEALS IMPOSED ON ME BY WILKINSON DATED 4JAN21

January 4, 2021

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

10620 Caminito Derecho

San Diego, CA 92126
antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com

Wes Wilkinson

Staff Services Manager I

Office of Operator Certification

State Water Resources Control Board

1001 “I” Street, 17^th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 341-5131

SUBJECT : ORDEALS SUFFERED UNDER ZUCCALA, HERNANDEZ,

COOPER, GORDON AND MAUGHAN DUE TO WILKINSON'S

IMPROPER CONDUCT

Dear Mr. Wes Wilkinson,

This is in connection with an e-mail I received from Mr. Cooper dated May 31, 2013. As I look at it, I can deduce and determine with close to 100% accuracy that you are the one who wrote, prepared and MERELY, instructed Mr. Cooper to send these 3 letters through email from Mr. Cooper though the three (3) letter attachments were not composed, prepared and written by Mr. Cooper but by you. I can conclude that because the writing style and words are obviously similar to the emails I received from you, Mr. Wes Wilkinson. AND, Mr. Cooper has communications be directed back to you, Mr. Wilkinson, for further inquiries.

Secondly, this response from Mr. Cooper dated May 31, 2013 which I absolutely strongly believed was substantially from you, Mr. Wilkinson, was triggered by an appeal letter to the AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR of the California Water Resources Control Board under the FREEDOM INFORMATION ACT where I attached therewith a set of copy of the letter dated March 12, 2013 with title "REQUEST FOR RESPONSE" and subject (Ms Debbie Zuccala) "TWO PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE YOUR MANAGER MANAGER ....VERY CONFUSING complaint, which answer to this inquiry could have been settled way back October 2013 by simple, humble and honest admission of accountability and asking for forgiveness for some lapses in judgment which for me are modestly excusable and laudable response.

But what you cunningly did, while hiding behind the identity of Mr. Cooper is not to give a credible explanation on who is actually the mandated, meaning immediate manager of Ms. Zuccala. Instead you, Mr. Wilkinson, diverted away from the subject of the inquiry and just furnished me again of the record of denial letters by Ms. Zuccala and Ms. Hernandez which they both had sent me and needlessly I already have and worse you impressed upon me that you attached to it the copy of my application for operator certification but actually you did not for the obvious reason that the form which I filed where I filled up my information is a wrong form for examination and therefore deficient and should not be processed.

What about if in October 2012 upon learning about my complaint about wrongful deeds and omissions by Ms. Zuccala and asking both Ms. Gordon and you, Mr. Wilkinson's, working relationship with her (Ms Zuccala) saying truthfully that you were actually her immediate supervisor and you are under Ms Gordon as your manager and you assume responsibility and accountability for her wrongful acts and asked forgiveness for your department's lapses in judgments on treating my application for operator certification, it should not have been as tortious compared to what you actually subjected me to suffer nine (9) months of quandary writing multiple emails and certified mails seeking for help or answers on who between Ms. Gordon and you, to be held responsible for wrongful acts and omissions by Ms Zuccala which I will discuss in chronological and comprehensive details, in ITEM 7 of this document.

Good that after nine (9) months my persistent inquiry and discovery efforts led me Mr. Maughan who at last answer my lingering question on who between you, Mr. Wilkinson, and Ms Gordon, who both of you refused to explain on who is the legally mandated manager for Ms Zuccala in an email on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 shown next:

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

JUNE 25, 2013 E-MAIL FROM JAMES MAUGHAN SHOWING EMPLOYEE DESIGNATIONS ANSWERING AT LAST WHO IS THE LEGALLY MANDATED MANAGER OF DEBBIE ZUCCALA AFTER TORTIOUS ORDEAL OF 8 MONTHS

QUESTION AS TO WHO IS THE LEGALLY MANDATED

MANAGER OF DEBBIE ZUCCALA IS ANSWERED ONLY

THIS DATE SINCE OCTOBER 1, 2012 A QUESTION LINGERING FOR EIGHT (8) MONTHS

DIVISION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE EMPLOYEE DESIGNATIONS

From the organizational chart shown above as provided by Mr. James Maughan,

Mr. Andrew Cooper is shown reporting to certain Mr. Okamoto and not to you.

I am perplexed how come you are able to instruct Mr. Cooper, who is not your subordinate to follow directives from you. I may asked and provide a copy of this email to him. Perhaps he may be able to help me out of this predicament which you, Mr. Wilkinson, imposed upon me.

ORDEALS DEALING WITH MS ZUCCALA, MS HERNANDEZ,

YOU, MR. WILKINSON, MS GORDON AND MR COOPER FROM

August 2, 2012-June 13, 2013 WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE

HAPPENED IF ONLY MR. WILKINSON ADMITTED RESPONSIBILITY

AND ACCOUNTABILITY EARLY ON TO HIS IMPROPER CONDUCT AND WRONGFUL DEEDS AND OMISSION.

YEAR 2012

AUGUST 2, 2012...Ms Debbie Zuccala wrote and sent me through regular mail a
letter of DENIAL of my operator certification application.

