From: Thomas Murrell Thornhill III
c/o Box 1755 U.S.P.S.
Nevada City, California, u.S.A.
April 12, 1999

To: Dean F. Andal, In his Official Capacity as member
of the CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
450 N. Street
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Mr. Andal:

RE: Transcript of Appeal 97A-1336

This is a formal request to you personally, in your Official Capacity, for Official intervention in the form of a meeting with, at minimum, yourself, myself, one Mark McEvilly from the FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, and the Reporter, one Juli Price Jackson, (together with her transcription) for the purpose of correcting the Record as evidenced by the REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, August 27, 1998, FRANCHISE AND INCOME TAX HEARINGS, APPEAL OF THOMAS M. THORNHILL, III, 97A-1336, AGAINST PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONAL PERSONAL INCOME TAX.
If a formal meeting of the full BOARD is required, please schedule such a meeting and advise me by mail at the above address.
Otherwise, arrange a mutually convenient time for all of us, and advise me by mail at the above address.

I realize that normal form is probably to go through your employee, Janice Masterson. However, my opinion is that Mrs. Masterson's performance to date has been inadequate to the point of either incompetence or active obstruction of my interests, so I am deliberately "going over her head".

On October 5, 1998, I timely requested in writing, by mail, the transcript of my appeal hearing of August 27, 1998, (together with the transcript of the BOARD's Decision) from Mrs. Masterson [copy attached].
I later received a letter from Mrs. Masterson, dated October 19, 1998, (together with what appears to be the original of my letter, date-stamped by B.O.E.) telling me that said transcript would be provided "when available" [copy attached].
March 9, 1999, I physically travelled to the B.O.E. offices at 450 N. Street, Sacramento, California; met with two of your employees (a lady whose name I do not remember and a gentleman who did not identify himself) about 1:15 P.M.; gave them additional copies of both the above letters; and again requested a copy of the transcript and of the Decision of the BOARD. They told me it would be delivered to me by mail on or before April 2, 1999.
Finally, April 1, 1999, the Transcript arrived, still without the accompanying transcript of the BOARD's Decision!

Unfortunately, there are certain sections of the Transcript which are incomprehensible to me as transcribed, and I was there at the Hearing. So we need to formally correct and/or amend the Transcript, and to find and add the relevant Decision of the BOARD.

Then, as Mr. Klehs said, we will have made me happy.

Attached is a copy of my proposed corrections to the Record.

Thank you.

Thomas Murrell Thornhill III