Preamble

• The Quark energy, the soul, and the glue that binds numerous facets of an organization are simply called a fundamental philosophy of that organization. I draw this innate source of energy through my life path, understanding of the world- present and past, my education and the drive to give to the generations to come. I have a keen interest in history, people and education. Early on in my life I learned about different education systems and educated in multiple educational systems. I also had opportunities to learn about education reformers and their life-long works. These shaped significantly the path of formation of an institution in California. 
• The genesis of the school became official with identifying it with a proper noun. We named our institution California Takshila University. .

• Takshila's students are unique in this regard that they have the opportunity to acquire not only the subject knowledge to economically sustain their livelihood, but also take part in building an equitable and sustainable peaceful society. They most often avoid emotionally expensive and professionally disastrous circumstances with relative ease since they were given the tools and wisdom to take over the steering of life-journey. 

•   The Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education (BPPE), and Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) of California engaged in abusive and unconstitutional activities. 
• Department of Consumer Affairs and the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education: guilty of an abuse of power and money extraction through creative and questionable taxation.
• CTU has been bullied, threatened and subjected to injustice, prejudice, and discrimination. CTU and my constitutional rights were violated. 

And the question is WHY?

• This WHY will take all of us to the land where state Assembly members, state Senators, the U.S. Congressman, and some media do not want to go. But, we live in an age-of-truth-prevails faster than one can imagine. Thus, I am here to open the chapter that sheds light on some of the state regulator's corruptions, collusions, fabrications that culminated in the spoliation of evidence, lying under oath, and disobedience to civil laws and regulations. When all is said and done, you will be surprised or you may have a hard time believing that your tax money is being used for the salaries of the people who are involved in such heinous activities. 

• At least first three years since its inception in January 2010, Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education had not gotten its acts together. Agency was full of chaos and mismanagement. Lawmakers increasingly got frustrated and that was evident in the annual review report and media articles. As a result, internal infighting and resignations became common at BPPE. Karen Newquist, head of the enforcement division, and the Bureau Chief Laura Metune left the bureau. It certainly felt like an internal soft coup at BPPE. The winner of the coup was then Deputy Chief, Ms. Joanne Wenzel. She became the bureau chief. To solidify her position, she took steps that defied state laws and regulations, which she started doing since 2011.
• To satisfy regulators needs and perceptions, Joanne Wenzel abused power, gave citations, statement of issues and shut-down perfectly ok schools. Citations and statement issues were given for simple clerical matters and items that were subject to interpretation. There were very few sustentative violations. This whole process generated a buzz that there were new cops in town and be ready with your money to pay protection money (fine). BPPE boasted in its annual review report that it had generated significant revenue to support itself (meaning pay them salaries and other compensations) and got rid of many bad apples.
• Under this backdrop, BPPE was bullying CTU. First, it gave a closure notice with innumerable erroneous and false allegation. BPPE attempted to make CTU believe that it did not have any rights and threatened to fine the school and even put me in prison.
• Upon advice from the Governor's office CTU hired a law firm, Simas and Associates. Attorney Steven Simas immediately wrote to Susan L Hertle, Staff Services Analyst, DCA and raised a legal concern. Mr. Simas wrote:
• “In your November 29, 2012 Notice of Denial of Application for Approval to Operate, which our client will be timely appealing, the Bureau has indicated that CTU has 60 days to implement the institution closure process. Other than Title 5, California Code of Regulations section 76240, the Bureau cites no legal authority. Section 76240 merely provides what CTU must do before closing but does not address any timeframe. Similarly, the California Private Postsecondary Education Act, Education Code sections 94800, et seq. does not provide for a 60 days closure period. Accordingly, please provide the legal basis for this 60-day time frame.As you may know, CTU has been in operation since 2007, during a time period before the Bureau was reformed within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Now the Bureau has suddenly denied CTU's license after years of inaction and cured deficiencies and expects this up-and-running university to suddenly close down with 60 days' notice that is not required anywhere in the law."
• During our conversation, Heppler, Legal Counsel from the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) indicated that after his initial review of the matter he came to the conclusion that this matter was the culmination of poor communication between CTU and the Bureau over a number of years. He agreed that now that CTU and the Bureau had third parties representing them hopefully the disagreements between the two can be ironed out informally and expeditiously. He told me he is scheduling a meeting with the Bureau and will contact me with any questions or information he needs. We expressed appreciation and let him know that we are an open channel of communication and to please contact us with any questions, concerns, or requests for additional information. 