AUGUST 8, 2012.. a) I received the DENIAL letter on my operator certification application sent by Ms Debbie Zuccala through regular mail.

b) I sent a reply to Ms Debbie Zuccala telling clarifications and
posting some questions through E-MAIL.

10.
AUGUST 14, 2012..resent E-MAIL to Ms. Debbie Zuccala dated August 8. 2012.

11.

AUGUST 15, 2012..WAITED.. I got no reply.
a) resent THIRD FOLLOW UP E-MAIL to Ms. Debbie Zuccala
FOR E-MAIL dated August 8, 2012.

12.

AUGUST 16, 2012.. WAITED.. I got no reply.
. a) resent E-MAIL to Ms. Debbie Zuccala through

USPS certified mail.
SEE RECEIPT HERE

13.

AUGUST 20, 2012..Linda Vista Post Office confirmed "her" office received
the certified mail on this date.

14.

AUGUST 29, 2012......Certain Ms. Anna Hernandez, wrote a DENIAL LETTER for a WWTP Operator Certification examination. She processed my application though my application was deficient being a form for WWTP Operator Certification. Deficient applications shall not be processed as per regulation. Besides she should have seek an endorsement from Ms. Debbie Zuccala so that issues and questions I posted for Ms Debbie Zuccala could be addressed accordingly. I waited for Ms. Debbie Zuccala to respond.

15.

AUGUST 29, 2012 MY COMMENTS TO HERNANDEZ DENIAL LETTER

DATE OF ANNA HERNANDEZ DENIAL AUGUST 29, 2012 DEADLINE DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF CREDENTIALS FOR THE CURRENT EXAM IS AUGUST 1, 2012 . SINCE MY APPLICATION CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED TENABLE FOR THE CURRENT EXAMINATION AS THE DEADLINE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF CREDENTIALS WAS ON AUGUST 1, 2012 SHE SHOULD HAVE WROTE ME THAT MY APPLICATION WILL NOT BE PROCESSED DURING THE CURRENT EXAMINATION AND WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR THE NEXT EXAMINATION AND ADVISED ME TO COMPLETE THE REQUIRED CREDENTIALS IF THERE ARE ANY THAT I HAVE TO COMPLY WITH AND THAT I HAVE $95 CREDIT IN MY FAVOR. BESIDES ANNA HERNANDEZ SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT MY APPLICATION WAS DEFICIENT AND SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCESS IT AS THE REGULATION PROHIBITS PROCESSING DEFICIENT APPLICATION. HERNANDEZ LIKE ZUCCALA VIOLATED THE REGULATION OF YOUR OWN THAT DEFICIENT APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE PROCESSED, ONE AFTER THE OTHER.

16.
SEPTEMBER 6, 2012..WAITED.. I got no reply
a) I wrote a letter to Ms. Debbie Zuccala
with subject, " IGNORED E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS        DEMONSTRATING INCOMPETENCY, INEFFICIENCY
AND INEXCUSABLE NEGLECT OF DUTY"
by certified mail.
17.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012...WAITED..I got no reply Certified mail receipt HERE for
letter sent to Ms. Debbie Zuccala dated September 6, 2012

18.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012...WAITED..I got no reply from Ms. Debbie Zuccala but
a) certain  Ms. Christine Gordon responded to the letter not
addressed to her, first count of discourtesy.
  b) sent e-mail reply to certain Ms. Christine Gordon.
19.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012...Certain Christine Gordon
  replied but just asking for a phone to contact me.
Why asked for a phone to contact me , where in my CERTIFICATION
  APPLICATION FORM, I have filled in NONE for my telephone number? Why not communicate with me through my active email address?

20.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2012...Ms. Debbie Zuccala   replied but just asked for a phone to
  contact me with. Again, why asked for a phone number, where she
  already have my active e-mail address? She knew well that I have
no phone to contact me with as this information was clearly filled up in
  my CERTIFICATION APPLICATION.
21.

SEPTEMBER 15, 2012...sent E-MAIL response to Ms. Debbie Zuccala ASKING HER
WHY SHE USED A DIFFERENT E-MAIL ADDRESS.
22.
SEPTEMBER 22, 2012.. WAITED..I got no reply
a) Sent E-MAIL to Ms. Debbie Zuccala telling her I have no phone.

23.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2012...

a) Received E-MAIL from certain Ms. Christine Gordon,
   (second count of discourtesy, replying to e-mail not addressed to
  her) claiming to be Ms. Debbie Zuccala's manager.
b) Received E-MAIL from certain Mr. Wes Wilkinson.
(first count of discourtesy, replying to e-mail not  addressed to him)
   claiming to be Ms. Debbie Zuccala's manager.
24.
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012..
a) Sent reply to certain  Ms. Christine Gordon
  b) Sent reply to certain   Mr. Wes Wilkinson.

25.

SEPTEMBER 30, 2012...WAITED..I got no reply

26.
OCTOBER 1, 2012 ....Sent E-MAIL to Ms. Debbie Zuccala with subject
"TWO PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE YOUR MANAGER
...VERY CONFUSING"

27.

OCTOBER 4, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL
b) Received AUTOMATIC reply  from Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

28.
OCTOBER 10, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the THIRD TIME
for Ms. Debbie Zuccala.
29.
OCTOBER 15, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
a)Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL  for the FOURTH TIME
for Ms. Debbie Zuccala.
30.
OCTOBER 17, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
a)Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL  for the FIFTH TIME
for Ms. Debbie Zuccala.
31.
OCTOBER 22, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the SIXTH TIME
for Ms. Debbie Zuccala.
b) Received a TWENTY WORDED reply from certain
Ms. Christine Gordon
32.
OCTOBER 23, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the SEVENTH TIME
for Ms. Debbie Zuccala.
33.
OCTOBER 28, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the EIGHT TIME
for Ms. Debbie Zuccala
34.
NOVEMBER 5, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the NINTH TIME
for Ms. Debbie Zuccala.
35.
NOVEMBER 12, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the TENTH TIME
  for Ms. Debbie Zuccala.
36.
DECEMBER 12, 2012....WAITED...I got no reply
a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL through CERTIFIED MAIL.
  for Ms. Debbie Zuccala.
b) Certified mail receipt here.

YEAR 2013

37.

JANUARY 12, 2013......WAITED....I got no reply
a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL through CERTIFIED MAIL with
RESTRICTED DELIVERY REQUIREMENT for Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

b)Please see USPS receipts here.

38.

March 12, 2013... I waited until this date. I got no reply.

a) I sent certified mail to the Office of Operator Certification with title "
REQUEST FOR RESPONSE" and SUBJECT

" TWO PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE YOUR (Ms. Debbie Zuccala)
MANAGER....VERY CONFUSING complaint, with copies furnished to

Ms. Debbie Zuccala,Ms. Christine Gordon and Mr. Wes Wilkinson.

39.

March 14. 2013...The certified mail which was sent on March 12, 2013 was

received by the Office of Operator Certification on this date.

See the mail return card here.
40.

May 21, 2013... I wrote an appeal letter to the AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR of the
California Water Resources Control Board under the
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. I attached thereto
a set of copy of the letter dated March 12, 2013 with title

"REQUEST FOR RESPONSE" and subject (Ms Debbie Zuccala)
"TWO PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE YOUR MANAGER... VERY

CONFUSING complaint.

ORDEAL WITH MR. ANDREW COOPER

May 31, 2013-June 13, 2013

41.

May 31, 2013... I received an e-mail response from certain Mr. Andrew Cooper,

an office technician, but did not address the main issues on who

between Mr. Wes Wilkinson and Ms Christine Gordon is the

legally mandated manager of Ms Debbie Zuccala and failed to send

back AND hid information on my educational credentials covering the Bachelor of Science in Management Engineering as evaluated by

ERES (Educational Records Evaluation Service), Sacramento, CA

I have reasons to believe that the three letter attached to his email

is prepared and written by Mr. Wilkinson as they were written in style

and words like the letters I received from Mr. Wilkinson. In other words

Mr. Wilkinson was the one who refused to name who between him and

Ms. Gordon is the mandated immediate supervisor of Ms. Zuccala and

withheld the information on my educational credentials.

42.

June 12, 2013..I wrote an e-mail response to certain Mr. Andrew Cooper. I informed him

that as I saw it, he is obviously responding to a letter not addressed to

him and that act is discourtesy and usurpation of authority unless he could

send me proof that he has given the authority to respond by the Agency

Administrator, whom I requested that his/her name be given to me.

43.
June 12, 2013...Mr. Cooper apologized but failed to name the SWRCB agency Administrator.

44.

June 13, 2013...Sent e-mail again to Mr. Cooper asking for the name of the

Agency Administrator. Mr. Cooper failed to respond.

THESE ARE THE ORDEALS DEALING WITH MS ZUCCALA, MS HERNANDEZ, MR WILKINSON, MS GORDON AND MR COOPER FROM August 2, 2012-June 13, 2013

WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF ONLY YOU, MR. WILKINSON, ADMITTED RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO YOUR IMPROPER CONDUCT AND

WRONGFUL DEEDS AND OMISSION EARLY ON SEPTEMBER 2012 AND DID THE NECESSARY RETRIBUTIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO IT.

45.

Though you, Mr. Wilkinson, withheld the information on my educational credentials as professionally evaluated for you by ERES equivalent to the Bachelor of Science in Management Engineering here in the U.S., Mr. Maughan returned back to me the exact copy of it. Next are the educational credentials which you refer on May 31, 2013 email as you lied that you did not have yet. But Mr. Maughan UNWITTINGLY revealed your lies to me.