• Governor Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger passed a law in 2007 to give power and authority to the Department of Consumer Affairs, California (DCA) to authorize and approve Private Postsecondary Educational institutions to operate in California. 
• All institutions those were approved via voluntary agreement but did not submit an application before were required to submit an application. Note: Did not require to be re-approved. 
• However, on August 17, 2014 California Attorney General Kamala Harris (2014), Diann Sokoloff, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Aspasia A. Papavassiliou, Deputy Attorney General issued a Statement of Issues on Behalf of Ms. Joanne Wenzel, Chief, Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education, Department of Consumer Affairs. This Statement of issues was full of misrepresentation and omission of facts. It deprived California Takshila University and me the property right that is vested upon us through the constitutional right. 
• BPPE/DCA and Attorney General's office issued tens of hundreds of SOIs to small private postsecondary schools primarily owned by the people of the minority groups. Many of those schools simply went away rather deal with the mighty Californian Agencies.
• Director of Consumer Affairs, Chief of the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, Ms. Joanne Wenzel, and Attorney for the DCA Mr. Ryan Marcroft continued to deny that CTU and other hundreds of other private postsecondary institutions did not have any constitutional right. DCA never authorized any schools to operate in California. 
• However, by using the Wayback Machine we found that DCA maintained a clean website to communicate with the schools, students and other government (Federal, State and Local) agencies as well as private citizens. DCA regularly published updated school lists as new schools were being authorized to operate in the state of California. 
• State Police department, workforce development agencies, Federal immigration agencies and US Department of Education relied on the list that DCA published on its website.
• Los Angeles Police department asked its beneficiary to check schools name on that list before enrolling. US financial AID office gave financial assistance to the students who were enrolled in the schools that were on the list - a criterion for eligibility for financial aid.
• · Judge Johnson disenfranchised the regulation by calling it "so-called"
• · Bureau Chief, Ms. Joanne Wenzel, misrepresented herself under oath. I wrote to Mr. Grafilo that BPPE and its head, education specialist Drew Saeteune, Discipline Analyst, Christina Villanueva are engaged in A DELIBERATE and PREJUDICIAL EFFORT TO CREATE FALSE REASONS to DENY CTU. 

• Attorney Baxter repeatedly asked Mr. Saeteune for documents for that review process. He testified under oath that there were no other documents (Transcript Dated: 09/26/2016, pp 188-193). Similarly Dr. Radimsky under oath denied of having any documents of this review process (Transcript Dated: 09/26/2016, pp126-127) Attached we present at least four version of that review process (Appendix XI.A-D). We were given these documents along with other exhibits on or about February 27, 2017at the end of that day's trial session by Judge Johnson
• Then BPPE collectively proceeded to construct and fabricate rational to fit the targeted goal stated on the title of the memorandum. June 14, 2016’s version is not just an edited version of May 27, 2016, but the further packaging of rationale to Deny CTU’s existence. Packagings of the rationales were the issues that most schools including best of the best schools in the country as well as Dr. Radimsky’s own school faced with. 
• More interestingly, on June 17, 2016 version Dr. Radimsky set the alarm by commenting on the document “Is this a safe assumption?” Yes, the authors of the memorandum were not reporting on their findings, they were assuming thing to create “there there”.

• In this chapter, I provide findings of a comparative study of 23 MSCS programs in California. We reviewed 23 MSCS programs (14 state universities and nine private universities). This study clearly demonstrated that California Takshila University's (CTU) MSCS Program is on-par and/or better than many of the MSCS programs in California.

Important Findings:

• (a) All universities offered at least six (6) CTU courses, sixteen (16) universities offered 10 or more CTU courses, and eight (8) universities offered 15 or more CTU courses.
• (b) We were excited to find that 11 of the 22 universities offered 50% or more CTU courses for their MSCS programs.
• (c) Several CTU courses stand out as unique and contemporary, such as Agile and BigData. Only two (2) and three (3) other universities, respectively, were offering these courses.
• (d) CTU's admission and graduation requirements are on-par with the state and private MSCS programs in California.
• (e) CTU has excellent graduation and employment rates (performance)

• All we wanted to do is teach. And, all we want you - the Senators and Assembly members - to do is perform sincere and honest oversights of the Government agencies and their official, and protect the Californian Citizens from their abuse and corruption.
• CTU's MSCS program is a graduate level and met both the original Minimum Educational Requirements in Order to Award a Graduate Degree  and the twisted item that asks for rigor. Yet Judge Johnson constructed misleading and false finding and drew a decision that CTU's program did not meet the minimum requirement as stated in the above regulation. BPPE, DCA and Attorney General sang the same chorus. 
• State of California not only committed one count of wrongdoing but also committed over 1000 counts of wrongdoing.   CTU is the only one that has the tenacity and conviction to fight for the "Liberty and Justice under Law".