THE INFORMATION ABOUT MY EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS WHICH YOU PURPOSELY

WITHHELD AND CONCEALED WAS SHOWN TO ME BY MR. MAUGHAN. I HAVE THE EXACT COPY OF IT. NOW, HAVING BEEN PROVEN ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF MY EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS AND HAVING IT DISCOVERED THAT A CIRCULAR DISCRIMINATORY MARK WAS IMPOSED ON THE WORD "PHILIPPINES" MY NATIVE COUNTRY, THE NEXT THING YOU DID IS, MR. WILKINSON, AS YOU KNOW THE "ORIGINALS" COULD HAVE A VITAL EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN PROVING YOUR GUILT,

THIS TIME YOU HID AND KEPT ON HIDING THE ORIGINAL COPY OF IT FROM ME

UNDER THE EXPRESS APPROVAL OF MR. MAUGHAN (see87.) AND CONTINUING IMPLICIT CONFIRMATION AND INACTION OF MR. HOWARD, ET AL, OF YOUR LIES. YOU, ALL, YOUR SILENCE CONFIRM AND ADHERE TO ALL THE MISREPRESENTATION DONE BY MR. WILKINSON AS IF THEY WERE YOUR OWN, ESPECIALLY THE CONCEALMENT OF MY "ORIGINAL" EDUCATIONAL RECORD DOCUMENT AS EVALUATED BY ERES IN PARTICULAR.

THE EXACT COPY OF THE "ORIGINAL" EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS IS SHOWN NEXT (see 46. )

46.

THE EXACT COPY OF THE "ORIGINAL" EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS.

NOTE:

THE TRACES OF ATTEMPTED ERASURE MARKS ON THE CIRCLE DRAWN OVER THE WORD "PHILIPPINES" WHICH COULD BE MORE NOTICEABLE AND REPREHENSIBLE WHEN SEEN IN THE "ORIGINAL". SO, YOU, MR. WILKINSON TRIED YOUR BEST TO DENY ITS EXISTENCE. THEN, LATER, HAVING PROVEN ITS EXISTENCE THROUGH MR. JAMES MAUGHAN. THOUGH AGAINST YOUR WILL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT, YOU HIDE AND CONCEALED THE "ORIGINAL" COPY FROM ME AND DENIED ME THE CHANCE TO SHOW IT AND ASK A THIRD PARTY OPINION ABOUT IT.

PAGE 1 EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS

47.

PAGE 2 EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS BY ERES

48.

PAGE 3 EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS BY ERES

49.

I am showing back to you the certified mail signed by Mr. Tom Howard which I have circumstantial reasons to believe that this certified mail from Mr. Howard was prepared and written by you, Mr. Wilkinson, in like manners that you prepared and wrote the attachment letters in email dated May 31, 2013 from Mr. Cooper where you withheld the information on my educational records as evaluated by ERES. May I note that in this certified mail you admitted the existence of my educational credentials about my educational credentials covering the Management Engineering bachelors degree which you credited a zero educational point. This is an absurd and wrongful evaluation, Mr. Wilkinson. This is absurd and wrongful in the sense that a bachelors engineering degree is way higher than a high school diploma. Giving a mere high school diploma without transcript of records a 6 educational point and denying a bachelors degree in engineering even a single point is absolutely reprehensible, Mr. Wilkinson. I do not intend to get the maximum educational points you can give to my engineering degree. I just need the minimum six (6) educational points to be qualified the examination so why insist in asking for my educational transcript of records from the Philippines. Are you even more qualified to evaluate international transcript of records than the EDUCATIONAL RECORDS EVALUATION SERVICE (ERES)? Mr. Howard and Mr. Maughan are engineers themselves other engineers in your office and they definitely knew that engineering subjects that they studied and you can merely asked them on the subjects I most probably had taken. They should have advised you about it. And, ERES had professionally evaluated it for you. Anyway I am just asking for the minimum 6 point educational criterion. So, why deny me the minimum 6 point?

50.
CERTIFIED MAIL ENVELOPE


Mr. Tom Howard certified mail envelop February 18, 2014

51.

CERTIFIED MAIL FROM MR. TOM HOWARD

DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2014

FIRST PAGE

Mr. Tom Howard certified mail, page 1 February 18, 2014

52.

SECOND PAGE

Mr Tom Howard certified mail, page 2 February 18, 2014

53.

From page 2 last two (2) paragraphs, you, Mr. Wilkinson, while hiding behind the identity of Mr. Tom Howard wrote, "Please note that you currently have a credit of $55 on file with the OCC. If you would like a refund of the $55, please send a refund request to: " YOU, Mr. Wilkinson,

"If you do not request a refund, your credit of $55 will remain with the OCC."

Then the following officers were furnished with a copy of the letter as per written

on the screenshot next.

To wit: Jonathan Bishop, James Maughan, John Russell, Doug Wilson,

Wes Wilkinson, Therese Barakatt and Julie Osborn.

54.

Mr. Wilkinson, I am forthwith be including Mr. Jonathan Bishop, Mr. John

Russel, Mr. Doug Wilson, Ms. Therese Barakatt, Julie Osborn, together

with Mr. James MAUGHAN and you to be furnished copy of this email, so

that later they might be able to help me move toward a holistic resolution

of the controversies pertaining to the predicaments I am experiencing

dealing with you.

55.

THREE (3) JUSTIFICATIONS WHY, MR. WILKINSON, MY $95 CERTIFICATION FEE SHOULD REMAIN INTACT AND NOT $55 YOU WROTE ON CERTIFIED MAIL YOU PREPARED FOR MR. HOWARD AND BE REFUNDED TO

ME SINCE JULY 17, 2019 THE DATE I STARTED THE SAME BE RETURNED TO ME.

SEE §700 (d) Notice and (e) Deficient applications

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/operator_certification/docs/regs.pdf

56.

(d) Notice - The division shall notify applicants in writing within 30 calendar

days of receipt of an application whether it is complete or deficient.

If there is a deficiency, the division shall identify the deficiency and

inform the applicant in writing of the specific information required.

THIS MEANS MS. ZUCCALA SHOULD HAD NOT OUTRIGHTLY DENIED MY APPLICATION. INSTEAD, FIRST, SHE SHOULD HAD

NOTIFIED ME IN WRITING WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF

RECEIPT OF MY APPLICATION WHETHER IT IS COMPLETE

OR DEFICIENT. IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY DEFICIENCY THE

DIVISION SHALL IDENTIFY THE DEFICIENCY AND INFORM

ME OF THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUIRED.

CONSEQUENTLY, SHE SHOULD HAD NOT PROCESSED MY

APPLICATION AND MY $95 CERTIFICATION FEE REMAINED

INTACT, NO CHARGES AT ALL.

HENCE, THIS IS JUSTIFICATION 1, WHY $95 CERTIFICATION FEE SHOULD

BE REFUNDED SINCE THE DATE I REQUESTED THE SAME TO BE RETURNED TO ME ON AN EMAIL DATED WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2019 WITH SUBJECT, REQUEST RETURN OF ORIGINAL 'ERES' EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION DOCUMENTS AND THE $95 APPLICATION FEE.

57.

(e) Deficient application- Applications which do not contain proof of

completion of education requirements and the correct application

and examination fees shall be considered deficient application.

Deficient applications shall not be processed for the current

examination. The applicant shall be required to reapply to take

a subsequent examination.

THIS MEANS MS. ZUCCALA SHOULD HAD NOT OUTRIGHTLY DENIED MY APPLICATION. INSTEAD, SHE SHOULD HAD

DETERMINED THAT AFTER I HAD SENT HER MY EMAIL

IN 9. (DATED AUGUST 8, 2012) WHERE I INFORMED HER

THAT I INTEND TO TAKE AN EXAMINATION FOR GRADE 1

AND NOT GRADE 1 CERTIFICATION. HENCE, SHE SHOULD

HAD KNOWN THAT THE APPLICATION WAS NOT CORRECT

IN THE FORM FILED AND FEE PAID AND THEREFORE, THE

APPLICATION IS DEFICIENT. "Deficient applications shall not be processed for the current examination. The applicant shall be

required to reapply to take a subsequent examination." AS PER

REGULATION. CONSEQUENTLY, MS. ZUCCALA SHOULD

HAD WITHDRAWN HER DENIAL LETTER AND LEFT MY

$95 INTACT AS THERE WAS EFFECTIVELY NO LEGITIMATE PROCESSING OF APPLICATION DONE.

HENCE, THIS IS JUSTIFICATION 2, WHY $95 CERTIFICATION FEE

SHOULD BE REFUNDED SINCE I REQUESTED THE SAME BE

RETURNED TO ME. SEE 60 AND 61 NEXT.

58.

WRONG FORM FILLED UP FOR EXAMINATION APPLICATION.

SECONDLY, MR. WILKINSON STATED THAT HE ATTACHED THIS

DOCUMENT TO HIS MAY 31, 2013 EMAIL BEHIND MR. COOPER'S

IDENTITY BUT ACTUALLY HE DID NOT PURPOSELY NOT TO SHOW

EVIDENCE THAT MY APPLICATION IS FILLED UP ON THE WRONG

FORM AND PAID WITH A WRONG FEE, AND THEREFORE, DEFICIENT

AND SHOULD NOT BE PROCESSED AS THE REGULATION MANDATED.

59.

CORRECT FORM FOR EXAMINATION APPLICATION

60.

PLEASE SEE (15.) COMMENTS TO ANNA HERNANDEZ

DENIAL LETTER DATED AUGUST 29, 2012.

MR. WILKINSON SHOULD HAD INSTRUCTED HER

NOT TO PROCESS MY APPLICATION BEING :

A. FILED AND FILLED UP ON THE WRONG FORM

AND PAID WITH A WRONG FEE,

B. SHE HAD EVALUATED A ZERO EDUCATIONAL

POINT ON A 6 POINT REQUIREMENT,

C. SHE FAILED TO GIVE ME A NOTICE TO

CORRECT THE DEFICIENCY WHICH SHE

FOUND NEEDED TO BE SUBMITTED,

D. IT WAS ALREADY AUGUST 29, 2012 ALMOST

ONE (1) MONTH LATE THAN THE DEADLINE

OF AUGUST 1, 2012 FILING REQUIREMENT,

HENCE, INSTEAD OF PROCESSING MY

APPLICATION, YOU, MR. WILKINSON, SHOULD

HAD ADVISED HER TO INFORM ME THAT MY

APPLICATION IS DEFICIENT AND CORRECT THE

DEFICIENCY AND I HAD TO REAPPLY FOR THE

SUBSEQUENT EXAMINATION.

E. BESIDES HE SHOULD HAD ADVISED MS. HERNANDEZ

TO ASK FIRST MY CONSENT TO DISBURSE MY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FEE OF $95 AS PAYMENT FOR ANY OTHER

SERVICES BECAUSE $95 IS MY MONEY AND IT IS MY

RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHERE AND HOW AM I GOING TO SPEND IT.

HENCE, THIS IS JUSTIFICATION 3, WHY $95 CERTIFICATION FEE

SHOULD BE REFUNDED NOT $55, SINCE I REQUESTED THE SAME

BE RETURNED TO ME ON AN EMAIL DATED WEDNESDAY,

JULY 17, 2019 WITH SUBJECT, REQUEST RETURN OF ORIGINAL 'ERES' EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION DOCUMENTS AND THE $95 APPLICATION FEE

IT IS ALREADY 0NE (1) YEAR AND FIVE (5) MONTHS THAT YOU ARE

IGNORING MY REQUESTS AND DEMAND THAT THE FULL AMOUNT OF

$95 BE REFUNDED TO ME. NOW, IF YOU WANTED TO TRANSFER THAT

AMOUNT TO MY BANK ACCOUNT I WOULD GLADLY PROVIDE IT TO YOU.

61.

IF NOT FOR WILKINSON'S MISCONDUCT THESE

ORDEALS DEALING WITH MAUGHAN SHOULD

HAD NOT HAPPENED. MR. MAUGHAN MIGHT HAD

NOT BE COMPELLED TO CHEAT AND LIE AND DID

DISCOURTEOUS ACTS AND MADE INCREDIBLE

ALIBIS TO COVER UP FOR YOUR WRONGDOINGS.

ORDEALS WITH THE ASSISTANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR

DIVISION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

MR. JAMES MAUGHAN

June 19, 2013-July 22, 2014

and
MARCH 13, 2015 to MARCH 27, 2015

62.

June 19, 2013... Certain James Maughan replied as Mr. Cooper

failed to respond. Mr. James Maughan named himself

as the Deputy Director for the Division of Financial

Assistance.

63.

June 20, 2013.... Sent e-mail to Mr. James Maughan telling him he had

committed two counts of discourtesy for RESPONDING to an
e-mail not addressed to him and meddling with
Mr. Andrew Cooper's e-mail.

64.
June 20, 2013...Mr. James Maughan claims he is the Agency

Administrator.

65.
June 21, 2013....Sent e-mail to Mr. James Maughan questioning

his claim being the Agency Administrator of the

California State Water Resources Control Board

66.

June 21, 2013....Mr. James Maughan alibi, there is no Agency

Administrator but Executive Director of the CSWRCB

and named him Mr. Tom Howard and he wanted that

Maughan communicate with me first.

67.
June 24, 2013...Sent email to Mr. James Maughan asking him who did

open the certified mail addressed to the Agency Administrator

of the CWRCB. IS HE, MR. TOM HOWARD OR

YOU, MR. JAMES MAUGHAN?

68.
JUNE 24, 2013... CONFUSING AND RATTLED response by Mr. James Maughan.

69.
June 25, 2013... Email for Mr. James Maughan with comments about

his confusing information or answer to the QUESTION who

opened up the certified mail for the Agency Administrator.

Maughan did not reply on this email.

70.
June 26, 2013... Sent email for James Maughan reiterating request return

of my ERES ORIGINAL EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS

with complaint he's making a fool of me again.

71.

June 26, 2013... email from MAUGHAN saying HE'S SENDING BACK

"ORIGINALS" OF MY ERES EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS.

72.
JULY 1, 2013...Email for James Maughan protesting for just sending

photocopies not "originals" of my educational credentials

and worse without the signatures of Debbie Zuccala,

Anna Hernandez, Wes Wilkinson and James Maughan

as proof that all of them had examined that piece of document

and determined it could not merit a minimum 6 point requirement

for operator examination. This means that they refused to make a

notation and sign it that they have

73.
JULY 5, 2013....EMAIL from James Maughan saying what he sent me

is THE SAME EXACT DOCUMENT of the EDUCATIONAL

CREDENTIALS which I sent to them.

74.
July 8, 2013...Email for James Maughan reiterating request for the

ORIGINALS of my submitted educational credential signed

by Anna Hernandez, Wes Wilkinson and James Maughan

as proof that the ERES educational credential that I submitted

could not merit the minimum 6 point educational requirement for

GRADE 1 OPERATOR EXAMINATION.

75.
July 19, 2013...EMAIL DATED JULY 18, 2013 SENT ON JULY 19, 2013.

Re sent July 8, 2013 email for James Maughan reiterating

the return of my original educational credentials which I mentioned

I have been requesting it since September 12, 2012.

76.
JULY 19, 2013...Email from Maughan still asking me to send my school

transcript of records when I already told them that if my Bachelors

of Science in Management Engineering degree as examined by

ERES could not merit the minimum 6 educational point then

send me back my "original" genuine ERES educational credential

I submitted to Debbie Zuccala with signatures of Anna Hernandez,

Wes Wilkinson and he himself, James Maughan. But, Maughan

just return photocopies of my educational credentials and worse,

without any signature of anyone of them. Maughan insisted talking

with me through telephone to be paid by Maughan himself, which

I declined for the simple reason that Maughan has the propensity

of cheating and lying in duly recorded email communications how

can I trust to talk to this man through the unrecorded phone

conversations. Maughan just wanted an easy way out by more

cheating and lying as much as he wanted through the phone,

as I have said those conversations are not recorded and weak

as to evidentiary value.

77.
July 22, 2013... Email for Mr. James Maughan reiterating my continuing

demand return of my original educational credentials.

78.
AUGUST 16, 2013... Resend July 22, 2013 email for Maughan due to

Maughan absence for two weeks.

79.
AUGUST 29, 2013... EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN for him to acknowledge receipt

of emails dated July 22 and August 16, 2013 and failure

to respond would mean he would want me to write to

Ms. Liz Haven next in the hierarchy in ten (10) days

and that I asked Maughan to introduce me to her.

80.
AUGUST 30, 2013...EMAIL FROM MAUGHAN He did not introduce me to

Ms. Liz Haven and wrote he had nothing else to give

in other words he is denying keeping my educational

credential originals with them.

81.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2013... EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN...why was the word

"PHILIPPINES" in the first page photocopy of my

educational credentials is marked with a circle.

That's reason I believe that they do not want to

return the original copy of it. That circular mark

around the word "PHILIPPINES" MEANS AN

INDELIBLE MARK OF DISCRIMINATION AND

WILL BE MORE EVIDENT AND REPREHENSIBLE

WHEN SEEN ON THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.

82.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2013...EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN...continuing demand

return of the original educational credentials

with signatures thereon of Anna Hernandez,

Wes Wilkinson and James Maughan.

83.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2013....EMAIL FROM MAUGHAN... Maughan wrote,

" If this document was not the "original" then the only thing I can

conclude is that you never sent the "original" to us but a copy.

Maughan should have inform me on June 26, 2013

the day he sent me back my educational credentials

that the copy with them are not original but a copy.

He should have deny IMMEDIATELY the existence

of the original copy of my educational credentials in

their file. He should have presented me statement from

Debbie Zuccala under oath that what she received
from me are mere photocopies and not original ones.

As proof of this fact, it is Maughan himself informed

me that he is placing in the mail (certified mail) on

this day back to me originals of my educational

credentials as I requested.

To wit what he had written:

"Mr. Buensuceso, I am placing in the mail (certified mail) today back

to you: originals of your educational credentials as you requested."

Maughan is a learned man and knows the difference

between original copy and a photocopy. Since

Maughan wrote he's sending back to me the originals

of my educational credentials as I requested then

send me back to me just photocopies of it, then James

Maughan is undeniably cheating and does it continually.

84.

SEPTEMBER 30, 2013... EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN...Maughan unleashed a

plethora of incredible alibis to avoid culpability.

85.

OCTOBER 30, 2013... EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN...continuing demand return of

of the original educational credentials with signatures

thereon of Anna Hernandez, Wes Wilkinson and

James Maughan.

86.

NOVEMBER 30, 2013... EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN.. continuing demand return of

the original educational credentials with signatures

thereon of Anna Hernandez, Wes Wilkinson and

James Maughan. I am writing him one more chance

before I write to Ms. Liz Haven.

87.
DECEMBER 9, 2013... EMAIL FROM MAUGHAN...lying he's not withholding my

original educational credentials and my comments thereto

dated December 16, 2013 proving Maughan is lying.

88.
DECEMBER 19, 2013...EMAIL FROM MAUGHAN telling me email addresses of

Liz Haven and Jonathan Bishop and still refusing to send

back to me my original educational credentials and my

response thereto dated December 30, 2013.

89.
DECEMBER 30, 2013... EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN thanking Maughan for giving

email addresses of Liz Haven and Jonathan Bishop

and continuing demand return of my original educational

credentials.

90.
DECEMBER 30, 2013...EMAIL FROM MAUGHAN still refusing to return my

original educational credentials and weakling alibis.

YEAR 2014

91.

JANUARY 30, 2014... EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN persuasive appeal continuing

demand return of my original educational credentials.

92.
FEBRUARY 16, 2014... EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN persuasive appeal continuing

demand return of my original educational credentials.

Maughan the only one denying the existence of my

original educational credentials up to this time.

93.
FEBRUARY 18, 2014...CERTIFIED MAIL FROM TOM HOWARD... just butted in

without any endorsement from James Maughan..

94.
FEBRUARY 23, 2014...EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN...informing him that he had not

responded to my email since dated January 30, 2014.

The fact that Mr. Tom Howard just butted in the middle

of our discussion without any endorsement from Maughan

as he went hiding validated the notion that this agency

is composed of discourteous people. Or, they may actually

be courteous to others whom they do not want to discriminate.

My demand remained send me back the original of my

educational credentials.

ONE TWO THREE gif

95.
MARCH 2, 2014...EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN...4th persuasive appeal continuing demand

return of my original educational credentials.

FOURTH APPEAL gif

96.
MARCH 15, 2014...EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN...5th persuasive appeal continuing

demand return of my educational credentials.

FIFTH APPEAL NO PLACE TO HIDE gif

97.

MARCH 30, 2014...EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN ...6th persuasive appeal continuing

demand return of my original educational credentials.

SIXTH APPEAL GRAB THE VINE gif

98.

APRIL 20, 2014...EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN...7th persuasive appeal continuing

demand return of my original educational credentials.

SEVENTH APPEAL NO WHERE TO RUN gif

99.
MAY 11, 2014...EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN... 8th persuasive appeal continuing

demand return of my original educational credentials.

EIGHTH APPEAL SPILL THE BEANS gif

100.

MAY 28, 2014...EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN...9th persuasive appeal continuing

demand return of my original educational credentials.

NINETH APPEAL MOVE TO THE RIGHT TRUNK gif

101.

JUNE 28, 2014...EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN...10th persuasive appeal continuing

demand return of my original educational credentials.

TENTH APPEAL LOSING TIME TO ACT gif

102.

JULY 20, 2014...EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN...INQUIRY UNDER THE FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION ACT ... I did my own research and read

Mr. Tom Howard email address and wrote Mr. Maughan to confirm it.

103.

JULY 21, 2014...EMAIL FROM MAUGHAN...responded and gave me

Mr. Tom Howard email address.

104.

JULY 22, 2014...EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN... gave thanks to Mr. Maughan.

"Although it took TEN (10) PERSUASIVE APPEALS

and ONE(1) Letter of INQUIRY under the Freedom of

Information Act and seven (7) months of even more

painful and agonizing months of constantly pleading

and patiently waiting for your response from

December 30, 2013 to July 20, 2014, magnanimity

and ethics guided me to be gracious.

So, thank you so much for your response."

105.

MAUGHAN OUT OF THE BLUE JUST BUTTED IN
THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN MR. HOWARD AND ME

MARCH 13, 2015 to MARCH 27, 2015 ELEVEN(11) EMAILS FOR

MAUGHAN ... ON HIS DISCOURTEOUS ACT

OF RESPONDING TO AN EMAIL NOT ADDRESSED

TO HIM ON THE INQUIRY POSED FOR

MR. TOM HOWARD ON SUBJECT:

HOWARD_12MAR15

6th FOLLOW UP_TWO LINKS FOR TITLE 23 WATER

BUT WHEN ASKED TO RESPOND HE JUST FLEE AND HIDE.

THIS INCIDENT VALIDATED THE FACT THAT BASED ON MY EXPERIENCES DEALING WITH DEBBIE ZUCCALA,

ANNA HERNANDEZ, WES WILKINSON, CHRISTINE GORDON,

ANDREW COOPER, JAMES MAUGHAN AND TOM HOWARD, PARDON ME IN THEM PERMEATES THE CULTURE OF

DISCOURTESY TO THE PERSON WHOM THEY WANTED

TO DISCRIMINATE.

Mr. Wilkinson items 1 to 105, above, comprehensively summarizes the ordeals I passed through on account of your illicit conduct. In like manners, if you did your job right the first time you should had not subjected me to perils I am undergoing

right now. If only you had not been accountability and responsibility evasive you should have not sought refuge in making misrepresentation and cheating and hiding behind the identity of your subordinates and your bosses. Be brave. Face the issues point blank. Admit your faults. Correcting ineptitudes with another ineptness is never a sensible idea. It is not that what you are doing to me and other applicants like me in the past had created huge revenues for the Division of Financial Assistance, it might not be beneficial this time. Mr. Howard may have sound mature advice for you. Listen to him. So with Mr. Maughan. Your colleagues and your agency had been doused in shame and defamation to cover up for your wrongdoing. I am earnestly sorry about it. Please forgive me. I just wanted to earn respect and regain honor and dignity which have been unexpectedly taken away from me and you are refusing to return them back to me. I am honestly downhearted that I hurt your feelings in the process. It is never my intention. I just wanted to deliver my messages honestly, straight forward, honest, clear and brutally frank. I am supposed to continue with the ordeals I have with Mr. Howard from July 23, 2014 to the present but I thought I might not need anymore. Yet, at least this time.

Thank you so much.

Yours faithfully,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

WWTP CERTIFICATION REVIEW

Monday, January 4, 2021

ORDEALS IMPOSED ON ME BY WILKINSON DATED 4JAN21

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

JUNE 25, 2013 E-MAIL FROM JAMES MAUGHAN SHOWING EMPLOYEE DESIGNATIONS ANSWERING AT LAST WHO IS THE LEGALLY MANDATED MANAGER OF DEBBIE ZUCCALA AFTER TORTIOUS ORDEAL OF 8 MONTHS

No comments:

Post a Comment